Chalk and wire saint leo

Saint Leo University

School of Education and Social Services

Graduate Studies in Criminal Justice

CRJ 590

Applied Project in Criminal Justice Administration

Fall 2018

Professor: Dr. Robert J. Diemer

Telephone: 352-588-8974

Office Location: Saint Edward Hall, Room #113

Office Hours: Mondays: 2:00 – 9:30 pm (Eastern Time)

Email: robert.diemer@saintleo.edu

AND/OR

Instructor: Christine Sereni-Massenger, Esq.

Telephone: Will be provided by instructor

Email: christine.sereni-massinger@saintleo.edu

AND/OR

Instructor: Dr. Carla Coates

Telephone: Will be provided by instructor

Email: cheri.chambers@saintleo.edu

AND/OR

Instructor: Dr. Forrest Beach

Telephone: 706-575-1721

Email: forrest.beach@saintleo.edu

AND/OR

Instructor: Dr. Steven Chernick

Telephone: will be provided by instructor

Email: carla.coates@saintleo.edu

AND/OR

Instructor: Dr. Karin May

Telephone: will be provided by instructor

Email: karin.may@saintleo.edu

Course Dates: Starts- August 20, 2018 Ends- December 9, 2018

Class Meetings: Collaborate Conferences Dates and times listed below

Credit Hours: 6

Prerequisites: Successful completion of all courses in the Masters of Science in Criminal Justice Program

Required Text

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: (2001). 6th Edition, Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Recommended Textbooks/Academic Journals:

Babbie, E. (2000). The Practice of Social Research, 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Campbell, D.T.& Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cavanagh, M.E. & Helba, S. (2003). Policing within Professional Framework. Upper

Saddle River, JH: Prentice Hall.

Chelimsky, E. (1997). The Coming Transformations in Evaluations. In E.Chelimsky & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluations for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cole, G.G. & Gertz, M.G. (2002). The Criminal Justice System: Politics and Policies, 8th

ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cook, T.D. (1997). Lessons Learned in Evaluation Over the Past 25 years. In E.

Chelimsky & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluations for 21st Century: A Handbook (pp.30-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fields, C. (1999). Controversial Issues in Corrections. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Fuller, J. and Hickey, E. (1999). Controversial Issues in Criminology. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Hagan, J. (2000). Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 5th ed.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hancock, B.W. & Sharp, P.M. (2004). Public Policy, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Horvath, F. (1999). Controversial Issues in Criminal Justice. Boston MA: Allyn and

Bacon

Houston, J. & Parsons, W.W. (1998). Criminal Justice and the Policy Process.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding and Improving Policies and Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M.H. (1994). Research Synthesis and Policy Implications. In D.P. Rosenbaum

(Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises (pp. 285-299). London: Sage.

Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P. and Wholey, J.S. (1994). Meeting the need for practical

evaluation approaches: an introduction. In JS. Wholey, H.P. Hatry & K.E. Newcomer (EDS), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 1-10). SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M.Q. 1997. Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pawson, R., Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.

Peak, K. (2003). Justice Administration: Police, Courts and Corrections Management.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Peak, K. and Glensor, R. (1999). Community Policing and Problem Solving, 2nd edition.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Posavac, E.J. & Carey, R.G. (1989). Program evaluation: Methods and case Studies.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.

Potter, G.W., & Kappeler, V.E. (2002). Research Ethics and Research Funding: A case

study of easy virtue. In M.C. Braswell, B.R. McCarthy, & B.J. McCarthy (Eds.), Justice, Crime, and Ethics, 4th ed. (pp. 375-394). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E. and Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Evaluation: A Systematic

Approach, 6th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ryan, M. & Wall, D.S. (2001). Policy Networks in Criminal Justice. Great Britain:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Sewell, J. (1999). Controversial Issues in Law Enforcement. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Shadish, W.J., Cook, T.D. and Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of Program

Evaluation:Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sherman, L.W., et al. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t: What’s

Promising: A Report to the United States Congress. Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Stoltz, B.A. (2002). Criminal Justice Policy Making: Federal Approaches and Issues.

Westport, CT: Green wood Publishing Group

Swanson, M., Territo, L. and Taylor, B. (2005). Police Administration: Structure

Processes and Behavior, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weiss, C.H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Welsh, W.N. & Harris, P.W. (1999). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning. Cincinnati:

Anderson Publishing Company.

Course Description:

This course is designed to be a capstone project in which the student will use all the skills, attitudes and knowledge acquired from the program curriculum to address an important problem or launch a program initiative related to the administration of criminal justice. The objective of this course is primarily an outcomes assessment for the Graduate Program. For successful completion of this course and the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Administration degree requirements, students must demonstrate both a mastery of the curriculum content, and an articulated ability to apply what has been learned to professional endeavors.

The current criminal system is complex and places critical demands on those who must supervise and manage its organizations. The criminal justice administrator must possess highly developed analytical and problem-solving skills. In this course the student is expected to demonstrate the highest level of academic and professional skills as applied to a “real-world” problem. Upon completion of this course students should be able to:

A. Demonstrate the skills, attitudes and knowledge acquired from the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Administration program curriculum to address a problem or to launch an initiative.

B. Apply what has been learned in the curriculum content to a “real-world” situation.

C. Define a problem specific to the student’s agency or community.

D. Summarize factors bearing on the problem or initiative identified.

E. Elaborate on the factors identified and critically analyze their significance.

F. Produce a list of possible solutions to the problem.

G. Evaluate the possible solutions and conclude which solution (s) is most persuasive.

H. Recommend a final recommended action or series of actions.

I. Write a draft of an Administrative Position Paper detailing your problem-solving proposal according to specific guidelines provided by your professor.

J. Write the final Administrative Position Paper according to specific guidelines that reflects the highest academic and professional standards.

Course Grades:

The following represents the point values assigned for the various course assignments as well as the final grade scale.

Information Gathering and Analysis: The student must utilize supporting documentation for the paper that includes library, networking, and computer-based research for the gathering of sufficient information to successfully complete the paper.

Paper Organization: The student must demonstrate the ability to organize and present a coherent paper.

Theoretical Integration and Application: The student must demonstrate the ability to integrate theoretical knowledge with concrete information and to apply the strategies that will support the paper. The work should represent student own originality of information.

NOTE: Excluding the reference page, no more than 15% of the entire document can be direct quoted material. Any submission that fails to follow this requirement will not be accepted and the student will receive a grade of “Fail”.

The following grading criteria will be used to measure each student’s performance on the Applied Project.

Information gathering and analysis (30 maximum points)

Organization: (30 maximum points)

Theoretical Integration and Application: (40 maximum points)

NOTE: Failure to submit the problem, draft copies of your project by the required dates could reduce your final grade by a total of 20 points. The critiquing of your colleagues paper must be done.

Grades

Pass= 75 points or above

Fail = 74 points or below

Academic Dishonesty:

Other than those papers that were developed within the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Program at Saint Leo University; no previously submitted papers, articles, reports or projects, in whole or in part, to any university or college will be accepted.

Academic dishonesty is representing another’s work as one’s own, active complicity in such falsification, or violating test conditions. Plagiarism is stealing and passing of ideas and words of another as one’s own or using the work of another without crediting the source.

The sanctions for academic dishonesty such as cheating on an examination, plagiarism, forgery of academic documents (including signing another’s name), the copying of computer programs or information, and similar offenses are as follows:

1. The minimum sanction for the first offense is an “F” for the test or assignment, but the usual sanction is an “F” in the course where the violation took place.

2. The minimum sanction for the second offense is an “F” in the course, but the usual sanction is suspension of the student from St. Leo University.

Student with Disabilities:

Students with disabilities, who need accommodation, should contact Amanda Becker in the Office of Disability Services (room #207, second floor of the Student Activities Building), 352-588-8464, or email adaoffice@saintleo.edu.

The use of Wikipedia as a resource for any assignment will not be accepted.

Critique of Papers

Assignments maybe critiqued by your professor on the message board. The critiques include areas of: deficiencies, needing improvement as well as positive attributes. The comments are to promote further student learning. No grade will be posted on any assignments where other students can see and will only be posted in the Gradebook within the class.

During the next 16 weeks, you will have three assignments that will require you to provide feedback to your classmates on their writing. These assignments are nothing more than an attempt to provide constructive feedback as well as provide learning to the individual doing the critique. Below is the list of assignments that will require critiquing.

Schedule

Assignment

Original to be Posted

Critique to be posted

Post Problem

No later than August 26

No later than August 28

Post Factors

No later than September 2

No later than September 4

Post Draft 1

No later than September 23

No later than September 25

Post Draft 2

No later than October 21

No later than October 23

Post Draft 3

No later than November 11

Post Final Paper

No later than December 1

Critiquing Process

The process for critiquing is simple as long as each of you read the requirements. Each critique will be done in Microsoft Track Changes and will be posted the following week on the message board in the area identified as “Critique of Problem, Critique of Draft 1 and Critique of Draft 2”.

1. By Wednesday of Week #1 you are to locate a partner within the class to work with on critiquing each other’s paper.

2. When you post your assignment, for example: Post Problem on the discussion board, you are to post it as an attachment using Microsoft Word. I will review your paper and I will make comments, but these comments will be general in nature.

3. You will then download your partner’s paper and begin to critique it using Microsoft Word Track Changes. You will be looking for grammatical errors, content errors, APA formatting errors and scholarly writing. Your critique is to be complete, as you will be graded on how well you provided feedback.

4. You will post the critique on the message board in the area identified as “Critique of ____”. The area will always be listed under the section that was posted. You must only take one week to critique the work and repost.

5. The individual that has been critiqued will be able to review the comments and hopefully gain further insight and learning. The paper is NOT to be redone or reposted. The critique is only for your information.

Critiquing Eloquence

I do not want anyone taking the critiquing personal. This is strictly being used to provide critical feedback to your work. As a graduate student, you will be evaluated on your writing and these assignments will hopefully prepare you for this journey and enable you to become better. I do not want to see sarcasm or derogatory wording by the individual critiquing. If you read your paper and do not agree with the assessment, you can converse with your partner if you wish. There is no need to have a discussion or to do a reprint. Any comments made on your papers do not have to be accepted—meaning that you do not have to make the suggested changes. Again, the comments are to be used as a tool.

It is my sincere hopes that this process will assist you in two ways: Learning how to develop a quality paper and identify potential problems in your own writing.