| Course | MHRM 6701 Strategic Positioning and Social Change |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Evidence brief |
| Length | About 620 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6701 Week 5
Who Produced the Evidence Behind Allerton's Social Claim: Independent Studies Set Apart From Advocacy and Company Materials, and the Claim Shrunk to Where Independent Evidence Stops
Student Name
Walden University
MHRM 6701: Strategic Positioning and Social Change
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Produced the Evidence Behind Allerton's Social Claim: Independent Studies Set Apart From Advocacy and Company Materials, and the Claim Shrunk to Where Independent Evidence Stops
The Claim Under Test
Last week's position paper for Allerton Linen Services, the hospital laundry in the course's composite case, made a claim in strong form: referred residents hired through the county reentry office will stay longer and perform as well as other overnight hires, and steady work will reduce their chance of returning to jail. This brief sorts every source behind that claim by who produced it, separates independent research from advocacy and from the company's own materials, and trims the claim wherever the independent evidence stops.
The Sources, Sorted
Table 1
Sources Behind the Claim, by Producer
| Source | Producer | Stake in the result | What it supports | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lundquist et al. (2018), military enlistees with felony records | Independent academic researchers | None evident | Performance no worse than other enlistees | |
| Valentine and Redcross (2015), two randomized trials of transitional jobs | Independent evaluators | None evident | Employment rises during the program, not after; reoffending fell in one program, not the other | |
| Uggen (2000), national work experiment | Independent academic researcher | None evident | Work reduced reoffending for participants 27 and older, not younger ones | |
| Employer survey on workers with records (Society for Human Resource Management, 2018) | Professional association with a foundation partner promoting second-chance hiring | Moderate: advocacy | Managers who hired people with records mostly rated them as good as other hires | |
| County reentry office placement figures | The referring agency | High: its funding depends on placements | Placement counts; no comparison group | |
| Plant manager's account of two past hires with records | Allerton | High | Two good outcomes, no failures recorded | |
Composite organization for the last two rows.
What the Independent Evidence Supports
Performance is the best-supported part of the claim. Lundquist et al. (2018) followed enlistees over years with objective records of promotion and discharge, and found no performance penalty for those with felony records. The setting differs from a laundry, but the sample is large and the producer has no stake.
Retention is not supported. Valentine and Redcross (2015) found that transitional jobs programs raised employment while participants were in the subsidized jobs but did not raise employment in regular jobs afterward. That evidence is about subsidized jobs, not regular hires like Allerton's, so it neither confirms nor refutes the claim that referred hires will stay longer. No independent source here measures retention in a setting like the plant's.
Reduced reoffending is partly supported. One of the two programs Valentine and Redcross evaluated reduced recidivism and the other did not. Uggen (2000) found an effect only for participants aged 27 and older.
What the Other Sources Add
The employer survey is useful as a sign of what managers report, but it was sponsored by organizations promoting second-chance hiring and relies on self-report. The reentry office's figures count placements without showing what would have happened otherwise. The plant manager's two examples are encouraging and are exactly the kind of evidence that cannot be generalized.
The Claim, Shrunk
Referred residents hired into overnight jobs are likely to perform as well as other overnight hires. Whether they will stay longer is unknown, and the pilot should measure it. Steady work may reduce reoffending, particularly for hires aged 27 and older, but the evidence is mixed and the plant should not claim that outcome until it has its own data.
What Changes in the Proposal
The proposal should drop its statement that referred hires will stay longer and replace it with a retention target to be tested. Its social claim should say "may reduce" rather than "will reduce." These changes make the proposal less exciting and much harder to dismiss.
References
Lundquist, J. H., Pager, D., & Strader, E. (2018). Does a criminal past predict worker performance? Evidence from one of America's largest employers. Social Forces, 96(3), 1039-1068. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox092
Society for Human Resource Management. (2018). Workers with criminal records: A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657381
Valentine, E. J., & Redcross, C. (2015). Transitional jobs after release from prison: Effects on employment and recidivism. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-015-0043-8
The Walden MHRM 6701 Week 5 instructions
Week 5 asks you to test the evidence behind a claim your organization makes. Restate the claim in its strongest form first. List every source and identify who produced it and what stake that producer has in the result. Let only independent sources carry the claim forward, and say exactly what each supports. Explain what advocacy and company sources can and cannot add. Then rewrite the claim so it says no more than the independent evidence supports, and show how the proposal changes as a result. Accept that the revised claim may be less exciting. A table of sources is usually the clearest format, with a column for each producer's stake beside what the source supports.
How this MHRM 6701 Week 5 example is built
The brief opens by restating last week's claim about performance, retention and reoffending. A table lists six sources by producer, stake and what each supports. A section lets the independent studies speak: Lundquist and colleagues on performance, Valentine and Redcross on employment after subsidized jobs and on mixed recidivism results, and Uggen on age. A section explains the limits of the employer survey, the reentry office's figures and the plant manager's account. The shrunken claim follows in three sentences, and a final section revises two statements in the proposal from "will" to "may." Producer and stake sit in their own columns, which shows immediately which sources would gain if the claim held.
Where the marks sit in the MHRM 6701 Week 5 rubric
Evidence briefs are graded on critical sorting and honest revision. Restating the original claim lets the reader see how much changes. Identifying each source's producer and stake shows source literacy and is weighted heavily. Limiting the claim to independent evidence demonstrates intellectual honesty. Accurate description of what each study found, including null results, earns credit. Explaining why advocacy and anecdotal sources cannot carry a claim, without dismissing them entirely, shows nuance. A revised claim and revised proposal show the analysis has consequences. Briefs that cite many sources without sorting them, or keep the original claim unchanged, receive lower marks. Precision about null results is valued.
MHRM 6701 Week 5 help from the desk
Write down the claim you want to support, exactly as your organization states it. Gather every source behind it, including reports, surveys and stories. For each, find out who produced it and whether that producer gains if the claim is true. Separate the sources into independent research, advocacy and your organization's own material. Read the independent studies closely, including results that did not support the claim. Then rewrite the claim using only what those studies support. Many briefs treat a supportive advocacy report as equal to a randomized trial. If you want help judging a source's independence, send it to us with its funding note. Two pages is enough for this brief.
Get a MHRM 6701 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send your Week 4 claim, the evidence brief instructions and the rubric; the brief tests that exact claim against sources sorted by independence. It is delivered in 24 to 48 hours, with no fee for a first brief. The sample cites no statistic it cannot source, and the recruiting page it quotes belongs to a fictional linen service.
More MHRM 6701 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6701 Week 1: Strategy Statement Discussion Post
- MHRM 6701 Week 2: Overnight Staffing Direction Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 3: Reentry Hiring Stakeholder Analysis
- MHRM 6701 Week 4: Shared Value Position Paper
- MHRM 6701 Week 6: Hidden Costs Peer Replies
- MHRM 6701 Week 7: Testable Social Change Claim
- MHRM 6701 Week 8: Board Approval Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 9: Departure Counting Objection Memo
- MHRM 6701 Week 10: Hospital Laundry Outsourcing Case
- MHRM 6701 Week 11: Strategy and Social Change Paper
- MHRM 6601 Week 5: EAP and Health Premium Brief
- MHRM 6101 Week 5: Supervisor Staffing Memo
MHRM 6701 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6701 Week 5 sample paper?
You can read the evidence brief and its source table here at no cost.
How does the MHRM 6701 Week 5 brief sort sources?
By who produced them: independent researchers, advocacy organizations or the company and its partners.
Which part of the claim is best supported?
That referred hires are likely to perform as well as other hires.
Which part is unsupported?
That referred hires will stay longer, which no independent source measured in a similar setting.
How does the proposal change?
It replaces "will stay longer" with a retention target to test and "will reduce" with "may reduce."