week 2 replies

561 replies 200 words each

Reply to eugeina

Crisis Intervention at a Shelter

The initial task that I would do as a crisis worker when interacting with Maria would be to build rapport in a manner that would trigger safety, trust, and emotional balance. I would start with a calm and non-judgmental attitude by myself, introducing myself and assuring her that it is a safe and conducive setting. Through active listening, empathy, and validation, I would employ active listening to recognize her emotions by uttering words such as, "It is as though you have been going through a lot, and I am so glad you are here today, and that you came here today, and said so. James (2024) explains that the first step in intervening during a crisis is building rapport, since this will allow deactivating the emotions of anxiety and making a client more open to discussing his/her experience.

I would feel free to have Maria open up at her own pace and be supportive, encouraging her to be more open. It would be wise not to push her to tell me more, and I would ask her open-ended questions like, Could you tell me what made you come here this evening? This will accommodate her reluctance and subtly promote conversation. Based on the Hybrid Model of crisis intervention, the process would start with defining and identifying the problem (Schnabolk & Scaglione, 2025). The crisis that Maria is facing can be attributed to emotional distress, fear for her safety, and the absence of support systems. I would make an evaluation of the situation on how serious it is by posing questions like the following: Do you feel safe at this time? Did your partner threaten, and then you felt that you feared him or her? "Are there plans in place for you if you plan to go back home? Are you returning home? These questions allow one to assess the immediate risk and the continued risk (James, 2024).

Since Maria has little financial means, and there are no family members who could be close to her, I would consider such practical solutions as referring to the domestic violence support services, emergency housing programs, and financial aid sources. Together, we would start creating a short-term safety plan, such as safe contacts, emergency numbers, and actions she can take in case she feels threatened once again. It is important that Maria should be empowered to be involved in making decisions, which will assist her in feeling back in control. To determine the current situation of Maria more formally, I would rely on the Triage Assessment Form to determine the functioning of Maria in terms of emotions, cognitions, and behavior. Also, it would be suitable to have the Lethality Potential Assessment due to the threats in her relationship, even without physical violence. These instruments are used to identify the risk rating and inform relevant intervention strategies (James, 2024).

Although Shane (2019) concentrates on the stress in police departments, the study reveals that chronic stress and perceived threats may have a massive influence on the mental state of a person and decision-making. On the same note, the fact that Maria is still exposed to verbal threats could be adding to her anxiety, fear, and emotional exhaustion, which supports the need to intervene effectively and early to prevent the crisis. The general idea is to provide Maria with the necessary safety, emotional support, and start working on a realistic plan that will enable her to continue living and working with stability and support.

References

James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787

Schnabolk, C., & Scaglione, B. (2025). Crisis intervention. In Healthcare Safety and Security (pp. 210–225). Productivity Press.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032630670-19

Shane, J. (2019). Stress Inside Police Departments. Taylor & Francis.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000762891

561 Reply to Eric

Maria’s Crisis

In the case of Maria, my initial priority as a crisis worker is to establish trust, psychological safety, and build rapport. Using the principles from Crisis Intervention Strategies, I would approach Maria in a calm, empathetic, and nonjudgmental manner, introducing myself with an even, assuring tone, ensuring confidentiality within the limits of providing assistance. I would be an active listener, open body language, and express validation (“You did the right thing coming here tonight”) using this validated phrase to help ease her anxiety. Understanding that she is very hesitant, I would use minimal encouragers and avoid pushing for details too quickly. Allowing our trust to develop naturally. Creating a sense of control by giving her choices so she can make the decision (food, rest, reading material, or simply conversation) could empower Maria and increase her willingness to share and trust.

Once I have successfully observed Maria and she has let her defenses down, I would start applying the Hybrid Model of crisis intervention (James, 2024), first by identifying the problem by exploring Maria’s perception of the event. At this time, I would ask investigative questions such as, “Can you tell me what led you to leave tonight?” and “What made this situation feel different or unsafe?” Asking these open questions helps me identify the precipitating factors to assess the severity of the situation. I would be direct, but at the same time be sensitive with my questions. “Have the threats escalated recently?” “Do you believe your partner could harm you?” and “Have you experienced thoughts of harming yourself?” Asking these questions ensures both environmental and psychological safety are met.

At this juncture, I would begin to explore alternatives by assessing Maria’s immediate needs for safe housing, financial assistance, and emotional support. Given her limited resources, I would collaborate with her on options such as extended shelter services, referrals to local domestic violence programs, emergency financial aid, and legal advocacy (e.g., restraining orders). Incorporating a strengths-based perspective, I would highlight her resilience in seeking help. Together, we would develop a short-term action plan: remaining at the shelter, contacting support agencies, and identifying safe communication strategies. Long-term planning might include employment resources and transitional housing.

Assessment tools are critical in structuring an intervention. The Triage Assessment Form (TAF) would allow evaluation across affective, behavioral, and cognitive domains, helping determine Maria’s level of impairment and urgency of intervention (James, 2024). Additionally, the Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) is essential given the presence of threats, even without physical violence, as research shows escalation risk in intimate partner violence situations (Messing et al., 2017). Using both tools ensures a comprehensive understanding of her emotional distress and potential danger.

Overall, the goal is to stabilize Maria, ensure her safety, and empower her to regain control through collaborative, informed decision-making.

Reference

Messing, J. T., et al. (2017). The Lethality Assessment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3296–3316.

James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787

524 discussions reply 100 words each

D1 reply to Laycee

The concept of War On Drugs started back in the 1970’s. The purpose of this program was to combat the illegal drug use, trade, and trafficking within the United States. President Nixon considered the drug epidemic as the nation’s biggest barrier at the time. Government officials came together to form this program to increase federal funding for drug control agencies and treatment efforts. In the 1980’s, President Reagan aspect for war on drugs changed. President Reagan focused on the punishment of criminals versus treatment options. With this concept within the political world, there was a significant increase of incarcerated offenders in the system. Multiple offenders were serving time on non-violent drug offenses. Farthing (2016) discussed how “War on Drugs” can be viewed as a punitive system which has failed our society with the increase of illegal drug use and giving empowerment to different mafias.  Mass incarcerations within multiple prison systems affected our criminal justice system.  According to Reddington and Bonham, war on drugs was considered as a complex structural concept. I agree with the fact of the War Of Drugs policy was considered as a system that was solely focused on criminal punishment rather than treatment plans. Many of these drug policies were created by the political influences of our government. Therefore, the dynamics of race were incorporated in the creation of the drug policies. Majority of the minority communities were often labeled as the problem during the development of War of Drugs policies. African Americans were incarcerated at a higher rate versus other races. Within the development of criminal policies for drugs, the executive branch/Chief governor should be ensuring the drug enforcement policies are for the people. This means the policies and executive bills should be enforcing all critical roles that will assist with barriers, epidemics, and damage control. For example, the executive branch should be ensuring law enforcement, medical staff, fire department personnel, and any other state or federal departments are aware of current training, education, and preventive measures to assist with drug control. The legislative branch should be analyzing the current drug epidemic within state and nation. This branch is responsible for the development of drug control policies which should prompt them to how these policies could affect the future generations to come. The legislative branch should consider how these policies could assist with these epidemics that could affect our youth as well. The federal government has a complex role it comes to law making process. According to US Constitution, the federal law is considered as the supreme law of the land. This would mean the federal law would technically rule over state laws in cases of conflict. However, law processes/enforcement for marijuana has been handled differently. Each state has been able to develop their state policies and procedures according to the 10th amendment and states not being required to enforce federal statutes. Alsterberg (2017) discussed how federal government officials should attempt to find a way around enforcing their laws at a state level; there shouldn’t be any legal action against private individuals that reside in Medical Marijuana states.  I feel like the federal government is being logical when it comes to not interfering with state operations for the marijuana state procedures. State legislation should be able to form their procedures based on the needs of their citizens.

Alsterberg, C. E. (2017). State and Federal Powers Clash over Medical Marijuana in United States V. Mcintosh. Golden Gate University Law Review, 47(1), 89–96.

 

Farthing, L., Thornton, C., Main, A., & Nevins, J. (2016). The Time to Finally Stop the “War on Drugs” Is Now. NACLA Report on the Americas, 48(4), 320–327. https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1080/10714839.2016.1258274

D1 Reply to shequita

“In the 1960s, medicinal and recreational drug use in the United States started to become a major security issue. A rise in the counter cultural movement for recreational drug use led to fears of a drug epidemic. Richard Nixon exploited these fears among socially conservative voters and, as a result, was elected president in 1968. His policies capitalized on public concern about high rates of drug use among American troops returning from Vietnam. Heroin use in particular was prominent. As a result, in 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, creating five schedules to regulate different drugs based primarily on risk of addiction. The following year, in June 1971, Nixion officially declared a War on Drugs, telling Congress that drug addiction had become “a national emergency” and that drug abuse was now “public enemy number one.” (Pascual, 2021). 

On the concept of “War on Drugs,” one agrees with the author’s correlations, regarding inequitable outcomes of unjust sentencing, exercised under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act (CSA), now the Anti-Abuse Act, One agrees that racial disparity is displayed as sentencing is driven by a specific drug distribution. “According to Boyum and Reuter (2005), the sentencing guideline has resulted in a racially disparate outcome noting that African Americans are much more commonly charges with crack cocaine distribution, while whites are more commonly charged with powder cocaine distribution. For example, under the Anti-Abuse Act, sentencing guidelines, having the possession of crack cocaine renders a mandatory 5-year sentence. In the realm of punishment, one disagrees with the authors as punishment is exercised by unjust, inequitable, and lengthy sentencing with the hopes of deterring potential offenders. “Perhaps the most significant change since the “War on Drugs,” began was the reinstatement of mandatory minimum sentencing. 

For example, under the provisions of the now “Anti-Abuse Act,” mandatory minimum sentencing, ultimately led to an explosion of the penal populations as well as wide racial disparities” (Bonham, Reddington, p.55). In the realm of federal government, the role of the executive branch is to ensure laws are passed by Congress and implemented effectively, at the directive of the president. Congress, collectively with the Senate and House of Representatives, have the power to create federal laws, implement financial restraints, declare war, and oversee the cabinet, made up of 15 executive departments. Congress is the legislative branch, gaining power from the constitution.  

Considering discussion 3 and the reviewed article titled, “New Obama Policy on States that support Marijuana: Feds will not Interfere, "on a federal level, President Obama would derive a policy regarding no interference with the State legalization of marijuana. This directive will be carried out by the executive branch as it has the power to implement and enforce laws passed by Congress (Legislative Branch). On a state level, a law and/or bill is presented by a legislator for review. Once approved, the House and Senate will vote. Lastly, the law and/or bill that is passed back would be for the governor to sign. The law and/or bill are now ready to be enforced. One's view of the federal government in the realm of drug enforcement is that it holds too much power, but not enough as it does not have the power to “take over” a state government. However, if the federal government and state government conflict on a certain law, the federal government has the power to override the state’s law. Hence, President Obama implementing a policy to remain at bay with state legalized marijuana if distribution remains regulated. The end state is that the federal government has the legal power to shut down any state legalized marijuana operation. 

 

 

                                                                                              References 

Bonham, G., Reddington, F. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response. (2ed). Carolina Academic Press. P. 55 

Dennis, B. (2013) New Obama Policy on States that support Marijuana: Feds will not interfere.  https://obrag.org  

Pascual, I. (2021) America’s War on Drugs-50 Years Later. Justice Reform Resources. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.  https://civilrights.org  

524 D2 reply to shequita

All governors serve as their state’s chief executive, but not all hold the same power of authority due to “each state’s constitution, setting different rules. Governors use their broad authority to enforce laws, oversee state agencies, and manage the executive branch. Most governors exercise their powers to propose budgets, appoint agency heads, call special legislative sessions, and issue executive orders. Many have the power to veto legislation or strike specific line items in spending bills.  Governors use executive orders to manage agencies or respond to emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, American’s governors issued nearly 2,000 executive orders in just ten weeks. At state level, governors can move faster and face fewer institutional barriers. They oversee local agencies that shape everything from education and healthcare to business regulation and public safety. When emergencies strike, governors can often act with minimal oversight, issuing mandates or spending funds with far less resistance than a president would encounter” (State Policy Network, 2025). 

Regarding Missouri Executive Order 17-18 and Missouri Executive Order 17-19, both implemented policies are in the realms of public safety. EO 17-18, “established a statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). EO 17-19 established a direct response to an overdose event that can help save lives. For both executive orders to be implemented, both would start the policy-making processes by identifying a problem. 1) EO 17-18, identified the need for controlled substance prescription and dispensing for better quality and control; EO 17-19, identified a problem with Opioid-related overdoses and direct response to save lives; 2) Both policy formulations consist of detail action plans. EO 17-18, action plan is presented in two phases. The first phase identifies activity of control substances being inappropriately prescribed, dispensed, or obtained including law enforcement and professional licensing boards. The second phase is to require dispensers to submit controlled substance prescription and dispensation information to build and monitor innovative technology. 

EO 17-19, action plan is to collaborate with all departments across the state to identify first responders in need of training, equipment, access and report, and help with developments of future programs; 3) Next, both are implementing their policies for accessing and evaluation through the legislative branch; 4) The policy reaches Congress which is the legislative branch, their role is to debate for a need on both executive orders. One thinks it was appropriate for EO 17-18 to stay within the legislative branch for approval. However, one feels that the EO 17-19 should pass the legislative branch (Congress) to the executive branch. The executive branch creates policy through regulations and since training, and equipment is an already standing and/or existing law for first responders as it pertains to public safety, the executive branch could just authorize and existing law rather than began a new law” (Hopkins, n.d.). 

One has pulled an executive order from one’s state of Georgia. “The National Employment Project,” is an organization that supports the executive order “Ban the Box,” this is an action in which convicted felons can restart life and find employment. This executive order also removes the criminal history question of the applications to give convicted felons a better start at reentry into the community. This is a major issue for the criminal justice center as those that are returning to the community need to get employment as it will reduce recidivism and lower the probability of criminal activities. 

 

                                                         References 

American Bar Association (2026) What is an Executive Order.  https://americanbar.org  

Georgia Executive Order (2026) State of Emergency for Winter Weather https:// 

Hopkins, D. (n.d.) Executive Order 17-18. Missouri Secretary of State.  https://sos.mo.gov  

Hopkins, D. (n.d.) Executive Order 17-18. Missouri Secretary of State.  https://sos.mo.gov 

The National Employment Project (2026) Georgia Governor Signs “Ban the Box”. NELP.  https://nelp.org  

State Policy Network (2025) What Powers do Governors have: The real Power shaping  American’s lives isn’t in Washington-it's in the states. State Policy Network.  https://spn.org

D2 reply to doug

Most Governors use executive orders to issue official directives in efforts to  manage the state's executive branch, implement laws, and sometimes though very rarely to respond to urgent situations without waiting for the legislature to act. While they carry the force of law, they are not always considered permanent statutes and must align with the state's constitution.  As mentioned in the National Governors Association article from 2026, “As state managers, Governors are responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operation of the state executive branch”. They are usually issued to outline duties and priorities, and direct other state agencies to ensure alignment with the Governor's office.  In the absence of legislation, for whatever reason, to create interim laws, and sometimes to kick start strategic initiatives.  According to an online article from Lexis Nexis in 2021, “Governors derive these powers explicitly or implicitly from their state constitutions,” and can be used for things like emergency response, filling vacancies in the government, for executive clemency like pardons, and even breaking gridlocked state legislation. 

In reviewing the examples of the Missouri Executive Orders 17-18 and 17-19, I was able to conclude that Governor Greitens' legislative body wasn’t producing the results he wanted in a timely enough manner.  Oftentimes this occurs due to bipartisan behavior on both sides of the aisle.  Sometimes it is caused because of funding issues.  They cannot agree on a number or where the money will come from.  After reading the 17-18, it was immediately clear what he wanted.  His state was last to the table on a prescription drug monitoring program, and after losing 900 some folks to overdoses the previous year, he had some real concerns.  Or what was not readily apparent, was that his state may have been in the crosshairs of the federal government, and he was looking at money being withheld unless he acted.  (Just a theory).  Lastly, what I noticed was that he had made several mandatory declarations but didn’t outline a way to pay for them…big red flag for me.  

Then I read 17-19, and it seemed to be an attempt to shore up some funding.  It still lacked a solid plan though. He laid out his direction for agencies to train first responders but again didn’t really address the how.  He talks about Man, Train, Equip, but falls short of a solid plan to fund. A brief mention in paragraph 4 about equipping, where he relates the, “use every dollar available”.  This is the issue, that's not a plan.  That seems to me to be an empty gesture.  Here’s why…. The available dollar tree is empty.  He can’t just go pick these dollars off of a tree.  They have to come from somewhere, which leads us back to one of the original issues his legislature was undoubtedly hung up on.  Where do we get the funding?  Do we rob Peter to pay Paul?  If so, who gets shorted?  He wants a number of three letter agencies to be responsible for seeking grants, but at the end of the day, if he does not pick a single entity to hold responsible, they will all simply point the finger at each other and not get anything accomplished.  

I do think Governor Greitens use of executive powers in this case was entirely appropriate as his state was facing a severe health crisis.  With a little over 6 million people in his state at the time, 900 doesn’t seem like a large number, but one preventable death is too many.  Like I mentioned earlier, some laws are better off being created by legislators for various reasons, but in the case of the opioid epidemic, with their lack of ability to get it done, I see no other choice for him but to create this pair of executive orders.  He may have initially created some traction but according to some critics like Claire McCaskill who said, “While I certainly welcome the Governor’s attention to this crisis, I have serious questions about how meaningful this action will be if doctors writing prescriptions—and pharmacists filling those prescriptions—don’t have access to this database”.  It seemed it only created an enforcement tool to help identify “pill mills”, and was eventually replaced by more meaningful legislation. 

In Texas we have in my opinion one of the greatest governors in our history.  Staunchly conservative but has a deep reverence for states rights as well.  Greg Abbot has signed quite a few executive orders relating to Criminal Justice in the past few years. In early 2025, he signed several orders directing state agencies to cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration and homeland security.  One in particular stood out to me though, he announced the Texas Repeat Offender Program (TxROP), a joint task force between state and local law enforcement that will crack down on violent crimes committed by repeat offenders throughout the Houston area. This eventually spread to the rest of the state.  The goal was simple, every Houstonian deserves to walk the streets, take their kids to school, open their businesses, and go shopping or dining without fear."  https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-task-force-to-crack-down-on-repeat-offenders.

~Doug

Online Article From the National Governors Association. (2026). Governors Power and Authority.  https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/ 

Online Article From Lexis Nexis. (2021). The Royal Power of Gubernatorial Executive orders.  https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/the-power-of-executive-orders#:~:text=Governors%20derive%20their%20power%20to,that%20health%20insurance%20covers%20telemedicine. 

Online Article From Missourinet. (2017). Gov. Greitens Signs Executive Order to Establish Drug Monitoring Program.  https://www.missourinet.com/2017/07/17/gov-greitens-signs-executive-order-to-establish-drug-monitoring-program/

Online Website. (2025). Office of the Governor-Greg Abbott: Governor Abbott Announces Task Force To Crack Down On Repeat Offenders.  https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-task-force-to-crack-down-on-repeat-offenders