Forensic Decision Brief

This assignment is designed to help you think like a forensic social worker, not just write like a student.

In real forensic settings, social workers are often expected to:

• Review information quickly
• Make decisions under legal and system constraints
• Explain and defend their reasoning clearly to others (judges, attorneys, probation officers, supervisors)

Because of this, the assignment has two parts:

• The written decision brief shows that you understand course concepts, history, and systems.
• The short vlog defense allows you to explain your thinking in your own words, similar to how forensic social workers justify decisions in practice.

This format:

• Prevents over-writing and unnecessary length
• Encourages clear, focused thinking
• Makes it easier to show how you reason, not just whatyou know
• Reflects real-world forensic social work decision-making

What You Will Submit

Part A: Written Decision Brief

• Length: 750900 words total
• Format: APA style
• Title page and reference page are required
• Title page and references do not count toward the word limit
• File type: Word document or PDF

You will complete Sections 13 only, outlined below.

Required Case Scenario (Do Not Add Facts)

Case: Marcus

Marcus is a 16-year-old Black male referred to juvenile court after violating probation. His original offense involved truancy-related misconduct that escalated to a misdemeanor. He has a documented trauma history and a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Marcus is currently under intensive probation supervision with strict conditions, including school attendance, curfews, and mandatory programming. He has no new criminal charges but missed two probation check-ins and was labeled noncompliant. The court is considering detention.

Important:

You may not add diagnoses, offenses, family details, or services that are not stated above. The goal is to analyze systems and decisions, not to invent details.

Part A: Written Decision Brief

Section 1: Historical Policy Anchor (200250 words)

Identify one historical policy or trend discussed in Chapters 1415 or the lecture, such as:

• The punitive shift in juvenile justice
• Expansion of probation and surveillance
• Zero-tolerance or tough-on-crime logic

Explain:

• How the policy or trend was originally justified
• One intended outcome
• One unintended consequence that is still visible today

You must explicitly reference:

• One lecture slide or lecture concept
• One assigned video (by name)

Section 2: Case Application System Logic (250300 words)

Apply your historical analysis to Marcuss case:

• Identify two system actions affecting Marcus (for example, probation response or court authority).
• Explain how historical policy logic shapes those actions.
• Identify one point where the system escalates harm, even though there is no new criminal behavior.

Focus on systems and policies, not Marcuss personal choices.

Section 3: Intervention Under Constraint (300350 words)

Identify one evidence-informed intervention discussed in the course, such as:

• Diversion
• Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)
• Restorative justice
• Trauma-informed probation

Explain:

• Why this intervention fits Marcuss situation
• Two system-level constraints that limit implementation (for example, court authority, funding, supervision rules)
• One realistic workaround a forensic social worker could attempt within those limits

The goal is to show professional judgment, not ideal solutions.