Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (3)**
– ## week7.docx
– ## Stage2GoalsandObjectives1.docx
– Stage6rubric.pdf
**## week7.docx**
561 300-400 words
**Law Enforcement’s Role in Addressing Violence in Schools**
In 2018, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, became one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, with 17 lives lost and many more injured. The tragedy highlighted critical gaps in school safety protocols, law enforcement response, and mental health support. The shooter, a former student with a history of disciplinary issues and mental health concerns, exhibited numerous warning signs that were reported to authorities but did not result in adequate intervention. Law enforcement faced criticism for their delayed response during the shooting and for missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.
**Initial post:**
Based on this incident, in your initial post, please address the following:
1. Based on law enforcement’s role in crisis intervention, what proactive measures could have been implemented to address the warning signs exhibited by the shooter before the tragedy occurred?
2. In the context of school violence, how can law enforcement balance immediate response tactics with long-term strategies for preventing similar incidents?
3. Considering the criticism of law enforcement’s response in this case, what specific changes in training, communication, or policies would you recommend improving crisis intervention in schools and workplaces?
Research assignment
**Law Enforcement Crisis Intervention: A Policy Analysis of the 2021 San Jose VTA Shooting**
On May 26, 2021, an employee of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, California, opened fire at a light rail yard, killing nine coworkers before taking his own life. This high-profile workplace violence incident exposed significant challenges in law enforcement crisis response, including rapid tactical intervention, survivor support, and trauma-informed care for the broader community. It also highlighted the need for workplace policies to detect warning signs and mitigate risks of violence.
[This article](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting) provides further background and context with respect to the case.
You are to write a 1000-1200-word policy analysis and advocacy paper based on the San Jose VTA shooting case. The paper should address the following prompts:
· Incident Analysis
· Law Enforcement Response Evaluation
· Trauma-Informed Practices
· Prevention and Policy Recommendations
· Advocacy for Reform
· Conclusion
The policy analysis must be written in proper APA format with proper in-text citations and references.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting)
524 d1 200 words
In Chapter 7 of Reddington and Bonham text, the author discusses the death penalty, including the objectives of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution as well as the concerns about the cost of implementation. Does it meet these objectives? Do you agree with the author about the focus on wrongful convictions? Do you agree with the author’s assessment of the decline in the use of the death penalty?
Research whether your state currently uses the death penalty. If yes, research and discuss trends in convictions and executions in your state. If not, discuss whether or not the death penalty has been considered as a possible punishment. Why or why not?
Consider your classmates’ discussions of the various objectives and their assessment on the effectiveness of the death penalty. Where are your areas of agreement or disagreement? Why?
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376
524 d2 200 words
Consider the discussion of solitary confinement in Chapter 6 of Reddington and Bonham text. Also consider the author’s discussion of the use of neuroscience in the study of prisoner solitary confinement in the article, Law & Neuroscience:
[The Case of Solitary Confinement](https://www.amacad.org/publication/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement), reporting on a study conducted by Michael Zigmond and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh. Consider the challenges in the use of neuroscience in this context discussed in the article. Do you agree with the authors in terms of whether science should play a role? What solutions do you suggest for dealing with this prisoner population? Do independent research of correctional alternatives for solitary confinement and share any programs that you feel may be more effective than solitary confinement. While you are required to choose to discuss either the chapter or article, you may discuss both.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Stage 6
During Stage 6, you will develop a plan to obtain data to help determine whether your new criminal justice policy or program is successful. You will measure whether your program or policy has achieved the goals and objectives that you outlined in Stage 2. You will use the Stage 6 checklist on page 258-259 of the text as a guideline.
In
**Section A**, decide which type of evaluation approach best fits your policy or program, and state why. Discuss and consider impact evaluation, performance evaluation, or efficiency evaluation. It is important to explain why you chose this approach and explain why this approach will satisfy each of your stakeholders.
In
**Section B**, determine whether the three prerequisites for evaluation have been met. It is important to detail how each has been met. Do not just answer the question as “yes” or “no.”
In
**Section C**, you will develop outcome measures based on your objectives identified in Stage 2. Restate each objective and, for each, explain exactly how you will measure whether the objectives that you identified are being achieved and whether your policy or program is achieving the desired effect. Be specific.
In
**Sections D and E**, you will identify potential confounding factors, and you will consider and determine techniques for minimizing confounding effects. Your potential confounds are biased attrition, biased selection, and historical confounds. Which are present, and which technique for minimizing these effects would be most useful to your program or policy? Be specific.
In
**Section F**, you will specify the appropriate research design to be used. Be sure to explain why your choice is preferable.
Finally, in
**Section G**, you will identify the users and uses of your evaluation results. Review the stakeholders you identified in Stage 1. Who will be responsible for communicating the results of your evaluation? How will the results be used?
**## Stage2GoalsandObjectives1.docx**
1
5
**Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Stage 2: Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Goals**
The overall vision of the Mental Health Crisis Response Team (MHCRT) program is to better how the criminal justice system addresses mental health crises by utilizing a collaborative, treatment-based response that focuses on de-escalation, diversion and access to care indicators (Theuer et al., 2026). Criminal justice wise, the aim portrays significant normative values of justice, fairness, rehabilitation and the safety of the population. Conventional solutions to emergencies of mental health have been characterized by control and punishment by way of arrest or incarceration. Nevertheless, these methods do not solve the problem of making the underlies of behavior and often lead to repetitive involvement of the system. The MHCRT model does not just relegate the focus to rehabilitation and prevention of such cases by making sure that such individuals get the right mental care instead of spending time in jail.
**Objectives**
In order to attain the above stated goal, there are a number of specific and measurable objectives that have been set. All goals have time and population specifications, desired outcome, and measurable standard to hold themselves accountable and consistent with evidence-based policy practices (Jr., 2019).
**Objective 1**: In 12 months, 80% of the frontline police officers within the target jurisdiction will accomplish MHCRT training, which will lead to enhancement of crisis response competency using training completion records as the independent variable and post-training assessment scores greater than 75 as the dependent variable. This would provide the officers with knowledge and skills they require to effectively address the mental health crises.
**Objective 2**: By 18 months, the number of persons who have mental health crises will have seen a decline in arrest rates by 25 percent through comparative analysis of the rates of arrests, which will compared to his/her arrests prior to the implementation of MHCRT. This goal will directly solve the issue of criminalization of the unnecessary.
**Objective 3**: In 18 months, the change in the goal will be that MHCRT response teams will decrease use-of-force instances by 30-percent within mental health-related calls, using departmental use-of-force reports as a measure. The aim of this objective is ensuring better safety results to officers and people in crisis.
**Objective 4**: Within 12 months, the people receiving care through MHCRT teams will show that they have significantly increased their referral to mental health services by 40 percent based on referral tracking systems and records of the service providers. By achieving this, people are guaranteed to be linked to the relevant care instead of going through the cycle of the justice system.
**Objective 5:** In 24 months, the communities in the jurisdiction will record a 20 percent increment in the confidence of law enforcement during mental health crises, according to data of community surveys. This goal covers the issue of a public perception and legitimacy.
These objectives were formulated by determining the most important areas of action required to reach the general goal such as in the better training of officers, punitive responses, facilitating access to treatment and the enhanced community relationships (Theuer et al., 2026).
**Participation**
The MHCRT program requires the interaction of various stakeholders working together under the different systems to be effectively developed and implemented (Theuer et al., 2026). The organizations that are at the center of the program are the law enforcement agencies because they will receive the MHCRT model, deploy the officers to specific tasks, and make sure that the individuals will obtain the necessary training. Mental practitioners, including licensed clinicians and social workers, will collaborate with officers to offer on-site assessments, de-escalation as well as crisis interventions. Their knowledge is very necessary in the provision of the proper course of treatment.
Mental clinics and hospitals will be among the most important partners as they will get referrals and offer both short and long-term care. The program will be facilitated by community organizations and advocacy groups providing more resources, increasing awareness, and lobbying on behalf of the victims of mental illness. Policymakers will handle funding, setting of policies and accountability.
These will be these participants will be incorporated by way of formal partnerships, interagency agreements, joint training and coordinated communication systems. Franchise meetings, common information systems and well-defined roles will facilitate cooperation and minimize fragmentation (Liu & Patrick, 2025). The transparency and trust will be established also through community participation programs, like public forums and outreach programs.
**Compatible/Incompatible Goals**
The program helps to eliminate repeat experience with police and leads to safer neighborhoods by preventing cases of future mental health crisis and treating these cases. Besides, the MHCRT program bolsters the aim of enhancing system efficiency. The diversion of people outside of the criminal justice system saves people the heartache of queuing to courts, jails, and prisons and makes their resources to be utilized more beneficially. This follows general policy objectives of cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the system.
Nevertheless, the provision of treatment and its unlike criminal justice objectives that have focused on punishment, deterrence and hard enforcement may be seen to be incompatible with treatment-based approach (Welsh & Harris, 2016). A diversion program can be seen by some stakeholders as disregard to accountability or being lenient. Such attitudes may result in an opposition to change, especially in agencies that are not used to the new methods of enforcing laws.
The police might be focused on preventing and power, whereas mental workers are focused on treatment and recovery (Welsh & Harris, 2016). The community members tend to appreciate the safety and even equity whereas policymakers need to consider more effectiveness, cost and opinion of the people. In the light of these differences, however, there is much overlap in the common purpose of enhancing outcomes and harm reduction.
**Collaboration**
Each of the MHCRT program mandates close coordination between the major agencies in order to realize its objectives. The initial partners include law enforcement and mental professions who collaborate each other to offer immediate crisis response, de-escalation, and clinical assessment. It has to be supported by police departments (training and implementation) and informed by clinicians. Also, policymakers and the local government are required to raise funds and coming up with policies, and advocacy groups help increase the trust and accountability of the people. Formal agreements, joint trainings, and shared communication systems will be used to create collaboration that will ensure the proper coordination of activities of the program.
**Impact Model**
MHCRT program will help fill the gap in coordination of mental health services by bringing a unified response of the police and clinicians to the crisis point (Oblath et al., 2025). Through this intervention, the results of arrest and imprisonment are redirected to de-escalation and referral to treatment. This model is suitable as it works at the initial level of the problem, which is the initial police contact, and the decision has a significant impact on it. The program misses needless arrests and force usage and enhances access to care by incorporating mental health proficiency. It has a long-term and immediate effect, such as the ability to solve crises more effectively, the lack of strain caused by these issues in the system, and better attitude to the community.
**References**
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Liu, T., & Patrick. (2025). Towards an Enhanced Business Case Development for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects: A Comparative Study of China and New Zealand.
_Buildings_,
_15_(7), 1154–1154.
[https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154](https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154)
Oblath, R., Beaugard, C. A., Herrera, C.-N., Xu, C., Syed, S., Sadatis, C., Duncan, A., Gann, G., Plange, E., Ferguson, T., Khan, S., Katkhuda, F., Henderson, D. C., Savage, J., & Morabito, M. S. (2025). Bridging crisis and care: exploring the role of behavioral health professionals in a police co-response model.
_Health & Justice_,
_13_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1)
Theuer, A., Wilson, M. G., Abelson, J., & Eisler, L. (2026). Responding to people in crisis: a policy analysis of the Hamilton Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) model.
_Advances in Mental Health_, 1–17.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892](https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892)
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550)
**Stage6rubric.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/stage6rubric-pdf)
**Stage6rubric.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/stage6rubric-pdf)
**## week7.docx**
561 300-400 words
**Law Enforcement’s Role in Addressing Violence in Schools**
In 2018, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, became one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, with 17 lives lost and many more injured. The tragedy highlighted critical gaps in school safety protocols, law enforcement response, and mental health support. The shooter, a former student with a history of disciplinary issues and mental health concerns, exhibited numerous warning signs that were reported to authorities but did not result in adequate intervention. Law enforcement faced criticism for their delayed response during the shooting and for missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.
**Initial post:**
Based on this incident, in your initial post, please address the following:
1. Based on law enforcement’s role in crisis intervention, what proactive measures could have been implemented to address the warning signs exhibited by the shooter before the tragedy occurred?
2. In the context of school violence, how can law enforcement balance immediate response tactics with long-term strategies for preventing similar incidents?
3. Considering the criticism of law enforcement’s response in this case, what specific changes in training, communication, or policies would you recommend improving crisis intervention in schools and workplaces?
Research assignment
**Law Enforcement Crisis Intervention: A Policy Analysis of the 2021 San Jose VTA Shooting**
On May 26, 2021, an employee of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, California, opened fire at a light rail yard, killing nine coworkers before taking his own life. This high-profile workplace violence incident exposed significant challenges in law enforcement crisis response, including rapid tactical intervention, survivor support, and trauma-informed care for the broader community. It also highlighted the need for workplace policies to detect warning signs and mitigate risks of violence.
[This article](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting) provides further background and context with respect to the case.
You are to write a 1000-1200-word policy analysis and advocacy paper based on the San Jose VTA shooting case. The paper should address the following prompts:
· Incident Analysis
· Law Enforcement Response Evaluation
· Trauma-Informed Practices
· Prevention and Policy Recommendations
· Advocacy for Reform
· Conclusion
The policy analysis must be written in proper APA format with proper in-text citations and references.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting)
524 d1 200 words
In Chapter 7 of Reddington and Bonham text, the author discusses the death penalty, including the objectives of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution as well as the concerns about the cost of implementation. Does it meet these objectives? Do you agree with the author about the focus on wrongful convictions? Do you agree with the author’s assessment of the decline in the use of the death penalty?
Research whether your state currently uses the death penalty. If yes, research and discuss trends in convictions and executions in your state. If not, discuss whether or not the death penalty has been considered as a possible punishment. Why or why not?
Consider your classmates’ discussions of the various objectives and their assessment on the effectiveness of the death penalty. Where are your areas of agreement or disagreement? Why?
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376
524 d2 200 words
Consider the discussion of solitary confinement in Chapter 6 of Reddington and Bonham text. Also consider the author’s discussion of the use of neuroscience in the study of prisoner solitary confinement in the article, Law & Neuroscience:
[The Case of Solitary Confinement](https://www.amacad.org/publication/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement), reporting on a study conducted by Michael Zigmond and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh. Consider the challenges in the use of neuroscience in this context discussed in the article. Do you agree with the authors in terms of whether science should play a role? What solutions do you suggest for dealing with this prisoner population? Do independent research of correctional alternatives for solitary confinement and share any programs that you feel may be more effective than solitary confinement. While you are required to choose to discuss either the chapter or article, you may discuss both.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Stage 6
During Stage 6, you will develop a plan to obtain data to help determine whether your new criminal justice policy or program is successful. You will measure whether your program or policy has achieved the goals and objectives that you outlined in Stage 2. You will use the Stage 6 checklist on page 258-259 of the text as a guideline.
In
**Section A**, decide which type of evaluation approach best fits your policy or program, and state why. Discuss and consider impact evaluation, performance evaluation, or efficiency evaluation. It is important to explain why you chose this approach and explain why this approach will satisfy each of your stakeholders.
In
**Section B**, determine whether the three prerequisites for evaluation have been met. It is important to detail how each has been met. Do not just answer the question as “yes” or “no.”
In
**Section C**, you will develop outcome measures based on your objectives identified in Stage 2. Restate each objective and, for each, explain exactly how you will measure whether the objectives that you identified are being achieved and whether your policy or program is achieving the desired effect. Be specific.
In
**Sections D and E**, you will identify potential confounding factors, and you will consider and determine techniques for minimizing confounding effects. Your potential confounds are biased attrition, biased selection, and historical confounds. Which are present, and which technique for minimizing these effects would be most useful to your program or policy? Be specific.
In
**Section F**, you will specify the appropriate research design to be used. Be sure to explain why your choice is preferable.
Finally, in
**Section G**, you will identify the users and uses of your evaluation results. Review the stakeholders you identified in Stage 1. Who will be responsible for communicating the results of your evaluation? How will the results be used?
**## Stage2GoalsandObjectives1.docx**
1
5
**Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Stage 2: Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Goals**
The overall vision of the Mental Health Crisis Response Team (MHCRT) program is to better how the criminal justice system addresses mental health crises by utilizing a collaborative, treatment-based response that focuses on de-escalation, diversion and access to care indicators (Theuer et al., 2026). Criminal justice wise, the aim portrays significant normative values of justice, fairness, rehabilitation and the safety of the population. Conventional solutions to emergencies of mental health have been characterized by control and punishment by way of arrest or incarceration. Nevertheless, these methods do not solve the problem of making the underlies of behavior and often lead to repetitive involvement of the system. The MHCRT model does not just relegate the focus to rehabilitation and prevention of such cases by making sure that such individuals get the right mental care instead of spending time in jail.
**Objectives**
In order to attain the above stated goal, there are a number of specific and measurable objectives that have been set. All goals have time and population specifications, desired outcome, and measurable standard to hold themselves accountable and consistent with evidence-based policy practices (Jr., 2019).
**Objective 1**: In 12 months, 80% of the frontline police officers within the target jurisdiction will accomplish MHCRT training, which will lead to enhancement of crisis response competency using training completion records as the independent variable and post-training assessment scores greater than 75 as the dependent variable. This would provide the officers with knowledge and skills they require to effectively address the mental health crises.
**Objective 2**: By 18 months, the number of persons who have mental health crises will have seen a decline in arrest rates by 25 percent through comparative analysis of the rates of arrests, which will compared to his/her arrests prior to the implementation of MHCRT. This goal will directly solve the issue of criminalization of the unnecessary.
**Objective 3**: In 18 months, the change in the goal will be that MHCRT response teams will decrease use-of-force instances by 30-percent within mental health-related calls, using departmental use-of-force reports as a measure. The aim of this objective is ensuring better safety results to officers and people in crisis.
**Objective 4**: Within 12 months, the people receiving care through MHCRT teams will show that they have significantly increased their referral to mental health services by 40 percent based on referral tracking systems and records of the service providers. By achieving this, people are guaranteed to be linked to the relevant care instead of going through the cycle of the justice system.
**Objective 5:** In 24 months, the communities in the jurisdiction will record a 20 percent increment in the confidence of law enforcement during mental health crises, according to data of community surveys. This goal covers the issue of a public perception and legitimacy.
These objectives were formulated by determining the most important areas of action required to reach the general goal such as in the better training of officers, punitive responses, facilitating access to treatment and the enhanced community relationships (Theuer et al., 2026).
**Participation**
The MHCRT program requires the interaction of various stakeholders working together under the different systems to be effectively developed and implemented (Theuer et al., 2026). The organizations that are at the center of the program are the law enforcement agencies because they will receive the MHCRT model, deploy the officers to specific tasks, and make sure that the individuals will obtain the necessary training. Mental practitioners, including licensed clinicians and social workers, will collaborate with officers to offer on-site assessments, de-escalation as well as crisis interventions. Their knowledge is very necessary in the provision of the proper course of treatment.
Mental clinics and hospitals will be among the most important partners as they will get referrals and offer both short and long-term care. The program will be facilitated by community organizations and advocacy groups providing more resources, increasing awareness, and lobbying on behalf of the victims of mental illness. Policymakers will handle funding, setting of policies and accountability.
These will be these participants will be incorporated by way of formal partnerships, interagency agreements, joint training and coordinated communication systems. Franchise meetings, common information systems and well-defined roles will facilitate cooperation and minimize fragmentation (Liu & Patrick, 2025). The transparency and trust will be established also through community participation programs, like public forums and outreach programs.
**Compatible/Incompatible Goals**
The program helps to eliminate repeat experience with police and leads to safer neighborhoods by preventing cases of future mental health crisis and treating these cases. Besides, the MHCRT program bolsters the aim of enhancing system efficiency. The diversion of people outside of the criminal justice system saves people the heartache of queuing to courts, jails, and prisons and makes their resources to be utilized more beneficially. This follows general policy objectives of cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the system.
Nevertheless, the provision of treatment and its unlike criminal justice objectives that have focused on punishment, deterrence and hard enforcement may be seen to be incompatible with treatment-based approach (Welsh & Harris, 2016). A diversion program can be seen by some stakeholders as disregard to accountability or being lenient. Such attitudes may result in an opposition to change, especially in agencies that are not used to the new methods of enforcing laws.
The police might be focused on preventing and power, whereas mental workers are focused on treatment and recovery (Welsh & Harris, 2016). The community members tend to appreciate the safety and even equity whereas policymakers need to consider more effectiveness, cost and opinion of the people. In the light of these differences, however, there is much overlap in the common purpose of enhancing outcomes and harm reduction.
**Collaboration**
Each of the MHCRT program mandates close coordination between the major agencies in order to realize its objectives. The initial partners include law enforcement and mental professions who collaborate each other to offer immediate crisis response, de-escalation, and clinical assessment. It has to be supported by police departments (training and implementation) and informed by clinicians. Also, policymakers and the local government are required to raise funds and coming up with policies, and advocacy groups help increase the trust and accountability of the people. Formal agreements, joint trainings, and shared communication systems will be used to create collaboration that will ensure the proper coordination of activities of the program.
**Impact Model**
MHCRT program will help fill the gap in coordination of mental health services by bringing a unified response of the police and clinicians to the crisis point (Oblath et al., 2025). Through this intervention, the results of arrest and imprisonment are redirected to de-escalation and referral to treatment. This model is suitable as it works at the initial level of the problem, which is the initial police contact, and the decision has a significant impact on it. The program misses needless arrests and force usage and enhances access to care by incorporating mental health proficiency. It has a long-term and immediate effect, such as the ability to solve crises more effectively, the lack of strain caused by these issues in the system, and better attitude to the community.
**References**
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Liu, T., & Patrick. (2025). Towards an Enhanced Business Case Development for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects: A Comparative Study of China and New Zealand.
_Buildings_,
_15_(7), 1154–1154.
[https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154](https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154)
Oblath, R., Beaugard, C. A., Herrera, C.-N., Xu, C., Syed, S., Sadatis, C., Duncan, A., Gann, G., Plange, E., Ferguson, T., Khan, S., Katkhuda, F., Henderson, D. C., Savage, J., & Morabito, M. S. (2025). Bridging crisis and care: exploring the role of behavioral health professionals in a police co-response model.
_Health & Justice_,
_13_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1)
Theuer, A., Wilson, M. G., Abelson, J., & Eisler, L. (2026). Responding to people in crisis: a policy analysis of the Hamilton Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) model.
_Advances in Mental Health_, 1–17.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892](https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892)
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550)
**Stage6rubric.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/stage6rubric-pdf)
**## week7.docx**
561 300-400 words
**Law Enforcement’s Role in Addressing Violence in Schools**
In 2018, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, became one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, with 17 lives lost and many more injured. The tragedy highlighted critical gaps in school safety protocols, law enforcement response, and mental health support. The shooter, a former student with a history of disciplinary issues and mental health concerns, exhibited numerous warning signs that were reported to authorities but did not result in adequate intervention. Law enforcement faced criticism for their delayed response during the shooting and for missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.
**Initial post:**
Based on this incident, in your initial post, please address the following:
1. Based on law enforcement’s role in crisis intervention, what proactive measures could have been implemented to address the warning signs exhibited by the shooter before the tragedy occurred?
2. In the context of school violence, how can law enforcement balance immediate response tactics with long-term strategies for preventing similar incidents?
3. Considering the criticism of law enforcement’s response in this case, what specific changes in training, communication, or policies would you recommend improving crisis intervention in schools and workplaces?
Research assignment
**Law Enforcement Crisis Intervention: A Policy Analysis of the 2021 San Jose VTA Shooting**
On May 26, 2021, an employee of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, California, opened fire at a light rail yard, killing nine coworkers before taking his own life. This high-profile workplace violence incident exposed significant challenges in law enforcement crisis response, including rapid tactical intervention, survivor support, and trauma-informed care for the broader community. It also highlighted the need for workplace policies to detect warning signs and mitigate risks of violence.
[This article](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting) provides further background and context with respect to the case.
You are to write a 1000-1200-word policy analysis and advocacy paper based on the San Jose VTA shooting case. The paper should address the following prompts:
· Incident Analysis
· Law Enforcement Response Evaluation
· Trauma-Informed Practices
· Prevention and Policy Recommendations
· Advocacy for Reform
· Conclusion
The policy analysis must be written in proper APA format with proper in-text citations and references.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/body-camera-footage-shows-officials-response-to-san-jose-mass-shooting)
524 d1 200 words
In Chapter 7 of Reddington and Bonham text, the author discusses the death penalty, including the objectives of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution as well as the concerns about the cost of implementation. Does it meet these objectives? Do you agree with the author about the focus on wrongful convictions? Do you agree with the author’s assessment of the decline in the use of the death penalty?
Research whether your state currently uses the death penalty. If yes, research and discuss trends in convictions and executions in your state. If not, discuss whether or not the death penalty has been considered as a possible punishment. Why or why not?
Consider your classmates’ discussions of the various objectives and their assessment on the effectiveness of the death penalty. Where are your areas of agreement or disagreement? Why?
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376
524 d2 200 words
Consider the discussion of solitary confinement in Chapter 6 of Reddington and Bonham text. Also consider the author’s discussion of the use of neuroscience in the study of prisoner solitary confinement in the article, Law & Neuroscience:
[The Case of Solitary Confinement](https://www.amacad.org/publication/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement), reporting on a study conducted by Michael Zigmond and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh. Consider the challenges in the use of neuroscience in this context discussed in the article. Do you agree with the authors in terms of whether science should play a role? What solutions do you suggest for dealing with this prisoner population? Do independent research of correctional alternatives for solitary confinement and share any programs that you feel may be more effective than solitary confinement. While you are required to choose to discuss either the chapter or article, you may discuss both.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/law-neuroscience-case-solitary-confinement
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Stage 6
During Stage 6, you will develop a plan to obtain data to help determine whether your new criminal justice policy or program is successful. You will measure whether your program or policy has achieved the goals and objectives that you outlined in Stage 2. You will use the Stage 6 checklist on page 258-259 of the text as a guideline.
In
**Section A**, decide which type of evaluation approach best fits your policy or program, and state why. Discuss and consider impact evaluation, performance evaluation, or efficiency evaluation. It is important to explain why you chose this approach and explain why this approach will satisfy each of your stakeholders.
In
**Section B**, determine whether the three prerequisites for evaluation have been met. It is important to detail how each has been met. Do not just answer the question as “yes” or “no.”
In
**Section C**, you will develop outcome measures based on your objectives identified in Stage 2. Restate each objective and, for each, explain exactly how you will measure whether the objectives that you identified are being achieved and whether your policy or program is achieving the desired effect. Be specific.
In
**Sections D and E**, you will identify potential confounding factors, and you will consider and determine techniques for minimizing confounding effects. Your potential confounds are biased attrition, biased selection, and historical confounds. Which are present, and which technique for minimizing these effects would be most useful to your program or policy? Be specific.
In
**Section F**, you will specify the appropriate research design to be used. Be sure to explain why your choice is preferable.
Finally, in
**Section G**, you will identify the users and uses of your evaluation results. Review the stakeholders you identified in Stage 1. Who will be responsible for communicating the results of your evaluation? How will the results be used?
**## Stage2GoalsandObjectives1.docx**
1
5
**Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Stage 2: Goals and Objectives-MHCRT Program**
**Goals**
The overall vision of the Mental Health Crisis Response Team (MHCRT) program is to better how the criminal justice system addresses mental health crises by utilizing a collaborative, treatment-based response that focuses on de-escalation, diversion and access to care indicators (Theuer et al., 2026). Criminal justice wise, the aim portrays significant normative values of justice, fairness, rehabilitation and the safety of the population. Conventional solutions to emergencies of mental health have been characterized by control and punishment by way of arrest or incarceration. Nevertheless, these methods do not solve the problem of making the underlies of behavior and often lead to repetitive involvement of the system. The MHCRT model does not just relegate the focus to rehabilitation and prevention of such cases by making sure that such individuals get the right mental care instead of spending time in jail.
**Objectives**
In order to attain the above stated goal, there are a number of specific and measurable objectives that have been set. All goals have time and population specifications, desired outcome, and measurable standard to hold themselves accountable and consistent with evidence-based policy practices (Jr., 2019).
**Objective 1**: In 12 months, 80% of the frontline police officers within the target jurisdiction will accomplish MHCRT training, which will lead to enhancement of crisis response competency using training completion records as the independent variable and post-training assessment scores greater than 75 as the dependent variable. This would provide the officers with knowledge and skills they require to effectively address the mental health crises.
**Objective 2**: By 18 months, the number of persons who have mental health crises will have seen a decline in arrest rates by 25 percent through comparative analysis of the rates of arrests, which will compared to his/her arrests prior to the implementation of MHCRT. This goal will directly solve the issue of criminalization of the unnecessary.
**Objective 3**: In 18 months, the change in the goal will be that MHCRT response teams will decrease use-of-force instances by 30-percent within mental health-related calls, using departmental use-of-force reports as a measure. The aim of this objective is ensuring better safety results to officers and people in crisis.
**Objective 4**: Within 12 months, the people receiving care through MHCRT teams will show that they have significantly increased their referral to mental health services by 40 percent based on referral tracking systems and records of the service providers. By achieving this, people are guaranteed to be linked to the relevant care instead of going through the cycle of the justice system.
**Objective 5:** In 24 months, the communities in the jurisdiction will record a 20 percent increment in the confidence of law enforcement during mental health crises, according to data of community surveys. This goal covers the issue of a public perception and legitimacy.
These objectives were formulated by determining the most important areas of action required to reach the general goal such as in the better training of officers, punitive responses, facilitating access to treatment and the enhanced community relationships (Theuer et al., 2026).
**Participation**
The MHCRT program requires the interaction of various stakeholders working together under the different systems to be effectively developed and implemented (Theuer et al., 2026). The organizations that are at the center of the program are the law enforcement agencies because they will receive the MHCRT model, deploy the officers to specific tasks, and make sure that the individuals will obtain the necessary training. Mental practitioners, including licensed clinicians and social workers, will collaborate with officers to offer on-site assessments, de-escalation as well as crisis interventions. Their knowledge is very necessary in the provision of the proper course of treatment.
Mental clinics and hospitals will be among the most important partners as they will get referrals and offer both short and long-term care. The program will be facilitated by community organizations and advocacy groups providing more resources, increasing awareness, and lobbying on behalf of the victims of mental illness. Policymakers will handle funding, setting of policies and accountability.
These will be these participants will be incorporated by way of formal partnerships, interagency agreements, joint training and coordinated communication systems. Franchise meetings, common information systems and well-defined roles will facilitate cooperation and minimize fragmentation (Liu & Patrick, 2025). The transparency and trust will be established also through community participation programs, like public forums and outreach programs.
**Compatible/Incompatible Goals**
The program helps to eliminate repeat experience with police and leads to safer neighborhoods by preventing cases of future mental health crisis and treating these cases. Besides, the MHCRT program bolsters the aim of enhancing system efficiency. The diversion of people outside of the criminal justice system saves people the heartache of queuing to courts, jails, and prisons and makes their resources to be utilized more beneficially. This follows general policy objectives of cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the system.
Nevertheless, the provision of treatment and its unlike criminal justice objectives that have focused on punishment, deterrence and hard enforcement may be seen to be incompatible with treatment-based approach (Welsh & Harris, 2016). A diversion program can be seen by some stakeholders as disregard to accountability or being lenient. Such attitudes may result in an opposition to change, especially in agencies that are not used to the new methods of enforcing laws.
The police might be focused on preventing and power, whereas mental workers are focused on treatment and recovery (Welsh & Harris, 2016). The community members tend to appreciate the safety and even equity whereas policymakers need to consider more effectiveness, cost and opinion of the people. In the light of these differences, however, there is much overlap in the common purpose of enhancing outcomes and harm reduction.
**Collaboration**
Each of the MHCRT program mandates close coordination between the major agencies in order to realize its objectives. The initial partners include law enforcement and mental professions who collaborate each other to offer immediate crisis response, de-escalation, and clinical assessment. It has to be supported by police departments (training and implementation) and informed by clinicians. Also, policymakers and the local government are required to raise funds and coming up with policies, and advocacy groups help increase the trust and accountability of the people. Formal agreements, joint trainings, and shared communication systems will be used to create collaboration that will ensure the proper coordination of activities of the program.
**Impact Model**
MHCRT program will help fill the gap in coordination of mental health services by bringing a unified response of the police and clinicians to the crisis point (Oblath et al., 2025). Through this intervention, the results of arrest and imprisonment are redirected to de-escalation and referral to treatment. This model is suitable as it works at the initial level of the problem, which is the initial police contact, and the decision has a significant impact on it. The program misses needless arrests and force usage and enhances access to care by incorporating mental health proficiency. It has a long-term and immediate effect, such as the ability to solve crises more effectively, the lack of strain caused by these issues in the system, and better attitude to the community.
**References**
Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376)
Liu, T., & Patrick. (2025). Towards an Enhanced Business Case Development for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects: A Comparative Study of China and New Zealand.
_Buildings_,
_15_(7), 1154–1154.
[https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154](https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071154)
Oblath, R., Beaugard, C. A., Herrera, C.-N., Xu, C., Syed, S., Sadatis, C., Duncan, A., Gann, G., Plange, E., Ferguson, T., Khan, S., Katkhuda, F., Henderson, D. C., Savage, J., & Morabito, M. S. (2025). Bridging crisis and care: exploring the role of behavioral health professionals in a police co-response model.
_Health & Justice_,
_13_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00381-1)
Theuer, A., Wilson, M. G., Abelson, J., & Eisler, L. (2026). Responding to people in crisis: a policy analysis of the Hamilton Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) model.
_Advances in Mental Health_, 1–17.
[https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892](https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2025.2606892)
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781317271550)
**Stage6rubric.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/stage6rubric-pdf)