Advertisement

Critical Criminology

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 327–340 | Cite as

Ex-Offenders and Educational Equal Access: Doctoral Programs in Criminology and Criminal Justice

  • David Patrick Connor
  • Richard Tewksbury
Article

Abstract

Utilizing data from university websites, this exploratory study examined criminology and criminal justice doctoral program admission requirements, while focusing on identifying barriers and challenges unique to applicants with criminal records. Findings reveal that all doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice expect applicants to complete the GRE, submit recommendation letters, and provide personal statements. The majority of programs also specify minimum grade point averages necessary for admission, while just over one-half request academic writing samples. Further, data show that many academic institutions housing criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs make deliberate efforts to identify ex-offender applicants, particularly sex offenders. Limitations and directions for future research concerning equal and equitable educational access for ex-offenders are discussed.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Doctoral Program Criminal Record Collateral Consequence Criminal Conviction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Applegate, B. K., Cable, C. R., & Sitren, A. H. (2009). Academia’s most wanted: The characteristics of desirable academic job candidates in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, N. (2010). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 1999 to 2009. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.Google Scholar
  3. Blood, P., Watson, L., & Stageberg, P. (2008). State legislation monitoring report: FY 2007. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights: Division of Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice Planning.Google Scholar
  4. Buckler, K. G., & Travis, L. F. (2003). Reanalyzing the prevalence and social context of collateral consequence statutes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(5), 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., & Travis, L. F. (1987). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state statutes. Federal Probation, 51, 52–60.Google Scholar
  6. Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty as academic criminal justice come of age? Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 709–726.Google Scholar
  8. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorensen, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of PhD graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodge, M., & Pogrebin, M. R. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications of reintegration. The Prison Journal, 81(1), 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duwe, G., Donnay, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 484–504.Google Scholar
  11. ETS. (2011). Fees for the GRE revised general test and related services. In ETS home. Retrieved August 21, 2011, from http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/about/fees.
  12. Fabianic, D. (1979). Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(2), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabianic, D. (2002). The publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felkenes, G. (1980). The criminal justice doctorate: A study of doctoral programs in the United States. Chicago: Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Flanagan, T. J. (1990). Criminal justice doctoral programs in the United States and Canada: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher, D. (2001). Ex-offenders, the labor market and the new public administration. Public Administration, 79(4), 871–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frost, N. A., & Clear, T. R. (2007). Doctoral education in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding, D. (2003). Jean Valjean’s dilemma: The management of ex-convict identity in the search for employment. Deviant Behavior, 24, 571–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  20. Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  22. Irwin, J. (1985). The Jail. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, R. S. (2003). Excon: Managing a spoiled identity. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 191–208). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  24. Langworthy, R., & Latessa, E. (1989). Criminal justice education: A national assessment. The Justice Professional, 4(2), 172–188.Google Scholar
  25. Lenza, M., & Jones, R. S. (2010). Money, criminology and criminal justice policies: The impact of political policies, criminality, and money on the criminal justice in the United States. In M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Transnational criminology manual (Vol. 1, pp. 313–332). The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. L. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levenson, J. S., & Hern, A. (2007). Sex offender residence restrictions: Unintended consequences and community re-entry. Justice Research and Policy, 9(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as power: Criminal registration and community notification laws in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (2007). Uneven justice: State rates of incarceration by race and ethnicity. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar
  31. Mobley, A. (2003). Convict criminology: The two-legged data dilemma. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 209–225). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  32. Newbold, G., Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (2010). Convict criminology. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (Vol. 1, pp. 207–212). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Olivares, K. M., Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state legal codes 10 years later. Federal Probation, 60(3), 10–17.Google Scholar
  34. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parker, L. C., & Goldfeder, E. (1979). Productivity ratings of graduate programs in criminal justice based on publication in ten critical journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pogrebin, M. R., Dodge, M., & Katsampes, P. (2001). The collateral costs of short-term jail incarceration: The long-term social and economic disruptions. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(4), 64–69.Google Scholar
  37. Richards, S. C., Lenza, M., Newbold, G., Jones, R. S., Murphy, D., & Grigsby, R. (2010). Prisons as seen by convict criminologists. In M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Transnational criminology manual (Vol. 3, pp. 343–360). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Richards, S. C., Newbold, G., & Ross, J. I. (2009). Convict criminology. In J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 356–363). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Richards, S. C., & Ross, J. I. (2001). Introducing the new school of convict criminology. Social Justice, 28(1), 177–190.Google Scholar
  40. Rimpfel, K. (2010, May 11). UD has no policy for background checks. The Review. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.udreview.com/news/ud-has-no-policy-for-background-checks-1.1478155.
  41. Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (2003). Convict criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  42. Ross, J. I., Richards, S. C., Newbold, G., Jones, R. S., Lenza, M., Murphy, D. S., et al. (2011). Knocking on the ivory tower’s door: The experience of ex-convicts applying for tenure-track university positions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 22(2), 267–285.Google Scholar
  43. Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorensen, J., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stack, S., & Kelley, T. (2002). The graduate record examination as a predictor of graduate student performance: The case of criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13(2), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in criminology in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(1), 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor, J. M., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Postsecondary correctional education: The imprisoned university. In R. L. Gido & T. Alleman (Eds.), Turnstile justice (2nd ed., pp. 145–175). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  49. Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30–33.Google Scholar
  50. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tewksbury, R., Erickson, J. D., & Taylor, J. M. (2000). Opportunities lost: The consequences of eliminating Pell grant eligibility for students in post-secondary education programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 43–56.Google Scholar
  52. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2006a). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2006b). Sex offenders on campus: An examination of university-based sex offender registries and the collateral consequences of registration. Federal Probation, 70(3), 50–56.Google Scholar
  54. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2009). Stress and collateral consequences for registered sex offenders. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 15, 215–239.Google Scholar
  56. Tewksbury, R., & Taylor, J. M. (1996). The consequences of eliminating Pell grant eligibility for students in post-secondary education programs. Federal Probation, 60(3), 60–63.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: An empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma, role transition and civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. University of South Carolina. (Fall 2010/Spring 2011). Application guide for future students. In University housing. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.housing.sc.edu/apply.html.
  60. Warren, J. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
  61. Wheelock, D. (2005). Collateral consequences and racial inequality: Felon status restrictions as a system of disadvantage. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zevitz, R. G., & Farkas, M. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Justice AdministrationUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations