nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs

Journal of Criminal ~u.wce. Vol 8. pp. 163-174 (19Ro) Pereamon Press Printed in the U.S.A

~X147-23Z2/X0/030163-12~02.00/0 Copyright c 1980 Pergamon Press Ltd

NONRESIDENTIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS

REED ADAMS

Director. Criminal Justice Program University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Charlotte. North Carolina 28223

ABSTRACT

Nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs were recognized as significant eiements within the contemporary educational scene. The structure, nature, and extent of such programs, as reflected in the professional literature. were reviewed. A surve)’ of the state level governing bodies in the United States was reported. as was a case study of one state’s evaluation of an out-of-state graduate degree program in criminal justice, operating without license within the host state. These were used as vehicles for a consideration of the issues important to the consumer of nonresidential graduate degree programs. It was concluded that innovative educational methods and structures are desirable, but that some nonresidenttal programs have been inadequate academically. and the danger exists that such programs may undermine criminal justice education and defraud the criminal justice students. Criminal justice scholars were encouraged to require rigorous standards for such programs.

Although nonresidential degree programs have been employed by institutions of higher education for over 100 years (Cross, 1973) and their antecedents are traceable to 1534 (Houle. 1973), the period of greatest interest in them has occurred in very recent times, spawning a world- wide phenomenon (Houle, 1973) and a wide literature base (Benoit. 1973; Carnegie Commis- sion on Higher Education, 1971: Cross. 1973; Gould and Cross. 1972; Gould, 1973: Houle. 1973: Ingersoll, 1973; Milton. 1972; Mingle. 1978; Nelson. 1974; Perlman, 1975). including criti- cisms of the nonresidential degree model (Granat et al.. 1975: Morland. 1973; Unsinger. 1973).

Most individuals concerned with the improvement of the criminal justice system. either in terms of increased efficiency and effectivenss. or increased consistency of social control mecha-

nisms with the fundamental freedoms of a demo- cratic society. agree that criminal justice educational services should be widely available to criminal justice personnel. Yet many individuals believe traditional programs have failed to meet the educational requirements of a significant number of criminal justice personnel. and there is some empirical evidence to support this position (Adams. forthcoming).

Traditional disciplines have not generally addressed the issues relevant to social control at the level of policy or implementation of policy. Also, traditional programs. regardless of discipline, have not typically provided the flexibility necessary for participation by many in-service criminal justice personnel. This problem has been exacer- bated by the typical inflexibility of criminal justice agency policy over the accommodation of profes-

163

164 REED ADAMS

sional personnel attending school. All too fre- quently no adaptations are made in duty hours so as to allow the criminal justice professional to attend class. The active encouragement of academic activity in the form of released time. financial support, or promotion contingent on academic achievement. has not been typically found in criminal justice agencies.

If criminal justice graduate degree programs, offered in a format unfamiliar to many academic and applied criminal justice professionals, are becoming increasingly available, it is proper that they receive close scrutiny from the profession. Also, it is appropriate that those qualities distin- guishing the innovative programs from the traditional ones be identified so that the community using the degrees may be aware of such matters (Unsinger, 1973). A consideration of some of the issues involved in the assessment of nonresidential criminal justice programs may assist the professional and the community as they become more critical consumers of graduate educational services. This article will consider issues central to an understanding and analysis of nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs. The report of a case study of one state’s analysis of such a program and a review of contemporary developments in several states will serve as vehicles for the discussion of pertinent themes.

THE STRUCTURE OF NONRESIDENTIAL DEGREE PROGRAMS

Several developments in American higher education contributed to the development of the nonresidential degree. In the last part of the nineteenth century, the free use of elective courses became established, introducing flexibility into college curricula. Also, extension degrees and degrees specifically designed for adults developed. Finally, the response to the educational needs of World War II veterans contributed to innovation (Houle, 1973).

These and other elements led to the development of nonresidential programs, identified by a variety of titles: external, off-campus, competency-based, life-experience. campus without walls, and others. Regardless of the terms employed, however, a commonality of purpose and structure has characterized most such programs (Valley, 1972). Houle (1973) and Valley (1972)

have reviewed the various nonresidential degree models as currently employed in American higher education. and formulated general typologies in- corporating these features. These writers and others have typically found the elements in nonresidential criminal justice programs to include: (1) innovations in curriculum design. including an emphasis on individual study, (2) flexibility of class meeting times (and other school activities), (3) flexible interpretation of what activities constitute academic credit, (4) flexible use of faculty, (5) nontraditional use of learning resources. Flexible admissions policies are also found in such programs.

Educators have expressed interest in the nonresidential degree model for several reasons. In some instances it has provided crucial funds for financially troubled schools (Granat et al.. 1975). Other educators have seen it as an opportunity to respond to unmet educational needs, such as those of the aged, disadvantaged minorities, women, or special audiences (such as the police) (Davis et al.. 1977). Houle (1973) reviewed published educational statistics and demonstrated the existence of a potential clientele for nonresidential degrees. The awareness of a pervasive pattern of entrenchment in higher education in recent years may account in part for educators’ attention to such potential pools of students (Houle. 1973). In addition. the nonresidential degree model has been cited as desirable in assisting individuals to deal with geographic, financial. and scheduling barriers to participation in educational programs (Gould and Cross, 1972; Sosdian and Sharp, 1978). In other cases. the absolute amount of time required by a traditional program and student employment have been too demanding. Also, the transfer-of-credits policy of some traditional programs has not provided an incentive to some criminal justice personnel, who often feel the rich background of experience and training they have accumulated over a period of years should be accepted as academic credit. The interpretation of what constitutes graduate credit has ranged from restrictive interpretations involving only a limited range of activities, to liberal interpretations sometimes including training credit, job experience, or simply life experience. Restrictions have often included limitations on the age of the credit, restrictions on the nature of the institution granting the credit, and the rele-

NonresidentIal Criminal Justlce Graduate Degree Programs 165

vance of the credit to the student’s current program. Finally, nonresidential programs may offer criminal justice curricula when only curricula of other disciplines are otherwise available. As the curricula of other disciplines are not as desirable to many criminal justice professionals as a criminal justice curriculum (Adams, forthcoming), students may select the nonresidential program because of its substantive content rather than the structure of its delivery system.

There is evidence to indicate students enroll in such programs for other reasons also (Houle, 1973). Their diverse goals include personal satis- faction, self-esteem. and respect from others (Sosdian and Sharp. 1978). Also. some writers have argued traditional programs have not met the challenge of today’s educational needs (Granat et al., 1975). For example. Davis et al. (1977) cited a survey showing that almost all colleges and universities stated they offered opportunities for mature individuals to earn degrees, yet less than half had made concessions to accommodate them. Davis also noted that while traditional educational programs have been di- rected to young, single unemployed adults. such individuals no longer constitute the majority of the learning force in America. In addition, research has been cited that indicates there are no measurable differences in learning among the various modes of teaching employed by institutions of higher education (Perlman. 1975).

institutions offered nonresidential degrees involving 127 different graduate programs. A study by the National Institute of Education noted that “the number of institutions utilizing independent, off campus study as a primary mode of instruction has grown at something close to exponential rates” (Sosdian and Sharp, 1978:l). That study located 244 nonresidential degree programs in 134 schools enrolling 54,CKKl students. The Com- mission on Non-Traditional Study surveyed 1185 American Institutions in 1972 and found that 47 percent reported “some program of a nontraditional nature” (Gould, 1973, p. 29).

A National Survey

One survey was discovered that involved a fol- low-up of the graduates of nonresidential degree programs. That study found that most graduates successfully obtained access to still higher levels of education in moderately selective institutions. Also. for most graduates. completion of the degree provided clear rewards in terms of their employment. Moreover. the graduates were well satisfied with the usefulness of their degrees (Sos- dian and Sharp, 1978). Yet the findings were qualified by methodological problems of survey design.

EXTENT OF NONRESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

So that the issues raised by the case study might be placed in a national perspective, the agencies overseeing higher education in the fifty states and the District of Columbia were requested to provide information about the number of out-of- state institutions offering graduate degrees in criminal justice in their area and the number of such programs offered by their own state’s institutions. Also. they were requested to provide any policy statement adopted by their state for such programs. Forty-three state-level governing bodies responded. In some instances, it was clear that distinctions were not clearly drawn between types or even numbers of programs, and in others, matters concerning such programs were in a state of change, rendering precise quantification of the extent of nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs impossible. For example, South Carolina only as recentiy as 1977 adopted legislation requiring out-of-state institutions to be licensed and approved by the State of South Carolina. Their regulations governing institutions chartered outside South Caroiina are currently before their legislature for approval. Oregon had no approved nonresidential degrees in criminal justice. but because of the success of Portland State University’s preliminary efforts in this area, a proposal for such a program had been submitted to the State Board of Higher Educa- tion. The position of nonresidential degree programs in criminal justice was found to be in flux in several other states also.

The Council of Graduate Schools (Spragg. et Yet several aspects of the national scene were al., 1977) conducted a survey of its member clear. Nonresidential criminal justice graduate institutions in 1975 and found that at least 54 degree programs are not confined to isolated

166 REED ADAMS

instances. In some instances, several out-of-state institutions offered degrees in the same state. Virginia, for example, has identified within its boundaries six out-of-state universities offering criminal justice degrees from the associate through the graduate level. Virginia students also have access to criminal justice degree programs through the graduate level, which are offered by Virginia’s university system.

Some of the agencies overseeing higher education were unaware of the existence of nonresidential degree programs being offered within their state. Moreover, in at least one instance, the agency overseeing higher education was unaware that two educational institutions within its own boundaries carried their programs to other states. Conceivably, once an institution is chartered by its home state, conditions might arise whereby a nonresidential degree program is unknown to and unregulated by the state in which it originated and by the state in which classes are held.

Recurrent Themes in Survey Responses

The survey of the states revealed that few have well-developed policy statements or regulations governing nonresidential degree programs of their own or those brought into their area from other states. Most, however, have general statements about the review of educational programs. Those adopting regulations or guidelines specifically on nonresidential degree programs have identified common areas of concern. generally corresponding to the issues raised in the case study to be discussed. Also, it was often found that states offering nonresidential degree programs justified them on the basis of a perceived educational need of a clientele desiring educational programs and not being served, rather than on the basis of increased enrollments. Regularly, states expressed support for the desirabiity of innovation and experimentation in education; yet a common qualifier involved accountability and program evaluation.

Developments in nonresidential degree programs in certain states deserve particular note. The California State University system offered nearly seventy nonresidential degree programs, including three in criminal justice. That system recently issued a Task Force Report on Off-Cam- pus Instruction (California State University and

Colleges. 1975) that addressed the appropriateness of nonresidential degree programs, and the constraints operating on such programs. The task force not only recommended that the state system offer such degrees, but also that they be incorpo- rated into the regular university support budget. Specifically addressing the question of “quality control,” the task force make several recommendations limiting such programs. For example, they recommended that such programs be limited to upper-division and graduate-level curricula and that admission policy and program monitoring be the same as that of regular campus programs.

At the undergraduate level, Florida (Board of Regents, 1972) has adopted a policy statement that serves as a foundation for the nonresidential degree program offered by their state university system. They identified as premises:

1. Flexibility 2. Maximum use of resources 3. Service to a wide range of students 4. An organization structure that enhances

program creditability 5. Opportunity for innovation

The Florida policy also indicated that, while innovation was to be encouraged, such experiences should be evaluated in terms of the competency achieved by the student.

The State of Michigan recently released a task force study (Davis et al., 1977) recommending the establishment of a nonresidential undergraduate degree. Consistent with similar reports in other states of opinions held by traditionally minded educators, the report noted. “It seems that education regarding what an external degree program really is and familiarity with both the faculty and students in the program generates support and dispels fears that quality will automatically suffer in a non-traditional program” (Davis et al., 1977:20). The report indicated the most pressing problem facing nonresidential programs involved improvement of the interinstitutional environ- ment, as higher education was not assessed as receptive to the nonresidential degree model.

The Utah Task Force aptly noted that “the ‘external degree’ has been widely praised and severely criticized both philosophically and ped- agogically. Yet it is recognized as an important methodology and delivery system to reach significant populations that otherwise would not have the opportunity to share in campus cen-

Nonresidential Criminal Justice Graduate Degree Programs 167

tral learning” (Bell, 1978:ll). The Utah Task Force did not recommend the initiation of a nonresidential degree, but rather focused on the process of “externalizing” the existing educational system, at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

These concepts were recurring themes among the other states’ policy positions. Also. the responses from the various states indicated a wide range of diversity among the regulatory mechanisms. Such diversity did not appear to be consistent with either the facilitation of appropriate nonresidential degree programs or the regulation of inappropriate ones, in interstate commerce. Such an assessment is consistent with the findings of an earlier, similar survey (Granat et al., 1975). Moreover. the responses clearly identified a need for much additional research involving the major elements of nonresidential programs.

SOME CRUCIAL ISSUES: A CASE STUDY

Many states have laws requiring that out-of- state institutions be licensed by the governing body of the host state university system. In 1977 one such state received an application for licensure from an out-of-state university (hereafter referred to as “the University”) offering graduate degrees within the host state in several fields. including criminal justice. Some of the nonresi- dent programs offered by the institution had been offered in the host state for some time. but the program leading to a Master of Science in Criminal Justice was new and, at the time of application for licensure. had not graduated its first class. although about twenty-five students were enrolled at that time. and more classes were planned. The host state established a Team of Examiners composed of educators from two states to consider the application for licensure and to make recommendations. The writer repre- sented criminal justice. In the context of the team’s consideration of those programs, several issues became prominent as central to the consideration of the nonresidential graduate degrees. A review of those issues raised in the context of that assessment may serve as a guide to others concerned with the critical appraisal or the consumption of such educational services.

Educational Philosophy

The fundamental assumptions against which any academic program should be assessed involve its educational philosophy. In the case of criminal justice, there does not exist the uniformity and consistency of opinion among scholars over the educational philosophy peculiar to that discipline that may be found among scholars of more established disciplines. If generalizations are made by criminal justice scholars. it is likely they will include the following:

1. Criminal justice education should be academically sound, providing students with those intellectual and scholarly skills necessary for the traditional pursuit of truth and knowledge.

2. Criminal justice education should address issues of social control and justice at a multitude of levels. within the constraints imposed by the preceding point.

The program being considered professed to provide a program of study that met both of the objectives identified. The program was designed to serve “in-service” criminal justice personnel who could not attend a traditional program. The purpose of the program was to improve professional competency associated with career success. The 1977 Catalogue of the program stated that the curriculum:

. has been designed primarily for criminal

justice personnel . the primary objectives of the program are: to explore new approaches to the improvement of the criminal justice system: to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to assume administrative roles in their employing agencies and to provide them with a basis for a teaching career in criminal justice.

institutional Structure Key Personnel. The program of study leading

to the Master of Science in Criminal Justice was organized around “clusters” of not more than thirty students carrying six semester hours’ credit (two courses) per semester. The program was designed to be completed within an eighteen- month period. The clusters met for extended sessions on Friday evenings and all-day Saturdays with a “national lecturer” who was flown by the University to the site of the cluster. In addition to the regular classroom instruction. clusters might elect to participate in other activities such as workshop sessions. The instruction was carried

168 REED ADAMS

out in rented space designed to be in close proximity to the students. The relationship between the national lecturers and the program was restricted to single presentations of one module (one or two classes). That relationship was renewable at the discretion of the University.

Each cluster was organized by a “cluster coordinator” who served a liaison function between the University and the cluster of students. Generally the role of the cluster coordinator was one of an organizer and administrator. However, the cluster coordinator also functioned as an academic mentor in some situations. Also. the cluster coordinator was assigned responsibility for consulting and counseling students about academic matters. Yet the academic qualifications of the cluster coordinator were not as advanced as those of many national adjunct faculty. nor equivalent to the qualifications of most graduate faculty in other graudate programs.

Organization. All responsibilities for the educational program resided with the criminal justice staff of the University, except for the classroom instruction, student evaluation and grade assignment, and some of the local arrangements for cluster operation. The criminal justice staff served the functions of a criminal justice faculty, an academic dean. and a university faculty. There was nothing to indicate that the criminal justice personnel at the University were responsible to elements of the University other than the president and vice-president.

The director and staff had more authority to make changes in the program than has typically been the case in traditional programs. There were no indications the total University community of scholars participated in governing the criminal justice program. Rather, accountability to a community of scholars was lacking.

The central staff was prevented by physical distance from providing the review and supervi- sion of academic operations that has typically been possible in traditional programs. The lack of academic qualifications of the director of the criminal justice program and a review structure designed so as to militate against accountability suggested the potential existed for the development of undesirable program elements. Although there was no evidence of irresponsibility, there was little way of knowing exactly what occurred within academic operations.

Such a structure and organization was not consistent with the policy of the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States (Major et al.. 1976). Also. the policy on nonresidential graduate degree programs stated such programs should be:

essentially equivalent in quality to compara- ble graduate programs offered on the home campus, especially with respect to: a.

b.

the selection, oversight, evaluation. and com- pensation (both immediate and in terms of career opportunities) of faculty members in the program procedures for the approval of courses and degree programs. (Spragg et al.. 1977:3)

Moreover, the policy also stated:

All graduate degree programs of an institution, whether offered off campus or on the home campus, should be accountable to and monitored by the graduate ogranization of the home campus. i.e.. the graduate council. and/or the graduate faculty. and the graduate administrative officers. (Spragg et al., 1977:J)

The Curriculum and the Educational Experience

The curriculum of the criminal justice program consisted of six modules. each with two courses. Each course gave three semester hours’ credit. The completion of a criminal justice practicum was designed as a culmination of the student’s studies. Other than the lack of a formal research course. the written description of courses included in the curriculum comprised a weil-organized and comprehensive graduate level criminal justice curriculum. The University personnel indicated the workshops had been designed to serve in lieu of a research course. Yet no workshops had been held by the cluster.

Curriculum ln~exibiliry. One question not readily answerable from the formal catalogue description of the curriculum concerned the appropriateness of the inflexible nature of the curriculum. It did not appear to provide for the wide range of educational experiences often available with other educational delivery systems. Given the flexible nature of the Univer- sity’s admissions policy. it was conceivable that some students might lack a broad exposure to the study of human behavior and would not receive it as part of the program. It did not


seem reasonable to assume the knowledge base of a graduate program could be delineated by six modules and accompanying textbooks, or that all criminal justice students should (or could) fit appropriately into one educational model. Given the dynamic nature of the field, educational diversity, not inflexibility. seemed desirable. Also, the inflexibility of the curriculum did not appear to be consistent with the stated goals of the program.

Instructional Methods. “Study guides” were designed to describe the expectations of the course and provide the outline of study for the student. The Master of Science in Criminal Justice Catalogue described the curriculum as including:

individual study-the program stresses the need for intense individual study prior to each monthly conference. To facilitate individual study, the university has prepared curriculum statements issued to each participant for each of the program components which introduces a subject. identifies issues, focuses the attention on principle concepts involved, indicates the required readings. and presents a problem or issue to be dealt with in the commentary.

Despite the apparent importance of these documents, they were not available to the students. The syllabus and the textbooks were the only learning resources used at the time of the team of examiners’ review.

Techniques and Tools of Student Assessment. Although the practicum might be started after six months, students were advised to begin it later in the program. Generally, the practicum director held several meetings with students concerning the practicum. Following those meetings, each student was assigned an advisor other than the practicum director, who was paid $100 for providing “advice.” but was not assigned the responsibility of assisting with the writing of the practicum. As the responsibility for the practicum remained primarily with the practicum director. the exact role of the “advisors” was not clear.

During each module, students generally completed two tests and one term paper, although instructors were free to vary such practices. The term papers were described by the University as “agency papers using job related data.” Examinations were generally “take-home” finals.

Admissions Policy

The Master of Science in Criminal Justice had different admissions policies from those listed in the University Bulletin as generally applicable to master’s degree programs. The Bulletin specified that graduate admission requirements would include the Graduate Record Examination scores and a baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited institution. Indi- viduals were eligible for admission to the Master of Science in Criminal Justice program with the equivalent of a baccalaureate degree. Also, the criminal justice program did not require Graduate Record Examination scores, although three letters of recommendation were required. The criteria used for judging the equivalency of a baccalaureate degree involved an individual’s type of employment and his or her number of years of service in the criminal justice system. These were felt by the team of examiners to be questionable criteria.

No measurable level of academic achievement at the baccalaureate level was required for admission. Yet the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has indicated

. the successful completion of a baccalaureate degree program in a regionally accredited college or university at a level which gives positive evidence of capacity for advanced study is widely accepted as the minimum requirement for participation in graduate work. (Sparks et al., 1977~2)

The admissions policy of restricting enrollments to “in-service” criminal justice personnel may not be consistent with the prevailing opinions of criminal justice scholars regarding such matters, and was not consistent with the recommendations of study commissions addressed to issues of criminal justice education. Rather, it has generally been felt that a cross fertilization of ideas, occurring when individuals of diverse back- grounds can interact, is desirable.

Textbooks

Textbooks were of considerable significance. as library resources were not emphasized. Unlike traditional academic study, the courses were found to rest on the textbook as often the only written resource on the course topic available to the student.

170 REED ADAiMS

Scheduling and Duration of Classes Retention Rates. One of the most important

issues considered by the team of examiners involved the delivery system. The curriculum was designed to be completed in eighteen months. Classes met on Friday evenings and all day on Saturdays. Other forms of activity might be requested by the cluster members, but the week- end class sessions were the only formally sched- uled activity involving direct contact between students and faculty. Other activities generally used telephone and mail services.

If it is assumed that maximum learning occurs when students experience a temporally distrib- uted presentation of material, under conditions of high motivation, where fatigue is not a problem. where they have regular rehearsal and review of the significant material, and where they have regular opportunities for feedback on their pro- gress, then it would not appear that maximum learning conditions were available.

Socialization. The socialization experience is particularly important in the case of criminal justice programs, related as they are to professional positions within the criminal justice system. Given the admissions policy and delivery mechan- ism of the programs reviewed. criminal justice students did not have the opportunity to interact with students and faculty on a campus in the same fashion as students enrolled in traditional programs. Moreover, the range of social interactions was restricted.

The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has adopted a policy statement regarding the criteria for graduate credit. which states:

There are, however. some minimum conditions that must be met. [These include] Study in a close and continuing contact with an experienced scholar/teacher, a member of a graduate faculty who is an expert in his or her field, in both on-campus and off-campus learning situations. The students become a junior colleague or an apprentice with opportunities to interact with instructors and peers in both formal and informal settings. (Sparks et al.. 1977:3)

The academic advising of students may serve not only a socializing function, but may serve to transmit information crucial to the learning process. The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has identified as a “minimum condition” and an “absolute necessity” for the

awarding of graduate credit: *‘Study under conditions controlled by qualified graduate faculty members who are available to advise graduate students” (Sparks et al.. 1977:3). While conscien- tious faculty members may attempt to provide advising functions after a twelve-hour teaching session. it is unlikely adequate advising would be possible. Yet the faculty of the program reviewed had no other time for direct interaction with students about matters of academic advising. The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has stated:

Master’s degree programs which are offered more or less exclusively through extension or off-campus instruction do not have some of the advant- ages of study on campus unless departments carefully supervise the work done to assure that it is of equivalent quality to that done in residence. Even so, that personal contact and interchange within the department or program which provides the other intangible dimension characteristic of quality graduate education is lost; and this can be compensated for only by providing special characteristics as part of a program. (Edwards et al., 197623)

Although the University provided several elements not typically found in traditional programs. characteristics of the program that satisfactorily compensated for the lack of interaction within the department were not evident to the team of examiners.

Contact Hours. The amount of time involved in one module was forty-eight contact hours for a period of four weekends. Students received six semester hours credit for one module. Workshops were not counted as part of the forty-eight hours. Generally, more than twice that amount of time is devoted to instruction involving six semester hours’ credit.

Physical Facilities

Classroom space for the program was provided in rented facilities in a local private college. Yet the University did not provide a contract that showed a satisfactory commitment by the local college to provide classroom space for the nonresidential program. While it is unlikely that the local college would have ceased to rent space to the University, contractual arrangements assuring the availability of space were felt to be desirable.


Transcripts and Student Records

Five sets of files were kept on each student. including the following:

1. Evaluation file 2. Grades and transcript file 3. Financial file 4. Admissions file 5. Cluster file

Each of these files was reviewed. The files available at the time of the visit to the cluster contained little information about the students. Administrative material, such as application forms. was included but no evaluative material was present. The remaining files contained information of an appropriate nature and amount.

Learning Resources

In its policy statement on graduate credit. the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has identified as a “minimum condition” and “the absolute necessity” for the awarding of graduate credit: “Study in a setting or settings in which library. laboratory. computer, audio-visual, per- formance. and field facilities are commensurate with the level of learning” (Sparks et al., 1977:3). Elsewhere the Council has stated master’s degree programs should provide “library and laboratory facilities to enable the student to do substantive research” (Edwards et al., 1978:7).

Moreover, in its policy statement on nonresidential graduate degree programs. the Council has indicated that off-campus programs should be equivalent in quality to those of the home campus in library support and other resources (Spragg et al., 1977:3). There were no books provided by the University available in the local college library. Indeed, the local college library staff was unaware of the existence of the nonresidential criminal justice program on the local campus. There was no indication the criminal justice students had used the library. Rather, it was the position of the University that the crucial learning resources were those the student developed in his or her own home.

It appeared the development of the academic skills the University indicated were an outcome of their program required the use of extensive library resources. including reference to special- ized criminal justice journals. Such materials were not available to students. The arguments

that the students had access to other libraries was not felt to be satisfactory. As long as the University did not have control over the availability of resources such as journals and books. they had no way to ensure the necessary learning resources would be available to students. As long as the delivery system requires moving from one locale to another in a relatively rapid fashion, there will be no way for the University to ensure that library resources will be made available in the future.

Faculty

Many of the national faculty members teaching in the graduate program in criminal justice were outstanding scholars and lecturers, including some who have proven to be significant and highly visible leaders in criminal justice. This was true of the cluster reviewed by the team of examiners. The faculty members carried a maximum of two courses at any one point in time, but carried no responsibility that extended beyond the requirements of instruction in those courses. All other tasks typically included as faculty responsibilities in traditional university settings were handled by the University personnel and other (nonfaculty) part-time personnel. All national faculty members were full-time employees of other institutions or agencies.

Consideration of Licensure

In the review of the application for licensure. the team of examiners considered standards established by the state law governing nonresidential academic degree programs. Among the most important of those standards were the following:

The quality and content of each course or program of instruction. training or study are such as may reasonably and adequately achieve the stated objective for which the course of program is offered. .

That the institution has adequate space, equip- ment, instructional materials, and personnel to provide education of good quality. . . .

That the education. experience, and other qualifications of directors. administrators, supervi- sors and instructors are such that they reasonably insure that the students will receive education consistent with the objectives of the course or program of study.

172 REED ADAMS

The team of examiners also considered such matters as the official announcements and de- scriptions of the program and its fee structure. the financial structure of the University, the regional accreditation. of the University. learning strate- gies employed. and the standards of achievement met by the students.’ In formulating recommendations about licensure, the team of examiners considered the position of the Council of Gradu- ate Schools in the United States concerning graduate credit. The policy stated:

When. however, the generation of graduate credit becomes dependent upon novel education delivery systems, highly compressed schedules, excessive reliance on adjunct faculty, inadequate library or laboratory facilities, and administrators unfamiliar with the values and expectations of graduate faculty, the difficulties multiply and caution must be exercised. (Sparks et al., 1977:5)

The host state’s governing board has rejected the application for licensure.

CONCLUSIONS

The award of graduate credit for learning experiences not in the usual classroom mode has long been an accepted practice and has been encouraged by respected scholars. A policy statement of the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States has indicated:

Graduate faculty members should be encouraged to continue these non-classroom supervised educational opportunities. As graduate faculty members point with pride to the flexibility in graduate programs which has developed through the years, they should maintain an open mind when considering the additional contributions which non-traditional and experiential learning can make to the graduate degree programs of the young scholars and practitioners of the future. (Sparks et al., 1977:4)

Elsewhere, the Council has stated:

We believe strongly that the development of external degree programs is an important trend in American higher education. The healthy growth of such programs is encouraged and supported by CGS. (Spragg et al., 1977:l)

The American Council on Education recently recommended:

Postsecondary education institutions should develop alternative programs that permit students to demonstrate accomplishment without reference to time-bound or campus-bound instruction and learning. educational programs that are not bounded by time or by places and types of instruction need to become more abundant for highly motivated adults who return to formal study after considerable work expenence

and extrainstitutronal learning, and for all students who. for sound educational reasons. can combine work with study. (American Council on Educa- tion, 1975:16-17)

The Carnegie Commission recommended:

That alternative avenues by which students can earn degrees or complete a major portion of their work for a degree be expanded to increase accessibility of higher education for those to whom it is unavailable because of work schedules. geographic location. or responsibilities in the home. (Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa- tion, 1971. p. 20)

The Commission on Non-Traditional Study identified as its “fundamental recommendation”:

Full educational opportunity should be realisti- cally available and feasible for all who may benefit from it, whatever their condition of life. (Gould. 1973. p. 7)

Consideration of the evidence of the need for graduate programs in criminal justice (Adams, 1977; Adams, forthcoming) may be considered as one justification for innovative educational services, such as nonresidential programs. Also, new approaches and perspectives have traditionally been considered legitimate characteristics of the scholarly search for truth and understanding. Moreover, nonresidential educational programs have long been accepted in academe. However, compelling though such arguments may be, they are not justification for a relaxation of academic standards. That such programs have often been of questionable value may be seen from the focus of much of the published literature on the topic. Rather than argue that nonresidential programs are better than traditional ones, writers have typically maintained such programs are at least as effective as traditional ones. Empirical studies have centered on the question of whether nontraditional programs are less effective than tradi-

Nonresidenrial Criminal Justice Graduate Degree Programs 173

tional programs. A national survey of nonresidential degree programs found

The rapid growth of the external degree move- ment has created a need for quality control. Under financial pressure. non-profit and public accredited institutions have started external degree programs which are inadequate. Abuse of consumer rights by accredited institutions has been reported and the tendency is increasing. Although the problem of consumer fraud in higher education has existed for some time, the emergence of the external degree strains the existing regulatory system beyond its capacity. (Granat, et al., 1975.

P, 13)

The recommendation included in that study to the effect that uniform state legislation be enacted. based on the model advanced by the Educational Commission of the States, was a sound one. Nonresidential graduate criminal justice degree programs should be encouraged.’ but only with the understanding that quality education will not suffer. Much should and could be done to develop innovative programs. For example. programs might involve the cooperation of two or more universities. offering both residential and nonresidential programs. Learning resource centers, such as those used by Wisconsin. could augment off-campus programs. Related proposals have involved such ideas as expanded public library systems. the educational use of cable television, videotaped lectures, and satellite broadcasting of educational services (Gould. 1973). Other arrangements might allow for a consortium of universities to provide coursework from other disciplines and support services. while a single university provides criminal justice coursework. Such efforts would aid in the maximum use of statewide educational resources. while at the same time addressing a clear and demanding educational deficiency. Moreover. if done pro- perly, such efforts would undermine programs of lesser quality. One approach could involve the Utah model. employing the ‘*externalization” of the existing educational structure (Bell, 1978). Also, a national university has been proposed (Valley, 1972) that would use other universities’ and colleges’ credits, examinations. and valida- tion of experience. but no actual teaching. Also, a very wide range of other educational paradigms have been described.

Continued consideration of these issues is

clearly in the interest of our society and the educational establishment. We will all benefit from the delivery of educational services to a wide range of individuals, and from the limita- tion of programs of doubtful quality. For this to occur, however. innovative programs, including nonresidential ones, must develop because of a commitment to these very goals, not because of the financial reward involved for the school offering the program. Some nonresidential programs presently being offered exist because of the financial gain they provide for schools and faculty, and in so doing, important elements of the educational experience have been left out. Moreover. as G&at et al. (1975) noted, the important mechanisms for the regulation of such programs in interstate commerce present very real dangers to educational standards and suggest the possibility of fraudulent programs being offered to the criminal justice system. If criminal justice professional associations and individual criminal justice educators speak out in opposition to the inadequate programs, perhaps the adequate ones may come to deliver the services so fundamental to the maintenance of a strong system of social control and justice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Significant contributions to this document were made by William Mathias, Christine Rasche. Gordon Misner. and Richard Bennett. Also. discussions with Harry Allen proved very helpful. However, only the author is responsible for any errors the article may contain. Support for the article was provided by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission Grant 7%Ol-501-2188. The paper was presented at the October. 1978 annual meetmg of the Southern Association of Criminal Justice Educators.

NOTES

’ The Srate of Maryland has formulated these and other issues central to an assessment of academic programs in a terse but complete fasluon (Maryland State Board for Higher Education. 1976. 1977).

’ Individuals concerned with the development. maintenance. or approval of nonresidential graduate criminal justice degrees should refer to Houle (1973) and to the polic! statements of the Council of Graduate Schools m the United States (Edwards et al., 1976: Majors et al.. 1976: Sparks et al.. 1977: Spraggs et al.. 1977). Also. the Academy of Crimmal Justice Sciences IS considering the issues associated with nonresidential degree programs.

174 REED ADAMS

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (1977). Graduate criminal justice education: Norrh Carolina and VNCC. Report submitted to the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission.

Adams, R. (forthcoming). Educattonal commitment: The concept and its measurement. Unpublished manuscript. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

American Council on Education (1978). Recommendations on credentialing educational accomplishment. Washington. D. C.: American Council on Education.

Bell, T. H., Commissioner. (1978). Policy starement on external degree programs. Unpublished manuscript. Salt Lake City: Utah System of Higher Educatton.

Benoit, R. P. (1973). Alternative programs for higher education: External and special degrees. Intellect 101:122- 25.

Board of Regents (1972). State university system of Florida external degree program. Unpublished manuscript. Talla- hassee: State University System of Florida.

California State University and Colleges (1975). Report of the task force on off-campus instruction. Unpublished manuscript.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1971). Less time, more options: Educatron beyond the high school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Cross, K. P.. ed. (1973). Special issue: The external degree. Journal of higher education.

Davis, M.; Archibald, B.; Clatworthy. F. J.; Crampton. S.; Cowden, R.; Drake, M.; Fink. D. ; Hammon. S. J.; Lipton, H.; Murray, M.: Sheffer. H.; and Vriend, T. (1977). Report of the task force to study the feasibility of an external degree program for rhe State of Michigan. Unpublished manuscript. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education.

Edwards, H.; Bollier, E. P.; and Comstock. D. (1978). The master’s degree. Washington, DC: The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States.

Gephart, W.J.; Saretsky, G.; and Bost, D. (1975). How potential employers value components of traditional and external doctorates. Phi delta kappan 56:406-408.

Gould, S. B., and Cross, K. P., eds. (1972). Explorattons in non-traditional study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gould, S. B., ed. (1973). Diverstty by design. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Granat, R. S.; Kaplin, W. A.: Fort. D.; Lash. J.: and Kincaid. J. (1975). Legal and other constratnts to the development of external degree programs. U. S. National

Institute of Education: Washington. D. C. (ERIC EDl02930).

Home. C. 0. (1973). The external degree. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ingersoll, A. C.. ed. (1973). Spectal edition on external degrees. Engineering education 60(7).

Major. J. K.; Andrews. F. N.; Shao. 0. H.; and Rumble, T. C. (1976). The organizatton of graduate study within the universttv. Washington, D. C.: The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States.

Maryland State Board of Examiners (1976). Maryland standards for four-year colleges and universities. Unpub- lished manuscripts. Annapolis: State of Maryland.

Maryland State Board of Examiners (1977). Out-of-srate instttutions of higher education policy statement. Unpub- lished manuscript. Annapolis: State of Maryland.

Milton. 0. (1972). Alternattves ro the traditional. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mingle. J. (1978). State regulation of off-campus programs and out-of-state programs. Issues m Higher Education, ,Vumber 12. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Morland, R. B. (1973). The external doctorate in education: Blessing or blasphemy. Phi delta kappan 55(3):163- 68.

Nelson. F. A. (1974). Has the time gone for an external degree? Journal of htgher education 45: 171-83.

Perlman. D. H. (1975). External degree programs: Alter- native delivery systems for higher education. Liberal educatton 61: 322-38.

Sosdian, C. P.. and Sharp. L. M. (1978). The external degree as a credential: Graduates‘ experiences in empioy- ment and further study. Washington. DC: National Insti- tute of Education. U. S. Department of Health. Educatton, and Welfare.

Sparks. S.: Canfield. E. L.. Carroll. M. A.: Hein. A. J.; Johnson. R. ,M.: and Reynolds, A. R. (1977). Graduate credit: Its recognition and transfer. Washington. DC: The Council of Graduate Schools in the Umted States.

Spragg, S.; Shirley. D.: Bober. P. P.; Ellis. W.; Huntley. S. L.; and Pelczar, M. J.. Jr. ( 1977). Non-residential graduate degree programs. Washington, DC: The Council of Gradu- ate Schools m the United States.

Unsinger. P. C. (1973). Everything you wanted to know about the external degree. but were afraid to ask. Police chief 40(2):64-65.

Valley. J. R. ( 1972). External degree programs. Chapter -4 in Gould, S. B.. and Cross, K. P. (1972) Explorations in non-traditional study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs

Documents