Title: Address of the Honorable Laurie Robinson Series: Speech Author: Laurie Robinson Published: August 1998 Subject: Criminal Justice System 10 pages 23,000 bytes ------------------------------- ADDRESS OF THE HONORABLE LAURIE ROBINSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON CRIMINOLOGY ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1998 SEOUL, KOREA o Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this World Congress and to address this distinguished audience. I want to thank the International Society for Criminology and the Korean Institute of Criminology for inviting me here and giving me the opportunity to interact with international colleagues, and to foster the exchange of information and knowledge that can aid in reducing crime worldwide. o I want to talk today about the approach the United States is taking under the leadership of Attorney General Janet Reno to address crime; the critical role research plays in this strategy; the importance of forming partnerships between research and practice; and the potential impact our work has for criminal justice in a changing world. o The United States recognizes that we cannot confront crime in isolation. With criminals' ability to cross international borders in a few hours, and the advances of our modern age, such as the Internet and telecommunications, crime can no longer be viewed as just a national issue. It is clear crime does not respect international boundaries. It is clear crime is global. As recent economic trends demonstrate, what happens in one part of the world impacts all the rest. And crime problems and trends are no different. o Although international comparisons of crime are difficult to make, we know, for example, that while gun crimes have largely been associated with high-crime urban areas in the United States, the United Nations' International Crime Survey has found that rates of serious, violent crime are actually higher--and increasing faster--in countries like India, Indonesia, and Brazil. o And although the United States has been faced, until very recently, with increasing rates of youth violence, we know from German research that youth violence has increased between 50 and 100 percent over the past few years in member states of the European Union. o And we know that, particularly in light of the United Nations focus over the last few years on the role of women, that more and more countries around the world are beginning to recognize -- and confront -- the problem of family violence. o We also know that drug use and trafficking is a concern worldwide, no place more so perhaps than here in Asia, and that organized drug networks are operating from South America, to Africa, to former member states of the Soviet Union, and certainly in my own country. o And we know that no country is immune from the horror of terrorism, as recent events in Africa, Japan, France, Northern Ireland, the U.S., and so many other countries demonstrate. And that crime's tentacles are becoming more sophisticated and widespread with the evolution of fraud, white-collar, and cybercrime with the vast international information computer highway. o Because we confront common problems, I believe we also must share solutions. There is a tremendous need around the world for good information about what works in reducing crime. And research plays a critical role--in partnership with criminal justice practitioners--in identifying effective crime control strategies. Crime and justice in a changing world really demands partnerships between research and practice at a level unprecedented in the past, and, for that reason, at the U.S. Department of Justice, we have made this a priority. The Federal Role in Crime Control o To step back for a minute, I should explain that, as you may know, in the United States, there is a unique federal role in addressing crime. Although 95 percent of criminal cases are handled at the state and local level in our country, for the past 30 years, our federal government has provided funding to encourage innovation in state and local criminal justice systems, to support research, development, and information-sharing in the field of criminal and juvenile justice, and to collect and analyze statistical data on crime. Commitment to Research o Over the past few years at the U.S. Department of Justice, we have forwarded this important and unique federal role to create knowledge and share information by expanding research and development, integrating research into our programming, fostering research-practitioner partnerships, and ensuring that criminal justice policy and practice is based, to the greatest extent possible, on the results of sound research and evaluation. o This is a high priority for Attorney General Janet Reno. As a former prosecutor for the State of Florida, she believes strongly in using research findings to inform criminal justice policy and practice and to back up criminal justice decision making. I cannot remember a time when the top law enforcement official in the United States was so interested in learning about new findings, research under way, and crime control activity in local communities--and so supportive personally of these efforts. o We have made research and development a priority at the Department of Justice, expanding our criminal and juvenile justice research portfolio to more than 500 initiatives totaling more than $120 million last year--a four- fold increase in only 3 years. And we are working to make research a critical component of every major effort we support--for example, transferring money from program funds provided by Congress to support evaluation of those efforts to ensure we are supporting approaches that really can help reduce crime or improve criminal justice operations. Research-Driven Practice o Our commitment to research and using research results to drive practice and policy was reinforced by a major report prepared last year at the request of the United States Congress by Professor Larry Sherman and his colleagues at the University of Maryland. That report examined federal support for criminal justice over the past 30 years and assessed, as its title indicates, "What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising." o As a result of the Maryland Report team's work in distilling the vast body of research on what works in addressing crime in the United States, we have seen increased support in our Congress for research and evaluation efforts, and for programs research has identified as effective. The Maryland Report also resulted in focusing attention at the Justice Department even more sharply on using research and evaluation findings to drive criminal justice policy, practice, and spending. o I would like, this morning, to describe four areas of major focus for the Department of Justice right now--areas we have identified as priorities based on research and feedback from practitioners on how we can have the greatest impact on crime. And I know that these are issues faced by so many countries around the world. Drug Abuse and Crime o The first major area I want to discuss is the link between drug abuse and crime, and how research has refocused our approach to dealing with this problem. I know this issue is not unique to our culture, but that it, in fact, strikes a strong chord in so many other countries as well. o The link between drug abuse and crime--and what to do about this problem--are of critical importance to the health and safety of communities around the world. Historically in the United States, with the passage of each successive new anti-crime and anti-drug law, increased levels of punishment, often including mandatory minimum sentences, have been the criminal justice system's response to drug-related crime. o But our research has shown that stiffer penalties do not necessarily translate into lower drug use and crime rates. Between 1975 and 1989 sentences for drug-related crimes became substantially harsher, while violent crimes continued to increase. Research also pointed to the reason for this dichotomy. Surveys found that most substance abusing offenders serve their sentences and are released back into their communities without any kind of treatment for their addiction--that is, they go right back to the life they were leading before. o Recent research has confirmed, however, the effectiveness of drug treatment for substance-involved offenders--particularly prison-based drug treatment. For example, research by Dr. James Inciardi at the University of Delaware found that in-prison drug treatment programs increased the chance of remaining drug-free and reduced recidivism as long as a year and a half following release. o When combined with an after-prison work release program, one-half of offenders remained drug free and more than 70 percent remained arrest- free 18 months after their release. By comparison, only 40 percent of offenders who participated in neither of these programs remained arrest- free and only 15 percent remained drug-free. o Research also has found that drug treatment is cost-effective. A California study found that for every dollar invested in drug treatment in 1992, taxpayers saved 7 dollars as a result of decreased use of drugs and alcohol and lower costs related to crime and health care. o These research results led to the development of a new federal program that is providing funding to states to establish prison-based substance abuse treatment programs. And as a result of our efforts to educate the United States Congress about these research findings--about the clear ability to break cycles of drug use and crime--funding for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment grant program more than doubled in 1998, to $63 million. o Research has also pointed to another effective strategy for reducing drug-related crime--drug courts--that works on the same principle. Drug courts use the coercive, leveraging power of the court to provide intensive sanctions and treatment to help non-violent, low-level offenders break the cycle of addiction and crime. Judges work with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and drug treatment specialists to mandate treatment for these offenders, closely monitor their progress through drug testing, apply sanctions for lapses in behavior, and ensure the delivery of other services, such as educational or job skills training to help offenders remain crime and drug-free. o The drug court movement began in 1989 with an experiment in Miami's Dade County Circuit Court. With the help of federal funding, there are now 287 drug court programs operating in the United States, with another 161 in the planning stages. And after seeing some of our preliminary evaluation results, there is great interest now in other countries, I know, in replicating this approach. o Evaluations of the first U.S. drug court in Miami showed a 33 percent reduction in rearrests for drug court graduates compared with other offenders. And the Drug Court Clearinghouse at American University has found recidivism rates continue to be significantly reduced for drug court graduates, as well as for individuals who do not complete the program. Drug courts in the U.S. report recidivism rates of between 2 and 20 percent. In addition, we have found that drug courts save money by reducing the use of jail space and probation services, as well as the number of drug-addicted babies born to addict mothers. Family Violence o Another example of how research has informed practice in the United States can be seen in our efforts to improve the criminal justice response to family violence. This is also a key priority for the U.S. Department of Justice. It's clear that unless we do something about violence in the home, we'll never be able to do something about violence in the streets. o Family violence, it is clear, contributes to a vicious cycle that is repeated generation after generation. We know from research that children who are abused and neglected are 38 percent more likely to later commit a violent crime and 53 percent more likely to be arrested as a juvenile. o With the rise of the victims' and women's movements over the last two decades, and the growth of many local efforts, increasing attention has focused in our country on the often hidden victims of family violence. And with research pointing the way, we have made substantial progress, I think, in the United States over the last few years in beginning to address this serious problem. -- Every state, for example, now has laws requiring police, prosecutors, and judges to treat family violence as a crime, rather than a quote "family problem" unquote. -- And because research has shown that court orders are effective in reducing repeat abuse, we have made it easier now for victims to obtain civil protection or "stay away" orders to keep batterers away from their victims. -- And we've increased the number of shelters for battered women and children, a result, in part, of funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. We know from research that shelters that provide an array of services for women can reduce occurrences of repeated violence. -- Another major achievement at the federal level in our country has been the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which was part of the President's 1994 Crime Bill. It contains important federal legal protections for family violence victims, makes certain crimes against women federal offenses, toughens penalties for sex offenses, and provides funding to support state and local comprehensive approaches to address spouse abuse, sexual assault, and stalking. With these funds, law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, victim advocates, and service providers are working together in their communities to build comprehensive efforts to protect domestic violence victims, while--at the same time--holding batterers accountable for their abusive behavior. o I want to give you one example of a comprehensive family violence program that is serving as a model for other communities in the U.S. Ten years ago, the city of Quincy, Massachusetts developed a family violence program in the wake of a tragic murder-suicide, when police escorted a battered woman home--and then she and her children were murdered by her abusive husband, who then committed suicide. o The Quincy program combines criminal justice efforts with victim services and batterer intervention programs to protect victims of abuse through a two-pronged strategy of victim empowerment and offender control. o Quincy has created training packages, for example, for police to use in responding to family violence cases, established a specially trained prosecution unit that has successfully prosecuted the vast majority of these cases brought to court, and developed a protocol for sentencing and supervising offenders in these cases. The program also provides shelter and treatment for children of battered mothers, and transitional housing. o The Quincy Court Program has virtually eliminated family violence- related homicide in the city. In the program's first 6 years, there was not a single family violence-related homicide of a court-involved woman in Quincy, while a neighboring county had fifteen such homicides in only one year. And the Justice Department is now helping other communities learn how to develop this kind of comprehensive approach to reducing family violence. Youth Gun Violence o Research also has helped to shape our response to gun violence-- particularly by juveniles and young adults. Regrettably, the popular image of the U.S. is too often of "Wild West" shootouts, machine-gunning gangsters of the 1920's and 30's, or Uzi wielding drive-by gang shootings. And while this presents a distorted view of U.S. culture, within the past 10 or 15 years, we have--sadly--seen a very disturbing and dramatic increase in the use of guns by young people, as evidenced, for example, by the recent series of school shootings. o Juvenile and young adult arrest rates for weapons violations increased over 100 percent in the U.S. between 1985 and 1994, and the number of young homicide offenders almost tripled. And although more recent data show juvenile arrests for all violent crimes have fallen, arrest rates are still much higher than they were a decade ago, including arrest rates for homicide. o But research has identified some effective approaches to reducing youth gun violence--like the Boston experience. Between 1991 and 1996, Boston experienced 155 youth homicides--most involving guns. But with funding from our National Institute of Justice, a unique coalition has helped to dramatically reduce youth gun violence in Boston by using research and data analysis to identify the core problems and shape intervention strategies. The coalition includes researchers from Harvard University; representatives from federal, state, and local law enforcement, prosecution, and probation agencies; and city-employed gang outreach and mediation specialists. o The project's unique approach focused on, first, analyzing the supply and demand for guns, and then using federal gun traces and other innovative methods both to disrupt illegal firearms markets and deter serious youth violence. Researchers found that a high percentage of youth gun violence in the city could be attributed to gang "shooting wars." Practitioners announced a "no tolerance" policy in gang neighborhoods. Gang members were told that unless they gave up their guns and the shooting stopped, they would be targeted by law enforcement, including federal officers, and even minor offenses like drinking in public would be pursued. o When one gang member with a 15-year history of violent felonies was found with a single bullet in his possession, he was arrested. Because of his prior convictions, he was indicted on federal charges as an armed career criminal and sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison. Many other gang members soon turned in their handguns, and gun-related youth violence in the area has virtually ceased. Collaborative, Community-Based Initiatives o We are now working to help other U.S. communities follow Boston's example and develop research-driven and data-driven approaches to reducing crime. o Under a new Justice Department pilot project called Strategic Approaches to Community Safety--building on the lessons learned from Boston--we are working with five U.S. cities to help them collaboratively and systematically analyze crime and other data, and then use trend information and problem-solving techniques to develop strategic interventions and to inform decisions on spending and resource allocation. o The United States Attorney--the lead federal law enforcement officer in major U.S. cities--is providing leadership to the projects in each site in coordination with other federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies. But what is most innovative about this approach is the critical role the research component plays in this initiative. In addition to routinely analyzing crime and other local data, the researchers are helping to develop targeted intervention strategies based on the nexus between the local crime data, crime control theory, organizational capacities, and promising strategies that have been used elsewhere. Researchers also will conduct an ongoing evaluation of the intervention as the project progresses. o In addition, the research community is assisting in the development of cutting edge, easy-to-use information systems that will link agencies at each of the 5 sites. These "Community Safety Information Systems" will integrate data from the various partners and allow them to analyze information in map, graph, chart, and database formats. So sites will have the capacity to identify and predict emerging crime patterns as they design their crime reduction strategies. Our National Institute of Justice's Crime Mapping Research Center is assisting in this effort by sending teams into each site to conduct a needs assessment and to help develop an implementation plan for the new information systems. o The goal of our Strategic Approaches initiative is to put information about local crime problems into the hands of the decisionmakers who shape policy, so that criminal justice policy, practice, and spending is driven by sound data and information--and not by anecdote or quick reactions to the latest headlines, as so often happens in the United States. Informing the Crime Debate o It is from experiences like these that I strongly believe this goal of integrating research and practice into criminal justice policy is essential, not just for the future of crime control in the U.S., but worldwide. For that reason, at the Department of Justice we recently established a new International Center within our National Institute of Justice to coordinate our international activities. Professor James Finkenauer from Rutgers University will soon join us as director of the center, which will work on stimulating comparative research and information sharing among criminal justice research institutes around the world. o One of the critical challenges I see for the international research community is to help refocus the debate on crime in legislatures and other policy-making institutions worldwide. As researchers and professionals in criminal justice, we have a responsibility to help ensure that the crime policies, laws, and programs in our countries are based on what we know from research, evaluation, or experience is effective--and not based on symbols or overly abstract philosophies from any part of the political spectrum. o As Larry Sherman observed in a recent article, "The mythic power of subjective and unstructured wisdom holds back every field and keeps it from systematically discovering and implementing what works best in repeated tasks." o Our responsibility is to use our work, our research, our practice, and our voices to ensure that criminal justice policies around the world do not fall victim to "subjective and unstructured wisdom," but are based on sound, scientific data and knowledge, and documented experience. o The United States Department of Justice looks forward to working with all of you toward this goal. Thank you.