“I See You Have Been Convicted Of A Felony; Can You Tell Me About That?” Workforce Development Challenges for Restorative Citizens Seeking Employment

Incarceration has been an issue nationwide in the United States for decades due to policies from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that lead to mass increases in incarceration. In the past decade, several states have overhauled their criminal sentencing and prison structure to lower prison populations. This has resulted in the release of thousands of restorative citizens and has expanded the need for reentry services. Released individuals who have been incarcerated face a number of social, political, and economic barriers that prevent them from re-entering society successfully. The inability to obtain employment is often cited as one of the most important factors that contributes to recidivism, which also has negative implications for the general public. This paper examines the barriers that restorative citizens and the social workers who assist them face in helping them find suitable and sustainable employment. The author also highlights workforce instructional methods utilized in the H.I.R.E. program that have been effective in assisting restored citizens in landing job interviews and securing employment. Finally, the author also explores solutions for collaboration across criminal justice and non-profit agencies for the purposes of increasing employment opportunities for restored citizens returning back to the community

Citizen Perceptions of Institutional Disparities and the Reintegration of Nonviolent Drug Related Offenders

In 2017, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate in the nation with 1,420 of every 100,000 adult males being placed in a state or local penitentiary. To address this issue, a series of criminal justice reforms were passed within the Louisiana legislature that released thousands of former offenders back into the community. The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the attitudes, thoughts, and opinions of citizens in a single Louisiana city regarding ex-offender re-integration and disparities within the criminal justice system. March and Olsen\u27s Rational Choice Institutionalism was used to explain how environment impacts individual perception and choices at the community and political level with policy implications. Data were obtained through interviews with 22 citizens from the selected city. Data were coded using a deductive iterative coding process, then subjected to thematic analysis. The findings indicated that the construction of perceptions on disparities within the criminal justice system and ex-offender reintegration was primarily formed through volunteerism, personal experiences, observations, conversations with others, exposure to different cultures, mass media, and family upbringing. Several factors were involved in residents formulating perceptions on the criminal justice system and ex-offender reintegration. These factors are embedded in the structures of mass media, community, political, educational, social, and economic systems. The results of this study may impact social change by informing policymakers about the necessity to construct policies focused on acknowledging and addressing current structural and systemic criminal justice policies that are respectful of the experiences and needs of restored citizens as well as citizens from all communities

CSB Class of 2018 Commencement Celebration

May 12, 2018 One Hundred and Third Year HCC Fieldhouse College of Saint Benedict Beth Dinndorf was the guest speaker and Maranna Gunnerson was the student speaker

SJU Class of 2018 Commencement Celebration

May 13, 2018 One hundred and sixty-first year Abbey & University Church Saint John\u27s University Denis McDonough was the guest speaker and Steven Bezdichek Pfahning was the student speaker

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used