‘willillilllilmllilllll”L ' i 3 1293 00799 8549 WE LIB R A R Y I'Aichigan Stabs 3., Universityftfé This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES AND LEVELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES presented by Marson Harry Johnson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Administration and Higher Education 9% aZ/M Major profe Date f ”If. / fig 0-7639 ll 2'“ “ mm q A i ,. '-.‘.‘.\II."V;.. em 9 ‘55 . l M11895 in - M T? 0'9 .91 nu» Ema 4 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation record AN ANALYSIS OF INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES AND LEVELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES By Marson H. Johnson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 U \ a // a 9’ ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES AND LEVELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES By Marson Harry Johnson Criminal justice internship programs at institutions of higher learning provide opportunities for participants to gain skills and insights that cannot be found by simply studying books, listening to lectures, or working in laboratories. Experiential learning has been a slow,laborious developmental process for education in general and even slower for criminal justice education. Criminal justice educa- tion programs involving field internships were never a reality until Michigan State university offered an l8—month program in l935. This study was designed as an investigation of criminal jus- tice internships in selected institutions of higher education in the United States, with principal focus on programs in three states, viz., California, Florida, and Michigan. Its purpose was to obtain detailed and factual information to (l) assess the levels and extent of academic supervision of criminal justice internship programs in selected associate, baccalaureate, and graduate level institutions; (2) to secure relevant viewpoints and information from internship coordinators concerning specific issues and operational concerns Marson Harry Johnson involved in designing and implementing an internship program; (3) to analyze the extent of agreement/disagreement on these issues and con- cerns; and (4) to develop from the data obtained a set of normative statements concerning the desirable characteristics of current intern- ship programs in this field. The principal research instrument was a questionnaire includ- ing both closed- and open-ended responses. The respondents repre- sented a cross-section of private and public institutions; associate, baccalaureate, and graduate programs; and urban, suburban, and rural locations. The findings indicated that there is a wide variation with respect to the types of internship programs being employed. Prob- lems perceived by the respondents involving day-to-day program activity were minimal. Internship programs were offered at all institutions surveyed, but a majority of them were not required for completion of the program of studies. There was consensus among the respondents that the internship experience should be for at least one term. Lia- bility of students in internships was an unresolved issue, but did not preclude the development and employment of internship programs. It became readily apparent that no single model for conducting internship programs existed; moreover, while there needs to be an effort to provide a degree of consistency and possibly some stan- dardization of internship program elements, the variety of levels, program purposes, and similar factors would seem to negate the desira- bility of developing a single model to be followed. Rather, a coopera- tive effort to develop broader, but relevant, criteria for establishing Marson Harry Johnson such programs at the various levels with consideration for the approp- riate purposes of the total programs in the various locations would serve the profession better. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, my chairman, for his continued assistance, direction, and insight into the domain of higher education administration. Without his guidance, this research could never have become a reality. The author gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to Dr. Mitchell Silverman for his support in reading and commenting on the various drafts. Mitchell's critical review, constructive comments, and focus have been most needed and appreciated. Special expressions of gratitude are due to: Dr. Harold Vetter, Chairperson, Department of Criminal Justice, who made available the full resources of his department in an effort to facilitate the suc- cessful completion of this project; Dr. William Blount for his assis- tance in statistical analysis; Dr. David Agresti for his editorial assistance; Dr. Vandel Johnson, Dr. Richard Featherstone, and Mr. Ralph Turner for their suggestions and insights; and Mr. James Tayman, my student, who was most helpful in compiling the data from the questionnaires. A deep debt of gratitude is extended to Mrs. John HOpe and Mrs. Thomas Cooley for their timeless retyping of the manuscript and invaluable editorial help. To my parents, Irene and Harry Johnson, for their continued hope and encouragement over these many years. ii A very special award of merit is due to my wife, Sarah, for her patience and understanding during tedious and trying times. Without her support, both moral and physical, and words of encouragement when they were most needed from my children, Marson, Caroline, and Sheryl, this project could never have been accomplished. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................. LIST OF APPENDICES ................ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ........ The Need for Evaluating Criminal Justice Internships .............. Purpose of the Study .......... The Research Problem .......... Significance of the Study ........ Research Design ............. Scope and Limitations .......... Scope ................. Limitations .............. Overview of the Study .......... II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......... History ................. Vocational Motive ............ Internship ............... Experiential Learning .......... Criminal Justice Internships ...... Structure of Criminal Justice Internships Summary ................. III. METHODOLOGY ................ Introduction .................... Sample ....................... Instrumentation ................... Procedures for Data Analysis ............ IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................ Analysis of the Data .......... Section IzDemographic Characteristics and Internship Offerings ............... tooooooowcnmmco Characteristics of Respondents ........... 27 Characteristics of the Institutions Represented by the Respondents ................ 29 Types of Internships Offered ............ 37 Types of Internships Offered by State Geographical Areas ....................... 37 Types of Internships Offered by State Regional Areas. 45 Types of Internships Offered by Leveltrflnstruction . 45 Types of Experiential Learning by Status of Institution .................... 46 Section II: Supervision and Operational Issues and Concerns ...................... 48 Characteristics of Internship Supervision by State Geographic Location ............. 49 Characteristics of Internship Supervision by State Regional Areas .................. 54 Characteristics of Internship Supervision by Academic Level .................. 57 Characteristics of Internship Supervision by Status Levels of Institution ............... 57 Operational Issues and Concerns of Criminal Justice Internship Programs ................ 63 Section III: Major Concerns .............. 87 Section IV: Development of Normative Model for Criminal Justice Internship Programs ........ 88 V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 9l Findings and Conclusions ............... 92 Discussion and Implications .............. 94 Recommendations for Further Research ......... 97 APPENDICES .......................... .. 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 160 Table #OON TO. IT. 12. l3. I4. 15. LIST OF TABLES Academic Rank of Respondents ............... Age of Respondents .................... Level of Institution ................... Internal Institutional Student Enrollment and Program Distributions ...................... Chi-square Tests on Level of Institution by State of Institution Surveyed .................. Chi-square Tests on Status of Institutions by Level of Institution ....................... Chi-square Tests on Primary Curriculum Emphasis by Level of Institution .................. Chi-square Tests of Internship Offers Cross-cultural Experience by State of Institution Surveyed ....... Chi-square Tests of Internship Offers Work Experience or C00perative Education by State Geographic Areas ..... Chi-square Tests of Internship Offers Field Research by State of Institution Surveyed .............. Chi-square Tests of Work Experience (Cooperative Education) Internships Offered by Level of Institution Chi-square Tests of Students Evaluated by Journals by State of Institution Surveyed .............. Chi-square Tests of Grading Format by State of Institution Surveyed ........................ Chi-square Tests of Student Evaluation in Internship Program by State Regional Levels ............ Chi-square Tests of Internship Approval by Institutional Status ......................... vi 30 32 34 35 39 4O 41 47 50 52 55 59 Table l6. I7. 18. I9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Chi-square Tests of Students Evaluated by Visitations by Status of Institution ................ Chi-square Tests of Students Evaluated by Journals by Status of Institution .................. Chi-square Tests of Internship Selection Based on College Grade Point Average by State of Institution Surveyed Chi-square Tests of Terms Internships Are Offered by State of Institution Surveyed .............. Chi-square Tests of Ordinary Duration of Internship by State of Institution .................. Chi-square Tests of the Time Commitment of Internship Experience by State of Institution Surveyed ....... Chi-square Tests of Funds Available to Students for Field Study by State of Institution Surveyed ...... Chi-square Tests of Limited Placement Sites by State of Institution Surveyed ................. Chi-square Tests of On-Campus Communication Problems by Geographical Location of Institution .......... Chi-square Tests of Requirement of Internship Program by Level of Institution ................. Chi-square Tests of Internship Selection Based on College Grade Point Average by Level of Institution ....... Chi-square Tests of the Time Commitment of the Internship Experience by the Level of Institution . . . . Chi-square Tests of Faculty Attitudes Toward the Internship Program by Level of Institution ....... vii Page 62 65 67 68 70 72 73 79 BI 83 85 86 Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND QUESTIONNAIRE WITH INTERNSHIP COORDINATORS' RESPONSES ................ B. TYPES OF C. TYPES OF D. TYPES OF E. TYPES OF F. ACADEMIC G. ACADEMIC H. ACADEMIC I. ACADEMIC J. CRIMINAL CONCERNS BY STATE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS INTERNSHIPS INTERNSHIPS INTERNSHIPS INTERNSHIPS SUPERVISION SUPERVISION SUPERVISION SUPERVISION OFFERED BY STATE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OFFERED BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS OFFERED BY INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS OFFERED BY STATUS OF INSTITUTION . . LEVELS BY STATE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS . . LEVELS BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS . . . LEVELS BY INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS . . . LEVELS BY STATUS OF INSTITUTION JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL K. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS L. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY LEVEL OF INSTITUTION M. CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY STATUS OF INSTITUTION ........... viii Page 100 112 115 118 121 124 128 132 136 155 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Brown and Thornton (1963) judged that work experiences and internships added importance as a means of learning at the level of higher education. Work experiences provided opportunities to gain skills and insight that could not be found by simply studying books, listening to lectures, or working in laboratories. Additionally, work experiences fill a directed level of teaching when supervised by college personnel (p. 162). In 1906 at the University of Cincinnati a cooperative work- and-study program under the direction of Herman Schneider was inaugu- rated as a form of field study. The plan called for students to Spend alternate periods of study with the College of Engineering and at work on related jobs. They were expected to learn through apprenticeships with industry parallel extensions related to laboratory studies at the school, according to a study by Henderson (1970). This early approach to field study reflected the belief that there is value in the inter- weaving of theory and practice and/or that some experiences and learn- ing can best be achieved outside of the traditional classroom. The general philosophy of Justin Morrill College regarding field study programs placed the central emphasis on personal development and skill acquisition. In a 1965 student handout, four areas of personal development and four areas of skill were described as requirements the students must consciously strive toward. The four areas of personal development included the following: self-reliance culture or environmental sensitivity self-understanding commitments to persons and relationships wa—l The four skill areas included the following: information source network development decision making under conditions of stress interpersonal communication including the interpretation of nonverbal cues the combined use of observation, recording and writing skills h (”Nd The literature of the 19605 and 19705, as reflected in the Justin Morrill College student handout, the Council for the Advance- ment of Experiential Learning (CAEL), and other research, indicates a significant attempt to improve the goals and quality of experiential learning. Duley and Gordon (1977) identified 11 types of programs involving experiential learning. The 11 types of programs include the following: Cross-Cultural Experience Work Experience (C00perative Education) Preprofessional Training Institutional Analysis Service-Learning Internship Social/Political Action Personal Growth and Development Field Research Career Exploration Academic Discipline/Career Integration Career and Occupational Development HODCDNOSU'I-thd dd Davis, Duley, and Alexander (1977) followed with "Field Experi- ence," wherein they identified eight steps in designing a field study program that reflects the following considerations: Identify your goals and student goals State agreed-upon goals in the form of instructional objectives Arrange field placement Prepare students Monitor placement Place students Assess student learning Evaluate the program (”Nam-900 N-—‘ Evaluation is presently the critical area of research involv- ing internships, practicums, experiential learning, field experiences, student experiences, work experiences, etc. Quinn (1972), Duley (1977, 1978), Sherman (1978), Greene (1979), and others have conducted studies or expressed the need to evaluate internships with regard to philosophy, goals, objectives, quality, Quantity, etc., and noted a specific need for data with regard to the supervisory impact on pro- gramming and/or programs. The Need for Evaluating Criminal Justice Internships The growing emphasis on vocational goals for higher education has spurred renewed interest in making work experience a part of higher education. Cooperative education programs at Antioch College, Northeastern University, and other institutions have exposed many students to police work, and a number of them have followed up that brief contact with a career in policy work. Campus police forces at several of the larger universities have also given college students in a number of fields the opportu- nity to sample what police work is like. And since August Vollmer's tenure as police chief of Berkeley, some college stu- dents have also worked as sworn police officers in their college towns (Sherman, 1978, p. 161). It is generally thought that for those students who participate in an internship program it allows them to make an intelligent choice of careers. Students who participate as cadets or interns may experi- ence less reality shock at discovering the true nature of the work world. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 recog- nized the benefits of preservice work experience by authorizing a program of criminal justice internships. Sherman (1978) noted that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) defined the eli- gibility requirements for those internships narrowly and for those students enrolled in a program offering a narrow training curriculum, the internship probably does little to enrich their education. Greene (1979) concluded that against the backdrOp of concern for the "quality" of police education, internship programs have received little consideration beyond a generalized assumption that they are worthwhile. However, on the positive side, internship programs have the potential to affect their sponsoring curricula as much as they are affected by them. Internship programs can provide essential linkages to the criminal justice curriculum by (1) providing a mechanism which mediates between teaching, research, and service interests and their relationships to the curriculum; (2) providing a method for verifying the cohesiveness of the curriculum by obtaining feedback as to the appropriateness of educational delivery and its utility for constitu- ency groups, and (3) providing meaningful occupational grounding through the reinforcement of concepts and techniques acquired from classroom-based instruction. Each of these links highlights the various functions which internship programs can provide for the opera- tion of criminal justice educational programs. Internship programs can begin to provide a "quality control" connection between student, professional, and academic expectations by providing input and feedback into curriculum issues from at least two major sources: (1) the professional community and (2) students. However, without academic supervision the "quality" of experience, in educational terms, is speculative. Academic supervision, there- fore, strikes at the core of the control issue and closer supervision is required. Purpose of the Study The purposes of this study are as follows: (1) to collect detailed and factual information which will enable the researcher to assess the 1evel(s) of academic supervision of criminal justice internship programs in selected Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions within the states of California, Florida, and Michigan, respectively; (2) to secure relevant viewpoints and information from internship coordinators concerning specific issues and operational concerns involved in designing and implementing a criminal justice internship program; (3) to analyze the extent of agreement or disagree- ment on the issues and concerns examined; and (4) to develop from the data collected a set of normative statements concerning the desirable characteristics of present criminal justice internship programs. The Research Problem There are many issues and concerns which must be considered regarding academic supervision of criminal justice internship programs. Greene (1979) identified a number of factors that are crucial to the development of a "quality" academic supervised criminal justice internship program. They include: 1. Intensive supervision of program by faculty member(s) 2. Cost to institution 3. Certification of field supervisors in the placement setting (includes training) 4. Internal review sessions conducted by the academic staff 5. Feedback aiding curriculum integration Other issues include: 1. Liability 2. Compensation (agency/participants) 3. Continuity 4. Minimum requirements for program participant(s) 5. Contracts or contractual agreements with institution (agency/participants) While these factors vary in scope and some are more complex than others, they do, nevertheless, provide a useful starting point for identifying significant issues affecting criminal justice internship programs presently in existence. These issues will provide the broad focus for the research in this study. The research_problem will be an attempt to secure factual data regarding "quality! internship pro- gramming in the criminalgjustice field as related to the strength of academic supervision. Significance of the Study The significance of the study is related to the following points: It will (1) provide specific information concerning academic super- vision of criminal justice internship programs as they presently exist in the states of California, Florida, and Michigan; (2) enable policy makers from various institutions to appraise their own positions with regard to programmatic and organizational issues of the various institutions; (3) allow greater understanding of the program efforts of other institutions; (4) consolidate supervisory data of a "quality" nature; and (5) provide guidance to other institutions that may be developing or considering the development of criminal justice intern- ship programs. Research Design_ In order to obtain the information needed, two major phases of research will be undertaken by the researcher. Phase One will include the development of a questionnaire to determine the present state of the art within the institutions offering criminal justice internship programs in California, Florida, and Michigan. Selection of the institutions will be made using the Criminal Justice Education Direc- tory 1978-80, as published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This publication lists criminal justice "intern programs available" in 47 California institutions, 15 Florida institutions, and 17 Michigan institutions for a total of 79 institutions within the three aforementioned states to be surveyed. A cover letter accompanying the questionnaire will be sent to each of the internship coordinators informing them of the purpose of the study and requesting their cooperation in this research effort. Additional data will also be requested concerning the availability of internship outlines, syllabi, handouts, rating forms, etc., and those documents obtained will be summarized and available for future reference. The data-analysis format for Phase One will be reported in descriptive and summary statiStical text with accompanying narrative. Phase Two will consist of the researcher physically contacting at least two institutions in each state, either in person or by telephone, and conducting an in-depth interview designed to clarify specific issues and concerns surrounding the existing model and aca— demic supervision regarding their criminal justice internship program. The selection of the institutions, and alternate institutions, to be interviewed will be generated by the preliminary Phase One data and a panel of peers, post-internship students, and other interested indi- viduals who will have the Opportunity to review available Phase One data. Data analysis of the interviews in Phase Two will be reported in descriptive and summary statistical text with accompanying narrative. Scope and Limitations Scope The delimitation of this study will include those institutions in California, Florida, and Michigan that have criminal justice intern programs as described in the Criminal Justice Education Directory 1978-80, a minimum of two follow-up interviews from each of the three aforementioned states, and other relevant institutional data that may be generated by the research effort. Limitations The study is limited to the degree which the significant issues that are raised in the literature on the subject of academic super- vision in criminal justice internship programs have been identified. The study is also limited by the reliability of the data collected by the questionnaire method in Phase One and the reliability of the data collected through the interview method described in Phase Two. Overview of the Study The study will be reported in five chapters. Chapter I will include the introduction, the significance of the study, the research problem, the research design, definitions of terms, scope and limita- tions of the study, and an overview of the study. Chapter II will include a review of the literature related to the study and also a review of the evolution of criminal justice internship programs. Chapter III will describe the study design and procedures employed in carrying out the study. Chapter IV will contain a summary and analysis of the data col- lected from the questionnaire and internship data formats, student handouts, outlines, etc., returned by the institutions. Chapter IV will also contain a summary and analysis of the data collected from the interviews. Chapter V will contain a summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE History It was not until after the publication of Rousseau's epoch- making treatise of education, Emile, in 1762, that we find the true beginning of modern teaching methods (Noble, 1938, p. 197). Rousseau believed that all education should be conducted according to the maturing instincts and interests of the child, not forced upon them. Johann Pestalozzi had studied Rousseau and he urged that children be taught spinning, weaving, and other gainful activities at the same time that they were learning to read and count, thus associating industry with education (Noble, 1938, p. 200). This new form of instruction became known as the "object method" of sense perception. Emanuel Fellenberg, a pupil of Pestalozzi, expanded this idea of industrial education to include agricultural and manual labor schools. Visitors from Germany, England, and America visited various Pestalozzi and Fellenberg experimental schools and carried their information back to their respective communities and institutions. William Maclure, in 1806, hired Joseph Neef, one of Pestalozzi's assistants, "to come to Philadelphia for the purpose of establishing schools embodying the principles" (Noble, 1938, p. 201). During the period Neef was in Philadelphia, many of the Operational periodicals published extensive accounts involving the "object method." The. 10 11 American Journal of Education (1826-1831), The Common School Journal (1838-1848), and the American Journal of Education (1855-1881) were just a few that published articles on the subject from time to time. Manual labor schools soon began to appear on the American scene, thus affording an Opportunity for students to spend a part of their time in manual labor operating farms or shops. It was thought to be beneficial for all students; "for those young men who were unable to pay their own school or college expenses, it was to furnish the means for self-help; for those who were able to pay, it was to provide healthful exercise" (Noble, 1938, p. 205). Edward H. Sheldon, superintendent of schools in Oswego, New York, became interested in the Pestalozzi type of instruction and directed his teachers at Oswego to experiment with the method. Noble (1938) discussed Sheldon's enthusiasm over the successful results of the trials, such that Sheldon established a teachers' training school and sent to England for an instructor familiar with the practices then being popu- larized in that country by Dr. Charles Mayo. Miss Margaret E. M. Jones came over in response to Sheldon's request and began demonstrations in classroom procedure that soon attracted wide attention. Other normal schools in New York, New Jersey, and Michigan learned of the new method from Sheldon's training school. Syracuse, Chicago, Toledo, Cincinnati, San Francisco, and numerous smaller places took steps toward introducing it. Soon the little town in New York State became a center from which emanated the latest developments in Pestalozzian proce- dure, and teachers flocked to Oswego from many states to inform themselves concerning this newest teaching "fad." The enthu- siastic quest became known as the Oswego movement (p. 209). Prior to 1897, a more "energizing principle" of education was being sought to replace the object method, and, about 1914, the voca- tional motive began the ascendancy in the manual training schools. 12 Vocational Motive The vocational motive finds the guidance function dominant and in addition to course work offers "exploratory" or "try-out" courses for the benefit of students who expect to go directly into industry from school. The student is led to discover his vocational prefer- ence by sampling a number of such short courses. Schools began providing evening classes and job placement was further developed under the vocational motive. Nonvocational, pre- vocational, and vocational are areas that began to be delimited, and at the University of Cincinnati in 1906, Herman Schneider inaugurated a form of field study via a COOperative work-and-study program (Henderson, 1970, p. 18). Davies (1962), Quinn (1972), Houtz (1970), Wheaton (1950), and Newall (1952) provide historical and developmental origin data on the internship as it is known today, beginning with the University of Cincinnati program in 1906. Internship Davies (1962) published a significant study on internships in educational administration and dealt in depth with the definitional difficulties of what constitutes an internship. He noted that the term "internship" is borrowed directly from the medical profession (p. 1). The Encyclopedia Britannica bears this point out and notes that this hospital experience required of every medical doctor is at or near the end of his college preparation program, prior to his being licensed to practice medicine. Field experience under the guidance of veteran practitioners before a medical doctor is allowed 13 to practice on his own becomes mandatory and an integral part of his professional preparation. In order to constitute a bona fide internship in educational administration, Davies (1962) states that the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. Two The student's field experience which is labeled "intern- ship" is an integral part of his professional education which comes after or near the completion of his formal program of professional preparation. His internship involves a considerable block of time--at least one semester on a full-time basis or the equivalent. The student must be expected to carry real and continuous responsibilities in his field situation under the competent supervision of a practicing administrator. The board of education or board of trustees of the institu- tion in which he is interning supports the program at the policy level. The professional school in which he is enrolled is joint sponsor Of his program along with the school system or institution. The professional school also assists in his supervision. additional conditions are highly desirable: The state department of education recognizes and endorses the internship program for the state as a whole. The national and state associates of educational adminis- trators are on record as endorsing--and even requiring-- the internship as part of each practitioner's preparation and as part of his requirement for membership in the respec- tive associations (PP. 1-2). Davies (1962) directs the reader not to confuse internship with apprenticeship even though there may be a number of similarities. He notes that "internship emphasizes vigorous learning experiences in the field near the end of a formal preparation program" (p. 4). The apprenticeship emphasizes career guidance and exploration wherein the apprentice's role is primarily observational. 14 Davies (1962) further presents charts on internships in 17 training institutions from about 1940 to 1950 that were available to school administrators. He also discusses Wheaton's research of 152 professional schools surveyed, reporting that: Seventeen were operating internship programs. Seven were Operating modified programs. Five were actively considering the idea of organizing in the near future. Eleven stated that they were interested generally but were taking no active steps. None of the others reported any interest (p. 18). 45 («ON—4 a o o 0 Ten pioneers in the educational internship field are also listed by Davies (1962), and they include the following: 1. Clarence A. Newell 2. William A. Yeager 3. Walter A. Anderson 4. E. C. Bolmeier 5. Burvil H. Glenn 6. O. H. Aurand 7. E. Edmund Reutter 8. Gordon A. Wheaton 9. Harvey M. Krenzberg 10. Ernest O. Melby Davies (1962) views the internship program as focusing on learn- ing for the intern--"which is much more easy to say than to achieve" (p. 32). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines learning as any rela- tively permanent change in behavior resulting from past experience. Experiential Learning The term "field experience" during the 19605 was being used to mean an off-campus learning activity, generally for credit, in which a student accepts a large share of the responsibility for his own learning in a situation carefully selected to facilitate learning. The broader term "experiential learning" is presently used quite 15 frequently rather than the term "field experience" to describe such activities (Davis, Duley, & Alexander, 1977, p. l). The terms "internship," "field experience," "experiential learn- ing," and "practicum" will be used interchangeably throughout this research effort, as the data warrant. The reader is directed to this problem because consensus at the practical level and the written material reflect this confusion within the field. This researcher prefers the term "experiential learning" and is pleased to note that more than 300 institutions of higher education are active members of Cooperative Assessment of Experiential Learning (CAEL), another initial Carnegie Corporation supported project (CAEL, 1979, p. l). The 11 types of experiential learning programs and the primary purposes served by each are reflected in the CAEL faculty handbook, College Sponsored Experiential Learning (Duley & Gordon, 1977) and are discussed as follows: Cross-Cultural Experience. A student involves himself or herself in another culture or subculture of his or her own society in a deep and significant way, either as a temporary member of a family, a worker in that society, or as a volunteer in a social agency, with the intention, as a participant observer, of learning as much as possible about that culture and his or her own. Work Experience (Cooperative Education). The National Commis- sion for COOperative Education has defined cooperative educa- tion as "that education plan which integrates classroom experience and practical work experience in industrial, business, government, or service-type work situations in the community. The work experiences constitute a regular and essential element in the educative process and some minimum amount of work experi- ence and minimum standard of successful performance on the job are included in the requirements of the institution for a dggree" (The National Commission for Cooperative Education, Preprofessional Training. A student serves in assigned respon- sibilities under the supervision of a professional in the field 16 of education, medicine, law, social work, nursing, or ministry, putting the theory learned into practice, gaining skills in the profession, and being evaluated by his or her supervisor. Institutional Analysis. "A student has a temporary period of supervised work that provides Opportunities to develop skills, to test abilities and career interests, and to systematically examine institutional cultures in light of the central theo- retical notions in a chosen academic field Of study" (Zauderer, 1973, p. 1 . Service-Learning Internship. "Service-Learning has been defined as: the integration of the accomplishment of a task which meets human need with conscious educational growth. A service-learning internship is designed to provide students responsibility to meet a public need and a significant learning experience within a public or private institution for a specified period of time, usually 10 to 15 weeks" (Sigmon, 1972, p. 2). Social/Political Action. A student secures a placement, under faculty sponsorship, which provides an opportunity to be directly engaged in working for social change either through community organizing, political activity, research/action proj- ects, or work with organizations seeking to bring about changes in the social order. A learning contract is usually made with a faculty sponsor to be fulfilled by the student in this type of experience. Personal Growth and Development. A student undertakes a program in an off-campus setting that is designed to further his or her personal growth and development, such as the wilderness survival programs of the Outward Bound Schools, an apprenticeship to an artist or a craftsperson, residence in a house of a religious order for the development of his or her Spiritual life, or par- ticipation in an established group psychological or human rela- tions program. Field Research. A student undertakes an independent or group research project in the field under the supervision of a faculty member, applying the concepts and methods of an academic disci- pline such as geology, archeology, geography, or sociology. Career Exploration. A student secures a supervised placement in business, government, industry, a service organization, or a profession in order to perform a useful service, to analyze the career possibilities of that placement, and to develop employment- related skills. The educational institution provides the means of structured reflection, analysis, and self-evaluation; the agency supervisor provides an evaluation of the student's work and career potential. Academic Discipline/Career Integration. "A student is employed in a business, government, industry, service organization, or profession prior to entry into the educational institution. The 17 faculty members and the educational institution provide the means of structured analysis and evaluation based on the academic dis- cipline involved, integrating theory and practice and heighten- ing the student's awareness and understanding of the world and his/her career in a conscious systematic fashion" (Currier, 1975, p. 5). Career or Occupational Development. A student is assisted in finding a series of two or more placements which are chosen, in consultation with an advisor, to provide the Opportunity for advancement in skills and experience related to a specific career. This is particularly useful in technological programs when classroom and on-the-job learning are closely integrated. Experiential learning programs are comonl y referred to as internships when reviewing the criminal justice literature. Criminal Justice Internships In 1908, August Vollmer, the Town Marshall of Berkeley, Cali- fornia, began a police training program which later developed into the Berkeley Police School. Northwestern University in 1909 held the First National Conference on Criminal Law and Criminology, where edu- cators and practitioners from every branch of the American Criminal Justice System attended. This conference resulted in the establish- ment of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology and the early develOpment of police courses as well as texts. Vocational skills for the field-level police officer were started in Detroit at a Police Academy in 1911, and seven years later in 1918 the New York City Police Academy began to use Columbia University as a resource for its program. Inservice courses for police officers were offered through the extension division of the University of Wisconsin in 1927. In 1931 the Wickersham Crime Commission recommended improvements upon higher education for police: Universities should compete with 18 each other in training men to be the most efficient police leaders possible, university training courses should provide education on the social aspect of police work, and state supported and controlled schools for police should be developed. The first Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in a law enforce- ment field was offered by Michigan State University under its new Department of Police Administration in 1935. The Michigan State degree was awarded after completion of a five-year program, including an lB-month field internship. Upon graduation, students had the Opportunity of working for the state police at the salary level of a third-year officer. In 1937, California, Colorado, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin made use of fed- eral vocational education funds for police training. The Society for the Advancement of Criminology in 1949 conducted a survey of every post-secondary institution in the United States to find out how many schools were offering programs in the criminology field. Only 20 schools, of 325 responding, met the survey requirement of offering at least a two-year major in the field of criminology. By 1957, only 56 institutions in 19 states were offering degrees in the area of criminal justice. In 1968, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created to establish programs of educational assistance that would improve law enforcement (Kobetz, 1978, pp. 2-4). According to Farmer (1978), there are 328 cooperative education internship programs in higher education institutions for the police 19 and criminal justice today, which represents approximately 40 percent of all police college and university programs. This figure also rep- resents a rather dramatic rate of growth for internship experiences, up some 900 percent from 10 years ago (p. 452). Structure of Criminal Justice Internships Curriculum design of criminal justice internships and their management denotes a great deal of consensus on a number of issues. Recent studies (Tenney, 1971; Schrink & Grosskopf, 1978; Greene, 1979) have shown that careful agency selection on the part of the institution may have a great deal to do with the individual and agency perception of success with regard to the program. Supervision is a second factor that general agreement appears to center upon, includ- ing field work being conducted reasonably close to the institution. Time to spend during the entire internship process, including agency and institutional supervision, appears to be a determinant in a suc- cessful experience for all parties involved. Schrink and GrosskOpf (1978) outline the parameters of a suc- cessful internship in the following manner: Stated purpose of internship Understand benefits to all involved Respect placement agency needs Essential that agency has a supervisor Knowledge of number of interns that can be placed at any given location Type of student Duration of internship Written reports made available to all parties Liability insurance 10. Waiver ll. Prescreening of participants 12. Final selection process 13. Orientation of all parties \OCDNOS m-DMN-J o o o o o o o o o 20 Knowledge of student activities by all participants Regular group meetings Conferences Agency responsibilities Financing understandings and agreements Grading Termination or suspension problems (pp. 38, 40, 42). According to Houtz (1970), the framework in which an internship could be structured and yet allow for individual interests and needs includes: 1. 2. Looowcnm-bw The internship should be taken concurrently with content courses except for the first term or semester. The internship should include a minimum of two specialized areas with the intern having an opportunity to utilize the last term or its equivalent as an "assistant dean." The internship should be a minimum of five hours a week for a specified number of weeks. Regular hours should be assigned for internship activities. The internship should include the usual activities of the profession. Regular arrangements should be made to give academic credit for the internship in the student personnel curriculum. The internship should be planned by the faculty director and the supervisor of the specialized area. Evaluation of the intern should be submitted by the super- visor of the intern to the faculty member responsible. The internship should be supervised by interested and com- petent professional personnel (p. 47). Even though Schrink and GrosskOpf (1978) wrote about criminal justice internships and Houtz (1970) wrote about internships in stu- dent personnel programs, the similarities between their recommenda- tions cannot be avoided. Agreement on these areas, it is suggested, will give the internship program the successful impetus necessary to serve all parties concerned. Disagreement and difficulty with any one, group, or allof these areas will weaken even the best program and may even result in the loss of the internship program. 21 Summary Experiential learning has been a slow, laborious developmental process for education in general and painfully slower for criminal justice education in particular. Criminal justice education programs involving field internships were never a reality until Michigan State University offered an l8-month program in 1935. The Kobetz (1978) material gave us our first comprehensive look at where criminal jus- tice internship programs exist presently, but Farmer (1978) stated that "a review of literature describing internship programs in law enforcement higher education yields few results" (p. 1). However, Greene (1979), Farmer (1978), and others have expressed many of the concerns and problems that exist within our experiential learning efforts in many of today's higher education institutions. The remain- der of this research will attempt to identify and discuss the state of the art within our criminal justice experiential learning efforts. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction Since 1967, when it became necessary for this researcher to select a location for the then-required practicum offered by the School of Police Administration and Public Safety at Michigan State University, an expressed interest in the develOpment and function of criminal justice internship programs surfaced. As a result, he was privileged to have spent his internship activities in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and England studying criminal justice systems in the different countries visited. Interim years have found the writer engaged in developing foreign comparative methodological exchange pro- grams for other students at institutions of higher education. These interests and activities resulted in a need to better understand criminal justice internship efforts throughout the United States. A review of the literature was undertaken and a proposal developed to research and develop criteria for conducting internship experiences for different types and levels of criminal justice programs. The proposal was presented to a Doctoral Committee consisting of Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Chairman; Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, Dr. Richard Featherstone; and Mr. Ralph Turner for their comments, suggestions, and recommendations. The proposal was accepted with minor revisions. 22 23 Sample The sample for the present study was selected from the Kobetz (1978) Criminal Justice Education Directory 1978-1980 and delimited to include primarily those institutions in California, Florida, and Michigan that indicated they have criminal justice intern programs. This publication listed criminal justice "intern programs available" in 47 California institutions, 15 Florida institutions, and 17 Michi— gan institutions reflecting a total of 79 institutions to be surveyed. An additional 24 institutions were selected from 20 other states for comparative purposes. California, Florida, and Michigan were selected for the study because they appeared to cover the liberal active West, elements of the deep South, and the conservative, industrialized-type states, respectively. The “Other" states category was randomly selected later as a control group for comparative purposes. One hundred and three institutions were surveyed, and a total of 69 responded between November 1979 and February 1980. The respon- dents included 29 California institutions, 13 Florida institutions, 12 Michigan institutions, and 15 institutions from 24 other states surveyed. This represents a 67 percent return rate of all institu- tions surveyed. Instrumentation An initial questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed for use in acquiring data that would allow the researcher to determine the present state of the art within those institutions Offering criminal justice internship programs in California, Florida, and Michigan, 24 respectively. The questionnaire consisted of 32 responses and was designed to elicit information on the status of the institution (public or private; urban, suburban, or rural; two year, four year, other), current enrollment in the institution and the criminal jus- tice program, criminal justice program emphasis, types of internship programs offered, availability of internship program, internship program selection criteria, when internship offered, duration of internship, levels of student commitment, objectives of internship, supervision 1evel(s), internship program evaluation 1evel(s), place— ment issues or problems, and miscellaneous other issue or problem concerns. The initial questionnaire was developed and approved by the researcher's committee and distributed to 103 institutions indicating they had criminal justice internship programs. A 49 percent return was generated from the first mailing of the questionnaire, and a second follow-up letter requesting the return of the questionnaire sent out earlier succeeded in generating the present 67 percent response rate. Procedures for Data Analysis After examining the results and determining the frequencies generated by the questionnaire, it was decided the majority of the responses reflected nonparametric statistical levels of measurement, and the results were then analyzed by the statistical procedures developed for the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Batch System for OS/360, Version H, Release 8.0, October 15, 1979. 25 The .05 level of significance was established by the researcher as the most appropriate level of significance in reporting the critical data. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (Siegel, 1956) was consulted for statistical procedures involving independent samples generated by the questionnaires and cross-tabulations when employing Chi-square tests, as reported in Chapter IV, Results and Discussion. The data which are reported in Chapter IV represent the question- naire (Appendix A) responses and reflect Phase One of the proposal and research design. Phase Two of the research design (proposed initially) was not undertaken or completed because the panel speci— fied by the writer, in the original proposal, decided that the infor- mation gathered as a result of the additional interviews would not substantially increase the value of the project. The varying prac- tices reported by the respondents regarding criminal justice experi- ential learning programs at their respective institutions did not lend themselves to modeling as originally proposed, since the majority of the institutions Operate criminal justice internship programs designed specifically for their needs, resources, and participating students. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis of the Data The purpose of this study was to: (l) collect detailed and fac- tual information that will enable the researcher to assess the 1evel(s) of academic supervision of criminal justice internship programs in selected Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions within the states of California, Florida, and Michigan, respectively; (2) secure relevant viewpoints and information from internship coor- dinators concerning specific issues and operational concerns involved in designing and implementing a criminal justice internship program; (3) analyze the extent of agreement or disagreement on the issues and concerns examined; and (4) develop from the data collected a set of normative statements concerning the desirable characteristics of present criminal justice internship programs. In order to accomplish these ends, four specific research questions were posed and relevant data for each collected. However, prior to discussing data relevant to these specific questions, the investigator feels that descriptive data related to the characteristics of the educators sampled should be presented. 26 27 Section I: Demographic Characteristics and Internship Offerings Characteristics of Respondents The data presented in this section were obtained from an analy- sis of internship coordinator responses to respondent characteristic items included in the questionnaire (Appendix A). The 69 internship coordinators responding to the survey repre- sented 29 from California, 13 from Florida, 12 from Michigan, and 15 from other institutions of higher education throughout the United States that specifically indicated in Kobetz (1978) they offered a criminal justice internship program to their students. The distribu- tion of respondents, by their academic rank, is presented in Table 1. Table 1: Academic Rank of Respondents Rank Number Percentage of Total Respondents Professor 16 23.2 Associate Professor 11 15.9 Assistant Professor 17 24.6 Instructor 25 36.2 Column total 69 100.0 Male respondents constituted 92.8 percent and female reSpondents 7.2 percent of the sample, respectively. Blacks made up 11.6 percent, whites 79.7 percent, Spanish 5.8 percent, and others 2.8 percent of the sample. 28 The ages of the respondents are presented in Table 2, and it is interesting to note the broad variation in reported ages. As seen in Table 2, 8.7 percent of the respondents were under 30 years of age, 37.7 percent were between 30 and 40 years of age, 24.6 percent between 41 and 50 years of age, 18.8 percent between 51 and 65 years of age, with 10.1 percent failing to report their age. This indicates a pos— sible necessity of knowing the ages of the seven nonreporting respon- dents for clarification purposes if age is to be used as a variable in Chi-square tests. All levels of education from the Bachelors Degree up were represented in our current sample, with 6 (8.7%) at the Bachelors level, 33 at the Masters (47.8%), 28 Doctorate (40.6%), and 2 Juris Doctorate (2.9%). Table 2: Age of Respondents Percentage of Total Age Number Respondents Under 30 6 8.7 30-40 26 37.7 41-50 17 24.6 51-65 13 18.8 Age not reported 7 10.1 Column total 69 100.0 As can be seen from these data, the individuals involved in the administration of criminal justice internship programs represented a broad spectrum of educational backgrounds and diverse individual characteristics. Considering the numerous disciplines that are 29 represented in criminal justice education along with the complex nature of the content of the problems being studied, these broad individual data responses may influence the characteristics of the institutions represented by the respective individual respondents. Characteristics of the Institutions Represented by the Respondents 0f the 69 internship coordinators responding to the questionnaire, 54 came from the public sector (78.3%) and 15 from the private sector (21.7%) institutions of higher education. Of the institutions being studied, 39 (56.5%) were located in an urban area, 13 (18.8%) in a suburban area, and 17 (24.6%) in a rural location. The urban setting was defined by the institution being within the city limits of a large Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). The suburban institu- tions were those located outside the major city limits proper but still within a SMSA, and a rural institution as being located outside a SMSA altogether. These institutions were further categorized by the level of edu- cation they provided. The distribution of institutions by level of education is presented in Table 3. Table 3: Level of Institution Percentage of Total Level Number Respondents Associate 32 46.4 Baccalaureate 27 39.1 Graduate 10 14.5 Column total 69 100.0 30 In addition, total institutional enrollment, criminal justice program enrollment, and primary curriculum emphasis for each of the institutions surveyed is summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Internal Institutional Student Enrollment and Program Distributions Percentage of Total Number Respondents Total Institutional Enrollment Less than 2,000 students 7 10.1 2,001- 5,000 students 18 26.1 5,00l-l0,000 students 19 27.5 10,001+ students 25 36.2 Column total 69 100.0 Total Criminal Justice Program Enrollment Less than 100 students 13 18.8 100- 500 students 33 47.8 501-1,000 students 14 20.3 1,001+ students 9 13.0 Column total 69 100.0 Primary Curriculum Emphasis of Institution Criminal Justice . 37 53.6 Corrections 1 1.4 Law Enforcement 11 15.9 Criminology 19 27.5 Other 1 1.4 Column total 69 100.0 As noted in the results reported with regard to the characteris- tics of the institutions represented in the present study, there appear 'UD be considerable differences from one program to the next 31 with respect to primary curriculum emphasis, the number of students served as majors, and the overall size of the institutions as defined by student body enrollment. Similar to the results discussed earlier with regard to the char- acteristics of the coordinators, these findings might best be explained again in light of the complex natures of both the criminal justice field and educational programs to serve its needs. With respect to the descriptive data, it was felt some of the data warranted further analysis. In order to accomplish this task, Chi-squares and cross-tabulations were computed for each of the fol- lowing variables: Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate programs with the state of the institution surveyed by means of the proce- dures develOped in the SPSS statistical package for OS/360, Version H, release 8.0, October 15, 1979. The resultsgsm coppauvumcH eo mpmum ma cowuzuwumcH mo Fm>m4 co mummh menacmuwco ”m mpnmh 33 The second analysis done using Chi-square assessed differences in the status (Tf institutions (public and private) by the level of institutions (Associate, Bachelors, and Graduate). This analysis yielded a Chi-square of 12.65813, which was significant at the .05 level. These differences (presented in Table 6) reflect the fact that public institutions of higher learning appear to be more widely involved in the field of criminal justice education than is the case for colleges and universities that are funded privately. It is this writer's contention that the significant gap between the public and private institutions and program offerings will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. This position is based on the continuing difficult economic forces operating in the criminal justice field today. With the dismantling of the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin- istration (LEAA) and similar funding sources which were readily avail- able during the past 10 years to both public and private institutions offering criminal justice programs, and the present inflationary spiral, it appears plausible that the private institutions will find criminal justice educational monies difficult to locate. The last analysis assessing differences with regard to the descriptive variables was a Chi—square analysis of differences in primary curriculum emphasis (criminal justice, corrections, law enforcement, criminology) by level of institution (Associate, Bac- calaureate, Graduate). As noted in Table 7, a Chi-square of 19.76 for six degrees of freedom was found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence. 34 .mpoo.o n oucmovewcmpm ”soummce mo mmwcmmn N guvz upwem.~p u mcmzcmivgu o.oop mo m.¢~ 0. _.mm AN «.me mm .aaou =s=_ou “.2N m_ o.om m ~.oe __ F.m P apa>eaa m.me em o.o~ a m.mm a. m.cm Fm 6.23:; a .m a .m a .m a .m Page» wumaumcw mpmmczmpmuumm wumvuomm< corpspwumcH eo Fm>m4 x3 mcoppapwpmcH mo magnum co mummw mcmzcmuwgu no mpamp 35 .omoo.o u mucmuwmpcmrm “genome; eo mmmcmmc 0 saw: oPoou.mp u agmzamipsu o.oop we ~.m_ a N.mm AN F.~e Nm _aaoa =e=.ou $.5N m_ F.__ F m.mm m _.m~ m e=_=ucLL=u xao_oces_au ~.a_ P_ o.oo o o.oo o e.em __ e=_=u_LL=u Seaeauaoccm 3a; m._ _ o.oo o o.oo o F.m P s=_=ucatzo meocpuaatou e.¢m am m.mm w “.0o m, ¢.¢m __ s=_=acLL=u aueamaa Fa=_scau a .a a .z a .m a .m Peach mumzcmcu mummczmpmuumm mumpoomm< :ovuzuwpmcH we Pm>64 x3 mpmmgasm Eapauvcgsu Agmswca co mmeh mgmscmupgu an anmh 36 This explanation of differences in curriculum emphasis as a function of the level of institution appears to center on those dif- ferences of orientation between the two-year programs and those of the Baccalaureate and Graduate educational institutions. If the titles of the curricula being offered are a valid representation of the programs which they name, it can be assumed that the associate degree programs have a strong emphasis in the technical and skill training areas. In contrast, the titles of the four-year and graduate programs significantly more often represent a less practical and more theoretical approach to the study of crime. This raises a noteworthy question regarding the relationship between educational orientation and the types of internships selected for a given program, which is beyond the scope of the present study. In addition to the practical orientation reflected in the cur- riculum titles of the two-year programs, there may also be a direct response to the demands for certification training by local police and correctional agencies on the part of these same two-year institu- tions. The two-year institution is perhaps in the best position to fulfill these educational needs in that they have been developed to respond to the needs of the communities they serve. Unlike many of the four-year and graduate institutions, the two-year institutions are located in population centers and can provide a maximum variety of programming with a flexibility of scheduling that could not be accomplished in the larger institutions which are not nearly as accessible and flexible in solving practical problems. 37 The data in Table 7 indicate that law enforcement and correc- tional curricula were offered oply_at the associate degree level. While programs labeled as criminal justice and/or criminology were offered at all institutional levels (Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate), the practical application of a corrections and law enforce- ment curriculum only at certain associate-level programs may reflect a practical orientation as discussed earlier. The more theoretical criminal justice and criminology curriculum of study appears at the baccalaureate and graduate levels of criminal justice programming, as noted by the respondents in Table 7. Types of Internships Offered Types of internships offered as a function of (a) the respondent state locations, (b) internal state regional areas, (c) respondent institutional levels, and (d) respondent institutional funding status were analyzed using the same Chi-square technique referred to above. The respondents were asked to clarify their programs in terms of 10 of the categories of experiential learning developed by Daley and Gordon (1977), as previously discussed in Chapter II. Types of Internships Offered by State Geographical Areas The results of these analyses showed that there were signifi- cant differences between state geographical areas on three types of internships, including Cross-cultural Experience, Work Experience (Cooperative Education), and Field Research. The data for these three variables can be found in Tables 8, 9, and 10. 38 Table 8 shows that there was a significant Chi-square (8.82 and 3 of, p_< .05) among the state geographic areas with respect to providing Cross-cultural Experience in their respective criminal justice internship programs. The data indicated that the differences were most pronounced between respondents reporting from California and those reporting from all remaining states surveyed. The schools in California reported using Cross-cultural Experience to a greater degree than their counterparts in other areas of the country. Similarly, the results reported in Table 9 reveal significant differences between the state geographical areas with respect to the use of Work Experience (Cooperative Education) forms of internship. The analysis yielded a Chi-square value of 10.17 for 3 g:, which was significant at the .05 level. Again California differed from the other areas in terms of implementing these types of experiential learning experiences. In addition, Florida was unique in its lack of use of the Work Experience and Cooperative Education internship. In contrast to the results reported for Cross-cultural Experi- ence and Work Experience (Cooperative Education) internships, the data indicated that there was a significant lack of the use of Field Research placements, as noted in Table 10. Comparisons between geo- graphical areas showed that the respondents from Florida indicated in 100 percent of the cases that they did not use Field Research placements, with California responding "No" in 86.2 percent, Michigan in 75.0 percent, and Others 53.3 percent. The Chi-square for these variables equalled 16.68 for 3 gf_and was significant at the .05 level. 39 .Npmo.o u mucmuwmpcmwm "sovmmcm mo mmmcmmu m cup; pmwmm.m u mgmzumuwgu o.ocF mo ~.F~ mp v.5, N_ m.mp m_ o.~e mm _apoa cszpou F.ew mm m.mm ¢_ c.0o. N. m.~m N_ o.mm ON oz m.m_ F_ a.o _ o.o o A.“ _ c.2m m aa> a a. a .m a .m a .m a .m Peace meagao =am.gucz aueaoca accaocc_au coapzuwbm=H co mumpm an mucmwcmaxm Pmc:u_=u-mmoeu memmwo awgmcemucH we meme» memzcmuwgu umxm>czm ”w OFth 4O .Pfipo.o u mucmuwwwcmvm “soummgm mo mmmgmmu m sum: mmnm~.o_ u mgmaomu—zo o.oop mo ~.PN m2 e.h_ NF m.wp m, o.~e aw Paco» asapou m.Fm NN m.mm m n.2e m m.Po m m.mp e oz F.mm Ne N.oo o_ m.mm a m.mm m ~.mm mm ma> a .m a .m a .m a .z a .m _auoc mamgco camcgu.z ae_aopa macaoccpau mwmc< orcgmsmomw mumum x3 cowumusnm m>wpmcmaoou Lo mucmwgmnxm xcoz mgmweo nwzmccmucH ea mama» mcmaam-w;u "a open» 41 .mmpo.o u mucmowewcmwm "genome; co maaammu m gee: mummm.o_ u aaazom-e;u o.oo_ mo R.P~ mp e.ep NF m.w. m. o.~e mm Paco» ass—cu “.me mm m.mm w o.m~ a o.oo_ m_ ~.om mm oz m.o~ e, 2.0e A o.m~ m o.o o m.m_ e mm> & .m a .a a .m a .a a .m Peace masses campeacz auaaopa accaoce_au nmam>cam cowpsupumcfi eo mpmpm an suemwmmm upmwu mememo awcmcgmbcH mo mpmmh memzcmuwnu ”op «Fame 42 The differences between geographical areas noted above with regard to the types of experiential learning again can best be explained in terms of the types of diverse missions found in crimi- nal justice education. As shown, California reported a much higher use of Cross-cultural Experience and Work Experience (COOperative Education) oriented programming when compared to the other geographi- cal areas. In terms of the former, the emphasis on Cross-cultural Experience type internships probably reflects the interest on the part of California educators to meet the needs of its large minority communities. This would be especially true with respect to the Hispanics, who have a strong and unique cultural heritage. This raises the question as to why the Florida and Michigan areas do not give greater emphasis to Cross-cultural learning experi- ences. One possible explanation related to the fact that the main minority groups in these areas are in some ways different from those found in California. While it is true that Florida has had for many years a large Spanish-speaking population, it should be noted that until the past year these people have been an integral part of the communities in which they live. Unlike the Hispanics residing in the West, the individuals comprising the Florida group have a heritage stemming directly from Europe. In addition, many of the Cubans, especially in the Miami area, are from traditionally middle- and upper-class backgrounds and were the merchants and professionals in pre-Castro Cuba. Therefore, even though these peOple do have special needs related to language, their value system is very similar to that found in the larger culture. 43 A few comments should also be made about the other large minority groups, particularly the blacks, in the geographical areas studied. It can be argued that it would be very difficult to program for Cross- cultural Experience internships in that these pe0ple differ from the larger American culture only in very diffuse ways. Unlike the Chicanos, these other groups are a group within a group and their culture is a variation on the dominant cultural theme. Often the lines between One value system and the other are vague, and many times are indis- tinguishable. Other differences that must be accounted for are those reported above with respect to Work Experience or Cooperative Education intern- ship experiences. The findings indicate that California offers these types of placements to a greater extent than the other areas sampled. Several possible explanations can be used for these results. First, it could be argued that because of the large number of city colleges attuned to community needs, as discussed previously, the California schools have a stronger focus in develOping internship programs which reflect the technical and skill aspects of the criminal justice pro- fessions. In contrast, the other programs, even though many are based in urban areas, do not appear to be as technical or pragmatically oriented. The second possible explanation reflects directly upon the defi- nition of the various experiential learning types employed in the present study. As noted earlier, these definitions were taken directly from the CAEL guidelines, one of the accepted voices in the field of cooperative education. Unfortunately, the possibility exists 44 that the results reflect a basic confusion on the part Of the respon- dents with respect to the defined meaning of each of the 10 categories used in this study that CAEL advocates. This would provide a much more logical explanation of the large discrepancy found between the California and Florida respondents in that these educational institu- tions, to a great extent, also issue associate degrees where approp- riate and reflect similar needs. The confusion over definition also seems to be the logical explanation with respect to significant differences found in the assessment of the use of Field Research placements. It is felt that many of the institutions surveyed were in all probability assigning students to agencies which have a primary focus on Field Research tasks. This would be particularly the case with those students who are routinely assigned to the various planning and evaluation units within the criminal justice field. However, it can be argued that often times the work done by such units is viewed more in terms of their service value than with respect to the actual functions which they carry out. Added evidence for this position comes from the results to be discussed in more depth later, on student requirements, which clearly document that many of the internship programs require the students to carry out projects during this part of their educa- tional experiences. In addition to the significant results presented above with respect to differences between state geographical areas and the types of experiential learning programs offered their students, data for the other seven classes of experiential learning can be found in 45 Appendix B. The summary of these data shows that with the excep- tion of the three classes of experiential learning for which signifi- cant differences were found, the state geographical areas are consistent in their develOpment and selection of internship place- ments. Types of Internships Offered py_State Regional Areas In contrast to the data presented on internship placement as a function of state regional areas (urban, suburban, or rural), no sig— nificant differences were found when categories of educational experi- ences were analyzed with respect to those same state regional areas. The data for the 10 classes of experiential learning in terms of urban. suburban, and rural split can be found in Appendix C. These results likely reflect the fact that crime is still over- whelmingly a problem of the big cities, in spite of recent trends showing rapid increases in suburban and rural criminal activity. Because of its concentration within the urban area, by far the greatest number of experiential learning activities are to be found in these settings. Thus, educational programs, no matter where their regional location exists, must concentrate on the urban areas for the major development of their internships in criminal justice. Types of Internships Offered by Level of Instruction Analysis of the data on type of experiential learning as a func- tion of educational level (Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate) of the responding institutions yielded one significant Chi-square 46 (10.33) for 2 Of, which was significant at the .05 level for Work Experience (COOperative Education) types of internships. The findings presented in Table 11 indicate that those programs at the associate level clearly use the work-oriented category of internship to a greater extent than is the case for either the bachelor degree or graduate degree programs. In order to discuss these results, the basic difference and orientation presented elsewhere in this dissertation with respect to educational orientation and philosophy between two-year, four-year, and graduate facilities must be considered. Traditionally, those institutions offering solely an associates level of education have catered strongly to the vocational, technical, and commercial needs found in their immediate surroundings. Therefore, it should not be surprising that these departments would gravitate to work in coopera- tive settings to a significantly greater extent than the four-year and graduate institutions. The latter, by and large, are much more concerned with theoretical and academic pursuits. No significant differences among the three educational levels were found on any other of the experiential learning categories. The results for these types of experiences can be found in Appendix D. Types of Experiential Learning by Status of Institution No significant differences were found between public and private institutions with regard to the types of experiential learning the respondents indicated their respective institutions selected for their students. (The data for this analysis are in Appendix E.) 47 .Nmoo.o n mucmuwevcmwm ”soummce eo mmmcmmv N nu“: pmmmm.o_ u mcmzcmnwgu o.oop mm m.¢F op P.mm um ¢.o¢ mm Pope» can—cu m.Fm mm 0.0m m F.m¢ mp m.NP e oz P.wo Ne o.om m m._m up m.nw mm mm> a .m a .a a .m a .m Payee magnumce mummcsmpmuumm mumwuomm< coepapepmcH co Fm>m4 ma umcmweo mnwcmcgmch Acowumuaum m>wpmcmqoouv wucwwgmnxm x203 mo mumm» menacmnwgo ”PP Open» 48 As noted in the previous discussion, internship placement appears to be more a function of the location of the opportunities than a direct result of the characteristics of the institutions them- selves. Therefore, it is not surprising that both the public and private schools are remarkably similar in this area. Section II: Supervision and Operational Issues and COncerns As noted in Chapter 1, four primary issues were focused upon in the present study. In the interest of organization and clarity, the results pertaining to each one of these topics are presented sepa- rately. This format is necessitated because of the large number of individual analyses required by the type of data collected. There- fore, the specific topics discussed are: (1) collect detailed and factual information that will enable the researcher to assess the 1evel(s) of academic supervision of criminal justice internship pro— grams in selected Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions within the states of California, Florida, and Michigan, respectively; (2) secure relevant viewpoints and information from internship coor- dinators concerning specific issues and operational concerns involved in designing and implementing a criminal justice internship program; (3) analyze the extent of agreement or disagreement on the issues and concerns examined; and (4) develop from the data collected a set of normative statements concerning the desirable characteristics of present criminal justice internship programs. In order to evaluate academic internship supervision, a number of different characteristics, including the individual(s) approving 49 the internship, the individual(s) evaluating the internship, the types of evaluation used, the student grading system, and the agency reSponsible for the supervision were assessed as a function of the individual states, states' internal regional areas, academic level of the institution (Associate, Baccalaureate, or Graduate), and the status (Public or Private) of the institution. These data were analyzed using the same Chi-square techniques discussed previously in the results section. Characteristics of Internship Sgpervision by State Geographic Location Analysis of the data related to supervision of internship programs as a function of the individual responding states by means of Chi-square resulted in only two of these factors being signifi- cant. Significant differences were found with respect to differences between the states surveyed by their use of student journals for evaluation and the institutions' grading format. It was found that there was considerable variability with respect to how the various state institutions employ their use of student journals in the evalua- tion process, with the largest differences being between California and Michigan. The Chi-square for these differences equalled 7.63 for 3 of, which was significant at the .05 level (see Table 12). This finding is of particular interest in that it was the only stu- dent evaluation format on which significant differences were found. The differences found between the states and their use of journals as a means of student evaluation are difficult to explain. 50 .memo.o u mucmupewcmwm ”soummcw eo mmmcmwu m cue: mmomo.~ u mgmscm-_;u o.oo_ mm N.F~ m2 e.e, ~_ m.mp mp o.~e mm _a30p esspou m.m~ mm m.m~ __ o.om o m.me op “.mw om oz N.m~ o_ ~.m~ e o.om o P.mN m m.o_ m ma> a _m a .m a .z a .m R .m Peace memcco camcguez aewao_a aecaoccpau cmzm>c=m cowu=u_umcH eo mbmpm x2 mpmcezoa a5 empmapm>m mpcmczum mo mama» mgmzcmuwcu "NF «paw» 51 Several alternative reasons may be given for these results. First, there may well be some definitional problems as to what constitutes a journal. Therefore, programs which use a broad category of projects could conceivably view the keeping of a daily log in terms of a term project rather than the development of a journal. Second, the process of assigning students responsibility for keeping a journal may not be considered a traditional academic pursuit and therefore would not be valued as a legitimate means of student evaluation. Last, a pos- sibility exists that even though journals are assigned to students they are not considered, in many cases, in the evaluation process and therefore become, in a sense, a “busy work" assignment. The second variable pertaining to internship supervision as a function of state geographic area of which significant differences were noted was related to the type of grading system used to evaluate students. The results presented in Table 13 clearly indicate the large amount of variability across the various types of grades that can be used for the different state geographic areas. As noted in the table, both California and Michigan used the numerical system in the greatest number of cases, while Florida used this system along with the SU format as its primary means of grading. To add to the variability, those schools comprising the other geographical area used alphabetical (ABCD) grading most frequently while relying on the SU format as their second most common way of assigning grades. These differences yielded a Chi-square equalling 28.89 with 18 9:, which was significant at the .05 level. 52 .Nmeo.o u muzauecwemem msozaaac co mamamae N, z».: NONNN.NN u aaazcm-ezu o.oo_ mm m.NN NN m.mp __ m.NN NN _.Ne NN Peace zszpcu m._ N N.N N o.o o o.o o o.o o N.N.P to a N N.m N o.o o o.o o o.o o N.N N N.N._ to oz 0 «.mp oz N.mm m _.m _ m.N . N.o_ N N.N.N.< m.o_ NP N.NN N _.N _ N.NN m o.m N z m N.N m N.N_ N F.N z o.o o _.N N a N N.op N o.o o _.m _ N.N _ N.NN m oz 8 8.4z NN N.N_ N N.No N N.Nz m N.mm mp _.N.m.z N .m N m N _m N .a N .m NaNoc maazpo camezucz aeNLo_a aNcaoaN_au umzmzasm cowuapvumca No mumpm an Hosea; mcwumco we mummh menacmuvcu ”mp mpamh 53 It is quite likely that the differences in grading systems are dictated by general administrative practices of the representative schools from which each program was sampled. In most cases the universities, community colleges, and junior colleges do not allow individual departments the privilege of originating unique grading systems within their own units. In addition, there is a tendency, especially in undergraduate programs, to use grading systems that are easily interpretable by the graduate and professional schools to which their students might apply. Therefore, many of the programs as indicated by the present research would opt for a four-point numerical or alphabetical system. In addition to the variables related to the evaluation of stu- dents presented above, no significant differences were found with respect to the individual approving the internship (V-44), the agency responsible for the evaluation of the internship (V-45), and the use of outside supervision (V-64). These results are summarized in Appendix F. With respect to the individual approving proposed intern- ships, the respondents indicated that generally this responsibility was assigned to either the chairman of the department or a faculty member. In terms of the agent evaluating the student, this respon- sibility in the majority of cases was either shared between the faculty and the agency or the faculty and the student participant. (The results for Variable 55 are presented in Appendix F.) With respect to the origin of supervision, an overwhelming number of respondents indicated that the outside agency has responsibility for supervising the student. These data appear to indicate that with respect to the 54 supervision aspects of internship programming, the responsibility is shared between the educational institution and the agency providing the educational experience. Characteristics of Internship Supervision by State Regional Areas The data for internship supervision as a function of the state regional areas are presented in Appendix G. One significant differ- ence between urban, suburban, and rural areas was found when these results were analyzed by means of Chi-square. The difference found with respect to who is responsible for the student being evaluated in the internship program (V-45) in the various state regional locations (Urban, Suburban, or Rural) was significant at the .05 level with a Chi-square of 18.03 and 10 Of, Perusal of this information summarized in Table 14 shows that with respect to evaluating the internship experience, the urban institutions employ a faculty and agency coor- dinated evaluation effort as the basic formula for evaluating their interns. Suburban and Rural evaluation efforts bring the student into the evaluation process with the faculty and agency established coordinated involvement. This evaluation activity involving directly all parties concerned speaks highly of the effort to coordinate and monitor internship programs within the respective state regional locations of the various institutions. Only a few respondents (8) involving 12.1 percent of the total population surveyed indicated that only faculty members evaluated the participating student interns, and this may reflect a difficulty in coordinating evaluation efforts. 55 .eemo.o u mucmuwwwcmwm ”EOmeLm. “—0 mmwgmw—u o_. .32) 0P¢m0.m_. u mLmzcmlwzu 0.00N 00 N.0N 0N N.0N 0N N.00 Nm N0N00 000N00 N.N N 0.0 0 N.N N 0.0 0 000z N.N N 0.0 N 0.0 0 0.0 0 ”Lama 000 NNNzuaa 0.0m 0N N.NN 0 0.00 N 0.NN N N0000Nm 000 N0000< .NNN000N 0.00 mm N.Nm 0 0.00 0 0.00 0N N0000< 000 NNN000N 0.0 0 0.0 N N.N N N.N N N0000< N.NN N N.NN 0 0.0 0 N.NN 0 NNNzuaa N .m N .0 N .m N .m papa» ngzm cmngznzm cane: mNm>mN chowmmm mumpm an Emcmoga awcmcgmch :N :oNpmapm>m acmuagm No mummh menacmu_;u NeN mpnmh 56 Perusal of the information summarized in Appendix 6 shows that with respect to internship approval (V-44) the faculty and chair- person share primary responsibility for approving the student's internship program. The findings with reSpect to who approves the internship are similar to those previously reported when the aspect of supervision is considered in light of states' geographic locations. When dealing with the specific techniques used in evaluating students, it is interesting to note that the use of written reports by the students appears to be the most consistent procedure employed for evaluative purposes (see Appendix G). All other forms of evalua- tion are used by some of the institutions but not to the degree that is found with the written reports. The one exception is formal test- ing (V-53), which is important in that it is rarely used by the respondents of the present study. With respect to the internship grading format (V-55), no differ- ences were found with respect to the grading system employed as a result of geographical regional status. As was the case with the state comparisons presented earlier, those systems based on a four— point numeric format or its letter-grade equivalent were most preva- lent. Again, in the area of outside agency supervision responsibili- ties (V-64), the results indicate that the agency in which an individual is placed is generally given this task and they respond accordingly. On the basis of these results, it is apparent that urban, sub- urban, and rural differences in the location of an educational insti- tution have little, if any, effect on policies related to supervision 57 of students in criminal justice internships. The important finding in these data and in those presented in the previous section is the apparent willingness on the part of criminal justice educators to share important responsibilities with both the students and the agency providing the internship. Characteristics of Internship Sgpervision by Academic Level The results generated for the characteristics of internship supervision as a function of academic level can be found in Appen- dix H. Again, no significant differences were found between the Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions and between the supervision they provided their students. The same patterns noted in the previous two sections are generally consistent with the data reported in Appendix H. Again, the important findings concern the willingness on the part of the respondents to share supervision and evaluation tasks with both the students and agency personnel. Characteristics of Internship SpperVision by Status Levels of InstitutiOn The results relating to the characteristics of internship super- vision tO the status of the institution are presented in Appendix I. As noted in this Appendix, three of the variables--person(s) approving proposed internship (V-44), Visitations as a part of the evaluation process (V-50), and the use of a journal for evaluation purposes (V-51)--yielded significant Chi-squares. In the latter two cases, because of the assumptions noted in Siegel (1956), the corrected 58 Chi-square procedure was used to interpret the data. No differ- ences between public and private institutions were found on the remaining nine variables tested in this category. The differences found on Variable 44 between public and private institutions with respect to who is responsible for approving the internship weresignificant at the .05 level, Chi-square = 15.27 for 7 gf_(see Table 15). Analysis of Table 15 shows that while the pub- lic institutions tend to share responsibility for approving intern- ship programs between the faculty, chairman, and others, the power of approval in the private schools is concentrated in the office of the chairman. Possibly the best explanation of this finding centers on the fact that the faculty and staff in public institutions are com- prised of greater numbers, thus allowing the departmental adminis- trator to delegate such responsibilities. The next two variables on which significant differences were found between public and private schools relate to the process of evaluating students. The findings presented in Table 16 show that the public and private institutions are almost reverse of each other in terms of using visitation as an evaluation technique. In this case public schools much more frequently visit students placed in internships than is the reported case for private institutions. These differences are significant at the .05 level, corrected Chi- square equalling 4.71 with 1 pf; significance equals .05. In Table 16, as with the previous results of the internship program, it appears that the differences presented with regard to the use of Visitations is probably a function of differences in the numbers of faculty .ommo.o u mucmuNNNcmNm ”sovmmNN No mmmemwu N suNz mNmNN.mN u mcmaomiNcu 59 o.ooN mm N.NN mN m.NN Nm Nauou cszNou N.NN m N.m N N.mN N Nouchueoou 0:0 acmcsum N.m o N.o N w.m m NouchuNoou cNmNm 0:0 caeNchu N.NN NN N.NN N 0.0N 0N N000N20>0 m.N N o.o o o.m N Nouchucoou zczum N.m o 0.0 o w.NN o NopacNueoou cNmNu m.0 m N.N N m.m m mmuuNEEou N.0N 0N o.oo m N.mN N :msLNmzu N.NN 0N N.o N m.m~ mN xNNzumu N .z N a N a NmuoN mN0>N20 0NN000 mzpmum choszpNchN >0 N0>0200< aNgmcemucN No mummN mgmscmuNgu NmN mNnmN 6O .00N0.0 u 00000N0N00N0 N00000NN 00 000000 N zNNz 00N0N.0 memzcmuNsu 30¢ .mmmo.o u mucmuwacmNm Neocmmcm No mmcmmv N guNz mNmNN.¢ u menacmuNgu umuomggou 0 00N 00 N.NN 0N N.NN 00 N0000 000N00 N.00 NN N.00 0N N.NN NN 0z 0.00 N0 0.00 0 0.00 N0 00> N .0 N .0 N .0 NaNoN 000>NLN 0NN00N :oNungpch No magnum 00 mcoNummeN> 00 vmu00N0>m mucmnzum No mpmwN mgmzcmnNsu NoN wNQMH 61 personnel available when public institutions are compared to those funded privately. It could be argued that such visits, if done on a routine basis, would require a significant number of man hours, a luxury that the private school cannot afford. The last variable (V-51) on which significant differences between public and private institutions were found deals with the use of journals. In this case, the private schools appeared to use journals as a means of evaluating students in a greater proportion of cases than did the public schools. In fact, the respondents from the private schools were almost equally divided between those who used journals and those who didn't, while the results for the public schools showed a disproportionate number of schools that did not use this method of evaluation. The corrected Chi-square for these dif- ferences was 4.36 with 1 Of, which was significant at the .05 level (Table 17). These findings probably reflect the need on the part of private schools to use alternative evaluative procedures which mini- mize the need for extensive staff. On all other variables assessing the impact of public or private status on internship supervision, no differences were found. Again, with the exception of the variables just presented, there appears to be a general willingness to share responsibility with students and agency staff in important supervisory matters among all programs sampled. 62 .meNo.o u .ommo.o mucmoNNNcmNm msovmmNN No mmemmn N guNz NNNmm.m u menacmuNsu 300 u mucmuNNNcmNm Neoummcm No mmeomu N :NNz mammm.¢ u mgmscmiNcu umuumccou 0.00N 00 N.NN 0N N.NN 00 N0000 000N00 0.0N 00 0.00 0 0.00 00 0z N.NN 0N N.00 N N.0N 0 00> N .0 N 0 N .0 N000N 000>N00 0NN000 00N000N000N N0 magnum 00 mchczoo 00 umu00N0>m mucmuzum No mummN menacmuNsu "NN mNnmN 63 Operational Issues and Concerns of CriminalFJustice Internship Programs The second major purpose of this study was to secure relevant viewpoints and information from those responding internship coordi- nators concerning specific issues and Operational concerns involved in designing and implementing a criminal justice internship program. Ten survey questions (Appendix A) were used to generate these data; they included Questions 15 through 20, 27 through 29, and Question 32. These questions in turn yielded information resulting in the 19 vari- ables used in the analysis in the present section. These variables will be discussed in terms of their relationship to (1) state geo- graphical areas, (2) state regional areas, (3) academic level of internship program, and (4) status of institutions. Organizational issues and concerns by state gpographical areas. The results of the analysis of the program operations data as a func- tion of state geographical area can be found in Appendix J. Six of the variables (V-33, V-37, V-38, V-39, V-56, and V-62) yielded differ- ences as a result of variation between state geographical areas. They included internship selection based on college grade point average (V-33), the terms internships were offered (V-37), the ordinary duration of the internship (V-38), the time commitment by the partici- pant to the internship program (V-39), funding available to students participating in field study (V-56), and limited placement sites available to participating students (V-62). No such differences were indicated by the other 13 variables concerned with the Operations of criminal justice programs. 64 The first significant Chi-square test of 7.75 with 3 gf_that was significant at the .05 level was developed between state geo- graphic areas (California, Florida, Michigan, and Others) with respect to the internship selection being determined by a student's college grade point average (V-33). Table 18 shows that Michigan requires the college grade point average of the potential internship candidate be considered in almost 42 percent of the responding institutions. In contrast, California requires that the student's college grade point average be considered in less than 7 percent of the reporting institutions. This might be explained by the number of two-year institutions, as previously discussed, that exist in California than in the other responding state geographical locales, and/or the emphasis on practical-need-related associate degree pro- grams that are offered in California, giving all students an oppor- tunity to participate in an internship experience regardless of their grade point average. Michigan, on the other hand, had the largest single percentage (67%) of four-year respondent institutions, and this may reflect an existing attrition rate involving grade point average as a selection device for criminal justice internship participation. Second, a larger degree of internship requirements involving grade point average between Michigan four-year institutions may exist due to competitive quality placement sites available to the respective institutions. Last, Michigan institutions may simply use college grade point averages as an incentive for students interested in participating in a criminal justice internship program. 65 .meod u mucm00$wcmwm "Ea—0mm}... N—o mmmgmmn m N310: mocmfim u msmsdmlwsu 0.00N 00 N.NN 0N N.NN NN N.NN 0N 0.N0 0N N0000 000N00 0.0N 00 N.00 0N 0.00 N 0.0N 0N N.00 NN 0z N.NN 0N 0.00 0 N.N0 0 N.0N 0 0.0 N 00> N .0 N .0 N .0 N .0 N .0 N0000N NONm00 NNN000 N0Nm00 N0NN0N N000N 000000 000N00Nz 00N00N0 0N0000NN00 0000>Nam coNgauNuch No mN0um 00 00000>< choa 000cc 000NNou :0 00000 :oNNumNmm aszcemucN No mummN wc0=cmuNgu NmN 0N00N 66 A Chi-square of 21.49 with 9 of, which was significant at the .05 level, is noted in Table 19 for differences between state geo- graphic areas with respect to the number of terms they offer intern- ship programs. The significant differences reported in this table reflect variation between California and the other geographical enti- ties being assessed. Respondents from California indicate that they are fairly well divided in offering internship programs of two terms, three terms, and on a yearly basis. In contrast, in the other state geographical areas evaluated, the largest proportion of cases indi- cated internships could be taken during any term during the year. There is some confusion inherent in interpreting the results on this variable. It can be argued that in some of the cases the selection of either two terms or three terms carries the same meaning, depending upon whether the institution is on a semester or quarter basis. However, analysis of the individual cells in Table 19 indicates that only in the case of California would there be a significant shift in the results if the two categories were combined. Overall, it is clear that most criminal justice programs surveyed attempt to maxi- mize the opportunity for participation in experiential learning by making it available throughout the calendar year. The third variable on which significant differences were found between state geographical areas dealt with the number of terms com- prising the duration of the internship. This analysis yielded a Chi-square of 18.42 with 9 Of, which was significant at the .05 level. Analysis of Table 20 indicates a large degree of variation between all of the state geographical areas with respect to the number of 67 .oopo.o u muchwagmwm “soummgw co mmocmmu a gut: ~o_m¢.P~ " acaaam-_;u o.oop so ¢.NN m. ¢.cp PP ¢.m_ m_ m..¢ mm _aoop =s=_ou ~.om em “.mo op o.mo N m.o~ o_ o.m~ N magma e ¢.m~ mp ~.m~ e m.- m o.o o m.~e N_ mega» m m.hp ~_ o.o o _.m _ e.mp N _.Nm a mega“ N o.m N ~.m _ o.o o N.N _ o.o o stop _ R .m e .m x .m a .m R .m Payee memsoo cmmwsoez ”accept upccocw_mu cmzm>gzm :owu=u_umcm mo macaw ma umgmmwo mg< mawcmccmucH msgmh we mummh mgmzcmnpsu "mp mpnmh .momo.o u mucmuwmwcmwm ”Eocmwgw mo mmmcmou m sum: mmNN¢.mF u mcmzcmlwcu o.oop mm ~.mN mp m.op PP m.mp NP m._e NN page“ csapou _.m N o.o o _.m P N.N P o.o o meowumcwnsao N.NN mp N.@ P m.NN m N.op N ¢.¢v N_ 2cm» mco cusp use: m.em Ne m.mm up m.m¢ m o.m~ m m.Pm ep Egmu mco o.¢ m o.o o N.N. N o.o o N.N — Ego» mco cage mmmg .s a s. .z. N '2. N m N a pmuoh mcmguo cmmmcuwz mcwgopu mwcgomwpmu cowpzuwpmcH we mpmum an awcmccoucm to cowumsza acm:_ngo mo mummh mgmzcmuwgu "oN anm» 69 terms that they require a student to participate in an internship activity. The one clear finding is that the majority of respondents require students to participate in one or more terms of experiential learning with few programs accepting less than one term of field experience. This finding can be interpreted to mean that the respon- dents participating in the present study consider experiential learn- ing an important enough component of criminal justice education to warrant significant allocations of time for its pursuit. However, this emphasis must be tempered by the fact that only 20.3 percent of those participating in the study require internship experiences, even though all of the programs sampled have an experiential learning com- ponent in their programs. (See Question l5 in Appendix A.) The analysis of the amount of time commitment of the intern- ship experience as a function of the state wherein the institution is located yielded a Chi-square of l8.65 for 9 df, which was significant at the .05 level. These results, which are summarized in Table 2l, showed that all of the state geographical areas extensively use part- time internship experiences. While the greatest number of respon- dents from California indicate that their programs are characterized by part-time internships, the other geographical areas show much more variation in the use of alternative scheduling practices. For example, Florida, Michigan, and other institutions surveyed also used full- time internships, or combinations of both full-time and part-time experiences. Again, these results reflect a lack of uniformity with respect to criminal justice practices in the criminal justice educa- tion field throughout the country. In all likelihood, the results 7O .mmmod mucmuT—Emwm “Eovmmgb mo mmmsmmu m 53.3 530.2. u menacmlzu o.ooN mm N.NN m N.NN __ N.N, N N.NN NN Faye“ =s=_ou N.NN N m.m_ N N.N_ N o.mN m N.N _ as?» News to Fpam o.m N o.o o o.o o 0.0 o N.N N Nuaam Nee: N.NN Ne N.NN N m.em o N.NN N N.NN mN as?» New; o.m_ m N.NN m N.NN m N.N _ o.o o ae_b P_=a N .m N .m N .m N .m N .m Pouch meaeao :mmNcuNz newtopa mNceocN_mu umxm>szm copusuwumcH No mumpm ma mucwwcqum awgmcgmch No pamEpNEEou wave one No mummh menacmuwgu "FN mpnmh 7] reflect unique needs of the institutions and the communities they served in the sample population. The fifth variable for which significant differences were found related to funds available to students for field study as a func- tion of state geographical areas. The data in Table 22 indicate a Chi-square equal to 2l.50 for 6 9:, which was significant at the .05 level. As noted in Table 22, Florida differed most dramatically from the other geographical areas in that all of the respondents from this state indicated that no financial support was available to the students attending its programs. In contrast, a number of the respon- dents from the other states indicated that they subsidize students either in terms of a stipend or attempted to pay work-related expenses. Probably the variation in these funding practices reflects differ- ences in the budgeting processes of the state agencies from the area sampled. Those states that are most fiscally conservative probably reflect their economic postures in the amount of funds made available to the agencies in which criminal justice students would normally intern. Thus, it could be expected that the surplus funds that are normally used to support students in experiential learning programs would be sparse at best. The results in Table 23 show that significant differences existed between the state geographical areas with respect to the availability of internship placement sites. The Chi-square for this analysis equalled 7.70 for 3 9:, which was significant at the .05 level. With the exception of California, the other state geographical areas sampled in the majority of cases appeared to have little difficulty 72 .mpoo.o n mucmuwmwcmvm ”soummgN mo mmmgmmu m sum: eemom.FN u mcmscmuwcu o.oop mm N.NN mp N.NN FF N.NN NP N.NN NN page» cszpou N.m_ o_ N.NN N N.m_ N o.o o N.NN m “moo oz N.oo Ne N.NN m o.mm N o.oo_ NF N.NN ON oz N.NN NP N.Nm N N.m_ N o.o o _.N N mm> N .m N .m N .a N .m N .a Page» Newspo cmaNzuNz muNLoNN NNceoeNNNU cmxu>gzm =ONN=NNNN=N No mpmpm Na Nuaum UNNNN toe mpcmcsz ON oNQNNNN>< muczm No mNmmN acmscm-wgu NNN mpnmh 73 .cNmo.o u mucmoNchmNm “soummgw mo mmmemmu m suvz mmoo~.~ u mgmaamuwgu o.ooN mm N.NN mp N.NN N_ N.NN mp o.NN NN Neuou =s=_ou o._N me N.NN ON o.mN m o.oo_ MN N.NN N. oz o.mN ON N.NN m o.mN m o.o o N.NN NN mm> N .m N .m N .m N .a N .m NmNON memgpo cmmNNUNZ muNeoNN «NceocNNNQ cmzm>cam cowpzp_pmcm mo mumum an mmuwm acmemumpa umawsNA mo mummh menacmu_:u "MN wpnmp 74 in securing internship placements for their students. However, in California there was a more even split between those indicating dif- ficulty in finding sites and those responding that the sites were available. Part of the problem in California may stem from the fact that the competition between educational institutions for a fixed number of placements is more keen than would be the case for the other geographical areas surveyed. It is noted in Table 23 that the number of institutions responding from California was at minimum twice that of every other reporting area. The remaining variables summarized in Appendix J were not sig- nificant with respect to differences attributable to state geographi- cal area. However, the data contained in Appendix J reveal some interesting characteristics with respect to some of the organiza- tional practices of all the institutions sampled. One of the most interesting findings, alluded to above, relates to Variable 3l, which assessed the obligation of participating in an internship program. The data clearly show that while all programs responding to the survey had internship programs, the majority in fact did not require their students to participate in them. There are a number of different explanations for this practice. First, some programs use the internship experience as a reward for those students who have excelled in school. In this case, the internship placements have been developed as potential entry points into the criminal justice professions. Second, many programs have sizable numbers of students already employed in criminal justice occupations. Often times it is felt that requiring such students to participate 75 in a field placement poses an undue hardship upon an individual already working in the field. Third, the philosophy of education of many programs is based upon the notion that effective educational experiences can best be achieved by maximizing the alternatives available for a given individual. Therefore, while internships are considered a valuable asset for some students, other types of pro- gramming may be considered equally important for others. The item that received the strongest consensus of the respon- dents to the survey (V-32) dealt with the use of high school grades as a determinant for internship placement. As noted in Appendix J, every respondent indicated that these data did not enter into their decisions. This total lack of consideration probably stems from a question of domain with respect to who makes the decisions in higher education. In addition to Variable 32, Variables 34 and 35 also dealt with the practices used to select students for internships. In both cases there appeared to be a fairly even spread of variation on whether students and faculty and staff were instrumental in the selection process. This again reflects a lack of uniform procedures with respect to the daily workings of criminal justice education programs. It is important to note that the respondents strongly indicated that the objectives of their internship programs (V-40) were formally stated. This practice indicates that an attempt is being widely made in the field to avoid problems of communication with regard to experiential learning. It would be interesting to see the relation- ship between the objectives of one program with those of the others 76 to see how consistent the standards for these programs really are. Evaluation of faculty attitudes toward criminal justice intern- ship programming was sampled by Variable 57. These results showed that the attitudes expressed by faculty were strongly in favor of experiential learning. These findings with those reported elsewhere in this chapter clearly indicate a commitment on the part of criminal justice educators for experiential components in their curriculum. Variables 58 and 59 deal with specific problems that faculty encounter with respect to internship programs. In the case of these two variables, the respondents indicated that they were fairly equally distributed between those who had time and supervision prob- lems and those who did not. These differences in all likelihood reflect problems associated with variation in the demands placed on individual faculty members' time as a function of the individual institutions in which they work. Another finding of the present study relates to the data for Variable 60, which evaluated difficulties stemming from campuswide communication. The individuals sampled clearly indicated, as a group, that this was not a major issue with respect to the internship programs. This finding takes on added importance when the current emphasis on communication breakdown is considered. One possible explanation is that once an internship program is approved, its imple- mentation and administration require relatively little communication throughout the parent institution. It might be argued that the major 77 areas of communication focus on the relationship between a given department and the agencies at which it places students. A similar trend was noted for Variable 61, dealing with on- campus coordination even though it was not as strong. Again, the majority of cases of those responding to the survey indicated that problems in on-campus coordination did not exist. However, in the present case more individuals did express some difficulty with respect to the coordination issue. The differences between the find- ings reported for communication and coordination could relate to the essential nature of each of these practices. It can be argued that communication takes place on a much more direct and personal level, which tends to minimize those problems associated with formal admin- istrative structure. In contrast, coordination often times requires the involvement of the bureaucracy, thereby increasing the probability that problems will occur. The last variable (V-66) summarized in Appendix J deals with problems related to liability of participants in internship pro- grams. Respondents indicated in a majority of cases that this was not a significant issue with which they must deal. However, it should be noted that there were a number of cases in which concern was expressed with respect to the liability issue. It could be that this particular problem is situation specific in that those place- ments which are potentially dangerous for the students must be handled differently from those where no hazard exists. Organizational issues and concerns by state regional areas. Data related to organizational issues and concerns as a function of 78 urban, suburban, and rural differences are presented in Appendix K. Of the l7 variables found in the Appendix, only one yielded signifi- cant differences as a function of the urban, suburban, and rural split. This variable (V-60) dealt with problems related to on-campus communication and resulted in a significant Chi-square of 7.28 with 2 gj, which was significant at the .05 level. A review of Table 24 indicates that the urban and rural areas overwhelmingly indicated that such problems did not exist on their campuses. However, in contrast, there was a more even split between those stating they had problems and those stating they did not from the respondents of the suburban areas. Finding a plausible explanation for this result is extremely difficult, unless the differences noted are really a func- tion of a hidden variable not tapped by the present analysis. With respect to the other l6 variables, summarized in Appendix K, similar explanations can be given to those used under the previous subheading. Again, the results indicate a high degree of consistency in terms of commitment to experiential learning and the lack of basic problems in administering and carrying out internship programs. With respect to the issue of liability, we find the same relative Split between those having difficulties and those who are not for the urban, suburban, and rural categories that were reported with respect to state geographic areas. Organizational issues and concerns by institutional level. The results pertaining to organizational issues as a function of the academic level are summarized in Appendix L. Four of these variables 79 .NmNo.o u mocmonNcNNm ”soummgm mo mmmgmmu N cuvz on—me.n u mgmsumuwgu o.oo_ mm o.¢N NP N.NN mp m.mm mm pmpou caspou N.NN No N.Nm up N.Nm m N.NN um oz ..o_ N m.m P N.om e F.m N mm> N a. N a. N .a N .m Fmgoh _mczm cancznam cone: No cowpwuog Pmuwgamcmomu an mempnoca cowumurcassou msaEmunco No mummh mgmzcmumso =ONN=NNNN=H "em wpnmh 80 (V-3l, V-33, V-39, and V-57) yield significant differences between the Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions. The results related to these differences for Variable 3l are pre- sented in Table 25. This analysis indicates that significant differ- ences Chi-square equalling 24.34 with 10 gf, which is significant at the .05 level, existed between the various levels of institutions with respect to the obligation of internship placement. The two-year schools clearly differed from both the four-year and graduate insti- tutions with respect to the degree that they did not require experi- ential learning. In contrast, both the four-year and graduate programs more often required that their students participate in internship programs. These results are considered to reflect several factors. First, it can be argued that the four-year and graduate institutions have more hours with a given student that can be used for education in field settings. Second, up until recently, the student bodies attending the two-year institutions differed significantly from those attending the four-year and graduate programs in several fundamental ways. Those attending two-year schools to a greater extent were already holding positions in criminal justice professions. In addi- tion, more of these same individuals were going to school on a part— time basis, making internship programming more difficult. Last, the two-year programs, especially for those individuals planning to con- tinue their education, must use a greater proportion of their time for general education requirements than is the case for the four-year and graduate institutions. 81 .NQOOAU u mucmowwrcmmw «EC—uwmgv mo mwmxmmfi O_. 5:3 wN¢¢m.¢N u mLmacmlwp—U o.ooN Ne N.NN m m.oe NN N.NN Nm NNNoN =s=Nou N.N N N.NN N o.o o o.o o NNco mmpmauecu . . . . coNNmaNNNNNmu . . . . mucmwgmaxu mzow>mga m N N N NN N o o o o o o oz NNNz uchzomN N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o cameeaouem N.NN me N.NN m N.NN 0N m.om NN uchaamN Noz m.ON NN N.NN N o.Nm oN N.N N uchscmN N a. N a. N .m N .m Nmuoh mpmaumcw mNongomm mmumwuomm< coNusuwuch No Nm>mN Na Emgmoga awgmccmucN No acmsmNNsumm No mummh msmzamu_;o NmN mpnw» 82 The second variable for which significant differences were found between the two-year, four-year, and graduate programs dealt with the use of college grade point average as an important factor in determining internship candidates. Table 26 reveals a Chi-square of l3.50 with 2 g:, which is significant at the .05 level. Further examination of this table indicates that the differences mainly occur between the four-year institutions when compared to the two-year and graduate programs. The respondents from the two-year and graduate programs clearly minimized the importance of the grade point average (GPA) in the internship selection process. In contrast, a large number of the respondents from the four-year schools felt that GPA was a useful criterion. The difference between graduate and four-year levels is easily explainable; in order to remain in graduate degree programs, the individual must maintain an above-average level of per- formance. However, the same explanation cannot be used when compari- sons are made between the four-year schools and two-year programs. These differences can best be explained by the surprising lack of emphasis on performance criteria in the two-year schools with respect to evaluating students. This lack of emphasis stems from the open enrollment policies characteristic of many of the two-year schools and the strong pressures on such institutions to maintain high enrollment figures. The third variable (V-39) on which significant differences were found as a function of the academic level of the institution dealt with the time commitment of the internship experience. The results presented in Table 27 again show that the fOur-year schools differ 83 .NNoo.o n oucoonNcmNm NeooooNN No momemmu N NNNz Nmmom.mN u ogoaom-_zu o.ooN mo m.¢N oN N.NN NN o.mo Nm pogo“ oszNou N.NN em o.om m m.mm mN N.Nm om oz N.NN mN o.oN N N.NN NN N.N N mm> N a. N .z N .z N .m Noaoh opoaooco mNoNozoom mouoNoomm< coNuouNumoN No No>oN No omoco>< choa ounce ommNNou co oomom coNuooNom QszccoucN mo mama» ocooomuwsu NoN mpnmh 84 significantly from their two-year and graduate counterparts (Chi- square = l4.3l with 6 gf, significance = .05). In this case, the four-year schools were much more inclined to use full-time placements while the two-year and graduate programs mainly opted for part-time internship experiences. Again, the most plausible explanation for these differences relates to the time constraints found in the two- year and graduate programs when compared to the four-year schools and a greater flexibility and the use of alternative educational programming. The last variable, Variable 57, for which significant differ- ences were found between two-year, four-year, and graduate institu- tions dealt with faculty attitudes toward experiential learning. These results are contained in Table 28 and show a Chi-square of lO.42 with 4 df, which was significant at the .05 level. The data in Table 28 indicate that with respect to faculty attitudes, the main differences occur between respondents of graduate institutions and those representing the two-year and four-year schools. In this case, individuals working in graduate programs were less likely to express favorable attitudes and more likely to express mixed attitudes toward internship programming. In comparison, respondents from the two-year and four-year schools with few exceptions expressed favorable atti- tudes toward the internships. These differences probably reflect the unique mission and characteristics of graduate education in the field when compared to the two-year and four-year programs. It can be argued that the orientation of graduate-level education is primarily focused on the training of high-level professionals who will 85 .moNo.o u oocoommwcmpm meoooosm mo mmmgmoo m saw: com—N.NN u mgooomuNzo o.ooN on o.mN a m.oe NN m.mo om Nouou asapoo N.NN m N.NN N N.NN m N.N N mew» “No; No Npou o.m N 9.0 o o.o o N.o N moapm xgoz N.NN Ne N.NN w m.Nm «N N.NN mN mew» axon m.mN m o.o o m.mN N N.@ N oswh Npsu N a. N a. N .m N .a Nouoh opoooogu wgopozoom mopowoomm< coNpaNNchN No No>o4 oz» an mocoNNooxm awzmcgoch oz“ No Noosgwesou osNN on» mo mpmoh ogoaomuwco NNN open» 86 .mmmo.o u oucooNNNcmNm "soomoem No moogmmo e zNNz NeNN¢.oN u ogozomuNzu o.ooN mm m.mN m m.o¢ NN m.mo om mNoNoN ossNou m.N m N.NN m N.N N N.N N ooxNz m.e m o.o o N.N N N.m N oNooNo>oN== N.NN mm N.mo m o.Nm mN o.om NN oNooNo>oN N a. N a. N m. N Na NouoN ouoooogo mNoNozoom moNoNoomm< No No>o4 No Eocmoca nszccmch mzu oNozoN :oNNzNNNmeN mooouNNu< auNoooN No mumoN ocozomleu "mm mNnmh 87 alternately fill administrative and academic posts in the field. Many would point out that the educational needs at this level are quite different than those found in the pre-professional training and education that takes place at the two-year and four-year levels. With the exception of the four variables just discussed, the remaining variables can be discussed in the same light that they were under the previous two subheadings. Organizational issues and concerns by status of institution. The data relating to organizational issues and concerns by the status of the institution can be found in Appendix M. No significant differ- ences were found between public and private educational institutions with respect to the variables used in evaluating issues related to organizational practices. The results in Appendix M reflected the same trends discussed and explained earlier in this section. In general, there is a surprising lack of problems relating to the daily operation of internship programs in criminal justice education. In addition, there appears to be a fairly uniform commitment with respect to experiential learning in the field. Section III: Major Concerns As noted in Section II, the summary of the specific analysis on pertinent issues and concerns yielded a number of noteworthy results. There appears to be considerable agreement with respect to the impor- tance of experiential learning as an integral part of criminal jus- tice education. In addition, the data supported widespread commitment on the part of criminal justice educators to the actual use of the 88 internship experiences for their students. Furthermore, there was a great deal of agreement that the problems related to the administra- tion of internship programs were negligible. Last, the data indicate a general willingness on the part of criminal justice educators to share responsibility with students and agency personnel in important substantive areas in order to successfully implement their internship programs. With respect to disagreement on the issues and concerns examined, these generally related to specific programmatic functions. Some disagreement was noted with respect to the use of various criteria on who should be selected and placed in internship settings. Disagree- ment was also noted when such factors as full- or part-time place- ments should be used, whether such placements should be mandatory or not, and who should be responsible for evaluating such placements were considered. In addition, differences were noted with respect to the faculty attitudes toward experiential learning when respondents from graduate institutions were compared to their other colleagues. I Section IV: Development of Normative Model for Criminal Justice Internship Programs The results presented in the previous sections clearly indicate that at the present time there is a lack of unifying phil050phy and practices with respect to experiential learning throughout the country in criminal justice education. It is the writer's contention that a set of standards and goals develOped to homogenize internship pro— gramming would be most difficult to develop at the present time. This appears to be the case because the data in the present study 89 provide evidence that a great deal of variability exists among indi- vidual criminal justice departments at all academic levels, both in the public and private sector and from all geographical and demo- graphic areas. In fact, it can be strongly argued that to standardize experien- tial learning in the criminal justice field might in fact be an undesirable goal rather than a desirable objective. This contention is based on the fact that standardization would lead to rigidity in criminal justice educational programming and would eliminate the flexi- bility needed to respond to unique educational needs as they arise. Furthermore, the implementation of set standards and practices, with the exception of recognized minimum qualifications pertaining to faculty, curricula, and supportive resources, could lead to the same dilemma currently facing the field of teacher training at the present time. It is a genuine concern that the development of a standard model for criminal justice internship programs might become only part of a larger emphasis on standardized criminal justice education, lead- ing to rigid certification procedures which in time will lead to mediocre educational experiences rather than superior educational pro- gramming for the criminal justice field. In summary, the results from the present study do not lend them- selves to the development of a normative model for criminal justice internship programs. This is the case because of the wide variation and differences found with respect to the organizational issues, administrative practices, and general concerns evaluated in the present study. It is the writer's opinion that in order to develOp a normative 90 model, it would be necessary to bring together the respondents sampled in the present study, in an attempt to develOp a consensus with respect to the issues involved. CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was an attempt to (I) collect detailed and factual information with respect to academic supervision of internship pro- grams in Associate, Baccalaureate, and Graduate institutions in the statesN oNzNzNNNzN ozNzNN NNNNsz< NN NzNzNzNN szoNNNNNoNoNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N oz N.NN Ne N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN No» NoN->N NNozNNNNoNN N>NNN NNozNNNNoNN NzNzNNzo-NNoNo N .a N .z N .m N .m N .a NonaN NNNmmN NNNNmN NNNNzN NonaN NNoooN NeozNo owoNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoNoNNNoo NoNooN mm owmmumo maszzmmth no mmm>N m xNozmam< 114 N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNzNoNoNN NNNNNN No NzNNoNNNNo NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN oN o.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN o N.NN N N.NN NN NNN NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNoNN NNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN o o.ooN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN N o.o o N.NN N NoN NoN->N NNzNzNNNzN INNNNNNN NNNNN N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N o.NN NN No> NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN NzNzooNN>No ozN zNzoNN NNzoNNNo N.No NN N.NN NN N.No NN o.ooN NN N.No NN oz N.N N N.NN N N.N N o.o o N.N N No» NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNoz NNNNNNNoo No NNNNoN N .m N .a N .z N .a N .m NoNNmN NNNsz NNNmaN NNNNmN NNNmmN NNoNoN NeozNo oooNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoeoNNNoN NoNoNN APPENDIX C TYPES OF INTERNSHIPS OFFERED BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS 115 116 N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN N N.NN NN No» NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN NzNZNNNN No NNN>NNN N.No NN N.NN NN N.No NN o.No NN oz N.N N N.NN N N.N N N.N N NNN NNN->N NNNNNsz NNzNNNzNNNNzN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz o.NN NN o.NN o N.NN N N.NN NN NNN NNN->N NzNzNNNN szoNNNNNoNoNNN o.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN NN No> NNN->N NNNzNNNNNNN N>NNN NNNzNNNNoNN NNNNNNNN-NNNNN N .m N .m N .z N .m NNNNmN NNNmmN NNNmmN NNNmzN NNNNoN Noeom coogoosm cone: Nconom mm ommmuuo maszzmmNzN No mma>h u anzmma< 117 Nconom NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNNNN NNNNNN No NzNNoNNNNN NNzNoNNN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz NN o.NN o N.NN N N.NN NN No> NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNoNN NNNNNN NN N.NN NN o.NN oN N.NN NN oz NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NNN NoN->N oNzNzNNNzN zNNNNNNN NNNNN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNN NoN->N oNzNzNNNzN NzNzooNN>No ozz zNzoNN NNzoNNNo NN .ooN NN N.No NN .No NN oz N .o o N.N N .N N NNN NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNNN NNNNNNNNN No NNNNoN .m N .m N .z N .a NNNLmN NNNmaN NNNLzN Nagam :masaazw coax: APPENDIX D TYPES OF INTERNSHIPS OFFERED BY INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS 118 119 N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN NzNzNNNN No NNN>NNN N.No NN o.oo o N.No NN N.NN oN oz N.N N o.oN N N.N N N.N N No» NNN->N NNNNNNzN szoNNzNNNNzN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN oN oz N.NN NN o.oN N o.NN NN N.NN NN No> NNN->N NzNzNNNN NN NNozNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNooN No zNoz N.NN NN o.oN N N.No NN N.NN NN oz o.NN NN o.oN N N.N N o.NN N NoN NNN->N NNNzNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN-NNNNN N a. N .a N .a N .a NoNNmN NonaN NNNmmN NNNNzN NNNNoN oposoogw NNoNozoom oNNNooNN< NNm>oN NocoNpopNuch m4m>m4 Nm ammmumo maNImzmuth No mma>H o xNozmmm< 120 N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN o.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N o.NN NN o.NN N NNN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNoNN NNNNNN No NzNNoNoNNo oNzNozoz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNNNN NNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN oN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN N N.N N NNN NoN->N NNNNzNNNzN zNNNNNNN NNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN oN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NoN->N oNzNzNNNzN NzNzNoNNNNo ozz zNzoNN NNzoNNNo N.NN NN o.oN N N.No NN N.NN NN oz N.N N o.oN N N.N N N.N N No» NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNNN NNNNNNNNN No NNNNNN N .z N .m N .a N .m NonaN NoNNaN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNouoN ouoooocw NNoNozon opoNooNN< NNo>oN NocoNpouNuch APPENDIX E TYPES OF INTERNSHIPS OFFERED BY STATUS OF INSTITUTION 121 122 N.NN NN N.NN N o.oN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N o.oN NN NoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN NzNzNNNN No NNNNNNN N.No NN N.NN NN N.NN oN oz N.N N N.N N N.N N NoN NNN->N NNNNNNzN szoNNoNNNNzN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NzNzNNNN NNzoNNNNNoNNNNN o.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN No> NNN->N NNNzNNNNNNN NNNNNNNoooo No Nzoz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz o.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o No» NNN->N NNNzNNNNoNN NNNNNNNN-NNNNN N .m N .z N .m NonmN NNNmaN NNNmaN N NouoN ouoié N.N N25 NoNoNN zoNNDHNNmzN mo m2hm ommmmuo maNImzmmNzN No mmm>N m xNo2maa< 123 N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNNNN NNNNNN No NzNNNNoNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN No» NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN zoNNNNoNoNN NNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN NoN NoN->N NNzNzNNNzN zNNNNNNN NNNNN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NNN NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN NzNzNoNN>No ozN zNzoNN NNzoNNNN N.NN ‘ NN N.No NN N.NN NN oz N.N N N.N N N.N N No» NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN zoNNNN NNNNNNNNN No NNNooN N .m N .z N .m NNNNaN NNNLNN NNNmaN NNoNoN oNo>NNo oNNooN mzumum APPENDIX F ACADEMIC SUPERVISION LEVELS BY STATE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS 124 125 m.om oN N.NN N N.NN m o.o o N.NN NN ucoooum oco .Nocwao .NNNsoNN o.oN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN N.NN oN Noooomooo Nooooo ooo NoNoooN N.N N N.N N o.o o o.o o N.N N Noooomtoo Nooooz N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.N N Nooooe NoNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNN oNzNzNNNzN No zoNN<=N<>N N.NN N o.oN N o.o o N.N N N.NN N NoNooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN ooo NooooNN N.N N N.NN N o.o o N.N N N.NN N NooooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN ooo ooeNNozN N.NN NN N.NN N N.N N N.NN N o.NN N oo>No>oN NoooNNo>N N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o o.o o LoNooNoNooo oNzNoNoNoN N.N N o.o o N.NN N N.N N N.N N NoNooNoNooo Nooom oNoNN N.N N o.o o N.NN N o.o o N.N N ooNNNesoN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N o.NN N oosNNozo Noosoooooo N.NN NN N.NN N N.N N N.NN N N.NN N Noosoe NNNoooN NoooNoNooN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N .m N .m N .m N .m N .m NonmN NNNmzN NNNLmN NNNmmN NonaN NNoNoN Neozoo oNoNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoNoNNNoN NoNoNN mm m4m>m4 zonN>mmazm 0N2moN NzNNNNNNzN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.N N N.NN N N.NN N oz N.NN NN o.oN NN N.No NN N.NN oN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNzNNN NNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNozNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN o N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNooNN NNNo NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNooNN N.N N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N N.N N oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.No NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNooNN zNNNNNz NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNooNN N.N N N.N N o.o o o.o o o.o o oooz N.N N o.o o o.o o o.o o N.N N Ngooo ooo NNNoooN N .m N _m N .m N .m N .a NonmN NNNmmN NNNmmN NNNLNN NonmN NNoNoN Neozoo oooNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoLoNNNoN mmucum 127 N.N N o.o o N.N N N.N N N.N N oz N.No NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN N.No NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N zNNNzN No zoNNNNNNNNN NNoNNNNN NNzNNN o.oN NN o.oN N N.NN N o.oN N N.NN oN NNN No Nzo .NNN NNoNNNNoN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNNNNN NooNNosoz N.NN oN N.NN N N.N N N.N N N.NN N NoNNNN NooNNooozoNN NNN->N NNzNoN NzNNNNN NNzNNNNN NNzNzNNNNzN N.NN NN N.NN NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.N N N.N N o.o o N.NN N N.N N NoN NNN->N NNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN NN N.NN N N.NN oN N.NN NN oz o.NN NN o.oN N N.NN N N.NN N o.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNooNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNooNN N.NN NN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN oN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N o.oN N N.NN N N.NN N NoN NNN->N NNNzNooo NN oNNNNNNNN NNzNooNN N .m N .m N .a N .m N .z NonmN NNNmmN NNNLmN NNNme NNNmmN NNoNoN Neozoo oooNzoNz ooNtoNN oNoNoNNNoN mmpmum APPENDIX G ACADEMIC SUPERVISION LEVELS BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS 128 129 N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NooooNN ooo .NoooNo .NNNoooN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NooooNNoo Nooooo ooo NoNoooN N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N Noooooooo NooooN N.NN N N.NN N o.o o N.NN N Noosoe NNNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNN oNzNzNNNzN No zNNNNNNNNN N.NN N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N NooooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN ooo NooooNN N.N N N.N N N.NN N N.N N NoNooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN ooo oosLNoNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o.NN N oo>No>oN NooNNoooN N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o NoNooNoNooo oNzNoNoNoN N.N N N.N N o.o o N.NN N NoNooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N NoNNNosoo N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN o ooELNoNo Noosotoooo N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N Noosos NNNoooN NoooNNNooN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N .m N .m N .N N .m NonmN NNNNNN NNNLNN NonmN NNoNoN Nogam congooam cone: Nconom mm m4m>m4 zonN>mmm3m 0N2moN NzoNNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNoNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NzNNNNNNzN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.N N N.NN N oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNzNNN NNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNooNN NNNo NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.N N N.NN N N.N N N.N N oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.No NN N.NN NN . NoN NNN->N NNNNNNN zNNNNNz NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o oooz N.N N N.N N o.o o o.o o Neooo ooo NNNoooN N .m N .m N .a N .m NonmN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN Nogam coneaaom zoos: Nconmm 131 N.N N N.N N o.o o N.N N oz N.No NN N.No NN o.ooN NN o.NN NN NoN NNN->N zNNNzN No zoNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNzNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNN No .NzN .NNN NNoNNNNoN N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNNNNN NooNNosoz N.NN oN o.NN N N.N N N.NN N NNNNNN NooNNoNozoNN NNN->N NNzNoN NzNNNNN NNzNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N.NN NN N.NN NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN oz N.N N N.NN N o.o o N.N N NNN NNN->N NNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNoNNN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN NoN NNN->N NNNzNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N .m N .m N .m N .a NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN m Punch Exam :mngzaam swag: Nconmm APPENDIX H ACADEMIC SUPERVISION LEVELS BY INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS 132 133 N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN NooooNN ooo .Nooooo .NNNoooN o.oN NN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NN Noooomeoo Nooooo ooo NNNoooN N.N N o.o o N.N N N.N N Noooomeoo Noooo< N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N Noosos NNNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNo NNzNzNNNzN No zoNNNNNNNN N.NN N N.NN N N.N N N.NN N NoNooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN ooo NooooNN N.N N o.o o N.NN N N.NN N NooooNoNooo NoooN-oNoNN ooo oosNNozN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N oo>No>oN NooNNNNNN N.N N o.o o o.o o N.N N NoNooNoNooo oNNNoNoNoN N.N N o.o o N.NN N N.N N NoNooNoNooo NNNNN-NNNNN N.N N o.o o N.N N N.N N ooNNNEEoN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o N.NN N oosNNozo NooENNoooN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o.NN o Noosoe NNNoooN NoooN>NooN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N .m N .m N .a N .a NonaN NoNNmN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNoN oNoaoNNo NNoNozon ouNNooNN< NcoNuopNuch No No>oN m4m>m4 Nm m4m>m4 zonN>mma3m UNZmoN NzoNNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NzNNNNNNzN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNzNNN NNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNN NNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.N N o.NN N N.N N N.NN N oz N.NN NN o.oo N N.No NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNN zNNNNNz NN NNNNNN<>N NNzNNNNN N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o oooz N.N N o.o N o.o o N.N N Neooo ooo NNNoooN N .m N .a N .m N _m NonmN NNNNNN NNNme NNNmmN NNNpoN muoooogw NNoNozoom opoNooNN< NcoNpsuNuch No No>oN 135 N.N N o.oN N o.o o N.N N oz N.NN NN o.NN N o.ooN NN N.NN oN NoN NNN->N zNNNzN No zoNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNzNNN o.oN NN N.NN N N.NN NN N.NN oN NNN No .Nzo .NNN NNoNNNooo N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNNNNN NooNNoooz N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N o.oN N NNNNNN NooNNoNoNoNN NNN->N NNzNoN NzNNNNN NNzNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N.NN NN o.ooN oN N.NN NN N.NN oN oz N.N N o.o o N.N N N.N N NoN NNN->N NNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN oz o.NN NN o.oN N N.NN o N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN o N.NN N NoN NNN->N NNNzNNoo NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N .z N .m N .m N .a NNNNNN NoNNNN NNNLNN NNNNNN NNoNoN ouoooocw NNoNozuom mNNNooNN< NcoNuauNNNcN No No>oN APPENDIX I ACADEMIC SUPERVISION LEVELS BY STATUS OF INSTITUTION 136 137 N.N N o.o o o.N N mcoz N.N N o.o o o.N N Ncooa coo NNNNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NooooNN ooo .Nooooo .NNNoooN o.om mm o.oe N N.Nm NN chcomgoo Nocmmo oco NNNNUNN N.N m N.NN N o.N N NoocoNNmN Nocom< N.NN w N.NN N N.NN N Lenses NNNNNNN NNN->N zu N.NN w N.N N N.NN N NouNcNoNooo NoowmuoNoNN oco Ncmozum N.N N N.N N m.m m NopooNoNooo NoaumuoNoNN ooo cosNNNzo N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN oo>No>cN Noooxgo>m N.N N o.o o o.N N NopooNoNooo oszcNoucN N.N N o.o o N.NN N NoNooNoNooo NooNN-oNoNN N.N m N.N N N.N N ooNNNEEoo N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN N NNENNNNN NNNENNNNNN N.NN NN N.N N N.NN mN Noosoe NuNoooN NoaoN>NocN Neeu>v N<>omaa< NszzmmNzN N .m N .m N .N NonmN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN mNN>NNo oNNNNN NoNoNN zoNNshthzN No m=hm m4m>m4 zonN>mma=m QNZmoN NzoNNNNNNN> NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN o.NN N o.oN NN oz N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN NN NNN NNN->N NzNNNNNNzN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NNN NNN->N NNNNzNNN NNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNN NNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.N N N.N N N.N N oz N.NN NN N.No NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNN zNNNNNz NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N .z N .m N .m NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN NNNNNNN oNNNoo Nououm 139 N.N N o.o o N.N N oz N.NN NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN NoN NNN->N zNNNzN No zoNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN NNzNNN N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN NN NNN No .NzN .NNN NNoNNNNoN N.NN NN N.NN oN o.NN NN NNNNNN NooNNoEoz N.NN oN N.NN N o.NN N NNNNNN NooNNoNozoNN NNN->N NNzNoN NzNNNNN NNzNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN N.NN NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN oz N.N N o.o o N.N N NoN NNN->N NNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o NoN NNN->N NszNooo NN NNNNNNNNN NNzNNNNN N a. N .m N .m NNNLNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN oNNNNNN oNNNoN NoNoNN APPENDIX J CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY STATE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS 140 141 N.Nm om m.mm m m.mm e m.wm m m.mm mN oz w.N¢ mm N.o¢ N N.No m m.No w m.¢m oN mm» NNN->N NNoNN No NuNzoom No coNpNocoEEooom N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N ouNNNuNuNNo on oNNNoo Ncmoapm N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.N N NoN NNN->N NNN oooNNoN o.ooN oN o.ooN NN o.ooN NN o.ooN NN o.NoN oN oz NNmu>v mucoENoNNoo NoozoN sz: "zo NNNNN oNzNzNNNzN N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N ooNoNooooN N.NN oN N.NN oN N.NN N o.NN oN N.NN NN ooNNoooN Noz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N ooNNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNo NNNNzNNNzN No NzNzNNNNNNN N .m N .m N .m N .m N .m NonmN NNNmmN NNNNNN NNNmmN NNNmmN NNNNoN NooNNo oooNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoNoNNNoN NoNoNN mm mzmmuzoo NN NNNNNN NNNNzNoN NNzNzNNNzN No NNNNNNNNNN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N osNo Neoo No NNoN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN ooNN Neoo N.NN o N.NN N N.NN N N.N N o.o o oeNN NNoN NoN->N NNzNNNNNxN oNzNzNNNzN No NzNzNszoN NzNN N.NN oN N.N N N.NN N o.NN N N.NN NN ENNN ooo oozo oeoz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o o.NN NN stop ooo N.N N o.o o N.NN N o.o o N.N N Eeoo ooo oozo NNoN NNN->N NNzNzNNNzN No zoNNNNNN NNNzNNNo N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN N o.NN oN o.NN N Neeoo NooN eN.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N o.o o N.NN NN NENNN ooNzN o.NN NN o.o o N.N N N.NN N N.NN N N58 2: N.N N N.N N o.o o N.N N o.o o seoN ooo NNN->N NNNNNNN NN NNzNzNNNzN NzNNN N .m N .N N .m N .z N .m NNNNNN NNNmmN NNNmaN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN NtozNo ooNNzoNz ooNNoNN oNoNoNNNoN 143 N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN o N.NN oN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N ooNNNoNoNooN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN o.ooN NN N.NN NN oz N.NN N N.NN N N.N N o.o o N.NN N NoN Noou>v :oNpNochseoo N.NN NN o.oN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN Noma>v :oNNN>Noo:m N.NN NN o.NN N o.oN N N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N oeNN NNNoooN NzNzNNNNNN No NNNNNNN NNN NzNNNoNN oNzNzNNNzN NNNNNNN N.N N o.o o o.o o N.NN N N.NN N ooxNz N.N N o.o o o.o o N.N N N.N N oNNoNoNNNoN N.NN NN o.ooN NN o.ooN NN o.NN o N.NN NN oNNoNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNo NNzNzNNNzN NNNzoN NNNNNNNN NNNNNNN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N o.o o N.NN N NNoo oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o.ooN NN N.NN oN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o.o o N.N N NNN NNN->N NNNNN NNNNN NNN NNzNNNNN oN NNNNNNNNN NNzNN N .m N .a N .m N .m N .a NNNLNN NNNLNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoNoN Ntozoo oooNNoNz ooNLoNN oNoNoNNNoN mmpmum 144 N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN oz N.NN oN o.oN N N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NoN NNN->N zNNNoNN z NNzNNNNNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN No NNNNNNNNN o.NN oN N.NN oN o.NN N o.ooN NN N.NN NN oz o.oN oN N.NN N o.NN N o.o o N.NN NN NoN NNN->N NoNNN NooeoooNo ooNNsNN N .m N .m N .a N .a N .m NonaN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNoooN Neozoo oooNNoNz ooNNoNN oNoNoNNNoN monopm APPENDIX K CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY STATE REGIONAL AREAS 145 146 N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN N NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N NN NoN NNN->N NNoNN No NuNooNN No :oNuooooEEoomm N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N NN oz N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN NN NNN NNm->N mpooNoNNNNo op oNNNoo Ncooaum N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN oN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N NoN NNN->N NNN NNoNNoN o.ooN NN o.ooN NN o.ooN NN oN oz NNmu>v mocoeeomgmo NoozoN szz Nzo NNNNN oNzNzNNNzN N.N N N.N N o.o o N N N ooooeoooom N.NN oN N.NN NN N.NN NN o NN NN ooNNoooN Noz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N o NN oN ooNNoooN NNN->N zNNNoNN NNzNzNNNzN No NzNzNNNNoNN N .a N .m N .m .m NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNLNN NNouoN Nogom cooeooom cone: Nconom mm mzmmuzou 4N NNNNNN NNNNzNoN NNzNzNNNzN No NNNNNNNNNN N.NN oN N.NN N N.N N N.NN N osNN Neoo to NNoN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N o.NN NN oeNo NNoN N.NN o N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NENN NNoN NNN->N NNzNNNNNxN oNzNzNNNzN No NzNzNszoN NzNN N.NN oN o.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN Etoo ooo oozN otoz N.NN NN o.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN seoo ooo N.N N o.o o N.N N N.N N stoo ooo oozo NNoN NNN->N oNzNzNNNzN No zoNNNNNN NNNzNNNo N.NN NN o.NN o N.NN N N.NN oN NENNN NooN N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NsNoN ooNNN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N 2:3 2: N.N N N.NN N o.o o o.o o sooo ooo NNN->N NNNNNNN NN oNzNzNNNzN NzNNN N .m N .m N .m N .m NNNLmN NNNLNN NNNme NNNmzN NNouoN NNNNN congaozm cone: Neonma 148 N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz N.NN NN NNNN N N.NN N N.NN NN NNN NNN->N ooNoooNoNooN o.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN o N.NN NN oz N.NN N N.N N N.NN N N.N N NoN Nomu>v coNNNoNcoeaou N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN oN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN Nmmn>v :oNNN>Noa:m N.NN NN o.NN o N.NN N N.NN oN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN o N.NN oN NoN NNN->N osNN NNNoooN NzNzNNNNNN No NNNNNNN NNN NzNNNoNo NNzNzNNNzN NNNNNNN N.N N N.N N o.o o N.NN N ooxNz N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N oNNoNoooNoN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN NN oNNoNoNNN NNN->N zNNNoNo NNzNzNNNzN NNNzoN NNNNNNN< NNNNNNN N.NN oN N.NN N N.N N N.NN N NNNoo oz N.NN NN o.NN N N.NN oN N.NN NN oz N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN N NoN NNN->N NNNNN NNNNN NoN NNzNNNNN oN NNNNNNNNN NNzNN N .m N .m N .a N .a NNNLNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNuoN Nogzz coogooam cone: Nconom 149 N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN oN N.NN NN oz N.NN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN NN NoN NNN->N zNNNoNo z NNzNNNNNNNNN NNzNzNNNzN No NNNNNNNNN o.NN NN N.NN NN N.NN N N.NN NN oz o.oN oN N.NN N N.NN N N.NN oN NoN NNN->N NoNNN NooeoooNo ooNNsNN N .m N .N N .a N .m NoNLaN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNouoN Nogom conczoom cone: Noonom APPENDIX L CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERNSHIP ISSUES AND OPERATIONAL CONCERNS BY LEVEL OF INSTITUTION 150 >vtm2ch r anzNz>r acmaNnm N24mxzmsz Nmmcmm >2: ovmx>4Noz>r noznmmzm w< rmNNonNoNo mooszoNN mxoacoNo NoNoNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN 2. N 2. N 2. N 2. N wmochmZmzN om NszzzmzNo oxomz>3 Nmmc oz” INN: mnzooN omeoxaoonm N mmonNmnm 3."me 2 wmnszoxm Amxzm qumxzmzmt Hm ommmmmc Ax< ccx>4Hoz om HzAMzzmth 2-me rmmm nxmz can mea cam mea zosm nywz ozm amxa qHZM nozzmazmza ow H24mxzmIHv mxvmxmmznm Arr< m4>qmo A<-on 4> 4>cnc3 4>cn J>cn<3 4>cnc3 -aoo c>u:os caco~q -uooc: -'oo NN up AN No AN No ma Nu uaas c>¢>4> causes ZSl on rmmmonNmNm wmnsmNoxm mxmacmdm NonmNm Nmmwmv NN.NNN NNWNON NmmmoN 2. N 2. N 2. N 2. .N «czcm ><>Nr>wrm No chomZNm no» mmmrc macc< Nncrq< >NNHNccm Noz>wc HzamwzmzNw umomx>z Ar qumxzmsz vmowrmZm mow m>ncrq< ox cmv>xN2mza mmncNak «Nam AmmonNmnm wmnszoxm mxwacmam NofimNm NN.NNN NNWNNN NN.NON NmmmmN 2. N 2. N 2. N 2. N rNanma uNmnmamsa mNamm A<-mNN erNN< cm Nszwzmev w>xNNoNu>zam > vxowrmz N<-mmN vvmchx z nzH3H2>r acmdunm qumwzmzmv Hmmcmm >zc ovmx>NHoz>r nozomzzm w< m4>4cm om HszHNCNHoz mamacm NcoNNn N1N3 Ammo oz" INN: mnsooN cmxmoxamznm A A<-wwv x< ocx>NNoz on Nzamzzmsz Arr< m4>amc A<>Nr>mrm No maccmzam mom mNmrc macc< Ancrq< >44H4ccm Noz>xo qumxzmxmv Naomx>z Ar qummzmsz umowrmzm mow m>ncra< ox omv>x43mzq mmnanN aNsm ANNrNN< cm Nszxzmzmv v>xNNnHv>2Nm > vxowrmz A