evaluatung the criminal history copy edits · 2015-08-17 · evaluating the criminal history of...

Running head: EVALUATING CRIMINAL HISTORY OF COUNSELING GRAD STUDENTS 1

Evaluating the Criminal History of Graduate Students in Counselor Education Programs

Jameson C. Lontz, Paul Hastings, Jennifer Cataldi, and Nicholle Johnston

Gonzaga University

Eric Eidens

Overlake Hospital, Bellevue Washington

Jameson C. Lontz, Department of Counselor Education, Gonzaga University; Paul

Hastings, Department of Counselor Education, Gonzaga University; Jennifer Cataldi,

Department of Counselor Education, Gonzaga University; Nicholle Johnston, Department of

Counselor Education, Gonzaga University; Eric Eidens, Overlake Hospital, Bellevue, WA.

The authors wish to acknowledge a long list of individuals who assisted in the data

collection process.

Please send correspondence to Jameson C. Lontz, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department

of Counselor Education, Master of Counselling (Canada) Program Director: Gonzaga University,

502 E. Boone Ave., AD Box 25, Spokane, WA 99258; Phone: (509) 313-3846; Fax: (509) 313-

5964; Email: [email protected].

EVALUATING CRIMINAL HISTORY OF COUNSELING GRAD STUDENTS 2

Abstract

Given occasional revelations regarding legal history of prospective students in counselor

education (CE) programs, and a dearth of literature on this topic, the authors explored two issues:

1) whether there is a difference in number of legal charges between prospective students by type

of CE program, and 2) whether there are any trends by year. With an absence of suggestions in

the literature as to how programs are to conduct criminal background checks of prospective

students in CE programs, application screening personnel, faculty, and other stakeholders are

hard pressed to adopt consistent means of gathering criminal background history for those

students. Such lack of data makes gatekeeping for the profession even more arduous.

Keywords: counselor education, forensic, policy, trends, service


Evaluating the Criminal History of Graduate Students in Counselor Education Programs

This project aimed to illuminate criminal history data from applicants to a Counselor

Education (CE) program and to answer: 1) whether there is a difference in the number of legal

charges between prospective students by type of CE program, and 2) whether there are any

trends by year. Such information can be used to improve screening practices aimed at

determining those prospective students who are most likely to become effective professional

service providers.

Statement of the Problem

There is an absence of literature describing the processes for conducting criminal

background checks of prospective students in CE programs. Matriculated students may have a

history of serious legal encumbrances that go unnoticed. In fact, the history of the program that

was analyzed for this study revealed how personnel at one time realized an oversight allowing

those with legal encumbrances to go unnoticed. This had occurred due to interoffice

miscommunication regarding consistency between the electronic and hardcopy application

processes. Program personnel ultimately resolved the communication barriers and aligned the

two types of applications. Our researchers also consulted university legal counsel who asserted

that faculty have a right and need to know, and that they have a responsibility to know about

such criminal history to protect and effectively represent the public, profession, and university.

Without consistent means of gathering criminal background history for prospective students

across CE programs, gatekeeping for the profession is an arduous endeavor. Although any

program practices will have imperfections, faculty and other stakeholders must consider how

criminal history affects a burgeoning counselor’s ability to provide services across settings. In

fact, practicum placement, sitting for the National Counselor Examination (NCE), and state


licensure processes each have catch points that could delay the burgeoning counselor from

proceeding. The researchers believe it is within purview of faculty and similar stakeholders to be

aware of Counselor Education students’ criminal background in order to: 1) protect the field and

its consumers, and 2) protect students before they invest their resources into a Counselor

Education program.

Review of Literature

The purpose of this project is to illuminate criminal history data from CE program

applicants so as to inform screening practices aimed at determining those prospective students

who are most likely to become effective professional service providers.

Ideal Characteristics of Counselor Education Students

As applicants are reviewed for admission to Counselor Education programs, especially

those accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational

Programs (CACREP), many academic characteristics are examined. However, both

contemporary and historical literature identifies non-academic characteristics as equally

important to counselor success. For example, Rogers (1951) named the three necessary

conditions for client change: unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence.

Prospective students have since been evaluated for personal characteristics in addition to those

academic predictors of counselor effectiveness.

In a 2010 meta-study by Duba, Paez, and Kindsvatter, key characteristics for both

counselors and counselor trainees were highlighted: “Emotional security, sincerity, extroversion,

positive self-concept, patience” (Bemak, Epp, & Keys, as cited in Duba et al., 2010, p. 155),

“…goodwill, a recognition and acceptance of one’s personal power, a willingness to be open,

having self-respect, a growth orientation, approachability, trustworthiness, and a sense of humor”


(Atkinson & Wampold, as cited in Duba et al., 2010, p. 155) were all found to be essential

characteristics for counselor trainees. In addition, one of the most important characteristics

found in a study by Bradley and Post (1991) was openness to professional self-development.

Our authors furthermore believe the ideal CE student to be caring and with empathic concern, as

well as emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) around the needs of mental health consumers.

Verifying the Absence of Serious Legal Encumbrances

Whereas examining criminal records is becoming popular in undergraduate admissions,

use of criminal background checks in several professional programs prior to admission is not

standard practice (Boccella; Center for Community Alternatives & National HIRE Network;

Crabbe; Marklein; Pappano; as cited in Pierce & Runyan, 2010). Some undergraduate programs

conduct criminal background checks on applicants and ask those applicants to report their

criminal background (Pierce & Runyan, 2010). Erwin and Toomey (2005) found that

background checks are used for admission to some counselor training programs as well as before

and during practical experience and certification or licensure. In fact, only five out of 37

programs participating in Erwin and Toomey’s (2005) survey reported using criminal

background checks. Moreover, only some of those programs actually receive and review the

results of such background checks. Internship sites do, however, examine the background check

results. It is clear that established criteria for declining applicants based on criminal background

checks are lacking. In Erwin and Toomey’s (2005) survey, only two programs reported having

such established criteria. Two other programs reported being in the process of developing such

criteria. No programs described the criteria they have in place.

Similar to CE programs, there is a low percentage of nursing and social work programs

requiring criminal background checks among applicants (Farnsworth & Springer, 2006; Zellmer


& Knothe, 2011). Only a minority of programs in nursing and social work, as well as pharmacy

and medicine, have established criteria for how to appropriately screen applicants based on

criminal conviction history (Ahmed; Alley, Marrs, & Schreiner; Burns, Frank-Stromborg, Yan

Teytelman, & Herren; Dickerson, 2008, 2010; Forde; Schermerhorn; Tate & Moody; as cited in

Zellmer & Knothe, 2011).

CE programs at the university from which we took our sample, a private university in the

Northwest United States, do not conduct background checks on applicants prior to admissions.

Background checks are only carried out prior to practicum placement. The university’s

application requires applicants to indicate whether they have ever been convicted of a crime or if

they have a pending case against them. If an applicant’s answer is yes, they are required to

elaborate in detail. The Graduate Admissions Program Coordinator for the School of Education

from which our sample was chosen receives application materials and flags applications with

criminal backgrounds for the admissions committee. However, criminal background checks are

not standard in the admissions process, there are no criteria for how to parcel out “serious”

offenders, and background checks are used more often for the purpose of practicum and

internship placement.

In contrast, some professional programs in the United Kingdom (U.K.) are more

thorough than those U.S. programs reviewed in verifying criminal convictions among applicants.

For instance, Imperial College London runs Criminal Records Bureau checks on all their

applicants (Shepherd, 2008). If an applicant has a conviction, a fitness to practice interview is

conducted to learn more about the crime and circumstances in order to determine whether the

applicant is fit to train as a doctor. Once admitted, U.K. medical schools such as Imperial

College London also require students to complete an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check,


which discloses any prior convictions. During one’s final year of courses, the General Medical

Counsel requires all candidates to complete a declaration of fitness before they may practice as a

doctor in the U.K. In a related vein, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social

Work (CCETSW) mandated in 1989 that prior to admissions applicants disclose any criminal

convictions by signing a declaration (Perry, 2004). If criminal conviction history is present,

judgments are made as to their influence on the applicant’s suitability for professional social

work. Such judgments are made in reference to the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Perry,

2004). Local authorities are also permitted to check with police about the nature of convictions

against applicants. However, there is no record about how such judgments of suitability are

made. It is known that a program’s agency partners are permitted to assess the suitability of

applicants based on conviction history. Whereas programs in the U.K. may be more formally

mandated to verify criminal convictions, there is still no clear delineation of what constitutes

serious offenses among applicants or how admissions judgments are made.

Law Schools and the American Bar Association

Law schools rarely conduct pre-matriculation background checks (Dickerson, 2010). The

American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, does not require background checks for

law school admissions. Instead of background checks, law schools rely on self-disclosure during

the admission process. Law schools also rely on honor code provisions for background

clearance. Law schools typically warn applicants that it is a requirement of the bar to conduct a

thorough character and fitness examination before one is authorized to practice and will compare

bar application answers with law school application answers. According to Shaw (2008),

information gathered on the character fitness exam provides much of the same information as a

background check. Law schools also warn applicants that felony convictions or patterns of


criminal activity could make bar admissions difficult, if not impossible. However, despite these

clear warnings, some law applicants do not honestly disclose their criminal backgrounds and are

discovered only after graduation when seeking bar admissions. Many states will actually include

a disclaimer on their character and fitness exam informing applicants that their social security

number may be used to obtain background information regarding the applicant's involvement

with law enforcement, credit, or other agencies or entities. Shaw (2008) continues, “…the top

four areas of concern for most bar examiners are existence of a criminal record, untreated mental

illness and substance abuse, lack of candor, and financial irresponsibility” (p. 12). However, law

schools still have not implemented background checks as a requirement in the admissions

process.

Dzienkowski (2003) examined applications from the top 20 schools cited by U.S. News

and World Report in March of 2003. Dzienkowski found that all schools asked applicants to

disclose criminal backgrounds; however, there was variation in what was requested. Namely,

75% of schools only asked for convictions, 15% asked about arrests, and two of the schools

asked about criminal charges. Like CE, medical, and other professional programs, law schools

do not have a universal format to filter legal encumbrances in the application process. Chinaris

(2012) encourages law schools to align their admissions processes and decisions with that of bar

admissions.

Legal Encumbrances Revealed

The types of legal encumbrances revealed on college applicant background checks are

diverse. Erwin and Toomey (2005) define criminal background checks as a process of gathering

information about an individual, including any offenses against them, whether it is at a local,

state, or national level. The types of offenses noted while gathering history about social-work


students include: theft, traffic, fraud, excise, breach of peace, drunkenness, violence or assault,

criminal damage, possession of drugs, breaking and entering, and sexual offenses (Perry, 2004).

According to Zellmer (2011), “Application to a social work program from a student with a

felony conviction for child sexual assault or prior drug dealing would also create a dilemma were

there no admission policies related to criminal background” (p. 19). Given the diverse range of

offenses applicants have been found to commit, the need for clear criteria on how to screen

applicants based on criminal backgrounds is vital. In sum, there is no standard for collecting

criminal background data despite its importance to gatekeeping. Ideal characteristics of CE

program applicants have been identified, but something is amiss if matriculated students possess

relevant but unnoticed criminal backgrounds.

CE applicants may have a history of serious legal encumbrances that go unnoticed. In

order to protect students, the field, and consumers, faculty are responsible for having early on

knowledge of such encumbrances. The current descriptive analysis of criminal history data,

which is collected as part of the usual application process, sought to illuminate trends in legal

encumbrances for applicants to a CE program. The goal of this analysis was to inform screening

practices aimed at determining those prospective students who are most likely to become

effective professional service providers.

Method

Participants

All applicants to the program from which data was gathered were asked to disclose their

criminal history. Potential participants consisted of applicants aged 21 and older to a Counselor

Education (CE) department at a private university in the Northwest US. The department confers

Master’s degrees for students in programs for Clinical Mental Health Counseling (CMHC;


formerly Community Counseling, as per CACREP standards) and School Counseling, as well as

a new Marriage and Family Counseling program. Of 351 applicants over the five-year period

(2008-12) that was studied, 11 (3.1%) disclosed some history of legal encumbrance and were

included as participants in this descriptive study. No statistical analyses were performed for the

current study.

Materials/Design

Anonymity of participants was assured. No personally identifiable information was

disclosed to the Primary Investigator, other college faculty or staff, or any other person. Prior to

data collection, legal encumbrances were separated into two categories, misdemeanor and felony,

and then divided into five types: 1) alcohol-only related charges, 2) drug-only charges, 3)

charges related to driving while intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs, 4) charges for assault,

battery, and the like, and 5) other charges. Descriptive data is reported in Table 1.

Results

As can be seen in Table 1, only two felony charges were revealed: The outcome of one

charge included a guilty plea for aggravated battery, which was ultimately vacated with

prejudice. The other was a charge for felony vehicle theft, and information regarding its

outcome was not available. A charge for aggravated child abuse, a misdemeanor, was also

revealed for a School Counseling student. No alcohol-only charges were revealed. Five drug-

only misdemeanors were noted: One for a student entering the CMHC program in 2012, two for

a student entering the School program in 2009, and two for a student who entered an unspecified

program in 2011. Of the 24 charges revealed, four of them (17%) belonged to students from the

CMHC program and were related to driving while intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs. Of the

12 “other” charges included: seven (58%) related to driving (e.g., recklessness; negligence;


failure to notify of an accident); three (25%) related to theft; and, one was related to vandalism.

A charge of “insane” was in one student’s record, but no additional information was available.

One felony charge was noted for a student in the School Counseling program, while the program

for the other student charged with felony was not specified. Thirteen (54%) of 24 charges were

for students in the CHMC program. Students in the School program were indicated in four

(17%) of the 24 charges revealed.

Discussion

The authors explored whether there is a difference in the number of legal charges

between prospective students by type of CE program, and whether there are any trends by year.

Twenty-four charges, two of which were felonies, were noted over the five-year period in this

descriptive analysis. No alcohol-only charges were revealed. Four charges (17%) were related

to driving while intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs. Additional charges included those related

to driving such as recklessness, negligence, and failure to notify of an accident (29% overall).

Charges of theft comprised 13% of those revealed by this analysis.

While it would be bold to make conclusions from these findings since no statistical

analyses were performed, all members of the research team still agreed on the necessity for clear

guidelines to collect legal history in the application process. More specifically, it might be useful

to employ an honor system in the Counselor Education application process, much like what is

used in law schools (Shaw, 2008), which explicitly asks prospective students to disclose criminal

history on their application. A declaration of fitness to pass legal background checks, much like

that which is employed by the United Kingdom’s General Medical Counsel and the Central

Council for Education and Training in Social Work (Perry, 2004), could be used to protect

prospective students from being discovered later on. Prospective students could be informed of


the consequences should they choose not to disclose. Program personnel who screen applicants

before faculty see them could assist this process by assuring that admissions requirements align

with the requirements of licensing and credentialing bodies. However, better screening practices

may introduce additional challenges, e.g., how faculty can overcome personal biases and best

support a burgeoning mental health provider once learning of the student’s criminal history.

Given an absence of guidance in the literature for screening practices, we hope to facilitate more

research on this topic with the goal of improving identification of students who are most likely to

become effective professional service providers.

Limitations

Obtaining archived records obviously resulted in data that cannot be broadly applied.

Current findings are intended to inform future research that assists personnel practices for

screening pre-matriculated students. Readers are furthermore encouraged to interpret our data

with caution, as most of the 11 cases examined did not reveal the outcome of legal

encumbrances, i.e., whether the alleged were convicted and/or sentenced. Time between charges

and entrance into one’s graduate program would also be important to consider in future studies.

For example, those applicants with a tendency for legal trouble as children and adolescents will

not necessarily have such problems in their adult life. Moreover, implying statistically

significant difference between CE programs or trends by year based on this limited data must be

avoided. Of 351 applicants over the period that was analyzed, only 11 disclosed legal

encumbrances.

Implications of Results

This project has revealed a need for more in-depth research that can be used to inform

Counselor Education (CE) program personnel who admit students. As gatekeepers of the


profession, CE faculty members rely on screening practices to help decide who is most likely to

become an effective professional service provider. Without assuming guilt, and acknowledging

that many people are capable of improving their lives after legal charges, it is vital that such

encumbrances are noted early in the process.

Directions for Future Research

Should data be available, meta-analyses that examine longitudinal trends in the legal

encumbrances of applicants to CE programs might provide results with stronger external

validity. Analysis of time between charges and entrance into one’s graduate program might also

help determine utility of research in this area. Partnering across disciplines (e.g., CE programs

working with law and medical schools) is also encouraged as no field seems to have clear and

consistent policies and procedures for parceling out individuals with a history of serious legal

offenses.

Future research also needs to examine what it means if a counselor has a history of minor

offenses, as this might affect their ability to forge effective therapeutic relationships. For

example, clients involved with the legal system may believe themselves to be better understood

by a professional counselor who has succeeded despite their own criminal history. A counselor’s

self-disclosure of personal transformation and growth from criminal activity might instill a sense

of hope for clients struggling with such issues. In the substance abuse field, for example, it is

common for counselors to have themselves recovered from chemical dependence (Ham,

LeMasson, & Hayes, 2013). Sweeney (1996) found that substance abuse counselors’ self-

disclosure of recovery status could decrease clients’ level of fear, help counselors connect with

clients, and normalize the recovery process. Counselors’ self-disclosure of substance abuse


recovery may also help build rapport and a strong working relationship with clients, as well as

help clients problem solve and have hope (Ham et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Charges related to driving while intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs and other charges

related to driving comprised 17% and 29% of encumbrances respectively. Charges of theft,

including one felony, comprised 17% of encumbrances revealed. Transparency at the outset

between prospective students and those personnel who screen them is especially important:

prospective students need to have the information necessary for informed decisions during the

application process, and faculty need students who will ultimately contribute to the field. This

transparency can be achieved by having screening personnel assure that application requirements

align with the requirements of licensing and credentialing bodies. Furthermore, personnel and

faculty in charge of screening applicants can strive to maintain good communication so that

superordinate goals are attained.

To be explicit, we do not suggest individuals who have legal charges or convictions are

unfit for the profession. We do suggest students be forthcoming and educate themselves about

potential barriers related to their legal issues so they may address these barriers before heavily

investing in a CE program. To that end, an honor system is suggested, much like the one noted

earlier in law school applications (Shaw, 2008). No evidence of such an honor system currently

exists in counselor education literature. Such an honor system would explicitly ask prospective

students to disclose arrest history by year, the charges that were filed, whether they were

convicted, and any sentencing (e.g., fines, jail time, community service, probation). Students

would also ideally be informed at the outset of possible consequences related to violating the

honor system. These practices could assist gatekeepers wishing to improve strategies for


determining the extent to which prospective students are qualified and suited to become

professional counselors.


References

Ahmed, M. (2008). Can a student with a criminal conviction study medicine? Lancet, 372(9633),

88. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61010-7

Alley, N. M., Marrs, J. A., & Schreiner, B. (2005). Nurses' promise to safeguard the public: Is it

time for nationally mandated background checks? JONA'S Healthcare Law, Ethics and

Regulation, 7(4), 119-124. doi: 10.1097/00128488-200510000-00008

Atkinson, D. R., & Wampold, B. E. (1982). A comparison of the counselor rating form and the

counselor effectiveness rating scale. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22(1), 25-36.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1982.tb00927.x

Bemak, F., Epp, L. R., & Keys, S. G. (1999). Impaired graduate students: A process model of

graduate program monitoring and intervention. International Journal for the

Advancement of Counselling, 21(1), 19-30. doi:10.1023/A:1005387309472

Boccella, K. (2007, March). A different kind of admissions process—today's college

applications are screening for criminal offenses and bad behavior. The Philadelphia

Inquirer, 26, p. A01. Retrieved from http://www.inquirer.com/

Bradley, J., & Post, P. (1991). Impaired students: Do we eliminate them from the counselor

education programs? Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 100-108.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1991.tb00148.x

Burns, K., Frank-Stromborg, M., Yan Teytelman, J. D., & Herren, J. D. (2004). Criminal

background checks: Necessary admission criteria? Journal of Nursing Education, 43(3),

125-129. Retrieved from http://www.healio.com/nursing/journals/jne


Center for Community Alternatives & National HIRE Network. (2008). Closing the doors to

higher education: Another collateral consequence of a criminal conviction: executive

summary. Syracuse, N.Y.: Center for Community Alternatives. Retrieved from

http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/HigherEd.pdf

Chinaris, T. P. (2012). We are who we admit: The need to harmonize law school admission and

professionalism processes with bar admission standards. Mississippi College Law

Review, 31, 43-155. Retrieved from http://law.mc.edu/current-students/student-orgs/law-

review/

Crabbe, N. (2007, August 31). UF, SFCC ask applicants about crime. The Gainesville Sun.

Retrieved from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070831/NEWS/708310330

Dickerson, D. (2008). Background checks in the university admissions process: An overview of

legal and policy considerations. Journal of College and University Law, 34(2). Retrieved

from http://www3.nd.edu/~jcul/

Dickerson, D. (2010, June). Background checks and the university admissions process.

Paper presented at the of the National Association of College and University of

Attorneys, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/studentaffairs/

upload/Background-Checks-and-the-Admissions-Process-NACUA-2010-Final.pdf

Duba, J. D., Paez, S. B., & Kindsvatter, A. (2010). Criteria of nonacademic characteristics used

to evaluate and retain community counseling students. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 88(2), 154-162. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00004.x

Dzienkowski, J. S. (2003). Character and fitness inquiries in law school admissions. South

Texas Law Review, 45, 921. Retrieved from https://www.stcl.edu/lr/index.html


Epstein, D. (2005, July 1). New requirement for med schools. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/07/01/med

Erwin, W. J., & Toomey, M. E. (2005). Use of criminal background checks in counselor

education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44(4), 305-318. doi:10.1002/j.1556-

6978.2005.tb01758.x

Farnsworth, J., & Springer, P. J. (2006). Background checks for nursing students: What are

schools doing? Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(3), 148-153. Retrieved from

http://www.nln.org/nlnjournal/

Forde, D. (2006). Criminal background checks to become part of medical school application

process. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23(19), 15. Retrieved from

http://diverseeducation.com/

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:

Bantam Books.

Ham, C. C., LeMasson, K. D. S., & Hayes, J. A. (2013). The use of self-disclosure: Lived

experiences of recovering substance abuse counselors. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,

31(3), 348-374. doi:10.1080/07347324.2013.800399

Marklein, M. B. (2007, April 18). “An idea whose time has come”? –schools increasingly

subjecting applicants to background checks. USA Today, p. 7D. Retrieved from

http://www.usatoday.com/

Pappano, L. (2007, April). You better watch out. New York Times, 22. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com


Perry, R. W. (2004). The impact of criminal conviction disclosure on the self-reported offending

profile of social work students. British Journal of Social Work, 34(7), 997-1008.

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch125

Pierce, M. W., & Runyan, C. W. (2010). Criminal records and college admissions. Injury

Prevention, 16(1), 58-60. Retrieved from http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy, its current practice, implications, and theory.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schermerhorn, G. R. (1984). Criminal convictions. Academic Medicine, 59(1), 73-4. Retrieved

from http://journals.lww.com/AcademicMedicine/pages/default.aspx

Shaw, L. E. (2008). What does it take to satisfy character & fitness requirements? Student

Lawyer, 37(2), 12-14. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/student_

lawyer/

Shepherd, J. (2008, June 30). Medical ethics?: Is it fair to bar an exemplary student from medical

school because of a spent conviction? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardia

n.co.uk/education/2008/jul/01/pupilbehaviour.highereducation

Sweeney, N. (1996, November). When the therapist is in recovery: Self-disclosure and substance

abuse treatment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and

Engineering, 57(5-B), 3425.

Tate, E. T., & Moody, K. (2005). The public good: Regulation of nursing students. JONA's

Healthcare Law, Ethics and Regulation, 7(2), 47-53. doi:10.1097/00128488-200504000-

00003


Zellmer, D., & Knothe, T. E. (2011). The use of criminal background checks in social work

education. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 16(2), 17-33. Retrieved from

http://jbsw.metapress.com/home/main.mpx


Table 1

Charges articulated as reported by the data source Year Entered Program

Identified Gender

*Program Date of Infraction

Charge(s) Explanation (if available)

2012 Female Clinical 6/2010 Reckless driving Fail to give immediate notice of accident Drug paraphernalia use or possess with intent

2012 Female Clinical 10/2009 Driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs

2011 Female Clinical 7/2008 Negligent driving of the 2nd degree

Not under the influence, under arrest for being under 21 and operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol

2011 Male Clinical 11/1996 Aggravated child abuse

Civil case adjudication 3/1998; Protective services supervision 10/1998; Case closed unsupervised visitation 8/1999


Year Entered Program

Identified Gender



2009 Female Clinical 4/2008 7/2009

DUI Negligent Driving 1st Degree Inattentive Driving Charge

2009 Male Clinical 6/2007 5/2008 4/2004

Reckless Driving Fail to appear in DUI report Theft II Misdemeanor

Under the Influence; Unlicensed Driver

2009 Female Clinical 5/2005 DUI Dismissed without prejudice

2012 Female School 1/2012 Theft Dismissed with Prejudice

2009 Male School 10/2003 Aggravated Battery (Felony)

Order Withdrawing Guilty Plea, Vacating Conviction and Dismissal with Prejudice

2009 Female School 11/2007 Possession of Marijuana Less than Forty Grams Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Stipulation of Facts and Order of Continuance for Dismissal for Twelve Months


Year Entered Program

Identified Gender



2011 Female Not specified

1995 1996 1999 1999 1999 1999 2001

Vandalism Possession Controlled Substance Possession Controlled Substance Petty Theft Reckless Driving Felony Vehicle Theft Insane

*No legal encumbrances were revealed for students in the Marriage and Family Counseling program during the timeframe for this analysis.

evaluatung the criminal history copy edits · 2015-08-17 · evaluating the criminal history of...

Documents