CJUS 340 Research Paper RubricCriteriaLevels of AchievementC.docx

CJUS 340 Research Paper Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
90-100%
Proficient
70-89%
Developing
1-69%
Not Present
Total
Introduction and Issue Development
9 to 10 points:
· Clearly focused introduction; issue development is interesting
and sophisticated throughout paper.
· The topic is clearly presented and discussed in detail.
· Concepts are thoroughly explained and connected to criminal
justice topics.
7 to 8.5 points:
· Significant, but not major, flaws in introduction or idea
development throughout paper.
· The topic is presented and discussed appropriately.
· Concepts are explained and connected to criminal justice
topics with some weaknesses.
1 to 6.5 points:
· Introduction unclear; idea development uneven and simplistic.
· The topic is unclear or fairly clear but is discussed too
broadly.
· Concepts are not adequately explained or not connected to
criminal justice topics.
0 points

Not present
Use of Supporting Evidence and Analysis
22.5 to 25 points:
· Uses relevant scholarly support.
· Supporting evidence is detailed, accurate, and convincing.
· Contains full discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
supporting material.
17.5 to 22 points:
· Paper cites some relevant scholarly support.
· Significant, but not major, flaws in use of supporting
evidence.
· Contains some discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
1 to 17 points:
· Paper cites inappropriate sources.
· Use of supporting evidence uneven; weak conclusions based
on the evidence provided.
· Lacks adequate discussion of the strength and weaknesses of
0 points
Not present
Conclusion
9 to 10 points:
· The conclusion follows logically from research and analysis
and is perceptive.
· The conclusion clearly summarizes the research presented in
the body of the paper.
7 to 8.5 points:
· Significant, but not major, flaws in conclusion.
· The conclusion summarizes the research presented in the body
of the paper.
1 to 6.5 points:
· The conclusion can be traced to research but embodies major
flaws.

· The conclusion does not adequately summarize the research
presented in the body of the paper.
0 points
Not present
Research
22.5 to 25 points:
· Sources meet required criteria and are well chosen to provide
substance and perspectives on the issue under examination.
· Knowledge from the course is linked strongly and properly to
the source material.
17.5 to 22 points:
· Sources meet required criteria and are only adequately chosen
to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under
examination.
· Knowledge from the course is linked only adequately to the
source material.
1 to 17 points:
· Source selection and integration of knowledge from the course
with source documentation is clearly deficient.
0 points
Not present
Structure (30%)
Advanced
90-100%
Proficient
70-89%
Developing
1-69%
Not Present
Total
Grammar and Style
9 to 10 points:
· Strong sentence and paragraph structure.
· Few or no minor errors in grammar and spelling.

· Appropriate writing style; clear and concise with no
unsupported comments.
· Written in third person.
7 to 8.5 points:
· Some deficiencies in sentence or paragraph structure.
· Small number of significant, but not major, errors in grammar
and spelling; generally appropriate writing.
· Contains some first person references.
1 to 6.5 points:
· Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph
development.
· Work needed on grammar and spelling; does not meet program
expectations.
· Contains several first person references.
0 points
Not present
APA Format
9 to 10 points:
· Includes all items required by current APA and includes less
than 2 APA style guide mistakes within the paper itself.
· Citations and reference page are correctly formatted.
· Includes title and reference pages.
7 to 8.5 points:
· Omits up to 2 items required by current APA and includes less
· Citations and reference page are correctly formatted with
minor mistakes.
· Includes title and reference page.
1 to 6.5 points:
· Omits up to 4 items required by current APA and includes less
· Citations and reference page include numerous mistakes.
· Missing title page and/or reference page.
0 points
Not present

Organization
9 to 10 points:
· Length is at least 7 pages not counting the title and reference
pages.
· Properly submitted per instructions.
· Cites a minimum of 3 peer reviewed journals.
· Project is clearly organized, well-written, and in proper essay
format including an introduction, body, and conclusion.
7 to 8.5 points:
· Length is at least 6 pages not counting the title and reference
pages.
· Not properly submitted per instructions.
· Cites at least 2 peer reviewed journals.
· Small number of significant, but not major, flaws in
organization and writing; it is in proper essay format.
1 to 6.5 points:
· Length is less than 6 pages not counting the title and reference
pages.
· Not properly submitted per instructions.
· Cites less than 2 peer reviewed journals.
· Major problems in organization and writing; it does not
completely follow proper essay format.
0 points
Not present
Professor Comments:
Total:
/100
Running head: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMS
1
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMS 7

An Assessment of the Programs and Services of Correctional
Facilities in America: Do Inmate Programs and Services
Facilitate Rehabilitation?
Student Name
Instructor’s Name
Course ID and Term
Liberty University
An Assessment of the Programs and Services of Correctional
Facilities in America: Do Inmate Programs and Services
Facilitate Rehabilitation?
This paper will examine the programs and services utilized
within correctional facilities in the context of rehabilitation.
While prisons were not intended to serve as mental health
institutions, psychologists within the criminal justice system
have acquired a great deal of information about the foundations
of crime and criminal behavior. According to Craig Haney, a
psychologist from the University of California, it is imperative
that psychologists bring information into the debate on the types

of crime control policies that our society should follow (as cited
in Benson, 2003). It is from a psychological treatment
orientation that these programs will be examined. It is important
to note that research into public opinion on this matter has been
mixed. Currently there are no specific surveys of public opinion
regarding the specifics of confinement and treatment (Groscup,
2005).
Today, what some may view as excessive privileges are in
fact rights that are afforded to inmates according to the U.S.
Constitution. Prior to the 1960s inmates gave up all rights that
were not explicitly given by the policy of the correctional
facility of which they were incarcerated. This was known as the
hands-off doctrine (Siegel & Senna, 2004). By the early 1970s,
social activist groups paved the way for legal arguments that
addressed the civil rights of inmates. Over the past twenty
years, inmates have been given a handful of rights that are
protected under the constitution. The term ‘right’ refers to
something that is legally given as a basic standard. In
opposition to this is a ‘privilege’, which is usually something
that is granted or given above and beyond a basic standard or
status. The two terms cannot be used interchangeably. Inmates
in the United States retain few constitutional rights while
incarcerated and are granted few privileges. Programs and
services are often a combination of rights and privileges. Many
of these programs have been incorporated with the notion of
improving an inmate’s chances for a crime free life upon
reentry into society as well as to allow the community to benefit
from a productive citizen.
Prison programs must stay within the constitutional rights of the
incarcerated individuals. There are four areas of the U.S.
Constitution that are considered when one studies the rights of
inmates. The First Amendment addresses the issues of inmates’
rights to free speech within prison, religious practices, and
communications with outsiders. The Fourth Amendment is used
to determine what searches are reasonable and what types of
privacy are permitted while in prison. The Fourteenth

Amendment applies to inmate decisions and issues that may
require due process. This amendment is also used to determine
if there are legitimate reasons for the different treatment of
inmate groups within the prison. Finally, the Eighth Amendment
provides freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. An
example of a violation of the Eight Amendment is the deliberate
indifference to an individual’s safety, well being, or infliction
of or discount of unnecessary pain and suffering (Siegel &
Senna, 2004). Because the denial of medical care violates the
Eight Amendment rights of inmates, correctional facilities must
provide medical services. Mental healthcare is provided in
compliance with this amendment.
A major component of mental healthcare involves psychological
functioning. According to research conducted in 1999 by Ditton,
approximately 16 percent of jail and prison inmates have either
a history of mental illness or currently suffer from mental
illness (as cited in Siegel & Senna, 2004). Another key
component to consider in the mental health of inmates is
substance abuse and addiction. In research carried out by Peters
et al. in 1998 among inmates in Texas, it was found that about
75 percent of those studied had a lifetime history of substance
abuse or a dependency disorder (as cited in Siegel & Senna,
2004).
Although providing mental healthcare ensures that the
correctional facilities are in compliance with the Eights
Amendment rights of inmates, substance abuse programs within
prison have been found to help keep prisoners off of drugs once
released. These programs have also assisted released inmates to
stay employed and out of prison (American Psychological
Association [APA], 2006). Wexler, Melnick, Lowes, and Peters
(1999) conducted a study of 478 inmates at a state correctional
facility in California and found that only 27 percent of
prisoners, who participated in a drug treatment program for
three years, returned to prison. This is in comparison to a 75
percent recidivism rate for those who did not participate (APA,
2006).

In concurrence with this research was a 1999 study of Delaware
Correctional System inmates conducted by Martin, Butzin,
Saum, and Inciardi, which demonstrated the value of prison
substance abuse treatment programs. In this research, there was
a continuum of care provided that included a work-release
program, a drug free residential setting, group therapy, and
family therapy. After one year, there was a significantly higher
percentage of inmates who had taken part in any portion of the
treatment program who were drug free and not incarcerated as
opposed to inmates who were assigned to the basic work release
program. At a three-year follow up, those who continued with
the therapeutic portions of the program had significantly less
drug use and less incidences of arrest than those who did not
continue with the therapy provided (APA, 2006).
Taking this study further, Dwayne Simpson, Ph D., an
experimental psychologist from the Institute of Behavioral
Research at Texas Christian University, analyzed the research
of Wexler et al. and found significant effects of the treatment
programs. Simpson found that out of a combined sample of
1,461 inmates from Delaware, Texas, and California,
approximately 365 of those who participated in the intensive
drug therapy and aftercare were rearrested; however,
approximately 1010 inmates who did not participate in drug
treatment while in prison, or did not receive treatment after
release, were incarcerated again (APA, 2006). This research is
in direct opposition of Robert Martinson’s research from 1975,
which concluded that the majority of treatment programs were
not successful (as cited in Siegel & Senna, 2004). Many have
surrendered to Martinson’s perspective and continue to use his
findings to support the incapacitation and punishment view.
While incarceration is not intended as a holiday, a punitive
approach to corrections has rendered today’s prisons much less
likely to attempt rehabilitation (Benson, 2003).
Psychological services within prison walls typically focus on
cognitive therapies, which provide a pragmatic approach to the
various emotional and mental deficits suffered by many inmates

(Siegel & Senna, 2004). The cognitive approach provides a way
for inmates to control their emotions by examining their
maladaptive thoughts and replacing those thoughts with
adaptive thoughts that are based on reality. This is in accord to
Wexler (1999), who asserts that therapeutic approaches which
encourage inmates to analyze the experiences, situational
events, and behaviors which led to their incarceration and allow
them to devise a plan to avoid such high-risk situations in the
future, and to successfully handle such situations should they
arise again, offer the best chance for released inmates to avoid
future incarceration. According to cognitive theory, it is
dysfunctional cognitions, which lead to dysfunctional and
inappropriate behaviors (Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 2000).
This approach also teaches an individual how to communicate
positively and clearly. Cognitive therapy can provide a person
the tools necessary to make positive changes in their
interactions with others. Research has shown that various
cognitive therapies have been successfully applied to
individuals suffering from substance abuse (Carson, Butcher, &
Mineka, 2000). Correctional facilities use individual therapeutic
sessions, group therapy, or a combination of both in order to
achieve the goal of change within the inmate (Siegel & Senna,
2004).
The increased incarceration rate of the past twenty years has
resulted in the release of many individuals back into society
after having served time in a federal or state prison. In 2002,
over 600,000 individuals were released back into their
communities (Visher & Travis, 2003). According to Haney,
when suitably applied, psychotherapy, drug treatment,
education, and work programs can facilitate inmates’ transition
back into free society (as cited in Benson, 2003). Researchers
Cullen, in 2002, and Wilson & Gallagher in 2000, evaluated the
effects of prison programs on release outcomes and concluded
that programs focused on education, job skills, and substance
abuse reduce recidivism (as cited in Visher & Travis, 2003).
Haney also asserts that punitive social controls are a very short-

term solution to problems that are long term in nature and of
which punitive mechanisms may have damaging effects to the
individuals as well as to society.
The Bureau of Prisons necessitates that prison facilities provide
educational opportunities to all inmates (Federal Bureau of
Prisons [FBOP], 2006). Correctional institutions require that all
individuals complete their GED as one of the conditions for
their release (Siegel & Senna, 2004). For an inmate to obtain
the most basic certificate of education seems to be a necessity
rather than a privilege. This level of education serves to help
the inmate once released, as many employers will not hire an
individual who has not completed a high school level education.
A released inmate may face discrimination when seeking
employment; thus a situation that can be exacerbated by not
meeting a minimum educational requirement. An example of the
types of basic education provided is that of Leavenworth prison
in Kansas. Leavenworth provides a basic literacy program, GED
certification, parenting courses, and English as a second
language (Leavenworth Prison, 2006). The Roanoke City Jail, in
Virginia, provides educational programs that are supported by
community agencies, volunteers from local churches, and
volunteers from Hollins University and Roanoke College
(Roanoke City Jail, 2006). Research has shown that an ex-
convict’s successful reintegration into society may be hindered
by a lack of education, work skills, the impact of prison
experiences, as well as the public stigma attached to ex
prisoners (Visher & Travis, 2003). In agreement with this
research the Bureau of Prisons has stated that, “research has
conclusively demonstrated that participation in a variety of
programs that teach marketable skills helps to reduce
recidivism” (FBOP, 2006).
Along with education, most correctional facilities provide
vocational training. Although these programs have been shown
to lack necessary funding, some prisons have recruited
volunteers within the community to improve such programs
(Siegel & Senna, 2004). Programs such as barbering, computer

repair, television repair, auto mechanics, and auto bodywork,
may be included among a prison’s vocational program.
Leavenworth prison currently has barbering and graphic arts
programs and is currently trying to establish a culinary arts
program. Along with custodial duties and maintenance, such as
painting, Leavenworth officials believe that these skills will
transfer into viable employment for released inmates. Even
though educational and vocational programs are provided by
prisons to assist with reentry into society, one study has shown
that a poor work history and low job skills prior to incarceration
does correlate to reduced stable employment and steady income
upon release; however, this same study also found that inmates
who maintain contact with family and friends, during their
incarceration, are more likely to successfully reenter the job
market (Visher & Travis, 2003).
While the programs discussed in this paper provide an ideal and
sanguine picture of inmate rehabilitation, it must be stated that
there are several major issues that hinder correctional treatment
programs. The first is a lack of financial resources to provide
the materials and professionals necessary to facilitate such
programs (Siegel & Senna, 2004). According to Robert Morgan,
Ph. D., there are not enough mental health professionals in
prisons and those who are in such facilities are overwhelmed by
a large caseloads (Benson, 2003). The second barrier to
successful treatment programs is the philosophical difference
between the psychological, rehabilitative approach to
corrections and the punitive approach. Within the current,
punitive criminal justice system, it is difficult to gain the
support needed to implement effectual programs. The third
obstacle to inmate rehabilitation lies within the inmates
themselves. According to research conducted in 2001 by Maruna
(as cited in Visher & Travis, 2003), which was comprised of
interviews with former inmates, at the core of a successful
outcome was an inmate’s personal decision to change. It was
stated that this decision set into motion an identity
transformation for the inmate; the decision to change enabled

him to differentiate between his past identity and his past
behaviors.
The notion of inmate internal change is one of great importance.
Government cannot legislate a change in the heart of a man, nor
can a prison system force a change in the maladaptive attitudes
that produce maladaptive and illegal behaviors. Future research
in the area of pre-prison life, in-prison experiences, and post-
prison life should improve the understanding of the factors that
determine which individuals are most at risk for incarceration as
well as which are least likely to benefit, or not benefit, from the
current rehabilitative programs that are in place. Incorporated
into such an analysis should be the life experiences of the
inmates, their needs, skills, and personal relationships. All of
these factors should produce a clearer picture for where the
future of prison programs must proceed. Early social
intervention may be the best that can be offered until such
research is conducted. Federal and state funding, alone, will not
make up for the insufficiencies of rehabilitative programs, nor
will it reduce incarceration and recidivism. Professionals in the
mental health field are needed to implement programs that offer
promise. The programs that Wexler (1999) researched appear to
be of this nature. A suggestion in a positive direction would be
for a broader implementation of the Wexler design. It is also
important to gain a better understanding of those who are
incarcerated, and those at the highest risk for incarceration,
from a holistic perspective. Approaching the concept of
rehabilitation as a whole provides a more comprehensive picture
to mental health and criminal justice professionals. A holistic
approach may be the most advantageous, as it can facilitate
effective solutions to this growing and volatile crisis within our
society.

References
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Prison substance
abuse treatment with aftercare reduces recidivism. Retrieved
February 2, 2006, from
http://www.psychologymatters.org/prison_drugabuse.html.
Benson, E., (2003). Rehabilitate or punish? Monitor on
Psychology, 34, 46.
Carson, R. C., Butcher, J. N., & Mineka, S., (2000). Cognitive
and cognitive behavioral therapy. In R. Pascal (Ed.). Abnormal
Psychology and Modern Life (pp. 662-668). Needham Heights:
Allyn & Bacon.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Inmate matters. Retrieved
February 3, 2006, from
http://bop.gov/inmate_programs/index.jsp.
Groscup, J. (2005). Court considers prisoner’s rights. Monitor
on Psychology, 36, 78.
Leavenworth Penitentiary. (n.d.) Programs. Retrieved February
1, 2006, from
http://www.lvarea.com/data/usp_info.htm#Programs.
Roanoke City Jail. (n.d.). Inmate programs. Retrieved February
1, 2006, from
http://www.roanokeva.gov/85256A8D0062AF37/vwContentByK
ey/
N253SKSD775WBRSEN.
Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (2004). Prison life. In J. Whitney, &
S. Murphy (Eds.). Essentials of Criminal Justice (pp. 414-451).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (2004). Corrections: history,
institutions, and populations. In J. Whitney, & S. Murphy
(Eds.). Essentials of Criminal Justice (pp.384-411). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Visher, C. A., & Travis., J. (2003). Transitions from prison to
community: understanding individual pathways. Annual Review
of Sociology, 29, 89-113. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from the
PsycARTICLES database.
Wexler, D. B. (1999). Relapse prevention planning principles
for criminal law practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
5(4), 1028-1033. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from the
EBSCOhost database.
CJUS 340
Research Paper – Final Submission Instructions
You will write a research paper utilizing the topic you presented
in your Research Paper—Development Proposal from
Module/Week 2.
Components of the Research Paper:
· Existing research: what is already known about the general
area of the proposed research.
· The rationale: state why further research is needed and
identify the general area of concern.
Guidelines:
· Current APA formatting (12 point Times New Roman font, 1-
inch margins, double-spaced). See the APA Manual for more
details.
· Length of 7–10 pages.

· Page numbers according to current APA guidelines.
· Third person voice.
· Must include:
· Cover page with the proposal title, student name, course name,
and instructor name.
· References Page.
· These are NOT to be counted in the total number of pages.
· You must use a minimum of 3 citations from peer-reviewed
journals.
· The electronic file you submit must be named in the following
manner: lastname first initial_submission type (i.e. rp1 for
research paper). For example: smithj_rp.doc (this would be J.
Smith's Research Paper).
If you need assistance with writing or current APA formatting,
use Liberty University’s Online Writing Center.
Non-required elements:
· The methods appropriate to collecting the required
information.
· The sources of information (size and type of sample, etc.).
· The timescale and sequence of various parts of the research.
· A statement of what you intend the outcomes to be (reports,
discussion papers, contributions to theory, materials, etc.).
· Description of who will do what and at what cost (if funding is
being sought).
Submit your Research Paper – Final Submission by 11:59 p.m.
(ET) on Monday on Module/Week 7.

CJUS 340 Research Paper RubricCriteriaLevels of AchievementC.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CJUS 340 Research Paper RubricCriteriaLevels of AchievementC.docx

Similar to CJUS 340 Research Paper RubricCriteriaLevels of AchievementC.docx (20)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CJUS 340 Research Paper RubricCriteriaLevels of AchievementC.docx