TITLE: NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996. AUTHOR: National Institute of Justice SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Series: NIJ Annual Report to Congress Published: August 1997 167 pages 320,798 bytes Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 7th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice John C. Dwyer Acting Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Justice Information Center World Wide Web Site http://www.ncjrs.org NCJ 166585 ------------------------------------ Table of Contents Message from the Director Introduction Highlights of the Year Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues Drugs and Crime: Criminal Justice Responses Crime Control and Prevention: Focus on the Community Adjudication and Corrections: Trends and Emerging Concepts Science and Technology: Creating New Tools ------------------------------------ Message from the Director This Annual Report from the National Institute of Justice covers a year in which crime rates continued to drop. Many of the Nation's largest cities, which have struggled with high levels of crime for so long, are leading the decline. These major reductions in crime are hopeful signs. Our optimism is tempered, however, by knowledge that crime rates are still high and have historically risen and fallen. This challenges us to examine closely the causes for the improving crime picture and the factors that may play a significant role in whether these declines are likely to be sustained. This effort requires the talents and skills of many. The National Institute of Justice, for its part, offers the tools of research, evaluation, and technology development to expand knowledge and understanding of how public policies can control crime and achieve justice. This report reviews how the Institute applied these tools in 1996, a year in which the Institute's research portfolio increased multifold, spurred in large part by creative collaborations with partners at the Federal, State, and local level. The 1994 Crime Act and the partnerships NIJ has forged with the offices within the Department of Justice that administer the programs under the Act continued to provide opportunities for maximizing the learning process about the innovations now under way. These innovations reflect an exciting trend--the growing commitment to a community-based, problem-solving approach to a safer society. These learning partnerships are being emulated at the local level through another promising new effort-- locally initiated research partnerships between criminal justice agencies and researchers based in nearby universities or research organizations. With support from NIJ, these ventures focus on local needs and priorities. A primary goal in constructing these efforts is the establishment of long-term relationships in which practitioners and researchers routinely and systematically integrate their knowledge and skills to improve their community's safety and security. Partnerships with other Federal agencies are also having a major impact in other areas. Last year, for example, saw a burgeoning of NIJ research and development, supported in part by collaboration with the Department of Defense and a set-aside of 1 percent of the policing funds in the 1994 Crime Act, to realize the potential of advanced technology for criminal justice. Encouraging strides were made toward developing technologies for detecting concealed weapons. Science moved closer to delivering portable, affordable DNA evidence analysis capabilities to make this tool more widely available to exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty. Communicating the new and compelling knowledge and insights these efforts are yielding has been at the top of NIJ's agenda for several years. Through conferences, workshops, a wide variety of publications, our Web site, and other outreach efforts, we strive to improve services and relationships with our colleagues in criminal justice practice and research. The National Institute of Justice benefits from the perspective and insights of our colleagues throughout the country and the world. We welcome your comments about the programs highlighted here. Jeremy Travis Director ------------------------------ Introduction The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research and development arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. It is charged with developing knowledge that will inform policies to control crime, enhance public safety, and improve the administration of justice. Congress created NIJ as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, as amended, and gave the Institute a wide-ranging mandate to do the following: o Conduct and sponsor basic and applied research into the causes and prevention of crime. o Sponsor evaluations of major Federal initiatives. o Support research and demonstrations to develop new approaches, techniques, systems, and equipment to improve law enforcement and the administration of justice. o Develop new technologies to deter crime and enhance criminal justice operations. o Make recommendations to Federal, State, and local governments. o Conduct conferences and workshops for criminal justice policymakers and professionals. o Collect and disseminate both domestic and international criminal justice information obtained by the Institute or other Federal agencies. This report covers a year in which NIJ continued the accelerated pace of activity set in motion by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce-ment Act of 1994 (the 1994 Crime Act) and by the Institute's growing partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations whose missions relate to crime and justice. In fiscal year 1996, NIJ's appropriation from Congress totaled $30 million. This core budget was augmented by a $30 million transfer for technology research and development (which included $20 million in Crime Act funds and $10 million for a counterterrorism program). Another $39 million was transferred to NIJ through partnerships with other Federal agencies--principally the Justice Department agencies that administer Crime Act programs--to conduct research and evaluations of innovations fostered by the Act and other significant programs. These funds supported the award of 210 grants related to the Crime Act and 113 projects awarded from NIJ's base appropriations for extramural research. NIJ staff researchers were involved in an additional 40 intramural studies. Figure 1 shows how NIJ's total expenditures of $99 million in 1996 were allocated across its major program areas. Figure 2 shows NIJ's funding sources. This report describes how in 1996 the Institute carried out its mission to provide knowledge to control crime and achieve justice. The introduction provides a brief overview of the year's accomplishments. The remaining chapters discuss both new and continuing initiatives in NIJ's portfolio of research and evaluation investments. The appendixes list awards made in fiscal year 1996, recent NIJ publications, and partnerships. ------------------------------ Organization of NIJ The National Institute of Justice is made up of the Office of the Director and three major program offices, each with specific missions and functions but all closely integrated in overall purpose. The Office of the Director (OD) sets Institute policies and objectives, supervises the budget, and directs management and administrative activities. The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) develops, conducts, and directs a comprehensive portfolio of research and evaluations primarily through two integrated vehicles: the extramural and intramural programs. The majority of NIJ funds are awarded for extramural projects conducted by researchers and scientists in academia and in research organizations throughout the country. Many of these projects involve criminal justice practitioners working in collaboration with researchers on inquiries that address both tactical and strategic issues facing the criminal justice system. All funds are awarded through a process of competitive solicitation and external peer review. Intramural projects are carried out by NIJ staff and subjected to the same rigorous peer review as other research projects. Substantive areas of investigation are divided broadly into (1) crime control, which includes drug abuse, gangs, policing, targeted and community crime control and prevention strategies; and (2) criminal justice and criminal behavior, which includes violence, victims, corrections, prosecution, defense, and courts. In 1996 ORE established two centers to carry out key initiatives: the Crime Mapping Research Center, which engages in research and development on computerized systems to analyze crime and related data mapped by geographic location and time; and the Drug Testing Research Center, which oversees the new Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program and supports drug-related research and demonstration projects. Both of these centers and their work are highlighted in this report, as are findings from ORE-sponsored studies, both extramural and intramural. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) provides Federal, State, and local law enforcement and corrections agencies with access to the best technologies available and supports development or adaptation of advanced technologies that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The science and technology program involves work in six focus areas: forensic sciences, less-than-lethal technology, counterterrorism, detection technology, general science and technology, and community-oriented policing technologies. To bring technology closer to agencies around the country, OST operates a system composed of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center with its four regional centers, a Border Research and Technology Center, and two specialized offices (the Office of Law Enforcement Standards and the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization). Their work and the results of OST research and development are reviewed in this report. The Office of Development and Dissemination (ODD) makes information on research and innovation available to the field in several ways: by conducting studies of pressing operational issues facing criminal justice practitioners; by seeking out and sharing information on promising local initiatives and emerging ideas from around the country; by implementing demonstrations of innovative approaches to controlling crime; by providing opportunities for professionals in criminal justice to meet and exchange information and experience; and by communicating research-based knowledge to policymakers, legislators, elected officials, and professionals in criminal justice and related fields through print and electronic media. ------------------------------ Highlights of the Year At the conclusion of 1996, NIJ looked back on a year of intense activity and growing acceptance of the value of research in developing the Nation's capacity to understand crime, to evaluate society's responses to it, and to share the knowledge gained with individuals and agencies around the country. A heartening decrease in violent crime and a modest decrease in property crime stimulated greater attention to the operations of the criminal justice system and how changing practices may affect crime rates and public confidence in law enforcement. A shift in perspective was evident as all parts of the system moved toward greater recognition of the essential role of the community in the work of safeguarding citizens from crime, reducing disorder, and ensuring that justice is done-- and is seen as being done. Significant advances of the year, described in more detail in the following chapters, are as follows: o The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods--a collaborative effort supported by NIJ and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation--reached several milestones in data collection. The effort involved a massive longitudinal study in which Harvard researchers and their collaborators enrolled and interviewed 7,000 children, youths, and their caregivers. Researchers will track these groups of participants for the next 5-7 years, analyzing their development to gain insights into the family and neighborhood factors that encourage prosocial or antisocial behavior. Researchers also completed a pilot study of the exposure of children and youth to violence and began an examination of neighborhood characteristics and their impact on individual development. The researchers also interviewed nearly 3,000 neighborhood experts and observed the physical condition of 80 neighborhoods, videotaping more than 27,000 block faces. o The Institute's Drug Use Forecasting Program (DUF) celebrated its 10th year of providing data from quarterly surveys and drug screening of arrestees. The program, which began operation in 8 cities in 1986, had expanded to 23 cities by 1996. Research projects using DUF data provided new insights into gun use by those arrested and new data on the extent of methamphetamine use in major cities. To broaden the usefulness of such data, NIJ took steps in 1996 to reengineer the program into a research platform that can enhance national understanding of drug use trends. Proposed plans for the program, renamed the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, call for adding new sites to the 23 current sites in the coming year and eventually expanding to all cities with populations greater than 200,000. A rotating supplemental data collection program in each site (called Outreach) will ensure that ADAM moves beyond the central cities to monitor trends in suburban, rural, and Native American jurisdictions, thus shedding light on both the leading and trailing edges of drug abuse trends. o A new Crime Mapping Research Center established last year will be in the forefront of applying advanced geographic information systems (GIS) to link criminal incident data to demographic and neighborhood information in order to pinpoint crime hotspots and guide deployment of law enforcement resources. Headquartered at NIJ, the Mapping Center is linked to a satellite facility at the NIJ-funded National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Rocky Mountain Region, located within the University of Denver's Research Institute. o NIJ continued building the wide-ranging social science research and evaluation agendas related to community policing, violence against women, sentencing and corrections, and drug courts prompted by the 1994 Crime Act. More than $19.9 million in Crime Act funds were awarded for research last year, and 14 new solicitations were issued in these areas. o Development of technologies to detect concealed weapons moved at a faster than anticipated pace last year. Several different technologies are now being tested. Scholar James Q. Wilson noted the need for such technology in a 1994 New York Times article. After President Clinton read the article, he directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to explore the technology. NIJ has responded with several projects, some funded with Crime Act resources, others under a joint DOJ-Defense Department technology partnership established by a Memorandum of Understanding for the sharing and development of dual-use technologies applicable to military and law enforcement operations. Recent progress has provided technologies meeting some of the program goals. More robust capabilities are expected in 2 to 3 years. o A new series of lectures, "Perspectives on Crime and Justice," brought widely respected researchers to Washington, D.C., under the auspices of NIJ and with funding support from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Policymakers, practitioners, and legislators participated in the candid discussion of critical issues in crime policy. o The NIJ Director chaired the Department of Justice (DOJ) Research Council, created in 1995 by Attorney General Janet Reno to share information on research agendas and capabilities throughout DOJ; to coordinate research activities where appropriate; to identify gaps in DOJ research activities; and to link research with policy development at the Department. (A separate DOJ Technology Policy Council, chaired by the Deputy Attorney General with NIJ as executive agent, addresses Federal law enforcement agency research and development activities in this area.) o The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and NIJ collaborated in issuing a solicitation for proposals to create and apply innovative technology to community policing efforts. The solicitation generated more than 100 proposals, requesting a total of $47.2 million, from public-private partnerships. Peer review panels and staff reviewed the proposals and recommended 18 to receive grants with the available $6 million in funding. o The section of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act entitled "Technology Assistance" specified that 1 percent of the Crime Act funds for policing be reserved in each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998 for use by the National Institute of Justice in assisting local units of government to identify, select, develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement. That funding amounted to $20 million in 1996. NIJ received 467 proposals, totaling $234 million; 60 grants were made with the available $20 million. Specific project areas include concealed weapons detection, information technologies, forensics, crime mapping technologies, surveillance and monitoring, "smart gun" development and demonstration, and studies of the behavioral and organizational impact of technology research. o In January 1996, NIJ became a partner in a unique interagency consortium involving nine Federal offices in an initiative focusing on the abuse of children and the elderly, partner violence, sexual violence, and perpetrators and victims of multiple episodes of family violence. The consortium is cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and coordinated by NIH's Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.[1] The first interdepartmental and trans-NIH research funding program on violence, it is intended to bring together perspectives of the participating agencies, which include criminaljustice, mental health, public health and prevention, alcohol and drug abuse, and child development perspectives, to advance knowledge of family violence and violence against women. The interagency nature of the effort produced a synergy, attracting new and important applications that combined populations at risk, outcomes, programs, and researchers in a way not possible in a single-organization solicitation for proposals. The sponsoring organizations set aside $5.2 million over 3 years to conduct research on the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of family violence. Response to the announcement of funds was overwhelming; 121 applications were received; 18 scored in the top rating category; and 10 projects were funded. o In another collaboration, NIJ partnered with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs within the U.S. Department of State to build an information-sharing network linking the 14 institutes throughout the world, including NIJ, that are affiliated with the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme. UNOJUST (the United Nations Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse), which NIJ hosts, completed its phase-one implementation with the establishment of seven new Internet servers providing a variety of criminal justice resources. The Fifth United Nations Crime Commission Meeting in Vienna, Austria, in May 1996 adopted a resolution recommending UNOJUST as a model for its 40 member states. ------------------------------ Strategic Challenges Building on these accomplishments, NIJ in 1996 developed a blueprint for research, evaluation, and development to help set the foundation for knowledge that will inform criminal justice policy in the next century. NIJ is focusing its activities around five strategic challenges: rethinking justice, breaking the cycle, understanding the nexus, creating the tools, and expanding horizons. Rethinking Justice NIJ is committed to finding new ways to operate a justice system that results in fair, efficient, and effective outcomes for society. Fiscal year 1996 brought several opportunities to rethink how to respond to crime and achieve justice. The community-based approach to law enforcement, which has gained a strong foothold in policing, is now gaining ground in other areas of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors, for example, have begun reaching out to their communities to identify priorities and problems rather than relying on the more traditional case-based approach. Putting prosecutors in closer contact with the streets and the citizens who are touched directly by crime helps prosecutors devise new strategies for achieving justice that make the law more effective in minimizing crime and fear in neighborhoods. In many cities--including Austin, Boston, Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Portland (Oregon), and Washington, D.C.-- prosecutors are finding new ways to address serious crimes, family violence, drug abuse, and public disorder offenses that diminish the quality of neighborhood life. While no two cities' community prosecution efforts are exactly alike, they all share a problem-solving approach that relies on community outreach and new partnerships between prosecutors, police, and other municipal agencies. A natural outgrowth of the community-based response to controlling crime is a model of justice that brings the victim and community into the adjudication and corrections process. Called restorative justice, this model offers an alternative to the retributive model and encourages the active participation of victims and offenders in designing sanctions, such as restitution and community service, that require the offender to contribute to repairing the damage sustained by the victim and the community. A survey of policymakers and practitioners found that the restorative justice approach appears to produce greater satisfaction for victims and help offenders gain greater consciousness of the impact of their crimes.[2] In 1996 NIJ sponsored visiting fellowships in the areas of community prosecution and restorative justice and, with the Office for Victims of Crime, sponsored a conference for researchers, professionals, and victims services providers that featured discussion of the practical applications of the restorative justice model. NIJ also cosponsored the Office of Justice Programs conference on "Communities, Crime and Justice," which explored the role communities play in responding to crime and creating partnerships with criminal justice system agencies. Understanding the Nexus NIJ seeks to expand understanding of the link between crime and other social concerns, such as drugs, gangs, communities, and economic development. NIJ took steps last year to improve its Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system, which has been an integral part of the drug epidemiology field for more than a decade. The improved effort, which is proposed to be operational by 2001, will be called the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program and proposes to expand to a dozen cities and some suburban and rural areas and eventually to reach into all large cities contingent on the availability of funds. The data and its analysis will enhance understanding of the connection between crime and gun markets, gang migration, and other crime- and drug-related factors in the local jurisdictions. The expanded effort will further enhance the usefulness of the data for local policymaking. For example, DUF data recently revealed regional patterns in the use of methamphetamine in several western cities, including San Diego, Phoenix, Portland, and San Jose.[3] Such patterns signal law enforcement and treatment providers to develop and implement strategies to respond to changes in local drug use. The more comprehensive information provided by ADAM will inform both national and local drug policies. Deeper understanding of the links between sanctions and future criminal activity is critical for both safety and effective resource management. Which types of sanctions work best with which types of offenders? What impacts do sentencing guidelines and truth-in-sentencing policies have on offenders and corrections administration? The connections between various sanctions, combinations of sanctions, and the effects on recidivism rates are just beginning to emerge. To explore these relationships in more depth, NIJ in conjunction with the OJP Corrections Program Office awarded five grants in 1996 for research and evaluation of boot camps as well as grants to examine the changes that jails and prisons must make when new sentencing directives are put in place. Other projects examining the nexus between crime and social conditions include the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighbor-hoods, discussed earlier, which is sorting out how individual characteristics, family relationships, neighborhood cohesion, and other factors affect crime and neighborhood stability over time. Still other NIJ-supported studies have examined the relationship of firearms and crime. In a national survey of private ownership of firearms, NIJ-supported researchers found that about one-quarter of American adults own a firearm and about three-quarters of these persons keep the weapon for self-defense.[4] In another study involving arrestees, researchers found that more than 14 percent of arrestees carry a gun all or most of the time; that percentage rises to 20 percent for juvenile males and 31 percent for gang members.[5] With homicide rates declining in some, but not all, American communities, efforts are under way to explore the complicated links between homicide and local social conditions. NIJ staff in 1996 completed an intramural project to examine homicide trends in eight cities.[6] Specific local factors such as demographics, economic conditions, drug use, gun availability, gang activity, and criminal justice system response patterns were organized into three different categories: environment, situations, and system response. The project's findings indicate that homicide trends are affected by local factors, such as the local crack cocaine market, and that the homicide rate increases with higher availability and lethality of guns. Homicide trends may also be related to the quantity and quality of emergency medical services and the extent to which local gangs are involved in drug dealing. The findings reveal strong local support for multijurisdictional task forces and reinforce other studies showing that community-based approaches are working and offer the most promise. Breaking the Cycle NIJ is developing a select group of research demonstration projects that are designed to rigorously test new interventions that hold promise for significantly reducing crime. In 1996, NIJ expanded its involvement in testing new ways to reduce drug abuse and related criminal behavior. More than half of all persons brought into the criminal justice system have substance abuse problems, and many of these people are nonviolent offenders who repeatedly cycle through the system without being held accountable for changing their behavior. Such offenders face little certainty of punishment and represent a long-term, recurring problem for both the criminal justice system and society. Research and evaluation demonstrate that "drug courts" or "treatment courts" can reduce both drug abuse and drug-related crime. Recent research suggests that offenders sentenced to mandatory drug treatment do as well as offenders who voluntarily enter treatment both in completing the treatment program and in short-term recidivism.[7] To better understand the relationship between drug abuse and court-ordered treatment, NIJ in 1996 began three research demonstration projects, two of which involve testing the efficacy of treatment courts. In collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ oversaw implementation of a treatment court in Washington, D.C., and is currently evaluating this effort, which randomly assigns defendants to intensive out-patient drug treatment, a graduated sanctions program, or a control group that enters the standard court docket. Defendants in the treatment and graduated sanctions program are tested for drug use at least twice a week. While it is too early to draw conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the program, preliminary findings indicate that defendants assigned to either the treatment or the sanctions program were significantly more likely to test clean in the month before sentencing than were those who entered the standard court docket. In another joint effort--this one with the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy--NIJ is cosponsoring a demonstration program in Jackson County (Birmingham), Alabama, to test the hypothesis that if all drug abusers who are arrested are identified and required to remain drug-free and receive treatment as needed, drug abuse and criminal behavior will decrease. The demonstration begins in the summer of 1997; both a process and impact evaluation will take place over the next several years. Creating the Tools NIJ is helping practitioners, legislators, and policymakers devise improved crime control strategies. In New Orleans, for example, NIJ supports a diversion program for drug-involved offenders that uses hair analysis to test first-time, nonviolent drug offenders who are charged with simple possession. The study indicates that offenders who participate in hair analysis testing are less likely to evade detection.[8] In addition, clients who complete the program appear to have significantly lower rearrest rates than those who do not complete the program (although the researchers could not discern what caused the lower rearrest rate--personal motivation, the program alone, or both). In addition to using programmatic tools, NIJ develops tangible products and services to help criminal justice professionals do their jobs better. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) and its regional centers are the heart of NIJ's technology support and communication efforts. Established in fiscal year 1995, the centers became fully operational during fiscal year 1996. Each center specializes in a different aspect of technology; all serve as a conduit for learning practitioner needs, transmitting responsive technology information, and providing hands-on support and technical assistance to local agencies. Also during 1996, NIJ's Office of Science and Technology initiated major efforts to assist 52 State and local crime laboratories upgrading their equipment and developing simpler, quicker, and more portable methods of DNA testing. Funds for the program were made available under the Crime Act. NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center links practitioners, social science researchers, and software engineers to enhance efforts to track crime across time and space, especially distinct geographic areas such as neighborhoods, blocks, or specific locations. Using sophisticated geographic information systems software, mapping reveals patterns in the time and location of criminal incidents and pinpoints hot spots, such as street drug markets. Such information, when coupled with other data, helps agencies understand crime patterns and their changes in the context of social conditions, such as income distribution, health care, land use patterns, transportation systems, and demographic patterns. Analysis of the data can guide law enforcement problem-solving efforts. Another tool developed and tested during the year took place under NIJ's intramural research program. NIJ researchers and Florida Department of Corrections researchers and administrators collaborated to create a system to help corrections personnel classify individuals by their likelihood to "fail" during probation. The specifics of the mathematical model for the system apply to Florida's policies and probationers, but the methods developed appear to be appropriate to addressing the practical issues of risk assessment in other jurisdictions and program settings. Another intramural project used hair analysis as a tool for broadening understanding of the drugs-crime link and sought strategies to curtail illegal drug use in prisons. An NIJ intramural project with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections found that just under 10 percent of inmates tested positive for drugs while incarcerated. An analysis revealed that marijuana was more likely to be used by younger inmates, cocaine and heroin by older inmates, and that black and white inmates used drugs at about the same rate. These findings will be used to help prison administrators devise strategies to curtail drug use in prisons. Expanding Horizons Looking beyond traditional geographic, cultural, and intellectual boundaries is an important part of developing a fuller understanding of crime and justice issues. A manifestation of this commitment is seen in NIJ's recent development of stronger ties with the international criminal justice research community. Recently, the Institute formalized its commitment to that community by planning an NIJ International Center to be established in 1997 and dedicated to supporting programs and projects related to international criminal justice research and sharing knowledge about crime problems and efforts to solve them. The center will provide a focus for NIJ's international role as a member of the family of research institutes connected with the Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Division of the United Nations. Working in partnership with foundations and related Federal agencies is another way NIJ expands its horizons through interdisciplinary work and develops new research approaches through planning and discussion with other scientists and professionals. In addition to the extensive partnerships NIJ has forged with the Crime Act offices, NIJ's partners during 1996 included public health research agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health; social services agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development; and agencies dedicated to controlling and reducing drug abuse, such as the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. (A list of the Institute's partners can be found in Appendix C.) ------------------------------ The 1994 Crime Act In 1996, NIJ's research portfolio stemming from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) continued to grow. One of the most distinctive aspects of this legislation is that it promotes innovative approaches to reducing crime. It does so by providing support to the States and local jurisdictions for programs in four areas: community policing, violence against women, corrections and sentencing, and drug courts. In each area, the Crime Act fosters new ways to tackle old problems. Immediately after the Act became law, NIJ, with support from congressional appropriators and in partnership with the Department of Justice agencies administering these programs--the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Violence Against Women Grants Office, the Corrections Program Office, and the Drug Courts Program Office--began to develop strategies for conducting the research and evaluations that are essential to finding out whether and to what extent these innovations are working. The strategies, developed in 1995, continued as the basis for solicitations (requests for proposals) issued by NIJ to conduct research in fiscal year 1996. In response to the 14 solicitations issued, almost 1,000 proposals were received; 210 awards were made for Crime Act-related research in fiscal year 1996--more than a threefold increase over the previous year's 65. (See Figure 3, "NIJ Crime Act Expenditures.") For each of the four major areas, NIJ's strategy involves a three-tiered approach: national evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the program, evaluations of selected local implementations, and research based on partnerships between practitioners and researchers. This last approach is intended to build an infrastructure for ongoing practitioner-researcher collaboration that supports development of knowledge at the local level. In preparation is a full report of research and evaluation conducted by NIJ under the 1994 Crime Act: Criminal Justice Research under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996: the Role of the National Institute of Justice will be published in 1997.[9] Policing Studies sponsored in 1996 promise to shed light on the factors that can make for success in community policing, among them police- community collaboration, training, and the quality of investigations. A nationwide update of the strategic and tactical changes taking place in policing was begun and additional locally initiated partnership studies were funded. In 1996, NIJ's Crime Act-related initiatives in science and technology were launched. They included a program of technology research and development to support new community policing strategies and a major research and development program to enhance State and local law enforcement technology capabilities. To deal with the consequences of stress for law enforcement personnel and their families, NIJ is testing innovative practices, providing training, and sponsoring research. The issues of police integrity and police use of force are being addressed through research. Sentencing and Corrections The violent offender incarceration and truth- in-sentencing provisions of the Crime Act enable the States to expand their capacity to incarcerate violent offenders with more certainty and to impose longer and more definite sentences. Those provisions will affect not only corrections, but other components of the justice system as well. NIJ's national evaluation, begun in 1996, will determine what those changes are--how Title II of the Act is affecting prosecutorial strategies, judicial policies, and corrections policies and practices. Locally based research, in which practitioners and researchers form partnerships, is focusing on topics relevant to particular jurisdictions. The effect of the Crime Act's provision of residential substance abuse treatment for State prisoners is also being studied, both at the national level and in selected assessments of local programs. Violence Against Women The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is designed to improve the response of police, prosecutors, and service providers to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, makes this possible through grants to the States and local governments for programs in seven areas that relate to law enforcement, prosecution, and victims services. NIJ's study of progress and accomplishments of the VAWA grants program in the first year of the Crime Act was completed in 1996. Study of the impact of this program in the second year, including detailed examinations of several selected sites and of specific purpose areas identified by the Crime Act, will begin in 1997. The congressionally mandated studies of violence against women were completed in 1996 under NIJ sponsorship. (A complete list can be found in "Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues.") Among the five was development of an agenda for future research, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report became the basis for a proposal to Congress by NIJ, in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for a major interdisciplinary research initiative reflecting the NAS priorities. Drug Courts Drug courts exemplify a successful innovation for dealing with drug-involved nonviolent offenders; the Crime Act provides funding to support these specially designed court calendars or dockets, which have been established in more than 100 jurisdictions nationwide. These programs combine judicial supervision with drug testing, treatment, and aftercare services. During 1996, the Drug Court Program Office collaborated with NIJ to provide funding to evaluate the impact of four drug courts that were established before the Crime Act and received funding under the Act to enhance their operations. Additional evaluation activities are anticipated in 1997. ------------------------------ Sharing Research-Based Knowledge One of NIJ's primary missions is timely and broad dissemination of information that results from sound research methods so that public debate and policy are informed by empirical knowledge. To reach specific audiences for this kind of information--policymakers, practitioners, researchers, students, and concerned citizens--NIJ has an extensive print and electronic publishing program. (See "Getting the Word Out," for the highlights of the program.) NIJ research is frequently published in professional and scholarly journals--54 articles last year. Reaching Policymakers As part of its efforts to enhance the criminal justice policymaking process, NIJ has hosted seminars and lectures in Washington, D.C., and continued to support research that identifies and responds to key legislative concerns. In 1996, for example, NIJ published and disseminated to State legislators four Research in Action reports pulling together what is known about critical issues in adult and juvenile sentencing reforms.[10] Last year, NIJ inaugurated a new lecture series, Perspectives on Crime and Justice, that brought distinguished researchers to Washington, D.C., for candid, wide-ranging discussions on contemporary issues relating to crime and justice. Noted scholars discussed topics such as the role of the Federal Government in criminal justice research, Federal drug policy, child victims, the public legitimacy of crime policy, and crime and the media, in front of large audiences that included members of Congress and their staff members, other Federal officials, scholars, State and local government leaders, and practitioners. (See "Perspectives on Crime and Justice.") Responding to a request by Oregon State Senator Neil Bryant, NIJ conducted a sentencing policy seminar for members of the Oregon legislature. For this effort, NIJ organized a team of experts to present research findings on sentencing reform measures and to engage in a discussion on how legislative decisions affect public safety. Reaching Practitioners NIJ surveys the world of practice and policy to determine critical issues and important innovations at the local level. These become the subject of practical handbooks and bulletins, including the Issues and Practices report series and Program Focus bulletins. Last year's topics covered such widely different issues as child abuse, joint prison-private sector work opportunities, and community courts. NIJ, through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, initiated the Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) as a gateway--via the Internet and the World Wide Web--to information on new technologies, equipment, and other products and services available to the law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice communities. NIJ's Research in Action Partnerships awarded grants to consortiums of national associations (Search Group, Inc.; National Conference of State Courts; Justice Research Statistics Association; National Conference of State Legislators; American Bar Association) to develop ways to disseminate criminal justice research findings to their memberships using electronic communications. New and creative approaches are being developed, implemented, and assessed by these organizations to better inform their memberships about using NIJ and other research results. NIJ also sponsored its third annual conference on Technology Solutions for Public Safety which was held in Los Angeles, California; and conducted five regional conferences on community-oriented policing technologies that took place in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego, California; Charleston, South Carolina; and Louisville, Kentucky. In addition, NIJ hosted a conference that explored the implications of DNA for the future of criminal justice. At the conference, practitioners, forensic scientists, and policymakers shared information about how emerging new technologies can rapidly and cost effectively improve DNA testing to meet the increasing demands of public and private DNA testing laboratories. (See "NIJ-Sponsored Conferences.") Reaching Researchers Through its ongoing Research in Progress seminar series, NIJ also provides opportunities for criminal justice policymakers and practitioners to meet with researchers in various disciplines to discuss how the research they are doing can help address key criminal justice problems. Presentations have covered such topics as domestic violence and substance abuse, adolescent firearms violence, and the prevalence of stalking. The Research in Progress series is available on videotape; last year, 2,563 were sold. In an effort to make data from the research projects it supports publicly available and easily accessible to support new investigations, NIJ has developed the Data Resources Program. Under the program, NIJ collects, preserves, and disseminates electronic research data for analysis by other researchers. More than 200 data sets have been deposited by NIJ with the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan. Much of the data can be downloaded from the Internet. NIJ also issues awards up to $25,000 for researchers to perform secondary analyses of archived data to encourage the efficient and effective use of data collected at public expense. This program has been heavily used and has produced numerous important publications. NIJ reached a milestone in 1996 in its efforts to integrate and synthesize knowledge with the publication of Volume 20 of Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. The Crime and Justice series, published by the University of Chicago Press, has become an authoritative reference source that offers succinct essays summarizing important theoretical knowledge, practical applications, and key trends in research and development. Essays in Volume 20 focus on such topics as academic performance and delinquency, intermediate sanctions, drug use trends in the United States, integration of criminology theories, and the historical context for several theories of punishment. Reaching the International Community Reaching American practitioners is not enough. NIJ is mandated by Congress to disseminate criminal justice information both nationally and internationally. In collaboration with the State Department, NIJ jointly sponsored a workshop on "Policing in Emerging Democracies." The workshop examined ways to help developing nations and governments meet their swiftly evolving law enforcement challenges and foster democratic policing worldwide. NIJ also participated in a conference on police ethics held in Strasbourg, France, that was hosted by the Council of Europe. This conference led to the participation of international delegates from seven nations at the National Symposium on Police Integrity held in Washington, D.C., which was jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Other international criminal justice conferences and workshops have taken NIJ officials to Barbados, Germany, Israel, and Korea. Some of NIJ's international efforts focus on hosting research fellows who study international and "transnational" criminal justice issues. Last year, the U.S. Information Agency accredited NIJ as a host institution for visiting scientists and practitioners from the former Soviet Union and other countries. An NIJ Fellow, a Ukrainian criminal justice official, continued the development of the Rule of Law online clearinghouse focusing on the information needs of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Other NIJ Visiting Fellows with specialties in international issues included William Burnham, a retired United Nations official who is evaluating and analyzing global crime trends; William McDonald, a Georgetown University professor who has researched issues associated with immigration and related criminal behavior; and Caroline Nicholl, a high-ranking British law enforcement official and Harkness Fellow who studied American community policing practices. International Clearinghouse The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a national and international criminal justice information clearinghouse, responds to queries about criminal justice matters from its print and electronic library of more than 140,000 documents. Since its creation by NIJ 26 years ago, NCJRS has become an indispensable resource for researchers, criminal justice professionals, policymakers, academics, and students from around the globe. Last year, NCJRS distributed 2.6 million documents. More than 64,471 people requested publications. NCJRS expanded its international reach several years ago by going "online," allowing users linked through the Internet to download documents onto their personal computers and use special software (provided free of charge) to view or print documents exactly as they appear in the conventionally published version. NCJRS pathways help customers find documents located in other countries and allow them to access repositories all over the world. During fiscal year 1996, NIJ published 80 reports and bulletins (a complete list is in Appendix B), which can be accessed electronically from the Justice Information Center (JIC) home page on the World Wide Web. The JIC site provides all the clearinghouse services of NCJRS in a rapid and efficient electronic format. Publications can be ordered and downloaded online, saving on printing and distribution costs. Users can also download NIJ's Research Prospectus, Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice, and all NIJ research solicitations. (See "NIJ Publications Most Often Downloaded.") Recently, JIC was improved by adding new links to other sites as well as highlights of new information. The JIC Web site receives approximately 11,000 visitors each month and averages 365 visits per day, with peak activity reaching 689 at one point last year. (See "Accessing NIJ Online.") Informing Public Debate NIJ continues to inform public opinion and debate on crime control policies through media coverage of the release of important and topical research publications. For example, Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation was distributed to thousands of law enforcement agencies as part of a Federal initiative to reduce the spread of gangs and gang-related violence and drug trafficking. President Clinton announced the initiative--and the release of the report--during his weekly radio address. The release quickly generated print stories in several major national publications. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial effectively illustrates the tremendous potential of DNA technology. It reviews 28 cases in which postconviction DNA evidence was used to win the release of people convicted by juries of various serious offenses, including murder, rape, and kidnapping. The report also examines the legal history of the admission of DNA evidence and explores some of the issues raised by the growing acceptance of DNA evidence at the State level. One of the cases in Convicted by Juries was featured in the Frontline television program "What Jennifer Saw" and discussed in a New York Times article. In recent years, the Institute has worked to make the process of information retrieval easier for policymakers and professionals with services such as fax-on-demand and electronic publishing, including a new and improved NIJ Web site. NIJ continues to seek out and develop new ways of informing researchers and professionals about criminal justice trends and innovative approaches to longstanding crime problems, research data, and information about NIJ services and opportunities. ------------------------------ Perspectives on Crime and Justice At the Perspectives on Crime and Justice lecture series, nationally prominent scholars discuss issues related to creating effective policy. The lectures, hosted by NIJ with funding support from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, look at the challenges of crime and justice through a policy lens. During fiscal year 1996, the series featured the following subjects and scholars: o "What, if Anything, Can the Federal Government Do About Crime?" James Q. Wilson, University of California at Los Angeles o "Can We Make Prohibition Work Better? An Assessment of American Drug Policy," Peter Reuter, University of Maryland o "The Legitimation of Criminal Justice Policies and Practices," Mark H. Moore, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University o "Child Victims: In Search of Opportunities for Breaking the Cycle of Violence," Cathy Spatz Widom, State University of New York at Albany o "Crime, the Media, and Our Political Discourse," Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School Videotapes of each session are available for $29.50 from NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, or call 301-519-5500. ------------------------------ NIJ-Sponsored Conferences During Fiscal Year 1996 DNA, Washington, D.C., June 1996 Scientists, defense lawyers, and prosecutors discussed the capabilities, problems, and current applications of DNA technology. The report Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial was released. Locally Initiated Partnerships, Washington, D.C., January 1996, January 1997 These conferences were part of a program that partners researchers with police departments to design studies that will have immediate practical application for law enforcement professionals. National Conference on Technology Solutions for Public Safety, Los Angeles, California, April 9-11, 1996 Participants addressed the urgent need to provide local law enforcement with the best crime fighting technologies available. Proceedings were highlighted in a conference report, Technology Solutions for Public Safety. Business and Crime Prevention, Rutgers University, May 1996 Discussion centered on the role of business and industry as a creative force in crime prevention. Conference proceedings were summarized and published in the book Business and Crime Prevention.* * Business and Crime Prevention, edited by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke, 1997, Willow Tree Press: Monsey, New York National Symposium on Police Integrity, Washington, D.C., July 1996 Cohosted by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the conference participants examined the issue of public trust of police, threats to police integrity, and solutions for enhancing public respect for police. Discussion focused on police behavior and corruption as well as the factors that influence police integrity, such as command behavior, community values, political conditions, and the police subculture. Proceedings were highlighted in Police Integrity, Public Service With Honor, published jointly by NIJ and COPS. Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., August 1996 NIJ's annual conference highlighted two major themes: (1) crime prevention and (2) sentencing and its impact on corrections. Two highlights of the conference were presentations by David Weisburd on reorienting the focus of crime prevention research and policy and a discussion by Michael Block and Franklin Zimring presenting opposing views on imprisonment policies. Both presentations were prepared as NIJ publications. Communities, Crime and Justice, Arlington, Virginia, September 1996 Discussion focused on the relationships between communities, crime, and justice; the roles of different segments of the community in preventing and reducing crime; and the role of community organizations in addressing these issues. Attendees totaled more than 700. This conference was jointly sponsored by NIJ, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and other Office of Justice Programs offices. A special issue of the NIJ Journal, "Communities: Mobilizing Against Crime, Making Partnerships Work," was distributed. Restorative Justice Symposium, Washington, D.C., January 1996 This conference was jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Office for Victims of Crime in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Symposium panelists and participants discussed the concept and practical applications of restorative justice, such as victim-offender mediation and restitution. Regional Technology for Community Policing Conferences (five conferences), August-October 1996 These conferences, which focused on how technology can enhance community policing programs, were held in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego, California; Charleston, South Carolina; and Louisville, Kentucky. ------------------------------ NIJ Publications Most Often Downloaded From the Justice Information Center Web Site in Fiscal Year 1996 1. Cowles, E.L.; T.C. Castellano; and L.A. Gransky, "Boot Camp Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Report," Research in Brief, NCJ 155062. 2. Sexton, G.E., "Work in American Prisons: Joint Ventures with the Private Sector," Program Focus, NCJ 148410. 3. Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1995), JL 000219. 4. Bourque, B.B.; R.C. Cronin; F.R. Pearson; D.B. Felker; M. Han; and S.M. Hill, "Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An Implementation Evaluation of Three Demonstration Programs," Research Report, NCJ 157316. 5. Blumstein, A., "Breaking the Cycle of Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets," Research Preview, NCJ 152253. 6. Roth, J.R.,"Firearms and Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145553. 7. McGillis, D., "Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based Community Centers," Program Focus, NCJ 157667. 8. Roth, J.A, "Psychoactive Substances and Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145543. 9. Roth, J.A.,"Understanding and Preventing Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145645. 10. Curry, D.; R.A. Ball; and R.J. Fox, "Gang Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping," Research in Brief, NCJ 148345. ------------------------------ Accessing NIJ Online Methods of Accessing NIJ World Wide Web Through the Justice Information Center: http//www.ncjrs.org Bulletin Board Services If you do not have Internet access, direct dial through your modem: 301-738-8895. Modems should be set at 9600 baud and 8-N-1. If you have Internet access, telnet to bbs.ncjrs.org, or gopher to ncjrs.org:71 NCJRS Anonymous ftp For downloading full-text publications: ftp ncjrs.org E-mail To automatically receive information about NCJRS, send an e-mail to look@ncjrs.org. To ask a question or to obtain other services, send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org ------------------------------ Online Resources JUSTINFO The biweekly free newsletter from NCJRS, JUSTINFO, is delivered via e-mail. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org with the following message: "subscribe justinfo"; make sure you give your name and e-mail address. National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/nacjd Computer-readable copies of NIJ-sponsored data can be obtained from NACJD, which is maintained by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. PAVNET Online http://www.pavnet.org or gopher to: pavnet.esusda.gov This is an interagency data base containing descriptions of about 600 antiviolence programs and 325 sources for technical assistance, information, and potential funding. Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) Online http://www.nlectc.org This is a "one-stop shop" for law enforcement and corrections technology information that links visitors to all the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers, the National Institute of Justice, and other law enforcement and corrections agencies. United Nations Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse (UNOJUST) http://www.unojust.org A U.S. technical assistance program to help the UN Programme Network Institutes develop a global information exchange. Features online machine translation for English, French, Spanish, German, and Russian. Rule of Law http://www.rol.org An online data base of more than 6,400 annotated links to law and justice resources and an electronic mailing list that distributes weekly digests to more than 700 international subscribers primarily in Eastern Europe and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Also includes online machine translation software for the languages noted above under UNOJUST. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 In addition to NIJ, the members of the consortium include the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several agencies within the National Institutes of Health: the Office of Research on Women's Health, the Office of Research on Minority Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute on Aging. 2 Quinn, T., "Redefining and Restoring Justice," (draft report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 95-IJ-CX-0016), December 1996. 3 Feucht, T.E., and G.M. Kyle, "Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 161842. 4 Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 165476. 5 Decker, S.; S. Pennell; and A. Caldwell, "Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163496. 6 Lattimore, P.; J. Trudeau; K.J. Riley; and J. Leiter, Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 7 Mieczkowski, T., et al., "Responding to America's Drug Problems: Strategies for the 1990s," Journal of Urban Affairs, 14 (1992):337-357. Also see Anglin, M., and D.S. Lipton, "Prison-Based Therapeutic Communities: Their Success with Drug-Abusing Offenders," NIJ Journal, 230 (February 1996): 12-20. 8 Mumm, R., "Implementation of a Diversionary Program by the Orleans Parish District Attorney," (final report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 93-IJ-CX-K004), 1995. See also Mieczkowski, T.; R. Mumm; and H. Connick, "The Use of Hair Analysis in a Pretrial Diversion Program in New Orleans," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1995):222-241. 9 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996: The Role of the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 10 The four titles in the Research in Action series by Parent, D.; T. Dunworth; D. McDonald; and W. Rhodes are as follows: "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines," November 1996, NCJ 161837; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing," January 1997, NCJ 161839; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions," January 1997, NCJ 161838; and "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juveniles to Adult Courts," January 1997, NCJ 161840, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. ------------------------------ Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues Levels of crime and violence in the United States appear to be abating, continuing a trend that began about 1992. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the overall number of serious crimes fell 3 percent from 1995 to 1996, while violent crime dropped 7 percent.[1] However, the decline in crime, although positive news, has been unevenly distributed across American communities and represents merely a downturn from a record high level. Thirteen percent more serious crimes were committed in 1996 than in 1984--the last year before crime started edging up; for violent crimes, the difference was more than 30 percent. Thus, the threat of violence continues to cause great public fear and concern, more so perhaps than does any other domestic problem facing the Nation. Juvenile violence is also in decline following a steep rise that coincided with the spread of handguns and cocaine trafficking during the mid-1980s.[2] In 1995, for the first time in nearly a decade the FBI's Uniform Crime Report indicated that juvenile violent crime arrests had declined by 3 percent but were still 67 percent higher than the 1986 level.[3] Juvenile murder arrests decreased 14 percent in 1995, but were still 90 percent higher than in 1986. While the new crime statistics are encouraging, some experts have warned of a potential surge of juvenile crime as children of the "baby boomers" reach the crime-active years. Furthermore, it appears that more girls are participating in criminal acts. Since 1991, female arrest increases have been higher than male arrest increases in most offense categories. In 1995, one in four arrested juveniles was female.[4] No less alarming is the victimization rate among juveniles. While violent crime rates have slipped in recent years for most age groups, teens have continued to experience the highest rate of violent crime victimization, including homicide.[5] In recent years, many States--and the Federal Government--have enacted more stringent sanctions against violent juvenile offenders or have lowered the age at which juveniles can be waived or transferred to adult criminal court. Whether the general downturn in violent crime is the result of stricter penalties, shifting demographic trends, community-based policing initiatives, or other factors--or all of these--remains unclear. What is certain is that recent progress can only be maintained through a better understanding of both the factors that cause violent behavior and those that mitigate potential violence. Research is a key component in building such understanding. Uncovering Pathways to Delinquency and Violence An unprecedented longitudinal study in its third year reached several important data collection milestones in 1996. The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, which is jointly supported by NIJ and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, is examining how individual personalities, family relationships, and school and community environments affect the development of prosocial and delinquent and criminal behavior. For the study, Harvard University researchers and their colleagues interviewed nearly 8,800 adult residents (of 343 neighborhoods) and nearly 3,000 neighborhood experts. They also observed the physical condition of 80 neighborhoods, videotaping more than 27,000 city block faces. In a longitudinal component, researchers enrolled and interviewed 7,000 children, youths, and their caregivers. Researchers will track this group of participants for the next 5-7 years, analyzing their development to gain insights into family and neighborhood factors that encourage prosocial and antisocial behavior. The community survey of adult residents drew responses on topics such as perceived violence, neighborhood decline, stability and cohesion, signs of disorder, and social control. Preliminary results showed that drug dealing topped residents' lists of the most serious problems they face (36 percent), followed by loitering youths (28 percent), trash and litter (27 percent), public drinking (25 percent), graffiti (21 percent), and vacant houses (16 percent) (results add to more than 100 percent because of multiple responses). The participants, who through their responses revealed a lifetime violent crime victimization rate of 13 percent, generally agreed that police in their neighborhoods were responsive to their concerns, although some neighborhood clusters rated police more positively than others. When researchers combined census records with interview and survey responses, they identified three factors that seem to play into a neighborhood's level of informal social control: o "Concentrated disadvantage," the correlation between race and poverty, unemployment, and female-headed households in a community. o Ethnicity, which was important in measuring new patterns of immigration. o Residential stability, the frequency with which residents move in and out of a neighborhood. Areas that are characterized by high levels of "concentrated disadvantage" and residential instability tend to have higher crime and delinquency rates. The study found that "collective efficacy"-- social cohesion among neighbors and their willingness to get involved in solving community problems--helps reduce violence and lessens the effects of high poverty and residential instability.[6] Researchers also completed a pilot study of children and young people's exposure to violence and began an examination of neighborhood characteristics and their impact on individual development. As a way to test a new measurement tool they had developed for the project, researchers interviewed 80 young people aged 9 to 24, all of them participants in the longitudinal study. They were asked about their lifetime exposure as well as their recent exposure to 18 violent events they had either seen or experienced. Findings showed that the new method of assessing violence exposure is reliable and that exposure is high among urban residents. Fourteen percent of the respondents said they had been victims of violence, nearly one-quarter said they had seen an apparent murder victim in the past year, and 8 percent said that someone had shot at them.[7] Taking Action to Reduce Youth Violence Children at Risk Researchers have hypothesized that one of the keys to reducing youth violence and delinquency is to have a comprehensive program of integrated services involving social service agencies, schools, families, peers, criminal justice system components, and community groups. Through a unique public-private partnership, the Children at Risk (CAR) program is attempting to provide early intervention in the lives of high-risk youths and their families with multiple problems. The NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the program, conducted by the Urban Institute, demonstrated that family settings do indeed play a crucial role in predicting the outcome for high-risk youths.[8] The evaluation of the impact of CAR is assessing demonstration programs supported by a coalition of public and private agencies. CAR was developed and funded by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University with support from private foundations and Federal agencies, including NIJ.[9] During the second year of operation, the average CAR program served about 90 high-risk youths and 83 additional family members at an annual cost of approximately $2,400 per person.[10] Followup interviews with youth conducted 1 year after the end of the program indicate that CAR youth were significantly less likely to be current drug users. At the time of the survey (when most youths were 15), 51 percent of the CAR youths had used a gateway drug (i.e., cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, or inhalants) in the past month compared with 64 percent of the control youth. CAR youths were also significantly less likely than control youths to be currently involved in drug sales (14 percent of the CAR youths compared with 24 percent of the control group). The kinds of services CAR youths and family members received varied according to case managers' assessments of needs and local resources and the willingness of youths and family members to take part in offered services. Services were likely to be offered when youths got into trouble or at the time of a major family disruption. Many participants were reluctant to accept services--or even to participate in general prevention activities--during these times of crisis. In practice, CAR became a crisis intervention program rather than a program aimed at prevention. The experiences of the CAR program illustrate the difficulties inherent in delivering a comprehensive set of services to high-risk youths and their families. For instance, case managers, faced with cases of severe neglect (and sometimes abuse), spent more time in crisis management and less time on prevention. One result was that youths in trouble tended to receive intensive attention, while those not in crisis tended to receive less. Another consequence was that case managers took on caregiver functions, making it difficult for them to devote their attention to other key program components. The levels of abuse and neglect reported by case managers indicate the need to include child welfare intervention in any integrated service delivery program. Four of the five CAR sites are continuing the program with enhanced collaborative service delivery involving police departments and other agencies. Three levels of coordination occur in these sites: among agency directors, agency supervisors, and case managers. Experience with CAR showed that coordination is necessary at all three levels for successful implementation. The Ford Foundation is building on many of the lessons learned in the CAR program and is funding several replications of the program. Meanwhile, the evaluation team is continuing to analyze additional information from the children's school and criminal justice records to assess the impact of the CAR program on specific aspects of the lives of these children. Firearms and Boston's Youth Dramatic fluctuations in juvenile violence nationwide this decade have been mirrored by trends in Boston. Between 1990 and 1995, 155 youth homicides occurred in Boston; they appeared to be part of a larger cycle of gang activity involving firearms, which mainly victimized young black men. But since the beginning of a novel "problem-solving" approach to youth violence that targets gangs and firearms, death by homicide among young people under the age of 25 has fallen by two-thirds from the level Boston experienced in 1989 when the city's crack problem soared. In fact, youth violence in Boston is currently at a level 25 percent below the previous low point, which was in 1976. Called "Operation Cease-Fire," the program was launched by Boston police officials; Harvard University researchers; and members of a number of local, State, and Federal agencies. Participants formed a working group to analyze supply and demand for guns and devise innovative strategies to disrupt the illicit firearms market as a means of deterring serious youth violence.[11] The team found that youth homicides were concentrated in several neighborhoods that were home to an estimated 61 gangs. Most youths involved in these violent crimes were no strangers to the justice system--75 percent of known homicide victims and offenders had been arraigned for some offense, one-quarter had been detained in a juvenile or adult facility, and more than half had been on probation at one time. The research team also found that a disproportionate percentage of the handguns confiscated from youths were new semiautomatics, that the single largest source (about one-third) was retail sales in Massachusetts,[12] and that about one in five had obliterated serial numbers. These findings pointed to the existence of a flow of new guns diverted into the illicit juvenile market at points close to first retail sale. Guns confiscated from adults were for the most part older models from a number of manufacturers. Police, prosecutors, probation officers, and gang social workers held meetings with gang members to let them know that they would be subjected to intense scrutiny; that further violence would be met with an immediate interagency response; and that they could face arrest, incarceration, and severe personal restrictions if violence continued. They backed their tough words with action, focusing resources on two violent gangs, one a notorious crack era "posse." The first gang faced strict probation supervision, heavy police presence, and the Federal prosecution of a member for pointing a firearm at a police officer; the other gang was hobbled by a series of drug arrests. While NIJ is supporting an indepth evaluation of the long-term impact of this strategy, Boston's drop in youth homicide and violence suggests that such measures concentrated on a few gangs--if properly publicized--might serve as an effective deterrent to other gangs across the city. Gangs and Violence NIJ's portfolio on gangs covers a diverse array of research topics; several projects are coordinated with other agencies, such as the Family and Youth Services Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Ongoing projects include evaluations of gang prevention initiatives, including one aimed primarily at young women; the G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training) program; prosecution strategies in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; and efforts to identify patterns of gang offending and the factors that lead to criminal incidents. Research on the relationship between gangs and delinquency has shown that gang members have significantly higher levels of delinquency than other youths and that law enforcement focus on gang-related crime and delinquency has consistently increased over the past two decades.[13] While some studies suggest that organized drug-dealing by gangs is not as widespread or common as once believed and that gang migration occurs primarily because the gang member's family moves,[14] gangs by their very nature foster criminalbehavior, especially violence. In fact, one national survey found that the most commonly reported criminal activity for gangs was violence. Other research suggests that increases in gang violence are the result of a "contagion" effect, subsequent acts of violence--usually in retaliation--following an initial act of violence.[15] A study of responses to gang crime in the United States found that gang-related programs have continually failed to make a distinction between gang delinquency and general delinquency and have rarely been systematically evaluated.[16] In addition, programs have not always taken into account the influence of community or ethnic factors on gang organization and behavior, nor is there always a discernible relationship between the perceived cause of a gang problem and the subsequent strategy. Many communities deny gang problems until some dramatic, violent attack occurs because they fear the effects an admission of a gang problem might have on politics or tourism. Episodes of violence are often followed by a period of stepped-up enforcement, possibly further exacerbating community tensions. Gang-related conflicts are just one of many catalysts for juvenile violence. Another study identified a variety of motives and factors behind acts of violence involving youths living in one of two New York City neighborhoods--East New York in Brooklyn and the South Bronx.17 NIJ- supported researchers asked adolescent boys to provide detailed descriptions of four violent events in which they had been participants, two with a gun, two without a gun. From the lengthy narratives that emerged, researchers isolated a number of contexts for street violence that went beyond gang conflicts, such as recurring disputes involving the same individuals, fights over girlfriends, extortion or robbery, preemptive violence for self-preservation, dating violence, and violence rituals to achieve status or prove manhood. Some respondents used violence as a way of establishing social identity, expressing defiance or urges to dominate, or exerting social control. Other respondents seemed to have developed two identities and codes, one as a "street person" and another as a "decent person." The need for self-preservation motivated otherwise "decent kids" to take on the symbolic representation of toughness. Bystanders and alcohol are two significant influences on violent behavior, the study found. Bystanders can "egg you on"--encourage violent behavior--or "cool you out"--diffuse potentially violent situations. Alcohol was found to be an enormous factor in heightening the potential for violence. Drinking tends to magnify adolescents' emotions and desires and raise the social stakes. The mere presence of alcohol drinking near a neighborhood hangout substantially increased the likelihood of violence. Researchers further discovered that holidays and the anniversaries of deaths can be associated with increased likelihood of engaging in violent behavior. In the study neighborhoods, the Fourth of July--a holiday that inspires outdoor parties, fireworks, and drinking--was identified as the day of the year when adolescent behavior is likely to be most volatile. Researchers concluded that conflict resolution skills training in schools would be more effective if it were taught within the context of these realistic street conditions. They also suggested that qualitative research methods--such as those used in the East New York and South Bronx study--may be valuable tools for understanding the dynamics of juvenile violence and other types of violence, such as domestic violence. Exploring the Relationship Between Guns and Violence Evaluation of the Ban on Assault Weapons Assault-type weapons are considered to be the deadliest of firearms. They appear to be disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, many wounds per victim, or with police officers as victims. The 1994 Crime Act banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of designated semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Under a mandate of the Act, NIJ supported research to gauge the ban's effects. The study, conducted by the Urban Institute, found that the effect of the ban on gun murders was too small to detect statistically in the study's short time period (1 year) because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders prior to the ban.[18] The best estimate possible given the time frame is that the Federal ban may have contributed to a decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995 in States without prior State bans (specifically, there was a 6.7 percent greater decrease in States without prior bans). Such a decrease did not occur in States that already had banned assault weapons. A drop in police officer killings since mid-1995 could be linked to the ban, but the decline came during a period when the use of bullet-resistant vests may also have increased. The Urban Institute's analysis suggests that the primary market prices of the banned guns, as reflected in gun publications, rose by nearly 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated in anticipation of passage. At the same time, production surged, so that more than an extra year's supply of assault weapons was manufactured during 1994. After the ban took effect on September 13, 1994, primary market prices fell to nearly pre-ban levels and remained there through mid-1996, reflecting both the oversupply of grandfathered guns and the variety of legal substitutes that emerged. Researchers examined the number of times law enforcement agencies across the country requested that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms trace the origins of assault weapons seized by local law enforcement. Initial examination of trace requests showed a 20-percent drop in requests for assault weapons compared to an 11-percent drop in such requests for all guns. Moreover, the drop in assault weapons traces was substantially greater than the declines in gun murder (12 percent), gun robbery (8 percent), and gun assault (6 percent) during the same period. The greater decrease in assault weapons tracing requests compared to other gun tracing requests suggests a short-term reduction in carrying and use of assault weapons following the ban. Clearly, research is needed to gauge the full impact of the assault weapons ban over the course of several years in a larger number of jurisdictions, with data on both fatal incidents and those without fatalities. The researchers also recommended improving local, State, and Federal data bases on firearms and violence (both for assault weapons and other guns). Ownership and Use by the General Public According to recently released findings of an NIJ-funded national survey of private ownership of firearms, about 35 percent of U.S. households and one-quarter of all American adults own a firearm. There is no typical firearm owner, but the likelihood of ownership is greater for middle-aged, middle-class white males. In addition, ownership is fairly concentrated--about 10 percent of the Nation's adults own 77 percent of the Nation's stock of firearms. Of the 192 million working firearms in private possession, about one-third are handguns and at least 40 percent of these are semiautomatics.[19] On a given day, 1.1 million Americans carry guns on their person outside the workplace; another 2.1 million store guns in their cars or trucks. About one in five households with firearms have at least one unlocked, loaded gun. About three-quarters of survey respondents who own handguns indicated they own the weapon for self-defense, and about two-thirds of respondents said they also own at least one rifle or shotgun, suggesting that many owners also use guns for sporting purposes. Ownership and Use by Arrestees More than one-third of arrestees have owned a gun at some time, and 14 percent carry guns all or most of the time. That proportion rises to 20 percent among juvenile male arrestees and to 31 percent among gang members.[20] These are among the key results of an analysis of data from 11 cities in NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting program. While arrestees who tested positive for drugs were no more likely to own and use firearms than arrestees overall, the study helped confirm the role of gangs and drug markets in increasing access to and use of guns. Among the arrestees interviewed, nearly one-fourth of the adults who owned guns and one-third of juveniles said they had used them to commit crimes. Among drug sellers and gang members, the figures are 42 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The study found that more than half of all arrestees said that guns "are easy to obtain illegally," and more than three-quarters of arrestees who sell drugs and belong to gangs claimed guns were easy to obtain by illegal means. And it does not take long to obtain an illegal firearm--37 percent said they could obtain a gun in less than a week. The authors concluded that one factor in the prevalence of guns is the power of the "gun culture" among arrestees, which condones gun use, especially for protection. Forty-two percent of arrested criminals cited protection as the reason for needing a gun. Arrestees have also been on the other side of the gun--nearly three-fifths replied they had been threatened with a gun, and two out of five had been fired upon. Again, this number was higher for juveniles and gang members. These findings suggest a high correlation between firearms, youths, gangs, and drugs. They also suggest that recent strategies focusing on increased penalties for illegal possession or use of a gun in a crime do not appear to have deterred arrestees from owning and using firearms. The study suggests that a more promising approach to reducing illegal access to firearms might involve a coordinated response by a variety of agencies, including law enforcement, youth support groups, and community organizations. For example, in St. Louis, Missouri, police initiated a firearm suppression program in which officers obtain permission from parents to search the houses where juveniles reside for illegal firearms in return for a guarantee not to prosecute if guns are found. Other comprehensive initiatives involving enforcement, prevention, and deterrence through credible curfews and sanctions are finding success in Boston and in Inglewood, California.[21] Responding to Violence in the Family Research has shown that violence within the family is widespread and consequential. NIJ's family violence portfolio examines several facets of family violence. Family Violence as a Public Health Issue As part of its focus on breaking the cycle of family violence, NIJ collaborated with the National Institutes of Health and other Federal research agencies on a joint solicitation to support research on violence against women and within the family.[22] The sponsoring organizations set aside $5.2 million to support grants lasting 2-3 years. The grants will support research on the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of family violence, as well as the health and legal consequences of this violence for victims. Projects funded in fiscal year 1996 are addressing ways of reducing the risk of abuse to children of battered women, the effectiveness of protection orders, domestic abuse among Latinos and Native Americans, the effects of abuse and maltreatment on children's cognition and self-esteem, the abuse of aging caregivers, the effects of neighborhood violence on women and children, and studies to evaluate interventions for rape victims and for adolescent boys from abusive homes. As part of another ambitious joint project, NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) have developed a plan to study violence against women based on a research agenda developed by the National Academy of Sciences in response to a mandate of the Crime Act. Funding for the first year of the 5-year collaboration is under consideration by Congress for fiscal year 1998. Contingent on funding, NIJ and NCIPC will solicit research to learn what works in prevention and intervention programs and will study new approaches and promising practices. NIJ will communicate the results of this research and sponsor research partnerships between universities or research firms and local community agencies. The Role of Drugs, Alcohol, and Weapons Research suggests that assaulted women are often repeatedly victimized by a single assailant and that drugs and alcohol frequently play a role in the attacks. A study funded by the Methodist Hospital Foundation of Memphis of 62 domestic violence incidents in that city found that the vast majority of assaulted women were repeat victims of the same assailant and that 42 percent of the victims and 92 percent of the assailants had used drugs prior to the assault.[23] The study also found that two-thirds of domestic violence assailants were on probation or parole at the time of the assault; nearly half were reported to be dependent on alcohol, drugs, or both; and two-thirds had used a combination of cocaine and alcohol prior to the assault. The presence of firearms and other weapons also seems to play a significant role in the outcome of attacks reported to police. In the Memphis study, 68 percent of the reported battering incidents involved the use or display of a weapon, and 15 percent of victims suffered injuries severe enough to require emergency medical attention. The Role of Civil Protection Orders As part of its effort to learn how to prevent and intervene in domestic violence cases, NIJ has sought to examine how courts can better serve victims. Building on prior research, NIJ funded a study on the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Previous studies concluded that the success of protection orders relied on the thoroughness and specificity of the order itself and how well it is enforced. For the new study, researchers interviewed victims to identify other factors, including accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the abuser. Over one-third of the study participants reported they had been threatened or injured with a weapon, over half had been beaten or choked, and 84 percent had suffered milder physical abuse, such as slapping, kicking, and shoving. The longer a woman experienced abuse, the more intense the abusive behavior became. Thus, victim interviews indicate that the longer a victim stays in a relationship, the more likely it is she will be severely injured by the abuser. The study concluded that victims' views on the effectiveness of protection orders vary with how accessible the courts are for victims and how well-established the links are between public and private services and support resources for victims.[24] Stalking Women who attempt to end relationships with partners sometimes find themselves telephoned incessantly or visited at their place of employment. Other women report being followed by acquaintances or total strangers who want to form a relationship or are acting on the impulses of an obsession. In recent years the stalking of celebrities, both male and female, has drawn headlines and prompted new policies and laws. But how does one differentiate between annoying behavior, harassment, and true criminal stalking? Little research exists specifically on stalking; much of it has been limited to studies of small, unrepresentative, or clinical samples of known stalkers of public figures. To learn more about violence and threats of violence against women, including stalking, NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly sponsored a nationwide telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men aged 18 years or older. Preliminary findings reveal that stalking is a much larger problem than previously assumed, affecting an estimated 2 million victims annually. The vast majority of victims are female (78 percent) and the vast majority of perpetrators are male (87 percent). Eight percent of women and 2 percent of men surveyed had been stalked in their lifetimes. White women are as likely to be stalked as women of color, while men of color are at a slightly greater risk of being stalked than white men. In general, women tend to be stalked by former intimate partners, while men tend to be stalked by male strangers and male acquaintances. (See figure 5, Relationship Between Stalking Victim and Offender.) The survey found a strong link between stalking and domestic violence: of the men who stalked their wives or intimate partners, 81 percent also physically assaulted and 31 percent sexually assaulted the stalking victim.[25] The Violence Against Women Act Title IV of the Crime Act, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), represented a major step forward in the Federal response to the many crimes whose victims are women. In 1996 as in 1995, the Crime Act served as an impetus for expanded NIJ research about crimes against women, including evaluations of the effectiveness of State and local initiatives established under VAWA as well as investigations of specific issues, such as the relationship of alcohol to domestic violence, the efficacy of court-mandated domestic violence counseling, and how victims' and witnesses' reluctance to testify can affect court disposition. In 1996, NIJ also completed several congressionally mandated studies. (See "Reports on Violence Against Women Required Under the 1994 Crime Act.") VAWA's program of assistance to improve prosecutorial and police handling of violence against women, the STOP Program (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors), is being evaluated in a nationwide study of the progress that participating States are making in meeting their planning and implementation goals. The first year of the study found that the States were in compliance or moving rapidly toward compliance in such areas as ensuring that victims do not bear the costs of forensic examinations. Review of the States' plans indicates a wide range of specific activities but close adherence to the intent of VAWA. Specific plans include developing model law enforcement protocols, developing a domestic violence manual for police and prosecutors, and establishing oversight committees to identify criminal justice system problems.[26] The plans of most States indicate that victim services will be expanded. Now under way is a second-year evaluation report on the State grants awarded in the first year of the STOP Program. Other nationwide evaluations begun in 1996 focus on the impact of the STOP Program at selected sites, including its effectiveness in Native American communities; on victim services established under VAWA; and on the data collection and communication systems components of the States' programs. ----------------------------- Reports on Violence Against Women Required Under the 1994 Crime Act Crowell, N.A., and A.W. Burgess, eds., Understanding Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. This study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the National Academy of Science.* Zepp, J., et al., "State Databases: Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection," Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1996. Study conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association, NCJ 161405. The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 1996, NCJ 160972. Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation: NIJ Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160943. Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims' Addresses, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Association, November 1995. Report of a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, NCJ 164064. * Available from the National Academy Press at 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20055. Phone 800-624-6242, or order via the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/nap/bookstore. þ Available from the National Institute of Justice through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 600, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; telephone 800-851-3420; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. þ Available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Uniform Crime Report," 1996 Preliminary Annual Release, June 23, 1997. (Final figures and crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants will be published in Crime in the United States--1996, scheduled for release in the fall of 1997.) 2 Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?," NIJ Journal, (August 1995):3-9. 3 Snyder, H.N., "Juvenile Arrests 1995," Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, February 1997, NCJ 163813. 4 Ibid. See also U.S. Department of Justice, Press Release, December 12, 1996. 5 Criminal Victimization in the United States: 1973-92 Trends, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1994, NCJ 147006. 6 Earls, F.J., and C.A. Visher, "Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: A Research Update," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997, FS 163603. 7 Selner-O'Hagan, M.B., et al., "Assessing the Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence: A Summary of a Pilot Study from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 000159. 8 Harrell, A.V., "Findings from the Evaluation of the Children At Risk Program," (a report in partial fulfillment of cooperative agreement no. 92-DD-CX-0031), April 1997. This evaluation examined the impact of the Children At Risk program, a drug and delinquency prevention program for high-risk adolescents aged 11-13 years old who live in narrowly defined, severely distressed neighborhoods. 9 In addition to NIJ, other Federal funders are the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Participating foundations include the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Prudential, Rockefeller, and American Express Foundations, the Pew Charitable Trust, Ronald McDonald Children's Charities, and United Technologies. 10 Pindus, N., "Costs of the Children At Risk Program," (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 92-DD-CX-0031), 1997. 11 The working group included representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, Massachusetts Department of Probation, Massachusetts Department of Parole, Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, City of Boston School Police, and city-employed gang outreach and mediator workers. Kennedy, D.M., "Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 160766. 12 About one-third were purchased in southern States, and the other two-thirds were purchased from all other States combined. 13 Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency," (a report in partial fulfillment of grant no. OJP-C-94-007), 1997. 14 The second most frequently cited motivation for migrating is drug market expansion. Maxson, C.L.; K.J. Woods; and M.W. Klein, "Street Migration: How Big a Threat?" NIJ Journal, (February 1996):26. 15 Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency." 16 Ibid, pp.ii, 13-22. 17 "Adolescent Violence: A View From the Street," a Research in Progress seminar video, presented by Fagan, J., Director of the Center for Violence Research and Prevention, Columbia University, New York, December 1996, NCJ 163059. 18 Roth, J.A., and C.S. Koper, Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 1997. 19 Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 165476. 20 Decker, S.H.; S. Pennell; A. Caldwell, "Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163496. 21 Kennedy, D.M., "Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 160766. 22 The initiative is coordinated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences and is cosponsored by the National Institute of Justice, NIH Office of Research on Minority Health, NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Mental Health, National Institute on Aging, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 23 Brookoff, D., "Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis," findings presented at NIJ at Research in Progress seminar, February 24, 1997. 24 Keilitz, S.L., et al., Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence, (final report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0035), Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1997. 25 Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, "Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey," findings presented at NIJ Research in Progress seminar, January 16, 1997. 26 Burt, M., The Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 95-WT-NX-0005), Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 29, 1996. The next report will be published in 1997. ------------------------------ Drugs and Crime: Criminal Justice Responses NIJ research has made major contributions to understanding the links between drug use and crime by measuring prevalence of drug use among individuals who enter the criminal justice system and by determining the effectiveness of interventions at various points along the path offenders take through the criminal justice system. In 1996, NIJ continued to chart new directions that will provide more insights about the links between drugs and crime and the combinations of sanctions and treatment that hold the most promise in breaking the drug-crime cycle. The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which entered its 10th year in 1996, is NIJ's pioneering effort to establish the research infrastructure necessary to understand the nexus between crime and drugs. Under the current DUF system, researchers conduct voluntary, confidential, and anonymous interviews and urinalyses of adult and juvenile arrestees at booking facilities in 23 American cities. After being compiled, analyzed, and published, the data became a key element in the Federal Government's leading drug use indicators.[1] The latest data from DUF sites reveal that in most of the 23 sites where DUF is operational about two-thirds of adult male arrestees and more than half of female adult arrestees tested positive for at least one drug. Marijuana use among adult and juvenile arrestees rose during 1996 at most sites, with dramatic increases at a few sites.[2] Regional patterns of drug use are more evident for cocaine, opiates, and methamphetamine. For example, marijuana use has surpassed cocaine use in many Western sites, and high rates of opiate use are confined to a few large DUF cities. High rates of methamphetamine use continue to be mainly a Western phenomenon, but rates fell significantly in 1996 in all sites that had reported increases in 1995. An NIJ-supported study tracing use patterns associated with the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that began in the 1980s found that crack use among arrestees appears to be declining in most DUF cities, especially those on the east and west coasts. It appears that the crack epidemics in New York City and Washington, D.C., began to decline around 1990, while the epidemics in Los Angeles and San Diego began to subside in 1989 and 1992, respectively. In several DUF cities, notably Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, and St. Louis, the epidemic seemed to be still in the "plateau" or stable phase in 1996.[3] Although cocaine use among male and female arrestees continued to decline or remain stable in many DUF cities, remarkable increases were noted in several cities, especially Omaha, Nebraska, and Miami, Florida. And in keeping with trends of recent years, women exhibited higher rates of cocaine and methamphetamine use than men. ADAM: A Better Way to Gauge Drug Use DUF has shown itself to be a highly important vehicle for collecting arrestee drug use data, and NIJ took steps in 1996 to improve and expand its data collection infrastructure by requesting congressional funding to transform the program into a more comprehensive effort. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, which is proposed to be operational by 2001, is designed to build on DUF's success by more than tripling the size of the program. As currently envisioned, ADAM will operate in at least 75 cities, primarily those with populations greater than 200,000.[4] As part of an outreach component, researchers at each urban ADAM site will also collect data annually in suburban, rural, Indian territory areas, or in other arrestee populations outside the urban core. The data generated will provide local and national policymakers with earlier warnings about coming drug epidemics as well as insights into the links between crime and drugs outside of inner-city areas. ADAM will collect a core set of data in each city and provide local communities with the means of collecting arrestee information that will inform issues of local concern. Aggregated ADAM data will provide an important national picture of annual drug use among the arrestees tested, as well as trends over time. The expanded data will assist policymakers in making informed decisions about drug enforcement and treatment interventions. At each ADAM site, Local Coordinating Councils--composed of law enforcement, drug treatment personnel, community action groups and others--will help select outreach sites, generate local research projects for existing ADAM sites, and help disseminate site findings.[5] Using DUF Data to Reveal Drug Use Patterns Expanding the DUF/ADAM programs into rural and suburban areas will provide important research data on the manufacture, distribution, and use of specific drugs. A good example of how DUF data can be used is illustrated by recent findings about methamphetamine use. Across the Nation, methamphetamine use is modest, but there have been pockets of concentrated use in cities in the West and Southwest.[6] Use is typically higher among female arrestees than male arrestees, and use among white arrestees far exceeds that among black or Hispanic arrestees. About 2 percent of adult arrestees in the eight sites with the highest methamphetamine use tested positive for both cocaine and methamphetamine, a finding that suggests that methamphetamine users are a distinct population, perhaps with distinguishable acquisition patterns and treatment needs. What the routine DUF data do not provide, however, are indications why individuals begin using methamphetamine, patterns of use of the drug, dynamics of the methamphetamine market, or indicators of the possible success of treatment.[7] To provide some of these answers, in 1996 NIJ commissioned a special study of methamphetamine markets and use in five Western cities (San Jose, Los Angeles, Portland, Phoenix, and San Diego), which is being conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments and is based on the DUF/ADAM research platform. When completed in 1997, this study will provide the first comprehensive, cross-site analysis of the use and sale of methamphetamine.[8] Preliminary data from the study indicate that nearly half of methamphetamine users in the five cities studied prefer to snort the drug, about one-quarter prefer smoking it, and the rest prefer injection. Most of the users in three of the five cities reported they had used the drug four or more days in a row at least once. Portland and Phoenix seem to have the highest percentage of users who inject methamphetamine, possibly indicating that those cities have more serious users, as injection is the most efficient form of ingestion. According to the preliminary data, most users in the five cities prefer methamphetamine over cocaine because it provides a better "high," is longer lasting, and is inexpensive. Most complained of sleeplessness, weight loss, and family problems, however, and about one in three said they had sought treatment for methamphetamine at least once. Most users seem to buy the drug from people they know and, unlike crack cocaine users, conduct nearly all transactions indoors. Findings from this study are being used by San Diego and other cities to develop meaningful action plans encompassing drug prevention, treatment, and interdiction. Through ADAM, NIJ hopes to continue to produce more of this kind of research data, which can be linked directly to policy and action. Drug Testing: New Uses, Better Methods Judges weigh all available evidence when making a pretrial release decision. Having the results of a urinalysis available might assist a judge in choosing an appropriate placement, such as supervised release, drug treatment, or sanctions. In an NIJ-funded study involving six sites and more than 14,000 cases, researchers found some evidence that urinalysis results may be useful in predicting some type of pretrial misconduct, although more research is needed to make solid predictions. In some sites a positive test for opiates helped predict rearrest, and a positive test for cocaine helped predict a defendant's failure to appear; on the other hand, data at other sites indicated drug tests could not predict any type of problem behavior. Finally, at some sites, tests predicted either rearrest or failure to appear but seldom both.[9] Although urinalysis remains the most commonly used drug testing technique, it cannot detect opiates and cocaine later than 48 to 72 hours after use. Hair analysis, by contrast, has a longer window of detection--7 days to 6 months--but it cannot detect recent use. Still, it represents an alternative medium for estimating the use of rapidly excreted drugs. NIJ recently released findings of a test designed to replicate findings from an earlier study that had examined drug use among juvenile offenders through the use of self reports, urinalysis, and hair assays.[10] The findings from the first study were indeed replicated; for example, hair analysis detected cocaine more frequently than did urinalysis. The investigators found that in almost no instance was a positive urine test accompanied by a negative hair assay. Hair analysis also can detect chronic cocaine use because evidence stays in the hair longer than it stays in urine. For example, urinalysis cannot detect cocaine in a person who has not used the drug within the last 3 days even though the person may be a long-time user. Persons who use cocaine infrequently or in very low doses are likely to pass a periodic urine screen.[11] Further evidence of the usefulness of hair analysis was reported in an NIJ evaluation of a diversion program operated by the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office in Louisiana. The evaluation relied on urinalysis, hair analysis, and self-reported drug use to monitor compliance. Hair analysis proved to be a more efficacious method of identifying drug exposure than either urinalysis or self-reported use. In addition, the study revealed patterns of abstinence from drug use and of compliance with conditions of diversion and probation related to drugs; it also encouraged drug-involved offenders to participate in treatment.[12] At the request of the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, NIJ researchers were asked to develop baseline data on drug use in the State's prison system. In response, NIJ staff researchers collected hair samples from inmates at five prisons. All inmates in the study had been in custody of the department for at least 3 months, and the hair samples represented growth over the previous 3 months. The samples were tested for evidence of use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP. Results revealed considerable variation between facilities in the frequency of drug use by inmates during their incarceration. In one prison, 2.3 percent of the participants tested positive for marijuana, while in another, 20.1 percent tested positive. Overall, 6 to 9 percent tested positive for marijuana, 2 percent tested positive for cocaine, and 1 percent tested positive for heroin. Only one inmate tested positive for PCP. The data will assist prison officials in their development of policies to reduce the availability of and access to drugs in prisons. Assessing Intervention Approaches Estimates of the annual number of drug-using arrestees who probably need treatment range as high as 2 million. The scope of treatment needs is even more extensive than indicated by this figure as many drug users who come into the criminal justice system use more than one drug and also abuse other substances, such as alcohol.[13] The percentage of arrestees using multiple drugs ranged from 13 percent to 37 percent at DUF sites in 1996; the average for both males and females was 22 percent. In a major new effort, NIJ, with funding from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is implementing a research demonstration project in Birmingham, Alabama, known as Breaking the Cycle. The project is testing the hypothesis that providing arrestees with a comprehensive response to drug use that includes judicially supervised testing, treatment, and sanctions will result in lower recidivism rates and a greater likelihood that arrestees will abstain from drug use. The project combines urinalysis, needs assessment, and the provision of appropriate treatment, supervision, and services to all arrestees who show evidence of recent drug use. NIJ will conduct both implementation and impact evaluations of Breaking the Cycle over the next several years. NIJ is also evaluating a second program, Operation Drug TEST (Testing, Effective Sanctions, Treatment), which will operate in approximately 25 Federal judicial districts. Federal arrestees in participating districts will be tested prior to their initial court appearance. Court officials will use test results together with other pretrial information to impose testing, treatment, sanctions, and other conditions of pretrial release. Specialized "drug courts" or "treatment courts" have gained recognition in recent years as promising vehicles for breaking the cycle of drugs and crime by providing close supervision to encourage abstinence and by ordering treatment for those who can benefit most.[14] Many drug courts offer diversion, deferred prosecution, or deferred sentencing arrangements to first-time offenders who complete treatment; other drug courts target offenders with multiple arrests. Understanding what conditions or combinations of conditions are most effective is the aim of NIJ's research in the area of drug courts. In a collaborative venture with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ is overseeing the evaluation of a specialized drug court in Washington, D.C., in which offenders are randomly assigned to drug treatment, graduated sanctions, or the traditional court docket. This project is designed to test the comparative value of drug treatment and criminal justice sanctions. Early findings from the NIJ-supported evaluation indicate that arrestees in both the treatment group and graduated sanctions group are more likely to be drug free in the month before sentencing than are those in the control group. It appears that those who receive sanctions are also less likely to be rearrested than the control group. Another experiment, involving arrestees in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, found that when drug-involved offenders were closely supervised, rates of drug use, recidivism, and high-risk behavior decreased significantly.[15] The study, funded by NIJ and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was designed to test whether case management interventions could reduce high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex and needle sharing as well as drug use itself. The case management interventions included (1) viewing a videotape in lockups and booking facilities that sought to motivate help-seeking behavior about drug use and HIV prevention; (2) viewing the videotape and also attending a single face-to-face session with a referral specialist who completed a needs assessment and recommended an action plan tailored to the participant's needs; (3) viewing the videotape, attending the referral session, and receiving 6 months of sustained case management. Analysis of the participants, who were randomly assigned to one of the interventions, found statistically significant and often dramatic changes in behavior after enrollment. The proportion of participants reporting heavy drug use declined for all three treatment categories in both sites. In Washington, D.C., for example, the percentage of participants reporting heavy drug use dropped from 85 percent to 17 percent at 6 months after case management enrollment. Time spent in jail was lower for those in case management than for other participants, and all participants reported reduced needle use and needle sharing as well as increased needle cleaning.[16] Prison-Based Interventions Drug treatment has been available in some prisons for the better part of a generation, but the 1980s saw a large upsurge in programs, as the percentage of State inmates receiving some form of treatment tripled during this decade. As evidence of a commitment to providing drug treatment in prisons, Congress has appropriated $36 million in fiscal year 1997 and authorized up to $72 million in coming years to fund the Residential Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which was established by the 1994 Crime Act to expand drug treatment in correctional settings. Guidelines require States to drug-test participants and separate those found to be users from the general inmate population. NIJ is supporting several evaluations related to RSAT in a collaborative effort with the Office of Justice Programs' Corrections Program Office, which administers the program. Through RSAT, States may receive formula grant funds to establish a program of drug and alcohol testing for participants: the program gives preference to subgrant applicants that provide aftercare services.[17] NIJ has funded a national evaluation of RSAT as well as local evaluations in seven States. The national study includes an examination of the types of offenders participating in drug treatment and the treatment given and takes preliminary steps in evaluating RSAT's impact. The project also includes technical assistance to the States to enhance the usefulness of the data collected in the program and the reports States are required to submit. Program evaluations at the local level are being conducted as partnerships between researchers and practitioners. Some of the programs studied are based on the "therapeutic community" model, and some include strong aftercare components. The RSAT evaluations include: o A study of the effects of the Florida Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program at three facilities. o Asse