Accreditation: Is it necessary? Yes!

Few issues in the past decade have aroused the interest of the criminal justice education community as much as accreditation. What accreditation of criminal justice educational programs can and cannot do is currently the subject of national debate. The goals of criminal justice accreditation, the organization of the Criminal Justice Accreditation Council that administers the accreditation project, the costs involved, and the development of accreditation guidelines are analyzed in the following article. The potential advantages and possible pitfalls of accreditation are reviewed, as are some of the legal problems in the accreditation process, such as the confidentiality of accreditation decisions.My purposes in writing this article are (1) to analyze the criminal justice accreditation efforts to date, (2) to present and to expand on the serious issues facing criminal justice education and how these are related to the desirability of having accreditation, and (3) to reflect on the problems thwarting the attempts of criminal justice education to move into a strong accrediting position. This report is meant to provide information, both general and specific, to those in all fields of education who are interested in improving criminal justice education. It is intended to stimulate thought as well as to give this writer's perspective on the accreditation efforts currently being carried out by the Criminal Justice Accreditation Council (CJAC) under the overall leadership of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS). Educators and administrators often discuss accreditation in relation to their programs. Perhaps this article will clarify some of the issues and encourage a responsible approach to the improvement of criminal justice education.     

A response to “what happened to patrol operations in Kansas City?”

Larson's review raises several points concerning the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. The authors of the evaluation of that experiment respond to each of Larson's criticisms. With reference to Larson's two major points, this response demonstrates that (1) neither Larson's models nor his data are adequate to make statements about “typical patrol intensities” in major American cities and (2) patrol visibility in the reactive areas was markedly decreased over the one-year period of the experiment.The authors agree with Larson and have consistently urged that great caution should be used in generalizing the results of the experiment. The Technical Report itself presents results cautiously and conservatively. Also, large amounts of data comparing Kansas City with other cities are presented in the Report to enable readers to place the kansas City experience in perspective.The authors also agree with Larson that the results of the experiment indicate that police administrators can be more flexible in the allocation of officers than they have been previously. That Larson reaches this conclusion indicates that, despite his minor criticisms of the study which are responded to herein, he basically accepts the results of the experiment.