Policy Project Part One ( Historical background) Insntruction and example of what i need was attached

Policy Project Part One ( Historical background) Insntruction and example of what i need was attached
SB2098 Historical Background 10 Running head: SB2098 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Senate Bill 2098: Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation Historical Background Group Name Names of all authors University of North Dakota February 9, 2015 Introduction Chemical dependency and mental illness have been present throughout our nation’s history. In some cases, it is necessary to commit individuals with these diagnoses to either a public or private facility for treatment when there is reasonable risk of serious harm to self or others. North Dakota law delineates guidelines for voluntary, involuntary, and emergency commitments of individuals. Specifically, the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 25-03.1 establishes commitment procedures for individuals with mental illness or chemical dependency (North Dakota Legislative Council [NDLC], 2001). Senate Bill 2098, Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation, is attempting to amend various components of NDCC 25-03.1, including allowing addiction counselors to sign the petitions necessary for civil commitment (SB 2098, 2009). Thanks! An introduction is always a great idea. What Historical Problems Led to the Creation of the Policy? Early drug use in the United States did not operate under the stringent regulations we see today. For example, shamans, or medicine men, strongly influenced the distribution of drugs in our country. Prior to the 20th century, these men traveled the country and freely sold hallucinogenic drugs to individuals unaware of the drugs’ compositions (Levinthal, 2008). Over 150 years ago, many people started using drugs due to curiosity—long before that!. Many did not know what they were actually consuming. Opium, for example was widely used in social circles. It was cheap and used by all ages, from newborns to the elderly. Another example of society’s relaxed approach toward drug use was (keep past events in the past tense) that in the late 1800s, heroin was legal and considered safe. It was used to treat coughs, chest pains, and other respiratory illnesses. Alarmingly, at this time one of the main ingredients of Coca Cola and cold remedies was cocaine (Levinthal, 2008). All in all, society thought drug use was a natural occurrence and nothing of concern. In regards to alcohol in the beginning of the 20th century, neither the public nor the government considered it a drug. There was excessive drinking during this time period as there were no regulations to stop this behavior and it was considered socially acceptable. Though regulations on drug use had been passed in the early 1900s, it was not until between 1945 and 1960 that drug use was considered bad by society. At this time, society viewed people who were using illegal drugs to be criminals, urban poor, and nonwhite this is an awkward paraphrase from Levinthal (Levinthal, 2008). How Important have these Problems Been Historically? Although much of American history had adopted a laissez-faire approach to drug use, society gradually saw it as a problem and employed greater efforts to regulate different substances (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Early in the 1900s, Americans began implementing more strict regulations on certain substances or banned them all together. In order to ensure consumers knew what they were ingesting into their bodies, The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required that contents of a product must be explicitly labeled. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 took regulation a step further by completely banning substances such as cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Pushing the regulation even further, Prohibition banned alcohol in 1919 as many religious groups believed it negatively interfered with family life. Prohibition was unsuccessful and was overturned in 1933, making alcohol legal once again (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Specifically targeting drug distribution and penalties, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 established mandatory jail time for any drug related offense other than first time possession. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) (Hart, Ksir, & Ray, 2009). In the 1980s, President Reagan implemented policies to drug screen federal employees and enacted The War on Drugs. This program utilized two main strategic efforts including the interdiction of drug supplies and the implementation of treatment programs. These efforts and others have attempted to place more regulation on drugs and alcohol in order to create a safer society (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). In regards to mental illness, the policy of institutionalization was adopted during? most of the 1900s. Early sentiment toward this began in the 1840s when activist Dorothea Dix convinced states to provide special institutions for the mentally ill. Many Americans believed the best way to deal with mental illness was to provide inpatient care by housing such patients in various hospital settings. It was not until the Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) Acts of 1963 and 1965 that the federal government became involved mandating a shift toward community-based care emerged (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). How was the Problem Previous Handled? The problem of chemical dependency has continued to create great debate in the United States. In recent years, a tension between treatment and punishment of substance users has been prevalent throughout the nation. In 2001, jails were overpopulated and the government proposed $420 million for prison construction and $327.5 million for interdiction. At the same time, only $127 million was allocated for treatment (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Today prisons are still over-populated by drug offenders. However, many people are favoring treatment as opposed to imprisonment. For example, in 2003 New York passed a bill that offered non-violent drug offenders treatment over imprisonment; as a result, New York closed two prisons due to an inmate population decrease. Many states, such as Maryland and Wisconsin, have tried to pass similar bills (Associated Press, 2004). Avoid leaps and returns in your chronology. Failing to adhere to a clean chronological telling of your story is disruptive to your reader and wreaks havoc with ‘cause and effect’ logic and arguments. (Your previous paragraph took your reader to the 21st century, this next returns to the 1980s, and the following goes even further back.) In addition to treatment, interdiction, and imprisonment, prevention education is an approach utilized by American society. The 1980s saw a rise in programs such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Another recent drug prevention movement is the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This campaign delivers anti-drug advertisements to the masses through television, radio, and internet. It utilizes the strength of advertising to bolster anti-drug attitudes. Other prevention programs from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) include Drug Free Communities and Random Student Drug Testing (ONDCP, 2005). Similarly, the realm of mental health has seen a paradigm shift toward community-based care versus institutionalization. With the passage of the CMHC Acts of 1963 and 1965, long-term hospitalization of individuals with serious mental health concerns has decreased while community-based centers have increased. For example, while 560,000 individuals were institutionalized in 1955, only 125,000 were in 1981 (DuBois & Miley, 2008; Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Though community-based mental health services were the focus in the 1960s and 1970s, the 1990s and beyond have incorporated a diverse mental health delivery system that includes the options of either community-based care or hospitalization (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). What is the Historical Background of the Policy? Though North Dakota’s? mental health system employs both community based-care and long-term hospitalization, a third option remains for individuals with severe mental illness and chemical dependency: civil commitment. The general guiding principle is that, without inpatient care, some individuals with severe mental illness or chemical dependency are at risk of harming themselves or others (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). North Dakota, like the other 49 states, has enacted laws permitting civil commitments of individuals. This can occur in an institution (“inpatient”), in the community with close supervision (“outpatient”), or in a psychiatric unit in a prison (“criminal”) (Stavis, 1995). NDCC 25-03.1 establishes North Dakota’s guidelines for voluntary, involuntary, and emergency commitments for individuals with mental illness or chemical dependency (NDLC, 2001). When Did the Policy Originate? NDCC 25-03.1 originated in 1977 (NDLC, 2001). How has the Original Policy Changed over Time? Since 1977, several amendments have been made to NDCC 25-03.1. In 1989, the terminologies of “drug addict” and “alcoholic individual” were replaced with “chemically dependent person;” in addition, it specified application procedures for involuntary treatment and allowed preliminary hearings to be waived by the parties involved. Then, in 1993 the policy was amended to clarify an individual’s right to a preliminary hearing, create procedures for discharge petitions, and allow the state to be reimbursed for payments made for individuals found to have sufficient funds (NDLC, 2001). What is the Legislative History of the Policy? In the current 61st Legislative Assembly, SB 2098, Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation, is attempting to amend components of NDCC 25-03.1. This bill was introduced to the Senate by the Human Services Committee at the request of the North Dakota Department of Human Services (SB 2098, 2009). Presently, only physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists have the authority to sign the petitions necessary for commitment. SB 2098 would allow addiction counselors to endorse a petition for commitment based on their evaluations. The Department of Human Services views the current omission of addiction counselors as an oversight in the rule (McLean, 2009). According to Senator Schneider of District 42, the bill has been uncontroversial—it passed the Human Service Committee and Senate unanimously and awaits approval from the House of Representatives (personal communication, February 3, 2009). References Associated Press. (2004). Successful Rehab Leads to N.Y. Prison Closures. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews /2004/successful-rehab-leads-to-ny.html. DuBois, B. & Miley, K. K. (2008). Social work: An empowering profession (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Hart, C. L., Ksir, C., & Ray, O. (2009). Drugs, society, & human behavior (13th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Karger, H. J. & Stoesz, D. (2008). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Levinthal, C. F. (2008). Drugs, behavior, and modern society (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. McLean, A. J. (2009). Testimony: Senate Bill 2098 – Department of Human Services to the Senate Human Services Committee. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://www.nd.gov/dhs/info/testimony/2009/senate-human-services/sb2098-01-14-09-commitment-for-treatment.pdf. Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation. S. 2098, 61st Legislative Assembly of North Dakota. (2009). North Dakota Legislative Council. (2001). Mental illness commitment procedures – Background memorandum. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/57-2001/docs/pdf/39028.pdf. Office of National Drug Control Policy, (2005). Prevention Programs. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/PREVENT/ prevention_programs.html. Stavis, J. (1995). Civil commitment: Past, present, and future. Quality of Care Newsletter, 64. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/counsels _corner/cc64.htm
Policy Project Part One ( Historical background) Insntruction and example of what i need was attached
Policy project part 1 Policy Topic: 50-25.1-15. Abandoned Infant. Child Welfare 1 4 Parts of Assignment Part one: Historical Background (Due now) Part Two: PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (not yet) Part Three: POLICY DESCRIPTION (not yet) Part Four: POLICY ANALYSIS (not yet) Expectations for part One is Listed Introduction The policy Your position 7 main questions need to be answered What historical Problems Led to the Creation of Policy? How important have these problems been historically? How has the problem previously handled? What is the historical background of the policy? When did the policy originate? How has the original policy changed over time? What is the legislative history of the policy? Conclusion Technical Details: Length: 5 pages Format: Double-spaced Times New Roman 12-point font 1-inch margins on ALL sides APA format. NDCC= 50-25.1-15. Abandoned Infant Code link: https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t50c25-1.pdf#nameddest=50-25p1-15 , Two samples was attached please view it to see how the work follows,
Policy Project Part One ( Historical background) Insntruction and example of what i need was attached
Running Head: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 0 NDCC 50-25.1-18: Prenatal Exposer to Alcohol Abuse Historical Background Child Welfare 1 University of North Dakota Date Introduction Prenatal substance abuse is a concern that continues to be prevalent in the United States.  For decades, unfulfilled scientific research and racially targeted policies have come together to make ineffective codes that are not specific enough to be applied in practice. NDCC 50-25.1-18, which attempts to end alcohol abuse in expectant mothers, is one of the many codes that fall under these incriminating standards.  Throughout this paper, the history that has contributed to the creation of this policy and how this code serves as more of an unintended injustice to North Dakota, than a helping hand to the women and children of the state, will be discussed to highlight this faulty policy (N.D. Cent. Code Ann. & 50-25.1-18, 2003). What historical Problems Led to the Creation of Policy? Alcohol was considered the “the good creature of God,” but switched to “demon rum” in the late 1600s.  The first known anti-drinking reform movement occurred in the mid 1800s when Irish immigrant poverty and disease contributed to high liquor consumption rates. Since then, alcohol use has been considered a social problem since the early 1900s and has consistently been a target of law and order. In 1920, prohibition was one of the most notable stances taken on alcohol in the United States. Many repercussions followed including bootlegging, economic declines, and corrupt law enforcement. (Khan Academy).   A notable change to the drinking laws in the United States started in the 1970s with the war on drugs. During the war on drugs emerged an organization known as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) this raised the legal drinking age and lowered the blood alcohol level criteria for driving under the influence. Within the next few years the nations concerns regarding the negative effects of alcohol continued to grow when Fetal Alcohol Syndrome became a diagnosable condition in 1973. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome sparked a movement to end alcohol use during pregnancy, which lead to the future creation of state codes (Armstrong, 2000). How important have these problems been historically? Up until the 1970s, medical recommendations regarding alcohol consumption during pregnancy were nonexistent.  Recommendations have not reached a concrete conclusion about a safe amount of alcohol consumption for both the mother and the fetus during pregnancy.  Some medical professionals have deemed a glass of wine a night to be perfectly safe, while others say all consumption is harmful.  In the past, the issue of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was previously not a very important issue.  Up until the War on Drugs started to influence America in the 1980s, the government had very little say within domestic life.  The rise of cultural conservativism lead to minimal governmental influence on issues of home and family issues of the home and family. The controversy continues into present time because concrete evidence is difficult to gather as drinking is not illegal if a woman is over the age of twenty-one, pregnant or not. How has the problem previously handled? Since there are no specific laws against drinking while pregnant, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has been consistently applied regarding how alcohol consumption is handled. It was not until after the late 1990’s when conversations started and codes formed in other Midwest states, that North Dakota decided alcohol abuse during pregnancy is considered child abuse and neglect. Additionally, women abusing alcohol while pregnant would also fall under mandated reporting criteria (Miller, 2015). Limited pushes have been made towards increasing education and funding for women who use alcohol during pregnancy. Previous research shows that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is found in higher rates with minority populations, and proper prenatal care is difficult to obtain. Additionally, minority populations have been directly and negatively profiled when it comes to reporting and prosecuting women who have abused alcohol during pregnancy (Miller, 2015).  What is the historical background of the policy? This policy was enacted based on similar laws passed in other states, specifically Wisconsin and South Dakota in 1998.  This policy’s intent was to reduce the rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome in North Dakota. Research teams based out of the University of North Dakota found that 59.2% of women within North Dakota reported using alcohol during pregnancy, with 19.9% of those women binge drinking.  This is comparable to national averages of 51.2% of women reporting prenatal alcohol use and 15.2% involve binge drinking (Miller, 2015).  When did the policy originate? NDCC 50-25.1-18 originated in 2003 based on laws from the Wisconsin and South Dakota passed in 1998. The legislature added alcohol abuse during pregnancy to existing laws regarding child abuse and neglect. This policy allows civil commitment to be pursued with women who violate the policy (N.D. Cent. Code Ann. & 50-25.1-18, 2003). How has the original policy changed over time? Drug use during pregnancy gathered the national spotlight starting in the 1960s by drawing attention to possible harm of the fetus and continued to present day media. More recently, throughout the 1990s, supreme courts in Alabama and South Carolina have upheld convictions ruling that substance abuse in pregnant women constitutes as criminal child abuse which then inspired North Dakota future policies. In 2003, North Dakota expanded their civil child-welfare requirements that includes prenatal substance abuse as a form of child abuse or neglect (Substance Use During Pregnancy, 2019). What is the legislative history of the policy? On March 17, 2003, Arnold Thomas, a health association introduced SB 2271 that required hospitals and doctors to report any use of intoxicants that will harm the mother and the unborn child. SB 2271 required a child abuse and neglect report to be made when alcohol use is suspected in a pregnant woman. One of the main efforts of this code, is that if a woman is found to be guilty of abusing alcohol during pregnancy, then she must enter into a treatment program. If services are refused, the woman may be involuntarily committed. Even though Senator Lee supported this movement in 2003, as it was intended ensure that pregnant women abusing alcohol will be entered into a treatment program, after reviewing this code, it has been determined that this policy is not effectively or properly helping pregnant women suffering from addiction in the state of North Dakota. Although this bill did not have accurate statistics, the committee wanted to pass the SB 2771 bill, which ten of the committee voted yes and three were absent from the committee (Senate Bill 2271, 2003). Conclusion Though this policy was enacted to try to prevent Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, it does not properly serve the populations in need. It targets vulnerable populations, without providing the necessary resources, such as education and prenatal care, to actually reduce the rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.  This policy passed easily due to the conservative nature of the State of North Dakota and medical evidence failed to be presented. Overall, since alcohol is not illegal for women over the age of twenty-one, pregnant or not, and the absence of resources for the mother beyond forced treatment are unavailable, this policy has not provided overall benefits for children and mothers within the state of North Dakota.  References   Armstrong, & L., E. (2000, May 1). FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME: THE ORIGINS OF A MORAL PANIC. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/35/3/276/208920/.  Cook, Daniel & Walsh, Margaret. (2015). Unintended Consequences of Policy Responses to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Civil Commitment and Community Sentiment in North Dakota. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283831362_Unintended_Consequences_of_Policy_Responses_to_Fetal_Alcohol_Spectrum_Disorders_Civil_Commitment_and_Community_Sentiment_in_North_Dakota Lester, B. M., Andreozzi, L., & Appiah, L. (2004, April 20). Substance use during pregnancy: time for policy to catch up with research. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419718/.  Miller, M. K., Blumenthal, J. A., & Chamberlain, J. (2015). Handbook of Community Sentiment. New York, NY: Springer New York. (N.D. Cent. Code Ann. & 50-25.1-18, 2003). Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol Abuse. S. 2271, 64th Legislative Assembly of North Dakota. (2003). Prohibition. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2019, from https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-world-power/1920s-america/a/prohibition. Substance Use During Pregnancy. (2019, October 1). Retrieved October 3, 2019, from https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/substance-use-during-pregnancy. Senate Bill 2271: Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol Abuse. 64th Legislative Assembly of North Dakota. (2003).