1Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

Volume XXIX • Issue 3 • September/October 2004

ACJS National OfficeContact Information:

Laura Monaco: Association Managerlmonaco@acjs.org

Collene Cantner: Executive Assistantccantner@acjs.org

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C

Greenbelt, Maryland 20770Tel.: (301) 446-6300; (800) 757-ACJS (2257)

Fax: (301) 446-2819Website: http://www.acjs.org

Webmaster: holden@cmsu1.cmsu.edu

in this issue . . .Doctoral Students of Criminology/Criminal Justice: A Snapshot of aNational Survey (1); President’s Message (2); Book Review Submis-sion Guidelines for ACJS Today (3) ; ACJS Website (3); Call for Manu-scripts (6); Upcoming ACJS Annual Meetings (6); Preparing Com-munity Corrections for 21st Century Challenges: How you Can Help!(7); ACA Seeks Articles (8); ACJS Today Submissions Information(8);ACJS Today Editorial Staff (8); Book Reviews (9); ACJS EditorPosition (10); ACJS Publications Order Form (12); ACJS 2003-2004Executive Board (13).

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

TodayDOCTORAL STUDENTS OF CRIMINOLOGY/CRIMINAL JUSTICE:A SNAPSHOT OF A NATIONAL SURVEY

by EVERETTE PENN

Prairie View A&M University

continued on page 4

Introduction

Criminology/criminal justice (C/CJ) is a relatively new field“which has come of age” (Clear, 2001). The first doctoral programin criminology/criminal justice began at the State University ofNew York, Albany, in the mid-1960s (Frost, 2002). Almost 40 yearslater there are several hundred undergraduate programs, and wellover 100 master’s level programs (Clear, 2001). Additionally, 27 newprograms offer a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Criminology andCriminal Justice according to the American Association of Doc-toral Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice (AADPCCJ),(Frost, 2002). During the 2002-2003 academic year alone, there were911 persons matriculating in C/CJ doctoral programs (Frost, 2002).This compares with 563 in the 1999-2000 academic year, a 61%increase in just two years (Frost, 2002). From this caparison alone,one can say that criminology and criminal justice is a boomingacademic field. But an academic field will continue to grow only ifa constant flow of Ph.D. students enter, matriculate and graduate.This article presents a brief snapshot of Ph.D. C/CJ students. Thefocus is on their motivations for pursuing the degree as well asfiscal matters that affect matriculation.1

The doctoral degree represents the highest educational cre-dential possible in a field of academic study. Annually, 40,000 doc-torates are awarded in the United States (National Science Foun-dation, 2002). Overall, when looking at all fields, the average Ph.D.recipient is a white, married, male, and just under the age of 34

when the degree is awarded, although an accurate measure of “timeto degree” is tenuous due to family, funding, health, educationalsuccess, and other life issues (National Science Foundation, 2002).The National Science Foundation (2002) reports an average of 7.3years from the receipt of the baccalaureate degree to completion ofa doctoral degree for all fields in the United States. If this is addedto an average four years from high school graduation to the receiptof a baccalaureate degree, a Ph.D. recipient has spent over 11 yearspreparing for his or her chosen profession.

In the January/February 2002 issue of ACJS Today, a compel-ling article appeared titled “Ten Essential Observations of an ABDStudent in Criminal Justice.” In the article, the student provided aconscientious look at her limitations as well as those of her Ph.D.education. She concluded with ten suggestions with financial is-sues receiving the focus. One read, “Fellowship and assistantshipfunding needs to be at realistic cost-of-living levels” (Etten, 2002,p. 9). Thus, a question arises: How much money does a Ph.D.student need?

Methodology

In an attempt to answer that and other questions, a nationalsurvey was conducted with Ph.D. students in C/CJ. Using theAADPCCJ list of 27 universities that offer a Ph.D. in Criminology orCriminal Justice as of November 2002,2 eight institutions were se-lected to participate. These eight provided a range of geographiclocation, minority representation, program size, and years of exist-

ACJS TODAY2 September/October 2004

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

2

There are many exciting developments on the ACJS front,but since you may have recently received information aboutthe annual meeting scheduled for March 2005 at the SheratonChicago, let me briefly address some concerns that have beenexpressed about the hotel costs in Chicago. The excitingdevelopments will await a future message! The cost ques-tion is an important issue because our annual meeting is acritically important event for ACJS. It is the one time in theyear when all members convene to deal with the real busi-ness of criminal justice education. In a time of shrunken travelallowances, we have the further disadvantage of holding ourmeeting “second” in the year. As you know, the ASC meetsin November and thus consumes the entire travel budget ofsome joint members. This means we must be especially cost-conscious, and I believe we are.

To begin, some words about how ACJS selects cities andhotels for the annual meeting. Roughly five to seven years inadvance, the ACJS Executive Board gives our hotel con-tractor (Conferon) a list of approximately a half dozen ormore cities in which to explore hotel possibilities. The par-ticular cities proposed are based upon a number of factors.These factors include among others, where have meetingsbeen held in the past, where is ASC meeting, regional (north-east, south, mid-west, far west, etc.) distribution, interna-tional (i.e., Canada) distribution, travel convenience, and evenpossible weather conditions (keeping in mind a March meet-ing).

Conferon has our specifications of particular needs fornumber of rooms, exhibit space, setup and dismantling ofexhibits, accommodation of registration, etc. Using thosespecifications, which have been refined over many years ofexperience, Conferon comes back to the Board with rec-ommendations of none, or one or more hotels in each of thedesignated cities that we should consider. One of the factorsin that consideration, a very important factor, is the projectedroom cost some five to seven years out. But room cost isnot, and obviously cannot be, the only or the overriding cri-terion in our selection. Accommodating our needs, conve-

nience, attractiveness for attendees, and so on, are alsoimportant considerations.

Small or smaller hotels in small or smaller cities tend tobe cheaper than the converse. Often, however, thosehotels cannot accommodate our needs, particularly as theorganization has grown. In addition, smaller cities areoften more difficult and more costly to get to. Thus, moneysavings on hotel costs may be more than made up for byincreased travel costs. Larger cities such as Chicago,Baltimore, Seattle, and Boston, and New York (wherewe hope to be meeting in 2012) have much to offer po-tential conference attendees and their families. Hotels inthese cities that can accommodate our needs are, how-ever, not cheap. To some extent, that is the price to bepaid to be involved in a first class organization. There hasbeen a suggestion that perhaps we could contract withseveral smaller and more reasonable hotels in these largecities. The price of that, of course, is inconvenience andhaving attendees spread out all over the place. Las Ve-gas, you say, has cheap hotels and can accommodate ourneeds! True, but Vegas hotels are cheap for a reason andmany ACJS members regard Las Vegas as an undesir-able location for our meeting on several grounds.

I hope you get the idea. Planning the annual confer-ence is a very careful process as it should be. The needsand desires of the membership are given priority consid-eration. ACJS is well on the road to being a first classinternational body. Our conference should reflect that.

I did not intend here to either inundate you with bu-reaucratic details or harangue you. As a long time edu-cator, my purpose is only to inform and enlighten. So, Itrust that you have been informed and enlightened. If not,or if you want more, just let me know.

Jim FinckenauerPresident, ACJS

3Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

• Provide a review that will help the readership determine how useful the book will be for teaching ofparticular courses.

• Identify how the book is applicable to criminal justice, criminology, sociology, and other relatedcurriculums.

• Identify the courses for which the book will be useful and why.

• Identify the level of students most likely to find the book useful.

• Identify the teaching style most consistent with the book’s approach.

• Send reviews to Alex del Carmen, the ACJS Today Editor, at adelcarmen@uta.edu.

• Book review should be limited to no more than three (3) single-spaced pages with references inAPA style.

• Reviews sent as e-mail attachments in Word are acceptable.

• Submission of a review to ACJS Today implies that the review has not been published elsewherenor is it currently under submission to another publication.

BOOK REVIEW SUBMISSION GUIDELINES FOR

ACJS TODAY

Visit the ACJS websiteat:

http://www.acjs.org

ACJS TODAY4 September/October 2004

continued from page 1

ence. Three were located in the Northeast-ern part of the country, two in the South,and one each from a Mid-Atlantic, Mid-west-ern and Western state.

The creation of the survey instrumentstemmed from two areas. The first was theauthor’s experience as a doctoral facultymember. Through observing the entrance,matriculation and development of severalclasses of doctoral students, a curiosity de-veloped about the demographics of otherC/CJ doctoral students around the country.Second, a literature review provided con-cepts which led to the formation of topicsto present to a focus group of doctoral stu-dents. From this focus group, several sub-ject areas emerged including financing theeducation, motivation for pursuing the de-gree, family and friend support, living ar-rangements, and family members’ education,as well as medical, psychological and physi-cal symptoms associated with the doctoralexperience.

After obtaining internal review board(IRB) approval, the author made contact withthe Ph.D coordinators or other faculty con-tacts at each of the eight institutions cho-sen for the research. Through e-mail andtelephone calls, each contact person wasasked to assist the researcher in distribut-ing the surveys to their Ph.D. students.Seven contacts agreed (no response camefrom the West). Each contact person wasasked the following question: How manyPh.D. students in their program still had de-partmental mailboxes? Each contact wassent the number of surveys indicated alongwith a cover letter explaining the research.

The seven contacts placed the surveysin each doctoral student’s mailbox. The sur-vey contained a cover letter stating partici-pation was voluntary and anonymous. Ad-ditionally, a self-addressed stamped enve-lope was enclosed. Each survey had an iden-tifying number for the purposes of ensur-ing surveys were returned from each of theseven institutions. A total of 275 surveyswere mailed to the contacts at the seveninstitutions. After one month, 103 surveyswere returned, a 37% return rate. This lowreturn rate is very misleading due to roughestimates given by contacts at each institu-tion and no follow up through mailings ortelephone calls. The 103 participants repre-sents 11% of the 911 matriculated doctoralstudents in the fall of the 2002-2003 aca-demic year (Frost, 2002).

Findings

Table 1 presents the gender of the re-spondents. The majority, 54%, are female.This would support the trend of increasedfemale representation in doctoral education.Historically, in 1958, 911 doctorates wereawarded to women, yet in 1998, there were17,856 (National Science Foundation, 2002).On average, women earned 40% of the Ph.Dsawarded in the United States. Their growthover a forty-year period has been 7.5% ascompared to 3% for men (National ScienceFoundation, 2002).

Table 1Gender of Survey Participants

Gender Count Percent

Female 56 54Male 47 46

N=103; all percents are rounded.

Table 2 presents the age of the respon-dents. Fifty-nine percent were 30 years ofage or younger. As presented in Table 5, therespondents were in various stages of theirdegree program, but with the majority underthe age of 30, there is support that C/CJPh.Ds finish at or below the 34-year-old av-erage for all fields of study (National Sci-ence Foundation, 2002). Interestingly, 14%of the respondents were over the age of45.This finding provides support that a num-ber of students are pursuing doctoral edu-cation as a second career or to enhance onein which they have had years of experience.These students who have worked in thecriminal justice system might come to theclassroom with a wealth of practical experi-ence that can enhance the learning envi-ronment.

Table 2Age of Survey Participants

Age Count Percent

25 & under 17 1726-30 45 4231-35 14 1436-40 7 741-45 6 6

N=103; all percents are rounded.

As observed by attendance at any ACJSconference, the data supports speculationthat whites are the majority race and ethnicgroup in C/CJ academia. When respondentswere asked to identify their race or ethnicity,77% indicated white, followed by 16%Black/African American, 6% Hispanic and5% Asian/Pacific Islander. As indicated inTable 3, there were no self-identified NativeAmericans. Heard and Penn, in the Direc-tory of Minority Criminologists (2000), dididentify two students as Native American.These students were located in programs inthe western part of the United States. Thelack of participation from the university inthe west may explain why no Native Ameri-cans were found in this research.

Table 3Race or Ethnicity of Survey Participants

Race/Ethnicity Count Percent

Asian/Pacific Islander 5 5

Black/AfricanAmerican 15 16

Hispanic/Latino(a) 6 6

Native American 0 0White 77 75N=103; all percents are rounded.

Table 4 data presents the degree pursuedby respondents. Criminal Justice repre-sented 52% of the responses, thus provid-ing support that students may desire study-ing the criminal justice system rather thananswering questions of causality. However,each program may provide overlap of crimi-nology and criminal justice, yet the usageof the term “criminal justice” may be moreprevalent. Juvenile Justice rounds out thetop three selections with the start of a Ph.D.program at one of the southern universitiesselected for the research.

Table 4Degree Currently Being Pursued by Survey Participants

Degree Count Percent

Criminology 35 34Criminal Justice 54 52Juvenile Justice 11 11Soc. W/CCJ Spec. 1 1Other 2 1

N=103; all percents are rounded.

5Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

continued on page 6

In this sample, almost half of the respon-dents are beginning their doctoral educa-tion as indicated by “currently takingcourses.” The second largest group is work-ing on their dissertation. With such a spreadas presented in Table 5, this research pre-sents students from the beginning, middleand end of their doctoral education tenure.Thus, 48% are at the beginning as indicatedby “taking courses.” Twenty-six percent arein the middle phase as indicated by “com-pleted all courses” or at some stage of com-pleting their exams, and finally, 25% wereworking on their dissertation.

Table 5Degree Status of Survey Participants

Status Count Percent

Currently takingcourses 49 48

Completed allcourses 13 13

Partial completionof comprehensiveexams 8 8

Completed allcomprehensiveexams 5 0

Working ondissertation 26 25

Other 2 2

N=103; all percents are rounded.

Table 6 shows that 50% of the respon-dents stated “increase knowledge” in thesubject matter best describing why they ap-plied to a doctoral program in C/CJ. Thiswas followed by 17% desiring a “voice inthe field.” Interestingly, only 3% chose adesire to “increase salary.” This providessupport that Ph.D. students hold no illu-sions about the income of a C/CJ facultymember. The average faculty salary for aninstructor at a public institution in the fieldof criminal justice and corrections was$54,879 for the 2002-2003 academic year(Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003).Frost (2002) indicates that there are excep-tions. The two highest faculty salaries for afull professor or higher were $170,000 and$157,600, respectively.

Table 6Reason Best Describing Why ParticipantApplied to a Doctoral Program

Reason Count Percent

Increase knowledge(interest in the subject) 51 50

Want to have a voice in the field 17 17

Other 16 16Wanted to make a

career change 9 09Prestige of having a Ph.D. 7 07Increase salary 3 03N=103; All percents are rounded.

Tables 7, 8 and 9 provide answers to thefocal point presented by Etten (2002) thatfellowship and assistantship funding“needs to be at realistic cost-of-living lev-els” (p. 9). Table 7 asked students to indi-cate how they were paying for their educa-tion. Several funding possibilities were listedas students were asked to place a percent-age next to each in order to equal 100% as atotal. Indicated below are the 100% answers.

Only 36% of the respondents are payingfor their education from one source. Whenone source was indicated, assistantshipranked number one with 20%. Fellowshipswere a distant second, at 5%. Awards fordoctoral students averaged $11,000 in the2002-2003 academic year (Frost, 2002). Thisnumber grew to $11,500 for a “fully funded”average doctoral student award in academicyear 2003-2004 (Clear & Frost, 2003). Thetwo most lucrative awards for full-timegraduate study were $34,145 and $30,000 inacademic year 2002-2003 (Frost, 2002). Com-parably, the most lucrative awards droppedto $20,000 and $19,540 in academic year 2003-2004 (Clear & Frost, 2003).

Table 7How Survey Participants are Paying fortheir Education (100% Answers Only)

Method Listed as 100%PercentAssistantship 21 20Fellowship from university 5 5Job on campus other

than assistantshipor fellowship 3 3

Job off campus 3 3Grants 2 2Loans 2 2N=103 36 35All percents are rounded.

Knowing how much students earnedbefore entering the Ph.D. program helpsanswer the question of what constitutes a“realistic cost-of-living.” Respondents werealso asked what their annual household in-come was before entering doctoral educa-tion. Thirty-four percent of the respondentsearned $49,999 to $25,000, followed by$24,999 to $10,000 at 27% and below $10,000at 14%. Overall, 77% of the students earnedless than $50,000 before entering a Ph.D.program. At the other end of the incomescale, some 8% earned above $100,000.These results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8Annual Household Income BeforeEntering the Ph.D. Program

Amount Count Percent

$100,000 or above 8 8

$99,999-$75,000 4 4

$74,999-$50,000 13 13

$49,999-$25,000 35 34

$24,999-$10,000 28 27

Below $10,000 14 14

N=102; all percents are rounded; one casemissing.

Finally, to answer the cost-of-living ques-tion, respondents were asked to disclosethe minimum amount of income they neededon a monthly basis. Table 9 presents thefindings that 32% indicated $1,000-$1,999,followed closely by $2,000-$2,999 at 30%.Thus, 62% of the respondents needed$1,000-$3,000 per month as a minimummonthly income while in a Ph.D. program.As indicated above, the average awardamount was $11,000 in academic year 2002-2003 when this survey was conducted.Eleven thousand dollars divided by 12months would amount to $916 before taxes,insurance and other fees. This is far lessthan the amount indicated by over 94% ofthe respondents, as only 6% indicated a$999 monthly income was needed.

ACJS TODAY6 September/October 2004

continued from page 5

UPCOMING ACJS

Chicago,Illinois

March 15-19, 2005

Baltimore,Maryland

February 28-March 4, 2006

Table 9Monthly Income Needed bySurvey Participants

Amount Count Percent

Over $5,000 6 6$5,000-$4,000 6 6$3,999-$3,000 20 20$2,999-$2,000 30 30$1,999-$1,000 32 32$999 or less 6 6

N=100; all percents are rounded; 3 casesare missing.

Conclusions

As criminology and criminal justice fur-ther evolve as disciplines, understandingthe needs of the doctoral student is essen-tial in order to supply the demand for intel-lectual talent and scientific inquiry. Addi-tionally, as C/CJ expands at the undergradu-ate and master’s level the need for Ph.D.’sin the classroom will swell. From the re-search, we find overwhelming support thatdoctoral students are motivated primarily byan interest in the subject not economic gain.As for the question of paying for their edu-cation while maintaining a realistic cost ofliving, the answer is not as clear. Initially, itappears that current awards granted to doc-toral students satisfy less than 6% of doc-toral students’ minimum monthly incomeneeds. But as indicated, only thirty-six per-cent of the students pay for their educationthrough one source. Thus, students may begranted an $11,000 award but may satisfytheir economic needs through a multitudeof income combinations including secondjobs, family assistance, loans and grants.Such a finding sheds light on the time man-agement, family and emotional strain facedby doctoral students daily. Future researchshould attempt to grasp an understandingof these aspects of doctoral education incriminology and criminal justice.

Indeed, it may not be difficult for all ofus to remember our own doctoral education.We may recall classmates to this day whohave not or will not ever complete their de-gree. We should ask ourselves: How did weget through? If you are like me it wasthrough mentorship, hard work, sacrifice andprobably a little bit of luck. The race to thePh.D. is one of hurdles, limitations, walls,

temptations and endurance. By knowingmore about our students’ motivation for thedegree, income requirements, and family,emotional, physical and education needs,program administrators as well as facultycan become more cognizant of their stu-dents. Such information is useful for the re-cruitment, matriculation and graduation ofdoctoral criminology and criminal justicestudents.

Endnotes

1This article is extracted from a more de-tailed article forthcoming from Penn, Cintronand Cintron.

2Two universities (Northeastern Univer-sity and Pennsylvania State University) weredeveloping their programs and thereforewere not included in this research.

References

Chronicle of Higher Education (2003). Av-erage Faculty Salaries by Field at 4-YearInstitutions, 2002-2003. May 30, 2003, A-12.

Clear, T., and Frost, N., (2003) Associationof Doctoral Programs in Criminologyand Criminal Justice Annual Report.November 21, 2003. Presented at theAmerican Society of Criminology Con-ference, Denver Colorado.

Etten, T., (2002) Ten Essential Observationsof an ABD Student in Criminal Justice.ACJS Today, Jan/Feb. 200, 8-12.

Frost, N., (2002). Doctoral Education in Crimi-nology and Criminal Justice. Paper pre-sentation at the American Society ofCriminology Conference, November 2002Chicago, Illinois.

Heard, C., and Penn, E. (2000). Directory ofMinority Ph.D. Criminologists. PrairieView, Texas: Prairie View A&M Univer-sity.

National Science Foundation, (2002).Trends in Doctorate Recipients. Re-trieved on April 3, 2004 www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/srs00410/secta.htm.

The Journal of Contemporary CriminalJustice invites individuals to submit manu-scripts for consideration for inclusion in aplanned special issue on the topic, Mis-carriages of Criminal Justice (August2005 issue) . The Guest Editor encouragessubmissions on all aspects of the subjectbut is especially interested in manuscriptsthat focus on why miscarriages occur andwhat can be done about them. Inquiriesabout the appropriateness of topics shouldbe directed to Robert M. Bohm , JCCJGuest Editor, via e-mail (rbohm@mail.ucf.edu) or telephone (407-823-5944).

All manuscripts will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts should be no more than 25typed, double-spaced pages includingtables, figures and references. Manu-scripts must be received no later thanJanuary 15, 2005 . Please send fourmanuscript copies, along with the manu-script on disk, to:

Robert M. Bohm

Department ofCriminal Justice & Legal Studies

University of Central Florida

Orlando, FL 32816

CALL FOR

MANUSCRIPTS

7Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

PREPARING COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FOR 21ST CENTURY

CHALLANGES : HOW YOU CAN HELP!

A Project of theNational Institute of Corrections and theCenter for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

Overcrowded prisons and jails havecaptured widespread attention. But theless visible dilemmas of community cor-rections often languish quietly in thebackground. Yet despite the fact thatover 3 out of 4 adults under correc-tional supervision are on probation orparole,1 the budgets of community cor-rections have actually been declining inrelation to other justice agencies.2

Beyond insufficient resources, thisgrowth is occurring in an environmentof changing social and political expec-tations. Community corrections person-nel are expected to be “rule-enforcers,”closely monitoring clients and recom-mending violation for infractions. Butthey also have a mandate to link clientswith needed resources—from educa-tion and training to health care andtransportation. These contradictoryroles of “surveillance” versus “support”3

are not new. Today, however, role con-flict is occurring in the midst of not onlyescalating demands and declining re-sources, but also within the politicalcontext of a new era of evidence-basedaccountability,4 organizational decen-tralization, and employee empower-ment.5

These are a lot of challenges andchanges. Moreover, they have impli-cations for virtually every aspect ofcommunity corrections–from who willbe recruited and selected to how theywill be trained, supervised, retained,and developed for promotion. Today’sentry-level employees will betomorrow’s leaders. But one does notprepare for the future overnight. So the

question is how probation and parolecan best develop a future workforcecapable of meeting these challenges andchanges.

The National Institute of Correc-tions (NIC) is attempting to address thisissue through a project examining 21st

century workforce needs in communitycorrections. Specifically, it focuses onthe ability of agencies to meet new re-cruitment, selection, retention, and ca-reer advancement demands.

A key part of this effort that involvesACJS readers includes identifying:

• Colleges and universities thathave collaborative partnershipswith agencies. Examples might in-clude creative internship programs,entry-level certification, promotionalpreparation, co-op education, lead-ership development, and the like.

Do you have written examplesof such community correctionsinitiatives? If so, contact Dr.Jeanne Stinchcomb, Depart-ment of Criminology andCriminal Justice, Florida At-lantic University, (954-762-5138; e-mail: stinchco@fau.edu).

Practices that offer promise for meet-ing 21st century workforce demands willbe included in an administrative guide-book produced by NIC. With such re-sources, community corrections’ dilem-mas can begin to move from the back-

ground to the forefront of attention, ac-tion, and accomplishment.

Endnotes

1“One in every 32 Adults is now onProbation, Parole or Incarcerated,”Press Release (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, July 25, 2004),p. 1; available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/ppus03.htm

2William M. DiMascio, Seeking Jus-tice: Crime and Punishment inAmerica (New York: Edna McConnellClark Foundation, 1997), p. 6.

3Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Correc-tions: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow(Lanham, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation, in press).

4Doris Layton MacKenzie, “Evi-dence-based Corrections: IdentifyingWhat Works,” Crime and Delin-quency, Vol. 46, No. 4 (October,2000), p. 463.

5Frank Domurand, “Who is Killingour Probation Officers: The Perfor-mance Crisis in Community Correc-tions,” Corrections ManagementQuarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2000), pp.41-51.

ACJS TODAY8 September/October 2004

Editorial StaffEditor:Alejandro del CarmenAssociate ProfessorCriminology & Criminal JusticeDepartmentUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595(817) 272-2498adelcarmen@uta.edu

Publication Specialist:Jamie HansonUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595(817) 272-1288jamiehanson11@hotmail.com

Book Review Editor:Cary AdkinsonCollege of Criminal JusticeSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, Texas 77341(936) 294-1654stdcda11@shsu.edu

ACJS Today is published four times a year(January/February, May/June, September/October, and November/December). Copy-right © 2000 by the Academy of Criminal Jus-tice Sciences. All rights reserved. Distrib-uted to all current members of ACJS.

Inquiries : Address all correspondence con-cerning editorial materials to: Editor, ACJSToday, c/o Professor Alex del Carmen, De-partment of Criminology and Criminal Justice,Box 19595, University of Texas at Arlington,Arlington, TX 76019-0595 • (817) 272-5673.

Postmaster : Please send all addresschanges to: ACJS Today, c/o Laura Monaco,7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C, Greenbelt,Maryland 20770.

Membership : For information concerningACJS membership and advertising materials,contact Laura Monaco, 7319 Hanover Park-way, Suite C, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 orvisit our website at http://www.acjs.org.

Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences

Today

ACJS TODAY

SUBMISSIONS INFORMATION

The deadline for submissions to be included in the November/De-cember ACJS Today is October 20, 2004 . Submissions, in MicrosoftWord format should be e-mailed or sent to:

Alex del CarmenAssociate Professor and Graduate Advisor

Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeBox 19595

University of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595

Office Phone: (817) 272-3318Fax: (817) 272-5673

E-mail: adelcarmen@uta.edu

Have you just completed a research study or scholarly essay that you think would be ofinterest to those in corrections? Corrections Compendium , the research journal of theAmerican Correctional Association, is seeking submissions for upcoming issues. Itsinternational readership includes individuals involved in various sectors of the correctionsand criminal justice fields, including individuals employed in academia, correctionalinstitutions and community corrections. A leading peer-reviewed publication in thecorrections field, Compendium welcomes you to submit your research-based papersfor possible publication. We are open to submissions on all subjects — provided thatthey relate to corrections and adhere to standards of quality scholarship. A typical articleis approximately 3,000 to 6,000 words, excluding references, endnotes, tables, charts,etc. All submissions are reviewed by members of our editorial advisory board. Articlesmust not have been published elsewhere or be under consideration by anotherpublication. A complete list of our guidelines is available on our Web site at Do you thinkyou may have just what we are looking for? If so, please send your unformatted article onan IBM-compatible disk in WordPerfect or Microsoft Word, double spaced, with anytables or charts at the end of the copy, and accompanied by a hard copy to:

Susan Clayton, Managing Editor

American Correctional Association

4380 Forbes Boulevard,

Lanham, MD 20706-4322

or e-mail it to: susanc@aca.org.

Please remember to include your name, title, affiliation, address, daytime telephonenumber, fax number and e-mail address.

ACA SEEKS ARTICLES

9Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

BOOK REVIEWS

Johnson, R. (2004). Hard Time: Under-standing and Reforming the Prison (3rded.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

REVIEWER: R. MYCHAL GETTY

The University of Texas at Arlington

Being a neophyte in the world of correc-tions, the need for an all-around scholarlyexplanation of the often overlooked, ignored,and/or maligned part of the criminal justicesystem was paramount. “Hard Time” seemedto fit the charge with its no-nonsense, in-depth analysis of historical and contempo-rary issues facing inmates, correctional of-ficers, and the system at large.

The author’s first intent was to slightlyeducate the reader regarding the history(and regional differences) of corrections inorder that one can appreciate the past inad-equacies and apathy of warehousing pris-oners, as well as, the social injustice of ra-cial bias traditionally ingrained in the crimi-nal justice system. Although this seemeduniversally understood, it is driven homequite poignantly by moving firsthand ac-counts of prisoners’ quotations throughoutthe book. The author, Robert Johnson, inthe early sections of the book, hoped to ex-press “the enduring pains of imprisonment”through a historical and modern context. Inthis way there lay a foundation from whichone can value how far the prison processhas come, and yet how long we, as an Ameri-can society, have to go in order to “reform”the prisons.

The less than subtle approach Johnsonused to explain the plight of minorities incorrections is without offending or point-ing fingers. He explains we are all “victims”of this disposition by increasing taxation tobuild new prisons, the cost in dollars andhuman toil of the failed “war on drugs,” theloss of social services (due to the lack ofpublic funds), breakup of family bonds, etc.These are perhaps thoughts not apparentwithout the benefit of this book’s declara-tions. Although these connotations maybe obvious to the reader and most studentsof criminal justice, it is nevertheless refresh-ing to see them stated in a well thought outand researched fashion. The author simplystates that facts, the basis for these facts,any helpful illustrations and thoughts, andmovies on.

The second of three parts brings oneinto the world of the prison culture from theconvicts’, inmates’, custodial and correc-tional officers’ standpoints. These extremedifferences cannot be envisioned by some-one watching prison movies involvingsemantical social intercourse. Discerningstudies reinforced by judicious use of per-sonal accounts truly bring one into “theyard,” the cell blocks, and the prison envi-ronment in general. Where other prison andcorrection books simply give a term anddefinition, this book defines the emotionsand conditions through experience andgives them a term in a vernacular sense usedby the actual practitioners. One can see theloss of esoterics so replete in normal text-books cannot possibly project into thepage-turning, actual-life scenarios dis-bursed throughout this book.

Part three, prison reform, brings full circlethe author’s vision of inmates’ “mature cop-ing”, programmatic inmate classification,orientation and modeling, and the system-atic reduction in prisons and prisoners. Theauthor cites other countries successes—mainly Canada and Scotland—using thestrategies in order to “rehabilitate” inmatesto be able to successfully reintegrate intothe community. The book ends with sug-gestions and hope for the future by suc-cessfully “reforming criminals” and cel-ebrating their return as one who is paid theirdebt, realizing though, “that debt lasts a life-time.”

This book could effectively guide un-dergraduate thought but would be betterutilized at the graduate level because of theadvanced concepts beyond the normal de-liberation of overcrowding, recidivism, mi-nority overrepresentation, etc. that mostcorrections’ textbooks contain. After thesecond part of the book so as to heightenand completely understand “the prison com-munity”, one should tour a prison in orderto fully appreciate the role prison sounds,smells, and sights a book cannot possiblyconvey. By this method and a provocativeclassroom discussion, students could bet-ter envision the plight of America’s prisonsystem and doing “hard time.”

Family violence is a multifaceted con-struct. It encompasses a vast array of phe-nomena such as child abuse and neglect,elder abuse, and spousal abuse. It is impera-tive when studying family violence and thevarious forms of abuse that comprise it tobecome familiar with its history, dynamics,definitions, characteristics, and prevalencein today’s society. Wallace embarks on thechallenge of exploring such aspects in Fam-ily Violence: Legal, Medical, and SocialPerspective, 4th edition.

Wallace initially reviews the overall con-cept of family violence. This review includesan examination of the research that has beenconducted with regards to the scope andprevalence of family violence in the UnitedStates. Further, he defines the difficultiesthat researchers have in measuring this con-struct and challenges the validity of currentmeasures. He presents the most commonlyaccepted theories regarding why family vio-lence occurs including the renowned “Cycleof Violence Theory” and the principal ele-ments that embody an abusive relationship.

Following a cursory overview, Wallacedelves into the investigation of each formof family violence. Chapters two throughsix dissect various aspects of child abuseincluding physical child abuse, child sexualabuse, child neglect, sibling abuse, and ritu-alistic child abuse. With regards to each formof child abuse, Wallace provides a defini-tion, scope of the problem, characteristicsof the abuser and the victim, and indicatorsof abuse. Wallace does an excellent job ofequipping professionals with concrete ex-amples of the way that each of these typesof abuse manifests itself in children. For ex-ample, in his discussion of physical childabuse, he explores timing and location ofbruising, burn patterns, types of fractures,and head injuries.

Wallace concludes his analysis of childabuse with a thorough discussion of theprofessional’s response to this issue. Heexplores various legalities that a practitio-

Wallace, H. (2005). Family Violence:Legal, Medical, and Social Perspectives(4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

REVIEWER: LACY HENDERSON

The University of Texas at Arlington

ACJS TODAY10 September/October 2004

The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences is seeking applications for the position ofEditor of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education: An official publication of the Acad-emy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

The Editor Selection Committee of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences is ac-cepting applications for the position of Editor of the Journal of Criminal Justice Educa-tion. The Editor will be responsible for administering a high quality academic journal forthe ACJS membership. The Editor will set editorial policy, select deputy and associateeditors, create a peer review system, and manage the journal. Applications must meet thefollowing criteria:

· Demonstrated record of scholarly activity as measured by such indicators aspublications in refereed journals, book publication, and research;

· Prior editorial experience as measured by such indicators as editorial responsibili-ties for other scholarly publications and past experience as a referee, associate, ordeputy editor of an academic journal, or other demonstrated editorial experience;

· Earned doctorate or terminal degree in criminal justice or related field;· Senior (associate professor or above) academic rank at host institution;· ACJS membership;· Formal declaration of support from host institution, including release time, space,

and other support services the institution will commit to editorship.

Those interested in being considered should provide a formal proposal to the EditorSelection Committee no later than January 7, 2005. The proposal should include:

· Statement of editorial philosophy for the Journal of Criminal Justice Education;· Statement of applicant’s qualifications, including vita;· Formal declaration of institutional support;· A budget including a breakdown of the expenses that will be provided by the

host institution and those expected for the Academy.

The Executive Board of the Academy will appoint the Editor for a three-year term.Applications and requests for further information should be directed to:

Jeffery T. WalkerDepartment of Criminal Justice

University of Arkansas, Little RockLittle Rock, AR 72204-1099

(501) 569-3083

The Editor’s first issue will be March, 2006 (Volume 17, Number 1). The ACJS ExecutiveBoard recently approved a $5,000 stipend for the Editor.

ACJS EDITOR POSITION

ner might face with regards to the reportingof child abuse, the issue of confidentiality,and other ethical considerations. Further hecompares and contrasts the multiple waysthat a child abuse victim may be interviewedand the various interventions that may re-sult with regards to the findings. Wallacecompletes chapter seven with an explora-tion of the role that Child Protective Ser-vices plays and then guides the readerthrough the civil and/or criminal justice pro-cess that may ensue.

In chapters eight and nine the text shiftsits focus to spousal abuse and the criminaljustice systems response to spousal abuse.From a historical perspective, Wallace brieflydiscusses the role of women in a tradition-ally patriarchal society; however, he exploresin great detail the evolution that has trans-formed in the criminal justice system withregards to its response to family violence.Further, he explores the theories as to whyspousal abuse occurs, common character-istics found in an abusive relationship (suchas power and control), traits of a batterer,and reasons that victims stay with theirabuser. Wallace draws attention to the is-sue of “family violence by police officers”(p.203). He presents a summary of the inau-gural research that has been conducted onthis topic while reinforcing the need for fur-ther research.

During his investigation of the criminaljustice system’s response to spousal abuse,Wallace does an excellent job of discussingthe effectiveness of arrests in spousal abusecases and the “advantages and disadvan-tages of restraining orders” (p.235). Furtherhe describes a “model response” to spou-sal abuse from the criminal justice systemand details the prosecution steps in suchcases. Wallace concludes chapter nine witha look at specialized family violence courts,which is becoming a progressive trend inthis arena.

Chapters ten through twelve focus onfamily violence that occurs in populationssuch as the elderly, the gay and lesbian com-munity, the military, and family violence vic-tims with disabilities. Wallace examines eachpopulation and the unique challenges thata professional must be cognizant of whenaddressing the issue of family violencewithin these groups.

Wallace concentrates on the issue ofsexual violence with regards to women inchapter thirteen. After an explanation of thetheories and scope of sexual violence hecompares and contrasts marital rape,stranger rape, and acquaintance rape.

Wallace provides the reader with a respect-able introduction of the etiology of sexualviolence and more specifically rape.

Chapter fifteen expounds upon the con-sequences that victims face as a result offamily violence. Wallace addresses bothshort and long term repercussions that avictim may suffer, from Post Traumatic StressDisorder and other mental disorders to lossof financial stability. Further he does an ex-cellent job of exploring the costs not onlyto the victim but to society as a whole, suchas the financial losses that society incursdue to family violence.

Finally, Wallace concludes with an over-view of crime victim’s rights. He provides ahistorical perspective of the victim’s move-

ment, information concerning compensationand restitution, and explores controversiessurrounding victim impact statements.

The reviewer recommends this bookoverall. Wallace does a superb job at layingthe foundation for a solid knowledge baseconcerning family violence. He prepares thereader with the necessities to pursue morein-depth studies into the phenomena of fam-ily violence. Further this text could be usedin courses of various disciplines such associal work, sociology, and criminal justice.While the reviewer feels that this text is mostappropriate at the undergraduate level, itcould also be utilized as a supplementaryreader to a graduate level course.

11Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

ACJS TODAY12 September/October 2004

ACJS TodayMembers Only**

Employment BulletinFree with ACJS Membership**$15.00 per volume (October – April)

Journal of Criminal Justice Education(JCJE)Free with ACJS Membership**One Issue $65.00One Year $125.00

Justice Quarterly (JQ)Free with ACJS Membership**One Issue $65.00One Year $250.00Two Years $475.00Three Years $700.00

JQ and JCJE PackageOne year $350.00Two years $650.00Three Years $950.00

PUBLICA TIONS:Guide to Graduate Programs in CriminalJustice and CriminologyOne Copy $15.00(Temporarily Out of Print)

Media GuideMedia FREEOne Copy $5.00

Minimum Standards for Criminal JusticeEducation: Guidelines for College andUniversity-Level ProgramsOne Copy FREE

Teaching About Comparative/InternationalCriminal Justice: A Resource ManualOne Copy $12.00

Annual Meeting ProgramOne copy $25.00

SERVICES:Mailing LabelsProvided on floppy disk unless otherwise requested.An additional $50.00 will be charged for adhesive labels.Contact the ACJS National Office for further information.

Entire Member List $495.00Subset of Member List $395.00

SHIPPING INFORMA TION:Federal Express Shipping* 2nd Day Standard Overnight Priority Overnight*There is no charge for shipping via US Mail. If you choose to have your shipment sent via Federal Express, you must provide pre-payment with a credit card only.

Name: Address:City: State: Zip:Country: Phone: Fax:

PAYMENT INFORMA TION: (U.S. dollars only made payable to ACJS)

Check Visa MasterCard American Express Money OrderCard Number: Expiration Date:Name as it appears on card:

Signature: _________________________________________________

Return form and payment to:Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Attn: Order Processing7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C

Greenbelt, Maryland 20770(301) 446-6300; (800) 757-ACJS (2257); FAX: (301) 446-2819

**GO TO ACJS MEMBERSHIP PAGE**

PLEASE COMPLETE, PRINT OUT, THEN FAX OR MAIL TO ADDRESS BELOW.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

ACJS PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM

13Volume XXIX, Issue 3 ACJS TODAY

ACJS 2003-2004 EXECUTIVE BOARD