HomeAbout ASCDivisionsMember DirectoryPublicationsEmploymentJoin/RenewContact Us



"The American Society of Criminology: A History, 1941 - 1974"
(From Criminology, August 1975, pp. 123-167)

 by Albert Morris

(In 1973 Professor Albert Morris, (retired) Boston University, was asked by the Executive Board to prepare a history of The American Society of Criminology.  Professor  Morris, the 1970 President of the Society, compiled this document through personal interviews and correspondence with a vast array of members, present and past, as well as from the scattered records of the Society.  This work is representative of Professor Morris' long dedication to careful scholarship and his interest in tracing the social history of a professional movement.  The American Society of Criminology would like to thank Professor Morris for his dedication and diligence in completing this two-year project.)


On the morning of December 30, 1941, seven men involved in teaching college courses in Police Science and Administration met with August Vollmer at his home on Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, California, "for the purpose of furthering college police training and standardizing police training curricula."(1)  This meeting which began at 10:15 a.m. did not adjourn until one o'clock the next morning.

The group consolidated its obviously serious and continuing intent by formally organizing under the title the National Association of College Police Officials.   Those present on this occasion were:

  1.  August Vollmer, Formerly Chief of Police, Berkeley, California, Retired Professor of Police  Administration, University of California;

  2.  Robert L. Drexel, Chief Investigator, District Attorney's Office, San Jose, California;

  3.  Vivian A. Leonard, Professor and Head, Department of Police Science and Administration, Washington State College, Pullman,

  4.  Benjamin W. Pavone, Chairman, Peace Officers Training Division, San Francisco Junior College San Francisco, California;

  5.  Willard E. Schmidt, Director of Police Training, Sacramento Junior College, Sacramento, California;

  6.  Orlando W. Wilson, Professor of Police Administration and Director of the Bureau of Criminology, University California, Berkeley;

  7.  William Wiltberger, Director, Police School, San Jose State College, San Jose, California

  8.  Frank Lee, Formerly Director of the National Police academy, China.

August Vollmer was elected to the honorary post of President Emeritus and Orlando Winfield Wilson was elected President of the new organization.  Other officers were filled as follows:

   1.  Pavone    Secretary-Treasurer

   2.  Schmidt    First Vice-President

   3.  Leonard   Second Vice-President

   4.  Wiltberger   Third Vice President

   5.  Yee   International Vice President

V.A. Leonard was appointed chairman of a committee to prepare a constitution and by-laws.  It was voted that a membership be restricted to persons actively engaged as officials of college police training curricula.  The purposes of the Association were suggested as follows:

  1. To associate officials engaged in professional police training at the college level.

  2. To standardize the various police training curricula.

  3. To standardize, insofar as possible, the subject matter of similar courses in the various schools.

  4. To keep abreast of recent developments and to foster research.

  5. To disseminate information.

  6. To elevate standards of police service.

  7. To stimulate the formation of police training schools in colleges throughout the nation.

After lengthy discussion a tripartite classification of curricula was made in terms of those appropriate for junior college, state college, and university levels.  Committees were appointed to prepare suggested curricula for each of these.

Prior to the meeting a questionnaire had been sent out that consisted of a breakdown, into 25 classifications, of the possible subject matter of police training courses.  Each recipient had been instructed to indicate his suggested allocation of  an arbitrary 400 hours of instruction.  The tabulated results of this inquiry became the basis for extended discussion during the afternoon and evening sessions.  This, in turn, led into a discussion of course content and texts.

V.A. Leonard's request, that the Association accept an invitation from the president of Washington State College to hold its next meeting there, was acted on favorably with the date left to future determination.(2)  However, it appears that the Association never did hold the proposed meeting in Washington.

Directly out of this beginning, evolving through changes of membership, name, scope, and policy, has come the now firmly established, interdisciplinary American Society of Criminology.


A meeting as well organized and as fruitful as that of December 30, 1941 had not been an instant blossom.  It had required a period of unmarked germination.  Vollmer apparently had met often with present and former students and police colleagues to discuss the problems and the rationale of professional police training and administration.  William Dienstein, later to become president of the organization, recalls that he was one of

    a group of graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley who were taking courses from August Vollmer during the period of
    about 1932-39.  We got together in a rather unstructured group and called ourselves "V-men."  We even had a lapel pin; a many-pointed
    star with a "V" etched in the center.

    In the course of gatherings with Vollmer, the notion jelled to form an organization.  Our meetings were usually rather heated discussions
    of police issues, training, administration and of education, on the college level.(3)

Another of those who recalls frequent meetings with Vollmer is William Wiltberger who had been one of the so-called "College Cops" of the Berkeley Police Department when Vollmer was Chief of Police there and who, in 1925, became Chief of Police in Evanston, Illinois.  In 1934, following the closing of a faltering police training program at what was then San Jose State Teacher's College, Wiltberger developed there a most creditable police school of which he was director.  When his assistant, William Schmidt, left in January 1940 to become director of a police training program being established at Sacramento Junior College, Wiltberger expressed to Schmidt his strong feeling that the college training of police would surely expand and that the time had come to organize police school administrators and teachers to deal with problems of curriculum development and coordination.(4)

As Wiltberger recalls the events that followed, he took the initiative in meeting this need by starting an organization called the "National Association of College Police School Administrators" of which he assumed the presidency and in which he asked Schmidt to join him as vice-president and secretary.  In this connection, Wiltberger apparently saw an opportunity to organize and give specific purpose to what had been

    originally informal get-togethers of old friends, formerly Berkeley "cops" and then heads of college police schools  who gathered for "bull
    sessions" with our old chief . . . During our discussions I saw a good chance to enlarge the  organization I had started of an association of
    head of college public schools.  So I broached the subject, told of  the organization Schmidt and I had, and as I was leaving before long
    for military service in World War II, some one else should head up the organization.  They all bought the idea...

    Vollmer thought we should include outstanding professors in the social sciences and criminology.  I disagreed, maintaining
    that only heads of college police schools knew the problems based on police experience or needs of policemen and the
    academic experience of administering a police school.  They voted to back Vollmer's suggestion and overruled me . . . As I
    predicted, in the early 1960s the college police professors formed an organization of their own to work on practical problems
    involving such police schools.(5)

The minutes of the December 30 meeting, however, record that a motion to restrict membership to persons engaged as officials of college training curricula was passed, although in practice it seems not to have been vigorously adhered to.  As the organization developed, something closer to Vollmer's position came to be accepted.


The organization, thus started, attracted to membership officers of rank concerned with police training from the  major police forces of California and some neighboring states, as well as those engaged in college teaching in the field.  But if its focus was on police training it was with the conviction that the professionalism of police forces was its goal and that this required that police--and especially police administrators become broadly informed in the entire area of criminology and in the principles of such related areas as public administration, political science, psychology, and sociology.

Vollmer's interest in developing a formal organization, concerned with the extension and improvement of police training, was an almost inevitable step in his own long-existing personal commitment to that objective.  Probably the most widely known and most innovative police chief in American police history, August Vollmer (1876-1955) had been Marshal of Berkeley (1905-1909) the first Police Chief of Berkeley (1909-1932) and Professor of Police Administration at the University of California at Berkeley (1932-1937), and was widely sought as a consultant in police administration.  He was physically an imposing person (6'4" tall and weighing about 190 lbs.) who always seemed to be in top physical condition.  He was a broadly informed and creative man with a contagious enthusiasm for making police work a profession with a highly trained core of persons who had college degrees and who could teach at the college level.  As early as 1916, Vollmer, in collaboration with law professor Alexander Marsden Kidd, developed a summer session program in criminology at the Berkeley campus in which courses were given from 1916 to 1931, with the exception of the 1927 session.

It was Vollmer and Kidd who in 1928 proposed the establishment of a school of criminology, a proposal that led in 1931 to criminology course in the regular school year sessions at the University of California at Berkeley, the development of a major in criminology in 1933, a Bureau of Criminology in the Department of Political Science in 1939, a Master's program in Criminology in 1947, and the establishment of the nation's first and only formally designated university "School of Criminology" in 1950.(6)

Those who founded the National Association of College Police Training Officials (hereafter referred as NACPTO) brought others with like interests into their Association and began to hold formal meetings at intervals for discussions related to their concerns as well as to plan the further development of their fledgling organization.  Unfortunately, the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the directly expanded involvement of the United States in the Pacific area of World War II, drew some members and prospective members of the NACPTO into military service and for a time limited the new Association's growth.

Soon after the end of the War, however, a reorganization meeting was held.  This so-called Third Annual Conference, held at the Durant Hotel in Berkeley in 1946, formally recognized and ratified the original goals of the Association but adopted a new and more suitably descriptive name, amended the constitution and by-laws, and established membership qualifications consistent with its objectives.  These changes were not perfunctorily arrived at.  After considerable debate, a longer list of proposed names for the organization had been reduced to five:  National Association of College Police Training Officials, Association for Education in Criminology, Criminological Education Association, Association for College and Police Training Officials and Society for the Advancement of Criminology.  It was this last title that was adopted.  The preamble to the 1946 Constitution of the newly named Society read as follows:

    This organization shall be known as the Society for the Advancement of Criminology.  The term CRIMINOLOGY as used hereinafter is
     defined as the study of the causes, treatment and prevention of crime, including, but not restricted to:

     1.  Scientific crime detection, investigation and identification;

      2.  Crime prevention, public safety and security;

      3.  Law enforcement administration;

      4.  Administration of criminal justice;

      5.  Traffic administration;

      6.  Probation;

      7.  Juvenile delinquency control;

      8.  Related aspects of penology.

Collectively, the titles voted on the specification of eight areas that must be among those included within the general definition of criminology seem to suggest the nature of some of the differences of position and emphasis that were finally resolved to produce the Society's official position at that time.

Both the stated purposes of the Society and the requirements for membership clearly and specifically limited active membership to "persons engaged by accepted universities and colleges to instruct or supervise in professional and vocational training programs in Criminology."  Provision was made for an "associate" membership, but this was limited somewhat ambiguously --to "persons engaged or instructing in Criminology and not eligible for active membership" and the acceptance of a person as an associate member had to be by unanimous vote of the Executive Committee.  An "honorary membership" might be conferred by unanimous vote of the Executive Committee  on "persons of outstanding professional achievement in Criminology."

Again the interlocking of the SAC leadership and the teaching faculty in criminology at U.C. Berkeley is suggested by the fact that the first announcement Bulletin (University of California Bulletin, 1950) of the New School of Criminology, established July 1, 1950, with O. W. Wilson as Dean, states, "The scope of the school is established in the broad terms adopted by the American Society for the Advancement of Criminology."

Inevitably, the graduates of the criminology programs at the University of California at Berkeley began to develop college courses in that field and those in the state colleges in California and at Berkeley no doubt had a special interest in developing sufficient uniformity in curricula as to make student credit transfers feasible.  Under the circumstances, it is understandable that a concern with course content and with the problems of curriculum standards became an area of primary interest and discussion within the Society for the Advancement of Criminology.


By the time the new name and constitution were adopted in 1946 the Society had over 40 dues-paying members.  There is always some difficulty in determining exact numbers because payments may come in throughout a calendar year and some who pay dues one year may not the next.  Obviously, those who were interested in the Society's programs and who attended its meetings exceeded the number of dues-paying members.

The Society increasingly extended its efforts to become established as a significant association for the encouragement and support of original NACPTO had already published professional books, as well as articles that appeared in various professional journals.  In 1944, V.A. Leonard became Editor of News and Notes for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, and he continued to serve in that capacity for twelve years, through the issue of July-August, 1956.  Other NACPTO founders and some who came into membership during the 1940s were frequent contributors to professional journals and to the published proceedings of various professional societies.  During the period 1941 through 1950 the Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science alone carried at least forty of these.  Their titles indicate the special interest of the members of that time in police problems, administration, and criminalistic.  Nevertheless, there is also evidence of a desire that practitoners in police work, especially in administration, have a desire that practitioners in police work, especially in administration, have breadth of understanding of related and supportive areas of knowledge.

By the 1950s the Society's correspondence involved increasing discussion about the direction in which it was developing.  World War II had taken some of its members into military service and in the process thrust upon them new and broadening associations and experiences.  After the War some new members who had not been part of the "V" men and their close associates, and who were not graduates of the University of California at Berkeley, also became active in the Society.  These members supported an increasing concern to attract into membership criminologists from areas beyond California and contiguous states and to include academic and administrative personnel with primary interests in aspects of criminology other than police work.

In a letter dated May 15, 1953, Arthur Brandstatter, head of the Police Administration Program at Michigan State University and Central Region Vice-President of the SAC, wrote to President William Dienstein,

    I believe one way in which the group could become more active and meaningful is to move the site of its annual meeting from the West
    Coast.  I should like to reiterate what I said at the Interim Meeting in Los Angeles, that I don't believe any national organization can
    continue to function as a national group unless it changes its meeting place from the West Coast and encourages others who are
    interested in the same problems from the various sections of the country to meet with them in discussing these problems . . . If it is at all
    possible, we suggest that an effort be made to move the meeting of 1953 to Denver, Colorado.  If you are successful in doing this . . . we
    shall make every effort to have our entire staff attend this meeting.  I am reasonably certain that you would also attract other people from
    the Midwest . . .

Within the Society concern was also being expressed that the membership was "top-heavy" with police.  This, in turn, was countered by those who were worried about the likelihood that the Society might become too much oriented toward corrections.  Certainly, the formal actions of the Society during the 1950s were directed toward a broadening of interests and to becoming attractive to those who had achieved academic distinction as sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, or lawyers specializing in criminology.

In June 1950 the Society became, officially, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with the options of holding full-programs, regional sessions, or cosponsored programs within Section K of the AAAS.  It is the opinion of some that the choice of the name, Society for the Advancement of Criminology, had been consciously influenced by the expectation of affiliation with the parallel named American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In December of that same year the International Society of Criminology voted to accept the SAC as its American member and the SAC was formally represented at the International Congresses in Europe in 1951, 1954, and 1958 by Marcel Frym and John Kenney.  Also, a direct and planned effort was made to develop mutually supportive relations with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the American Correctional Association, and the National Probation and Parole Association (now the National Council on Crime and Delinquency).  In 1952 the journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sciences was designated an official publication for the Society's news and articles.  Later, in 1957, Police was similarly designated.

Accompanying this reaching out was an extension of the geographical range and distribution of membership that was recognized and formalized by the establishment of  four regional divisions of the SAC: East, South, Central, and West.  Each division was headed by an elected regional vice-president of the national Society.  These were to "serve as executive officers in their respective regions for the purpose of carrying on the regional business of the organization."

In proportion, as there developed a wider distribution of the Society's membership, the secretaries' reports, sporadic newsletters, and attendance at the Society's meetings in California became less satisfactory in maintaining cohesiveness.  To offset this, the Annual Conference of April 1953 made provision for a bulletin, of which Vol. 1, No. 1 was issued with surprising promptness in May 1953 under the editorship of Lowell Bradford.  It was necessarily a modest bulletin of two pages in which, in addition to current news items about the Society, there appeared an invitation to members to participate actively in the SAC through letters as a means of overcoming the obstacle of distance.

Vol. 1, No. 2, appeared in August 1953, reporting the Society's affiliation with the AAAS, the designation of the Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Standards as the Society's official publishing outlet, and listing four books published by members in 1952-1953.  Number 3, dated December 1953, noted a meeting of the Society in Boston within the ambit of the AAAS meetings there.  The theme of the Boston meeting, under the direction of the Eastern Vice-President, Donal MacNamara, was "The Scientific Approach to Problems of Delinquency."  Bulletin No. 3 records 32 members in good standing (they had paid their dues) and two honorary members, Vollmer and Kidd.

In all, seven bulletins of the SAC were published.  The last, No.7 of December 1954, suggests that the editorship should no longer be the responsibility of the Secretary-Treasurer but should be assigned to some other person specially designated to be the editor.

At the Berkeley meeting of the Society in December 1955 it was decided that the members would be "better served if periodic Special Bulletins were prepared describing research and special projects underway."  Pursuant to this action a First Special Bulletin, without date, was sent out to members giving apparently in anticipation the program for a New York meeting to be hold in December 1956.


The years 1957-1958 were a good period of significant change in the development of the Society.  From the report by Secretary William Dienstein, of an all day meeting of the Executive Committee held at the University of Southern California on March 30, 1957 with President John Kenney presiding, come the following excerpts which indicate the major matters under consideration:

  1.  Donal E. J. MacNamara was appointed SAC representative to the AAAS.

  2.  C. Robert Gutherie was named chairman of the Publications Committee.

  3.  It was recommended that the Publications Committee strive for a goal of ten issues of an SAC   Newsletter each year; that
       the Editor, in the initial Newsletter, urge members to submit articles through him to the Journal of Criminal Law,
       Criminology, and Police Science and to Police; and that the Editor  prepare for these two journals an SAC News
       Section; and that he correspond with the editors of these  journals with this purpose in mind.

  4.  The Editor for the SAC was requested to write to the institutions having criminology programs to ask for  a statement of the
       objectives of such programs.  President Kenney was to prepare a covering letter to accompany this request and also a
       statement of objectives for the program at USC.

  5.  Frank Boolsen was authorized to bring the SAC "Directory of Colleges and Universities Offering  Criminology Programs"
       up to date and to prepare sufficient copies thereof for distribution to members and others.  Boolsen was requested to
       collect bulletins and information on all criminology programs and  statements of objectives.

  6.  It was approved that G. Douglas Gourley continue his Committee on Content and Titles for Courses with the purpose
       of presenting a report at the 1957 Annual Meeting.

  7.  A communication was read concerning the possibility of Florida State University publishing an SAC journal.  The
       possibility was favored by the Committee and the President will investigate further.

  8.   Following discussion of media for the dissemination of SAC information it was decided that these publications be
        considered and communication with the editors be maintained:
        a.  Police
        b.  Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science
        c.  American Journal of Corrections
        d.  Journal of Correctional Education
        e.  NPPA Journal
        f.   Federal Probation
        g.  Journal of Social Therapy

        Marcel Frym was to communicate personally with the editors of the NPPA Journal and the Journal of Social Therapy to
        pave the way for the SAC Editor.  Clyde Vedder was to communicate personally with the editors of the correctional
        journals for the same purpose.

  9.   Suggestions and comments from the membership with reference to the name of the Society and revision of the constitution
        were discussed and acted upon,  It was decided that the membership, at the time of voting on the new constitution, should
        vote also on which of the following names is preferred:
        a.  American Society of Criminology
        b.  American Criminological Association
        c.  American Criminological Society

 10.   It was voted that the redrafted constitution attached hereto be approved and presented to the membership for action

The Membership Directory accompanying the May-June 1957 Newsletter and Report of the Executive Committee meeting lists 64 persons, all male, 18 of whom were primarily engaged in police administration; of the rest, 18 were teaching college police and law enforcement training programs, 11 were teaching college criminology courses, two were law professors, four were engaged in correctional work, eight were in related areas (e.g., clinician, fiscal investigator, textbook publisher), and the occupations of there were not listed.

A "bakers half" of the 64 members (33) lived in California but the others were distributed, in numbers of 1 to 4, throughout 14 states plus Puerto Rico and the Netherlands, namely, Michigan (4), New Jersey (3), Washington (3), Florida (2), Indiana (2), Illinois (2), Kentucky (2), New York (2), and Arizona, District of Columbia, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Netherlands, one each.

At its next Annual Meeting held in November 1957 the Society adopted the revised constitution and a change of name to the American Society of Criminology under which title it was formally incorporated under the laws of the State of California on August 7, 1958.

The sporadically issued bulletins and newsletters of the earlier Society for the Advancement of Criminology were now replaced by an enlarged Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology of which the first issue, Vol. 1 No. 2 (apparently so designated to follow the earlier, undated Special Bulletin) appeared in May 1958.  It was a six-page issue with an improved format to which was appended a four-page paper by Edward Petty entitled, "Historical Perspective on the American Society of Criminology."

In the Newsletter, itself, a "President's Message" by John Kenney, and reports from the Central and Southern vice-presidents (Richard Myren and Vernon Fox) and from the Membership Committee were all optimistic in tone.  President Kenney, commenting on the incorporation of the ASC, wrote:  "This was a major hurdle in our quest for foundation funds and should provide us with many additional benefits in the future," a statement that was followed by reference to the preparation of a proposal for funds "to underwrite our proposed study of the status of teaching and research in criminology."  This matter had been under discussion at the Society's meetings since its origin, and preparatory work toward it had been done through the periodic revisions of a Directory first completed by Frank Boolsen in 1950.  The instant proposal included a follow-up to the intended survey through a conference to be arranged to evaluate the findings of the study and to give direction to criminological education and research.

The report of the Membership Committee in that Newsletter was one of substantial achievement.  Dated October 1958, the report said, "We are pleased to inform you that the membership drive for 1958 is approaching its peak.  Since its inception early in the year, we have nearly doubled our membership rolls."  Included in the same Newsletter were news items and commentary on penology and police administration, a listing of new books by title and publisher, news and notes on the activities of some individual members of the Society, and a preliminary announcement of the Annual Conference to be held at the University of Arizona in February 1959.

In spite of the auspicious start of the ASC Newsletter, it did not flourish.  At the February 1959 meeting at the University of Arizona, Howard Leary, Deputy Commissioner of Police of Philadelphia, was made Editor of the Newsletters, without dates (possibly March and June 1959), consisting of note from the newly elected president, Marcel Frym, emphasizing the international aspects of criminology and a proposal to study the teaching of criminology, together with minutes of meetings and copies of papers read at the Arizona meeting.  Presaging things to come, Marcel Frym, who had represented the Society as an American delegate at three International Criminological Congresses, wrote in the first of these two Newsletters, "The time has come for our young organization to look abroad and to establish liaison with international criminological  circles . . . Crime is an international phenomenon."  And in the second of these two Newsletters Frym wrote, " I am working on our plans to call and International Congress of Criminology for the Fall of 1961 here in the United States and I have already obtained statements of enthusiastic support from high government officials and other interested parties as well as from the leaders of foreign scientific organizations in the field of criminology."

A significant meeting of the newly incorporated American Society of Criminology, as an affiliate of the American Society of Criminology, as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. in December 1958, in connection with the AAAS meetings.  The theme of the conference was "Controversial Areas in Criminology."  This meeting coincided with the golden anniversary of the publication of the Journal ofCriminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science which Robert Gault had been editing with conspicuous success.  The Society recognized this by presenting to Gault a plaque inscribed as follows:

 1901 - 1959

WE, the criminologists of America assembled in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, on the occasion of the 125th Annual Meeting of the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE and the 15th Annual Conference of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY, note with professional pride and personal affection the GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY of the JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY and POLICE SCIENCE and extend to its long-time able editor, our honored pioneer in AMERICAN criminology,


This greeting, expression of gratitude, and pledge of continuing support in the difficult and  exacting task which for these many years he has so uncomplainingly and so magnificently shouldered.

                                                                                 December 27, 1958

American Society of Criminology
Conference General Chairman


There was a second recognition of the Journal, and Gault's editorship of it, at the official Annual Meeting of the Society held at the University of Arizona at Tucson in February.  Gault was not able to be present but sent President Kenney a letter to be read to the gathering, and in it he said:  "I wish I could tell you how deeply I appreciate your attention to the Journal's 50th Anniversary and to its services . . . It is wonderful on
your part to reenact the plaque ceremony in the Tucson program."(7)

The happy decision to honor Robert Gault apparently served to crystallize a widespread, though possibly latent, feeling that it should be a continuing and regular function of the Society to give formal and public recognition to outstanding scholars and practitioners in criminology and criminal justice.  Pursuant to this opinion the Society, at its 1959 Annual Meeting in Tucson, established an award to be given annually in recognition of "an outstanding report of research in the field of criminology."  The award quite understandably was named for August Vollmer.  This was the first of several named awards to be established over a period of years.(8)

In view of the action of the Society in 1973 in urging, upon the regents of the University of California the continuance of the School of Criminology at Berkeley, it is of interest that a motion to the same effect was passed at the 1959 meeting in Arizona.  These actions reflect the continuance-albeit in some attenuated form-of the informal, mutually supportive interrelationship between the Society and the University of California's School of Criminology at Berkeley that grew out of the origination of the Society's parent organizations and leadership in their development by members of the faculty and former students of the Berkeley School.(9)

By the very circumstances of the Society's origin, its members, during its earliest years, lived in California and contiguous Western states and all of its meetings were held in California.  Furthermore, its members, with the exception of a forensic psychiatrist and one or two lawyers, were all involved in police administration and training.  Throughout the 1940s, O.W. Wilson was president of the developing organization.  In 1950 he was succeeded by forensic psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, one of Wilson's colleagues at Berkeley.  In turn, Kelley was followed by other Californians:  Frank Booslen and then William Dienstein, both of the faculty of the California State College at Fresno; Richard Simon, Deputy Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department; Richard Hankey, who was in charge of the Law Enforcement Program at the College of the Sequoia's; John Kenney of the University of Southern California; and Marcel Frym, engaged in legal research with the Hacker Clinic in Los Angeles.

Although concern had been expressed about the need for extending the geographical range of membership in the Society, it was not until the presidency of Marcel Frym, in 1959, that an Annual Meeting was held as far away from the Pacific Coast as Chicago.

Meanwhile, in 1948, Donal Mac Namara, a New Yorker whose studies in police administration had been done at Columbia under Bruce Smith, too a post at the University of Southern California and also joined the Society for the Advancement of Criminology.  In 1950 he became its secretary.

MacNamara was among those actively seeking to expand the work and membership for the Society, and when he returned to NewYork in 1953 holding the position of vice-president of the Society responsible for the Eastern Region, he organized many meetings of the Society in such major centers as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Cleveland, and Chicago - as well as in some smaller cities - and encouraged qualified persons with whom he had contact in the Eastern states to become members.  This eventually resulted in shifting the leadership of the Society eastward.  In 1960 Mac Namara himself became its president, a post in which he served four years (1960-1963), during which time the Annual Meetings of the Society were held successively in New York, Denver, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.

Among those whose interest MacNamara enlisted were several academic sociologists having a primary interest in basic criminological research and teaching at the university level.  One of these, Walter Reckless of Ohio State University, was elected to succeed MacNamara as President of the Society for 1964 at the Annual Meeting of 1963 in Cleveland.  He was reelected for 1965 and 1966.

Marvin Wolfgang, of the University of Pennsylvania, who succeeded Reckless in 1967, was also a sociologist, and he was followed by a legal scholar, Gerhard O. W. Mueller of New York University; Bruno Cormier, a forensic psychiatrist of McGill University, Alber Morris, sociologist, of Boston University; another sociologist, Simon Dintz of Ohio State University; Charles L. Newman of Pennslyvania State University, whose basic field is Public Administration; John Ball of Temple University, a research sociologist; Edward Sagarin, sociologist of the City University of New York; and Nicholas Kittrie, a legal scholar on the faculty of American University.

Because the Annual Meeting, whose agenda includes the election of officers and the transaction of other business by the membership, inevitably entails extensive travel which some members find it difficult or impossible to undertake, it has been the practice of the Society to hold other meetings throughout the year in various sections of the country, sometimes away from the usual major metropolitan centers of population-Tallahassee, Indianapolis, Dallas, Tucson, Fresno-as well as in New York, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, and Chicago.  Not uncommonly, these have been jointly sponsored with such professional societies as the American Association for the Advancement of Science,  American Orthopsychiatric Association, Association for the Psychiatric Treatment of Offenders, New York Institute of Criminology, the International Association of Penal Law, and others.  Such interim meetings have helped to make face-to-face participation in the Society's substantive concerns more common than might otherwise have been possible.

With the exception of the Annual Meeting of December 1965, which was held at the University of California in Berkeley, and that of 1961 in Denver, all of the Annual Meetings since 1959 have been held east of the Mississippi River.  This includes two meetings held in Canada (one at Montreal and the other at Toronto), as well as once in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and one in Caracas, Venezuela,  These last are further substantial evidence of the Society's acceptance of the suggestion of Marcel Frym, the Society's president in 1959, that "the time has come for our . . . organization to look abroad and establish liaison with international criminological circles."  Indeed, since Frym participated in and emphasized the importance of professional relationships on an international basis, members of the Society have become increasingly involved in international criminological meetings.  Further, since the early 1970s the Society, officially, has become actively concerned with the possibility and desirability of joint sponsorship of conferences and other professional gatherings of an international nature while still normally retaining its own Annual Meeting and other national meetings within the boundaries of the United States and Canada.(10)

The development of the Society in terms of membership numbers had been a matter of continuing concern from the beginning as with and professional organization.  An increasing membership of qualified persons enhances the prestige and improves the visibility of a Society which in turn attracts additional qualified membership and provides the human and financial resources to further the Society's interests.  Beginning with a dozen or so members in the early 1940s, the paid membership increased more than tenfold before the end of the 1950s.


In 1960, during the presidency of Dona MacNamara, Charles L. Newman, then at the University of Louisville's Kent School of Social Work, became secretary-treasurer of the Society.  Newman reports at that time,

    A membership list in excess of 800 members, only a handful whom had paid any organizational dues for a number of years.  My first
    effort was to establish who, indeed, was  member of the Society and we moved in that direction to the point where the 800 list was culled
    down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 or 200.  We then started on  rather extensive membership drive.

    In 1962, it appeared to me that one of the ways to enhance both the desirability of becoming member of the Society, as well as to
    disseminate criminological material, was to establish newsletter; and hence "Criminologica" was born.

    I should point out that during the years prior to my taking on the role of secretary most of was done by Don MacNamara and Jacob
    Chwast in New York.  Mac funded most of the expenses of the organization out of his own pocket.  When I took over I helped share in that
    privilege.  I am happy to note that one demonstration of the Society's fiscal status was the opportunity to buy  $500 Certificate of Deposit
    which was probably the first mark of solvency of that organization, and that came around 1963 or 1964.

There had, of course, ben earlier newsletters to which reference has already been made.  Reestablished now as "CRIMINOLOGICA: News-letter of the American Society of Criminology" (Vol. 1 No. 1), six pages appeared in  new 9 x 12 printed format in May 1963.  Since that time, with changes in title and format as in evolved, it has been published continuously as the official organ of the Society.  Edited by Charles L. Newman, with Harry More, Jr., of Washington State University and Dorothy Tompkins of the University of California, Berkeley, as contributing editors beginning May 1966, "Criminologica" continued through 12 quarterly issues.  In the process it became  substantial publication of as many as 39 lager than letter size pages.  An improvement in the cover page with Vol. 3, No. 1 of May 1965, and the increase in number of pages sufficient to permit more extended articles of substance, made "Criminologica" creditable feature of the Society's professional effort.

In 1966 Newman moved to Pennsylvania State University for fill the post of Director of the Center for Police and Corrections Education (now Law Enforcement and Corrections Services) and the task of publishing "Criminologica" shifted to Ohio State University where Simon Dinitz assumed the responsibilities of editorship.

With Vol. 4, No. 1 of May 1966 the first issue edited by Dinitz, "Criminologica", had been give distinctly new look.  It now appeared in smaller size, 9x6, but with more pages (64) and bound in heavier yellow cover.  Further, the subtitle "Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology" had been dropped, and in its place appeared the subtitle, "An Interdisciplinary Journal of Criminology."  Jamie Toro Calder of the University of Puerto Rico was listed for the first time as Associate Editor for Latin America, and Christine Schultz as Editorial Associate.  Through the skill of Dianne Poulton, who became Editorial Consultant, subsequent numbers of the Journal through Vol. 7, No. 4 of February 1970 were livened in appearance by covers of two colors, different for each issue, and arranged in vertical stripes of varying widths.  This cosmetic change was, happily, accompanied by content of increasingly high level professional quality made possible by the larger number and merit of papers being submitted for possible publication as the Society continued to grow in stature and strength.

With the publication of "Criminologica," Vol. 6, No. 1 of February 1969, Simon Dinitz relinquished the editorship to C. Ray Jeffery, Professor of Sociology at New York University.  In the last issue of which he was responsible Dinitz observed that,

    "Criminologica" was still  newsletter . . . three years ago.  At that time its potential seemed quite  limited  and even its survival was much
    in doubt; indeed there was some feeling that "Criminologica" served no unique purpose or special purpose, and on the contrary,
    constituted  far too heavy drain on the meager resources of our organization.  Several of our members suggested that we might profitable
    pool our efforts with one or more of several quality struggling journals in the field.  Despite these sentiments, the Executive Committee
    after considerable discussion chose to support our Journal.

    Three years later, we are no longer faced with the prospect of the imminent demise of Criminologica."  Instead we are now beset by the
    problems engendered by rapid growth and expansion.  "Criminologica" exceeded our most optimistic expectations.  As measured by the
    number of articles submitted, subject matter, quality and authorship, there is no doubt that "Criminologica" has earned  place, albeit still
    minor, as  broadly interdisciplinary journal.  Professional readership has increased markedly and is nearly double what it was at the
    outset.  Increasingly our articles have been cited elsewhere and several have been included in collections of readings.

    The quantitative and qualitative growth is testimony to and  reflection of the increasingly strength of  the American Society of Criminology
    as an interdisciplinary organization.

Under the editorship of C. Ray Jeffery the editorial office was shifted to New York University where, by arrangement with the University, "Criminologica" was there published for the Society through the facilities of the University's Criminal Law, Education and Research Center (CLEAR), New York University School of Law, of which Gerhard  O.W. Mueller, President of the American Society of Criminology in 1968, was Director.  At this time, Denis Szabo of the University of Montreal was added to the staff as Associate Editor for Canada.  Later in 1969, when C. Ray Jeffery accepted  post at Florida State University in Tallahassee, the editorial office was moved there and arrangements were made to have the Society's journal published by commercial publishing house.

This seemed to be an appropriate time to reconsider the format of the Journal and as  consequence Vol. 8 , No. 1, appeared in May 1970 in its present attractive style.  An announcement "From the Editor" in that issue, explained:

    The American Society of Criminology has entered into  contract with Sage Publication for the  publication of Criminologica under its new
    title of Criminology:  An Interdisciplinary Journal.  Sage Publications is  publisher of professional Behavior social science journals,
    including The American Behavioral Scientist, Law and Society Review, Journal of Comparative Administration, Education and Urban
    Society, Urban Affairs Quarterly, and Environment and Behavior.

    The Society thus has taken  step to completely professionalize its journal at  time when crime,  delinquency, law and order, and criminal
    justice are topics of foremost concern for professionals, for politicians, and for the public.  The journal will be expanded in size and
    campaign to enlist new subscriptions from libraries and individual subscribes will be undertaken.

The masthead carried for the first time the notation, "The Official Publication of the American Society of Criminology" and listed, in addition to the Editor and Contributing Editors, and Editorial Board of five persons of which Gerhard O.W. Mueller of New York University was chairman.  The other four members were, ex officio, Alber Morris of Boston University, president of the Society, Simon Dinitz of Ohio State University, president elect, and Jamie Toro Calder  and Denis Szabo, formerly listed as associate editors for Latin American and Canada, respectively.

The editorial policy on the publication , formally stated, emphasized its scope and the level of its concern in these words:

    The journal is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to crime and deviant  behavior, as found in sociology, psychology, psychiatry, law, and
    social work, as well as newer disciplines such as urban design, system analysis, and decision theory as applied to crime and criminal
    justice.  The major emphasis is on empirical research and scientific methodology, and articles reporting on original research are given
    priority.  Articles which review the literature or deal with theoretical issues stated in the literature are also desired if they help to establish
    an empirical base for the study of issues dealt with and suggest the types of investigations which might properly be carried out in the

During Jeffery's editorship the journal began to be abstracted in Sociological Abstracts.(11)  With Vol. 11, No.2, of August 1973, Charles L. Newman, who had originated "Criminologica" as the newsletter of the Society just ten years before, became Editor-in-Chief of the Society's journal, now grow into  well accepted professional quarterly, of which each volume consists of approximately 550 pages.  With Newman's return to the editorship of Criminology, the publications office of the Society was established at Pennsylvania State University.   rough classification of the 73 major papers published in "Criminologica:  An Interdisciplinary Journal," Vol. 4 through 7, indicates that some 47 were theoretical or research papers (Prediction, Criminal Statistics, the XYY Syndrome, Phenomenology of Crime, and so on), and 26 dealt more directly and descriptively with specific programs and procedures (Police Review Boards, Juvenile Court Project, Narcotics Project, Slug Rejection Devices, In-Service Training).  Since the shift to Criminology with Vol. 8, No.1, the Society's Journal has published only articles that are primarily theoretical or research presentations, although the "Across the Desk" notes by Dorothy Tompkins and those on "Law Enforcement Education" by John More, Jr., were continued through Vol. 11,  No.1, and Vol. 10, No. 4, respectively.

With the accession of Charles L. Newman to the editorship (Vol. 11, No. 2) four Associate Editors replaced the former Editorial Board, and with Vol. 11, No.3, the posts of Contributing Editors were dropped.

Under Newman's editorship  significant improvement was introduced into the procedure for evaluating articles submitted for possible publication, by providing for their review by an impressive array of assistant editors and referees under  system of author-referee anonymity.  Partly induced by an increasing number of papers (243 during the last 12 months) this system, now commonly used by scholarly journals, not only permits an editor to deal with the larger volume of articles that come to the editorial desk by it tends to involve more scholars in the work of the journal and the Society as well as to assure effective and qualified assessment of submitted manuscripts.  Further, contributors whose manuscripts are returned are normally given some appraisal of their work and suggestions looking toward possible suitable publication.


In addition to its official journal the Society has also established its intent to publish  series of volumes of papers presented at the Society's Annual Meetings.  This practice was initiated by Herbert Bloch,  vice-president of the Society, when he published "Crime in America,"  (Philosophical Library, 1961) an anthology of papers delivered at ASC meetings.  It was continued by Walter Reckless, when, as president of the Society, he obtained funds from Irene Hirsch of Columbus, Ohio, to publish the papers presented at the 1964 meetings in Montreal under the title "Interdisciplinary Problems in Criminology: Papers of the American Society of Criminology, 1964" (Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1965)  Co-edited with Charles L. Newman.

The papers presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, edited by Gerhard O. W. Mueller and Freda Adler, have been published under the title, "Politics, Crime, and the International Scene:  An Interamerican Focus"  (North-South Center, San Juan, 1972).

Four volumes published by Praeger of New York are based upon papers presented at the Interamerican Congress of Criminology held in Caracas, Venezuela, in November 1972.  These are titled "Corrections:  Problems of Punishment and Rehabilitation," edited by Edward Sargarin and Dona MacNamara;  "Politics and Crime," edited by Sawyer Sylvester and Edward Sagarin; "Images of Crime:  Offenders and Victims," edited by Terence Thronberry and Edward Sagarin; and "Crime Prevention and Social Control," edited by Ronald Akers and Edward Sagarin.

Several papers on the nature and teaching of criminology that did not fit well into the aforementioned Praeger series were published separately under the general direction of Gerhard O.W. Mueller by the Criminal Law Education and Research Center of New York University Law School (CLEAR) under the title, "Education for Crime Prevention and Control," edited by Robert J. McLean (Publications of the Criminal Law Education and Research Center, Vol. 10, Charles C Thomas, 1974).

Another series of four volumes published by Praeger includes  selection from the numerous papers read at the Society's 1973 Annual Meeting in New York City.  These are:  "Police: Perspectives, Problems, Prospects," edited by Dona E.J. MacNamara and Marc Riedel; "Crime and Delinquency:  Dimensions of Deviance," edited by Marc Riedel and Terence P. Thornberry; "Treating the Offender: Problems and Issues," edited by Marc Riedel and Pedro . Velez; and "Issues in Criminal Justice: Planning and Evaluation," edited by Marc Riedel and Duncan Chappell.


In order to recognize outstanding achievements in Criminology and to extend awareness of them and to encourage them, the Society has established awards to be presented from time to time at its Annual Meetings, to persons selected by the Society for such honors.  The standing awards, in the names of individuals who have made major contributions are:

  1.  The August Vollmer Award, established in 1959, for an outstanding report or research in the field of criminology.

  2.  The Edwin Sutherland Award, established, in 1960, for  major contribution to criminological theory.(12)

  3.  The Herbert Bloch Award, established in 1961, for outstanding services to the Society itself and to the profession.(13)

  4.  The Sellin-Glueck Award, established in 1974, to be given to persons outside the United States who have gained international
        recognition for their contributions in criminology.(14)

The recipients of these awards through 1974 have been:(15)

The August Vollmer Award:

 1960  Marvin Wolfgang, University of Pennsylvania, and Paul Bohannnon, Northwestern University

 1961  Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Havard University Law School

 1962  James Bennett, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons

 1963  Austin MacCormick, Exec. Director, The Osborne Association

 1964  Hon. J. Adrien Robert, Director, Montreal Police Dept., Chief, Quebec Provincial Police

 1965  Not Given

 1966  Judge George Edwards, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan, Police  Commissioner of Detroit, Justice of the U. S.
            Circuit Court of Appeals

 1967  Howard Leary, Police Commissioner of New York

 1968  Mryl Alexander, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons

 1969  Hon. Joeseph Tydings, U.S. Senator, Maryland

 1970  Milton Rector, Executive Director of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency

 1971  Not given

 1972  Jerome Skolnick, University of California, Berkeley

 1973  E. Preston Sharpe, General Secretary of the American Correctional Association

 1974  Patrick Murphy, President of the Police Foundation, and Sol Rubin, Counsel Emeritus, National Council Crime and Delinquency

The Edwin Sutherland Award

 1960  Thornsten Sellin, University of Pennsylvania

 1961  Orlando Wilson, Police Superintendent of Chicago, Professor of Emeritus, University of  California

 1962  Negley Teeters, Temple University

 1963  Herbert Wechsler, Columbia University Law School, and Walter Reckless, Ohio St. University

 1964  Hon. J.C. McRuer, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Civil Rights, former Chief Justice of Ontario

 1965  Not Given

 1966  George Vold, University of Minnesota

 1967  Donald R. Cressey, University of California, Santa Barbara

 1968  Denis Szabo, University of Montreal

 1969  Lloyd Ohlin, Harvard University Law School

 1970  Alfred Lindemsith, University of Indiana

 1971  Marshall Clinard, University of Wisconsin

 1972  Leslie Wilkins, State University of New York at Albany

 1973  Edwin Lemert, University of California (award not conferred until 1974 because the recipient was not able to attend the 1973 meeting)

 1974  Simon Dintz, Ohio State University

 The Herbert Bloch Award
 1966  Charles L Newman, Pennsylvania State University

 1967  Dona MacNamara, John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York

 1968  Not given

 1969  "       "

 1970  "      "

 1971  "      "

 1972  Freda Adler, Temple University, Philadelphia

 1973  C. Ray Jefferey, Florida Sate University, Tallahassee

 The Sellin-Glueck Award

  1974  Franco Ferracuti, Rome

On occasion, special awards in the form of Presidential Citations have been made in the recognition of special services and achievements.

The importance of encouraging interested students to develop scholarly and professional competency in criminology has been recognized by the Society in  variety of ways.  Beginning with the 1968 meeting in Toronto the Society has, from time to time, arranged special sessions for student papers at its annual conference.  In 1971 the Society announced an annual "Student Research Papers Competition" for which authors of the fourth and fifth place papers receive an appropriate Certificate of Participation.  The first-place paper is also considered for presentation at the next Annual Meeting of the Society.  To be eligible for the competition, students must be enrolled in an academic program in  college or university at either the undergraduate or graduate level.  Entries must be research papers related to the broad area of criminology and the administration of criminal justice.  They are judged by  panel of Society members who are recognized scholars in the field.


All learned and professional associations move through  continuing series of problems and are involved in making decisions about how to deal with them.  May such problems are of  recurring and routine sort, differing only in minor details, once the original appearance of situation has been satisfactorily dealt with.  However, the line between these and more fundamental and difficult problems and decisions is not always sharply drawn.  Further, by some process of social mutation, under new circumstances what was once insignificant may suddenly be recognized as having acquired  new level of importance.

Undoubtedly the need to develop and maintain supportive membership and an adequate financial base poses ever-present and unavoidable challenges to all scholarly and professional organizations.  So, inevitably, throughout the history of the American Society of Criminology its officers have stressed these needs and met them with a considerable measure of success.

The life of the American Society of Criminology, like that of any such association, is not adequately revealed by the bare record of names and events-important, and even essential, as these are-but by the decisions it has made with reference to policies, principles, and purposes, and by the quality of effectiveness of its actions in support of these.  These mark the path of the Society's development and the direction and quality of its growth.

Such decisions and actions are indeed difficult to recapture authoritatively or to evaluate in terms of their relative importance, and any attempt to do so must necessarily be selectively and illustrative rather than systematic and definitive.  Yet in the records  broad outline emerges that may add some perspective and  sense of direction to the Society's history and may be of aid to consideration of the Society's future.

Questions as to the purposes and content of police training programs and of the problems attendant upon student recruitment for them were obviously matters of major concern to the small group that founded the National Association of College Police Training Officials and the others who soon thereafter became members of it.  Inevitably, college faculties in general and those who developed curricula for police training in particular were confronted with questions of college entrance and degree standards as related to the aptitudes, academic qualifications, and vocational needs of students interested in police work as  career.

Early meetings in Berkeley were given over to frequent discussions of such matters, and the attendant problems continue to be matters of concern today, especially to members of the Society involved in law enforcement education programs subsidized by federal funds.  For example: having in mind that police effectiveness may be bought at too great a cost, and given the limitations of career opportunities in town and city police forces,(16) and considering the proportion of police person-hours devoted to necessary community services only remotely related to crime control, is professionalization of police organizations as law enforcement agencies universally or even generally desirable or possible?  How should police work be organized and developed in terms of the political or governmental levels and units to be served?  What should be the essential content of police training, who should give it, and how is it to be effectively introduced into existing police forces?

By 1946 when the organization changed its name to the Society for the Advancement of Criminology, there seems to have emerged  consensus that the problems of crime control were both too broad and too complex to be examined solely in terms of police tasks and immediate police skills.  This consensus became reflected in the acceptance into membership of those whose primary interests lay outside of the police field, particularly in corrections- movement that led ultimately to the interdisciplinary Society of today.

As this change in membership occurred, accompanied by differences in tasks and interests between practitioners, such as administrators and treatment personnel, on the one hand, and academic teachers and research personnel on the other, the long-discussed question of what should be taught as criminology continued to be  matter of increasingly serious discussion.  During the early years, when the Society was still largely vocationally and professionally oriented, its concern with teaching had to do primarily with the best educational content for professionals and to what extent the training of those interested in police work should differ from, or coincide with, that devised for correctional personnel.

In 1958, " Proposal to Study the Teaching and Research of Criminology in the United States" was prepared by the newly renamed  "American Society of Criminology," with  view to seeking funds in its support.  One of the six stated objectives in the proposal was:  "To develop means of integrating and coordinating varied academic programs in police and corrections in terms of transfer credits, placement of graduates , and mutual use of completed research."

More broadly, the objective of intended study was to find and seek agreement on the proper content of academic programs in criminology.  The rationale for this and  method for achieving it are indicated by these excerpts from the proposal:

    The development of criminology programs in universities and colleges has been rapid. . . . Each year finds new programs started and
    older ones expanded.  Despite this progress  general lack of (consensus) exists among persons responsible for the development of
    these programs. . . .  The American Society of Criminology took cognizance of this and other problems confronting the fields of police
    and corrections.  It now proposes  conference of key people throughout the United States, both academicians and practitioners from the
    two fields to evaluate and to give direction for the future to programs of education and research. . . .  Our Society believes that this study is
    the one way to bridge the regrettable and frustrating gap between police and corrections and give some direction to programs in these

Some of the more fundamental questions about the nature, desirability, and feasibility of professionalization in these areas had not been formally raised as matters for general and systematic examination.  Nor had there been much more than superficial and defensive concern directed against academic colleagues who raised questions about the content and even the justification for  discipline of criminology and its place among other, firmly established, academic fields.

But during the late 1950s and early 1960s, as membership numbers increased and as membership numbers increased and as sociologists became increasingly prominent in the Society's activities, differences in viewpoints, concepts, and emphasis began to arise and affect the direction of the Society's development.  Glimmerings of this appear here and there in the Society's documents.  The 1958 "Proposal to Study Teaching and Research" previously referred to, for example, had as one of its stated objectives "to discuss mutual problems of academic interest such as the improvement of academic facilities," an objective that is still  matter of concern to liberal arts oriented academicians who are disturbed by the appointment of police and correctional administrators to college and university faculties without the traditional faculty qualifications or teaching experience.

The preambles of the several revisions of the Society's constitution also reflect  gradual and changing emphasis within the Society (see Table 1).

As the Society became in the 1960s both increasingly interdisciplinary and, to some degree, international in its membership and it affiliations, and more oriented toward the development of criminological theory and research rather than toward the development of teaching programs, the basic question of what criminology is all about and the justification for giving it  separate place among academic disciplines began to be more directly confronted and examined.   containment of this sort of inquiry is consideration of the value and significance of the term, "criminologist."

And editorial in "Criminologica" (Vol.1, No.3, November 1963) by Charles L. Newman refers to  journal article by Marvin Wolfgang, then vice-president of the Society, in which he explores the meaning of the terms "criminology" and "criminologist" and concludes that transitory  occupational affinity does not make one  criminologist but that one is  criminologist if one is "engaged in the pursuit of learning, using  scientific approach to the study and analysis of the phenomena of crime and criminal behavior within the framework of professional training, occupational role, and fiduciary reward."

The editorial then concludes by raising two questions:

    Can criminology become the meeting ground for adjunct professions concerned with the scientific study of crime and
     criminal behavior? Can it allow the mantle of ‘criminologist' to be bestowed upon those persons who seek affinity even though their
    major professional identity may life in the adjunct areas of law, medicine, social work, psychology, psychiatry, and enforcement?

Preambles of the Several Revisions of the Society's Constitution

1946 1968 1970    1974
Excerpted from the version of a draft of a proposed constitution as amended and adopted at the Third Annual Conference, 1946: 

The term, Criminology, as used hereinafter is defined as the study of the causes, treatment and prevention of crime, including, but not restricted to:

a) Scientific crime detection,  and investigation.

b) Crime prevention, public safety and security.

c) Law Enforcement administration.

d) Administration of criminal  justice.

e) Traffic administration.

f) Probation

g) Juvenile delinquency control.

h) Related aspects of  penology.

From the Constitution adopted in 198

The term, Criminology, as used hereinafter is defined as all human knowledge concerning the etiology, control, treatment and prevention of crime and delinquency, the detection of crime and enforcement of criminal laws, the system of social defense and concerns.


From the Constitution adopted in 1970:

The term, Criminology as used hereinafter is defined as all professional, scholarly, and scientific knowledge concerning the etiology, control treatment and prevention of crime and enforcement of criminal laws, the system of social defense and corrections. 

From the Constitution adopted in 1974:

The term, Criminology as used hereinafter refers to all scholarly, scientific and professional knowledge concerning the etiology, prevention, control and treatment of crime and delinquency, including the measurement and detection of crime, legislation, and the practice of criminal law, the law enforcement, judicial, and corrections systems. 

This editorial brought prompt replies , differing in viewpoint, from respondents in academic and administrative treatment areas.  Three of these staff members in the Illinois Department of Public Safety appeared in the next issue of "Criminologica" (Vol. 1, No.4, February 1964).  One of them, from Arthur Huffman, State Criminologist, suggested that:

     According to Webster's Dictionary, criminology is "the scientific study of crime as social phenomenon, of criminals and of
     penal treatment." . . . This definition is inadequate simply because it emphasizes  particular set of factors-the social-as being
     primary to the exclusion of others.

    A criminologist may more properly be defined as  professionally trained person engaged in the
    scientific study of crime and criminals; such as  study allowing for the exogenous factors-environmental, social and cultural-as
    well as such endogamous factors as temperament, character and intelligence, and including  third element, resistance . . .

    Criminologists properly may be engaged in the field of criminology and penology at the level of diagnosis, classification, and intramural
    and extramural treatment at the level of rehabilitation and at the teaching, writing, and research levels. Those engaged in criminaligistics
    and criminal correction at the level of detection, apprehension, conviction, etc., are technicians skilled in technical details.  While they
    should be looked upon as technical experts they do not appear to be qualified to be termed criminologists.

Harold Frum, a sociologist, wrote, in part:

     Since criminal behavior is  phase of social-psychological behavior and crime is an integral part of the culture complex, the
     discipline of criminology would appear to be basically  social and psychological science focusing upon the phenomenon of
     crime and criminal behavior.  As  science it is concerned with the development of  body of verified knowledge . . . As
     profession it should develop standards of training and performance consistent with those in older professions.

    In the thinking of this writer,  psychiatrist is not  criminologist simply because he examines criminals.  Neither is  psychologist . . .
    because his patients are law breakers, nor  sociologist because he is conducting  research project having to do with delinquency and
    crime.   A practitioner in corrections is not  criminologist merely because he is dealing with criminals, but he may be regarded as
    technician . . .

    In summary . . . the term "criminologist," if it is to have any professional and scientific meaning, should be applied only to persons trained
    in  science of criminal behavior who meet standards of professional competence and whose major focus of occupational interest is the
    phenomenon of crime.

In the next issue of "Criminologica" (Vol. 2, No. 1, May 1964) appeared  letter from Barbara Kay, who concluded her comment on the matter of definitions by saying:

    Any study of criminal behavior and the resultant crime problem by professional sociologists, psychologists, social workers, lawyers,
    psychiatrists, and comparable others must be an application of knowledge from the disciplines to which the professional is affiliated.
    Certainly, today, there is no such thing as  "criminologist" nor  discipline known legitimately as "criminology."

In similar vein, Walter Drew,  sociologist with the Illinois Department of Public Safety (Criminologica," Vol.2, No.2, August 1964), after discussing the lack of agreement about the terms "criminology" said,

    In the United States research of an academic or clinical orientation has hardly focused directly on crime at all.  It has traditionally and
    characteristically emphasized the individual and criminal behavior . . . . It seems we might refer to criminology only when qualifying terms
    are used or when we intend to refer to  very broad area of inquiry and practice.  Better yet, the term should be avoided . . .

In major article ("Criminologica," Vol.5, No.3, November 1967), Manuel Lopez-Ray decried the all-embracing empire-building concept of criminology represented by those who consider that criminology should not confine itself to the study of crime, as legally defined, but also deal with anti-social behavior, whether or not it is legally crime and who include in criminology not only "the causes of crime and its different forms of manifestation and corresponding topologies but also considerable part of the systems organized to combat crime, including the implementation of penal sanctions."

The relation of criminology to other fields may also be reviewed from the standpoint of these disciplines.  In  letter written in 1959 to Marcel Frym, then president of the Society, Vernon Fox called attention to change that began about 1915 in the hitherto close relation of social work to corrections, amounting to what Fox referred to as "divorce."  This came about because correctional case-loads were too heavy, the field of corrections low in prestige, and the clients not ready for help.

But more recently, with  degree of professionalization appearing in the correctional field at the level of administrational and treatment, those in social work seem to feel that corrections requires the competencies of personnel with social work degrees.  By 1963 most graduate schools of social work were offering at least one course that dealt directly with some aspect of correctional work or that had substantial application to corrections.  The catalogs of the 59 schools of social work that were members of the American Association of Schools of Social Work at that time indicate that 12 had no courses specifically directed towards the treatment of criminal and delinquent behavior, 13 had one general course that included specific application to the treatment of offenders, five had one course specifically directed towards the treatment of offenders, and 29 had two or more courses.

There is, in some schools of social work, an acceptance of the position already suggested by members of the Society who have some doubt as to whether there is, or is likely to be, valid and recognizably distinct discipline signified by the term "criminology."  As the administrator of one graduate school of social work put it (Morris, 1963), we try

    to develop professional workers whose competence in one of the social work methods (casework, group work, community organization)
    can be applied in any field to which that method is appropriate.  Thus we do not plan to train "correctional social workers" but social
    workers who will be able to use their professional skills in the correctional and other fields.

The interest of social workers in the correctional field has led in some states to legislation and efforts to gain the passage of legislation designed to eliminate from the correctional field those who do not have social work degrees.  One response to this effort was expressed by former Society president William Dienstein who, replying to Fox's letter on March 8, 1959, wrote:

     I feel that the situation you describe needs clarification because of the tendency for academic areas to claim exclusive jurisdiction for
     special occupational fields.

    In California we have tried to whip the problem by using  qualification clause in the State Personnel Board fliers announcing correctional
    jobs.  Prerequisite specifications include something like this: "graduates of college or university who have majored in criminology,
    sociology, social work, psychology, social science, or related areas."

    The philosophy is that if the applicant can make it through college and has majored in an area that has given him knowledge and insight
    into social and personal aspects of our culture, the hiring agency can teach its particular techniques rather easily.  This removed the
    impetus for empire building . . .

    My opinion is that if we keep on over-specializing we are going to have  society of cultural ignoramuses; specialists who know how to do it
    but little or nothing about why and consequences; who know much about  minute aspect of some filed as determined by some group and
    are ignorant of the purposes and functions of their specialty in relation to the purposes and functions of the whole society.

Dienstein's emphasis on education directed towards understanding of what is fundamental to human experience rather than towards the teaching of how-to-do-it courses, does indeed reflect the general direction of the Society's commitment.  This has not only had  selective effect upon renewal of memberships but it also has some relation to differences of opinion  as to the relevance of the Society's activities to current issues such as appointments of U.S. Supreme Court justices, legislation related to financial support for programs of law enforcement and criminal justice, goals and standards in criminal justice, behavioral modification programs in corrections, prisoners' unions, and the possible infringement upon the rights of offenders by shifts from punitive to intended rehabilitative procedures especially when such shifts put those being treated outside the criminal justice system.  Indeed the Society's concern has, on occasion, extended controversially to other civil rights issues not necessarily directly concerned with matters criminological.  Most recently, for example (Minutes of the ASC Executive Board, February 16-17, 1974),  suggestion that the ASC endorse the AAAS stand on the treatment of Russian scientists led to the passage of  motion that the ASC support the AAAS statement which censures all societies that curtail freedom of speech, provided the AAAS statement does not specify any one nation in particular.

Members of professional societies naturally share the common human desire to take action against what appear to be social wrongs and injustices.  The membership of the ASC inevitably encompasses range of views and depths of feeling about matters related to their professional interests on which their professional knowledge is, however, inadequate to provide predictive capabilities except at levels of probability too general to be immediately applicable.   conflict therefore arises between those who would, nevertheless, use the weight of an organized professional group to effect desire political or civic end and others who would make  sharper distinction between their professional responsibilities and those they accept as members of civic or political associations.

The line between furthering scholarly analysis and understanding of the phenomenon of crime and its treatment as the primary interest of the Society, and the defensible concern of the more activist members with the relevance of the Society's interests, is not necessarily sharply drawn.  Perhaps it is only at the polar extremes that such  difference in emphasis becomes divisive.  An example of an effective approachment between these interests occurred at the 1968 joint meeting with the American Orthopsychiatric Association in Chicago.  In  "Presidential Communication" ("Criminologica," Vol. 6,   No.2, August 1968) Gerhard O.W. Mueller reported that

    A thousand people sitting, standing and squatting, crowded into the meeting room set side for the panel of the American Society of
    Criminology.  They had gathered to learn about the "Mental Health Implications of the President's Commission Report on Crime."
    A very distinguished group of panelists under the chairmanship of our past president, Dona MacNamara, critically analyzed every part of
    the report which might be expected to have some mental health implications.  Daniel Glaser, one of the nation's foremost criminologists
    and  prominent member of the President's  Commission as well as the Society, explained the workings of the Commission emphasizing
    the "crash program" aspects of the modus operandi.  He then detailed the report's thrust on corrections and its emphasis on ongoing
    programs for work release, part-time detention and other correctional methods which have broken with the stereotype of the old walled
    institution.  These developments, according to Glaser, have paralleled similar development in the mental health field.

    The subsequent speakers seemed less sympathetic to the President's Commission report, making it quite clear that in their areas of
    interest, mental health was covered only by implication.  Edward Sagarin, with  brilliant paper on the juvenile delinquency part of the
    President's Commission report, and Clyde B. Vedder, with an equally brilliant paper on probation and parole, were extremely critical of
    what they called the platitudes in the President's Commission report on those topics.   Paul H. Gebhard, Director of the Institute of Sex
    Research at Indiana University, reported on his Institute's findings on sex offenders which had been made available to the President's
    Commission.  Clarence C. Sherwood analyzed current national developments regarding short-term penal institutions and Lawrence W.
    Pierce spoke on drug addiction for which topic he had been a consultant to the President's Commission.  Some highly challenging
    comments of forensic psychology and psychiatry were made by Fritz Redl.

    Your president, as co-chairman, concluded the meeting with comments on the absence of  a volume on the law crime itself, supposedly
    the central theme of the inquiry of the President's Commission.  It is not of paramount significance that the nation question its own values
    and goals with regard to what is and what ought to be subjected to the penal sanction?  What are the mental health implications of  penal
    system which, through its ill-conceived selection of punishable behavior, has all the capacity of arousing neurosis, psychosis and
    psychotherapy on  national scale? . . .

    The largest audience which had ever gathered for  meeting of the American Society of Criminology and which had followed the speeches
    for three hours with fascination, thanked the panelists with standing ovation . . .


There is no question that the American Society of Criminology is  viable Society that has grown in numbers, in professional breadth and stature, and in its visibility, reach, and acceptance as  professional organization.  Starting in 1941 with  handful of enthusiastic professional associates in police science and administration,  in  limited geographical area, it had come, by 1960,  to have valid membership approaching 200 from 14 or more states throughout the country and from several professional criminological specialties.  By 1970 the membership was well over 300 and by 1972 the recorded, dues-paying membership was over 500.  Currently, as of July 1974, the paid membership list stands at 794.

Commenting on this, Edward Sagarin, the 1974 president of the ASC wrote:

     At the first executive meeting following my taking office, I set  goal of 1,000 by November 1974.  If we do not reach it we will be
     close thereto . . . In seeking to increase the membership we have in mind not only and effort to bring into the organization
     everyone significantly involved in teaching, research, and allied areas of criminology but we are confronted with the fact that
     a larger organization has capabilities and financial resources that  smaller one does not have.(17)

By the 1960s women had begun to join what was, originally,  totally male organization and to play  significant role in its activities.  In may, 1965, Dorothy Tompkins became an associate editor of "Criminologica," and in that same year articles by women began to appear in the publication, and women began to read papers at the annual meetings of the Society.  Christine Schultz and Barbara Price have held the post of Secretary of the Society.  Currently 121 (15.2%) of the members of the ASC are women.  One of these, June Morrison, is the 1974 president of the Western Division of the Society.

When the American Society of Criminology was formally incorporated under that title in August 1958, it was already well on its way to becoming  national, interdisciplinary Society in terms of the geographical distribution of its members, the range of their professional competencies, and the nature of the Society's concerns and activities.  By the mid-1960s it had firmly established the foundations of  continuing and developing program of professional publications, the breadth and professional quality of its conference programs had become professionally recognized, and it had developed satisfying affiliations and cooperative ventures with related professional societies so essential to an interdisciplinary organization.  Out of its membership Newsletters and the embryonic, 6-page Vol. 1, No. 1 of "Criminologica" has come the Society's substantial, first-rate quarterly Criminology:  An Interdisciplinary Journal with current circulation of approximately 1,800, of which 900 are institutional subscriptions and 900 are from individuals.

The Society's greater numbers and diversity of members provide both stimulation and opportunities.  Inevitably these are accompanied by  need for adjustments.  In part, in response to the eastward shift of the geographical center of the Society's membership, and possibly also because of the corporate legal and administrative obligations and limitations upon the newly incorporated national Society, the Regional Divisions that had been earlier provided for through the device of Regional Vice Presidents, with regional executive powers, became inactive.  However, partly because of the expense of attending distant meetings, and possibly because of  degree of resistance to centralization of administrative authority in the East, the Western Division was reactivated in 1972-1973 by ASC members chiefly in California and Arizona who, in May 1974, held  well-attended conference at San Jose (a site most appropriately selected in view of the early history of the Society) and there elected Divisional officers with June Morrison as President.

Issues lose their relative importance and fade either because some positive workable adjustment has been made or active and open attempts to resolve them prove not sufficiently fruitful to enlist great effort to deal with them.  They tend not to be resolvable in any final sense and they are likely to recur sporadically under differing conditions.  Within the ASC, one of these is the teaching of criminology which as again become matter of general concern.

At the time of the origin of NACPTO, that parent Society's primary interest was in the police science and police administration curriculum.    As the Society broadened its name and the scope of its interests to cover the total field of criminology,  formal proposal for the study of the appropriate range and content of the criminology curriculum and for funding such  study was drawn up (In the "Problems and Issues" section above, see the discussion of the 1958 "Proposal to Study the Teaching and Research of Criminology in the United States").  At the Caracas meetings in 1972 the teaching of criminology was among the subjects of formal consideration and the papers presented on that topic have been published (see the "Other Society Publications" section, above).

Since then, in  letter to Executive Board members (March 11, 1974), Edward Sagarin, the president of the Society, has posed  question as to "the desirability of engaging in study of the nature, scope, achievements, shortcomings, and other aspects of teaching and training in Criminology, with the end in view of adopting guidelines that will be circulated among students, administrators, accrediting associations, and other interested in this area."

This query was accompanied by another on "the desirability of engaging in  study of the ethics of criminologica research, with the end in view of adopting ethical guidelines . . ."

The replies from some ten Board members to the query about the teaching of criminology indicated general but qualified and not unanimous approval.  The response to the question about studying the ethics of criminological research uncovered  lively interest in  troublesome matter that has long been of concern to behavioral scientists in general.  It brought, among other comments,  suggestion that in view of the growing tendency in the criminal justice system to rely on centralized computer banks, the Society might wish to consider the problems related to the individual's right to privacy, the accuracy of data files, the limits of access to such files, and related matters.

A much less dramatic and urgent question is posed for the Society by its sense of need for an understanding of its own history and its decision to commission its writing.  An organization, understandably directing its interests and resources towards the demands of today and the fast changing challenges of tomorrow, may easily neglect to make provision for the contribution  perspective on its past might bring to future decision making.  When John Kenney was ending his term as president of the Society in February 1959, he wrote, "You'll find my dates as gleaned from the inadequate files we have on terms of office of the Presidents . . . For all our training re ‘the facts to be documented', we've failed miserably."

Of course this history, any history, has serious limitations.  Inevitably it will suffer from the  inadequacy of words to capture the substance and flavor of past events.  As Francis Bacon remarked some years ago, "It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation shall suffice for the discovery of new works since the subtlety of nature is many times the subtlety of argument."  So this history can do little more than suggest the activities and spirit of  human social organization over  period of 33 years.  But if words are an inadequate substitute for the reality they symbolize, they may at least draw  topographic map that will with reasonable confidence indicate the nature and direction of the Society's movement.  Certainly the may provide  setting and  perspective against which the conditions, probabilities, and values of the Society's future objectives may be better assessed.  There is even the possibility that what is known to have happened may help to provide for the avoidance of future mistakes and, even more positively, suggest and encourage constructive new objectives and perspectives.

It may well be, then, that the Society would wish to provide ways to bring, under planned consideration, the question of whether the Society's activities, interests, and movements are worth recording in more consistent, systematic, and interpretive fashion than is usually done, and, if so, how this can best be effected under the difficult conditions of communication and record keeping that usually beset professional societies with changing, non salaried staffs.

Finally, there still remains the untouched question of how the American Society of Criminology can best play the useful role envisaged for it.  The assumption seems to be that if is because the Society is interdisciplinary that it has greater potential for achievements of quality and importance than it might otherwise have.  But this raises the, as yet, undebated issue of what it means to be an interdisciplinary society.  Is it because members trained in different disciplines apply them to particular aspects and special areas of criminology (behavior modification, criminal jurisprudence, systems analysis of criminal justice agencies and procedures, and so on)?  Or is it because they bring their respective special knowledge and approaches to bear collaboratively on  common problem?  Or is it that they interact with one another in an effort to develop an improved body of concepts and principles derived from and shaped by  process of interdisciplinary exchange and assimilation?  Or is it all of these in some appropriate proportion?  Perhaps the Society's interest in this issue may have some significant bearing upon its future.

What that future might be has been nowhere better expressed than by former president Gerhard O.W. Muller in his "Presidential Communication" previously referred to.(18)  It concludes with  statement of the legitimate and useful role of the Society which seems to be supported by all of the major activities in which the Society has now come to be engaged:

    The officers of the American Society of Criminology are convinced of the mission of the Society.  This mission is not the popularization of
    theories of crime and criminal justice but, rather, the transmission of professional information to colleagues in all contributing
    professions, the transmission of their ideas into the mainstream of criminological development, and the direction of valid criminological
    theories into governmental practices . . .

    Whether there is or is not a national program for crime definition and crime control,  national society of the nation's thinkers researchers
    and administrators in criminology has an important role to play.  This role should be positive, constructive and productive.  But it also
    must be critical, aloof, and independent.  We appreciate the fact that government must cater to the immediate tasks of minimizing
    dangers to individuals and the common weal.  But we refuse to be bound in  our plans and ambitions by the political exigencies of the
    moment.  We shall aim at a better, freer, more secure future for all men.


 1.   Report of the First Meeting of the National Association of College Police Training Officials.  Mss.

 2.   Ibid., summarized

 3.   Personal correspondence.

 4.   Conversation with Willard Schmidt.

 5.   Personal correspondence William Wiltberger.  In fact the American Association of Police Professors was established in 1966.  It later became the International Association of Police Professors and now continues as the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

6.   Liberal-arts-type courses in criminology, non vocational in orientation, were given in  few colleges and universities here and there throughout the country by the early 1920s.  The first college text in criminology, by Maurice Parmelee, was published in 1918.   A study of sociology offerings in 607 of the 928 four-year colleges listed in the major directories of educational institutions in the United States in 1940 and 1941 showed criminology to be fifth among sociology courses in  the frequency of offerings.  See Kennedy and Kennedy (1942).  The Criminology Section of the American Sociological Association was established in 1943.  During the 1946-1950 period, majors in police administration were being offered at the University of Southern California and at Michigan State University, as well as at  number of state colleges.  Well developed  police offerings could be found elsewhere, notably at Northwestern University and Purdue.

 7.  Letter from Gault to President John Kenney, January 14, 1959.

 8.  See listing of awards and recipients, pp. 146-147.

 9.  In the course of its periodic reviews of University programs the Academic Senate at Berkeley recently recommended that the University's offering in Criminology be improved and broadened;  Committee, including representatives of both the faculty of the School of Criminology and other academic departments, was established to study how this might best be done and to make recommendations as to the scope and administrative direction of such  strengthened program.  The Chancellor is on record as favoring this objective.  Whether the School of Criminology will continue as  separate administrative center for the University's criminology offering is, itself,  legitimate matter for consideration by the Committee.  Meanwhile the School of Criminology is commented to continuation for at least two more years.  (Summary of conversation with Provost George Maslach, August, 1974.)

10.  The Society plans to hold its Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada, in November 1975.  In 1976, the bicentennial year of  American independence, and the centennial of August Vollmer's birth, the Society will again return to the West at Tucson,    Arizona, for its Annual Meeting.

11.  Starting with the 1974 meeting in Chicago, Sociological Abstracts plans to publish  special issue containing abstracts of all papers presented here.

12.  Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950) was never  member of the American Society of Criminology.  He died before the ASC was incorporated and when, as the Society for the Advancement of Criminology, its membership was small and its meetings were held on the West Coast.  Sutherland is professionally recognized as one of the most distinguished pioneer academic criminologists of America; he is noted not only for his contributions to criminological theory and research but also for the analytical competency and the rigorous scholarship that marked both his writing and his teaching.  In an appreciation of Sutherland, his faculty colleague, Jerome Hall (1950) wrote:

        The integrity of the man shone through everything he did, and never more typically than in his refusal to be associated
          with certain measures that, from time to time, received wide publicity in the newspapers.  He remained aloof, for example,
          from the agitation concerning sex offender laws.  Instead of joining it he pursued his research on that problem and
          published his results.

13.  There is some doubt as to the exact time of establishment of the Sutherland and Bloch awards. Verification through documents had not been possible but circumstantial evidence supports the dates given.

14.  Among the elected and appointed officials and committee members from different geographical areas, serving comparatively short terms of office, in  professional organization lacking full-time salaried staff working from  central office where files can be maintained, it is normal that there be  certain lack of continuity and some degree of ignorance about prior  organizational activities and decisions.  One consequence of  degree of discontinuity in the ASC's  procedures is the appearance of  measure of  creativity among the successive Awards Committees of the Society.  Early Vollmer Award  recipients were indeed selected , as the stated purpose of that award required, for their outstanding research administrative  achievements and public services in the fields of law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice.  The Sutherland Award, designed to recognize outstanding contributions to criminological theory, has apparently been extended to include, also,  significant scholarly contributions to criminology and criminal justice more broadly.  The roster of those who have received these two awards certainly names persons whose achievements merit recognition.  The specific meanings of the awards, however, have become blurred.  The intended significance of the more recently established Herber Bloch and Sellin-Glueck Awards, has, so far, been retained.

15.  Identifying affiliations as of the time of the award.

16.  Only about 70 such police forces in the entire country--less than 2% of the total--number as many as 200 persons.  Eight  states have no city force that large.  Most town and city police forces number fewer than 50 members.

17.  Personal correspondence with Edward Sagarin.

18.  "Criminologica," Vol.6, No. 2, August, 1968.


HALL, J. (1950) "An appreciation of Edwin H. Sutherland, 1883-1950." Criminology and Police Science 41, 4 (November-December):393.

KENNEDY, R. And R. J. KENNEDY (1942) "Sociology in American Colleges." Amer. Soc. Rev. 7:661.

MORRIS, A. (1963) "What's new in education for correctional work?" Correctional Research, Bull.13 (November).

University of California Bulletin (1950) "Announcement of the School of Criminology." Volume 45, 1 (July 1):8.

 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology
 and its Parent Organizations with Lists of Presidents and Secretaries

Year Place  President Primary Discipline Affliliation  Secretary





No record of 

Univ. Park
San Juan

August Vollmer
Pres. Emeritus
Orlando Wilson

Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Orlando Wilson
Douglas Kelley
Douglas Kelley
Frank Boolsen
William Dienstein
William Dienstein
Richard Simon
Richard Hankey
John Kenney
John Kenney
John Kenney
Marcel Frym

Donal MacNamara
Donal MacNamara
Donal MacNamara
Donal MacNamara
Walter Reckless
Walter Reckless
Walter Reckless
Marvin Wolfgang
Gerhard Muller
Bruno Cornier
Albert Morris
Simon Dinitz
Charles Newman
John Ball
Edward Sagarin
Nicholas Kittrie

Police Administration
Police Administration

Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Administration
Social Science
Social Science
Police Administration
Law Enforcement
Public Administration
Public Administration
Public Adminstration
Legal Research

Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Adminstration
Police Administration
Forensic Psychiatry
Public Administration
Medical Sociology

Univ.of California 

Univ.of California

Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California
Univ.of California 
Univ.of California
Fresno St. College
Fresno St. College
Fresno St. College
Deputy Chief, L.A.
College of Sequoias
Univ.of Southern Cal.
Univ.of Southern Cal.
Univ.of Southern Cal.
Univ.of Southern Cal.
 (Hacker Clinic)
N.Y.Inst. of Criminology
N.Y.Inst. of Criminology
N.Y.Inst. of Criminology
N.Y.Inst. of Criminology
Ohio State Univ.
Ohio State Univ.
Ohio State Univ.
Univ. of Pennslyvania
N.Y. University
McGill University
Boston University
Ohio State Univ.
Penn. State Univ.
Temple Univ.
City College of N.Y.
American Univ.

Benjamin Pavone 

Benjamin Pavone

Benjamin Pavone
Benjamin Pavone
Benjamin Pavone
Benjamin Pavone
Benjamin Pavone
Benjamin Pavone
V. Anderson Leonard 
Donal MacNamara
Donal MacNamara
Donal MacNamara
John Kenney
Lowell Bradford
G. Douglas Gourie
William Dienstein
William Dienstein
William Dienstein
William Dienstein
William Dienstein

Jacob Chwast
Jacob Chwast
Charles Newman
Charles Newman
Charles Newman
Charles Newman
Charles Newman
Samuel Kramer
Samuel Kramer
Ralph Sussman
Christine Schultz
Christine Schultz
Sawyer Slyvester
Barbara Price
Barbara Price
Barbara Price 

 NOTE: Although Annual Meetings are presently held in November, they have in the past been held in January, February, April, August, and December.  Because presidents take office immediately after the official close of the Annual Meeting, their terms of office run over parts of two years, more if they are reelected.  The president's presiding meeting now comes at the end of his year in office.

"The ASC and Women: One Generation Without, One Generation With"
(The Criminologist, May/June 1997, pp. 1, 3-5)

 by Freda Adler

(Freda Adler serves as a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University.  Professor Adler served as the President of the American Society of Criminology from 1994 -1995.  An earlier version of the article was presented at the plenary session, "25 Years of Women in Criminology," at the 1996 ASC Annual Meetings)

During the years 1932 to 1939, a group of graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley, who were taking courses with August Vollmer, used to get together informally to discuss police administration at the college level.  They called themselves the V-Men (Vollmer-Men) and wore lapel buttons with the V etched in the center.  The idea for a professional organization began to jell.  On the morning of December 30, 1941, eight men met at the home of August Vollmer in Berkeley.  They all taught college courses in Police Science and Administration.  Their purpose was to improve police training curricula.  The meeting turned into a marathon that ran from 10 am until one o'clock in the morning the next day.  They organized under the same name, The National Association of College Police Training Officials.  In 1946 the organization Society for the Advancement of Criminology.  The scope, policy and membership had changed.  There were now 40 members, all male.  On March 30, 1957, the Executive Committee held an all-day meeting to discuss major concerns.  There were ten issues: appointment of a representative to AAAS, naming the chair of the Publications Committee, making recommendations for the Society's Newsletter, surveying the objectives of institutions having criminology programs, updating and distributing the "Directory of Colleges and Universities Offering Criminology Programs," course content, the possibility of Florida State publishing a journal, communication with editors of various journals, soliciting suggestions and comments from the membership with reference to the name of the Society and revision of its constitution ("American Society of Criminology" was one of three --- the other were the "American Criminological Association" and the "American Criminological Society,") and, lastly, the approval and presentation to the members of the redrafted constitution.  At the very same time the Membership Directory of 1957 lists 64 persons, all male.  Broadening membership to females was not on the agenda.

The Society of the Advancement of Criminology changed its name officially to the American Society of Criminology on August 7, 1958.  The report of the Membership Committee on that year stated, "We are pleased to inform you that the membership drive for the 1958 is approaching its peak.  Since its inception early in the year, we have nearly doubled our membership rolls."

Still, there were no women members.  Yet concern was continually expressed over extending the geographical range of the membership.  On this issue there was success.  In 1959 the first annual meeting ever convened outside of California took place in Chicago.  Annual meetings moved East to New York, Philadelphia, and even SanJuan, Puerto Rico; North to Montreal and Toronto; and as far South as Caracas, Venezuela.  The Society was officially designated an affiliate of the International Society of Criminology, and was represented in European meetings.  Liaisons were made with other organizations, too, among them the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Correctional Association.  By 1960, there were 200 members from 14 states representing several professional criminological specialties.  Still, there were no women members.

Attempts to sustain a Society publication were unsuccessful until 1963.  In May of that year Volume I, Number 1 of Criminologica: Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology appeared, edited by Charles Newman.  The name of the publication was changed in May 1970 to Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal (Volume8, Number1).  The masthead noted for the first time that it was "The Official Publication of the American Society of Criminiology."  Since its inception, the journal has had twelve male editors, one male contributing editors, and on female contributing editor (Dorothy Tompkins).  The Criminologist, first published in 1976, has had seven men and one woman (Miriam Delone) serving as editors.

It was not until the 1960s that a few women began to join what had been a totally male organization.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Christine Schultz and Barbara Price held the post of Secretary.  Sarah Hall accepted the position of Administrator in 1976.  Our archival records prior to 1975 are incomplete.  We do know, that there were no female members in 1960, that 11 percent of the membership was female in 1972 (59 out of 529 members), and 15 percent in 1975.  As of October 31, 1996, 1,031 of the 2,731 members (31 percent) are women.

Women began to attend annual meetings in the mid-1960s, but the programs do not reflect their presence.  In November 1967, for example, the annual meeting, held at New York University, consisted of 17 presenters, all male.  Among other, we know that two very distinguished women colleagues were in attendance: There was Eleanor Turo Glueck, the behavioral scientist who worked with her husband, Harvard Law Professor Sheldon Glueck.  (It is interesting to note that Harvard Law School denied Dr. Eleanor Turo Glueck a professorship, according her merely the status of a senior research scholar , attached to the work of her husband.)  The award which our Society bestows annually honors not only Thorsten Sellin and Sheldon Glueck, but also Eleanor Glueck.  And the second distinguished woman present was Dr. Melitta Schmideberg.  Melitta was the daughter of the psychoanalyst Melaine Klein, who was Sigmund Freud's follower -- and later nemesis.  Dr. Schmideberg is best known as the creator of APTO, the Association for the Psychiatric Treatment of Offenders, and its journal, now called the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.  She was responsible for introducing into the NewYork courts the idea for diversion prior to adjudication.  What she would do is talk (some said "con") New York trial judges into releasing offenders into her custody for treatment by any one of her 100-plus close collaborators, especially herself.  A year later the offenders would be in court again and if no new charges had been placed, their cases would be dismissed.  (Incidentally, Melitta and her mother Melanie Klein were feathered in the highly acclaimed off broadway play, "Melanie Klein," just this last season.)  Besides these distinguished senior colleagues, a few young female students were in attendance, including Edith Flynn and a couple of us from the Center for Criminal Law and Criminology (now the Sellin Center) at the University of Pennsylvania.

As I noted, there were now women on the 1967 program.  In 1975 they made up 14 percent, 22 percent in 1980, 26 percent in 1985, 30 percent in 1990, and 37 percent in 1995.  At the 1974 annual meeting, Edith Flynn, as program chair, place "critical criminology" on the agenda for the first time -- and women were participating, thus signaling a parallelity of concern.    Altogether six, 17 percent of all Program Chairs, were women (Freda Adler, 1972; Edith Flynn, 1974; Barbara Price, 1986; Susan White, 1989; Ruth Petersen, 1991; and Marcia Chaiken, 1993) This figure does not include Debbie Curran who will serve in 1997.

The first panel ever held at the ASC on the topic of Women and Crime took place at the 1975 annual meeting in Toronto.  I chaired that panel and Frank Scarpitti was the discussant.  I will never forget that we expected a very small group (maybe just the panelists), but had to be given a room change to accommodate the crowd, crammed even behind the speakers -- and out in the hall leading to the elevators.  Most, I believe, came out of curiosity.  Seven papers were presented: (1) The Female Offender in Washington, D.C. (Susan Katzenelson); Middle Class Delinquency (Joeseph Weiss); Police Perceptions of the Female Offender (Ira Silverman, Manuel Vega and John Accardi); The "Chivalrous" Treatment of the Female Offender in the Arms of the Criminal Justice System: A Review of the literature (Etta Anderson); Attitudes Toward Policewomen on Active Patrol (Ibtihaj Arafat and Kathleen McCaherty); Styles of Doing Time in a Co-Ed Prison: Masculine and Feminine Alternatives (Nanci Koser Wilson); and Are Men and Women Equal in the Operation of the Criminal Justice System in Canada (Jim Ortega.)  Gender papers increased to 6 percent of all papers presented in 1976, 13 percent in 1982, and 15 percent  in 1995.

The ASC honors its own with a number of offices and awards.  By now, 7 percent of the 88 Fellows are women (Ruth Cavan, Sue Titus Reid, Rita Simon, Anne White, Freda Adler, Meda Chesney-Lind).  Five percent of the 37 Sutherland Awards were presented to women (Lee Robins, Joan McCord), 13 percent of the 37 August Vollmer Awards (Eleanor Glueck, Patricia Wald, Joan Petersilla, Rebecca Dobash, Betsy Stanko), 17 percent of the 23 Sellin-Glueck Awards (Inkeri Anttila, Maureen Caine, Josine Junger-Tas, Ulla Bondeson), and 29 percent of the 24 Herbert Block Awards (Freda Adler, Barbara Price, Sarah Hall, Phyllis Jo Baunach, Joan McCord, Ruth Peterson, Meda Chesney-Lind).  The first woman president, Joan McCord, was elected in 1988, followed in 1989 by Joan Petersilia and by myself in 1994, for a total of 5 percent of all presidents.  This does not count our incoming president, Margery Zahn.  Seven women (12 percent of all Vice-Presidents) served as Vice-President.  Barbara Price was the first (1981), followed by Marguerite Warren (1982), Joan Petersilia (1985), Edith Flynn (1986), Margaret Zahn (1990), Meda Chesney Lind (1993), and my teammate Merry Morash (1994).  Since 1965 (as far back as our records go), 4 women (12%) have served as Executive Secretary : Christine Schultz, Barbara Price, Christy Visher and Sally Simpson, and 28 women as Executive Counselors (Freda Adler, 1971 and 1974; Edith Flynn, 1975; Barbara Price, 1978; Marguerite Warren, 1979; Vernetta Young, 1980; Phyllis Jo Baunach, 1981; Marilyn Slivak, 1981; Peggy Giordano, 1982; Joan Petersilia, 1982; Diane Vaughn, 1983; Margaret Zahn, 1983; Susan Martin, 1984; Nicole Rafter, 1985; Phyllis Jo Baunach, 1987; M. Kay Harris, 1998; Kathleen Daly, 1989; Susan Martin, 1990; Martha Myers, 1991; Ruth Peterson, 1992; Christy Visher, 1993; Marjorie Zatz, 1994; Marsha Chaiken, 1995; Lynne Goodstein, 1996; and Carolyn Rebecca Block, 1996).

The major impetus behind the increasing roles of women in ASC is, of course, the Division on Women and Crime.  From the late 1970s, when the Division was only and idea in the minds of a few, to today when it is making a major contribution to the life of the Society, it has served as a major support system for its members.

I tried to piece together the history of the Division, with the help of those few who were around at the time.  There is agreement that it began in Atlanta in 1976, when a small group of women met informally in a hotel room to discuss the creation of a forum to address issues concerning women as professionals in the criminal justice system and as researchers on gender and crime.  (Among those present were P.J. Baunach, Nanci Koser Wilson, Nicole Rafter, Chris Rasche, Barbara Price and Betsy Stanko.)  Out of this get-together grew the Women's Caucus and, eventually , the Division on Women and Crime (DWC).  After many deliberations, a final draft of the DWC Constitution was approved by the ASC Executive Board on November 6, 1982.  An interim Executive Board was elected for a two-year term: P.J. Baunach, Chair; Nanci Koser Wilson, Vice Chair; Anna Kuhl, Secretary; Cathy Spatz-Widom, Christine Rasche and Ira Silverman, Division Executive Counselors.

The first records that we have of the number of persons attending DWC meetings is from the 1982 minutes.  There were 25 attendees.  The first official elections took place in 1984.  The Executive Board was made up of P.J. Baunach, Chair; Nanci Koser Wilson, Vice Chair; Francis Cole, Secretary; and Chris Rasche, Nicole Rafter and Virginia Morris, Division Executive Counselors.  Donna Hale and Martha Myers were asked to serve as Division program chairs for the 1985 meeting.  By 1986 the membership had increased to 165.  Chris Rasche became Vice President and Clarice Feinman was elected Secretary (the Chair is elected by mailed ballot during regular ASC elections).  Merry Morash, Donna Haleland Lynn Goodstein became Division Executive Counselors.  In 1987 the DWC set up its first booth in the exhibit hall.

In 1988 a new journal emerged, Women and Criminal Justice, under the editorship of Clarice Feinman, the then Secretary Treasurer of the Division.  (Donna Hale is the present editor.)  This journal is the only periodical specifically devoted to scholarly research and the criminal justice system as it pertains to women.

Anna Kuhl too over from P.J. Baunach in 1988 as Division Chairperson.  Chris Rasche became Vice Chair and Kathy Daly, Secretary-Treasurer.  Merry Morash completed a major project -- the compilation of syllabi for teaching courses on women and crime, entitled "Women and Crime Curriculum Guide and Bibliography."

Meda Chesney-Lind was elected Chair of DWC in 1989, Sue Manhan, Vice-Chair, and Virginia Morris, Secretary-Treasurer.  Carol Thompson, Angela Brown and P.J. Baunach were elected Division Executive Counselors.  There were by then 220 members.

Kaylene Richards Ekch, Angela Browne and Lynne Goodstein became Division Executive Counselors in 1990, and in 1991 Carole Garrison was elected Chair.  Membership was up to 232 and the treasure had $3,446.00.  When the Chair left for Cambodia in 1992, Lynne Goodstein became Acting Chair.  Chris Rasche was elected Vice-Chair; Imogene Moyer, Secretary-Treasurer; and Coramae Mann, Drew Humphries, Laura Fishman, Division Executive Counselors.  Meda Chesney-Lind's book won the Hindelang Award in that year.

In 1993 Nancy Wonders and Nancy Jurik were elected Division Executive Counselors.  The Division established two awards: Distinguished Scholar and New Scholar.  The second edition of the teaching guide, "Teaching About Women in Criminal Justice and Criminology Courses: A Resource Guide," compiled by Chris Rasche and Lynne Goodstein, appeared in 1994.

In 1994 Lynne Goodstein was elected Chair; Nicole Rafter, Vice-Chair; Joanne Belknap, Secretary-Treasurer; and Chinita Heard, Nancy Jurik and Nancy Wonders, Division Executive Counselors.  The WC presented its first awards.  The Outstanding Scholar award went to Meda Chesney-Lind and Kathleen Daly; and Susan Miller and the recipient of the New Scholar Award.

In 1995 Chris Rasche took over as Chair.  Susan Caulfield and Phoebe Stambaugh were Division Counselors.  Coramae Mann received the Distinguished Scholar Award and Helen Eisenberg, the New Scholar Award.  Sarah Hall was honored at the annual social hour.  The number of members had reached 300.

Chris Rasche remained Chair in 1996.  Evelyn Gilbert took over as Vice-Chair.  Brenda Sims Blackwell and Carolyn Rebecca Block were elected Division Counselors.  The first Division award for the student paper competition was presented to Liena Gurevich of New York University.

A driving force behind the cohesiveness of the DWC is its newsletter. Published throughout the year, it serves to bring members together, remind them to vote (and pay their dues), call attention to DWC-sponsored panels, update members on pending issues, allow those not attending annual meetings to be up to date on events and decisions; it also offers special feature stories.  Nanci Koser Wilson was editor from 1982 to 1986, Chris Rasche, 1987 to 1995, and now the editorship has been transferred to Sue Caulfield, Susan Caringella-MacDonal and Zoann Snyder-Joy.

The Division on Women and Crime serves many functions.  First, it is an organization that specifically deals with women in the criminal justice system, as professionals working in the system, as scholars and researchers, as offenders and as victims.  Second, it has been the driving force behind the steady progress in the participation of women within the ASC.  It is a working group (for example, the Task Forces on Decarceration, headed by Karlene Faith, and on Women in Academia) and it is a social group.  It is a group that networks - and, above all, mentors our student members and new professors.

I'll end on a personal note.  As a youngster, I did not know "who was who" at the meetings.  At a plenary session in 1967, while sitting attentively listening to presentations of Ferracuti, Wolfgang, Martinson, and Mueller, among others, there was a gentle tap on my shoulder, from behind.  A woman asked me: Are you Freda Adler?  I believe you're getting your degree at Penn and that you have three children.  I like the topic you've chosen for your dissertation. . . . "With that, the brief conversation ended.  Once outside of the auditorium, I whispered to a friend, "Who is that woman over in the corner?"  My friend smiled.  "That's Eleanor Glueck."  I'll never forget how embarrassed I was that she had approached me -- and I didn't even know who she was.  I'll also never forget how great I felt that such a senior scholar knew what a grad student was doing.  She was an inspiration and a friend for those short years before she passed away -- I learned how much it means to a young scholar to have support and recognition.  And that is just what friendships and mentoring in the ASC provide (Note: The 1996 Chicago meeting marked the 30th anniversary of my membership in the ASC.  Much of the information in this article comes from written material and notes that I have saved through those years.  If my account has overlooked any significant historical items, please let me know -- for the archives.)

"The Recent History of the American Society of Criminology"
(The Criminologist, November 1985, pp. 1-3, 9)

by Frank Scarpitti

(Frank Scarpitti serves as a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware.  Professor Scarpitti served as the President of the American Society of Criminology from 1980 -1981.  This article was drawn from remarks he delivered at the1984 ASC Annual Meetings)

We have come a long way. Today close to 1,000 of you are attending our annual meeting, choosing from among some 180 panels, seminars and plenary sessions located in a dozen different rooms in a large hotel. You may visit the book exhibit, use the child care facilities, socialize at several receptions, tour various local attractions, and even shed a tear or two in the employment exchange. All of this is now standard fare at our annual meeting. But, it seems like only yesterday that I attended my first ASC meeting, and it was quite different. Seventeen years ago this month, the meeting was held in one room at the N.Y.U. Law School I think because Gerhard Mueller was able to arrange for the use of the room without charge. Instead of the audience's moving from one session to another, the panelists changed while the rest of us remained seated. I'm not sure how many attended the meeting, but I'd be surprised to learn that more than 150 criminologists participated. But, to a young criminologist, it was exciting to hear the papers, see faces behind names I recognized, listen to Marvin Wolfgang give the presidential address, and even sit through the business meeting, including a lengthy treasurer's report. Only yesterday, but since then the American Society of Criminology has undergone profound changes and has emerged as a solid professional society, well run, servicing its members and speaking eloquently for the discipline.

A significant portion of our growth and development has occurred since 1976, a date that I think begins the latest era of our history. That year, for example, saw the establishment of the official office of the Society at the Ohio State University with the first full-time paid employee of the ASC. Also that year, the Society's newsletter, The Criminologist, was begun, first as a quarterly and later as a bi-monthly publication. Just this year, the newsletter expanded once again in order to serve the membership more effectively and efficiently, while our national office goes on providing a Weberian stability and continuity to the associations administration.

While our membership grew throughout the early and mid-1970s, it peaked in 1976-1977, reflecting the growth patterns of criminology and criminal justice academic programs and the expansion of crime control agencies at every level of government. From an unprecedented high of 1,758 members in 1976, we spurted to nearly 2,000 members the following year. But, that was our last hurrah as far as numerical growth was concerned because the following year saw our membership rolls fall back to the 1976 level and decline even further each year through 1980.

Despite the similarities and links between the two associations, tensions remained during this period. One year, a unique runoff election for president of the ASC took place amidst charges that the ACJS was tampering with our elective process. According to some, one candidate was friendlier than the other with rival organization, which instructed it several hundred joint members to vote for the "friendly candidate". The person so defined won the election, but was often denied full cooperation by several members of the Executive Board who felt the ASC had been betrayed. How? It is difficult to say. To my knowledge, no evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the charge of tampering, nor did that particular president relate any differently than other presidents with the ACJS. In all likelihood, the allegation grew out of rumor, fear and disappointment, with no basis in fact.

About this time, new leadership was emerging in the American Society of Criminology that represented a younger generation of criminologists. This new leadership was particularly sensitive to the charge that our society was run by an "old boy' network" that no longer spoke for the membership nor the interests of contemporary criminology. These old boys, as some believed at the time, had acted as though the ASC was their personal fiefdom, dominating its politics and preventing its ascending into true respectability as a professional society. Armed with this definition of the situation, accurate or not, several members of the Executive Board began paying special attention to ways in which the so-called old boys' power could be controlled. The first such opportunity came in December, 1977.

Earlier that year, a grant was awarded by the LEAA Office of Criminal Justice Education and Training to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences to explore the possibility of developing minimum standards for criminology and criminal justice education and issued relating to the implementation of those standards. The wise director of O.C.J.E.T., Price Foster, insisted that the grant be administered by advisory board made up of four members of ACJS and four representatives of ASC. The President of ASC agreed to this arrangement and appointed four members of our society to represent us on what came to be called the Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards.

When this was presented at the November Executive Board Meeting a month later, a chorus of objections rose from many of the Society's officers. Some were opposed to our participation in the project, some were critical of the Board's not being involved in such important appointments, and other complained that a full range of criminological philosophy would not be articulated by our appointees. Incoming president, C. Ray Jeffery, rightly concluded that the issue was larger than mere representation on another committee and called for a special Board meeting in New York City the following month. At that time, after a full day of sometimes heated argument, the Executive Board replaced three of the four original A.S.C. members of the Joint Commission. The new team was made up exclusively of Board members given specific guidelines by the Board as to the limits of their authority and instructed to report back regularly for the group's feedback and further directions.

Why have I spoken of the event in such detail? Because I believe that it marked a turning point in the recent history of our Society. It symbolized both a new assertiveness by the Executive Board and the emergence of new leadership in the organization. Not only on this commission, but elsewhere within the infrastructure of ASC, a concerted effort was now made to bring newer and often younger members into the government of the organization. Although this particular incident did not contribute very much to the establishment of minimum standards for criminology and criminal justice education, it did serve the serendipitous function of helping to transfer power to a new generation of criminologists and opening the Society to a wider range of opinion and philosophy.

I believe that this latter condition was also the consequence of another controversy within our Society a few years ago. When Jim Inciardi became editor of Criminology in 1978, he was struck by the fact that "for years, the works of radical theorists have only infrequently appeared . . . in the traditional criminology journals". Wanting to help rectify that situation, he decided to build a special issue of the journal around two papers presented by Richard Quinney and Austin Turk at our 29th Annual Meeting in November 1977. In addition to the papers by these two distinguished conflict theorists, he solicited two essays critical of their perspectives, and comments on all four papers by two other criminologists, one a Marxist and the other not. Although the reactions of the Marxist criminologist were withdrawn and did not appear, few members of the American Society of Criminology, certainly not Inciardi, expected or were prepared for what followed publication of that issue.

Radical criminologists reacted swiftly and loudly, charging that the special journal issue was unbalanced, designed to "inflame radical criminology" and "a thinly disguised excuse to attack radical and Marxist criminologists." In addition, they charged that the issue failed "to give even minimal presentation to the ideas of radical scholars". According to the editor, publication "led to a library of editorials and correspondence denouncing the papers, the journal, its editor, and its sponsoring society. Letters of praise and condemnation were sent to Criminology's editorial offices from four continents which, in some measure, at least offered some testimony as to how wide the readership of the journal was".

The controversy simmered and sometimes boiled throughout 1979 and was the primary topic of discussion at the business meeting of our annual meeting in November, 1979. Several members of the society canceled their membership, and some radical criminologists who stayed in the association attempted to have a second special issue of the journal devoted to what they defined as a more balanced presentation of their position. Before this request was rejected by a vote of the membership, however, efforts were already being made to attract radical criminologists back to the ASC and to make our society a hospitable place for the exchange of all ideas.

That was the serendipity growing out of this sometimes bitter situation which we experienced in 1979 and 1980. While radical criminology and its proponents were either ignored or denounced within the ASC prior to this incident, society officers, concerned for the future vitality of the organization and for its intellectual integrity, now began making concerted efforts to heal the wounds. And, I venture to say, they have been successful. In the past four years, criminologists identified as radical or Marxist in orientation have participated with renewed vigor in our society, organizing panels, presenting papers, serving on the Executive Board and, in general, making us a truly representative association of criminologists representing different disciplines and various theoretical perspectives.

We have survived these bumps and we have prospered. Although our recent growth in members has now slowed considerably, we have continued to grow in more important ways: in service to our members, in respect among professional societies, in more important ways: in service to our members, in respect among professional societies, in tolerance of various explanations of human behavior and in esteem among social and behavioral scientists everywhere. Today, every major criminologist in the United States is a member of and active participant in the American Society of Criminology.

In a word, we have matured. As a professional society we have come of age, now being seen by others and by ourselves as a representative and established association of scholars and practitioners. Our identity has taken shape and crystallized, allowing even rivalry once felt with seemingly competing groups to wane. We recognize, for example, that we and the ACJS serve somewhat different constituencies and that we may co-exist and cooperated with each other without fear of losing either our membership or our principles. We have learned from our past and we are stronger for it today.

In each of the next three years, however, we grew once again, thanks largely to the herculean efforts of dedicated members of the membership committee and mass mailing of membership invitations permitted by the computerization of our national office. In spite of social, political and economic trends and the disappearance of much federal and state support for criminology and criminal justice research and educational programs, it is worth noting that today's ASC membership is the same as it was in 1976. We must be doing something right.

One thing we're apparently doing right is attracting members to our annual meetings. Attendance doubled between 1976 and 1981, reaching a high of 1,004 in the latter year. Although we haven't exceeded that number yet, we continue to draw in excess of 50 percent of our membership to our annual conventions.

By the late 70s, our membership had not only increased dramatically by was also changing in nature and interests. Over half had joined since 1975, some 70 percent were under 45 years of age and over one-fifth were female. With newer, younger and more heterogeneous members, it was obvious that the 1980s would be a period of vitality and excitement for the Society. Indeed, it stated off that way, with the first divisions or sections of the ASC, on Women and Crime and International Criminology, created in 1981. And, earlier this year, we accepted an invitation to become an affiliate member of the Consortium of Social Science Associations.

Of course, one could not expect to experience such growth without a few bumps along the way. By the late 1970s, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences was also expanding rapidly and being seen as a competitor by some members of the ASC leadership. Although the ACJS appealed to a somewhat different constituency, it was feared that their aggressive recruitment of members would interfere with what some saw as the manifest destiny of the ASC. To make matters even worse, this upstart organization even proposed that criminology and criminal justice academic programs be accredited, and it wanted to do the accrediting. To many of us thought this was clearly unacceptable because we did not believe that accreditation was necessary for the integrity of the discipline and we feared that it was being used by an apparent rival to attain political leverage. Although we know that there is ample room for both professional associations to thrive, at the time we felt challenged and often reacted defensively.

In addition to some 300 overlapping members between the two associations, the differences between the ASC and the ACJS continued to blur in the late 70s and 1980s. Originally, as association of police educators and then criminal justice teachers primarily from junior and four year colleges, ACJS has moved steadily toward an emphasis on research scholarship and traditional discipline concerns. Our society, on the other hand, while continuing to appeal to theorists and researchers of crime, has increasingly broadened its concerns to include issues related to pedagogy and the practical applications of criminological knowledge. In fact, the most recent data available indicates that 40 percent of our members are non-academics, applied criminologists of one type or another. While we have always been an inter-disciplinary society, in recent years that has come to mean more than just academic types from varying disciplines. More than ever, it now means a society concerned with the professional interests of teachers, researchers and practitioners, each with unique problems and concerns but each benefiting from interaction and association with the other.

The growth of the ASC is not surprising given the social and political even of the 60s and 70s. It is somewhat ironic, though, that our strength and esteem have continued to expand in the 1980s, a time when national conditions and priorities are markedly different and when the social sciences in general are losing both support and respect. The reasons for our current healthy status probably have to do with such things as good management, fairness, providing service,, and publishing a high quality journal, all of which help us continue to attract and hold those members of the criminological community engaged in the most important scientific work and its application. As long as we remain a professional association supporting the very best scholarship and the free exchange of ideas, the American Society of Criminology will continue to prosper and achieve even greater respect.