CJUS 703Discussion Board RubricCriteriaLevels of Achieveme

CJUS 703
Discussion Board Rubric
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
70%
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1–83%
Not
Present
Points Earned
Thread:
Key Components
Major Point Support
9.25 to 10 points
All key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt are
answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by all of the following:
Reading & Study materials;
Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts);
At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the
course textbook, in current APA format; and
Integration of at least 1 biblical principle.
8.5 to 9 points
Most key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt
are answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by most of the following:

· Reading & Study materials;
· Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal);
· Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing
· At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the
· Integration of at least 1 biblical principle.
1 to 8.25 points
Some key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt
are answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by some of the following:
0 points
No key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt are
answered in the thread.
Major points are supported by none of the following:
Replies:
Components
Major Point Support
9.25 to 10 points
Contribution made to discussion with each reply (2) expounding
on the thread.

Major points are supported by all of the following:
implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts); and
At least 1 peer-reviewed source citation, in addition to the
course textbook, in current APA format.
8.5 to 9 points
Marginal contribution made to discussion with each reply (2)
marginally expounding on the thread.
Major points are supported by most of the following:
1 to 8.25 points
Minimal contribution (2 minimal or only 1 reply) made to
discussion with each reply minimally expounding on the thread.
Major points are supported by some of the following:
0 points
No contribution made to discussion.
Major points are supported by none of the following:

Structure 30%
Advanced
92–100%
Proficient
84–91%
Developing
1–83%
Not
Present
Points Earned
Grammar/Spelling
4.75 to 5 points
Proper spelling and grammar are used.
4.25 to 4.5 points
Between 1–2 spelling and grammar errors are present.
1 to 4 points
Between 3–4 spelling and grammar errors are present.
0 points
More than 4 spelling and grammar errors are present.
Word Count
4.75 to 5 points
Thread: at least 400 words. Reply at least 150 words.
4.25 to 4.5 points
Thread: 400–599 words. Reply: 300–499 words.
1 to 4 points
Thread: 300–399 words. Reply: 200–299 words.
0 points
Thread: < 299 words. Reply: < 199 words.
Total
/30
Page 2 of 2

Assumptions Regarding Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention and Diversion
Robert A. Lindblom
Helms School of Government
There are numerous commonly held assumptions
regarding juvenile prevention and diversion programs. One of
the most basic is the idea that children are “little adults” with
the ability to make rational decisions in the same way as
someone ten or twenty years older. Since the beginning of
recorded history, society has understood that juveniles were
different than adults in some way. But it wasn’t until the dawn
of the 20th century that the first family court was established in
Illinois with the intent of truly treating delinquent juveniles in a
manner different from adult criminals (Cox et al, 2018). It took
many more years before practitioners were able to codify and
articulate some of ways children and adults actually differed.
Researchers now understand that juveniles, due to their lack of
maturity, are not able to make sound, rational decisions in the
same way as adults. Problems such as inability to anticipate
outcomes, minimizing danger, overreaction to stress and
inability to see multiple options or solutions affect the juvenile
mind and detract from their ability to make sound decisions
(Sherman & Jacobs, 2011).
Despite these facts, much of the public still holds
stubbornly to the idea that children can and should be treated
the same as adults. As recently as the 1990s, the public
perceived a juvenile crime wave and demanded stern action by
lawmakers (Fanton, 2006, as cited in Cox et al, 2018). This was
due, in part, to media sensationalism. By glamorizing select
high-profile criminal incidents involving juveniles, the national
press caused the public to believe juveniles were out of hand
and practically uncontrollable (McCall, 2011). Although
juvenile crime rates were actually declining at this time, this
false perception resulted in a nationwide trend to impose
harsher penalties, lower the age of accountability and expand
the use of mandatory waivers to adult court (Cox et al, 2018).

To a large degree, this classical deterrence model still drives
juvenile justice policy today (Merlo, 2008, & Brown, 2012, as
cited in Cox et al, 2018). Such an approach leaves little room
for programs involving prevention or diversion that appear
“soft” on delinquents.
Another pervasive assumption is that the bulk of juvenile
delinquency is the result of a few “bad apples.” This perception
results from reliance on official adjudication statistics when
forming impressions about deviant activities. While it is
understandable to want to rely on hard facts when making
policy decisions, sources like the Uniform Crime Report (UCR)
do not paint an accurate picture of the scope of juvenile law
violations (OJJDP, 2006, as cited in Cox et al, 2018). Using an
extensive self-report study, Short and Nye (1958) attempted to
confirm the true extent of juvenile delinquency. They found
little difference between the amount and types of deviant
activity between youth involved formally in the system and
those who had never been arrested or otherwise labeled
delinquent. They also found deviant activity consistent for
juveniles across all socio-economic groups (as cited in Cox et
al, 2018). Other researchers have consistently found similar
results using comparable methodologies (Porterfield, 1946,
Akers, 1964, Voss, 1966, Bynum & Thompson, 1992, as cited in
Cox et al, 2018). Although self-report studies have significant
limitations, they are still the most reliable method for assessing
the scope of juvenile deviance (Empey et al, 1999, as cited in
Cox et al, 2018). These results indicate that the problem is far
more pervasive than most people believe and not just limited to
a small number of persistent trouble makers.
One of the main reasons prevention and diversion
programs lack public support is because of the inherent value
our country places on individual rights and the rule of law.
Americans jealously protect their freedom and look suspiciously
on any attempts to invade their privacy without just cause.
Juvenile protections were progressively strengthened by the US
Supreme Court in a series of decisions beginning in 1966

with Kent v United States (Cox et al, 2018). Most prevention
and diversion programs operate informally, many without any
adjudication whatsoever. Because of this, they work outside the
official legal channels and effectively circumvent due process
safeguards. Additionally, there is concern that such efforts can
draw in children who would not otherwise become involved
with the juvenile justice system. This phenomenon, known as
net widening, can unintentionally capture and label youth who
may never have committed a delinquent act. This can occur
simply because their income level, family environment,
neighborhood or other factors make officials classify these
children as “at risk.” Such concerns have led to legal challenges
by the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that these
programs are unlawful and discriminatory (Cox et al, 2018).
Another reason for the lack of public support is the
enormous expense of some of these programs. Coupled with this
is the fact that results often take many years to come to fruition
and can rarely be linked definitively to a specific intervention
(Cox et al, 2018). An analogy can be drawn to President
Johnson’s 1964 “War on Poverty.” Despite more than fifty years
of effort and more than $22 trillion in taxpayer dollars, the
program has yet to make an appreciable dent in US poverty
levels. In fact, some argue that the situation is now worse due to
creation of a welfare cycle that discourages self-sufficiency and
traps a segment of the population below the poverty line for
multiple generations (Sheffield & Rector, 2014). Thanks to
programs such as The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy,
Blueprints for Violence Prevention and the Peabody Research
Institute a clear picture is finally beginning to emerge with
regard to juvenile prevention and diversion (Sherman & Jacobs,
2011). Several of the better programs now appear to have a
significant chance to produce positive results for selected
juveniles. This is particularly true when services are
individualized and tailored to each child’s specific needs, in
line with the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) model or other
similar tools that customize treatment (Wylie et al, 2019). But it

will take some time to overcome public skepticism and the
inertia of the “get tough” deterrence policies that have held
sway for so long.
This resistance by the public and policy makers is
unfortunate. The negative consequences of failing to support
youth prevention and diversion programs, both to the
community at large and the juveniles themselves, are far greater
in the long run than any immediate cost in dollars. Not only
have these programs proven effective, the interventions have
shown to be more helpful the earlier they are introduced.
Therefore, any delays can inhibit a child’s ultimate chance of
success and his potential to thrive. And, since juvenile
offending is a leading predictor of adult criminality, additional
benefits may be reaped years later with proportional decreases
in adult deviance. These reductions benefit not only the
potential offenders, but their would-be victims and taxpayers as
well (Greenwood, 2008, McCollister, 2010, as cited in Cox et
al, 2018). An approach favoring prevention and diversion is also
in line with the will of the Lord. As Hebrews 10:24-25 reminds
us, “And let us consider how we may stir up one another on
toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting
together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage
one another…” (Holy Bible, New International Version,
1973/1984). The words of 1 Peter 5:2 also offer insight, “Be
shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing,
as God wants you to be…” (Holy Bible, New International
Version, 1973/1984). Finally, Galatians 6:9-10 offers, “Let us
not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will
reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have
opportunity, let us do good to all people…” (Holy Bible, New
International Version, 1973/1984). If this is God’s expectation
for his people, how can we do any less?
References
Cox, S.M., Allen, J.M., Hanser, R.D., Conrad, J.J. (2018).

Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice.
(9th ed). Sage Publications.
McCall, M. (2011). Post-Columbine: Juvenile offenders and the
state supreme courts. The Justice System Journal, 32(2), 123-
142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27977520
Sheffield, R. & Rector, R. (2014, September 15). The War on
Poverty after 50 years. The Heritage Foundation Website.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-
inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
Sherman, F.T. & Jacobs, F.H. (2011). Juvenile Justice:
Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. (1984). (Original
work published 1973)
Wylie, L.E., Clinkinbeard, S.S., & Hobbs, A. (2019). The
application of Risk–Needs Programming in a juvenile diversion
program. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
46(8), 1128-1147. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/0093854819859045
Discussion Board 3
Introduction
To answer the question about what assumptions I
believe are basic to delinquency prevention and diversion
programs, I have focused on social services and child protective
services and family intervention. Many programs start with
social services or CPS intervention with the family in an effort
to keep high risk children from entering into the juvenile court
system and becoming labeled as a delinquent.
Assumption One
Social Service and Child Protective Service family
intervention programs are inconsistent and are ineffective in
their ability to help keep family members in their care from
committing crimes or acts of delinquency. This is because there
is no consistency for families because of a high rate of turnover

with CPS staff.
Justification
Many of those that are employed by local and state government
in the areas of child protective services, family welfare, and
family social work are under paid and lack quality training and
backgrounds to be effective in their task. Many of these workers
are using these positions as a pathway to other government jobs
that pay better and have a lighter workload. The amount of
stress and, at times abuse these workers face create a high rate
of turnover. Burns found that upon closer examination, while
the turnover may have been high, this reflected a period of rapid
expansion in social workers post, so that social workers were
moving between different types of child welfare and protection
post or to take up a promotion. (Burns, et al, 2013) In many
cases a family may have a new case worker every other month.
This high rate of turnover and lack of quality staffing limits the
credibility of the programs and diminish the commitment
families have in these programs.
Assumption Two
Early family intervention programs lack the flexibility
to adapt to the needs and desires of the families they are trying
to serve. The social worker and their authority or power over
the family are what holds the family hostage in the program
prescribed for them. Only through the fear of having their
children removed from the home do parents concede to the
requirements of the social worker and the prescribed programs.
Justification
Many families are forced into treatment programs by
social services with little or no say in the type of program or its
processes. These programs may have components that the
family will benefit from but lack the ability to adapt as the
family makes progress. Turesson found that “all of the parents
had to strike a balance between straying in treatment or risking
that their children may be taken into the care of the state. This
naturally affects their manageability and adaptability. Turesson
went on to state “the parent’s compliance with a treatment

model is also an important prerequisite for its implementation.
This means that there is an incentive for the treatment team to
maintain close ties with the social services authority so the
power of the agency may be used as a means of pressuring the
parents to continue the treatment.” (Turesson, 2019, p. 3) The
threat of removing children from the home is always hanging
over the parent’s head during their assignment under social
services.
Assumption Three
Today’s new “hot” intervention program that families are placed
in become the program that tomorrows politicians fail to fund.
The program begins to get traction with the family and progress
is made and then the funding is cut, and the family is left to
adjust to what they are placed in next.
Justification
According to the fact sheet “How Federal Legislation
Impacts Child Welfare Service Delivery” provided by the Child
Welfare website; www.childwelfare.gov, there is a four-step
process that legislatures use to allocate funding for child
welfare services. Step One: Congress passes and the President
signs legislation that creates or amends a federally funded child
welfare program. Step Two: The Children’s Bureau provides
guidance in response to Federal Legislative mandates. Step
Three: The Children’s Bureau disburses funds to support child
welfare programs as authorized by Federal legislation, and
lastly, Step Four: In response to Federal legislative mandates,
policy, and/or funding requirements, States may enact statutes,
and State and Tribal agencies may develop programs and
policies to meet the needs of their constituencies. That process
has a lot of moving parts that are subject to a great deal of
political maneuvering. Funding for social services, child
protective services, and crime prevention programs typically
comes down to what group or constituency has the most
members of congresses ear. Continued funding depends on them
keeping that ear.
Public’s Resistance to Funding Prevention Programs

Funding for juvenile crime prevention or diversion
programs is hinged to current public opinion and government
policies. Politicians make policies based on what their
constituency is telling them. If crime has increased and the
public does not feel safe, they demand action from their elected
officials. If the culture of the public demands a hard stand on
juveniles, then we see policies and what follows as funding that
focuses on incarceration and a more punitive stand. If the
public’s tendency is set on a treatment approach, then we see
policies and funding that focuses on treatment and
rehabilitation. The public’s perception on crime and how it
affects them sets in motion a series of political maneuvering on
policies and related funding. Baker, et al. found that “the
general consensus among scholars is that public opinion and
juvenile justice policy making are casually connected;
specifically, policy is responsive to shifts in popular attitudes
about youth sanctions.” Baker, et al, went on to state that “it is
also theorized that crime salience-widespread concern about and
fear of victimization-is an important factor shaping public
opinion about juvenile sanctions and, thus, youth justice
policy.” (Baker, 2013, p.2) The publics support of or resistance
to funding prevention and diversion programs is based on its
current feelings of security and safety.
Consequences of No Program Funding
An ever-shifting public opinion and ever-changing
public policies create a lack of continuity in any program. Many
prevention and diversion programs start to gain traction only to
lose their funding and be eliminated. This can cause a lack of
trust or willingness to invest by juveniles placed in these
programs. A juvenile that has been placed in a program and has
become invested in that program my feel disenfranchised when
the program funding is cut or the program eliminated. This may
lead to the juvenile’s reentry into a life of crime and
delinquency.
World Christian View
Programs that are implemented to help our children

must be well thought out and have the true best interest of those
children at heart. If it is truly our intent to intervene and save
young people before they become criminal offenders or they are
labeled delinquent, we must stay our course in these programs.
Having case workers changing or moving on leave the children
and families they were serving desperate and confused.
Programs that use force and threat of retribution do not give the
families they are serving any sense of ownership or security.
Allowing programs to be eliminated because of loss of funding
or a change in public policy is not in the best interest of
children. “Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of
the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the
seats of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and
on his law, he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted
by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf
does not wither. In all that it does, he prospers. The wicked are
not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore,
the wicked will not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the
congregation of the righteous.” (Psalm 1: 1-6)
Conclusion
The juvenile justice programs designed to prevent
juveniles from becoming involved in criminal activities or
divert them away from formal entry into the juvenile justice
system need to be designed so that the children and families
they are trying to help feel a sense of stability and continuity.
These programs come and go, but the families and young people
placed in them do not. They watch time and again as their
assigned case worker changes, the programs are eliminated, or
they are assigned to a different program. The old saying, if it is
not broken, do not try to fix it comes to mind. If there are
programs that have been identified as having positive outcomes,
we need to stick with them for the sake of our young people.
References
Baker T., Hayley M., Cleary J., Pickett T., (October 2013),
Crime Salience and Public Willingness to Pay for Child Saving
and Juvenile Punishment. Crime and Delinquency, Sage

Journals
Burns K., Alastair C., (February 2013), Employment mobility or
turnover? An analysis of child welfare and protection employee
retention. Children and Youth Service Review
Cox S., Allen J., Hanser R., Conrad J., (2018). Juvenile Justice;
A Guide to Theory, Police, and Practice Sage Publishing
Turesson, A.B. (2019), Conceptions, Norms, and Valuesin the
Work of Child Protective Services with Families at Risk; An
Analysis of Social Workers’ Diaries. Clinical Social Work
Journal
(July 2015), How Federal Legislation Impacts Child Welfar e
Service Delivery, Website. https://childwelfare.gov

CJUS 703Discussion Board RubricCriteriaLevels of Achieveme

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CJUS 703Discussion Board RubricCriteriaLevels of Achieveme

Similar to CJUS 703Discussion Board RubricCriteriaLevels of Achieveme (20)

More from VinaOconner450

More from VinaOconner450 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CJUS 703Discussion Board RubricCriteriaLevels of Achieveme