Running Head: REENTRY AND REHABILITATION 1 REENTRY AND REHABILITATION 2 Prison Reentry and Rehabilitation Moises Brador CCJ4497 Anna Leimberg Florida International University 3/29/20 Introduction: Rehabilitation of the incarcerated people and providing them with a safe future is the responsibility of the state. When an individual commits a crime and becomes an offender, it does not absolve the state from its responsibility to ensure the basic human rights of the individual. Rather it becomes more of a responsibility for the state to ensure the well-being of such an individual. Criminal psychology shows that criminal deviation is the result of two factors which are biological and genetic layout and social factors. No one can be held responsible for the biological factors or genetic makeup because it is not under anyone’s control. Secondly, the social factors are generally exposure to aggression in childhood, dysfunctional families, negative social impact form violent environment and poverty etc. These factors are mostly originated from society and not result from one's individual efforts. Even with the presence of these factors, no one is denying the fact that the responsibility of one's actions lies on one's shoulder but at the same time, it does not free the state from its responsibility towards the well-being of an offender. The rehabilitation process ought to be for correction, not punishment but unfortunately, the reentry programs after one has served their due time in a rehabilitation centre is not very smooth and it does not motivate the individual to make better choices this time. It is because of standards rehabilitation and reentry system which does not suit the individual needs of every individual. The system needs to be more customized. Furthermore, the frameworks involved in probation and post-incarceration process need improvement. This essay will explore the current condition and process of reentry and rehabilitation of an individual in society and how this system needs reassessment and continuous monitoring (Thompkins, Curtis, & Wendel, 2010). Review of Previous Research: Many researchers have explored the field of rehabilitation and reentry in the society. The field of criminal offences, factors which contribute towards these offences, mindsets of the offenders and their backgrounds, rehabilitation process and the reentry constitute a diverse field on which a lot of work has been done by psychologist and criminologist to not only understand what enables the criminal activities to happen at first place and how they can be reduced if not eradicated through the better rehabilitation process. Through important outcomes include: 1. Religion can play an important part in the rehabilitation of people. A study was conducted in an Israeli prison in which prisoners from several months too many years were questioned about their dependence on faith to pass th.

1. Running Head: REENTRY AND REHABILITATION 1
REENTRY AND REHABILITATION 2
Prison Reentry and Rehabilitation
Moises Brador
CCJ4497
Anna Leimberg
Florida International University
3/29/20
Introduction:
Rehabilitation of the incarcerated people and providing them
with a safe future is the responsibility of the state. When an
individual commits a crime and becomes an offender, it does
not absolve the state from its responsibility to ensure the basic
human rights of the individual. Rather it becomes more of a
responsibility for the state to ensure the well-being of such an
individual. Criminal psychology shows that criminal deviation
is the result of two factors which are biological and genetic
layout and social factors. No one can be held responsible for the
biological factors or genetic makeup because it is not under
anyone’s control. Secondly, the social factors are generally
exposure to aggression in childhood, dysfunctional families,
negative social impact form violent environment and poverty
etc. These factors are mostly originated from society and not
result from one's individual efforts. Even with the presence of
these factors, no one is denying the fact that the responsibility
of one's actions lies on one's shoulder but at the same time, it
does not free the state from its responsibility towards the well-
being of an offender. The rehabilitation process ought to be for
correction, not punishment but unfortunately, the reentry

2. programs after one has served their due time in a rehabilitation
centre is not very smooth and it does not motivate the individual
to make better choices this time. It is because of standards
rehabilitation and reentry system which does not suit the
individual needs of every individual. The system needs to be
more customized. Furthermore, the frameworks involved in
probation and post-incarceration process need improvement.
This essay will explore the current condition and process of
reentry and rehabilitation of an individual in society and how
this system needs reassessment and continuous monitoring
(Thompkins, Curtis, & Wendel, 2010).
Review of Previous Research:
Many researchers have explored the field of rehabilitation and
reentry in the society. The field of criminal offences, factors
which contribute towards these offences, mindsets of the
offenders and their backgrounds, rehabilitation process and the
reentry constitute a diverse field on which a lot of work has
been done by psychologist and criminologist to not only
understand what enables the criminal activities to happen at
first place and how they can be reduced if not eradicated
through the better rehabilitation process. Through important
outcomes include:
1. Religion can play an important part in the rehabilitation of
people. A study was conducted in an Israeli prison in which
prisoners from several months too many years were questioned
about their dependence on faith to pass through the difficult
time of prison. This study only enrolled those prisoners who
were actively taking part in the religious services pf the prison
and the results showed that their reentry in the society was
relatively more successfully than other offenders.
2. Role of technology is explored in its connection with
rehabilitation and reentry programs. The study showed that
despite being the leading country in the information and
technological advancement in the world, the rehabilitation
process has little employment of technology. All the processes
and approaches are still very much manual and they are not

3. using technology to make it effective. The study introduced the
three-step process for using technology in the rehabilitation
process. The first step is the employment of technology during
the time of an individual in the prison, second is the
employment of technology in reentry and third is digital
rehabilitation.
3. The rehabilitation process is studied in context with cultural
and social values. The culture who are open and more accepting
have high results of reentry and rehabilitation centre are more
successful. On the contrary, the social values which outcast the
offenders for once and for all do not have very promising
results for re-entry and rehabilitation process. Hence the role of
social values and cultural norms is also very important for re-
entry and rehabilitation (SHUFORD, 2018).
Policy Effectiveness:
Reentry program is formulated under policies of social well-
being and programs for the safety of citizens. The policy
effectiveness of any re-entry program can be measured if there
is no repetition of the crime by the same individual or overall
decrease in crime rate. The policymakers formulate the policies
with the intention and aim to reduce the crime rate in the city or
state and ensure safe streets for all citizens. Furthermore, their
aim is to ensure that the offender once freed from the
rehabilitation centre does not resort back to violence. Hence the
sole purpose is to ensure that there is no re-entry into crimes
Furthermore, another main objective of the policy is to make
changes in the attitude and general approach of the offenders
after their time in rehabilitation and his change in attitude must
be positive and less violent. Moreover, policymakers develop
policies to achieve public safety. Through these objectives, the
effectiveness of the policies is measured. If there is general
safety of citizens, because of reduced crime rate and there is no
involvement of old criminals in the crime and violence again,
then there is hope for betterment. Also, change in the attitude of
the offenders after the rehabilitation centre is clearly an
indication that the policies are effective and they are yielding

4. their results. This can be measured through their life choices
and their involvement in violent activities. If these objectives
are not achieved then there is need of corrective policies and
new policies must replace the old policies for better results
(Reisdorf, & Rikard, 2018).
Recommendations:
For better results, it is crucial that new policies are introduced
for rehabilitation and re-entry purpose. Following
recommendations are given for new policies and programs:
1. The evidence-based system ought to be developed which
provides better insights into what I expected of an individual
after their re-entry based on their previous behaviour and
change in their behaviour during their tie in the rehabilitation
centre. There is enough research on their topic. The
policymakers should sue that research and create a tracking
system which could score the habitants of the rehabilitation
centre based on their performance.
2. Digitalization of the reentry programs must be the first
priority of the policymakers. As technology has penetrated in
every aspect of our life and there is more than enough evidence
of its effectiveness and efficiency hence it is high time that
digitalization is introduced in reentry programs and not only in
the reentry programs but also the concept of digital
rehabilitation should be given enough consideration and ought
to be applied in near future.
Religion should be sued for creating more peaceful individuals
during their time in the rehabilitation centre. Aggression leads
to violence and violence leads to serious crimes. Aggression can
be replaced through peaceful minds which is possible through
religion. Religious programs in the rehabilitation centre can
help in making people see where they went wrong and how to
make the right choices in life. This will make the rehabilitation
process fruitful and will also make reentry successful (Garot,
2019).
Conclusion:
Reentry and rehabilitation process is a major part of the justice

5. system which has been unable to deliver the required results due
to overgeneralization of the rehabilitation program for
everyone. This system has its limitation dues to financial
constraints by governments but this needs policy revision by the
state. Introduction of religious programs, digital rehabilitation
and reentry and employment of credit scoring to determine the
change of attitude can help in making rehabilitation and reentry
system effective (Hlavka, Wheelock, & Jones, 2015).
References
Garot, R. (2019). Rehabilitation Is Reentry. Prisoner Reentry in
the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home.
Hlavka, H., Wheelock, D., & Jones, R. (2015). Ex-offender
Accounts of Successful Reentry from Prison. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 54(6), 406–428. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/10509674.2015.1057630
Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital Rehabilitation:
A Model of Reentry Into the Digital Age. American
Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1273–1290. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1177/0002764218773817
SHUFORD, J. A. (2018). The missing link in reentry: Changing
prison culture. Corrections Today, 80(2), 42–102.
Thompkins, D. E., Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2010). Forum: the
prison reentry industry. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(4), 427–
429. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10624-010-
9164-z
PUBLISHED BY CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
T

6. E
H QC
Libraries and the
Internet
Researcher
Are filters needed to block pornography?
P
eople of all ages — from school kids to senior
citizens — are going to public libraries to use
the Internet. But along with vast sources of
valuable information, the Web also provides
access to X-rated material regarded as unsuitable for
youngsters. A new federal law seeks to limit minors’
access to pornography on the Internet by requiring
federally subsidized libraries to install software filters to
block Web sites with objectionable material. But the
American Library Association and the American Civil
Liberties Union say the law violates freedom of speech.
Supporters and opponents of the law disagree about

7. whether filters work in blocking pornography. They also
disagree about whether using library computers to view
X-rated sites is widespread or rare.
◆ WINNER, SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE
FR
EE
W
EB
T
RI
AL
Se
e
ba
ck
c
ov
erJune 1, 2001 • Volume 11, No. 21 • Pages 465-488
I
N
S

8. I
D
E
THIS ISSUE
THE ISSUES ........................... 467
BACKGROUND ..................... 474
CHRONOLOGY ..................... 475
CURRENT SITUATION ........... 479
AT ISSUE ................................ 481
OUTLOOK ............................. 483
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................... 485
THE NEXT STEP .................... 486
LIBRARIES AND THE INTERNET
466 CQ Researcher
THE ISSUES
467 • Can filtering protectchildren from objection-
able materials?
• Can other policies
protect children from

9. objectionable Internet
materials?
• Is it constitutional to
require libraries to install
filtering?
BACKGROUND
474 Library RightsThe library profession’s
advocacy for intellectual
freedom evolved gradually.
476 Freedom to ReadLibrarians have strength-
ened their commitment to
intellectual freedom.
478 Cyberspace BattlesLibraries are embroiled in
legal battles over efforts to
regulate the Internet.
CURRENT SITUATION
479 Filtering PracticesDiffering views on filtering
emerged in hearings earlier
this year.
480 Legal IssuesThe ALA and ACLU oppose
mandatory filtering.
OUTLOOK
483 Access IssuesSupporters and opponents
of filtering remain at odds
over the effects of the
policy on library patrons’
access to information.

10. SIDEBARS AND
GRAPHICS
468 Most Libraries HaveInternet Connections
Ninety-six percent of public
library outlets are connected.
469 Blocking Software Used atFew Libraries
Three-quarters of the work-
stations can’t block porn.
471 Protecting KidsRecommendations from the
Commission on Online
Children Protection.
472 Can Computers SolvePreservation Problems?
New technologies create
strains on libraries as well as
new opportunities.
474 Many Libraries Treat KidsLike Adults
Nearly half the nation’s
public libraries do not have
separate Internet-use policies.
475 ChronologyKey events since 1876.
477 School Libraries FacingFilter Mandate
Filtering is more widespread
in schools.
481 At IssueShould public libraries use
filters to block pornography?
FOR MORE

11. INFORMATION
485 BibliographySelected sources used.
486 The Next StepAdditional articles from
current periodicals.
487 Citing The CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.
MANAGING EDITOR
Thomas J. Colin
ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR
Kathy Koch
STAFF WRITERS
Mary H. Cooper
Brian Hansen
Kenneth Jost
David Masci
PRODUCTION EDITOR
Olu B. Davis
ASSISTANT EDITOR
Scott D. Kuzner
CQ PRESS
A Division of
Congressional Quarterly Inc.
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT / GENERAL MANAGER
John A. Jenkins
DIRECTOR, LIBRARY PUBLISHING

12. Kathryn Suarez
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS
Sandra D. Adams
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
CHAIRMAN
Andrew Barnes
VICE CHAIRMAN
Andrew P. Corty
PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER
Robert W. Merry
Copyright 2001 Congressional Quarterly Inc. (CQ).
CQ reserves all copyright and other rights herein,
unless previously specified in writing. No part of
this publication may be reproduced electronically
or otherwise, without prior written permission.
Unauthorized reproduction or transmission of CQ
copyrighted material is a violation of federal law
carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.
The CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on
acid-free paper. Published weekly, except Jan. 5,

13. June 29, July 6, July 20, Aug. 10, Aug. 17, Nov. 30
and Dec. 28, by Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Annual subscription rate for libraries, businesses
and government is $500. Single issues are available
for $10 (subscribers) or $20 (non-subscribers).
Quantity discounts apply to orders over 10. Addi-
tional rates furnished upon request. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to The CQ Researcher, 1414 22nd St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
June 1, 2001
Volume 11, No. 21
CQ Researcher
T
H
E
Cover: Young people can use computers in public libraries to
get valuable information from
the Internet — or to visit pornographic Web sites. (AP
Photo/Mark Crosse)

14. June 1, 2001 467CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
BY KENNETH JOST
THE ISSUES
Libraries and the Internet
K
athleen R.’s 12-year-
o l d s o n B r a n d o n
was spending a lot of
time at the Livermore, Ca-
lif., public library, ostensi-
bly working on his home-
work. But when Kathleen
looked inside his gym bag
one day, she found some-
thing besides dirty clothes:
a cache of dirty pictures
from pornographic Web
sites.
“He was spending the
whole time at the library
downloading pornography
and taking it to my brother’s
house and printing it,” Kathleen re-
calls today. “I had a fit.”
Kathleen — who shields her last
name to protect her son from pub-
licity — complained to the librarian,

15. who said there was nothing she could
do. So Kathleen went to court to
force the library to install software
filters to block sites with sexually
explicit material. “I can’t have porno
day in my house for the neighbor-
hood kids,” she explains. “So I want
to know why the library can.”
California courts rejected Kathleen’s
suit, but the state legislature is now con-
sidering a bill to require public libraries
to install filters to block pornographic
sites. “We lost the battle,” Kathleen says,
“but we’re winning the war.” 1
In fact, Congress is on her side on
the issue, which is roiling librarians
and library boards throughout the
country. A new law, approved by
Congress in late December and
signed by President Bill Clinton, re-
quires all federally subsidized school
and public libraries to install soft-
ware on their computer terminals to
block “visual depictions” of obscen-
ity, child pornography and sexual
matter deemed “harmful to minors.”
Some patrons, however, say they
want no limits on Internet access
from library computers. Carol Will-
iams, an administrative assistant to a
civil liberties organization in Phila-
delphia, says her teenaged niece,
Marnique Tynesha Overby, needs an

16. unfiltered gateway to the Internet in
her local public library. “With the
filtering system, you put in breast
cancer or sexually transmitted dis-
eases, and you couldn’t possibly get
to some of the sites out there,” says
Williams. She points out that young
people may use Web sites to find
information about sexual subjects that
they do not feel comfortable discuss-
ing with their parents or caregivers.
Williams cannot afford a personal
computer in her home, so the library’s
terminals are essential to her niece,
who lives with her. Williams says
filtering is just wrong. “It’s censor-
ship,” she concludes.
The library establishment agrees
with Williams. The American Library
Association (ALA) strenuously op-
posed the filtering legislation as it
worked its way through Congress and
filed suit in federal court as it was
about to take effect. The group con-
tends the measure violates the
free-speech rights of libraries
and library patrons.
“Filters are anathema to
what we as librarians want to
accomplish,” says Judith Krug,
director of the ALA’s Office of
Intellectual Freedom. “The

17. best filter is the individual.
Every bit of information is not
appropriate for every indi-
vidual, but the best person to
make that decision is the in-
dividual or, for children, in
concert with their parents or
guardians.”
Supporters of the law, how-
ever, contend that the mea-
sure is needed to make librar-
ies safe for young people.
“This simply says the federal govern-
ment is not going to subsidize getting
hard-core pornography in the librar-
ies,” says Bruce Taylor, president of
the National Law Center for Children
and Families, an anti-pornography
group. Without filters, Taylor says,
“the library becomes the peep show
section of adult bookstores.”
The law — the Children’s Internet
Protection Act or CIPA (known as
CIPA, or sometimes, CHIPA) — rep-
resents Congress’ third attempt in four
years to limit young people’s access
to sexually explicit material on the
Internet. The Supreme Court struck
down the first of the laws: the 1996
Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Congress responded by enacting a
modified Child Online Protection Act
(COPA) in 1998, but federal courts

18. have blocked that law from going
into effect, too.
For libraries, the filtering issue
merges a new technology that is
revolutionizing access to information
with a 60-year tradition of battling for
intellectual freedom. 2 Computer ter-
minals are now nearly universal in
school and public libraries. Students
who once went to the library to use
Numerous computer workstations are available at the New
York Public Library’s Science, Industry and Business
Library, one of four NYPL research libraries. Many of
the system’s 85 branches provide computer training.
N
e
w
Y
o
rk
P
u
b
li
c
L
ib
ra
ry

19. LIBRARIES AND THE INTERNET
468 CQ Researcher
books and encyclopedias to do their
homework now find the information
they need on the Web.
“It’s a big part of the way we
provide the public access to informa-
tion,” says Ginny Cooper, library
director for Multnomah County, Ore.,
serving Portland. Her library system
is the lead plaintiff in a second law-
suit challenging the new law, filed by
lawyers for the American Civil Liber-
ties Union (ACLU).
Before the new law went into
effect, only a small number of the
nation’s estimated 16,000 public li-
brary outlets * were using filters,
according to a survey by the U.S.
National Commission on Library and
Information Science. The survey,
completed last year, showed that
about 10 percent of public libraries
used blocking software on all com-
puter terminals and another 15 per-
cent provided blocking at some
workstations. (See graph, p. 472.) By
contrast, about three-fourths of school

20. libraries use filtering or blocking
software, according to the National
Center for Education Statistics.
ies,” says David Biek, manager of the
main library in Tacoma, Wash.
David Burt, a former librarian in
the Portland, Ore., suburb of Lake
Oswego, says sentiment in support
of filtering among librarians is in-
creasing. “The problems have gotten
so much worse as the Internet has
gotten more pervasive in libraries and
pornography is much more perva-
sive in libraries,” he says.
As for the threat to intellectual
freedom, some librarians say the
ALA’s arguments are overblown. “The
dogma that the ALA establishment
frequently espouses is put forward as
an absolute: If you touch this, every-
thing else will fall,” says Donald
Davis, a professor at the University of
Texas Graduate School of Library and
Information Science in Austin. “There
is a danger of that, but it is exagger-
ated.”
In addition to the legal and philo-
sophical arguments, there is a prac-
tical technological question: Do the
filters work? Theoretically, filtering
software looks through a Web site
for objectionable material and blocks

21. the site when the program finds the
words or images specified by the
programmer.
Critics, however, say filtering pro-
grams are notoriously inaccurate in
practice: They block sites that should
not be blocked (“overblocking”)
while sometimes failing to block sites
that should be (“underblocking”). In
a test of six well-known filters, Con-
sumer Reports found that several
failed to test certain “inappropriate”
sites and that some blocked “harm-
less” sites — in some cases based on
what the magazine called “moral or
political value judgments.” 3
But Burt, who now works for
N2H2, a filtering-software company
in Washington state, says the critics
are off base. Other filtering compa-
nies also defend their products. “Fil-
ters do work; they work very well,”
says Susan Getgood, a vice president
Most U.S. Libraries Have Internet Connections
Connections to the Internet increased rapidly in recent years at
the
nation’s 16,000 public library outlets. Today, Internet
connections,
and public Internet access, are almost universal in the United
States.
Source: National Commission on Libraries and Information

22. Science, “Public
Libraries and the Internet 2000: Summary Findings and Data
Tables,” Sept. 7, 2000.
1998 1999
84%
96
73%
95
Public Library
Connections
Public Access
to Internet
* The figure for library outlets includes all branches
of the nation’s 8,967 library systems.
Librarians opposed to filters say
they clash with their understanding
of providing free and open access to
information. “The major loss is the
loss of First Amendment rights and
the concern about people’s ability to
find information freely and openly,”
says Leigh Estabrook, dean of the
University of Illinois Graduate School
of Library and Information Science at
Champaign. “It’s an enormously high
price to pay concerning the funda-
mental freedoms that we have.”

23. Librarians who support filters,
however, argue that most parents do
not want their children using library
terminals to view sexually explicit
material or being exposed to porno-
graphic images on screens being
viewed by other patrons. “Many
people would feel uncomfortable
enough to stop coming to the librar-
June 1, 2001 469CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
of the California-based company
SurfControl. “Our customers buy
them and renew them year after year
because they do work well.”
For the moment, the government
has decided that libraries have until
July 2002 to decide whether to install
filters without fear of losing federal
aid or federally mandated discounts
for Internet services.
As librarians and library patrons
continue to make greater and greater
use of the Internet, here are some of
the major questions being debated:
Can filtering protect children
from objectionable materials on
the Internet?

24. A commission created by Congress
spent nearly two years studying ways
to reduce youngsters’ access to sexu-
ally explicit materials on the Internet.
The report by the 18-member group
called on schools and libraries to
voluntarily adopt Internet-use poli-
cies, but stopped short of recom-
mending mandatory use of filtering
software.
“No single technology or method
will completely protect children from
harmful material online,” Donald
Telage, chairman of the commission,
said in announcing the commission’s
95-page report. Filters are “hopelessly
outgunned.” 4
Filtering opponents hailed the
commission’s report. “We hope Con-
gress sees this as a wake-up call” to
reject mandatory filtering, an ACLU
spokeswoman said. But some com-
mission members repeated their sup-
port for the legislation. “If you use
federal money for the Internet, we
want you to take appropriate steps to
make sure that kids are safe when
they’re online using our money,” said
Donna Rice Hughes, vice president
of the anti-pornography group
Enough Is Enough.
The simplest filters block Web sites
that contain designated words or

25. phrases anywhere on the site. Critics
say this type of filter carries an inevi-
table risk of “overblocking” — pre-
venting access to a site about “breast”
cancer, for example, or even a site
about the “Mars explorer” because of
the embedded three-letter sequence
“s-e-x.” At the same time, opponents
say, some filters fail to block Web
sites with patently objectionable
material (“underblocking”).
Filtering supporters, however, say
newer software is finer-tuned — look-
ing at entire sites, not just an isolated
word or phrase — and are therefore
less susceptible to inaccurate block-
ing. “The modern generation of fil-
ters do a very good job,” says Taylor
of the National Law Center for Chil-
dren and Families. And filters will get
better, he says, because the new law
“uses federal incentives to foster
advances in filtering technology.”
“There is a small amount of error,”
says Burt of N2H2. “But when we
talked with schools or with libraries,
we found that’s something that they
don’t encounter much. And when
they do encounter it, the librarian
can override it.”
Opponents of filtering are

26. unconvinced. “Filtering software
does not work,” says Margaret
Dempsey, head of Chicago’s public
library system. “It arbitrarily blocks
words over which we have no con-
trol, and it inhibits access to legiti-
mate research sites.”
“Experts continue to uncover thou-
sands and thousands of [blocked] sites
that people could not conceivably
think are unsuitable for minors,” says
ACLU attorney Ann Beeson. “I’m not
talking about controversial sites.”
Defending the law, Taylor stresses
that it requires libraries to block
access only to visual depictions —
not text — that fall into three catego-
ries that are already illegal.
“Libraries have responsibilities to
block illegal materials: obscenity,
Few Libraries Use Blocking Software
The Internet workstations at three-quarters of the nation’s
public
libraries do not have software that can block the downloading of
certain words or information, such as X-rated material. Only 10
percent of the libraries have blocking software at all
workstations.
Blocking of Internet services on
all workstations

27. Blocking on some workstations
No blocking
9.6%
75.5%
15%
Note: Total does not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science, “Public
Libraries and the Internet 2000: Summary Findings and Data
Tables,” Sept. 7, 2000.
LIBRARIES AND THE INTERNET
470 CQ Researcher
child pornography and material that
is harmful to minors within state law,”
he says.
But Teresa Chmara, a Washington
lawyer representing the ALA in chal-
lenging the law, says all three catego-
ries require judgments that cannot be
made by a computer program. “Fil-
ters cannot make the legal determi-
nation whether material is obscene
or harmful to minors,” she says.

28. Burt counters, however, that li-
brarians are already charged with
making those kinds of judg-
ments. “People who work
for filtering companies can
apply a standard just as
readily as a librarian can,”
he says.
The law includes a fail-
safe provision that allows a
librarian to “disable” a filter-
ing program in order to give
a patron access to blocked
material “for bona fide re-
search or other lawful pur-
poses.” “Even if a filter in-
advertently blocks some-
thing,” says Taylor, librar-
ians “have the ability to
unblock it.”
But librarians and civil
liberties advocates say that
procedure is an unfair bur-
den on library patrons’ pri-
vacy. “Most adults will be
too stigmatized to go ask a
librarian for access to a site
that has already been
blocked,” Beeson says. In addition,
librarians say it is unclear how they
are to decide what constitutes “bona
fide research” for purposes of the
law.

29. Even if filters did work as adver-
tised, many librarians believe that the
law gives them a responsibility for
monitoring children’s Internet usage
that instead ought to lie with parents.
“I am not going to become the parent
in absentia,” the ALA’s Krug says.
“It’s not our role. It’s not our respon-
sibility, either legally or by virtue of
being a librarian.”
But Burt says libraries have always
had the responsibility to select the
informational materials in their col-
lections. “This is a very reasonable
approach to a serious problem,” Burt
says, “and it’s within the traditional
mission of public libraries.”
Can other policies protect
children from objectionable
Internet materials?
The Tacoma library uses a filtering
software designed by its systems
manager to block visual depictions of
sexual acts or full nudity on com-
puter terminals. By analyzing the logs
of Internet sessions, librarians com-
piled some interesting information
about the extent of the use of library
computers for access to sexually
explicit materials.
The findings, detailed in a paper

30. prepared for a branch of the National
Academy of Sciences, show that
Tacoma library patrons made nearly
28,000 attempts to access sexually
explicit materials on the Internet
during the calendar year 2000. Most
of those efforts — about 53 percent
— were by youngsters under age 18.
And three-quarters of the logged
entries occurred in the late afternoon,
after kids leave school but before
they go home for dinner.
Librarian Biek found the numbers
disturbing. “Certainly, staff at the
Tacoma Public Library would not
have guessed that Internet
users made nearly 28,000 at-
tempts to access sexually
explicit materials last year,”
Biek wrote in the 17-page
report. “Many young people
are not making ‘good choices’
in their use of the Internet,
and it is debatable whether
classes and tips offered by
the library will affect this.” 5
Biek’s support for filtering
in libraries puts him at odds
with the position of the ALA
and most librarians who have
joined in the public debate.
They argue that a combina-

31. tion of formal Internet poli-
cies, patron education and li-
brarian oversight will ad-
equately control misuse of
library computers by minors
or adult users.
“There are all kinds of
ways libraries have developed
in working with their com-
munities,” says the ALA’s Krug. “Some
libraries have contacts with kids,
some have contacts with the kids and
their parents. If libraries have poli-
cies, they will say you are not follow-
ing the rules.”
Librarians opposed to filtering
emphasize their efforts to educate
young patrons on using the Internet.
“The Internet is not a very fine tool,”
says Portland library director Cooper.
“It’s still pretty difficult to get infor-
mation there. And with kids, we feel
Marnique Tynesha Overby, 15, tells a press conference why
she joined the ACLU in challenging a new federal law
requiring federally subsidized libraries to install “blocking”
software on their computers. She said she relies on public
libraries for Internet access to help with homework
projects on health and cultural issues.
A

32. m
e
ri
ca
n
C
iv
il
L
ib
e
rt
ie
s
U
n
io
n
June 1, 2001 471CQ on the Web: www.cq.com
we have a special responsibility to
help them get information that’s ap-
propriate for them.”
The Chicago Public Library employs
tech-savvy college and high school stu-

33. dents as “cyber-navigators” to assist
young patrons in using the Internet. The
program, funded by AT&T, “has been
really wonderful,” says Chicago library
chief Dempsey.
Tacoma’s Biek agrees that young
patrons need instruction on using the
Internet, but he says training is un-
likely to reduce the misuse of library
terminals to view pornography. “Most
of these were very obviously inten-
tional acts,” Biek says, referring to
the Tacoma library study. “No amount
of education is going to change a
person who wants to look for sexu-
ally explicit materials on the Internet
if that’s their intent.”
Filtering opponents suggest sev-
eral other steps. Some libraries use
privacy screens to block other pa-
trons’ view of a user’s screen. Time
limits on computer use — necessi-
tated by the demand for terminals —
also help control viewing of objec-
tionable materials, librarians say. And
most libraries, it appears, set termi-
nals in children’s areas to log onto
customized home pages designed for
kids with links to other age-appropri-
ate sites.
But supporters of filtering say these
steps are inadequate. “We had pri-

34. vacy screens,” Burt says of his expe-
rience in the Lake Oswego Library.
“That seemed to encourage people.
We had one man in particular who
took delight in taking the privacy
screen off and having women see
what he was looking at.”
Supporters of filtering believe that
librarians simply disagree with the
goal of regulating young people’s
use of the Internet in libraries. “They
won’t because they don’t want to,”
says Taylor of the National Law
Center for Children and Families.
“They have said that they think it’s
their job as libraries to provide un-
filtered access to the Internet to
anyone, whatever age. They have
said that they have no intention of
providing filtering because they be-
lieve it’s censorship.”
Librarians frame the issue in those
terms themselves, though with a more
favorable spin. “Librarians have taken
the position that without limiting
adult reading material, they cannot
limit reading material for children,”
says Louise Robbins, director of the
University of Wisconsin School of
Library and Information Studies in
Madison. “The librarian’s responsibil-
ity is to make as much information
available as possible — given the

35. constraints of budget, space and
expertise — and let citizens make
decisions about what materials they
need,” she says.
Is it constitutional to require
libraries to install filtering?
When Congress passed the CDA
five years ago making it a crime to
transmit sexually explicit materials to
minors across the Internet, the ACLU
and the ALA challenged it in federal
court as unconstitutional. As one of
their arguments, the two groups
contended that there was a less re-
strictive way to control youngsters’
access to pornography on the Web:
filters.
The Supreme Court unanimously
agreed that the law violated the First
Amendment. But now that Congress
has passed a law requiring software
filters in public and school libraries,
Protecting Kids From Web Porn
Public Education
• Major education campaign by government and private
sector to promote awareness of technologies and
methods to protect children online.
• Promotion of acceptable use policies by government
and industry.

36. Consumer Empowerment
• Independent evaluation of child protection technologies.
• Steps by industry to improve child-protection
mechanisms and make them more accessible online.
• “Broad, national, private-sector conversation” on
development of next-generation systems for labeling,
rating and identifying content.
Law Enforcement
• Government funding of “aggressive programs” to
investigate, prosecute and report violations of federal
and state obscenity laws.
• Listing by state and federal law enforcement of Internet
sources found to contain child pornography or obscenity.
• Federal rulemaking to discourage deceptive or unfair
practices that entice children to view obscene materials.
Industry Action
• Voluntary adoption by Internet service provider industry
of “best practices” to protect minors.
• Voluntary steps by online commercial adult industry to
restrict minors’ access to adult content.
T he Commission on Online Child Protection recommended the
following measures to help reduce access by minorsto sexually
explicit material on the Internet:

37. LIBRARIES AND THE INTERNET
472 CQ Researcher
the ACLU and the ALA say that it, too,
is unconstitutional.
Supporters of the new law — CIPA
— say that given their previous po-
sition, the ACLU and ALA are being
disingenuous today in attacking fil-
tering. “They waited to come out
against filtering until the CDA was
declared unconstitutional,” maintains
Burt of N2H2. “Then, as soon as the
CDA was declared unconstitutional,
they turned around and said, ‘Wait.
Filters don’t work. You can’t use them
in libraries.’ ”
Lawyers for the two groups insist,
however, that there is no inconsis-
tency between their positions in the
two cases. “We don’t have a problem
Are Computers the Answer . . .
I
magine reading Mark Twain’s account of a trip to
France in a Western literary journal published in 1868
while sitting at your home computer rather than
standing in the dark and dusty stacks of a …

38. References
Barrenger, S., Draine, J., Angell, B., & Herman, D. (2017).
Reincarceration Risk Among Men with Mental Illnesses
Leaving Prison: A Risk Environment Analysis. Community
Mental Health Journal, 53(8), 883–892. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10597-017- 0113-z
Garot, R. (2019). Rehabilitation Is Reentry. Prisoner Reentry in
the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home.
Hlavka, H., Wheelock, D., & Jones, R. (2015). Exoffender
Accounts of Successful Reentry from Prison. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 54(6), 406–428. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/10509674.2015.1057630
Ho, D. (2011). Intervention-A New Way-Out to Solve the
Chronic Offenders. International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences, 6(2), 167–172.
Mobley, A. (2014). Prison reentry as a rite of passage for the
formerly incarcerated. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(4),
465–477. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/10282580.2014.980968
Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital Rehabilitation:
A Model of Reentry Into the Digital Age. American
Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1273–1290. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1177/0002764218773817
Serowik, K. L., & Yanos, P. (2013). The relationship between
services and outcomes for a prison reentry population of those
with severe mental illness. Mental Health & Substance Use:
Dual Diagnosis, 6(1), 4–14. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/17523281.2012.660979
SHUFORD, J. A. (2018). The missing link in reentry: Changing
prison culture. Corrections Today, 80(2), 42–102.
Thompkins, D. E., Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2010). Forum: the
prison reentry industry. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(4), 427–
429. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10624-010-
9164-z
Woods, L. N., Lanza, A. S., Dyson, W., & Gordon, D. M.

39. (2013). The Role of Prevention in Promoting Continuity of
Health Care in Prisoner Reentry Initiatives. American Journal of
Public Health, 103(5), 830–838. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300961
:ULWWHQ�&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�
5XEULF�
Level of Achievement
Evaluators assign a one (0) to any measure that does not meet
benchmark (cell one) level performance�
Benchmark
1�
Milestones
2 3�
Capstone
4�
Content Development
Thesis and ideas.
0DLQ�WKHVLV�LV�QRW�FOHDUO�
GHYHORSHG��8VHV�DSSURSULDWH�
DQG�UHOHYDQW�FRQWHQW�WR�
GHYHORS�VLPSOH�LGHDV�LQ�RQO�
VRPH�SDUWV�RI�WKH�ZRUN��
0LQLPDOO�DFFRPSOLVKHV�
JRDOV�RI�WKH�DVVLJQPHQW�
0DLQ�WKHVLV�LV�SRRUO�

40. GHYHORSHG��8VHV�DSSURSULDWH�
DQG�UHOHYDQW�FRQWHQW�WR�
GHYHORS�DQG�H[SORUH�LGHDV�
WKURXJK�PRVW�RI�WKH�ZRUN��
6KRZV�VRPH�VLJQV�RI�
DFFRPSOLVKLQJ�WKH�JRDOV�RI�WKH�
DVVLJQPHQW��
0DLQ�WKHVLV�LV�HYLGHQW��8VHV�
DSSURSULDWH��UHOHYDQW��DQG�
FRPSHOOLQJ�FRQWHQW�WR�H[SORUH�
LGHDV�ZLWKLQ�WKH�FRQWH[W�RI�WKH�
GLVFLSOLQH�DQG�VKDSH�WKH�ZKROH�
ZRUN��*HQHUDOO�DFFRPSOLVKHV�
JRDOV�RI�WKH�DVVLJQPHQW�
0DLQ�WKHVLV�LV�FOHDUO�VWDWHG�DQG�
SUHVHQW�WKURXJKRXW�WKH�SDSHU��8VHV�
DSSURSULDWH��UHOHYDQW�� �FRPSHOOLQJ�
FRQWHQW�WR�LOOXVWUDWH�PDVWHU�RI�WKH�
VXEMHFW��FRQYHLQJ�WKH�ZULWHU¶V�
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ��DQG�VKDSLQJ�WKH�ZKROH�
ZRUN��&RPSOHWHO�DFFRPSOLVKHV�WKH�
JRDOV�RI�WKH�DVVLJQPHQW
Organization and
Disciplinary
Conventions
Clear & consistent
organizational pattern;
follows formal and
informal rules of criminal
justice�
8QFOHDU�RUJDQL]DWLRQ�RU�
RUJDQL]DWLRQDO�SODQ�LV�

41. LQDSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHVLV��1R�
WUDQVLWLRQV��6KRZV�OLWWOH�
DZDUHQHVV�RI�FULPLQDO�MXVWLFH�
FRQYHQWLRQV��
6RPH�VLJQV�RI�ORJLFDO�
RUJDQL]DWLRQ��0D�KDYH�DEUXSW�
RU�LOORJLFDO�VKLIWV� �LQHIIHFWLYH�
IORZ�RI�LGHDV��)ROORZV�
FULPLQDO�MXVWLFH�H[SHFWDWLRQV�DW�
D�EDVLF�OHYHO�RI�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ��
2UJDQL]DWLRQ�VXSSRUWV�WKHVLV�DQG�
SXUSRVH��
7UDQVLWLRQV�DUH�PRVWO�DSSURSULDWH��
6HTXHQFH�RI�LGHDV�FRXOG�EH�
LPSURYHG��8VHV�FULPLQDO�MXVWLFH�
FRQYHQWLRQV�FRQVLVWHQWO��
)XOO� �LPDJLQDWLYHO�VXSSRUWV�WKHVLV�
�SXUSRVH��6HTXHQFH�RI�LGHDV�LV�
HIIHFWLYH��7UDQVLWLRQV�DUH�HIIHFWLYH��
'HPRQVWUDWHV�VXFFHVVIXO�H[HFXWLRQ�RI�
FULPLQDO�MXVWLFH�FRQYHQWLRQV��
Mechanics Conventions
Spelling, capitalization,
punctuation, grammar,
general proofreading.
$EXQGDQW�VSHOOLQJ�HUURUV��
QRQ�H[LVWHQW�RU�LQFRUUHFW�
SXQFWXDWLRQ��DQG�RU�VHYHUH�
HUURUV�LQ�JUDPPDU�WKDW�
LQWHUIHUH�ZLWK�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ��

42. 6RPH�IUHTXHQW��LQFRUUHFW�
SXQFWXDWLRQ��VLJQLILFDQW�HUURUV�
LQ�JUDPPDU�FDXVLQJ�
LQWHUIHUHQFH�ZLWK�
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�LQ�VRPH�SDUWV�RI�
WKH�SDSHU��
2FFDVLRQDO�ODSVHV�LQ�VSHOOLQJ��
SXQFWXDWLRQ��JUDPPDU��EXW�QRW�
HQRXJK�WR�VHULRXVO�GLVWUDFW�WKH�
UHDGHU��
9HU�IHZ�VSHOOLQJ�HUURUV��FRUUHFW�
SXQFWXDWLRQ��DQG�JUDPPDWLFDOO�
FRUUHFW��OHDGLQJ�WR�FOHDU�
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�FRQWHQW��
Control of Syntax �
Language, word choice,
and sentence variety
8VHV�ODQJXDJH�WKDW�
VRPHWLPHV�LPSHGHV�PHDQLQJ�
EHFDXVH�RI�HUURUV�LQ�XVDJH��
5HSHWLWLYH�ZRUGV�DQG�
VHQWHQFH�WSHV���
�
8VHV�ODQJXDJH�WKDW�JHQHUDOO�
FRQYHV�PHDQLQJ�WR�UHDGHUV�
ZLWK�FODULW��DOWKRXJK�ZULWLQJ�
PD�LQFOXGH�VRPH�HUURUV�LQ�
ODQJXDJH��ZRUG�FKRLFH��DQG�
VHQWHQFH�WSHV��
8VHV�VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG�ODQJXDJH�WKDW�

43. JHQHUDOO�FRQYHV�PHDQLQJ�WR�
UHDGHUV��7KH�ODQJXDJH�LQ�WKH�
SRUWIROLR�KDV�IHZ�HUURUV�LQ�
ODQJXDJH��ZRUG�FKRLFH��DQG�
VHQWHQFH�WSHV��
8VHV�JUDFHIXO�ODQJXDJH�WKDW�VNLOOIXOO�
FRPPXQLFDWHV�PHDQLQJ�WR�UHDGHUV�
ZLWK�FODULW�DQG�IOXHQF��DQG�LV�KDV�
YHU�IHZ�HUURUV�LQ�ODQJXDJH��ZRUG�
FKRLFH��DQG�VHQWHQFH�WSHV���
Sources and
Referencing�
Documentation and
referencing of
criminology and criminal
justice research
1HJOHFWV�LPSRUWDQW�VRXUFHV��
2YHUXVH�RI�TXRWDWLRQV�RU�
SDUDSKUDVH�WR�VXEVWLWXWH�
ZULWHU¶V�RZQ�LGHDV��3RVVLEO�
XVHV�VRXUFH�PDWHULDO�ZLWKRXW�
DFNQRZOHGJHPHQW��
8VHV�UHOHYDQW�VRXUFHV�EXW�
ODFNV�LQ�YDULHW�RI�VRXUFHV�
DQG�RU�WKH�VNLOOIXO�FRPELQDWLRQ�
RI�VRXUFHV��4XRWDWLRQV� �
SDUDSKUDVHV�PD�EH�WRR�ORQJ�
RU�LQFRQVLVWHQWO�UHIHUHQFHG��
8VHV�VRXUFHV�WR�VXSSRUW��H[WHQG��
DQG�LQIRUP��EXW�QRW�VXEVWLWXWH�
ZULWHU¶V�RZQ�GHYHORSPHQW�RI�LGHD��

44. 'RHV�QRW�RYHUXVH�TXRWHV��EXW�PD�
QRW�DOZDV�FRQIRUP�WR�UHTXLUHG�
VWOH�PDQXDO��
8VHV�VRXUFHV�WR�VXSSRUW��H[WHQG��DQG�
LQIRUP��EXW�QRW�VXEVWLWXWH�ZULWHU¶V�
RZQ�GHYHORSPHQW�RI�LGHD��'RHVQ¶W�
RYHUXVH�TXRWHV��&RQIRUPV�WR�UHTXLUHG�
UHIHUHQFLQJ�VWOH��
�
� �
�
�
Critical Thinking Rubric
Level of Achievement
Evaluators assign a one (0) to any measure that does not meet
benchmark (cell one) level performance
Benchmark
1
Milestones
2 3
Capstone
4
Explanation of Issues

45. Issue/problem to be
considered critically is stated
without clarification or
description.
Issue/problem to be
considered critically is stated,
but description leaves some
terms undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, and/or
backgrounds unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered
critically is stated, described, and
clarified so that understanding is
not seriously impeded by
omissions.
Issue/problem to be considered
critically is stated clearly and described
systematically, delivering all relevant
information necessary for full
understanding.
Sources and Evidence
Selecting and using information
to investigate a point of view or
conclusion
Information is taken from
source(s) without any
interpretation or evaluation.

46. Information is taken from
source(s) with some
interpretation/evaluation, but
not enough to develop a
coherent analysis.
Information is taken from
source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to
develop a coherent analysis or
synthesis.
Information is taken from source(s)
with enough interpretation/evaluation
to develop a widespread analysis or
synthesis.
Influence of Context and
Assumptions
Considers where appropriate the
disciplinary, cultural, social,
economic, technological, ethical,
political, or personal context
Shows an emerging awareness
of present assumptions
(sometimes labels assertions as
assumptions). Demonstrates
minimal attention to context.
Questions some assumptions.
Identifies several relevant
contexts when presenting a

47. position. May be more aware of
o he a mp ion han one
own (or vice versa).
Iden ifie o n and o he
assumptions and several relevant
contexts when presenting a
position.
Thoroughly (systematically and
me hodicall ) anal e o n and o he
assumptions and carefully evaluates the
relevance of contexts when presenting a
position.
S den Po i ion
Perspective, thesis, hypothesis
Specific position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) is stated,
but is simplistic and obvious.
Specific position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis)
acknowledges different sides of
an issue.
Specific position takes into account

48. the complexities of an issue.
Others' points of view are
acknowledged within position
(perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position is imaginative, taking
into account the complexities of an
issue. Limits of position are
acknowledged.
Others' points of view are synthesized.
Conclusions and Related
Outcomes
Implications and consequences
Conclusion is inconsistently
tied to some of the
information discussed; related
outcomes (consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified.
Conclusion is logically tied to
information (because
information is chosen to fit the
desired conclusion); some
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are identified
clearly.

49. Conclusion is logically tied to a
range of information, including
opposing viewpoints; related
outcomes (consequences and
implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusions and related outcomes
(consequences and implications) are
logical and eflec den info med
evaluation and ability to place evidence
and perspectives discussed in priority
order.
�
1
Running head: TITLE OF YOUR PAPER
1
TITLE OF YOUR PAPER

50. Title of Your Paper
Name
Florida international University
Abstract
Research consistently finds…….
……
……

51. ……
……
……
……
……
…….
……
Keywords: human trafficking, modern-day slavery……
��������
����
�� ����
�� ������
����������
��
� ����������� �����

52. � ����������
���������� ��� ���!�!�"
���
���
� ��������#
����#�$���#%���&��#'��()�*+ ����(��,�
���
������ ����
�������
� ������ ����
Anna Leimberg
Anna Leimberg

53. -./0' �10�2
���3���
��������
����
�10�2�01, 12
41�
�2/210' �4��2/�%
����������
�������
��
��������
����
��������
������� �������
�����
��
������������ �
���� �

54. �
����������������
�����
�����
�
�
���������
�����������
�
�
������ ���������� �
�
�����������
�����������
�
�
����������������
����

55. ��������
������� �������
�����
��
�
�����������!����� �
�
������������ ������� �
�
!�� ����������������
����"����
������
�
�
�������#��$������� �
�
���� ����������
�� ��������������
�
�

56. �������
0�2 �
0�2 �
0�2 �
0�2 �
0�2 �
0�2 !
0�2 "
0�2 �
0�2
�������� ����

57. �� ������
�������
����������
��
� �����
����� ������� ����������
���������� ��� �� ������
���
���
� ��������!����
"�#$ ����"�%�
���
������ ����
�������
� ������ �����
Anna Leimberg
Anna Leimberg

58. &'()* +,)-.
���/���
�������� ����
+,)-.�),% ,.�0,�
+.(.,)* �0��.(�1
����������
�������
��
��������
����
��������
������� �������

59. �����
��
������������ �
���� �
�
����������������
�����
�����
�
�
���������
�����������
�
�
������ ���������� �
�
�����������
�����������
�
�

60. ����������������
����
��������
������� �������
�����
��
�
�����������!����� �
�
������������ ������� �
�
!�� ����������������
����"����
������
�
�
�������#��$������� �
�
���� ����������

61. �� ��������������
�
�
�������
�)+. �
�)+. �
�)+. �
�)+. �
�)+. �
�)+.
�)+. 2
�)+. �
�)+. �
�)+. ��
CCJ 4497
Professor Leimberg

62. Capstone Paper
Directions
You will critically analyze and evaluate a criminal justice
policy and make an evidence-based recommendation on whether
or not the policy should be eliminated. For your research, you
can choose from the list of criminal justice policies provided on
Canvas that may be of interest to you.
This paper will be written in the form of a Policy Brief. It
should:
· Provide enough background for the reader to understand the
problem.
· Convince the reader that the problem must be addressed
urgently.
· Provide information about alternatives
· Provide evidence to support one alternative
· Stimulate the reader to make a decision.
Please keep the following requirements in mind:
· Your typewritten paper should be approximately 2,000 words
(+/- 500 words); this number does not include the title, abstract,
and reference pages. Please include the word count in the title
page.
· The paper will require an APA title, Abstract, and reference
page(Not included in the total pages required).
· The paper must be double-spaced, with 1.0-inch margins, in
Times New Roman, 12-point type size, font.
· Your paper must draw from a minimum of 10 sources, which
must be cited correctly in the text and be documented correctly
in the reference page. These sources should be articles from
academic journals or books published by an academic press, or
other credible sources (NO Wikipedia, Huffington Post,

63. Washington Post, CNN). Your textbook may be used as a source
but does not count towards the 5 that are required.
· Do not include theses or dissertations as references.
References and in-text citations must be in APA format.
· You need to write your paper in a professional manner. You
should review it for grammar and mechanics errors. If you need
any additional assistance with your paper, you may make an
appointment with FIU’s Center for Excellence in Writing for
tutorial services. Be sure to do so in advance as spots fill
quickly. The link for more information is:
https://writingcenter.fiu.edu/make-an-appointment/
· Assume that I lack any knowledge on your topic.
· The capstone paper should include five sections: Introduction,
Review of Previous Research, Policy Effectiveness,
Recommendation(s), and Conclusion.
· Your paper is subject to review for text comparison by
Turnitin.com, a plagiarism detection service. Any papers that
yield a higher percentage (typically above 20%) will be
investigated thoroughly. Please refer to the syllabus regarding
penalties and disciplinary actions that may result from
plagiarism. When in doubt, cite!
· To submit your paper, you will upload your Word document
electronically through a link located on the CCJ 2020 Canvas
portal on or before the day and time that your paper is due.
· This writing assignment will be graded according to the
criteria indicated in the rubric.
· This writing assignment is worth 40% of your final grade.
· Late assignments will NOT be accepted and will result in a
grade of “0.”
Additional Information
Title Page
The title page should be the first page of your writing
assignment. Directions on how to construct a proper APA title
page may be found at this link:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/. Also, see

64. example provided in the Week 6 Module on Canvas. The title
aims to catch the attention of the reader and compel him/her to
read on, thus your title should be descriptive, punchy, and
relevant.
Abstract
The abstract should be a 200-250 word summary of your
research and thesis. The purpose of this element is to help the
reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. Also, see example
provided in Week 1 Module on Canvas.
Introduction (Context and importance of the problem)
The purpose of this element of the brief is to convince the target
audience that a current and urgent problem exists which
requires them to take action. The context and importance of the
problem is both the introductory and first building block of the
brief. It should include: a clear statement of the problem, an
overview of the root causes of the problem, and a clear
statement of the policy implications of the problem which
clearly establishes the current importance and policy relevance
of the issue.
Review of Previous Research/Policy Effectiveness
The aim of this element is to detail shortcomings of the current
approach or options being implemented and therefore, illustrate
both the need for change and focus of where change needs to
occur. It should also detail the evidence about what will likely
work better. This section should include: an overview of the
policy option(s) in focus and the evidence illustrating why and
how the current approach is failing and why and how another
option is not failing.
Policy Recommendations

65. The aim of this section is to provide a detailed and convincing
proposal of how the failings of the current policy approach need
to change. This can be achieved by including: a breakdown of
the specific practical steps or measures that need to be
implemented. It could also be useful to emphasize the
importance of action.
Conclusion
This section should summarize briefly what the readers should
take away from your policy brief. This section should briefly
restate your thesis and summarize your main points. Any future
implications or additional insights may be added here.