Crime Scene Technology

(1)

Associate in Science Degree:

Crime Scene Technology

Certificate:

Crime Scene Technology

Comprehensive Academic Program Review

2010-11

Department of Academic Effectiveness and

Assessment

(2)

Comprehensive Academic Program Review Produced by Crime Scene Technology Program

Brian Frank, M.S.

Dean, College of Public Safety Administration

Department of Academic Effectiveness and Assessment

James Coraggio, Ph.D.

Director of Academic Effectiveness and Assessment Magaly Tymms, B.S.

Assessment Coordinator for Academic Programs Jeff Wilkins, B.A.

Research Analyst Amy Eggers, M.A. Research Analyst Amy Brush, M.S. Outreach Coordinator With contributions from: Shirley Bell

Leigh Hopf

St. Petersburg College is dedicated to the concept of equal opportunity. The College will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or marital status, or against any qualified individual with disabilities, in its employment practices or in the admission and treatment of students. Recognizing that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and violates this rule, the Department of Academic Effectiveness and Assessment St. Petersburg College P.O. Box 13489 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 (727) 712-5237 FAX (727) 712-5411

(3)

Crime Scene Technology

2010-11 Comprehensive Academic Program Review Department of Academic Effectiveness and Assessment

iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ... 5 SPC Mission Statement ...10 Introduction ...10 Institutional Effectiveness ...10 Educational Assessment ...11

Program Review Process ...12

Program Description ...13

Degrees Offered ...14

Accreditation ...14

Major Learning Outcomes ...14

Program Performance ...16

Actual Course Enrollment ...16

Unduplicated Headcount ...17

Productivity ...18

Program Graduates...19

Grade Distributions ...20

Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio ...23

Program Profitability ...25

Relative Profitability Index (RPI-T) ...25

Program Improvements ...27

Capital Expenditures ...27

Academic Outcomes ...28

Stakeholder Perceptions ...32

Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) ...32

SSI Results ...33

Summary ...34

Advisory Committee ...35

Recent Meeting Summary ...36

Recent Alumni Survey Information ...38

Occupation Profile ...42

Occupation Description ...42

US, State, and Area Wage Information ...42

National, State, and County Trends ...43

Major Employers ...43

Total Placement ...46

(4)

Program Administrator’s Perspective: Issues, Trends, and Recent Successes ...48

Program Action Plan ...49

President’s Cabinet Review ...51

References ...52

Contact Information ...52

Appendix A: Program Overview (2011) ...53

Appendix B: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2010-11 ...54

Appendix C: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2009-10 ...59

(5)

5

Executive Summary

Introduction

The program review process at St. Petersburg College (SPC) is a collaborative effort designed to continuously measure and improve the quality of educational services provided to the community.

Program Description

The goal of this program is to prepare successful students for employment in the field of criminalistics with a specialty in Crime Scene Technology. The student can serve as, but is not limited to, a Crime Scene Technician, Crime Scene Photographer, Fingerprint Classification Specialist, Crime Lab Assistant, Investigator/Consultant, Juvenile Assessment Worker, Latent Print Examiner/Trainee, Fire Inspector/Investigator, Forensic Science Specialist and Property and Evidence Personnel. Crime Scene Technicians can be employed by Local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies, State Attorneys’ Offices, Public Defenders’ Offices, Medical Examiners’ Offices law firms and private industry. The content includes, but is not limited to, a working knowledge of all basic tenets in crime scene technology encompassed in the phases of crime scene search, recording, evidence gathering, packaging of evidence and courtroom testimony. The goal is the proper collection of crime scene evidence according to all legal dictates for presentation in court. Laboratory and field experiences are an integral part of this program. Students will participate in mock crime scene exercises, moot court hearings and various lab experiences that involve the processing of evidence.

Degrees Offered

An Associate in Science Degree in Crime Scene Technology and a Certificate in Crime Scene Technology are offered at SPC.

Program Performance

 Actual Course Enrollment decreased in the Fall and Spring terms of 2009-10 from the previous two years. Overall, Summer term has had the lowest actual enrollment over the last three years.

 Unduplicated Headcount remained consistent in all three terms of 2009-10 from the previous year.

 Student Semester Hour (SSH) Productivity increased in the Fall and Spring terms of 2009-10 from the previous two years, while Summer showed a slight decrease.

 The number of program graduates in the Crime Scene Technology program increased in 2009-10 (35) from the previous year. The number of Crime Scene Technology Certificate completers remained constant (30).

 The vast majority of students in the program continue to succeed in the courses. In Spring 2010, 90.3% of the students were successful as compared to 91.6% of the students in Spring 2011. In Fall 2009, 96.2% of the students succeeded as compared to 92.2% in Fall 2010.

 Fulltime Faculty taught 45.9% of the ECHs in 2009-10 as compared to 52.3% in 2008-09. Adjunct Faculty taught 54.1% of the ECHs in 2009-10 as compared to 47.7% in 2008-09.The highest semester for Adjunct ECHs was Summer 2008-09 in which adjunct faculty taught 75.0% of the program’s course load. The

(6)

three-semester average for adjuncts (54.1%) in 2009-10 is not consistent with the College’s general 65/35 Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio guideline.

Program Profitability

 The Relative Profitability Index (RPI-T) for the Crime Scene Technology program reached a four-year high in 2009-10 (0.77). The program’s 2009-10 RPI-T (0.77) increased slightly from 2008-09.

Program Improvements

 There were no Capital Expenditures (Fund 10 and 16) for the Crime Scene Technology program (Org: 11270106) during the past three years.

Academic Outcomes

 The 2006-07 Academic Program Assessment Report indicated that the desired results were met for eight of the ten Major Learning Objectives (MLOs) assessed.

 The 2006-07 Academic Program Assessment Follow-up Report was completed in August 2008. All action items were successfully completed and the results published in August 2006-07 follow-up report. The next assessment report is scheduled to be completed during the 2010-11 academic year.

Stakeholder Perceptions

 All the individual average content area scores for the Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) were above the traditional threshold (an average of 5.0) used by the College for evaluating seven-point satisfaction scales. These results suggest general overall satisfaction with the courses within the Crime Scene Technology program; specifically, as they relate to faculty engagement, preparation and organization, and course instruction.

 A Public Safety Administration advisory committee meeting was held on February 1, 2011. Meeting topics consisted of Program Updates and Department Changes, Program Challenges, and Housekeeping/ Miscellaneous items.

 Fifty-three recent alumni surveys were provided to the 2008-09 graduates of the Crime Scene Technology program. Seventeen percent of the graduates contacted responded to the survey (9 of 53). Not all respondents answer every survey question; therefore, the percentages listed below represent the responses to each survey question in relation to the total number of responses received for each question.

Notable results include:

(7)

7

o 57.1% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated that their SPC degree allowed them to “Continue my education,” 28.6% “Meet certification-training needs,” 14.3% “Change career fields,” and 28.6% indicated “Other.” [Note: The total may exceed 100% as this question allows multiple responses.]

o 44.4% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated that SPC did “Very well” in helping them meet their goal, 33.3% “Exceptionally well,” while 11.1% thought that SPC did “Adequately” in helping them meet their goal. 72.7% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated they are continuing their education.

o 57.1% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated that they earned between $10.00 and $14.99 per hour ($21,000 and $30,999 annually), while the remaining 42.9% earned between $15.00 and $19.99 per hour ($31,000 and $41,999 annually).

o 77.8% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated they are continuing their education.

o 87.5% of recent graduate survey respondents would recommend SPC’s Crime Scene Technology program to another.

 One employer survey was sent out based on the permission provided by recent graduates in the 2008-09 recent alumni survey. One survey respondent provided an evaluation of the graduates’ college preparation. Since a single response cannot accurately represent the entire program, employer survey results about college preparation will not be reported.

Occupation Profile

 One occupation description, Detectives and criminal investigators, was located in the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Crime Scene Technology program.

 The 2009 median yearly income for Crime Scene Technology was $62,100 in the United States, and $60,400 in Florida

 Employment trend information for Detectives and criminal investigators showed an average annual increase (9%-17%) in employment for the profession over ten years for both the country and state.

 The major employers of the graduates of SPC’s Crime Scene Technology program are Palm Bay Police Department FL, Manatee County FL, St Petersburg Police Department FL, Tampa Police Department FL, Miami Police Department FL, Pasco County FL, Naples Police Department FL, Tarpon Spring Police Department FL, Orlando Police Department, State of Florida, Santa FE CC FL, Brooksville Police Department FL, Citrus County FL, Ocala Police Department FL, Hillsborough SAO FL, Marion County FL, St. Johns Police Department FL, Pinellas County FL, St. Pete Beach Police Department FL, Clearwater Police Department FL, Panama City Beach Police Department Fl, Orange County FL, National Marine + Fisheries Services, Florida Highway Patrol, Haines City Police Department FL, US Marshall’s, MEO District 6 FL, New Port Richey Police Department FL, US Coast Guard, Tampa International Airport FL, Bradenton Police Department FL, Hernando County FL, Hillsborough County FL, University of Tampa FL, Hollywood Police Department FL, University of South Florida, US Air Force, Polk County FL, US Army, Gulfport Police Department FL, Charlotte

(8)

County FL, Largo Police Department FL, Sarasota Police Department FL, Highland County FL, Sumter County FL, and Seminole Police Department.

 Total Placement in the Crime Scene Technology program from 2005-06 through 2007-08 ranged from 69% to 77%.

State Graduates Outcomes

 State Graduates data indicated that fifty-four students completed a state Crime Scene Technology program in 2008-09, of those forty-three had some matching state data and were employed. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of those state graduates were employed at least a full quarter. SPC’s graduates exceeded this rate, with 86% of the graduates employed at least a full quarter.

(9)

9

Program Administrator’s Perspective: Issues, Trends, and Recent Successes

The Crime Scene Technology program continues to fulfill a vital role in the local

community, across other states, and in foreign countries. Employed graduates and their unit supervisors often request information about current graduates, and ask that we notify graduates of their employment opportunities.

The employment opportunities in the crime scene field have been greatly reduced due to the economic downturn, as the number of governmental law enforcement jobs have decreased. Nevertheless, the economic crisis has brought about a renewed interest in the program by individuals that are seeking retraining for future job openings in the field.

SPC has implemented a new annual schedule which provides students with course listings for both online and classroom-based courses offered during the year. This has benefitted the Crime Scene Technology program by allowing students to plan ahead, and fulfill their future goals.

We have contacted several local crime scene unit supervisors to request feedback on our program’s effectiveness in training their crime scene technicians. Although we only have few responses at this time, there appears to be a need for additional training in the area of digital photography. Several of the crime scene units are starting to reduce or

eliminate film photography, and implement an all-digital photography policy.

Recommendations/Action Plan

 Program Recommendations and action plans are compiled by the Provost and Program Administrator, and are located at the end of the document.

(10)

SPC Mission Statement

The mission of St. Petersburg College is to provide accessible, learner-centered education for students pursuing selected baccalaureate degrees, associate degrees, technical certificates, applied technology diplomas and continuing education within our service area and globally, while retaining leadership as a comprehensive, sustainable, multi-campus postsecondary institution and as a creative partner with students, communities, and other educational institutions to deliver rich learning experiences and to promote economic and workforce development.

Introduction

In a holistic approach, the effectiveness of any educational institution is the aggregate value of the education it provides to the community it serves. For over seventy-five years, St. Petersburg College (SPC) has provided a wide range of educational opportunities and services to a demographically diverse student body producing tens of thousands of alumni who have been on the forefront of building this county, state, and beyond. This is due, in large part, to the College’s institutional effectiveness.

Institutional Effectiveness

Institutional Effectiveness is the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented process of measuring performance against the SPC mission for the purposes of continuous improvement of academic programs, administrative services, and educational support services offered by the College.

Operationally, the institutional effectiveness process ensures that the stated purposes of the College are accomplished. In other words did the institution successfully execute its mission, goals, and objectives? At SPC, the Offices of Planning, Budgeting, and Research work with all departments and units to establish measurable statements of intent that are used to analyze effectiveness and to guide continuous quality

(11)

11 its desired outcomes. The level of success of SPC’s actions is then evaluated. A straightforward assessment process requires a realistic consideration of the intended outcomes that the institution has set and a frank evaluation of the evidence that the institution is achieving that intent.

There is no single right or best way to measure success, improvement, or quality. Nevertheless, objectives must be established, data related to those objectives must be collected and analyzed, and the results of those findings must be used to improve the institution in the future. The educational assessment is a critical component of St. Petersburg College’s institutional effectiveness process.

Educational Assessment

Educational programs use a variety of assessment methods to improve their effectiveness. Assessment and evaluation measures are used at various levels throughout the institution to provide provosts, deans, program managers, and faculty vital information on how successful our efforts have been.

While the focus of a particular educational assessment area may change, the assessment strategies remain consistent and integrated to the fullest extent possible. The focus for Associate in Arts degrees is targeted for students continuing on to four-year degree programs as opposed to the Associate in Applied Science, Associate in Science, and Baccalaureate programs which are targeted towards students seeking employable skills. The General Education based assessments focus on the general learning outcomes from all degree programs, while Program Review looks at the viability of the specific programs.

The individual reports unique by their individual nature are nevertheless written to address how the assessments and their associated action plans have improved learning in their program. The College has developed an Educational Assessment Website (https://it.spcollege.edu/edoutcomes/)

to serve as repository for all SPC’s educational outcomes reports and to systematically manage our assessment efforts.

(12)

Program Review Process

The program review process at St. Petersburg College is a collaborative effort to continuously measure and improve the quality of educational services provided to the community. The procedures described below go far beyond the “periodic review of existing programs” required by the State Board of Community Colleges; and exceeds the necessary guidelines within the Southern Association of Community Colleges and Schools (SACS) review procedures.

State guidelines require institutions to conduct program reviews every seven years as mandated in chapter 1001.03(13) of the Florida Statutes, the State Board of Education (formerly the Florida Board of Education) must provide for the review of all academic programs.

(13) …CYCLIC REVIEW OF POSTSECONDARY ACADEMIC PROGRAMS.--The State Board of Education shall provide for the cyclic review of all academic programs in community colleges and state universities at least every 7 years. Program reviews shall document how individual academic programs are achieving stated student learning and program objectives within the context of the institution's mission. The results of the program reviews shall inform strategic planning, program development, and

budgeting decisions at the institutional level.

In addition, Rule 6A-14.060 (5) states that each community college shall: (5) …Develop a comprehensive, long-range program plan, including program and service priorities. Statements of expected outcomes shall be published, and facilities shall be used efficiently to achieve such outcomes. Periodic evaluations of programs and services shall use placement and follow-up data, shall determine whether expected

(13)

13 process. Figure 1 represents the relationship between program assessment and program reviewing during the three-year assessment cycle.

Figure 1: Three-Year Academic Program Assessment Cycle

Program Description

The goal of this program is to prepare successful students for employment in the field of criminalistics with a specialty in Crime Scene Technology. The student can serve as, but is not limited to, a Crime Scene Technician, Crime Scene Photographer, Fingerprint Classification Specialist, Crime Lab Assistant, Investigator/Consultant, Juvenile Assessment Worker, Latent Print Examiner/Trainee, Fire Inspector/Investigator, Forensic Science Specialist and Property and Evidence Personnel. Crime Scene Technicians can be employed by Local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies, State Attorneys’ Offices, Public Defenders’ Offices, Medical Examiners’ Offices law firms and private industry. The content includes, but is not limited to, a working knowledge of all basic tenets in crime scene technology encompassed in the phases of crime scene search, recording, evidence gathering, packaging of evidence and courtroom testimony. The

(14)

goal is the proper collection of crime scene evidence according to all legal dictates for presentation in court. Laboratory and field experiences are an integral part of this program. Students will participate in mock crime scene exercises, moot court hearings and various lab experiences that involve the processing of evidence.

Degrees Offered

An Associate in Science Degree in Crime Scene Technology and a Certificate in Crime Scene Technology are offered at SPC.

For a complete listing of all courses within the Crime Scene Technology program, please see Appendix A. Articulation information for the A.S. program was not available at the time this report was completed.

Accreditation

No accreditation information is on file for the Crime Scene Technology program.

Major Learning Outcomes

1. The student will acquire skills and knowledge in developing visual aids for use in courtroom proceedings and in preparing for courtroom testimony and will acquire an understanding of effective listening techniques in order to answer a direct or cross examination.

2. The student will acquire knowledge of, and the ability to use National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Henry classification system, and will acquire knowledge of general fingerprint rules, and the ability to classify fingerprints.

3. The student will acquire knowledge of the methodology used in crime scene recording, and classifying physical evidence and will acquire an understanding of the concepts of crime scene processing

(15)

15 5. The student will develop ability and skills in the use of the camera to document the crime scene and related evidentiary materials and will acquire knowledge of documentation procedures related to crime scene photography.

6. The student will acquire knowledge of specialized photo equipment, processes and procedures involved in a photo lab and will acquire knowledge of principles and methodology involved in photographing unique crime scenes and evidentiary materials.

7. The student will acquire knowledge of the techniques involved in the detection, enhancement and recovery of latent fingerprints and will acquire an understanding of the appropriate application of processing techniques.

8. The student will acquire knowledge of the capabilities of a full-service crime lab and will acquire knowledge of the chain of custody, submission protocols and appropriate comparison standards.

9. The student will acquire an understanding of safe and proper methods of handling biological evidence and will acquire knowledge of the collection methods and testing of biological evidence.

10. The student will acquire knowledge of the potential health and safety hazards and the skills and techniques to minimize risk to self and others and will acquire knowledge of state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials as related to crime scenes.

(16)

Program Performance

Actual Course Enrollment

Actual Course Enrollment is calculated using the sum of actual student enrollment for the courses within the program (Academic Organization Code). This number is a duplicated headcount of students enrolled in the program's core courses and does not reflect the actual number of students enrolled in the A.S. program or its associated certificates (if applicable). Actual Course Enrollment decreased in the Fall and Spring terms of 2009-10 from the previous two years. Overall, Summer term has had the lowest actual enrollment over the last three years, as shown in Figure 2.

Actual Course Enrollment

161 383 262 146 291 ₂₇₅ 159 256 256 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Fall Spring Summer

N u m b e r of E n ro llm e n ts 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10

(17)

17

Unduplicated Headcount

Unduplicated Headcount is the total number of unduplicated students with a program plan within the area of study (e.g., A.S. or certificate) that are currently enrolled in a course under that Academic Org. during the term of interest. This excludes 1) students in a different program plan or 2) students in the right program plan who are not taking courses within that Academic Org. for the term of interest. Unduplicated Headcount remained consistent in all three terms of 2009-10 from the previous year, as shown in Figure 3. Unduplicated Headcount 82 97 124 75 102 78 98 111 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Fall Spring Summer

N u mb er o f E n ro ll men ts 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10

Figure 3: Unduplicated Headcount

(18)

Productivity

Student Semester Hour (SSH) Productivity is calculated by dividing actual SSH by the budgeted SSH. SSH productivity increased in the Fall and Spring terms of 2009-10 from the previous two years, while Summer showed a slight decrease, as shown in Figure 4.

SSH Productivity

0.78 0.91 0.80 0.74 0.95 0.75 0.73 0.97 0.92 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Fall Spring Summer

P rod uc ti v it y 2007 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 Figure 4: SSH Productivity

(19)

19

Program Graduates

The number of AS degree graduates in the Crime Scene Technology program increased (35) in 2009-10 from the previous year. The number of Crime Scene Technology Certificate completers remained constant (30), as shown in Figure 5.

Program Graduates

36 46 ₄₂ ₃₈ 24 35 75 157 86 49 30 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Gr ad u a te s CST - AS CST Certificate

Figure 5: Program Graduates

(20)

Grade Distributions

To provide a reference for program performance at the classroom level, grade distributions are provided. Table 1 includes the percentage of students receiving an A, B, C, D, or F in the program core courses. The information was compiled from the college wide grade distribution report generated at the end of the session. Some course data, such as dual credit courses, generally do not end at the same time as the regular campus courses and may be omitted. In addition, the number of enrollments is a duplicated headcount where students are counted for each class registered, however, only A, B, C, D, and F grades are included in the calculations.

Table 1

Program Core Course Grade Distributions

Semester Grade Distributions

A B C D F Spring 2009 37.5% 36.7% 17.9% 4.0% 4.0% Spring 2010 46.0% 35.0% 9.3% 4.6% 5.1% Spring 2011 49.8% 31.1% 10.7% 3.6% 4.9% Fall 2009 52.1% 30.3% 13.7% 2.1% 1.7% Fall 2010 46.1% 31.3% 14.8% 4.3% 3.5%

(21)

21 Figure 6 provides a visual representation of the grade distributions for those students receiving a grade of A, B, or C.

ABC Grade Distributions

37.5% 46.0% 49.8% 52.1% 46.1% 36.7% 35.0% 31.1% 30.3% 31.3% 17.9% _9.3% 10.7% 13.7% 14.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 Spring Fall P e rcen t o f S tu d en ts ( in c l. ABCDF ) A B C

Figure 6: ABC Grade Distributions

(22)

A classroom success rate was also calculated for the program. Classroom success is defined as the percent of students successfully completing the course with a grade of A, B, or C, divided by the total number of students in the course. The vast majority of students in the program continue to succeed in the courses as shown in Figure 7. In Spring 2010, 90.3% of the students were successful as compared to 91.6% of the students in Spring 2011. In Fall 2009, 96.2% of the students succeeded as compared to 92.2% in Fall 2010. Classroom Success 96.2% 90.3% 92.2% 91.6% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% Spring Fall Semester P e rc e n t of S tude nt s S u c c e e di ng 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011

Figure 7: Classroom Success

(23)

23

Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio

Table 2 displays the number and percentage of Crime Scene Technology program equated credit hours (ECHs) taught by the individual faculty classifications. As shown, Fulltime Faculty taught 45.9% of the ECHs in 2009-10, as compared to 52.3% in 2008-09. Adjunct Faculty taught 54.1% of the ECHs in 2009-10, as compared to 47.7% in 2008-09.

Table 2

Equated Credit Hours by Faculty Classification

Fulltime

Faculty Percent of Load Faculty Adjunct Faculty Number

of ECHs

% of Classes

Taught Number _{of ECHs} Classes % of Taught Number of ECHs % of Classes Taught Fall 2007-2008 20.0 48.2% 0.0 0.0% 21.5 51.8% Spring 2007-2008 13.5 42.9% 0.0 0.0% 18.0 57.1% Summer 2007-2008 9.0 35.3% 0.0 0.0% 16.5 64.7% 2007-2008 Total 42.5 43.1% 0.0 0.0% 56.0 56.9% Fall 2008-2009 16.0 55.2% 0.0 0.0% 13.0 44.8% Spring 2008-2009 20.8 69.7% 0.0 0.0% 9.0 30.3% Summer 2008-2009 5.5 25.0% 0.0 0.0% 16.5 75.0% 2008-2009 Total 42.3 52.3% 0.0 0.0% 38.5 47.7% Fall 2009-2010 13.5 42.9% 0.0 0.0% 18.0 57.1% Spring 2009-2010 14.5 47.9% 0.0 0.0% 15.8 52.1% Summer 2009-2010 11.3 47.4% 0.0 0.0% 12.5 52.6% 2009-2010 Total 39.3 45.9% 0.0 0.0% 46.3 54.1% Source: PeopleSoft Student Administration System: Faculty/Adjunct Ratio Report (S_FACRAT)

(24)

The Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio is calculated by dividing a program’s adjunct’s ECHs by the sum of the Adjunct’s, Percent of Load’s, and Fulltime Faculty’s ECHs. Figure 8 displays the Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio information for the last three academic years. The highest semester for Adjunct ECHs was Summer 2008-09 in which adjunct faculty taught 75.0% of the program’s course load as shown in Table 2. The three-semester average for adjuncts (54.1%) in 2009-10 is not consistent with the College’s general 65/35 Fulltime/Adjunct Faculty Ratio guideline.

Full-Time / Adjunct Faculty Ratio

30.3 64.7 51.8 57.1 44.8 75.0 57.1 52.1 52.6 0 25 50 75 100

Fall Spring Summer

Semester P e rcen t A d ju n c t 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010

Figure 8: Full-time/Adjunct Faculty Ratio

(25)

25

Program Profitability

Relative Profitability Index (RPI-T)

Relative Profitability Index (RPI-T) is a measure of program profitability. It is calculated by dividing a program’s income by the sum of its personnel expenses and current expenses. Only Fund 10 financials are used in the calculation of RPI-T; specifically, program revenues (GL 400000), personnel expenses (GL 500000), and current expenses (GL 600000).

Program revenues (GL 400000) can include (1) student application fees and tuition, (2) out of state fees, and (3) gifts from alumni and charitable organizations.

Personnel expenses (GL 500000) can include (1) personnel salary expenses for program management, and instructional staff, (2) personnel salary expenses for OPS and student assistants, and (3) personnel benefits. Personnel assigned to multiple programs may have partial personnel expenses assigned to an individual program.

Current expenses (GL 600000) can include operating expenses for (1) travel, (2) goods and services, and (3) materials and supplies. Current expenses can also include scholarship and fee waivers.

(26)

The RPI-T for the Crime Scene Technology program reached a four-year high in 2009-10 (0.77), as shown in Figure 9. The program’s 2009-10 RPI-T (0.77) increased slightly from 2008-09.

To provide a comparison of the program’s RPI-T to other similar programs, three other comparative measures were calculated. The 2009-10 mean RPI-T for SPC was 0.81, the 2009-10 mean RPI-T for the Allstate Campus was 1.28, and the 2009-10 mean RPI-T for programs which offered 25-50% of their courses online was 0.89.

Fiscal Summary 0.92 0.76 0.98 0.87 0.66 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 RP I-T

Figure 9: Fiscal Summary

Source: PeopleSoft Financial Production System: Summary of Monthly Organization Budget & Actuals Status Report (ORGBUDA1) from End of Fiscal Year

(27)

27

Program Improvements

Capital Expenditures

There were no Capital Expenditures (Fund 10 and 16) for the Crime Scene Technology program (Org: 11270106) during the past three years, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Crime Scene Technology Program Capital Expenditures

Capital Expenditures

Year Capital _Outlay Account Purchase Description

2007-08 0 700000 None

2008-09 0 700000 None

2009-10 0 700000 None

Total 0

Source: PeopleSoft Financial Production System: Summary of Monthly Organization Budget & Actuals Status Report (ORGBUDA1) from End of Fiscal Year

(28)

Academic Outcomes

As part of SPC quality improvement efforts, academic assessments are conducted on each AAS/AS program every three years to evaluate the quality of the program’s educational outcomes. The Crime Scene Technology program was evaluated through an Academic Program Assessment Report (APAR) in 2006-07.

Each of the program’s ten Major Learning Outcomes (MLOs) was evaluated during the 2006-07 assessment. Each of the ten MLOs is listed below:

1. The student will acquire skills and knowledge in developing visual aids for use in courtroom proceedings and in preparing for courtroom testimony and will acquire an understanding of effective listening techniques in order to answer a direct or cross examination.

2. The student will acquire knowledge of, and the ability to use National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Henry classification system, and will acquire knowledge of general fingerprint rules, and the ability to classify fingerprints.

3. The student will acquire knowledge of the methodology used in crime scene recording, and classifying physical evidence and will acquire an understanding of the concepts of crime scene processing and be able to apply techniques available to the crime scene investigator.

4. The student will develop abilities and skills in preparing crime scene related documents and will demonstrate an ability to coordinate with other investigative personnel and agencies.

5. The student will develop ability and skills in the use of the camera to document the crime scene and related evidentiary materials and will acquire knowledge of documentation procedures related to crime scene photography.

(29)

29 will acquire an understanding of the appropriate application of processing techniques.

8. The student will acquire knowledge of the capabilities of a full-service crime lab and will acquire knowledge of the chain of custody, submission protocols and appropriate comparison standards.

9. The student will acquire an understanding of safe and proper methods of handling biological evidence and will acquire knowledge of the collection methods and testing of biological evidence.

10. The student will acquire knowledge of the potential health and safety hazards and the skills and techniques to minimize risk to self and others and will acquire knowledge of state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials as related to crime scenes.

Means of Assessment

The purpose of the End of Program assessment is to make summative interpretations for program improvement.

In the Crime Scene Technology Program, the results of a locally developed structured response (100 multiple-choice questions) assessment instrument were used to assess the students. The criteria for success indicated that students should attain a mean greater than 70% on the set of questions pertaining to each MLO.

Data were collected during 2006-07, and the data findings for each MLO are displayed in Tables 4, 5, and 6. As depicted, the criteria of success was met for eight of the ten Major Learning Outcomes (MLOs) assessed during 2006-07.

(30)

Table 4

Crime Scene Technology Assessment Results Major

Learning Objectives

Crime Scene Technology Assessment Results Session I 2006-07 (N=29)

Mean Score Criteria Above/Below Criteria

MLO 1 7.6 7.0 +0.6 MLO 2 7.4 7.0 +0.4 MLO 3 8.7 7.0 +1.7 MLO 4 8.2 7.0 +1.2 MLO 5 8.0 7.0 +1.0 MLO 6 8.4 7.0 +1.4 MLO 7 9.1 7.0 +2.1 MLO 8 7.0 7.0 0.0 MLO 9 7.2 7.0 +0.2 MLO 10 6.7 7.0 -0.3

Source: Academic Outcomes from 2006-07 Academic Program Assessment Report (APAR)

Table 5

Learning Objectives

Crime Scene Technology Assessment Results Session II 2006-07 (N=29)

MLO 1 8.3 7.0 +1.3 MLO 2 7.4 7.0 +0.4 MLO 3 8.6 7.0 +1.6 MLO 4 8.6 7.0 +1.6 MLO 5 8.2 7.0 +1.2 MLO 6 8.4 7.0 +1.4

(31)

31 Table 6

Learning Objectives

Crime Scene Technology Assessment Results Session III 2006-07 (N=18)

MLO 1 7.6 7.0 +0.6 MLO 2 7.8 7.0 +0.8 MLO 3 8.3 7.0 +1.3 MLO 4 8.2 7.0 +1.2 MLO 5 8.5 7.0 +1.5 MLO 6 8.2 7.0 +1.2 MLO 7 9.0 7.0 +2.0 MLO 8 7.3 7.0 +0.3 MLO 9 7.9 7.0 +0.9 MLO 10 8.5 7.0 +1.5

Source: Academic Outcomes from 2006-07 Academic Program Assessment Report (APAR)

The 2006-07 follow-up report was completed in August 2008. All of the action items were successfully completed, and the results published in the August 2006-07 follow-up report. The next assessment report is scheduled to be completed during the 2010-11 academic year.

(32)

Stakeholder Perceptions

Student Survey of Instruction (SSI)

Each semester, St. Petersburg College (SPC) administers the Student Survey of Instruction. Students are asked to provide feedback on the quality of their instruction using a 7-point scale where 7 indicates the highest rating and 1 indicates the lowest rating.

The purpose of the SSI survey is to acquire information on student perception of the quality of courses, faculty, and instruction, and to provide feedback information for improvement.

Beginning in Fall 2008, all SSI forms (except Clinical B) have been administered electronically using an online format. During 2009-10, the SSI items were reviewed and revised by a committee composed of faculty and administrators. As a result of the revision process, the lecture, non-lecture, and eCampus forms were consolidated into one form, independent of modality, which has been administered online since Spring 2010.

As part of the instrument validation process, the results from the SSI over the last few years were assessed for reliability and validity. The results of this assessment suggested three underlying factors.

The three factors are faculty engagement, preparation and organization, and course instruction. The survey questions are grouped into these categories as defined below:

 Faculty Engagement – focuses on how successful the instructor was in encouraging student performance, the instructor’s level of enthusiasm for the subject and respect for students, how well the instructor applied the stated grading policies including providing students appropriate information to determine their grades, and the

(33)

33 the instructor, and the even assignment and appropriateness of course material throughout the term.

 Course Instruction – focuses on the instructor’s clarity of instruction, how well the course objectives were defined by the instructor, and how well the instructor met student expectations.

SSI Results

The SSI survey is electronically distributed to all students enrolled in traditional classroom sections, lab courses and self-paced or directed individual study, and online courses at the College. The average scores are all well above the traditional threshold (an average of 5.0) used by the College for evaluating seven-point satisfaction scales during all three semesters. The average survey results by semester and content area are shown in Figure 10. SSI: Results 6.57 6.72 6.67 6.75 6.60 6.75 6.66 6.75 6.55 6.70 6.63 6.63 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 Spring 2010 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2010 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2010 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011

Faculty Engagement Preparation & Organization Course Instruction

Content Area S S I S a ti sf act io n L evel ( S cal e 1-7)

Figure 10: SSI Results

(34)

Summary

All the individual average content area scores were above the traditional threshold (an average of 5.0) used by the College for evaluating seven-point satisfaction scales. These results suggest general overall satisfaction with the courses within the Crime Scene Technology program; specifically, as they relate to faculty engagement, preparation and organization, and course instruction.

(35)

35

Advisory Committee

Community input and participation is an important component of the educational process at the College. The advisory committees are an example of community input. Advisory committees meet a minimum of twice annually with additional meetings as needed for good program coordination.

Advisory committee members are appointed by the College President to serve a one-year term of office and must have a demonstrated competency in the program specialty area or an understanding of the program and of the community at large. An exception to the above may be a lay person directly involved in a related program field such as counseling, public relations, or administration of a business or industry. Specific Functions of Advisory Committees are:

1. Assessing how the program meets the current occupational needs of employers.

2. Reviewing and making recommendations on the program curriculum.

3. Providing input to help prepare students for work in their chosen field.

4. Assisting in recruiting, providing internships, and in placing qualified graduates in appropriate jobs.

5. Expanding and enhancing St. Petersburg College’s reputation in the community by fostering positive community relationships.

(36)

Recent Meeting Summary

A Public Safety Administration advisory committee meeting was held on February 1, 2011. Meeting topics consisted of Program Updates and Department Changes, Program Challenges, and Housekeeping/ Miscellaneous items.

Program Updates and Department Changes

Custom Textbooks: There are four Pearson custom textbooks utilized by the lower division and plans for a fifth one to be developed. As for the Upper division, there are two Pearson custom books in use. Presently, these custom books provide students with two options: they can purchase the book with an access code, or they can simply purchase the access code and utilize the custom e-book.

New Staff Member: A new full-time faculty member, Ken Afienko, was hired in the upper division in October 2010. There is still another full-time faculty member position; however, approval from budgeting for 2011-12 is needed.

Digital Forensics Lab Update: The existing lab has been expanded so that it now accommodates up to 40 students for a new computer/digital forensics training program. Kevin Thomas is currently undergoing training to become a certified trainer with AccessData’s FTK3 software.

Fire Science: Two online courses have been developed and are presently offered through the Fire Training Center for fire inspectors and instructors to recertify by earning Continuing Education Units (CEUs). These courses are offered continually throughout the year. Public Safety Administration (PSA) Alumni Steering Committee: This committee was developed by the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. In order to improve the PSA program/curriculum, several

(37)

37 SPC Faculty Champions Committee: Representation for the College of Public Safety on this committee was provided by Dr. Carol Rasor. The goal for this committee was to ingrain critical thinking strategies into SPC’s curriculum at all levels. For example, it was mentioned that there should be a focus on simple statistics which should coincide with a working knowledge of Excel. For this reason, it was recommended that a link to Excel training should be put into the Foundations course as well as the Capstone course.

Program Challenges

Recruitment/Marketing: Michael Hughes initiated pilot criminal justice courses at the local law enforcement departments. Upon having attended the Police Chiefs and Fire Rescue East meetings, it was noted that there is more interest shown at the instructional level rather than the student level for SPC. There was also interest shown for a Career Fair at Gibbs High School.

Housekeeping/ Miscellaneous

SPC’s Career Pathways Facebook Page: Gary Graham announced that Career Pathways developed a facebook page and blog and departments were both welcome and encouraged to post various bits of information (ex. Events, awards, and announcements). The SPC website was scheduled to be updated within 2-3 months.

Fall Joint Committee: There is a possibility the Fall Joint Advisory Committee may be resurrected in September or October.

Pinellas Park First Responders: Jill Dileanis announced that this program will be commencing its third year next year, an indication that the program has been well-received.

FDLE-Crime Scene Lab: John Romeo announced that FDLE is now hiring. The greatest need is in firearms, digital forensics, and biology. Students should be directed to their website.

Next Meeting: Due to the tentative Fall Joint Advisory Committee meeting, members wanted to schedule their own fall meeting.

(38)

The complete committee minutes along with the minutes from previous meetings are located in Appendices B, C, and D.

Recent Alumni Survey Information

Fifty-three Alumni Surveys were provided to the 2008-09 graduates of the Crime Scene Technology program. Responses were received from four A.S. graduates and five Certificate completers.

Seventeen percent of the graduates contacted responded to the survey (9 of 53). After receiving permission from the respondents to contact their employers, one employer survey was sent out. Not all respondents answer every survey question; therefore, the percentages listed below represent the responses to each survey question in relation to the total number of responses received for each question.

Notable results include:

 100.0% of recent graduate survey respondents, who were employed, were employed full-time.

 14.3% of recent graduate survey respondents had a current position related to their studies.

 37.5% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated their main goal in completing a degree or certificate at SPC was “Change career fields,” 25.0% “Continue my education,” 12.5% “Earn more money,” 12.5% “Meet certification-training needs,” while the remaining 12.5% stated “Obtain employment.”

 57.1% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated that their SPC degree allowed them to “Continue my education,” 28.6% “Meet certification-training needs,” 14.3% “Change career fields,” and 28.6% indicated “Other.” [Note: The total may exceed 100% as this question allows multiple responses.]

 44.4% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated that SPC did “Very well” in helping them meet their goal, 33.3% “Exceptionally

(39)

39  77.8% of recent graduate survey respondents indicated they are

continuing their education.

 87.5% of recent graduate survey respondents would recommend SPC’s Crime Scene Technology program to another.

 An evaluation of Crime Scene Technology graduates’ general

education outcomes is displayed in Table 7. Graduates indicated high levels of satisfaction with their college preparation in the area of general education outcomes. Nineteen outcomes received mean scores of 4.0 or higher, while the remaining six outcomes received mean scores between 3.6 and 3.8.

(40)

Table 7

College Preparation Ratings for RecentCrime Scene Technology Program Graduates

General Education Outcomes (Five point rating scale with five being the highest) Item Ratings

N Mean SD

Communicating clearly and effectively with others

through: Speaking 9 3.6 0.53 Listening 9 4.2 0.67 Reading 9 4.2 0.67 Writing 9 4.1 0.60

Your use of mathematical and computational skills:

Comfort with mathematical calculations 9 3.6 0.73 Using computational skills appropriately 9 3.8 0.67 Accurately interpreting mathematical data 9 3.6 0.73

Using the following forms of technology:

Email 9 4.7 0.50 Word Processing 9 4.6 0.73 Spreadsheets 9 3.8 0.97 Databases 9 3.7 1.00 Internet Research 9 4.6 0.53

Thinking logically and critically to solve problems: Gathering and assessing relevant information 9 4.1 0.60 Inquiring about and interpreting information 9 4.2 0.44

(41)

41 Table 7, continued

College Preparation Ratings for Recent Crime Scene Technology Program Graduates

General Education Outcomes (Five point rating scale with five being the highest) Item Ratings

N Mean SD

Working effectively with others in a variety of

settings:

Participating as a team player (e.g., group projects) 9 4.2 0.67 Working well with individuals from diverse

backgrounds 9 4.4 0.73

Using ethical courses of action 9 4.6 0.53 Demonstrating leadership skills 9 4.2 0.67

Appreciating the importance of lifelong learning: Showing an interest in career development 9 4.4 0.53 Being open to new ideas and challenges 9 4.7 0.50 Willingness to take on new responsibilities 9 4.7 0.50 Pursuing additional educational opportunities 9 4.6 0.53

Employer Survey Information

One employer survey was sent out based on the permission provided by recent graduates in the 2008-09 recent alumni survey. One survey respondent provided an evaluation of the graduates’ college preparation. Since a single response cannot accurately represent the entire program, employer survey results about college preparation will not be reported.

(42)

Occupation Profile

One occupation description was located in the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Crime Scene Technology program. The occupation description title was detectives and criminal investigators.

Occupation Description

The occupation description for detectives and crime investigators, used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is shown below:

Collect evidence at crime scene, classify and identify fingerprints, and photograph evidence for use in criminal and civil cases.

US, State, and Area Wage Information

The distribution of 2009 wage information for Crime Scene Technology is located in Table 8. The median yearly income for Crime Scene Technology is $62,100 in the United States, and $60,400 in Florida. The wage information is divided by percentiles for hourly and yearly wages. This information is also separated by location.

Table 8

Wage Information for Crime Scene Technology

Location _PeriodPay 2009

10% 25% Median 75% 90%

United States Hourly $18.25 $22.63 $29.86 $40.22 $48.07 Yearly $38,000 $47,100 $62,100 $83,700 $100,000 Florida Hourly $19.60 $22.75 $29.03 $38.40 $45.10

Yearly $40,800 $47,300 $60,400 $79,900 $93,800 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey; Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

(43)

43

National, State, and County Trends

Employment trend information is included in Table 9 and divided by country and state. An average annual increase (9% - 17%) in employment for the profession over ten years for the country and state is shown.

Table 9

State and National Trends

United States Employment Percent _Change Job Openings 1

2008 2018

Detectives and criminal investigators 112,200 130,900 +17% 4,160 Florida Employment Percent _Change Job Openings 1

2008 2018

Detectives and criminal investigators 7,580 8,260 +9% 220 1_{Job Openings refers to the average annual job openings due to growth and net replacement.}

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections; Florida Employment Projections

Major Employers

Graduates of SPC’s Crime Scene Technology program are employed in various areas related to their field. The primary local employers of these graduates are Palm Bay Police Department FL, Manatee County FL, St Petersburg Police Department FL, Tampa Police Department FL, Miami Police Department FL, Pasco County FL, Naples Police Department FL, Tarpon Spring Police Department FL, Orlando Police Department, State of Florida, Santa FE CC FL, Brooksville Police Department FL, Citrus County FL, Ocala Police Department FL, Hillsborough SAO FL, Marion County FL, St. Johns Police Department FL, Pinellas County FL, St. Pete Beach Police Department FL, Clearwater Police Department FL, Panama City Beach Police Department Fl, Orange County FL, National Marine + Fisheries Services, Florida Highway Patrol, Haines City Police Department FL, US Marshall’s, MEO District 6 FL, New Port Richey Police Department FL, US Coast Guard, Tampa International Airport FL, Bradenton Police

Department FL, Hernando County FL, Hillsborough County FL, University of Tampa FL, Hollywood Police Department FL, University of South Florida, US Air Force, Polk County FL, US Army, Gulfport Police Department FL, Charlotte County FL, Largo Police Department FL, Sarasota Police Department FL, Highland County FL, Sumter County FL, and Seminole Police Department, as depicted in Table 10.

(44)

Table 10

Major Employers

Employers of Crime Scene Technology Graduates Palm Bay Police Department Fl

Manatee County FL

St Petersburg Police Department FL Tampa Police Department FL

Miami Police Department FL Pasco County FL

Naples Police Department FL

Tarpon Springs Police Department FL Orlando Police Department FL

State of Florida Santa FE CC FL

Brooksville Police Department FL Citrus County FL

Ocala Police Department FL Hillsborough SAO FL

Marion County FL

St. Johns Police Department FL Pinellas County FL

St. Pete Beach Police Department FL Clearwater Police Department FL

(45)

45

Source: 2008-09 Alumni Survey and Program Administrator input

Employers of Crime Scene Technology Graduates Haines City Police Department FL

US Marshall’s MEO District 6 FL

New Port Richey Police Department FL US Coast Guard

Tampa International Airport FL Bradenton Police Department FL Hernando County FL

Hillsborough County FL University of Tampa FL

Hollywood Police Department FL University of South Florida US Air Force

Polk County FL US Army

Gulfport Police Department FL Charlotte County FL

Largo Police Department FL Sarasota Police Department FL Highland County FL

Sumter County FL

(46)

Total Placement

Total Placement is the percentage of students who have an acceptable placement after graduation. Acceptable placement includes students who are enlisted in the military, continuing their education, and/or employed in their field within the first year of graduation. Only students with A.S. and A.A.S degrees are used in the calculation. The Total Placement in the Crime Scene Technology program from 2005-06 through 2007-08 ranged from 69% to 77%, as shown in Figure 11.

70% 77% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 Pe rc e n t of St u d e n ts Pl ac e d

Total Placement

CST AS Figure 11: Total Placement

(47)

47

State Graduates Outcomes

To provide reference information for the employment trend data, program graduate state outcome data are provided for all academic programs included within Crime Scene Technology. Crime Scene Technology program graduate state outcome data are provided in Table 11.

Fifty-four students completed a state Crime Scene Technology program in 2008-09, of those forty-three had some matching state data and were employed. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of those state graduates were employed at least a full quarter. SPC’s graduates exceeded this rate, with 86% of the graduates employed at least a full quarter, as depicted in Table 11.

Table 11

Crime Scene Technology Program Graduates 2008-09 Outcomes by Florida Community College Florida Community College Total Completers # Found Employed # Employed for a Full Qtr % Employed For a Full Qtr FETPIP Pool # Training Related (Employed, Education, or Military) Placement Rate Brevard 15 7 5 71% 11 7 64% Edison State College 4 4 3 75% 4 3 75% Palm Beach State College 11 10 6 60% 8 3 38% St. Petersburg College 24 22 19 86% 22 15 68% Total 54 43 33 77% 45 28 62%

Source: Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP), Community College Vocational Reports (http://www.fldoe.org/fetpip/pdf/0809pdf/fcs0809asc.pdf)

(48)

Program Administrator’s Perspective: Issues, Trends, and Recent Successes

The Crime Scene Technology program continues to fulfill a vital role in the local community, across other states, and in foreign countries. Employed graduates and their unit supervisors often request information about current graduates, and ask that we notify graduates of their employment opportunities.

The employment opportunities in the crime scene field have been greatly reduced due to the economic downturn, as the number of governmental law enforcement jobs have decreased. Nevertheless, the economic crisis has brought about a renewed interest in the program by individuals that are seeking retraining for future job openings in the field.

SPC has implemented a new annual schedule which provides students with course listings for both online and classroom-based courses offered during the year. This has benefitted the Crime Scene Technology program by allowing students to plan ahead, and fulfill their future goals.

We have contacted several local crime scene unit supervisors to request feedback on our program’s effectiveness in training their crime scene technicians. Although we only have few responses at this time, there appears to be a need for additional training in the area of digital

photography. Several of the crime scene units are starting to reduce or eliminate film photography, and implement an all-digital photography policy.

(49)

49

Program Action Plan

Program: Crime Scene Technology Date Completed: July 2011

Prepared By: David Brumfield

I. Action Plan Items

Action Item Addressed Measure

(Value)

Completion

Date Responsible Party

1

Redevelop courses and update materials for all ten courses; remaining task is to complete the Photography II course updates. Actual course enrollment, Program graduates December 2011 Brumfield, David Brian Frank 2

Create greater visibility of the online program, outside of the local area by attending the 2011 Florida Division of the International Association for Identification and Georgia Division of the International Association for Identification

(FDIAI/GDIAI) conference. Actual course enrollment October 2011 Brumfield, David Brian Frank 3

Conduct a study of the local Crime Scene Units and their supervisors, to ensure that our program is meeting their training needs. Actual course enrollment, Program graduates, Placement July 2012 David Brumfield, Brian Frank

(50)

II. Special Resources Needed

Funding and leave time is needed in order to be a vendor at the 2011 FDIAI/GDIAI conference in Panama City Beach in October 2011.

Leave time is needed in order to conduct interviews with department personnel, in the process of conducting the study.

III. Area(s) of Concern/Improvement:

Many out-of-state and non-local departments are unaware of SPC’s Crime Scene Technology online program, and believe that their personnel and residents could benefit from this training. We would like to reach these potential students, and provide them with information about the online program.

We must continue to monitor the program’s effectiveness, and ensure that it is aligned with the scientific advances that are occurring in the forensic field.

(51)

51

President’s Cabinet Review

(52)

References

Rule 6A-14.060(5). Florida Administrative Code, Accountability Standards. Retrieved October 2002, from the Division of Community Colleges Web site: http://www.firn.edu/doe/rules/6A-14.htm

Contact Information

Please address any questions or comments regarding this evaluation to:

Jesse Coraggio, Ph.D.

Director, Academic Effectiveness and Assessment

St. Petersburg College, P.O. Box 13489, St. Petersburg, FL 33733 (727) 341-3084

(53)

53

(54)

Appendix B: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2010-11

(55)

55

Appendix B: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2010-11, con’t

(56)

(57)

57

(58)

(59)

59

Appendix C: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2009-10

(60)

Appendix C: Advisory Board Committee Minutes and Recommendations, 2009-10, con’t