Academic Program Review 2003 – 2004
Executive Summary
Department of Law and Justice
The department of Law and Justice was included in the second cycle of academic program
review for the 2003-2004 school year. Based upon feedback from the first cycle, the contents of
the self-study were modified as were some of the implementation details. The department of
Law and Justice was one of eight programs undergoing this process for this cycle. Included in
the process was the composition of a self-study document based upon the faculty’s analysis, the
visitation of two external reviewers, Dr. Pamela Schram, Associate professor, California State
University, San Bernardino, and Dr. David Blurton, Associate professor, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, who read the self-study, interviewed faculty, staff, administration, and students, and
submitted their independent analysis.
The Executive Summary and Dean’s report are intended so serve as a guide to the faculty, staff
and administration for the next several academic years as the department addresses the
recommendations and continues its record of excellence. The department faculty and college
administration will be expected to provide a summary of activities undertaken during the 20042005 academic year as a consequence of the program review. This report will be due to the
provost in October, 2005. In addition, Dean Miller provides a comprehensive timeline tied to the
various recommendations that may be helpful to the department as it considers its long-term
planning activities. It is expected that the department will consider all of the elements of the
academic program review as it conducts its planning for the future.
Dean Miller’s response to the academic program review for this department is comprehensive
and thorough. Therefore the commendations and recommendations are drawn directly from her
report.
COMMENDATIONS:
The external reviewers noted several well established strengths of the Law and Justice
Department. The faculty demonstrates a high level of commitment to students and instruction;
student career placement is also very good. The department plays a prominent role in
community service. Its mission is closely aligned with that of the university and college. The
Law and Justice program has great value to the institution: through meeting the regional need
for professionals in this area, through attracting students and sustaining a vital undergraduate
program, through bringing diverse students to the college, and through responsive growth.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external reviews contain several detailed recommendations for strengthening Law and
Justice programs, giving guidance in several areas.
•
Undergraduate curriculum and outcomes-based assessment:
The reviewers discuss the strengths of the undergraduate curriculum and make specific
suggestions about how the curriculum should be optimized to conform to national standards,
particularly on the criminal justice side. The department curriculum committee should take
up this work and, where appropriate, use the Academic of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS)
standard over the 2004-2005 academic year to help inform their analysis.
Longer-term optimization of the curriculum needs to be built on a foundation of program
objectives: what knowledge and skills should students have upon graduation? Articulation
of the common goals for the undergraduate program is an essential tool in curriculum
development and assessment. It is also required by our accrediting agency. This department
is well behind others in the college in articulating these outcomes. This work may be best
undertaken during a faculty retreat of several days and as soon as possible. Such a retreat
should be planned relatively early in the year so that all full time faculty can be involved.
Building on a foundation of the consensus set of program objectives, then, an assessment
program is needed. The external reviewers make specific suggestions about possible
approaches to assessment upon entry to the major and during an end-of-major review. The
assessment plan should be tailored to the program objectives. This assessment program
should be developed as soon as possible and piloted in the subsequent year. Dean Miller’s
timeline uses 2005-2006 for the development of these end-of-program assessments and 20072008 for the pilot year in order to meet the regional accreditation standards by the next tenyear visit. What ever timeline the department adopts, this work is critical and must be
accomplished in a timely fashion.
These activities should support completing the transition to an academic model for this
program.
•
Completing the transition to an academic model and staging for the Master’s program:
It is clear from discussions with the department faculty and external reviewers, from the
written reviews, and from the ACJS standards that the department is making significant gains
towards stabilizing the program, yet several key components need to be put in place before a
master’s program may be viable. Three to five years are needed to complete the work at
hand, which combines curriculum and personnel work at the department level, and planning
resource allocation at the college and university level.
Among the impediments is the lack of a well-established research focus among the faculty;
this is essential to initiating a graduate program. In addition, both reviewers discussed the
need for a larger proportion of Ph.D. credentialed full time faculty. In order to support
department and university goals, and to meet accreditation standards, strengthening the
department’s research efforts is necessary. New full time faculty positions should require a
Ph.D. degree and favor candidates with an established or promising research program. The
ACJS and CWU recognize that a J.D. with an M.S. in Criminal Justice combined with
relevant professional experience meets the qualification for an individual full-time faculty
appointment. Nevertheless, graduate instruction requires a higher proportion of Ph.D.s
within the faculty. The department currently has four Ph.D.s among its eight full time
faculty. Vacant faculty positions require the Ph.D. in order to support an M.S. program.
In addition to this targeted faculty recruitment, research productivity needs to be fostered for
all faculty members, several of whom are already research active. This is essential for
regional accreditation, in meeting the standard for an academic (rather than training)
program, and as a step towards establishing a graduate program. While the department has
several research-active members, this performance standard applies to all tenure track faculty
members. This is taken up below.
The balance of adjunct and full time faculty staffing is another obvious area of concern. The
solution will likely consist of a combination of approaches: First, the success of searching
for tenure stream faculty is paramount. Second, the college has supported another full time
non-tenure track faculty appointment on the Ellensburg campus for the 2004-2005 academic
year. Third, where courses in other departments support student-learning objectives, they
should be exploited in the degree program requirements to strengthen this mix. Finally,
enrollment may need to be controlled in order to achieve the appropriate mix. I will work
with Academic Affairs to analyze and report on this topic. We may also look at the use of
distance education as a tool to expose students to a broader cross section of faculty.
•
Faculty credentials, performance standards, and department culture/leadership:
Several issues face the faculty, in addition to those required to move forward on the M.S.
program. The most salient is addressed in some detail in Dr. Schram’s review and in the
university’s regional accreditation requirements: meaningful performance standards and
review for all faculty.
The review of instruction poses particular challenges to this department, with instruction
dispersed in so many locations. Regional accrediting standards speaks to classroom visits by
peers as part of performance review. As chair, Dr. Tolin has done a very good job of filling
this role; previous chairs have simply not been well enough supported to conduct such review
at so many locations. Exploiting courses offered over distance education networks may
provide an alternative method for broader department participation in peer review.
The standards also speak to the need for research productivity among faculty. Scholarship
that meets professional standards for rigor and dissemination, such as peer-reviewed
publication in journals and scholarly books, is an essential element of faculty research. It
should be set in the context of other contributions. Much discussion of mentoring and
barriers to mentoring of probationary faculty at the centers reflects the real challenges posed
by building a geographically dispersed program. Nevertheless, tenure stream faculty
members demonstrate that these challenges can be met. The very active role of the
department in service activities is arguably well out of balance with the need for productivity
in research.
Finally, developing performance standards in each of the three areas of faculty work that
reflects the clear departmental commitment will help support faculty in establishing an
evaluation program that complies with accreditation requirements. The connections to the
community are very strong for this program; that is a great asset. A clear set of performance
standards would also enable the department to clearly tell its public service success story.
Department culture is another critical area for progress. The issue of department leadership
can only move forward if the department can establish a clear set of common values that
underlie the daily enterprise. This may be a natural outgrowth of the curriculum work
discussed above, in particular the articulation of student learning objectives for the academic
program. It will also build on the hard work the department did to articulate its mission and
goals in the self-study. If this work can build some common ground, the prospects for
success in recruiting department leadership, from within or outside, become much better. If
the department cannot build a cohesive culture, it is unlikely that the leadership issue can
really be solved or that students will be well served.
Finally, then, is the leadership issue. Phil Tolin has agreed to act as chair for another year, I
am personally deeply grateful that he has agreed to continue serving in this role; I know that
the department shares this gratitude. Beyond the 2004-2005 academic year, a solution is
needed. The Law and Justice program has received extraordinary resources in faculty
positions over the last decade, and we anticipate two tenure stream searches during the
coming academic year. Prior to moving forward, a preliminary plan for leadership needs to
be in place. This makes for awkward timing on several fronts. Several internal candidates
are not yet in their scheduled tenure review year. There are possibilities for moving forward:
an outside search for a chair, an additional year with an acting chair, some internal solution is
needed. What is clear is that the issue of department culture must be addressed before any
chair can be successful. Until the faculty has agreement on a common set of values, a
national or internal search for a chair is not panacea.