IN F O R M A T IO N T O U S E R S T h is W h ile d is s e rta ti°n th e docum ent m° p r °du c e d f r o m a m i c r o f i l m c o p y o f th e o r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t . ^ d v a n c e q t e c h n o lo g ic a l m e a n s t o 51 h a ve bee us^ t h e quality is h e a v i l y p h o to g r a p h a n d r e p r o d u c e t h is dependent u p o n th e q u a lity o f t h e original s ^ m . T . e d The fo llo w id U e x p la n a t,^ m a r k i n g s o r p3 t t e r 1 _ Q f techniques is p rovided to help you understand •ch m a y appear o n th is r e p r o d u c t i o n . T h e Sl9 n o r p p o to g ra p p is s in g ' t a r g e t " f o r pages a p p a r e n t l y la cking f r o m t h e d o c u m e n t e^j j |viissing P ag e(s)” . p a g e { sj s ectjori| t h e y If are it was po ss ible to o b ta in s p lic e d in to t h e f i l m the a lo ng w i t h g d ja c e n (>dg6s T h j s m a y have n e c e s s ita t e d c u t t in g t h r u a n im age a n d d u p l i c a t i n g a d ja c e n t pages to in s u re y o u c o m p l e t e c o n t i n u i t y . 2 tf/h e n dP rpark, ,fT>^geo n IS an 1 cOPV r jppage 3 vt/ben a t ^ e ^ |m , n t jication t h a t m a ^ d ravvjng or " s e c tio r ^ the w ith c h a rt, g '9 h f m a in rity value, ( cpade rt material. It is c u s t o m a r y jn eq Ua| sect io n s w ith users indicate t h a t ^ som ewhat ri dissert,) i n n q p r n b tr that th e a to d e fin ite begin m e th o d p h o to in g in at t h e c o r n e r 0 f a large s h e e t a n d to c o n t i n u e p h o t o i n g f r o m to g d d ib o ' s u s p e c te d was part o f t h e m a t e r i a l b e in g fo llo w e d a small seC't,o n ir 9 is c o n t i n u e d again — b e g i n n i n g c 0 n t i n u i iq i Jr| ^ c o m p |ete fh e la rg e r o u n d b la c k p h o to g ra p h e r e tc ., p h o to g ra p h e r jp p e f 4 a m o v e d during e x p o s u r e and th u s cau se a b l u r r e d ^ gOOCj im a g e o f t h e page in t h e a d j a c e n t f r a m e . ou p h o * ° 9 r '* d h e{j le ft js o h i j t e r a t e d " 1 h ig h e r pi^Qtographs" jf gj jv e r Qf p r jnts o v e r la p . below th e If necessary, f ir s t ro w and t h e t e x t u a l c o n t e n t is o f g re a te s t q u a lity e s s e n t ia l re p ro d u c tio n c o u ld to th e u n d e r s t a n d i n g “ p h o to g ra p h s ” m ay be of ordered be the at < h a r g e by writing t h e O r d e r D e p a r t m e n t , g iv in g t h e c a ta lo g t it e, a ( J t ^ or and spec if ic p a g e s y o u wish r e p r o d u c e d . University Microfilms 300 N o r t h Z e e b R o a d Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n 4810 6 A Xero* E d u c a tio n C om pany I I 73-5449 MOORE, Merlyn Douglas, 1942A STUDY OF THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS AND VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Sociology, criminology U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s , A XEROX C o m p an y , A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n STUDY OF THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS AND VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ry Merlyn Douglas Moore A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1972 PLEA5E Some NOTE: pages may in d i s t in e t Filmed University as Microfilms, have print. received. A Xerox Education Company ABSTRACT A STUDY OF TIE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS AND VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Merlyn Douglas Moore This study was part of a coordinated research project conducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal justice education. The School received a grant from the Michigan State Planning Agency, the Of­ fice of Criminal Justice Programs, in order to conduct systematic planning and research in a number of areas. To plan effectively in the area of criminal Justice education there must be a clear understanding and know­ ledge of what happens to the student following graduation. A review of the literature revealed that there have been relatively few studies done that have been concerned with the graduates of criminal Justice programs. In an effort to cast more light on this subject area, this writer conducted a survey of the School's graduates to gather information concern­ ing placement and utilization of its graduates, as well as their views to­ ward the criminal Justice program and selected criminal Justice issues re­ lated to criminal Justice education. The population surveyed was the to­ tal number of graduates of Michigan State University who majored in crim­ inal Justice (excluding foreign students residing in foreign countries). Consideration of the size and geographical dispersion of the population resulted in the determination that the most appropriate means of datagathering would be accomplished through the use of the mailed, self— Merlyn Douglas Moore administering questionnaire. After development of the questionnaire, a pre-test was given to a purposive sample of 150 graduates. As a result of the pre-test, revisions were made and the revised questionnaire was sent to 1,822 graduates. Af­ ter approximately three weeks a follow—up letter was sent out to those graduates who had not yet responded. As a result of the initial mailing and follow-up, 1 ,l6l questionnaires were returned. Along with this, 91 questionnaires were returned unanswered by the If. S. Post Office as being undeliverable. This represented a useable return percentage of 67*1* The major purpose of this research was to discover "what is", since this particular body of knowledge is practically non-existent. Thus this study represents a new body of information that should contribute towards (l) an understanding of placement and utilization patterns of criminal Justice graduates; (2) an understanding of placement and utilization poli­ cies of various criminal Justice agencies; (3) a determining of the strengths and weaknesses in the criminal Justice program at Michigan Gtate University; (U) an understanding of selected issues in criminal Justice as perceived by criminal Justice graduates; (5) a source for both criminal Justice students and criminal Justice programs across the nation to utilize; and (6) estab­ lishing a more coordinated placement program between the School and the criminal Justice field. Some of the more salient results of the study were: (l) a majority of graduates ( 6 0 0 or 53^) chose a public law enforcement agency as their initial employment opportunity; (2 ) the four most frequently mentioned reasons by graduates who chose not to enter the criminal Justice field Merlyn Douglas Moore or a related area were (a) Jobs were simply not available, (b) low salary, (c) lack of opportunity, and (d) a physical restriction; (3) a majority of graduates (6^0 or 62%) were initially placed at the level of operation; (U) a majority of respondents (6 7 %) felt their college training was best util­ ized through their initial Job placement; (5) 50% of the respondents re­ ported that their present Job is not with the same agency/organization that initially hired them; (6) the public law enforcement category re­ mains the largest single present employment category with 510 graduates (^5%); (7) although there was considerable transposition between agencies/ organizations on the part of a number of respondents, a majority of gradu­ ates have remained in their initial area of employment (e.g. , 7^% who be­ gan in public law enforcement are still in that area; U2% are still in pri­ vate law enforcement, 8U% are still in non-law enforcement; 75% are still in the military); (8) as a group, the majority of respondents ( 7 2 2 or 6 7 %) feel their criminal Justice education is being utilized in their current employment position; (9) the majority of criminal Justice graduates rank the factor that "graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency ladder", as being the most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field; (10) the public law enforcement category (federal level) is thought to put forth the greatest effort in recruiting college graduates, and the private law enforcement category was thought to provide the least effort; (11) the public law enforcement category (state and local level) ranks as the category providing the least effort in placing graduates in posi­ tions commensurate to their education, and the public law enforcement Merlyn Douglas Moore category (federal level) is thought to provide the greatest effort; (12) a majority of graduates espouse many of the recommended changes suggested by the President's Commission (1967) pertaining to personnel policy re­ visions; (13) a majority of graduates feel their agencies espouse many of these recommended changes; (1*0 5^7 graduates {51%) feel the School of Criminal Justice should not leave the criminal Justice program unchanged. A majority of respondents feel there should be an "integration of both the operational and administrative approaches" to criminal justice education; (l>) overwhelmingly, the graduates (977 or 9&%) feel their college educa­ tion had been a positive influence on their career. TO MY PARENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation reflects the effort and support of many persons. The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the following people, who together made this study possible: Eleven-hundred forty-nine criminal Justice graduates, whose coopera­ tive effort made the study possible; Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs, without whose finan­ cial assistance this study vould not have been possible; Professor John H. McNamara, Graduate Committee Chairman, and Profes­ sors Leonard Kasdan, James B. McKee, and Ralph F. Turner, members of the Graduate Committee, for their assistance and guidance during the doctor­ al program; Professor Larry Hoover, for his suggestions in the preparation of the final draft; Mrs, Llesa Gilbert, for her painstaking efforts in typing and edit­ ing the final draft; Mr. Chuck McCallura, for his assistance in providing a most up-to-date address list of past graduates of the School of Criminal Justice; Mr. James Mullin, for his assistance in computer programming; Mrs. Joan Dunn, for her assistance in key punching and verification of the data; The faculty and students of the School of Criminal Justice for their assistance in the development of the survey inatrunent; and last, but not least, the author's wife, Barbara, and daughter, Jen­ nifer, for being the motivating force behind the author's academic pursuits. ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES I. ............................................... .................................................... THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ........................... Introduction to the Problem Statement of the Problem Importance of Study .......................... 6 Definitions of Terms Used III. METHODOLOGY ....... ® ......................... ......................................... 2l* 140 ............................. ^1 Construction of the Instrument ..................... ^1 Pre-Testing the Instrument ........................ Sampling Techniques and Research Design Analysis Techniques Limitations of Study IV. 7 ........................... Description of Sample 1 1 ...................... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE vi ....................... Statement of Hypotheses and Their Rationale II. iii ............................... ........................ DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .......................... Format of Data Presentation General Information ....... ....................... ............................... Educational Information ...... ..................... Post-College Initial PlacementInformation ....... Present Employment Information and Views Toward Se­ lected Issues in Criminal Justice ............... iv ^3 ^ **5 1+6 ^ *+7 U9 ^ QU Chapter V. Page SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary 117 ........................................... Conclusions Discussion 117 ....................................... 120 ........................................ 133 Implications for Future Research .................. 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 11,0 APPENDICES ....................................................... I1*3 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 General Characteristics of the Sample .................... 1+7 2 Year of Graduation (BS) .................................. 50 3 Year of Graduation (MS) .................................. 50 U Area of Specialization ................................... 51 5 Degree of Satisfaction with Curriculum by Area of Specialization ........................................ 53 6 Initial Job Placement .................................... 56 7 Degree of Satisfaction with Level of Initial Placement .................. ......... by Initial Major Employment 53 Degree of Satisfaction by Public Lav Enforcement Initial Placement ............................................. 60 In-Service, Prior-Service, Pre-Service Students byInitial Placement in Non-Law Enforeement/Law EnforcementWork ... 63 10 Initial Placement with Agency or Organization 6k 11 Initial Placement Position by Initial Major Employment 12 Initial Placement Position by Public Law Enforcement Category ....................................... 66 13 Initial Placement Position by Degree Received 67 lU Initial Placement Position by In-Service, Prior—Service, and Pre-Service Graduates ............................. 66 15 Year of Graduation by Initial Placement Position 69 16 Time Sequence Before Being Promoted or Assigned to a Spe­ cialized, Supervisory, or Administrative Position by Initial Major Employment ............... 70 17 Pay Incentive Program by Initial Major Employment 73 18 Managerial/Internship Program by Initial Major Employment ............ 8 9 vi ............ ... ............ ......... ........ 65 73 Table Pdge 19 Lateral Entry Policy by Initial Major Employment 20 Entry Level by Initial Major Unployment 21 Degree of 22 Degree of Preparedness in Comparison with Fellow Workers .. 77 23 Degree of Preparedness for Initial Job Placement by Area of Specialization ..................................... 78 Utilization of College Training Through Initial Job Placement ............................................. 79 2h ......... 71* ................. 76 .. 77 Preparedness for Initial Job Placement 25 Initial Entrance Salary .................................. 8l 26 Length of Time Remained with Initial Job After Graduation Before Accepting Second Job ........................... 82 Length of Time Remained with Criminal Justice Agency After Graduation Before Accepting Second Job - In-Service ......................................... Personnel 83 28 Present Einployment 85 29 Present Employment by Initial Major Employment 30 Present Job Position by Present Employment 31 Extent Criminal Justice Education Utilized in Current Position .......................................... 91 Number of Agencies Worked for Since Graduating from M.S.U.................................................... 92 33 Present Salary 93 31* Factors Ranked as Most Detrimental to the Recruitment of College Graduates ..................................... 91* Ranking of Agencies' Efforts Towards Recruiting College Graduates ................................... 95 Ranking of Agencies' Efforts in Placing College Graduates in Positions Commensurate with Their Education ........ 96 27 32 35 36 ...... ........ 88 ..... 90 ............................. 37 Lateral Entry Policy ..................................... 36 Lateral Entry Policy by Public Law EnforcementCategory ... 101 vii 790 Table Page 39 Initial Job Entry - Degree Holder and Uon-Degree Holder ................................................ loU i+0 Initial Job Entry - Undergraduate Degree Holder and the Graduate Degree Holder ................................ 105 Agency Feeling on Difference in Initial Job Entry Between Non-Degree Holder and Undergraduate Degree Holder by Public Law Enforcement CategoryBreakdown .............. 1°6 ll h2 Agency Feeling on Difference in Initial Job Entry Between Undergraduate Degree Holder and Graduate Degree Holder by Public Law Enforcement Category Breakdown .......... *+3 Response of Bachelor and Master Degree Holders ........... 11° Thrust of Criminal Justice Program 113 viil .................. . CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Problem The criminal Justice arena can be viewed from a variety of socio­ logical perspeetives. For instance, the work of Skolnik relates to the institutional analysis of the lav in the sociology of law. His primary aim was to investigate how value conflicts in a democratic society create conditions that affect the capacity of the police to respond to the rule of law.^ Another major perspective derives from the study of organiza­ tions and their personnel. In the case of the police and other criminal Justice agencies in the American criminal Justice system, one can gain some understanding of the effectiveness of the syBtem and its personnel by examining the concept of professionalization and its emphasis on education. In order to consider the concept of professionalization, some con­ sideration must be given to the term "profession1', for many occupational groups with but slight intrinsic claim to the quality status of a pro­ fession have appropriated the concept. Basically, the term "profession" is properly attached only to those occupations which are based upon a high degree of intellectual content. fession as follows: It would seem proper to delineate a pro­ (l) a service oriented rather than product oriented, function; (2) utilization of scientific knowledge and specialized talents; ^Jerome H. Skolnick.Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Demo­ cratic Society (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966) . 2 (3) personnel who have achieved a high level of competence based on a mastery of considerable intellectual content; (U) personnel who are given extensive autonomy and authority in exercising their special com­ petences; {5 ) personnel who have strong commitments to a career based on their special competence; (6) personnel who are committed to the free 3pirit of inquiry, and whose loyalties relate more to the profession than to an employing organization, and whose values relative to personal ac­ complishment relate to esteem of professional peers, rather than to hier­ archical supervisors; and (7) personnel who are determined to influence change by taking action to eliminate or ostracize all incompetent and 2 immoral members of the occupation. Although there ore many personnel of professional competence in the criminal Justice arena, the occupational grouping categorized as the crim­ inal Justice field as a whole does not meet the standards of a profession to the degree that it should, even though it is a professional activity. This observation was clearly reflected in the work, of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Many of its recommendations concerned giving professional status and recognition to those personnel who merit such prestige, and to provide incentives to those members of the organization who might be persuaded to increase their technical competence and general education. In addition, many of these recommendations were developed as incentives to attract the college edu­ cated graduate, since the qualities which criminal Justice officials claim 2 A.C. Germ&nn, "Recruitment, Selection, Promotion and Civil Service", a paper submitted to The President's Commission on Lav Enforcement and Ad­ ministration of Justice. 19^7. PP. 1 9 3 - 1 9 6 . 3 to look for in recruits are the very ones which a liberal education is believed to enhance. lieved to nurture: According to Saunders, a liberal education is be­ a knowledge of changing social, economic, and politi­ cal conditions, an understanding of human behavior; and the ability to communicate; together with the assumption of certain moral values, habits of mind, and qualities of self-discipline which are important in sustaining a commitment to public service. 3 The matter of recruiting and retaining criminal Justice personnel deserves further mentioning - that is to the extent to which a criminal Justice agency makes particular provisions for attracting and retaining college educated individuals into their agencies. For it goes without saying that unless substantial retentive features are built into an or­ ganization's structure (such as that recommended by the Commission), the professionally educated individual will seek a career elsewhere. The developing professionalization movement in criminal Justice provides the necessary base for the application of sociology to criminal Justice concerns. Because of its emphasis on education, the profession­ alization concept has opened the way for what iB probably the most signi­ ficant "application" of sociology to date.*4 Although there have been a number of studies recently of college students - their attitudes and opinions, and changes in these as a consequence of their college experience, 3 Charles B . Saunders, Jr., Upgrading the American Police: Education and Training for Better Law Enforcement (Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution^ 1970), pp. 82-83". Paul F. Lazerfield, William H. Sewell and Harold L. Wilensky, The Uses of Sociology (New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1967)* k ■p and also of what happened to them after college - there has been little de­ finitive data available on the criminal Justice graduate. attracted to the criminal justice field? Is he, in fact, Is he placed and utilized in po­ sitions commensurate to his professional training? Does he espouse many of the recommended changes that research investigations by sociologists state are needed? Does his agency espouse such feelings? in the criminal justice field for a career? Does he remain These are Just some of the questions that this study hopes to answer. This study was part of a coordinated research project conducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal Justice education. The School received a grant from the Michigan State Planning Agency, the Office of Criminal Justice Programs, in order to conduct systematic planning and research in a number of areas. The goals of the project were to enhance the teaching and advising of students in the School, to update and revise the present curriculum, to improve the placement and utilization of the School's graduates in the field, and to develop a teacher preparation pro­ gram for criminal Justice higher education programs as well as to work to­ ward the articulation of criminal Justice education programs in the State of Michigan. To accomplish some of the above stated goals, the School conducted a survey of its graduates to gather information concerning placement and utilization of its graduates, as well as their views toward the criminal Justice program and selected criminal Justice issues. ^James ii. Mckee, Introduction to Sociology (New York: Holt, Rine­ hart and Winston, Inc., 1969) p. 509* 5 This writer saw the need for such research when inquiry into what happens to graduates of criminal Justice programs proved negligible. Im­ portant questions concerning where graduates go after graduation, what placement and utilization patterns do they meet, what do they think about their studies in criminal Justice, why do non-law enforcement graduates choose not to enter the field for which they are prepared, and other simi­ lar questions have been left virtually unanswered. Some of these questions have been partially answered, but for the most part not by individual schools. For example, there have been a few surveys done by independent sources that have contributed towards answering some of these questions and they will be discussed in the review of the literature section. Surprisingly, this writer knows of no criminal Justice school that has conducted research of this kind. The importance of this fact can be ascertained from the follow­ ing observations. Tenney noted that most professional disciplines— lav, medicine, so­ cial work, etc.— have some knowledge as to where Individuals educated in these disciplines have gone following completion of their formal education. A professional school undertakes to maintain such information. From a pro­ fessional point of view, it is important to know how many lawyers, doctors, or social workers are in private practice, government service, teaching, or related activities. Professional schools are interested from both a re­ cruitment and curriculum point of view in what happens to their students.^ Yet criminal Justice programs have been in existence for forty years with ^Charles W. Tenney, Jr., Higher Education Frnfframg in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971) PP. 57-5tJ- 6 little systematic research concerning what becomes of their graduates. Thus, research of this nature is essential if the criminal Justice discipline is to reach professional stature and also important, from the School of Criminal Justice's standpoint, to maintain the School's function of providing leadership in the field of criminal Justice education and en­ hancing the progress toward the professionalization of the criminal Jus­ tice arena. Statement of the Problem It is the purpose of this report to: (l) inquire about the initial placement and utilization of past graduates from the School of Criminal Justicei (2) inquire about the criminal Justice program and preparation they received while attending Michigan State University; (3) inquire about their present employment; (U) survey the graduates on personnel procedures and related concepts as they relate to criminal Justice higher education; and (5) inquire as to the direction the School should take in the criminal Jus­ tice program as perceived by its graduates. Inquiring into the past experiences of graduates of Michigan State’s School of Criminal Justice will enable this writer to: (l) compare the placement and utilization patterns exercised by the various criminal Jus­ tice agencies; (2) compare placement and utilization patterns of bachelor degree holders and advanced degree holders; (3) compare the initial place­ ment patterns of in-service, prior-service, and pre-service graduates; and (U) ascertain the reason or reasons that some graduates do not choose, or choose to leave the criminal Justice field. Inquiring about the criminal Justice program and preparation received while attending Michigan State 7 should provide feedback for purposes of evaluating the School's cur­ riculum for possible improvement. Through the constructive appraisal of the School's program by graduates now in the field, a more relevant program may be developed in an effort to bring the objectives of the School and those of the criminal Justice agencies into closer harmony. Inquiring about the graduate's present employment will not only provide exact information as to what has happened to the individual student fol­ lowing graduation, but it will also allow one to look at the mobility pat­ terns of criminal justice graduates. Finally, the descriptive data alone will help to answer many questions concerning the areas contained within the survey instrument that is necessary for future planning. Importance of Study To the best of this writer's knowledge there have been relatively few attempts made to determine what happens to the criminal justice stu­ dent following graduation. Thus this study represents a new body of in­ formation that should contribute towards: (l) an understanding of place­ ment and utilization patterns of criminal Justice graduates; (2) an under­ standing of placement and utilization policies of various criminal justice agencies; (3) a determination of the strengths and weaknesses in the crim­ inal Justice program at Michigan State University; (U) an understanding of selected issues in criminal Justice as perceived by criminal Justice gradu­ ates; (5) a source for both criminal Justice students and criminal Justice programs across the nation to utilize; and (6) establishing a more coordinated placement program between the School and the criminal Justice field. a Statement of Hypotheses and Their Rationale Hypothesis I. A majority of graduates, if they had to do it over again, would (l) choose again the same area of specialization and (2) again choose the criminal Justice area as their college major. Rationale; This assumption is based on the belief that graduates would want to work in the field they studied four or more years in college for. Hypothesis II. A majority of criminal Justice graduates will have felt satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while attending Michigan State University. Rationale; According to L&rkins In his survey of the industrial security graduates of Michigan State, the majority of graduates were more than satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while attending M.S.U. 7 Assuming that the industrial security graduate is not that differentiated from other graduates in other areas of specialization, one can predict that the major­ ity of respondents will be satisfied with the curriculum that was in effect during their study in the program. However, it should be noted that Hsve- mann and West reported that the greatest dissatisfaction with the college experience among college graduates was the curriculum pursued while attend­ ing college.^ Hypothesis III. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will have chosen a public law enforcement agency as their initial employment opportunity. 7 Hayes C, Larkins, 1|A Survey of Experiences, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Security Administration Graduates of Michigan State University" (Unpublished mastera thesis, Mictigan State University, 1966), pp. 27-31Q Ernest Havemann and Patricia Salter We3t, They Went to College. The College Graduate in America Today (New York: Hareourt, Brace and Company, 1952) 9 Rationale: According to a survey conducted in 1966, the largest single category of initial employment after graduation vas public law enforceQ ment.' It should be noted, though, that in a recent study conducted by Newman and Hunter, over half of all pre-service graduates in criminal Justice programs failed to enter law enforcement.^ Hypothesis IV. A significant number of those whose initial employment was with a public law enforcement agency will have been dissatisfied with their initial placement position. Rationale: Evidence regarding the variance between the expectations of the college graduate and the actual placement and utilization procedures util­ ized by public law enforcement agencies suggest that those choosing public law enforcement would be significantly more dissatisfied.^'*' There is evi­ dence to support the claim that better educated and more intelligent men are more liable to experience frustration and dissatisfaction within the police system. 12 Levy's study drew the conclusion that police departments Q Richard Post, ”Po 3 t Graduation Activities of Police Administration Students” , October 1967 (Mimeographed), pp. *J-6. ^Charles L. Newman and Dorothy Sue Hunter, "Education for Careers in Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Student Output 196U-67"» Journal of Crimi­ nal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 59 (March 19^8)» pp. 139-1^0. ■^Thompson S. Crockett and John Moses, "Incentive Plans for Law Enforce­ ment Education", The Police Chief, Vol. 28 (August 1 9 6 9 ). pp. 20-52. 12 Ruth Levy, "Summary of Report on Retrospective Study of 5.000 Peace Officer Personnel Records", Police Yearbook 1966, p. 6 2 . Arthur Neiderhoffer, in Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society (New York: Doubleday Company, 1 9 6 7 ), made the point that men with higher levels of education tend to become more frustrated and cynical the longer they remain patrolmen be­ cause their expectations are higher (p. 235). 10 do not sufficiently meet the needs of their better educated officers. Hypothesis V. Those graduates vho chose not to go into law enforcement related work will have done so for the most part because of one of two rea­ sons - low salary or lack of opportunity. Rationale: A study by Tenney found that upon questioning a significant number of law enforcement graduates, two answers were predominantly given to the question of why they chose a different occupation. The report stated that ’’the two reasons most frequently mentioned were the relatively low salaries and the lack of opportunity* that is* for advancement and for the display of initiative. Hypothesis VI. 13 A majority of those not entering law enforcement related work will have been pre-service students rather theui in-Bervice or priorservice students. Rationale; Newman and Hunter found that among graduates of baccalaureate programs in law enforcement, about three-quarters of those not previously in law enforcement and over half of the entire number did not enter the field following graduation. Hypothesis VII. lU Those graduates whose initial employment was with a cate­ gory other than that of public law enforcement will be more favorable in their satisfaction with initial placement than will those graduates choosing a public law enforcement agency. Rationale: According to the literature, college graduates are becoming lenncy, op* cit. , p. 62. 1^ Newman and Hunter, op. cit., p. l40. 11 more and more disenchanted with the personnel policies of public law en­ forcement agencies. Thus, many are selecting other areas of employment because of better Job satisfaction.1'* One may assume then that the gradu­ ates surveyed in this study will be no different - those whose initial placement was with a private law enforcement agency, a non-law enforcement agency, or the military will have had a more favorable perception in their satisfaction of initial placement. Hypothesis VIII. In spite of the President's Commission recommendation of February 19 6 7 , there will be no difference in placement and utilization patterns between 1 9 3 8 - 1 9 6 7 graduates and 1 9 6 8 -I9 TI graduates who chose the public law enforcement category. Rationale: Based on conversations, lectures, readings, and observations, this writer agrees with the general belief that "commissions are good for compiling factual data but their usefullness in creating action programs is negligible". Also, the literature shows that the police are typically defensive toward those who would investigate their practices and thus the lack of acceptance of most Commission recommendations is foreseeable.1^ Hypothesis IX. There will be a significant difference in the degree of satisfaction one has toward his initial placement with a public lav ^Richard H. Blum, Police Selection (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company, 1 9 6 U ); A.C. Hermann, Police Personnel Management (Spring­ field, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company” 1963). ^Harold K. Becker, Issues in Police Administration (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1970), p. 102; John M. Pfiffner, "The Function of the Police in a Democratic Society" (Unpublished paper, Youth Studies Center, University of Southern California, 1963), pp. 9-10. 12 enforcement agency - depending on whether the agency was at the municipal, state, or federal government level. It is hypothesized that the degree of satisfaction will be the lowest at the municipal or local level, and the highest at the federal level. Rationale: launders has suggested that most graduates enter federal, mili­ tary, retail, and industrial security agencies rather theus local agencies, reflecting the low status and satisfaction of placement at the municipal 17 The literature i3 replete with findings on the low satisfaction level. given an individual at the local level. On the other hand, the status and satisfaction held by many state and federal Jobs is much higher. Thus one may assume that the degree of satisfaction will vary with whether the agen­ cy was at the municipal (local), state, or federal governmental level. Hypothesis X. There will be significant differences in the time sequence before being promoted or assigned to a specialized, supervisory, or admini­ strative position dependent upon area category. It is assumed that the pub­ lic law enforcement category will show the longest time sequence before be­ ing promoted or assigned to a specialized, supervisory, or administrative po­ sition and within this category the municipal governmental level will show the longest time span. Rationale: The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra­ tion of Justice directed its attention to this problem when they observed the difficulty in recruiting college graduates. College graduates are likely to be deterred from a police career by the fact that it traditionally and almost universally starts at the bottom. 17 Saunders, op. cit., pp. 108-109- A young man enters a police 13 department as a uniformed patrolman and serves in that capacity for a con­ siderable period of time— rarely less than two years and more often four or five--before becoming eligible for promotion. lB On the other hand, the literature shows that this is not the case for categories outside the publie law enforcement category. 19 Hypothesis XI. Few, if any respondents in the public law enforcement category will say there was a pay incentive program for personnel taking college credit courses in their respective agencies. Rationale: A I960 survey of 703 police departments throughout the country showed the extent to which incentives are offered the police officer for having a college education. They found that only thirty-three (0.U2JC) de- partments reported pay increases available for completed college courses. Hypothesis XII. 20 A policy of lateral entry will be relatively non-existent in agencies categorized as public law enforcement, while, on the other hand lateral entry will be an existing concept in agencies categorized as private law enforcement, non-law enforcement, or the military. Rationale: Although the military services and the commercial and indus­ trial world allow lateral entrance, the American public law enforcement "^®The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), P • 107. ^Bruce Smith, Police Systems in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, i9 6 0 ), pp. 319-320. 20 Crockett and Moses, op, cit., pp. 20-52. ih system has for the most part failed to adopt a policy of lateral entrance. 21 There have been notable exceptions such as in flt. Louis, Missouri and San Diego, California, but these are quite the exceptions from the rule. 22 Thus, it would seem that lateral entry will be relatively non-existent in public law enforcement, but very much in evidence in the other categories. Hypothesis XIII. Few, if any respondents in the public law enforcement category will have participated in a managerial/internship trainee pro­ gram for the college graduate; on the other hand, there will be a sig­ nificant number of managerial/internship trainee programs for college graduates in the private law enforcement, non-law enforcement, and mili­ tary categories. Rationale: The utilization of the managerial/internship concept in the criminal justice field is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although nu­ merous programs entitled "internship" do exist, most such programs are little more than modified field observation experiences. On the other hand, extensive use of the internship concept has been implemented in the areas of public administration, 23 management, 2U and business. 25 Thus, it is reasonable to assume that such a program would be relatively “^Larry D. Soderquist, "Upgrading the Service", The Police Chief, (August 1969), pp. 65-66. 22 Germann, op. cit., pp. 175-176. P1 James R. Watson, "Internships for Public Service Training", State Government, (March 1 9 6 7 ), pp. 67-71* pli Charles A. Ullman, "Management Internships in the Federal Govern­ ment", Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. 36 (May 1956 )1 PP* 6 1 6 -6 2 2 . OC Frank C. Pierson, The Education of American B u s i n e s s m e n .(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19591* 15 non-existent in the public law enforcement category while it would very likely be in effect in many agencies in the private law enforcement, non-law enforcement, and military categories. Hypothesis XIV. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will have felt prepared for their initial Job placement. Rationale: Larkins found that the majority of his respondents felt very well prepared for their initial position. 26 Although these were industrial security majors, this writer feels the preparation given in the other areas of specialization are comparable, thus negating differ­ ences in the preparation students receive in the various areas of interest. Hypothesis XV. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel their college training was not best utilized in their initial Job placement. Rationale: The literature suggests there is often disparate views between scnools of criminal Justice and criminal Justice administrators regarding what skills and knowledge college trained criminal Justice specialists should have. Often the college graduate feels he is assuming menial and non-challenging tasks that would be better suited for someone else and feels that his college training received in school is not being utilized to a significant degree. 27 Larkins, op. cit., p. 28. 27 Saunders, op. cit., p. ; Germann, op. cit., p. llU; The Presi­ dent's Comission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, op, cit., p. 107 * 16 Hypothesis XVI. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will be pleased with their present Job position. Rationale: Larkins found that 915S of the industrial security graduates surveyed were satisfied with their present Job position. 28 It may be assumed that similar results can be expected from this study since one can suppose most graduates would not be in their present Jobs unless they were pleased with their present position. Hypothesis XVII. The degree criminal Justice graduates will feel their criminal Justice education is being utilized in their present position will depend largely on their present employment category. Rationale: It can be assumed that those graduates who do not enter the criminal Justice field or a related work area will least likely feel that their criminal Justice education is being best utilized in their present position. On the other hand, it can be assumed that those working in the criminal Justice arena or related area will feel their education is being better utilized. Hypothesis XVIII. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will have remained in the area of employment that was their initial work experience. Rationale: Post reported that the majority of graduates, regardless of category, remained in the area of employment that was their initial placement. 29 Although it might be expected that a significant number may change Job positions or agencies, it is assumed they would remain Larkins, op. cit., pp. 33-3929 Post, op. cit., pp. 8-1*4 . 17 for the most part in the category of initial placement. Hypothesis XIX. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that the factor which is most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field is that graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency . ., 30 ladder. Rationale: It is thought by this writer that this factor is most detri­ mental in the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field. Although the literature suggests a number of factors resulting in low recruitment figures of college graduates, it is believed that this particular factor is most detrimental, based upon interviews with past and present students at the School. Hypothesis XX. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will rank the public law enforcement (state and local level) category as the one utilizing the least effort in the recruitment of college graduates. Rationale: The literature on personnel recruitment of college graduates is abundant with efforts by industry, governmental agencies, and the military to fill their growing labor needs. Although public law en­ forcement is beginning to compete with these other areas for the gradu­ ate, the literature suggests they are increasingly frustrated in their efforts. ^°A.C. Germann, Police Executive Development (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company, 19f>2); Soderquist, op. cit., pp. 53-76, George Shepherd,"Are We Aiming Too Low in Recruitment", The Police Chief, (Janu­ ary 1967 ) , P P . 20-21+. 18 Hypothesis XXI. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will rank the public law enforcement (state and local level) category as the one utiliz­ ing the least effort in the placing of college graduates in positions com­ mensurate with their training. Rationale: Since, typically, the college graduate begins work at the lowest rank in a public law enforcement agency regardless of qualifica­ tions, one can hypothesize that this particular category utilizes the least effort in placing college graduates in positions commensurate to their training. Since the other categories utilize lateral entry, manage­ ment trainee programs, and the like, it is expected that they will receive a higher ranking. Hypothesis XXII. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that personnel performing specialized functions not involving a need for general enforcement power should be hired for their talents and abilities without regard to prior criminal Justice experience. Rationale: In order to enhance the professionalization concept of the criminal Justice discipline, it is assumed most graduates would look at the above as optimising the utilization of persons with particular ex­ pertise which is needed by the organization and contributes immensely toward the professionalization of criminal justice. Hypothesis XXIII. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel an agency or organization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for recruitment of personnel at certain Job positions. Rationale: Generally, the advantages of lateral entry are thought to 19 far outweigh any problems that instituting a lateral entry system might entail. 31 The President's Commission fully endorsed the lateral entry concept and recommended its immediate implementation by the entire American police community. Thus one can assume that a majority of graduates would agree with the Commission's recommendation and want to see the concept of lateral entry implemented. Hypothesis XXIV. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel it would be desirable to have internship/understudy programs in order to develop lateral entry programs within their agencies. Rationale: If it can be assumed that most graduates will feel the need for lateral entry, then they also would endorse internship/understudy programs to help implement a lateral entry policy. Hypothesis XXV. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that special considerations (entry level, salary, promotional eligibility, etc.) should be given by criminal Justice agencies to the educational qualifications of individuals. Rationale: Although it has been clearly illustrated by Crockett and Moses 32 that most police departments do not feel the need for incentives for police officers having a college education, it can be assumed that the respondents, college educated, would feel the need for such con­ sideration by criminal Justice agencies to attract a better qualified ^William Hewitt, "Lateral Entry and Transferability of Retire­ ment Credits", a paper submitted to The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justic'eJ 19^7*. J Crockett and Moses, op. cit., pp. 28-52. 20 individual, provide greater diversity of growth in the agency, and encc.u'ige others to continue their education. iiypothesis XXVI. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel there should be a difference in initial Job entry between the non-degree holder, the undergraduate degree holder, and the graduate degree holder. Rationale: It is this writer's belief that whereas educational achieve­ ment is the basis for many varied Job classifications, the criminal Jus­ tice graduate will feel that a different Job entry level is necessary for non-degree holders» undergraduate degree holders, and graduate de­ gree holders. If there is to be a movement toward higher standards of professionalization this will have to be the case. As recognition grows that the administration of criminal Justice requires highly skil­ led specialists, the potential recruitment base should be broadened be­ yond the four-year liberal arts schools to include graduate schools as well. If there is no separation for initial Job entry, the potential recruitment base of degree holders and advanced degree holders will be negligible. Hypothesis XXVII. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that not all criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. Rationale: In lectures and conversations over the past few years, this writer has developed the opinion that although most students and profes­ sors are in favor of increased educational standards for criminal Jus­ tice personnel, there are working levels that do not necessitate all 21 personnel having a college degree. Thus it can be assumed that a major­ ity of graduates will not believe that a college degree should be a pre­ requisite for entry into the criminal Justice field. An interesting side­ light to this question will be to compare the responses of the graduates in the different categories of Job classification. It may be that a major­ ity of graduates in one or more categories might feel that most all crim­ inal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. Hypothesis XXVIII. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that criminal Justice agencies should take immediate steps to es­ tablish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all super­ visory and executive positions. Bationale: In keeping with the professionalization concept for the criminal Justice discipline, this step would seem to be in order if criminal Justice is to provide better, more knowledgeable leadership and strive to reach the professional stature of other professional disciplines. The President's Commission's findings and the examples of criminal Justice agencies that have established a minimum require­ ment of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions demonstrate the value of such steps. 33 Hypothesis XXIX. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that the thrust of the criminal Justice program at Michigan State should be left unchanged. 33See Donald E. Clark and Samuel G. Chapman, A Forward Step: Edu­ cational Backgrounds for Policet(Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company, 19£>£>}. 22 Rationale: If one is to assume that a majority of criminal Justice gradu­ ates felt satisfied with the curriculuin and preparation they received while attending Michigan State, it can also he assumed they would then feel the program should remain unchanged. If anything should he changed it might be that there has to be created a compromise of some sort between the thrust of the School of Criminal Justice and the objectives in the crim­ inal Justice field. iiypothesis XXX. The majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel the School should take an active part in helping place students in the criminal Justice field. Rationale: In my conversations with students over the past few years, a major criticism of the School was the lack of assistance it provided in helping them seek employment. Although there is currently a Job in­ formation file located within the Brennan Library in the School of Crim­ inal Justice, it is felt that more can he done to assist the student by having a position (possibly handled by a graduate assistant) created that would actively seek and direct itself to placing graduates in the criminal Justice field. Definition of Terms Used Lateral Entry: As used throughout thi3 study, the term refers to the ap­ pointment of administrative,professional, and technical personnel above normal entrance levels into an organization from the outside. Pre-service: Refers to a person with no law enforcement experience before graduation from Michigan State University. 23 In-Service: Refers to a person who was employed by a law enforcement agency while attending Michigan State University. Prior-service: Refers to a person who had had law enforcement experi­ ence but was not so employed at the time he was attending Michigan State University. Managerial/Internship Trainee Program: A type of participant program designed to provide an educational experience for the trainee who has accumulated a body of substantive knowledge, acquired specific skills, and developed a degree of technical mastery in a given field prior to his involvement as a trainee. Public Law Enforcement: Refers to all state, federal, university, and municipal governmental police, security, and investigative functions. It also includes probation, parole, corrections, and highway traffic personnel employed by governmental organizations. Private Law Enforcement: Refers to individuals who engage primarily in a police/security function for an industrial, business, or private in­ vestigative organization. It also includes private agencies concerned with delinquency prevention, rehabilitation of offenders, etc. lion-Law Enforcement: Refers to all other areas of employment such as education (including criminal Justice), research, sales, personnel, etc. Career Military: Refers to all career active duty military personnel, in­ cluding those engaged in law enforcement or security activities while on active duty. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There have been relatively few studies that have been done specifi­ cally on the subject area of this research design, namely, the placement and utilization patterns and views of criminal Justice graduates. Al­ though there have been a number of surveys of criminal Justice higher edu­ cation programs, these surveys have only been concerned in an incidental matter with the graduates of these programs. As a result, research re­ garding graduates themselves is almost non-existent. Questions such as what has been their experience, where do graduates go after graduation, what do they meet in the way of placement and utilization policies in their new Job, why some choose not to go into criminal Justice work, what their reasons are, and many more questions of thin nature need an­ swering. Gome of these questions have been answered in the surveys that follow. Only data that could be compared with similar information obtained from this study will be discussed. A. Let us begin by discussing those criminal Justice program surveys that have touched upon questions regarding graduates themselves. 1. Law Enforcement Education: A Survey of Colleges and Universities Offering Ocgrcc Programs in the Field of Law Enforcement 31* In 1968 the International Association of Chiefs of Police, with ql4 Thompson G. Crockett, "Law Enforcement Education: A Survey of Col­ leges and Universities Offering Degree Programs in the Field of Law En­ forcement", International Association of Chiefs of Police, (1966). 25 financing provided by the Ford Foundation, conducted a survey of 362 colleges and universities concerning criminal Justice higher education programs. The survey included data on the number of programs at the as­ sociate, baccalaureate, and graduate degree levels; on student enroll­ ments; on graduates of law enforcement programs; on program faculty; on textbooks uoed; on titles of law enforcement courses offered in each of the programs; and on campus-based police training. What ve are concerned with here is the data that applies to the graduates of these programs, or more specifically, the information di­ rectly related to this study. The survey indicated that the majority of pre-service graduates of both two-year and four-year programs ap­ parently did not enter the police service: of the two-year programs less than half {3550 were reported as entering law enforcement after graduation; of the four-year programs less than a third (25^) were re­ ported doing so* But the key words are police service, and one must avoid clouding the issue. This writer has read numerous findings re­ ferring to the above observation. In many of them the phrase criminal Justice field is substituted for police service, giving a different connotation to the findings. For example, Tenney, in his analysis of Newman and Hunter’s survey, described below, suggested that the findings 35 were at variance with the I.A.C.P. survey. On the contrary, New­ man and Hunter estimated that about 70% of the two-year graduates would be entering the field following graduation. The I.A.C.P. survey sug­ gested 60% but had limited the pre-service total to include only those entering the police occupation. 35 Tenney, op. cit., p. 59- The llevman and Hunter estimate did not. 26 As a result, it can be assumed that at least one-quarter of the remaining graduates (Uo%) in the I.A.C.P. study would more than likely choose a law enforcement category of another nature. In the I.A.C.P. survey, it was surmised that many pre-service graduates sought careers in federal or state investigative agencies, which offered higher status and salaries, or took Jobs in related occupations in the criminal justice field. Thus the statistics for the criminal Justice field and criminal Justice edu­ cation are encouraging rather than discouraging when involving manpower output. A second related item from the I.A.C.P. survey is the number of graduates who were in-service students. In the two-year program about 25/S were in-service; in the four-year program about 22% were in-service. It should make an interesting comparison as to the number of in-service graduates this study reveals. Also, to clarify the pre-service confusion, the present study should shed some light on this important issue. 2. Education for Careers in Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Student Output 196U-196T3^ A survey of 99 law enforcement programs conducted in the fall of 1966 by Charles L. Newman and Dorothy Hunter and sponsored by the Center for Law Enforcement and Corrections of the Pennsylvania State Univer­ sity was undertaken to determine how man y new people these programs were contributing to the field of law enforcement. tit should be noted that law enforcement did not necessarily mean the police although this was the major emphasis.) JCharles L. Newman and Dorothy Sue Hunter, op. cit., pp. 139-1^0. 27 Newman and Hunter found that among graduates of four-year programs in law enforcement, about three-quarters of those who could he classified as pre-service, and over half of the entire total did not enter the field following graduation. They went on to comment that, "It is obvious that the important and necessary questions are those concerning what fields these people enter instead of law enforcement, and WHY they do not enter the field for which they have prepared and in which they are qualified." It is hoped that the present study will answer these Important questions as well as provide a comparison with Newman and Hunter's finding regard­ ing initial entry into the field. 3. A Survey of Degree Programs in Criminology and Corrections 37 In a survey of 63 degree programs in criminology and corrections conducted by Loren Kar&ckl and John J. Galvin of the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, one of the concerns of the Com­ mission was the employment obtained by graduates of criminology and cor­ rections programs. In a breakdown of undergraduate and graduate de­ gree recipients, the following results were obtained. Of the 1+77 under­ graduates reported on, 130 went Into probation or parole work, 57 into Institutional treatment work, U2 into institutional custody, 1 into ad­ ministration, 3 into research, 6 into teaching, and 238 were either un­ known or listed as "other". Of those responding "other", the majority 37 Loren Karacki and John J. Galvin, "A Survey of Degree Programs in Criminology and Corrections", Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, 1970 (Mimeographed). ad were either students or policemen. For purposes of comparison with the present study, if one eliminates the 238 unknown or "other" category by percentage, 5U.I+ percent entered probation or parole work, 23.8 percent entered institutional treatment work, 17-6 percent went into institutional custody, and h.2 percent entered either administration, research, or teaching. Among graduate degree recipients of 66 reported on, 1 6 entered pro­ bation or parole work, 7 institutional treatment, ^ institutional custody, 5 administration, 5 research, 10 teaching, and 13 classified as unknown or "other". Again, "other" ployment type. v&b made up of mostly student or police em­ Eliminating the unknown or "other" category as we did above, by percentage, 30.2 percent entered probation or parole work, 13.2 percent went into institutional treatment work, 7.5 percent into institu­ tional custody, 9.k percent into research, and 30.2 percent into teaching. When the percentage figures for undergraduate degree holders are compared with graduate degree holders, it ia quite evident that a major change occurs from level of operation type positions such as probation, parole, and institutional positions, to the more specialized positions of administration, research, and teaching. Among those with undergradu­ ate degrees, 95*8 percent entered probation, parole, or institutional positions, while only U.2 percent became administrators, researchers, or teachers. In contrast, only 51 percent of those holding graduate degrees entered at the level of operation, whereas k9 percent entered administra­ tive, research, or teaching positions. It will be interesting to note if a similar pattern develops from the present study. If similarities do develop, Karacki and Galvin V, 29 observation is most relevant. They observed that . . the shift away from probation and parole work at the graduate level is especially strik­ ing in view of the importance frequently attached to graduate degrees for this kind of work. Both in absolute and relative terms, it is apparent that graduate programs in criminology and corrections are not producing many people who are entering probation and parole work, while those at the undergraduate level are producing them. Yet the preference for hir­ ing appears to run counter to this pattern, as graduate degrees continue to receive strong endorsement for probation and parole work. B. 30 So far we have discussed surveys whose major emphasis has been of criminal Justice programs. The following are surveys whose major con­ cern was criminal Justice graduates. 1. A Survey of Law Enforcement Graduates 39 In 1970 the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice commissioned Dr. Charles W. Tenney, Jr. , former Dean of North­ eastern University School of Criminal Justice, to conduct a survey of criminal Justice education programs. Along with this Dr. Tenney con­ ducted two surveys of program graduates. One survey consisted of a sample of graduates of two and four-year criminal Justice programs throughout the nation; the other of the L.E.A.A. graduate fellows who had, under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, received fellowships for study at one of three universities offering graduate study in 3QIbid., p. It. ^ T e n n e y , op. cit., pp. 60-76 30 criminal Justice. (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City Uni­ versity of TJew York; School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State Uni­ versity; and School of Criminology, University of California (Berkeley). The following discussion pertains to the results of the first survey as it is closer related to the present study. The survey population consisted of 1*23 graduates of two and fouryear criminal justice programs throughout the country, of which 2 3 8 com­ pleted questionnaires were returned. As a group they were relatively young, 70 percent being under thirty-five years of age, and overwhelm­ ingly male Caucasians. The results closely related to the present study are as follows: (a) Almost half (U 5 percent) of the graduates responding were em­ ployed in law enforcement at the time they were awarded their degree. Of this group 37 percent had left the field. On the other hand, of those who were not in law enforcement at the time of graduation (55 percent), 50 percent were presently employed by & law enforcement agency. These results provide some contrast to the before mentioned surveys, possibly caused by the meaning given by the individual surveys and respondents to 1*0 the term ’’law enforcement". Hopefully, the present study will clarify this. (b) Of those respondents reporting present employment in public law enforcement work, U2 percent said they were employed at the municipal ^°In his cover letter to the graduates Tenney noted that the term "law enforcement" used throughout the questionnaire was to be used in the broadest sense to include all areas of criminal Justice, such as police, corrections, probation, parole, and courts. 31 level, 30 percent at the state level, and lU percent each at the county and federal level. In this group only 22 percent reported that their agency offered incentive pay to encourage its employees toward a col­ lege education. (c) Of those respondents reporting, jC percent indicated that they were employed in a law enforcement agency; 1+1+ percent said they were not. Tenney noted that it was interesting that only 20 percent of those not em­ ployed in a law enforcement agency reported working in a field or position related to law enforcement, such as industrial security. This writer was also surprised at the relatively high non-law enforcement figure and ex­ pects the present study's findings to show a much lower percentage. (d) The two reasons most frequently mentioned as to why individual re­ spondents did not go into law enforcement were low salaries and lack of opportunity. (e) Of those individuals in law enforcement only nine percent be­ lieved their education had enabled them to advance more rapidly through the ranks. This particular question is quite similar to question 19, section 3 of the instrument used in this dissertation, and a comparison, with limitations, will be made. The above survey is the closest towards realizing the goals of this study - for Dr. Tenney does attempt to answer particular questions con­ cerning criminal Justice graduates. Dr. Tenney noted that ’’to the best of his knowledge there had not previously been any attempt made to determine „ll what happens to the student following graduation. Ul„ y Tenney, op. cit., p. 60. 32 He is partially correct* Until the present study there hadn't been a comprehensive and sophisticated undertaking of thin kind yet at­ tempted — although there have been at least two specific but limited surveys done at Michigan State’s School of Criminal Justice. Dr. Tenney’s survey represents a step in the direction toward a new body of information that is long overdue. This study represents another. Professor William H. Hewitt of Pennsylvania State University noted the importance of such research when he called for "research— that is, what is going on at other universities offering P.A. (Police Administra­ tion or Criminal Justice), extent of use, what has beer, their experience, where do their students go after graduation, where do the students usual­ ly originate who feed into the program, are all students admitted who ap­ ply or is there a selection procedure, what type of "counseling out" poli­ cies are in existence and how are they implemented, what do you do with the student who lacks the medical qualifications for a career in law en­ forcement, what forms of recruiting and public information programs are employed— and with what degree of success, and what is the percentage of ,1+2 officers from the police community to non-police officers in the program?" Although much of the foregoing can be obtained by surveys of crim1*3 inal Justice programs, many answers cannot be so obtained. They can only be forthcoming through surveys of criminal Justice graduates. 1*2 William W. Hewitt, ’Problems in Establishing and Expanding Police Programs at the College I*evel". A panel discussion paper presented before the Uth Annual International Association of Police Professors. 1*3 Especially if future surveys are like ing conducted by Esther Eastman of Kent Utate Government Research and Service. This writer strument which in this writer's opinion is by and sophisticated of Its kind. the HEW sponsored survey be­ University's Institute of has only seen the survey in­ far the most comprehensive This brings us up bo those M.S.IJ. surveys that were previously mentioned. 2. A Survey of Kxperiences, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Se- curity Administration Graduates of Michigan State University UU In 1966 a survey of all (1 6 7 ) industrial security graduates was con­ ducted by Hayes Larkins. Although the survey utilized a specific popula­ tion, it is related to the present study in that it was a survey of crim­ inal Justice graduates and provided a reference from which the present study developed. In addition, many of Larkins' findings can be compared with findings from the present study - as they pertain to industrial se­ curity. For example, certain background information, educational informa­ tion, and employment information may be compared and updated for utiliza­ tion by the industrial security graduate and program. 3. Post Graduation Activities of Police Administration Students A survey was conducted among all graduates of the School during March and April, 19^7 to determine their current location and post-gradu­ ation employment history. ing information: A one-page questionnaire contained the follow­ age, date graduated, degree received, major, and employ­ ment, requesting the respondent to begin with his/her current position and list all employment subsequent to graduation. Questionnaires were mailed to l,i+39 graduates, of which IOC were returned for reasons 3uch as unde­ liverable, address unknown, etc. Ub Larkins, op. cit., 109 PP* Post, op. cit., iL pp. There were 699 responses for a useable 3h return rate of 6 7 .h percent. A 9 previously indicated, the survey was intended to determine the employment patterns (both initial and current) of all responding gradu­ ates. The following results were obtained. INITIAL EMPLOYE NT (a) No. who (b) No. who (c) No. who (d) No. who began began began began in in in in public law enforcement private law enforcement non-lav enforcement military li % U1 3 9C 1^6 ^7 9 15 ?9 STILL EMPLOYED (e) No. who began in public law enforcement currently in public law enforcement position (f) No. who began in private law enforcement still In private law enforcement position (g) No. who began in non-law enforcement position still so employed (h) Ho. who began in military still in military position 306 Jh ^7 J*9 12 Bf> 123 50 3 B9 !-*3 10 32 13 CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (i) (j) (k) (l) No. currently employed No. currently employed No. currently employed No. currently employed in public law enforcement in private law enforcement in non-law enforcement in military 8l 290 139 Iron the above many important comparisons will be made with the present study's findings to insure the development of a reasonably ac­ curate picture of employment patterns of criminal Justice graduates. An attempt has been made in this chapter to bring into focus those studies that are directly or indirectly related to the subject area of this research design, namely, the placement and utilization pattern and views of criminal justice graduates. The literature revealed that little attention has been given to the criminal justice graduate per se. Thus, thia study represents a new body 35 of information and a contribution, notwithstanding its explicit limita­ tions , to an understanding of criminal Justice higher education. Com­ mon to all studies reviewed (with the exception of Tenney's study) was the lack of a theoretical base from which to begin. All demonstrated the practical need to describe "what is” but failed to provide a "theo­ retical" underpinning for added relevance. This study provides this ad­ ded feature by examining the concept of professionalization and its em­ phasis on education as related to the sociological perspective on organiza­ tions and their personnel* Before going on to Chapter 3 concerning the methodology of the pre­ sent study, this writer feels this would be an appropriate time to give the reader a brief overview of Michigan State University's School of Crimi­ nal Justice. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University The School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University has de­ voted its efforts to the improvement of the Justice process for nearly four decades. The history of the School begins with its inception as the School of Police Administration and Public Safety in 1935- As the program evolved and as additional faculty with different professional and academic backgrounds joined the program, the curriculum became more interdisciplinary with courses of study which would prepare students for a wide variety of positions in the criminal justice system and positions in related areas. Simultaneous with the expansion of the program into other areas than law enforcement, the program gradually expanded the level of degrees offered. In 1957 a masters curriculum was introduced, 36 and in 1969 a doctoral program was approved and enrolled its first students. Approximately 2U00 students had earned degrees from the School by the end of the 1970-71 school year. gradually, from 1939 to rate. Enrollment in the School grew steadily, but 1967. Then it spiraled upward at an unprecedented The number of students enrolled has risen from four-hundred in to over twelve-hundred at the present time (1972). 1968 Of the present enroll­ ment, approximately eleven-hundred students are undergraduates, one-hundred are masters candidates, and ten are doctoral candidates. The faculty of fifteen is interdisciplinary in both a professional and academic manner. Professional experience of the faculty covers a variety of positions in law enforcement, corrections, the courts, crimi­ nalistics, highway traffic, industrial security, and delinquency preven­ tion and control. Academic disciplines represented are: political sci­ ence, sociology, social work, education, law, chemistry, systems science, anu psychiatry. All of the faculty hold advanced or professional degrees and many have been active in their own academic disciplines as well as the field of criminal Justice. As suggested by the heterogeneous nature of the faculty, the research and scholarly activities have covered a broad number of issues related to criminal justice. The School is pre­ sently attempting to establish an administrative mechanism, such as a research center, which would allow for conducting more systematic and long-range research of significance to the entire criminal Justice system. The School of Criminal Justice has also a long history of offering short courses and seminars to practitioners in the field. In 1951 a pro­ gram of law enforcement in-service instruction and institutes was begun and has continued to the present. In 1965 the National Center on Police- 37 Community Relations was founded within the School and has grown and de­ veloped to the present. Over the years the School haB developed "both short and long-range direct linages with specific criminal Justice agen­ cies and communities through consultantships, Jointly-sponsored programs, program evaluation, field service training of students, short courses, and institutes for practitioners. The School has begun in the past year to develop a more systematic type of relationship with criminal Justice agencies through the establishment of "laboratories of experimentation" with specific communities such as Jackson, Michigan. Additionally, the School has enjoyed many years of association with foreign criminal Justice systems and their representatives. The School has provided direct technical assistance to agencies in several nations, beginning with the West German Police and exchanged instructional per­ sonnel with several foreign educational institutions. Formal ties ex­ ist between the School and agencies in Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Norway. Students from Michigan State have spent summer terms studying through the School's Comparative Crimi­ nal Justice Program in Britain. Over twenty-five students will again be participating in the program this summer (1972). In addition, informal ties exist with over sixty other nations through foreign students or visiting lecturers who have attended the School. The contact with for­ eign Justice systems provided by these ties immeasurably enhances the School's ability to maintain an appropriate perspective on the American process of Justice. The curriculum of the School reflects the diversity of the crimi­ nal Justice system itself. The curriculum is designed at both undergraduate 38 and graduate levels to allow students to prepare to enter any component of the criminal justice system. Students at the undergraduate level may concentrate study in any of six cognate areas: (l) lav enforcement administration; (2) highway traffic safety administration; (3) criminal­ istics; (U) the prevention and control of delinquency and crime; (5) cor­ rectional administration; (6) industrial security. In addition, many students utilize the undergraduate program as a pre-law course of study. The School offers over thirty undergraduate courses. However, concen­ tration in a particular area of interest is allowed only after the com­ pletion of a core of courses designed to provide an overview of the ad­ ministrative, behavioral, and legal problems of the system. pletion of this core, considerable flexibility exists. Beyond com­ Students at both the masters or doctoral level may choose as elective a broad range of courses, or decide to concentrate their graduate study in administration, research, social behavior, or education. The viability of the graduate program is attested to by the diversity of financial awards which have been received by students working toward advanced degrees. included: These awards have O.L.E.A. Fellowships, L.E.A.A. Executive Development Fellow­ ships, General Motors Fellowships, National Science Foundation Fellow­ ships, Allstate Graduate Assistantships, and a number of universitysponsored assistantships and stipends. The School is committed to further expanding the graduate program. A faculty resolution adopted in February 1972 reads: ’’Resources should be so allocated aB to allow expansion of the graduate program. Thus, all new resources should be used to enhance the graduate program." The re­ solution was a response to the anticipated increasing need and demand for 39 graduate education in the coming years. Concurrent to addressing the need to expand the graduate program, the School's faculty also passed a resolution relating to the general structure of both undergraduate and graduate currlculums. tion reads: That resolu­ "The School should provide a broad orientation to criminal Justice for all baccalaureate graduates while still allowing the student to focus, through advisement and course offerings, on specific aspects of the Bystem. Students in the graduate program will receive a more sophisticated systemic orientation while simultaneously pursuing an indepth specialization." Although students now receive a broad orienta­ tion to criminal Justice in the totality of the curriculum, the faculty nevertheless is revising the curriculum so that a more systemic per­ spective is provided in every course. At the beginning of 1972 the School received a grant from the Michigan State Planning Agency, the Office of Criminal Justice Pro­ grams , in order to conduct systematic planning and research in a num­ ber of areas. One of these areas is the subject of this study. This project is expected to yield a good deal of baseline data useful not only for planning immediate changes but for the development of a con­ tinuing evaluation of the nature of the School's progress in providing leadership in the field of criminal Justice education. It is the in­ tention of the School to place much more emphasis on empirical research in the future. 11118 emphasis is seen as badly needed to provide more accurate and significant information for the field of criminal Justice. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This particular study was part of a coordinated research project conducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal Justice education. The project was perceived as one which would improve the qual­ ity of education in the School of Criminal Justice through prividing more individualized supervision of its students' study, through the develop­ ment of a program for preparing community college instructors and co­ ordinators, through a thorough revision of the School's curriculum, and through improvement of the placement and utilization of its graduates. To help achieve the improvement and utilization of graduates of the School of Criminal Justice and contribute toward a tnorough revision of the School’s curriculum,this writer, as a member of the project staff, conducted a survey of the School's graduates to gather information con­ cerning placement and utilization of its graduates as well as their views toward the criminal Justice program and selected criminal Justice issues concerning criminal Justice education, since many of these graduates are now in positions where they can strongly affect related policies and practices. Also, to help achieve the above stated goal, a major purpose of the study was to tell "what is", since as the review of the literature demonstrated this particular body of Knowledge is relatively small and we are often confused by conflicting findings and assumptions. Under these conditions, it is of great value merely to Know the current state of affairs. This research is seen as a step in this direction. ^Wa l te r R. Borg, Educational Research: An IntroductionT(Hew York: David McKay Company, Inc. , 1963 } pp. 202-262. 1*1 Description of Sample The population from which the sample was drawn is the total num­ ber of graduates of Michigan State University who majored in criminal Justice. The population surveyed is composed of graduates who have been awarded a Bachelor of Science and/or Master of Science degree in crimi­ nal Justice, and one graduate who has received his PhD. Foreign students residing in foreign countries were not included. Construction of the Instrument Consideration of the size and geographical dispersion of the popu­ lation resulted in the determination that the most appropriate means of data-gathering would be accomplished through the use of the mailed selfadministering questionnaire. Interviewing was rejected because it was not feasible for both reasons of time and cost. In the development of the questionnaire, careful thought was given to those areas that would elicit information relative to the purpose of the study. Assistance was solicited from faculty members and students of the School of Criminal Justice in the development and selection of ques­ tions used in the questionnaire. Throughout the entire selection process the chief criterion of acceptability was the probable value of the in­ formation these questions would elicit for purposes of achieving the aims of this study. The questionnaire consisted of four sections that were designed to measure the following: (l) general background information; (2) edu­ cational information; (3) post-college initial placement information; and (U) present employment information and views toward selected issues in k2 criminal Justice. For explanatory purposes, some questions were con­ structed allowing an open-ended response. This procedure allowed for a more in-depth type of analysis. Pre-Testing the Instrument After development of the questionnaire, a pre-test was given to a purposive sample of 150 graduates. selected: Three categories of graduates were (l) those residing in the Greater Lansing, Michigan area; (2) those residing within Michigan but not the Greater Lansing area; and (3) those residing out of state. each category was selected. A random selection of 50 graduates from The rationale for this pre-test design was based on getting a fairly precise indication of what to expect for the overall study's return rate. For example, the following return rate was realized from the three categories selected: 33 returned questionnaires residing in the Greater Lansing area; 32 returned questionnaires residing within Michigan but not in the Greater Lansing area; 32 returned questionnaires residing out of state. This represented an overall return rate of 65 percent, and since there were no significant differences in response between the three cate­ gories it was assumed that an overall return rate of 70 percent for the remainder of the study was a distinct possibility. As a result of the pre-test, revisions were made of certain ques­ tions, some questions were deleted, and some questions were added to the study in accordance with the information received from the pre-test results. 1*3 Sampling Techniques and Research Design A general cover sheet and letter vas included with the revised 1*7 questionnaire stating the purpose of the overall study. The rationale was to reduce any doubts about the authenticity of the study and to de­ monstrate the importance of the respondent's cooperation. Also, the School director's signature was used on the letter to add to the authenticity of the study and to increase the return rate. To obtain a most reliable address list, the School files were check­ ed as to the most recent address listed; the Office of Alumni Affairs for their most recent addresses; the staff, faculty, and students of the School of Criminal Justice for knowledge of past students* present addresses. In this way these efforts brought the address list to a high degree of ac­ curacy. Only 91 questionnaires were returned by the U.S. Post Office as being undeliverable for such reasons as address unknown, etc. In addition, the following techniques were used to increase the re­ turn rate of the questionnaires: (l) a stamped, self-addressed return en­ velope accompanied the questionnaire; (2) sponsorship by the School was sought and received to seek added importance and authenticity to the study; (3) an inducement of receiving a copy of the results was offered to re­ spondents to increase their interest in responding; (U) respondents were given a guarantee of anonymity by not being asked for their names or re­ quested to sign their questionnaires; (5) follow-up letters were sent out after a set period of time, requesting those who had not returned ques­ tionnaires to please do so. 1*7 See Appendix A. 1*4 On March 7* 1972 1,822 questionnaires were mailed to all gradu­ ates of the School of Criminal Justice who had graduated between 1938 and December, 1971- Although there have been 2,253 graduates during this time period, only 1,022 were sent a questionnaire, the reasons be­ ing: 209 graduates could not be located; 150 graduates were sent pre­ test questionnaires; 36 graduates were foreign students residing in foreign countries; 24 graduates were deceased; and 2 graduates were not surveyed (Director Brandstatter and the author). After approximately three weeks a follow-up letter, 48 along with a copy of the questionnaire, was sent to those graduates who had not yet responded. As a result of the initial mailing and follow-up, l,l6l question­ naires were returned. Along with this, 91 questionnaires were returned unanswered by the U.S. Post Office as being undeliverable. Thus answered it. 1,731 graduates received the revised questionnaire and l,l6l This represented a useable return percentage of 6 7 .1 percent. Considering the length of the survey instrument and the nature of the sam­ ple surveyed, the return percentage was very gratifying. Analysis Techniques All responses to the questionnaire were compiled and coded and punched on I.B.M. cards. All data manipulation was made by computer. Descriptive survey tables were produced showing frequency and percentage distributions. Comparisons of selected variables were in the form of contingency tables utilizing frequencies, percentages, and means, and done by cross-tabulating techniques. The statistical analysis utilized was the chi-square test for See Appendix B. significance and the level of significance chosen was the . 0 5 level or less. The computer program utilised was the analysis of contingency tables. (ACT Program) Limitations of Study 1. The study is limited by the factors inherent in the use of any question­ naire. These factors include the difficulties in establishing reliability and validity of the survey instrument, the difficulties in receiving coopera­ tion of the sample selected, and the misinterpretation, bias, and frame of reference of those responding. 2. The absence of a follow-up to those not responding did not allow for a possible determination of error due to non-response. 3. Although all open-ended responses were compiled and coded, they were not completed in time for the computer analysis. Therefore, cross-tabulating techniques were not done between specific variables and open-ended responses, thus allowing for some of the richness to be lost in the overall analysis. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Format of Data Presentation The survey population consisted of 1 ,822 graduates of the School of Criminal Justice who had graduated between 1938 and December, 1971. Nine­ ty-one questionnaires were returned marked "addressee unknown" or "moved, left no forwarding address". One-thousand, one-hundred sixty-one complet­ ed questionnaires were returned, of which 1,1^9 were returned in time for the computer analysis. The data collected will be presented in four sections, as those sec­ tions appear in the survey instrument. In this way the results will fol­ low in the same order in which thetvpotheses were presented in Chapter 1. The procedure this writer will utilize is to restate each hypothesis, show data relating to it, and then make a statement about whether the hypothesi was rejected or accepted. As conditions warrant, a discussion may follow if cross-tabulating techniques suggest a further explanation is necessary to interpret or clarify the overall findings. 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Table 1 shows the overall characteristics of those respondents who took part in the study. 1*7 Table 1 General Characteristics of the Sample Category Charac ter istics 1. Age Under 25 25-29 30-3U 35-39 1+0-1*1* 1+5-1*9 50-5U 55-59 60 and above Number Perc ent lUl 2l*9 12 22 216 19 17 198 l8U 77 51 28 2 16 7 U 2 0 2. Sex Male Female 1051* 9U 92 8 3. Race Caucasian Negro/Black Mexican American American Indian Oriental American Foreign Student 1127 9 2 1 U 5 98 1 0 0 0 0 U. Residence Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delavare Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana 1 2 8 1 63 13 7 1 27 2U 5 2 6U 10 5 7 5 1 3 0 0 1 0 6 26 10 5^8 7 it 18 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 U8 1 0 2 0 48 Table 1 (Cont.) Characteristics 4. Residence Category Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Washington, D.C. Foreign Country Number 2 3 1 16 2 27 3 3 44 3 2 18 1 3 2 7 17 2 0 47 10 5 24 0 4 30 Percent 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 3 * Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. As reflected by Table 1, the overall sample was a relatively young group. Seventy percent were under thirty-nine years of age and fifty-one percent were thirty-four or under. The respondents were, as one would ex­ pect, overwhelmingly male, since the majority of positions in the criminal Justice arena are male dominated. The racial make-up was almost entirely white (9B%) with only 21 respondents included in all other racial groups. This, again, could be expected since the literature suggests that minority 1+9 group members are not likely to choose the criminal justice area as a career. 1*9 A significant finding was the surprisingly wide geographical dispersion of the responding group. The graduates were dispersed through­ out 1*7 of the United States and the District of Columbia* with an addi­ tional 30 respondents residing in foreign countries. Michigan had the largest percentage of graduates residing within it, with H8%, with sig­ nificant numbers residing in California (6%), Illinois (6%), Ohio (1*%), and Virginia (U)£). II EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION The majority of respondents* 975 (85%), received only their bachelors degree from the School of Criminal Justice, with 112 (10%) of those respond­ ing having earned a masters degree. grees from the School. Sixty graduates (5%) received both de­ Tables 2 and 3 below indicate the respondents' year of graduation. 1+9 See for example: Nicholas Alex* Black in Blue: A Study of the Negro Policeman, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19(j9); David H. Bayley and Harold Mendleson, Minorities and the Police: Confrontation in America, (New York: The FreV Press, 1 9 6 9 ). 50 Table 2 Year of Graduation (B S) Year Number 1938 1939 1 12 19^0 7 19^1 19^2 191+3 191*1* 191*5 1 9 U6 191*7 12 5 10 1 0 0 13 191*8 8 191*9 1950 1951 1952 1953 1951* 19 21 19 25 3U 31 Percent 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 Year Number 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 i9 6 0 18 2 32 31* Ul 3 3 1* 1* 3 i* 1* 3 5 U 5 1961 1962 1963 196U 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 3 3 Total 1*6 36 U0 1*2 31* 55 1+2 50 58 65 61 61* ?? 1036 Percer 6 6 6 6 10 97 * One-hundred thirteen did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. Table 3 Year of Graduation (MS) Year Number Perc ent I9 6 0 1961 1962 1963 1961* 1965 2 1 1 0 3 15 11 1 0 2 9 7 Year Number 1 9 66 1967 1968 18 1969 1970 1971 Total * Nine--hundred eighty-six did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number • Perc er 19 li+ 2l+ 33 lU 11 12 9 15 20 163 101 23 51 As the above tables indicate, a significant number of respondents were relatively recent graduates. One only has to go back to 1963 to reach a majority of those holding bachelor degrees; and only to 1 9 6 8 for a majority of masters degree holders. This fact will be kept in mind in particular facets of the analysis to follow. A majority of the respondents indicated that their area of speciali­ zation in the School of Criminal Justice was law enforcement administration. Table k below gives the overall distribution. Table ^ Area of Specialization Number Percent Law Enforcement Administration 756 67 Security Administration 168 15 Correctional Administration 51 5 Criminalistics 2^ 2 111 10 21 2 1131 101 Delinquency Prevention and Control Highway Traffic Administration Total # Eighteen did not respond. ■»# Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. It was hypothesized that: Ho^ a majority of graduates, if they had to do it over again, would (1) choose again the same area of specialization and (2) again choose the criminal Justice area as their college major. To the former, 87^ {19%) said they would choose the same area of speciali­ zation, and 868 {11%) felt they would again choose the criminal Justice 52 area aa their college major. Of those answering no to again choosing the same area of specialization, a majority of them felt they would specialize in an area outside of criminal Justice. The most frequently mentioned areas were business administration and law. For those choos­ ing an area within the School of Criminal Justice* a majority of them chose security administration. Of those responding no to choosing the criminal Justice area as their college major, a majority of them said they would major in either business administration or law. Over forty majors were mentioned Bhowing a great variety of choices including two respondents who chose library science and oceonography. As a result of the above findings, HYPOTHESIS I was accepted. Regarding the criminal Justice curriculum, it was hypothesized that: Ho- a majority of criminal Justice graduates will have felt satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while at­ tending Michigan State. The results indicate this to be the case. Of 1,125 graduates responding to this question, 025 (73%) said they were satisfied with the curriculum. Even when separating the respondents by area of specialization, a majori­ ty in all areas answered that they were satisfied. (Table 5) 53 Table 5 Degree of Satisfaction vith Curriculum by Area of Specialization Question 6. Were you satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while attending M.S.U.? Yes Area of Specialization Ho Number Percent Number Percent Law Enforcement Administration 551 7U 196 26 Security Administration 118 72 i+5 28 Correctional Administration 36 71 15 29 Criminalistics Ik 6l 9 39 Delinquency Prevention & Control 81 7*> 29 26 Highway Traffic Administration 15 75 5 25 * Thirty-five did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. **« chi-square value of 2.175 vas not significant at the .0 5 level. When comparing satisfaction vith curriculum by degrees received, it was interesting to note that the degree of satisfaction was almost identical. (705 bachelor degree holders (73.7^%) were satisfied with the curriculum, as were 80 masters degree holders (73.39J&) who were satisfied.) Apparent­ ly the undergraduate and graduate degree curriculums are both thought of quite favorably. As a result of the previous findings, HYPOTHESIS II was accepted. Of course there were 300 graduates (27%) who were not satisfied with the curriculum and they shouldn't be ignored. The mont frequent criti­ cism mentioned was "too much theory and not enough practical application in the curriculum". If, as we will see later, most graduates initially begin at the "level of operation" may have a valid criticism. in the criminal Justice arena, they When asked whether they had received a graduate degree or law de­ gree from another M.S.U. School or Department* or from another educa­ tional institution, 155 (l*+?) said they had, while 986 (86?) said they had not. Coupling this with the 15? who had received a masters degree from the School, one is impressed by the educational achievements of the responding group. Of those indicating they had, 28 respondents reported they held a law degree; 8 reported they had their doctorate degree; and the remaining number reported they now held a masters de­ gree. Although most degrees were either directly or indirectly related to the criminal justice area, (e.g., a number of degrees were in public administration, social work, guidance and counseling, and education) there were a few that showed a definite change of interest. For exam­ ple, one respondent received a masters degree in geology; another in Russian studies; and still another in religion. The most frequent areas of study for those holding a masters degree were education, business, and the social sciences. Ill POST-COLLEGE INITIAL PLACEMENT INFORMATION The review of the literature previously mentioned that significant percentages of students in and graduates of law enforcement programs were in-service students. The results of this survey do not show this to be the case at Michigan State University. Only 107 of those responding (17?) were in-service students as opposed to 703 respondents (70S) who were pre­ service students. One-hundred forty-seven (13?) reported they had had prior experience in the criminal Justice field but were not employed while attending Michigan State. Even if one were to combine in-service and 55 prior-service respondents, the resulting percentage (30)t) would be sig­ nificantly lower than that reported by the I.A.C.P. survey and Tenney's survey of U5JC. One explanation for the above is that roost criminal Jus­ tice programs could be classified as training programs which would tend to attract a larpe number of in-service personnel. Michigan State Uni­ versity's School of Criminal Justice, on the other hand, could be class­ ified as a social Bcience program which would be more attractive to the pre-service student. Since most programs have a "training" emphasis, one could expect to find a significant number of in-service students attending them. 50 Both the I.A.C.P. survey and Tenney survey involved re­ spondents from a number of programs, thus creating a greater chance for in-service respondents. It was hypothesized that: Ho the majority of criminal Justice graduates will have chosen a public law enforcement agency as their ini­ tial employment opportunity. Table 6 indicates this to be the case. ^°Tenney, op. cit., pp. 1-19. 56 Table 6 Initial Job Placement Humber Percent 608 53 Private Law Enforcement 1 U3 13 Non-Law Enforcement 222 19 Public Law Enforcement Number Percent 105 9 State 53 5 County 32 3 Police Federal 218 Municipal Subtotal 1+08 36 3 0 1*9 58 k Corrections Federal State County Municipal Subtotal 2 5 __ 0 112 9 Non-Related 170 15 Criminal Justice Related 52 222 5 Subtotal 20 Career lU2 Military Non—Related Criminal Justice Related Subtotal 19 2 125 11 ll»2 13 No Initial Employment Total 28 2 11U3 99 * Six did not respond. ** Eighty— eight responses (Q%) to the public law enforcement category were classified as ’'other''. *** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. 51 Ag Table 6 shows, 53% of those responding indicated their initial job placement was with a public law enforcement agency. A further break­ down of the public law enforcement category indicated that 36% went into police work, 9% into correctional work, and 0* into agencies that were categorized as "public law enforcement" but not necessarily police or correctional related. For example, some respondents were initially em­ ployed with a state tax enforcement agency, which required an "other" categorization. Another example that comes to mind is the "attorney general’s intelligence unit". This categorization was also given an "other" classification. By further breaking down the police and correctional categories, it can be seen that a significant number of those entering the police "profession" went into municipal police work. category was a second choice. The federal police sub­ For those who chose the correctional field, almost all were initially employed at the state and county level. Although 19% of those responding were initially employed in the non-law enforcement category, it is significant to note that 5% of the overall sample could be classified as having their initial employment in non-law enforcement or criminal Justice related. This sub-cate­ gorization included those individuals who went into criminal Justice education, criminal Justice research, criminal law, and the like. The military category produced an even greater percentage {ll^) of respondents who were categorized as criminal Justice related, 'i’llis sub­ categorization included respondents associated with the Army military police corp, the Air Force security police, and various intelligence groups in all brandies of service. 58 Since 53/S of the responding group did choose a public law enforce­ ment agency as their initial employment, HYPOTHESIS III was accepted. Of those whose initial employment was with a public law enforcement agency, it was hypothesized that: a significant number will have been dissatisfied with their initial placement position. U It was also hypothesized that: those graduates whose initial employment was with a category other than that of public law enforcement will be more favorable in their satisfaction with initial placement than will those graduates choosing a public law enforcement agency. Ho Table 7 shows the respondents' satisfaction with their level of initial employment. Table 7 Degree of Satisfaction with Level of Initial Placement by Initial Major Employment Question 11. Were you pleased with the level of this initial placement? 75 Private Law Enforcement U39 72 Satisfied But Expect­ ed Higher Position N J L ii 67 52 35 Non-Law Enforcement 110 58 87 81 Initial Major Employment Public Law Enforcement Career Military Thoroughly Satisfied Somewhat Dissatis­ fied Be­ cause of Low Position N_ J E 60 10 Thor­ oughly Uis3atisfied '-"7 N 1* 22 17 12 Ih 10 uo 25 21 22 12 18 11 10 6 6 k 9 h * One-hundred twenty-five did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. *** The chi-square value of 52.760 was significant at the .001 level. 59 As Table 7 Indicates, a significant number (*+39 or 75%) of those whose initial employment was with a public law enforcement agency were thor­ oughly satisfied with their initial placement position, and only those graduates whose initial employment was with the military were more favor­ able in their satisfaction with initial employment. IV and VII are rejected. Therefore, HYPOTHESIS In conclusion, the above results did not support earlier evidence (Crockett and Moses, 1968; and Levy, 1 9 6 6 ) that those choosing public law enforcement could be more dissatisfied than if they had chosen a different occupation. Even with a further breakdown of the public law enforcement cate­ gory, all sub-categories were more than satisfied with initial job placement. Although there were differences in the degree of satisfaction, de­ pendent upon whether the agency was at the municipal, county, state, or federal government level, the differences observed were not statistically significant, 60 Table 8 Degree of Satisfaction by Public Law Enforcement Initial Placement Satisfied "w ' Dissatisfied N % Police 96 Federal State County Municipal U6 21 173 93 92 66 83 T k 35 7 8 UU 17 100 90 0 5 10 81 11 19 11 Correctional 3 U3 1+7 Federal State County 0 * Five-hundred sixty-five did not respond. ** Table 8 was produced by collapsing the two "negative" rating spaces together and labelling this as dissatisfied, and collapsing the two "positive" rating spaces and labelling this as satisfied. *** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number »»w* chi-square value of 51.990 was not significant at the .05 level. It had been hypothesized that: Ho 9 the degree of satisfaction will be lowest at the municipal or local level and highest at the federal level. Table 8 above indicates this to be the case both for the police and cor­ rections categories. The degree of satisfaction was the lowest at the municipal or county level and the highest at the federal level. fore, HYPOTHESIS IX was accepted. There­ However, it should be noted that the differences observed were not statistically significant. For those graduates who chose not to go into law enforcement re­ lated work, it was hypothesized that: 5 they will have done so for the most part because of one of two reasons - low salary or a lack of opportunity. Although both of these reasons were frequently mentioned, there were two 61 other reasons given by a number of* respondents. In fact, one of the rea­ sons, that Jobs were Just not available, was the most frequently mention­ ed explanation. ion. The other reason was that of having a physical restrict­ Such things as age, high blood pressure, hay fever, height, vision, and weight were all mentioned as factors in preventing some graduates from entering law enforcement. One graduate said: "Students should be made aware of physical restrictions they might encounter when seeking employment. I went through four years of school with high blood pressure which was controlled by medicine, never thinking it would be detrimental to getting a Job in the field of law enforcement." Another commented: "I'm sure that my comment of my inability to secure employment due to a defect in my eye sight iB one of a minority type problem. In my case it was major in that I was forced to leave my chosen pro­ fession. I make this point only that many students desired to be a particular type of employee but for some reason they can not achieve this goal for any number of reasons. This is an important part of the responsibility of the school advisors when talking with prospective students in the chosen school. I believe that I was let down in this respect." Perhaps the most cogent comment on this subject area was the following: "Unless the School’s policy has changed, I was never interviewed prior to being accepted into the School of Criminal Justice. It is therefore possible to be unfit for any police position but still be allowed to pursue a degree in Police Administration and upon completion of college, find it very difficult, if not impossible, to find a position within a law enforcement agency. I believe in fairnesB to the student and to law enforcement. An "initial interview" program should be established in an attempt to advise a person if he is potential police material. This would possibly mean records checks, physical requirements, etc." Hegarding the most frequently mentioned reason for not going into public law enforcement - simply that there were no Jobs available - comments such as the following were given: 62 "I think it should be noted that policewoman positions are far and few between and competition is almost "dog eat dog". They should be aware of the difficulties and very few openings in getting a Job." "Students should be made aware from the start of how saturated the field they are in will be when they graduate - for example, those in Juvenile corrections should be made aware of the fact that that area is completely saturated. There simply are no openings in Juvenile courts, agencies, etc. unless one has a MSW or a good contact with the personnel manager. It should be the school's responsibility to make the students aware of con­ ditions such as these." "At the present 1 am unemployed. The past few months have been very frustrating. After a certain amount of time, one becomes very discouraged not finding an opening in his/her field without "time" becoming a major factor. One, two, or more months may pass before it becomes a matter of Just plain survival. One does have to eat, pay rent and other bills. Many devoted criminal Justice majors find Jobs In unrelated fields, Just because of necessity." Although low salary and lack of opportunity ranked second and third as reasons given for not pursuing public law enforcement work, there were two other reasons frequently mentioned, ranking first and fourth, the former being that there were simply no Jobs available and the latter be­ ing a physical restriction. However, HYPOTHESIS V is accepted, as a phys­ ical restriction or that Jobs were simply not available are not reasons relating to choice. According to the literature surveyed earlier, a majority of those not entering lav enforcement related work will have been pre-service stu­ dents rather than in-service or prior-service students. As a result it was hypothesized that: Hog a majority of those not entering law enforcement related work will have been pre-service students rather than In-service or prior-service students. As Table 9 indicates, this, in fact, is the case. 63 In regard to the Initial placement of respondents, the following frequency distribution can be seen: Table 9 In-Service, Prior-Service, Pre-Service Students by Initial Placement in Non-Law Enforcement/Lav Enforcement Work Status of Student In-Service Prior-Scrvice Pre-Service * ** *** **** Initial Placement in Non—Law Unfarcement N JL 8 19 26 170 19 2? Initial Placement in Law Enforcement a 169 92 116 01 591 78 Thirty—six did not respond. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. Twenty-four reported no initial employment. The chi-square value of 108.571 was significant at the .001 level. From the above it is quite evident that of those who went into non­ law enforcement related work, an extremely large number were pre-service students. However, over three-quarters (78%) of those not previously in law enforcement did enter the criminal Justice field or a related area. This finding is at variance with Newman and Hunter's study which con­ cluded that about three-quarters of the pre-service graduates did not enter the field following graduation. Also noteworthy from the above table is the percentage of in-ser­ vice students who do not enter law enforcement related work. It was surprising to observe that 6% immediately left the field for non-law enforcement work. It should be noted though that a majority of all respondents in each service category did enter law enforcement related work. As a result of the above findings, HYPOTHESIS VI was accepted. 6U Table 10 Initial Placement with Agency or Organization Number Percent Specialized Position 103 10 Supervisory Position 107 10 62 6 Level oT Operation 6Uo 62 Other 117 11 1029 99 Administrative Position Total * One-hundred twenty did not respond ** Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. As can be seen from the above distribution, the majority of gradu­ ates were initially placed at the level of operation. By cross-tabulating the variables of initial placement position arid initial major employment, one is able to see significant differences. 65 Table 11 Initial Placement Position by Initial Major Employment Initial Major Employment Specialized Posi tion N % Public Law Enforcement 1*9 8 12 Private Law Enforcement 11 8 2 ll Non-Law Enforcement 31* 8 Career Military * ** *** ***** Admini­ strative Position N Level of Operation N % 2 16 L8 8 82 18 2h 18 63 b6 Hupei— visory Fos it ion N . J L 3 18 12 7 lU 8 69 30 7 59 52 8 7 10 16 One-hundred twenty-three did not respond. One-hundred seventeen reported their initial placement was "other". Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. The chi-square value of U 8 1 .5 UU was significant at the .001 level. If one's initial placement was with public law enforcement, he could expect a position at the level of operation. This category overwhelmingly demonstrated that the initial placement position for this type of work was at the level of operation. A further breakdown of the public law enforce­ ment category gives the following distribution. 66 Table 12 Initial Placement Position by Public Law Enforcement Category Initial Placement Position Special­ ized Pos ition N y - Super­ visory Position N i Admini­ strative Position i Level of Onerat ion N J L Police Federal 8 8 0 0 0 0 90 87 State 8 16 1 2 3 6 33 County 3 0 0 3 9 13 9 6 3 1 T 3 25 186 65 78 Federal 1* 8 5 10 1 2 31* 69 State 1 2 0 0 0 0 County 0 O 0 0 0 0 5^ 2 95 100 Municipal 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 Munic ipal 88 Corrections * ** *** »»»« ***** 0 Five-hundred sixty did not respond. One-hundred five were categorized as 'other' Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. chi-square value of 229-951 was significant to the . 0 0 1 level. A limitation on the significance of the chi-square value should be mentioned due to a number of cells having an expectant value of less than o n e . As Table 12 indicates, a majority in all police and correction sub­ categories were initially placed at the level of operation. Differences in position level were reviewed relative to degree award­ ed, and it was found that the degree level did make a significant difference in initial placement. 67 Table 13 Initial Placement Position by Degree Received Initial Placement Position Super­ visory Position _£!____ 2_ Admini­ strative Position ■V H Bachelor Special­ ized Position _£i_ 75 8 79 9 U6 Masters 19 22 26 12 Degree Received JL 22 5 1*4 Level of Operat ion -J L . 587 66 JL 23 27 * One-hundred twenty-two did not respond. ** One-hundred seventeen were categorized as "other*'. *** Forty-seven respondents were not included as they had received both degrees. *•«* Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ***** The chi-square value of 70.269 was significant at the .001 level. Baccalaureate degree holders were much more likely to be placed ini­ tially at the level of operation. On the other hand, a majority of master degree holders were initially placed in specialized, supervisory, or ad­ ministrative positions. There was a significant difference when looking at initial place­ ment position by in-service, prior-3 ervice, and pre-service graduates. Table lU Initial Placement Position by In-Service, Prior-Service, and Pre—Service Graduates Status of Student8 Initial Placement Position InService N % Specialized Position 20 12 PriorService N % 22 16 PreServi N Supervisory Position 1*1 25 10 7 56 Administrative Position lU 9 10 7 38 Level of Operation 73 1*5 78 57 1*72 60 * One-hundred forty—one did not respond. ** One-hundred fourteen were categorized as "other *«« Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. «*»« chi-square value of 6 O.OU1 was significant at the .001 level. As Table ll indicates, an in-service student had more of a chance of receiving an initial placement position at other than the level of operation position. The pre-service student was the most likely to have an initial placement position at the level of operation. As an interesting sidelight, a comparison of placement and utili­ zation patterns between 1930-1967 graduates and 1968-1971 graduates was made in light of the President's Commission recommendations of February, 1967. 8 It was hypothesized that: in spite of the President's Commission recommendations of February, 1967, there will be no difference in placement and utilization patterns between 1938-1967 graduates and 1968-1971 graduates. 69 As a result of the analysis, there was no discernable change in pattern that could be ascertained between 1938-1967 graduates and 1968-1971 graduates regarding initial placement position. For example, if we take the years 1 9 6 *4 , 6 5 , 6 6 , and 6 7 and compare them with 1 9 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 0 , and 71 with respect to initial placement position, we have the following: Table 15 fear of Graduation by Initial Placement Position Year of Graduation 6U Initial Placement Position % 65 6b 67 % % % 68 69 % % 70 % Specialized Position 6 10 15 13 9 1*+ Supervisory Position 12 7 15 2 12 2 Administrative Position U 69 Level of Operation H = 0 71 6 58 9 70 (70)(53)(6l)(76) 3 7 66 68 71 % 15 *+ U 10 5 69 3 69 (8 U)( 75) (80X12*4) * Percentages were rounded to nearestwhole number ** "Other" category was not included. As one can see from the above table, there were no changes in place­ ment and utilization patterns by year of graduation. Mo one pattern could be discerned causing one to doubt if the President's Commission recommenda­ tions for three levelB of entry and the establishment of lateral entry with­ in the criminal Justice field was taken very seriously. THESIS IX was accepted. It was hypothesized that: Therefore, HYPO­ 70 there will be significant differences in the time sequence before being promoted or assigned to a specialized, super­ visory, or administrative position dependent on area category. Ho It was assumed that the public law enforcement category will show the longest time sequence before being promoted or assigned to a specialized, supervisory, or administrative position,and within this category the muni­ cipal governmental level will 3hov the longest time span. Table 16 Time Sequence Before Being Promoted or Assigned to a Specialized, Supervisory, or Administrative Position by Initial Major Employment Question 12. If your initial placement was at the level of operation, how long was it before you were promoted or assigned to a special­ ized, supervisory, or administrative position? Initial Major Employment Time Sequence Public Private JL_ J l J L - J - Less than 1 Year 1 - 2 Years uu 8 66 2 -3 Years 3-I4 Years More than U Years Haven't Been Promoted or Reas­ signed as of Yet * ** *** ***** Non--Law K Mil i t N 3 * 15 16 18 17 19 lU 8 3 3 2 5 3 0 0 2 2 10 6 2 2 5 h 8 5 1 1 25 29 17 11 32 16 13 26 37 6 3 2 32 6 3 89 15 118 20 One-hundred eighty did not respond. Three-hundred Ninety (^7%) responded "not applicable". Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. The chi-square value of 151*230 was significant at the.001 level. As Table l6 indicates, the time sequence before being promoted or assigned to a specialized, supervisory, or administrative position did produce significant differences between the public law enforcement 71 category and the other three area categories. Between the latter three e there were no significant differences. A majority of the respondents in these groupings reported that this particular question was not applic­ able to them (already were in such a position) or that if they started at level of operation they were promoted or assigned in less than one year or between one to two years. This was drastically different from those respondents in the public lav enforcement category. 32 %, While 38%, and 3 6 % of those respondents in the private, non-law, and mili­ tary categories said that the time sequence was less than one year or one to two years before being promoted or assigned, only 19% of the pub­ lic law enforcement respondents said likewise. An even greater differ­ ence can be noted by looking at the response to ’’haven't been promoted or assigned as of yet". Twenty percent of public law enforcement re­ spondents responded to this whereas only U%, 5%, and 1% from the pri­ vate, non-law, and military categories answered this item. Although it had been assumed that the above would be the case, it had also been as­ sumed that within the public law enforcement category the municipal or local governmental level will show the longest time span before pro­ motion. The cross—tabulations showed this not to be the case. was little distinguishable difference at any governmental level. There Never­ theless, there were significant differences between initial major em­ ployment categories, especially between the public category and the pri­ vate, non-law, and military categories. was accepted. As a result HYPOTHESIS XI Within Section 3 three questions were asked to respondents regarding whether a lateral entry policy, pay incentive program, or managerial/in­ ternship trainee program existed in the agency/organization that hired them. Ho Ho Ho 11 12 13 It was hypothesized that: few, if any respondents in the public law enforcement cate­ gory will say there was a pay incentive program for person­ nel taking college credit courses in their respective agencies a policy of lateral entry will be relatively non-existent in agencies categorized as public law enforcement, while on the other hand, lateral entry will be an existing con­ cept in agencies categorized as private lav enforcement, non-law enforcement, or the military; few, if any respondents in the public law enforcement cate­ gory will have participated In a managerial/internship trainee program for the college graduate; on the other hand there will be a significant number of managerial/ internship trainee programs for college graduates in the private law enforcement, non-law enforcement, and mili­ tary categories. In looking at the frequency distribution for the entire sample, it was found that only 18% said their agency/organization had a pay incentive programi 32% said there was a managerial/trainee program; and 32% said there was a lateral entry policy within their agency/organization. By a further breakdown by initial major employment, the following distri­ butions were observed. 73 Table 17 Pay Incentive Program by Initial Major Employment Question lU. Was there a pay incentive program for personnel taking college credit courses? Yes Ho Public Law Enforcement 96 16 195 ^ /J 8U Private Law Enforcement 26 19 110 81 2h 133 76 13 89 88 N Initial Major Employment Non-Law Enforcement 13 Career Military JL m H * One-hundred forty-four did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. turn The chi-square value of 8.938 was significant at the .0 5 level. Table 18 Managerial/Internship Program by Initial Major Employment Question 15. Did your employer have any managerial/internship trainee programs for college graduates? Initial Major Employment Yes N. A. No N t 129 68 22 161 78 50 69 50 Non-Law Enforcement 77 11 56 Career Military 12 *+3 99 56 Public Law Enforcement Private Law Enforcement 57 * One-hundred forty-eight did not respond. ## Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. *** The chi-square value of 61 . 2 8 9 was significant at the .001 level. T1* Table 19 Lateral Entry Policy by Initial Major Employment Question 13. Was there a lateral entry policy in the agency/organization that hired you? Yes N Mo N 12k JL 21 Private Law Enforcement 69 52 6h 79 1*6 Non-Law Enforcement 76 U6 91 5U Career Military U3 1*1+ 55 56 Public Law Enforcement i+6l * One-hundred sixty-six did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. *** The chi-square value of 76.192 was significant at the .001 level. As indicated by Table 17* few respondents (l6 )f) in the public law enforcement category reported there was a pay incentive program within their agency. Of course, even in the other categories there was little in the way of pay incentive programs. Thus, HYPOTHESIS X was accepted - Table IS reflected similar results. Few (22%) in the public law enforcement category said their employer had a managerial/internship program for college graduates. On the other hand * the other employment categories showed a much larger percentage of respondents who reported there was such a program. As a result, HYPOTHESIS XII was accepted. On the subject of lateral entry, this writer found it very diffi­ cult to analyze because of possible misinterpretation of the question­ naire by the respondents. Although the public law enforcement cateogry was considerably below the other categories in saying that a lateral entry policy existed, he was surprised at the relatively high percentage 75 (21)5} who answered affirmatively. He believed this figure to be high be­ cause the literature suggested a dearth in lateral entry policies in pub­ lic law enforcement agencies. It is possible that correctional respondents, lateral transfer misinterpretations, and those who equated lateral entry with only top level administrative hirings may have accounted for this high percentage. By the same token, having been In the military, he knew that the military had such a policy - yet 56)6 of the military respondents gave negative responses. Nevertheless, the results indicated a significant dif­ ference between the public law enforcement category and those agencies cate­ gorized as private law enforcement, non-law enforcement, and the military. Therefore, HYPOTHESIS XIII was accepted, even though 21% cannot be said to be "relatively non-existent'1. When asked whether there were any difficulties in getting their ini­ tial Job that they felt were attributable to their criminal Justice or police administration degree, only 6 9 or 7% said that they did have some difficulty. Of this number, the majority had difficulty when applying to municipal police departments. Explanations such as "the Chief object­ ed to hiring college graduates", "too much line level resentment toward degree person", "they felt I would leave for a better position because of ray education” , and "they didn't want college grads because of previous experience" were frequently mentioned. For those master degree holders (U) who responded to this question, the explanation given was that "I was discouraged by state and local police agencies as being over-qualified". When asked, did all newly hired personnel start at the same entry level regardless of their level of education, the following was observed. 76 Tabic 20 Entry Level by Initial Major Employment Question 17. Did all newly hired personnel start at the same entry level regardless of their level of education? N i N U3U 73 157 27 Private Law Enforcement 65 U7 72 53 Non-Law Enforcement 81 1*5 100 55 Career Military h9 1*8 Initial Major Employment Public Law Enforcement 51* 52 * One-hundred thirty-seven did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. •** -j»he chi-square value of 77.186 was significant at the .001 level. As Table 20 indicates, a significant differencebetween the public law enforcement category and the remaining three is veryevident. public law enforcement category overwhelmingly answered yes (73%). The On the other hand, a majority in the private, non-law, and military cate­ gories responded negatively. It seems that the value of an education,at .east for entry level, was significantly below the norm for the public lr.w enforcement category. It was hypothesized that: lU the majority of criminal Justice graduates will have felt prepared for their initial Job placement. As Table 21 indicates, this was, in fact, the case. 77 Table 21 Degree of Preparedness for Initial Job Placement Question 20. How well do you feel your college major prepared you for your initial Job placement? M JL Extremely Well 230 22 Adequately 630 60 Inadequately 1 01 10 86 8 Cannot Say * One-hundred did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. Over 230 (22%) felt they were extremely well prepared * while another 630 {60%) said they were adequately prepared. Only 101 (lOjC) felt they were inadequately prepared. When asked to compare their preparedness with their fellow workers * they were even more confident. Table 22 Degree of Preparedness in Comparison with Fellow Workers Question 21. How well prepared were you to assume your Job responsibilities in comparison with your fellow workers? Extremely Well It1*2 U2 Adequately 533 51 Inadequately 21 2 Cannot Say 53 5 * One-hundred did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. 76 Over Uh2 (h2%) answered "extremely well", and 533 (51%) responded "ade­ quately” . Only 21 (2%) felt they were inadequately prepared. The quality of their educational experience was apparently thought of as being very good. Even by looking at the degree of preparedness by area of speciali­ zation within the college major, one can observe the positive nature of the respondents* Table 23 Degree of Preparedness for Initial Job Placement by Area of Specialization Degree of Preparedness Extremely Well N % Area of Specialization Ade­ quately N JL Inade­ quately H Cannot Say N i 151 22 U0 9 6o 66 10 52 8 Security Administration 30 19 95 60 Correctional Administration 27 29 60 15 U 9 8 Criminalistics 13 U 17 15 63 19 12 U 2 01 8 3 13 Delinquency Prev. and Control 26 25 6o 57 8 8 11 10 1* 19 lU C7 2 10 l 5 Lav Enforcement Administration Highway Traffic Administration * One-hundred fourteen did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. *** The chi-square value of 7.263 was not significant at the All specialization areas .05 level. were observed as providing a "positive" degree of preparation for the respondents' initial Job placements. As a result of the above findings, HYPOTHESIS XIV was accepted. When asked whether their college training was best utilized through their initial Job placement, 6Uo (59%) said it had been. This had not been 79 expected, as it was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that their college training was not best utilized. Ho15 Table 2h Utilization of College Training Through Initial Job Placement Question 18. Do you feel your college training was best utilized through your initial Job placement? Yes No i N J 1+0 69 18U 31 Private Law Enforcement 76 55 63 1+5 Non-Law Enforcement 8U 110 57 Career Military 73 *+3 68 36 32 N Public Law Enforcement Initial Major Enrollment * One-hundred sixteen did not respond. #w Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. »#» ^ e chi-square value of UU .6 7 8 was significant at the .001 level. Since only 393, or Ll* of the overall sample felt they had not been best utilized, HYPOTHESIS XV was rejected. For those who gave negative re­ sponses they were asked how they could have been better utilized, and the two mo3t frequent answers were (l) assignment to a specialized or administrative position, and (2 ) by taking a Job in the criminal Justice field. Surprisingly enough the public law enforcement category had the highest percentage of respondents who felt their college training was best utilized through their initial Job placement. terpretation may have accounted for this. However, a possible misin­ The writer felt "utilization" was taken to mean that if they went into training, the respondents felt they were best utilized. that the term the area oftheir Although 80 this is one meaning of the word, this writer had hoped for an understand­ ing of "utilization" in the Job itself. For example, if a security ad­ ministration graduate went into plant protection work, some might say his college training was best utilized even though his initial Job placement was plant protection patrolman. Was this graduate best utilized? This might account for the high percentage given to public law enforcement and the low percentage given non-law enforcement. The respondents were also asked whether their education had enabled them to progress more rapidly in their career than their fellow employees who lacked their educational qualifications. respondents (68jt) said that it did. For the overall sample, 6G0 Of those who gave negative responses, many felt that experience was more important to advancement. Some felt that nepotism and political interference negated the value of their edu­ cation. Others gave negative replies because all employees in their par­ ticular agencies were required to have a degree, thus negating any advantages. Respondents were asked to indicate their initial entrance salary, and the frequency distribution was as follows: 81 Table 25 Initial Entrance Salary Number Perc< Less than $6,000 *+57 $6,000 - $7,999 266 *+3 25 $8 , 0 0 0 - $9 , 0 0 0 203 19 $10,000 - $11,999 76 7 $12,000 - $13,999 30 3 $lli,000 - $15,999 15 1 $1 6 , 0 0 0 - $17,999 0 $1 8 , 0 0 0 - $19,999 3 U 0 $20,000 and over 1 0 * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ** Ninety-four did not respond. Interestingly enough, when cross-tabulating the above table by initial major employment, initial entrance salaries between Job categories were quite similar. This writer had expected the public law enforcement cate­ gory to be below the other categories. The graduates' year of initial placement, as might be expected, had a great deal to do with the salary scale they averaged. Through 1963 a majority of graduates made less than $f>,000 as an initial salary. Graduates from 196t to 1 9 6 8 averaged $6,000 to $7,999, and 1969 to 1971 graduates' initial entrance salaries averaged $6,000 to $9,999- Regard­ less of year of initial placement, a majority of respondents were satisfied with their initial entrance salary.(6U%) A final determination in Section 3 that this writer inquired about 82 was the length of time graduates remained with their initial jobs before accepting a second one. Of the 576 respondents who responded to this item, 179 (31#) were still employed with the same agency. Table 2 6 gives the overall distribution of this inquiry. Table 26 Length of Time Remained with Initial Job After Graduation Before Accepting Second Job Question 25- How long did you remain with your initial Job after gradua­ tion before accepting your second Job? Number Still Employed Less than 1 Year 179 31 95 16 21 7 U 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 119 6l 3 - U Years UO * 4 - 5 Years 22 5-6 Years 6-7 Years 15 6 7 -8 Years 8 - 9 Years 9-10 Years More than 10 Years Percent 11 3 1 5 11 1 10 2 12 2 2 * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number, w* Five-hundred seventy-three did not respond. ««« reason for the large number of non-respondents was due to the fact that the question was an open-ended item. As Table 26 indicates, a significant number of graduates left their initial Job after a short period of time. For example, U8# left between a time span of less than one year to three years. Since this has been a criticism by criminal Justice officials - that the recruitment of college-educated 63 graduates or the upgrading of personnel through education is not worth the effort because such "overly qualified" men will become dissatisfied and leave for "bigger and better things" - an inquiry was also made of in-ser­ vice personnel. Table 27 gives the results of this inquiry. Table 27 Length of Time Remained with Criminal Justice Agency After Graduation Before Accepting Second Job - In-Service Personnel Question 26. If you were employed by a criminal Justice agency at the time of graduation, how long did you stay with that agency after graduation before accepting another Job? Humber Percent Still Employed 39 33 Less than 1 Year 26 22 1 - 2 Years li+ 12 2-3 Years lU 12 3 - Years 7 6 U - 5 Years 0 0 5-6 Years 6 5 6 -7 Years U 3 7 - 8 Years 2 1 8 - 9 Years 2 1 9 - 1 0 Years 3 3 More than 10 Years 2 1 * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ** Sixty-eight did not respond. au Of the 187 in-service students who responded to the questionnaire, 119 answered this question. As reflected by Table 20, results were very much like those obtained in Table 19 of the overall sample. three percent were still employed with the same agency. Thirty- However, a significant number 51* (**6%) , had left their agency during a time span of less than one year to three years. What would need to be done is to compare the above with mobility patterns in other fields to see if this is a valid criticism. Of course, assuming that it was, this would not mean that higher education is not needed for criminal Justice; it would simply mean for criminal Justice to create changes to attract and retain competent and qualified individuals. For example, when asked what their major reason was for leaving their initial Job, the overwhelming answer given by respondents was for "a better opportunity". Criminal Justice agencies obviously should make strides to create "the better opportunity" within their own agencies. IV. PRESENT EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION AND VIEWS TOWARD SELECTED ISSUES CRIMINAL JUSTICE The data revealed an interesting transposition of agencies by graduates. Of the 1,107 respondents, 55** (50%) reported that their pre­ sent Job was not with the same agency/organization that initially hired them. The present employment of responding graduates indicates a some­ what different pattern than for initial employment. (See Table 6) 85 Table 28 Present Employment Number Public Law Enforcement Number Police 10 State 61 5 County 28 3 3 52 13 359 31 3 0 Munic ipal - Subtotal . 510 *+5 81+ 7 360 32 119 11 Percent 118 Federal Percent Corrections Federal State 56 5 County 1+2 1+ ___1 0 Munic ipal Subtotal 102 Private Law Enforcement Non-Law Enforcement Non—Related Criminal Justice Related Subtotal 231+ 25 76 7 360 32 Career Military 26 Non-Related Criminal Justice Related Subtotal 6 119 11 Unemployed 1+7 Student 13 __ 1 1133 100 Total * Sixteen did not respond ** Forty-eight responses (550 to the public law enforcement categories were classified as "other". *** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. 86 Although public law enforcement remained the largest single category with 5 1 0 graduates graduates. it also was the category that lost the most Initially there were 6 0 G graduates (53%) in public law en­ forcement; presently there are only 510 graduates 0*5#). Of the overall total, 31% are in police work, 9% are in correctional work, and 536 in agencies that could be categorized as "public law enforcement" but not necessarily police or corrections related (e.g., state arsenal investi­ gation unit, state tax enforcement agency, Attorney General's special intelligence unit). As Table 28 indicates, the municipal police sub-category contin­ ued to have the largest number of graduates, but likewise it also showed the largest number of graduates lost to other occupations. There were 210 graduates who responded that their initial Job placement was with municipal police; presently there are only 152 so employed. Of the 93 lost by the public law enforcement category, 66 were municipal policemen. Bothe federal and state police gained graduates, with the federal level picking up another 13 graduates and the state police in­ creasing their number by 8 graduates. In the correctional area the federal and municipal levels all but remained the same. The state cor­ rectional area was increased by 7 graduates while county corrections lost 16 graduates. By combining the police and correctional areas a pattern can be observed more readily. Federal and state agencies show an in­ crease of 2 8 graduates while county and municipal agencies show a de­ crease of 87 graduates. is more attractive. It seems that federal and state employment 67 The private law enforcement and career military categories lost graduates. The former lost 59 graduates and the latter 23 graduates. The private law enforcement category's loss was substantial as this re­ presented a percentage drop of approximately 6jt from initial placement. The only major employment category showing a gain in the number of graduates was that of non-law enforcement. There are 136 more graduates presently employed in this category than at the time of initial place­ ment. Of those in non-law enforcement, 76 or 21jt, are employed in Jobs that could be considered to be criminal Justice related (e.g., 32 crimi­ nal justice faculty, 9 criminal Justice researchers and consultants, 6 criminal Justice lawyers, and a number of court-related personnel). For the remaining 261 graduates, a full spectrum of occupations are included (e.g., 5 ordained ministers, 1 university soccer coach, 1 stock broker, 2 commercial airline pilots, 1 medical doctor, 1 dentist, 2 engineers, and numerous graduates in insurance, sales, and law). One final note that should be mentioned is that 17 graduates (1$) reported they were presently unemployed. Although this figure is alarm­ ing, it is below the national unemployment figure of 5-5^. It was hypothesized that: Ko^g the majority of criminal justice graduates will have remained in the area of employment that was their initial work experience. 80 Table 29 Present Employment by Initial Major Employment Present Employment Public Law Enforc1t N % Initial Major Employment Public Law Enforcement UU9 Private Law Enforce'mt Private Law Enforc't N % 1 3 182 8U 5 2 3 1 3 16 12 10U 12 3 2 0 2 7 2 51 5 2 k 0 Non-Law Enforcement 20 Career Military 11 9 8 1 h * ** *** ««*# 36 3 2 59 18 .JL 20 18 26 JL Unem­ ployed N 1 109 16 Career Mill tary N 5 2 3 U2 lii. No Initial Employment NonLav Enforc *t N % 7 18 6U_ Twenty did not respond. Thirteen respondents in the "student" category were not included. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. iphe chi-square value of 170.957 was significant at the .001 level. Table 29 indicates,the hypothesis is very much substantiated by the data. Although there was considerable transposition between agencies/or­ ganizations on the part of a number of respondents, they have for the most port remained in their initial major area of employment. For example, who began in public law enforcement are still in that area; h2% are still in private law enforcement; T5J& are still in the military, and; 8h% are still in non-law enforcement. It should be noted that the private law enforcement category was the only major area of employment that showed a considerable change. Most respondents indicated they had left the private law enforcement field for either public law enforcement (10#) or non-law enforcement (3^%) work. However, since most graduates remained with their initial major area of employment, IIYPOTHESXH XVIII was accepted. 89 The data indicated this to be the case. (8 8 0 Most of the respondent group or 8l#) reported that they were either "thoroughly satisfied" or "satisfied" with their present position. Only 218 or 19% answered "some what dissatisfied" or "thoroughly dissatisfied". Therefore, HYPOTHESIS XVI was accepted. Even if one were to look at individual Job categories, he would get similar results. sent Job position. All categories were equally satisfied in the pre­ Of those individuals in public law enforcement, Q>1% gave positive responses; those in private law enforcement 79%i those in non-law enforcement 8 2 #; and those individuals in the military QU%. A related question to the above concerned the graduates' current Job position, and to what extent they felt their criminal Justice edu­ cation was being utilized. Ho i? It was hypothesized that: the degree criminal Justice graduates will feel their criminal Justice education is being utilized in their present position will depend largely on their present employment category. As a group, the majority of respondents felt their criminal Justice edu­ cation was being utilized in their current position extremely well ( 2 6 9 or 2^#) or adequately (U 5 3 or U2#). Seventeen percent (190) felt they were inadequately utilized, and sixteen percent (179) felt their edu­ cation was not utilized at all. sented a different picture. Individual employment categories pre­ 90 Of the individuals reporting present position, ranK, or title, a completely different pattern was noticeable from the response given for initial placement position. (Table 11) Table 30 Present Job Position by Present Employment Present Job Position Present Employment Special­ ized Position N % Public Law Enforcement 93 18 Private Law Enforcement 8 10 28 tfon-Law Enforcement 8l 23 Career Military 15 13 * ** *** ***** **««# Supervisory Position N % 136 27 Admini­ strative Position N % Level of Operation N % 90 18 188 37 36 k3 12 1U 130 33 36 103 29 ill 12 62 52 39 33 2 2 Fifty-three did not respond. Student and unemployed categories were omitted. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. The chi-square value of 559-91*8 was significant at the .001 level. a limitation on the chi— square value should be mentioned due to a number of cells having an expectant value less than one. All categories showed a significant increase in graduates at specialized, supervisory, or administrative positions. Since the survey included 1938- 1971 graduates, this could be expected as many should have reached such a position by this time. This was, in fact, the case as only 10JC of those graduating between 1938-1960 are presently in level of operation type po­ sitions as apposed to 90% of those graduated between 1960-1971. It was hypothesized that: l6 the majority of criminal Justice graduates will be pleased with their present Job position. 91 Table 31 Extent Criminal Justice Education Utilized in Current Position Question U. In your current position, to what extent do you feel your criminal Justice education is being utilized? Extremeiz_ Well i~ _JL Ihk 28 Public Law Enforcement Adequately N % Inadequately N * 21+1+ 1+8 91+ 12 19 63 18 18 107 31 16 25 22 Private Law Enforcement 22 27 Non-Law Enforcement 66 19 1+5 51+ 112 32 Career Military 30 26 1+3 37 * ** *** **** ***** Ik Not at All M_ j L 25 5 U 5 Gixty-five did not respond. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. Student and unemployed categories were omitted. chi-square value of 170.783 was significant at the .001 level. A limitation on the significance of the chi-square value should be mentioned due to a number of cells having an expectant value of less than one. Although a majority in all categories gave a positive response to this question, a difference between categories was evident. Public and private categories were the most positive, with the military next, and the non-law enforcement category a poor last. Of course, this could have been predict­ ed as their educational training was in criminal Justice and they are cur­ rently in non—law enforcement work. On the other hand, public, private, and military categories for the most part are in positions in criminal Justice or related areas and graduates would feel their criminal Justice education was being utilized. Therefore, HYPOTHESIS XVII was accepted. Those respondents who are not presently employed in law enforcement were asked to mention the major reason they are not now in law enforcement. 92 The two reasons most frequently mentioned were low salary and lack of op­ portunity; that is, for advancement and creative change. A number of re­ spondents said, they received better opportunities elsewhere. Several were rejected from entering law enforcement because of physical reasons. One individual said he didn't go into law enforcement work because of "frus­ tration and what was considered inappropriate educational training". (MSW was required for promotion and he only had MA degree.) In order to touch upon the mobility pattern of the criminal Justice graduate, the respondents were asked to indicate the number of agencies for which they have worked since graduating from Michigan State University. Table 32 Number of Agencies Worked for Since Graduating from M.S.U. Question 6. For how many separate agencies have you worked since gradu­ ating from M.S.U.? No. of Agencies Number Percent 1 *+7 2 509 30U 3 159 15 k 6 5 65 10 6 13 1 7 8 12 1 1 0 28 2 * Sixty-seven did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. As Table 32 indicates, the average number of agencies worked for was approx­ imately two. Although not knowing the mobility ratio for other occupational 93 groupings, this writer felt this average to he below the norm. Over 90% of those responding indicated they had worked for only one, two, or three agencies. Present and future students should be encouraged by the annual salary now being made by past graduates. Table 33 Present Salary Number Salary Range Perc< Less than $6,000 33 3 $6,000 - $7,999 32 3 $8,000 - $9,999 76 $10,000 - $11,999 152 7 ll» $12,000 - $13,999 177 16 $1U,000 - $1 5 , 9 9 9 173 16 $1 6 , 0 0 0 - $17,999 120 11 $1 8 , 0 0 0 - $19,999 80 7 22 238 $20,000 and over * Sixty-eight did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. The average salary is in the $lU,000 to $15,999 range, and 1*38 or UOit of the respondents earn above this figure. The mean salary is maintained re­ gardless of present employment category. When asked whether they were satisfied with their present salary, 6o5£ of the overall sample gave a positive response while 1+0% responded nega­ tively. A majority in all present employment categories were satisfied with their present salary. 9h In order to determine the factors thought to be most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field, the respondents were given a list of eight factors to rank in the order of their importance. It was hypothesized that: Ho 19 the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that the factor which is most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field is that graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency ladder. The following is the result of their rankings. Table Zk Factors Ranked as Host Detrimental to the Recruitment of College Graduates Question 10. Based on your own experience, rank in the order of their importance the factors you consider most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field. (l being most detrimental ,to 8 being least detrimental.) Order of Ranking Mean 1. Graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency ladder. 3*16 2. Pay scales in criminal Justice work. 3.17 3. Social status of criminal Justice employment. I*.07 1*. Civil service laws. 1*. 5 6 5. Opposition to college-educated personnel onthe part of administrators in criminal Justice agencies. U.63 6. Unrealistic expectations of graduates. U.02 7. Danger involved in some kinds of lawenforcement. 5-63 8. Employee unions. 5.90 * The respondents were also given an "other" category to list other factors felt by them to be very detrimental to recruitment of the college graduate. The two most frequently mentioned were "political interference", and "court decisions". 95 As indicated by Table 3*+, the factor ranked as most detrimental was, in fact, that which was hypothesized. However, it should be noted that the pay factor had an almost identical ranking. Despite the closeness (3 . 1 6 - 3.17), HYPOTHESIS XIX was accepted. The respondents were also asked to rank the various employment cate­ gories in (l) their effort towards recruiting college graduates, and (2) their effort to place college graduates in positions commensurate with their education. Ho20 It was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal Justice graduates will rank the public law enforcement (state and local level) category as the one util­ izing the least effort in the recruitment of college graduates. and Ho 21 the majority of criminal Justice graduates will rank the public law enforcement (state and local level) cateory as the one util­ izing the least effort in the placing of college graduates in po­ sitions commensurate with their training. Tables 35 and 3^ give the results of their rankings. Table 35 Ranking of Agencies' Efforts Towards Recruiting College Graduates Question 11. How would you rank these agencies in their effort towards recruiting college graduates? (l being the greatest effort , to 5 being the least effort.) Oraer of Ranking 1. Mean Public Law Enforcement (FederalLevel) 2. Non-Law Enforcement 3- Public Law Enforcement 1-97 2.77 (StateandLocal Level) 3.33 U. Career Military 3.1*5 5. Private Law Enforcement 3-57 96 Table 36 Ranking of Agencies' Effortsin Placing College Graduates in Po3itionsComnensurate with Their Education Question 12. How would you rank these agencies in their effort to place college graduates in positions commensurate with their edu­ cation? (l being the greatest ef fort ,to 5 being the least effort.) Order of Ranking Mean 1. Public Law Enforcement (FederalLevel) 2.3k 2. Non-Law Enforcement 2,1+5 3. Career Military 3.17 1+. Private Law Enforcement 3.20 5. Public Law Enforcement (StateandLocal Level) 3.82 As Table 35 indicates, public law enforcement (federal level) was thought to put forth the greatest effort in recruiting college graduates. The private law enforcement category was thought to provide the least ef­ fort. This was interesting in that a number of graduates in private se­ curity had asked the whereabouts of security administration graduates, since they needed qualified personnel. The lack of communication between the School and private law enforcement in recruiting seems very evident. Since the public law enforcement (state and local level) category ranked third in the overall listing, HYPOTHESIS XX was re.lected. A 3 Table 36 indicates, public law enforcement (federal level) was also thought to provide the greatest effort in placing college graduates in po­ sitions commensurate with their education. Since a degree is necessary for federal law enforcement, one could predict this outcome. If this writer had hypothesized the order of ranking, he would have hypothesized what resulted. Since he did hypothesize that the public law enforcement category (state 97 and local level) would rank as the category providing the least effort in placing graduates in positions commensurate to their education, HYPOTHESIS XXI was accepted. An interesting interpretation to the above discussion can be made upon comparing the mean values of Tables 35 and 36. The public law enforcement cateogry at both the federal, and state and local levels was the only cate­ gory where the mean value was greater for the utilisation effort than the recruitment effort.^ Apparently the recruitment effort by public law en­ forcement has increased significantly in recent years while the utiliza­ tion effort (placing college graduates in positions commensurate with their educational training) has not been given the same needed emphasis. This is especially the case at the public law enforcement (state and local) level. The frustration and growing sense of irritation or despair that can de­ velop from such a situation needs no documentation. If the placement and assignment of the college graduate limits him to routine and nonchalleng­ ing tasks, he may become bored and leave for other fields. In recent year3 a number of recommendations concerning the personnel aspects of the criminal Justice system have been made. 1 96 7 For example, in the President's Comnission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended that: Police departments should take immediate steps to establish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all su­ pervisory and executive positions; and secondly, that the ultimate aim of all police departments should be that all 51The greater the mean value the more negative the order of ranking 96 personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees. Other recommendations such as executive development programs, specialized hiring, and lateral entry have been made with the concept of professionization by the revision of personnel practices being foremost in mind. To see what criminal Justice graduates think about these and other related recommendations and what their agency's policy is on such matters, graduates were asked their views on a number of questions related to the above. When asked whether personnel performing specialized functions not in­ volving a need for general enforcement power be hired for their talents and abilities without regard to prior criminal Justice experience, 7 8 6 graduates (7^#) answered yes. flected a general theme. Their reasons were many and varied but re­ Some of the answers were as follows: (Yes) to optimize the utilization of persons with particular expertise which are needed by the organization; (Yes) there is an extreme need for well-educated "planners" and "researchers" in criminal Justice; most departments can­ not get them from within; (Yes) expertise is its own answer; experience doesn't neces­ sarily improve it; its often a cop-out, a weakness of the system. We thus under-utilize talent; (Yes) not to do so deprives the agency of their expertise; prior criminal Justice experience has only a relative and qualitative value; Among those graduates who gave a negative response, their comments reflected the felt need for prior experience. As one individual put it: President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, op. cit., pp. 309-110. 99 knowledge without experience is like water with no pitcher in which to carry it. Since it was hypothesized that; jj 22 the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that personnel performing specialized functions not involving a need for general enforcement power should be hired for their talents and abilities without regard to prior criminal Justice experience, and this was, in fact, the result, HYPOTHESIS XXII was accepted. A majority of respondents in all Job categories, with one exception, said it was their agency's policy to do Just that. was the municipal police sub-category. The one exception A majority of respondents in this category gave such negative reasons as "civil service prevents it" and "departmental politics prohibit It". When asked whether their agency or organization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for recruitment of college educated per­ sonnel at certain Job positions, 633 respondents (68%) felt that it would. Most of the positive responses felt that it would improve efficiency in some orean and help to attract and retain graduates whose talents are necessary to achieve and maintain the concept of professionalism. Among the negative responses ( 2 9 3 or 3 2 j£) were those indicating that "street experience" is necessary, morale would be severely damaged, or dissension would result. jj 23 Since it was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel an agency or organization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for recruitment of personnel at certain Job positions, and this, in fact, was the case,HYPOTHESIS XXIII was accepted. 100 When asked whether their agency had such a policy, the respondents replied as follows: Table 37 Lateral Entry Policy Question li*. Does your agency have such a policy? Yes M % Agency Category Public Law Enforcement 171 36 Private Law Enforcement ^3 56 lion-Law Enforcement 138 6U Career Military 53 58 Ho H % 298 3 I* UU 76 36 38 h2 * Two-hundred eighty-six did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. As Table 3T indicates, a majority of respondents in the private, non-law enforcement, and military categories felt their particular agency had such a policy. On the other hand, a majority in the public law enforcement category said they did not. However, a majority of respondents in two pub­ lic law enforcement sub-categories (federal police and state corrections) reported they did have such a policy. the public law enforcement category. The following is the breakdown for 101 Table 38 Lateral Entry Policy by Public Law Enforcement Category Yes No t N % 51* 53 U8 kl State 16 27 k3 County 7 2k 26 20 73 Ik 17 121 03 1 33 O 67 Ctate 33 65 18 35 County l*i 36 25 6*» 0 0 1 Police N Federal Municipal Correctional Federal Municipal * ** *** ***** 100 Forty-two did not respond. Forty-one respondents were categorized as "other11. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. The chi-square value of 66.593 vaB significant at the .001 level. As can be discerned from the above table, a significant difference between the municipal police sub—category and the quite evident. remaining sub-categories is The municipal police respondents were overwhelmingly in agreement that their particular agency did not have a lateral entry policy. It was hypothesized that: Ho0^ the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel it would be desirable to have internship/understudy programs in order to develop lateral entry programs within their agencies. Eight-hundred sixty-eight graduates answered the question as to the de­ sirability of having internship/understudy programs in order to develop lateral entry programs. Five-hundred fifty-seven (6k%) thought it would 102 be desirable. One individual said, for example, that he thought "educa­ tion and experience make wonderful bed partners". Another said that in other professions, internship is beneficial to the graduate and is also a good recruitment device. Throughout many of the positive replies, general theme of "gaining experience" was very apparent. the Since a majority of respondents felt it to be desirable, HYPOTHESIS XXIV was accepted. When asked whether their agency had such a program, a similar pattern to that of the lateral entry policy question developed. The public law enforcement category was the only one where a majority of respondents replied that their particular agency did not have such a program. As in the case earlier, the federal police and state corrections sub-cate­ gories were the only categories to have a majority of respondents reply­ ing that there was such an existing program. The respondents were asked whether criminal Justice agencies should give special consideration (entry level, salary, promotional eligibility, etc.) to the educational qualifications of individuals. It was hypothe­ sized that: 25 the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that special consideration (entry level, salary, promotional eligibility, etc.) should be given by criminal Justice agencies to the educational qualifications of individuals. As a group, an overwhelming majority (933 or Ql%) thought that special consideration should be given by criminal Justice agencies. The comments that follow give an indication of thi3 attitude. (Yes) a person with education beyond high school is bringing more talent to the agency and also has gone through an exten­ sive training period on his own iniative; 103 (Yes) simply to attract and retain better educated personnel; (Yes) education receives special consideration in other dis­ ciplines; if criminal, justice is to think of itself as pro­ fessional, it must do the same; (Yes) to encourage the hiring of better educated individuals who in turn would encourage better performance and caliber of employees; (Yes) there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that while college graduates are by no means a panacea, they do con­ tribute significantly to effective low enforcement; (Yes) because while books can't teach you the actual experience, they do give a degree of objectivity which the street experi­ ence may tend to obscure and which is necessary for supervisory, administrative positions. Of those individuals who gave negative responses to this question, one in­ dividual's comment summarizes their general feelings: (Iio) a person should first prove himself competent and quali­ fied as well as sufficiently sound in good character strengths to perform at the level his degree suggests he should be cap­ able of - the degree itself is not the end of the educational experience. Since the majority of criminal justice graduates did feel special considera­ tion should be given, HYPOTHESIS XXV was accepted. The respondents were asked what factors, if any, other than education, should play a significant part in receiving special consideration. vocally, the experience factor was most frequently mentioned. Unequi­ A second factor frequently mentioned was prior performance; that is, demonstrated ability . When asked what their particular agency's policy was, most said spe­ cial consideration was given by their agency. However, in most cases, the consideration given consisted of only 3alary increases (especially in the public law enforcement category). Many municipal police respondents 10*4 replied that no consideration is given at all. Concerning whether there should be a difference in initial Job entry between the non-degree holder, the undergraduate degree holder, and the graduate degree holder, two questions were asked the respondents. The following are the results of their responses. Table 39 Initial Job Entry - Degree Holder and Non-Degree Holder Question 17- Should there be a difference in initial Job entry between the degree holder and non-degree holder? Yes Ho N % 733 71 M % 29S 29 Yes H .JL Public Law Enforcement Private Law Enforcement Non-Law Enforcement Career Military No N * 310 6U 173 36 61 75 76 20 73* 25 234 82 19 10 229 8U * One-hundred thirty did not respond. ** Forty-nine "unemployed" and "student" responses were omitted. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ««»« i|^je chi-square value of 23 -33*2 was significant at the .001 level. 105 Table 40 Initial Job Entry Under-Graduate Degree Holder and the Graduate Degree Holder Question 18. Ghould there be a difference in initial Job entry between the under—graduate degree holder and the graduate degree holder? Yes h 601 ~ 59 Ho h i 4i4 41 Yes N 255 46 201 Public Law Enforcement Private Law Enforcement Hon-Law Enforcement 61 Career Military * ** *** ***** No i 52 62 60 6o *0 231 28 93 40 One-hundred forty-six did not respond. Forty-eight "unemployed1’ and "student" responses were omitted. Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. The chi-square value of PI.657 was significant at the . 0 0 1 level. As Tables 39 and 40 indicate, a majority of respondents, either as a group or by individual employment categories, felt there should be a difference in entry level between the non-degree holder, the undergraduate degree hold­ er, and the graduate degree holder. They were more positive in their feel­ ing that there should be a difference in initial job entry between the de­ gree holder and non-degree holder than they were regarding the difference between the undergraduate degree holder and the graduate degree holder. The private, non-law, and military categories had substantial majori­ ties on both questions. The public lav enforcement category showed a majority on both, but a breakdown of this category showed some rather 10 6 surprising results. On the first question the municipal police sub—cate­ gory felt there should not be a difference. On the second question all police sub—categories felt there should not be a difference. This was quite surprising to this writer as the sample consists of all college graduates. fluence. It seems that the police sub-culture has a significant in­ Reservations concerning the value of their criminal Justice education may also lie in the fact that there appears to be scant re­ cognition of the fact that education alone does not mold behavior. En­ vironment shapes behavior, and the environment of criminal Justice has yet to be meaningfully addressed either from within or from without criminal Justice agencies. As a result, there exists a serious disequil­ ibrium between the educational experience and the work experience, and is one which is not moderated by the notion of cither a common educational base or variable educational base among criminal Justice personnel. Nevertheless, since it was hypothesized that: H °2S the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel there should be a difference in initial job entry between the nondegree holder, the undergraduate degree holder, and the graduate degree holder, HYPOTHESIS XXVI was accepted. The respondents were asked whether their agencies felt there should be a difference, and respondents in all major categories, with the ex­ ception of the public law enforcement category, replied that their agencies did feel there 3 hould be a difference. Within the public law enforcement category the following breakdowns were noted. 1GT Table Ul Agency Feeling on Difference in Initial Job Entry Between Won-Degree Holder and Undergraduate Degree Holder by Public Law Enforcement Category Breakdown Question If. Does your agency feel there should be a difference? Yea N No JL N Police Federal 66 66 3U 3h State 18 32 39 68 8 29 20 71 26 18 120 82 2 1 33 8 16 County Municipal Correctional Federal State *43 67 8h County 28 78 3 22 0 0 0 0 Municipal * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. Forty-two were categorized as "other” . ««» The chi-square value of 1 3 0 . 8 1 8 was significant at the . 0 0 1 level. 1(11 loa Table U2 Agency Feeling on Difference in Initial Job Entry Between Undergraduate Degree Holder and Graduate Degree Holder by Public Law Enforcement Category Breakdown Question 18. Does your agency feel there should be a difference? Yes li Ho % ' H 3 Pol ice 6l Federal 38 39 State 10 6 19 2h 19 76 1U 10 127 90 3 100 0 0 County Municipal 59 81 Correctional Federal State 26 55 23 1+5 County 13 37 22 63 1 100 0 0 Municipal * Thirty-nine were categorized as "other". ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. «*« The chi-square value of 7 2 . 6 8 0 was significant at the .001 level. Table 1*1 indicates a sharp difference between police and correctional areas. With the exception of the federal police area, the police sub­ categories are thought to be very much opposed to different entry levels based on educational achievement. On the other hand, all correctional sub-categories felt there should be a difference. Table 1+2 indicates an even stronger opposition on the part of the police category, as all sub—categories were very much opposed to differ­ ent entry levels between undergraduate and graduate degree holders. Ninety percent in the ;.,unicipal police sub-category alone felt their particular agency was against such a policy. Although the correctional area as a 109 group were evenly split on this question, they were much more positive than the police sub-category. The respondents were asked whether they felt most all criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. It had been hy­ pothesized that : Ho the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that not all criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. Although the question was poorly phrased on the survey instrument, it was possible to conduct an analysis by looking at the respondents' openended responses and comparing it with the coded responses. The terminology "most all" in the above question was interpreted by the majority of re­ spondents as meaning "all" and therefore the question, "do you feel most all criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college de­ gree" wi] l be interpreted in this manner. The majority of respondents (550 or 51%) felt that not all criminal Justice personnel should be re­ quired to have a college degree. Most of their reasons centered around the idea that many positions do not require college educated personnel, and that it would also be economically unfeasible. For those who felt criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree, the moat frequent reasons stated were (l) to achieve professionalism, and (2 ) to provide a better background and understanding of people and customs, thus developing more tolerance and understanding in stress situations. Since the frequencies were so similar, the question in­ volving whether criminal justice personnel should have a college degree, this particular issue seems at an impasse. Even when comparing individual 110 Job categories one is struck by the apparent deadlock. No significant differences were noted. Recency of graduation was also cross—tabulated with the graduates ' responses. The following distribution resulted: Table 1*3 Response of Bachelor and Master Degree Holders Question 19. Do you feel most all criminal justice personnel should be required to have a college degree? Bachelors N Yes No f Graduation 1938 1939 1 7 U 6 2 19^0 191+1 191+2 191*3 191+1* 191+5 0 1 0 0 8 19^6 191*? 19W 3 10 11 19U9 1950 1951 1952 1953 195U 1955 1956 1957 1958 1*55° i9 6 0 9 3 3 5 10 8 12 17 5 19 13 10 20 16 23 15 19 30 29 26 30 Total 0 0 0 9 17 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 7 18 21 1966 1 13 19 1963 1961+ 1965 3 5 10 16 1961 1962 0 2 1+77 12 16 21 21+ 18 20 18 16 31 23 28 18 32 33 31 -JlSL 1+9 I+ Masters N No Yes — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -— — — 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 7 5 9 7 11 ft 11 11+ 73 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 5 13 10 7 8 12 ia 83 Ill Table U3 (Cont.) Response of Bachelor and Master Degree Holders * Seventy-two did not respond. ** Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. *** The chi—square value of 2.987 was not significant at the .05 level. Contrary to the belief by many, Table U2 indicates that the more recent graduate is more likely to respond negatively to the notion that most all criminal .Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. A possible explanation for this is the uncertainty concerning the value of education in the criminal Justice arena and the questioning of the assumption that higher education is the panacea for all ills or difficulties that may arise. One individual who responded negatively wrote: "While perhaps desirable, it is highly improbable because one becomes bored with routine, frustrated with lack of advancement, and irritated by the hoax attached to a col­ lege degree." On the other hand, the less recent the graduate, the more likely he is to respond positively. He equates his success with the fact of his edu­ cation and therefore seee education as one of life's necessities. The dichotomy that exists over the educational strategy to profession­ alize criminal justice is nowhere more apparent than in the responses to this question. However, since a majority (although Just barely) felt that not all criminal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree, HYPOTHESIS XXVII was accepted. Respondents were also asked whether their individual agency was re­ ceptive to the idea that most all personnel be required to have a college 112 degree. ceptive. Surprisingly, the public lav enforcement category was most re­ This can be explained by the fact that federal lav enforcement positions require a degree in most cases and federal respondents there­ fore gave very few negative responses. Correctional respondents, because of degree requirements in their area, were also very positive in their responses. The final question related to recommendations concerning the personnel aspects of the criminal Justice system asked the respondents whether crimi­ nal Justice agencies should take immediate steps to establish a minimum re­ quirement of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive po­ sitions. 26 It was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal justice graduates will feel that criminal justice agencies should take immediate steps to establish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions. The results indicate this to be the case. that immediate steps should be taken. Over 6 7 6 respondents (6 5%) felt Most positive responses said that this would provide better, more knowledgeable leadership and enhance the concept of professionalism. A very significant fact concerning this ques­ tion was that all Job categories were in close agreement on this question (e.g., public law enforcement (6U%); private law enforcement (60JE); nonlaw enforcement (6?^); and career military (£>h%), When asked their agen­ cy’s policy on the matter, most replied that they had already taken this step or were leaning in this direction. As a result of the above findings, HYPOTHESIS XXVIII was accepted. In order to assist the School in the updating and revision of its 113 curriculum and overall program, graduates were asked their views on the direction the School should take in preparing future graduates and helping place students in the criminal justice field. Ho It was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal Justice graduates will feel that the thrust of the criminal Justice program at Michigan State should be left unchanged. Table I4U shows the results of the inquiry on the direction graduates feel the School should take. Table UU Thrust of Criminal Justice Program Question 21. Do you feel the School of Criminal Justice should change their thrust toward preparing students for positions at the level of operation? Yes JL_ 1»3 »451 451 JL Mo H 590 % 57 ~ * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number, ** One-hundred eight did not respond. Question 22. Do you feel the School of Criminal Justice should leave the preparation at the level of administration to the graduate level of study? Yes N 358 % 35 Mo ~N 673 % 65 * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ** One-hundred eighteen did not respond. Question 23. Do you feel the School of Criminal Justice should leave the program unchanged. Ho H 5*47 % 57 * Percentages were rounded to nearest whole number. ** One-hundred ninety-four did not respond. Ilk As Table h1* indicates, no one approach received an affirmative ma­ jority. The reason for this can be explained by the analysis of the open- ended response "other" given the graduate if he was not in favor of the three choices listed on the survey instrument. Almost invariably the re­ sponse given by the respondents was "the integration of both approaches". Many made it very clear that they felt the thrust had been skewed toward the "administrative" level and that a balance between both was needed. Some of their comments were as follows: achieve a balance whereby more operational training is given but not to where it overshadows administration; try to prepare students for both levels by dropping some ad­ ministrative courses and adding some geared toward opera­ tional level; a more equitable mixture of level of operation and admini­ strative level courses would be much more acceptable to stu­ dent and prospective employer. In general, a number of graduates felt there was "too much theory" in the curriculum and not enough emphasis on "operational” matters. A few in­ dividuals suggested a "cooperative educational" area of specialization similar to that developed at the School of Criminal Justice, Northwestern University, Boston, Massachusetts. Of course, some students took a middle- of-the-road approach to the above. They stressed the need for more "field training" in conjunction with their education - possibly a term near the beginning of the program so that the student con get an ideaof what field he wishes to specialize in or to what degree to pursue; and the regular field training term near the end which shows the student how his acquired knowledge "fits". As a result of the above, HYPOTHESIS XXIXwas rejected. 115 When asked whether the School should take a much more active part in helping place students in the criminal justice field, 926 graduates (8 9 >£) were in agreement that the School should. One individual thought the School should consider hiring a full-time criminal Justice counselor who would work closely with the students in areas of Job placement, and providing career information on the total criminal Justice system. Another philosophical student gave the following rendition of the School's part in the area of placement: The School offers students a fine book entitled "How to Swim". For a period of approximately four years, we read it, discuss it, take exams on it, and pass it. Then we are let out into the "social waters" - some swim, some drown. It's about time the School of Criminal Justice getB its students' feet wet. Then no one will drown. This, and other comments suggest the felt need for the School to take a much more active part in helping place students in the criminal Justice field. Ho.,0 Since it was hypothesized that: the majority of criminal justice graduates will feel the School should take an active part in helping place students in the criminal Justice field, and the majority felt this way, HYPOTHESIS XXX was accepted. A final note to be mentioned is that the graduates were asked a closing question a3 to whether they felt their college education had been a posi­ tive, negative, or neutral influence on their career. the graduates gave a positive response. Overwhelmingly, Nine-hundred seventy-seven said their education had been a positive influence on their careers, while only forty-five graduates felt their education to be either a neutral or nega­ tive influence on their respective careers. One individual summed it up 116 beat by stating "it had disciplined me to study and seek answers to per­ plexing problems, to experiment, to validate, but most importantly bring­ ing myself to the realization that education and learning is a continual­ ly ongoing and lifelong experience". CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I. SUMMARY This study was part of a coordinated research project conducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal Justice education. The School received a grant from the Michigan State Planning Agency, the Of­ fice of Criminal Justice Programs, in order to conduct systematic planning and research in a number of areas. To plan effectively in the area of criminal Justice education there must be a clear understanding and know­ ledge of what happens to the student following graduation. A review of the literature revealed that there have been relatively few studies done that have been concerned with the graduates of criminal Justice programs. In an effort to cast more light on this subject area, this writer conducted a survey of the School's graduates to gather information concern­ ing placement and utilization of its graduates, as well as their views to­ ward the criminal Justice program and selected criminal justice issues re­ lated to criminal Justice education. The population surveyed was the to­ tal number of graduates of Michigan State University who majored in crim­ inal Justice (excluding foreign students residing in foreign countries). Consideration of the size and geographical dispersion of the population resulted in the determination that the moot appropriate means of data— gathering would be accomplished through the use of the mailed, self-administering questionnaire. After development of the questionnaire, a pre-test was given to a purposive sample of 1 5 0 graduates. As a result of the pre-tent, revisions 118 were made and the revised questionnaire was sent to 1,022 graduates. Af­ ter approximately three weeks a follow-up letter was sent out to those graduates who had not yet responded. As a result of the initial mailing and follow-up, 1 ,l6l questionnaires were returned. Along with this, 91 questionnaires were returned unanswered by the U. S. Post Office as being undeliverable. This represented a useable return percentage of 67-1The major purpose of this research was to discover "what is", since this particular body of knowledge i3 practically non-existent. Thus this study represents a new body of information that should contribute towards (l) an understanding of placement and utilization patterns of criminal Justice graduates; (2) an understanding of placement and utilization poli­ cies of various criminal Justice agencies; (3) a determining of the strengths and weaknesses in the criminal justice program at Michigan State University; (U) an understanding of selected issues in criminal Justice as perceived by criminal Justice graduates; (5) a source for both criminal Justice students and criminal Justice programs across the nation to utilize; and (6) estab­ lishing a more coordinated placement program between the School and the criminal Justice field. To discover if the hypotheses presented in Chapter I and discussed in Chapter IV would be accepted or rejected, all responses to the question­ naire were compiled and coded and punched on I.B.M. cards. Descriptive survey tables were produced showing frequency and percentage distributions. Comparisons of selected variables were in the form of contingency tables utilizing frequencies, percentages, and means, and done by cross-tabulating techniques. The statistical analysis utilized was the chi-square test for 119 significance, and the level of significance chosen was the . 0 5 level or less. The computer program utilized was the analysis of contingency tables. Program) (ACT 120 II. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study provided considerable information on which to base the following findings: I. GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION 1. The overall sample was a relatively young group. (T03t were un­ der 39 years of age and 51% were 3*+ or under.) 2. The respondents were overwhelmingly male. (92%) 3. The racial mak.e-up was almost entirely white. (90%) Only 21 respondents were included in all other racial groups. U . The respondents were dispersed throughout **7 of the United States and the District of Columbiat with an additional 30 respondents resid­ ing in foreign countries. II. EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION SECTION 1. The majority of respondents (8 5 %) received only their bachelors degree from the School of Criminal Justice. responding earned a masters degree. Ten percent of those Five percent received both de­ grees from the School of Criminal Justice. 2. A significant number of respondents were relatively recent graduates. 3. A majority of the respondents (6 7 %) indicated their area of spe­ cialization in the School of Criminal Justice was Law Enforcement Administration. U. A majority of graduates (87** or 79%), if they had to do it over 121 again, would again choose the same area of specialization, and ( 8 6 8 or 77%) felt they would again choose the criminal Justice area as their college major. 5. Of those answering negatively to again choosing the same area of specialization, a majority of them felt they would specialize in an area outside of criminal Justice. The most frequently mentioned areas were business administration and law. 6 . Of those responding negatively to choosing the criminal Justice area as their college major, a majority of them said they would ma­ jor in business administration or law. 7. A majority of graduates (825 or 73%) replied they were satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while attending Michigan State University. 8 . (3 0 0 Of those graduates who were not satisfied with the curriculum or 27%)* the most frequent criticism mentioned was "too much theory and not enough practical application in the curriculum1'. 9- One-hundred fifty-five graduates (1 ) said they had received a graduate degree or law degree from another M.E3.U. School or De­ partment or from another educational institution. 10. Of those indicating they had been awarded advanced degrees else­ where , 2 8 graduates reported they held a law degree, 8 reported they held a doctorate degree, and the remaining number reported they held a masters degree. 122 III. POST-COLLEGE INITIAL PLACEMENT INFORMATION 1 . Only 187 of those responding (17#) were in-service students; 783 respondents (7 0 jt) were pre-service students; and IU7 (13#) were prior-service students. 2. A majority of graduates ( 6 0 8 or 53#) chose a public law enforce­ ment agency as their initial employment opportunity. 3. Of those entering public law enforcement, the largest percent­ age went into municipal police work. For those who chose the cor­ rectional field, almost all went to correctional agencies at the state and county level. . A significant number (h39 or 75#) of those whose initial employ­ ment was a public law enforcement agency were thoroughly satisfied with their initial placement position, and only those graduates whose initial employment was with the military were more favorable. 5. The degree of satisfaction with initial Job placement for both the police and correctional sub-categories was the lowest at the municipal or county level, and the highest at the federal level. 6. Although low salary and lack of opportunity were frequently men­ tioned as reasons for not going into law enforcement related work, two other reasons were also given. One of the reasons, that Jobs were Just not available, was the most frequently mentioned explanation. The other reason was that of having a physical restriction, particu­ larly of height or vision. 123 7. Of those who went into non-law enforcement related work, an extremely large percentage (80%) were pre-service students. It should be noted though, that a majority of all respondents in each service category chose to enter law enforcement related work. 8. A majority of graduates (61*0 or 62%) were initially placed at the level of operation. The public law enforcement category over­ whelmingly demonstrated that the initial placement position for this type of work was at the level of operation. (82%) 9. Baccalaureate degree holders were much more likely to be initial­ ly placed in a position at the level of operation. On the other hand, a majority of graduate degree holders were initially placed in spe­ cialized, supervisory, or administrative positions. 10. The in-service student had more of a chance of receiving an ini­ tial placement position at other than the level of operation than did the prior-service or pre-service student. 11. There was no discernable pattern that could be ascertained between 1938-1967 graduates and 1968-1971 graduates regarding initial place­ ment position. 12. A significant percentage of respondents in the private (38£), non­ law (32Jfi), and military (36)5) categories, who started at level of op­ eration were promoted or assigned in lesB than one year or between one to two years. reported likewise. Only 19)5 of the public law enforcement respondents 12U 13- In looking at the frequency distribution for the entire sample, it was found that only lQ% reported their agency/organization hav­ ing a pay incentive program tied to education; 32% reported a mana­ gerial/trainee program; and 32/S reported there was a lateral entry policy within their agency/organization, lU. few respondents (16%) in the public law enforcement category reported having an educational pay incentive program within their agency. 15* Few respondents (22%) in the public law enforcement category re­ ported their employer having a managerial/internship program for col­ lege graduates. On the other hand, the other employment categories showed a much larger percentage of respondents who reported there was such a program. 16. Few respondents (21^) in the public law enforcement category re­ ported their employer having a lateral entry policy. 17- Correctional agencies were more positive in reporting that a lateral entry policy existed than were police agencies. In the po­ lice sub—category, the municipal police agency was least likely to have such a policy. 18. Seven percent of the graduates reported having difficulties in getting their initial Job which they felt were attributable to their criminal Justice degree. Of this percentage, the majority had dif­ ficulty when applying to municipal police departments. 125 19. As a group, 62% reported that all nevly hired personnel start at the Bame entry level regardless of their level of education. Of this percentage, 68% were public law enforcement respondents. 20. Over 230 graduates (22%) felt they were extremely well prepared for their initial Job placement, while another 630 (60^) felt they were adequately prepared. 21. When asked to compare their preparedness in comparison with their fellow workers, they were even more confident. There were hl2 (k2%) who answered extremely well, and 533 (5 1 ?!) who responded to adequately. 22. A majority of respondents (6j%) felt their college training was best utilized through their initial Job placement. 23. As a group, 680 respondents (68%) reported their education had enabled them to progress more rapidly in their career than their fellow employees who lacked their educational qualifications. Of those who gave negative responses, many felt that experience weighed more heavily. 2k. Through 1963 a majority of graduates1 initial entrance salary was less than $6,000. Graduates from 1961) to 1 9 6 8 averaged $6,000 to $7,999, and 1 9 6 9 to 1971 graduates' initial entrance salaries averaged $8,000 to $9,999* 126 25* A significant percentage of graduates left their initial Job after a 3hort period of time (e.g., hO# left between a time span of less than one year to three years). 2(5. Forty-six percent of the in-aervice personnel who responded to the questionnaire left their agency between a time span of le3 S than one year to three years. IV. PREUEHT KiTPLQYMEHT IHFOHMATIO.J Aim VIEWS TOWARD S E L E C T E D ISSUES ID CRI; IIWAL JUSTICE 1. The data reveals an interesting transposition of agencies by graduates. Fifty percent of the respondents reported that their present Jcb is not with the 3 ame agency/organization that initial­ ly hired them. 2. Although public law enforcement remains the largest 3 ingle category with 5 1 0 graduates (U5 #), it was the category that lost the most graduates. Initially, there were 608 graduates (53#) in public law enforcement; presently there are only 5 1 0 graduates (^5#). 3. The municipal police sub-category continues to have the largest number of graduates ( 1 5 2 or 1 3 #) in the public law enforcement cate­ gory, but likewise, it also showed the }srgest number of graduates lost to other occupations. L, Within the public law enforcement category, federal and state agencies show an increase of 2 8 graduates, while county and muni­ cipal agencies show a loss of 8 7 graduates. 127 5. The occupational category shoving the only gain in the number of graduates is that of non-lav enforcement. There are 138 more graduates presently employed in this category than at the time of initial placement. 6 . A considerable number of non-lav enforcement graduates (76 or 21*) are employed in Jobs that could be considered to be criminal Justice related (e.g., 32 criminal Justice facility, 9 criminal Justice researchers and consultants, 6 criminal Justice lawyers, and a number of court-related personnel). 7. Although there was considerable transposition between agencies/ organizations on the part of a number of respondents, a majority of graduates have remained in their initial area of employment (e.g., 7^ who began in public law enforcement are still in that area; U2% are still in private lav enforcement, &h% are still in non-lav en­ forcement; 7 5 ? are still in the military). 8 . The private lav enforcement category is the only major area of em­ ployment that shows a considerable change. Most respondents indicated they had left the private security field for either public lav enforce­ ment (1 8 ?) or non-lav enforcement (3 6 ?) work. 9. All present major employment categories show a significant in­ crease in graduates at specialized, supervisory, or administrative positions. 10. A majority of the respondent group (880 or 8 ljf) reported they are 123 either "thoroughly satisfied" or "satisfied" with their present Job position. 11. As a group, the majority of respondents (722 or 67%) feel their criminal Justice education is being utilized in their current em­ ployment position. 12. Those respondents who are not presently employed in law enforce­ ment mention low salary and lack of opportunity as the two major rea­ sons they are not presently in law enforcement related work. 13. The average number of agencies worked for by the criminal Jus­ tice graduate since graduation from Michigan State University is two. l h . The average annual salary now being made by past graduates is in the $lU,000 to $1 5 * 9 9 9 range, with Uo£ of the respondents earning above this figure. 15. The majority of criminal Justice graduates rank the factor that "graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency ladder", as being the most detrimental to the recruitment of college graduates into the criminal Justice field. 16 . The public law enforcement category (federal level) is thought to put forth the greatest effort in recruiting college graduates. The private law enforcement category was thought to provide the least effort. 129 17* The public law enforcement category (state and locallevel) ranks as the category providing the least effort in placing graduates in positions commensurate to their education. The public law enforce­ ment category (federal level) is thought to provide the greatest effort. 18. A majority of criminal Justice graduates (7^/5) feel that personnel performing specialised functions not involving a need for general en­ forcement power should be hired for their talents and abilities with­ out regard to prior criminal Justice experience. 19* A majority of respondents in all Job categories, with one excep­ tion , report it is their agency's policy to hire specialists. The one exception is the municipal police sub-category. 20. A majority of respondents (633 or 68jt) feel their agency or or­ ganization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for the re­ cruitment of college educated personnel at certain Job positions. A majority of respondents in all Job categories feel this way. 21. A majority of respondents in the private, non-law, and military oc­ cupational groupings report that their particular eral entry policy. hand, a majorityin the public law en­ On the other forcement category said they did not. However, a agencies have a lat­ majority of respond­ ents in two public law enforcement sub-categories (federal police and 3tate corrections) reported they did have 3uch a policy. 22. A majority of respondents (557 or GU% ) feel that it would be 130 desirable to have internship/understudy programs in their agencies in order to develop lateral entry programs. 2 3. The public law enforcement category is the only one where a ma­ jority of respondents report that their particular agency does not have an internship/understudy program. As was noted in number 21. above, the federal police and state corrections areas are the only sub-categories to have a majority stating there is such an existing program. 2k. An overwhelming majority (933 or G7%) thought that criminal Jus­ tice agencies should give consideration (entry level, salary, pro­ motional eligibility, etc.) to the educational qualifications of individuals. 25* A majority of respondents report that their particular agency's policy is to give special consideration, but only in the form of salary increases. Many municipal police respondents replied that no consideration is given at all. 26. A majority of respondents, either as a group or by individual major employment categories, feel there should be a difference in entry level between the non-degree holder, the undergraduate degree holder, and the graduate degree holder. However, the municipal police sub-category felt there should be no difference between the non-degree holder and the degree holder; and all police sub-categories feel there should be no difference between the undergraduate degree 131 and the graduate degree holder. 27. A majority of respondents in all major employment categories, with the exception of the public law enforcement category, reported their agencies feel there should be a difference in initial Job en­ try by degree levels. 28. The police sub-categories , with the exception of the federal po­ lice, are very much opposed to different entry levels based on edu­ cational achievement. On the other hand, all correctional sub-cate- gori ea feel there should be a difference. 29. The majority of respondents (550 or 51%) feel that not all crimi­ nal Justice personnel should be required to have a college degree. 30. A majority of respondents ( 5 6 9 or 62%) in all major employment categories reported that their particular agencies are receptive to the idea that most all personnel be required to have a college de­ gree. However, the county and municipal police sub-categories are not of this opinion. 31. A majority of respondents ( 6 7 8 or 6 5 %) feel that immediate steps should be taken to establish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions. All Job cate­ gories are in close agreement on this question. 32. Five-hundred forty-seven graduates (57%) feel that the School of Criminal Justice should not leave the criminal Justice program unchanged. 132 A majority of respondents feel there should be an "integration of both the operational and administrative approaches" to criminal Justice education. 33- A significant number of graduates (926 or 8 9 #) are in agreement that the School of Criminal Justice should take a much more active part in helping place students in the criminal Justice field. 3^. Overwhelmingly, the graduates (977 or 9856) feel their college education had been a positive influence on their career. 133 III. DISCUSSION "There can be no adequate technical education which i3 not liberal, and no liberal education which is not technical; that is, no education which does not impart both technique and intellectual vision. In simpler language, education should turn out the pu­ pil with something he knows well and something he can do well. This ultimate union of practice and theory aids both." Alfred North Whitehead One of the most salient results of this study was the concern ex­ pressed by a majority of graduates as to the direction the School of Crim­ inal Justice should take towards the criminal justice program. Many of the graduates feel the thrust of the School's program should be a proper blending of both "practical" and "theoretical" education and training. While most feel the School would be well advised to leave basic training in methods to the hiring agencies, many feel some attention should be paid to the operational aspect of the criminal Justice field. As one individual commented: It is most important that the "asmlnistrative" aspect of criminal Justice work be emphasized by the Gchool, but this does not mean that other aspects be overlooked. Fail­ ure to recognize the legal and operational aspects have built a gulf between the School and many operational agen­ cies, Hopefully, the School, in the future, will be able to demonstrate to criminal Justice practitioners that it accepts them for who they are, as they are, and challenge them to gain perspective and change where change is needed. Numerous comments such as the above clearly illustrate the need for a "coexistent" approach to criminal Justice educational programs. The graduates have indicated that a proper mixture of "operational" and "ad­ ministrative" educational training is essential to produce the much needed change agent. 13^ It remains to be seen what the School of* Criminal Justice meant when stating the following goal and objective: To implement in its program a blending of general (fundamental) liberal education^ interdisciplinary social and behavioral science, and professional knowledge, the latter providing some limited opportunity for specialization at the undergraduate le­ vel - in short, education in breadth and depth. The School ed­ ucates students for a career in the sense that ultimately they assume specific responsibility within a system of interrelated responsibilities.^ Hopefully, it will mean a "coexistent" approach to make the academic offerings more relevant, and contribute towards breaking down whatever insulation now exists between the academicians and the practitioners. Practitioners must become aware of the opportunities that criminal Jus­ tice programs of this type could offer and take full advantage of them. Accordingly, another significant result of this study concerns the criminal Justice field itself, especially municipal or local law enforcement. Generally, it is conceded that today’s criminal Justice system has a need for higher educated personnel. temporary society The demands being placed by con­ upon our criminal Justice system are unprecedented in magnitude and complexity. Today an effective criminal Justice system depends to a great extent upon the abilities of quality personnel being able to cope with these ever increasing demands and responsibilities. As stated in the 1970 Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan for Michigan: 55 53 ktaphasis placed by the author. Si* Resource Analysis: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, fall 1971* ^ Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan for Michi­ gan, 1970, p. 27. 135 The one most critical commodity in any system is that of per­ sonnel. Without individuals to plan, establish, implement, and improve a system there can be no system. Furthermore, un­ less quality personnel contribute to a system on all levels, there will inevitably be a breakdown in the quality of that system’s product. Should there be a functional failure of any component of the system, the entire system will soon fail. This quality problem for the developing system of criminal Justice has led criminal Justice recruiters to look towards the colleges and uni­ versities for the needed personnel. However, this growing awareness by criminal Justice officials of the need for higher education has apparently not created the same awareness for a revision of personnel practices such as that suggested by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement to at­ tract and retain college educated individuals. What must be recognized is the high priority that must be placed upon the developing of an increased awareness among criminal Justice officials and their agencies with regard to recruitment and utilization of college graduates. The neglect of this problem must be resolved, since there seems to be little value or hope in recruiting and retaining college graduates if avenues of challenge that provide for several levels of placement, flexi­ bility in Job utilization, innovative promotional procedures and the like are not implemented. The results of this study indicate that the American criminal justice system for the most part is moving in the direction of profession­ alization in the area of personnel policy development. As a group, the majority of graduates feel their criminal Justice education is being utilized in their current employment position and are very satisfied with their pre­ sent Job placement. 136 Their views toward those recommendations associated with personnel revision are very encouraging. A majority of graduates in all major em­ ployment categories feel that {1) personnel performing specialised func­ tions not involving a need for general enforcement power should "be hired for their talents and abilities without regard to prior criminal Justice experience; (2) their agency or organization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for the recruitment of college educated personnel at certain Job positions; (3) it would be desirable to have internship/ understudy programs in their agencies in order to develop lateral entry programs; (U) criminal Justice agencies should give consideration (entry level, salary, promotional eligibility, etc.) to the educational quali­ fications of individuals; (5) there should be a difference in entry level between the non-degree holder, the undergraduate degree holder, and the graduate degree holder; and (6) immediate steps should be taken to es­ tablish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all super­ visory and executive positions. However, the graduates' perceptions of their agencies' policies on the above issues present a somewhat different picture. All employment categories are seen as being receptive or having implemented the above recomnendations, with the exception of the public law enforcement cate­ gory and specifically the municipal police sub-category. Of all those items pertaining to personnel revision, the municipal police agency is seen as being only receptive to two recommendations. One of these, that special consideration should be given to the educational qualifications of individuals is a "watered down" receptiveness since it only applies 137 to salary increases. The other item, that immediate steps should be taken to establish a minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions, is seen as presently being im­ plemented in the majority of police agencies. In conclusion, the criminal Justice graduate does espouse many of the recommended changes that are seen necessary for the criminal Justice field and its components becoming professional. Likewise, his individual agency/organization is seen as being receptive, or having implemented many of the recommended changes that are a step in that direction. The one ex­ ception to the above is the municipal police agency, although it 1b noted that change does 3eem to be taking place even within this agency. To enhance the change process , criminal justice higher education and the criminal Justice field cannot overlook the contributions each can make to the other. Neither the schools nor the agencies have fully real­ ized the potential profits of working together. No matter how much pro­ gress is achieved in either group, if the gains are made independently and there are no Joint efforts conducted in order that both groups benefit, criminal Justice higher education and the criminal Justice field cannot provide the impetus for constructive change in today's society. 138 IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Due to the nature and scope of this study, the following recommendations or suggestions for additional inquiry and research are posed: 1. Additional conceptualization, perhaps using set theory relation­ ships, is needed to further the reliability and validity of the data, and to encourage and permit theory construction. 2. A more detailed statistical analysis on the existing data should be made to add further substance and clarification to the overall findings. The utilization of various multivariate data-analysis techniques would be very appropriate. 3. This study should be continued, but needs to be broken down into more manageable segments. Experimental designs should be considered to allow the development of predictive principles and to identify cause and effect relationships. (e.g., A separate study needs to be made of the non-college graduate utilizing many of the items within the original survey instrument to add an element of precision not possible in the initial study.) U. Information provided from this study should be utilized by the School of Criminal Justice to assist them in curriculum and program development as well as establishing a more coordinated placement pro­ gram between the School and the criminal Justice field; and assist them in identifying problems that may exist between criminal justice higher education and the criminal Justice field. 139 5- Additional research efforts should be made of other criminal justice programs1 graduates to provide needed data for comparative analysis purposes. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Alex, Nicholas. Black in Blue: A Study of the Negro Policeman. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. New York: Dayley, David H. and Harold Mendelson. Minorities and the Police: Con­ frontation in America. New York; The Free Press, 1969. Becker, Harold K. Issues in Police Administration. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1970. Blum, Richard 1J. Police Selection. Thomas Company, 19^U. Metuchen, Hew Jersey: Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Borg, Valter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. McKay Company^ Inc".", 19^3 - Hew York: David Clark, Donald F. and Samuel G. Chapman. A Forward Step: Educational Back­ grounds for Police. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company, 19&S'. Germann, A.C. Police Executive Development. C. Thomas Company, 1 9 6 2 . Germann, A.C. Police Personnel Management. C . Thomas Company”, 1963. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Springfield, Illinois: Charles Havemann, Ernest and Patricia Salter West. They Went to College. The Col­ lege Graduate in America Today. Hew York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952Lazerfield, Paul P., William H. Sewell and Harold L. Wilensky. Sociology. Hew York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967McKee, James B. Introduction to Sociology. Winston, Inc” 196 9 . The Uses of New York: Holt , Rinehart and Heiderhoffer, Arthur. Behind the Shield: The Police in Urban Society. New York: Doubleday Company, 1 9 6 7 . Pierson, Frank C. The Education of American Businessmen. Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959- New York: Mc­ 1**1 Saunders, Charles B. , Jr. Upgrading the American Police: Education and Training for Better Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1970. Skolnick,Jerome H. Justice Without Trial: Lav Enforcement in Democratic Society. Nev York: John Wiley and Sons^ 1966. Smith, Bruce. Police Systems in the United States. Brothers Pub'l i3hers , 19^0 . New York: Harper and B. Government Publications The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime In a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Tenney, Charles V/., Jr. Higher Education Programs in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. C. Periodicals Crockett, Thompson G. and John Moses. "Incentive Plans for Law Enforce­ ment Education". The Police Chief, Vol. 28 (August 1 9 6 9 ), 28-52. Levy, Ruth. "Summary of Report on Retrospective Study of 5,000 Peace Of­ ficer Personnel Records". Police Yearbook, (1 9 6 6 ), 6 1 -6 3 . Newman, Charles L. and Dorothy Sue Hunter. "Education for Careers in Law Enforcement: An Analysis of Student Output 1 9 6 ^-6 7 ". Journal of Criml— nal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 59 (March 19^8), I 3 8 -1V 3 . Shepherd, George. "Are We Aiming Too Low in Recruitment". (January 1 9 6 7 ), 20-2U. Soderquist, Larry D. 1969), 53-T6. "Upgrading the Service". 'The Police Chief, The Police Chief, (August Ullman, Charles A. "Management Internships in the Federal Government". Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36 (May 1968), 6 l6 —622. Watson, James fl. "Internships for Public Service Training". ment , (March 1 9 6 7 ), 67-71. State Govern­ li+2 D. Unpublished Materials Crockett, Thompson S . "L a w Enforcement Education: A Survey of Colleges and Universities Offering Degree Programs in the Field of Law En­ forcement". International Association of Chief3 of Police, 1 9 6 8 . Germann, A.C. "Recruitment Selection, Promotion and Civil Service". Paper submitted to The Presidents Commission on Lav Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 196 7~ " Hewitt, William. "Lateral Entry and Transferability of Retirement Cre­ dits." Paper submitted to The President's Commission on Law En­ forcement and Administration of Justice, 19 Hewitt, William. "Problems in Establishing and Expanding Police Pro­ grams at the College Level". A panel discussion paper presented before the Uth Annual International Association of Police Profes­ sors , 1970. Karacki, Loren and John J. Galvin. "A Survey of Degree Programs in Criminology and Corrections". Joint Commission on Correctional :ianpower and Training, 1970. (Mimeographed). Larkins, Hayes C. "A Survey of Experiences, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Security Administration Graduates of Michigan State Uni­ versity", Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1 9 6 6 . Office of Criminal Justice Programs. "Comprehensive Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Plan for Michigan, 1970-" Pfiffner, John M. "The Function of the Police in a Democratic Society”, Unpublished paper, Youth Studies Center, University of Southern California, 1963Post, Richard. "Post-Graduation Activities of Police Administration", October 1 9 6 7 . (Mimeographed). School of Criminal Justice. sity, Fall 1971. "Resource Analysis". Michigan State Univer­ APPENDIX A ORIGINAL COVER LETTER OF MARCH IT, 1972 AND QUESTIONNAIRE PERTAINING TO THE PLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PATTERNS AND VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY A P P ENDIX MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing . Michigan A U8823 College of Social Science . School of Criminal Justice . 1*05 Olds Hall March 7 , 1972 To the Graduates of the School of Criminal Justice: This questionnaire is part of a coordinated research project being con­ ducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal Justice ed­ ucation. Two of the areas of interest are the improvement of placement and utilization of graduates of the School, and the revision and up-dat­ ing of the existing criminal Justice curriculum. The School of Criminal Justice, with the financial assistance of the Mich­ igan Office of Criminal Justice Programs, is undertaking asurvey of all its graduates to gather information concerning placement and utilization of its graduates, as well as their views toward the criminalJustice pro­ gram and selected criminal Justice issues. To realize the goals of this project your full cooperation is urgently re­ quested. The information you contribute will be used for the following purposes: 1. To provide feedback for purposes of evaluating placement and utilization patterns of the School's graduates. 2. To provide feedback for purposes of evaluating the School's cur­ riculum for possible improvement. 3. To establish a School and the more coordinated placement programbetween the criminal Justice field. Please do not sign your name to this material. The aim is not to identify individuals. However, each questionnaire is given a number to identify them individually for statistical purposes, and to allow the research staff to send a summary of the findings to individuals who have so requested. The answers to the questions that follow will be made available only to the research staff from the School of Criminal JuBtice. Your information will be held in the strictest confidence and the results will be tabulated on a group basis only. Please take the necessary time to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return to the School at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely. A. F. Brandstatter Director AFB/lg Enc _ 1U3 SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE College of Social Science Michigan State University East Lansing APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE A Study of the Placement and Utilization Patterns and Views of the Criminal Jus­ tice (Graduates of Michigan State University INTRODUCTION Two particular concerns are foremost in this study. The first is that the data collected be accurate and of the highest quality. The second is that there is a minimization of effort on your part in answering the questionnaire. Hence questions for the most part require only a code number for the answer appro­ priate to you on the line to the right of each question. However, some ques­ tions require a written response. Space is provided to answer them. If you wish to comment on any of your answers, do so on the margins of the question­ naire or on the additional space provided. Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: If you wish to have a copy of the summary of thi3 study, indicate by checking the box provided.f I If your address has changed, indicate your new mailing address: _________________ _ __________ m ___________ GENERAL INFORMATION Section 1: 1. 2. Age: Code; Sex: Code: This section concerns certain background information on yourself. 1 2 Under 25-29 3 30 - 31+ U 35-39 5 1+0 -1*1+ 6 - I+5 -I+9 7 - 50- 5*4 8 - 55-59 9 - 6 0 and above 2 - Female 1 - Male Race: Code: 1 2 3 1+ - Caucasian Negro/Black Mexican American American Indian 5 - Oriental American 6 - Foreign Student (If so, what country?) City and state of residence: _ If residing outside USA, what country? EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION Section 2: This section concerns certain educational information while a stu­ dent in the School of Criminal Justice (prior to 1970 referred to as the School of Police Administration and Public Safety). 1. Year of graduation from School of Criminal Justice:______________ __________ 2. Degree(s) received from School of Criminal Justice: Code: 1 - Bachelors 2 - Masters 3 - Doctorate _____ * IF YOU RECEIVED MORE THAN ONE DEGREE FROM THE SCHOOL, INDICATE BOTH CODES, AND PLEASE SHOW BOTH GRADUATION DATES. 11+1* Area of specialization in School of Criminal Justice: Code: 1 - Law Enforcement Administration 2 - Security Administration (Industrial Security) 3 - Correctional Administration U - Criminalistics 5 - Delinquency Prevention and Control 6 - Highway Traffic Administration If you had to do it over again, would you choose the same area of specialization? Code: 1 - Yen 2 - No, I would specialize in ____________________________ Why? _________________________________ ___________________ If you had to do it over again, would you choose the Criminal Justice area as your college major? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - Iio , I would major i n _______________ __________________ Please explain answer to above: __________________________ Were you satisfied with the criminal Justice curriculum while attend­ ing fl.S.U.? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No, and why not? ____________________________________ Have you received a graduate degree or law degree from another M.S.U. School or Department or from another educational institution? Code: 1 - Yes 2 — Ho If yes, what school and what was your major area of specialization and degree obtained? When was it obtained? __________________ POST-COLLEGE INITIAL PLACEMENT INFORMATION tion 3: This section concerns your post-college initial employment experience after graduating from M.S.U. What did you first do after graduation from the School of Criminal Jus­ tice (School of Police Administration & Public Safety) with a BS degree? Code: 1 - Docs not apply to me. Received only MS degree. 2 - Became a graduate student. 3 - Continued my military service. U - Entered military service. 5 - Took a Job in a criminal Justice agency. 6 - Returned to my Job in a criminal Justice agency. 7 — Took a Job in an agency related to criminal Justice. 0 - Took a Job in an agency unrelated to criminal Justice. 9 - Other ____ ____ What did you first do after graduation from the School of Criminal Jus­ tice (School of Police Administration & Public Safety) with a MS degree? Code: 1 - Does not apply to me. Received only BS degree. 2 - Continued ray graduate studies toward an advanced degree. 3 — Continued my military service. (cont'd next page) - 2. (cont'd from page 2) U - Entered military service. 5 - Took a Job in a criminal Justice agency. 6 - Returned to Try Job in a criminal Justice agency. 7 - Took a Job in an agency related to criminal Justice. 8 - Took a Job in an agency unrelated to criminal Justice. 9 - Other _______________________________________________________ _ 3. Your degree(s) held when taking your first Job: Code: 1 - Bachelor 2 - Masters 3 - Doctorate 3 - ___ _____ li. How did you obtain your initial major employment after leaving M.S.U.7 Code: 1 - M.S.U. Placement Bureau 2 - School of Criminal Justice Job file. 3. Through University faculty member, it. By personal means . 5. O t h e r ________________________________________________ __________ If you were on leave from, or a full-time employee of a criminal Justice agency while attending M.S.U., indicate by placing a check mark in the box provided:_____________________________________________ _____ What type of agency?_________________ _ ___________________ 6. If you had prior criminal Justice experience but were not employed in the field while attending M.S.U., indicate by placing a check mark in the box provided. What type of agency? _____________________________ ________ ________ NOTE: _____ IN QUESTION 7 FOLLOWING: PUBLIC LAW ENFORCEMENT (Criminal Justice) category refers to all state, federal, university, and municipal governmental police, security, and investigative func­ tions. It also includes probation, parole, corrections, and highway traffic per­ sonnel employed by governmental organizations. PRIVATE LAW ENFORCEMENT (Criminal Justice) category refers to individuals who en­ gage primarily in a police/security function for an industrial,business,or privat< investigative organization. It also includes private agencies concerned with de­ linquency prevention, rehabilitation of offenders, etc. NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT (Criminal Justice) category refers to all other areas of em­ ployment such as education (including criminal Justice, research, sales, personnel etc. CAREER MILITARY category refers to all career active duty military personnel in­ cluding those engaged in law enforcement or security activities while on active duty. 7* After graduation from M.S.U. School of Criminal Justice, your ini­ tial major employment was with: Code: 1 - A public law enforcement agency? If so, what type of agency? 2 - A private law enforcement agency? If so, what type of work? *3 - A non-law enforcement agency? If so, what type of work? * FOR THOSE GRADUATES WHO UPON GRADUATION WENT IMMEDIATELY ON TO GRADUATE SCHOOL, INDICATE YOUR INITIAL PLACEMENT UPON COMPLETION OF YOUR GRADUATE WORK; THOSE GRADUATES (BS,M.S.U.) WHO SPENT MORE THAN 1/2 YEAH EMPLOYED BE­ FORE RETURNING TO M.S.U. FOR MS DEGREE,INDICATE INITIAL PLACEMENT A FTEli BS DEGREE. , . . (cont'd next page) - 7. h - (cont’d from page 3) *U - The career military? If so, what branch and type of work? * FOR THOSE GRADUATES WHO UPON GRADUATION WENT INTO THE MILITARY, BUT NOT AS CAREER,INDICATE YOUR INITIAL PLACEMENT UPON RETURNING TO CIVILIAN LIFE. *5 - Have had no initial major employment experience at thi3 time. _ * IF YOU ANSWERED tib ABOVE, GO ON TO SECTION U. * IF YOU ANSWERED #3 ABOVE, What was your major reason for going into law enforcement related work? * IF YOU ANSWERED #1 ABOVE, INDICATE THE FOLLOWING: (a) What type Code: 1 2 3 - of agency? Police Correction Other ______________________________________ (b) What governmental level (referring to (2) above)? Code: 1 - Federal U - Municipal 2 - State b - Other __________________ _ _ _ 3 - County _____________________________ 8. How long after graduation was it before you accepted your initial employment ? ___________________________________________ __________ 9. What was your initial position with the agency or organization? 10. Your initial placement with the agency or organization was: Code: 1 - A specialized position (research/planning; criminalistics, etc.). 2 - A supervisory position. 3 - An administrative position. 1 - At level of operation (e.g..patrolman, corrections officer). _____ 5 - O t h e r _____________________ 11. Were you pleased with the level of this initial placement? Code: 1 - Thoroughly satisfied. 2 - Satisfied, but had expected higher position. 3 - Somewhat dissatisfied because o f low position. U - Thoroughly dissatisfied. _____ 12. If your initial placement was at the level of operation, how long was it before you were promoted or assigned to a specialized, super­ visory, or administrative position? Code: 1 - Less than 1 year. 5 - More than years. 2 - 1-2 years. 6 - Haven’t been promoted or reassigned 3 - 2-3 years. as of yet. K - 3-1+ years. 7 - Not applicable. 13. Was there a lateral entrypolicy in the agency/organization that hired you? NOTE: LATERAL ENTRY IE REFERRED TO AS THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE.PROFESSIONAL, AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL ABOVE NOR­ MAL ENTRANCE LEVELS INTO AN ORGANIZATION FROM THE OUTSIDE. Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 1U7 it. Wan thero a p.'vy incentive program for personnel taking college credit course;;? Code: 1 - Yes 2 — No 15. Did your employer have any managerial/internship trainee program for college graduates? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 16 , Were there any difficulties in getting your initial Job that you feel were attributable to your criminal Justice or police admini­ stration degree? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No If yes, please explain: _______________________________________ 17- Did all newly hired personnel start at the same entry level regard­ less of their level of education? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 18. Do you feel yourcollegetraining was best utilized through your initial Job placement? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No If no, how do you feelyou couldhave been betterutilized? _____ 19. Do you feel your education has enabled you to progress more rapidly in your career than your fellow employees who lack your educational qualifications? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No Why or why n o t ? _____________________ _________________________ 20. Now well tial Job Code: 1 2 21. How well prepared were you to assume your Job responsibilities in comparison with your fellow workers? Code: 1 Extremely well 3 - Inadequately 2 - Adequately U - Cannot say 22. Using the scale that follows, indicate ary for your first Job placement after Code: 1 Less than $6,000 6 2 - $6,000-$7,999 7 3 - $8,000-$9,999 8 b - $10,000-$11,999 9 5 - $12,000—$13,999 23. Year of initial placement? 2t» Were you satisfied with your initial entrance salary? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 25. How long did you remain with your initial Job after graduation before accepting your 3econd Job? 26. If you were employed by a criminal Justice agency at the time of graduation, how long did you stay with that agency after graduation before accepting another Job? ____ _____________________ __________ do you feel your college major prepared y ou for your ini­ placement? - Extremely well 3 - Inadequately - Adequately U - Cannot say your initial entrance sal­ graduation from M.S.U.: - $1*4 ,000-$15 >999 - $16,000-$1T,999 - $18,000-$19 ,999 - $20,000 and over __________________________________ 1A8 27. What was the major reason(s) for leaving your initial Job? PRESENT EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION AND VIEWS TOWARD SELECTED ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE Section U : This section concerns certain questions about your present employment as well as some questions asking your views about selected issues in criminal Justice today. 1. I3 your present job with the same agency/organization that initial­ ly hired you? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - Ho If no, what type of agency is your present employer? ____________ 2. What is your present position, rank, or title?________ __________ 3. Are you pleased with your present position? Code: 1- Thoroughlysatisfied 3 - Somewhat dissatisified 2 - Satisfied b - Thoroughly dissatisfied U. In your current position, to what extent do you feel your criminal Justice education is being utilized? Code: 1- Extremely well 3 - Inadequately 2 - Adequately b - Hot at all 5. If you have left law enforcement work altogether, what was the ma­ jor reason for leaving? _________________________________________ 6. For how many separate agencies have you worked since graduating from M.S.U.? (approximate) _______________________ 7. Kow many of these agencies were criminal justice agencies? 8. Using the scale in question 22, Section 3, indicate your approxi­ mate annual salary now: Code: 1 - Lons than $6,000 C - $ll* ,000-8X5,999 2 - Of, ,000-7-7 ,992 T - ilf> ,000-017,999 3 - £0,000-1:9.999 0 - $lfi ,000-1119 ,999 U - $10 ,00G-$11,999 9 - $20,000 and above 5 - $ 1 2 ,000-$13,999 9. Are you satisfied with this salary? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 10, Based on your own experience, ance the factors you consider of college graduates into the detrimental, to 8 being least 2, 3, k, 5, 6, 7, 8 MORE THAN - rank in the order oftheir import­ mo3t detrimental to the recruitment criminal justice field, (l being most detrimental.) DO NOT USEA NUMBER 1, ONCE. Social status of criminal Justice employment. Fay scales in criminal Justice work. Danger involved in some kinds of law enforcement. Graduates of degree programs usually start on the lowest step of the law enforcement agency ladder. - Civil service laws. - Opposition to college educated personnelon part of administrators in criminal Justice agencies. (cont'd next page) - 7 10. (cont'd from page C>) Employee u n i o n s . - Unrealistic expectations of g r a d u a t e s . - - Other_______________________________________ _________________ 11. How would you rank these various agencies in their effort towards recruiting college graduates? (l being the greatest effort, to 5 being the least effort.) DO HOT USE A NUMBER MORE THAN ONCE. - 12. Public law enforcement (state and local Public law enforcement (federal level) Private law enforcement Non-law enforcement Military level) How would you rank these agencies in their effort to place college graduates in positions commensurate with their education? (lbeing the greatest effort, to 5 being the least effort.) DO NOT USE A NUMBER MORE THAN ONCE. - Public law enforcement - Public law enforcement (state and local (federal level) level) - Private law enforcement - Non-law enforcement - Military 13. Should personnel performing specialized functions not involving a need for general enforcement power be hired for their talents and abilities without regard to prior criminal Justice experience? (e.g., research and planning) C o d e : 1 - Yes 2 - No W h y ? __________________________________________ What is your agency's policy? 1*4. Do you feel your agency or organization would benefit by having a lateral entry policy for recruitment of college educated personnel at certain job positions? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No Why? _________________________________________________ _____ Does your agency have such a policy? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 15- Would it be desirable to have internship/understudy programs in your agency in order to develop lateral entry programs? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No Why? _______ __________________________________ 16 . Should criminal Justice agencies give special consideration (entry level, salary, promotional eligibility, etc.) to the educational qualifications of individuals? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No W h y ? ____________________________________________ _ _ _ (cont'd next page) 150 - 8 l6. (cont'd from page 7) What factors, if any, other than education, should play a sig­ nificant part in receiving special consideration? _____________ What is your agency's policy? 17. Should there be a difference in initial Job entry between the degree holder and non—degree holder? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No Why? .___._______ Does your agency feel there should be a difference? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 18. Should there be a difference in initial Job entry between the under­ graduate degree holder and the graduate degree holder? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No W h y ? ___________________________________________________________________ Does your Code: 1 - 19. agency feel Yes there should be a difference? 2 - No Do you feel moot all criminal justice personnel should be required to have a college degree? Code; 1 - Yes 2 - No Why 7 ___________________________________________________________________ Is your agency receptive to the idea that most all personnel be re­ quired to have a college degree? Code: 1 - Yfn 2 - No 20, Should crinin^iljustice agencies Lake immediate stepsto establish a minimum requirement of abaccalaureate degree for all supervisory and executive positions? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No Why? ___ ____________________________________________________________ What is your agency's policy on this matter? NOTE: IN QUESTIONS 21, 22 and 2 3 BELOW: It has been said that the thrust of the criminal Justice program at M.C.tJ. is to prepare students who intend to enter law enforcement agencies for positions pri­ marily at the administration levels but according to the literature, most stu­ dents begin their law enforcement careers at the level of operation. Thus, do you feel the .School of Criminal Justice should: 21. Change their thrust toward preparing students for positions at the level of operation? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - No 22. Leave the preparation at the level of administration to the gradu­ ate level of study? Code: 1 - Yes 2 - Ho 151 - 23. Leave the program unchanged? Code: 1 - Yen Other: f) - 2 - No 2h. Do you feel the School should take a much more active part in help­ ing place students in the criminal Justice field? C o d e : 1 - Yes 2 - No 25. Overall, do you feel your college education has been a positive, negative, or neutral influence on your career? Code: 1 - Positive 2 - Negative 3 - Neutral Please explain your answer: __________________________________________ Thank you very much for your time and effort in answering this questionnaire. Please enclose the completed questionnaire in the stamped, self-addressed en­ velope and return to: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan I48823 . The additional sheet has been provided for further comments you may wish to make on specific questions within the questionnaire, or comments of a general nature on the overall study. 152 APPENDIX B FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF APRIL 2, 1972 TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATES WHO HAD NOT YET RESPONDED APPENDIX MICHIGAN STAT E UNIVERSITY College of Social Science East Lansing 3 . Michigan U8823 . School of Criminal Justice . U05 Olds Hall April 2, 1972 Dear G r a d u a t e s : Approximately three weeks ago y o u received a copy of a questionnaire sent to all criminal Justice graduates as a part of a c o ordinated research p r o ­ ject being conducted by the School of Criminal Justice concerning criminal Justice education. At the present time w e have received replies from more than half (approximately 5 2 %) of the graduates. Although the response has been encouraging, y o u r reply is urgently requested to fully realize the goals of the overall project. Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire in case the original o n e was m i s ­ placed. If y o u h a v e n 1t yet completed the questionnaire, please take the necessary time to do so. In the event you have already completed the questionnaire and it is now in the mail, please d isregard this letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this study. Yours sincerely, A. F. Brandstatter Director AFB/lg Enc. 153