Weber State University   

Criminal Justice - Undergraduate

Results of Assessment

2003-2004 (submitted 05/03/04)

Undergraduate Program Outcome Assessments

DESIRED OUTCOME: Majors should demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate in writing.

HOW ASSESSED:  Evaluation of journals during Fall and Spring Semesters, AY 2003-2004.

ASSESSOR:  Dr. Paul Johnson.

RESULTS:  This exercise follows the same format as that of previous years, adding some lessons learned to the assignment gained from three years of student journal experience. This class requirement has proved invaluable in assessing the writing skills and needs of students during the 14 weeks of journal submisions. In addition to my "thinking with a pencil" concept of last year, I insisted that entries be made each day and not collectively, i.e., a cluster of two or three days in one entry, as some students were submitting. Daily entries gave a closer look into their moods and attitudes as well as encouraging them to realize the benefit of writing shorter, daily entries. This was an extra "discipline additive" which resulted in more thorough, thoughtful transactional and expressive writing. Again this year, most students discovered they possessed unrealized expressive and  creative writing skills, and virtually all of them mentioned the theraputic value of giving written form to their otherwise nebulous concerns. This year I also added my "File 13" activity. At the opening of class I wrote on the board some anonymous grammar and spelling errors received from the previous week's journal submissions. Students appreciated the humor while understanding the serious fact that such errors on resumes and cover letters are an employer's most available tool for candidate elimination.       

IMPLICATIONS:  Students came to realize the importance of this written exercise. First they learned to appreciate the value of being able to express themselves in writing, a primary tool in our discipline. Next, they reflected that writing their resumes and cover letters became a less threatening task. And, perhaps most significantly, they became less fearful of their writing shortcomings and more confident in the ability to express themselves.   

DESIRED OUTCOME: Tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in diverse society

HOW ASSESSED: Focus groups – verbatim accounts from the students who comprised the focus groups. 

ASSESSOR: Dr. Scott Senjo

Introduction

This report is part of a Department of Criminal Justice student outcome assessment.  The data contained herein is derived from focus group research.  Details of the project design and methodology are contained in the Methodology section below.

Methodology

One group of students was formed for the purpose of this focus group research (N=12).  All of the respondents were presented a 5-slide PowerPoint slide show which described the use of focus group research.  The students were then informed about the purpose of the focus group in which they were participants.  Everyone was told “there are no wrong answers,” and to “be as open and candid as possible” with their answers to the specific questions for the study.

The topic “Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in Diverse Society” was broken-down into five (5) subtopics and placed into the form of questions for the respondents to answer.  This provided for the operationalization of the main topic.  The five questions that the respondents were asked are as follows:

1. What do you think is meant by the saying “the U.S. is a ‘culturally diverse’ society”?
2. How do you define the term “cultural tolerance?”
3. In which ways do you think American society is culturally tolerant?
4. In which ways do you think American society is culturally intolerant?
5. What more do you think could be done to promote tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in our diverse society?

The respondents’ answers to the five questions above were immediately transcribed into a computer word processing application.  A tape recorder was not used.  Hence, a small amount of data was not captured (because I could not type on a keyboard that fast, and simultaneous to the data entry, had to moderate the discussion, provide validation of responses, and otherwise keep the discussion flowing along and consistent with the question being answered).  Overall, respondent answers were long and detailed.  There was no need to make the effort to try and elicit more information from the respondents.  They did not need encouragement to answer or speak-up.  Their answers were long and constructive.

Results and Findings

The findings from the focus groups are presented below.  They will be reported in order of the five questions that were asked concerning the topic of Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in Diverse Society

1.  What do you think is meant by the saying “the U.S. is a ‘culturally diverse’ society”?

I think that one is pretty, well, there are two ways you can interpret it.  The answer is in the question – it is implicit that we are ok with a lot of different cultures.

Basically you have so many different people from so many different backgrounds, you get to see other bits of culture and its all accepted and intertwined with everything else in our society.

Yeah – I agree with both of them.  Even though we are all together, everyone tries to keep a little bit of their own identity while being a part of a community.

I don’t have any troubles with outside countries.  The U.S. recognizes different cultures.  When you go to China, do they have a U.S. Town, you know.  But we have them here.  I don’t mean to sound proud, but they all want to come over here and so they form their communities here.  We don’t really go over there and that’s why you don’t see a USA Town in China or Japan.

The reason we have Chinatown is because of the way that we treated them at first – we treated them like trash.  But today it doesn’t have the negative connotation.

I think we are culturally diverse, but not really tolerant.  Like when other cultures have a family environment, we tolerate that because we have a family environment too.

We tolerate it, but don’t really accept it.  We don’t say “we accept your culture”. 

We tolerate you so long as you stay in your own neighborhood.  It’s not quite as caring as we make it seem.

2. How do you define the term “cultural tolerance?”

The U.S is one of the most tolerant there is – you just don’t find other groups like you do in the U.S.  I mean, we are a lot more culturally tolerant than some people claim us to be.

It’s pretty much been summed-up.  We might not necessarily agree with what other cultures do, but we all come from some other place, so we are pretty culturally tolerant.  We all came from another country, you know.

Pretty much my answer has been covered in Question 1 – we tolerate ‘em but pretty much not much more than that, you know?

We tolerate you but we don’t like you – so tolerance always has a negative association to some immigrant community or other.  There never will be a true diversity because we’ll never be on the same level.  There will always be a powerful group or a more powerful group that has influence and puts other cultures in their place, like slaves.

3. In which ways do you think American society is culturally tolerant?

Yeah, just from my personal experience, we have a lot of festivals and parties and kava drinkings where other cultures let down their guards and let you know more about their culture.  There are a lot of holidays, like Greek Festival and Indian Festival, and so forth.

I mean we have gays.  Gays can get married.  People can protest anything they want.  Tolerate is a bad word to use when it comes to other people.  We do a good job of accepting other cultures.

I can’t think of anything that has not already been covered.

We have festivities, but we do not kick them out.  We allow them to participate in those things, and allow their culture to function.

We may call their rain dance silly – but we tolerate it.  We don’t accept it.

There is a lot more integration – blacks and whites marry.  That used to never happen before.

Universities are a lot more tolerant like with Affirmative Action although that’s going a little overboard.  We’ve gone too far in giving other cultures a break.

I don’t think that is going overboard, its just promoting diversity.

The University of Michigan didn’t do this because it would be just white males if they didn’t do it, that’s why they established Affirmative Action policies.

Well, you need to take lots of other things into consideration, like if he’s a choir boy, or anything.  I mean, skin color should not be the only thing.

I don’t know if that’s huge enough to shift the scales.  If it was good enough, why aren’t more law schools full of minorities?

Its about survival, people are not able to go to law school.  They are economically disadvantaged.  They can’t study, they have to work!

Minorities mostly are just choosing to not get a better education.  They had their chance.

Blacks can’t argue that they have not been slaves, but they have been placed in an equal opportunity situation now, so they have their chance.  They have to take advantage of the chance they have now.

You can’t take away choice, they have a choice, it does not matter what color – they come up out of bad situations and make choices to do things. 

One reason we aren’t as tolerant is because we have gone overboard on Affirmative Action.  Now we are pissed-off and less tolerant.

Why am I not listed as a minority?

You’re a victim only if you choose to be a victim.

But that’s the point, I don’t have the chance – we don’t all have equal access. 

It’s all about motivation – you have to be motivated and if you’re not motivated then you can’t expect everyone to pay for it for you.

I have to get off my ass to get it.  It’s just taking the extra mile to go get the resources.

If others don’t give it to you are you going to just quit?

4. In which ways do you think American society is culturally intolerant?

I think that we improve year by year – a lot of the issues have to do with the understanding that a lot of people do not have the knowledge and the information to get what they need.

Um, oh, I don’t know, probably just by not, well, certain groups may want to have celebrations and other groups don’t want to. 

It’s easy to just to say culture when people are saying people across the borders are taking out jobs, when they won’t even get off their ass and get a job, they have to get a job instead of complaining.  There’s a lot of people who just feel sorry for themselves and take social security.  That’s just bumming off of the system.

Intolerance is ignorance also.

I think it’s always going to be people passing on the beliefs of intolerance things like the belief that one culture is superior to another like from the south.  They’ll pass along the idea that whites are superior to blacks and things like that.

5. What more do you think could be done to promote tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in our diverse society?

Law school free for everyone!

Education!  It’s all about education.  The more we learn about other races, the more we’ll be able to accept them.

The more you know the easier it is to understand, the better you can accept it.

Like, I don’t know, well, the kids I work with always say “I don’t like so and so,” so we never have to like others, but we have to accept them.

If you allow intolerance and just a forced acceptance and that to go on it will surface in another way on another level.

We cannot promote tolerance, we have to promote acceptance.

People in government and those older positions are still intolerant because they were brought up that way.  When out generation gets up there, it’ll be different.  But right now, they have all the beliefs about other cultures and are less tolerant.

We have the internet!  So we can learn a lot about other cultures anytime we want!

I just think its kind of ironic that we are discriminating to get rid of discrimination. Its reverse discrimination.

I think there’s gotta be a better solution.

When is discrimination a positive connotation.  It’s about choices –

DESIRED OUTCOME:  Majors should demonstrate the ability to obtain employment.

HOW ASSESSED:  Graduation Exit Surveys

WHO DID THE ASSESMENT: Mrs. Faye Medd

RESULTS:

A total of 57 graduate exit surveys were taken. In reference to the question about “current employment,” ten were currently unemployed, eleven had positions in the criminal justice industry and 36 had jobs not related to criminal justice. Question number 8 asked “Are you actively seeking a position in the criminal justice field?” and students replying “no” said that they were going to fire fight and then apply for a permanent position with the Forrest Service, were undecided due to military circumstances, planned to go active duty with the military, criminal justice was only a stepping-stone toward a position in the Psychology area, were already currently employed in the criminal justice area, enjoyed their current job and planned to attend graduate school, student’s current job provided for their family, would rather find a job in counseling, were going on to law school, more interested in a position that combines social work and criminal justice, and have decided to spend time with their children.

If they replied yes to “experiencing difficulty finding a suitable placement” the reasons were: they were put on waiting lists, they want to work with the Federal Government, they have to complete POST before applying to a certain agency, CSI jobs are hard to find in Utah, agency wanted student to start immediately, agencies are not currently hiring, the student did not have U.S. citizenship, experience is required, jobs do not offer a reasonable starting salary/pay rate, ten qualified students interviewing for the same job, lack of experience in job searching, and due to the back ground check process. When asked Question 9, “What, if anything, have you learned from your job search with regards to finding suitable criminal justice employment that would be helpful to share with others?”, they noted: Students should do an internship (field experience course), having a Criminal Justice degree is good, networking at job fairs is helpful, good resume writing is important, start early, corrections offers a good job market, do volunteer work, use the internet to job search, Senior Seminar class was very helpful, student should have studied chemistry as a minor to improve hiring, there are few jobs opportunities in Ogden for criminalistics, more preparation needed for the interview process, apply for all jobs whether qualified or not, and experience and a degree are preferred by the hiring agencies.

Students answered the question about “What suggestions, if any, would you have for the criminal justice department to help improve the marketability of its majors?” by stating: Provide more of a variety of internships, provide students with more info on how to contact juvenile state agencies, help with job search, more job fairs, schedule information learned in the Seminar class earlier in education, provide more student involvement, increase community involvement, department is doing a fantastic job, bring in more recruitment speakers for classes, have a career placement test, have more CSI courses, update Criminal Justice website, department should have less vocational training and more theory, make Victimology a required course, recommend a good science background for Criminalistics students, use the Career Center early, photography should be required for Criminalistics, require students to go through POST or the Corrections Academy before graduating, and our department should work closely with state and local agencies to know the needs and coordinate continuing education of police officers.  The last question, “What suggestions, if any, would you have for the Criminal Justice Department to help improve the quality of its educational program” received the following responses: 1). Make sure each counselor is clear on what exactly is needed for specific jobs, 2). Not requiring a minor, 3). Have professors more available, 4). Have the Criminal Justice classes available every semester, 5). Offer a class on the Psychology of the criminal mind, 6). Take student’s problems and concerns more seriously, 7). Add more courses, 8). Hire professors based on experience also, 9). Job fair at SLCC also, 10). Mention societies and agencies in CJ1010 for students to join, 11). Repair the broken equipment in the crime lab, 12). Students should meet with an advisor before declaring a major, 13). More advisor involvement, 14). Increase student responsibility in the classroom over learning, 15). More night classes, 16). Separate Criminalistics into a forensic area and a CSI area, 17). Have more “hands-on” classes, 18). Offer CJ Seminar on Saturdays, and the 19). Program needs more “out of class” work.

DESIRED OUTCOME: To gain an awareness of crime victim assistance.

HOW ASSESSED: In-class Examination

ASSESSOR: Dr. David Murphy

RESULTS:  The majority of students entered class with a strong commitment to identifying and respecting the rights and needs of crime victims.  During the semester most students gained an understanding of the challenge of balancing the needs of victims against the rights of the accused.  Students were also introduced to the notion that overzealous efforts to promote the interests of victims may conflict with other CJ system objectives, including the right of the accused to due process.  Students demonstrated proficiency in understanding the dual priorities of controlling crime and respecting due process. In addition, students learned about the methods of measuring the extent of crime victimization (victimization surveys, etc.), the costs of crime experienced by victims, and the role of victims in the process of administering justice (through victim-impact statements, etc.).  The vast majority of students demonstrated (via in-class examinations) an understanding of the various reasons victims do not report crimes and the problems associated with accurately measuring victimization rates.  Remedies to these problems are discussed throughout the term.  Students consistently vocalized their concerns regarding assistance to crime victims and are informed of the services provided by victim assistance programs.  Students were also encouraged to consider how victim-compensation programs and the restorative justice model might be applied to alleviate the strain crime places on victims. 

IMPLICATIONS:  Understanding the issues related to crime victim assistance is critical to appreciating the ongoing challenges of balancing the need to control crime with the need to preserve the due process rights of the accused.  With this awareness, students are better prepared to confront the realities associated with a career in the criminal justice system. 

DESIRED OUTCOME: Grasp fundamental concepts, nature of criminal law

HOW ASSESSED: Eighteen questions dealing with basic criminal law concepts were embedded in the Comprehensive Exams given to Senior Seminar Students in the Fall and Spring semesters.  Two tests and two “retests” were administered.  The retests were given after the initial test exposed weaknesses that the professor addressed during the semester. The initial tests were given at the very start of the semester and the retests at the very end of the semester.

ASSESSOR: Dr. David Lynch

RESULTS: The two initial tests given at the beginning of the Fall and Spring Semesters and the two retests given at the end of each of the semesters produced the following results:

• Fall ‘03 initial test– students averaged 97.2 percent on the eighteen criminal law questions (overall test average on all questions was 72.5 percent).

• Spring ‘04 initial test- students averaged 97.2 percent on the eighteen criminal law questions (overall test average on all questions was 72.2 percent).

• Fall ‘03 retest- students averaged 98.4 percent on the eighteen criminal law questions (overall test average on all questions was 90.2 percent).

• Spring ‘03 retest- students averaged 98.7 percent on the eighteen criminal law questions (overall test average on all questions was 91.0 percent).

IMPLICATIONS: On both the initial tests (pre-seminar lectures) and the retests (given at the end of the semester) students performed above 97 percent on the criminal law questions. This performance was well above the averages on the exams as a whole.  The students did exceptionally well on the initial tests each semester (as compared with the non-criminal law questions), strongly suggesting that they had gained a solid grasp of criminal law concepts even without the senior seminar professor needing to review the material during the semester.  Students apparently are gaining strong exposure during the four year program to the basic principles of criminal law without needing a review during the senior seminar course.

DESIRED OUTCOME: Competent consumers of criminal justice research.

HOW ASSESSED: Qualitative and quantitative research projects during the Fall 2003 Research Methods class offered by Dr. David Lynch

ASSESSOR: Dr. David Lynch

RESULTS: The average score on the students’ qualitative research project (involving oral interviews of subjects regarding various controversial topics in criminal justice) was a solid “B” (84.5 percent). The average score on the students’ quantitative research project (in which students analyzed data from the results of a questionnaire which they designed and administered themselves) was 86.2 percent. Students did an exceptionally good job on the quantitative project in that most students elected to use SPSS (statistical package for the social sciences) even though that was optional.

IMPLICATIONS: Students did a good job on both the qualitative and quantitative research projects. I felt confident that they had a good grasp of how to do social science research and hence would be more sophisticated consumers of it.

DESIRED OUTCOME: General understanding of major theories of ethics

ASSESSOR: Dr. Frank W. Budd

HOW ASSESSED: Student comprehension and application of theoretical principles are demonstrated in the following ways:

Student responses on 4 examinations, including a non-comprehensive final. Each examination includes questions that do, or do not, reveal the student’s understanding of the ethical theories presented in the course, and their appropriate application. All exams include an objective form of questions and brief essay answers.

During the term, four brief case studies are presented. Students are required to submit a written response to each one, considering and applying appropriate theories including: utilitarian, deontological, religious ( absolute/ relative), natural law and/or concepts of situational ethics as they pertain to criminal justice. Additionally, students are asked to include in their considerations the concepts of justice, duty, and  peacemaking.

At the end of each semester, all students are required to submit a short paper explaining their personal/professional ethical philosophy. In this assignment, they are, once again, asked to express this statement in terms of the theories presented throughout the term.

Throughout the term, the professor poses ethical problems, dilemmas, and personal ethical challenges he has experienced as a criminal justice practitioner. Every student has the opportunity to respond, provide an action or decision, and explain it applying an ethical theoretical framework.

RESULTS: Student performance on the examinations, the case studies, the expression of personal philosophy, and class discussion indicate that every student understands the theoretical basis for ethical considerations in the field of criminal justice.

Specifically, the first course examination focused completely on theories of ethics. The mean score for that examination was 92 ( 16 students, with only 1 below a score of 86).

The mean score for the out-of-class case study assignments was 72 out of a possible 80 points.

IMPLICATIONS: This course challenges students to think about their personal ethical notions, concepts, biases and integrity. For most, they come to the conclusion that each situation requires thoughtful consideration as to “why” they believe a particular course of action is appropriate; and, they are forced to defend ( to themselves) their final decision.

Given the apparent breach of personal and professional ethics we read about, hear about, and see in our own lives, it seems essential that all criminal justice students should be required to take an ethics course.

DESIRED OUTCOME: Develop an understanding of definitions, issues, influences and methods utilized in criminal justice policy making and implementation.

ASSESSOR:  Dr. Frank W. Budd

HOW ASSESSED: A comprehensive take home examination is required of each student. Included are 4 case studies and one U.S. Supreme Court decision. Students typically submit 10-15 page responses to the directed questions, and are required to discuss their responses in class.

Additionally, each student is required to select a policy topic/area and prepare a policy paper on that issue. The paper includes:

                                    – a clear statement of the policy issue, past and present solutions/programs

                                    – the student’s recommendation for a new policy

                                    – the rationale for the policy recommendation

                                    – what steps are required to achieve implementation of the policy/program

– what audience must be included in successfully gaining support for the policy recommendation

                                    – intended consequences and possible unintended consequences

                                    – implications for the criminal justice system as a whole

Each student is required to present his/her paper to the class. This includes an explanation, and presenting the paper as if it were before a group of policy makers. Questions, agreements, disagreements, suggestions and evaluations of the policy recommendation are dealt with by each student presenter.

RESULTS: Student performance on the comprehensive examination clearly demonstrated the students’ comprehension of policy issues, special interest group influences on policy, and methods of developing and implementing policy. Examination grades ranged from 78 to 96 out of 100 possible points, with a mean score of 86.

Student performance on the assigned policy paper was satisfactory. Specifically, grades were distributed as follows: (A) 5; (A-) 7; (B+) 7.