A STUDY or THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION i .. PATTERNS OF MICHIGAN CCMMLINNY COLLEGES” f ,. CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES AND A PROGRAM -- EVALUATION OF THE CoMMuNITY COLLEGES IN «.3 _ . r . MICHIGAN ' 7 . . Thesis for the Degree of M; S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . ' SANDRA L. EAGLE AND R.- THOMAS D‘ULL ; 19-75 . ‘ o ------ ...... 10....-. ._ ' - ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES' CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES AND A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN By Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull ‘ This study was part of a coordinated research project being conducted by the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association concerning criminal justice education at the community colleges in Michigan. The purpose of this study was to develop a data base that includes information concerning placement and utilization of . Michigan's community college criminal justice graduates and the graduates' evaluation of their community college program. The survey population consisted of 274 criminal justice graduates of June, 1974, from ten community colleges in Michigan. A mailed-self—administering questionnaire was sent to the gradu- ates and a response rate of 76.30 percent was received. The findings most pertinent to each investigative research area were: Investigative Area I. Graduate Satisfaction With Major: Almost every graduate, regardless of employment status, was satisfied with criminal justice as his college major. Over ninety-seven percent of the graduates specialized in "law Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull enforcement." Almost ninety percent of reSpondents stated that they were satisfied with their area of specialization. Investigative Area 11. Students' Program Evaluation: On the whole, the graduates gave a positive evaluation of their com- munity college criminal justice program. In general, the student felt prepared for work at the level of operation; however, a higher proportion of in-service graduates (43.75 percent) desired more emphasis at the administrative or supervisory level. The majority of graduates (approximately sixty percent) preferred an "applicable total interacting system approach" to community college criminal justice education. At all the community colleges, the graduates. ranked equipment being in greatest need of improvement. While the community college faculties were generally rated high, the full- time faculty were rated significantly higher than the part-time faculty. Investigative Area III. Financial Assistance: The Law Enforcement Education Program has played a significant role in financial assistance of community college criminal justice gradu- ates. Over forty percent of the graduates received LEEP. A significant difference was discovered between graduates' age, sex, and pre-service/in-service status and whether they received LEEP. There was a significant relationship between those who received LEEP and also received other types of financial assistance. Investigative Area IV. Employment Status: The employment status breakdown of community college criminal justice graduates in Michigan primarily consists of graduates who transferred Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull (47.72 percent) and those individuals employed in public criminal justice agencies (47.2l percent). Investigative Area V. Transfer Student: All but five percent of Michigan's community college graduates attended four- year institutions within Michigan. The transfer graduates attended sixteen different four-year institutions throughout the United States. The largest proportion of transfer graduates (29.29 percent) attended Ferris State College. Full-time and part-time transfer students had significantly different reasons for attending a particular four-year institution. Investigative Area VI. Criminal Justice Employed Gradu— ates; An overwhelming pr0portion (80.95 percent) of graduates who are employed in public or privatecmjminaljustice agencies are currently working for a police agency. Thirteen percent of the graduates employed in the criminal justice field are working for private agencies. Over seventy—nine percent of these graduates are working for local (municipal and county) agencies. The majority of graduates (62.38 percent) who are working for a crimi- nal justice agency are employed at the level of operation. Investigative Area VII. Non-Criminal Justice Employed Graduates: Graduates working for non-criminal justice agencies are primarily employed in positions that are of little esteem, low salaries, and with non-educational requirements. The majority of these positions would be classified as blue-collar. A substantial proportion (33.33 percent) of those unemployed or employed in Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull non-criminal justice agencies are no longer looking for employment in the criminal justice field. Investigative Area VIII. Salary: The mean income of the graduates was $9,l00 and the medium salary was $8,000-S8,999. Sig- nificant differences existed between salary level and graduates' age, race, sex, pre-service/in-service status, and the community college they attended. Investigative Area IX. Ways and Means of Seeking Employ- meat; Over ninety-three percent of the graduates believed that "personal means" was a positive factor in obtaining their employ- ment. At least fifty percent of the graduates gave negative ratings to "community college placement bureau" and "community college criminal justice department" as a factor in their obtain- ing employment. The majority of graduates felt that criminal justice agencies were receptive to hiring college graduates and there was no significant variation because of graduates' sex and/ or pre-service/in-serviCe status. Investigative Area X. Utilization of Degree: The majority (56.02 percent) of graduates believed that their criminal justice education is presently being utilized. The largest proportion of those graduates who felt that their criminal justice education was Qgt presently being utilized were pre-service graduates who were not employed in the criminal justice field. Almost eighty percent of the graduates felt that they experienced no difficulties in their job that were attributable to their criminal justice degree. Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull The major conclusions that can be drawn from this study are as follows: During the last decade the community college has adopted local community service as a necessary part of their educational concept and have become essentially community institutions. Thus, the responsibilities of the community colleges have become to service their local communities' needs. One of these needs is the development of personnel for the local criminal justice agen- cies. While the local community college concept has been generally accepted, our study showed that over forty percent of community college criminal justice graduates have left their community col- lege districts and are now living and working outside these dis- tricts. The obvious ramifications are that the community is losing a valuable "product" that was developed by the community college to be utilized by the local community. One of the more salient results of this study concerns the graduates' evaluation of the criminal justice program. On the whole, Michigan's community college criminal justice graduates have positively evaluated their criminal justice program at their community college. Looking into specifics of the programs, one finds that the graduates rated their full-time faculty signifi- cantly higher than their part-time faculty and this held consistently throughout all the community colleges in Michigan. Also, graduates rated "equipment" and facilities" consistently in greatest need of improvement for each community college. (Over seventy-five percent ranked equipment as either first or second Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull as needing greatest improvement.) Through this, the community colleges should have a better idea of what strengths and weak- nesses exist in their programs and thus be more capable of evaluating their problems and making the necessary changes. One overriding sentiment expressed by the graduates was the lack of counseling and placement services available at their commu- nity college. The student has received little or no training in methods of seeking employment or in obtaining successful assistance from college or department level placement services. The majority of graduates stated that their community colleges were doing an "inadequate" or "extremely poor" job in helping to place students in the criminal justice field. Hopefully, as a result of this study, the community colleges will begin to move in a positive manner towards assisting graduates in obtaining employment. A STUDY OF THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES' CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES AND A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN By Sandra L. Eagle and R. Thomas Dull A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Criminal Justice 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their appreciation to the fol- lowing individuals. To Dr. Larry T. Hoover, Chairman of the Committee, whose guidance and assistance was of utmost value. To Dr. John McNamara and Professor Ken Christian whose service on the Committee was greatly appreciated. To Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association, who without their support and assistance a list of graduates could not have been obtained. To the Criminal Justice Systems Center, for financial sup- port that was greatly appreciated. To the two hundred graduates of the community colleges who responded to the questionnaire without whom the necessary data for this study could not have been otherwise obtained, we express our sincere thanks. Sandy's Special Appreciation I especially want to thank my parents for their continued love, encouragement and support without which I could not have completed this study. To Dave for his extreme patience and understanding on all those lost weekends. ii iii To Tom for putting up with my continual tardiness and with- out whose assistance this project would not have been completed. Tom's Special Appreciation To my parents, for their support, assistance, and love, without which the realization of this day could never have been. To my sister, for putting a roof over my head and food in my stomach to allow me to save money to finance my graduate work. To special friends, for reasons only they could understand. I give my appreciation and thanks to Dave, Donn, Jerry, and Jill. To Sandy, for understanding those dreary-eyed Saturday mornings, and without whose assistance this project would not have been completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter l. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . l STATEMENT OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . 3 NEED FOR STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PURPOSE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . ll RELEVANCY OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . ll STATEMENT OF INVESTIGATIVE AREAS AND THEIR RATIONALE . . . . . . . . ll DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . . . . . . . . . 24 FORMAT OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 26 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE . . . . . . . . . . 26 COMMUNITY COLLEGE STATISTICS . . . . . . . . 31 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . 34 CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . 37 CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN . . . . . 47 FOLLOW-UP STUDIES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES . Sl 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 68 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 iv Chapter CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT DATA COLLECTION RESEARCH AREAS INVESTIGATED DATA ANALYSIS . SUMMARY . 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS FORMAT OF DATA PRESENTATION GENERAL INFORMATION . INVESTIGATIVE AREA I INVESTIGATIVE AREA II INVESTIGATIVE AREA III . INVESTIGATIVE AREA IV INVESTIGATIVE AREA V INVESTIGATIVE AREA VI INVESTIGATIVE AREA VII . INVESTIGATIVE AREA VIII INVESTIGATIVE AREA IX INVESTIGATIVE AREA X 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY . CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX . Page 69 7O 72 79 79 Bl Bl 81 83 92 108 1l7 122 136 151 155 166 176 186 186 187 200 207 LIST OF TABLES* Table Page 1 General Characteristics of the Sample . . . . . 82 1.1 Satisfaction With College Major . . . . . . . 83 1.2 Employment Status of Graduate by Satisfaction With College Major . . . . . . . . . . 84 1.3 Area of Specialization . . . . . . . . . . 86 1.4 Satisfaction With Area of Specialization . . . . 86 1.5 Community College Attended by Area of Specialization . . . . . . . 87 1.6 Graduates' Sex by Their Area of Specialization . . 88 1.7 Courses Taken by Graduates at the Community College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 1.8 Reasons For Not Continuing Education by Pre-Service/In-Service Status . . . . . . . 91 1.9 Community College Attended by Reasons For Not Continuing Education . . . . . . 93 2.1 Program Preparation of Student for Level of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.2 Emphasis at Administrative or Supervisory Level by Pre-Service/In-Service Status . . . . . . 95 2.3 Approach to Criminal Justice Education by Pre—Service/In-Service Status . . . . . . . 96 2.4 Community College Attended by Desired Approach to Criminal Justice Education . . . . 97 2.5 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Approach to Community College Education . . . . . . . . 99 *Tables are labeled to match their corresponding investi- gative area. vi UT-b-D-hww (JON 00 .10A .103 Community College Attended by Desired Approach to Community College Education . Segments of Criminal Justice Department by Need for Improvement . . . . . . Community College by Rank Order of Department' 5 Need for Improvement . Graduates' Rating of Full -Time Faculty and Part- Time Faculty . . Community Colleges and Graduates' Ratings of Full-Time Faculty Community Colleges and Graduates' Ratings of Part—Time Faculty Graduates Who Received LEEP Assistance . Pre-Service/In-Service Status of Graduates and Whether They Received LEEP Graduates' Age and Whether They Received LEEP Assistance . . Graduates' Race and Receiving LEEP Assistance Graduates' Sex and Whether They Received LEEP Assistance . Community College Attended and Whether Graduates Received LEEP Assistance . Types of Financial Aid Other Than LEEP . Other Types of Financial Aid by LEEP Employment Status of Graduates Employment Status of Graduates by Sex Community College by Employment Status . Transferring to a Four-Year Institution by Pre-Service/In-Service Status Four-Year Institutions Attended by Transfer Students . . . vii Page 100 102 103 105 106 107 108 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 119 121 122 123 viii Table Page 5.3 Four-Year Institutions by Mean Rank of Determining Factors in a Transfer Student's Decision to Attend a Four-Year Institution . . . . . . . 126 5.4 Transfer Students Attending Four-Year Institu- tions of First Choice . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.4A Institution of First Choice of Those Transfer Students Not Attending Their First Choice Institution . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.5 Determining Factors in Transferring by Full-Time/ Part-Time Status of Transfers . . . . . . . 130 5.6 Transfer Students Still a Criminal Justice Major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.7 Community College by Transfer Students Remaining Criminal Justice Majors . . . . . . . . . 133 5.8 Transfer Students Remaining in Same Area of Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5.9 Reasons for Continuing Education by Pre-Service/ In-Service Status . . . . . . . . . . . 135 6.1 Graduates Employed in Public or Private Criminal Justice Agencies . . . . . . . . 136 6.2 Graduates Employed in Different Governmental Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.3 Governmental Level of Agency by Type of Agency in Which Employed . . . . . 139 6.4 Graduates Employed in Agency Initially Desired Upon Graduation . . . . . . 139 6.5 Initially Desired Agency by Public/Private Criminal Justice Agency . . . . . . . . 141 6.6 Employed With Initially Desired Agency by Pre-Service/In-Service Status . . . . . . . 141 6.7 Graduates' Current Position in Criminal Justice Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.8 Age by Graduates' Positions . . . . . . . . 143 Table 6.9 oooooooooo Pre-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Private Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction In-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction Pre-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Public Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction . . . . . Rank Order of Determining Factors to Seeking Employment by Pre-Service/In-Service Status . . . . . . Rank Order of Determining Factors in Seeking Employment by Type of Agency Employment of Graduates in Non-Criminal Justice Agencies . . . . . Graduates Unemployed and Employed in Non- Criminal Justice Who Attempted to Find Employment in the Criminal Justice Field . . Graduates Unemployed and Employed in Non-Criminal Justice Agencies Who Are Still Looking for Criminal Justice Employment . . Graduates Satisfied With Employment Outside the Criminal Justice Field . . Graduates' Salary Breakdown Graduates' Age by Their Salary Graduates' Race by Their Salary Graduates' Sex by Their Salary Graduates' Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Their Salary . Community College by Salary Breakdown Graduates Satisfied With Salary Salary Level by Graduates Satisfied With Salary . Initially Desired Agency by Satisfaction With Salary . . . . . . ix Page 145 146 147 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 157 158 159 160 162 163 164 165 Table 8.10 Graduates' Satisfaction With Present Position 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 by Satisfaction With Salary . Graduates' Factors in Obtaining Employment Community College by Graduates' Ways Used to Obtain Employment . . . . . Graduates' Rank Order of Various Agencies' Efforts Toward Recruiting College Graduates Criminal Justice Agencies' Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates . . Graduates' Sex by Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Receptiveness in Hiring College Graduates . . Degree Community College Helping to Place Students in the Criminal Justice Field . . Community College by Degree They Are Helping to Place Students in the Criminal Justice Field Graduates Utilizing Their Criminal Justice Education . . Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Criminal Justice Education Utilization . Employment Status by Criminal Justice Education Utilization Community College by Criminal Justice Education Utilization . . . . Job Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree . . . . . . Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Job Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree . Graduates' Sex by Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree . . . . Graduates Who Feel Education Will Enable Them to Progress More Rapidly in Career . . . Page 165 167 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 178 179 180 181 182 183 183 xi Table Page 10.9 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Graduates Who Feel Education Will Enable Them to Progress More Rapidly in Career . . . . . . . . . 184 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM INTRODUCTION The contemporary comprehensive community college, which is indigenous to this country, is an educational institution that has evolved from the two-year junior college. The first public junior college was established through the influence of William Rainey Harper (President of The University of Chicago) in Joliet, Illinois, around 1902.1 Presently in the United States there are over 1,200 junior and community colleges that serve between three and four million students. The State of Michigan had been one of the early advocates of the junior college idea. Henry Phillips Tappon (President of the University of Michigan) was one of the first proponents of the junior college concept.2 Grand Rapids Junior College was estab- lished in 1914. However, it has only been in the last fifteen years that the idea of the junior college has received statewide attention. In the 19605 the Michigan Legislature, in a response 1Roger Palinchak, The Evolution of the Community College_ (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1973), p. 25. 21mm, p. 41. from growing local needs, provided for the establishment of "public 3 Today, Michigan has an extensive community and junior colleges." community college system that includes twenty-nine colleges and over 160,000 students. In the early 19605, the only criminal justice educational program in Michigan was located at Michigan State University. How- ever, since 1965 there has been an astronomical increase in the number of two-year and four-year institutions that have developed criminal justice educational programs. In a recent survey,4 published for the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association, it was noted that there are presently thirty-four Michigan junior and community colleges, colleges, and universities offering a total of over sixty programs in the area of criminal justice education. Seventeen of the insti- tutions in the state of Michigan offering criminal justice programs are junior and community colleges. These community colleges offer approximately thirty programs at the associate level in the criminal justice area and serve over four thousand students. These four thousand students represent over fifty-two percent of all students in the state of Michigan majoring in the area of criminal 3Roger Yarrington, Junior Colleges: 50 States/5O Years (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junir Colleges, 1969), p. 63. 4Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association, Criminal Justice Education Programs in Michigan (East Lansing: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 1974-75), p. 3. justice. It can be estimated that over six hundred students gradu- ate yearly from community colleges with associate degrees in criminal justice. It is these community college graduates with whom this study is concerned. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The coordinators of the community college criminal justice programs are concerned with their graduates and are asking the fol- lowing questions: How employable are our graduates? Are they obtaining the jobs they desire? Are our graduates being accepted and attending the four-year institutions of their choice? How well are they doing at these four-year institutions? And, in gen— eral, is our community college program meeting the needs of our criminal justice graduates? The problem is that no coordinated follow-up program of criminal justice graduates exists at the community college level in the state of Michigan. Coordinators have little idea where their students are going upon graduation. Also, it is not known whether the students were satisfied with the program (curriculum and faculty) at their community college. Generally, the community college receives little feedback as to whether or not their graduates are utilizing their degrees. In an attempt to obtain the answers to these pertinent questions, this study will develop a most needed community college criminal justice graduate follow-up data base. NEED FOR STUDY For some time now citizens have ranked crime as the most serious national issue and the most important local issue as well. Federal Bureau of Investigation Statistics showed the crime rate rising almost nine times as fast as the population.5 The crime rate is rising in the suburbs and rural areas as well as in the cities. Recognition that crime is a national problem means, if anything, that coordinated efforts are required at all levels of government. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admin- istration of Justice made many recommendations dealing with the police. Many Americans view the police as solely responsible for controlling crime. But, as the Commission stressed, Crime cannot be understood as a narrow range of behavior by certain types of people: it pervades all strata of society, and its control cannot be accom- plished by the police or by the courts and correctional system by themselves.6 Underlying all its recommendations dealing with the police was that "widespread improvement in the strength and caliber of police manpower . . . are the basic essentials for achieving more effective and fairer law enforcement."7 The Commission's Task Force on the Police found that: 5Charles B. Saunders, Jr., Upgrading the American Police: Education and Training for Better Law Enforcement (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1970), p. l. 6 7 Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 3. The failure to establish high professional standards for the police service has been a costly one, both for the police and for society. Existing selection requirements and procedures in the majority of departments . . . do not screen out the unfit.8 The Commission urged support and funding for police educa- tion. However, they did not set any clear guidelines for action. They did find that more effective and fairer law enforcement must necessarily be based on comprehensive and long-term programs to raise the standards of selection and training in police agencies throughout the country.9 Unfortunately, many local officials still find it easier to suggest more men and better equipment than to seek better men and better training. "Police are responsible for maintenance of 'ordered liberty' and this is too serious to be left entirely to standards set by 10 civil service commissions and police executives." It is diffi- cult to convince many educators of this. They tend to view police education as too vocational for academic status. A police officer today must be a social scientist. It is necessary to get a complete man who has an understanding of his society and its people-~a sense of perspective that can come only from a broad, general edu- cation and the higher he goes in rank, the mpre he needs to know about people and their institutions. 8 9 Ibid. Ibid., p. 12. 1“Frank Day, "Administration of Criminal Justice: An Edu- cational Design in Higher Education," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 56 (November, 1965), 540-541. 11 Ibid., p. 543. “Rights of a citizenry in a democracy are so important we cannot afford to allow our police officers to be trained by 'experi- ence.'"12 Our society does not allow other professions to prac- tice without professional preparation and "we cannot afford not to obtain the funds to hire trained personnel."13 Trends of the past in lowering requirements for police must be brought to a halt. This negative approach must stop and the problem must be approached positively. "We must offer educa- tion as an inducement to employment."14 The lack of inducements are draining potential police manpower. Criminal justice agencies must make particular provisions for attracting and retaining col- lege educated individuals. One possible inducement is lateral entry which is a means to obtain professional personnel. To keep these individuals, agencies may offer salary and promotional advantages: "For it goes without saying that unless substantial retentive features are built into an organization's structure, the professionally educated individual will seek a career elsewhere."15 12John J. Mirich and Eugene Voris, l'Police Science Education in the United States: A National Need," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 56 (November, 1965), 545. 13 Ibid., pp. 546-547. 14George Shepherd, "Are We Aiming Too Low in Recruitment," The Police Chief, Vol. 65 (January, 1967), p. 20. 15Merlyn Douglas Moore, "A Study of the Placement and Utilization Patterns and Views of the Criminal Justice Graduates of Michigan State University" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 3. "To remain competitive, police departments have to keep "16 Stepping in to ahead in education, training and technology. answer this need for well-educated and highly trained police officers have been the public community colleges, which are in increasing numbers inaugurating criminology and law enforcement courses--community colleges serve the community by educating policemen. "Two year community colleges are now emerging as the major answer to the need and in the words of one official of the U.S. Education Office 'one of the brightest hopes in higher educa- 17 The role of the community college in tion' for the nation." police advancement is apparent and critical. "Without such part- nership with institutions of higher learning many long range pro- ]8 Growth of two-year fessional goals simply cannot be achieved." community colleges has helped police education move from the realm of terminal-vocational education into the sphere of true higher education. Law enforcement is an occupation demanding a high order of skills and intelligence and the education of its members should not be left to chance alone. 16Betty Garnett, "College for C0ps," Junior College Journal, Vol. 32 (May, 1965), p. 27. 17A. F. Brandstatter, "Education Serves the Police, the Youth, the Community," The Police Chief, Vol. 33 (August, 1966), 12. 18James D. Stinchcomb, "Impact of the Junior College on Law Enforcement Education," Junior College Journal, Vol. 37 (March, 1967), 45-46. Many of the problems experienced in police education are attributable to the fact that police work is not viewed as a pro- fession. Police ranked forty-seven on a list of ninety occupations --below maChinists, undertakers, electricians, welfare workers, 19 agricultural agents and all the professions. According to Charles Tenney, the tasks of the individual in police work and the system within which he performs them are in no way comparable to the features which characterize the traditional professions: "a defined set of conduct norms; a method of self-policing; inde- 20 pendent practice; and a licensing feature." Tenney also states that to "professionalize" may be taken to mean more broadly equip- ping the individual to perform at the highest level of competence 21 with a defined sphere of activity. This view of professionalism is held by many in regard to the police. "A profession is so labeled because it sets standards and regulates its membership."22 Although there are many personnel of professional compe- tence in the criminal justice arena, the occupational grouping categorized as the criminal justice field, as a whole, does not meet the standards of a profession to the degree that it should.23 1QSaunders, op. cit., p. 14. 20Charles W. Tenney, Jr., Higher Education Programs in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1971), p. 4. 21 22 Ibid. Mirich and Voris, op. cit., p. 545. 23Moore. op. cit., p. 2. The move toward higher standards of police professionalism has come mainly from within the field, under the leadership of a relative handful of dedicated police reformers. As was pointed out earlier, crime and its solutions are not just the problem of the police but the whole society is responsible for controlling crime. Society is also responsible for trying to improve the whole criminal justice system. This should not be left to a relative few. The fact remains that no system, whether it be legal or medical, or law enforcement, can ever be changed or improved until there are substantial numbers of indi- viduals, both within and without, who recognize the need for change and have the competence to bring it about. The vital fact is that education is the only vehicle capa- ble of developing such understanding and competence. "If professionalism is to be achieved in police work, the higher education of police officers becomes obligatory."25 If popular stereotypes about the police have been slow to die, one contributing factor has been an absence of research.26 There has been very little research done on the criminal justice graduate. Important questions concerning where graduates go after graduation, what do they do, what do they think about their crim- inal justice education, why do some criminal justice graduates never enter the criminal justice field, and similar questions had 24Tenney, op. cit., p. 5. 255hepherd, op. cit., p. 24. 26Saunders, op. cit., p. 25. 10 not been answered. Some answers are provided by the relatively few surveys conducted on this subject and they will be discussed in the review of the literature section. There has, however, not been any studies of this kind done on the community college criminal justice graduate. The purpose of this study is to provide some answers to these questions about community college criminal justice graduates. Tenney noted that most professional disciplines--law, medi- cine, social work, etc.--have some knowledge as to where individuals educated in these disciplines have gone following completion of their formal education. A professional school undertakes to main- tain such information. From a professional point of view, it is important to know how many lawyers, doctors, or social workers are in private practice, government service, teaching, or related activities. Professional schools are interested from both a recruitment and curriculum point of view in what happens to their students.27 Criminal justice programs have been in existence for approximately forty-five years with little systematic research concerning what becomes of their graduates. This study is important not only to the community college directly involved but to all criminal justice institutions inter- ested in professionalizing their discipline, improving their programs and gaining valuable knowledge as to their "products." 27Tenney, op. cit., pp. 57-58. 11 PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to develop a data base which includes information concerning placement and utilization of community college criminal justice graduates and graduates' evalu- ation of their community college program. This information will be beneficial to the individual community college and criminal jus- tice educators throughout the state in the development and revision of criminal justice programs. Another function of this data base is to enable the criminal justice educators of Michigan to better serve the overall needs of the criminal justice student and the community. RELEVANCY OF STUDY Prior to this study there has been little knowledge available to the criminal justice community concerning the follow-up patterns of the community college criminal justice graduates. The importance of this study is to develop a data base about these graduates, that can be utilized by students, educational institutions, and criminal justice agencies, not only in Michigan but throughout the United States. The contributions from this data would include: (1) For the student--information to effectively evaluate a particular community college program and its faculty for future college choice, and to enlighten them as to their future proba- bility of criminal justice employment. 12 (2) For the educational institutions--four-year institu- tions, information to determine the reasons why students are trasnferring and others are not, where more four-year programs need to be developed throughout the state and to determine the students' desire as to the thrust of criminal justice programs. Community colleges, information in evaluating their program and faculty, in setting proper direction for their program and developing a greater effort on their part to place graduates in the criminal justice field. (3) For the criminal justice agencies-- information regard- ing numbers of criminal justice graduates available to them, the contributing factors for graduates'decisions to seek employment with their agencies, level of satisfaction of community college criminal justice graduates who are presently employed in their agencies and the probable degree of satisfaction of future gradu- ates. STATEMENT OF INVESTIGATIVE AREAS AND THEIR RATIONALE Investigative Area I: Investigation into graduate satis- faction with his major and specialization. Rationale: Before launching into a comprehensive study dealing with graduate employment patterns and evaluation of their programs, it is advantageous to explore graduate specialization in criminal justice and the graduates' satisfaction with their degrees. 13 Several studies have been done dealing with this subject of graduate satisfaction with major and area of specialization. Moore28 found that seventy-seven percent of the graduates stated that they would again choose criminal justice as their college major. No evidence was found in the review of literature to sup- port a difference in satisfaction level with college major and employment status. Also, according to Moore, sixty-seven percent of the Michigan State University graduates had specialized in law enforcement. Tenney's study29 which included community college graduates reported an even higher pcentage (seventy-five percent) 30 identi- of graduates who majored in law enforcement. Saunders fied community colleges as serving primarily local needs. He felt that the college surveying the needs of its community will undoubtedly identify educational needs within its local police department. Thus it can be assumed that the majority of community colleges will emphasize their law enforcement specialization over other criminal justice related specialities. While these studies have provided information concerning graduates' satisfaction with major and specialization, it is still necessary to explore this area in greater depth and deal specifi- cally with community college graduates. In this present study, sexual differences, specific community college differences, and 28Moore, op. cit., pp. 12-121. 29Tenney, op. cit., p. 60. 30Saunders, op. cit., p. 107. 14 pre-service/in-service differences, are explored in their rela- tionship to major and specialization satisfaction. Thus an in-depth examination in the area of graduate satisfaction with major and specialization was conducted and a valuable informational data base is provided. Investigative Area II: Investigation into graduates' evaluation of their community college program. Rationale: One of the main purposes of this study is to deal with the graduate's evaluation of his community college criminal justice program. Tenney and others have stated that evaluation of criminal justice programs is one of the most urgent needs in the criminal justice educational field. In Tenney's study,3] respondents were asked to evaluate their law enforcement education in a number of different dimen- sions: job relevance; qualifications of instruction, curriculum mix of professional and liberal arts courses; and the comparative importance of the program for pre-service and in-service students. Several of Tenney's findings that are relevant to this section include: seventy-nine percent of respondents rated overall quality of criminal justice faculty as either excellent or good, and seventy-three percent of respondents felt that the mixture between liberal arts and professional courses was about right. Moore32 discovered that at Michigan State University, the criminal 3ITenney, op. cit., p. 63. 32Moore, op. cit., p. 132. 15 justice graduates (ninety-eight percent) felt that their college education had been a positive influence on their career. Addi- tional program evaluation information obtained through this study included a belief by the majority of graduates that there should be an integration of operational and administrative approaches to criminal justice education. The most recent known evaluation of community college criminal justice programs was conducted by Delta College. In evaluating their program at Delta, the graduates rated the "Quality of Instruction" extremely high with over ninety percent either satisfied or very satisfied. A high rating was also received for "Course Content" (eighty-six percent) and "General Satisfaction with Program” (eighty-eight percent) and, finally, in rating their instructors at Delta, the majority of graduates (over eighty percent) stated that they were generally satisfied with the performance of their instructors.33 In this present study, we not only explored in greater detail the area of criminal justice program evaluation discussed by Tenney, Moore and Delta College but also investigated student (pre-service/in-service) and community college differences in ”Approaches to Education" and "Department Needs for Improvement." 33Delta College, Office of Research and Development, "Follow-Up of Law Enforcement Students" (unpublished research report, 1974). 16 Investigative Area III: Investigation into financial assistance. Rationale: The tremendous growth in student enrollment and program development in criminal justice higher education has increased dramatically since the availability of financial sup- port. Several studies have been done on the allocation of finan- cial aid (primarily from the Law Enforcement Education Program-- LEEP) to students attending criminal justice educational programs. 34 noted that the largest part of federal funds being spent Gross on criminal justice education is going to in-service students. According to the LEAA, preliminary reports show LEEP, particularly 35 had for in-service students, was over eighty percent. Tenney reported that sixty-two percent of his surveyed population had received some sort of financial assistance while attending school. While these studies investigated money spent and number of students receiving LEEP and other financial assistance, they did not investigate the percentage breakdown of different student categories. This present study analyzed the relationship between receiving LEEP assistance and students--age, race, sex, pre-service/ in-service status, and community college attended. This study also 34Soloman Gross, "Higher Education and Police: Is There a Need for a Closer Look?" Journal of Police Science and Adminis- tration, Vol. 1 (December, 1973), p. 479. 35Tenney, op. cit., p. 70. l7 explored the relationship between those students receiving LEEP assistance and those obtaining other types of financial aid. Investigative Area IV: Investigation into graduate employment status. Rationale: A general investigation into graduate employ- ment status is necessary before a more thorough examination into specific employment patterns of the community college graduate can be conducted. Studies on employment patterns of graduates have been done by John Jay College in New York, Tenney, Moore, and Delta College. The John Jay College study36 discovered that forty-eight percent of their graduates transferred and ninety percent were presently working for a criminal justice agency. Moore37 found that fifty-three percent of graduates worked in public law enforcement, thirteen percent in private law enforcement, nine- teen percent in non-law enforcement, and fourteen percent either 38 showed in the military or unemployed. The Delta College study fifty-five percent of their graduates transferred to four-year institutions and fifty-eight percent were currently working in the field directly or indirectly related to law enforcement. While Tenney's study did not develop general employment status 36John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Survey of Criminal Justice Graduates (unpublished research report, John Jay College, New Yfirk, 1972). 37 38 Moore, op. cit., p. 122. Delta College, op. cit. 18 categories, his inclusion in the report of female respondents com- ments that law enforcement agencies simply were not interested in employing women suggested possible sex role differences in the area of general employment patterns. The previous findings as to criminal justice graduate employment status have not been consistent and it is hoped that this study will help to clear up the confusion in this area. The relationship of employment status to graduate sex and to community college attended was examined. The major thrust of this thesis is concerned with the placement patterns of community college criminal justice graduates. The following three investigative areas constitute the possible career paths a graduate may travel upon leaving the community col- lege. The categories investigated are the transfer student, those employed in a criminal justice agency, and those working in a non-criminal justice agency or unemployed. Investigative Area V: Investigation into the transfer student. Rationale: Since its inception, the community college has emphasized the transfer function. The student of this function is not only relevant to the community college but also to the four- year institution and the criminal justice field in general. Studies reviewed showed the numbers and percentage of com- munity college graduates who have transferred to four-year insti- tutions have variable results ranging from forty-eight percent 19 (John Jay College), fifty-five percent (Delta College), to sixty- six percent (Baird, Richards, and Shevel).39 In this present study, we obtained the percentage of Michi- gan community college criminal justice graduates who transferred to four-year institutions. Also included is an examination into graduates' reasons for transferring, determining factors for attending a specific four-year institution, and pre—service/ in-service transfer differences. Investigative Area VI: Investigation into employment char— acteristics of graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice agency. Rationale: The role of criminal justice education is to prepare individuals for a career in the criminal justice field, primarily public law enforcement. It is therefore imperative to have an understanding of those graduates employed by public and private criminal justice agencies. The knowledge that has been obtained concerning employment characteristics of graduates in criminal justice agencies has been developed through studies done by Tenney, Moore, John Jay College, and Delta College. 39John Jay College, op. cit.; Delta College, op. cit.; L. L. Baird, J. M. Richards, and L. R. Sheval, "A Description of Graduates of Two-Year Colleges," reprinted in The Two-Year College and Its Students (Iowa City: The American College Testing Program, Inc., 1969). 20 Tenney's findings relevant to this section are that one-half of the pre-service graduates are presently employed by a law enforcement agency, and of the graduates who reported that they were employed in police work, forty-two percent were employed at the local level, thirty percent at the state level, and fourteen percent at the county and federal level.40 Moore found that a majority of his respondents (fifty- three percent) choose a public law enforcement agency for their initial employment. Also, those graduates who entered public law enforcement were more overwhelmingly placed at the level of opera- tion (eighty-two percent).41 The John Jay College study42 indicated that over ninety percent of the respondents were employed by criminal justice agen- cies. Similar to the findings of Tenney and Moore, the Delta 43 concluded that slightly over half (fifty-eight College study percent) of their graduates were currently employed in fields directly or indirectly related to law enforcement. This study explores not only general criminal justice employment patterns but also significant relationships and 40Tenney, op. cit., p. 75. 41 42 43 Moore, op. cit., p. 123. John Jay College, op. cit. Delta College, op. cit. 21 differences in the criminal justice graduates employment charac- teristics. Pre-service/in-service, age and sex differences and their relationship to obtaining desired agency, satisfaction with their present position, and reasons for seeking employment with a particular agency are of utmost concern in this area of investi- gation. Investigative Area VII: Investigation into career desires of those working for non-criminal justice agencies. Rationale: To the best of the knowledge of the authors of this study, no investigation has been made into the employment patterns of criminal justice graduates who entered non-criminal justice areas. While several studies have listed the percentage of respondents who failed to enter the criminal justice field, they have made no attempt to determine the type of employment and career patterns of these graduates. This present study examines these employment patterns along with the graduates' satisfaction with their present job, whether they attempted to find criminal justice employment, and if they are still looking for employment in the criminal justice field. Investigative Area VIII: Investigation into salary and salary satisfaction. Rationale: A major reason given for the lack of college graduates working in criminal justice has been the fact that salaries in this field were not considered commensurate with other 22 educationally related professions. This trend seems to be changing as evident through salary increases of Michigan State University graduates between Larkens' 1966 study (medium annual income of gradu- ates between $8,000-$9,000), and Moore's 1972 study (average annual income of graduates between $14,OOO-$l6,000).44 This present study determines the salary breakdowncflithe community college criminal justice graduates. Also, relationships were explored between the graduates' salary and their age, race, sex, pre-service/in-service status and the community college attended. A final major area of concern was the graduates' degree of satisfaction with this program. The findings in this section will be of special value to program administrators and future criminal justice students. Investigative Area IX: Investigation of graduates' ways and means of seeking employment. Rationale: In the past, colleges and criminal justice programs have tended to neglect the graduates in their attempt to secure employment. The student has received little or no training in methods of seeking employment or in obtaining successful assist- ance from college or department level placement services. Studies such as Moore's and Larkens' have indicated that students have felt that institutions have rarely been instrumental 44Hayes C. Larkens, "A Survey of Experiences, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Security Administration Graduates of Michigan State University" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966), pp. 27-31; Moore, op. cit., p. 128. 23 in placing students in the criminal justice field. In Moore, it was noted that the majority (eighty-nine percent) felt that the School of Criminal Justice should take a far more active role in helping their students obtain jobs in criminal justice.45 It is hoped that this study, which investigated ways and means of obtaining employment, recruiting effort of criminal justice agencies, their receptiveness to hiring college graduates, and the community college placement services, will be an impetus to posi- tive change in the manner of assisting graduates in obtaining employment and the role of the criminal justice educational insti- tutions and agencies in this task. Investigative Area X: Investigation in degree difficulties _and utilization by graduates. Rationale: Past literature has suggested that college graduates often feel that many of the menial and unchallenging tasks of "police work" are more appropriate for someone without a college education, and that his college training and degree is not being utilized to any significant degree in his criminal justice employment.46 Moore's study on the utilization of college education sup- ported this idea when he found that over forty percent of the overall sample felt that they were not best utilizing their 45Moore, op. cit. 46Saunders, op. cit., p. 84. 24 47 Since few comprehensive education in their present employment. studies have been done in this area, it is deemed necessary to further conduct an in-depth analysis of community college criminal justice graduates and their feelings concerning utilization and difficulties of their degree. This present study examines the relationship of the diffi- culties and degree of utilization of college education to graduates' employment status, pre-service/in-service differences, sex, and community college attended. DEFINITION OF TERMS USED In an effort to clarify a number of terms used in a particu- lar manner in this study, the following definitiOns are provided. Criminal justice: Refers to the entire process or system from the initial contact of the offender with the law until he is released back into a free society. Traditionally, criminal justice is studied as though it were made up of three independent sections or divisions--law enforcement, the judicial process, and correc- tions. However, we view the criminal justice system as the inter- dependence and interaction of these parts. Criminal justice prggram: An academic program of study in the area of "Criminal Justice." Community college: All two-year institutions of higher learning in the state of Michigan that offer an associate degree. 47Moore, op. cit., p. 79. 25 Graduate: One who obtains an associate degree in criminal justice from a community college in the state of Michigan. In-service: Refers to a person who was employed full-time by a criminal justice agency while attending community college. Pre-service: Refers to a person who was not employed full- time by a criminal justice agency while attending community college. FORMAT OF THE STUDY This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1, The Problem, includes an introduction, state- ment of problem, need for study, purpose of study, relevancy of study, statement of investigative areas and their rationale, and definitions of terms used. Chapter 2, Review of the Literature, is a review of com- munity college education, community colleges in Michigan, criminal justice programs, criminal justice programs in Michigan, and follow-up studies on criminal justice graduates. Chapter 3, Research Methodology, contains an introduction, sample, construction of instrument, data collection, research areas investigated, data analysis, and summary. Chapter 4, Data Analysis and Findings, contains a presenta- tion of the information gathered and comments regarding its meaning and significance. Chapter 5, Summary and Conclusions, is a critique of the study and a discussion of the major findings of the study. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Before we can hope to understand and evaluate community college graduates, we need to have some comprehension of the unique community college environment that created these graduates. This understanding of the community college is not possible without knowledge of past events and forces that guided the two-year junior 48 It is the college through times of evolution and revolution. purpose of this section to develop a historical understanding of the community college concept so that an in-depth analysis of its graduates can be better articulated and perceived. The factors that led to the present day community junior college have evolved slowly during the past century. Walter Eells took junior college evolution one step further back when he stated: There are those who trace to beginning of the junior college movement . . to the Renaissance . . . in the sixteenth century.49 48Palinchak, op. cit., p. 8. 49Walter C. Eells, The Junior College (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931). 26 27 Thornton broke the community college evolution into four different periods.50 The first stage lasted from 1850 to 1920 and was labeled education for transfer; the second stage, the period roughly between 1920 and 1945, brought the acceptance by the junior college of the concept of terminal or occupational education; the third stage, 1945 to around 1965, was the period in which the junior college became concerned with education of the adults of the community and thus evolved into the community junior college; and the fourth stage, 1965 to the present, was a period of movement toward providing for all the educational needs of a community and the final stage of the evolution of the junior college into a comprehensive community college. It was during Thornton's education for transfer period (1850-1920) that American educators first began to suggest that the first two years of "college'' should more appropriately belong to the secondary schools. Henry P. Tappon, President of the Uni- versity of Michigan (1825-1863), is believed to be the first of these educators to propose the transferal of the traditional first two college years to the public secondary system.51 While Tappon was unsuccessful in eliminating the “secondary" years of his own university or encouraging, to any large extent, 50James W. Thornton, Jr., The Community Junior College (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972), pp. 47-55. 5Michael J. Brick, Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement: The American Association of Junior Colleges (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964), p. 19. 28 the development of "extended" programs in high school, President Harper of the University of Chicago was successful, in 1892, in separating the new University of Chicago into two separate colleges which became known as the "junior college” and the "senior college." In addition, Harper was influential in the establishment of an additional two years to the Joliet (Illinois) High School program program in 1901. Joliet Junior College is the oldest extant pub- lic junior college in America.52 By 1920, public community junior colleges in high school districts were found not only in Illiois but also in California (1910), Michigan (1914), Minnesota (1915), Kansas (1917), Iowa (1918), Missouri (1919), and Texas (1920).53 The programs developed at these "junior" colleges during this initial period were strictly transfer programs; that is, programs designed to prepare the student for continuous advanced education at a four-year institution. It was during Thornton's vocational-expansion era (1920— 1945) that the junior college emphasis shifted to occupational- 54 technical programs of a "terminal nature." While the concept of occupational education at the junior college level was suggested 52Yarrington, op. cit., p. 180. 53Charles R. Monroe, Profile of the Community College_(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972), p. 12. 54Palinchak, op. cit., p. 28. 29 55 this concept was not fully realized until the as early as 1916, late 19205 when President Snyder of the Los Angeles Junior College established fourteen terminal semi-professional curriculums. Snyder stated that at least half of junior college graduates do not continue their studies at four-year institutions and that semi- professional courses were needed just as much as transfer pro- grams.56 It was during this period that K005 and Whitney defined the role of the junior college as follows: providing two years of work acceptable to the university (transfer); the offering of voca- tional programs (vocational); and the completion of education of students who are not going on (terminal).57 In 1929 Vernon Bennett listed a group of terminal career programs available at junior colleges in California. One of the terminal programs available at that time was that of "Detective."58 This is believed to be one of the earliest criminal justice programs available at the junior college level. 55Alexis F. Lange, "The Junior College as an Integral Part of the Public School System," School Review, Vol. 25 (September, 1917), 465-479. 56William H. Snyder, "The Distinctive Status of the Junior College," School Review, Vol. 3 (February, 1933), 235-239. 57H. W. Kemp, ”The Junior College in California," Califor- nia Quarterly of Secondary Education, Vol. 5 (January, 1930), 188-194. 58Vernon Bennett, "A State Two-Year College of Technology," California anrterly of Secondary Education, Vol. 5 (October, 1929), 77-81. 30 Thornton best expressed the relevance and importance of this era to the development of the junior college concept when he made the statement: Through these developments (those of the 1920-1945 era) the junior colleges branched into activities which were neither secondary education nor higher education, they began to achieve a separate identity and a unique set of pur- poses. While the development of college level vocational-terminal curriculums was a major step toward a comprehensive community col- lege, the addition of Adult Education and Community Services was still a necessary ingredient for the achievement of true community college status. It was during the era between 1945-1965 that the junior college adopted Adult Education and Community Service as a necessary part of their educational concept and became essentially a community institution. By the year 1965 the concept of the community junior college had been fully developed and the desire for it had been experienced in all parts of the United States.60 By the middle 19605 the responsibility of the community college had been basically set. During the last decade the com- munity colleges had striven more toward improving their perform- ances rather than expanding their responsibility. Gleazer labled 59Thornton, op. cit., p. 54. 6OIbid., p. 56. 31 61 this the "beyond the boom“ period. Thronton expressed this era 62 Better articulation seems to as the period of consolidation. be the overall goal of the community college during our present era. Some of the areas of concern during the consolidation have been a more critical examination of the open door policy, a re-examination and modernization of vocational education; the achievement of a higher status in the transfer education programs; a more innovative curriculum which is less imitative of university practices; and the providing of more capable counseling and guid- ance.63 Thornton best summarized this era when in 1972 he stated: . . it is possible to suggest that history has devel- oped a workable concept of the true community college. The task during the consolidation period is to give gancrete reality to the ideals that have been elaborated. COMMUNITY COLLEGE STATISTICS Over the last seventy years, the community junior college has become an established element of the American system of educa- tion. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was only a 6IEdmund J. Gleazer, Jr., "Beyond the Open Door, The Open College," Community and Junior College Journal, Vol. 45 (August— September, 1974), 6 62Thorton, op. cit., pp. 56-58. 63Tbid. 64Ibid. 32 handful of two-year colleges but by 1974 there were over 1,200 com- munity and junior colleges and between three and four million 65 students in this country. Some form of a public two-year college is found in all fifty states of the union except for South Dakota.66 Community and Junior Colleges in the U.S., 1900-197067 Year Number of Number of Community Colleges\ Students 1900 ' O O 1910 74 2,363 1920 207 16,031 1930 436 74,088 1940 557 196,710 1950 634 562,786 1960 667 905,062 1970 1,091 2,499,837 65Dr. James H. Nelson, address delivered at Michigan State University on September 26, 1974. 66Monroe, op. cit., p. 4. 67Richard W. Hostrop, Orientation to the Two-Year College --A Programmed Text (Georgetown, Ontario: Learning System Co., 1970), p. 3; Palinchak, 0p. cit., p. 27; Thornton, op. cit., p. v; Junior College Directory, January, 1960. 33 As the table (page 32) shows, the greatest growth in numbers of colleges and students has occurred after 1960. Between 1966 and 1970, community colleges have increased at the rate of over seventy per year.68 And while the rate of growth of community colleges has begun to wane during the 19705, the number of students attend- ing the community colleges has continued to grow. This seeming contradiction is accomplished by the fact that while the growth in number of community colleges is decreasing, the average size of the community college is increasing. It is interesting to note that in the early years of the junior college movement the majority of the two-year colleges were privately supported and controlled.69 It was not until 1948 that public community colleges first outnumbered the private junior colleges. At the present time public community colleges outnumber private two-year colleges by an eight-to-one ratio.70 Charles Monroe has predicted that by 1980 the public com- munity college will become the college in which the majority of high school graduates will enroll for their first years in college, with approximately seventy percent of all college freshmen attend- ing a community college.71 68Monroe, op. cit., p. 4. 69Palinchak, op. cit., p. 27; Thornton, op. cit., p. 53; Monroe, op. cit., p. 13. 70Monroe, op. cit., p. 13. 7'Ibid., pp. 3-4. 34 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN MICHIGAN In 1914 Michigan's junior college system consisted of one school (Grand Rapids Junior College), six part-time faculty members, 72 and forty-nine students. Today Michigan's community college system'hscomposed of twenty-nine community junior colleges and over one hundred and sixty thousand students.73 Michigan's community college system and its growth pattern is similar in many ways to the growth pattern of the total commu- nity college system within the United States. Enrollment at Community and Junigr Colleges in Michigan, 1960-1973 4 _._——_...._--———.—--_ ‘.—_-—_ w...— _ -A..._-r ~-._~_--—... -_-. —-_____ —~. -.- .— Year Number of Students Year Number of Students 1960 27,229 1967 79,698 1961 31,619 1968 95,965 1962 34,356 1969 115,299 1963 38,001 1970 125,553 1964 46,123 1971 132,059 1965 58,216 1972 136,657 1966 69,496 1973 152,715 72 Yarrington, 0p. cit., p. 104. 73Nelson, op. cit. 74Michigan Department of Education, mimeographed handout, 1974. 35 mumpiommp .cmmwsuwz cw mmmm—_ou somcsn new xpwczaeou um acmEPFoccm so cameo me> mnmp Nump pump oum— mmmp momp mom— comp momp ¢mmp mmmp mom— pomp oom— _ 80.2 ooo.om ooo.om ooo.o¢ ooo.om ooo.oo ooo.o~ ooo.ow ooo.om ooo.oo~ ooo.o- ooo.om~ ooo.om— ooo.o¢~ ooo.omp _ooo.om_ pcmEFFogcm 36 The most dynamic growth in enrollment for Michigan's commu- nity colleges has occurred between 1966 and 1970. During this period, enrollment increased by nearly twenty percent yearly, which easily outdistanced the growth rate in all other areas of higher education in the state. While Michigan has been, in many ways, a leader in the com- munity college movement, its many similarities in process of development, design, growth rate, and philosophy with what has been generally experienced in community colleges throughout the United States makes it an ideal study ground for research in the area of community college exploration. It should be noted that the community college cannot be a panacea for all our educational needs in this country and the critics who strongly warn that the community college cannot be all things to all people are to be listened to. While the future of the community college is bright and hopeful, the difficult problem of defining its precise role in the educational system must still be faced and settled. The most con- vincing reply to the critics who still oppose the comprehensive community college concept is the fact that there are over 1,200 community colleges in forty-nine of the fifty states, which enroll over three million students and are still expanding at over ten percent yearly. Although the community college movement is still relatively new and in spite of the fact that many of the higher educational elite have not given their recognition or support for this concept, 37 we are fast approaching the era when, if not all, nearly all high school graduates will enroll for their first two years at their local community college. CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS The inception and development of law enforcement education at the community college appears to have evolved from an awareness of the lack of training given police officers in this country and an attempt to attract a higher caliber of applicants to a law enforcement career.75 Many ask, do police need college education? Does it really pay off in terms of better law enforcement? Many federal agencies have answered these questions to their own satis- faction several decades ago. They have long insisted on the baccalaureate degree as a minimum requirement. But the police service at the municipal level has not accepted this standard, even though local law enforcement may well be a more demanding occupa- tion--"far more complicated, technical, and far greater importance to the American way of life than is the federal service."76 The reasons advanced for college education for police are essentially the same as those used to justify higher education as preparation for any other career. The liberal arts education provides: 75Steven Egger, "Law Enforcement Education in the Community Junior Colleges" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1972), p. 1. 76E. Wilson Purdy, "Administrative Action to Implement Selection and Training for Police Professionalization," Police Chief, Vol. 32 (May, 1965), 16. 38 . ethical and moral indoctrination that legitimizes existing power arrangements, and reinforces appropriate EIE'EESSZIII'EEZEI3:2552'3iea25e3§2°33331333.12.53.52???“ These are important in the preparation of many occupations and are especially relevant in the case of the police, who bear a unique responsibility for maintaining democratic institutions and assuring the "peaceful coexistence of diverse population groups." The qualities which law enforcement leaders claim to look for in recruits are the very ones which liberal education is believed to nurture: knowledge of changing social, economic and political con- ditions; understandingiyfhuman behavior; and the ability to communi- cate; together with the assumption of certain moral values, habits of mind, and qualities of self-discipline which are important in sustaining a commitment to public service.78 Such arguments have been stated and restated since August Vollmer formulated the proposition half a century ago. Yet the need for general college education for police has only recently begun to win acceptance. In the early 19005 the development of law enforcement education at the college or university level began. According to available information, no college or university level 77Marvin Bressler, "Sociology and Collegiate General Educa- tion," in The Uses of Sociology, eds. Paul F. Layarsfeld, William H. Sevell, and Harold L. Wilensky (Basic Books, 1967), p. 50. 78Saunders, op. cit., p. 83; Charles L. Newman and Dorothy Sue Hunter, "Education for Careers in Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Student Output 1964-67," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 59 (March, 1968), p. 140. 39 programs in fields related to criminal justice existed prior to 79 In that year, however, Northwestern University proposed a 1916. "Program of Instruction for Police at Northwestern University," which never came into being. In that same year, the University of California at Berkeley instituted courses for instruction of police officers with the assistance and support of August Vollmer, the 80 The courses were held on a workshop Chief of Police in Berkeley. basis and served both pre-service and in-service students. Although these courses themselves provided for no college major in police administration, they undoubtedly had a significant influence on the 8] The first later development of law enforcement education. actual degree in the field of criminal justice was awarded to a Berkeley police officer, in 1923, at the University of California at Berkeley.82 Vollmer, in 1929, directed a police training program at the University of Chicago in the Department of Political Science.83 In the years to follow, additional programs began to develop. In 1930, San Jose State College initiated a program, 79Calvin James Swank, "A Descriptive Analysis of Criminal Justice Doctoral Programs in the U.S." (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 21. 8OIbid., p. 22. 8IEggers, op. cit., p. 3. 82Swank, op. cit., p. 23. 83James W. Rutherford, "A Survey and Analysis of Two-Year Police Science Curricula in the U.S. with Recommended Criteria" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964), p.39. 40 under the leadership of George H. Brereton, a former Berkeley policeman and graduate of the University of California. This was the first instance in the history of police education in the United States of a complete program of police education being included as a major academic field in a regular curriculum.84 This was also the first two-year college police course to be established in the United States. Michigan State University initiated a program in 1935, 85 The slow develop- somewhat similar to the San Jose curriculum. ment of police education began with these programs. This growth began to accelerate after World War II and in the middle or later 19605 became phenomenal in the numbers of new programs. The following table demonstrates the essential information con- tained in all the educational directors published by the Inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police (I.A.C.P.) to date on this growth of criminal justice programs (associate and bacca- laureate degrees only) .86 84Felix Monroe Fabian, “The Evolvement of Pre-Service Law Enforcement Education at the College and University Level" (unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, University of Idaho, 1965), p. 123. 85Rutherford, op. cit., p. 41; Swank, op. cit., p. 25. 86Thompson S. Crockett, "Law Enforcement Education: A Sur- vey of College and Universities Offering Degree Programs in the Field of Law Enforcement," International Association of Chiefs of Police (1968), 5-8; International Association of Chiefs of Police, "1972-73 Directory of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Educa- tion," 1974; Gross, op. cit., pp. 473-479. 41 Growth of Criminal Justice Programs in the U.S., 1958-1973 Year Associate Degree Baccalaureate Degree Institutions 1958 31 14 45 1960 49 16 65 1962 72 18 90 1964 107 25 132 1966 152 39 184 1968 199 44 234 1970 257 55 292 1972 507 211 517 As this table shows, there was a fantastic growth in the number of criminal justice programs. The interesting statistic is that in 1960 there were only forty associate programs and fifteen baccalaureate programs in the country and in 1973 there were 507 associate programs and 211 baccalaureate programs, an increase of over twelve hundred percent in twelve years. In 1968, Saunders87 found 32,000 students were enrolled in the 234 law enforcement programs. This shows an increase of 22,150 law enforcement stu- dents over Crockett's survey figures of 1965, or over three hundred percent increase in three years. For that same three years, there was an increase of over seventy-seven percent in the number of criminal justice programs. 87Saunders, 0p. cit., p. 81. 42 There are several reasons for this outstanding growth in law enforcement education. The initial impetus in the development of law enforcement programs (certificate and associate degree) in community colleges has come from the financial incentives of the Law Enforcement Educational Program. In 1965, the Law Enforcement Assistance Act was established. In the first three years of LEAA's existence, some fifty grants were awarded to establish college degree programs in police science. These were a major factor in the rapid expansion of two-year police degree programs which occurred during the period.88 The 1968 omnibus bill, which superseded the 1965 law, authorized further programs of academic assistance. This funding was based on the premise that it would foster genuine cooperative interaction between police and higher education, which in turn would lead to improved standards of performance. The monies expended rose from $6.5 million in 1969, to $21 million in 1971.89 Pressure from within the law enforcement vocation to take advantage of these programs to provide much needed training of their per- sonnel has been a second causal factor in the development and growth of law enforcement education at the associate degree level. The community college examines its community, continually, to learn educational needs of its constituency and to provide any 88Ibid., p. 99; Gross, op. cit. 89Gross, op. cit., p. 479. 43 course of instruction in two years or less that will accomplish socially desirable results. In surveying the needs of its com- munity or servicing area, the college will undoubtedly identify educational needs within its local police departments.90' A fourth causal factor in the development of law enforce- ment programs at the two-year level has been the officers' own initiative in attending the institutions on their own time and funds or through in-service training programs and seminars being offered by the college. With this tremendous growth in law enforcement education programs, it may be possible to reach the goal set by the Presi- dent's Commission on Law Enforcement: "The ultimate aim of all police departments should be that all personnel with general "9] However, at the enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees. present time this goal is beyond the reach of perhaps two out of every three officers currently employed. The possibility of its being achieved substantially with present personnel exists only in the Pacific states, where an estimated twenty-five percent of police already have college degrees and another fifty-four percent have some post-high school education. Throughout the rest of the country, only about five percent of police are college graduates.92 90Egger, op. cit., p. 16. 91The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis- tration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Goverment Printing Office, 1967), p. 109. 92Saunders, 0p. cit., p. 80. 44 Today, California leads the nation in police education and train- ing. It was found that seventy-two colleges offer an associate in arts degree in police science. In addition, five state colleges offer the baccalaureate degree in police science and two universi- 93 Clearly, more ties offer the doctoral degree in criminology. states will have to follow in California's footsteps in order to reach the Commission's proposed educational goal for the nation's police. The need for a liberal arts education has already been dis- cussed; however, something needs to be said about the types of criminal justice programs offered and potential problems. Among institutions, there is wide variation in law enforcement programs, reflecting different program objectives and a lack of consensus on the nature and purpose of higher education for police. Three dis- tince types of community college curriculum patterns can be identified:94 1. An occupational program or "terminal" program empha- sizing skills required by the local police department, designed for 93John P. Peper, "Police Education and Training in Califor- nia,” California Education, Vol. 3 (November, 1965), 27; Thomas S. Crockett and James D. Stinchcomb, "Guidelines for Law Enforcement Education Programs in the Community and Junior Colleges," American Association of Junior Colleges (1968), p. 32; International Associ- ation of Chiefs of Police, op. cit., pp. 8-11; Donald J. Newman, Introduction to Criminal Justice--Instructors Manual (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), pp. 70-71; J. R. Greene, The Criminal Justice Collegiate Register (Boston, Massachusetts: Collegiate Register Press, 1972), pp. 11-24. 94Saunders, op. cit., p. 95; Crockett and Stinchcomb, op. cit., p. 6; Tenney, op. cit., pp. 6-8. 45 students who intend to enter the force upon completion of their course of study and do not wish to continue their education beyond the associate degree. 2. A "transfer" program emphasizing liberal arts subjects, designed for pre-service or in-service students who plan to con- tinue their education and wish to meet lower division credit requirements. 3. A balanced program, including a basic core of background professional courses and general education offerings selected for their relevance to law enforcement, designed to meet the needs of both transfer and terminal students. Whatever the curriculum pattern, law enforcement programs attempt to provide . a sound professional orientation through a sequence of specialized courses acquainting the student with the historical and philosophical basis for the police service, its role in the total structure of government, and a related body of knowledge concerning the American system of justice, criminal law, rules of evidence, the theory of criminal behavior, gnd concepts of police organization and management.9 At the four-year college level, degree programs range from liberal arts and the sciences, and are potential sources of recruits, in addition to the baccalaureate programs in police science. At the present time there are problems within both settings with a "police curriculum." 95Saunders, op. cit., p. 95; Crockett and Stinchcomb, op. cit., p. 8. 46 In the community colleges, where growth has been most marked, there is no consensus on the proper educational mix; courses offered for degree credits range from literature and philosophy to 96 There are no recognized traffic control and marksmanship. standards for course offerings, or their content, quality of instruction, or awarding of credit. In 1968, the American Associ- ation of Junior Colleges provided the first attempt to establish a guideline. They published their guidelines for a recommended cur- riculum; however, to date, no mechanism exists for the development of such standards or for assuring their enforcement. Each program is a product of the unique interrelationships between the community, its academic institution, and its law enforcement agency. Other problems exist in course sequence of some programs, substitution of prior work experience or attendance at police training academies for degree credit, and substitution of vocational skills for the academic disciplines. These lead to problems in transferring. Universities do not grant transfer credits lightly, and graduates of two-year programs sometimes find that much of their earlier work is not acceptable toward a bachelor's degree. Police programs in four-year institutions have status problems which do not exist in the community colleges where occu- pational programs have a central role in the institution. In universities, the greater the occupational emphasis of an under- graduate program, the less likely it is to be accepted by the 96Saunders, op. cit., p. 95. 47 97 Law enforcement departments are not other academic disciplines. generally held in high esteem. This is a factor that steers many able students away from a career in public service. Many times law enforcement educators are isolated from their colleagues and their isolation is reinforced by a general failure to undertake research, the essential component in maintaining academic credentials for any discipline. Many of the deficiencies in law enforcement education at the community college and four-year institutions are temporary manifestations of rapid and vigorous growth. A diversity of programs may be expected in such a newly developed field, and to a certain extent diversity should be encouraged. Many of the problems dis- cussed will be solved as law enforcement education is accepted as a discipline and police work is seen as a profession. With the rapid growth of criminal justice programs, this should not be too far in the future. CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN Attention will now be be turned to the development of criminal justice programs in Michigananui,specifically, criminal justice programs at the community college. Michigan State Uni- versity was the first to establish a criminal justice program, back in 1935. Expansion of criminal justice programs was slow in Michigan until the late 19605 and early 19705. Michigan 97Ibid., p. 109. 48 obtained its growth in criminal justice programs at about the same time as the rest of the country. In 1961, there was only one criminal justice program in the state and that was Michigan State University's. In 1974, the number grew to fifty-eight programs, a dramatic increase in twelve years. The following table and graph (page 49) show the number of criminal justice programs from 1962-1974 in Michigan. Growth of Criminal Justice Programs in Michigan, 1962-1974 Year Number of Programs 1962 1 1964 2 1966 7 1968 15 1970 24 1972 36 1974 58 In Michigan as of 1974, there are thirty-four institutions of higher education that offer degrees in criminal justice. A total of fifty-eight different programs exists at these institu- tions. Offered within the structure of the fifty-eight programs 98 M.C.J.E.A., op. cit. 49 Number of criminal justice programs 60I 50-— 40-— 30-— 20-— 10-— 0 I 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 Years Growth of Criminal Justice Programs in Michigan, 1962-1974 are three certificate programs, thirty-six associate degrees, fourteen baccalaureate degrees, four master's degrees, and one doctoral degree. Enrolled in these programs are approximately 7,600 students.99 Michigan is not unique in the types of programs that are available and the problems that exist. What was stated earlier about associate degree programs and baccalaureate degree programs in the United States applies in Michigan also. Criminal justice associate degree programs in Michigan range from law enforcement, corrections, criminology. fire science, evidence technology, natural resources, security--industrial, retail, and loss prevention. Within these 991bid. 50 programs there exists the three basic curriculum patterns-- occupational, transfer, and balanced-~and the same problems exist in Michigan as in the rest of the country. There are no recog- nized standards for course offerings or their content, quality of instruction, or awarding of credit. No mechanism exists for such standards or for assuring their enforcement. Problems also exist in transferring. Some institutions will grant credit for prior work experience, attendance at police training academies, and substitution of vocational skills for the academic discipline. In Michigan, as elsewhere, police programs in four-year institutions have a problem of being accepted as an academic dis- cipline and are generally not highly regarded. One problem not experienced in Michigan is the failure to undertake research. Four-year institutions are performing this vital function, which is an essential component in maintaining academic credentials for any discipline. The solutions to these problems with criminal justice pro- grams in Michigan will come about in the same manner as they will in the rest of the country. As stated earlier, many of the defi- ciencies in law enforcement education are temporary manifestations of rapid and vigorous growth. Many of the problems will be solved as law enforcement education is seen as a discipline and police work is accepted as a profession. 51 FOLLOW-UP STUDIES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES It has only been in the last few years that researchers have shown any desire to determine what happens to graduates of criminal justice programs. Prior to the Tenney study of 1970, there had been no major investigative follow-up on criminal jus- tice students. The majority of surveys and studies that were done prior to 1970 were concerned primarily with criminal justice programs and not the graduates of these programs.100 Similarly, comprehensive follow-up studies of graduates of two-year colleges were neglected until the late '605. Early 101 102 studies done by Medsker (1960), and Knoell 103 Clark (1960), (1964), were general sociological treatments of junior college programs and made little attempt to study the effect IOOCarl F. Vaupel, Jr., "A Survey and Analysis of Two-Year Police Science Curriculum in the United States with Recommended Criteria" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1968); Crockett and Stinchcomb, op. cit.; Robert C. Jacobs, "A College Curriculum in Criminal Justice: Employment Prospects for the Graduates" (unpublished study done under a grant through the ”Law and Justice Planning Office," Washington State College, December, 1972); Charles Tracy, "Survey of Criminal Justice Subject Matter Baccalaureate Programs," Journal of Criminal Law, Crimin- ology, and Police Science, Vol. 61 (1971), 576-579. 10IL. L. Medsker, The Junior College: Programs and Pros- pects (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960). 102B. R. Clark, The Open Door College (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1960). 103Dorathy M. Knoell, Factors AffectingiPerformancenyTrans- fer Students From Two to Four Year Colleges (Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1964). 52 of junior college on students or to evaluate the graduates from these programs. In 1967, Baird, Richards, and Shevel104 did a descriptive study of graduates of two-year colleges. The data was obtained from a follow-up survey that was given to students from twenty-nine two-year colleges across the country. The study was designed to acquire comprehensive information about the two-year students, including information on the students' background, evaluation of teachers, future plans, general college satisfaction, sense of progress, and finances. Some of the results of the Baird, Richards, and Shevel study that are relevant to this present study include: (1) More than half the graduates (sixty-six percent) stated that they plan to transfer to a four-year institution. (2) The students' rating of their instructors' performance was generally high. The two- year students basically described their instructors as being clear, factual, consistent, and concerned with the students. (3) Most students felt that their college had prepared them for the work they would do either "fairly well" or "very well." (4) Students felt that their college had prepared them "moderately“ to "very well" to face the academic problems of the four-year college. (5) Stu- dents indicated that the major sources of their educational funds were parental or family support, their own savings, and work while 104Baird, Richards, and Shevel, op. cit. 53 attending school. Only a few students rated loans or scholarships of any kind as a major source. One of the questions that is immediately raised by the results of this study concerns the high proportion of students who claim that they plan to transfer to a four-year college. Prior studies have estimated the percentage of transfers to be between thirty and fifty percent. The authors of this study suggested that the high proportion figures (about two-thirds)more likely were an accurate report of the students' aspiration to transfer and not the proportion of students who would actually transfer. This study by Baird, Richards, and Shevel and other research studies done by the Research and Development Division of the American College Testing Program105 have provided a much needed foundation of empirical information concerning the two-year colleges and their students. Major research dealing with criminal justice graduates began in 1970, when the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice commissioned Dr. Charles Tenney, Jr., to conduct a survey dealing with criminal justice education programs.106 In addition, at Dr. Tenney's discretion, he conducted two surveys on program graduates. His studies on criminal justice graduates included one on a sample of graduates of two- and four-year criminal justice programs throughout the United States and another on L.E.A.A. graduate fellows, which investigated the effect of 105 106 Ibid. Tenney, op. cit. 54 top-level graduate training in law enforcement. The graduate fellowships were offered at three of the leading criminal justice graduate schools in the country--John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York; School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University; and School of Criminology, University of California (Berkeley). Since the population sampled and the results obtained in Tenney's study on two- and four-year criminal justice program graduates are closely related to our present study, it is necessary to go into greater detail on the design, findings, and ramifica- tions of Tenney's survey. A random sample of 423 associate and baccalaureate gradu- ates were selected from a sample of ten two-year and four-year criminal justice degree programs. As a result of an initial and supplemental mailing, 238 completed questionnaires were returned. This represented a usable return percentage of fifty-six percent. Some of the relevant findings of the study included: (a) The graduates were a relatively young group with seventy percent of them under the age of thirty-five. The respondents were also overwhelmingly white (98.7 percent) and male (95.8 percent). (b) The survey indicated that nearly half (forty-five percent) of the graduates were in-service. Of those who were pre-service students at the time of graduation, fifty percent of them were presently employed by a law enforcement agency. 55 (c) Few graduates were employed by correctional agencies, with only six individuals (four percent) employed in a correctional institution and only four individuals (three percent) employed in probation and control. (d) Of the graduates who reported that they were employed in police work, the largest percentage (forty-two percent) were employed at the local level, followed in order by state employees (thirty percent), county employees (fourteen percent), and federal employees (fourteen percent). (e) The primary reasons listed by respondents for DEE being employed in law enforcement were low salaries and lack of oppor- tunity for advancement. One female stated that she felt that law enforcement agencies were not interested in employing women. (f) A surprisingly large proportion of respondents (ninety- one percent) believed that their education had gei_enabled them to advance more rapidly through the ranks.. (9) Most of the respondents (sixty-two percent) indicated that they had received some form of financial assistance while attending their school. (h) In rating their faculty, a large majority (seventy-one percent) believed their instructors to be excellent or good, sixteen percent of the respondents rated them no more than average, and five percent believed their faculty to be below average or poor. Tenney admitted that these surveys were not designed as follow-up studies and that few predictions and conclusions 56 concerning the law enforcement careers of graduates could be obtained from the data. .The findings do, at least, indicate a very unsettled state of affairs in criminal justice higher education and the imperativeness of future research in this area. In a response to Tenney's request, John Jay College con- ducted a follow-up job survey of its graduates of the class of 1972.‘07 During that year, 186 graduates obtained associate degrees from John Jay College. Each of these graduates were sent job survey questionnaires and sixty-one (thirty-six percent) of this surveyed group responded. Of the sixty-one respondents, twenty—nine (forty-eight percent) indicated that they were presently continuing their studies toward a baccalaureate degree. The most surprising result of this study was the fifty-five, over ninety percent, of the respondents who indicated that they were employed by a criminal justice agency. The other six respondents listed no occupation. The low response percentage (about one-third) and the extremely high criminal justice agency employment rate seem to indicate that the design of the questionnaire was such that it tended to exclude responses from graduates who were not employed by a criminal justice agency. This fact tends to limit the sig- nificance of the John Jay College study. Finally, in the latter part of 1972, an in-depth survey on criminal justice graduates and graduate program evaluation 107John Jay College, op. cit. 57 was conducted by the School of Criminal Justice of Michigan State University.108 Scientific inquiry dealing with criminal justice college graduates had been initiated at Michigan State University as early as 1964.109 The basic emphasis of the McGreevy study, which dealt with the relationship between education and future individual performance levels, is not directly relevant to this present study. However, his conclusion that the University must initiate the basic research needed to produce new knowledge concerning the criminal justice graduate was an early significant sign of the direction that the School of Criminal Justice (Michigan State Uni- versity), including this present study, was soon to accept. In 1966, Hayes Larkens conducted a survey of industrial '10 The population used in this study included security graduates. all 167 individuals who had graduated from Michigan State Univer- sity with either a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science Degree in Industrial Security Administration. Some of Larkens' findings that pertain to this present study include: 108Moore, op. cit. 109Thomas J. McGreevy, "A Field Study of the Relationship Between the Formal Education Levels of 556 Police Officers in St. Louis, Missouri, and Their Patrol Duty Performance Records" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964). noLarkens, op. cit. 58 (a) The respondents were relatively young (mean age 28.9 and medium age 28.0). (b) The graduates were overwhelmingly male (99.2 percent) with only one respondent being female. (c) Only slightly over half (57.98 percent) of the respond- ents indicated that they would choose to major in industrial security administration again. (d) In reporting how they obtained their first full-time job after graduation, less than one-third (29.2 percent) of the respondents felt that the Michigan State University Placement Bureau (20.2 percent), the School of Police Administration (five percent), or University faculty members (4.2 percent) had been instrumental in their obtaining an initial position. (e) The job satisfaction of the graduates was quite high with over ninety percent of the respondents either "satisfied" or "thoroughly satisfied" with their present jobs. (f) The median annual income of all graduates was in the $8,000 to $8,999 range. The respondents employed in the industrial security field reported a slightly higher median annual income in the $9,000 to $9,999 range. Larkens realized that his study was no more than a pre- liminary and tentative exploratory study, but had hoped that it would raise vital questions and initiate further, more extensive, research in the realm of the college criminal justice graduate.1n 1nLarkens, op. cit. 59 In 1972 the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University conducted an in-depth survey of the School's graduates. The primary purpose of this study was to gather data concerning placement and utilization patterns of criminal justice graduates and to obtain the graduates' views toward their criminal justice program. The surveyed population was the total number of gradu- ates who had majored in criminal justice at Michigan State University.“2 The method used to obtain the desired data was a mailed questionnaire. After an initial and follow-up mailing, 1,161 questionnaires were returned which constituted a usable 67.1 percentage return rate. Moore realized that there had been relatively few attempts made to determine what happens to the criminal justice students once they graduate. The purpose of hisstudy was to develop a data base that would contribute to an understanding of placement and utilization patterns of criminal justice graduates; a deter- mination of the strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan State University criminal justice program; and both criminal justice students and criminal justice programs as a viable source to be utilized. The findings and conclusions of the School of Criminal Justice study were presented in primarily descriptive statistical form. The results closely related to our present study will be IIZMoore, op. cit. 60 listed under the following categories: (I) General Information, (II) Educational Information, (III) Employment Information, and (IV) Program Evaluation Information. I. General Information (1) The graduates were relatively young. Seventy percent were under the age of thirty-nine. (2) The respondents were primarily white (ninety-eight percent). (3) The graduates were almost entirely male (ninety-two percent). II. Educational Information (1) The majority of the graduates (sixty-seven percent) stated that they had specialized in "law enforcement administra- tion." (2) A majority of graduates (seventy-seven percent), if they had to do it over, would again choose criminal justice as their college major, and (seventy-nine percent) felt they would again choose the same area of specialization. (3) Of the respondents who were not satisfied with the curriculum, the most common criticism mentioned was "too much theory and not enough practical application in the curriculum." (4) A majority of the respondents (seventy percent) were pre-service students. 61 III. Employment Information (1) A majority of the respondents (fifty-three percent) chose a public law enforcement agency for their initial employment after graduation. (2) Of those graduates who entered public law enforcement, the largest percentage went into municipal police work. (3) The degree of satisfaction with job placement was the lowest at the municipal or county level and the highest at the federal level. (4) A majority of respondents (sixty-two percent) were initially placed at the level of operation. Those graduates who entered public law enforcement were even more overwhelmingly placed, initially, at the level of operation (eighty-two percent). (5) The in-service student had more of a chance of receiving an initial placement position at other than the level of operation than did the pre-service student. (6) A majority of respondents (sixty-eight percent) reported their education had enabled them to progress more rapidly in their career than their fellow employees who lacked their edu- cational qualifications. (7) An overwhelming majority of the respondents (eighty-one percent) reported that they were either “satisfied" or "thoroughly satisfied" with the present job position. (8) In ranking the various agencies in their effort toward recruiting college graduates, respondents ranked Public Law Enforcement-Federal as putting forth the highest effort (mean 62 score, 1.97), followed by Non-Law Enforcement (mean score, 2.77), Military (mean score, 3.45), Private Law Enforcement (mean score, 3.57), and finally, Public Law Enforcement-State and Local (mean score, 3.93). IV. Program Evaluation Information (1) A majority of the graduates believed that there should be an "integration of both the operational and administrative approaches" to criminal justice education. (2) A significant number of graduates (eighty-nine percent) felt that the School of Criminal Justice should take a far more active part in helping to place students in the criminal justice field. (3) Overwhelmingly, the graduates (ninety-eight percent) felt that their college education had been a positive influence on their career. While Moore's descriptive study of the Michigan State University criminal justice graduates provided a data base of valuable information, the need for additional inquiry into the graduates of criminal justice programs utilizing more complex statistical analysis is desperately needed. This present study was developed to provide not only a needed up-to-date statistical analysis of community college criminal justice graduates, but also to provide an additional data base for comparative analysis of past and future studies. At the inception of this present study there had been no known comprehensive follow-up study that included only community 63 college criminal justice graduates. However, in November of 1974, the Delta College Office of Research and Development conducted a follow-up research study on former students of the Delta law enforcement program.”3 The primary goals of this research project were (1) to determine the employment placement patterns and specific employment duties of Delta's former law enforcement students, (2) to ascertain what effect the law enforcement program had on their current situ- ation, and (3) to ascertain the former students' opinion on the Delta program in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses. In an attempt to accomplish their stated goals, the members of Delta's law enforcement faculty with assistance from the Office of Research and Development designed two questionnaires. The first of these questionnaires was designed for students who were desig- nated law enforcement majors but had left the program without graduating. The population of this study from which the sample was drawn was a total of 158 graduates and 342 non-graduates of Delta College who had majored in law enforcement during the period from fall 1969 through winter 1974. The following discussion pertains to the results of the "graduate" survey as it is closely related to the present study. Questionnaires were mailed to all 158 graduates. After the initial and a follow-up mailing, 105 usable questionnaires IIBDelta College, op. cit. 64 were returned. A large proportion of the graduates who responded to the questionnaire were males (ninety-five respondents; ninety percent). The results most closely related to this present study were as follows: (a) Immediately after graduation, fifty-five percent of the graduates transferred to a four-year program in law enforcement. A greater percentage of females (seventy percent) transferred to a four-year program in law enforcement than did males (fifty-one percent). (b) Immediately after graduation, fourteen percent of the graduates went directly to work for a law enforcement agency. A greater percentage of males (fifteen percent) went directly to work for a law enforcement agency than did females (ten percent). (c) The majority of graduates (fifty-eight percent) are currently employed in fields directly or indirectly related to law enforcement. The table on the following page presents the employment status of graduates broken down by sex. (d) Only twenty-six (twenty-five percent) of the 105 gradu- ates stated that their training at Delta had helped them get their present job. However, when respondents who were employed by their current employer prior to entering Delta's program were factored out, then twenty of-twenty-five graduates (eighty percent) responded that their training at Delta assisted them in getting their current job. 65 Current Employment Status p2 Graduates (Delta College)1 I Male Female Type of Employment n = 95 n = 10 No. Pct. No. Pct. Directly related to law , enforcement field 57 604 3 30% Indirectly related to law , enforcement field 1 IA 0 0% Not related to the law , enforcement field 16 17A 3 30% No response* 21 22% 4 40% *The no responses to the questions included those not cur- rently employed, those enrolled in other colleges, etc. (e) Of the thirty-seven graduates who were employed by their current employer prior to entering Delta, eleven (thirty percent) said their job changed and twenty-six (seventy percent) said their pay increased because of their education at Delta. (f) When the respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with specific areas of the program, graduates rated "Quality of Instruction" highest, with ninety-one percent either Very Satisfied or Satis- fied. "Content of the Courses" (eighty-six percent of the graduates ”415m. 66 were Very Satisfied or Satisfied) and "Getting what you expected from the Program" (seventy-eight percent of the graduates were Very Satisfied or Satisfied) were also rated highly. (g) In rating their instructors at Delta, the majority of graduates (eighty-one percent) stated that they were generally satisfied with the performance of their instructors. One of the limiting factors in the Delta College study, in attempting to relate it to this present study, is that its major thrust is identifying differences between criminal justice students who graduated and criminal justice students who left the community college without graduating and not in exclusively inves- tigating and evaluating criminal justice graduates. This mixture of graduates and non-graduates did allow Delta College to uncover several important trends, such as the fact that those individuals with previous exposure to the law enforcement field were far more apt to complete the community col- lege criminal justice program. However, the emphasis on evaluating differences between and often a total mixture of graduates' and non-graduates' responses in the majority of Delta College study findings resulted in an inability to obtain desired study results concerning, specifically, community college criminal justice graduates. In much the same way that Tenney had to begin his studies with the knowledge that there had been no previous attempt to determine what happens to criminal justice students following 67 graduation, we must initiate this present study with the realiza- tion that there has been no comprehensive study that has been done specifically on the placement and utilization patterns of community college criminal justice graduates. Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION This study is-part of a coordinated research project being conducted by the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association"5 concerning criminal justice education at the community colleges in Michigan. Two areas of concern which are to be studied are: l. the placement and utilization of graduates of the community colleges and any improvement in the process which may be indicated; 2. the graduates' evaluation of the curriculum rela- tive to their needs in the field and possible revisions which may be indicated. SAMPLE This study is concerned with all criminal justice associate degree graduates of June, 1974, from eighteen Michigan community colleges that offer associate degrees in criminal justice. The sample consists of 274 graduates from eleven responding community colleges. It should be noted that one institution responding, Bay De Noc, did not have any graduates, as their program had been initiated in 1973-74, and their first class will graduate'hTMay 1975. 115M.C.J.E.A. is a professional organization made up of coordinators, professors, and individuals involved in criminal jus- tice education. 68 69 CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT The majority of studies done on criminal justice education such as Tenney's, Larkens', Hoover's, and Moore's have utilized the mailed questionnaire form to gather data. This type of approach was chosen as more appropriate than the interviewing technique because of the size and geographic location of their populations. TracyH6 has noted that the mail questionnaire approach to gathering data is utilized for practical reasons and that surveys using this approach have done much to chart and evalu- ate the growth in the area of criminal justice education. For the above stated reasons, it was determined to utilize the mail questionnaire in this present study. In developing the questionnaire, it was decided to elicit information from four basic areas of concern. These areas included (1) general information, (2) educational information, (3) employ- ment information, and (4) student opinion concerning value of their education. Our primary concerns in the construction of the questionnaire were, first, that the data collected be accurate and of the highest quality, and second, that there be a minimiza- tion of effort required by the graduate in responding to the questionnaire. To accomplish these goals, several pre-tests of the ques- tionnaire were conducted. The first pre-test included selected H6Tracy, op. cit. 70 graduates of Michigan State University's criminal justice program. Insight obtained from this pre-test led to a major reorganization of the questionnaire. The second pre-test included students cur- rently enrolled in the law enforcement program at Lansing Community College. As a result of ths pre-test, revisions were made on cer- tain questions and additional questions were included. DATA COLLECTION To obtain the data it was necessary to acquire information concerning graduates' names and addresses from the community col- leges. In November, 1974, the authors of this study delivered a presentation to the M.C.J.E.A. outlining the purpose and value of this study and eliciting their support for a joint project. At this meeting, M.C.J.E.A. voted to engage in this research project. A letter”7 drafted by the president of M.C.J.E.A. and the authors of this study was drawn up requesting from the community college coordinators a list of their June 1974 graduates. Approximately one month later, only four coordinators had responded with a list of their graduates. Because of this, the authors attended the December 1974 M.C.J.E.A. meeting, requesting the necessary cooperation from the non-responding coordinators. 118 A follow-up letter, drafted and signed by the director of the of the Michigan State University systems center, was then sent to 117See Appendix. 118Ibid. 71 the coordinators. As a result of the initial and follow-up let- ters, lists of June 1974 criminal justice graduates were obtained from eleven of Michigan's community colleges. ‘19 and questionnaire were January 1, 1975, a cover letter sent to the 274 graduates from our sample of eleven community col- leges. To obtain a higher return rate, several techniques were employed. (1) A stamped return envelope was provided with each questionnaire. (2) The cover letter was signed by the president of the M.C.J.E.A. to give it additional authenticity. (3) Those graduates who completed the questionnaire were promised a summary of the study's results. (4) Graduates were given a guarantee of anonymity by not being asked for their names or to sign the ques- tionnaire. Approximately five weeks later, after receiving response from sixty-two percent of the graduates, a follow-up letter and an additional questionnaire were sent to the graduates who had not yet responded. After this initial and follow-up mailing, two hundred com- pleted questionnaires were returned. Along with these, ten question- naires were returned marked "addressee moved--not forwardable," one questionnaire was returned with a note from the respondent stating that she had not yet graduated, and one graduate was killed in the line of duty. This leaves a total possible responding population of 262 individuals. The return of two hundred questionnaires represents a response rate of 76.3 percent. 119See Appendix. 72 RESEARCH AREAS INVESTIGATED Ten research areas of investigation are examined in this study. Included under these ten areas of investigation are eighty- five statistically testable propositions. Through an analysis of the propositions a better comprehension and understanding of our investigative research areas is obtained. The research areas of investigation in this study are: 1 Investigation Into Graduate Satisfaction With His Major and Specialization. 1.1 What percentage of graduates will be satisfied with criminal justice as their college major? 1.2 There will be no significant difference between those employed in public or private criminal justice and those employed in non-criminal justice or unemployed as to whether they are satisfied with criminal justice as their college major. 1.3 What is the percentage breakdown of areas of specialization for graduates while at the community college? 1.4 What percentage of graduates will be satisfied with their area of specialization in the community college? 1.5 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and the area of specialization he studied. 1.6 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their area of specialization. 1.7 What is the percentage breakdown of courses taken by graduates while at the community college? 1.8 Pre-service and in-service graduates will have significantly different reasons for not continuing their education at a four-year institution. 1.9 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and his reasons for not continuing his education at a four-year institution. 2 2. 3 3. 73 Investigation Into Students' Evaluation of Community College Programs. 1 .10 What percentage of graduates will feel that their program adequately prepares the student for the level of operation? Proportionally more in-service graduates will feel that more emphasis should be placed at the administrative or supervisory level than do pre-service graduates. Pre-service and in-service graduates will feel significantly different as to which approach to criminal justice education will be most beneficial to them in their jobs and future career aspirations. There will be no significant difference between the community college one attended and the approach to criminal justice education he feels will be most beneficial to him in his job and future career aspirations. Pre-service and in-service graduates will feel significantly different as to which approach to community college education will be most beneficial to them in their jobs and future career aspirations. There will be no significant difference between the community college one attended and the approach to community college education he feels will be most beneficial to him in his job and career aspirations. What is the percentage breakdown in the student's rank order of his department's need for improvement? There will be a significant difference between the community college the student attended and his rank order of this department's needs for improvement. There will be a significant difference between the graduates' rating of full-time faculty as compared to the rating of part- time faculty. There will be no significant difference between the community college the student attended and his rating of the faculty. Investigation Into Financial Assistance. 1 What percentage of graduates received LEEP assistance during the time they attended community college? .D 01 .1 .1 74 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and whether they received LEEP assistance. There will be a significant difference between the graduates' age and whether they received LEEP assistance. (The older the graduate, the more likely that he received LEEP assist- ance. There will be a significant difference between the graduates' race and whether they received LEEP assistance. There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and whether they received LEEP assistance. There will be no significant difference between the community college that graduates attended and whether they received LEEP assistance. What is the percentage breakdown of types of financial aid that graduates received other than LEEP assistance? There will be a significant relationship between those who received LEEP assistance and who also received another type of financial assistance. Investigation Into Graduate Employment Status. What is the percentage breakdown of present graduate employ- ment status? There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their present employment status. There will be a significant difference between the community college graduates attended and their employment status. Investigation Into the Transfer Student. Proportionally more pre-service graduates will be transfer students than in-service graduates. What percentage of transfer students will be attending a four-year institution in Michigan? The determining factors in a transfer student attending a specific four-year institution will be particular for that institution. 5.4 75 What percentage of transfer students will be attending the four-year institution of their first choice? The determining factor for students' decision to attend one four-year institution over another will be significantly dif- ferent between the full-time and part-time student. What percentage of transfer students will remain as criminal justice majors in the four-year institution? There will be no significant difference between the community college a transfer student attended and whether or not he remains a criminal justice major. What percentage of transfer students VMK) are criminal jus- tice majors will specialize in the same area that they did while at the community college? Pre-service and in-service transfer students will have sig- nificantly different reasons for continuing their education at a four-year institution. Investigation Into Employment Characteristics of Graduates Employed in a Public or Private Crimihal Justice Ageney. What is the percentage breakdown of graduates working for different types of criminal justice agencies? What is the percentage breakdown of graduates working for different governmental levels? There will be no significant difference between the type of criminal justice agency (public or private) the graduate works for and the governmental level of that agency. What percentage of graduates employed by public or private criminal justice agencies are employed in the agency initially desired upon graduation? Proportionally more graduates employed in a public criminal justice agency are employed in the agency they initially desired upon graduation than are graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency. There will be a significant difference between pre-service graduates and in-service graduates asto whether the agency they are employed with is the agency they initially desired upon graduation. 6.7 6.8 \l .10 .11 .12 76 What is the percentage breakdown of the graduates' current position in criminal justice agencies? Proportionally more graduates over the age of twenty-seven will be employed in a supervisory position or higher than will be those under the age of twenty-seven. There will be a significant difference between pre-service graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency at the level of operation, and pre-service graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency at a supervisory posi- tion or higher, as to whether they are satisfied with their position. There will be a significant difference between in-service graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice agency at the level of operation,and in-service graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice agency at a supervisory position or higher, as to whether they are satisfied with their position. There will be no significant difference between a pre- service graduate employed in a public criminal justice agency at any level, and whether he is satisfied with his position. The determining factor for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a particular agency will be significantly different between pre-service and in-service graduates. The determining factors for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a specific agency will be particular for that type of agency. Investigation Into Career Desires of Those Working for Non- Criminal Justice Agencies. .1 What is the pattern of employment obtained by graduates employed in non-criminal justice agencies? What is the proportion of those unemployed and those employed in non-criminal justice agencies who attempted to find employment in the criminal justice field? What is the proportion of those unemployed and those employed in non-criminal justice agencies who are still looking for employment in the criminal justice field? What is the proportion of those satisfied with employment outside the criminal justice field? 8 so 77 Investigation Into Salary and SalarySatisfaction. .10 What is the approximate salary breakdown for graduates? There will be a direct correlation between graduates' age and their salary (the older the graduate, the higher his salary). There will be a significant difference between the graduates' race and their salary. There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their salary. There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their salary. There will be no significant relationship between the commu- nity college that a graduate attended and his salary. What percentage of graduates were satisfied with their salary? There will be a direct correlation between the graduates' salary level and their satisfaction with this salary. (As the salary level increases, the percentage who are satisfied with their salary will also increase.) There will be a significant relationship between those who obtain their initially desired agency and those who are satisfied with their present salary. There is a significant relationship between graduates' satisfaction with present position and graduates' satisfac- tion with their salary. Investigation of Graduates' Ways and Means of Seeking_Emplgyment. .1 What was the relative importance, to the graduates, of the different ways and means of obtaining employment after gradu- ation? There was no significant difference between the community college a graduate attended and the means the graduate used to obtain his employment. What is the percentage breakdown in the graduates' rank order of the various agencies' efforts toward recruiting college graduates? What were the graduates' feelings as to how receptive criminal justice agencies were to hiring college graduates? 78 9.5 There will be a significant difference between graduates' sex and their feelings as to how receptive criminal justice agencies are to hiring college graduates. 9.6 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their feelings as to how recep- tive criminal justice agencies are to hiring college gradu- ates. 9.7 What were the graduates' feelings as to how well the commu- nity college was doing in placing students in the criminal justice field? 9.8 There will be no significant difference between the community colleges and the degree that they helped to place students in the criminal justice field. 10 Investigation Into Degree Difficulties and Utilization by Graduates. 10.1 What percentage of graduates feel their criminal justice education is being utilized? 10.2 Proportionally more in-service graduates will feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized than will pre- service graduates. 10.3 There will be a significant difference between graduates' employment status and whether they feel their criminal justice education is being utilized. 10.4 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and whether he feels he is utilizing his degree. 10.5 What percentage of graduates feel that there are difficulties: in their job attributable to their criminal justice degree? 10.6 Proportionally more pre-service graduates will feel that there are difficulties in their job that are attributable to their degree than will in-service graduates. 10.7 There will be a significant difference between graduates' sex and whether they feel there are difficulties attributable to their criminal justice degree. 10.8 What percentage of graduates will feel that their education will enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than fellow employees who lack their education qualifica- tions? 79 10.9 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates as to whether they feel their educa- tion will enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than fellow employees who lack their educational qualifi- cations. DATA ANALYSIS Responses to the questionnaire were coded on IBM computer cards. The coded cards were processed through the computer at Michigan State University, using the CISSR-2 data analysis system. For many of the propositions, descriptive tables are developed showing percentage and frequency distributions. The basic sta- tistical test that is used for analysis of the data is the Chi- square (x2) statistic between expected and obtained frequencies. However, in situations where we requested a rank order response from the graduates, the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of vari- ance by rank order is employed. The level of significance that was chosen for this study is the .05 confidence level or less. This is the standard level of significance that is used in most social science research projects. SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to develop a data base which includes information concerning placement and utilization of com- munity college criminal justice graduates and the graduates' evaluation of their community college program. Our data was obtained from the community college criminal justice coordinators' 80 lists of June 1974 graduates in criminal justice. A questionnaire Was mailed to all graduates of responding community colleges. The questionnaire was designed to provide information about the placement and utilization of graduates and any improvement in the process necessary and the graduates' evaluation of their cur- riculum relative to their needs in the field. Ten investigative research areas with eighty-five statistically testable propositions are utilized in this study. The Chi-square analysis and Kruskal- Wallis analysis of variance by rank order are employed in our analysis of the data. Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS FORMAT OF DATA PRESENTATION The survey population consists of 274 criminal justice graduates of June 1974, from ten community colleges in Michigan. Ten questionnaires were returned marked "addressee moved--not forwardable," one questionnaire was returned with a note from the respondent stating that she had not yet graduated, and one graduate was killed in the line of duty. This leaves a total possible responding population of 262 individuals. The return of two hun- dred questionnaires represents a response rate of 76.3 percent. After presenting the general characteristics of the responding graduates, an analysis of the data for the ten investi- gative research areas will be individually examined. This examina- tion consists of a statement of the investigative area, data results pertaining to that area, a statistical acceptance or rejec- tion, and general interpretation of the findings. GENERAL INFORMATION Table 1 shows the overall characteristics of those respond- ents who took part in the study. As reported by Table l, the respondents were overwhelmingly young, with 59.50 percent under the age of twenty-five. It is also 81 82 Table 1 General Characteristics of the Sample Characteristic Category Number Percent Community college Alpena 19 9.50 attended Kalamazoo 10 5.00 Kellogg 19 9.50 Kirtland 2 1.00 Lansing 28 14.00 Northwestern 18 9.00 Schoolcraft 29 14.50 St. Clair 30 15.00 Muskegon 14 7.00 Delta 31 15.50 Age Under 19 O 0.00 19-21 92 46.00 22-24 27 ' 13.50 25-27 17 8.50 28-30 24 12.00 31-35 18 9.00 36-40 13 6.50 41-45 4 2.00 45 and above 5 2.50 Sex Male 173 86.50 Female 27 13.50 Race Caucasian 195 97.50 Negro/Black 4 2.00 Mexican American 1 .50 Residing within Yes 113 56.50 community college No 83 41.50 district Uncertain 4 2.00 y 83 interesting to note that twenty percentzofthe population was over the age of thirty-five. While the majority of the population is male (86.5 percent), female respondents (13.5 percent) are making up a larger proportion than is suggested through other studies. The racial makeup of the population is almost entirely Caucasian (97.5 percent), with the remaining 2.5 percent consisting of minori- ties. Of interest to the community colleges is the fact that over forty percent of the respondents stated that they were no longer residing within the community college district from which they received their degree. INVESTIGATIVE AREA I Investigation Into Graduate Satis- faction With His Major and Sgecialization 1.1 What percentage of graduates will be satisfied with criminal justice as their college major? Table 1.1 Satisfaction With College Major Number Percent Graduates satisfied with 177 39.39 college major Graduates not satisfied 21 10.51 with college major As this table shows, almost ninety percent of the graduates from Michigan's community colleges express satisfaction with 34 criminal justice as their college major. This high proportion of graduate satisfaction with major suggests the likelihood of accept- ing investigative area 1.2 hypothesis. Because no difference was expected between employment status and satisfaction with college major, the statistical null hypothesis form was utilized in hypothesis 1.2. 1.2 There will be no significant difference between those employed in public or private criminal justice and those employed in non-criminal justice or unemployed as to whether they are satisfied with criminal justice as their college major. Table 1.2 Employment Status of Graduate by Satisfaction With College Major _—._—_—. Graduates Graduates Not Employment Status of Graduates Satisfied With Satisfied With College Major College Major Transfer 44 5 Public criminal justice 57 1 Private criminal justice 13 0 Non-criminal justice 15 6 Unemployed 9 1 Public criminal justice/transfer 28 7 Private criminal justice/transfer 1 O Hon-criminal justice/transfer 8 l Chi-square = 16.755 df = 7 p < .05 85 Table 1.2 shows that there is a significant difference between employment status and satisfaction with college major. While approximately ninety-eight percent of graduates employed in public or private criminal justice stated that they were satisfied with their major, almost thirty percent of graduates employed by non-criminal justice agencies were dissatisfied. As a result of these findings, research area 1.2 is rejected. Those not satis- fied with criminal justice as their college major stated that they would rather have majored in areas such as "business administration, sociology, and education." The criticisms given of the criminal justice major were that "jobs were not available," "can't utilize their degree," and they felt other majors listed were “more prac- tical." 1.3 What is the percentage breakdown of areas of specialization for graduates while at the community college? Almost all of Michigan's community college criminal jus- tice graduates stated that their area of specialization was "law enforcement," with 97.47 percent falling in this category. The overall distribution is shown in Table 1.3. This high percentage of graduates in the "law enforcement" Specialization is not surprising, because community college crim- inal justice programs have not had the opportunity to develop diverse specializations, due to the fact that they are relatively new, and their faculties are usually quite small. Plus the fact that community college students tend to be more practically 86 Table 1.3 Area of Specialization .fi Number Percent Law enforcement 193 97.47% Corrections 0 0.00 Security 0 0.00 Delinquency prevention and control 1 .51 Criminalistics O 0.00 Other 4 2.02 oriented, many have thus chosen a specialty which is believed to be in high demand. 1.4 What percentage of graduates will be satisfied with their area of specialization in the community college? Table 1.4 Satisfaction With Area of Specialization Number Percent Graduates satisfied with area of specialization I73 89°18% Graduates not satisfied with area 2] 10.82% of specialization The graduates' satisfaction level for area of specialization is almost identical with the graduates' satisfaction with college 87 major. Slightly over eighty-nine percent of the graduates were satisfied with their specialization. The similarity here is believed to be because of the high proportion of law enforcement specialization and the fact that most graduates relate law enforcement specialization as being identical with a criminal justice major. 1.5 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and the area of specialization he studied. Because little is known about community colleges and the specialties of their graduates, investigative area 1.5 is con- structed in the null hypothesis form. Table 1.5 Community College Attended by Area of Specialization Area of Specialization Community College Law Enforcement Delinquency Prevention Other Alpena 19 0 0 Kalamazoo - 9 0 I Kellogg 19 0 0 Kirtland l 0 I Lansing 27 0 0 Northwestern 17 0 O Schoolcraft 29 0 0 St. Clair 29 1 ° Muskegon 12 0 2 Delta 31 0 O Chi-square = 46.256 df = 18 p < .05 88 On outer appearance, Table 1.5 seems to show that there is no significant difference between community college attended and area of specialization. Each community college seems to have primarily law enforcement specialization graduates. The fact that forty percent (four) of the responding community colleges had graduates who specialized in areas other than law enforcement, and that one-half (one) of Kirkland Community College's graduates listed specialization other than law enforcement, is believed to be the cause of the significant difference between the community college attended and the graduates' area of specialization. 1.6 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their area of specialization. Because of sexual discrimination in the hiring of females in a law enforcement position, it is believed that a higher propor- tion of females will specialize in areas other than law enforcement, such as delinquency prevention and probation. Table 1.6 Graduates' Sex by Their Area of Specialization ~-——.—... Area of Specialization Sex Law Enforcement Delinquency Prevention Other Male 168 0 3 Female 25 l l II N Chi-square = 6.848 df p < .05 89 The significant difference between sex and area of specialization, as shown in Table 1.6, is more apparent when one realizes that proportionately four times the number of females (7.4 percent) are specializing in areas other than law enforcement as compared to their male counterparts (1.75 percent). 1.7 What is the percentage breakdown of courses taken by graduates while at the community college? Question 17 of the questionnaire requested that graduates indicate courses which they took while at the community college. Table 1.7 shows the courses taken in the criminal justice area and the number and percent of graduates who took these courses. Table 1.7 Courses Taken by Graduates at the Community College Graduates Who Took the Course Course Number Percent Introduction to Law Enforcement 197 98.50% Police Organization and Administration 182 91.00 Criminal Law and Procedure 192 96.00 Criminal Investigation 195 97.50 Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention 181 90.50 Police Operation 136 68.00 Highway Traffic Administration 129 64.50 Criminalistics 70 35.00 90 While definite conclusions cannot be reached by this table, it can be assumed that most community colleges in Michigan have the following courses in their criminal justice core: Introduction to Law Enforcement, Police Organization and Administration, Criminal Law and Procedure, Criminal Investigation, and Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention. Specially oriented courses offered at some commu- nity colleges, such as Criminalistics and Highway Traffic Adminis- tration, are being taken by a far smaller percentage of graduates. Further investigation needs to be conducted into which courses are available and which courses are being taken by criminal justice students at the community college. 1.8 Pre-service and in-service graduates will have significantly different reasons for not continuing their education at a four-year institution. Question 18 of the questionnaire was an open-ended question which requested from the non-transferring graduates their primary reasons for their decision not to continue their education at a four-year institution. The most common responses were categorized and are listed in Table 1.8. Because of the different environ- mental factors affecting pre-service and in-service students, it is believed that reasons for not transferring to a four-year institution, would basically differ. This proposition is supported through the findings listed in Table 1.8. While this table shows that the most common reason for not transferring for both pre-service and in-service students is "needed break from school--plan to return"(29.ll percent), to comprehend the 91 Table 1.8 Reasons For Not Continuing Education by Pre-Service/In-Service Status Reason for Not Continuing Education Pre-Service In-Service Financially unable l6 2 Needed break from school-~plan to 16 7 return Felt needed work experience 14 1 Did not feel four-year degree would 5 1 be benef1c1a1 Four-year program too far away 3 7 Other 3 4 Chi-square = 18.141 df = 5 p < .05 statistically discovered difference, one must examine proportional differences between each listed reason. The majority (52.63 per- cent) of pre-service graduates listed their primary reason for not transferring as either "financially unable" or "felt needed work experience." Only 13.64 percent of the in-service graduates noted either of these reasons. One-half (fifty percent) of the in-service and only 10.52 percent of pre-service graduates considered the primary reasons for not transferring as "four-year program too far away" and "other" assorted reasons. Through this interpretation of the data, the conclusion reached is that there is a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their 92 reasons for not continuing their education, thus investigative area 1.8 is accepted. While it is found that there is a significant difference in pre-service and in-service reasons for not transferring, there is little evidence to conclude a similar difference between community college attended and reasons listed by their graduates for not con- tinuing their education at a four-year institution. Thus investi- gative area 1.9 is stated in the null hypothesis. 1.9 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and his reasons for not continuing his education at a four-year institution. As was expected, Table 1.9 shows that no significant dif- ference was discovered between the individual community college and reasons given by their graduates for not continuing their education. Investigative area 1.9 is therefore accepted. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of graduates from Kellogg Community College (21.43 percent) and St. Clair Community College (33.33 percent) listed the reason for not continuing their education as the "four-year program too far away." INVESTIGATIVE AREA II Investigation Into Students' Evalu- ation of Community College Programs 2.1 What percentage of graduates will feel that their program adequately prepares the student for the level of operation? As Table 2.1 (page 94) indicates, 68.53 percent of the graduates feel that their program adequately prepares them for the Table 1.9 Community College Attended by Reasons For Not Continuing Education Reasons For Not Continuing Education 93 .3 e m e .D 00 x Q) m «U L“ $- 5- S- 5 “'e :9 8' 8'» WHAe s A: as 50_ as t- GJQ. OJU Q’qu < '— ‘--| ‘0: LLCUW- S— a: mu mo) 0J0 (US. 01- r—: QJ'I- H>—-r- 0:5 U 'OOS— ZS- OII-l- >-LL I: 003 (D 25.-0.) l S... «3 6.2-H HQ. 3: LO Q) C 0100) I—X U00) :0 .: -.- coma: mm oi-u..cn ot— 4.» LL. 2 LI. C) LI. 0 Alpena 2 5 2 0 0 0 Kalamazoo l 2 l 1 0 O Kellogg 2 5 2 2 3 O Kirtland 0 0 1 l O O Lansing 4 5 3 O 0 2 Northwestern 2 l l l l l Schoolcraft 4 3 O 1 O 1 St. Clair 2 2 4 O 5 2 Muskegon l O O O 1 0 Delta 1 2 l O 0 l Chi-square = 43.932 df = 45 p > .05 94 Table 2.1 Program Preparation of Student for Level of Operation Number Percent Graduates who feel program adequately prepares them for level of operation 135 68'53% Graduates who do not feel program ade- quately prepares them for level of 62 31.47% operation level of operation; however, a substantial number (31.47 percent) of the graduates feel they were not adequately prepared for the level of operation. The reasons most often expressed by graduates who felt their program did not adequately prepare them for the level of operation were the "lack of field training," "need for more law classes," "too much theory," "not practical," and "too much emphasis on administration and supervision level for the first two years of college." 2.2 Pr0portionally more in-service graduates will feel that more emphasis should be placed at the administrative or super- visory level than do pre-service graduates. It is believed that since in-service graduates will sooner utilize knowledge gained through administrative and supervisory level courses, they would more likely desire that more emphasis be placed at that level than would pre-service graduates. As Table 2.2 indicates, a higher proportion of in-service graduates (43.75 percent) prefer more emphasis at the administra- tive or supervisory level than do pre-service graduates (25.78 95 Table 2.2 Emphasis at Administrative or Supervisory Level by Pre-Service/In-Service Status ._ Emphasis at Administrative or Supervisory Level Pre-Serv1ce In-Serv1ce Graduates who desire more emphasis at administrative or supervisory 33 28 level Graduates who do not desire more emphasis at administrative or 95 36 supervisory level Chi—square - 7.694 df = l p < .05 percent). This significant difference leads to the acceptance of investigative area 2.2. 2.3 Pre-service and in-service graduates will feel significantly different as to which approach to criminal justice education will be most beneficial to them in their jobs and future career aspirations. Question 11 of the questionnaire asked the graduates to distinguish between whether a "specialized single component approach" or a "criminal justice total interacting system approach" to criminal justice education was most beneficial to them. In ana- lyzing the total data, it is discovered that 116 (59.79 percent) of the graduates preferred the "total interacting systems approach," with only seventy-six graduates (39.18 percent) choosing the "single component approach." While this result is important in dealing with constructing criminal justice education programs, additional information concerning pre-service/in-service differences 96 is highly relevant. The data pertaining to this investigative area is presented in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Approach to Criminal Justice Education by Pre-Service/In-Service Status ---——-— Approach to Criminal Justice Education Pre-Service In-Service Specialized single component 52 24 Criminal justice total interacting 75 38 system Combination of both approaches 0 2 Chi-square = 4.096 df = 2 p > .05 The percentages of pre-service/in-service graduates are almost identical as to desired approach to criminal justice educa- tion. Fifty-nine percent of both pre-service and in-service graduates prefer the "total interacting" approach. While these figures may be somewhat surprising, they should nevertheless sug- gest to criminal justice coordinators that determination of criminal justice educational approach should not be decided by the pre-service/in-service status of graduates who are enrolled in their programs. Therefore, investigative area 2.3 is rejected. 97 2.4 There will be no significant difference between the community college one attended and the approach to criminal justice education he feels will be most beneficial to him in his job and future career aspirations. Again, because we are dealing with the community college and the lack of substantial evidence, this proposition is con- structed in the nul l hypothesis form. Table 2.4 Community College Attended by Desired Approach to Criminal Justice Education Approach to Criminal Justice Education College Spec‘3;;§§fle§)"g]e TEIEInIIthSGIifig Both System Alpena 1' 6 0 Kalamazoo 7 3 0 Kellogg 7 12 0 Kirtland I I O Lansing 10 17 0 Northwestern 9 8 0 Schoolcraft 10 18 1 St. Clair 7 23 0 Muskegon 4 10 0 Delta ‘0 18 1 Chi-square = 19.094 df = 18 p > .05 98 The data in Table 2.4 supports the null hypothesis investi- gative area 2.4, that there is no significant difference between the community college one attended and the approach to criminal jus- tice education that the graduate feels is most beneficial. It should be noted, however, that two community colleges' graduates did differ from the majority in their support of a "single compo- nent approach" to criminal justice education. A majority of graduates from Alpena Community College (64.71 percent) and Kala- mazoo Community College (seventy percent) supported this "single component approach." The difference found in these two schools was not significant enough to cause a statistical difference between community colleges and the approach to criminal justice education. Thus the null hypothesis 2.4 is accepted. 2.5 Pre-service and in-service graduates will feel significantly different as to which approach to community college education will be most beneficial to them in their jobs and future career aspirations. Question 12 of the questionnaire asked the graduates to distinguish between whether an "applicable approach" or a "the- oretical approach" to community college education was most bene- ficial to them. In analyzing the total data, it is discovered that 119 (61.03 percent) of the graduates preferred the “applicable approach," and ten graduates (5.13 percent) chose a combination of the two approaches. While no pre-service/in-service status differ- ences were discovered in regard to the criminal justice educational approach, it is felt that a difference will still exist between pre-service/in-service status differences in their approach to 99 community college education. It is felt that pre-service students will prefer the "applicable approach" to community college educa- tion because it will be directly beneficial to them in their initial job placement, and that in-service students will prefer the "theoretical approach“ to community college education because it will be advantageous to them in their future career aspirations. The data pertaining to this investigative area is presented in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Approach to Community College Education Approach to Community College Education Applicable Theoretical Both Pre-service 80 43 5 In-service 38 21 5 Chi-square = 1.326 df = 2 p > .05 The data in the above table does not indicate a relation- ship between pre-service/in-service status and approach to community college education. Therefore, investigative area 2.5 is rejected. The conclusions reached from this hypothesis and investigative area 2.3 is that there are no statistical pre-service and in-service differences as to approach to community college criminal justice education and on the whole graduates prefer an "applicable, total 100 interacting system approach" to education. While the term "applicable, total interacting system approach“ might seem like a contradiction to criminal justice coordinators, if the coordinators want to develop a program that the graduates feel is most beneficial to them, they must strive to develop this type of program. 2.6 There will be no significant difference between the community college one attended and the approach to community college education he feels will be most beneficial to him in his job and career aspirations. Table 2.6 Community College Attended by Desired Approach to Community College Education - .__. ... _-- __—..__- _. Approach to Community College Education College Applicable Theoretical Both Alpena lO 7 1 Kalamazoo 6 4 O Kellogg 14 5 O Kirtland l 0 0 Lansing l7 8 2 Northwestern 14 3 0 Schoocraft 15 ll 3 St. Clair 17 10 3 Muskegon 12 2 0 Delta l3 16 l Chi-square = 19.545 df = 18 p > .05 101 The null hypothesis is supported by the data in Table 2.6. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no apparent difference between the community college one attended and the approach believed to be most beneficial. The majority of the graduates from all but one of the community colleges preferred the applicable approach to community college education. Graduates from Delta College showed a slight aberration when sixteen (53.33 percent) of them preferred the theoretical approach to community college edu- cation. Thus the null hypothesis is accepted. 2.7 What is the percentage breakdown in the student's rank order of his department's need for improvement? Curriculum, faculty, facilities, and equipment are four areas of concern in evaluating a criminal justice department at the community college. The graduates in this study evaluated these areas by rank order, with one being in greated need of improvement to four being in least need of improvement. The graduates' rank order of their criminal justice departments' needs for improvement are shown in Table 2.7. In analyzing this table it is quite apparent that the area of greatest need for improvement is equipment. Almost fifty per- cent of the graduates ranked equipment being in greatest need of improvement and over seventy-five percent ranked equipment as either first or second as needing greatest improvement. Following equipment (mean score 1.85), the descending rank order of segments needing improvement are facilities (2.37), curriculum (2.78), and finally, faculty (2.99). 102 mw.P mm.m my mm.mp _m mm.m~ mm Na.na Na Seaea_=em Am.~ No.m_ Am mm.mp mm -.oa me No.om oe . meepe_moea mm.~ _m.me mm Am.wm om _m.o_ om _o.NF mm se_=caa m~.~ Aw.mm om mo.mm we me.FN Na ma.a_ mm e=_=owcc=o gas: N .02 N .62 5 .62 A .62 acmspcmamo muwpmzo ucwsm>ocaEH com com: yo Lento xcmm n.~ mpnoh Pmcwe_go mo mucmEmmm ucmsm>ocasH coy ummz an pcmspgmamo mowgmza Pmcwewgu Co mpcmsmmm 103 2.8 There will be a significant difference between the community college the student attended and his rank order of this department's needs for improvement. Although this proposition deals with differences between community colleges, we have not chosen a null hypothesis format because of the belief that departmental needs throughout the state will necessarily differ. Since financial appropriations for the community colleges differ from district to district, it is believed that those departments receiving less funds would rank higher in need in such areas as equipment and facilities than would depart- ments on a better financial base. This, however, is not the case, as indicated in Table 2.8. Table 2.8 Community College by Rank Order of Department's Need for Improvement —___—___-__._..__. __ u._—.—_—. m... _ —_—_—“ M. .—o— “A“ _- Mean Rank Order of Departments' Need for Improvement College Curriculum Faculty Facilities Equipment Alpena 3.11 2.84 2.11 2.00 Kalamazoo 2.60 2.30 3.20 1.90 Kellogg 2.79 3.00 2.63 1.58 Kirtland 3.50 3.50 1.50 1.50 Lansing 2.96 3.35 1.88 1.77 Northwestern 2.65 2.94 2.47 1.94 Schoolcraft 2.36 2.75 2.82 2.07 St. Clair 2.97 3.48 1.86 1.69 Muskegon 2.79 3.21 2.36 1.64 Delta 2.73 2.67 2.60 2.00 KW 2.083 7.282 5.792 2.094 p >.05 >.05 >.05 >.05 104 As indicated by the probability values cited in Table 2.8, the mean rank of need of improvement does not vary significantly from one community college to another. Investigative area 2.8 is therefore rejected. The fact that the so-called money areas of improvement--equipment and facilities--consistently rank in great- est need of improvement for each community college tends to suggest that the community college criminal justice programs are not acquiring the necessary financial support. Another possibility is that the curriculum and faculty are of such superior quality that, by process of elimination, equipment and facilities rank in greater need of improvement. 2.9 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' rating of full-time faculty as compared to the rating of part-time faculty. While criminal justice students are often given the oppor- tunity to rate individual instructors, comprehensive studies of the results of these ratings are rarely done. Attempts to evaluate full-time vs part-time community college criminal justice faculty members has been avoided. Question 14 of the questionnaire asked the graduates to rate their criminal justice instructors. For purposes of this study, a rating of outstanding or good is con- sidered positive and a rating of fair or poor is considered nega- tive. It should be noted that the graduates (eighty-eight percent) gave a positive rating to their full-time faculty and a slightly smaller proportion of graduates (80.5 percent) rated their 105 part-time faculty as positive. A comparison of full-time faculty to part-time faculty is presented in Table 2.9 Table 2.9 Graduates' Rating of Full-Time Faculty and Part-Time Faculty* Part-Time Faculty Rating Full-Time Facu'ty Rat'"9 Outstanding Good Fair Poor Outstanding 18 31 4 2 Good 17 58 21 0 Fair 4 7 5 1 Poor 0 1 O l *Rating of full-time faculty is read horizontally and rating of part-time faculty is read vertically. Chi-square = 33.721 df = 9 p < .05 As Table 2.9 indicates, there is a significant difference between the graduates' rating of full-time and part-time faculty. The full-time faculty is rated significantly higher. The part-time faculty received almost twice the number of negative ratings (twenty percent) as did the full-time faculty (11.18 percent). Therefore investigative area 2.9 is accepted. 106 2.10 There will be no significant difference between the community college the student attended and his rating of the faculty. In reviewing the literature on the community college, there were no studies that compared the ratings of faculties from differ- ent community colleges. Since there is a lack of information, it is difficult to hypothesize about differences in community college. faculties. Therefore, investigative area 2.10 is in the null hypothesis form. Tables describing community college differences in students' ratings of full-time and part-time faculty are Table 2.10A and 2.108. Table 2.10A Community Colleges and Graduates' Ratings of Full-Time Faculty Full-Time Faculty Rating College Outstanding Good Fair Poor Alpena 6 12 1 O Kalamazoo 2 6 1 l Kellogg 9 10 O O Kirtland O l 0 O Lansing 9 15 3 0 Northwestern 5 8 4 l Schoolcraft 3 19 3 O St. Clair l7 9 4 0 Muskegon 4 7 2 1 Delta 10 18 2 O Chi—square = 34.704 df = 27 p > .05 107 Table 2.103 Community Colleges and Graduates' Ratings of Part-Time Faculty Part-Time Faculty Rating College Outstanding Good Fair Poor Alpena 6 8 3 O Kalamazoo 4 4 2 O Kellogg 3 12 3 l Kirtland 0 2 0 O Lansing 6 13 6 0 Northwestern 2 3 3 0 Schoolcraft 10 14 5 O St. Clair 4 l7 4 l Muskegon 4 7 l 1 Delta 2 20 3 l Chi-square = 22.441 df = 27 p > .05 Examination of the data in Tables 2.10A and 2.103 reveals that there is no significant difference between community colleges and the graduates' ratings of faculty members. While we accept the null hypothesis of no significant difference presented in investi- gative area 2.10, there are individual school deviations worth exploring. While the average negative rating for community col- lege full-time faculty was approximately ten percent, several schools had negative ratings of full-time faculty of over twenty percent. These include Northwestern (27.78 percent), Muskegon (21.43 percent), and Kalamazoo (twenty percent). The larger 108 negative ratings for part-time faculty are obtained from graduates from Northwestern (37.5 percent) and Lansing (twenty-four percent). The overall rating of Michigan's community college criminal justice faculty members (full-time and part-time) is one of the highest discovered by any recent studies done in this area. While there is always a need for continuing evaluation and improvement, on the whole criminal justice graduates of Michigan's community colleges have given a positive evaluation of their criminal justice programs. INVESTIGATIVE AREA III Investigation into Financial Assistance 3.1 What percentage of graduates received LEEP assistance during the time they attended community college? Table 3.1 Graduates Who Received LEEP Assistance Number Percent Received LEEP 81 40.70 Did not receive LEEP 119 59.30 While the growth of LEEP assistance has grown simultaneously with the development of criminal justice programs, it was not known how significant a contribution LEEP had made to the community col- lege criminal justice programs in Michigan. As indicated in 109 Table 3.1, over forty percent of the graduates did receive LEEP assistance. This proportion of graduates from one field receiving a specific form of financial aid is unmatched in the history of higher education. Because of the extreme importance that LEEP has had in the past and will have in the future for criminal justice students and programs, it is worthwhile to analyze the relation- ship of LEEP to other relevant factors. One such relevant factor is the relationship of graduates' pre-service/in-service status and whether they received LEEP assistance. 3.2 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and whether they received LEEP assistance. Table 3.2 Pre-Service/In-Service Status of Graduates and Whether They Received LEEP —_. Did Not Receive Graduate Status Received LEEP LEEP Pre-service 26 107 In-service 55 B Chi-square = 80.932 df = l p < .05 Since the LEEP appropriations have always been limited, pri- orities have been set in which in-service students have received funds in preference to pre-service students. The effect of this stipulation is apparent in the results of Table 3.2 which deals 110 with pre-service/in-service difference and whether the graduates received LEEP. While fifty-five (87.30 percent) of the in-service graduates received LEEP, only twenty-six (19.55 percent) of the pre-service graduates received LEEP. With this substantial sup- portive evidence, investigative area 3.2 is ardently accepted. 3.3 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' age and whether they received LEEP assistance. (The older the graduate, the more likely that he received LEEP assist- ance.) Table 3.3 Graduates' Age and Whether They Received LEEP Assistance Graduate Age Received LEEP Did NEEEEeceive 19-21 21 70 22-24 8 19 25-27 8 9 28-30 15 9 31-35 14 4 36-40 10 13 41-45 3 l 45 and above 2 3 Chi-square = 37.362 df = 7 p < .05 111 As indicated in Table 3.3, there is a relationship between an increase in age and the receiving of LEEP assistance. Up to the age of thirty-five, there is a dramatic increase in the receiving of LEEP assistance as one gets older. From thirty-five to forty- five, the frequency of receiving LEEP peaks and then levels off. After the age of forty-five there is a sharp decrease in receiving LEEP assistance. With regard to the age of the graduate, the impact of LEEP is thus significant and investigative area 3.3 is accepted. The surprising positive correlation is best illustrated in graph 3.3. Graph 3.3 Percentage of Graduates Receiving LEEP Assistance and Age Percent 801' . 78 .77 70-“ L . 62 . 75 60A 50 T . 47 40.T . 40 30 “' . 29 20--- 23 10 Age 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 45 and above 112 3.4 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' race and whether they received LEEP assistance. Table 3.4 Graduates' Race and Receiving LEEP Assistance Did Not Receive Race Received LEEP LEEP Caucasian 78 116 Negro/Black 2 2 Mexican American 1 O Chi-square = 1.620 df = 2 p > .05 Few studies have been done on graduates' race and whether they received LEEP assistance. One of the major obstacles to this type of study is the fact that so few minorities are involved in criminal justice education. This fact has also handicapped this present study. While Table 3.4 indicates no significant difference between race and receiving LEEP, the fact that only five minorities participated in this study makes any conclusions drawn question- able. However, with the data available, investigative area 3.4 must be rejected at this time. 3.5 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and whether they received LEEP assistance. The data in Table 3.5 indicates a significant relationship between receiving LEEP and graduates' sex. Almost forty-five per- cent of the male graduates received LEEP while only 14.81 percent 113 Table 3.5 Graduates' Sex and Whether They ' Received LEEP Assistance Did Not Receive Sex Received LEEP LEEP Male 77 95 Female _ 4 23 Chi-square = 8.675 df = l p < .05 of the female graduates received LEEP. This significant difference is not surprising when one realizes, as mentioned earlier, that the priorities of the Law Enforcement Education Program have always had the condition that in-service students should receive LEEP monies in preference to pre-service students, and females at the community college level are overwhelmingly of pre-service status. Therefore, investigative area 3.5 is accepted. 3.6 There will be no significant difference between the community college that graduates attended and whether they received LEEP assistance. Because this is the first study to comprehensively examine I:ommunity colleges in Michigan and their LEEP allocations, it is clifficult to make any knowledgeable prediction. Thus investigative al“ea.3.6 is constructed in the null hypothesis form. The results are presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 114 Community College Attended and Whether Graduates Received LEEP Assistance Did Not Receive College Received LEEP LEEP Alpena ll Kalamazoo 7 Kellogg ll 8 Kirtland 0 2 Lansing 8 20 Northwestern 7 11 Schoolcraft 14 15 St. Clair ll 19 Muskegon 8 6 Delta 12 19 Chi-square = 8.441 df = 9 p > .05 While there is a relatively large range in the percentage of graduates who received LEEP from Lansing Community College (where 28.57 percent received LEEP) to Kellogg Community College (where 57.89 percent received LEEP), the overall similarities between community colleges in Michigan and the percentage of their graduates who received LEEP leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis 3.6. 115 3.7 What is the percentage breakdown of types of financial aid that graduates received other than LEEP assistance? Table 3.7 Types of Financial Aid Other Than LEEP Types of Financial Aid Number Percent Veterans benefits 67 33.50% Police cadet program 14 7.00 Social security 8 4.00 Scholarship 13 6.50 Other 20 10.00 Received none of the above 78 39.00 Table 3.7 shows that a surprisingly higher percentage of graduates received financial aid other than LEEP. While LEEP has been considered to be the backbone of criminal justice student financial aid, the fact that over sixty percent of the surveyed population received educational monies other than LEEP tends to indicate that while the LEEP program is important, it is not imperative to the continuation of criminal justice programs. Though the total dollar allocation by either LEEP or other types of finan- cial aid was not determined in this study, the fact that the gradu- ates listed these other forms of financial assistance leads to the assumption that these monies are a significant contribution to aiding criminal justice students in financing their education. Next to "veterans benefits," the highest percentage of those receiving other types of financial aid fell under the "other" 116 category. This category included, primarily, work study funds, National Defense Loans and Educational Opportunity Grants. The criminal justice coordinators of the state of Michigan have questioned whether those receiving LEEP funds are also dis- proportionally obtaining additional types of financial assistance. The fear of disproportionate financial dollar distribution is brought out clearly by Table 3.8. 3.8 There will be a significant relationship between those who received LEEP assistance and who also received another type of financial assistance. Table 3.8 Other Types of Financial Aid by LEEP ._.— Did Not Receive Type of Financial Aid Received LEEP LEEP Veterans benefits 41 25 Police cadet program 5 9 Social security 3 5 Scholarship 3 10 Other 7 13 Received none of the above 22 56 Chi-square = 19.713 df = 5 p < .05 As illustrated in Table 3.8, a large proportion (48.76 per- cent) of those who are receiving other types of financial aid are, in addition, receiving LEEP. At the same time, less than thirty percent of those receiving no other types of financial aid are receiving LEEP. It should be noted that 62.12 percent of those 117 receiving veterans benefits, are also obtaining LEEP. Thus inves- tigative area 3.8 is accepted. While the financial aid allotment inequities are tolerable in times of abundant financial aid dol- lars, it is unacceptable now, when LEEP and other financial monies are being reduced. It seems imperative that LEEP examine their priorities in LEEP allocations and alter them such that those receiving other types of financial assistance do not also acquire the much needed LEEP dollars. INVESTIGATIVE AREA IV Investigation Into Graduate Emeioyment Status 4.1 What is the percentage breakdown of present graduate employ- ment status? Table 4.1 Employment Status of Graduates Employment Status Number Percent Transfer 49 24.87% Public criminal justice 58 29.44 Private criminal justice 13 6.60 Non-criminal justice 22 11.17 Unemployed 10 5.08 Public criminal justice/transfer 35 17.77 Private criminal justice/transfer l .51 Non-criminal justice/transfer 9 4.57 118 Table 4.1 gives the employment status breakdown of corrmunity college criminal justice graduates in Michigan. The greatest per- centage of graduates includesarkltransfer students (47.72 percent) and those students employed in public criminal justice (47.21 per- cent). These figures illustrate that the community college should be functioning primarily in a dual role of servicing transfer stu- dent needs and preparing students for employment in public criminal justice. Philosophically, the community colleges in Michigan have adopted this dual role and seem to be adequately fulfilling this function. Individual differences between community colleges and their graduates' employment status will be examined in investiga- tive area 4.3. The believed sexual discrimination in hiring females in the criminal justice field leads to the following hypothesis. 4.2 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their present employment status. Several unexpected similarities between sex and employment status found through the information contained in Table 4.2 included the following: "transfer" category (males, 24.12 percent; females, 29.63 percent), the "public criminal justice“ category (males, thirty percent; females, 25.93 percent), and "unemployed" classifi- cation (males, 5.29 percent; females, 3.70 percent). While these similarities resulted in a Chi-square of 11.225 and forced the rejection of hypothesis 4.2, several substantial differences in employment status and sex are noteworthy. 119 Table 4.2 Employment Status of Graduates by Sex Sex Employment Status Male Female Transfer ' 41 8 Public criminal justice 51 7 Private criminal justice 12 l Non-criminal justice 15 7 Unemployed 9 1 Public criminal justice/transfer 34 1 Private criminal justice/transfer l O Non-criminal justice/transfer 7 2 Chi-square = 11.225 df = 7 p > .05 A far larger percentage of males (twenty percent) in com- parison to females (3.7 percent) classified themselves as "public criminal justice/transfer." Three times the percentage of females were classified as "non-criminal justice" (males, 8.82 percent; females, 25.93 percent). While the hypothesis is rejected, the noted category differences, the small size of the female sample (twenty-seven), and the lack of specific job employment information all suggest a need for further in-depth research in the area of sex differences in employment status. 120 4.3 There will be a significant difference between the community college graduates attended and their employment status. As mentioned earlier, one of the major purposes in this study is to ascertain if there are any amenable significant dif- ferences between the community college attended and employment status upon graduation. Table 4.3 indicates differences that do exist in community colleges in Michigan. Community college differences are discovered in each of the employment status areas. Percentage differences in the "trans- fer" category ranges from 7.14 percent at Schoolcraft to 44.44 percent at Northwestern. Non-transfer graduates employed in public criminal justice range from a low of 7.14 percent at Schoolcraft to a high of 57.89 percent at Kellogg. While employment in "private criminal justice" is only 6.6 percent of the total sample, over twenty percent of Kalamazoo's graduates fell into this category. While thirty percent of St. Clair's graduates were employed in "non-criminal justice" agencies, there were no graduates from Kala- mazoo, Kirtland, or Delta in the IInon-criminal justice" category. Finally, percentage differences in "public criminal justice/trans- fer" range from 3.70 percent at Lansing to 28.57 percent at Muskegon and 46.43 percent at Schoolcraft. Thus, because of these findings, hypothesis 4.3 is accepted. While this present study did not investigate in detail the reasons for this significant difference, the results are significant enough to suggest a critical need for further research into employment status differences of graduates and community colleges. 121 mo. v a No G en omm.o__ A osasam-Peu a o N o o N ON a appoo _ o e o _ o N m eomoxmsz o o e o m m m m s_a_u .Nm N o m_ P a a N N Neaso_ooeom F o _ N N o N N ecoemozeecoz _ o F _ N o a_ N me_meaN o o o o o o _ _ nea_esex o _ _ F N _ __ N mmoPPox o o _ _ o N e N ooNNENPax o o N m as F e e aeoa_< L0 9.5... gm men.» .5 mac.» 3.”wa mwmm Awmwfiw .fim @wa _Mfifi .Mfiww Ass: .Iooz mpd>wga UWFQ=Q Icoz wuo>wgm UTFaza mmmeou mzamum “cosmopasm mzumpm pcmsxopaEm xa mam—Foo xpwczesoo m.¢ mFLMH 122 INVESTIGATIVE AREA V Investigation Into Transfer Students 5.1 Proportionally more pre-service graduates will be transfer students than in-service graduates. Table 5.1 Transferring to a Four-Year Institution by Pre-Service/In-Service Status Pre-Service In-Service Number Percent Number Percent Transferred 62 47.69 32 50.00 Did not transfer 68 52.31 32 50.00 Table 5.1 shows the number and percent of pre-service/ in-service students who transferred to four-year institutions upon graduation. While few in-depth studies on pre-service/in-service transferring habits have been conducted, it is believed that fac- tors such as age, financial responsibilities, and employment opportunities would result in a higher proportion of pre-service transfers. The results in Table 5.1 do not substantiate this proposition. The percentage of transferring graduates for pre- service (47.69 percent) and in-service (fifty percent) are almost identical. These findings lead to the rejection of investigative area 5.1. 123 5.2 What percentage of transfer students will be attending a four-year institution in Michigan? It is generally believed that graduates from community colleges will transfer to four-year institutions within their home state if these institutions offer programs of adequate educational quality. Michigan is known for its large network of superior four- year criminal justice programs and has a reputation for excellence in education. The fact that almost all of Michigan's community college graduates transferred to four-year institutions in their own state, as shown by Table 5.2, is far from surprising. Table 5.2 Four-Year Institutions Attended by Transfer Students —_.- Institution Number Percent Ferris State College 29 29.29% Michigan State University 13 13.13 Saginaw Valley College 12 12.12 Madonna College 10 10.10 Wayne State University 9 9.09 Grand Valley State College 5 5.05 Western Michigan University 4 4.04 Eastern Michigan University 3 3.03 Northern Michigan University 3 3.03 University of Detroit 2 2.02 University of Michigan 2 2.02 Mercy College 2 2.02 Eastern Kentucky University 2 2.02 Gannon College--Erie, Pa. 1 1.01 University of Maryland 1 1.01 Louisiana State University 1 1.01 124 As these figures indicate, all but five percent of Michigan's community college criminal justice transfer graduates attended four-year institutions within their own state. Thus research area 5.2 is accepted. Of interest to note is the fact that the trans- ferring graduates are attending twelve separate four-year institu- tions in Michigan. While only several years ago Michigan State University had the only criminal justice program in the state, today only thirteen percent of community college criminal justice graduates transferred to this university. The largest percentage of transfers chose to attend Ferris State College (29.29 percent). Ferris State College along with Michigan State University and Saginaw Valley College (12.12 percent), Madonna College (10.10 percent), and Wayne State University (9.09 percent) account for over seventy percent of all community college criminal justice transfer students in Michigan. These figures tend to bear out the fact that the graduates now have several alternatives as to the four-year criminal justice programs in Michigan from which they can choose. 5.3 The determining factors in a transfer student attending a specific four-year institution will be particular for that institution. Question 26 of the questionnaire elicited from the graduates the relative importance of specific factors in their decisions to attend theofour-year institution of their choice. The graduates (:ould rate the individual factors as strongly important (given a Sicore l), moderately important (given score 2), slightly important 125 (given score 3), and not at all important (given score 4) in their decision upon choosing one institution over another. Table 5.3 gives the mean rating score of each determining factor for each of the four-year institutions. Also given in this table are Chi- squares and degree of significance for the relationship between the individual determining factors and the four-year institution attended. As evident through Table 5.3, the "recommended by community college counselor" factor was primarily an equally determining fac- tor for each of the schools. Even though there was no significant difference between four-year institutions and this factor, several schools' transfer students rated this factor relatively high. These include Eastern Michigan University (66.67 percent rated this strongly important), University of Michigan (fifty percent rated this strongly important), and Ferris State College (38.46 percent rated this strongly important). "Recommended by family and friends" was neither an important determining factor (only thirty-one percent rated it strongly important or moderately important) nor a significant differing factor between institutions. The determining factors of "recom- mended by community college instructors," "close proximity to home and work," "scholarship offered," and “program believed superior to Others" were found to be significant at the .05 level in relation- Sfiip to the different four-year institutions attended. "Recom- amended by community college instructors" showed variations in YEElative importance from Ferris State College, where fifty-four 126 mgopumm mcwcwesmpmo mo xcmm com: me. x mo. V mo. v mo. v we. v mo. x mo. x a 5N eN 4N 5N eN aN aN ea o_a.mN oma.Pm maN.om www.ma amm.Pa NNN.NN amm.Pm ocasem-meu Nm.N ae.N am.m ma.F 8N.N NN.N ON.m cacao NN.F oo.N oo.m ON._ .F.N om.N mN.N omappou aeeoaaz NN.N mN.N NN.N NN.P ma.N NN.N om.N sommcoswez meaem mesa: om._ oo._ om.F oo.a oo.m oo.N om._ cameeoez ea seemso>_e= oo._ oo._ oo.a oo.N oo._ oo._ oo.m “_oceao ea Neemcosee: Nm._ NN._ ma.m NN.N NP.N am.N Na.N Newmco>_e= ooaom cameeowz ON.N oa.N 00.5 oa.N ON.N om.N oo.m ama~_ou oeaem Nop_a> eeaew No.N aa.F mN.m ao.m Nm._ N_.m mF.N omop_ou eeaem meteoe oo.m NN.N oo.N Na.m mm.m NN.N Nm.. Neemcoswea cameeowz eeoemam 13 d S 3 3 H. .\d 1.3 1.J 3 9.1.. 1.33 134.3 333 03 00 U. U0 U03 J93 003 n 0 0 p5 swo L.w0 ”NO 0'. OJ .1. 3 1.. 3L. U.w 1.1.. 1.0.. D. M J m UILW S w U.rA in J 01. 033 DurA3 333 3 3 5 J0 30H 5 U [DU 9% mm. M NH muw ww muw e2588£ d d d 0 J30. pp 530. 3 3 w 55 0 J J 3 30. q 30. I... .L. K rA 0A 0 0 In Jr cowuzpwpmcH me>1caom N ucmpp< op cowmwumo m_ucmu=pm cmemcwgh m cw mcopumm mcwcmsgmpmo mo xcmm com: ma mcowuauwpmcH cmm>IcaoJ m.m mpnmh 127 percent rated it strongly important, to "other" institutions, where eight percent rated it as strongly important and sixty per- cent rated it as not at all important. In comparison, one-third of Michigan State University's transfer students rated this factor as strongly important. "Close proximity to home and work“ showed extreme diverse responses among the institutions. This factor was strongly impor- tant for transfers at Wayne State University (66.67 percent), Madonna College (ninety percent), and ”others" (seventy-three per- cent). At the same time, this factor was far less important for transfer students at Ferris State College (15.38 percent rated it as strongly important) and at Michigan State University (36.36 percent rated it as strongly important). While "scholarships offered" were not at all important for seventy-five percent of the transfer students, there were several exceptions at individual schools that led to an overall signifi- cant difference. At Eastern Michigan University over sixty-six percent of their transfers rated this factor as "strongly impor- tant," while at Ferris State College, University of Detroit, and Grand Valley State College over ninety percent of their transfer students rated this factor as not at all important in their deci- sion to attend that institution. The belief that the criminal justice program was "superior 'to others" was an important factor in transfer students' decision ‘toIattend certain four-year institutions. One hundred percent of h4ichigan State University's transfers believed this factor was 128 either strongly or moderately important and ninety-two percent of Ferris State Colleges' transfers believed this factor to be strongly or moderately important. At the same time, transfer stu- dents at Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State College and Wayne State University did not rate this factor as being important overall. In conclusion, the determining factors of "recommended by community college instructors," "close to home and work," "scholarship offered," and "program believed superior to others" in transfer students' decisions to attend specific four-year insti- tutions are particular for that institution. Thus, while not all determining factors showed a statistically significant difference, we have chosen to accept investigative area 5.3. 5.4 What percentage of transfer students will be attending the four-year institution of their first choice? Table 5.4 Transfer Students Attending Four-Year Institutions of First Choice I Number Percent Attended institution of first choice 74 77.08 Did not attend the institution of 22 22.92 first choice As illustrated in Table 5.4, a relatively high number of transfer students (twenty-two) are not attending the four-year institution of their first choice. This surprisingly high number 129 of transfers who are not attending the institution of their first choice requires further investigation. The following table gives the breakdown of these transfers and a list of their first choices. Table 5.4A Institution of First Choice of Those Transfer Students Not Attending Their First Choice Institution Institution Number Percent Michigan State University 14 63.64% Ferris State College 4 18.18 Eastern Michigan University 3 13.64 University of Michigan 1 4.54 Table 5.4A reveals that a substantial proportion of trans- fer students had desired to attend Michigan State University. However, for several reasons these students attended other insti- tutions. Reasons given by the transfer graduates for wanting to attend Michigan State University included that they believed the school had a good reputation and an excellent program. Reasons given by the graduates for not attending Michigan state University were, "I refuse to put up with all the bureaucratic red tape," "Michigan State University was unavailable for consultation and Ferris representatives took the time to talk to me," and "no comment." 130 5.5 The determining factor for students' decision to attend one four-year institution over another will be significantly dif- ferent between the full-time and part-time student. Table 5.5 illustrates the determining factors between full- time and part-time students and their decision to transfer to a four-year institution. For an explanation of the statistical mean value used in Table 5.5, refer to the discussion under investigative area 5.3. Table 5.5 Determining Factors in Transferring by Full-Time/ Part-Time Status of Transfers Mean Rank of . . . Determining Factors Full-TTme Part-T1me ChT—Square df p Recommended by community college counselors 2'41 3°04 7-531 3 >-05 Recommended by family and friends 2'95 3-03 4-572 3 >.05 Recommended by community college instructors 2'39 2°88 3-703 3 >-05 Close proximity to home and work 2.68 1.44 15.922 3 <,05 Scholarship offered 3.48 3.40 2.429 3 >.05 Believed program Believed faculty superior 2.14 3.04 16.697 3 <.05 In the analysis of Table 5.5, one immediately notices that the recommendation variables (community college counselors, family 131 and friends and community college instructors) did not significantly differ between full-time and part-time students. At the same time, full-time transfer students gave a slightly higher mean rating to each of the recommendation variables than did the part-time trans- fer students. The variable of "close proximity to home and work" is an important factor in a part-time student's decision to attend a four-year institution. A large majority (77.78 percent) of part- time transfer students believed that "close proximity to home and work" is "strongly important" and only thirty-four percent of the full-time transfer students rate this variable highly. A full-time/ part-time status difference was also discovered in the factors of "program believed superior to others" and "faculty believed superior to others." In each of these cases, full-time transfer students rated these factors as being more important in their decision to attend a particular four-year institution than did part-time trans- fer students. A majority of full-time transfer students (84.62 percent) in comparison to less than half the part-time transfer students (forty-four percent) believed that a superior program was either "strongly or moderately important" in their decision to attend a particular four-year institution. Two-thirds of the full-time transfer students believed that superior faculty of a particular institution was the detennining factor in their deci- sion to choose to attend that institution and only one-third of part-time transfer students held this belief. 132 5.6 What percentage of transfer students will remain as criminal justice majors in the four-year institution? Table 5.6 Transfer Students Still a Criminal Justice Major Criminal Justice Major Number Percent Yes 83 86.46 No . 13 13.54 The fact that few comprehensive studies have been done in the area of two-year criminal justice transfer students meant that little was known as to the exact proportion of transfer students who remained criminal justice majors. As illustrated in Table 5.6, a vast majority of the criminal justice transfer students remained criminal justice majors at the four-year institutions. To the best of the authors' knowledge, no disciplines show as high a percentage of students who retain their discipline degree upon transferring to a four-year institution from a community college. 5.7 There will be no significant difference between the community college a transfer student attended and whether or not he remains a criminal justice major. Because so little is known concerning the proportion of community college criminal justice graduates who remain criminal justice majors upon transferring, investigative area 5.7 is stated in the null hypothesis form. The fact that the community college variable was not a significant factor in whether or not transfer students stayed criminal justice majors gives credence to the fact 133 Table 5.7 Community College by Transfer Students Remaining Criminal Justice Majors Remained Criminal Did N°t Remain Institution Justice Major Crimin;;jg:stice Alpena 8 l Kalamazoo 3 2 Kellogg 3 1 Lansing 7 1 Northwestern lO 0 Schoolcraft 16 1 St. Clair ll 2 Muskegon 9 2 Delta 16 3 Chi—square = 6.231 df = 8 p > .05 that the "criminal justice major continuation" phenomenon is broad, totally encompassing, and not contingent upon region or influences of a particular area. The results shown in Table 5.7 lead to the acceptance of investigative area 5.7. 5.8 What percentage of transfer students who are criminal justice majors will specialize in the same area that they did while at the community college? Table 5.8 shows that of those students who remain criminal justice majors upon transferring to a four-year institution, almost all of them (93.90 percent) remained in their same area of specialization. This "continuation effect" has several possible explanations: (1) Since they have recently transferred, they have 134 Table 5.8 Transfer Students Remaining in Same Area of Specialization Number Percent Transfer students in same area of specialization 77 93'90 Transfer students in d1fferent 5 6.10 area of specialization not had the Opportunity or exposure of other areas of specializa- tion. (2) There exists a fear of losing specialization credits obtained at the community college. (3) An extension of the com- munity college students' "practicality orientation" by which he has chosen and has now retained a specialization (law enforcement) that is believed to be in high demand. 5.9 Pre-service and in-service transfer students will have sig- nificantly different reasons for continuing their education at a four-year institution. Question 27 of the questionnaire was open-ended and requested of the graduates their reasons for continuing their education at the four-year institution. Each questionnaire was read, and the most common responses were categorized and are listed along with pre-service/in-service status differences in Table 5.9. The most frequent reason for in-service students' decision to continue their education was "self improvement" (includes improved level of knowledge). There were 31.25 percent in this 135 Table 5.9 Reasons for Continuing Education by Pre-Service/In-Service Status .———~—_ -- Reasons For Continuing Education Pre-Service In-Service Self improvement 10 10 Desired degree 10 5 Expand job potential 20 9 Age (too young to get in field) 7 0 Certification 2 O Advancement and promotion 4 7 Others 6 1 Chi-square = 12.601 df = 6 p < .05 category as compared to only 16.95 percent of pre-service students selecting this reason. "Advancement and promotion" was also a relatively important reason for in-service graduates continuing their education. Twenty-two percent of in-service transferring graduates, as compared to 6.8 percent of pre-service transferring graduates, selected "advancement and promotion" as the primary reason for the decision to continue their education. "Age" and "certification" were factors affecting only pre-service transfer- ring graduates. Approximately sixteen percent of the pre-service graduates listed these reasons for their decision to continue their education. As is evident, there is a substantial statistical difference between pre-service and in-Service transfer students' 136 reasons for continuing their education, therefore investigative area 5.9 is accepted. INVESTIGATIVE AREA VI Investigation Into Employment Charac- teristics of Graduates Employed in a Public or Private Criminal Justice Agency 6.1 What is the percentage breakdown of graduates working for different types of criminal justice agencies? Table 6.1 gives the breakdown of employment characteristics of graduates employed in public or private criminal justice agen- cies. Although the figure of 80.95 percent of graduates working for police agencies is higher than found in other studies of Table 6.1 Graduates Employed in Public or Private Criminal Justice Agencies Agency Number Percent Police 85 80.95% Corrections 4 3.81 Juvenile 2 1.90 Probation/parole 0 0.00 Business retail security 10 9.52 Private detective 2 1.90 Others 2 1.90 ‘ 137 criminal justice graduates, it is not a surprising figure when one examines the emphasis placed on the law enforcement function at the community college. The fact that there are no graduates working for probation and parole agencies reinforces the idea that these agencies are interested primarily in baccalaureate degree gradu- ates. After police work, graduates are being employed mainly by private criminal justice agencies. 6.2 What is the percentage breakdown of graduates working for different governmental levels? While it is important to investigate the employment pat- terns of graduates in criminal justice, it is of equal importance to explore the governmental levels of these employing agencies. The emphasis of community college criminal justice education has always been toward the servicing of local needs. It is therefore important to determine if the graduates are entering local level agencies and if it is discovered that graduates are going to agencies other than ”local,” it would be necessary to re-examine the community college criminal justice program emphasis. The percentage breakdown of graduates working for different govern- mental levels is shown in Table 6.2. From this table, it seems apparent that the community college criminal justice program emphasis at the local level is tippropriate. Over seventy-nine percent of the graduates are [Dresently working for local (municipal and county) criminal jus- ‘tice agencies, and while the remaining graduates (14.29 percent, 138 Table 6.2 Graduates Employed in Different Governmental Levels Agency Level Number Percent Federal 7 6.67% State 15 14.29 County 21 20.00 Municipal 62 59.05 state; 6.67 percent, federal) should not be ignored, there is ample data to support a local community approach to criminal justice edu- cation. 6.3 There will be no significant difference between the type of criminal justice agency (public or private) the graduate works for and the governmental level of that agency. It is believed that the graduates employed in either public or private criminal justice agencies will be primarily at the municipal level, with percentages of graduates decreasing as the geographicaljurisdictionalsize of the agency increases. Because no difference is expected between public and private criminal justice agencies, investigative area 6.3 is in the null hypothesis form. Table 6.3 substantiates the aforementioned proposition and leads to the acceptance of investigative area 6.3. 139 Table 6.3 Governmental Level of Agency by Type of Agency in Which Employed Type of Agency Agency Level Public Private Federal 7 0 State 14 1 County 20 1 Municipal 50 12 Chi square = 4.934 df = 3 p > .05 6.4 What percentage of graduates employed by public or private criminal justice agencies are employed in the agency initially desired upon graduation? Table 6.4 Graduates Employed in Agency Initially Desired Upon Graduation Number Percent Obtained agency initially desired 74 74.75 Did not obtain agency initially 25 25 25 desired The majority of graduates did obtain the agency they ini- tially desired upon graduation (74.75 percent). When one considers the economic environment of today, it is impressive to realize that rapproximately three-fourths of these community cdllege graduates vvere able to get the employment they desired. Few baccalaureate 140 degree programs can make similar claims. It should be noted that the above figures do not include graduates who are either unemployed or employed in non-criminal justice agencies. 6.5 Proportionally more graduates employed in a public criminal justice agency are employed in the agency they initially desired upon graduation than are graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency. For years the orientation of criminal justice higher edu- cation has been toward public criminal justice education rather than private criminal justice education. Because public criminal justice is believed to offer superior benefits and a generally higher pay scale than private criminal justice agencies, it is thought by the authors of this study that graduations will initially desire to be employed in a public criminal justice agency. Thus it could be concluded that graduates employed by public crimi- nal justice agencies are more likely than graduates employed in private criminal justice agencies to be in the agency they initially desired upon graduation. As illustrated by Table 6.5, a proportionally larger per- centage of graduates employed by public criminal justice agencies (77.65 percent) as compared to graduates employed by private crimi- nal justice agencies (57.14 percent) obtained the agency they initially desired to work for. However, at the same time, the (differences were not great enough to result in a statistical sig- rIificant difference. Thus investigative area 6.5 is rejected. 141 Table 6.5 Initially Desired Agency by Public/Private Criminal Justice Agency Criminal Justice Agency Public Private Obtained initially desired agency 66 8 Did not obtain initially desired agency 19 6 Chi-square = 2.677 df = l p > .05 6.6 There will be a significant difference between pre-service graduates and in-service graduates as to whether the agency they are employed with is the agency they initially desired upon graduation. Table 6.6 gives the numerical breakdown of pre-service/ in-service graduates and whether they are employed in the agency they initially desired upon graduation. While 85.96 percent of the in-service graduates were employed in the agency they desired upon graduation, only 59.52 percent of the pre-service graduates fell into this category. These figures lead to the statistical acceptance of investigative area 6.6. Table 6.6 Employed With Initially Desired Agency by Pre-Service/In-Service Status Pre-Service In-Service Employed in agency initially desired 25 49 upon graduation Are not employed in agency initially 17 8 desired upon graduation Chi-square = 8.957 df = 1 p < .05 142 6.7 What is the percentage breakdown of the graduates' current position in criminal justice agencies? Table 6.7 shows that the majority of graduates are currently at the "level of operation.“ It is interesting to note that the breakdown of the graduates' current positions is a close approxima- tion of the actual organizational structure of criminal justice agencies that are serviced by the local community colleges. From this, one can conclude that the community colleges are not being used exclusively as "administrative training schools" or as "prac- tical police academies"; rather, they are fulfilling the general educational needs of the criminal justice community. Table 6.7 Graduates' Current Position in Criminal Justice Agencies Number Percent Level of Operation 63 62.38% Supervisory position 24 23.76 Administrative position 7 6.93 Specialized position 7 6.93 6.8 Proportionally more graduates over the age of twenty-seven will be employed in a supervisory position or higher than will be those under the age of twenty-seven. The fact that most police departments require their officers to have obtained the age of twenty-one before employment, and that 143 "120 hierarchy that departments are organized in a "bottom-up requires all new employees to begin at (or near) the bottom rank and move in a step-by-step manner up the organizational ladder, leads to a promotional seniority system that is found in most departments in this country. The effect of the seniority system is that chronological maturation is often sufficient for adminis- trative advancement within criminal justice departments adhering to this system. This is supported through the findings in Table 6.8. Table 6.8 Age by Graduates' Positions Position Age OSZIAtIEn Supervisory Administrative Specialized Under 19 O 0 0 0 19-21 25 2 O 0 22-24 9 1 0 1 25-27 7 2 O 0 28-30 10 6 2 2 31-35 6 5 l 3 36-40 2 7 l 1 41-45 1 l 2 0 45 and above 3 O l 0 Chi-square = 47.723 df = 21 p < .05 120National Commission on Productivity, Opportunities for Improvigg_Productivity in Police Services (Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 1973). 144 As was expected, Table 6.8 showed a high correlation between graduates' age and their agency positions. The percentage of gradu- ates at the level of operation continually declined at each age category, from 92.59 percent at age 19-21 to 18.18 percent at the age of 36-40. A supervisory position is most common at ages 28-40. During this period the percentage of graduates rose from thirty percent to 63.64 percent. In the administrative position, there were no graduates until the age of 28-30. However, the highest percentage of administrative personnel is found in the graduates of age 41 and above. This leads to the acceptance of investigative area 6.8. 6.9 There will be a significant difference between pre-service graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency at the level of operation, and pre-service graduates employed in a private criminal justice agency at a supervisory posi- tion or higher, as to whether they are satisfied with their position. Investigative area 6.9 was developed to pull out the pre- service graduates who are employed in private criminal justice agencies. Of the twelve graduates employed in private criminal justice agencies, ten (83.33 percent) are pre-service. Of these ten pre-service graduates, four (forty percent) are employed at the level of Operation with the remaining graduates in specialized, supervisory or administrative positions. Table 6.9 delves into degrees of satisfaction with the different position levels within these private criminal justice agencies. As indicated by Table 6.9, there is no significant differ- ence between private criminal justice employed pre-service 145 Table 6.9 Pre-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Private Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction Posmon 522:2??2? sat'Sf'ed Digggaggied D'ssat'Sf'ed LEYTAnOf opera- 1 2 0 1 “33333? ' 3 ° ° “ENNIS?” ' ° ° ° Spifililiifid 0 ° 0 I Chi-square = 7.750 df = 6 P > -05 graduates' current positions and whether they are satisfied with these positions. It should be noted that the small sample size could be distorting actual existing differences. As far as this study can determine, there are no satisfactional level differences with pre—service graduates employed in private criminal justice agencies, regardless of their employment positions. 'Thusinvesti- gative area 6.9 is rejected. 6.10 There will be a significant difference between in-service graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice ‘ agency at the level of operation, and in-service graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice agency at a supervisory position or higher, as to whether they are satis- fied with their position. Because as people advance in criminal justice agencies they normally receive more pay, higher prestige and additional power, 146 this leads to the proposition that those employed in supervisory positions or higher will be more satisfied with these positions than those at the level of operation. While Table 6.10 does not show a significant difference between in-service graduates employed in criminal justice agencies and their level of satisfaction with their positions, it does reveal inconsistencies worth noting. The percentage of those graduates at the level of operation that are at least somewhat dissatisfied with their positions is 37.93 percent. At the same time, only a small percentage of graduates at the supervisory position (fifteen per- cent), administrative position (zero percent) and specialized Table 6.10 In-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction LezeAnof opera- 9 9 7 4 “5331133" ‘2 5 ' 2 “2'2? 3153?.” 3 3 ° ° ”SEEING" s . 0 ° Chi-square = 11.924 df = 9 p > .05 147 position (zero percent) were at least somewhat dissatisfied. While these results do not lead to the acceptance of investigative area 6.10, they do suggest a need for further research on community col- lege graduates and their satisfaction with position level within criminal justice agencies. 6.11 There will be no significant difference between a pre-service graduate employed in a public criminal justice agency at any level and whether he is satisfied with his position. Table 6.11 Pre-Service Graduates' Current Positions in Public Criminal Justice Agencies by Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction Lezelnof opera- 22 3 2 3 “33:133.? 0 o o 0 ANNETTE?“ o o o o ”SANTA“ o i I o Chi-square = 7.722 df = 3 p > .05 Investigative area 6.11 was developed because of the belief that there would be pre-service graduations at a supervisory position or higher employed in some small police departments. However, as Table 6.11 shows, there are no graduates in the supervisory or 148 administrative position and only two graduates in the specialized position. Thus a statistical investigation into differences in pre-service graduates' positions in public criminal justice agencies cannot be adequately explored. Therefore, investigative area 6.11 is neither accepted nor rejected. 6.12 The determining factor for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a particular agency will be significantly dif- ferent between pre-service and in-service graduates. Question 34 of the questionnaire requested the graduates to rank order the factors affecting their decision to seek employment with a particular agency. The overall rank order from high to low is: Agency's prestige compared to others. Agency's salary compared to others. Nature of jurisdiction. Agency's career and promotion opportunities. Only available police employment at the time. Agency's recruitment efforts. CNU‘I-bWNd The rationale for expecting these variables to vary between pre-service and in-service graduates is, basically, that pre-service graduates do not seek employment until after their college education, while in-service graduates sought and obtained their employment prior to their college education. The data does not support the expectations of investiga- tive area 6.12. The rank order assigned all the six variables does not vary significantly between pre-service and in-service graduates. However, pre-service graduates did rank the factors of agency pres- tige, agency's recruitment efforts and only available police employment at the time slightly higher than did in-service 149 Table 6.12 Rank Order of Determining Factors to Seeking Employment by Pre-Service/In-Service Status Mean Rank Order of Factors to Pre-Service In-Service KW p Seeking Employment Only available police 3.34 4.07 2.167 >.05 employment at the time Agency's salary compared to others 3.46 2.89 3.929 >.05 Agency's prestige com- pared to others 2.97 3.13 .343 >.05 Nature of jurisdiction 3.14 3.22 .121 >.05 Agency's recruitment efforts 4.49 4.63 .572 >.05 Agency's career and pro- 3 60 3 O6 2 00] > 05 motion opportunities graduates. The factors of agency's salary and agency's career and promotion opportunities are ranked higher by those graduates who are in-service. Investigative area 6.12 is rejected. 6.13 The determining factors for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a specific agency will be particular for that type of agency. It is believed that the community college criminal justice educational philosophy would direct graduates to seek and obtain employment with public law enforcement agencies. Thus those obtain- ing employment outside this specific field would be motivated by different factors in seeking employment. However, this was not 150 000000000000o cowuos 00.x 000.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 0N.0 0_.0 -000 000 00000o 0.000000 00.x 000.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000o00 mwmwnwm0 00.x 000.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 0000o0000000 00 00000: 000 o o 0000 00.x 000.0 00.0 00.0 _N.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 -eao e000MW00 W.mo000< 0 o o 0 00.x 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.N 00.0 -eoomM0MW00 w.mwum0< . . . . . . . . 020» 0:0 00 0005000050 00 x .00 N 00 0 00 _ 00 N 00 0 0N 0 00 0 000_00 0_000,0>0 0000 0>Fpu0p0o 0:00» 00:00 . 00020000 000:0>=o I . 000000 pc0sonQEm mcwx0mm 0 30 000>000 000000 on 0000000 mo >0:0m< we 0000 00000 0:00 :00: Ao:0m< 00 0000 00 0005000020 0000000 :0 0000000 0000050000o 0o 00000 0:00 m_.m 00300 151 substantiated by the data obtained in Table 6.13 which showed that the rank order assigned the six variables does not vary signifi- cantly between the different types of agencies. Investigative area 6.13 is therefore rejected. INVESTIGATIVE AREA VII Investigation Into Career Desires of Those Working for Non-Criminal Justice Agencies 7.1 What is the pattern of employment obtained by graduates employed in non-criminal justice agencies? Question 35 of the questionnaire was partially open-ended. It requested the graduates working in non-criminal justice agencies to specify the type of agency, position and duties performed. The responses were placed into their appropriate categories and are presented in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 Employment of Graduates in Non-Criminal Justice Agencies Number Percent Cashier 3 9.67% Construction 3 9.67 Clerk 5 16.13 Dispatcher 2 6.46 Factory 3 9.67 Food services 5 16.13 Managerial/supervisory level 4 12.91 Salesperson 5 16.13 Secretary/typist l 3.23 152 At first glance, Table 7.1 shows few consistencies in types of non-criminal justice employment. Graduates obtained employment ranges from unskilled laborers to managers. However, upon further investigation, distinct similarities are discovered. The graduates are primarily employed in positions that are of little esteem, with low salaries, and with non-educational requirement. The majority of the positions would be classified as blue-collar. It is not believed that these graduates earned a community college degree in criminal justice so that they could work in this blue- collar position. It is, therefore, assumed that many of these graduates have attempted and are continuing to look for employment in the criminal justice field. 7.2 What is the proportion of those unemployed and those employed in non-criminal justice agencies who are still looking for employment in the criminal justice field? Table 7.2 Graduates Unemployed and Employed in Non-Criminal Justice Who Attempted to Find Employment in the Criminal Justice Field Number Percent Attempted to find criminal justice employment 32 76°19 Did not attempt to find criminal 10 23.81 justice employment As shown by Table 7.2, a relatively high percentage of those not employed by criminal justice agencies (23.81 percent) stated 153 they did not attempt to find employment in the criminal justice field. Reasons given by the graduates for not seeking criminal justice employment included "not interested in level that I would be eligible for," "too young for law enforcement position," and "wanted job that would adjust around myschool schedule and study- ing." 7.3 What is the proportion of those unemployed and those employed in non-criminal justice agencies who are still looking for employment in the criminal justice field? Table 7.3 Graduates Unemployed and Employed in Non-Criminal Justice Agencies Who Are Still Looking for Criminal Justice Employment Number Percent Still looking for criminal justice employment 28 66.67 Not still looking for criminal 14 33.33 justice employment Four (9.50 percent) of the graduates who had attempted to find employment in the criminal justice field stated in question 37 of the questionnaire that they were no longer looking for criminal justice employment. This brought the total number of these gradu- ates to fourteen (33.33 percent) that were no longer seeking crimi- nal justice employment. Reasons for graduates' decision not to continue to seek criminal justice employment were "satisfied with 154 present work," "would not be practical," and "getting married in a couple of months, secure where I am." 7.4 What is the proportion of those satisfied with employment outside the criminal justice field? Table 7.4 Graduates Satisifed With Employment Outside the Criminal Justice Field Number Percent Satisfied with employment 13 37.14 Dissatisfied with employment 22 62.86 As a final measure as to why certain graduates became employed with non-criminal justice agencies and whether they will remain with the agency, these graduates were questioned as to their satisfaction with their present employment. The majority (62.86 percent) employed outside the criminal justice field are not satisfied with their present employment. The general findings in this section show that the majority of graduates employed outside the criminal justice field or unem- ployed are still attempting to find employment in the criminal justice field. While a percentage of the graduates have become disenchanted with the criminal justice area and now seem satis- fied to remain outside the field, the majority are dissatisfied with their present employment and still desire an opportunity to work in criminal justice. 155 INVESTIGATIVE AREA VIII Investigation Into Salary and Salary Satisfaction 8.1 What is the approximate salary breakdown for graduates? Table 8.1 Graduates' Salary Breakdown Salary Number Percent Less than $6,000 53 31.55% $6,000-$6,999 11 6.55 $7,000-$7,999 9 5.36 $8,000-$8,999 14 8.33 $9,ooo-$9,999 14 8.33 $10,000-$10,999 12 7.14 $11,000-$ll,999 7 4.17 $12,000-$12,999 6 3.57 $13,000 and above 42 25.00 The bi-modal distribution as illustrated by Table 8.1 makes apparent the diversity in salary levels of community college crimi- nal justice graduates. The largest proportion of graduates (31.55 percent) made less than $6,000 annually. The substantial size of this category was primarily because of the large number of "trans- fer students" in this study. At the opposite extreme, forty-two of the graduates (twenty-five percent) are receiving annual salaries 156 of over $13,000. The mean income of these graduates is $9,100 and the medium salary is $8,000-$8,999. In the following investigative areas, graduates' age, race, sex, pre-service/in-service status and community college attended will be examined in relationship to salary. 8.2 There will be a direct correlation between graduates' age and their salary (the older the graduate, the higher his salary). Table 8.2 shows a high positive correlation between the increase in age and an increase in salary. The computed product moment correlation was .683. This high correlation and chi-square leads to the acceptance of investigative area 8.2. This high positive correlation is better illustrated by Graph 8.2. Graph 8.2 Mean Salary $14,000I $13,000- I . $13,000+ . $12,500 $12,000~ . $11,900 .$1l,700 $11 ,000- ' $11,500 $10,000 . $10,100 $9,000- $8,000- $7.00 $6,000- $5,000- $4,000“ $3,000~ $2,000- $1.00 r—‘l r—l r . $8,000 . $6,900 _jP T f l 1 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-35 36-40 41-44 45 and Age above 157 mo. v a mm M mu wmm.vmp N 000scmiwcu 0 0 0 00 00 0 N _ 0>000 000 000.000 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 000.N_0-000.N_0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 _ 000.000-000.000 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 000.000-000.000 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 000.00-000.00 _ 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 000.00-000.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 000.N0-000.N0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 _ 0 000.00-000.00 0 0 0 N _ 0 0 00 000.00 0000 0000 WDM0M0 00-00 00-00 00-00 00-0N NN-0N 0N-NN _N-0_ 0m< 000—0m 000000 000;» 00 00< .000000000 N.w 00000 158 8.3 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' race and their salary. Table 8.3 Graduates' Race by Their Salary Race Salary Caucasian Negro/Black Mexican-American Less than $6,000 53 O O $6,000-$6,999 10 1 o $7.000-$7,999 9 O 0 $8,000-$8,999 12 1 1 $9,000-$9,999 14 0 o $10,000-$10,999 12 o O $11,000-$11,999 7 O O $12,000-$12,999 5 1 0 $13,000 and above 42 O O Chi-square = 26.883 df = 16 p < .05 It should be noted that seventy-five percent of the minority graduates received an annual salary of less than $9,000, while slightly over half (51.23 percent) of the Caucasian graduates fell into this category. A relatively large proportion of Caucasian graduates (25.61 percent) received an annual salary of over $13,000 and no minority graduates received this high a salary. These findings lead to the acceptance of investigative area 8.3. A rele- vant point to make concerning the graduates is that there are only 159 four minority students in this sample which has an effect on the significant results. Thus more research is needed concerning graduates' race and their salary. 8.4 There will be a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their salary. Table 8.4 Graduates' Sex by Their Salary Sex Salary Male Female Less than $6,000 43 10 $6,000-$6,999 7 4 $7,000-$7,999 6 3 $8,OOO-$8,999 13 1 . $9,000-$9,999 10 4 $10,000-$10,999 12 o $11,000-$11,999 7 O $12,000-$12,999 6 0 $13,000 and above 42 O Chi-square = 23.502 df = 8 p < .05 The significant difference between graduates' sex and their salary becomes readily apparent when one realizes that 45.89 percent of the male graduates receive an annual salary of over $10,000 and no female graduates receive this salary. While the female graduates' mean salary is approximately $6,800, the male graduates have a mean 160 salary of approximately $9,500. These data lead to the acceptance of investigative area 8.4 8.5 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their salary. Table 8.5 Graduates' Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Their Salary Salary Pre-Service In-Service Less than $6,000 50 2 $6,000-$6,999 10 O $7,000-$7,999 8 l $8,000-$8,999 11 3 $9,000-$9,999 11 3 $10,000-$10,999 8 4 $11 ,000-511 ,999 2 5 $12,000-$12,999 2 4 $13,000 and above 6 36 Chi-square = 86.386 df = 8 p < .05 The majority of pre-service graduates (55.56 percent) make $7,000 or less annual income and only 3.45 percent of the in-service graduates are in this category. The majority of in-service gradu- ates (62.07 percent) receives an annual income of over $13,000, while 5.56 percent of pre-service graduates make this level of salary. This extremely high obtained chi-square of 86.386 leads to the 161 acceptance of investigative area 8.5. The primary reason for the polar differences in salary between pre-service and in-service graduates is the fact that a substantial number of pre-service graduates are non-working transfer students, while many of the in-service graduates are members of high paying criminal justice agencies. From this investigation we have discovered that the older in-service, white male is most likely to be in the high” salary income bracket. 8.6 There will be no significant relationship between the commu- nity college that a graduate attended and his salary. Because prior to this study there has been no investigation into community college differences and the level of salary the graduate obtained, investigative area 8.6 is written in the null hypothesis form. However, as indicated by Table 8.6, the null hypothesis of no community college differences is disproven. The graduates' salaries from different community colleges range from a low mean salary of $6,700 at Northwestern to a mean salary of $10,800 at Schoolcraft. Fifty percent of Schoolcraft's graduates received salaries of over $13,000. Other community collges that have high graduate mean salaries are Delta, $10,500, and Lansing, $10,000. Community colleges with graduates of low mean salaries include Alpena, $6,800; Kirtland, $8,000; and Kalamazoo, $8,100. 8.7 What percentage of graduates were satisfied with their salary? Table 8.7 (page 163) shows a substantial majority of gradu- ates who are not satisfied with their present salary. This is 162 Table 8.6 Community College by Salary Breakdown College F s. +4 0 .8 ‘0 0 $31 ary o '0 m s. -r- c N as I: 01 a) u as o co cu m a: s: 3 .— r— c» C E O r— I- .C O U Q) '6 OJ to r— +4 m +4 o .x «H D. r— l— S- C L- .C 0 U! r— .— cu m w- ru 0 o +4 :1 a: < 52 52 =2 _I z m m 2 c: LT! 00 O m ._a O (A) \0 0'1 01 Less than $6,000 9 $6,000-$6,999 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 $7,OOO-$7,999 o O 2 O 0 1 l 3 1 1 $8,000-$8,999 0 1 3 0 2 O 3 1 0 4 $9,000-$9,999 2 0 0 1 5 2 2 1 0 1 $10,000-$10,999 0 O 3 0 3 o o 2 3 1 $11,000-$11,999 0 1 2 O O O 2 1 O 1 $12,000-$12,999 0 0 1 O 1 1 o 2 0 1 $13,000 and above 1 2 1 0 5 0 12 6 2 13 Chi-square = 108.482 df = 72 p < .05 163 Table 8.7 Graduates Satisfied With Salary Number Percent Satisfied with salary 52 31.52 Not satisfied with salary ll3 68.48 somewhat surprising, when one re-examines the graduates' positive responses to satisfaction with major, specialization, present employing agency and position. A possible influence may be the old saying that "while a man may have too much of many things, he never has too much money." 8.8 There will be a direct correlation between the graduates' salary level and their satisfaction with this salary. (As the salary level increases, the percentage who are satisfied with their salary will also increase.) Table 8.8 shows that there is a significant difference between salary obtained and level of graduate satisfaction with this salary. This satisfaction with salary ranges from over ninety percent of the graduates making between $6,000-$6,999 being dis- satisfied with their salary to less than half (45.24 percent) of the graduates making over $13,000 who are dissatisfied. However, investigative area 8.8 must be rejected since a direct correlation between the graduates' salary level and their satisfaction with this salary was not discovered. There is a higher level of dis- satisfaction of graduates with salary between $ll,000-$13,000 than with graduates making between $9,000-$ll,000. Since these results 164 Table 8.8 Salary Level by Graduates Satisfied With Salary 22.25322. "25:25:13“ Less than $6,000 7 45 $6,000-$6,999 1 10 $7,ooo-$7,999 4 5 $8,000-$8,999 2 11 $9,ooo-$9,999 6 8 $10,000-$10,999 5 6 $11,000-$11,999 2 5 $12,000-$12,999 2 4 $13,000 and above 23 19 Chi-square = 25.053 df = 8 p < .05 show that a significant relationship exists between salary and satisfaction with this salary, and that a direct correlation is not present, further research is necessary to determine what the rela- tionship is between these two variables. 8.9 There will be a significant relationship between those who obtain their initially desired agency and those who are sat- isfied with their present salary. As indicated by Table 8.9, over half (50.77 percent) of the graduates who obtained their initially desired agency were satis- fied with their present salary, and only 3.82 percent of those who did not obtain their initially desired agency expressed satisfaction 165 Table 8.9 Initially Desired Agency by Satisfaction With Salary Initially Desired Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Agency With Salary With Salary Yes 33 32 No 7 l5 Chi-square = 2.377 df = l p > .05 with their salary. While this difference is worth noting, it is not significant at the .05 level. Thus, investigative area 8.9 is rejected. 8.10 There is a significant relationship between graduates' sat- isfaction with present position and graduates' satisfaction with their salary. Table 8.l0 Graduates' Satisfaction With Present Position by Satisfaction Wfith Salary . . Satisfied Dissatisfied Present P°S1t1°n With Salary With Salary Thoroughly satisfied 29 20 Satisfied 5 l8 Somewhat dissatisfied 2 6 Dissatisfied 4 6 ll 0) Chi-square = l0.4l8 df p < .05 166 As indicated by Table 8.10, a majority (59.18 percent) of graduates who are "thoroughly satisfied" with their present position are also satisfied with their salary. Those graduates who were "satisfied" or "thoroughly satisfied" with their current position (47.22 percent) were also satisfied with their salary. However, only one-third of those graduates who were either "dissatisfied" or "somewhat dissatisfied" with their position showed satisfaction with their present salary. Therefore investigative area 8.10 is accepted. INVESTIGATIVE AREA IX Investigation of Graduates' Ways and Means of Seeking Employment Question 41 of the questionnaire asked the graduates to mark the relative important factors in obtaining their employment. These factors were rated as "strongly important," "moderately important," "slightly important," and "not at all important." For purposes of analysis, responses of “strongly important" and "mod- erately important" are considered positively and responses of "slightly important" and "not at all important" are considered negatively. 9.1 What was the relative importance, to the graduates, of the different ways and means of obtaining employment after gradu- ation? Table 9.1 shows that the descending rank order of factors in obtaining employment by the graduates are as follows: "by per- sonal means,“ "through agency recruitment," "community college 167 . . . . . ucmspwagomc mm N mp om mo mm mm NF mp om Fe om «N Fe aucmmm cmaocsp mN.P _~.N ~e.¢ cm.mp mw.om m m up o_P mamas pmcomgma am wmmppou xp_::esou vo.m ne.pm ¢¢.m_ ~_.mp nm.m_ on _N mm mF soc» meanems »u_:um$ gmgpo pcmsugmamo mm.m _n.mm mm.P~ mm.m_ N_.mp em mm um om muwuman —mcwsmcu mmmFFou xwwcsssou : a m mom a ~_.m 154.1m amm.e~ Sum.m_ amm.o_ ON mm, mp 41 mmwfl_mupm“ficseyou N S N S N S N S IO IIL IO Ia... 1.0 III. IO 11.. ml. wl. MD. NJ ml. ml. wD. NJ .0 d5 d3 .00 .0 d6 d3 .00 OD. 0U. OJ 0U OP. OU- OJ. 0U J1. J1. J9. J5 J1. J1. J9 J5 1. ..+.l 1.1. 1.1 1. 1.1 1.1. 1.1 :3: mm .uk 3. .u... Wm m... we 8. as... 1.1 1. 1K 1. 1.1. 1. 11A 1. pcwogma consaz pcmsxopasm newcwmpno cm mcopumu .mmumzumgw _.m mpnmh 168 criminal justice department," "other faculty members from commu- nity college," and "community college placement bureau." Over ninety-three percent of the graduates believed that "personal means" was a positive factor in obtaining employment. At least fifty percent of the graduates gave negative ratings to each of the other factors. The community college placement bureau was con- sidered a negative factor in obtaining employment by over seventy- five percent of the graduates. In general, the community colleges and the criminal justice departments are failing in their role in assisting graduates in obtaining employment. The question remains as to whether this situation is present throughout all community colleges in Michigan and will be examined in investigative area 9.2. 9.2 There was no significant difference between the community college a graduate attended and the means the graduate used to obtain his employment. Table 9.2 clearly shows that the relative importance of individual factors in obtaining employment do not vary between community colleges. Thus the null hypothesis investigative area 9.2 is accepted. The factor of "by personal means" is by far the most important method utilized by graduates at each of the community colleges in obtaining employment. At no community college in the state of Michigan do the variables of "community college placement bureau," "community college criminal justice department," "other faculty members from community college," and "through agency recruit- ment" play a significant role in the graduates' task in obtaining 169 Table 9.2 Community College by Graduates' Ways Used to Obtain Employment Mean Score of Factors in Obtaining Employment w: 00 35 m U)!!! 050 Q) C 0J0) mw- '— (U r—S. F44 !- 0) >5 Conege :55 '3‘; 35.3 = 2» U 0")“ F‘- F- (D: +9 :: =u.>~, cu can: 38 3:2 8mfi 8 ‘5 'FE 00":4-9 “-3-: W .2"- 53 5;: .3; a 32 22 52% 25° & 88 on. our: #20 >~, an: O L) 0 no I- Alpena 2 85 2 62 2.69 1.31 2 15 Kalamazoo 3.57 2.71 3.00 1 OO 2 43 Kellogg 3.00 3.07 3.36 1.29 2.86 Kirtland 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 Lansing 3.53 2.82 2.94 l 18 2.47 Northwestern 2.87 2.47 3.00 1.33 2.07 Schoolcraft 2.85 2.74 3.00 1.16 2.70 St. Clair 3.25 2.45 2.90 1.20 2.70 Muskegon 3.63 3.38 3.13 1.50 2.75 Delta 3.25 3.15 3.25 1.48 2.50 Chi-square 33.531 34.719 25.625 27.846 16.475 df 27 27 27 27 27 p > .05 > .05 > .05 > .05 > .05 170 employment. These results cast some serious doubt as to the com- munity colleges' dedication to the task of total service of the students' needs through and beyond graduation. 9.3 What is the percentage breakdown in the graduates' rank order of the various agencies' efforts toward recruiting college graduates? Question 42 of the questionnaire asked the graduates to rank various agencies in their effort towards recruting college gradu- ates. (A score of 1 indicated the greatest effort towards recruit- ing college graduates and 5 indicated the least effort.) Table 9.3 gives the mean rank order of agencies' efforts towards recruit- ing college graduates. Table 9.3 Graduates' Rank Order of Various Agencies' Efforts Toward Recruiting College Graduates Agencies Mean Rank Order Public criminal justice (state level) 2.2847 Public criminal justice (federal level) 2.8194 Public criminal justice (local level) 2.8194 Private criminal justice 3.5000 Non-criminal justice 3.5764 As Table 9.3 indicates, public criminal justice (state level) was thought by the graduates to put forth the greatest effort towards recruiting graduates. This is believed to be because of the unique situation that exists in Michigan with the 171 Michigan State Police's law enforcement role. This agency is unique in that it is a combination of highway patrol functions and criminal investigations and they have many statewide advertising and recruitment procedures. It is not surprising that private criminal justice and non-criminal justice agencies ranked four and five in effort towards recruting since these agencies do not tra- ditionally recruitat the comunity college level. 9.4 What were the graduates' feelings as to how receptive crimi- nal justice agencies were to hiring college graduates? Table 9.4 Criminal Justice Agencies' Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates Number Percent Desire only college graduates 11 7.10% Preferred to hire college graduates 99 63 87 over non-college graduates ' Neutral as to hiring college ' graduates 39 25°15 Preferred to hire non-college gradu- 5 3 23 ates over college graduates ° Desired only non-college graduates l .65 With the recent recommendation by the International Associ- ation of Chiefs of Police and the Task Force on the Police that those working in criminal justice should have at least a two-year degree, it was felt that more criminal justice agencies would be receptive to the idea and practice of hiring college graduates. 172 This is somewhat supported by the data in Table 9.4 which shows the majority of graduates (63.87 percent) felt that criminal justice agencies preferred to hire college graduates over non-college gradu- ates. However, few graduates (7.10 percent) felt that criminal justice agencies desired to hire only college graduates and a large proportion of graduates (25.16 percent) saw criminal justice agen- cies as being neutral to the hiring of college graduates. On the whole, criminal justice agencies in the state of Michigan seem to be moving forward in the area of up-grading the educational requirements of personnel. 9.5 There will be a significant difference between graduates‘ sex and their feelings as to how receptive criminal justice agencies are to hiring college graduates. Table 9.5 Graduates' Sex by Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates (D 0 0D 44 0 >50) >3 440) 44 Fa Sex I— U) I—m U) m I :0 C Q) "UP-Q) CU a) '0: OF- CID-H 004-1 (1)-H 0100) I— m“) S-Qfd r-mmrd S-ZU" '00 $0): 5.. 3 (6:20): $- 0.) 20 Lr—U 00113 S-‘t-F—"U cum:— I °r-I-¢U “-3.46 +3me Q-S-I— 0F: mOS- d)°l-S- D'r-OL div-O mo (DOCS LICD OJIQL'J L10 @2 D O. Z O. Q Male 9 86 33 4 1 Female 2 l3 6 1 O Chi-square = .585 df = 4 p > .05 173 It was generally believed that female graduates would encounter more difficulty in obtaining employment with criminal justice agencies. These encounters would, therefore, lead female graduates to believe that criminal justice agencies are not recep- tive to hiring college graduates. Table 9.5 does not substantiate this proposition. The male/female percentage breakdowns in this table were almost identical. Thus investigative area 9.5 is rejected. One of the possible reasons a difference by sex was not found was that the graduates might have answered the question in broad general terms and not in how it specifically affécted them. 9.6 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their feelingas as to how receptive criminal justice agencies are to hiring college graduates. Table 9.6 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Receptiveness in Hiring College Graduates Receptiveness to Hiring College Graduates Q) OED o 0) >4 um 4.» :0) r- m F-U) mm m I :0) C Q) UPC) (5: OJ '0: O!— OQJ-H Clo-H w-OJ-H wow u— DIU LOCO v—LUH‘U LZU) ‘UO cum: I... :3 (On-(D: L Q) Q30 S-r—U QJQJ'U S-Iv—‘U wan— LI °r-r—¢U ‘O-S-fU 44 FM H—Lu— w-C mOS— e-v-S. 300$- QJu-o mo QJUCD ILD (1)-HUG LIL) mz D D. 2 Q. Q Pre-Serv1ce 10 65 22 3 O In-Serv1ce l 33 16 2 Chi-square = 4.223 df = 3 p > .05 174 Table 9.6 indicates that there is no significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their feelings as to hiring college graduates. Sixty-five percent of the pre-service graduates as compared to 63.46 percent of the in-service graduates felt that criminal justice agencies preferred to hire college graduates over non-college graduates. Only three percent of the pre-service graduates and 3.85 percent of in-service graduates believed criminal justice agencies preferred to hire non-college graduates. In this light, investigative area 9.6 is rejected. 9.7 What were the graduates' feelings as to how well the commu- nity college was doing in placing students in the criminal justice field? Table 9.7 Degree Community College Helping to Place Students in the Criminal Justice Field Number Percent Extremely well 9 6.34% Adequate 53 37.32 Inadequate 51 35.92 Extremely poor 29 20.42 Table 9.7 indicates that the graduates from Michigan commu- nity colleges, on the whole, did not feel that their community college was doing a good job in placing its students in the criminal justice field. The fact that only 6.34 percent of the graduates considered the community colleges to be doing "extremely well" in 175 placing their students in the criminal justice field, and that the majority (56.34 percent) of graduates stated that their community colleges were doing an "inadequate" or "extremely poor" job in helping to place students in the criminal justice field strongly points out the failure of the community colleges to satisfactorily fulfill their placement services responsibility. 9.8 There will be no significant difference between the community colleges and the degree that they helped to place students in the criminal justice field. Table 9.8 Community College by Degree They Are Helping to Place Students in the Criminal Justice Field Degree of Placement College Extremely Well Adequate Inadequate Extremely Poor Alpena O 8 5 l Kalamazoo O 2 2 2 Kellogg I 3 4 6 O Kirtland O O 2 O Lansing 1 13 l 2 Northwestern O 1 4 9 Schoolcraft O 5 12 3 St. Clair l 8 ll 4 Muskegon 2 3 l 3 Delta 2 9 7 5 Chi-square = 59.593 df = 27 p < .05 176 While in general the graduates' rating of their community colleges in the placement services area was relatively low, there are several community college differences that are noteworthy. Lansing Community College has a large proportion of graduates (82.35 percent) that feel that their college is performing "extremely well" or "adequately" in helping to place them in the criminal jus- tice field. At the other extreme,ailarge proportion of graduates from Kirtland (one hundred percent), Northwestern (92.86 percent) and Schoolcraft (seventy-five percent) feel that their college is doing an "inadequate" or "extremely poor" job in placing students in the criminal justice field. This leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis investigative area 9.8. INVESTIGATIVE AREA X Investigation in Degree Difficulties and Utilization by Graduates 10.1 What percentage of graduates feels their criminal justice education is being utilized? Table 10.1 Graduates Utilizing Their Criminal Justice Education Criminal Justice Education Being Utilized Number Percent Extremely well 33 19.88% Adequately 60 36.14 Inadequately 28 16.87 Not at all 45 27.11 177 The majority of graduates (56.02 percent) feels that in their current position their criminal justice education is being utilized "extremely well“ or "adequately." However, this leaves a large proportion of graduates (43.98 percent) who do not feel their criminal justice education is being utilized in their current position. One such female respondent stated in a letter written to the authors of this study, . there was no counseling regarding how impossible it was for women to break into small town enforcement . . . . I tell you, it's impossible. I've wasted 2 years, lost sleep, spent money we couldn't afford, and ended up with nothing more than pure frustration and a pile of bills. There is absolutely nothing Open. I regret having put forth the effort and expense. I resent being told I'm too old. But most frustrating of all, despite the noises about equality, I've discovered there IS no such animal. As one local law enforcement official put it, "it will be a cold day in hell before I see a gun-totin, squad riding woman in MY department. The question remains of whether or not this relatively large propor- tion of graduates who are not utilizing their criminal justice edu- cation comes from Specific graduates (pre-service/in-service status, employment status or community college attended differences) or if it is a general overall attitude from the graduates. 10.2 Proportionally more in-service graduates will feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized than will pre- service graduates. As indicated by Table 10.2, a majority of in-service gradu- ates (70.18 percent) feel their criminal justice education is being utilized "extremely well and adequately." At the same time, less than one-half of the pre-service graduates feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized. A possible reason for this 178 Table 10.2 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Criminal Justice Education Utilization Criminal Justice Education Utilization Extremely Well Adequately Inadequate Not At All Pre-service 20 32 19 36 In-service 13 27 9 8 Chi-square = 8.880 df = 3 p < .05 discrepancy is the fact that many pre-service graduates are not working in the criminal justice field and thus feel they are not able to utilize their education. Therefore, investigative area 10.2 is accepted. 10.3 There will be a significant difference between graduates' employment status and whether they feel their criminal jus- tice education is being utilized. The data in Table 10.3 shows that there is an obvious dif- ference between graduates who fall within "criminal justice" employment category and graduates who fall in "non-criminal justicd' employment category. Graduates employed in public criminal justice (71.43 percent) private criminal justice (72.72 percent), public criminal justice/transfer (71.88 percent) and private criminal jus- tice/transfer (one hundred percent) feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized either extremely well or adequately. In the non-criminal justice employment categories, 10.52 percent of graduates in non—criminal agencies, 11.11 percent of graduates 179 Table 10.3 Employment Status by Criminal Justice Education Utilization Criminal Justice Education Utilization Employment Status Extremely Adequately Inade- Not At All Well quately Transfer , 10 ll 5 10 Public criminal justice 9 26 9 5 Private criminal justice 3 5 2 l Non-criminal justice 0 2 2 15 Unemployed 0 l 3 5 Public criminal justice/ transfer 9 14 6 3 Private criminal justice/transfer 1 0 0 0 Non-criminal justice/ 1 1 1 6 transfer Chi-square = 63.392 df = 21 p < .05 unemployed, and 22.22 percent of graduates who are non-criminal jus- tice/transfer feel their criminal justice education is being utilized. With this strong evidence, investigative area 10.3 is accepted. As a result of the findings in the last two investigative areas, it can be concluded that there are specific categorical types of graduates who are more likely to feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized. 180 10.4 There will be no significant difference between the community college a student attended and whether he feels he is utiliz- ing his degree. Table 10.4 Community College by Criminal Justice Education Utilization Criminal Justice Education Utilization College “WET?” Adequately (132$; Not At All Alpena 3 8 4 l Kalamazoo 2 4 l 1 Kellogg 3 6 3 3 Kirtland O l O O Lansing 5 10 l 4 Northwestern l 5 l 8 Schoolcraft 6 6 6 7 St. Clair l 7 5 12 Muskegon 6 3 l 2 Delta 6 10 6 7 Chi-square = 34.013 df = 27 p > .05 Table 10.4 indicates that there is no significant difference between the community college a student attended and whether he feels that his criminal justice degree is being utilized. Thus the null hypothesis investigative area 10.4 is accepted. Three schools with a high percentage of graduates "utilizing" their criminal 181 justice education are Kalamazoo (seventy-five percent), Lansing (seventy-five percent) and Muskegon (seventy-five percent). 10.5 What percentage of graduates feel that there are difficulties in their job attributable to their criminal justice degree? Table 10.5 Job Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree Job Difficulties Number PErcent Yes 31 20.95 NO 117 79.05 While the majority of the graduates (79.05 percent) felt that they experienced no difficulties in their job that were attribu- table to their criminal justice degree, there are several comments made by the graduates who experienced difficulties worth mentioning. Comments made by the graduates include: "many in my department feel college is 'OK' but experience is 'far more valuable,'" "some display of jealousy from non-degree holding fellow employees," "who needs college kids?" "whenever I express my knowledge of the criminal justice field it often brings resentment," and "often you're treated as being a threat to supervisors with no education." 10.6 Proportionally more pre-service graduates will feel that there are difficulties in their job that are attributable to their degree than will in-service graduates. Table 10.6 shows that proportionally more in-service gradu- ates (30.91 percent) felt difficulties in their job that were 182 Table 10.6 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Job Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree Job Difficulties Yes No Pre-service 14 77 In-service 17 38 Chi-square = 4.940 df = l p < .05 attributable to their degree than did pre-service graduates (15.38 percent). While a significant difference was discovered it was Opposite of the expected result in investigative area 10.6. There- fore, it is necessary to reject investigative area 10.6, while at the same time realizing that there is a significant difference present. One possible explanation of this reverse result is that most pre-service graduates would not have been employed in their jobs long enough to experience many of the prejudices and diffi- culties already experienced by the in-service graduates who obtained criminal justice degrees. 10.7 There will be a significant difference between graduates' sex and whether they feel there are difficulties attributable to their criminal justice degree. Table 10.7 indicates that there is no significant differ- ence between graduates' sex and whether they feel there are job difficulties attributable to their degree. The percentage of males (78.74 percent) who feel there are no job difficulties 183 Table 10.7 Graduates' Sex by Difficulties Attributable to Criminal Justice Degree Job Difficulties Sex Yes No Male 27 100 Female 4 l7 Chi-square = .053 df = l p > .05 attributable to their degree is almost equal to females who feel the same way (80.95 percent). Thus investigative area 10.7 is rejected. 10.8 What percentage of graduates will feel that their education will enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than fellow employees who lack their education qualifica- tions? Table 10.8 Graduates Who Feel Education Will Enable Them to Progress More Rapidly in Career Progress Number Percent Will progress more rapidly 124 76.07 Will not progress more rapidly 39 23.93 Table 10.8 reveals that the majority of graduates feel they will progress more rapidly in their career than will fellow employees who lack similar educational qualifications. Reasons 184 given by these graduates why they felt they could progress more rapidly included: "better equipped to score on promotional exams," "not only gives knowledge but understanding of field which non- college person may not have," and "I foresee a baccalaureate degree a mandatory requirement for promotions and possibly for initial entry into the system." Graduates who believed they could not progress more rapidly felt that: “two year criminal justice programs give a background but no useful skills," "at present agency positions are chosen on political or 'clique' basis, not on effi- ciency or competence," and "everyone is advanced through a show of ability, not because of a degree." 10.9 There will be a significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates as to whether they feel their edu- cation will enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than fellow employees who lack their educational qualifications. Table 10.9 Pre-Service/In-Service Status by Graduates Who Feel Education Will Enable Them to Progress More Rapidly in Career Will Not Progress Progress More Rapld1y More Rapidly Pre-service 87 18 In-service 36 20 Chi-square = 6.986 df = l p < .05 185 As indicated by Table 10.9, approximately twice as many in-service graduates (35.71 percent) as compared to pre-service graduates (17.14 percent) felt that their education would not enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than their fellow employees who lack their educational qualifications. Inves- tigative area 10.9 is therefore accepted. A possible explanation of these results may be that a higher proportion of in-service graduates tend to be cynical as to whether the criminal justice agencies desire to promote on ability and educational qualifications as opposed to subjective personal evaluation. Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY This study was part of a coordinated research project being conducted by the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association concerning criminal justice education at the community colleges in Michigan. . The purpose of this study was to develop a data base that includes information concerning placement and utilization of Michi- gan's community college criminal justice graduates and the gradu- ates' evaluation of their community college program. The survey population consisted of 274 criminal justice graduates of June 1974 from ten community colleges in Michigan. Consideration of the size and geographical location of the population resulted in the decision that the best method of obtain- ing the desired data would be through the use of a mailed, self- administering questionnaire. After the development of a questionnaire, several pre- tests were conducted which resulted in the construction of a revised measuring instrument. This revised questionnaire was sent to the 274 graduates who made up the survey population. After approxi- mately five weeks, a follow-up letter and an additional questionnaire were sent to the graduates who had not yet responded. 186 187 After this initial and follow-up mailing, two hundred com- pleted questionnaires were returned. Along with these, ten questionnaires were returned marked "addressee moved--not forward- able," one questionnaire was returned with a note from respondent stating that she had not yet graduated, and one graduate was killed in the line of duty. This left a total possible responding popula- tion of 262 graduates. The return of two hundred questionnaires represents a response rate of 76.3 percent. The design of the study was descriptive in nature, examining ten investigative research areas which included eighty-five sta- tistically testable propositions. CONCLUSIONS The resultscnithis study provide considerable information in which to base the following conclusions: General Characteristics of the Sample 1. The overall sample was a primarily young group (59.50 percent were under the age of twenty- five . 2. The respondents were overwhelmingly male (86.50 percent). 3. The racial makeup of the papulation was almost entirely Caucasian (97.50 percent). 4. The responding graduates attended community col- leges throughout the state of Michigan and forty percent no longer reside within the community col- lege district from which they received their degree. 188 Investigative Area I: Investigation into graduate satis- faction with his major and specialization. 1. Almost ninety percent of the graduates from Michigan's community colleges express satisfaction with criminal justice as their college major. 2. There is a significant difference between employment status and satisfaction with college major. Approximately ninety- eight percent of graduates employed in public or private criminal justice stated they were satisfied with their major and almost thirty percent employed in non-criminal justice agencies were dis- satisfied. 3. Almost all of Michigan's community college criminal justice graduates stated that their area of specialization was "law enforcement," with 97.47 percent falling in this category. 4. Slightly over eighty-nine percent of the graduates were satisfied with their specialization. 5. There is no significant difference between community college attended and area of specialization. 6. There is a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their area of specialization. (Proportionately four times the number of females are specializing in areas other than law enforcement.) 7. The majority of graduates took the following courses in their criminal justice core: Introduction to Law Enforcement (98.50 percent), Police Organization and Administration (ninety-one percent), Criminal Law and Procedure (ninety-six percent), 189 Criminal Investigation (97.50 percent) and Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention (90.50 percent). 8. The most common reason for not transferring, for both pre-service and in-service students, is "needed break from school --plan to return" (29.11 percent). 9. There is no significant difference between the indi- vidual community college and reasons given by their graduates for not continuing their education. Investigative Area 11: Investigation into students' evalu- ation of community college programs. 1. The majority of graduates (68.53 percent) feel that their program adequately prepares them for the level of operation. 2. A higher pr0portion of in-service graduates (43.75 percent) prefer more emphasis at the administrative or supervisory level than do pre-service graduates (25.78 percent). 3. There are no statistical pre-service and in-service dif- ferences as to approach to community college criminal justice edu- cation and, on the whole, graduates prefer an "applicable, total interacting system approach" to education. 4. There is no apparent difference between the community college one attended and the approach to community college educa- tion believed to be most beneficial. 5. The majority of graduates (over seventy-five percent) ranked equipment as either first or second as needing greatest improvement. 190 6. The mean rank of need of improvement does not vary significantly from one community college to another. (Equipment and facilities consistently rank in greatest need of improvement for each community college.) 7. There is a significant difference between the gradu- ates' rating of full-time and part-time faculty. The full-time faculty is rated significantly higher. 8. There is no significant difference between community colleges and the graduates' rating of faculty members. Investigative Area III: Investigation into financial assistance. 1. Over forty percent of the graduates did receive LEEP assistance. 2. While 87.30 percent of the in-service graduates received LEEP, only 19.55 percent of the pre-service graduates received LEEP. 3. There is a significant difference between the gradu- ates' age and whether they received LEEP assistance. 4. There is no significant difference between race and receiving LEEP. . 5. There is significant difference between the graduates' sex and whether they received LEEP assistance. (Almost forty- five percent of the males received LEEP as compared to 14.81 percent females receiving LEEP.) 191 6. There is no significant difference between the community college that graduates attended and whether they received LEEP assistance. 7. The majority of graduates (over sixty percent) received educational monies other than LEEP. 8. A large proportion (48.76 percent) of those who are receiving other types of financial aid are, in addition, receiving LEEP. Investigative Area IV: Investigation into graduate employ- ment status. 1. The greatest percentage of graduates are all transfer students (47.72 percent) and those students employed in public criminal justice (47.21 percent). 2. There is no significant difference between the gradu- ates' sex and their present employment status. 3. There is a significant difference between the community college a graduate attended and their employment status. Differ- ences were discovered in each of the employment status areas. Investigative Area V: Investigation into transfer students. l. The percentages of transferring graduates for pre- service (47.69 percent) and in-service (fifty percent) are almost identical. 2. All but five percent of Michigan's community college criminal justice transfer graduates attended four-year institu- tions within Michigan. 192 3. The determining factors in a transfer student attending a specific four-year institution will be particular for that insti- tution. 4. The majority of transfer students (77.08 percent) are attending the four-year institution of their first choice. The largest percentage of the transfer students (63.64 percent) who did not attend the four-year institution of their first choice desired to attend Michigan State University. 5. The determining factor for students' decision to attend one four-year institution over another is significantly different between the full-time and part-time student. The vari- able "close-proximity to home and work" is an important factor in a part-time student's decision to attend a four-year institu- tion, while "program and faculty superiority" are important factors for full-time transfer students. 6. A vast majority of the criminal justice transfer stu- dents remained criminal justice majors at the four-year institutions --86.46 percent. 7. There is no significant difference between the community college a transfer student attended and whether or not he remained a criminal justice major. 8. Of those students who remain criminal justice majors upon transferring to a four-year institution, almost all of them (93.90 percent) remained in their same area of specialization. 193 9. There is a substantial statistical difference between pre-service and in-service transfer students' reasons for con- tinuing their education. Investigative Area VI: Investigation into employment characteristics of graduates employed in a public or private criminal justice agency. 1. The majority of graduates employed in criminal justice agencies are working for police agencies--80.95 percent. 2. Over seventy-nine percent of the graduates are presently working for local (municipal and county) criminal justice agencies. 3. There is no significant difference between the type of criminal justice agency (public or private) the graduate works for and the governmental level of that agency. 4. The majority of graduates did obtain employment in the agency they initially desired upon graduation (74.75 percent). 5. A proportionally larger percentage of graduates employed by public criminal justice agencies (77.65 percent) as compared to graduates employed by private criminal justice agen- cies (57.14 percent) obtained employment in the agency they initially desired to work for. 6. While 85.96 percent of the in-service graduates were employed in the agency they desired upon graduation, only 59.52 percent of the pre-service graduates fell in this category. 7. The majority of graduates (62.38 percent) are cur- rently at the level of operation. 194 8. There is a high correlation between graduates' age and their agency position. 9. There is no significant difference between private criminal justice employed pre-service graduates' current position and whether they are satisfied with this position. 10. There is no significant difference between in-service graduates employed in criminal justice agencies and their level of satisfaction with their position. 11. The determining factor for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a particular agency is not significantly different between pre-service and in-service graduates. 12. The determining factors for a graduate's decision to seek employment with a specific agency is not particular for that type of agency. Investigative Area VII: Investigation into career desires of those working for non-criminal justice agencies. 1. The graduates employed in non-criminal justice agencies are primarily employed in positions that are of little esteem, low salaries, and with non-educational requirements. The majority of the positions would be classified as blue-collar. 2. A relatively high percentage of those not employed by criminal justice agencies (23.81 percent) stated they did not attempt to find employment in the criminal justice field. 3. The majority (62.86 percent) employed outside the criminal justice field are not satisfied with their present employment. 195 Investigative Area VIII: Investigation into salary and salary satisfaction. 1. The largest proportion of graduates (31.55 percent) made less than $6,000 annually. The mean income of these graduates is $9,100 and the median salary is $8,000-$8,999. 2. There is a high positive correlation between the increase in age and an increase in salary. 3. There is a significant difference between the graduates' race and their salary. 4. There is a significant difference between the graduates' sex and their salary. 5. There is a significant difference between the graduates' pre-service/in-service status and their salary. 6. There is a significant relationship between the com- munity college that a graduate attended and his salary. 7. A substantial majority of graduates are not satisfied with the present salary (31.25 percent). 8. There is a significant difference between salary obtained and level of graduate satisfaction with this salary. 9. Over half (50.77 percent) of the graduates who obtained employment in their initially desired agency were satisfied with their present salary, however, this is not significant. 10. There is a significant relationship between graduates' satisfaction with present position and graduates' satisfaction with their salary. 196 Investigative Area IX: Investigation of graduates' ways and means of seeking employment. 1. Over ninety-three percent of the graduates believed that "personal means" was a positive factor in obtaining employment. At least fifty percent of the graduates gave negative ratings to each of the other factors. 2. The relative importance of individual factors in obtaining employment do not vary between community colleges. 3. Public criminal justice (state level) was thought by the graduates to put forth the greatest effort towards recruiting graduates. 4. The majority of graduates (63.87 percent) felt that criminal justice agencies preferred to hire college graduates over non-college graduates. 5. There is no significant difference between graduates' sex and their feelings as to how receptive criminal justice agen- cies are to hiring college graduates. 6. There is no significant difference between pre-service and in-service graduates and their feelings as to hiring college graduates. 7. The graduates from Michigan community colleges, on the whole, did not feel that their community college was doing a good job in placing their students in the criminal justice field. 8. There is a significant difference between the community colleges and the degree that they helped to place students in the criminal justice field. 197 Investigative Area X: Investigation in degree difficul- ties and utilization by graduates. l. The majority of graduates (56.02 percent) feel that in their current position their criminal justice education is being utilized "extremely well" or "adequately." 2. Proportionally more in-service graduates feel that their criminal justice education is being utilized than do pre-service graduates. 3. There is a significant difference between graduates' employment status and whether they feel their criminal justice education is being utilized. 4. There is no significant difference between the commu- nity college a student attended and whether he feels that his criminal justice degree is being utilized. 5. The majority of the graduates (79.05 percent) felt that they experienced no difficulties in their job that were attributable to their criminal justice degree. 6. Proportionally more in-service graduates (30.91 per- cent) felt difficulties in their job that were attributable to their degree than did pre-service graduates (15.38 percent). 7. There is no significant difference between graduates' sex and whether they feel there are job difficulties attributable to their degree. 8. The majority of graduates feel they will progress more rapidly in their career than will fellow employees who lack similar educational qualifications (76.07 percent). 198 9. Approximately twice as many in-service graduates (35.71 percent) as compared to pre-service graduates (17.14 per- cent) felt that their education would not enable them to progress more rapidly in their career than their fellow employees who lack their educational qualifications. The major conclusions that can be drawn from this study are as fellows: During the last decade the community college has adopted local community service as a necessary part of their educational concept and have become essentially community institutions. Thus, the responsibilities of the community colleges have become to service their local communities' needs. One of these needs is the development of personnel for the local criminal justice agen- cies. While the local community college concept has been generally accepted, our study showed that over forty percent of community college criminal justice graduates have left their community col- lege districts and are now living and working outside these dis- tricts. The obvious ramifications are that the community is losing a valuable "product" that was developed by the community college to be utilized by the local community. One of the more salient results of this study concerns the graduates' evaluation of the criminal justice program. On the whole, Michigan's community college criminal justice graduates have_positively evaluated their criminal justice program at their community college. Looking into specifics of the programs, one finds that the graduates rated their full-time faculty significantly 199 higher than their part-time faculty and this held consistently throughout all the community colleges in Michigan. Also, graduates rated "equipment" and "facilities" consistently in greatest need of improvement for each community college. (Over seventy-five percent ranked equipment as eitherfirstcw'second as needing greatest improvement.) Through this the community colleges should have a better idea of what strengths and weaknesses exist in their pro- grams and thus be more capable of evaluating their problems and making the necessary changes. One overriding sentiment expressed by the graduates was the lack of counseling and placement services available at their community college. The student has received little or no training in methods of seeking employment or in obtaining successful assist- ance from college or department level placement services. The majority of graduates stated that their community colleges were doing an "inadequate" or "extremely poor" job in helping to place students in the criminal justice field. Hopefully, as a result of this study, the community colleges will begin to move in a positive manner towards assisting graduates in obtaining employment. BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Baird, L. L., J. M. Richards, and L. R. Shevel. "A Description of Graduates of Two-Year Colleges." Reprinted in The Two-Year College and Its Students. Iowa City: The American College Testing Program, Inc., 1969. Blocker, Clyde E. The Two Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968. Bressler, Marvin. "Sociology and Collegiate General Education." In The Uses of Sociology, ed. Paul F. Layarsfeld, William H. Sevell, and Harold L. Wilensky. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Brick, Michael J. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement: The American Association of Junior Colleges. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Clark, B. R. The Open Door College. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Clark, Donald E., and Samuel G. Chapman. A Forward Step: Educa- tional Background for Police. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Co., 1966. Crockett, Thompson S., and James D. Stinchcomb. Guidelines for Law Enforcement Education in Communityyand Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967. Eells, Walter C. The Junior College. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931. Greene, J. R. The Criminal Justice Register. Boston: Collegiate Register Press, 1972. Havemann, Ernest, and Patricia Salter West. They Went to College. The College Graduate in American Today. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952. Hostrop, Richard W. Orientation to the Two-Year College--A Pro- grammed Text. Georgetown, Ontario: Learning System Co., 1970. 201 202 Junior College Directory, January, 1960. Knoell, Dorathy M. Factors Affecting Performance of Transfer Stu- dents from Two on to Four-Year.Colleges. Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1964. Medsker, L. L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospects. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Michigan Crminal Justice Education Association. Criminal Justice Education Programs in Michigan. East Lansing: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, December, 1974. Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community College. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1972. Newman, Donald J. Introduction to Criminal Justice--Instructor's Manual. New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1974. Palinchak, Robert. The Evolution of the Community College, Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1973. Saunders, Charles B., Jr. Upgrading the American Police: Educa- tion and Training for Better Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1970. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972. Yarrington, Roger. Junior Colleges: 50 States/50 Years. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. PERIODICALS Bennett, Vernon. "A State Two-Year College of Technology," California Quarterly of Secondarnyducation, Vol. 5 (October, 1929), 77-81. Brandstatter, A. F. "Education Serves the Police, the Youth, the Community," The Police Chief, Vol. 33 (August, 1966), 12. Crockett, Thompson S. "Law Enforcement Education: A Survey of College and Universities Offering Degree Programs in the Field of Law Enforcement," International Assocation of Chiefs of Police (1968), 5-8. Crockett, Thompson S., and John Moses. "Incentive Plans for Law Enforcement Education," The Police Chief, Vol. 28 (August, 1969), 28-52. 203 Crockett, Thomas S., and James D. Stinchcomb. "Guidelines for Law Enforcement Education Programs in the Community and Junior CollegesJ'American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. Day, Frank. "Administration of Criminal Justice: An Educational Design in Higher Education," Journal of Criminal Law, Cerinology and Police Science, Vol. 5 (November, 1965), 540- 54 . Garnett, Betty. "College for Cops," Junior College Journal, Vol. 32 (May, 1965), 26-29. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "Beyond the Open Door, the Open College," Community and Junior College Journal, Vol. 45 (August- September, 1974), 6. Gross, Soloman. "Higher Education and Police: Is There a Need for a Closer Look?" Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 1 (December, 1973), 473-479. Harrington, John H. "Employers Look at the Junior College Gradu- ate," Junior College Journal, Vol. 28 (November, 1957), 142- 149. International Association of Chiefs of Police. 1972-73 Directory of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Education (1974). Jazrello, R. J. "College Education for the Patrolman--Necessity or Irrelevance?"Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 62 (1971), 1141 Kemp, W. W. "The Junior College in California," CaliforniayQuar- terly of Secondary Education, Vol. 5 (January, 1930), 188-194. Lange, Alexis F. "The Junior College as an Integral Part of the Public School System," School Review, Vol. 25 (September, 1917), 465-479. Levy, Ruth. "Summary of Report on Retrospective Study of 5,000 Peace Officer Personnel Rewards," Police Yearbook, 1966, 62. Lombardi, John. "Occupational Education in California Junior Col— leges," Educational Record, Vol. 45, 1964, 142-147. Mirich, John J., and Eugene Voris. "Police Science Education in the U.S.A.: National Need," Journal of Criminal Law, Crimin- ology, and Police Science, Vol. 56 (November, 1965), 545-548. Myren, Richard A. "A Core Curriculum for Undergraduate Police Training," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 49 (January-February, 1959), 507-509. 204 Newman, Charles L., and Dorothy Sue Hunter. "Education for Careers in Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Student Output, 1964-67," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 59 (March, l968).7138-l43. Peper, John P. "Police Education and Training in California," California Education, Vol. 3 (November, 1965), 27-28. Prout, R. S. "Analysis of Associate Degree Programs in Law Enforce- ment," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 63 (1972), 585. Purdy, E. Wilson. "Administrative Action to Implement Selection and Training for Police Professionalization, Police Chief, Vol. 32 (May, 1965), 16. Shepherd, George, "Are We Aiming Too Low in Recruitment," Ihg_ Police Chief, Vol. 65 (January, 1967), 20-24. Smith, Locke, Walker. "Authoritarianism in College and Non- college Oriented Police,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 58 (March, 1967), 132. Snyder, William H. "The Distinctive Status of the Junior College," School Review, Vol. 3 (February, 1933), 235-239. Stinchcomb, James 0. "Impact of the Junior College on Law Enforce— ment Education," Junior College Journal, Vol. 37 (March, 1967), 44-46. Tracy, Charles. "Survey of Criminal Justice Subject Matter Bacca- laureate Programs," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 61 (1971), 576-579. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS Lejins, Peter P. Introducing a Law Enforcement Curriculum at a State University, A Report of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1970, 13-16. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Police. Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 1973. National Commission on Productivity. Opportunities for Improving Productivity in Police Services. Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 1973. 205 The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challegge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Tenney, Charles W., Jr. Higher Education Programs in Law Enforce- ment and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Delta College, Office of Research and Development. "Follow-Up of Law Enforcement Students," unpublished research report, Delta College, 1974. Egger, Steven. "Law Enforcement Education in the Community Junior Colleges." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1972. Fabian, Felix Monroe. "The Evolvement of Pre-Service Law Enforce- ment Education at the College and University Level." Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, University of Idaho, 1965. Hoover, Larry Thorne. "Police Recruit Educational Background Analysis." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Jacobs, Robert C. "A College Curriculum in Criminal Justice Employment Prospects for the Graduates." Unpublished study done under a grant through the Law and Justice Planning Office, Washington State College, 1972. John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Survey of Criminal Justice Graduates." Unpublished research report, John Jay College, New York, 1972. Karacki, Loreen, and John Galum. "A Survey of Degree Programs in Criminology and Corrections." Joint Connfission on Correc- tional Manpower and Training, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Larkens, Hayes (3. "A Survey of Experience, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Security Administration Graduates of Michigan State University." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. McGreevy, Thomas J. "A Field Study of the Relationship Between the Formal Education Levels of 556 Police Officers in St. Louis, Missouri, and Their Patrol Duty Performance Records." Unpub- lished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. 206 Michigan Department of Education. Mimeographed handout, 1974. Moore, Merlyn Douglas. "A Study of the Placement and Utilization Patterns and Views of the Criminal Justice Graduates of Michi- gan State University.“ Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Nash, William C. "A Study of the Employment Patterns of College Educated Officers in Michigan Police Agencies." Unpublished research reprint, Michigan State University, 1972. (Mime- graphed.) Nelson, Dr. James H. Address delivered at Michigan State University on September 26, 1974. ° Post, Richard. "Post-Graduation Activities of Police Administra- tion," October, 1967. (Mimeographed.) Rutherford, James. "A Survey and Analysis of Two-Year Police Science Curricula in the U.S. with Recommended Criteria." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Swank, Calvin James. "A Descriptive Analysis of Criminal Justice Doctorial Programs in the U.S." Unpublished Doctor's disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1972. Vaupel, Carl F., Jr. "A Survey and Analysis of Two-Year Police Science Curriculum in the United States With Recommended Cri- teria." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1968. Yankee, William J. "A Description and Evaluation of the Associate Degree Law Enforcement Curriculum in the Public Community and Junior Colleges of Michigan." Unpublished Doctor's disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1970. APPENDIX LETTER TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE COORDINATORS FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE COORDINATORS COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO GRADUATES 207 - ...v.—.........__ -._~_ At its regular meeting on Friday, November 1, 1974, following a short presentation by Mr. Tom.Dull, a Criminal Justice graduate student at Michigan State University, the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association voted to engage in a research project to assist you in the realization of your goals as a Criminal Justice educator in a Michigan Community College. We have identified two areas of concern which are to be studied and which will be of significant interest to you: 1. the placement and utilization of your graduates, and any improvement in the process which may be indicated; 2. the graduates' evaluation of your curriculum relative to their needs in the field, and possible revisions which may be indicated. We would like to survey your June, 1974, CRIMINAL JUSTICE graduates to obtain the desired information. Your assistance is necessary to the success of the project, and I would like to request that you provide a list of the names of these graduates with their last known address to our researchers in the stamped return envelOpe which has been provided. If a list of Criminal Justice graduates is not available singly, please obtain a list of all your college's June, 1974, graduates from the Regi- strar's Office, designating the degree obtained and their last known address. If possible, indicate those who are Criminal Justice graduates. The finalized results of the project will be made available to you through the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association during the late Spring of 1975. Please take the time to provide the requested information and return it to us as soon as possible. Your assistance and cooperation will insure the success of the project and will be greatly appreciated. Fraternally yours, . A“ 7A Herman J. Bo dewyk, President a Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association Last month the coordinators of Michigan's Community College Criminal Justice Programs received letters informing them of a M.C.J.E.A. (Mich- igan Criminal Justice Educators Association) research project that was being conducted in an attempt to develop a data base on the Criminal Justice graduate. This data base would be beneficial to the development and revision of your program and would enable you to better serve the overall needs of the Criminal Justice student and your community. While the requested graduate students' names and addresses have been received from many of the Community Colleges your reply is needed to insure the success of this project. Several of the Community College coordinators have indicated their concern with the "Protection of the Rights and Privacy of Parents and Students Act" which was signed into law on August 21, 1974 and whether this would prohibit them from submitting the requested information. The following are applicable sections of the "Parents' and Students' Rights Amendment". Sec. 438 (a) (1) No funds shall be made available to State or local educational agency, institution of higher education, or any other education- al institution which effectively prevents the parents of students attending any school of such agency the right to inspect and review any and all records, files, and data directly related to their children. Access must be made available within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than 45 days after request has been made. (2) Parents shall have the opportunity for a hearing to challenge the content of their child's records. (b) (1) Schools may not releases personal records (academic work completed, level of achievement [grades, standardized achievement test scores], attendance data, scores on standardized intelli- gence, aptitude, and psychological tests, interest inventory results, health data, family background information, teacher or counselor ratings and observa- tions, and verified reports of serious or recurrent behavior patterns.)of students without the written consent of their parents. The spirit of this law is to protect students from adverse records in which he has no opportunity to review or correct and not to hinder professional research. The information requested (names & addresses) does not fall under the category of nonreleasable personal records as identified in Sec. 438 (b) (1). Again I request that you send the names and addresSes of your 1974 June graduates so that these students have the Opportunity to evaluate their Community College Criminal Justice Program. “\\\\> .\ -44. L . R. Thomas Dull ““‘ Di ector of the System Center Research Project Assistant ”40“""6" QFQC'A 11n41vnwnJO-c. 1‘ n T I? A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ' SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 January 1, 1975 Dear Graduate: This questionnaire is part of a research project being conducted by the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association concerning your Criminal Justice education at your Community College. Two areas of concern which are to be studied are: l. the placement and utilization of graduates of the Community Colleges and any improvement in the process which may be indicated; 2. your (the graduates') evaluation of your curriculum relative to your needs in the field and possible revisions which may be indicated. we are undertaking a survey of all June 1974 Criminal Justice graduates of all Community Colleges in Michigan to obtain the desired information. Your assistance is necessary to the success of the project. What we are requesting is your generous cooperation in completing the enclosed" questionnaire. Please take the time to provide the requested information and return it to us as soon as possible. A.stamped-return envelopeehas been provided. ‘- Please do not sign your name to the questionnaire, as the aim.of the study is not_to identify individuals per se, or otherwise. Only summarized re- sponses will be returned to your community college and under no circumstances will individual responses be made available. Compilation of the data is being handled by researchers at ths-School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. Your assistance and cooperation will insure the success of the project and will be greatly appreciated. Those who complete the questionnaire will receive a summary of the results of this study in eight to twelve weeks. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. Yours truly, g é /" ,. M ‘4’... vet/TM" (12%]! Herman J. Bo dewyk, President Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ° SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL jUST ICE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 February 7, 1975 Dear Graduate: Approximately three weeks ago you received a cOpy of a questionnaire sent to all Michigan Community College Criminal Justice Graduates as a part of a research project being conducted by the Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association. At this time we have received replies from over 62% of the graduates. While this response has been encouraging, your reply is urgently needed to fully realize the goals of this overall project. Enclosed is a c0py of the questionnaire in the case the original one was miSplaced. Please take the time to provide the requested information and return it to us as soon as possible. A stamped-return envelope has been provided. In the event you have already completed the questionnaire and it is now in the mail, please disregard this letter. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. Yours truly, Herman J. Bo dewyk, President QJ// Michigan Criminal Justice Educators Association CODE QUEST ORNAIRE A Study of the Placement and Utilization Patterns and 3 Curriculum Evaluation by the Criminal Justice Graduates of the Community Colleges in Michigan in June of 1974 INTRODUCTION Two particular concerns are foremost in this study. The first is that the data collected be accurate and of the highest quality. The second is that there is a minimization of effort on your part in answering the questionnaire. Hence, questions for the most part require only that you circle the answer apprOpriate to you. However, some questions require a written response. Space is provided to answer them. If you wish to comment on any of your answers, do so on the margins of the questionnaire or on the additional space provided. Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: If you wish to have a copy of the summary of this study, please check the box:[;m J GI‘LL'."EI" L INFORI‘MTIOI' Section 1: This section concerns certain background information on yourself. Circle the apprOpriate answer. 1. Age: 1. Under 19 6. 31—35 2. 19-21 7. 36-40 3. 22—24 8. 41*45 4. 25-27 9. 45 and above 5. 28~3O 2. Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Race: 1. Caucasian 4. American Indian 2. Negro/Black 5. Oriental American 3. Mexican American 4. Do you currently reside within the Community College district that you graduated from? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Uncertain **********k*t************k*k#*#********k*x****n*****tktkk*****k***k******** EDUCATIONAL lnFORKATION Section 2: This section concerns certain educational information while a student at the Community College. Circle answer appropriate to you. 5. Degree received from the Community College? 1. Associate Degree 2. Certificate Page 2 Area of specialization in the Community College: 1. Law Enforcement 2. Corrections 3. Security 4. Delinquency Prevention and Control 5. Criminalistics 6. Other Are you now satisfied with your area of specialization? 1. Yes 2. No, I would rather have specialized in Why?‘_ ‘ Are you now satisfied with Criminal Justice as your college major? 1. Yes 2. No, I would rather have majored in Why?__ On the premises that the thrust of Criminal Justice programs at the Community College is to prepare students who intend to enter law enforcement agencies at the level of operation, please answer the following questions by circling the appropriate answer. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Do you feel that your schools program adequately prepares students for a position at the level of operation? 1. Yes 2. No, Why? _. _fi__—__— v—u—vv—w Do you feel that in your program more emphasis should be placed at the administrative or supervisory level then is currently offered? 1. Yes 2. No Which approach to Community College education do you feel is most beneficial to you in your job and future career aspirations? l. Specilized single component (eg. law enforcement) approach 2. Criminal Justice “total interacting system" approach Which approach to Criminal Justice Education do you feel is most beneficial to you in your job and future career aspirations? l. Applicable (how to do) approach 2. Theoretical (analyze, predicté-reasoning) approach Would you rank order the following segements of your Criminal Justice Department as to their greatest need for improvement. (1 being in greatest need for improvement to 4 being in least need of improvement. Use each number, 1-4, only once.) Curriculum Faculty Facilities w Equipment I Page 3 1h. A. In considering knowledge of subject matter, organization, concern 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 1h. B. for his students, and general teaching ability, how would you rate your Criminal Justice instructors at the Community College? A Full-time Faculty B Part—time Faculty 1. Outstanding 1. -Outstanding 2. Good 2. Good 3. Fair 3. Fair h.- Poor h. Poor Did you receive any LEEP assistance (Law Enforcement Education Program), grant or loan, at any time while attending the Community College? 1. Yes 2. No Circle all of the following types of financial assistance or aid that you received at any time while attending the Community College. 1. Veterans benefits 2. Police cadet program 3. ,Social Security h. Scholarship 5. Other Circle all of the following courses you took in your major area, at the Community College? 1.. Introduction to Law Enforcement 2. Police Organization and Administration 3. Criminal Law and Procedure ' h. Criminal Investigation 5. Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention 6. Police Operation . 7. Highway Traffic Administration 8. Criminalistics 9. Other If you did not continue your education by transfering to a h year institution, what were your primary reasons for this decision? While attending your Community College were you employed full-time by a Criminal Justice agency? 1. Yes 2. No *“fifl’fl'fli’flv‘l********§*****fl“flint-2-*fifiiifl‘iififlfifi“****'§§*****flflfllifififlflfiflflfifllfl-flflfifl-fl Page h EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION Section 3: This section concerns present employment information. TRANSFER STUDENT anyone who has been accepted and is attending any four year institution either full-time or part-time. PUBLIC CRIMINAL JUSTICE category refers to all State, Federal, university, and municipal governmental police, security, and investigative functions. It also includes probation, parole, corrections, highway traffic personnel, and Juvenile delinquency and criminal Justice education personnel employed by governmental organizations. PRIVATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE category refers to individuals who engage primarily in a police/security function for an industrial, business or private investigative organization, It also includes private agencies concerned with delinquency prevention, and rehabilitation of offenders, etc. NON-CRIMINAL JUSTICE category refers to all other areas of employment. 20. What is your present employment status? (Circle all of the following that presently apply to you using the above definitions. 1. Transfer--If this applys complete section A, beginning on page h. 2. Employed in public criminal Justice agency-~If this applies complete section B, beginning on page S. 3. Employed in private criminal Justice agency--If this applies complete section B, beginning on page S. h. Employed in non-criminal Justice agency--If this applies complete section C, beginning on page 6. 5. Unemployed--If this applies complete section C, beginning on page i fl****************************************flfl‘iflfl‘l‘l’flfli****§*****************U‘I‘Ifl! Section A: If you are presently attending a four (h) year institution full or part-time answer the following questions. 21. What four year institution are you presently attending? -.‘ 1. Eastern Michigan University 5. University of Detroit 2. Ferris State College 6. University of Michigan 3. Grand Valley State College 7. wayne State University h. Michigan State University 8. Other ‘ 22. was this institution your first choice? 1. Yes 2. No, My first choice was Why? 23. Are you a full-time or part-time student? 1. Full-time 2. Part—time 2h. Are you still a Criminal Justice maJor? 1. Yes 2. No, I maJored in Why?_ri Page 5 ___,. 25. If you are still a Criminal Justice major is your area of specilization the same? 1. Yes 2. No, I am specilizing in Why?;?, 26. The following are often determining factors of why a student decides upon one institution over another. Mark the relative importance of each of these factors in your decision to attend the 4 year institution that you are presently attending. Check the apprOpriate reaponse to the right of each factor. % F4 u.q u u.q u >.fi m 6 >5“ m C .4 m u m«« m ml d3u m u u u u u cuuunumh O O m 0 mac 0 H QVU ~H = u 9‘ U E O 5.4 E o E (0'4 22h403r+22r4 1. Recommended by Community College counselors 2. Recommended by family and friends 3. Recommended by Community College instructors ____l 4. Close proximity to home and work ___~_ 5. Scholarship offered 6. Believed program superior to others _l“~. 7. Believed faculty superior to others """T""" F... T..- iv.-- 27. Why did you decide to continue your education? ~— ’____ ******#*t**************************************k************************k** Section B: If you are employed in a public or private criminal justice agency answer the following questions. «__. 28. What type of agency? 1. Police 6. Business (retail) security 2. Corrections 7. Armored Car 3. Juvenile' 8. Private detectives 4. Probation 9. Other 5. Parole .~_.- 29. What governmental level? 1. Federal 2. State 3. County A- Mnnininnl Page 6 30. Is this the agency you initially desired upon graduation? 1. Yes 2. No, I would have preferred . 31. What is your current position with this agency or organization? 1. Level of operation (eg. patrolman, corrections officer, security guard, private detective) 2. Supervisory position 3. Administrative position 4. Specialized position (research/planning, criminalistics etc.) 32. Are you pleased with your present position? 1. Throughly satisfied 2. Satisfied, but had expected higher position 3. Somewhat disatisfied because of low position .4. Throughly dissatisfied .._ A“-....., 33. If you were employed while attending Community College how is your degree helping you presently? Received promotion Changed agency to obtain better job Received salary increase while remaining in.same position Has been of little or no help in obtaining better position or financial gain. bWNH on. 34. A number of factors contribute to a decision to seek employment with a particular agency, would you rank order the following considerations in terms of their relative importance in your decision to seek employment with the particular agency you did. (1 being most important—~6 being the least important). Use each number only once. Only available police employment at the time Agency's salary compared to others Agency's prestige compared to others Nature of jurisdiction (that is suburan vs. urban) Agency's recruitment efforts Agency‘s career and promotion Opportunties l l l 3 *zhkicfikkt'k'kfidc'kitk'kit'kkinhtki'kidtkkkst7H:'k‘k‘kidciriric'ka'kk'k‘kkahktkkkirttic’ki:'k'k**kkid:******* Section C: If you are employed in a non—criminal justice agency or unemployed answer the following questions. 35. What type of job are you now employed in? Be specific by listing your agency, title of your position and duties. I. W—v— m. 2. Does not—apply, I am unemployed. .iila 36. Did you attempt to find employment in a criminal justice field? 1. Yes 2. No, Why?w__ -_ 37. 38. Page 7 Are you presently looking for employment in the criminal justice field? 1. Yes 2. No, Why? Are you satisfied with your present employment? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Does not apply, I am unemployed *kkkiuhkkint*************inhtic***********************ic'kiddckkidz‘kahki‘kkkakkktkkk** Section 4: 39. 40. 41. Everyone please answer the following questions by circling the apprOpriate answer. Indicate your approximate annual salary now: 1. Less than $6,000 6. 2. $6,000-$6,999 7. 3. $7,000~$7,999 8. 4. $8,000-$8,999 9. 5. $9,000-$9,999 Are you satisfied with this salary? 1. Yes 2. No $10,000-$10,999 $ll,OOO—$11,999 $12,000—$12,999 $13,000 and above The following are often ways of obtaining employment. Mark the relative importance of each of these factors in obtaining your employment after leaving the Community College. right of each reason. Community College placement bureau Community College Criminal Justice Department Other faculty members from Community College . By personal means Through agency recruitment Check the apprOpriate response to the j J lightly Important .r-w Moderately Important Not at all Im ortant “I. Strongly Important I. C u pm- 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. "w— Page 8 How would you rank these various agencies in their effort towards recruiting college graduates? (1 being the greatest effort to 5 being the least effort). Do not use a number more than once. Public Criminal Justice Federal level Public Criminal Justice State level Public Criminal Justice Local level Private Criminal Justice __w_hon-Criminal Justice l | how receptive do you feel Criminal Justice agencies are in hiring college graduates? Desire only college graduates Preferred to hire college graduates over non—college graduates Neutral as to hiring college graduates Preferred to hire non-college graduates over college graduates Desired only non-college graduates O UDWNF‘ o How well is your Community College doing in helping to place students in the Criminal Justice field? 1. Extremely well 2. Adequate 3. Inadequate 4. Extremely poor In your current position, to what extent do you feel your "Criminal Justice Education" is being utilized? 1. Extremely wel.l 2. Adequately 3. Inadequately 4. Not at all Are there any difficulties in your job that you feel are attributable to your Criminal Justice degree? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, please explain: #7 — Do you feel your education will enable you to progress more rapidly in your career than your fellow emlloyees who lack your education qualifications? 1. Yes 2. No Why or why not~_ *— —..--.£——n-—-~.~--a—nu--—’..—o hue. v.-— THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your time and effort in answering this questionnaire. Please enclose the completed questionnaire in the stamped, self~addressed enveIOpe and return to: Thomas Dull, 412 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Please feel free to add any additional comments: HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. ||||||1|| ||||||||||||||||||| Ill" 9310 312 40 LIBRRRIES IIIHIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIII 66661