University of La Verne

Sociology/Criminology Program Review

Prepared by

Margaret Gough Courtney, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Sociology

February 2019

2

Executive Summary

Since our last program review in 2014 the sociology and criminology program has had a number of

accomplishments and also some challenges. Overall, the program has many strengths. The program is well

aligned with the university strategic vision and the baccalaureate goals. We have refined the learning outcomes

and designed an assessment plan for assessing those learning outcomes, consistent with the recommendations in

our last program review. Also consistent with recommendations from our last program review, we have

increased the flexibility and quality of our majors. Over the past five years our numbers of majors have either

been stable or growing, and we have seen increasing enrollments in our SOC courses over the period. The

contents of our majors are fairly comparable to other institutions if not more innovative, and we have a strong

faculty that is engaged in innovative teaching and research. Many of our students have gone on to prestigious

graduate programs, and overall our students report high satisfaction with the program and an experience of high

quality learning.

In addition to our strengths, we have had many challenges with achieving many of our prior recommendations

due to budgetary limitations. We continue to need another tenure-track hire, rely on a part-time administrative

assistant, and lack a dedicated computer lab, among other challenges. In terms of small-scale improvements, we

believe the program would benefit from an update to the program mission, vision and values, more consistency

across syllabi, and a reassessment of linking internship sites to student career interests. On a larger scale, we

continue to contend that our prior recommendations for a full-time administrative assistant, at least one new

tenure-track faculty member, a computer lab, and greater oversight of ROC programs are imperative. We seek

to make significant improvements with regard to assessment. Although we have developed an assessment

mechanism for the learning outcomes, the assessment is based primarily on the senior thesis, which many

students will no longer be completing because they will be taking research-intensive capstone courses instead.

Additionally, although the assessment mechanisms were developed, they have not been implemented.

Relatedly, there is no existing system within the program for collecting and maintaining the information

necessary to complete program reviews. For example, learning outcomes are not regularly assessed on a

schedule, all instructors have not moved to the online senior exit survey system, although the system has been in

use since 2016, and there is no plan in place for collecting data from other key groups, such as alumni,

internship sites, potential employers, etc.

Our retention and graduation rate data suggest that there is room for improvement in terms of retention and

graduation. The data suggest that additional pre-matriculation advising might help some students to determine

the most appropriate path before declaring a major in our program, as some of our majors leave for other

programs on campus. However, we need a better understanding of why some of our students leave the program

so that we may determine how to address these issues. Based on university retention data, it seems likely that

some of these students are leaving for financial reasons. However, if there are programming concerns or

educational quality issues that we might be able to address within our program, we want to know that. We need

to examine options for following up with students who decide to leave the program to learn about their

reasoning and develop strategies of improving retention.

We have identified eight action recommendations:

1. Hire at least one new tenure-track faculty member

2. Develop a program vision and values

3. Implement the online senior exit survey in class to improve response rate

4. Implement regular data collection from alumni

5. Revise assessment plan to include research-intensive courses and implement assessment protocol to

allow for review of program learning outcomes

6. Update course outlines/course objectives

7. Improve consistency of syllabi

8. Further analyze retention and graduation rate data to develop intervention strategies

3

Table of Contents

I. Program Vision, Mission, and Values

a. Alignment with University Strategic Vision

II. Academic Goals and Student Learning Outcomes

a. Program Goals

b. Program Learning Outcomes

c. Alignment with Baccalaureate Goals

d. Alignment with Industry Standards

III. The Last Five Years

a. Accomplishments

b. Challenges

c. Changes Since Last Program Review

IV. Program Capacity and Description

a. Faculty

b. Student Profile

c. Degrees Conferred

d. Enrollment History

e. Program Maps

f. Curriculum Maps

g. Advising

h. Co-curricular Integration, Activities, Learning Support

i. Facilities, Labs, Computers, Library, Other Resources

j. Curriculum Comparisons with Other Universities

k. Locations and Sites Where Program Is Offered

l. Financial Resources, Administrative Cost Effectiveness

m. Other

V. Assessment Procedures

a. Senior Exit Survey Results

b. Capstones

c. Syllabus Review

d. Other

VI. Analysis of Program Review Elements

a. Strengths and Areas for Improvement

b. Accomplishment of Goals

c. Examples of Student and Faculty Accomplishments

VII. Action Recommendations

a. Resource Needs and Non-Resource-Dependent Improvements

b. Timeline for Accomplishing Recommendations

c. Assessment Plan

Appendix A: Faculty CVs, Accomplishments, Publications, Research Awards, Recognition

Appendix B: List of Student Capstone Projects and Faculty Mentors

4

I. Program Vision, Mission, and Values

The sociology and criminology programs provide students with an empirical and humanistic understanding of

the social world and their place in it through an integration of theory, research, and practice.

a. Alignment with University Strategic Vision

The University’s 2020 Strategic Plan has four initiatives: 1. Achieving educational excellence (curricular and

co-curricular); 2. Strengthening human and financial resources; 3. Heightening reputation, visibility, and

prominence; and 4. Enhancing facilities and technology. The program fits with the strategic plan through the

first initiative. That initiative has several goals. The first goal is to develop best practices to improve educational

effectiveness, including offering the La Verne Experience across campus. Our program participates in the La

Verne Experience through FLEX and also embeds LVE 400 in our senior thesis and capstone courses. Thus, our

mission helps us to fulfill this first goal. The second goal is to offer distinctive academic and co-curricular

programs. Our program offers a distinctive education for students interested in the social world. Our sociology

major offers four concentrations, whereas many programs offer only a single concentration. Furthermore, our

program offers research-intensive courses in addition to a senior thesis option. This type of innovative pedagogy

can serve as a capstone option but is also associated with greater retention of minority students in STEM fields.

An additional goal is to promote an inclusive campus climate to attract and retain diverse students, faculty, and

staff. Our program aims to promote inclusivity both in curriculum and individual interactions with students,

faculty, and staff. We offer a wide range of classes focused on issues of social inequality, diversity, and social

change, including Race and Ethnicity, Gender Inequality, Social Class and Inequality, Social Change, Social

Problems, and Health, Wealth, and Poverty.

II. Academic Goals and Student Learning Outcomes

A mapping of the Baccalaureate Learning Goals (BLG), Department/Program Learning Goals (DLG),

Department/Program Learning Objectives/Outcomes (DLO), and Department/Program Assessment

Mechanisms is provided in Table 1. This table was developed in 2018, but the assessment portion has not yet

been implemented.

Table 1. Learning Goals, Outcomes, and Assessment Plan Baccalaureate

Learning Goals

Department

Learning Goals

Department Learning

Objectives / Outcomes

Department Assessment

Mechanisms

BLG 1: Broad knowledge and

appreciation of the liberal arts

integrated with a depth of

knowledge in a specialized

discipline.

DLG 1: Have an understanding of

the wide range of theories and

methodologies used by

sociologists to make sense of our

social world

(BLG 1, 2)

DLO 1: Collect and interpret

empirical data

(DLG: 1, 2, 3)

Senior Project: 80% of

students will rate a minimum

of "good" in terms of their

ability to collect and interpret

empirical data

BLG 2: Ability to think

critically and creatively, and

apply those skills toward

resolution of local, national

and global problems.

DLG 2: Be critical consumers of

scientific research and have the

ability to formulate and conduct

research on a wide range of

sociological questions,

and effectively communicate their

ideas orally and in writing

(BLG: 1, 2, 3)

DLO 2: Formulate good

research questions, and be

able to search for,

comprehend, and integrate

scholarship published in peer-

reviewed journals and other

publications

(DLG: 1, 2)

Senior Project: 80% of

students will rate a minimum

of "good" in terms of their

ability to integrate literature

and formulate research

question or hypotheses

BLG 3: Excellence in written,

oral, and creative expression

through a variety of traditional

and contemporary media.

DLG 3: Be prepared to enter

postgraduate programs or to

embark on careers in a wide range

of professions

(BLG: 3, 4)

DLO 3: Present ideas clearly

and concisely, both in writing

and orally

(DLG: 2)

Senior Project: 80% of

students will rate a minimum

of "good" in terms of their

ability to present orally

5

DLO 3: Present ideas clearly

and concisely, both in writing

and orally

(DLG: 2)

Senior Project: 80% of

students will rate a minimum

of "good" in terms of their

ability to write

BLG 4: Effective leadership

and teamwork skills with

cultural competence.

DLG 4: Possess a comprehensive

understanding of a wide range of

perspectives and an appreciation

for human diversity in its various

forms

(BLG: 1, 4)

DLO 4: Evaluate information

critically, including

assumptions made in claims

(DLG: 2, 4, 5)

Department LVE 400

Prompt: 80% of students rate

a minimum of "good" in terms

of their ability to evaluate

information critically

BLG 5: Commitment to

ethical, environmental, and

social responsibility

accompanied by civic and

community engagement.

DLG 5: Recognize the need for

individuals to work both

individually and collectively

toward a more just world

(BLG: 2, 4, 5)

DLO 5: Apply these skills in

their chosen professions and

in the service of their

community, both locally,

nationally, and globally

(DLG: 3, 4, 5, 6)

Department LVE 400

Prompt: 80% of students rate

a minimum of "good" in terms

of their ability to see the

applicability of their major to

their profession and

community

a. Program Goals

The program has five learning goals:

1. Students should have an understanding of the wide range of theories and methodologies used by

sociologists to make sense of our social world.

2. Students should be critical consumers of scientific research and have the ability to formulate and

conduct research on a wide range of sociological questions, and effectively communicate their ideas

orally and in writing.

3. Students should be prepared to enter postgraduate programs or to embark on careers in a wide range of

professions.

4. Students should possess a comprehensive understanding of a wide range of perspectives and an

appreciation for human diversity in its various forms.

5. Students should recognize the need for individuals to work both individually and collectively toward a

more just world.

b. Program Learning Outcomes

The program has five learning objectives/learning outcomes:

1. For students to collect and interpret empirical data.

2. For students to formulate good research questions, and be able to search for, comprehend, and integrate

scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals and other publications.

3. For students to present ideas clearly and concisely, both in writing and orally.

4. For students to evaluate information critically, including assumptions made in claims.

5. For students to apply these skills in their chosen professions and in service of their community, both

locally, nationally, and globally.

c. Alignment with Baccalaureate Goals

The program learning goals are aligned with the baccalaureate goals. BLG 1 states that students should have

broad knowledge and appreciation of the liberal arts integrated with a depth of knowledge in a specialized

discipline. DLG 1, DLG 2, and DLG 4 are aligned with this baccalaureate goal. BLG 2 states that students

should have the ability to think critically and creatively, and apply those skills toward resolution of local,

national, and global problems. DLG 1, DLG 2, and DLG 5 align with this baccalaureate goal. BLG 3 states that

students should demonstrate excellence in written, oral, and creative expression through a variety of traditional

and contemporary media. DLG 2 and DLG 3 align with this baccalaureate goal. BLG 4 states that students

6

should learn effective leadership and teamwork skills with cultural competence. DLG 3, DLG 4, and DLG 5

align with this goal. Finally, BLG 5 states that students should have a commitment to ethical, environmental,

and social responsibility accompanied by civic and community engagement. DLG 5 aligns with this

baccalaureate goal.

III. The Last Five Years

The program has experienced some significant changes, along with accomplishments and challenges over the

past five years. For most of the period, the program was still linked with anthropology, and many courses,

including the research core classes, were cross-listed between the two programs. Toward the very end of the

period this changed, and beginning this year, cross listing is being eliminated. The following table summarizes

the status of the recommendations from the last program review, which form the basis for much of the

following section.

Table 2. Status of 2014 Recommendations

Recommendation Met Not Met Partially Met Modified

Additional tenure-track faculty member X

Full-time administrative assistant X

Department-specific computer lab X

Greater flexibility in the major X

More emphasis on qualitative research

methods

X

Refine learning outcomes X

Create instruments to assess student learning

gains

X

Improve oversight of ROC programs X

a. Accomplishments

The program has had several accomplishments over the period. For example, after the 2014 review, we set out

to refine learning outcomes and create instruments to assess student learning gains. We accomplished both of

these goals, designing an assessment that will occur through evaluation of senior projects and LVE 400 prompts

using rubrics developed/adopted. We aim to implement the assessment in the coming year. In addition, we set

out to generate more flexibility in the major curriculums, consistent with several other local programs. This

recommendation was met. The program made significant changes to both majors to increase flexibility and

quality. The sociology major increased in flexibility and quality in 2016, and the quality was further increased

(and a concentration option adopted) in 2019. The criminology major also increased in flexibility and quality in

2016, but some concerns remain about the rigidity of the breadth section of the major. Thus, the criminology

major may require additional adjustments in the next few years. Both majors now include the option of taking

research-intensive courses either in addition to, or in lieu of, senior thesis. The criminology major has grown to

269 students across all campuses and is ranked number two in the state for criminology bachelor’s degree

programs by College Factual. Furthermore, at the administration’s request, we added an online major in

criminology and criminal justice, beginning in 2017, which is now also being taught at the Pt. Mugu and Kern

County campuses. This major has been successful at attracting new students to the University of La Verne and

already had 35 majors in only its second year.

7

b. Challenges

The program continues to experience challenges related to limited resources and a lack of funding for a much-

needed additional tenure-track faculty line. Of our eight recommendations from the 2014 program review, five

were not met. We had recommended an additional tenure-track faculty member, preferably one with experience

in criminology and qualitative methods. Although Dr. Raul Perez was hired in 2019 he was hired to replace Dr.

Hector Delgado who retired in 2019. At the time of Dr. Perez’s hiring, the program had the chance to take

advantage of an opportunity to increase faculty diversity and hire a second faculty member. However,

disagreements over the qualifications of other candidates led the program to forego this opportunity.

Additionally, in Spring 2019 there was an opportunity to search for a criminology faculty member using the line

that resulted from Dr. Kim Martin’s passing. However, the interim chair at the time and the Interim Dean were

concerned that the pool of candidates might be weak. Therefore, the search did not proceed and was postponed

to Fall 2019. In Fall 2019 the program was informed that the search would not be able to proceed because of a

lack of funding, after the search had already been approved. Therefore, even as the number of majors in the

program continues to grow (discussed further in following sections), the size of the full-time tenured/tenure-

track faculty remains the same as in 2014, and with the de-cross-listing of research core courses from

anthropology, our program has had to increase our reliance on adjunct faculty members. Furthermore, Dr.

Kwon is now an Assistant Dean and teaches only one or two courses a year in the program, although he is

considered by administration to be a full-time faculty member in the program. Thus, we are stretched

increasingly thin. When leaves arrive, whether expected or unexpected, the program does not have the capacity

to absorb the classes. For example, Dr. Goodwin has just informed the program that he will need to take a leave

for the remainder of Spring 2020. He was scheduled to teach four classes that will now need to be assigned to

other faculty members. However, many of the full-time faculty members are already teaching one or more

overloads, and a majority of the adjunct faculty is already teaching four or more classes for the semester/term.

Thus, it is likely that the program will have to hire additional adjunct faculty members to fill the gap, which is

particularly difficult after the semester has already started.

Second, we recommended a full-time administrative assistant, noting the significant limitations arising from

having a half-time administrative assistant because the other half of the assistant’s time is dedicated to the

psychology department. In the intervening years the program has been unable to change this status. It is not

anticipated that any changes to this position will be occurring in the near future due to budgetary limitations.

Yet, the need remains.

Third, we recommended a department-specific computer lab be created. This recommendation was not met.

Despite the fact that the program continues to offer more and more classes using computer lab facilities

(especially with research-intensive courses), there is no opportunity on the horizon for obtaining a computer lab

specific to the program or department. This causes challenges for our senior thesis students and students in

research-intensive courses who need access to specialized statistical software. Additionally, the computer lab

where many of our courses are taught (Leo 130) has ongoing technical problems that severely hinder

instruction. For example, during Spring 2019, Dr. Gough’s Health, Wealth, and Poverty class had weekly

problems with the iPad connecting to the projector through Apple TV. This resulted in delays in getting started

each week, many calls to the help desk during class time, and student frustration with technology. Dr. Cabrera’s

courses have experienced problems with the R software and ArcGIS software not being appropriately updated.

Other identified problems over the past year include computers in airplane mode (making it impossible for

students to connect to the web), a failing instructor computer, out-of-date Adobe Acrobat, projector problems,

and student computers restarting unexpectedly. Ultimately, all of these technical failures generate serious

concerns for our faculty and students and diminish the quality of instruction that can be provided. Thus, the lack

of a dedicated (and fully functional) computer lab remains a significant problem.

8

Fourth, we recommended more emphasis on qualitative research methods. This recommendation was not met.

The program has not adopted a qualitative methods course requirement and has generally not promoted to

students the option of taking Ethnographic Field Methods in anthropology.

Fifth, we recommended increased oversight of the ROC programs, specifically improved communication with

the Pt. Mugu program because the main campus program had been made aware of many inconsistencies with

that program. Unfortunately, oversight of ROC’s execution of the criminology major remains limited. We do

oversee the online criminology and criminal justice major, but oversight of this major at the regional campuses

also remains a challenge.

We have also experienced additional challenges with delays in getting permanent numbers attached to new

courses, and with implementing assessment of the learning outcomes. Refining and implementing assessment

plans is a key recommendation moving forward.

c. Changes Since Last Program Review

Since the last program review, the criminology major has been updated once, and the sociology major has been

updated twice. We endeavored to create additional flexibility in both majors while also increasing rigor. The

sociology major now offers four concentrations, while the criminology major includes five breadth courses plus

elective courses across two categories.

Additionally, as noted above, the administration asked us to create an online criminology and criminal justice

major, which we implemented in 2017. This major was initially to be offered two regional campuses have also

adopted online but.

In terms of personnel changes, we added a non-tenure-track assistant professor, Nicholas Athey, who teaches

criminology classes on the main campus along with teaching criminology and criminal justice classes in the

online major. Dr. Hector Delgado retired at the end of 2019, and Dr. Raul Perez joined the faculty in 2019 as a

replacement hire. As noted, the research core was previously cross-listed with anthropology, and three full-time

anthropology faculty, along with some anthropology adjunct faculty, taught in the research core. This is no

longer the case. As also noted, Dr. Roy Kwon is now Assistant Dean for Honors and Interdisciplinary

Programs, which means that he only teaches one to two courses a year for the program, in comparison to other

faculty members who teach between four and eight courses per year.

IV. Program Capacity and Description

a. Faculty

The sociology/criminology program has six tenured/tenure-track full-time faculty members, one non-tenure-

track assistant professor, and one visiting professor, along with a large number of adjunct faculty members. Up

until the 2019-2020 academic year the tenured anthropology faculty members and several adjunct anthropology

faculty also taught in the research core for the program. An overview of the program’s current faculty is

provided in Table 3.

Dr. Joseph Cabrera became program chair in 2019. Dr. Cabrera is an associate professor of sociology and joined

the University of La Verne faculty in 2014. He teaches courses such as White-Collar Crime, Urban Sociology,

Social Networks, and Urban Crime Patterns.

Dr. Sharon Davis is a professor of sociology. Dr. Davis joined the University of La Verne faculty in 1981. She

teaches courses such as Sociology of Deviance, Introduction to Criminology, Internship, and Senior Thesis.

9

Dr. Karen Donahue is a professor of sociology. Dr. Donahue joined the University of La Verne faculty in 2003.

She teaches courses such as Introduction to Criminology and Law and Society.

Dr. Margaret Gough Courtney is an assistant professor of sociology and joined the University of La Verne

faculty in 2014. She teaches courses such as Health, Wealth, and Poverty, Birth, Migration, and Aging, Gender

Inequality, and Senior Thesis.

Dr. Roy Kwon is an associate professor of sociology and Assistant Dean for Honors and Interdisciplinary

Programs. Dr. Kwon joined the University of La Verne faculty in 2012. He teaches such courses as Social

Change and Political Economy of Crime.

Dr. Raul Perez is an assistant professor of sociology and joined the University of La Verne faculty in 2019. He

teaches courses such as Race and Ethnicity, Research Methods, and Racism and Film.

Dr. Glenn Goodwin is a visiting professor of sociology and joined the University of La Verne faculty in 2000.

He teaches courses such as Sociological Theory, Introduction to Sociology, and Senior Thesis.

Dr. Nick Athey is a non-tenure-track assistant professor of sociology. He joined the University of La Verne

faculty in 2017. He teaches courses such as Introduction to Criminology, Research Methods, Drugs and Society,

and Social Networks.

10

Table 3. Full-time and part-time sociology and criminology faculty Full Time

Title Degree Started at ULV Area(s) of Specialization

Dr. Nick Athey Assistant Professor

(NTT)

Ph.D., Criminology,

2018

2017 Illicit networks and

organized crime, drugs and

society, drug markets and

policies

Dr. Joseph Cabrera Associate Professor

and Chair

Ph.D., Sociology,

2010

2014 Urban sociology, social

capital, social networks

Dr. Sharon Davis Professor Ph.D., Sociology,

1980

1981 Criminology, deviance,

juvenile delinquency

Dr. Karen Donahue Professor Ph.D., Sociology,

1995

2003 Law and society, intro to

criminology, criminal

justice system

Dr. Glenn Goodwin Visiting Professor Ph.D., Sociology,

1972

2000 Sociological theory,

capstone courses

Dr. Margaret Gough

Courtney

Assistant Professor Ph.D., Sociology,

2012

2014 Gender, family, health

disparities, demography

Dr. Roy Kwon Associate Professor

and Assistant Dean

Ph.D., Sociology,

2011

2012 Political economy,

economic sociology,

inequality

Dr. Raul Perez Assistant Professor Ph.D., Sociology,

2015

2019 Race and ethnicity, racism

and anti-racism, class

inequality

Part Time

Julie Abi-Ghanem Ph.D. Social change, social

problems

Charlotte Bradstreet Ph.D., 2015 2020 Reentry, rehabilitation,

juvenile justice

Kevin Curwin M.A. Introduction to statistics

Gyasmine George-

Williams

Ph.D. Higher education, Black

athlete activism, faculty

diversity

Stacey Haug Ph.D. Corrections, deviance,

juvenile delinquency

Danny Kennan MPA, 1980 Juvenile delinquency,

Native American studies,

social justice

Marcellino Morales EDD, MA

(Sociology)

Sarah Murray MA, 2016 (ABD

since 2018)

2017 Research methods,

criminology, gender

studies

Christine Rodriguez JD 2013 Race and ethnic relations,

sex and gender, criminal

justice

Daniel Ross JD, 2005 2010 Criminal justice,

constitutional law,

sexually violent predator

and mentally disordered

offender prosecution

11

Our adjunct faculty are a very experienced group of faculty, and several have significant professional

experience outside of academia. For example, Dan Ross is a district attorney, and Dan Kennan is retired from a

long career working with juvenile delinquents.

b. Student Profile

The demographic composition of our student population is shown in Table 4. About two thirds of our majors

are female, an increase from 2014-2015, and 70% of our students are Hispanic or Latino in the most recent

years; the proportion of students identifying as white has dropped over the period. Approximately 60% of the

program’s students identify as first generation, meaning they are the first in their families to attend college. Of

students who applied for financial aid, between 34% and 45% are Pell grant recipients.

Table 4. Demographics of sociology and criminology program students

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Gender

Male 41% 37% 34% 32% 35%

Female 59% 63% 66% 68% 65%

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino 65% 62% 64% 70% 70%

Black/African American 3% 6% 6% 5% 4%

White 21% 19% 18% 16% 15%

Asian/Pacific Islander 5% 6% 5% 4% 4%

Multiracial or

International

4% 5% 5% 4% 4%

Unknown 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Percent first generation

students

57% 59% 62% 59% 58%

Percent of students

receiving Pell grants

40% 37% 34% 38% 45%

Total number of students1 347 347 321 342 349

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Gender and race/ethnicity data not available for all

students. 1Indicates students who applied for financial aid.

The numbers of majors since 2014 are shown in Table 5. Although there has been a bit of fluctuation, the total

number of majors in the program has increased over time, with the largest gains coming in criminology. The

number of non-traditional students entering sociology appears to have declined since 2014, while the number

entering criminology increased through 2017. Enrollments for the criminology and criminal justice major

expanded quickly, going from only five in 2017 to 35 in 2018.

12

Table. 5. Number of majors (Main Campus and ROC)

Fall 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sociology

Total majors 98 100 98 96 92

New majors-entering students1 7 9 9 10 9

New majors-transfer students1 4 5 6 5 7

New majors-non-traditional students1 13 3 4 3 4

Criminology

Total majors 260 259 237 249 269

New majors-entering students1 29 45 36 45 52

New majors-transfer students1 13 5 11 10 14

New majors-non-traditional students1 6 10 14 15 7

Criminology and Criminal Justice

Total majors - - - 5 35

Total majors across programs 358 359 335 350 397 1Main campus only

c. Degrees Conferred

A summary of degrees conferred is shown in Table 6. In 2016 and 2017 there was a decline in the number of

degrees awarded, though awarded degrees jumped quite dramatically again in 2018. Perhaps interestingly,

across the entire period the number of sociology degrees awarded has been going up, but this is not the case for

criminology.

Table 6. Degrees awarded

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Sociology 20 24 26 29 32

Criminology 55 57 36 35 78

Criminology and Criminal Justice 1

Total degrees across programs 75 81 62 64 111

We looked also at retention rates and 4-, 5-, and 6-year graduation rates. This information is presented in Table

7. We note that retention numbers after the first year are no higher than 83 percent, although once students are

retained after the second year they tend to graduate, at least in the sociology major. With the 2012 entering

class, 64 percent of sociology majors and 78 percent of criminology majors were retained after the first year.

The majority of those students not retained ultimately went on to graduate with a different major. For sociology,

retention of the 2013 and 2014 classes was higher as were graduation rates. For criminology, the 2013 entering

class was not well retained, though all of those remaining after three years did graduate within four years. Five-

year graduation rates are low for the 2014 entering class of criminology majors. For criminology majors it is

more likely to graduate in another major than it is for sociology majors. These results suggest a potential need

for additional guidance about choosing a major. In addition, the program needs to examine ways of improving

retention after the first year in particular. Finally, the program will need to examine whether there are measures

that can be taken to improve graduation rates.

13

Table 7. Retention and 4-, 5-, and 6-year graduation rates, 2012-2014 entering classes (main campus, first-time,

first-year traditional undergraduates)

Retained

After 1 Yr

Retained

After 2 Yrs

Retained

After 3 Yrs

Graduated

in 4 Years

Graduated

in 5 Years

Graduated

in 6 Years

Graduated

Other

Major

Sociology

2012 64% 55% 55% 45% 55% 55% 18%

2013 83% 67% 67% 17% 67% 67% 17%

2014 71% 71% 71% 57% 57% -- 14%

Criminology

2012 78% 74% 74% 61% 65% 65% 13%

2013 40% 30% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

2014 79% 69% 59% 38% 48% -- 24%

d. Enrollment History

Enrollment histories are shown in Table 8 for the main campus. Over time the number of SOC sections of

courses has increased; the number of cross-listed sections dipped in 2016-2018 but rose again for 2018-2019.

Total enrollments in SOC courses have been increasing over time, rising above 1,000 in 2018-2019. Average

course sizes in non-cross-listed courses range from 20.9 to 22.8. Across the period we have had 5-6 tenure-track

FTE faculty, 1-2 non-tenure-track FTE faculty, and 6-9 adjunct FTE faculty. The number of FTEs taught by

tenure-track faculty has fluctuated somewhat over the period but hovers around 200, while the number of FTEs

taught by non-tenure-track faculty and adjunct faculty has increased over time. Official student faculty ratios

remain fairly high; this issue will be discussed further below.

14

Table 8. Enrollment history (Main campus)

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Total SOC Sections/Courses 39 38 41 45 52

Total Enrollment 883 850 933 968 1089

Avg. # Students/Course (SOC only) 22.6 22.4 22.8 21.5 20.9

Total Cross-listed Courses 53 50 42 46 54

Total Enrollment 845 814 653 779 894

Avg. # Students/Course 15.9 16.3 15.6 16.9 16.6

Instructional FTE Faculty

Tenure-track FTE Faculty 5.0 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.8

Non-tenure-track FTE Faculty 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 2.2

Adjunct FTE Faculty 7.2 6.8 6.0 5.8 8.7

Total Instructional FTE Faculty 13.2 14.3 13.7 12.2 16.7

Tenure-Track Teaching

% of Tenure-track Instructional FTEF 38.0% 44.2% 46.3% 43.8% 35.0%

FTEs Taught by Tenure-track 205.5 194.3 204.0 177.0 189.5

% of FTEs Generated by Tenure-track 100.0% 93.9% 29.2% 63.2% 34.6%

Non-Tenure-Track Teaching

% of Non-tenure-track Instructional

FTEF

7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FTEs Taught by Non-tenure-track 38.0 46.7 51.7 53.0 78.7

% of FTEs Generated by Non-tenure-

track

8.5% 10.7% 11.6% 12.4% 14.3%

Adjunct Teaching

% of Adjunct Instructional FTEF 54.4% 47.7% 43.9% 47.9% 52.0%

FTEs Taught by Adjunct 201.5 193.6 188.5 199.0 280.0

% of FTEs Generated by Adjunct 45.3% 44.5% 42.4% 46.4% 51.1%

Student Faculty Ratios

Tenure-track 41.1 30.7 32.2 33.2 32.5

Non-tenure-track/Non-tenured 38.0 40.0 38.7 53.0 36.3

Adjunct 138.0 138.0 138.0 34.1 32.3

Overall SFR 33.8 30.3 32.5 35.3 32.9

Compared to other large programs on the main campus we have the highest major-faculty ratios, even when

including the two full-time non-tenure-track faculty members in the ratio and our faculty member who holds a

position as Assistant Dean. These comparisons are shown in Table 9.

15

Table 9. Comparison to other large programs on campus

Program 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Full-time

Faculty

(2018)

Major to

Faculty

Ratio

(2018)

Sociology/Criminology 301 293 284 311 318 8* 39.75

Psychology 444 427 403 406 424 11 38.55

Kinesiology 187 273 306 319 318 9 35.33

Biology 283 299 298 284 315 13 24.23

*Six tenured/tenure track and two non-tenure track

The program contributes a large number of courses to the general education program. Of the approximately 40

courses currently listed in the catalog for sociology (some courses cross-listed), 22 courses fulfill the LVSS

(social science) GE category, one course fulfills the LVCS (community engagement) GE category, and one

course fulfills the LVQR (quantitative reasoning) GE category. Historically students from across the college

have used Soc 305 to fulfill the LVQR GE requirement, and students from across the university take courses for

the LVSS requirement. Typically only sociology and criminology majors take Soc 497 for the LVCS GE

requirement. The program has also begun to contribute courses to the honors program by offering cross-listed

seats.

e. Program Maps

The program has four-year and two-year plans for completion of the three majors within the program. These

plans are provided below. Students can complete each major easily within four years, and many of our students

finish a semester early because they take courses in the January term.

Four-Year Maps

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & CRIMINOLOGY

4-Year Plan for Sociology Major YEAR 1 WRT 110 SOC 250 – Intro to Sociology FLEX (GE) GE

4 4 4 4

WRT 111 GE GE GE

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

YEAR 2 Breadth Concentration GE GE

4 4 4 4

Elective Concentration GE GE

4 4 4 4

Fall Jan Spring

16

16

16

Total: Total: Total:

YEAR 3 SOC 305 – Quantitative Analysis Concentration GE LANG*

4 4 4 4

SOC 390 – Research Methods Elective Elective LANG*

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

YEAR 4 SOC 400 – Sociological Theory SOC 497 – Internship Capstone GE

4 4 4 4

Capstone Concentration GE GE

4 4 4 4

Total: 16 Total: Total: 16

* Language requirement if necessary (it is possible to test out of 1st or both semesters).

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & CRIMINOLOGY

4-Year Plan for Criminology Major YEAR 1 WRT 110 – College Writing SOC 250 – Intro to Sociology FLEX (GE) GE

4 4 4 4

WRT 111 – College Wr/Research GE GE GE

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

Fall Jan Spring

17

YEAR 2 SOC 322 – Intro to Criminology Area 1 GE GE

4 4 4 4

16

SOC 321 – Juvenile Delinquency Area 2 GE GE

4 4 4 4

16 Total: Total: Total:

YEAR 3 SOC 305 – Quantitative Analysis SOC 326 – Criminal Justice System Area 1 LANG*

4 4 4 4

SOC 390 – Research Methods SOC 345 – White Collar Crime GE LANG*

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

YEAR 4 Capstone SOC 497 – Internship SOC 350 – Law and Society GE

4 4 4 4

Capstone Area 2 GE GE

4 4 4 4

Total: 16 Total: Total: 16

* Language requirement if necessary (it is possible to test out of 1st or both semesters).

18

Two-Year Maps

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & CRIMINOLOGY

2-Year Plan for Sociology Major YEAR 1 GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

YEAR 2 GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

16

GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

16

Total: Total: Total:

YEAR 3 SOC 305 – Quantitative Analysis Breadth Concentration LANG*

4 4 4 4

SOC 250 – Intro to Sociology†

4

SOC 390 – Research Methods Elective Concentration LANG*

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: 4 Total: 16

YEAR 4 Capstone SOC 400 – Sociological Theory SOC 497 – Internship Elective

4 4 4 4

Capstone Elective Concentration Concentration

4 4 4 4

Total: 16 Total: Total: 1

Fall Jan Spring

19

6

* Language requirement if necessary (it is possible to test out of 1st or both semesters). † If necessary

2-Year Plan for Criminology Major YEAR 1 GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: Total: 16

YEAR 2 GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

16

GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers GE Transfers

4 4 4 4

16

Total: Total: Total:

YEAR 3 SOC 305 – Quantitative Analysis SOC 322 – Intro to Criminology Area 1 LANG*

4 4 4 4

SOC 250 – Intro to Sociology†

4

SOC 390 – Research Methods SOC 321 – Juvenile Delinquency SOC 326 – Criminal Justice Systm LANG*

4 4 4 4

Total: 16

Total: 4 Total: 16

YEAR 4 Capstone SOC 497 – Internship SOC 345 – White Collar Crime Area 2

4 4 4 4

Capstone SOC 350 – Law and Society Area 1 Area 2

4 4 4 4

Fall Jan Spring

20

Total: 16 Total: Total: 16

* Language requirement if necessary (it is possible to test out of 1st or both semesters). † If necessary

Criminology and Criminal Justice Major, Course Rotation PREREQUISITES (Standard Academic Year, starting Summer 2020)

SUPPORTIVE REQUIREMENTS (Required) Course

# Course Title Prerequisites/Notes Fall Winter Spring

SOC 250 Introduction to Sociology (LVSS)

X X

CORE REQUIREMENTS (All courses are required) Course

# Course Title Prerequisites/Notes Fall Winter Spring

SOC 303 Quantitative Analysis MATH 102 X

SOC 390 Research Methods X

SOC 497 Internship (independent study)

X X X

SOC 498 Senior Capstone Project SOC 303 & SOC 390 X

BREADTH REQUIREMENTS (All courses are required) Course

# Course Title Prerequisites/Notes Fall Winter Spring

SOC 321 Juvenile Delinquency LVWB X

SOC 322 Introduction to Criminology SOC 250 & LVWB X

SOC 326 Criminal Justice Systems LVWB X

Course # Course Title Prerequisites/ Notes

Summer Fall Winter Spring

MATH 102 Intermediate Algebra

X

SOC 250 Introduction to Sociology

X X

WRT 110 College Writing A X X X X

WRT 111 College Writing B WRT 110 X X X X

21

SOC 345 White Collar Crime (LVSS) X

SOC 350 Law and Society (LVSS) LVWB X

AREA 1: CRIMINOLOGICAL (Choose 2) Course

# Course Title Prerequisites/Notes Summer Fall Winter Spring

SOC 262

Forensic Investigations

(even years)

SOC 320

Sociology of Deviance (LVSS)

PSY 101 or PSY250 or SOC 250 & LVWB

(odd years)

SOC 329

Correctional Systems LVWB X

SOC 375

Drugs and Society SOC250 & LVWB X

AREA 2: SOCIOLOGICAL (Choose 2) Course

# Course Title Prerequisites/Notes Summer Fall Winter Spring

SOC 315

Race and Ethnicity (LVSS)

X

SOC 330

Social Class & Inequality (LVSS)

SOC 250 & LVWB X

SOC 341

Urban Sociology (odd years)

SOC 348

Social Networks (even years)

f. Curriculum Maps

The curriculum map and how the courses offered map to the program learning outcomes is shown in the

following table. All courses meet the learning outcomes related to critical evaluation of information and oral

and written communication. Eleven courses also meet the learning outcomes related to the ability to formulate

and comprehend research, and the ability to collect and interpret empirical data, while 10 courses also meet the

learning outcome for application of skills outside of the classroom.

22

Table 10. Curriculum Map: Sociology and Criminology Courses and Coverage of Department-Specific Learning Outcomes

Ability to Formulate

and Comprehend

Research

Collect and

Interpret

Empirical Data

Critical

Evaluation of

Information

Oral and Written

Communication

Application of Skills

Outside Classroom

Soc 210 – Sociology of the

Family x x Soc 250 – Introduction to

Sociology x x Soc 270 – Social Problems x x Soc 305 – Quantitative Analysis x x x x x

Soc 310 – Advanced Quantitative

Analysis x x x x x

Soc 314 – Sexuality and Gender

Issues x x Soc 315 – Race and Ethnicity x x Soc 317 – Health, Wealth, and

Poverty x x x x x

Soc 320 – Sociology of Deviance x x Soc 321 – Juvenile Delinquency x x Soc 322 – Introduction to

Criminology x x Soc 326 – Criminal Justice

System x x Soc 329 – Correctional Systems x x Soc 330 – Social Class and

Inequality x x Soc 331 – Gender Inequality x x x x Soc 335 – Black Experience x x Soc 336 – Latino Experience x x Soc 337 – Asian-American

Experience x x Soc 338 – Native-American

Experience x x Soc 341 – Urban Sociology x x Soc 342 – Urban Crime Patterns x x x x x

Soc 345 – White-Collar Crime x x Soc 348 – Social Networks x x x x x

Soc 350 – Law and Society x x x

Soc 370 – Social Change x x Soc 371 – Birth, Migration, and

Aging x x x x x

Soc 375 – Drugs and Society x x

Soc 380 – Political Economy of

Crime x x x x x

Soc 390 – Research Methods x x x x x

Soc 400 – Sociological Theory x x Soc 497 – Internship x x x

Soc 499/499A and B – Senior

Thesis x x x x x

g. Advising

Until Fall 2019, faculty members in the program were the advisors for students. Fall 2019 marks the start of our

professional advisor Karen Stamp, who we share with other programs on campus. Karen works primarily with

first- and second-year students. Faculty members continue to advise third- and fourth-year students. Advising

loads are typically high; most faculty members have between 40 and 60 advisees.

h. Co-curricular Integration, Activities, Learning Support

Many program faculty are also engaged in other integrative activities on campus, such as teaching FLEX

and honors courses. The faculty has also integrated LVE 400 into the capstone experiences, including senior

23

thesis. Students in these courses write reflection essays that address the information to be collected in LVE 400,

and the essays are graded according to the LVE 400 rubrics. Two faculty members have also taught in the

SoLVE (LVE 200) program. Moving forward, the faculty would like to incorporate LVE 200 into the existing

curriculum and will be seeking an opportunity to do so once approval procedures are in place. Other faculty

members have taught travel courses that are available to students during January term. In addition, several

faculty have participated in the SOAR summer advising program for new students.

Some faculty members are involved as faculty advisors to clubs. For example, Dr. Cabrera is the faculty

advisor for the Tennis Club, the Sociology Anthropology Club, and the Secularist Student Alliance.

Additionally, Professor Kennan is involved with the Veterans Center, Dr. Davis is serving as a mentor for two

faculty members new to the university, and some faculty members have contributed as first-generation program

mentors.

Sociology and criminology majors have access to a number of learning supports on campus, including

the Academic Success Center that offers tutoring in writing, statistics, and research methods, and the library.

The library offers workshops along with one-on-one sessions with librarians, which are particularly useful for

thesis students. Faculty also work with the Office of Disability Services and the Counseling and Psychological

Services program to ensure student success.

i. Facilities, Labs, Computers, Library, Other Resources

Students in the program have a number of resources available to them, but are also in need of others. As

the majors are research intensive, and students are expected to learn statistics as well as complete their own

data-driven research project in senior thesis or a research-intensive capstone, it is important that students have

the resources they need to complete these research-intensive tasks.

The library is a valuable resource that students often take advantage of. They use this resource for the

computers and the availability of software such as SPSS for conducting data analysis. They also use the online

library databases to access scientific articles for completing senior thesis literature reviews or other coursework.

Additionally, library staff work with students to teach them how to better understand how to access these

databases, and some staff come into the classroom to present students with information regarding resources

available to them at the library. The ULV library has been and is expected to remain a valuable resource for our

students.

Our students have access to multiple types of analytical software on campus computers or via the Citrix

server, including SPSS, R Studio, Stata, and ArcGIS. However, the program does not have a dedicated

computer lab. Despite the fact that the program continues to offer more and more classes using computer lab

facilities (especially with research-intensive courses), there is no opportunity on the horizon for obtaining a

computer lab specific to the program or department. This causes challenges for our senior thesis students and

students in research-intensive courses who need access to specialized software. Additionally, the computer lab

where many of our courses are taught (Leo 130) has ongoing technical problems that severely hinder

instruction. For example, during Spring 2019, Dr. Gough’s Health, Wealth, and Poverty class had weekly

problems with the iPad connecting to the projector through Apple TV. This resulted in delays in getting started

each week, many calls to the help desk during class time, and student frustration with the state of technology at

the University of La Verne. Dr. Cabrera’s statistics class has experienced problems with the R software not

being appropriately updated. Other identified problems over the past year include computers in airplane mode

(making it impossible for students to connect to the web), a failing instructor computer, out-of-date Adobe

Acrobat, projector problems, and student computers restarting unexpectedly. Ultimately, all of these technical

failures generate serious concerns for our faculty and students and diminish the quality of instruction that can be

provided. Thus, the lack of a dedicated computer lab remains a significant problem, which was identified in the

last program review but was not able to be addressed.

24

j. Curriculum Comparisons

We compared our program to several other programs, separately by major. Results are summarized in Tables

11-12 and 14-15. Tables 13 and 16 provide a summary of some of the interesting and unique course offerings in

comparison programs.

i. Sociology

Focusing first on sociology, we compared ourselves to four comparable programs (CSUSB, CSUF, CSULB,

Chapman) and six aspirational programs (UCI, USD, Occidental, Pitzer, LMU, and Gonzaga). All comparison

programs except one (Pitzer College) have a larger full-time faculty than our program. Whereas the University

of La Verne offers a BS degree, each of these schools offers a BA degree. At 60 units our major is the second

largest of the comparison majors, with only CSU San Bernardino requiring a comparable number of units.

Comparing the course offerings, we offer 44 courses, which is comparable to many of the comparison

programs.

Table 11. Comparison with other sociology programs: degrees, faculty, number of units/courses, number of

courses offered in the catalog

Institution Degree # Full-time Faculty # of Units # Courses in Catalog

University of La Verne BS 8* 60 44

CSU-San Bernardino BA 17 62 54

CSU-Fullerton BA 16 36 48

CSU-Long Beach BA 21 41 50

Chapman University BA 16 48 59

UC Irvine BA 33 48 68

University of San Diego BA 10 39 41

Occidental College BA 10* 44 45

Pitzer College BA 5 10 courses 40

Loyola Marymount University BA 12 40 54

Gonzaga University BA 11 (Soc/Crim) 33 58

*Includes NTT faculty

Focusing on the content of the major, we offer four possible concentrations: general, social justice, applied

social statistics, and crime, law, and society. CSU Fullerton has the same number of concentrations (general,

social inequalities, sociology of deviance and crime, and health and social welfare), and Chapman offers two

concentrations (general and social work). However, the other two comparable programs have only a single

general concentration. None of the aspirational programs, except for University of San Diego, offer

concentrations in the sociology major; USD requires students to choose between Social Justice and Law, Crime,

Justice. Nearly all programs, including ours, require statistics and research methods, and all programs require

theory. Of the comparison programs, only our program has internship as a requirement, although two other

schools offer it as an option. The majority of programs have either a senior thesis or capstone experience

requirement. Half of programs require qualitative methods instruction, and this is also true of aspirational

programs. Our sociology major requires seven electives, which is fairly comparable to other programs.

In terms of unique attributes, several of the comparison programs have unique attributes. Among our

comparable institutions, the following attributes were noted: 1) CSU Fullerton has an upper division writing

requirement; 2) CSULB requires three methods courses, two theory courses, a global perspectives course, and

prescribes the sequencing of several courses; 3) CSU San Bernardino requires two semesters of research

methods and prescribes the sequencing of several courses; and 4) Chapman requires field research and survey

research. Aspirational institutions tend to offer more flexibility, and their unique attributes reflect this. For

25

example, Pitzer offers options for the theory requirement, and Occidental offers options for both theory and

methods.

Table 12. Comparison with other local programs: key elements of the sociology major

Institution #

Conc.

Stats Res.

Meth.

Theory Intern. Sr.

thesis

Foreign

language

# Elect. Qual.

Meth.

University of La Verne 4 X X X X X/C X 7

CSU-San Bernardino 1 X X C 9 X

CSU-Fullerton 4 X X X O 8

CSU-Long Beach 1 X X X O 4 O

Chapman University 2 X X X X X 9 X

UC Irvine 1 X X X O X 7

University of San Diego 2 X X O X 6 X

Occidental College 1 X X X X 6

Pitzer College 1 X X X/C 5 X

Loyola Marymount

University

1 X X C 5 X

Gonzaga University 1 X X X X/C X 7

X=required

C=capstone

O=optional

For sociology (Table 13), interesting course offerings at comparison programs include Writing for Sociology

Students, Poverty and Public Policy, Social Change Through Community Engagement, Gender and Race

Inequality in the Workplace, Sociology of Food, and Sociology of U.S. Immigration.

Table 13. Summary of Unique Course Offerings in Sociology Comparison Programs

CSU Fullerton Writing for Sociology Students

Sociology of the Welfare State

CSU Long Beach Poverty and Public Policy

Aging and Society

Chapman University Global Family Systems

Social Change Through Community Engagement

UC Irvine Gender and Race Inequality in the Workplace

Ethnic and Immigrant America

Money, Work, and Social Life

University of San Diego Work and Labor

Sexuality and Borders

Occidental College Masculinities

Sociology of Food

Sociological Field Methods

Sociology of Mental Illness

Pitzer College Food, Culture, Power

Restructuring Communities

Loyola Marymount University Human Trafficking

The Life Course

Sociology of U.S. Immigration

Sociology of Popular Culture

26

ii. Criminology

For criminology, most local comparison programs are either criminal justice programs or criminology and

criminal justice, with the exception of UC Irvine (criminology, law, and society). As such, we also compared

our criminology major to other criminology majors across the country. Five programs are roughly comparable

to ours (CSUSB, CSUF, CSULB, DePaul, University of Utah) and five are aspirational (UCI, PSU, Gonzaga,

UIowa, and UPenn). There is a mix of BA and BS offerings across programs. Generally, the BS offerings at

other institutions require courses in advanced statistics, which distinguish them from the BA programs also

being offered. Our faculty size is on the smaller end, and our number of required units is roughly in the middle

of the range, as is our number of course offerings. Three comparison programs are joint sociology/criminology

programs: University of Utah, Gonzaga University, and University of Iowa.

Table 14. Comparison with other criminology (and criminal justice) programs: degrees, faculty, number of

units/courses, number of courses offered in the catalog

Institution Degree # Full-time Faculty # of Units # Courses in Catalog

University of La Verne

Criminology

BS 8* 60 44

ULV Criminology and

Criminal Justice

BS 0 56 19

CSU-San Bernardino+ BA 14 68-105 46

CSU-Fullerton+ BA 14 39 35+

CSU-Long Beach# BS 15 66-67 43

UC Irvine BA 37 44 66

Penn State University BA/BS 24 61-63 42

DePaul University BA 2 60 33

University of Utah BA/BS 21** 48-52 77+

Gonzaga University BA 11** 33 33

University of Iowa BA/BS 20** 39/48 32

University of Pennsylvania BA 8 14 courses 10+

*Includes NTT faculty

**Combined sociology/criminology +Criminal justice program #Criminology and criminal justice program

Examining the content of criminology (or criminal justice) majors, we also see many similarities. We offer only

one concentration in each major, which is common across comparison programs, although two of the

aspirational programs (PSU and UPenn) offer 4-5 concentrations. All programs except CSU Fullerton require

statistics, and all programs except University of Pennsylvania require research methods. Most programs also

require theory. Unlike the University of La Verne criminology and criminology and criminal justice majors,

other schools have internship as an option but not a requirement. Additionally, senior thesis or capstone

experiences are required or optional at more than half of the schools examined, but no program requires

qualitative methods instruction, unlike the comparison sociology majors. For electives, we require four; across

comparison programs there is a wide range, from two at the low end (CSU Long Beach) to nine at the high end

(CSU San Bernardino). The aspirational programs require 5-7 electives.

In terms of unique attributes for the criminology and criminal justice majors, among comparable institutions,

the following attributes were noted: 1) CSU Fullerton has an upper division writing requirement; 2) CSULB

requires cognate courses and has several options for completing the Integrative Experience; 3) CSU San

Bernardino offers a crime analysis option with their BA in Criminal Justice; and 4) Utah offers a very flexible,

very interdisciplinary program. Aspirational programs vary in their unique attributes. Some of these attributes

27

include: 1) UC Irvine requires a lower-division gateway course and is very flexible, as is UPenn; 2) PSU offers

concentration options in the BS option, which is very interdisciplinary, and requires a computer science course

for both the BA and BS degrees; and 3) UIowa requires students to take a course in sociological theory.

Table 15. Comparison with other local programs: key elements of the criminology major

Institution #

Conc.

Stats Res.

Meth.

Theory Intern. Sr.

thesis

Foreign

language

# Elect. Qual.

Meth.

University of La Verne

Criminology

1 X X X X X/C X 4

ULV Criminology and

Criminal Justice

1 X X X X C X 4

CSU-San Bernardino* 2 X X X O O 9

CSU-Fullerton* 1 X 5

CSU-Long Beach 1 X X X O O 2

UC Irvine 1 X X O O X 6

Penn State University 4 X X X X 6

DePaul University 3 X X X O C X 5

University of Utah 1 X X X+ O X 18 units

Gonzaga University 1 X X X C X 5

University of Iowa 1 X X X O X/C X 6

University of

Pennsylvania

5 X X/C X 7

*Criminal justice program +Ethics and values theory

For criminology (Table 16), interesting course offerings at comparison institutions include Crime and Justice at

the US-Mexico Border, Crime and Public Policy, Mass Incarceration and Social Inequality in America, Classics

in Crime Cinema, Critical Race Theory, Global Criminology, and Crime and Human Development.

28

Table 16. Summary of Unique Course Offerings in Crim* Comparison Programs

CSU San Bernardino Police and Police Systems

Gangs

Justice and the Media

Transnational Organized Crime

CSU Fullerton Crime and Justice at the US-Mexico Border

Applied Policy Research

UC Irvine Crime and Public Policy

Community Context of Crime

Miscarriages of Justice

Law and Inequality

Mental Health and the Justice System

Child Development, the Law, and Social Policy

Hate Crimes

Mass Incarceration and Social Inequality in America

Surveillance and Society

Crime Measurement

Issues in Policing

Classics in Crime Cinema

Critical Race Theory

Race and Incarceration

Penn State University Sexual and Domestic Violence

Advanced Criminological Theory

Women and the Criminal Justice System

University of Iowa Global Criminology

University of Pennsylvania Criminal Justice Data and Analytics

Crime and Human Development

k. Locations and Sites Where Program Is Offered

The sociology major is currently offered on the Main Campus and through CAPA. The criminology major is

currently offered on the Main Campus, through CAPA, at the Pt. Mugu campus, and at the Kern County

Campus. The criminology and criminal justice major is offered through ULV Online, Pt. Mugu campus, and

Kern County campus. Enrollment history data suggests that there are several CAPA, Pt. Mugu, and Kern

County students opting for the online criminology and criminal justice program rather than the criminology

major.

l. Financial Resources, Administrative Cost Effectiveness

Our department’s budget has been essentially identical for the past five years. We are budgeted for $1,500 in

office supplies, $2,500 in printing and duplication, $150 in postage and shipping, $200 in dues, memberships,

and subscriptions, $500 in contracted food costs, and $9,000 in faculty development grants. There is no money

budgeted for teaching supplies or other types of materials and supplies. There is no money budgeted for

computer hardware or computer software maintenance licenses. The latter is a particular issue since faculty

members in the department use specialized software in some of their classes, including ArcGIS and Stata. The

department runs on a shoestring budget, which means there is very little room for investing in innovative

pedagogies that might require the purchase of supplies or software.

29

V. Assessment Procedures

a. Senior Exit Survey Results

We collect senior exit surveys from our students to learn about their experience. For unknown reasons, the data

are incomplete. However, we analyzed 39 surveys of sociology and criminology majors graduating between

2016 and 2019. Fifty-nine percent of respondents were criminology majors, and 41% were sociology majors.

Thus, sociology majors were overrepresented in the data. Approximately 20% of respondents were students in

the CAPA program, and just over two-thirds of respondents were female. About one-third of the respondents

had a minor in addition to their major. The data indicate that approximately 60% of respondents were

Latino/Hispanic with another 20% identifying as white. Seventy two percent of respondents were first-

generation students, which is higher than the percentage in the program overall, and about half had decided on

their major prior to entering college, although, perhaps surprisingly, 18% of respondents had not decided until

at least their junior year of college. Data collection instruments changed over time, so information about

parental education levels is available only for half of the sample. Of that half, for father’s education, 75% of

respondents’ fathers had a high school degree or less education, and 55% of their mothers also held this

education level, with another 25% of mothers having some college. Thus, our students come from families that

are relatively disadvantaged in terms of educational background. Nearly two thirds of respondents stated that

they had plans to go to graduate school, and approximately 20% had plans to attend law school. Thus, fewer

than 20% of respondents had no plans to eventually continue with graduate education.

Students were asked whether they thought certain topics were adequately covered in the major, how satisfied

they were with various aspects of the major, and what they gained from internship, and senior thesis.

Overwhelmingly, students felt like theoretical issues, contemporary issues, ethical issues, critical thinking, and

research skills were adequately covered in the major, although at 82% agreement, research skills received the

lowest of the scores. These results are heartening, though they suggest a possible need to review and possibly

improve research skills instruction across the program.

In terms of overall satisfaction with the major, on average students are satisfied with variety of classes,

scheduling of classes, faculty availability, quality of teaching, academic advising, and career advising, though

they are not “very satisfied”. Students were most satisfied with quality of teaching and least satisfied with career

advising. These results suggest the program could benefit from integrating additional career advising

opportunities, possibly into the classroom setting. In written comments, students indicated favorable views of

professors, criminology adjuncts, and the topics of the courses offered. However, some students noted that

increased variety in course offerings would be helpful as would additional professors. Several students noted a

lack of career support and advising, and this was true of both traditional undergraduates (TUGS) and CAPA

students.

In terms of the internship requirement, on average students agreed that the opportunity provided benefits. They

agreed most strongly that the opportunity helped them with becoming competent in a culturally diverse setting

and agreed least strongly that the opportunity allowed them to make networking contacts in their professional

field. Some students provided written comments about how their internship sites lacked relevance for what they

want to do as a career. These findings speak to a need to help students find internship opportunities that are

more closely linked to their career goals and professional interests.

For senior thesis, on average students agreed the experience was beneficial. They agreed most strongly that the

senior thesis experience allowed them to improve their writing. Thus, although the program is moving toward a

capstone model and away from a universal senior thesis model, the senior thesis overall appears to allow them

positive educational experiences and the opportunity to improve their writing, use their research skills, integrate

theory and data, use critical thinking skills, and prepare for professional careers or graduate school.

30

Finally, students were asked to provide information on the major strengths and weaknesses of the department.

In terms of major strengths, students noted the availability of faculty as a strength, along with faculty levels of

knowledge and a willingness of faculty to help students. Additionally, they noted that interesting course

offerings, use of discussion, a strong theory class, and new course offerings were a strength. Some students also

mentioned class size, how classes addressed the baccalaureate goals, the use of real-world examples in

coursework, and the integration of field trips as strengths of the program.

Students also identified several perceived weaknesses of the department. First, some students requested more

diversity of professors and curriculum; relatedly, they felt like professors needed to have more up-to-date

knowledge. Second, several students commented about limited course offerings and poor scheduling (e.g.,

classes conflicting with one another and few morning classes being offered). Third, students felt like some

updates to the curriculum could be helpful. They noted that there were inconsistencies in writing style across

courses, that information was often repeated across courses, that more application of knowledge is needed, and

that more interactive and critical thinking activities were necessary. Fourth, several students expressed concerns

about the quality of advising. Fifth, some students discussed a lack of opportunities to do research with faculty

or otherwise work with faculty. Finally, several comments refer to a lack of institutional resources for the

program. For example, one student commented about how the department does not seem to be well represented

and recognized by the university. Additionally, one student indicated that they felt like the highly skilled faculty

were not being supported enough.

b. Capstones

Over the past five-year period the sociology and criminology program has had multiple students win awards or

honorable mentions for their senior thesis from the Dean’s Award for Undergraduate Research. In 2016,

sociology major Alyssa Carroll won the Dean’s Award for Excellence in Research in the social sciences

division for her thesis on gender disparities in obesity among Mexican immigrants to the United States in which

she used nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. In 2017,

another sociology major, Jennifer Prevost, won an honorable mention for her thesis on social support and

trauma using nationally representative data from the Midlife in the United States study, and in 2018 a third

sociology major, Andrea Dukes, received an honorable mention for her thesis on the term “queer” in the

LGBTQ+ community based on her original survey data collection at San Diego Pride.

Looking forward, capstone projects (both theses and research-intensive projects) will be assessed as part of an

assessment of the learning outcomes for the program.

c. Syllabus Review

We conducted a review of roughly 10 percent of syllabi across levels of courses and campuses. The goal was to

determine how closely the syllabi reflected the agreed-upon learning outcomes for each of the courses. The vast

majority of syllabi indicated that the course content and assignments did appear to meet the expected learning

outcomes. However, there was some variation across campuses, and there is a fairly wide range of syllabus

formatting and content. For example, many faculty members do not include a detailed schedule of assignments

and readings on the syllabus, perhaps preferring instead to post the schedule on Blackboard. Several syllabi did

not list course learning objectives, or the learning objectives were very vague. All courses are expected to

include an oral communications component, but some syllabi do not appear to include such a component. Thus,

although overall the syllabi are reflective of the learning outcomes, there is room for additional consistency of

content and formatting, especially across campuses, as the ROC campuses have much less consistency in terms

of syllabus content compared to the main campus.

31

VI. Analysis of Program Review Elements

a. Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Overall, the program has many strengths to note. First, the program is well aligned with the university strategic

vision and the baccalaureate goals. Second, we have refined the learning outcomes and designed an assessment

plan for assessing those learning outcomes. Third, over the past five years we have increased the flexibility and

quality of our majors, and our numbers of majors are either stable or growing. We have also seen increasing

enrollments in our SOC courses over the period. The contents of our majors are fairly comparable to other

institutions if not more innovative. Fourth, we have a strong faculty that is engaged in innovative teaching and

research. Fifth, we have had students recognized for the high quality of their senior theses, and many of our

students have gone on to prestigious graduate programs. Additionally, overall our students report high

satisfaction with the program and an experience of high quality learning.

In addition to our strengths, we also have several areas for improvement. On a small scale, we believe the

program would benefit from an update to the program mission, vision and values, more consistency across

syllabi, and a reassessment of linking internship sites to student career interests. On a larger scale, we continue

to contend that our prior recommendations for a full-time administrative assistant, at least one new tenure-track

faculty member, a computer lab, and greater oversight of ROC programs are imperative.

One key area of improvement is with regard to assessment. Although we have developed an assessment

mechanism for the learning outcomes, the assessment is based primarily on the senior thesis, which many

students will no longer be completing because they will be taking research-intensive capstone courses instead.

Additionally, although the assessment mechanisms were developed, they have not been implemented.

Therefore, assessment is not currently occurring with any regularity.

Second, there is no existing system within the program for collecting and maintaining the information necessary

to complete program reviews. For example, learning outcomes are not regularly assessed on a schedule (see

point above), all instructors have not moved to the online senior exit survey system, although the system has

been in use since 2016, and there is no plan in place for collecting data from other key groups, such as alumni,

internship sites, potential employers, etc.

Third, retention and graduation rate data suggest that there is room for improvement in terms of retention and

graduation. On the one hand, it appears that some students may be realizing they have chosen the wrong major

after their first year at ULV. It may be the case that additional pre-matriculation advising would help these

students to determine the most appropriate path before declaring a major in our program. Additionally, we need

a better understanding of why some of our students leave the program for other reasons so that we may

determine how to address these issues. Based on university retention data, it seems likely that some of these

students are leaving for financial reasons. However, if there are programming concerns or educational quality

issues that we might be able to address within our program, it would be important for us to know that. We will

need to examine options for following up with students who decide to leave the program to learn about their

reasoning.

b. Accomplishment of Goals

As noted previously, we have accomplished many of the goals we set out to accomplish at the last program

review, including increasing the flexibility and quality of our majors and refining our learning outcomes and

developing an initial assessment plan for those learning outcomes. Although work remains, we have had many

notable accomplishments over the past five years.

32

c. Examples of Student and Faculty Accomplishments

Many of our students either attend graduate school or are hired into their career of choice upon graduation from

our program. We have alumni in a variety of graduate programs, including law school, public administration,

social work, criminal justice, legal studies, and public health, at institutions such as San Diego State University,

California Baptist University, USC, UC Irvine, CSU Long Beach, University of Maryland, CSU San

Bernardino, CSU Fullerton, and Georgia State University. Additionally, many of our students are interested in

careers in law enforcement, and several have entered into police academies upon graduation. We have a recent

graduate who is already an assistant district attorney for Kern County and another with a crime analytics job

who is being provided with an opportunity to earn a master’s degree at CSU Fullerton.

Over the past five years faculty have had many accomplishments as well. For example, Roy Kwon and

Margaret Gough received a grant (along with others at the university) from the W. M. Keck Foundation to

expand Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) courses across traditional and non-

traditional STEM fields. In February 2020, Dr. Gough (along with Dr. Godde from anthropology) was notified

of a large R15 award from the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwon was

also named Assistant Dean for Honors and Interdisciplinary Programs. Dr. Kwon, Dr. Cabrera, and Dr. Gough

have published several articles in well-known journals, and Dr. Perez received a book contract from Stanford

University Press. Dr. Davis was elected president-elect of the Pacific Sociological Association and will preside

over the 2021 annual meeting.

VIII. Action Recommendations

We have identified eight action recommendations. We describe them briefly in this section and then address

whether they require resources in the next section.

9. Hire at least one new tenure-track faculty member

a. Rationale: The program is stretched very thin, and the number of majors continues to grow.

Faculty members regularly teach overloads, and adjunct faculty members have been teaching

more classes than desired. Additionally, this has been a need since the last program review.

10. Develop a program vision and values

a. Rationale: The program has a broad mission statement but does not currently have a specific

vision statement or statement of values. In developing the vision and values statements, it may

make sense to also revise the mission statement.

11. Implement the online senior exit survey in class to improve response rate

a. Rationale: Although the senior exit survey has been available on Qualtrics for several years, and

faculty members were asked to have students complete the exit survey online, many faculty

members still ask students to complete the survey on paper. This makes it difficult to analyze the

data, and additionally, the paper surveys seem to regularly be lost. By providing students with

class time to complete the exit survey on Qualtrics, we will better ensure that all seniors

complete the survey and that the survey is completed online so that data can be regularly

analyzed. This will improve assessment practices and the ongoing program review workflow.

12. Implement regular data collection from alumni

a. Rationale: Alumni data is important for the program to understand how it is doing in terms of

student placement after graduation, what aspects of the program do and do not work well, and so

forth. Historically, we have haphazardly collected data from alumni for program reviews, but we

have not had a consistent plan in place for this data collection. Like recommendation 3, this will

improve our ability to assess our program and make changes in real time instead of only

considering changes every five years or so with each new program review.

13. Revise assessment plan to include research-intensive courses and implement assessment protocol to

allow for review of program learning outcomes

33

a. Rationale: The original assessment plan from 2018 required analyzing senior theses. However,

many of our students now complete research-intensive courses instead of senior theses. Thus, the

assessment protocol must be updated to include research-intensive projects as well as theses.

Additionally, although the assessment mechanisms were developed, the assessment protocol was

not implemented. Thus, the protocol needs to be implemented and outcomes tracked for program

improvement purposes. Ongoing data collection is important for assessing learning outcomes,

program improvement, and program reviews.

14. Update course outlines/course objectives

a. Rationale: Although not discussed in detail, many of the course outlines on file are more than 20

years old and would benefit from updating. Furthermore, some courses do not have fully

articulated course outlines or course objectives. Clear course objectives are important for

assessing whether our courses meet the expected learning outcomes for each course.

Additionally, it is important that course outlines include the essential outcomes in courses,

particularly for courses that adjuncts may teach so that they know what we expect. An additional

benefit of revising these outlines is that it will help us to map our outcomes to our assessment

protocols.

15. Improve consistency of syllabi

a. Rationale: Although we want to preserve academic freedom, both the university and WASC

expect syllabi to include certain pieces of information. There is a lack of consistency across

instructors and campuses with regard to what information is included. Additionally, when

instructors do not include course objectives on a syllabus, it is difficult to determine whether the

particular course is meeting the expected learning outcomes.

16. Further analyze retention and graduation rate data to develop intervention strategies

a. Rationale: The retention and graduation rate numbers are lower than desired. Although there is

considerable variability across years, the program would benefit from trying to collect data from

students who are not retained (either because they change majors or because they leave the

university) to determine what sorts of factors are influencing our students’ retention and to try to

address any retention-related issues that are within our scope (whether related to curriculum,

scheduling, etc.).

a. Resource Needs and Non-Resource-Dependent Improvements

We have designed our action items so that all except the first (tenure-track hire) can likely be completed with

existing resources or minimal investment. In terms of resource needs, implementing the action

recommendations will require financial resources for a minimum of one new tenure-track hire. We argue that

this should be straightforward because the department lost a senior faculty member to death last year, which

freed up salary resources, although we understand those salary resources were used for other purposes this year,

despite having been promised a hire.

Analyzing retention and graduation rate data will likely require support from institutional research. We do not

anticipate a need for monetary resources at this time, but we will likely require additional raw data from

institutional research. Additionally, to best analyze the data, we would be interested in learning more about how

enrollment management currently builds their prediction models for enrollment and retention. We will then

need to develop plans that will allow us to reach out to non-retained students to collect information about why

they left the program or the university. Modest budgetary support may be needed for this endeavor, but we

argue that if we can improve retention numbers and graduation rates, we will be improving the fiscal

sustainability of the institution, and thus, in the long run the modest investment would be money well spent.

Relatedly, if we can determine the reasons for students not being retained, and we can develop strategies or

interventions that will reduce these negative factors, this will likely requires some modest resources again (e.g.,

in terms of a course release for someone to oversee these efforts or money to support a research assistant or

34

post-bacc), but the payoff from retaining more students would far outweigh any financial investment provided

by the university or college.

Development of vision and values; implementing the senior exit survey online; implementing alumni data

collection; revising and implementing assessment plans; updating course outlines; and improving consistency of

syllabi are non-resource-dependent improvements that can be achieved either with existing resources, or with

the hiring of student research assistants either via federal work study or by providing course credit. We have a

number of students interested in issues of educational effectiveness who would likely be interested in assisting

with these types of improvements.

b. Timeline for Accomplishing Recommendations

The proposed timeline for accomplishing recommendations is detailed in Table 16 below.

Table 16. Timeline for Accomplishing Recommendations

Recommendation Anticipated Timeline for Achievement

1. New tenure-track hire(s) Fall 2020

2. Program vision and values Fall 2020

3. Online senior exit survey in class Beginning Spring 2020

4. Alumni data collection Beginning 2020

5. Revise and implement assessment plan Beginning Fall 2020

6. Update course outlines/course objectives 2020

7. Improve consistency of syllabi 2020-2021

8. Analyze retention and graduation data and develop

interventions

Beginning 2020-2021

c. Assessment Plan

Our current assessment plan uses senior capstone projects and LVE 400 essays to assess our learning outcomes.

As noted above, this assessment plan will require some revision, and the assessment protocol needs to be

implemented. Once implemented, we aim to assess our learning outcomes on a yearly basis to allow for

continual improvement.

35

Appendix A: Faculty CVs, Accomplishments, Publications, Research Awards, Recognition

36

Appendix B: List of Student Capstone Projects and Faculty Mentors