"Person on the Street" Audioboo

A non-expert comments on my research on the criminology and religion dialogue. (This person prefers not to have his picture published here).

listen to ‘Criminology and Religion’ on Audioboo

Despite Little Emphasis, Faith-Based Programs in Prisons Continue to Grow

One example of a faith-based program:
Bible study group
(Image credit: Worldmag.com)

As of now, marginal research exists into the connection between faith-based programs and rehabilitation. However, more and more have correctional administrators been looking to faith-based programs to rehabilitate people in jail for various crimes. In Faith-Based Prison Programs by Melvina Sumter and Criminology and Religion: The Shape of anAuthentic Dialogue by Thomas O’Connor, Jeff Duncan, and Frank Quillard, they explain that even though no explicit conclusions can be drawn yet about the connection between religion and correctional rehabilitation, and only few studies have been conducted in this field and are said to be relatively weak, religious programs do have some effect.

Besides for there being little research, the studies that do exist have some issues, and make faith-based programs hard to measure. The studies have many sides to them and different researchers can interpret them differently. For the most part, the studies ignore random sampling, don’t take into account causality and statistical examinations, don’t control for enough religious factors, and don’t account for the many classifications of religion.

Even though there are limited and weak studies, faith-based programming may in fact help in rehabilitation to some degree.

As described in the Ohio Institute on Correctional Best Practices- Best PracticesTool-Kit: Faith-Based Programming, Reentry, and Recidivism:

“Research indicates that high levels of involvement in religious activities lead to…reductions in juvenile delinquency, and reductions in prison misconduct while incarcerated. However, there is little published research evaluating the effectiveness of faith-based organizations, programs or initiatives.”

Still, what existing studies have done is they have helped us learn more about how religion has impacted prisoners. As Sumter explains, besides for lessening criminal behavior, the role of religion is to also deter what could eventually be a greater decline in the humanity of the prisoners. Furthermore, it helps them deal with the deprivation challenges that exist in the prison setting (i.e. family, overall autonomy, etc.). The prisoners want to feel safe and have some way of connecting with outsiders. 

One big benefit to these religious programs is that they are relatively cheap.

Brendan D. Dooley, Professor in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program at the University of Maryland, discusses this:



Records from 2005 give one good example of this: O'Connor discusses how the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) paid just about $230 for each individual frequently partaking in those religious services that year. The ODOC managed to keep it at this low cost by bringing in fewer people on staff, so that they’d only have 22 chaplains, as well as 7 volunteers/other staff to help the chaplains. 

 

Taking into account the various types of programming, religious programs account for some of the most in our prison system.

Nearly all U.S. prisons have chaplains who support prisoners in practicing their religion. O'Connor describes that there are also people who volunteer and help the chaplains in the prison, giving about 250,000 hours of their time every year. There are traditional religious services in the prison, as well as direct services offered. Services for a large variety of religions are offered, from Jewish to Protestant to Catholic to more. Because these religious volunteers are said to be particularly well off in terms of work, education, religion, etc., the prisoners may also learn to be successful by working together with these staff members. This could help prevent relapses into crime.  

Besides for traditional religious services, more immersive/in-depth programs are now being emphasized as well, such as biblical teaching groups (or one-on-one learning) and support groups. Various staff, just as in traditional services, guide these more complete religious programs. However, the difference is that the more in-depth programs have a more specific goal to help lessen recidivism.

One example of a more immersive program is the Life Connections Program (LCP).

Sumter explains that the LCP is “an 18-month, residential faith-based program established by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 2002.” It’s a program known for attracting prisoners from a whole variety of faiths. People more likely to partake in the LCP are those who are still trying to discover their faith and path in religion, rather than those who already have established, set-in-stone religious beliefs. It’s also known to attract people who attend religious services more often and have a high desire to change the way their living. LCP’s goal is to help people get back into their community.

Overall, faith-based programs are somewhat effective.

As Dooley says, “ Most of the evidence suggests that they are marginally effective. So what that means is there is a slight indication that is has a consistent impact, but it’s not really that pronounced. It’s not enormous benefit, but it is a bit of a benefit.”

Here's what one individual, who's not as familiar with the role of faith-based programs in prisons, has to say about the subject:

listen to ‘Criminology and Religion’ on Audioboo

Why I Chose My Research Project Topic

Good Ways to Stay Connected: iPhone and Blogging

Both videos discuss communication benefits (the top video discusses this in terms of the iPhone and the bottom one discusses this in terms of blogging).

Understanding the Benefits of Technology

The first interview is about why this person would find having an iPad beneficial in terms of the entertainment that the device would bring. The second interview is about why a different individual views a course that blends class meetings with technology as very useful/very advantageous in terms of more visualization of the information and combining different multimedia.

listen to ‘Practice Audioboo1- iPad’ on Audioboo

listen to ‘Practice Question 2- Blending class meetings with technology’ on Audioboo

Understanding the Violence in Libya Through Two Lenses, One of Objectivity and One of Bias

The violence in Bani Walid is more clearly understood through a U.S. news organization than through an Arab organization, because the former is more impartial and the information it’s relaying is not occurring in its area.

In reading about the violence in Libya, in Bani Walid (which had been Moammar Gadhafi’s stronghold), there are more differences than similarities when comparing this international news item discussed in a FOX News article (titled: Fighting flares anew in western Libyan stronghold of Gadhafi regime backers) [Source: click 'here'], versus how its discussed in an Al Arabiya News article (titled: U.N. chief ‘alarmed’ by Libya fighting, calls on Libyans to resolve Bani Walid standoff peacefully) [source: click 'here']. From these two articles, I trust the U.S. news organization (FOX) more, as it looks at it from an outside, unbiased perspective, whereas the latter organization (Al Arabiya News), which is called “the leading news channel in the Arab world” (Source: click 'here'), looks at it more from the perspective of preserving the old way of power in Libya under Gadhafi; the region is so heavily in need of a more structured leadership at this time, that their feelings are reflected in the news of their region.

Al Arabiya logo (Source- click 'here')

The basic information presented in both articles (FOX News and Al Arabiya News) is still similar in some ways. from who is involved in the conflict to the struggling new regime in Libya.

Both articles begin by describing how there is fighting in Bani Walid, and describe how its occurring as the new government is having a hard time building up its authority. With the end of Gadhafi’s regime has come conflict between those who have been pro-Gadhafi and preserving his stronghold and those who are anti-Gadhafi and want to take it over.

Although there are some similarities between the two articles, there are more differences. The FOX News article looks at the issue more from both sides of those who are fighting (the defenders of the stronghold for Gadhafi versus those pro-government, those against him trying to take over the stronghold). The Al Arabiya News article, however, looks at it primarily from the perspective of the pro-government militias as the ones who are the “troublemakers” and are causing all the problems.

Fox News states the issue, looking at it from an outside perspective, and describes how peace should be something that happens, but is going to be hard to achieve with a new government being constructed. Al Arabiya News looks at it more from the Arab perspective, old-regime perspective, that the whole international community is keeping its eyes out and peace must be happen as quickly as possible. While Fox portrays both sides as contributing to the conflict in Bani Walid, Al Arabiya places all its focus on the problems the pro-government is causing and the protestors speaking up as a result.

These differences between the two articles are extended by describing how some things are mentioned are mentioned in one article, but are not included in the other, from emphasis on the anniversary of Libya’s liberation, to emphasis on the protestors breaking into the parliament of Libya.

The Fox News article stresses how this clash is occurring at the same time that some people are celebrating Libya’s liberation from Gadhafi.  From fireworks to other festivities, it is bizarre to have this happening at the same time of this clash in Bani Walid. How can peace be made when those pro-Gadhafi and anti-Gadhafi are going to be fighting it out? As Fox as emphasizes, the whole reason the government moved forward to take control of Bani Walid was because someone who was anti-Gadhafi was killed. There’ve been reports that the Bani Walid fighters have been firing at those pro-government and using civilians as shields in order to prevent those pro-government from advancing. The Al Arabiya article, however, doesn’t mention how this clash between the two sides is occurring at the same time celebration is occurring. Furthermore, unlike the FOX News article brings up, it also doesn’t talk about the medical problems resulting in the region (hospital not functioning, doctors running away, no supplies to take care of people, etc.). Al Arabiya also doesn’t mention the exact reasoning behind the government’s decision to advance into that territory. Unlike the Fox News article, however, Al Arabiya DOES mention and actually heavily focuses on those protestors stressing that violence end immediately. It repeatedly brings up the protestors throughout the article. It also puts a lot of the blame on the pro-government militias as the primary ones stirring up trouble in the area and killing and wounding all those people.

It is clear that more differences than similarities exist between the two news sources who have covered this same story. FOX seems to take a more impartial approach in this case, while Al Arabiya takes a more one-sided approach (siding with the old-regime and wanting to blame it all on the militias).  It is interesting to compare the two articles and see how two people may understand the same topic of news from two totally different perspectives.

A Growing Problem in Technology Access: The Participation Gap with Cell Phones

The issue lies in unequal access and involvement from among those who own cell phones .

In recently reading Kevin Guidry’s piece Digital Divide or Participation Gap? Will Mobile Affect it?, and in reading Aaron Smith and Maeve Duggan’s Pew Internet article The State of the 2012 Election — Mobile Politics, I believe the problem with technology lies not in America’s digital divide, but rather in the participation gap. In the Mobile Politics article, it was found in September that the majority of registered voters (88%) have cell phones. However, these people may own different types of cellphones (i.e. flip phones vs. smartphones) and have different capabilities with their phones, allowing them to get involved in some ways with the election, but not in other ways. With recent mobile trends, as shown in terms of the election, it appears that this participation gap will only widen.

(Image Source: click 'here')

The digital divide is about comparing those who do and don’t have access to technology altogether; the participation gap is about HOW MUCH access and involvement.

To clarify, the digital divide refers to the gap between those who are able to access sources of technology (like computers and the Internet and mobile devices) and those who are not able to access those sources altogether. The participation gap refers to the split between people in terms of the different experiences/uses people have had with technology by way of less or more access. Just as Guidry described in his piece, according to Henry Jenkins, Professor at MIT, “the digital divide mostly referred to the gap in access to technology in American schools and libraries[,] the goal [being] to provide every student access to networked computing. The participation gap takes it to the next level.” (Source: click 'here') So, the issue comes up when students can only access a computer from school or a library, or they are limited in time from how long they can work on the computer, or they can’t save any material they want to store for later use; this then affects how much skills the students achieve. In this context, however, the participation gap refers to the divide between those who can do more with their cell phones regarding this year’s election and those who only have limited capabilities.

There now appears to be a participation gap with cell phones, involving those who have the more ADVANCED cell phones (i.e. smartphones) and those who have the skills to be more politically active via their phones. Less advanced ways to follow the election (i.e. texting instead of social media) is also not as popular of an option.

Among those registered voters who have cell phones of any sort (88%), about half of those people (48%) have a more advanced type of phone, also known as the smartphone. This allows these cell phone owners to gain more technological skills by being exposed to more items available to the user (such as apps, social networking, Internet access, etc.). They can then get more comfortable with the their phones and have more options with how to follow and get involved with the election.  Furthermore, as understood in the Mobile Politics article and supported by CNN, from among all cell phone owners, “texting doesn't appear to be hugely popular in relation to this year's election. This year, fewer than one in five mobile-enabled voters have sent campaign-related text messages to people they know, and only 5% had subscribed to receive text messages directly from a candidate or other group involved in the election.” (Source: click 'here') So this means, that the more “simple” way to follow the election (i.e. texting rather than getting involved with social media) is not so popular of an option. In comparison, from among those half of cell-phone-owning registered voters who own smartphones (48% out of 88%), 45% have utilized social networking to read comments about the campaigns. People seem to prefer using social media if they have the option. They also are more connected to the outside world through this access to social media.

In reflecting on the next 3-5 years, mobile trends, as seen in the Mobile Politics article on ELMS, seem to be relaying the message that the participation gap will grow.

Those who are the younger generation are more up to par with current technologies, especially if they have attended college; this younger generation is learning about all the advances in society today and the need to focus on technological innovation. They are also probably more concerned about how the job market will turn out for them. Those who are 50 or over (as the Mobile Politics article explains on pg. 5) do not have as high a likelihood of following the election via their phones.  

Overall, most people seem to have access to a cell phone in America; that is not the issue. The issue the level to which people will be able to utilize their cell phones and what exactly they can do with them. Some people still have flip phones and can simply make phone calls and/or text. Others have access to all the benefits that advanced technology (in this case, cell phones) have, such as being able to utilize email, Internet, and social media at any time of the day, as well as access to various apps. The degree to which people can make use of technology will affect their every day lives, now and in the future, from learning computer skills, to communications skills and more. Everyone should have equal opportunity to benefit from the same access and technology utilization. We will need as much of these skills and experiences as we can get in the future, for our job market, economy, foreign relations, and more.

Does Facebook Reveal the “Real” You?

As one of the most popular social networking websites, Facebook has become its own little world, turning more of people’s everyday lives from the physical/real world to this virtual world. You become your own character on Facebook by setting up a profile page, and this whole page is what makes up your virtual being, from uploading a profile picture of yourself, to writing a description of yourself, portraying your personality through your favorite hobbies, quotes, and more, and listing your family members. Your page is where it all begins, but then you reach out to others and connect with family and friends (whether old or new), share photos from your “real” (outside/physical world) life, and chat and write messages on others people’s pages.

Thus, with more and more of people’s day-to-day life turning to Facebook (and other social networking sites), is that enough to examine and judge a person’s character? Is a person in the “real” world that same person he creates on a social networking site, like Facebook? When a person connects with 1000 friends, is he really “friends” with all 1000 of those people? When an employer searches his prospective employee on Facebook and comes across that person’s page, can he evaluate that person’s true character from his page? Will there be items the employer can learn about him from this page that he couldn’t learn from meeting him in person? These are some questions we need to be asking.

Currently, I have 567 friends on Facebook, and I know that I am not friends with all of them. My rule is as long as I know of the person or am just friendly with them, that is enough for me to connect with them on Facebook. I would say that out of these 567 “friends” on Facebook, I am in touch with about 20 of them regularly (whether that be through face-to-face interactions, through phone calls, or texting). And remember, these 20 include people that I’m really close to, as well as people that I’m just friendly with. I would also say that there are about another 15 to 20 that I occasionally contact or that contact me. The rest are old contacts from school and/or other people I don’t talk to much. A sociologist at Cornell University, Matthew Brashears, stated, “We may ‘friend’ more people on Facebook, but we have fewer real friends -- the kind who would help us out in tough times, listen sympathetically no matter what.” (Source: Click 'here')

Our friend list may not give us a full picture of who our true friends are, but employers may find out other details from our page they may find useful. I think this is a good way to determine some characteristics about a prospective employee (that you would’ve otherwise not have found out about, just from meeting them in person or talking to them over the phone). The following graphic is some guidelines for how an employer would examine your page and rate you according to what they see and learn about you.

Graphic taken from: 'Here'

Facebook can give employers opportunity to see what our true nature is like and would be like if we were to get the job.“Our profiles on Facebook, Pinterest, Google+, Twitter…reflect our likes, dislikes, personalities, and best photo angles, and are likely more useful to employers in seeing what we might be like to work with than a short interview.” (Source: Click 'here') Looking at one of my friends’ Facebook pages, if I were to pretend that I’m a perspective employer, I would probably not hire him.

Here are some of the reasons why:

1)    He writes too many inappropriate statues, using lots of curse words and other dirty words. Employers might question if this is the type of character they want to bring into their workplace. Will it bring a bad aura to the workplace and detract from people’s discipline and focus with their work?

2)    He complains too much about all his tasks on his plate and how he can’t handle everything (i.e. time management issues). Employers want to be able to have faith in you that you can get the job done.

3)    He posts too many party pictures, with pictures of people drinking and such. Employers probably don’t want to see the party-animal side to you. They want to see someone serious, tame, etc.

So, yes, while Facebook does say a lot about the true nature of a person (as seen from employers searching a prospective employee up on Facebook), there are certain things that Facebook does not reveal (like who your “true friends” are). Facebook only provides part of the picture of who you are, but to get the full picture, you will need a combination of both this virtual world, the social media aspect, in addition to the real world aspect, meeting the person face-to-face.