Page 1 The Criminologist The Criminologist The Official Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology Vol. 38, #5 September/October 2013 Editor’s Note: Welcome to the September/October issue of the Criminologist. It’s chock-full of information aimed at helping each of us get the most out of the November meetings in Atlanta. In the lead article, meeting Program Chairs, Tim Brezina and Susan Sharp, and ASC President Bob Agnew tell us about the meeting’s theme, “Expanding the Core: Neglected Crimes, Groups, Causes, and Policy Approaches,” and give us a heads-up on plenaries and sessions not to be missed. In another article, Jessica Hodge and Meredith Worthen remind us of ways to be “green” at the ASC, and in a Featured Article, the ASC Board members remind us of standards and ethics of participation in the meetings. If all of us read these standards and take them to heart, the meetings will be better for everyone. Have you noticed that the number of “Featured Articles” has increased of late? In this issue of the Criminologist, we are treated to four. In addition to “standards and ethics,” there are extremely informative articles about two new ASC Divisions – the Division of Experimental Criminology and the Division of Developmental and Lifecourse Criminology – and an essay relating “Moral Panic” to current public opinion about criminogenic effects of video games. “Thoughts about Books” is an essay built on Freyd and Birrell’s Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren't Being Fooled, and “View from the Field” is a thoughtprovoking essay about Smart Policing. Plus, once again the editors of the “Criminologist Corners” have provided us with articles packed with information. Please enjoy! Carolyn Rebecca Block, ASC Vice-President ASC IN ATLANTA: EXPANDING THE CORE Bob Agnew, ASC President (Emory University) Timothy Brezina, Program Co-Chair (Georgia State University) Susan Sharp, Program Co-Chair (University of Oklahoma) It will be our pleasure to welcome you to Atlanta (and to the hometown of Bob and Tim) for the ASC meetings this November. However, we must also issue a warning: you will experience much strain while at the meetings. At any given time there likely will be several sessions that you very much want to attend, forcing you to make difficult choices and leading to that type of strain known as “the loss of positive stimuli.” Fortunately, there will be ample opportunity for the receipt of social support and, on Friday evening, you can dance your negative emotions away at the Minority Fellowship Dance – which will feature a performance of the Hot Spots, followed by Ruby Velle and the Soulphonics (see their video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9-JvdNNP-A). The theme for the meeting is Expanding the Core: Neglected Crimes, Groups, Causes, and Policy Approaches. Core or “mainstream” criminology has made major strides in recent decades, providing much insight into the causes and control of interpersonal acts of violence, theft, and drug use/sales. But at the same time, criminologists from a variety of perspectives have argued for an expansion of the core. Most notably, it is said that core criminologists should: (Continued on page 3) IN THIS ISSUE…. Around the ASC................................................. 7-25 2013 ASC Award Winners .............................. 26-28 Featured Articles .............................................. 29-44 Editors’ Corner ................................................ 45-47 Policy Corner .........................................................48 Teaching Tips .................................................. 50-52 Doctoral Student Forum.........................................53 A View From the Field .................................... 54-56 Collaboration Corner........................................ 57-58 Thoughts About Books .................................... 60-61 Position Announcements.................................. 62-66 Criminology Around the World ....................... 67-72 Notes Regarding the Annual Meeting .............. 73-75 Page 2 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 UPCOMING CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS Th e C r im ino lo gis t For a complete listing see www.asc41.com/caw.html 5th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CRIME, MEDIA AND POPULAR CULTURE STUDIES CONFERENCE: A CROSS DISCIPLINARY EXPLORATION, September 23, 24, and 25, 2013, Indiana State University. For further Information, abstract submission and registration go to:http:// www.indstate.edu/ccj/popcultureconference/. Th e Offici a l News let t er of th e Am eri can Soci et y of C ri min ology THE CRIMINOLOGIST (ISSN 0164-0240) is published six times annually – in January, March, May, July, September, and November by the American Society of Criminology, 1314 Kinnear Road, Suite 212, Columbus, OH 43212-1156 and additional entries. Annual subscriptions to non-members: $50.00; foreign subscriptions: $60.00; single copy: $10.00. Postmaster: Please send address changes to: The Criminologist, 1314 Kinnear Road, Suite 212, Columbus, OH 43212-1156. Periodicals postage paid at Toledo, Ohio. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZELAND SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY CONFERENCE (ANZSOC), October 1 - 3, 2013, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Please visit http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/australian-new Editor: Carolyn Rebecca Block -zealand-society-criminology-conference-2013 for more information. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Retired 34th CANADIAN CONGRESS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 21st CEN- Published by the American Society of Criminology, 1314 KinTURY JUSTICE: THE ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC SAFETY near Road, Suite 212, Columbus, OH 43212-1156. Printed by October 2 - 5, 2013, Vancouver, Canada. Please visit http://www.ccja- Lesher Printers. acjp.ca/cong2013/en/cong_2013_call.pdf for more information. Inquiries: Address all correspondence concerning newsletter 11TH INDO PACIFIC ASSOCIATION OF LAW, MEDICINE AND materials and advertising to American Society of Criminology, SCIENCE CONGRESS (INPALMS 2013), October 5-10, 2013. Malaysia. 1314 Kinnear Road, Suite 212, Columbus, OH 43212-1156, (614) 292-9207, aarendt@asc41.com. Please visit http://inpalms.org/ for more information. 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FORENSIC RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY, October 7 - 9, 2013, Las Vegas, Nevada. Please visit http://www.omicsgroup.com/conferences/forensic-technology2013/ for more information. ASC President: ROBERT AGNEW Department of Sociology Emory University 1555 Dickey Drive , Tarbutton Hall Atlanta, GA 30322 Membership: For information concerning ASC membership, WORLD CONGRESS ON PROBATION, October 8 - 10, 2013, London, contact the American Society of Criminology, 1314 Kinnear United Kingdom. Please visit http://www.worldcongressonprobation.org Road, Suite 212, Columbus, OH 43212-1156, (614) 292-9207; FAX (614) 292-6767; asc@asc41.com; http://www.asc41.com for more information. 27th ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN EVALUATION ASSOCIATION, October 16 - 19, 2013 Washington, DC. Theme: Evaluation Practice in the Early 21st Century. Please visit http://www.eval.org/eval2013/default.asp for more information. EURASIAN MULTIDISCIPLINARY FORUM, October 24 - 26, 2013, Tbilisi, Georgia. Please send your papers via email:contact@emforum.eu . Visit the website at http://www.emforum.eu/. HOW TO ACCESS CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY ON-LINE 1. Go to the Wiley InterScience homepage - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com 2. Enter your login and password. Login: Your email address Password: If you are a current ASC member, you will have received this from Wiley; if not or if you have forgotten your password, contact Wiley at: cs-membership@wiley.com; 800-835-6770 3. Click on Journals under the Browse by Product Type heading. 4. Select the journal of interest from the A-Z list. For easy access to Criminology and/or CPP, save them to your profile. From the journal homepage, please click on “save journal to My Profile”. If you require any further assistance, contact Wiley Customer Service at cs-membership@wiley.com; 800-835-6770 Page 3 The Criminologist (Continued from page 1)      Devote more attention to harmful acts beyond those legally defined as crimes, including acts committed by states. Consider additional causes of crime, beyond those social psychological factors that dominate core research, with some arguing for more focus on bio-psychological factors and others on societal characteristics. More fully consider the ways in which gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and others factors relate to crime; including victimization and the nature and experience of those factors that cause crime. Examine crime in non-Western as well as Western societies. More directly involve themselves in efforts to control crime, better communicating their research findings to the public and policy makers, working more closely with practitioners, and studying the implementation of programs and policies. The two plenary sessions at the meetings will highlight the program theme, as well as reflect Atlanta’s reputation as the “cradle of the Civil Rights Movement.” The opening plenary on Wednesday at 11 AM will feature Ambassador Andrew Young, one of the principal lieutenants to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Congressman; Ambassador to the United Nations; Mayor of Atlanta; and now co-chair of Good Works International. The closing plenary on Saturday at 11:30 AM will feature Congressman John Lewis, who as Chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee helped organize many of the key activities of the Civil Rights Movement – including the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge that culminated in the brutal confrontation known as “Bloody Sunday” (and left John Lewis severely injured). Congressman Lewis has served in Congress since 1986, where he has developed a reputation as “the conscience of the U.S. Congress.” And, despite more than 40 arrests and numerous attacks, he has remained a lifelong advocate of nonviolence. He will receive the President’s Justice Award at his presentation. The remarks of Ambassador Young and Congressman Lewis will likely reflect several aspects of the Program Theme, including the need to focus on human rights violations and state crimes, devote more attention to non-Western societies, become more involved in the policy arena, and more fully consider race/ethnicity, gender and other factors in our studies. In addition, there will be ten Presidential Panels, with panelists discussing why it is important for criminologists to expand the core in the ways indicated, highlighting key research/action that has already been done, and discussing needed research/action. Many of the panel presentations will be made available on the ASC website after the meetings. The panels and their organizers/ presenters are: Reconsidering the Definition of Crime: Dawn Rothe, Raymond Michalowski, Ronald Kramer, and David Friedrichs. The Future of Biosocial Criminology: John Wright, David P. Farrington, Kevin M. Beaver, and Adrian Raine. Gender and Crime: Joanne Belknap, Beth Richie, and Juanita Diaz-Cotto. Race, Ethnicity, and Crime: Elijah Anderson, Ruth D. Peterson, and Paul Elam. Situating Crime in Macro-Social and Historical Context: Steve Messner, Charles R. Tittle, Susanne Karstedt, and Randolph Roth. Non-Western Crime and Justice: John Braithwaite, Jan von Dijk, and Mangai Natarajan. Analyzing Crime and the State: John Hagan, Geoff Ward, Nicole Rafter, Christopher Uggen, Suzy McElrath, and Hollie Nyseth Brehm. The Emergence of Green Criminology: Nigel South, Rob White, and Ragnhild Sollund. Key Perspectives in Critical Criminology: Donna Selman, Meda Chesney-Lind, Walter S. DeKeseredy, and Jeff Ferrell. The ASC and Public Policy: Todd Clear, Laurie Robinson, Charles Wellford, Steve Mastrofski, and James Lynch. There will be many other special sessions and events at the meetings, a few of which are highlighted below-- particularly those organized in conjunction with the President, Board, and Program Committee. Pre-conference Methods Workshops (Tuesday 1-5; see the ASC website, Annual Meeting Info.):  Accomplishing and Interpreting Qualitative Interview Research (Jody Miller and Kristin Carbone-Lopez),  Strategies for Dealing with Missing Data (Robert Brame), and  Item Response and Graded Response Models (Gary Sweeten). (Continued on page 4) Page 4 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 3) New Member Welcome and Mentoring Reception (Wednesday at 2), cosponsored by the Student Affairs and Mentoring Committees, where  new members will be welcomed by ASC officers and others,  an orientation to the meetings will be provided,  and there will be ample opportunity for socializing with new and longtime ASC members. Numerous sessions involving key figures in the policy arena, including  National Institute of Justice Director, Greg Ridgeway;  Bureau of Justice Statistics Director, William Sabol; and  a Meet and Greet Session with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, Karol Mason (AAG Mason oversees all Department of Justice agencies dealing with crime research, statistics, and policy). Meet the President and President Elect. Each year the ASC holds a business meeting, as required by law, and almost no one attends. This year we are combining the business meeting with an opportunity to meet with the President and President Elect. Joanne Belknap and I will be there, not to make presentations, but to hear your concerns, take note of your suggestions, and answer your questions. Assuming that attendance is good, we hope that this becomes an annual tradition – increasing the responsiveness and transparency of the ASC. Wednesday evening ASC Awards Ceremony, featuring an address by Cathy Spatz Widom, who is receiving the Edwin H. Sutherland Award for her seminal work on child abuse and neglect and its consequences. Session Honoring the 2013 Sellin-Glueck Award Winner, Clifford Shearing, known for his work on policing and security in South Africa and cross nationally, and featuring Clifford Shearing, Jennifer Wood, Benoit Dupont, and Peter Manning. Freda Adler: A Tribute, featuring presentations by Francis T. Cullen, Pamela Wilcox, Alido V. Merlo, Jay S. Albanese, and, of course, Freda Adler. Session on Expanding the Horizons of Criminology: The Intellectual Contributions of Gilbert Geis, featuring presentations by Sally S. Simpson, John Braithwaite, Henry N. Pontell, Robert F. Meier, Mary Dodge, and Robert Agnew. Session on whether the ASC should develop an Ethics Code (“ASC Ad Hoc Ethics Code Investigation Committee”), featuring Nancy Rodriguez, Barry Feld, Vernetta Young, Marjorie Zatz, Cassia Spohn, and Mark Davis. Session on issues in publishing (“Pressure, Structure, and Ethics: Criminology’s Contemporary Issues in Publishing”), featuring Volkan Topalli, Wayne Osgood, Cassia Spohn, Beth Huebner, and Robert Bursik. Friday 5 PM Presidential Address I will not talk about general strain theory; rather, my address is titled: Social Concern and Crime: Moving beyond the Assumption of Simple Self-Interest. (But my address has implications for strain theory, as suggested by the first sentence in Merton’s classic article, “Social Structure and Anomie.”) There are many other great sessions at the meetings! We urge you to carefully examine the Program (even though it is a source of strain). Local Charity We are very pleased to continue the ASC tradition of designating a local charity for the annual meeting. Volkan Topalli, Chair of the Local Arrangements Committee, will shortly provide information on Visions Unlimited, a community-based group that provides a range of prevention and rehabilitation services in the Atlanta area. (Continued on page 5) Page 5 The Criminologist (Continued from page 4) The Marriott Marquis and Atlanta The meeting will be at the Atlanta Marriot Marquis, a wonderful facility with lots of public space, one of the largest atriums in world, and an adjacent food court. The Marriott was in the midst of an extensive renovation when the ASC last meant there a few years ago, but the renovations are now complete. The Marriott is a short distance from the King Center and the attractions of Centennial Olympic Park (e.g., Georgia Aquarium, the world’s largest; the World of Coca Cola, CNN, Skyview Atlanta - a giant Ferris wheel). There is a new International Terminal at the Atlanta airport, which our many international attendees should appreciate. And the Marriott Marquis is easily reached from the MARTA (rapid rail) station at the airport; take any train from the airport and get off at the Peachtree Center stop – the Marquis is on the other side of the Peachtree Center food court. The Local Arrangements Committee will provide more information on the city. Thanks. A meeting of this scale, with over 900 sessions, cannot take place without the work of many people. We would like to extend special thanks to Chris Eskridge, who as Executive Director of the ASC performs literally thousands of tasks in putting the meeting together; the wonderful staff at the Columbus Office, including the ASC Administrator Susan Case; the members of the Program, Awards, and Local Arrangements Committees; Volkan Topalli at Georgia State University; and Charles Wellford, Todd Clear, and Laurie Robinson, who helped arrange many of the policy activities at the meetings. CRIME & JUSTICE SUMMER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: BROADENING PERSPECTIVES & PARTICIPATION July 7 – 25, 2014, Ohio State University Faculty pursuing tenure and career success in research-intensive institutions, academics transitioning from teaching to research institutions, and faculty members carrying out research in teaching contexts will be interested in this Summer Research Institute. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the institute is designed to promote successful research projects and careers among faculty from underrepresented groups working in areas of crime and criminal justice. During the institute, participants work to complete an ongoing project (either a research paper or grant proposal) in preparation for journal submission or agency funding review. In addition, participants gain information that serves as a tool-kit tailored to successful navigation of the academic setting. To achieve these goals the Summer Research Institute provides participants with: - Resources for completing their research projects; - Senior faculty mentors in their areas of study; - Opportunities to network with junior and senior scholars; - Workshops addressing topics related to publishing, professionalization, and career planning; - Travel expenses to Ohio, housing in Columbus, and living expenses. The institute culminates in a research symposium where participants present their completed research before a national audience. Dr. Ruth D. Peterson directs the Crime and Justice Summer Research Institute, which is held at Ohio State University’s Criminal Justice Research Center (Dr. Dana Haynie, Director) in Columbus, Ohio. Completed applications must be sent electronically by Friday, February 14, 2014. To download the application form, please see our web site (http://cjrc.osu.edu/rdcj-n/summerinstitute). Once completed, submit all requested application materials to kennedy.312@sociology.osu.edu. All applicants must hold regular tenure-track positions in U.S. institutions and demonstrate how their participation broadens participation of underrepresented groups in crime and justice research. Graduate students without tenure track appointments are not eligible for this program. Please direct all inquiries to kennedy.312@sociology.osu.edu. Page 6 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Master of Science Program Distance Learning Master of Science Program Ph.D. Program Main Areas of Specialization: Corrections, Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice, Criminology, Policing For more information, please visit our website at: www.uc.edu/criminaljustice The Faculty Michael L. Benson (University of Illinois) White-Collar Crime; Criminological Theory; Life-Course Criminology Susan Bourke (University of Cincinnati) Corrections; Undergraduate Retention; Teaching Effectiveness Sandra Lee Browning (University of Cincinnati) Race, Class, and Crime; Law and Social Control; Drugs and Crime Aaron J. Chalfin (University of California, Berkeley) Criminal Justice Policy; Economics of Crime; Research Methods Nicholas Corsaro (Michigan State University) Policing, Environmental Criminology, Research Methods Francis T. Cullen (Columbia University) Criminological Theory; Correctional Policy; White-Collar Crime John E. Eck (University of Maryland) Crime Prevention; Problem-Oriented Policing; Crime Pattern Formation Robin S. Engel (University at Albany, SUNY) Policing; Criminal Justice Theory; Criminal Justice Administration Ben Feldmeyer (Pennsylvania State University) Race/Ethnicity, Immigration, and Crime; Demography of Crime; Methods Bonnie S. Fisher (Northwestern University) Victimology/Sexual Victimization; Public Opinion; Methodology/Measurement James Frank (Michigan State University) Policing; Legal Issues in Criminal Justice; Program Evaluation Edward J. Latessa (The Ohio State University) Rehabilitation; Offender/Program Assessment; Community Corrections Sarah M. Manchak (University of California, Irvine) Correctional interventions, Risk Assessment and Reduction, Offenders with Mental Illness Joseph L. Nedelec (Florida State University) Biosocial Criminology; Evolutionary Psychology; Life-Course Criminology Paula Smith (University of New Brunswick) Correctional Interventions; Offender/Program Assessment; Meta-Analysis Christopher J. Sullivan (Rutgers University) Developmental Criminology, Juvenile Prevention Policy, Research Methods Lawrence F. Travis, III (University at Albany, SUNY) Policing; Criminal Justice Policy; Sentencing Patricia Van Voorhis (University at Albany, SUNY; Emeritus) Correctional Rehabilitation and Classification; Psychological Theories of Crime; Women and Crime Pamela Wilcox (Duke University) Criminal Opportunity Theory; Schools, Communities, and Crime, Victimization/Fear of Crime John D. Wooldredge (University of Illinois) Institutional Corrections; Sentencing; Research Methods John P. Wright (University of Cincinnati) Life-Course Theories of Crime; Biosocial Criminology; Longitudinal Methods Roger Wright (Chase College of Law) Criminal Law and Procedure; Policing; Teaching Effectiveness Page 7 The Criminologist AROUND THE ASC KRISTEN M. ZGOBA WINS THE PETER P. LEJINS RESEARCH AWARD Congratulations to Kristen Zgoba on winning the prestigious Peter P. Lejins Research Award, the highest honor bestowed upon a corrections researcher! Currently the supervisor of research and evaluation at the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Dr. Zgoba’s accomplishments include “benchmark” research on the prevalence of sex offenses before and after Megan’s Law (see https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225402.pdf), followed by a number of other projects on the characteristics of sex offenders, predictive validity of risk assessment tools, recidivism trajectories, and collateral consequences of sex offender notification and residency restriction laws. Given by the American Corrections Association in honor of Peter P. Lejins “a distinguished research professor whose work has influenced the world of corrections and criminal justice for more than 50 years,” Lejins Award winners have “produced significant research for the correctional community and . . . demonstrated personal commitment and contribution to improve the profession of corrections.” For more information, see http://www.aca.org/pastpresentfuture/awards.asp. SUCCESSFUL STOCKHOLM SYMPOSIUM! The eighth annual Stockholm Criminology Symposium was held in Stockholm, Sweden in June. Over 600 delegates from over 44 countries had signed up to take part in the Symposium. The three day event was filled with more than 200 presentations covering a variety of topics under the main tracks: Saved from a life of crime: Evidence-based crime prevention and Contemporary criminology. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers from all over the world shared their knowledge and experiences and took the opportunity to meet new and old colleagues. The Swedish Minister for Justice, Beatrice Ask participated in the inaugural discussion. Other participants were the winner of the Stockholm Prize in Criminology 2013, David Farrington (UK) along with Frances Gardner (UK) and Martin Killias (Switzerland). The panel was moderated by Leena Augimeri (Canada). The Stockholm Prize in Criminology was presented to David Farrington by the Swedish Minister for Justice, Beatrice Ask. The prize ceremony and gala dinner was held in the City Hall in Stockholm. The next Stockholm Criminology Symposium takes place in June 2014 in Stockholm, Sweden. Please visit the symposium website for more information about dates, call for papers etc. The symposium website also contains articles and video clips from the 2013 symposium. www.criminologysymposium.com INTERVIEW A PROFESSIONAL The Social Studies program at Sutton Memorial High School (Sutton, Massachusetts) is requiring students to interview professionals in different career fields. If you are interetsed in participating, go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CRIMe-Pals Page 8 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 AROUND THE ASC LET’S BE GREEN IN ATLANTA! Meredith Worthen, University of Oklahoma Jessica Hodge, University of Missouri-Kansas City As we get closer to the annual meeting in Atlanta, we would like to remind you of two exciting innovations that will be implemented: A smaller printed program due to less white space and smaller margins. An app (i.e. application software for mobile devices) for accessing the program in a friendly, searchable format. Information for access will be in your meeting bag. Please note that meeting attendees will get their choice – paper, app, or both. We also encourage attendees to reuse old ASC name badge holders by simply bringing one with you from a previous conference; this could also be done with ASC bags. We hope that meeting attendees will continue to choose these green options at future ASC meetings. If you would like to share other ideas for how we can all make ASC even greener, please email Meredith Worthen at mgfworthen@ou.edu or Jessica Hodge at hodgejp@umkc.edu or join the discussion on Facebook (search for the title of the group, “Recycling is Not a Crime group at ASC”). Page 9 The Criminologist AROUND THE ASC NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SEEKING PROPOSALS The National Science Foundation (NSF) is interested in receiving proposals to existing programs in any directorate across the Foundation that address fundamental research questions which might simultaneously advance activities related to research and education in forensic sciences. Supplement requests to existing awards may also be submitted. For more information, see http:// www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13120/nsf13120.pdf MENTORING AT CAREERVILLAGE.ORG CareerVillage.org is a non-profit organization that helps high school students living in low-income communities to obtain educational and career advice online from working professionals. By volunteering to give advice, professionals help young people make critical decisions about college and careers. If you wish to participate as a professional mentor to low-income high school students, you may sign up at www.careervillage.org WESTERN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY CONFERENCE In February, 2014, the Western Society of Criminology (WSC) will hold its annual meeting at the Ala Moana Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii. This hotel offers accommodations with stunning mountain views or beautiful sunsets over the ocean. Their professional meeting rooms will accommodate this year’s panels focusing on topics including: Legal Issues in Criminal Justice; Criminological Theory; Crime Analysis; Terrorism; White-Collar Crime; Cybercrime; and Sex Crimes. Abstracts of no more than 1,100 characters are due by October 4, 2013. Conference registration includes admission into our awards luncheon honoring outstanding professionals working in criminology and criminal justice; and an enjoyable brunch allowing participants to connect with friends and colleagues. If you have questions about the WSC conference, please contact our program co-chairs: Dr. Ryan Fischer at Ryan.Fischer@csulb.edu or Dr. Samantha Smith-Pritchard at sam.smith.phd@gmail.com or visit the WSC web page at www.westerncriminology.org. The WSC is also a student-friendly organization with two awards for students to consider: 1) The June Morrison Scholarship Fund which provides supplemental funds to support student member participation at the annual conference; and 2) The Miki Vohryzek-Bolden (MVB) Student Paper Competition which recognizes excellent student work including, but not limited to, policy analyses and original research. Additional details about these awards can be found on the WSC web page. All conference participants need to make reservations by January 6, 2014. Information about the Ala Moana Hotel can be found on the hotel website (www.alamoanahotelhonolulu.com) or by calling 808-955-4811. We are looking forward to seeing you in paradise! CONGRESSIONAL LUNCHEON ON CRIMINOLOGY, CAUSALITY, AND PUBLIC POLICY A Congressional Luncheon focused on the topic of criminology, causality, and public policy (the theme of the November 2013 Special Issue of Criminology & Public Policy) will be held on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. The session is being co-sponsored by the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, and the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA). The luncheon and special issue will address how best to advance criminal justice policy in the absence of causal certainty while simultaneously employing rigorous standards of scientific methodology and best available knowledge. Recommendations will be validated with examples from three criminal justice policy initiatives, namely, delinquency prevention, policing, and supermax prisons. The program will proceed as follows: Introduction: Thomas G. Blomberg, Julie Mestre, and Karen Mann Presentation: Robert J. Sampson, Christopher Winship, and Carly Knight Policy Response: Abigail Fagan Policy Response: Daniel S. Nagin and David Weisburd Policy Response: Daniel P. Mears Conclusions: Alfred Blumstein Page 10 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 AROUND THE ASC RECENT PhD GRADUATES Allen, Andrea, “Policing Alcohol and Related Crimes on Campus.” Chaired by Geoffrey P. Alpert, June 2013, University of South Carolina Barrett, Kimberly, “Assessing the Relationship between Hotspots of Lead and Hotspots of Crime.” Chaired by Michael J. Lynch, May 2013, University of South Florida. Bell, Valerie, “Gender-Responsive Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Women and Men.” Chaired by Dr. Patricia Van Voorhis, June 2012, University of Cincinnati. Brushett, Rachel, “Typologies of Female Offenders: A Latent Class Analysis Using the Women’s Risk Needs Assessment.” Chaired by Dr. Patricia Van Voorhis, Spring 2013, University of Cincinnati. Carter, David, “A Meta-analysis of Early Life Influences on Behavior.” Chaired by Dr. John Wright, Au gust 2012, University of Cincinnati. Donner, Chris, “Examining the Link between Self-control and Misconduct in a Multi-agency Sample of Police Supervisors: A Test of Two Theories.” Chaired by Lorie Fridell, May 2013, University of South Florida. Flores, Anthony, “Examining the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory in the Context of Re liability, Validity, Equity, and Utility: A Six-Year Evaluation.” Chaired by Dr. Edward Latessa, August 2013, University of Cincinnati. Fox, Andrew, "Examining Gang Social Network Structure and Criminal Behavior," Chaired by Charles Katz, May 2013, Arizo na State University. Goulette, Natalie, “Are Female Defendants Treated More Leniently by Judges? A Multilevel Analysis of Sex-Based Dispari ties at the Phases of Pretrial Release, Charge Reductions, and Sentencing.” Chaired by Dr. John Wooldredge, August 2013, University of Cincinnati. Kirkland-Gillespie, Amelia, “Rurality and Intimate Partner Homicide: Exploring the Relationship between Place, Social Struc ture, and Femicide in North Carolina.” Chaired by Dwayne Smith, May 2013, University of South Florida. Kodellas, Spyridon, “Victimization, Fear of Crime, and Perception of Risk in the Workplace: Testing Rival Theories with a Sample of Greek and Creek-Cypriot journalists.” Chaired by Dr. Bonnie Sue Fisher, December 2012, University of Cin cinnati. Larson, Matthew, "Romantic Dissolution and Offending During Emerging Adulthood,"Chaired by Gary Sweeten, May 2013, Arizona State University. Lovins Brusman, Lori, “An Empirical Examination of Variation in Effective Correctional Program Characteristics by Gender.” Chaired by Dr. Edward Latessa, June 2013, University of Cincinnati. Lovins, Brian, “Putting Wayward Kids Behind Bars: The Impact of Length of Stay in Custodial Setting on Recidivism.” Chaired by Dr. Edward Latessa, June 2013, University of Cincinnati. Lytle, Daniel, “Decision Making in Criminal Justice Revisited: Toward a General Theory of Criminal Justice.” Chaired by Lawrence Travis, June 2013, University of Cincinnati. McGuffog, Ingrid D., "Drug Use and Drug Control Policy: Evaluating the Impact of Precursor Chemical Control on Drug User Behavior."Co-Chaired by Assoc Professor Janet Ransley and Professor Lorraine Mazerolle, August 2013, Griffith Uni versity. Miles-Johnson, Toby, "Policing Gender Diversity: Perceptions of Intergroup Difference between Police and Transgender Peo ple,"Chaired by Professor Lorraine Mazerolle, April 2013, University Of Queensland. Page 11 The Criminologist AROUND THE ASC RECENT PhD GRADUATES (Cont.) Monk, Kadija, “How Central Business Districts Manage Crime and Disorder: A Case Study in the Processes of Place Manage ment in Downtown Cincinnati.” Chaired by Dr. John Eck, June 2012, University of Cincinnati. Newsome, Jamie, “Resilience and Vulnerability in Adolescents at Risk for Delinquency: A Behavioral Genetic Study of Differen tial Response to Risk.” Chaired by Dr. John Wright, June, 2013, University of Cincinnati. Pinchevsky, Gillian, “Assessing the impact of the court response to domestic violence in two neighboring counties.” Chaired by Emily M. Wright and Jeff Rojek (co-chair), July 2013, University of South Carolina. Reitler, Anglea, “A Mixed-Methodological Exploration of Potential Confounders in the Study of the Causal Effect of Detention Status on Sentence Severity in One Federal Court.” Chaired by Dr. James Frank, August 2013, University of Cincinnati. Schaefer, Lacey, “Environmental Corrections: Making Offender Supervision Work.” Chaired by Dr. Francis Cullen, August 2013, University of Cincinnati. Sellers, Brian, “Zero Tolerance for Marginal Populations: Examining Neoliberal Social Controls in American Schools.” Chaired by Michael J. Lynch and Wilson Palacios, July 2013, University of South Florida. Swartz, Kristin, “Code of the Hallway: Examining the Contextual Effects of School Subculture on Violence, Sexual Offending and Non-Violent Delinquency.” Chaired by Dr. Pamela Wilcox, August 2012, University of Cincinnati. Taylor, Melanie, "A Case Study of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act: Reforming the Arizona Department of Cor rections,"Chaired by Scott Decker, Arizona State University. Valadez, Mercedes, "We have got enough criminals in the United States without importing any:"An Examination of the Influence of Citizenship Status, Legal Status, and National Origin Among Latino Subgroups in Federal Sentencing Out comes, Chaired by Cassia Spohn, Arizona State University. Webster, Jennifer, “A Meta-Analytic Review of the Correlates of Job Stress Among Police Officers.” Chaired by Dr. Lawrence Travis, August 2012, University of Cincinnati. Page 12 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 Call for Nominations for the 2013 Division on Women and Crime Awards Nominations are requested for the following Division on Women and Crime awards: Distinguished Scholar Award which recognizes outstanding contributions to the field of women and crime by an established scholar. The contributions may consist of a single outstanding book or work, a series of theoretical or research contributions, or the accumulated contributions of an established scholar. Eligibility includes scholars who have held a Ph.D. for eight or more years. New Scholar Award which recognizes the achievements of scholars who show outstanding merit at the beginnings of their careers. Outstanding merit may be based on a single book or work, including dissertation or a series of theoretical or research contributions to the area of women and crime. Eligibility includes scholars who held a Ph.D. for less than eight years. Lifetime Achievement Award which recognizes scholars upon retirement. We inaugurated this award on our 20th Anniversary, 2004. Scholars receiving this award should have an established career advancing the goals and work of the Division on Women and Crime. CoraMae Richey Mann “Inconvenient Woman of the Year” Award recognizes the scholar/activist who has participated in publicly promoting the ideals of gender equality and women’s rights throughout society, particularly as it relates to gender and crime issues. This award will be granted on an ad hoc basis. Nominations should include specific documentation of public service (news articles, etc) and should describe in detail how this person’s activism has raised awareness and interest in the issues that concern the Division on Women and Crime. This award was inaugurated in honor of our 20th Anniversary in 2004. Saltzman Award for Contributions to Practice The Saltzman Award for Contributions to Practice recognizes a criminologist whose professional accomplishments have increased the quality of justice and the level of safety for women. The Saltzman Award need not be given every year. It is available to honor unique achievements combining scholarship, persuasion, activism and commitment, particularly work that has made a deep impact on the quality of justice for women, as well as a wide impact (interdisciplinary, international, or cross-cultural). Graduate Scholar Award The Graduate Scholar Award recognizes the outstanding contributions of graduate students to the field women and crime, both in their published work and their service to the Division of Women & Crime. Outstanding contributions may include single or multiple published works that compliment the mission of the DWC, and significant work within the Division, including serving as committee members, committee chairs, or executive board members. Preference will be given to those candidates who have provided exceptional service to the DWC. Eligibility includes scholars who are still enrolled in an M.A. or Ph.D. program at the time of their nomination. Page 13 The Criminologist Sarah Hall Award The Sarah Hall Award (established in 2012) recognizes outstanding service contributions to the Division on Women and Crime of the American Society of Criminology and to professional interests regarding feminist criminology. Service may include mentoring, serving as an officer of the Division on Women and Crime, committee work for the ASC, DWC, or other related group, and/or serving as editor or editorial board member of journals and books or book series devoted to research on women and crime. The award is named after Sarah Hall, administrator of the American Society of Criminology for over 30 years, whose tireless service helped countless students and scholars in their careers. Submission Information The nominees are evaluated by the awards committee based on their scholarly work, their commitment to women in crime as a research discipline, and their commitment to women in crime as advocates, particularly in terms of dedication to the Division on Women and Crime. In submitting your nomination, please provide the following supporting materials: a letter identifying the award for which you are nominating the individual and evaluating a nominee’s contribution and its relevance to the award, the nominee’s c.v. (short version preferred). No nominee will be considered unless these materials are provided and arrive by the deadline. The committee reserves the right to give no award in a particular year if it deems this appropriate. Send nominations and supporting materials by October 8, 2013 to: Carrie Buist Assistant Professor University of North Carolina Wilmington 601 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28403 buistc@uncw.edu carriebuist@gmail.com **Electronic Submissions are preferred, but not necessary **Gmail account is preferred for nomination materials carriebuist@gmail.com **Please visit http://www.asc41.com/dir4/awards.html for a list of past award winners Page 14 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 American Society of Criminology 2013 Division on Women and Crime Student Paper Competition The Division on Women and Crime (DWC) of the American Society of Criminology invites submissions for the Student Paper Competition. The 2012 competition had the highest number of paper submissions in the history of the competition – a total of 25 submissions! The winners will be recognized during the DWC breakfast meeting at the 2013 annual conference in Atlanta. The graduate student winner will receive $500.00 and the undergraduate student winner will receive $250.00. For submissions with multiple authors, the award money will be divided among co-authors. Deadline: Papers should be RECEIVED by the committee chair by September 15, 2013 Eligibility: Any undergraduate or graduate student who is currently enrolled or who has graduated within the previous semester is eligible. Note, any co-authors must also be students, that is, no faculty co-authors are permitted. To document eligibility, every author/co-author must submit proof of student status. This eligibility proof may be in the form of a letter from your department chair or an unofficial transcript. Paper Specifications: Papers should be of professional quality and must be about, or related to, feminist scholarship, gender issues, or women as offenders, victims or criminal justice professionals. Papers must be no longer than 35 pages including all references, notes, and tables; utilize an acceptable referencing format such as APA; be type-written and double-spaced; and include an abstract of 100 words or less. Papers may not be published, accepted, or under review for publication at the time of submission. Submission: One electronic copy using MSWord must be received by the co-chair of the committee by the stated deadline (please do not send a PDF file). In the reference line, identify whether this is to be considered for the graduate or undergraduate competition. Please refrain from using identifying (e.g., last name) headers/ footers, as the papers will be blind-reviewed. Judging: Members of the paper competition committee will evaluate the papers based on the following categories: 1. Content is relevant to feminist scholarship; 2. Makes a contribution to the knowledge base; 3. Accurately identify any limitations; 4. Analytical plan was well developed; 5. Clarity/organization of paper was well developed. Notification: All entrants will be notified of the committee’s decision no later than November 1 st. Winners are strongly encouraged to attend the conference to receive their award. Co-Chairs of Committee: Email all paper submissions to: Angela R. Gover, PhD │School of Public Affairs │ University of Colorado Denver│ phone (303)315-2474│angela.gover@ucdenver.edu For all other correspondence: Lisa A. Murphy, Ph.D. │ Department of Psychology│La Sierra University│ phone: (951) 272-6300 x1008│ lmurphy@lasierra.edu The Division on Corrections and Sentencing would like to invite you to join us in Atlanta! Annual Business Meeting and Awards Breakfast Thursday, Nov. 21, 8 – 9:20 am. International C (International Level) **************************************************** DCS Happy Hour Note that the event is off-site, and near the hotel Thursday, Nov. 21, 7-8:30 pm Max Lager’s Wood Fired Grill & Brewery 320 Peachtree Street (at the corner of Peachtree St. and West Peachtree St.) Arrive early for the OPEN BAR! *************************************************** Look for our hospitality table near the book exhibit. The DCS is devoted to facilitating scholarship on corrections and sentencing and to promoting the professional development of its members. Dues: $10 for regular members, $5 for students. For more information about the DCS, visit us our webpage at http://www.asc41.com/dcs DIVISION OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY . Counting down to ASC-Atlanta 2013 CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR AWARD WINNERS! Division of Experimental Criminology Academy of Experimental Criminology Jerry Lee Lifetime Achievement Award Lawrence Sherman Joan McCord Award Lorraine Mazerolle Award for Outstanding Experimental Field Trial Jerry Ratcliffe, Travis Taniguchi, Elizabeth Groff, and Jennifer Wood for “Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment” AEC Fellows Robert Davis and Christopher Koper Student Paper Award Matthew Nelson, Alese Wooditch, and Lisa Dario for “A Replication Study of Weisburd’s Paradox” Outstanding Young Experimental Criminologist Award - Justin Ready DEC & aEc DEC @ ASC-ATLANTA 2013: MEETINGS, AWARDS, AND NEW BOARD We look forward to seeing everyone at the AEC Joan McCord Award Lecture and the DEC Meet and Greet and Awards Ceremony in Atlanta on Wednesday, beginning at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, Nov. 20. To download a one-pager of all panels related to experimental criminology, visit the “DEC at ASC” webpage at our website: http://cebcp.org/dec/dec-at-asc/. David Weisburd (Chair), Lynette Feder (Vice Chair), Cynthia Lum (Secretary-Treasurer) Executive Counselors: Anthony Braga (President of AEC), Geoffrey Barnes, and Elizabeth Groff JOIN THE DIVISION OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY: http://cebcp.org/dec The ASC and DEC congratulate the Hot Spots Band for 20 Rockin’ performances! Wayne Chris Steve Alex Brenda Larry Join the Hot Spots Band, celebrating their 20th ASC performance in Atlanta Friday, November 22nd at 9pm (Marquis Ballroom) The American Society of Criminology and its Division of Experimental Criminology (DEC) thank the Hot Spots Band for 20 years of wonderful entertainment and their support for the Minority Fellowship Award. Your performances are always among the highlights of the Annual Meeting and we greatly appreciate all you have contributed. TRIVIA!! Can you name all of the ASC performances of the Hot Spots? For the answer and to learn how you can join the Division of Experimental Criminology, visit us at http://cebcp.org/dec/hot-spot/ Please join The Division on Critical Criminology Thursday, November 21, 2013 Executive Meeting 3:30-4:20 pm A601 (Atrium Level) General Business Meeting 4:30-5:50 pm A601 (Atrium Level) Social 6:00-10:00 pm A601 (Atrium Level) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY DIVISION OF VICTIMOLOGY The Division of Victimology (DOV) is one of the newest divisions within the American Society of Criminology (ASC), and was created to help the field of victimology continue to evolve and to bring continued attention to the issue of criminal victimization. The second annual Division of Victimology meeting will be held at the ASC conference on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 @ 2:00 pm. In addition, there will be a DOV social later that night at Ma Lager’s on histori Pea htree Street, 5:00-6:30pm. Ma ’s is e iting for the local craft beer selection, but also for their brick oven pizzas. Don’t worry if you don’t like eer. They have a full bar and non-alcoholic options as well. The event space upstairs has plenty of tables and even a pool table. It should be a great space for us to hang out and socialize informally. If you arrive early enough, you might get a free drink before DOV funds run out! Check out our website (www.ascdov.com) and like us on Facebook (facebook.com/ascdov). For membership information, and to subscribe to the list serve, please contact Kate Fox (katefox@asu.edu) or Kelly Knight (kelly.knight@shsu.edu). Who Are We? DWC is a collective of persons who believe that the study of women, gender, and crime is central to criminology. After nearly three decades, and with over 375 members, the DWC is the oldest Division within the American Society of Criminology. What Do We Offer? The DWC facilitates and promotes research and theory development, pedagogical strategies, and curricular enhancement that strengthen the links between gender, crime, and justice. The DWC also recognizes the achievements of women as students and professional scholars in the study of criminology through its annual awards. To encourage networking and interaction among academics, researchers, practitioners, and students, the DWC provides a variety of opportunities for professional and social interaction including: feminist theory and action workshops; specialty workshops and forums; numerous panels and presentations on gender, crime, and justice; and an annual social. How Can You Join Us? Are you interested in issues related to gender and crime, women as professionals, feminist theory and praxis, and women as victims and/or offenders? Have you ever been in need of a mentor, career, or school advice, or recommended readings for one of your courses? Wouldn’t it be great to belong to a supportive professional organization that could meet these needs while furthering the understanding and remedying of problems that affect women as professionals, victims, and offenders? Consider joining the Division on Women and Crime. The Division on Women and Crime (DWC) fulfills these objectives and many more! Find Us at the ASC in Atlanta! Want to know more about the Division on Women and Crime? Visit our outreach table on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Also, if you’re in town early, the DWC is hosting its 13th annual pre-meeting “DWC Feminist Criminology in Theory and Action” workshop on Tuesday (11/19), from 4:00 - 7:00 PM in M202, Marquis Level. The workshop provides an opportunity to informally discuss ways to connect our academic work to social change in the classroom and community. Please join us at the Division’s annual social on Wednesday (11/20) from 8:00 – 9:30 PM offsite at Max Lager’s Wood-Fired Grill and Brewery located at 320 Peachtree Street NE (a 5minute walk from the hotel). You can view the venue at maxlagers.com. Purchase your ticket when you register for the conference or at the door. Finally, the DWC will be sponsoring two open breakfast meetings on Thursday and Friday. Thursday’s breakfast meeting (11/21) from 7:30 - 9:00 AM in A601 on the Atrium level will summarize the work of the DWC and its committees over the past year, plan for the next year, and announce the 2013 award winners. Friday’s breakfast meeting (11/22) will be held from 7:30 - 9:00 am (also in A601, Atrium level), and will include focused participatory discussions of topics of interest to DWC members. Some of last year’s topics included outreach, concerns of students, conducting feminist research, mentoring, and curriculum guide revision and networking opportunities for women in non-academic jobs. Check Out Our Website, Newsletter, & Journal The DWC remains active and involved with its members all year long through its online Division newsletter (hts.gatech.edu/dwc), its informative website (ascdwc.com), its presence in social media, and committee work that strives to support both new and established members. The newsletter features member news, articles, announcements of jobs, publications, and funding opportunities, as well as regular “Ask a Tenured Professor,” “Teaching Tips,” and “Graduate Student Corner” columns. Feminist Criminology (fcx.sagepub.com) is an innovative journal that is dedicated to research related to women, girls, and crime within the context of a feminist critique of criminology. The DWC listserv is a wonderful forum for members who seek or offer information on career opportunities or decisions, school selections, curricular development, research, or any variety of topics related to women, gender, crime, and justice. You can also stay in touch with the DWC via Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Visit ascdwc.com/communication for details on all the ways you can find us on the world wide web! Page 22 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 DWC SOCIAL FULL Division on People of Color and Crime Annual Symposium and Awards Luncheon Thursday, November 21, 2013, 12:30-1:50pm Sweet Georgia’s Juke Joint 200 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Symposium Keynote Speaker: http://www.sweetgeorgiasjukejoint.com Jody E. Owens, II Southern Poverty Law Center Tickets must be purchased by October 1, 2013 via ASC Jody E. Owens, II is the Director of the Mississippi office of the conference registration. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). He leads SPLC’s Mississippi efforts to reform the state's juvenile justice, $35.00 for DPCC Member education, and mental health systems. His practice focuses on the representation of vulnerable children and to increase investments in communities and schools. His work has brought to light horrific and unconstitutional conditions forced upon children and youth in many for-profit and public juvenile detention facilities in Mississippi. Previously, he was an attorney at a nationally-recognized law firm in Jackson, Mississippi, where he successfully litigated a variety of cases, including civil rights and constitutional law cases. He also served as a Special Prosecutor for the District Attorney’s office of Hinds County, Mississippi, where he prosecuted felony murder cases. He is a summa cum laude graduate of Jackson State University and received his law degree from Howard University School of Law where he was a member of the Social Justice Law Review and the Huver I. Brown Trial Advocacy Moot Court Team. Mr. Owens is also a United States Naval Officer. In addition, he serves on several non-profit boards and most recently was the 2012 Public Service award recipient for the Magnolia Bar Association and a 2012-2013 fellow for the National Juvenile Justice Network Leadership Institute. Mr. Owens has been a guest speaker for several national media panels/outlets on topics such as juvenile justice, mass incarceration, for profit prisons, and the school to prison pipeline. $30.00 for DPCC Student Member $40.00 for Non-DPCC Member Division of International Criminology (DIC) Invites you to become a valued member ($20 Existing ASC member, $15 Students) www.internationalcriminology.com Join us for our OPEN DIC Awards Presentation & Reception Friday November 22nd, 12:30-1:50PM (Atlanta Marriott Marquis, A602-Atrium Level) (lunch is available outside the room to bring inside) There is no charge to attend – all are welcome! Please help us congratulate our 2013 Award Winners (Distinguished Book, Outstanding Paper, and Scholar Awards) And join us for our FREE BOOK RAFFLE of 20 titles! Benefits of DIC Membership  Inter-News (DIC newsletter) is packed with information about the DIC. Published three times per year. See past issues at: http://www.internationalcriminology.com/  Free Subscription to the DIC journal: International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. An excellent outlet for international research.  Listserv to connect and share information with your international colleagues on issues of research, education, and employment. Jay Albanese, Chair jsalbane@vcu.edu Corinne Davis Rodrigues, Treasurer crodrigues@ufmg.br Blythe B. Proulx, Secretary bbproulx@vcu.edu The Criminologist Page 25 Page 26 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 2013 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY AWARD RECIPIENTS ASC FELLOW RECIPEINTS RICHARD FELSON Richard Felson is Professor of Criminology and Sociology at Penn State University. Most of his research is concerned with the social psychology of violence. He has examined, for example, the role of armed adversaries in explaining race, regional, and national differences in violence. He has suggested a method that attempts to isolate the causal effects of alcohol intoxication and other situational factors. Recently he has examined age and gender patterns in sexual assault to discern motive. In their book Violence, Aggression, and Coercive Actions he and James Tedeschi developed a theory of aggression that emphasizes rational choice and social interaction. In his book Violence and Gender Reexamined he challenged the idea that violence involving women and intimate partners is much different from other violence. He recently received funding (with Mark Berg) from the National Institute of Justice to study situational factors that produce offender-victim overlap. He has served on several editorial boards and ASC committees and has given invited lectures at numerous universities. In 2004 he received the Distinction in the Social Science Award for Research from the College of Liberal Arts at Penn State. CHRISTOPHER UGGEN Christopher Uggen is Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. He studies criminology, law, and deviance, firm in the belief that good science can light the way to a more just and peaceful world. He received his Ph.D. from Wisconsin, where he was fortunate to work with Ross Matsueda. With Jeff Manza, he wrote Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy, and his writing on felon voting, work and crime, and harassment and discrimination is cited in media such as the New York Times, The Economist, and NPR. He is currently writing a book comparing reentry from different types of institutions, a series of articles on employment discrimination and criminal records, and several pieces on the health effects of incarceration. Outreach and engagement projects include editing Contexts Magazine (from 2007-2011) and TheSocietyPages.Org (with Doug Hartmann), a multimedia social science hub drawing approximately one million pageviews per month. He has benefitted greatly from terrific mentors, colleagues, and students, as well as financial support from NSF, NIJ, NICHD, NIMH, RWJF, JEHT, and OSI. Previous awards include Young Scholar (ISC 1998; ASC 2000); Faculty Mentor (1998, 2011); New York Times Magazine Ideas of the Year (2003); Outstanding Service (ASA 2011; Department 2009; TRIO 2007), and Equal Justice (CCJ 2011). From 20032009, he served as ASC Executive Secretary. HERBERT BLOCH AWARD RECIPIENT MARGARET A. ZAHN Margaret A. Zahn is a Professor of Sociology at North Carolina State University, and recently served as a Visiting Professor at the University of South Florida. She has extensive administrative experience, serving as Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at North Carolina State from 1995-2001, after which she was Director of the Violence and Victimization Division as well as Acting Director of the Research and Evaluation unit of the National Institute of Justice. For a period of time she also directed the Crime, Violence and Justice Policy Program at RTI International. She has served in many capacities for ASC beginning in 1973 when she collected fees for the national meetings. Since then she has served, at one time or another, on many of both the elected and appointed committees. Most recently she was on the Constitution Committee and the Sutherland Award Committee. She was President of the American Society of Criminology in 1998 and was also elected as a Fellow. Studies of violence, especially homicide, have been her research focus and she has published numerous articles and three co-edited books on that topic. She recently led the Girls Study Group project, which was a grant funded multi-disciplinary group oriented toward understanding the causes of girls’ delinquency and designing gender sensitive programs to combat it. Her edited book,The Delinquent Girl, was awarded the Choice Award for best scholarship in 2011. Page 27 The Criminologist 2013 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY AWARD RECIPIENTS OUTSTANDING ARTICLE AWARD RECIPENTS RONALD L. SIMONS Ronald L. Simons is a Foundation Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. After receiving his Ph.D. in sociology at Florida State University, he completed postdoctoral study in the Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Wisconsin. He held faculty appointments at Iowa State University and the University of Georgia prior to joining the faculty at Arizona State University. Much of his research has focused on the manner in which family processes, peer influences, community factors, and discrimination combine to influence deviant behavior across the life course. Recently, his work has included a biosocial perspective that emphasizes the interplay of genes and the social environment and incorporates biomarkers of stress and health. His work has appeared in journals such as Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and Developmental Psychology. Since 1996, he has served as Principal Investigator (along with Drs. Frederick Gibbons and Carolyn Cutrona) for the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS). Funded by NIMH, NIDA, NCI, and the CDC, this project has conducted biennial interviews and community assessments with a cohort of 800 African American children who were 10 years of age when the study began and are now in their late 20s. FACHS is a rich data set that includes interview data from multiple reporters, observational assessments of family and community processes, GIS information, genotype data, and blood-based assays for biomarkers of stress. Roughly two hundred papers have been written using FACHS data. ROBERT PHILIBERT Dr. Philibert is a faculty member at the University of Iowa in the Department of Psychiatry. He is a board-certified psychiatrist with 30 years of experience at the laboratory bench top. He has a deep abiding interest in the epigenetic processes associated with the development of behavioral illnesses. He is also the founder and chief scientific officer of Behavioral Diagnostics, a recently funded biotechnology company. STEVEN R. H. BEACH Steven R. H. Beach received his Ph.D. degree from S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook in 1985. He joined the faculty of the Psychology Department at University of Georgia in 1987. He was elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association (12, 43) in 1994. He currently serves as Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology and Co-Director of the Center for Family Research at the University of Georgia. Dr. Beach has published more than 250 scholarly papers on marital processes, family relationships, and their association with depression, substance use, and health. Dr. Beach's current research interests include examination of the efficacy of marital and parenting interventions, the role of genetic and epigenetic processes in a range of outcomes, and the role of epigenetic change as a mediator of stress-related health effects. He also has a long-standing interest in the role of spirituality in marriage. Page 28 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 2013 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY AWARD RECIPIENTS OUTSTANDING ARTICLE AWARD RECIPEINTS (Cont.) MAN-KIT LEI Man-Kit Lei is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology and a research statistician for the Center for Family Research at the University of Georgia. He is a past recipient of the Gene Carte Student Paper First-Prize Award from the American Society of Criminology and the Best Graduate Student Paper Award from the Evolution, Biology & Society section of the American Sociological Association. His research interests lie in criminology, methodology, social network analysis, society and health, biosocial studies, community studies, and family studies. His current research focuses on the ways in which neighborhood factors, family processes, and genotypes combine to influence well-being across the life course. He also seeks to develop a new post-hoc test to identify different types of interaction effects. His work has appeared in American Sociological Review, Violence and Victims, Journal of Family Psychology, and Journal of Marriage and Family. FREDERICK X. GIBBONS Rick Gibbons is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Connecticut and a research affiliate in the Center for Health Intervention and Prevention (CHIP). Prior to UConn, he held positions in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth College and the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University, where he was a Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences. His training is in experimental social psychology. However, his primary research interest for the last 20 years has been on the integration of social psychology and health, more specifically, the application of social psychological theories and principles to the study of health behavior. His research uses both experimental laboratory methods and surveys, and he has also conducted a number of interventions and preventive interventions. A primary focus of this work has been the short and long-term effects of perceived racial discrimination on the health status and health behavior of African American adolescents and adults. For the last 15 years, he has been one of the PIs on the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS), which is a panel study examining the effects of psychosocial factors on the mental and physical health of African Americans. GENE H. BRODY (Bio and photo unavailable at press time.) **A complete list of ASC Award winners past and present can be found at http://asc41.com/awards/awardWinners.html ** Page 29 The Criminologist ETHICS OF PARTICIPATION AT THE ASC ANNUAL MEETING The following are standards for participating at the ASC annual meeting, as a session chair, a session presenter, or a poster presenter. They are based on “Guidelines” developed over the years, with updates from the ASC Board. We welcome your suggestions and comments. Please contact Bob Agnew (bagnew@emory.edu) or Becky Block (crblock@rcn.com). Session Chairs          Arrive at the meeting room a few minutes early and meet briefly with the presenters. Bring a laptop to the session (or ensure that one of the presenters will bring one that everyone can use). Make sure to allow time before the session starts to load presentations onto the laptop. You may want to ask that presenters send their slides in advance so you (or whoever has offered to bring the laptop) can have them pre-loaded. The session is 80 minutes long. Allow at least 10 minutes for questions and comments from the audience. Divide the time evenly between the presenters. Inform them of the amount of time available to them at least two weeks before the meeting. Convene the session promptly at the announced time. Introduce each presenter with a title and institutional affiliation. Politely inform the presenters when their time limit is approaching. Many chairs hold up note to the presenter at 5 minute, 1 minute, and the end of their allocated time. When the announced presentations have been completed, invite questions and comments from the audience. Some chairs invite speakers from the audience to identify themselves by name and institutional affiliation. Adjourn the session promptly at the announced time. If, for some reason, you are unable to attend your session as scheduled, please let each of the presenters and the discussant know AND designate an alternate chair. Also, call (614-292-9207) or email (asc@asc41.com) the ASC office to tell them about the change. Presenters Screens and LCD projectors will be available in all meeting rooms (except roundtables and posters). Overhead projectors, computers, monitors, the internet, VCRs/DVDs are NOT provided.         If your session includes a discussant, send her/him a copy of the paper at least a month before the meeting. If you are planning to use slides, send them to the session chair and to the person volunteering to bring their laptop at least two weeks before the meeting. Practice your talk ahead of time so that you know it fits within your allotted time. Your chair will tell you in advance your allotted time. Sessions are scheduled for one hour and twenty minutes (80 minutes). Divide by the number of people participating in your session, allowing at least ten minutes for questions and answers. After you pick up your registration materials at the meeting, you may want to spend a few minutes locating the room in which your session will be held. Arrive in your scheduled room at least five minutes before the session is scheduled to start. Plan a brief presentation. The session chair will keep track of time and will alert you when you should begin wrapping up your talk. Pay attention to these cues. Begin concluding your talk when prompted by the chair. If, for some reason, you are unable to attend your session as scheduled, please let the chair know. Also, call (614-292-9207) or email (asc@asc41.com) the ASC office to tell them about the change. Poster Session Presenters Poster sessions are intended to present research in a format that is easy to scan and absorb quickly. This session is designed to facilitate more in-depth discussion of the research than is typically possible in a symposium format. The Poster Session will be held on the Thursday of the week of the meeting. ASC will not provide AV equipment for this session. There are no electrical outlets for user-supplied equipment. Push-pins will be provided.     Prepare all poster material ahead of time. Be sure that your presentation fits on one poster. The poster board is 3 feet high and 5 feet wide. The success of your poster depends on the ability of viewers to readily understand the material. Therefore: Keep the presentation simple.  Prepare a visual summary of the research with enough information to stimulate interested viewers (not a written research paper).  Use bulleted phases rather than narrative text. (Continued on page 30) Page 30 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 29)      Prepare distinct panels on the poster to correspond to the major parts of the presentation. For example, consider including a panel for each of the following: Introduction, methods, results, conclusions, and references.  Number each panel so that the reader can follow along in the order intended.  Ensure that all poster materials can be read from three feet away. We suggest an Arial font with bold characters. Titles and headings should be at least 1 inch high. DO NOT use a 12 point font.  Prepare a title board for the top of the poster space indicating the title and author(s). The lettering for this title should be no less than 1.5 inches high.  Do not mount materials on heavy board. These may be difficult to keep in position on the poster board. Arrive early to set up. Each poster will be identified with a number. This number corresponds to the number printed in the program for your presentation. Make sure that at least one author is in attendance at the poster for the entire duration of the panel session. Remove materials promptly at the end of the session. If, for some reason, you are unable to attend your session as scheduled, call (614-292-9207) or email (asc@asc41.com) the ASC office to tell them about the change. ADLER. FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. Offering a 100% online M.A. in Criminology The Adler School is founded on an important idea: Our health resides in our community life and connections. This is what drives our ground-breaking curricula and commitment to social justice. Now accepting applications. We work with those courageous enough to want to change the world. 866.371.5900 Our master’s and doctoral degrees prepare students with the theory and practice to become agents of social change. The Adler School — Leading Social Change. Apply today. adler.edu Adler School of Professional Psychology 17 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60602 Page 32 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 A MORAL PANIC IN PROGRESS: VIDEO GAMES AND THE MEDIA Chris Ferguson, Stetson University When society is facing pressing social problems, there is a tendency to seek to place blame on marginalized groups or cultural elements, including the media. That is the basic premise of Stanley Cohen’s (who sadly died recently) Moral Panic Theory (Cohen, 1972). Moral Panic Theory is fairly well known within criminology, although my own discipline of psychology remains comparatively ignorant of it. Many moral panics focus on juveniles (e.g. juvenile superpredators, an “epidemic” of juvenile female offenders, multitudinous rumors of libidinously innovative juvenile sex parties, etc.). Other moral panics focus on “low” aspects of culture, particularly the media. Various media, including books ranging from Tropic of Cancer through Harry Potter, to comic books, jazz, rock and roll, rap, television, movies and video games, have been targets of moral panics. The tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December, 2012, which saw the massacre of twenty children and six adult school personnel, has created an unfortunate opportunity to watch a moral panic in progress. Speaking as a father myself, I can understand the psychology of it. Soon after the dreadful shooting, I found myself contemplating the horror that those parents and loved ones of the victims must be going through. As a nation we mourn for them. But we also want to know why these events happen, and how we can stop them, however rare they may be, from happening to us. We want to create a sense of being able to control these uncontrollable events. And so, as a society, we create narratives for how these events happen, focused on societal elements that “respectable” elements of society disparage. If only we could rid ourselves of these undesirable elements, we might prevent future occurrences. So the logic goes. That’s the essence of a moral panic. These narratives comfort us, giving us an illusion of control. The “mad gamer” narrative has been invoked repeatedly when mass shooters happen to be young men (Ferguson, Coulson & Barnett, 2011). When researchers conduct careful examinations of mass shooters, mass media rarely pops up as a causal contributor. For example, the 2002 investigation into mass school shooters, by the US Secret Service and Department of Education, found no evidence that such shooters consumed unusual amounts of media violence (United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education, 2002). A recent comprehensive analysis of mass homicide perpetrators made no mention at all of media effects (Lankford, 2013). However, when shooters fall within the age demographic of those who are likely to be consumers of violent media (such as the 20-year-old Newtown shooter), much fuss tends to be made about video games or other violent media (Subcommittee on Youth Violence, 2013). When shooters are older (e.g.: the rash of high profile gun violence committed by men over 60, including William Spengler, Douglas Harmon, Jimmy-Lee Dykes and a 60-year old shooter in Serbia who killed 16, in the months following Newtown), the issue of media is ignored altogether. This is classic confirmation bias: attending to cases that fit the narrative and ignoring those that do not. With the Newtown shooting, it was possible to watch a moral panic unfold if you knew what to look for (from Cohen, 1972). Indeed, one might argue that the National Rifle Association purposefully touched off the moral panic by shifting blame from real guns to imaginary ones during their initial press release following the massacre. It should be remembered that, as of this writing, we in fact have no information that the shooter was an avid gamer or media consumer. The official investigation has not yet released its reports and is not slated to do so until September. Since the shooter, Adam Lanza, was age 20, and since between 70-95% of young males play violent video games (Lenhart et al., 2008), the chance of his being a gamer is very high. Even so, societal handwringing about violent media proceeded with no official word that Lanza actually consumed violent media. In the weeks and months following Sandy Hook, a number of politicians called for “research” on violent media (see, e.g. Examiner.com, 2012). Many such calls by politicians were expressed in language making clear the results that were expected or desired, often with the implication they might be used to support regulatory legislation. In one unfortunate example of politicized science, Representative Frank Wolf called on the National Science Foundation, whose appropriations committee he chairs, to review the literature on media violence. The resultant report (Subcommittee on Youth Violence, 2013) ignored numerous studies that had failed to find evidence linking violent media with aggression or violent crime, with the exception of criminologist Joanne Savage’s work (Savage & Yancey, 2008), which was miscited as supporting links between violent media and crime when, in fact, she concluded the opposite. In fact, evidence linking violent media to violent crime is absent, and the literature even on milder forms of aggression is divided. In 2011, echoing numerous lower courts, the US Supreme Court, in the majority opinion of Brown v EMA, wrote that the research supporting a link between media violence and violent crime had been “rejected by every court to consider them [sic], and with good reason” and went on to explain that the measures used in most such studies, such as filling in the missing letters of words (“kill” being more aggressive than “kiss” for instance) or administering bursts of noise to consenting opponents in a reaction time test, were too esoteric to be generalized to societal violence. In recent years, the governments of Australia (2010), Sweden (Swedish Media Concil, 2011), and the United Kingdom (Department for Education, 2008) have echoed such criticisms. Following the Newtown shooting, a report on gun violence by the US House of Representatives acknowledged that media violence research has not been able to link violent media consumption with societal violence (Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, 2013). (Continued on page 33) The Criminologist Page 33 (Continued from page 32) Indeed, recent months have seen further research evidence questioning whether violent media and societal violence can be linked (e.g. Ballard, Visser & Jocoy, 2012; Charles, Baker, Hartman, Easton & Kretzberger, 2013; Parkes, Sweeting, Wight & Henderson, 2013; Tear & Nielson, 2013). To put things into a bit of perspective, the methodologically best longitudinal study that finds a statistically significant link between violent video game play and later youth aggression (Willoughby, Adachi, & Good, 2012) finds that video game violence accounts for less than half a percent of the variance in aggression with other factors controlled. In a follow up analysis, the authors concluded that even this had more to do with competitiveness in the games rather than the moral issue of violent content (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013). Studies of criminal violence, by contrast, tend to find no link between video game violence and such outcomes (e.g. Ferguson, 2011; Surette, in press). This is not to suggest that no study has linked violent video game playing to at least mild forms of aggression, although these tend to be the sort of studies explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. Many use unstandardized measures of aggression, potentially allowing researchers to pick and choose from among outcomes those that best fit their hypotheses, something all-toohuman researchers may unconsciously do, even in good faith. And, of course, it is a huge leap to generalize word completion tasks and bursts of white noise to societal violence. Nonetheless, organizations like the American Psychological Association have been willing to make such leaps in the recent past (see APA, 2005). Because proponents of media regulation and censorship often cite policy statements released by professional advocacy organizations such as the APA, these organizations’ influence in sustaining moral panics is considerable. To the APA’s credit, they recently published an article of mine (Ferguson, 2013), in which I pointed out the numerous errors and biased processes that have led to past policy statements. Typically, APA committees comprised only scholars highly invested in the “harm” position reviewing their own work and declaring it beyond further debate (something I’d love to have the opportunity to do one day). Such policy statements cannot be considered independent or objective evaluations. This probably explains why they differ so greatly from independent government reviews. Also to their credit, the APA has assigned a new task force to reevaluate their past policy statements (e.g. American Psychological Association, 2013). I appreciate the APA's willingness to revisit the issue, and offer my respect to the task force members and the difficult task they must undertake. Often however, any task force’s report may reveal more about the preconceived beliefs of individual members than about the truth. While the current task force wisely avoids using invested media scholars, four of the seven task force members have taken public anti-media positions in various ways. Two signed the amicus brief supporting California’s law to regulate the sale of violent video games in Brown v EMA (2011), one was a coauthor of the NSF report mentioned earlier in this paper, and one (the most minor) has worked with anti-media scholars in the past and has made anti-media comments to the press. All members of the task force are reputable scholars and I certainly have no intent to disparage them personally here. All of us certainly have strong opinions on many issues, and may be poorly suited to consider objectively work that differs from our opinion. It seems to me, however, that the APA should have been more careful in assigning ostensibly neutral individuals to the task force. Assigning task members, no matter how reputable, with identifiable strong opinions, does little to assuage past concerns that the APA’s policy statements on this issue were unbalanced and biased. As a broader issue, perhaps trying to discover “truth by committee” is not wise. Such efforts may inadvertently wed a professional group to a particular ideological position, a potential conflict of interest for such groups when it comes to publishing null results for that same position. Such policy statements may ultimately damage the credibility of such organizations as well (Hall, Day & Hall, 2011). In my 2013 essay on video game research (Ferguson, 2013), I noted that the Brown v EMA case gave the field an opportunity to cool down and engage in cross-debate dialogue. I also noted the risk that advocates of the ideological “harm” position might double down on their beliefs, effectively walling themselves off from challenging critiques and data. Since the Newtown shooting, I’ve honestly seen examples of both. While many scholars make honest, cautious claims about violent media influencing some forms of aggression, and these scholars are willing to collegially debate those with different views, not all are as careful. Even Common Sense Media (2013), an anti-media advocacy group, recently released a report on media violence that, while I disagree with many of its conclusions, was honestly and thoughtfully written (indeed it can be compared to the NSF report to see how honest and politicized science differs). To me, when an advocacy group is able to write a more thoughtful, careful and balanced report than an NSF appointed subcommittee, it is time to reevaluate how the science is being conducted. (Continued on page 34) Page 34 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 33) Although there are reasons to be optimistic, there are also worrying signs that part of the anti-media scholarly community is, indeed, “doubling down.” One scholar (Anderson, 2013) recently characterized anyone who disagrees with him as “industry apologists” and not “true experts” (apparently having a particular ideological belief is a litmus test for being a “true expert”). It is unfortunate to see a scholar making false ad hominem attacks (and for the record I have no personal or financial ties to the media industry), rather than simply seeing opponents as scholars who have different views from his own. Another scholar recently argued for the outright censorship of scientists whose views diverge from his own (Gentile, 2013), specifically that journalists should not report scholarly views differing from his own. These tactics of delineating “true experts,” indulging in smear campaigns against opposing scholars, and arguing for the censorship of dissenting opinions run counter to the open dialogue necessary for the integrity of science. I have no problem with open debate, but these efforts remind me of the attempts by psychoanalysis in the mid 20th century to defend itself from criticisms. I don’t believe these types of comments represent the majority of scholars on either side of these debates, and I hope the scholarly community will band together in rejecting them. Only then will this field move beyond ideology and politics and back into science. REFERENCES Adachi, P. C., & Willoughby, T. (2013). Demolishing the competition: The longitudinal link between competitive video games, competitive gambling, and aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9952-2 American Psychological Association. (2013). Update to Council on APA Violence Prevention Work Groups. See also: http:// www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/communique/2013/05/gun-violence.aspx American Psychological Association. (2005). Resolution on violence in video games and interactive media. Retrieved 7/28/13 from: http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/interactive-media.pdf Anderson, C. (2013). Games, guns and mass shootings in the US. The Bulletin of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(1), 15-19. Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department. (2010). Literature Review on the Impact of Playing Violent Video Games on Aggression. Commonwealth of Australia. Ballard, M., Visser, K., & Jocoy, K. (2012): Social context and video game play: Impact on cardiovascular and affective responses, Mass Communication and Society, 15:6, 875-898. Charles, E., Baker, C., Hartman, K., Easton, B., & Kretzberger, C. (2013). Motion capture controls negate the violent video game effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2519-2523. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Common Sense Media. (2013). Media and violence: An analysis of current research. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Department for Education, UK. (2008). Byron Review Action Plan. Retrieved 7/30/13 from: http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/ publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-00521-2008 Examiner.com. (2012). Connecticut senator: Violent video games may have influenced Adam Lanza. Retrieved 7/30/13 from: http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-senator-violent-video-games-may-have-influenced-adam-lanza Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v EMA. American Psychologist, 68(2), 57-74. [Similar thoughts were published in the Criminologist in 2011 as “VVG Research in the Aftermath of Brown v EMA: Lessons for the Field of Criminology” (Vol. 36, No. 6, November/ December)]. Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 377-391. Ferguson, C. J., Coulson, M., & Barnett, J. (2011). Psychological profiles of school shooters: Positive directions and one big wrong turn. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11(2), 141-158. Gentile, D. (2013). The myth of the fairness doctrine: Why both sides of the issue don’t need to be represented! Presented at the International Communication Association conference in London, England. Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. (2013). It’s Time to Act: A Comprehensive Plan that Reduces Gun Violence and Respects the 2nd Amendment Rights of Law-Abiding Americans. U.S. House of Representatives: Washington, DC. Hall, R., Day, T., & Hall, R. (2011). A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(4), 315-321. Lankford, A. (2013). A comparative analysis of suicide terrorists and rampage, workplace and school shooters in the United States from 1990 to 2010. Homicide Studies, 17(3), 255-274. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A., Evans, C., & Mitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games and civics: Teens gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Retrieved 7/28/13 from: http:// www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp. (Continued on page 35) The Criminologist Page 35 (Continued from page 34) Parkes, A., Sweeting, H., Wight, D., & Henderson, M. (2013). Do television and electronic games predict psychosocial adjustment? Longitudinal research using the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Doi: 10.1136/ archdischild-2011-301508 Savage, J. & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1123-1136. Subcommittee on Youth Violence. (2013). Youth violence: What we need to know. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Surette, R. (in press). Cause or catalyst: The interaction of real world and media crime models. American Journal of Criminal Justice. doi: 10.1007/s12103-012-9177-z Swedish Media Council. (2011). Våldsamma datorspel och aggression – en översikt av forskningen 2000–2011. Retrieved 1/14/11 from: http://www.statensmedierad.se/Publikationer/Produkter/Valdsamma-datorspel-och-aggression/ United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Retrieved 7/26/13 from http:// www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf. Tear, M., & Nielson, M. (2013). Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS One, 8(7), e68382 Willoughby, T., Adachi, P. C., & Good, M. (2012). A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, doi: 10.1037/a0026046 ______________ 1 Editor’s Note: Chris Ferguson has written on related subjects in the Criminologist twice before, in 2010 (with Cheryl K. Olsen, “The Supreme Court and Video Game Violence: Will Regulation be worth the Costs to the First Amendment?” Vol. 35, No. 4, July/August), and in 2011 (“VVG Research in the Aftermath of Brown v EMA: Lessons for the Field of Criminology” Vol. 36, No. 6, November/December). A paper expressing similar thoughts was later published in the American Psychologist (Ferguson, 2013). Department of Atenion Students and Mentors: The Depart ent of Jusi e Ad inistraion now has a Ph.D. progra . This degree is designed to pro ide professional training for those interested in a ade i as well as applied resear h posiions. We are seeking ualiied Masters Degree graduates waning to furthering their professional areers and who are interested in a - onth sipend with health insuran e and full tuiion re ission. Graduate assistant appoint ents in lude oth resear h and instru ional pla e ents. Our fa ulty are a i e s holars, engaging in resear h that en ourages and supports est pra i es in ri inal jusi e strategies, progra s and organizaions. The fa ulty’s orientaion toward applied resear h results in strong partnerships with lo al, state, naional and internaional ri inal jusi e organizaions and pro ides our students with signii ant resear h opportuniies. Louis ille is a i rant and di erse etropolitan area of nearly illion. The Uni ersity of Louis ille is one of a sele i e group of pu li uni ersiies naionwide to e designated an insituion of ery high resear h a i ity y the Carnegie Foundaion. Justice Administration Doctor of Philosophy Degree Faculty: Viviana Andreescu, Ph.D., Associate Professor Cherie Dawson-Edwards, Ph.D., Associate Professor J. Price Foster, Ph.D., Professor Elizabeth L. Grossi, Ph.D., Associate Professor George E. Higgins, Ph.D., Professor Thomas Hughes, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor Theresa Hayden, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Ronald M. Holmes, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Deborah G. Keeling, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Eric McCord, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Geetha Suresh, Ph.D., Associate Professor Kristin Swartz, Ph.D., Associate Professor Richard A. Tewksbury, Ph.D., Professor Gennaro F. Vito, Ph.D., Professor William F. Walsh, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus For more application information go to: www.louisville.edu/justiceadministration/ or Contact Dr. George E. Higgins 502-852-6567 or gehigg01@louisville.edu Page 37 The Criminologist DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFECOURSE CRIMINOLOGY1 What is it? Why do we need it? Where should it go next? Arjan Blokland, Executive Councillor, ASC Division of Developmental and Lifecourse Criminology The following is a (very) brief introduction to developmental and life-course criminology, or DLC. It asks what is meant by DLC and why do we need it, reviews the ways in which researchers have gone about building DLC, and concisely outlines some avenues for future DLC research. More elaborate reviews of DLC exist, and the interested reader is therefore urged to consult the recommended literature mentioned at the end of this text. DLC: What is it? The central aim of DLC is to describe and explain changes over time in criminal behavior on the individual level. DLC thus does not address historical changes in the crime rate of for instance a specific country, but instead examines the way delinquency and crime develop over the life span of the individual offender. Besides delinquency and crime, the outcome of interest may also include antisocial, yet not illegal behaviors, like bullying and substance use. While mainly interested in behavior, cognitions and attitudes, and the way these change over time, figure prominently in many DLC theories. Finally, DLC's focus is on changes in behavior over time, where time often, but not necessarily, coincides with calendar age and change is to be interpreted as to also cover the continuation of criminal behavior. Within DLC there is considerable debate over what is considered development. Some claim that development is largely, if not totally, a maturational process whereby endogenous properties unfold over time. Others warn against such a deterministic view of development and argue instead that development is a multidetermined process that involves complex interactions between biological, psychological, social and environmental factors, taking place progressively over the life span. In the latter view, development is not just the gradual materialization of what was already there from the start, but is viewed much more as an open ended process, highly susceptible to outside influence and embracing a plethora of individual developmental pathways. Between the didactic endpoints of the fully deterministic 'kinds of individuals' versus the all open 'kinds of contexts' views of development, in reality lies a continuum of DLC theories emphasizing different realms of causal factors and describing different types of processes that are argued to apply to either all offenders or only to particular subsets of the offender population. DLC: Why do we need it? While there are many possible answers to this question, here I mention four reasons that seem most relevant in clarifying the added value of DLC. First, DLC recognizes that the causes of crime may be different at different ages and in different phases of the criminal career. As individuals age, the number of social environments potentially influencing behavior gradually expands from primary caretakers, through neighborhood residents and classmates, to colleagues and romantic partners. During different phases of the life-course, different social environments tend to have primacy over others in their impact on individual behavior, while in addition the opinions of those involved in these environments are themselves also liable to change over time. While it might be that these different environments affect individual behavior through the same causal process, it is also possible that different causal processes are at work at different ages. Furthermore, regardless of chronological age, the causes of crime may differ for different phases of the criminal career. That is, the reasons for individuals to participate in crime may be very different from those that cause individuals to continue their criminal behavior once started, which in turn may differ from factors that influence desistance from crime. As many more criminal career dimensions can be distinguished – e.g. acceleration, escalation, and specialization – potentially many more causal processes may be at work shaping individual criminal trajectories, either simultaneously or in succession. Second, both the behavior under scrutiny as well as its causes derive their meaning – and therefore their potential for influence – from the timing and sequencing in the individual's life-course, as well as in his or her criminal career. Expressing one’s displeasure by physically confronting one’s perceived opponent for example, is usually discouraged during early childhood. Yet, showing that you ‘won’t be pushed around’ may be stimulated during adolescence, while during the adult years engaging in physical confrontations is commonly regarded as immature and is again disapproved of. Similarly, the effect that important transitions in the life-course – such as entering the labor market, or becoming a parent – have on criminal development may depend on both the age at which these transitions take place, as well as the stage of development the individual has reached in other life-course domains. For the influence of parenthood, for example, it likely matters at which age the individual becomes a parent, and whether the child is born in or outside a steady romantic relationship. (Continued on page 38) Page 38 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 37) Third, a DLC approach makes researchers cognizant of the fact that the causal factors influencing individual development themselves develop over time, be it on different time scales. Over the years, attitudes towards certain types of deviance change, age norms change, as does the public opinion on the appropriate timing and sequencing of important life-course transitions. Since the nineteen seventies, many Western countries have witnessed a diversification of the life course. Increased educational demands have resulted in the postponement of traditional markers of adulthood, like entering the labor market, getting married, and having children, which provides young people with increased freedom to orchestrate their own transition to adult life. Since this transition has been theoretically and empirically linked to desistance from crime and deviance, societal changes in the patterning of this transition may also result in changes in criminal development. The social clocks governing the life-course may also differ across social and geographical space, further adding to the diversity in the constellation of factors influencing individual criminal development. Fourth, criminology greatly needs a developmental stance, as official reactions to crime benefit from detailed knowledge on the course of criminal careers and the causal factors involved in shaping them. Insights gained from DLC research can be used to inform decisions on who best to target, and when to target them, so as to design more effective and efficient intervention strategies. Furthermore, official interventions themselves tend to have far reaching developmental consequences and tend to resonate in many other life-course domains besides crime. If left unaddressed, these collateral and usually disadvantageous effects of official interventions may gain so much momentum that they nullify or even surpass the intervention's intended effect of curbing criminal development and promoting desistance. Longitudinal data: the bedrock of DLC While there are many ways to do DLC research, they all share a longitudinal focus needed to chart and explain changes in behavior over time. Though there is no clear watershed between them, three main ways of doing DLC research can be distinguished, which are all more or less tied to particular research traditions within the DLC field. Much DLC research is based on data on officially recorded crimes. While the downsides in terms of validity are well known, longitudinal official records do provide detailed information on crime for many people and for prolonged periods of time allowing for detailed descriptions of the course of criminal development across age, and specification of the many developmental dimensions involved – e.g. onset, duration, crime mix. Research in the criminal career tradition is almost solely built on data from official records. Despite its benefits describing criminal careers, official data lack the detailed information needed to explain them. Starting from an interest in the onset and subsequent escalation of antisocial behavior, developmental criminologists therefore have employed longitudinal panel studies involving parent-, teacher- and self-report data. While more restricted in their representativeness, these panel studies have yielded vast amounts of detailed information on the possible risk and protective factors for delinquency and crime. Following from the age span under scrutiny, developmental criminologists focus primarily on familial and peer influences on delinquency and crime. The obvious drawback of longitudinal panel studies is that research subjects age at the same rate as their researchers, so for a long time the age span on which data were available was rather limited, precluding definite conclusions about the long-term course of criminal careers. At present, however, an increasing amount of studies entail data on (part of) the adult period, either by the mere passing of time since the start of the study or by innovatively making use of older samples. As a result, the research focus has broadened to include the processes of desistance and persistence in crime, as well as the collateral influences of official interventions. Combining official records, data obtained from municipal registries, and self-reports, life-course criminologists have for instance focused on the effects that work, marriage, and parenthood have on crime. A handful of studies were even able to include multiple generations and thus to study the intergenerational transmission of crime. Finally, criminology has a tradition of qualitative research into the life-course going as far back as the Chicago School. These and more contemporary studies include (auto)biographical works of single offenders, or some limited number of offenders, and focus on either on a specific age period, a specific period in the criminal career, or retrospectively cover the entire life span. Above all, these qualitative studies showcase the complexity of criminal development and the ways individual behavior is influenced by factors operating at different levels. DLC: Where do we stand and where do we need to go next? As those getting acquainted with the DLC field might be most interested in what is to be expected in DLC's near future, I conclude by roughly sketching some of the major findings of DLC research, only to use these as a launching pad for addressing promising avenues for future research efforts. (Continued on page 39) Page 39 The Criminologist (Continued from page 38) At present, a vast number of studies speak on the basic dimensions of criminal careers. On average, the onset of the criminal career occurs during later childhood, the frequency of offending peaks during adolescence, the duration of the criminal career is rather limited and offending shows a lack of specialization. These findings are among those regarded as 'accepted knowledge' on criminal careers. Caution nevertheless remains warranted, as many of the available studies pertain to male, white, working class, run-of-the-mill offenders. Relatively few studies speak on the criminal careers of women, minority populations, white collar offenders or perpetrators of less common but very serious offences like murder or sexual crimes. Those that do suggest that not all offending is concentrated in adolescence, and that some offenders do specialize to a certain degree. Future research therefore should aim to include less well researched offender populations in their samples, comparing criminal career dimensions to the fields' 'accepted conclusions' to assess their generalizability. Given that current DLC theories were drafted to explain known criminal career patterns, extending criminal career research to include different types of offenders is also likely to have important theoretical repercussions. Today, an increasing number of empirical studies suggest that important life-course transitions, like a steady job or a good marriage, independently influence criminal development. These studies are, however, plagued by two important shortcomings. First, despite methodological advances, observational research remains susceptible to bias due to unobserved heterogeneity. To establish the extent to which life circumstances independently influence criminal development, researchers should therefore strive to - also – conduct randomized controlled experiments. While, of course, not all life circumstances are open to experimental control, opportunities for those that are should be seized. The latter especially applies to studying the effects of formal interventions. Second, the causal mechanisms via which life circumstances may influence criminal development are still unclear. Cognitive change, decreased interaction with peers, and increased levels of social control have all been argued relevant. If DLC is to realize its full potential in guiding policymakers and practitioners in designing and implementing successful interventions, more detailed knowledge is needed. Future studies therefore should include relevant measures on core concepts needed to test rival theories on the ways life circumstances are linked to change in delinquency and crime. Finally, little research attention has been devoted to the potentially detrimental influences criminal behavior has on conventional development. Research on the collateral effects of official interventions is still limited, yet increasingly relevant given the increased access third parties, like employers or insurance companies, have to criminal records. Trajectories in different lifecourse domains are intrinsically linked, and the negative effects of crime, even without involving the police or the courts, can easily be imagined. Delinquency and substance use can get a youth expelled from school jeopardizing his or her educational attainment. Crime in the workplace may cause an employee to be fired and experience unemployment, which in turn may scar that person’s future career prospects. Persistence in crime and deviance may also reflect negatively on one’s desirability as a mate, increasing the likelihood of remaining single and childless. The association between life circumstances and crime thus is far from a one way street and DLC researchers are compelled to look for statistical methods that facilitate such interdependencies. Conclusion To sum up, DLC is a much needed and vibrant branch of criminology, addressing important empirical and theoretical questions, inspiring many new research efforts and providing policy makers and practitioners with the information needed in their continuous efforts to prevent individuals from developing prolonged criminal pathways. DLC rejoices in a growing number of longitudinal datasets, covering an increasing part of the life-course, providing information on the developmental course of criminal careers and the associations between criminal pathways on the one hand and conventional pathways on the other. Still, much is yet to be gained as DLC begins to broaden its focus to different subsets of the offender population and the effects crime itself has on conventional attainment. Extending research on the intended and unintended effects of formal interventions, DLC has the potential to drastically reform prevailing sanction policies and greatly nuance the way we tend to think about the origins of crime. ADDITIONAL READING Blokland, A.A.J. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Life Course Criminology. In: Shoham, S.G., Knepper, P., Kett, M. (eds.), Interna tional Handbook of Criminology. London: CRC Press- Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 51-94. Farrington, D.P. (ed.) (2005). Integrated Developmental & Life-Course Theories of Offending. New Brunswick, US: Transaction Publishers. Gibson, C.L. & Krohn, M.D. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of Life-Course Criminology: Emerging Trends and Directions for Future Research. New York: Springer. Laub, J.H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings divergent lives. Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard Univer sity Press. (Continued on page 40) Page 40 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 39) Liberman, A.M. (ed.) (2008). The long view of crime. A synthesis of longitudinal research. New York: Springer. Moffitt, T.E. (2006). Life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In: Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D.J. (eds.) Developmental Psychopathology, vol. 3. New York: John Wiley, 570-598. Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P. & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 359-506. _______________________ 1 A version of this essay appeared in the inaugural edition of the newsletter of the ASC Division on Developmental and Lifecourse Criminology, The DLC Criminologist (vol. 1, no. 1, March, 2013). http://www.dlccrim.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/The_DLC_Criminologist_Volume_1_Number_1_March_2013.pdf Page 41 The Criminologist THE DIVISION OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY History, Purpose, and Recent Developments David Weisburd (Chair, Division of Experimental Criminology) Lynette Feder (Vice-Chair, Division of Experimental Criminology) Cynthia Lum (Secretary-Treasurer, Division of Experimental Criminology) The Division of Experimental Criminology was founded in 2009, but its origins can be found in the establishment of the Academy of Experimental Criminology (AEC) ten years earlier. The founders of the AEC, primarily criminologists active in the American Society of Criminology, wanted to create an organization that would help to both advance and provide greater visibility for experimental research in criminology. Akin to researchers throughout the social sciences, many criminologists see experimental research as the strongest method for establishing causality, especially in outcome evaluations. Despite this, experimental research occupies a small, though significant, niche within the discipline. The founders of AEC, believing that experimental research should play a more central role in criminological work, turned their attention to growing its prominence throughout the field. The establishment of the AEC helped the advancement of experimental work in criminology by providing a forum for discussion of experimental work, and also by recognizing experimental criminologists through its identification of Fellows of the AEC. From the outset, the AEC was strongly connected with the American Society of Criminology. The founding president of the Academy, Lawrence Sherman, was a previous president of the ASC, and many of those who have served as presidents of AEC, including David Farrington, Joan McCord, David Weisburd, Doris McKenzie, Lorraine Mazerolle, and Anthony Braga, are all active ASC members. The AEC established its yearly meeting and awards ceremony at the ASC national conference, and holds a yearly dinner the Tuesday night before the conference begins. In, 2007, the Academy president and board decided it was time to become an official part of the ASC by developing a membership division in the ASC. Whereas the AEC advanced experimental work in criminology through its recognition of fellows, the DEC provides a broader and more inclusive organization not only to increase the visibility of experiments in the ASC, but to provide a forum for encouraging and mentoring young scholars, and to provide fellowship among members interested in, as well as those already conducting, experiments. This essay introduces the DEC to ASC members and provides an overview of the Division’s work and activities. Below, we first discuss the importance of experimental approaches in criminology, providing a brief discussion of the perceived and real challenges in implementing and completing an experimental study. This was, in part, the reason for the formation of the DEC and shaped the various methods that have been implemented to encourage and support criminologists wishing to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in our field. Why Experimental Criminology? In 2003, Stockholm Prize winner Jonathan Shepherd argued that there was a comparative famine of randomized trials in criminology (Shepherd 2003). Coming from a background in medicine, Shepherd could not understand why a discipline focused on public health and safety with an interest on programmatic interventions was not conducting more randomized studies. The medical field had conducted hundreds of thousands of experimental studies to ascertain the full effects of various treatments over the last half-century (Petrosino et al. 2001; Shepherd 2003). Due largely to the use of experimental studies, medical science was able to solve many health issues during this time (Oakley, 1989). In comparison, crime and justice experimentation was still the exception rather than the norm; Petrosino et al. (2001) estimated approximately 500-1000 experiments may have been done in the same time period. Randomized experiments provide the best method for drawing valid causal conclusions, and do so in a simple and transparent manner. However, causes and effects are extremely difficult to isolate in the complex social world in which treatments and programs are implemented. The problem with non-experimental designs is that the groups may differ on important factors – both known and unknown to the researcher - prior to the implementation of the experimental treatment. These differences may be strongly associated with the outcome. In non-experimental designs, researchers cannot know if they have successfully controlled for all of these factors. When they find that some people, institutions, or places do better after treatment, there is no way of knowing with confidence whether they did better because of treatment or because of some confounding factor that was not measured. Through randomization of treatment and control conditions, the researcher can assume that such threats to valid conclusions are distributed equally between the two groups. Accordingly, in a well implemented randomized study, the effect of treatment is disentangled from the confounding effects of other factors. (Continued on page 42) Page 42 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 41) It is, therefore, not surprising that researchers have found that a study’s design affects its findings. Specifically, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the rigor of the evaluation method and the likelihood of finding treatment effectiveness (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn & Juffer, 2003; Feder & Wilson, 2005; Weisburd, Lum & Petrosino, 2001), suggesting that the evidence for programs that are less rigorously evaluated may be overstated. If programs are incorrectly labeled beneficial when they are not, individuals will not be helped and finite resources will be diverted away from effective programs. Randomized studies are, therefore, the most powerful tool that evaluators have for making valid conclusions about whether programs or treatments are worth implementing. In these tight budgetary times, having the best evidence possible about the effectiveness of an intervention is especially critical. While experiments are regarded as the gold standard for evaluation research, due to their high internal validity (Farrington, 2003), there are several common misperceptions and misunderstandings that may explain why they have not been more widely utilized by criminologists. The first centers on what a true experiment entails. Though the word experiment is used widely in journal titles, a closer examination indicates that they are usually referring to anything departing from current practice (Feder et al., 2011). By experiments, we mean studies that include random assignment to control and treatment groups. In fact, the scarcity of experimental research in criminal justice can be seen in a recent unpublished study by Baird (2011), in which she found that only 1.4% of all articles published in Criminology from 1980 through 2011 used a true experimental design (as cited in Lum and Mazerolle, In press). Just as importantly is what is not involved in an experiment. The literature documents incidents where some in the community have linked the term “experiment” with the Nazi “experiments” conducted during WWII in Europe as well as the Tuskegee “experiment” run in our own country until 1972. This has led to the mistaken view that experimental research is unethical (Feder, 1998; Feder, Jolin & Feyerherm, 2000). However, neither of these well known and highly unethical studies were experiments. In fact, many of the ethical issues arising in experiments are similar to those arising in all other types of research studies (Farrington, 1983; Feder et al., 2011). This is not surprising, as currently all research involving human subjects has specific requirements including the need for informed consent and the mandate to “Do No Harm.” Experimental research does face one challenge unique to this methodology. Specifically, there are some who view random assignment of individuals or places to a group whose members do not receive the intervention as an unethical denial of services (Devine, Wright, & Joyner, 1994; Oakley et al., 2003). However, a treatment that has not been rigorously evaluated cannot be assumed to be beneficial and, therefore, viewed as a disservice when withheld from participants. This is a critical point, in that research has found criminal justice programs that were not only ineffective (e.g., Davis and Taylor, 1997) but even harmful (Dishion, McCord and Poulin, 1999; McCord, 2003; Petrosino, 1998). The possibility of doing harm has led several researchers to argue that providing (or worse, mandating) interventions in the absence of rigorous evidence on their effectiveness is what is truly unethical (Binder & Newkirk, 1977; Hamberger & Hastings, 1993; Weisburd, 2003). These misperceptions regarding experimental research can make it difficult for researchers to gain agency buy-in for implementing (Heckman & Smith, 1995; Pawson & Tiley, 1997) and running an experimental study (Boruch, 1997). The purpose of the Division of Experimental Criminology Given these challenges, the Division of Experimental Criminology’s focus is to provide experimentalists and would-be experimentalists with information and support so as to make it easier to implement and complete experiments in the field. The DEC gathers a network of researchers from many different disciplines who have conducted experiments within criminal justice and criminology and are committed to growing its use and acceptance within the field. The mentorship and collegiality that results from this network is important, and the DEC provides numerous opportunities. For instance, to increase interest in experimental research among graduate students and junior professors, DEC provides a mentorship program whereby those individuals interested in implementing a randomized controlled trial are connected to a seasoned experimentalist who will help them as they undertake such a study. This mentorship is critical. Research conducted by Lum and Yang (2005) found that authors of experiments felt that collegiality and mentorship seemed to matter as much as education as the most influential sources of learning about how to conduct experiments. They also found that those associated with experiments (compared to those associated with non-experiments) were more likely to have students or colleagues go on to conduct other randomized experiments. Research conducted by Braga et al. (in press) bears out the importance of mentorship in the process by which individuals adopt experimental research in their evaluative practices. Specifically, Braga et al.’s social network analysis found that the work currently being conducted experimentally in police research could be traced back to a small number of highly prolific experimental researchers who were actively involved in training the next generation of experimental criminologists at a small number of graduate programs. (Continued on page 43) The Criminologist Page 43 (Continued from page 42) Mentorship is not just important to those in research and academia. As practitioners become more involved with conducting evaluations of their own under the umbrella of evidence-based crime policy, so too will they need assistance. Anthony Braga’s work with Commissioner Ed Davis of the Boston Police Department has furthered our understanding of hot spots policing and problem-solving at places. Lawrence Sherman's mentorship of Chief Superintendent Alex Murray has led to numerous experiments in the U.K., including recently in Birmingham (Murray, 2013). The Sacramento field experiment (Telep, Mitchell and Weisburd, in press) began with current board members Cynthia Lum and David Weisburd working with Sacramento Police Department Sgt. Renee Mitchell to design and develop that experiment. Lorraine Mazerolle has guided police commanders in Australia to conduct randomized controlled trials related to community engagement and family services (Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus et al., 2012, Mazerolle, Martin and Bennett, 2012). Two of these practitioners, Peter Martin and Ian Stewart, were inducted into the Evidence-Based Policing Hall of Fame, in recognition of their efforts. These are just a few of many examples of the division’s criminologists not just doing experiments but mentoring practitioners to carry out their own experiments. The DEC also offers an array of workshops on different aspects of running experiments, and hosts professional networking events at the annual American Society of Criminology (ASC) conference (http://cebcp.org/dec/dec-at-asc/). These events give members the opportunity to interact and develop social networks with other experimentalists. At our annual events, we recognize achievement by both new and established scholars. DEC provides for a Young Experimental Criminologist award, and a student paper award to recognize those who, though just starting their careers, demonstrate great promise. The Division and AEC also give awards to established scholars (http://cebcp.org/dec/aec-dec-awards), including AEC Fellows, the Joan McCord Award, and the Jerry Lee Lifetime Achievement Award. Beginning last year, the DEC has updated its website (http://cebcp.org/dec/) to include more material, to reflect the memo of understanding and partnership between AEC and DEC, and to provide members with resources. Here, members can access information on the Division's organization and membership, awards, activities, and newsletter, The Experimental Criminologist (http://cebcp.org/dec/aec-dec-newsletters/), which contains current information and featured articles about experimental happenings in criminology and criminal justice. Recently, DEC began a “Teaching Corner,” which provides syllabi from those offering courses on experimental research (http://cebcp.org/dec/teaching-corner/). Finally, the AEC and DEC support the Journal of Experimental Criminology, a top ranked journal providing an outlet for high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the development of evidence-based criminology and justice policy. The journal publishes empirical papers, reviews of substantive criminology and justice problems, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. Coverage ranges across the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology and justice problems, and has an international readership. Research indicates that randomized experiments are feasible and have been conducted in a variety of criminal justice settings (Petrosino, 1998). The medical community’s experience with experimental research can provide encouragement. Specifically, with the increased use of experiments in medical research, practitioners have grown more comfortable with this methodology, making it easier to conduct experiments. The end result has been a significant increase in the number of cures for a variety of ills (Oakley, 2000). In the end, as Feder and her colleagues (2000) noted: There is one thing that will help get experiments more widely accepted and used [in criminal justice]. That is, doing more experiments. Most researchers already understand the advantages that randomized experiments offer over other types of research designs. As more randomized experiments are published, researchers will see that they are possible and perhaps they will think more seriously about implementing them. Also, as researchers increasingly use this methodology, agencies will become more comfortable with experiments. (p. 398) It is our hope that other criminologists will join us in conducting experiments thereby continuing to grow the knowledge base in our field. REFERENCES Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195–215. Baird, J. (2011). Descriptive validity and statistical power: A review of experiments published in criminology from 1980–2011. Unpublished manuscript. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Binder, A., and Newkirk, M. (1977). A program to extend police service capability. Crime Prevention Review 4:26-32. (Continued on page 44) Page 44 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 43) Braga, Anthony A., Brandon C. Welsh, Andrew V. Papachristos, Cory Schnell, & Leigh Grossman. (In press.) The growth of randomized experiments in policing: The vital Few and the salience of mentoring. Journal of Experimental Criminology. (Forthcoming). Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (1997). A proactive response to family violence: The results of a randomized experiment. Criminology, 35 (2), 307–333. Devine, J. A., Wright, J. D., & Joyner, L. M. (1994). Issues in implementing a randomized experiment in a field setting. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1994(63), 27–40. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755–764. Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 4, 257. Farrington, D. P. (2003). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meager feast. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 218– 227. Feder, L. (1998). Police handling of domestic and nondomestic assault calls: Is there a case for discrimination? Crime & Delinquency, 44(2), 335–349. Feder, L., Jolin, A., & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 380–400. Feder, L., Niolon, P. H., Campbell, J., Wallinder, J., Nelson, R., & Larrouy, H. (2011). The need for experimental methodology in intimate partner violence: Finding programs that effectively prevent IPV. Violence Against Women, 17(3), 340–358. Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 239–262. Hamberger, K., & Hastings, J. (1993). Court-mandated treatment of men who assault their partner: Issues, controversies, and outcomes. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault (pp. 188–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85–110. Lum, C. and L. Mazerolle. (In press.) The history of randomized controlled experiments in criminology and criminal justice. In The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Gerben Bruinsma and David Weisburd, Editors). Springer-Verlag. (Forthcoming). Lum, C. and S. Yang. (2005). Why d o e valuation researchers in c rime and j ustice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(2), 191-213. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Egging, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 343– 367. Mazerolle, L., Martin, P., & Bennett, S. (2012). Implementing procedurally just approaches to policing … one breath at a time. Translational Criminology, Fall Issue, 6–7. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 16–30. Murray, A. (2013). Integrity and evidence-based policing. Translational Criminology Magazine, Fall 2013. Fairfax, VA: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University. Oakley, A. (1989). Who’s afraid of the randomized controlled trial? Some dilemmas of the scientific method and “good” research practice. Women and Health, 15(4), 25-59. Oakley, A. (2000). A historical perspective on the use of randomized trials in social science settings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 315– 329. Oakley, A., Strange, V., Toroyan, T., Wiggins, M., Roberts, I., & Stephenson, J. (2003). Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: Three recent U.K. examples. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 170–189. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). An introduction to scientific realist evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 405–418). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Petrosino, A.J. (1998). Building better information: The potential mutual benefits of theory-based evaluation and meta-analysis. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL. Petrosino, A., Boruch, R. F., Soydan, H., Duggan, L., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 14–34. Shepherd, J. P. (2003). Explaining feast or famine in randomized field trials medical science and criminology compared. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 290–315. Telep, C. W., Mitchell, R. J., & Weisburd, D. (In press). How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots?: Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly. Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 336–354. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 50–70. Page 45 The Criminologist EDITORS’ CORNER CRIMINOLOGY CONFIDENTIAL An Inside Look at Journal Operations, Procedures, and Policies Eric Baumer, Rosemary Gartner and Wayne Osgood, Editors of Criminology Demystifying the Post-Submission Process Most ASC members learn pretty early in their careers the basics of the journal article submission process and the general norms—many of them informal—that govern it. When things work well, mentors pass down to us a range of invaluable wisdom about the importance of integrity, transparency, and ethics in conducting research, pointers on how to effectively translate our efforts into an article of appropriate substance and depth, and sage advice on how we might maximize the chances of having the product accepted at the journal in which we aspire to publish. But, what about the process that occurs after you submit that paper? We suspect that there is less clarity among the membership on that question. In this essay, we offer a window inside the operations of Criminology under our editorship, which will soon enter a second three-year term.1 Our primary objective is to demystify the process that unfolds after you have worked tirelessly to produce a manuscript and given us the opportunity to consider it for publication. We describe the major actions that occur from submission to final editorial decision (and, as we all hope, publication), highlighting some procedures and policies we have adopted to maximize editorial best practices and to minimize potential conflicts of interest. Many, but not all, of these are key elements of the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which we have found a valuable resource.2 You’ve Kissed the Envelope, Now What? A close mentor to one of us once swore that a key to publication success was to “kiss the envelope” containing the submission just before mailing it, while another encouraged taking a swig of a single malt before licking the envelope. Times have changed, and kissing the “enter” key may not have the same appeal, but whatever the merits of your favorite publication superstitions, it points to a larger question: What happens to your paper once it reaches the journal’s editorial office? The details of this process vary somewhat across journals, and they also may differ across editorial eras for a single journal. Indeed, our coeditorship has permitted us to adopt some policies and procedures not as readily available to former editors of Criminology, the vast majority of whom handled this job solo. (To our knowledge, the co-editorship of Donal E. J. Macnamara and Edward Sagarin in the late 1970s is the only other joint editorship of the journal.) Nonetheless, the general structure of the process is fairly standard: submitted papers usually are assigned to multiple reviewers (most typically in a double-blind fashion), who read them and provide written input on the suitability of the paper for publication in the journal. Then the editor (or editors) independently evaluates the paper in light of the reviewer input, and reaches a publication decision that is then conveyed to you. From Submission to Decision under our Editorship at Criminology With some important caveats, the process from submission to decision at Criminology under our editorship generally follows this standard protocol. It all starts with the managing editor for review, who (to use a sports analogy) serves as a sort-of point guard for the editorial team. Though our enterprise is split across three universities, the editorial office is housed at the Pennsylvania State University. We have been very fortunate to have two doctoral students there as outstanding managing editors—Brianna Remster, who served in this capacity during the bulk of our first term, and Brendan Lantz, who is leading us into our second term. The managing editor is the first person who sees your submission, and she or he has several very important initial tasks. These include the completion of a series of diagnostic checks to ensure that your submission meets our requirement of author anonymity and that it is reasonably close to the norms of the journal for length and formatting. 3 Next, the managing editor assigns your paper to one of the three manuscript editors—Baumer, Gartner, or Osgood. This assignment process is governed primarily by matching papers to editors according to the substantive focus of the paper and editor expertise, with additional consideration to balancing work-load across editors and to minimizing potential conflicts of interest. The latter point warrants some elaboration. (Continued on page 46) Page 46 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 45) Editors should decide whether to publish papers based on their merit, not on who submits them. When an author is an editor’s colleague, collaborator, or someone who has written a scathing critique of the editor’s work, doubts about an editor’s objectivity are understandable. Often, an editor cannot avoid making publication decisions on such papers, but our co-editorship helps a great deal. We have policies for allocating papers to editors aimed at minimizing the potential for perceived or actual conflict of interest due to relationships with authors. Specifically, we have no association with papers authored by our mentors or students, persons with whom we routinely collaborate, or colleagues at our home institutions; such papers are allocated to one of the other editors by the managing editor, and we play no role in the editorial decision. In fact, we often do not know they are under review at the journal. To further limit the appearance of conflicts, we also have a policy that excludes submissions by us during our tenure. We do permit our student managing editors to submit under specified conditions, however. 4 Once your paper is assigned to a manuscript editor, you are informed of his or her identity via e-mail. This editor selects several potential reviewers with the theoretical and methodological skills to provide meaningful feedback on the suitability of your paper for publication in the journal. Each of us relies fairly heavily on our outstanding Editorial Board, which means we often begin our search for reviewers with this group. We also are fortunate to have a large reviewer pool and an electronic database that enables us to search it using a variety of criteria, including area of expertise. What is more, the database contains our ratings and notes about the quality of each review submitted to the journal over the past several years, allowing us to choose people who have track-records of high-quality reviews. We also routinely add to our database scholars who are actively working in an area relevant to the paper. We often find excellent new reviewers by doing so. Just as we have implemented policies to minimize editorial conflicts of interest, we have adopted practices that mitigate potential reviewer-author conflicts. Some of these are built-in to the electronic reviewer selection system described above. For instance, as a rule we do not solicit reviews from scholars with the same institutional affiliation as the author, and such instances are automatically flagged by our system (provided both parties have entered that information). Other policies that govern reviewer selection are not as easily integrated into a computerized database, but we follow them as best we can, based on the information at our disposal. These include not selecting reviewers who regularly collaborate and/or have a mentoring relationship (as mentor or mentee) with the author. After identifying possible reviewers, we send to several candidates the abstract of your paper along with an invitation to review the full manuscript. We aim to secure 3-4 commitments to review your paper, which we usually achieve within a few days of your submission. From this point, we regularly monitor the review process through our Wiley-Blackwell supported on-line system you may know as ScholarOne or Manuscript Central. This system tracks all communication about your manuscript and is the location to which reviewers ultimately submit their ratings and written comments. As editors, we are notified by e-mail when each review is completed, and also when all solicited reviews arrive and the paper is ready for a decision. Thanks to our talented and efficient reviewers, we receive all promised reviews for the large majority of manuscripts within 4-5 weeks from the date of submission. The next stage of the process encompasses the editor’s own reading of the paper and synthesis of reviewer input, which together inform an editorial decision. At Criminology, publication standards are very high, and so we most frequently find ourselves declining the opportunity to publish the papers we evaluate (a gentle phrase for “rejection,” which appears to have originated during the editorship of Bob Bursik). There are two other decision possibilities: (1) an invitation to revise and resubmit in light of insights from the review process; or (2) an acceptance (which can come with specified conditions). Though the specific editor assigned to your manuscript will evaluate it in isolation from the other editors, the three of us weigh and emphasize the same themes when arriving at an editorial decision (i.e., originality, substantive importance, scope of theoretical contribution; soundness of methods). Perhaps because of this, the rates of rejection, revision, and acceptance we obtain are virtually identical. Based on our informal conversations about the decision-making process, we take generally similar approaches to reaching decisions. Often, reviewers are in agreement about the key issues and the decision is straightforward. When the decision is more complex, we frequently read submissions multiple times (both before and after considering reviewer input) and often consult pertinent work on which a paper builds. Nonetheless, the specific decision-making process followed after all reviews are in hand differs slightly across editors and across the papers we evaluate. Each paper and set of reviews is unique. We see it as our charge to ensure that all papers submitted to the journal receive a careful and thorough review, and this often means applying a different approach depending on the details of the paper and the review process. In the vast majority of instances, authors who have submitted to Criminology during our editorship have received an initial decision within 8 weeks. This decision is communicated in writing, distributed to the corresponding author and the reviewers via e-mail. (Continued on page 47) The Criminologist Page 47 (Continued from page 46) After the Decision: Revisions, Acceptances, and the Production Process Revision invitations are relatively rare (about 20% of submissions) and, though there are no guarantees, they indicate that we judge the chances of eventual acceptance to be relatively high. We do our best to provide specific guidance on how authors can effectively address the most important concerns that have been raised, making clear that we do not expect a line-by-line response to reviews. We encourage authors to resubmit their revised papers in a timely fashion, in part because it increases the chances that the original reviewers will be willing to evaluate the revised manuscript and in part because there is less chance that new work will raise additional issues. The editor in charge of the initial submission also serves as editor of the revised version. As a general rule, we send revised papers to one or more of the original reviewers, though occasionally we make a final publication determination without additional reviewer input (e.g., when the requested revisions are relatively straightforward and we feel able to determine whether the issues in question have been resolved satisfactorily). 5 The general process and policies for assessing revised papers conform closely to the steps for initial submissions (e.g., we follow the same reviewer exclusion rules). Under our editorship, the acceptance rate of papers for which we have requested a revision is over 80 percent, and thus for the vast majority of these cases the process moves to its last stage: production! As anyone who has gone through this process can attest, we are very lucky to have an outstanding managing editor for production, Janani Umamaheswar, who also is a doctoral student at Penn State. Upon acceptance, Janani (or her successor) will closely review your paper for formatting and other production diagnostic checks, working with you on resolving any potential problems. Next, your paper is sent to our copy editor for a comprehensive round of editing, back to you for a final review, a nd then to our publisher, Wiley/Blackwell, for typesetting. After final readings by you and the managing editor for production, the paper is published on-line by Wiley, and subsequently in the printed volume. Conclusion Getting your scholarship published is a challenging and, in some respects, daunting process. You do the hard work of conducting cutting-edge research and producing a clearly written and effectively argued summary for submission to an appropriate outlet. Many of us have a basic understanding of this process, but what happens after we submit is less obvious. We hope that our description has demystified the process a bit, while also shedding light on the specific procedures and policies that govern the review and publication process at Criminology. If you have any questions about any of these, we would be happy to answer them. You can contact us at: criminology.psu@gmail.com. ________________________ 1 We enthusiastically applied for a second three-year term, which was approved by the ASC Executive Board in April, 2013. Our second term commences in November, 2013 and runs through the publication of volume 57 in 2017. 2 The ASC journals are not official members of COPE, but we have suggested that the publication committee consider this possibility for Criminology. 3 Criminology’s guidelines for authors on these and other matters can be found on-line at the following URL: http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291745-9125/homepage/ForAuthors.html 4 The lead editor serves as the day-to-day supervisor of the managing editor, with whom he shares institutional affiliation. Therefore, one of the other editors is assigned any such submission, and only this editor has access to the identity of reviewers, the content of reviews, and communication between editor and reviewers. 5 New reviewers are approached at this stage only in instances where the original reviewers are unavailable and/or an issue emerges in the evaluation of the revised paper about which a new reader might provide unique input. We rarely do so. Page 48 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 POLICY CORNER A regular column by ASC’s Policy Committee. THE FIRST FISCAL SHOE FALLS Todd R. Clear, ASC Policy Committee Chair The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have finished their work on the appropriations for justice research, and there are significant differences between them. I want to thank Howard Silver of The Council of Social Science Associations for providing me with budget proposal details. The base numbers are quite different. For NIJ, the Senate provides $43 million, while the House proposes $38 million. Last year, NIJ operated with $40 million. Both the House and Senate allow up to 2% of the OJP grant budget to be set aside for NIJ research, a key provision. NIJ continues to receive separate funding for the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW): $3.25M in the House version and $4M from the Senate. The Senate bill specifies $2 million be spent on gun safety technology and $1 million on domestic violence against American Indian women. The House provides an additional $4 million to study domestic radicalization leading to terrorism. For BJS, there is a similar pattern. The Senate provides $48 million; the House offers $42 million. Last year BJS received $48 million. Both House and Senate versions include an additional $55 million for improvements in criminal history information systems. The House version eliminates COPS funding and reduces juvenile justice funding by 30%. As an aside, though the White House request is not likely to be enacted, the numbers are $44.5 million for NIJ, $52.9 million for BJS. One way of looking at this is that the House and Senate have given their opening salvo in a battle over the budget. The two groups are $91 billion apart in their federal budget ceilings, and the difference shows throughout the entire budget, including justice policy and research. It translates into a $5 billion difference in justice spending. There are far bigger fish to be fried in this budget debate, but whatever happens in the final justice budget framing will not likely occur before October, when the debt ceiling arises again. The ASC has begun its work on the science and research budget for justice-related areas, again in cooperation with the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. In August, a small group of representatives of the two organizations is meeting with key appropriations staff in the House and Senate, as well as the White House. The plan is to carry a message about the public importance of justice-related research. In coming columns, I will suggest ways that members can help in this work. DOCTORAL AND MASTER’S PROGRAMS Areas of Concentration: Crime and Crime Policy; Justice and Law; Justice Organizations, Administration, and Leadership Department of Criminology, Law and Society Faculty THE PROGRAM Award-winning Faculty Rigorous Training Policy Relevant HIGHLIGHTS • Significant Graduate Student Funding • Faculty Mentorship of Graduate Students • Opportunities for Student Research and Publishing • Collaborations with Justice Agencies • Outreach to Policymakers and Practitioners AFFILIATED CENTERS CENTER FOR ADVANCING CORRECTIONAL EXCELLENCE CATHERINE A. GALLAGHER (University of Maryland) — Associate Professor. Director of the Cochrane Collaboration College for Policy. Health care and justice agencies, health and safety of justice-involved persons, juvenile justice, federal data collections DEVON JOHNSON (University of California, Los Angeles) — Director of Graduate Programs and Associate Professor. Public opinion on criminal justice issues, race and criminal justice, politics of crime and justice policy, survey methods CHRISTOPHER S. KOPER (University of Maryland) — Associate Professor. Firearms, violence, and public policy, police and crime control, organizational change in policing, policy and program evaluation, assessment of crime trends BRIAN LAWTON (Temple University) — Assistant Professor. Geographic correlates of crime, theories and explanations of deviance, police discretion CYNTHIA LUM (University of Maryland) — Associate Professor. Policing, crime and place, criminal justice evaluation research, democratization and justice, counterterrorism STEPHEN MASTROFSKI (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) — University Professor. Director of the Center for Justice Leadership and Management. Police discretion, police organizations and their reform, systematic field observation methods in criminology LINDA M. MEROLA (George Washington University Law School & Georgetown University) — Associate Professor. Civil liberties, privacy and technology, counterterrorism, the judiciary, public opinion, survey and experimental methods ANGELA K. REITLER (Ohio Northern University College of Law & University of Cincinnati) — Assistant Professor. Criminal law and procedure, decision making in criminal case processing, causal inference in observational studies LAURIE O. ROBINSON (Brown University) - Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Criminology, Law and Society. Crime and public policy, federal role in supporting translational criminology and criminal justice innovation, public management and strategic leadership in criminal justice DANIELLE S. RUDES (University of California, Irvine) — Assistant Professor. Organizational change, community corrections, prisons, law and society, prisoner reentry, qualitative methods CENTER FOR EVIDENCE-BASED CRIME POLICY FAYE S. TAXMAN (Rutgers University) — University Professor. Director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence. Health services and correctional research, evidence-based courts and corrections, program design and interventions, experimentation and evaluation CENTER FOR JUSTICE LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT C. ALLAN TURNER (University of Southern California) — Research Professor Emeritus. Corrections, homeland security, security technology, threat, risk and vulnerability assessment COCHRANE COLLABORATION COLLEGE FOR POLICY DAVID WEISBURD (Yale University) — Distinguished Professor. Executive Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Police innovation, geography of crime, experimental criminology, statistics and research methods, white collar crime VISIT US cls.gmu.edu JAMES WILLIS (Yale University) — Associate Professor. Police organizations, police reform, police decision making, punishment in an historical context DAVID B. WILSON (Claremont Graduate University) — Department Chair and Professor. Crime prevention and correctional treatment programs, meta-analysis, quantitative research methods MATTHEW T. ZINGRAFF (Bowling Green State University) — Interim President, George Mason University campus in Songdo, Korea. Crime and social control, police behavior, biasedbased policing, racial profiling Page 50 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 TEACHING TIPS COLUMN Edited by Charisse T. M. Coston University of North Carolina at Charlotte (ccoston@uncc.edu) The peer reviewed Teaching Tips column is geared toward sharing ideas that will help improve teaching in both undergraduate and graduate level criminology and criminal justice courses. Submissions should be between 500 and 1,000 words. Tips can consist of:  Pedagogical or curriculum resources (e.g., helpful books, websites, agencies)  In-class, small group exercises  Ideas for stimulating and leading discussion on difficult, challenging, or controversial topics  Innovative teaching techniques (e.g., using music, videos, clickers, television dramas, or newspapers in the classroom)  Examples of service learning, experiential learning, or problem-based learning activities  Examples of writing assignments that help students understand theories, concepts, and/or processes related to the field  Tips for making teaching more manageable and enjoyable (e.g., time savers, topics that generate discussion, ways for engaging students) Please send submissions for “Teaching Tips” to Charisse T.M. Coston at ccoston@uncc.edu. Thanks – Charisse T.M. Coston, Chair; Natasha M. Ganem, Kristi Holsinger, Christopher Lyons, Stephen L. Muzzatti, and Heather L. Scheuerman, Members, ASC Teaching Committee. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IDEAS FOR ONLINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY CLASSROOMS The Case for Students’ Virtual Prison Tours Karen Miner-Romanoff, Franklin University Criminal justice and criminology educators face a teaching hurdle that educators in many other disciplines do not face. Criminal justice and criminology students may be unduly influenced by media and political myths and stereotypes that shape erroneous perceptions and opinions about criminals and the United States criminal justice system (Rockell, 2009; Smith, Meade, & KoonsWitt, 2009). The realities of punishment and day-to-day rehabilitative programs and practices are rarely part of media accounts and popular culture (Surette, 2007). For example, Rockell (2009) asked incoming criminal justice students how many homicides take place each year in the United States. The most frequent answer was “between 100,000 and 150,000” (p. 75). Recent statistics indicate that homicides in 2011 totaled 14,612 (Disaster Center, 2012). The students’ impressions were highly distorted. In addition to such misconceptions, criminal justice students may hold more severely punitive attitudes and philosophies than students in other majors (Mackey & Courtright, 2000). These issues support the need for criminal justice students’ authentic learning experiences, such as court visits, practicums, offender lectures, police ridealongs, and prison visits and tours. Such experiences help students develop critical thinking and promote phenomenological teaching based on realistic system encounters (Smith, 2012). Fabianic (2010) highlighted the importance of the development and maintenance of high-quality criminal justice programs and instructional methods. He pointed out that “much of the future of criminal justice will be shaped and influenced by those passing through criminal justice education programs and consequently the structure of that enterprise is crucial” (p. 123). Following from this observation, this teaching tip describes an authentic learning experience of criminal justice students, a virtual prison tour, and a survey the students completed after they watched the video. The onsite prison tour has become a popular experiential tool for students to gain authentic experiences about the correctional system (Helfgott, 2003; Smith, 2012). Many scholars encourage prison tours to help students humanize offenders and compare societal “symbolic representations” of prisoners with realistic depictions (Piche & Walby, 2010, p. 576). In one study, students changed their harsh punishment philosophies to more positive ones after exposure to prison (Smith et al., 2009). In another study, students changed their negative attitudes significantly toward wrongfully convicted prisoners after listening to an exonoree (Ricciardelli & Clow, 2012). These student experiences led them to ask increasingly critical questions about the criminal justice system and to reexamine their beliefs and assumptions about the system (Smith et al., 2009; Smith, Koons-Witt, & Meade, 2010). (Continued on page 51) The Criminologist Page 51 (Continued from page 50) However, some scholars maintain that prison tours are unethical and disingenuous (Smith, 2012). Smith (2012) noted that prison tours often do not include the voices of those incarcerated. Inmates may be stared at and shamed as tourists move through the facility (Piche & Walby, 2010). Tours may be “scripted,” reinforcing tourists’ “fantasy of rehabilitation and corrections” (Piche & Walby, 2010, p. 574). Tours have even become entertainment, with guides highlighting legends and pointing out supposed ghosts lurking in facilities (Brown, 2009; LaRose, 2011). Students who witness prisoners, facilities, and conditions may experience guilt, stress, and significant emotional trauma on the tours (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Finckenauer, 2000; Smith et al., 2009). The teaching tip described here offers a unique approach that minimizes drawbacks and enhances advantages of the onsite prison tour. The author, chair of the university’s criminal justice program, taught a one-semester course titled “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency.” She designed a virtual tour and participant survey to provide criminal justice students with exposure to incarcerated juveniles without the shortcomings of onsite prison tours. The author received university IRB approval for student participants, based on student responses remaining anonymous. Students were recruited by the instructor’s invitation through email and the course website. Students were not pressured to participate; they were not given incentives, such as extra credit. Nor were they threatened with disincentives, such as lowered grades, for nonparticipation. Voluntary participation was online and anonymous; students viewed a 6minute video of juvenile offenders’ accounts of their institutional experiences and then responded to the survey. Of the 150 students enrolled in the course, 43 participated, viewed and completed the survey, a response rate of 29%. To create the video, the author recruited three panels of institutionalized juveniles from a state juvenile facility, with cooperation of the supervisor. Three juveniles participated in each panel, and they were asked the same six questions by the instructor about their experiences. The questions included their thoughts and observations about their institutionalization, sentences, challenges, institutional programming, fears upon release, and offender risk factors. A multimedia team recorded the discussions, and the juveniles’ privacy and identities were protected because their faces were not shown. As each juvenile spoke, a template black silhouette was highlighted, and their audio responses to each question were recorded. The nine juveniles’ ages varied from approximately 15 to 20. Six were males and three were females, and at the point of participating on the panel, all were serving between 1 and 5 years in the prison facility. After the student participants viewed the video, they completed the online survey. This was a researcher-designed 8-item instrument requesting the students’ thoughts and opinions regarding the video. The quantitative portion of the survey asked students to assess seven items according to a 3-point Likert-type scale (No, Somewhat, Yes). These items measured the degree to which the video enabled students to connect theory to practice; was helpful in their understanding of criminal justice; provided a realistic experience of incarcerated juveniles, and especially for online learners; impacted students’ career choice; affected their support for community incarceration alternatives; and impacted their support for rehabilitation, education, treatment, and services of incarcerated juveniles. The final item was qualitative, requesting students to write additional comments about their responses and feedback after viewing the video. The results were highly positive. Of the participants, 60.5% reported that the video helped them connect theory to practice, and 71.4% said the video helped them better understand juvenile corrections. A total of 70.7% indicated that the video provided authentic criminal justice experiences beyond the classroom. When hearing actual incarcerated juveniles, 62.8% of the students responded that the video increased their support for incarceration alternatives, and 72.1% reported the video increased their support for mental health treatment and education of incarcerated juveniles. A total of 65.1% responded that the video provided a realistic experience for online learners. Responses to only one item were low; 27.9% said that the video affected their career choice. This response may have resulted because students had already decided on their career paths, and the video supported their choices. Replies to the single qualitative item supported the quantitative results. Students reported a better understanding of the juvenile justice system and confirmed their desire to work in the system. Qualitative responses also demonstrated students’ appreciation of the video as an authentic experience, their realization of the need for system reforms, and their recognition and support of rehabilitation programs. This initial study had several limitations, including responses from students in a single course at a single university and the low response rate. Despite drawbacks noted above of onsite prison tours, the students did not experience the actual institutional environment, in seeing and hearing incarcerated juveniles and witnessing how wardens and guards acted toward the prisoners. Such onsite experiences may have affected students more strongly than the virtual tour (Burke & Bush, 2013; Smith, 2012). (Continued on page 52) Page 52 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 51) Nevertheless, this type of virtual learning tool can be utilized in criminal justice programs and courses to clarify students’ impressions of incarcerated juveniles, enhance students’ experiential learning, amplify their mastery of theory with practice, and expand their critical thinking. Further research with a pre- and posttest design may provide additional valuable information. The author plans to replicate this study with students in other courses in the juvenile justice program. Replication is also recommended at universities in other courses in criminal justice, with voluntary student participation. As an alternative to the survey, instructors may require student papers on their learning after exposure to the video, with online discussions. Experiential instructional technology contributes significantly to optimizing learning outcomes (LaRose, 2011). As online higher education continues to grow, experiential learning tools must be transferred to the virtual classroom. Use of real-world experiences enhances online students’ ability to integrate theory with practice, encourages deeper student inquiry, and promotes dialogue and exchange of perspectives within the online learning community (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010; McCracken & Guthrie, 2011; Smith et al., 2010). An online virtual prison tour for students provides benefits to present students who will become future criminal justice professionals. This instructional strategy may also lead to further research and implementation of similar strategies, extending to the broader issue of exposure to authentic online experiences about the criminal justice system for all criminology and criminal justice students. Note: The survey and video are available on request from the author (karen.miner-romanoff@franklin.edu). REFERENCES Brown, M. (2009). The culture of punishment: Prison, society, and spectacle. New York, NY: New York University Press. Burke, A. S., & Bush, M. D. (2013). Service learning and criminal justice: An exploratory study of student perceptions. Educational Review, 65(1), 56-69. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.638138 Disaster Center (2012). United States Crime Rates 1960–2011. Retrieved from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Fabianic, D. (2010). Ramifications of instructional technology for criminal justice education. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(2), 122-137. Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010). Reflective pedagogy: Making meaning in experiential based online courses. Journal of Educators Online, 7(2), 1-21. Helfgott, J. B. (2003). The prison tour as a pedagogical tool in undergraduate criminal justice courses. Corrections Compendium. Retrieved from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ The+prison+tour+as+a+pedagogical+tool+in+undergraduate+criminal+justice+courses-a0106763054 LaRose, A. P. (2011). Field trips: Pedagogical gold or drive-by education? ACJS [Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences] Today, 36 (2), 1, 4. Mackey, D. A., & Courtright, K. E. (2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. Justice Professional, 12(4), 423-441. McCracken, H., & Guthrie, K. L. (2011). Experience as the foundation for authentic learning online. E-mentor 3(40). Retrieved from http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul/index/sumer/40/id/853 Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Finckenauer, J. O. (2000). Well-meaning programs can have harmful effects! Lessons from experiments in Scared Straight and other like programs. Crime and Delinquency, 46(3), 354-379. Piche, J., & Walby, K. (2010). Problematizing carceral tours. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 570-581. Ricciardelli, R., & Clow, K. A. (2012). The impact of an exonoree’s guest lecture on students’ attitudes toward wrongfully convicted persons. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(2), 127-147. Rockell, B. A. (2009). Challenging what they all know: Integrating the real/reel world into criminal justice pedagogy. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(1), 76-92. Smith, H. P. (2012). Reinforcing experiential learning in criminology: Definitions, rationales, and missed opportunities concerning prison tours in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(1), 50-67. doi:10.1080/10511253.2012.660172 Smith, H. P., Koons-Witt, B. A., & Meade, B. (2010). Demystifying prisons through the use of experiential learning. Corrections Compendium, 35(2), 1-5. Smith, H. P., Meade, B., & Koons-Witt, B. A. (2009). The utility of the correctional tour: Student perceptions and the propensity for academic growth. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(3), 292-311. Surette, R. (2007). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images, realities, and policies (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Page 53 The Criminologist DOCTORAL STUDENT FORUM Submissions of future “Doctoral Student Forum” columns are encouraged. Please contact Bianca Bersani: bianca.bersani@umb.edu (Chair of the Student Affairs Committee). MORE THAN A MEMBER Graduate Student and Junior Faculty Involvement in the ASC Whytnee Foriest, University of Maryland, College Park Heather M. Washington, University at Albany, SUNY Getting involved in the ASC is not as difficult as you may think. After all, there is a lot of work to be done. Ever wonder who is responsible for planning the annual meeting? Curious about how new members are recruited? Do you need a platform for your new, innovative ideas? Can you see yourself publishing an article here, in The Criminologist? There are plenty of ways for graduate students and junior faculty to make their mark in the ASC. To shed light on these issues, we asked ASC President Robert Agnew and Executive Director Chris Eskridge to offer some helpful tips for junior faculty and graduate students seeking to maximize their ASC membership. Most of us plan our fall semesters around attending the ASC meetings in November. Few of us, however, consider assisting with the preparation of each conference. From recruitment to roundtables, ASC committees are responsible for making each annual meeting a success. And, as you can probably guess, committees are always looking for new members to help them achieve this important goal. The process for joining committees is fairly simple. Many members are nominated by the ASC President-Elect. However, the President-Elect also accepts member nominations from other professionals. According to the current President, Robert Agnew, these suggestions may come from ASC division chairs or members of the ASC Board. When soliciting recommendations for ASC committee members, Dr. Agnew looks for reliable people who have some interest and expertise in the committee area. ASC Presidents also strive for diversity in the various committee appointments. Division membership is another way for graduate students and junior faculty to get involved in ASC committees. Executive Director Chris Eskridge notes that divisions are great places for graduate students and junior faculty to get their feet wet before moving on to committee membership. Each division caters to a specific interest, with topics ranging from Critical Criminology to Victimology. There truly is something for everyone! And, given that students and junior faculty make up about one-third of division membership, divisions are a great place for students and junior faculty to meet new colleagues, connect with a senior faculty mentor, and begin to get the most out of their ASC membership. Once you are an active division member and have an idea of which committee you would like to join, you may ask your division chair to submit your name to the President or President-Elect for nomination. Alternatively, you may submit your request for nomination in writing directly to the ASC Executive Director or President-Elect any time after the annual meeting in November until midMarch. Several committees, in particular, are well suited for graduate student and junior faculty participation. These include the program, membership, and student affairs committees. The ASC Program Committee is responsible for organizing the annual meeting. The chair of this committee works closely with the President, Executive Director, Meeting Manager, and Administrator to carry out the President’s theme for the annual meeting. Together, committee members determine the format and number of presentations, organize panel sessions, and devise a schedule. In short, the Program Committee is responsible for making sure that the annual meeting flows smoothly. The Membership Committee conducts membership surveys, assists in the development of brochures, serves as greeters at the Annual Meeting, and obtains mailing lists from other organizations. In addition, the committee contacts a wide variety of academic departments, research institutions, applied programs, and local, state, national and international agencies in an attempt to recruit more and diverse members to the Society. The Student Affairs Committee is responsible for organizing special interest panels and assisting in the integration of student members into activities of the Society. Each year, the Student Affairs Committee offers a series of “Students-Meet-Scholars” panels that allow students and experts to join together to discuss their research interests. In addition, the committee hosts a number of professional development panels covering a range of topics from successfully navigating the job market to balancing the demands of career and family. The committee also provides opportunities for graduate students and junior faculty to disseminate ideas. For instance, each month the Student Affairs Committee submits an article to The Criminologist in which authors are able to present their views on a vast number of topics of their choosing. Can you envision your ideas presented here? There is much work to be done. If you are a graduate student or junior faculty member who is looking for ways to get involved in the ASC, divisions and committees provide numerous opportunities for participation. Follow the links below and/or attend a committee meeting at the ASC annual meeting to find out more about how you can begin donating your time and expertise! For more information on ASC Committees, visit: http://www.asc41.com/committees/committee.html If you are interested in joining an ASC division, visit the following link to learn more: http://www.asc41.com/divisions.htm Page 54 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 A VIEW FROM THE FIELD: WHAT’S HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA We encourage submissions of future “A View from the Field” columns. Please contact Carolyn Rebecca Block: crblock@rcn.com . SMART POLICING: WHAT’S IN A NAME? James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr., Governors State University & CNA* Michael D. White, Arizona State University Craig Uchida, Bureau of Justice Assistance Introduction Some readers of The Criminologist will be familiar with the term “Smart Policing,” and others will likely be curious, skeptical, or both. A quick Google search will reveal that since the 1980s, calling something “Smart” is a handy—and apparently effective—marketing tool. We have the Smartphone.™ Holiday Inns now provide “Smart Coffee” in their guest rooms. CNN Bottom Line host Christine Romans published a popular book in 2010 titled, Smart is the New Rich. The National Association of Counties recently adopted the term “Smart Justice” to refer to innovations in the justice system. Using the term “smart” has become popular, and in the justice context seems to convey something better, an improvement on the past. But what does it really mean? What exactly is Smart Policing? Smart Policing is a United States Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) initiative that seeks effective and efficient solutions to chronic crime problems. Within the Smart Policing Initiative (SPI), BJA encourages local innovation and requires police and criminal justice scholars to work together to test innovations using sound evaluation methods. Smart Policing emerged at a time when state and local police agencies faced a confluence of challenges. Law enforcement confronted significant economic hurdles in the wake of the 2008 fiscal crisis – challenges in securing funding, to be sure, but also challenges to the legitimacy of the commonly accepted function of police in society. As local, state, and federal funding sources dwindled, police agencies were forced to compete for funding as they had never had to before. Perhaps serendipitously, the notion of evidence-based practice crept more strongly into the justice system. In the world of policing, this was facilitated by several developments, dating back to the report, Preventing Crime: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s promising (Sherman, et al., 1997) and, more recently, to such initiatives as the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix tool released by Lum, Koper, and Telep (2010) at George Mason University. Against the backdrop of budget reductions and challenges in perceptions of the role of police, and with the desire to improve the evidence base for policing, BJA released the first SPI solicitation in June 2009. In the first wave of applications, BJA granted 10 awards. To date, BJA has provided more than $12.4 million to 33 local and state law enforcement agencies conducting 36 SPI projects. In almost all of these projects, police agencies collaborate with criminologists (called “research partners”) who are American Society of Criminology members. Today, Smart Policing represents a natural progression in the evolution and advancement of the science of policing, as demonstrated by the Initiative’s core tenets, which can be summarized as the following:  Smart Policing is focused on the role of science and research in studying police effectiveness.  Smart Policing is locally driven. BJA and the U.S. Department of Justice expect that thorough analysis and the integration of the research partner will influence the approaches that police take in their local community.  Smart Policing is multi-dimensional. SPI teams develop multi-faceted approaches to the problems identified through analysis; too often, one-dimensional approaches are indicative of weak analysis.  Smart Policing is innovative. SPI-funded agencies should develop and test new approaches to crime prevention and crime control, new applications of existing approaches, or applications of existing evidence-based approaches that have not been implemented previously in the funded jurisdiction.  Smart Policing is results-oriented. SPI research partners are expected to produce credible findings regarding the effectiveness of implemented strategies. ______________________________ *CNA is the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance-funded provider of technical assistance and training for the national Smart Policing Initiative (Grant No. 2009-DG-BX-K021). The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Justice Assistance. (Continued on page 55) The Criminologist Page 55 (Continued from page 54) Smart Policing in Operation Over the past four years, 33 SPI law enforcement agencies have targeted a range of local crime problems that include quality-of-life issues; burglary; robbery; gang- and drug-related crime; gun crime; and violent crime, including homicide. The strategies implemented by these sites are equally diverse. Some sites have employed hot spot and place-based strategies, others have adopted offender-based approaches (e.g., prolific offenders and focused deterrence), and still others have combined the two approaches by targeting prolific offenders in hot spots. However, intensive problem analysis and comprehensive responses are common across Smart Policing projects. For example:  The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SPI employed a randomized design to assess the differential impact of foot patrol, problem-oriented policing, and offender-focused strategies (Ratcliffe, Groff, Haberman & Sorg, 2012).  The Boston, Massachusetts SPI conducted a 28-year longitudinal analysis of the stability of violent crime hot spots in Boston, and assessed the impact of their problem-oriented strategy through a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching that compared 13 target areas with similar violent crime hot spots throughout the city (Braga, Hureau, & Papachristos, 2011).  The Los Angeles, California SPI employed an interrupted time-series analysis methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of its place- and offender-based project in one historically violent police division (Uchida et al., 2012).  The Glendale, Arizona SPI employed a comparative analysis to assess the effectiveness of its problem-oriented approach to reducing crime and disorder at convenience stores (White & Katz, 2013).  The Palm Beach, Florida SPI addressed the complex issue of effective policing in an immigrant community (Guatemalan) with significant language and cultural barriers, using strategies based on community-oriented policing that sought to increase perceptions of police legitimacy, improve awareness of victimization risk, and empower residents to effect crime prevention in their community (White, Ainbinder, and Silva, 2012). Importantly, for each SPI site, the research partner is required to conduct a methodologically rigorous evaluation to document implementation and to measure program impact. The evaluations from many of these initiatives rank in the upper levels of the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (Sherman, et al., 1997) and document significant crime decreases in the targeted areas (and for the targeted offenses). For example, in Boston, the SPI program produced a statistically significant 17 percent reduction in violent Index crimes in the treatment areas relative to the control areas (Braga, Hureau, & Papachristos, 2011). In Los Angeles, Part I violent crimes in the target division (Newton) dropped by an average of 5.4 crimes per month, and homicides dropped by 22.6 percent per month—crime declines that did not occur in the other 20 LAPD divisions (Uchida et al., 2012). In Glendale, calls for police service at five of the six target convenience stores dropped significantly (with an overall decline of 42 percent), a pattern that was not witnessed at other convenience stores in the city (White & Katz, 2013). Not all sites have demonstrated the same levels of success as those mentioned above. Some have encountered long implementation delays and other start-up struggles; others have had difficulties in collecting and analyzing data. A few sites have successfully implemented their strategies but have not found statistically significant results. Regardless of the level of success achieved, all findings from these sites are being documented and recorded by the research partners. In doing so, we acquire valuable knowledge about what works and what doesn’t, including the factors that ultimately contribute to success (or the lack thereof) and sustainability. Conclusion Over the past 40 years, the police profession has incrementally shifted away from a traditional, reactive style toward a model that is more proactive, comprehensive, data-driven, and evidence-based. Innovative strategies and philosophies have emerged during this time, such as community-oriented policing, problem-oriented policing, hot spot policing, intelligence-led policing, and— most recently—predictive policing. The Smart Policing Initiative is an organizational commitment to these and other innovations, and it uses science to identify which strategy or combination of strategies holds the greatest promise for success. As a result, SPI can incorporate elements of any one (or more) of these innovations. Agencies that reflect the spirit of the Initiative are strategic, science-based, and heavily reliant on data, information, and technology. Smart Policing agencies collaborate with research partners and other stakeholders, and they are actively involved in the assessment of their efforts. In many ways, Smart Policing represents the culmination of this four-decade shift to evidence-based policing. (Continued on page 56) Page 56 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 55) We are confident that the Smart Policing Initiative has made valuable contributions to the policing literature and has had positive impacts in the police agencies around the country that have participated in the Initiative. The SPI has facilitated mutually beneficial practitioner/ researcher partnerships; it has increased knowledge of research methods for many of the involved police professionals; it has helped the academic careers and improved the collaborative competence for many of the criminologists involved as research partners. More is yet to come, as the Initiative continues to grow and affect communities, law enforcement agencies and criminologists nationwide. For more information on the Smart Policing Initiative, visit the SPI website at: www.smartpolicinginitiative.com. Author contact information: James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Criminal Justice, Governors State University (jcoldren@govst.edu);Michael D. White, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice Arizona State University (mdwhite1@asu.edu); Craig Uchida, Ph.D. Visiting Fellow, Policing Initiatives, Bureau of Justice Assistance (Craig.Uchida@usdoj.gov). REFERENCES Braga, A.A., D.M. Hureau, and A.V. Papachristos. (2011). “An ex post facto evaluation framework for place-based police interventions.” Evaluation Review 35(6), 592-626. Lum, C., C.S. Koper, and C.W. Telep (2010). “The evidence-based policing matrix.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 7, 3-26. Ratcliffe, J., E. Groff, C. Haberman, and E. Sorg. (2012). Smart Policing Initiative Final Report. Philadelphia: Center for Security and Crime Science, Temple University. Sherman, L.W., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Report to the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Uchida, C., M. Swatt, D. Gamero, J. Lopez, E. Salazar, E. King, R. Maxey, N. Ong, D. Wagner, and M.D. White. (2012). “Los Angeles, California Smart Policing Initiative: Reducing gun-related violence through Operation LASER.” Smart Policing Initiative: Site Spotlight. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. White, M.D., D. Ainbinder, and R. Silva. (2012). “Palm Beach County, FL Smart Policing Initiative: Increasing police legitimacy and reducing victimization in immigrant communities.” Smart Policing Initiative: Site Spotlight. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. White, M.D. and C.M. Katz. (Forthcoming, 2013). “Policing convenience store crime: Lessons from the Glendale, Arizona Smart Policing Initiative.” Police Quarterly. Special Issue on the Smart Policing Initiative. Page 57 The Criminologist COLLABORATION CORNER: NEWS AND NOTES ABOUT RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS Compiled by Carolyn Rebecca Block Please send your research collaboration news to Carolyn Rebecca Block crblock@rcn.com NEW TOOL HELPS EVALUATE SEXUAL ASSAULT NURSE EXAMINER PROGRAMS Throughout the United States and Canada, over 760 Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs provide health care and support to sexual assault victims. Through these programs, specially trained nurses provide victims with, medical assessment, including injury documentation and treatment for potential exposure to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, crisis intervention and emotional support, and forensic evidence collection. Research suggests that SANE programs may improve prosecution rates in their communities. For example, two NIJ-funded studies found that prosecution rates increased significantly after communities implemented SANE programs (Campbell, et al., 2009; Crandall & Helitzer, 2003). These findings, however, should be interpreted with caution, as only a handful of the 760 SANE programs have been rigorously evaluated. There is a pressing need for more evaluation to determine if and under what circumstances SANE programs affect criminal justice case outcomes. To fill this need, Rebecca Campbell and her colleagues at Michigan State University received a competitive grant from NIJ to develop a toolkit that SANE program staff can use to evaluate how their program affects the prosecution of sexual assault cases in their community. Working side-by-side with practitioners, they created a user-friendly toolkit that walks programs through a six-step evaluative process. It also offers ideas for using the findings to improve practice and enhance a program’s positive impact on the reporting, investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases. Campbell and her colleagues worked with six SANE programs to implement the toolkit. The sites included communitybased and hospital-based SANE programs in both urban and rural areas. The collaborative partnerships were a success: All six sites rigorously evaluated their programs and — equally important — used the findings to create positive changes in their communities. Some programs used the findings to leverage new funding; others established a new sexual assault response team (SART). that, Kim Day, the national technical assistance provider and trainer for the International Association of Forensic Nurses, says “One of the things that has been clear in the past, from anecdotal data as well as the SANE Sustainability project (which IAFN has been working on in collaboration with NSVRC [National Sexual Violence Resource Center]) is that SANE program managers frequently do not have the skills necessary to complete a really thorough program evaluation. This toolkit provides what they need to be able to thoughtfully proceed through a proven program evaluation. This is the type of tool that those who are working in the field are crying for! Many of those in managerial positions have never been afforded the opportunity to gain the skills and do not have access to any necessary tools to do this type of program evaluation — and NOW this toolkit provides that! This is VERY exciting to me — in that the research is not just something you bring out in court when testifying or justifying why you do what you do — RATHER it is something tangible, and useful at the program level to help us improve our programs.” In August, 2013, this project was awarded the 2013 American Evaluation Association's (AEA) Outstanding Evaluation Award (http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=66). This is AEA's highest award for a specific individual evaluation project (as opposed to a career award to an evaluator for multiple projects). Congratulations to all of the project collaborators on receiving this prestigious award! REFERENCES Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Ford, J.K., Patterson, D., & Ferrell, J. (2009). A systems change analysis of SANE programs: Identifying the mediating mechanisms of criminal justice system impact. Final report NIJ Award 2005‐WG‐BX‐0003. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Crandall, C. & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program. Award Number 98‐WT ‐VX‐0027. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. (Continued on page 58) Page 58 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 57) Thanks to Angela M. Moore at NIJ for letting the Criminologist know about the SANE program and the evaluation toolkit and to Beth Pearsall at NIJ for sending us details. For more information, contact Rebecca Campbell at rmc@msu.edu, Jenifer Markowitz, forensic nursing consultant, at jenifer.markowitz@gmail.com, or Kim Day, SAFE Technical Assistance Coordinator at the IAFN, at kimday@iafn.org. You also can get more information at: http://www.nsvrc.org/projects/152/sexual-assault-nurse-examiner-sanesustainability. To access the SANE toolkit, see: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240917.pdf You can learn more about the toolkit in the next issue of the NIJ Journal: http://www.nij.gov/nij/journals/272/saneevaluation.htm.To read more about implementation of the toolkit at the six sites, see: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ grants/240916.pdf Did you know? The United Nations Human Rights Council has recently launched a Universal Periodic Review (URP) Sexual Rights database, which reviews each of the 193 Member States of the UN on its entire human rights record every four and a half years, available at www.upr-info.org/database/, which allows you to access and search the sexual rights related recommendations and references made during the Universal Periodic Review through several categories including: State under Review, Source of Reference, Type of Reference and Thematic Issue. To gain access to the UPR, send an email containing your name, the name of your organization (if any), your email address, and the name and email address of a reference (either an SRI partner, or known to one) to database@sexualrightsinitiative.com. For security reasons, the database username and password will be re-set every six months - users will receive an email requesting that they confirm their interest in maintaining access to the database. For more information, see Sexual Rights and the Universal Periodic Review: A Toolkit for Advocates, http:// sexualrightsinitiative.com/universal-periodic-review/upr-toolkit/ (Thanks to Phoenix J Freeman for submitting this news!) BJS has published an application programming interface (API) that provides access to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) dataset in open, machine-readable formats. The NCVS API is a dynamic feed that allows developers and researchers to retrieve up-to-date information efficiently, in the manner that best suits their needs. http://www.bjs.gov/developer/ncvs/ The National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X), launched by BJS in 2012, is a highly collaborative undertaking. The NCS-X is building on NIBRS to develop a statistical system that can generate detailed national estimates of the volume and characteristics of crimes known to law enforcement. To this end, BJS is not only working closely with the FBI and other DOJ agencies, but will also work with 400 state and local law enforcement agencies. For more information, see Attachment B- 1 page overview of NCSX.pdf or contact Howard Snyder, Deputy Director, BJS, Howard.Snyder@usdoj.gov or (202) 307-0765; or Kevin J. Strom, NCS-X Project Director, RTI International, kstrom@rti.org or (919) 485-5729. The Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Center (SSAC) has formed a Justice Agency Researchers Group (MCJARG), which includes representatives from parole, probation, state and county corrections, sentencing commission, youth services, and state and local police. The group’s mission is to provide a forum where professionals interested in issues relating to data collection and reporting, research, and program evaluation can share information, foster research collaborations, and learn from others. For more information, see http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/ogr/ or contact Lisa Sampson, SAC Director, at Lisa.Sampson@state.ma.us or (617) 725-3308. Page 60 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 THOUGHTS ABOUT BOOKS Occasional Essays Inspired by Provocative Reading We welcome suggestions for future issues. Please contact Carolyn Rebecca Block, crblock@rcn.com. BLIND TO BETRAYAL: WHY WE FOOL OURSELVES WE AREN’T BEING FOOLED by Jennifer J. Freyd and Pamela J. Birrell (Wiley, 2013). Molly Dragiewicz, Queensland Institute of Technology As the previous two Thoughts about Books columns (March/April and July/August 2013) have demonstrated, criminology has been enriched by attention to the intersecting contexts that engender violence and abuse. Recent scholarship extends our understanding of the importance of contextual factors beyond variables like the relationship between victim and perpetrator, their demographic characteristics, and number of selected behaviors. In order to understand the etiology of violence and abuse, it is necessary to broaden our perspective beyond descriptions of the prevalence of specific acts and the social construction of deviance. Accordingly, psychological aspects of abuse and their relationship to interpersonal and structural factors are rich veins of inquiry for criminology. Jennifer Freyd and Pamela Birrell’s Blind to betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren’t being fooled is a welcome addition to this body of work. The book expands upon Freyd’s earlier work on betrayal trauma theory (Freyd, 1996; Smith & Freyd, 2013). It is firmly grounded in academic research but pitched for a general audience that includes scholars in other fields, practitioners, and people who have experienced betrayal trauma. Freyd and Birrell’s explication of the psychological research on memory and recognition of trauma is an effective translation of academic work for a popular audience, as attested to by glowing reviews from readers on sites like Goodreads.com. However, the most interesting contribution of the book for criminologists may well be the authors’ attention to the relationship of power to the social construction of reality. The authors argue that vulnerability to or dependency on the perpetrator contributes to failures of recognition of abuse. In other words, targets of abuse may be “blind” to the harm being done to them while it is unsafe to recognize it. As a result, some memories of abuse are visible only later, when they attain the resources to survive the trauma. Recent scholarship has highlighted the connections between psychological phenomena like individual perceptions of reality and the collective power relations that shape them (Salter, 2012; Zurbriggen, 2009). As critical scholars argue, pervasive forms of violence and abuse serve to reproduce social hierarchies, reinforcing some hegemonic community values even as they transgress other social norms. Like Stanley Cohen’s earlier book, States of Denial (2001), Blind to Betrayal examines victim, perpetrator, and bystander denial of horrific events and traces connections between psychology, culture, and politics. Freyd and Birrell argue that “betrayal blindness means not seeing what is there to be seen” (p. 1) and emphasize the way that betrayal and vulnerability shape the experience of trauma. Using examples from popular culture and research, the authors illustrate the dynamics of interpersonal and institutional betrayal in a range of contexts. The book describes Freyd’s two-dimensional model for traumatic events, which incorporates the extent to which events are terror or fear inducing and the level of social betrayal involved. The authors argue that events that are both terror or fear inducing and high in social betrayal are the most traumatic (p. 57). Thus, Freyd and Birrell stress the multiplication of trauma by social betrayal. They also note the gendered nature of the phenomenon, wherein “betrayal traumas are frequent, particularly for girls and women” (p. 58). This observation agrees with other scholarship on the routine negation of girls’ and women’s accounts of abuse (Richie, 2012; Salter, 2012). Since one of their aims is to counter this negation, the book contains sections geared to education about the dynamics of response to trauma. For example, Chapter Four reviews research findings that contradict common assumptions about sexual abuse. Freyd and Birrell stress the importance of disclosure and recognition, enumerating the risks and rewards for those who disclose, those who receive the disclosure, and the broader society. They also provide practical advice about how to receive disclosures in a supportive way (see for example p. 127). This knowledge will be useful to scholars who study violence and abuse, as well as professors who teach criminology and who may receive disclosures from students, colleagues, or others. While other scholars have discussed the individual therapeutic benefits of disclosing abuse, Freyd and Birrell argue that recognizing betrayal trauma is necessary to produce the cultural and institutional change required to prevent violence and abuse. To illustrate this point, they use examples of whistleblowers and others who disclose abuse. For example, survivor disclosures ultimately resulted in the firing of several high ranking administrators at Penn State University over their inaction in response to child sexual abuse and the incarceration of Jerry Sandusky, a serial child sexual abuser. (Continued on page 61) Page 61 The Criminologist (Continued from page 60) One of the most important parts of the book is found in Chapters 10 and 13 where Freyd and Birrell discuss the phenomenon of scholars’ participation in organized resistance to the disclosure of violence and abuse. Freyd uses the example of her own experience, in which her mother created a non-profit organization called The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) in response to learning that Jennifer Freyd had disclosed her experience of childhood abuse to her partner. The FMSF website says, The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was formed by a group of accused families and several professionals at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Johns Hopkins Medical Institution in Baltimore. This nuclear group had come together with other families to try to figure out what had happened to cause the dramatic change of behavior in their nowadult children, to try to cope with the pain from the loss of their children and to address the legal nightmare of being accused of abuse. (The False Memory Syndrome Foundation, n.d.) The organization has an advisory board made of up PhDs who share a belief in “implanted” and “false memories.” They advocate for those who claim they have been falsely accused, and promote research that allegedly shows disclosures of abuse are not credible, especially when delayed. This example of scholars mobilizing to discredit survivors of abuse is not unique. Criminologists rarely discuss the role of self-interest among scholars who may be perpetrators as well as survivors of violence and abuse. However, it is a mathematical certainty that some scholars are indeed perpetrators of violence and abuse. Freyd’s discussion of the harassment and discrediting tactics of the FMSF, including recruiting her own colleagues in the campaign to discredit her, will probably be familiar to some ASC members. Freyd and Birrell’s discussion of these dynamics took courage, since scholars who talk about campaigns against them are sometimes silenced when attempts to defend themselves result in claims of ad hominem attacks. While many scholars who are survivors of violence have been open about the ways their experiences have shaped their interests in the field, it is rare to hear scholars acknowledge the impact of their experiences as perpetrators of abuse on their scholarship. Nonetheless, scholars whose research is deployed in crafting responses to pressing social issues should at least be cognizant of the politics of the organizations to which they lend their credibility. As Michael Salter has argued, “the health burden of [gender based violence] is determined not only by prevalence and severity of such acts but also by the ways that bystanders, systems and institutions respond to the victim (2102, p. 3). Criminologists can contribute to the prevention of violence and abuse by turning our attention to the epistemology of violence as well as its epidemiology. References to intersectionality have articulated the impetus for deeper contextualization of experiences of violence, abuse, and exploitation. They have also provided an intellectual foundation for understanding crime within a socioeconomic and social justice context. Although intersectional analysis is sometimes equated with a sort of identity politics, scholars like Beth Richie have outlined a more radical approach. Richie’s (2012) male violence matrix articulates an ecological model for understanding violence and its effects, based on the understanding that oppression is “relational, structural, political, and ideological” (p. 129). It demands what Richie terms “social justice praxis” (p. 131) in response. Richie analyzes Black women’s experiences as shaped by the nested social contexts of the household, community, and state (p. 134). This nuanced approach to understanding violence and abuse is complimented by Freyd and Birrell’s effort to integrate the psychological, sociological, and political factors shaping violence and our understanding of it. This recent scholarship reveals the inadequacy of myopic perspectives on crime as discrete incidents and illuminates other possibilities for moving forward to prevent social harm. I invite my colleagues to read Blind to Betrayal and I would love to discuss it with you in Atlanta. REFERENCES Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Malden, MA: Polity. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation. (n.d.) The FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board – Profiles http:// fmsfonline.org/advboard.html Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Salter, M. (2012). Invalidation: A neglected dimension of gender฀based violence and inequality. International Journal for Crime and Justice, 1(1), 3–13. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124. doi:10.1002/jts.21778 Richie, B. E. (2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. New York: NYU Press. Zurbriggen, E. L. (2009). Understanding and preventing adolescent dating violence: The importance of developmental, sociocultural, and gendered perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 30–33. Molly Dragiewicz is Associate Professor of Justice in the School of Law at Queensland Institute of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. She is author of Equality with a vengeance: Men’s rights groups, battered women, and antifeminist backlash (2011, Boston: Northeastern University Press). Page 62 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 POSITION ANNOUNCEMENTS THE CRIMINOLOGIST will regularly feature in these columns position vacancies available in organizations and universities, as well as positions sought by members of the Society. A charge of $175.00 with the absolute maximum of 250 words allowed will be made. Half pages and full pages may also be purchased for $225 and $300 respectively. It is the policy of the ASC to publish position vacancies announcements only from those institutions or agencies which subscribe to equal education and employment opportunities and those which encourage women and minorities to apply. Institutions should indicate the deadline for the submission of application materials. To place announcements in THE CRIMINOLOGIST, send all material to: aarendt@asc41.com. When sending announcements, please include a phone number, fax number and contact person in the event we have questions about an ad. The Professional Employment Exchange will be a regular feature at each Annual Meeting. Prospective employers and employees should register with the Society no later than three weeks prior to the Annual Meeting of the Society. The cost of placing ads on our online Employment Exchange is $200 for the first month, $150 for the second month, and $100 for each month thereafter. To post online, please go to www.asc41.com and click on Employment. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY The College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University is a growing and vibrant academic community which fosters an environment of collaborative research and intellectual stimulation among its faculty and students. The College invites applications for multiple open rank positions to begin Fall 2014. The area of specialization is open. Applicants are expected to have a demonstrated ability to conduct and publish significant research, as well as contribute to an environment committed to collegiality, diversity, and graduate education. Women and minority candidates are strongly encouraged to apply. Review of applications will begin September 16 th and continue until the positions are filled. Interested persons should submit a letter of application, a research and teaching statement, a curriculum vitae, and three letters of recommendation to: Dr. Eric Stewart, Search Committee Chair, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 634 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127. For further information about the College, please visit our website at http://crim.fsu.edu/. Florida State University is an Equal Opportunity Employer committed to excellence through diversity. Florida State University complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and is a public records agency pursuant to Chapter 118 of the Florida Statutes. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY The Department of Criminology, Law and Society invites applicants for two full-time, tenuretrack Assistant Professor positions to start August 2014. We are seeking individuals with active research agendas in any area of criminology, criminal justice, and law and society. A PhD in the social sciences or relevant field of study is required; we welcome applicants who hold both a PhD and JD degree. Applicants nearing the completion of their doctorate will be considered. The successful candidate should be strongly committed to teaching in a multidisciplinary undergraduate and graduate program and demonstrate significant promise in scholarly research and extramural grant activity. Review of applications will begin on September 15, 2013 and continue until the position is filled. Applicants must apply online at http://jobs.gmu.edu for position number F9039Z; complete the faculty application; and attach a cover letter, CV, and representative research articles. Also, three letters of reference should be submitted, either through e-mail to alonetti@gmu.edu; or via USPS mail to Ms. Annie Lonetti, Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University, MS 4F4, Fairfax, VA 22030. Inquiries about the position can be addressed to the department chair, David Wilson, at dwilsonb@gmu.edu. The Department of Criminology, Law and Society is a multidisciplinary unit located on the Fairfax campus that offers degrees at the bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels. Our graduate program balances theory, empirical research, and policy applications. Our undergraduate program has concentrations in law and society, criminal justice, and homeland security. More information on the department and the research activities of the faculty and various research centers is available at http:// cls.gmu.edu/. George Mason University is an equal opportunity employer encouraging diversity. JOHN JAY COLLEGE, a senior college of the City University of New York (CUNY), is looking to appoint two assistant professors in the department of Criminal Justice. Candidates for the first position should possess a Ph.D. and a strong quantitative background. Responsibilities include teaching research methods at both the graduate and undergraduate level, as part of the college’s new research-focused criminal justice BA. We welcome candidates with criminology degrees as well as those from other disciplines including economics, geography, and statistics who may bring a different, rigorous perspective to the study of criminal justice issues. The focus of the second position will be teaching courses and conducting research on ethical issues in criminal justice. A Ph.D. is required. Criminologists are welcome to apply as are candidates from different disciplines including law, philosophy, and economics. Candidates for both positions will teach at both the graduate and undergraduate level, as part of the college’s new researchfocused Criminal Justice BA. All candidates are expected to bring enthusiasm and demonstrated commitment to teaching and to develop and maintain an active research and publication agenda. Interested candidates should send a curriculum vitae and cover letter to: Evan Mandery, Chairperson, Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 899 Tenth Avenue, New York, NY 10019. We are committed to enhancing our diverse academic community by actively encouraging people with disabilities, minorities, veterans, and women to apply. We take pride in our pluralistic community and continue to seek excellence through diversity and inclusion. EO/AA Employer. The Criminologist Page 63 MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Justice Studies, Social Justice A/Y 2014. The Department of Justice Studies at Montclair State University is seeking an individual with an earned doctoral degree for a full-time tenure-track faculty position to begin September 2014. Responsibilities include teaching, advisement and research in social justice. Preference will be given to candidate who has teaching expertise in social inequality courses. The candidate should have a documented record of scholarship and a proven record of excellence in teaching. Service to the department, university and larger professional community are expected. Montclair State University is an AA/EOE institution. Apply to: Ms. Gale Morganti, Department Administrator, Department of Justice Studies, Montclair State University, Box V –F 19, Montclair, NJ 07043 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY The School of Criminal Justice of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, invites applications for a tenure-track position beginning Fall 2014 at the rank of Assistant Professor. We seek applicants with a robust training in econometrics and other advanced multivariate approaches, who can complement existing strengths in quantitative methods for the study of crime and criminal justice policies. The ideal candidate will contribute to our core graduate curriculum, including the development of specialized courses for advanced quantitative training. Areas of specialization are otherwise open. Applicants must have a Ph.D. or be ABD with the expectation that the degree be completed at the time the appointment commences. The Rutgers School of Criminal Justice is committed to diversity and especially welcomes applications from women and members of under-represented minority groups. The search commences immediately and will remain open until the position is filled. Applicants should submit a letter of application summarizing their qualifications, curriculum vitae, and the names of three professional references. Applications and correspondence regarding the search should be sent electronically (Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files preferred) and addressed to: Jody Miller, Faculty Chair, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, 123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102-3094, e-mail: jody.miller@rutgers.edu UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND The Department invites applications for 1 or 2 tenure–track faculty positions to begin Fall 2014. The rank is restricted to assistant and associate professors. The Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland has a strong research orientation, with an award winning faculty and an internationally renowned doctoral program. To learn more about our department see www.ccjs.umd.edu. A record of excellence in scholarship and a strong commitment to research and teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels are required. Candidates should have a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice or a related field. We have particular interest in candidates who have done work in the areas of victimization, crime prevention, and responses to crime including but not restricted to the study of police and corrections.. Applicants should apply electronically to http://ejobs.umd.edu/postings/19997. Applications should include the following documents (1) a cover letter, (2) a curriculum vita and (3) a list of names and e-mail addresses for three references. For best consideration, applications should be submitted by October 15, 2013. Questions can be addressed to Terrence Thornberry, Chair of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Search Committee at thornbet@umd.edu. The University of Maryland is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Minorities and women are strongly encouraged to apply. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE The Department of Sociology at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville invites applications for one tenure-track position at the level of Assistant Professor in the areas of criminology and criminal justice, beginning August 1, 2014. We are particularly interested in candidates who can contribute to the Department’s strength in social justice (http://web.utk.edu/~utsocdep/) and whose research in criminology resonates with our other departmental areas, globalization/ political economy and/or environmental sociology. Applicants must demonstrate promise of distinguished scholarship and excellent teaching, as well as a commitment to seeking external funding. We are especially interested in candidates who can add to our expertise in quantitative methods. The Department of Sociology at the University of Tennessee – Knoxville has a strong international reputation for excellence and its vibrant intellectual culture, and is undergoing a period of expansion. UT has about 21,000 undergraduates and 6,000 graduate students and is located near the Smoky Mountains, two and a half hours from Nashville, and three and a half hours from Atlanta. Our department offers a supportive and collegial atmosphere in which scholars make a variety of important contributions to academic research, teaching, and public sociology. The Ph.D. in sociology or criminology is required at the time of appointment. The Knoxville campus of the University of Tennessee is seeking candidates who have the ability to contribute in meaningful ways to the diversity and intercultural goals of the University. Review of applications will begin October 1, 2013. Position will remain open until filled. Please send letter of application, curriculum vitae, three letters of reference, a research statement, and a teaching statement to Search Committee Chair Lois Presser via e-mail (lpresser@utk.edu) and/or surface mail (901 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0490). Page 64 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY THE ANDREW YOUNG SCHOOL OF POLICY STUDIES, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY The Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia State University invites applications/nominations for the position of Departmental Chair to begin at the start of the fall 2014 semester. Candidates must have a Ph.D. in criminal justice, criminology, or related discipline; an excellent record of scholarly activity, including funded research; and university teaching experience at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Candidates must demonstrate qualifications that warrant appointment at the rank of Professor with tenure according to university standards. Candidates should be able to provide evidence of effective leadership skills in an academic setting, the ability to work cooperatively with others, effective interpersonal communication, support for professional development of faculty and professional staff, and the ability to articulate the mission and vision of the Department to administrative units across the University and to the community. Competitive candidates also should possess a sophisticated understanding of the fields of criminal justice policy and criminology, and have a concrete vision to advance our department’s standing both nationally and internationally. The Department offers Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in criminal justice and a Ph.D. in criminal justice & criminology, with an enrollment of over 650 students. Faculty members are involved in a wide array of research and public service efforts and have a history of significant funding from federal, state, and local government agencies. In fact, one recent empirical study ranked our department in the top 10 nationally for mean citations to our work, while others identified individual faculty members among the most productive in terms of publications in top journals, citations, and for receipt of national research funding. The Department maintains a focus on issues of crime and violence in urban areas and is a key member of the university’s Partnership for Urban Health Research, the university’s Cities Initiative, and the Emory Center for Injury Control. For further information about the Department, please visit our web site at http://aysps.gsu.edu/cj. The Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology resides in the internationally recognized Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, ranked in the top 15 percent of schools in public affairs by the U.S. News and World Report. The School of Policy Studies also contains the Departments of Economics and Public Management & Policy, the School of Social Work, and several research centers. The Chair of the Department reports directly to the Dean of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, and serves as a member of the administrative group of the college. The Chair also fosters the integration of the department’s research, teaching, and service activities with other units in the college, and works collaboratively with other members of the college community to advance academic excellence. Additional information about the Andrew Young School is available at www.aysps.gsu.edu. Georgia State University has an enrollment of more than 32,000 students and is designated as a Research I institution by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The university is an enterprising urban public research university and a national leader in graduating students from widely diverse backgrounds. Centered in the state’s capitol and historic financial hub of downtown Atlanta, the university provides its faculty and students with unsurpassed research opportunities and connections to business, government, nonprofit, and cultural organizations. The Scientist Magazine ranked GSU 12th in its 2011 Best Places to Work in Academia survey, citing research resources and tenure and promotion among the university’s strengths. For more information about the university, see the GSU Fact Book at http://oie.gsu.edu/institutional-research/gsu-fact-book-for-2012-2013. Salary for the position is competitive and will be commensurate with the successful candidate’s qualifications and experience. Review of applications will begin November 15, 2013, and continue until the position is filled. Inquiries may be directed to the Search Committee Chair, Dr. Mary A. Finn, via email: mfinn@gsu.edu or phone: 404-413-1038. Applicants should send cover letter, current curriculum vita, and the names and contact information of three references to Dr. Mary A. Finn, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Urban Life Building, Suite 1201, 140 Decatur Street, Atlanta, GA, 30302-4018, USA. Candidates must be eligible to work in the U.S. Per Georgia Board of Regents policy, final candidates shall be subject to a criminal history check and subsequent determination at the sole discretion of the University. This review is a requirement of university employment. At the time of offer, a background check will be required. Georgia State University, a unit of the University System of Georgia, is an equal educational institution and an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. The Criminologist Page 65 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY Assistant/Associate Professor of Criminal Justice & Criminology Tenure-Track The Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology at Georgia State University invites applications for one tenure-track position at the level of assistant or associate professor beginning August 2014. Areas of expertise are open, but the department is particularly interested in candidates who possess strong quantitative skills and who will contribute to graduate course offerings in statistics and quantitative methods. Substantively, preference will be given to candidates with research and teaching interests in violence, policing, or gender. The position is a nine-month appointment with annual review and the possibility of summer teaching. A Ph.D. in Criminal Justice, Criminology, or related social science is required (ABDs may apply, but degree must be in hand by the start of employment). A J.D. alone is not sufficient for this position. University teaching experience and a demonstrated record of research and publication are preferred. Candidates for associate professor should have a track record of exceptional scholarship and external funding consistent with the rank. Review of applications will begin October 1, 2013 and will continue until the position is filled. Housed in the internationally recognized Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, the department offers degrees at the baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral levels. Faculty members are involved in a wide array of research and public service efforts and have a history of significant funding from federal, state, and local agencies. The department maintains a focus on issues of crime and violence in urban areas and is a key member of the university’s Partnership for Urban Health Research, the university’s Cities Initiative, and the Emory Center for Injury Control. For further information about the Department, please visit our web site at http:// aysps.gsu.edu/cj. Georgia State University has an enrollment of over 30,000 students and is the state’s flagship urban research university, located in downtown Atlanta, the state capital. The Scientist Magazine ranked GSU 12th in its 2011 Best Places to Work in Academia survey, citing research resources and tenure and promotion among the university’s strengths. For more information about the university, see the GSU Fact Book at http://oie.gsu.edu/institutional-research/gsu-fact-book-for-2012-2013. Interested applicants should send a letter of application, vita, and three letters of recommendation to: Timothy Brezina, Search Committee Chair, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4018, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018, USA. E-mail: tbrezina@gsu.edu. Georgia State University, a unit of the University System of Georgia, is an equal opportunity educational institution and an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Candidates must be eligible to work in the United States. Per Georgia Board of Regents policy, final candidates shall be subject to a criminal history check and subsequent determination at the sole discretion of the University. This review is a requirement of university employment. Page 66 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 TENURE-TRACK ASSISTANT PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST. LOUIS The Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice invites applicants for a new tenure-track (Assistant Professor) position beginning Fall, 2014. Candidates from all substantive areas will be considered. Candidates must have the Ph.D. at the time of appointment, outstanding promise as a research scholar, and demonstrated teaching effectiveness. The department provides an active, theoretically and methodologically diverse research environment and strong support for research scholars. Applicants should submit a letter of interest, vita, and three letters of reference. Review of applications will begin on October 1, 2013 and continue until the position is filled. The University of Missouri-St. Louis is an affirmative-action equal opportunity employer committed to excellence through diversity. Mail or email application materials to: Finn Esbensen (esbensen@umsl.edu) Professor and Chair Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Missouri-St. Louis One University Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 ALABAMA HALF Page 67 The Criminologist CRIMINOLOGY AROUND THE WORLD If you have news, views, reviews, or announcements relating to international or comparative criminology, please send it here! We appreciate brevity (always under 1,000 words), and welcome your input and feedback. – Jay Albanese, Chair, ASC Division of International Criminology - jsalbane@vcu.edu Laura in ABBAland Impressions from a First-ever Visit to the Stockholm Criminology Symposium Laura L. Hansen, Western New England University When our ASC newsletter, The Criminologist, was floating around in January this year, I flipped to the page of conference offerings beyond ASC, doing the usual daydreaming of junior faculty of where my non-existent travel budget might take me this year. I had already blown my travel allotment on the annual ASC conference in November. As a criminologist-in-practice beyond my academia life, I always have my radar set for anything that might help advance my knowledge base in the areas of crime prevention policy and program evaluation. The Stockholm Criminology Symposium (info available at http:// www.criminologysymposium.com/) offering this year was particularly apropos, as the theme was evidence-based programs for youth and general violence prevention. One purpose of the annual symposium is to award the Stockholm Prize in Criminology to a deserving individual from the inner circle. The prize has been described as the Nobel Prize in our discipline. This year’s recipient, David P. Farrington, has a dossier that would shame even the most prolific among us. He was slated to be a presenter at no less than eleven sessions at the symposium. I took the blurb to my department chair and asked (more like begged) for the funds to travel overseas. (Note to other junior faculty: don’t assume that if you are told “there are no funds at this time” that that is the final word.) Several weeks after my request had been turned down, my chair came back and asked if I still would like to go to Sweden on the university’s dime. That is one blessing of planning to go to a conference near the end of the fiscal year when the budget picture is clearer. Not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I immediately booked my Iceland Air flight (I highly recommend this airline - plus you get to swing by Reykjavik), and an apartment in the Kungsholmen area of Stockholm, which was conveniently located in subway distance to the conference venue at the City Conference Center. I know this is not intended to be a travelogue, but I cannot recommend enough staying in an apartment and going “native” rather than staying at the conference hotel, which in this case was a Best Western. As with most conferences, the program was available online, once it had been finalized. When I arrived at registration, I was pleased to see that the program included abstracts of the papers being presented. However, I was also sorely disappointed that there were no swag bags at this conference; the only offering was a paper bag (albeit a sturdy one) to hold the paraphernalia that we might pick up along the way. It would have been cool to have had a Stockholm bag to carry my stuff around at school this fall. What was particularly wonderful about this conference was that the sessions were so narrowly focused on evidence-based policy that one session built on another, unlike the eclectic smorgasbord (pun intended) of topics covered at larger conferences. Since the venue was tightly compact, it was easy to get from one session to another, though they oddly locked us out of rooms if we were tardy for a session. You would be let in if you knocked, which was a bit embarrassing during presentations – no sneaking in unnoticed here. Plus we were fed at every turn. Each day after the first morning sessions ended, there was a spread laid out with simple, hearty sandwiches (I know, a bit odd for mid-morning snacks, but it worked), plus copious coffee, tea, water available all day. As breaking bread with our fellow criminologists is one motive for these events, it made for a very pleasant interlude between sessions. The early evening poster session on the first day was like no other. It included a wine hour (no cocktails) with hors d’oeuvres of goat or reindeer half-sandwiches – they are big on the carbs over there. In theory you burn them off, as Stockholm is a walking city. However, there were several high caloric dining possibilities for lunch in the immediate vicinity of the conference center. (Continued on page 68) Page 68 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 (Continued from page 67) As a presenter, I found it gratifying to get feedback on my work from colleagues in a number of criminal justice or criminology occupations from around the globe. What resonated with me was that we are all trying to find solutions to universal crime problems, whether we are practitioners or academics. What concerned me is that it seemed that participants were looking for quick fixes, not vaccines or antibiotics to prevent or cure the underlying social malignancies that cause violent crime, but a collective onesize-fits-all mentality that has not proven to work everywhere (e.g., D.A.R.E. or GREAT programs). This myopia may be a function of the dearth of funding opportunities these days. The Stockholm Prize in Criminology award ceremony was held at Stockholm City Hall, the same location where the Nobel Prize is awarded every year. Whereas the Nobel Prize banquet is in the Blue Room, we were treated to dinner in the Gold Room, an opulent space that did not seem to fit the invitation’s directions for “business casual” attire. My partner in crime at the symposium and I were a bit appalled when we showed up in our slacks and casual shirts (in my case, blouse, my dining companion sans tie) to find that people were dressed to impress as if they were attending their 10-year high school reunions (or a speed-dating event). If you are a woman, I suggest packing one sparkly thing in your travel wardrobe; the banquet invitation lied on attire. Men, pack a suit, even if it is a pain. The evening of the award banquet was a bit awkward beyond the fashion faux pas. By the time we had listened to yet another talk about the purposes of the symposium and award, I had grown a bit weary of hearing the phrase “save the children” throughout the conference. The award ceremony pre-banquet was about an hour long, most of us antsy to eat after a long day at the conference, plus it was now going on 8 pm. In the midst of this, there was a duo of singers, who sang an odd variety of songs during the ceremony and dinner, including Somewhere over the Rainbow and the prerequisite ABBA song. Couldn’t tell you which one; never have been a fan. One of the singers accompanied with a cello. Good voices, but just odd delivery. I must say that the relaxed atmosphere of the banquet (beyond the awkwardness of attire and entertainment) was conducive to making great connections with dining companions, which in my case included a police officer from the Netherlands and a group from Finland. All in all, the symposium was a very positive experience. I walked away with all kinds of new ideas for directions I can go in my research, including coming up to speed with cost-benefit analyses to convince funders of the benefits of front-loading money in prevention instead of back-ending it in corrections. It was so gratifying to see what my colleagues are doing elsewhere and to get validation that the work we are doing is worthwhile, even if I never, ever need to hear the phrase, “save the children” again in my life. Or another ABBA song. (Continued on page 69) Page 69 The Criminologist Meetings on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) On July 1-2nd, two United Nations organizations, UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund), met with NGO representatives at the United Nations in Geneva to consider “Enabling choices: population priorities for the 21st century.” Several of the basic elements of agreement from this meeting, as articulated in the Chairman’s Summary, may be of interest to criminologists (For more detail, see: http://icpdbeyond2014.org/whats-new/view/id/51/ defining-the-future-of-icpd-beyond-2014-in-eastern-europe-and-central-asia#sthash.8knh0HGk.dpuf).    “Invest in human capital throughout the life course of individuals and build the capacities of adolescents and youth to develop their full potential and allow them meaningful participation in all stages of the formulation of policies and programmes. “Give greater attention to protecting and fulfilling the rights of migrants including victims of human trafficking and those forced to leave their homes due to humanitarian crises. “Ensure zero tolerance for gender based violence and call for measures to criminalize violence against women and girls and provide all victims/survivors of gender-based violence with access to critical services.” As a followup to that meeting, on July 3-4th, a meeting organized by IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Foundation) European Region and co-hosted by the European Women’s Lobby and ASTRA Network (Central and Eastern European Women's Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights), gathered 70 representatives of NGOs from all over the broad Europe region, from Macedonia to Portugal, Israel to Tajikistan, to discuss "ICPD Beyond 2014 – From Promise to Action, CSOs Defining the Way Forward." ICPD is the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action. For more information, see: http://icpdbeyond2014.org/ or http://www.astra.org.pl/ Following that, on July 7-10th, the ICPD International Conference on Human Rights was held in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. Three hundred representatives of government, parliaments and civil society groups from 130 countries met to “identify achievements, barriers and best practices in relation to achieving the goals of the landmark International Conference on Population and Development,” which was held nearly 20 years ago in Cairo. For more information, see: http:// www.humanrights.icpdbeyond2014.org/ 6TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASIAN CRIMINOLOGICAL SOCIETY IN JAPAN IN JUNE 2014 The Asian Criminological Society (ACS) will hold its 6th Annual Conference at Osaka University of Commerce in Japan on June 27-29, 2014. The Organizing Committee is chaired by President Ichiro Tanioka of Osaka University of Commerce, and its Vice Chairs are Professor Setsuo Miyazawa of Aoyama Gakuin University/UC Hastings College of the Law and Professor Minoru Yokoyama of Kokugakuin University. The general theme is “Advancing Criminological and Criminal Justice Theories from Asia.” Most of the current criminological and criminal justice theories have been developed in Western countries. Those theories have been presented as general theories in spite of such limitation. They should not be able to claim themselves as general theories unless they are tested in Asia which occupies more than a half of the world population and has some of the most rapidly developing countries. The general theme of this conference is based on this perception. It intends to test criminological and criminal justice theories with data about crime and criminal justice practices in Asia and to move on further to present new criminological and criminal justice theories from Asia. The keynote speakers will be Professor Jianhong Liu of the University of Macau (ACS President), Professor Robert Agnew of Emory University (ASC President), Professor John Braithwaite of Australian National University, and Professor Steven Messner of the SUNY Albany (former ASC President). In addition to the keynote speeches, there will be several plenary sessions, and submissions of sessions and individual papers on any criminological and criminal justice topics will be accepted. Details may be found in our website, http://www.acs2014.com/ . Those who are interested in the conference are kindly requested to regularly visit it. (Continued on page 70) Page 70 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 Did You Know? Violence and Control in Humanitarian Contexts: Engaging Criminology At the conference on Human Security: Humanitarian Perspectives and Responses, which will be held in Istanbul, Turkey October 24-27, 2013, Hilde Jakobsen and Robin Haarr will chair a panel on “Violence and Control in Humanitarian Contexts: Engaging Criminology.” According to the abstract, “This panel provides a forum for exploring how criminological approaches can contribute to a better understanding of policy, practice and social phenomena within humanitarian settings. This panel invites papers from practitioners and researchers who wish to connect ‘academic’ knowledge on violence and control to observations and problems from the humanitarian field. A vast body of knowledge has been accumulated within criminology on issues of violence and control, for example on how social order is maintained or not, how rules are enforced or broken, the causes and consequences of violence, the control of harmful behaviours, and systems of surveillance and regulation. Recent decades have seen a burgeoning of humanitarian attention to issues that benefit from criminological research and theorizing when they occur in ‘peacetime’ societies in the Global North, such as: gender-based violence (GBV); sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), violence against children (VAC); trafficking; policing borders; human security; security sector reform (SSR); and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). When these occur in humanitarian contexts, however, efforts to address them have drawn on health sciences, law, economics and engineering rather than on criminology. This panel assumes that humanitarian studies of such issues can benefit from accumulated criminological research of and theorizing on comparable phenomena.” For more information, contact Robin Haarr, Eastern Kentucky University, robinhaarr@yahoo.com or Hilde Jakobsen, University of Bergen, Hilde.Jakobsen@uib.no. Child Friendly Justice Have you seen the “Child Friendly Justice” web site? Established when the Council of Europe adopted its “Guidelines on Child Friendly Justice,” which were intended to enhance children’s access to and treatment in justice (Nov. 17, 2010), the web site offers not only links (in many languages) to the Guidelines report itself, to related texts and documents, and to podcasts of interviews done at the time, but also a documentary: “Keep me Safe” from Sexual Violence. See: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/ childjustice/default_en.asp. Rights of the Victim To stay up-to-date on the rights of the victim in Europe, check out the web page, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/ victims/rights/index_en.htm. It includes detailed information on criminal law policy and legislation, and links to documents. Common European Asylum System By the fall of 2014, EU member states will have a Common European Asylum System. Following years of negotiation, the European Parliament voted on June 12, 2013 to approve a set of common rules intended to eliminate the large differences that exist between nations. For more detail, see the following: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/index_en.htm http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/malmstrom/a-common-european-asylum-system-is-here/ Have you Seen? A Special Issue of The Journal of Community Practice (vol. 20, 1-2, 2012), “Social Development and Social Work: Learning from Africa,” with guest editors Alice K. Butterfield, University of Illinois at Chicago and Tasse Abye, Counselor to the President, University of Nouakchott, Nouakchott, Mauritania, “is designed to highlight the contemporary African experience with reducing poverty and vulnerability so that those in other regions of the world can learn from it.” The issue contains several “free access articles”: “Can Africa Learn from Africa? Can the World Learn From Africa?” by Tasse Abye and Alice K. Butterfield; “’We Can't Eat a Road:’” Asset-Based Community Development and The Gedam Sefer Community Partnership in Ethiopia” by Mulu Yeneabat and Alice K. Butterfield; and “An Integrated Developmental Model for Poverty Reduction in South Africa: An NGO's Perspective” by Antoinette Lombard, Marieta Kemp, Nelie Viljoen-Toet and Martie Booyzen. For more information, see http:// www.tandfonline.com/toc/wcom20/20/1-2#.UcNjzk8o600. (Continued on page 71) Page 71 The Criminologist New Book Announcements The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Criminology. London/New York: Routledge, 2014. By Cao, Liqun, Ivan Y. Sun, and Bill Hebenton (editors). The editors of The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Criminology have selected authoritative contributors recognized for their research and scholarship on China, Hong Kong Macao, and Taiwan. There are 25 chapters, covering historical themes, criminal justice system issues, methods of enquiry, forms of crime and criminality, and country studies of China and the Greater China region. The handbook also has an introduction, which establishes the rationale and helps contextualize the sections and subsequent chapters, and a conclusion, which provides a synoptic account of the key issues and themes raised across the five sections and future concerns. It serves as a comprehensive resource designed to introduce researchers and students to key topics, issues, theories, and debates currently influencing criminological scholarship in Chinese societies. It provides a new and prestigious point of reference and scholarship for those in the field of international and comparative criminology. International and Comparative Criminal Justice: A Critical introduction (Routledge, 2013) by Mark Findlay with Louise Boon Kuo and Lim Si Wei This book explores the growing internationalisation of criminal justice as a phenomenon of global governance. It provides students with a critical understanding of the international institutions for regulating transnational crime, the development of alternative justice processes across the globe, and international and supra-national co-operation criminal justice policies and practices. Key topics covered include: The historical development of International Criminal Justice institutions and traditions, International Restorative Justice, Victim communities and collaborative justice, The relationship between crime and war, International Human Rights, The ‘War on Terror,' The globalisation of crime and control, Developments in global governance, communitarian justice and accountability. International Criminology Meetings and Conferences 2-6 September, 2013 UNECA/African Union Regional Population Conference. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Harnessing the demographic dividend - the future we want for Africa. - See more at: http://icpdbeyond2014.org/key-events#sthash.roL5suPY.dpuf 4-7 September, 2013 The 13th Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology. Budapest, Hungary http://www.eurocrim2013.com/ 23-25 September, 2013 Fifth Annual International Crime, Media & Popular Culture Studies Conference: A Cross Disciplinary Exploration. Terre Haute, Indiana. www.indstate.edu/ccj/popcultureconference/ 1–2 October, 2013 What is justice? Re-imagining penal policy. The Howard League for Penal Reform. Keble College, Oxford, UK. For further information, visit the conference website http://www.howardleague.org/what-is-justice-events/ or contact Barbara Norris, at +44 (0)20 7241 7892; or barbara.norris@howardleague.org 2-5 October, 2013 34th Canadian Congress of Criminal Justice, 21st Century Justice: The Economics of Public Safety, Vancouver, Canada. www.ccja-acjp.ca/cong2013/en/cong_2013_call.pdf 8-10 October, 2013 First World Congress on Probation. London, UK. The Congress is a “new initiative to bring together practitioners and those with an interest in probation and community justice from across the globe to share their knowledge and experi ence.” http://www.worldcongressonprobation.org/default.asp?page_id=372 (Continued on page 72) Page 72 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 24-27 October, 2013 Human Security: Humanitarian Perspectives and Responses Conference, Istanbul, Turkey. Submissions due September 1, 2013. http://www.humanitarianstudiesconference.org/index.php?id=22 24-26 October, 2013 Eurasian Multidisciplinary Forum. Tbilisi, Georgia. Paper submission deadline October 1, 2013; contact@emforum.eu. http://www.emforum.eu/ 1-3 November, 2013 ISCRIP (International Symposium on Children at Risk and in Need of Protection). Antalya, Turkey. Theme: “Children and Violence: Children under the Pressure of Social Violence.” Abstracts up to 300 words due September 1, 2013. http://www.cocuksempozyumu.info/English.html 2-6 November, 2013 American Public Health Association, Boston, MA. Theme: “Think Global, Act Local: Best Practices Around the World. http://www.apha.org/meetings/AnnualMeeting/ 20-23 November, 2013 American Society of Criminology, 2013 in Atlanta, Georgia, Atlanta Marriott Marquis. Theme: “Expanding the Core: Neglected Crimes, Groups, Causes and Policy Approaches.” asc_program2013@ou.edu 21-23 November, 2013 ASMEA (Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa) Conference. Washington, D.C., Key Bridge Marriott Hotel. Theme: “Tides of Change: Looking Back and Forging Ahead in the Middle East & Africa.” For more detail, con tact ASMEA at 202-429-8860 or info@asmeascholars.org. Papers from earlier conferences from 2008 are also available at info@asmeascholars.org. 2-4 December, 2013 Third International Conference on Nanotek. Las Vegas, NV, Hampton Inn Tropicana. http://www.omicsgroup.com/conferences/nanotek-nanotechnology-2013/ 6-8 December, 2013 5th International Symposium on Terrorism and Transnational Crime: Perspectives on Strategy Security. Sponsored by the Turkish National Police Academy, International Center for Terrorism and Transnational Crime (UTSAM). Location: Antalya, Turkey. www.utsam.org/images/upload/attachment/Bildiri%20%C3%87a%C4%9Fr%C4%B1s%C4%B1_2013_EN.pdf 27-30 June, 2014 Asian Criminological Society. Osaka University of Commerce, Japan. http://www.ntpu.edu.tw/college/e4/acs/home.php 13-19 July, 2014 World Congress of the International Sociological Association, Deviance and Social Control Section. Yokohama, Japan. http://www.isa-sociology.org/rcs/rc29_ht.html September, 2014 European Society of Criminology. Prague, Czech Republic. www.esc-eurocrim.org/ 19-22 November, 2014 American Society of Criminology. San Francisco, CA Page 73 The Criminologist NOTES REGARDING THE ANNUAL MEETING 69th Annual Meeting November 20 - 23, 2013 Atlanta, Georgia Expanding the Core: Neglected Crimes, Groups, Causes and Policy Approaches FIND EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW AT: http://www.asc41.com/annualmeeting.htm Meeting Registration Form List of Registered Meeting Attendees Pre-Meeting Workshop Registration Form List of Registered Workshop Attendees Call for Papers (submissions are now closed) Book Exhibit and Advertising Information Employment Exchange Information Atlanta Visitor Information Hotel Information Roommate Search Discussion Board Ethics of and Guidelines for Participation at the Annual Meeting Frequently Asked Questions The American Society of Criminology 2013 Annual Meeting Registration Form – Atlanta, GA· November 20 - 23, 2013 www.asc41.com asc@asc41.com Please mail to American Society of Criminology, 1314 Kinnear Rd, Ste. 212, Columbus, OH 43212, or fax to (614) 292-6767. Name: Affiliation: (your badge will be prepared with the information on the two lines above) City, State: Country: Phone: E-mail: ASC will have a smartphone app to supplement the print program this year. Is this something you are interested in using? ____ YES ____NO REGISTRATION FEES (payable only in U.S. dollars) Program Participants Are Required To Preregister and Pay Registration Fee (Registration receipt will be included in registration packet) Postmarked or faxed BEFORE October 1 ____ ASC Member: $130.00 ____ Non-Member: $170.00 ____ ASC Student Member: $50.00 ____ Student Non-Member: $100.00 Postmarked or faxed ON or AFTER October 1 ____ ASC Member: $180.00 ____ Non-Member: $220.00 ____ ASC Student Member: $60.00 ____ Student Non-Member: $110.00 Optional Special Events (Schedule TBA) Division on People of Color & Crime Luncheon: ____ DPCC Student Member: $30.00 Division on Women & Crime Social ____ All Students: $5.00 ____ Non DPCC Member: $40.00 ____ DPCC Member: $35.00 ____ Non-Students: $15.00 Minority Fellowship Dances: Hot Spots Band / A Band to be Announced (One ticket allows entry to both dances.) ____ ASC Student Member: $5.00 ____ ASC Member: $10.00 ____ Non ASC Member Student: $10.00 ____ Non ASC Member: $20.00 *If you are paying by check or money order, please make it out to American Society of Criminology. (U.S. FUNDS ONLY). A service charge will be assessed for all returned checks. *Accepted Credit Cards: Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover Credit Card #: Exp. Date: Security Code (on back of card): Billing Address of Credit Card: Refund Policy: Advance registration fees will be refunded for cancellations received up to September 30. No refunds will be made on cancellations received after this date. Section to be filled out by ASC Total ____________ Date _____________ Check/MO # _____________ Credit Card _____________ REG ____________ DPCC Luncheon ____________ DWC Social ____________ Dances ____________ THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 1314 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: (614) 292-9207 Fax: (614) 292-6767 Website: www.asc41.com E-mail: asc@asc41.com 2013 PRE-MEETING WORKSHOPS, ATLANTA, GA – TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 All workshops will be held at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis Hotel Title: ACCOMPLISHING AND INTERPRETING QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW RESEARCH Instructors: Jody Miller, Rutgers University and Kristin Carbone-Lopez, University of Missouri-St. Louis Date & Time: Tuesday, November 19th, 1 – 5 p.m. Place: M101, Marquis Level Fee: $50.00 ($25.00 for students), Enrollment Limit: 50 **No laptops provided. Power strips will be available.** The strength of in-depth interviews lies in what they are: reflective accounts of social life offered from the points of view of research participants. As such, they provide two intertwined kinds of data: descriptive evidence of the nature of the phenomena under investigation – including the contexts and situations in which they emerge – and insights into the cultural frames that people use to make sense of their experiences. Interviews have long been used in criminology in an effort to enter the worlds of crime and justice actors, and they continue to be a popular technique. In this workshop, we offer a practical guide to interviews and their relevance for criminology. In particular, we will explore the following topics: What makes in-depth interviewing a particularly useful approach for criminology? How is research that utilizes interview data put to use for understanding crime and justice? How do we conduct effective interviews, especially given the sensitive nature of the types of questions we ask? Finally, what are data analysis processes we can use to turn our data into meaningful theoretical contributions for the field? Throughout, we will focus on the successful collection and use of interview-based data for preparing scholarly articles for criminology and criminal justice journals. Title: ITEM RESPONSE AND GRADED RESPONSE MODELS Instructors: Gary Sweeten, Arizona State University Date & Time: Tuesday, November 19th, 1 – 5 p.m. Place: M102, Marquis Level Fee: $50.00 ($25.00 for students), Enrollment Limit: 50 **No laptops provided. Power strips will be available.** Item response and graded response models allow responses to dichotomous or multiple category questions to be related to an underlying latent trait such as criminality. They convey information on the extent to which each question (a.k.a. “item”) is related to the latent trait as well as the “seriousness” or “difficulty” of each question with respect to the latent trait. They can also be used to generate estimates of the latent trait for each unit of analysis or incorporated into a multi-level explanatory model. This workshop covers the history and theory of item and graded response models as well as their strengths and weaknesses relative to other scaling methods. Referencing recent applications of these methods in the criminological literature (e.g. Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Schreck, 2007; Pyrooz, Sweeten & Piquero, 2012; Sweeten, 2012), this workshop will cover estimation of these models in Stata 12. Title: STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH MISSING DATA Instructors: Robert Brame, University of South Carolina Date & Time: Tuesday, November 19th, 1 – 5 p.m. Place: M104, Marquis Level Fee: $50.00 ($25.00 for students), Enrollment Limit: 50 **No laptops provided. Power strips will be available.** Administrative and survey databases are almost always limited by incomplete information. In this workshop, we will consider a taxonomy of the different kinds of missing data problems commonly encountered by criminologists and an overview of methods used to address these problems -- including the use of maximum likelihood, imputation, weighting, and bounding. I will illustrate the use of these methods with a series of example problems. A detailed set of slides, data sets, and R code will be provided in advance of the workshop. Return this form (via fax or mail) and your check (in U.S. Funds or International Money Order), or with your credit card information below (Master Card, Visa, Discover and American Express accepted). No refunds will be made on cancellations received after September 30, 2013. *Please note that registration for a workshop is NOT registration for the Annual Meeting which begins November 20. Name: Circle workshop of your choice: Payment Total: Credit Card #: Billing Address: Phone #: INTERVIEW RESEARCH Email: RESPONSE MODELS Circle Payment Type: Check/Money Order Exp. Date: Visa MISSING DATA MasterCard AmEx Security Code (on back): Discover Page 76 Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 The Criminologist PERIODICAL POSTAGE PAID TOLEDO, OHIO Official Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology Vol. 38, No. 5 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 1314 Kinnear Rd., Suite 212 Columbus, OH 43212-1156 ISSN 0164-0240 MARK YOUR CALENDAR FUTURE ASC ANNUAL MEETING DATES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 November 19 – 22 November 18 – 21 November 16 – 19 November 15 – 18 November 14 – 17 November 20 – 23 November 18 – 21 November 17 – 20 November 16 – 19 San Francisco, CA Washington, D.C. New Orleans, LA Philadelphia, PA Atlanta, GA San Francisco, CA Washington, D.C. Chicago, IL Atlanta, GA San Francisco Marriott Marquis Washington Hilton New Orleans Hilton Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Atlanta Marriott Marquis San Francisco Marriott Marquis Washington Hilton Palmer House Hilton Atlanta Marriott Marquis 2013 ANNUAL MEETING THEME: EXPANDING THE CORE: NEGLECTED CRIMES, GROUPS, CAUSES AND POLICY APPROACHES MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS EARLY FOR ATLANTA NOVEMBER 20 - 23, 2013 Atlanta Marriott Marquis 265 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30303 USA (404) 521-0000 / (877) 622-3056 $186 single/double occupancy YOU MUST MENTION YOU ARE WITH ASC TO OBTAIN THIS RATE