• Analysis: ACJS 2002 Program, by Matthew B. Robinson (Appalachian State University)

• Report:  IDENTIFYING SALIENT ISSUES:  AN SCJA SURVEY OF SOUTHERN REGION STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERS, by Brandon K. Applegate and Charles W. Otto (University of Central Florida)

• Spotlight On:  Radford University, by Willard M. Oliver, R.J. Beckwith, and Nicholas Joyce, (Radford University)

Go to the rest of the issue (MS WORD FORMAT)

ACJS 2002: What We Presented, What We Didn’t

by Matthew B. Robinson, Ph.D.
Appalachian State University
 

At the recent ACJS meeting in Anaheim, CA, I was so busy that I didn’t have time to examine the panels I was missing during my own presentations and social activities.  Yet, I wondered how many papers on topics relevant to my interests and areas of expertise were being presented.  I decided on the return trip home to begin examining the program book in detail and ended up spending weeks reading each title and abstract.

You might ask, “why would you read the entire program book after the conference was already over?”  My answer is, how can we know what our organization is really about if we do not have a complete understanding of the research and teaching interests of our members?  Given this concern, the examination that follows is a summary of papers scheduled for presentation at the 2002 ACJS conference in Anaheim, CA.  My goal is to provide the membership with a rough state of the discipline based on the papers scheduled for presentation at the most recent annual meeting.
 

Methodology

As mentioned above, this analysis grew out of a careful review of the 2002 ACJS program book, including the inserted program addendum.  I read the title of each paper scheduled to be presented and the abstract if needed to clarify the main subject of the paper.  Papers were grouped into 18 main categories based on the main topic examined in the paper.  Most of the papers were easily classified into one single category (e.g., 23 total papers on community policing were placed into the “policing” category), but as one might expect, many papers were related to more than one area.  Here, I used my judgment based on the description of the paper in the abstract to determine which category was most appropriate.  For example, 12 total papers on delinquency risk factors were classified into the “theories of crime” category based on the fact that they reported on studies related to why delinquency occurs.

It is certain that another scholar might classify individual papers into slightly different categories.  This is not problematic given the goal to provide members with a general picture of the types of papers scheduled for presentation at the most recent ACJS conference.  More problematic is the undeniable fact that some of the papers counted and grouped into the categories were not actually presented to the conference.  There is no way to know how many of the 705 total papers I counted were actually presented, even after making the adjustments reflected in the program addendum.  I can say that of the six panels I was involved in, at least 4 of the 28 papers (or 14%) were not presented because the authors were not present.  It is possible that lower or higher percentages of some categories of papers were presented than others, but this is not likely and there is no way to determine this.  Keep in mind that the analysis is of papers scheduled for presentation rather than actual paper presentations.  Finally, I did not differentiate between roundtables, workshops, and papers; thus one roundtable or workshop on a topic might include as many as four or five speakers.  The analysis includes all of these scholarly activities, but for simplification, I use the term “papers scheduled for presentation” in the analysis.
 

Findings

Table 1 shows the main categories of papers scheduled for presentation at the 2002 ACJS conference.  According to the analysis, a total of 705 papers were scheduled for presentation.  The program book list 1,099 participants for the conference, including presenters, paper co-authors, panel chairs, and discussants.  The largest category was made up of papers related to types of crime (n=182 papers, 26% of the total).  The second largest category was comprised of papers related to policing (n=140, 20%).  The third largest category was papers related to corrections (n=99, 14%).  The fourth largest category consisted of papers concerning criminal justice education (n=69, 10%).  No other category comprised as much as 10% of the total papers scheduled for presentation, including papers on courts (n=51, 7%), theories of crime (n=35, 5%), juvenile justice (n=29, 4%), crime prevention (n=17, 2%), race (n=16, 2%), justice (n=14, 2%), methods/statistics (n=12, 2%), media (n=6, 0.85%), comparative criminal justice (n=5, 0.71%), crime analysis/crime mapping (n=5, 0.71%), ethics (n=5, 0.71%), public opinion (n=4, 0.57%), mental health/illness (n=4, 0.57%), and the other category (n=12, 2%).
 

Table 1: Categories of Papers Scheduled for Presentation at the 2002 ACJS Conference

Category   # of       percentage
of papers   papers     of total

Types of crime 182, 26%
Policing 140, 20%
Corrections 99, 14%
Criminal justice education 69, 10%
Courts 51, 7%
Theories of crime 35, 5%
Juvenile justice 29, 4%
Crime prevention 17, 2%
Race 16, 2%
Justice 14, 2%
Methods/statistics 12, 2%
Media 6, 0.85%
Comparative criminal justice 5, 0.71%
Crime analysis/crime mapping 5, 0.71%
Ethics 5, 0.71%
Public opinion 4, 0.57%
Mental health/illness 4, 0.57%
Other 12, 2%
total         705, 100%
 

Table 2 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the general category of “types of crime.”  Not surprisingly, the largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to terrorism and/or national security (n=32 papers, 18% of category), followed by domestic violence (n=20, 11%), and school violence / victimization (n=13, 7%).  The largest number of scheduled papers for property crime was computer/technological (n=10, 5%) and the largest number for drug crimes was a general category of papers about drugs (n=13, 7%) and substance abuse/use (n=13, 7%).  Attendees were thus scheduled to present 111 total papers on violent crime (61% of the category), 38 papers on property crime (21%), 27 papers on drug crime (15%), and 6 on other forms of crime/deviance (3%).
 

Table 2: Paper Topics Related to Types of Crime

General  Category of
Crime Type  Crime Examined    # of papers

Violent  Violent crime generally 3
 Terrorism/national security 32
 Domestic violence 20
 School violence / victimization 13
 Homicide 6
 Sex offenses 6
 Gangs 6
 Hate crime 4
 Guns 4
 Parents killing their children 2
 Kidnaping 2
 Robbery 2
 Assassination 1
 Genocide 1
 Suicide 1
 Workplace violence 1
 Torture 1
 Child abuse 1
 Road rage 1
 Child abduction 1
 Child pornography 1
 Disability victimization 1
 Harassment 1
Property
 Computer/technological 10
 Organized 5
 White-collar 4
 Transnational 3
 Campus crime 3
 Fraud 2
 Parenting 2
 Casino 1
 Raves 1
 Convenience stores 1
 Espionage 1
 Environmental 1
 Pharmacies 1
 Church crime 1
 Motor vehicle theft 1
 Elderly victimization 1
 

Drugs Drug crimes generally 13
 Substance abuse/use 13
 DUI 1
Other
 Immigration 3
 Homophobia 2
 Civil disobedience 1
 total         182
 

Table 3 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “policing.”  Not surprisingly, the largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to community/problem-oriented policing (n=23 papers, 16% of category), followed by education/training (n=16, 11%), and then a whole range of other topics.
 

Table 3: Paper Topics Related to Policing

Category    # of
of papers     papers

Policing generally 4
Community/problem-oriented 23
Education/training 16
Assessment/accountability/monitoring 8
Profiling 7
Integrity/misconduct 7
Civilian complaints/satisfaction 6
Culture/values 6
Corruption 5
Use of force 5
Stress/suicide 5
Leadership/management/administration    5
Stops 4
Women/race 4
Technology 3
Arrests/race/age 3
Civil liability 3
Patrol/pursuits/response 3
Injury/disability 2
Investigation 2
State police/FOP 2
Number of police 1
Service 1
Relationship with researchers 1
Myths 1
Drug enforcement 1
Careers 1
Affirmative action 1
Professional status 1
Eras 1
Private  1
Volunteer 1
Assaults on police 1
Forecasting 1
Afghan 1
Arab 1
Human rights 1
Special populations 1
total          140
 

Table 4 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “corrections.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to drug treatment (n=20 papers, 20% of category), followed by prisons (n=10, 10%) and probation (n-10, 10%), and then a whole range of other topics.  Several of the other papers also dealt with prisons, including staff/stress, rule violations, art, homosexuality, health care, elderly/kids, conjugal visits, escape, and moms; thus the prison category could be expanded to include a total of 23 papers (23% of category).
 
 

Table 4: Paper Topics Related to Corrections

Category     # of
of papers     papers

Drug treatment 20
Prisons 10
Probation 10
Rehabilitation/treatment 8
Capital punishment 8
Sex offender treatment/registration 7
Jails 6
Staff/stress 6
Parole 6
Rule violations 4
Art 4
Homosexuality 2
Health care 2
Elderly/kids 2
Conjugal visits 1
Escape 1
Moms 1
Punitiveness 1
total           99
 

Table 5 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “criminal justice education.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to general education/distance education/Internet/technology (n=23 papers, 33% of category), followed by a whole range of other topics.
 

Table 5: Paper Topics Related to Criminal Justice Education

Category    # of
of papers     papers

General/distance ed/Internet/technology  23
Student perspectives 6
Models/program development/curricular 6
ACJS issues/accreditation 5
Publishing 4
Critical pedagogy 4
Internships 3
Service learning 3
Women 3
Community colleges 2
Job/interviews 2
Mentoring 2
Library 1
Taped lectures 1
Promotion 1
Practitioners 1
Affirmative action 1
CJ/social work 1
total           69
 

Table 6 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “courts.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to sentencing (n=11 papers, 22% of category), followed by a whole range of other topics.
 

Table 6: Paper Topics Related to Courts

Category   # of
of papers    papers

Sentencing 11
Juries/jury consultants 4
Supreme Court  3
Expert witnesses 3
Wrongful convictions 3
Courts and families 3
Affirmative defenses 3
Eyewitness identification 2
Case law/rights 2
Law and bias 1
Court appearance 1
Judge decision making 1
Peremptory challenges 1
Bail and race 1
Prosecutor discretion and race 1
Litigation 1
Plea bargains 1
Due process 1
Habitual offenders 1
McDonaldization 1
Felony convictions 1
Post conviction relief 1
Testimony 1
Recovered memories 1
Victims rights 1
International courts 1
total            51
 
 

Table 7 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “theories of crime.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to delinquency risk factors (n=12 papers, 34% of category), followed by social/self control (n=5, 14%), strain/poverty (n=4, 11%), and a small number of other theoretical perspectives.
 
 

Table 7: Paper Topics Related to Theories of Crime

Category  # of
of papers  papers

Delinquency risk factors 12
Social/self control 5
Strain/poverty 4
Gender 3
IQ 3
Social disorganization 1
Rational choice 1
Organizational theory 1
Culture 1
African American theory 1
Age 1
Integrated 1
Violence exposure 1
total             35
 
 

Table 8 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “juvenile justice.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation were general papers about juvenile justice (n=11 papers, 38% of category), followed by direct transfer (n=6, 21%), and a small number of other juvenile justice issues.
 
 

Table 8: Paper Topics Related to Juvenile Justice

Category       # of
of papers       papers

Juvenile justice generally 11
Direct transfer 6
Treatment 3
Probation 2
Detention 2
Delinquency 1
Boot camps 1
Drug courts 1
Legal representation 1
Child custody 1
total              29
 

Table 9 provides a more detailed break-down of papers scheduled for presentation in the category of “justice.”  The largest category of papers scheduled for presentation pertained to restorative justice (n=9 papers, 64% of category), followed by a small number of other specific justice issues.
 
 

Table 9: Paper Topics Related to Justice

Category   # of
of papers   papers

Justice generally 1
Restorative 9
Peacemaking 2
Goals of criminal justice system 1
Mediation 1
          total        14
 
 

Conclusion: A Critical Assessment

It is not surprising that most of the papers scheduled for presentation were related to crime; after all, we are an organization that studies crime for a living.  As shown in the analysis, conference attendees presented papers on an impressive variety of types of crimes.  With regard to papers on crime, the volume of papers of terrorism and national security is understandable given the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Some troubling trends were observed in the analysis of papers on crime.  For example, most of the papers scheduled for presentation concerned violent crimes despite the fact that the vast majority of criminal behavior is committed against property.  Our focus on violent crimes serves to reinforce myths about criminality.  Additionally, there were few papers on white-collar and corporate crimes scheduled for presentation, despite the recent reminders by the Ford/Firestone and Enron scandals that these acts are far more damaging than street crimes.  Unless and until we focus on these acts and call widespread public attention to them, our justice system will also continue to pursue street crimes almost exclusively to the detriment of our society.

There were also few papers on parents killing their children, which is surprising given the recent media attention devoted to a few notable cases.  Papers on school violence and victimization are still popular even though school crime rates fell through the 1990s.  The significant number of papers on domestic violence is refreshing given the harmful nature of these crimes.  Our members were scheduled to present dozens of papers on drugs, but these were mostly on illicit drugs rather than the more harmful legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco.  Again, our focus tends to reinforce myths about crime, in this case the myth that illegal drugs are more harmful than legal drugs.  Finally, we presented few papers on crimes against the most vulnerable members of our society, such as the elderly, children, and the mentally ill.  There is no sensible justification for using jails and prisons to house the mentally ill, yet, there were almost no papers on this topic.

With regard to papers on our systems of criminal justice, there were far more papers scheduled for presentation on the police than on courts or corrections.  The largest share of these scheduled papers were on community policing, still the buzz word in policing.  And there were also numerous papers on police education and training.  True to the critical nature of academia, a lot of papers were also scheduled to be presented on topics such as police misconduct, corruption, accountability, civilian complaints and satisfaction, and related issues.  Yet, there were not many papers on police profiling despite its apparent prevalence in police practice.

Of the three components of the justice system, the least amount of papers were related to courts.  Is it fair to ask whether some might suggest that there is just less to study about courts?  After all, we give far fewer resources to operate our courts than to operate our police and correctional facilities, and courts employ far fewer people than police or corrections.  This leads to overburdened courts that must rely on processes such as plea bargaining to maintain efficiency at the expense of justice.  The disproportionate focus by presenters on police and corrections can be justified on many grounds, but I believe much more attention should be placed on the courts, such as the effects of the wars on crime and drugs on everyday courtroom operations and how they interfere with the outcome of justice.

The largest share of courts papers were on issues related to sentencing, including the detrimental effects of mandatory sentences such as three-strikes and bias in the sentencing process.  Additionally, numerous papers were scheduled to be presented on other negative aspects of courts such as bias in the law and in courts, wrongful convictions, the use of peremptory challenges to dismiss jurors, and abuse of discretion by prosecutors.

The most studied topics in corrections were related to treatment including sex offender treatment and drug treatment, followed by numerous aspects of prisons.  There were very few papers scheduled for presentation on capital punishment, which is surprising given that it is the ultimate sanction and that at least five bills are being considered by the U.S. Congress that could lead to a national moratorium or the abolishment of the death penalty.

There were also far less papers scheduled for presentation on crime prevention rather than our largely reactive agencies of police, courts, and corrections.  Similarly, there were few papers on alternatives to criminal justice such as restorative justice, community justice, and so forth.  There were also far less papers on juvenile justice despite the fact that it is in the adolescent years that street crime peaks.  Our members are failing to promote the promising trends in criminal justice practice toward alternative forms of justice and toward early intervention in delinquency to prevent the emergence of career criminality.

Despite the large numbers of papers on police, courts, and corrections, there were few papers scheduled for presentation on the media, comprised of institutions outside the system but which play major roles in creating inaccurate criminal justice images and reinforcing myths of crime.  By not focusing our attention on media structure and process, we allow our audience to ignore the critical role that media institutions play in promoting certain political, moral, and financial interests through their coverage of crime and criminal justice.

Other areas of research that appeared to be under-represented in those scheduled for presentation include race, gender, and especially class related justice processing, comparative criminal justice, and ethics.  I find it stressing that our members do not view these issues as some of the most important to our discipline.  Achieving justice requires an explicit devotion to not discriminating based on extra-legal factors, yet a relatively small number of papers assessed bias in our systems of justice or ethics as it relates to criminal justice.  We also failed to present more than a handful of papers that compare our practices with those of other nations, as we have nothing to learn from others.

Even some “hot areas” such as forensics and cloning did not attract more than a few papers.  Finally, there were relatively less papers on theories of crime, as one might expect given that we are a criminal justice organization.  Those that were scheduled to be presented represent historically significant theories such as social control and strain, but almost none of more imaginative approaches such as theoretical integration, developmental theories, and similar approaches.

Thus, despite the many good things that can be said about the hundreds of papers scheduled for presentation at the 2002 annual conference, we have failed to address with our research some very important topics that are critical to the practice of criminal justice.  It will be interesting to see how this changes at next year’s conference.
 

Return to index above

By: Brandon K. Applegate and Charles W. Otto
University of Central Florida
 

Since its inception, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Southern Criminal Justice Association has endeavored to raise awareness about SCJA and to build linkages with government officials throughout the southern United States.  In pursuit of these objectives, the Committee recently conducted a survey aimed at assessing the current governmental concerns about crime and justice and needs for expertise and information.

In October of 2001, surveys were distributed throughout the Southern region to 116 policymakers, including governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general, legislative leaders, and the top officials in all criminal justice-related state agencies (police, corrections, public safety, juvenile justice, and so on).  Each respondent was asked what major issues they expected would need to be addressed by their state “in the next twelve months” in the areas of policing/law enforcement, corrections, and the courts.  As a follow up, the survey also asked what types of information and expertise the respondent believed would be vital to address these concerns.  The remainder of this article reports the results from the sixteen responses received.
 

Policing/Law Enforcement

Major Issues

By far, the most common answers to this question concerned the issue of “domestic terrorism” or “homeland security.”  Half (8) of the respondents listed this issue as the most salient one.  As one respondent wrote, “The first issue is one that is common to the nation – crafting a local and state law enforcement response to terrorist threats.  In South Carolina, the cabinet agencies under the Governor’s leadership have already engaged in a cooperative effort to develop new policies and procedures to address this threat, including the establishment of an Office of Homeland Defense.”

Other issues noted included drugs, officer training, and distance education.  One respondent indicated that drug issues in general were a statewide concern.  A second responded stated that the specific drug issue of “meth labs” was one of the most important policing issues that will need to be addressed by his/her state in the next twelve months.
 

Information and Expertise Needs

The common need expressed by the state leaders polled was an increase in intelligence.  Two respondents indicated that intelligence about terrorist activities and intentions was key in order for the police help stop terrorism at home.  Other respondents indicated a desire for information about the experiences of other states, including model programs, policy innovations, and legislative actions.
 

Corrections

Major Issues

The most prevalent answers to this question dealt with the inversely related issues of funding for prisons and prison overcrowding.  Ten of the respondents indicated that budget issues or crowding issues or both were the most important corrections issues that needed to be addressed by their state.  One respondent, emphasizing his/her concern, stated that the problem was, “overcrowding, overcrowding, overcrowding.”  This individual further related that insufficient funds to pay for reimbursing counties for housing state prisoners and insufficient funds to pay for building new prisons were very pressing concerns in this state.  Another respondent wrote, “the dramatic budget cuts the SC Department of Corrections has sustained presents their most formidable challenge.  They must not only preserve public safety through humane and lawful containment, but must also manage budget reductions that do not jeopardize the safety of the correctional staff in the institutions.”
Beyond concerns about over crowding and under funding, some respondents noted that their states would need to address recidivism prevention, confinement conditions, re-entry, deinstitutionalization of status offenders, substance abuse programming, and staff turn-over in the coming year.
 

Information and Expertise Needs

Most often, the respondents indicated a need for improved data.  Four respondents indicated that access to better information would be necessary to address the issue of prison crowding.  One respondent wanted “prison population forecasts” while another wanted “sentencing data.”  Another respondent wanted “national data on approaches to controlling inmate medical costs.”  “Modern, automated information management systems that can provide accurate, real-time data to agency executives in order to address resource problems and security issues” were the necessities noted by a different respondent.  Thus, the leaders in the Southern region expressed a clear desire for more and better information to assist with planning and decision making in corrections.
 

Courts

Major Issues

Showing concerns similar to those expressed in terms of corrections, the policy makers surveyed indicated that their jurisdictions face problems with handling the workload of the courts.  The most common response to our question about the major issues that would need to be addressed in the coming year had to do with crowded dockets. Three respondents indicated that a crowded courtroom docket was the most salient issue facing the courts.  As one respondent wrote, “The backlog of civil and criminal cases is acknowledged to impact negatively on the economic vitality of the state, raises public safety concerns, and adversely affects victims of crime.”

In the area of juvenile justice, one policy maker suggested that court staffing and aftercare would need to be addressed.  Furthermore, he or she reported that the state would need to consider “reframing sanctions and services to reflect a balanced and restorative justice model.”
 

Information and Expertise Needs

Two of the three respondents who indicated that crowded court dockets were at issue reported directly related information and expertise needs.  One stated the solution was technological, while the other felt that crowding could be solved through “internal, redistribution of the positions.”  Identification of needs for “technical assistance” and information about model programs and peer state practices were common.
 

Return to index above

 By: Willard M. Oliver, Ph.D., R.J. Beckwith, and Nicholas Joyce
Radford University
 

Introduction

Radford University (http://www.radford.edu/) is located in the city of Radford, Virginia (http://www.radford.va.us/) in southwest Virginia.  The city is bordered by the New River and Interstate 81 and lies in the center of the New River Valley.  It is approximately twenty minutes from the campus of Virginia Tech (http://www.vt.edu/), one hour south of Roanoke, Virginia (http://www.roanokegov.com/WebMgmt/ywbase61b.nsf/p$start.htm), three and ½ hours north of Charlotte, North Carolina, and is four and ½ hours south of Washington, D.C.  Radford University is a coeducational public university that has six undergraduate colleges consisting of 112 programs and a Graduate College with 45 existing programs.  The Radford University Criminal Justice program (http://www.radford.edu/~crju-web/) is the largest program in the College of Arts and Sciences (http://www.radford.edu/~cas-web/) and one of the largest programs on campus with over 600 undergraduate students and 75 graduate students.
 

History of Radford University (http://www.radford.edu/AboutRU.htm)

Radford University was established by the General Assembly as the State Normal and Industrial School for Women in 1910 and has been in continuous session since its 1913 opening. The university became Radford State Teachers College in 1924 and was authorized to award the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1935. In 1944, the university was consolidated with the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech) as its Women's Division and renamed Radford College. The General Assembly severed the formal affiliation of Radford College with Virginia Tech in 1964, and an autonomous administration was established for  Radford College. The college also was authorized to grant the Master’s degree. In 1972,  after almost 60 years as an all-women's college, Radford became coeducational and in 1979 was granted university status by the General Assembly (http://www.radford.edu/AboutRU.html).
 

History of the Criminal Justice Program

The Criminal Justice undergraduate program at Radford University began like a number of other criminal justice programs in the nation.  After the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, federal funding for the Law Enforcement Educational Program (LEEP) provided grants to police officers to attend colleges and universities, while at the same time providing the funding to start criminal justice programs throughout the country (Adler, 1995; Hale, 1998).  In Virginia, the grant for creating a criminal justice program went to Virginia Commonwealth University (http://www.has.vcu.edu/) to establish a federally funded criminal justice program (http://www.has.vcu.edu/crj/) (Stinchcomb, 1998).  In addition, a number of community colleges in the state were either expanding their preexisting criminal justice programs or creating new programs to attract those officers that were receiving the LEEP grants to attend college.  One such community college was the New River Community College (http://www.nr.cc.va.us/) which had a two year Associates degree program in policing (http://www.nr.vccs.edu/nrcc2/%7Eadj/index.html).  Because a criminal justice program was being created in Richmond, Virginia and a two-year degree program existed in the New River Valley, the need for a four year degree program would become evident as both an alternative to the University located on the eastern side of Virginia and as a means of finishing a four-year degree for those enrolled in the local community college.  As a result, in 1974, the criminal justice undergraduate program at Radford University was created.

The program was initially housed in the History department along with the political science department and was administered by an interdisciplinary committee (Call, 2001).  This committee “consisted of members from the Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Social Work Departments” (Atwell, 1997, p. 4).  At the time, the criminal justice curriculum included classes from each discipline represented on the interdisciplinary committee.  The first Director of Criminal Justice, while the program was still under the History Department, was Ken Werrell (Call, 2001).

The criminal justice program was originally designed to provide only the final two years of a bachelor’s degree for students from the New River Valley Community College.  Due to the number of students and the lack of faculty to oversee them, the program required students to take eighteen hours at any community college in the areas of criminology, courts, probation and parole (Atwell, 1997).  Like the community college programs, the interdisciplinary program was geared toward current criminal justice practitioners.  At the time, “a student studying to receive a criminal justice undergraduate degree could concentrate in one of the following areas: law enforcement, administration of justice, or corrections” (Atwell, 1997, p. 4).  Because the number of incoming students interested in the field of criminal justice continued to grow, the program expanded to a complete four-year program in 1976 (Atwell, 1997, p. 4).

Administratively, the political science program achieved departmental status and the criminal justice program moved out with it in 1978.  Dr. James Gilbert (Currently of the University of Nebraska, Kearney http://www.unk.edu/acad/cj/faculty.html) served as the first Program Coordinator with a criminal justice background (Call, 2001).  It was this same year that the chair of the Political Science and Criminal Justice Department first proposed the development of a criminal justice master’s degree program (Atwell, 1997, p. 4).  By 1985, there were approximately 250 undergraduate and graduate students taking criminal justice courses, however, they were only being taught by three full-time professors: Dr. Jack Call (http://www.radford.edu/~jcall/), Dr. James Gilbert, and Mr. Sid Snellenburg.  Because of the continued growth in the number of students, criminal justice became its own department in 1989, separating from the Political Science Department.

In 1988, Dr. James Gilbert stepped down as program coordinator and moved to the University of Nebraska, Kearney.   Dr. Paul Lang (Currently at Northern Michigan University http://www.nmu.edu/cj/) was hired to replace James Gilbert.  Dr. Jack Call then became the first chair of the criminal justice department at Radford University. In 1992, Dr. Lang took over these duties until 1997, when he departed for Northern Michigan University.  Dr. Mary Atwell then served as chair until 2001, when Dr. Isaac Van Patten assumed these duties.  During this time frame, from 1988 to the present, the number of faculty within the criminal justice department grew from three full time professors to its current ten full-time faculty.
 

Figure 1:

At the same time, it should be pointed out that the number of students has grown from 250 undergraduates to over 600 and has moved from only a dozen or so graduate students to over 75.  In addition, the number of those students graduating with Baccalaureate degrees has increased from the first few graduates in 1976, to a high of nearly 200 in 1995, with a downward sloping trend to date (See Figure 1).  Moreover, the number of Master’s degree recipients has also seen an increase from one in 1978 and another in 1980 to the high of 21 in 1995 (See Figure 2).  Like the baccalaureate degree trend, there has been a slight falling away since that time period.  Much of the dramatic surge in the mid-1990s was due to an enrollment increase at Radford University in the early 1990s.  Radford University as a whole experienced some growing pains during this time period and adjusted its enrollments slightly downward.  Once again though, enrollments at Radford University and in the Criminal Justice program have seen continued growth over the past two years.
 

Figure 2:

 

In addition, to the growth on campus, Radford University has also moved forward with several off-campus programs.  One of the programs is located in Roanoke, Virginia, at Virginia Western Community College (http://www.vw.cc.va.us/), where they have an Associates degree program in criminal justice (http://www.vw.cc.va.us/socsci/fp/admin_justice-00.htm).  The criminal justice department at Radford University entered into an agreement in the mid-1990s to provide the final two years of instruction at the community college, allowing Roanoke area students to complete a four-year Radford University criminal justice degree without commuting.  In addition, the criminal justice department has also entered into a cooperative agreement in Roanoke to provide the Master’s degree at the Roanoke Higher Education Center (http://www.education.edu/), a facility that offers other degree programs from other universities across the state to include:  the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Hampton University.  Finally, in 1999, another cooperative agreement was reached to provide the Master’s program at the Southwest Higher Education Center in Abingdon, Virginia (http://www.swcenter.edu/), thus providing a service to a region that previously had no access to such a degree program.
 

Undergraduate Curriculum

In the 1975-1976 academic year the undergraduate curriculum, as previously stated, was set up to provide the final two years of a baccalaureate degree after the student had completed an Associate’s degree at a local community college.  The courses required for the degree consisted of courses from the various inter-disciplinary departments: political science, psychology, and sociology; and three sub-fields of criminal justice were created: law enforcement, administration of justice and corrections.  The majority of these courses came from pre-existing classes such as abnormal psychology, juvenile delinquency, deviance, and criminology.  A few new courses were added such as corrections and “the police and public policy.”

For the 1978-1979 academic year the undergraduate curriculum became more defined as the number of students entering the program began to increase.  Students were required to transfer their community college courses in law enforcement, complete the inter-disciplinary curriculum, and select electives from the Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work programs.  Then in 1979-1980, the three subfields expanded into law enforcement and administration, criminology and the court system, and probation, parole and corrections.  Electives in the Anthropology Department were also added as an option that academic year.

As the criminal justice program at Radford University entered the 1980s, the program had full-time faculty overseeing the criminal justice courses and had developed into a full fledged four-year program, no longer dependent upon students entering from the community colleges.  The program was, therefore, able to expand by requiring core courses in criminal justice, political science, psychology, and Sociology/Anthropology.  In addition, students selected a concentration area consisting of either law enforcement and administration, criminology and the courts, or probation, parole, and corrections.  Students would then take specified classes in each of these areas.  This system of tracking students into one of three areas in criminal justice remained throughout the 1980s until the program saw major revisions in the early 1990s.

For the 1992-1993 academic year, the undergraduate curriculum was restructured to provide the criminal justice student with a more general and balanced background to the criminal justice system.  The track method was abolished and students were required to take a number of core criminal justice requirements such as introduction to criminal justice, Constitutional rights of the criminally accused, historical perspectives of criminal justice, comparative criminal justice, and the criminal justice system: issues of race and gender.  Students were required to select three electives from a set of other major courses such as introduction to forensic science, judicial processes, juvenile justice, and corrections.  Finally, students were required to take a core set of requirements outside of the Criminal Justice Department such as abnormal psychology, criminology, and juvenile delinquency.  With some minor modifications over the 1990s, this curriculum has remained in place since that time period and meets the minimum standards and principles (http://www.acjs.org/new_page_15.htm) adopted by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (http://www.acjs.org/) in 1998 (ACJS 1998).

One addition to the undergraduate curriculum came in 1996 with the addition of a “forensic science” option.  This option allowed students to complete 18 hours in the area of criminal justice investigation courses as well as courses outside of the criminal justice department in the sciences to become familiar with this area of study.  Due to some limitations of the “option” concept, the program is being expanded into a minors program commencing in the Fall of 2002.
 

Graduate Program

Although the graduate program was created in the late 1970s, like the undergraduate curriculum, it was largely an inter-disciplinary one.  The program consisted of thirty-six hours in graduate level courses from a number of other disciplines.  It did not become well defined until the 1985-1986 academic year when the program created a M.A. with 30 hours and 6 hours of thesis research and a M.S. degree with 36 hours of courses and an oral exit exam.  Like the undergraduate program it consisted of core courses that were required and it created areas of concentration which included Administration and Management, Court Services and Corrections, and Law Enforcement.  Each area of concentration would consist of one or two courses offered by the criminal justice faculty and the rest were inter-disciplinary courses from other departments.

Also, reflecting the movement toward a more general and balanced approach to a criminal justice curriculum, the graduate program in 1995, like the undergraduate program, abolished the three areas of concentrations and developed a system of required courses (24 credits), criminal justice electives (6 credits) and free electives (6 credits).  The required courses consisted of organizational theory, race and gender, historical perspectives in criminal justice, public policy in criminal justice, criminological theory, issues in criminal justice, civil liberties and criminal law, and research methods.  This curriculum also was more in line with the minimum standards of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

More recently (2001-2002), a complete review of the graduate curriculum was conducted and a new program was adopted for the 2002-2003 academic year (http://www.radford.edu/~crju-web/gradnew.htm).  The new program attempted to reduce the high number of core required classes from 24 hours to 18 and it added a survey of criminal justice course and expanded the hours of research methods required from three to six hours.  The two courses in research methodology consist of one course that introduces the student to the research process and qualitative research, while the other emphasizes quantitative methodology.  The electives have also created two foundations courses, one in law enforcement and one in corrections, as well as adding a course on criminal justice ethics.
 

Faculty

There are currently ten teaching faculty members at Radford University with two full professors, three associate professors, five assistant professors and one professor emeritus (http://www.radford.edu/~crju-web/faculty.html).  Six of the faculty members currently have tenure, while the rest are in tenure-track positions.  There are also eight professors holding the Ph.D. and two currently A.B.D.  The backgrounds of the faculty members assuredly meet the requirements of inter-disciplinary principles and diversity in that one has a degree in anthropology, one in history, one in psychology, and several in the public administration and political science fields.  There are two professors in the department who hold the Ph.D. in criminal justice, one from John Jay and the other Sam Houston State. One professor also holds both the Ph.D. and the Juris Doctorate in law.

The diversity in backgrounds and research interests has created a well balanced faculty that can meet the interests of most students ranging from the main areas of criminal justice research (police, courts, corrections) to the more focused areas of research such as women’s issues in criminal justice, comparative criminal justice systems, and the politics of crime.  In addition, because the faculty backgrounds and interests are so diverse, the research activities of the faculty also reflect that same diversity.
 

Program Activities

The criminal justice program at Radford University has also offered a number of additional activities, both academic and non-academic that have been very popular.  The program offers a very extensive internship program giving students the opportunity to work with criminal justice agencies in their area of interest.  Some of the more coveted internships have included those with the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs, and the F.B.I. in Quantico, Virginia.  Because of Radford’s location, there are a number of local internships in the New River Valley and Roanoke, Virginia State internships, and those with the Federal Government.  While internships are not a required part of the program they are highly encouraged by the Criminal Justice Department faculty and approximately 45 to 65 students a year participate in the program.

In addition, for the past six years, the Criminal Justice Department has offered a study abroad program in Venezuela, giving students the opportunity not only to visit another country and culture, but to come to understand the international and comparative criminal justice systems area of research first hand.  On average, 30 students a summer have taken advantage of this program and have come away with some valuable knowledge and life experience.

Finally, the Radford University Criminal Justice Department works closely with students in sponsoring three student organizations, the criminal justice club (http://www.radford.edu/~crjuclub/), Alpha Phi Sigma (the National Criminal Justice Honors Society http://www.alphaphisigma.org/) and Lambda Alpha Epsilon http://www.radford.edu/~lae/ (The American Criminal Justice Association http://www.acjalae.org/).  All three of these associations are very active on the Radford University campus and within the Criminal Justice program itself.
 

Conclusion

As Radford University’s criminal justice department quickly approaches its thirtieth anniversary it is well established as one of the largest programs in criminal justice in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The future direction of the criminal justice department is to continue to grow with the University and expand its programs and offerings.  Like most other criminal justice departments in the U.S. it seeks to expand the number of students it can serve, expand the number of full-time teaching faculty, and improve the curriculum offerings to stay competitive in what has become one of the fastest growing fields in the Nation.
 

References

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS).  1998.  ACADEMY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SCIENCES  MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION: Guidelines for College and University-Level Programs.  Available on line at http://www.acjs.org/new_page_15.htm

Adler, Freda.  1995.  “Who are We?  A Self-Analysis of Criminal Justice Specialists.”  ACJS Today.   14(1): 1-21, p. 1.

Atwell, Mary .  1997.  Criminal Justice Program Review.  Criminal Justice Department, Radford University, Radford, Virginia.

Call, Jack E.  2001.  Personal Interview by authors.  April.

Hale, Donna C.  1998.  “Presidential Address: Delivered at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky, March 1997.  Criminal Justice Education: Traditions in Transition.”  Justice Quarterly 15(3): 385-394, p. 387.

Stinchcomb, James D.  1998.  Conversation in March 1998 with lead author.  Stinchcomb was the first chair of the Criminal Justice department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
 

Return to index above