Learning outcomes:

– Understand the link between social stratification and poverty, and how it relates to social inequality.

– Consider how social stratification determines or limits life choices and opportunities.

– Interpret situations in which poverty is more likely to occur in the U.S.A.

– Locate and utilize available sociological data.

– Compare and contrast basic research methods for gathering data.

Prompt:

An organization involved in addressing the negative effects of social inequality is considering working in Ohio. The organization has hired you to suggest:

1. a) a target group (also referred to as a social category) that would benefit most from their activities,

as well as

1. b) a geographic location (you must choose a county in Ohio) that needs the presence of an organization working on social inequality issues.

Resources:

You should recommend both a specific social category and a geographic location. The organization has asked you to explain your choice by relying on the U.S. Census Bureau demographic data, particularly The Ohio Poverty Report 2018 (URL: https://www.development.ohio.gov/files/research/p7005.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. )

Optional (extra credit): You can strengthen your argument by an additional reference to a recent academic study published in a sociological peer-reviewed journal (see list of relevant journals below).

Word count: 450 – 550 words (650-750 with extra credit) words, be brief, and you use short tables whenever appropriate.

References: Make sure you inform the organization about your data sources (use APA, Chicago, or MLA styles). Below is a general structure for citing census data from American FactFinder.

Example:

• U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. The Ohio Poverty Report 2018. Table A12.A Poverty in Ohio by Age Group for Selected Years URL: https://www.development.ohio.gov/files/research/p7005.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

• U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table GCT0101; generated by John Smith; using American FactFinder; ; (7 January 2012).

Directions:

Demographic data:

1. A) Find two – three indicators to locate a target group (a social category). Explain your choice for an aggregated social category that combines two or three indicators (e.g., poverty + gender, having no health insurance + specific age group, race/ethnicity + rural vs urban, etc).

Use a short table to illustrate your choice. For example:

Indicator 1 (e.g. children from 0-4) number (percent of poor in relation to overall population in the same age group)	Indicator 2 (e.g. adults from 18-24) number (percent of poor in relation to overall population in the same age group)	Indicator 3 (18-24-year-old part-time employed adults for whom poverty was determined) (percent in comparison to unemployed and full-time employed)
162,124 (23.9%)1	231,228 (24.1%)	54.4%

Explain your choice.

Example:

Among adolescents, children from 0 – 4 years old have the highest poverty rate (23.9%). Among adults within childbearing age, the highest poverty rates are among 18-24-year-olds. One notices that about half of the adults for whom poverty is determined are employed part-time (54.4%). The target group based on 3 indicators: young (indicator 2) parents who have children from 0-4 (indicator 1) working part-time (indicator 3) are among the most vulnerable to various economic, social, and health shocks, and would need assistance, such as access to childcare.

B) Explain your decision for a geographic location.

C) Extra credit (up to 3 points)

Academic paper: You can strengthen your argument about the need to include a specific social category by referring to the findings of one academic research paper published in a reputable sociological journal. See the list of academic journals below.

TIP: use Scopus (go to Assignment I for more details), search a broad social category in the USA (e.g., teens, African Americans, urban youth, women-headed households). What were the research methods used? What were the findings? (150 -200 words)

List of the relevant journals:

American Sociological Review

Annual Review of Sociology

American Journal of Sociology

Sociology of Education

Sociology

Rural Sociology

Academic integrity

• Getting help on the assignment is not permitted.
• Collaborating, or completing the assignment with others, is not permitted.
• Copying or reusing previous work is not permitted.
• Open-book research for the assignment is permitted and encouraged.

153871194010/04/201811:59pm

• File Upload
• Text Entry
• BuckeyeBox
• Office 365

Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded.
File:	remove empty attachment Add Another File remove empty attachment
	Click here to find a file you've already uploaded 1411387my files 1449371Submissions 1506748AU18 PSYCH 1100 – Intro Psychology (16266) 10017482Midterm 1.docx 1466456AU18 RURLSOC 1500 – Intro Rural Soc (1594) 9809228Junyao RURLSOC Assignment 1.docx 1449372AU18 MATH 1152 – Calculus 2 (8617) 97504611152 Quiz1_20180831220004.pdf 97505641152 Quiz1_20180831220833.pdf 97505651152 Quiz1_20180831220833-1.pdf 9882411新文档 2018-09-07 21.41.39_20180907220104.pdf 1411388conversation attachments
I agree to the tool's End-User License Agreement.Links to an external site. This assignment submission is my own, original work
CancelSubmit Assignment
Submitting…

Copy and paste or type your submission right here.

Keyboard ShortcutsHTML EditorRich Content Editor

I agree to the tool's End-User License Agreement.Links to an external site. This assignment submission is my own, original work

CancelSubmit Assignment

Rubric

126335

Can't change a rubric once you've started using it.

Find a Rubric

Title: Find Rubric

Assignment II

You've already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.

Assignment II

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInterpretation and Use of Data (1) _3148Choice of the social category using the Poverty Report view longer descriptionChoice of the social category using the Poverty Report Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Full Marks Argument pertains to the relationship between social factors and economic factors. Two or three indicators were used to derive a social category and are clearly stated, at least one indicator is from the Poverty Report. The argument is illustrated with the help of a short and precise comparative table. blank Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Sufficient Only one indicator from the Poverty Report (or US Census Bureau, American FactFinder, Community Suervey) is used to derive a social category. _3143 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing One indicator is used. The indicator is not from the US Poverty Report. _1785 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks blank_2 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 3.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInterpretation and Use of Data (2) _8957Choice of geographic location (county) view longer descriptionChoice of geographic location (county) Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Full Marks The reasons for choosing a specific geographic location are clearly stated. _6945 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Sufficient Geographic location (county) is stated. The reasons for choosing a specific geographic location are not stated or irrelevant. no _6301 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing Geographic location does not follow the prompt requirements, is too broad (e.g., the state of Ohio, USA). _1946 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks _8871 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 3.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Course Readings and Materials _4272(Readings from week 5 – 7) view longer description(Readings from week 5 – 7) Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Full Marks Uses course concepts to place the argument within a broader framework. _5093 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Sufficient Uses course concepts to place the argument within a broader framework, but with minor errors. _8237 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing Relevant concepts are only mentioned with no clear understanding of the relationship between the paper and course themes. _5117 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks _6571 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 3.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization, Writing, and Mechanics _4527 view longer description Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Full Marks Paper is coherently organized, and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors, and terminology are clearly defined. Writing is clear, concise, and persuasive. _3588 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Sufficient Paper is generally well organized, and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. _9886 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. The writing lacks clarity and conciseness. _1880 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks _137 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 3.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitation and references _4268 view longer description Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Full Marks Sources are clearly indicated. _2628 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing Sources are given with major errors (for example URL only). _2715 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks _2322 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 2.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExtra points Literature review 65450_5623Linking the research question with the existing sociological research paper* (extra credit), in-text citation and reference view longer descriptionLinking the research question with the existing sociological research paper* (extra credit), in-text citation and reference Range threshold: pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 3.0 to >2.0 pts Full Marks A paper selected is relevant to the argument, the findings are accurately and completely summarized – the implications are all presented accurately. 65450_8162 Edit ratingDelete rating 2.0 to >1.0 pts Sufficient Research is relevant to the argument and is mostly accurate and complete – there are some unclear components or some minor errors in the implications. 65450_7965 Edit ratingDelete rating 1.0 to >0.0 pts Developing Research selected is not relevant to the argument or is vague and incomplete – components are missing or inaccurate or unclear. Paper is incorrectly incorporated, did not follow the prompt 65450_5644 Edit ratingDelete rating 0.0 to >0 pts No Marks 65450_8511 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 3.0 pts —
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterion view longer description Range threshold: 5 pts	Edit ratingDelete rating 5to >0 pts Full Marks blank Edit ratingDelete rating 0to >0 pts No Marks blank_2 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.	pts / 5 pts —
Total Points: 17