Searching for Answers. Series: NIJ Annual Report to Congress Published: July 1996 185 pages 295,301 bytes Searching for Answers: Criminal Justice Research, Development and Evaluation National Institute of Justice 1995 Annual Report to Congress ------------------------------ Letter of Transmittal To the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress: I have the honor to transmit herewith Searching for Answers, the National Institute of Justice's annual report on research, development, and evaluation for fiscal year 1995, pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (as amended) and the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Respectfully submitted, Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice Washington, DC ------------------------------ National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Report Editor Mary Graham The research, evaluation, and development activities described in this report are undertaken and monitored by staff members of the National Institute of Justice, who provided invaluable assistance in the development of this report. The Institute also acknowledges with thanks the contributions of its grantees to this report. Editorial and production support was provided by Cygnus Corporation. NCJ 162042 ------------------------------ The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. This report was prepared under contract number OJP-94-C-005 awarded to Cygnus Corporation. ------------------------------ Table of Contents Message From the Director Introduction Part 1: Highlights of Fiscal Year 1995 The 1994 Crime Act: A Catalyst for Innovation Advances in Science and Technology The Global Effects of Crime Information Technology and Communications A New Century and a New Philosophy Part 2: Findings From the NIJ Research Portfolio Violence: Understanding Why and Reducing the Risks Juvenile Crime: An Escalating Concern Family Violence: Developing New Strategies for Responding Community Policing: A Focal Point of Innovation Drug-Related Crime: Trends and Responses Adjudication: Experimenting With Specialized Approaches Corrections: New Challenges and Alternatives Science and Technology: Exciting Advances Summary Part 3: Appendixes: NIJ Awards, Publications, and Partnerships Appendix A: NIJ Awards in FY 1995 Appendix B: Recent NIJ Publications Appendix C: NIJ Partnerships ------------------------------ Message from the Director Our success in meeting today's challenges depends on open dialogue, creative thinking, and clear focus on safety and justice while we nurture the seeds of change. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the Federal Government's chief sponsor of criminal justice research. Allied to its central mission of research are responsibilities for evaluating criminal justice practice and innovative programs, stimulating the use of advanced technology to solve crime control problems, and spreading the word on new insights and approaches yielded by research and experimentation. During the year covered by this report, the National Institute of Justice initiated broader agendas in all of its mission areas. With the impetus of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, NIJ launched partnerships with creative and committed colleagues in the offices charged with implementing key innovations set forth in the legislation -- community policing, violence against women, correctional boot camps, and drug courts. This synergy of innovation, research, evaluation, and sharing of knowledge promises that the lessons of the major innovations now in progress throughout the country will be assimilated into policy and practice. With the support of Congress, NIJ is now working closely with the U.S. Department of Defense on a multi-year effort to devise dual-use technologies that will benefit both the military and State and local law enforcement. The Institute's technology programs are aimed at helping criminal justice agencies keep pace with the accelerating advances in science and technology, from DNA analysis to less-than-lethal weapons to sophisticated weapons detection systems. Another central initiative of the last year has introduced the National Institute of Justice as a full partner in the global dialogue on the problems of crime and crime prevention and efforts to strengthen the administration of justice. In collaboration with the U.S. Department of State, NIJ convened policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from around the world to explore the issues involved in policing in emerging democracies. In 1995, too, NIJ became one of the family of criminological institutes associated with the United Nations. And the Institute was asked by the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch to assist in designing a prototype of an Internet-based system of information exchange among the Branch, the associated institutes, and other government and education organizations worldwide. That system, known as UNOJUST -- the United Nations Online Justice Information Clearinghouse -- was unveiled at the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Cairo, Egypt, in 1995. NIJ recognizes that information must be shared if it is to influence future action. We have completed a rethinking of the Institute's dissemination and publications programs that we believe will enable us to inform those in the field more rapidly and effectively. One of the vehicles that will help us achieve this is increasing use of the information superhighway. Last year, NIJ significantly expanded its use of electronic dissemination with a presence on the World Wide Web. As the Institute moves ahead, its challenge is to assess the remarkable opportunities for creativity and reform within the criminal justice system and choose those in which research can make the greatest contribution. Our success in meeting this challenge depends on our willingness to engage the field and communities in candid dialogue, our openness to different ways of thinking about the criminal justice system, and our ability to keep the ultimate goals of safety and justice foremost in mind while we nurture the seeds of change. Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice ------------------------------ Introduction In this report: Part 1 . . . Highlights of Fiscal Year 1995 Part 2 . . . Findings From the NIJ Research Portfolio Part 3 . . . NIJ Awards, Publications, and Partnerships In 1995, criminal justice research reached a new threshold. Strengthened by a quarter-century of experience, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) -- the Nation's primary Federal sponsor of justice research -- launched an expanded effort to address crime control issues of concern to all Americans. An important impetus for 1995 efforts was the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The Act both reinforced activities already under way at NIJ and stimulated new research and evaluation initiatives. It also sharpened NIJ's focus on innovation, especially through its emphasis on: o Community policing. o Violence against women, including domestic violence and child abuse. o Alternative sanctions, such as boot camps. o Drug courts, which emphasize treating offenders and holding them accountable for their actions. Last year saw significant advances in other areas as well. First, with the growing recognition that crime is a global issue, NIJ accepted a much larger role in sharing criminal justice information internationally by taking advantage of the latest in information technology. Second, the Institute undertook a broad range of activities, some with the Department of Defense (DOD), to harness new initiatives in the broader science and technology arena for the use of criminal justice agencies. Finally, NIJ continued to foster national discussion on important issues facing the criminal justice community as it enters the 21st century. Funding NIJ awarded more than $55 million during the past fiscal year for a wide array of projects involving research, evaluation, program development, technology development, and dissemination of information. NIJ's total expenditures for fiscal year 1995 and its funding sources includes its base appropriation, which was augmented by funds from agencies and organizations that have chosen to partner with the Institute on studies related to the 1994 Crime Act as well as on other important projects. (The list of NIJ's research and evaluation partners can be found in Appendix C.) The number of proposals received in response to the NIJ Research Plan and to solicitations increased last year from 500 to 1,000. Internal Changes Streamline NIJ Functions As Institute activity increased, so too did the number of staff. Newly hired personnel have helped to plan and monitor a diverse portfolio of grants and contracts and to provide information and services to States and localities. Following an internal assessment of NIJ by its director, several organizational changes were initiated and strategic plans set in motion to strengthen NIJ's operations and enhance its capabilities as a research institution. The Institute's annual Research Plan was significantly streamlined, and 15 solicitations were issued during fiscal year 1995 on special topics. A new intramural research program was developed in which staff investigate significant policy issues. For example, one project examines changes in homicide and violent crime during the past decade in 10 cities as well as crime trend data in the 77 largest cities. Several projects are using Drug Use Forecasting data to analyze trends, patterns, and relationships among drug use and homelessness, rearrest rates, type of drug use, and the role of drugs in crime commission. In preparation during the year was the first-ever listing of the entire portfolio of active research efforts of NIJ grantees and staff; it will be available in 1996. The Institute's internal changes resulted in reorganization into three program offices: Research and Evaluation, Science and Technology, and Development and Dissemination. Office of Research and Evaluation The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) is responsible for all of NIJ's criminal justice research and evaluation activities. ORE's work is the central focus of NIJ's mission. ORE identifies priority issues in criminal justice and builds knowledge that informs policymakers, criminal justice practitioners at all levels of government, and members of the public. ORE develops and sponsors a comprehensive research and evaluation program that adds significantly to our understanding of criminal behavior, crime control, and criminal justice. ORE has two divisions: (1) Crime Control and Prevention, and (2) Criminal Justice and Criminal Behavior. The Crime Control and Prevention Division plans and develops research on and evaluation of crime prevention programs, white collar and organized crime policing programs, gangs, firearms, victims of crime, and the Community Oriented Policing program mandated under Title I of the Crime Act of 1994. The Criminal Justice and Criminal Behavior Division sponsors studies about offender decision making, drug consumption, criminal careers, prosecution, sentencing, and corrections and court issues. It is responsible for research relating to Title IV of the Crime Act, Violence Against Women Act, and Title II, which deals with boot camps, prison construction, and drug courts. The division is also responsible for major programs of research on the onset of delinquency, on violent criminal behavior, such as sexual assault and child molestation, as well as NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. It also coordinates the Institute's Intramural Research Program and the Visiting and Graduate Research Fellowship programs. Office of Science and Technology The Office of Science and Technology (OST) supports programs that provide a firm scientific foundation for developing equipment and techniques that improve law enforcement, corrections, and forensics. Science and technology activities fall into three areas: (1) collection and dissemination of technical information, (2) development of standards and operation of an equipment testing program, and (3) a research and development grants program. OST also supports five regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers that coordinate technology-related information for their geographical areas. Office of Development and Dissemination NIJ's Office of Development and Dissemination (ODD) improves the criminal justice system by supporting applied research and program demonstrations, offering training and workshops, and disseminating pertinent information to the criminal justice community nationwide. The focus is on direct services to professionals in the criminal justice field. ODD reports on significant issues that affect day-to-day practice, innovative local programs that merit consideration by other jurisdictions, and emerging problems. Among its recent initiatives is a computerized data base of antiviolence programs called PAVNET (Partnerships Against Violence Network). During the year, PAVNET information became available online with search and retrieval capabilities for approximately 1,000 entries. A printed two-volume directory of PAVNET data was published in January 1995. PAVNET Online can be accessed by gophering to pavnet.esuda.gov. PAVNET's World Wide Web address is http://www.pavnet.org. Other publications issued by ODD include the report series Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice, which explores program options and management issues to help criminal justice administrators plan, implement, and improve programs and practices; and Program Focus summaries, which highlight innovative State and local criminal justice programs and approaches. Office of the Director The Office of the Director sets policy and provides overall management and administration. The Director of NIJ, who is appointed by the President, approves all grant awards, cooperative agreements, and contracts; sets policies and priorities for the Institute; supervises the Institute's budget; and provides direction and supervision of staff, administration, and management. The staff in the Office of the Director help facilitate these various functions. About This Report NIJ's goals and accomplishments for 1995 are highlighted in this three-part report: Part 1, Highlights of Fiscal Year 1995, summarizes the Institute's activities on key fronts. Highlights include the 1994 Crime Act research and evaluation initiatives, international endeavors, communications innovations, advances in science and technology, and challenges facing the criminal justice system as it enters the 21st century. Part 2, Findings From the NIJ Research Portfolio, discusses findings from selected NIJ projects relevant to current priorities such as violence, drugs, science and technology, and the operations of the criminal justice system -- law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. Part 2 also presents findings from evaluations of programs supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which administers the Federal block grant program to help States and localities fight drugs and crime. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 directs NIJ to evaluate selected BJA projects to identify the most promising and suitable for replication and to help programs modify procedures and operations to become more effective. Part 3, Appendixes: Awards, Publications, and Partnerships, contains a list of awards made in fiscal year 1995, recent NIJ publications, and partnerships formed with other agencies. ------------------------------ Part 1 Highlights of Fiscal Year 1995 The 1994 Crime Act: A Catalyst for Innovation NIJ's research agenda reflects new thinking about ways to link community concerns with criminal justice responses. The 1994 Crime Act provided major new opportunities for innovation in criminal justice. Responsible government demands careful evaluation of innovative programs, and NIJ set in motion systematic research and evaluation initiatives to address the dual challenges that Congress wrote into the Crime Act: (1) ensure accountability, and (2) learn from doing. Plans for the research were developed by NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation in collaboration with the Crime Act offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)1 and with the participation of criminal justice practitioners who met with NIJ staff in several sessions during the year. For each of the four areas emphasized by the Crime Act (community policing, violence against women, corrections, and drug courts), NIJ devised a strategy that entailed a national evaluation to explore the impact of Crime Act initiatives and assess specific programmatic interventions. Together with research on other key issues, the strategy is expected to yield findings to guide the future of the Crime Act initiatives. Community Policing Within a year after the Crime Act was signed into law, NIJ, in cooperation with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, awarded nearly $14 million in research and evaluation grants related to Title I, the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994. This amount represents the single largest Federal investment in policing research. The 55 projects involving more than 40 jurisdictions were chosen from about 300 proposals submitted in response to the Institute's research solicitation that was issued in May 1995. Projects initiated under major categories included: o National evaluation This effort will assess the impact of Title I funds on law enforcement agencies. Evaluators will survey up to 3,600 police executives, visit 30 to 60 local jurisdictions, and develop case studies on 8 to 16 of the sites. The data developed will help answer several questions: Are the resources getting to local agencies? What activities are being supported? Are they having an impact? o Organization and management Major organizational issues related to the adoption of community policing are being examined, for example, through a national survey of police executives and through case studies of cities that are on the cutting edge of this approach to policing. o Strategies and tactics These awards focus on the techniques various agencies are applying as they implement community policing. The projects are assessing such issues as a coordinated domestic violence response system, family group conferencing, community policing strategies in public housing, joint community policing and social service responses to elder abuse, and the effectiveness of problem- solving techniques. o Police-community interaction Projects include those that will determine how residents in several neighborhoods learn about crime and disorder, how they shape their everyday lives to reduce risk, and how community policing affects citizens' perceptions of fear and disorder. Researchers will also conduct major observational projects on how citizens and police interact in community policing environments as well as study policing on Indian reservations. o Locally initiated partnerships After reviewing nearly 100 proposals, NIJ awarded 26 grants to fund the establishment of collaborations between police departments and police researchers. The aim of the partnerships -- which will be active in some 58 jurisdictions in 39 States -- is to give localities a research capacity that will allow them to capture data on local innovations and assess their effectiveness. The majority of the grants support partnerships between either a single agency or agency consortium with university researchers. Police in Omaha, for example, will work with researchers at the University of Nebraska at Omaha to set research and problem-solving agendas and then tackle the top priorities. In downstate Illinois, 20 or more municipal police agencies serving populations of under 50,000 will work side-by-side with researchers from Southern Illinois University first to determine research priorities and then to conduct the actual research. To measure the effectiveness of these partnerships, NIJ has also funded an independent evaluation of these efforts. Violence Against Women The 1994 Crime Act fosters a multidisciplinary, collaborative approach to reducing violence against women, which includes sexual assault, stranger violence, and violence between intimates. In fiscal year 1995, NIJ undertook a number of activities to respond to the research mandates of the Crime Act and to continue NIJ's program of expanding knowledge and understanding of why these crimes occur and how to prevent them. As with community policing, NIJ issued a solicitation for research, in this case relating to Title IV of the Crime Act -- the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In partnership with the Violence Against Women Grants Office, NIJ awarded nearly $1 million to 6 projects, which were selected from 61 proposals submitted. One project is a nationwide evaluation of the implementation of programs funded under VAWA; other studies will examine coordinated responses to domestic violence. In one jurisdiction, for example, evaluators will assess a program that combines a policy of mandatory arrest and court-mandated treatment for batterers with a no-drop prosecution strategy. Another project will assess the impact of alternative coordination approaches on victims' safety as well as victim satisfaction with responses. It will draw on an analysis of statewide data in New York and visits to five criminal justice agencies. Researchers will develop a typology of coordination models and will assess the role of leadership, conflict, and resources in the growth of different models. Researchers and prosecutors in Iowa will examine domestic violence prosecution strategies with the aim of identifying which strategies result in a successful conviction on the original charge. During the past year, NIJ also responded to specific mandates of VAWA requiring that a number of studies and reports (described below) be submitted to Congress. Data Collection on Sexual and Domestic Violence The Institute completed a study of the feasibility of creating centralized State data bases on the incidence of sexual and domestic violence. A companion effort carried out under the aegis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics examined collection of such data at the Federal level. NIJ is publishing a report summarizing both studies, which found that the Federal Government and the majority of States currently are collecting some statistics annually on these crimes: 35 States collect data on domestic violence, and 30 gather statistics on sexual violence. The research identified two key problems: First, there is variation among the States in terms of the definitions used and in the types of victims included in reporting requirements, which make it difficult to aggregate and compare data at the national level; and second, there is a need to include not only law enforcement statistics but also data from other parts of the criminal justice and social service systems for a more accurate picture. Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation At the close of the fiscal year, NIJ was nearing completion of a report on domestic violence, stalking, and antistalking legislation. The report notes that little hard data exist on the incidence of stalking or on its relationship to domestic violence. State antistalking laws only recently have been enacted, and the extent to which these laws are being used, alone or with other statutes, has not yet been measured. As of 1995, 49 States and the District of Columbia had legislation that addressed the problem of stalking. In the 19 States where the laws have been challenged on constitutional grounds, in all but three instances the statutes have been upheld. Violence Against Women Research Agenda NIJ and the National Academy of Sciences developed a long-range research agenda to accumulate knowledge across a broad range of areas -- prevention, education, and legal strategies. Confidentiality of Information Also in progress last year was a study of the means by which abusive partners obtain the addresses of domestic violence victims. The report identifies numerous information sources that batterers can access to locate victims. Battered Women's Syndrome In conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIJ responded to a congressional directive for a study of battered women's syndrome from a variety of perspectives. This report, too, will be available in 1996. Although the term "battered women's syndrome" has been used widely for some time, the report underscores the need for a more sophisticated way of understanding and discussing this complex issue. To reflect current empirical knowledge, the report's authors recommend "battering and its effects" as more accurate terminology. The study, which also involved the State Justice Institute and the National Association of Women Judges, found that expert testimony on battering and its effects has now been admitted in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. An analysis of the appeals of battered women defendants found that 63 percent of the convictions were upheld, even though expert testimony on battering and its effects on women was admitted in 70 percent of those cases. Researchers considered this strong evidence that, contrary to the contention of some critics, admitting expert testimony on battering and its effects was not tantamount to an acquittal. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys interviewed by the researchers said the impact of such evidence in criminal trials has increased the court's recognition of the broader problem of domestic violence. Joint Solicitation Finally, NIJ and several agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, working through the Interagency Violence Research Working Group, have collaborated on the development of a joint solicitation to support basic research on violence against women and family violence. Released in early 1996, this first-ever interagency research announcement will award up to $4.5 million over 3 years to conduct research on the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of violence against women and violence within the family, as well as on the health and legal consequences of violent acts on victims. Gathering sufficient resources for such an approach required a multiagency investment. Correctional Boot Camps The Crime Act provides formula and competitive grant awards for State correctional agencies to build and operate correctional facilities, including boot camps, to ensure that additional space is available to incarcerate other, violent offenders. To evaluate this initiative and the projects conducted under it, NIJ and the OJP Corrections Office allotted $1.2 million to be awarded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Following the issuance of the first solicitation in fiscal year 1995, a total of $600,000 was awarded for two projects that were selected from a field of more than 25 proposals. One study will implement a multisite strategy to assess the effects of 10 boot camp programs, 6 for adults and 4 for juveniles. The study will be especially sensitive to outcomes of aftercare strategies. The other award will study 27 juvenile boot camps with an emphasis on learning more about the confinement itself and specific aspects of the boot camp environment. The remaining funds will be awarded to successful applicants under the solicitation issued in 1996. Drug Courts The Crime Act emphasized the potential of creating special courts that combine sanctions and drug treatment for drug-abusing offenders. For many first-time drug offenders, being arrested and charged with a crime can become the crisis that prompts them to seek help. In most drug courts, the judge exerts considerable influence to make sure the offender's performance stays on track. The defense and prosecution tend to be less adversarial than in a traditional court setting because the two sides share one of the primary goals of the drug court: to reduce drug abuse and thereby decrease criminal behavior. An NIJ evaluation of the Dade County Drug Court in Florida, which has been the leader in this approach, showed promising results. NIJ is actively engaged in developing a solicitation to be issued in 1996 to assess the impact of drug courts funded under the Act. Advances in Science and Technology Since its inception, NIJ has worked to apply technological discoveries to criminal justice. Soft body armor, which is now standard issue among law enforcement agencies, stemmed from an early NIJ initiative. Continuing this commitment to harness scientific advances for the benefit of criminal justice operations, NIJ significantly expanded its science and technology efforts during fiscal year 1995, allocating a total of $13 million for these activities. NIJ's technology initiatives were augmented last year by a congressional appropriation of $37.5 million to the U.S. Department of Defense for a joint DOD/DOJ program to develop dual-use technologies to support defense and law enforcement needs. The funds are supporting projects developed by the program's steering group under a memorandum of understanding signed in April 1994 by the Justice and Defense Departments. Researchers will focus on developing improved covert body armor capable of stopping "cop-killer" bullets, sniper detection devices, information technologies, remote diagnosis and medical consultation systems, geolocation and tagging systems, and less-than-lethal technologies. NIJ and DOD also began an initiative to develop advanced technologies for detecting concealed weapons in public areas. In addition, NIJ is evaluating technologies that might lead to a reliable, safe mechanism to prevent un-authorized users from firing a law enforcement officer's firearm. Technologies to locate gunfire in urban areas and to stop fleeing vehicles and felons are all aimed at equipping law enforcement officers with a means of preventing rather than reacting to crime. With funds transferred from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, NIJ will award up to $4 million to develop technologies that will support community policing. In March 1995, NIJ conducted a major demonstration of less-than-lethal technologies that are under development, providing the opportunity for law enforcement professionals and industry researchers to share information. NIJ continued to develop and publish standards for a wide variety of law enforcement equipment and to conduct tests of selected products. Last year saw a significant expansion of technology research and development into the field of corrections. A new committee of some 80 corrections practitioners is identifying pressing correctional needs and recommending priorities for technology research and development. Four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and a Border Research and Technology Center opened their doors last year, providing a much needed extension to the Center in the Washington, D.C., area.2 Offering toll-free telephone access, these regional centers function as the hub for information about technology equipment, standards, testing, and data base development. They are the regional interfaces for law enforcement and corrections agencies and the Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) site on the World Wide Web. The Network provides online access to data, products, publications, and interactive topics of interest to law enforcement and corrections. In 1995, NIJ established the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, colocated with the National Technology Transfer Center in Wheeling, West Virginia, to help industry and government laboratories bring technology to the law enforcement marketplace in a timely and affordable manner. The 1994 Crime Act provides funding for NIJ to continue its work in identifying the capabilities of DNA analysis, including determining the feasibility of establishing a blind external proficiency testing program for DNA analyses that would be available to public and private laboratories performing these tests. DNA typing will soon become so prevalent that the number of samples will overwhelm forensic laboratories unless improved techniques are developed. These and other technology initiatives are described in more detail in Part 2 of this report. ------------------------------ Getting Online With NIJ Information about the National Institute of Justice, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), and other Office of Justice Programs agencies can be found on the Justice Information Center Web site. o NIJ's and NCJRS's URL is: http://www.ncjrs.org o NCJRS has two e-mail addresses, depending on the type of service requested: -- To receive an automatic description of NCJRS services: look@ncjrs.org -- To send inquiries and request specific information: askncjrs@ncjrs.org The NCJRS Users' Guide describes all of NCJRS's electronic services. The Guide can be ordered by calling NCJRS at 1-800-851-3420 (order number NCJ 155063). ------------------------------ The Global Effects of Crime Crime trends worldwide show a growing similarity. Several types of crime -- for example, offenses committed by juveniles and violent acts committed against women -- are becoming important issues in other countries besides the United States. In the spring of 1995, NIJ's long-standing relationship with the United Nations (UN) was formalized at the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Cairo, Egypt. At the Congress, NIJ joined other criminological research institutes around the world as a member of the United Nations Programme Network. The institutes, currently 12 in all, are linked under the leadership of the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division, the central repository within the UN for technical expertise in crime prevention, criminal justice, and criminal reform. The branch facilitates information sharing and cooperation on projects that upgrade law enforcement and criminal justice systems. Crime in other countries can quickly become a problem in the United States. For example, the advent of organized crime in Brooklyn operated by Russian emigres brings home the need to learn more about crime elsewhere in the world. Because of the effect transnational crime has on domestic crime, local law enforcement agencies are becoming more aware of the need to deal with global differences. NIJ research in progress will identify innovative approaches to coping with transnational crime, especially crime committed by or against illegal aliens in this country.3 In fiscal year 1995, NIJ took other steps to strengthen connections with the international community: o In conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics and State University of New York at Albany, NIJ participated in the development of the Web site for the United Nations Criminal Justice Information Network, an automated system consisting of a document data base in "gopher" and HTML format and a listserv (or electronic discussion forum). NIJ staff and Fellows are now working with other UN Programme Network Institutes to develop an Internet-based system called UNOJUST (United Nations Online Justice Clearinghouse). o NIJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) upgraded its ability to exchange information internationally. Currently, 103 members in 52 countries are represented in NCJRS's International Document Exchange. o An international section was added to the Justice Information Center, the Office of Justice Programs' site on the World Wide Web. o In fiscal year 1995, NIJ began working with several agencies and organizations with international missions: -- With the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Section of the U.S. Department of State, NIJ is exploring ways to assist other countries and nongovernmental organizations in establishing connections to the Internet and building the UN's digital library capacity. -- With the Eurasia Foundation, NIJ created an electronic library, called the International Rule of Law Clearinghouse Online, which is designed to help newly independent nations learn how to build their institutions on a foundation of law. -- With the Police Scientific Development Branch in the United Kingdom, NIJ's Office of Science and Technology is exchanging information about the newest developments in police science. -- With representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Israel National Police Headquarters, the NIJ-funded Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council makes recommendations to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. Information Technology and Communications NIJ's efforts to promote faster and easier access to the electronic exchange of criminal justice information made significant progress last year. The Institute initiated a major push toward using advanced information technologies, especially the Internet, to transmit information and to enable NIJ to serve as a broker of information and promoter of information exchange. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service has been transformed to permit electronic access. It is the cornerstone of the Institute's advanced communications efforts. Since its creation more than 20 years ago, NCJRS has served as the Nation's central access point for information about criminal justice. During 1995, NCJRS responded to some 37,000 information requests a month, drawing on a bibliographical data base of nearly 140,000 documents. Also during the year, NCJRS, which went online several years ago through an electronic bulletin board, began linking users via the Internet and a presence on the World Wide Web. Users now can access resources in repositories all over the world, download documents to their personal computers, and using special software (available free of charge), view the documents or print them exactly as they appear in the conventionally published version. The volume of information available makes a single repository of information impossible, but NCJRS's pathways help point customers toward the physical location of documents all over the globe. The Justice Information Center site on the World Wide Web makes available all the traditional clearinghouse services of NCJRS, but does so more rapidly and efficiently. Ordering publications and obtaining research assistance on criminal justice issues can be accomplished online. NIJ documents can be downloaded by users and printed on their own computers. For users, electronic publication means information can be kept current, and for the supplier, it means savings in printing and distribution costs. Online accessibility is speeding NIJ's grantmaking process now that the NIJ biannual Research Plan and related solicitations issued throughout the year can be found on the Internet and downloaded for immediate use. For members of the criminal justice community, the most useful feature of the Internet may be the opportunity to interact in electronic discussions with other members, either one-on-one or in groups. During the year, NIJ began setting up structures for creating online discussion groups on computer crime and law enforcement technology, drug courts, partnerships against violence, and other topics. A New Century and a New Philosophy Just as advancing technology will dramatically reshape criminal justice operations and increase information-sharing opportunities as the new century approaches, so too will forces in the larger society influence what criminal justice agencies do and how they do it. To illustrate the latter, the problem-solving paradigm that has emerged from the community policing movement is spreading to other parts of the criminal justice system. The heart of this approach is the recognition that communities must be coproducers of both safety and justice. In community policing, the police work as partners with members of the community to identify problems of crime and disorder, to define a strategy for responding to those problems, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach taken. The influence of this pragmatic, problem-solving approach is now being seen in other parts of the criminal justice system. In New York City, for example, the Midtown Community Court houses under one roof everything needed to hold misdemeanants accountable for their offenses: a courtroom to sanction them the same day they are arrested and a community service program to assign the jobs that constitute part of their sentences. The community is a full partner; judges receive community impact statements, sentences are served in the community, and the court works to address the underlying problems that led to offenses by providing social services such as drug treatment, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) counseling, and social service referral. A similar philosophy is at work in some local prosecutors' offices that have adopted community prosecution. For example, in Boston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Manhattan, Portland, and recently, Washington, D.C., district attorneys have set up mechanisms to give citizens direct access to their offices. The district attorney's representative talks with -- and even more important -- listens to citizens' concerns about pubic safety and provides information on defendants or cases that concern them. "Restorative justice" is another emerging model. Its primary objective: to right the wrong done to the individual victim and to the community. The approach envisions that every sanction will include consideration of public safety and accountability to both the victim and the community as core elements of justice. Now being used in some settings for juvenile offenses or less serious crimes, the process can involve a dialog between the offender and victim in setting penalties and determining compensation. To make amends to communities, offenders often are required to perform cleanup, repair, and similar tasks to improve neighborhood appearance -- a need particularly acute in the most crime-victimized areas. Another aspect of a preventive, community perspective is seen in collaborations among medical personnel, public health officials, and criminal justice practitioners aimed at controlling crimes that have long eluded a single-focus approach. The American Medical Association, for example, has joined in the effort to break the cycle of violence that so often begins at home. Its new guidelines enlist physicians and emergency room personnel to draw out information from patients who may be sexually abused or battered. On another front, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been actively involved in efforts to curb the use of firearms by young people. Last year NIJ joined forces with CDC on a demonstration program now under way in three cities. The National Institute of Justice research agenda increasingly reflects this new thinking on joining the community and the criminal justice system. NIJ's goals for the future will explore how new forces and new knowledge can move the Nation toward a more secure environment and a more equitable and effective system of justice. Notes to Part 1 1 The Crime Act offices are the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Violence Against Women Office, Corrections Program Office, and the Violence Against Women Grants Office. 2 The NIJ National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers are located in Charleston, South Carolina; Denver, Colorado; El Segundo, California; Rockville, Maryland; and Rome, New York. The NIJ Border Research and Technology Center is located in San Diego, California. 3 The project studies State and local law enforcement efforts against transnational crime, including illegal immigration, street crime committed by illegal immigrants, organized crime initiated outside U.S. borders, and immigrant involvement in the drug trade (NIJ grant 95-IJ-CX- 0110, a study by William McDonald). ------------------------------ Part 2 Findings From the NIJ Research Portfolio Violence: Understanding Why and Reducing the Risks Measuring exposure to violence will enhance understanding of its impact on the development of children who grow up in violent settings. Crime rates have fallen nationwide, and the violent crime rate has remained essentially the same since 1992.1 Despite these trends, most Americans still express high levels of concern about crime.2 This public perception is due in part because one type of violent crime -- homicide committed by and against youth -- is increasing, as is the number of crimes committed with guns. Since 1985, the number of murders committed by 18-year-olds and the number of homicides committed with guns have doubled.3 In addition, the relationship between the victim and the offender appears to be changing. In the past, most murders involved a perpetrator and victim who knew each other, but in 1994, 13 percent of homicide victims were murdered by strangers, and 40 percent had an unknown relationship to their murderers.4 The increase in murders committed by youths and strangers and involving victims and assailants whose relationship is recorded as "unknown" contributes to a public perception that violence is becoming more random and intensifies feelings of apprehension and vulnerability. Not only do youths commit a large proportion of the murders in the Nation, but youths are often crime victims. Although young people ages 12 to 18 make up only 14 percent of the population, 30 percent of all violent crimes are committed against them.5 In 1994, 1 in 9 persons aged 12 to 15 were victims of violent crime, compared to 1 in 196 for persons aged 65 and older.6 Young African-American males continue to be the group most likely to be both the victims and the perpetrators of criminal violence. Linking Youth Violence, Guns, and Drugs According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns are the type of firearm most often used in crime; murder is the crime that most frequently involves firearms; and youthful offenders appear to be more likely to possess guns than adults.7 In a recent survey of arrestees in 11 cities participating in NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting program, researchers found that 22 percent of juvenile arrestees carried a gun all or most of the time, and about 40 percent of the males reported ever possessing a firearm. Arrestees also reported high levels of victimization from firearms. About half had been shot at one or more times; 56 percent had been threatened with a gun; and 16 percent had been injured.8 Researchers are trying to determine more precisely the relationship between crime committed by youth and rising gun use.9 Criminologist Alfred Blumstein hypothesizes a link between the rapid growth of the crack markets in the mid-1980's and a rise in the use of firearms for protection, an increase in the number of juveniles who serviced the demand for crack, and a resulting diffusion of guns into the larger community of juveniles.10 Blumstein found that between 1985 and 1992, the arrest rate for murder among nonwhite juveniles increased 120 percent (from 7.1 to 15.8 per 100,000). Among white juveniles the arrest rate for murder increased by 80 percent (from 1.5 to 2.7 per 100,000). When he compared the arrest trends among young nonwhites for homicide and drug offenses, both rates had climbed together from 1985 through 1989, suggesting a relationship between the two. After 1989, the drug arrest rate declined moderately while the murder arrest rate essentially flattened out, but showed no corresponding decline.11 This divergence in trends may have occurred because law enforcement focused its efforts on containing drug markets, without a corresponding effort to constrain illicit gun markets. Researchers now are focusing their attention on specific types of guns, such as assault weapons, to learn which types are used by various subgroups of criminals to commit crimes. But little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime, at least in part because the term "assault weapon" was not defined until passage of the 1994 Crime Act, which bans the manufacture, transfer, or possession of 19 types of assault weapons.12 The Act charges NIJ with evaluating the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban. The Institute has awarded a grant to the Urban Institute to study the effect of the ban on violent crime and drug trafficking. Understanding Why Violence Occurs NIJ continues to follow up on the recommendations of the NIJ-supported Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior as it develops its research agenda. In its report Understanding and Preventing Violence, the Panel concluded that numerous factors influence the occurrence of violence, but the underlying causes are not well understood.13 Recent research suggests that exposure to violence during childhood and adolescence can perpetuate violence and contribute to emotional problems. With trends pointing to mounting youth involvement in crime -- as both offenders and victims -- a parallel increase in exposure to violence in the community, home, and school is inevitable. Current efforts to gauge the extent and, ultimately, the impact of exposure to violence are hampered by a number of methodological issues. Many studies, for example, do not distinguish between witnessing violence and experiencing violence. Others include questions regarding more severe events, such as shootings or attacks with a weapon but may not include sexual violence. Still others include questions about media violence. To explore ways to overcome these deficiencies, the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods last year developed and tested a new survey instrument for measuring exposure to violence. In a pilot test, researchers interviewed 80 individuals who are part of this ongoing longitudinal study. The results showed higher levels of exposure to violence among those who were older, male, and African American; among those who reported having participated in at least one violent event; and among those living in high crime areas. Even in this small pilot sample, 24 percent reported observing a dead body in the last year, and 66 percent had heard gunfire. Eventually, everyone in the study between the ages of 6 and 18 will be interviewed using the new survey instrument.14 The project will also examine the context in which the exposure to violence occurred -- for example, the location of the incident, the relationship of the victim and perpetrator to the individual, and the individual's reaction to the violence. Carefully measuring exposure to violence will enhance understanding of its impact on the development of children who grow up in violent settings and its role as a contributing factor in antisocial behavior. Use of the new measure is also expected to help in assessing the impact of violence prevention programs. Can significant changes in one's behavior as an adult, such as being employed or modifying alcohol or drug use, change the crime patterns of convicted male offenders? An NIJ-sponsored study conducted by researchers at the University of Nebraska found that the odds of committing an assault increased by more than 100 percent when an offender was using drugs. The University of Nebraska study supports findings from other NIJ-sponsored research showing that lack of marital attachment, too, is a strong predictor of adult criminality.15 Responding to Violence Both criminal justice and public health professionals recognize that violence and its consequences may be preventable not only by changing individuals' behavior but also by changing physical or social environments and by solving one underlying problem at a time. The limitations of traditional responses to violence have prompted explorations into new solutions and strategies.16 Some of the most successful opportunities for preventing violence depend on taking steps to reduce the potential for violence. With NIJ support, the Kansas City police tested one problem-solving strategy to control gun-involved crime: directed police patrols of gun crime "hot spots." By increasing seizures of illegally carried guns, the patrols resulted in a 49-percent decrease in gun crimes in the targeted area.17 Traffic stops were the most productive method of finding guns, with an average of 1 gun found in every 28 traffic stops. Drive-by shootings dropped from 7 to 1 in the target areas, doubled from 6 to 12 in the comparison area, and showed no displacement to adjoining beats. Another problem-solving technique being supported and tested by NIJ involves computerized mapping of a community to identify crime hot spots. The mapping technology, which has improved dramatically in recent years, has been used to identify drug markets, better understand crime patterns, and locate gang activity and turf.18 Arranging physical space to discourage crime is another step toward reducing the potential for crime. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) emphasizes the proper design and effectiveness of a created environment to reduce crime and enhance the quality of life.19 The Washington, D.C., subway system, for example, is maintained and managed with crime prevention in mind. Metro's low crime rate compared to similar systems suggests that it is possible to manipulate environments to reduce criminal opportunities.20 The problem-solving and CPTED approaches attack one or two factors at a time in the hope that small successes will add up to significant reductions in overall violence throughout a community.21 By combining the application of problem-solving techniques with longer term studies of the causes of violence, research can play a role in ameliorating one of society's enduring problems. ------------------------------ Juvenile Crime: An Escalating Concern Gangs have migrated to cities large and small throughout the United States. As family disruption, poverty, gangs, drug and alcohol abuse, and the deterioration of inner cities all grow more prevalent, the literature clearly documents how profoundly these conditions affect young people. These problems, or risk factors, all contribute to juvenile delinquency; indeed, the more risk factors in a young person's life, the more likely the youth is to exhibit delinquent behavior.22 Risk factors include: o Neighborhood environment: poverty, high crime rates, transience, lack of social cohesiveness, a dominant drug culture. o Family situation: alcoholism, substance abuse, criminal history, poor parenting. o Peer group influence: gang membership, association with drug-using youths, perceived endorsement of drugs by friends. o Individual predictors of delinquency: academic failure, poor attachment to school, early rebelliousness, experimentation with drugs. Of the foregoing risk factors, gangs are often among top enforcement and prosecution priorities, while certain other risk factors are addressed by such prevention-oriented programs as Children at Risk and Boys and Girls Clubs. The Impact of Street Gangs Street gang members consist of juveniles, including preteens, and young adults. In some cities, juveniles account for 90 percent of gang membership; in other locations, adults comprise more than half the members.23 Gang members commit both significantly more offenses and more violent offenses than comparable nongang offenders.24 The rate of violent offenses committed by gang members is reported to be three times that of nongang members.25 Gang membership also appears to prolong the extent and seriousness of criminal careers.26 The number of gang members committing violent offenses, inflicting serious injuries, and employing lethal weapons continues to grow,27 and an increasing number of gang members have easy access to greater firepower than the average police patrol officer.28 Homicides and other violent crimes account for about half of all recorded gang-related crime incidents.29 ------------------------------ Estimating the Number of Gangs Differing criteria are used to define gangs: the extent of the group's violent behavior, its organizational and leadership structure, territory, recurrent interactions, and sometimes symbols worn or used by gang members.1 Although the lack of a universal definition creates difficulty in gathering accurate and complete national statistics, estimates of the extent of the Nation's gang problem show steady increases. In 1988, 72 percent of all cities reported having a gang problem. In 1992, the number had increased to 85 percent,2 and by 1994, almost 90 percent of police departments in large U.S. cities and a majority in smaller cities reported gang-related crime problems.3 1 Curry, G.D., R.A. Ball, and R.J. Fox, "Gang Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping," Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1994. 2 Ibid. 3 Curry, G.D., "Estimating the National Scope of Gang Crime from Law Enforcement Data," Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1996. Large cities are defined as those with populations of more than 150,000; smaller cities are those with populations of between 25,000 and 150,000. In 1993, a reasonable estimate is that 555,181 gang members in 16,643 street gangs committed 580,331 gang-related crimes in the United States. ------------------------------ Gang Migration Patterns In recent years, hundreds of cities throughout the Nation have seen the arrival of gang members, although usually in relatively low numbers.30 In a recently completed survey of gang migration from one city to another, 86 percent of cities that had experience with gang migration reported that an influx of migrants was associated with increases in theft, robbery, other violent crimes, and gun or sophisticated firearms use.31 Police agencies in 18 percent of the cities viewed gang migration as a severe problem. One-third said gang migration was minor or not a problem. Gang members who relocate are usually young African-American or Hispanic males. They tend to travel relatively short distances and stay at least several months. They migrate primarily to stay with their relocated families or with friends or relatives (57 percent), or to expand a drug market (20 percent). The character of gang migration at the local level affects the community's response to the problem. In cities where migration occurs primarily for social reasons, migrants can be targeted for prevention and intervention efforts. But cities whose gang migration occurs for the purpose of drug market expansion confront a qualitatively different problem. In these cities, research suggests that targeted law enforcement and suppression tactics, guided by anti-narcotics expertise, may have a beneficial impact.32 However, a study of street gangs and drug sales in two cities in suburban Los Angeles suggests that some law enforcement estimates might overemphasize the role of gangs in the illicit drug trade.33 In 1,563 cocaine sales incidents, the proportion of cases involving gang members was 30 percent in one of the cities and just over 21 percent in the other. The combined rate of 26.7 percent was far less than expected and indicates substantial gang involvement in, but not domination of, cocaine distribution. The researchers suggested that law enforcement agencies may wish to consider reassessing the merits of having specialized gang units with emphasis on narcotics enforcement, except in the unusual case of the extremely involved drug-selling street gang.34 Insights into some current efforts to combat gangs can be gleaned by viewing the problem from the perspectives of law enforcement officials and prosecutors. Investigating and Prosecuting Gang Crime Police chiefs and sheriffs responding to a national survey expressed concern about the increase in gang-related crimes and the difficulties in investigating those offenses.35 In particular, survey respondents commented on the time-consuming nature of these types of investigation. Gang-related homicides and assaults consume an inordinate amount of time because of the difficulty of interviewing reticent witnesses, victims, and suspects. Fear of retaliation is a major inhibitor, precluding many crime clearances and successful prosecutions.36 The fear of retaliation shared by victims and witnesses appears to be endemic in neighborhoods infested with gang activity and drug sales but virtually nonexistent outside those neighborhoods.37 Fear, however, is only one factor contributing to the phenomenon of uncooperative victims and witnesses; a deep-seated distrust of law enforcement may also strongly deter citizen involvement. Communities where gangs operate are often insulated worlds unto themselves where victims and witnesses know the gang members against whom they are asked to testify. Typically, victims and witnesses are the gang member's friends, relatives, classmates, and neighbors; they may even belong to the same church. They often view the crime as a private matter, not as a crime against the community. Gang-related crime directly affects prosecutors' already heavy workloads.38 In a national survey, 30 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions reported they had formed gang units using "vertical prosecution," in which one attorney or a small team handled cases from arraignment through trial and sentencing.39 Other prosecutors use existing specialized units (such as a drug or career criminal unit) or tag gang cases for special attention or high-priority handling. Some jurisdictions supplement vertical prosecution with highly proactive procedures, such as participating in the initial investigation by going out on the street with police to interview victims and witnesses and talk to gang members.40 Prosecutors in this survey consistently stressed the importance of offering immediate protection to witnesses in gang cases and of ensuring the cooperation of victims. Involving victim-witness advocates often helped the process. Prosecutors use a variety of policies, strategies, or statutory tactics against gangs; they may, for example, develop gang member tracking systems, participate in multiagency gang enforcement initiatives, transfer juvenile gang members to adult court, or enhance penalties. Preventing Juvenile Crime Prosecutors involved with gang issues consistently advocate early intervention and more effective services to strengthen families as the best way to prevent gang crime and violence.41 About 78 percent of prosecutors surveyed in large and small jurisdictions regarded as a major or moderate problem the lack of early intervention programs for youths at risk of gang involvement. The 1994 Crime Act combines prevention efforts -- including intervention at an early age -- with provisions for swift and certain punishment for serious violent crime. The Act fosters actions to prevent young people from joining gangs. G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training Project), for example, is a school-based program, and the Children at Risk (CAR) program and Boys and Girls Clubs are community-based, neighborhood programs. All strive to prevent youth from developing into delinquents. G.R.E.A.T. Initiated by the Phoenix Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 1991, G.R.E.A.T. teaches middle-school children, primarily seventh graders, how to build their self-esteem, resist negative peer pressure, resolve conflicts peacefully, and stay out of gangs. The 9-week program was initiated in 1991 by the Phoenix Police Department in conjunction with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Its goal is to reduce gang activity by educating young people about the consequences of gang involvement. G.R.E.A.T. has been adopted by numerous law enforcement agencies across the country: As of January 1996, more than 1,700 officers from 47 States and the District of Columbia had complete G.R.E.A.T. training. Children at Risk Program The Children at Risk program is a large-scale experimental demonstration project that intervenes early in the lives of high-risk youths and their families to reduce and control the influences of drugs and crime. Through a unique public-private partnership, CAR is operated in six cities across the Nation.42 The Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University designed and currently manages the program.43 The Center is documenting the process of translating the CAR model into working programs. With NIJ support, the Urban Institute is evaluating the program and its impact on the children, the families, and the target neighborhoods. Preliminary analysis shows that, compared with a control group, CAR participants had fewer contacts with the criminal justice system during the first year they participated in the program than they had in previous years.44 The precise reasons for this difference are still being determined. A youth's participation in CAR may decrease his involvement in delinquent behavior; it also may be that the program is changing the way incidents are handled by the police and the courts. For example, courts and police may be handling minor offenses committed by CAR youths more informally, or CAR case managers may be acting as advocates when CAR youths are arrested or charged. Followup interviews at the program's completion will provide additional information on the extent to which CAR is reducing delinquency, altering system response, or both. In either case, CAR appears to be diverting youths at a troublesome developmental stage from early involvement with the justice system. Evaluators must still analyze the costs and benefits of CAR and identify breakeven points to estimate how successful a similar program must be to pay for itself. Boys and Girls Clubs In some neighborhoods Boys and Girls Clubs are one of the few alternatives to the streets. Frequently located in or near public housing communities, clubs typically provide tutorial programs, craft programs, recreational programs, mentors, field trips, and cultural excursions. More than 1,200 clubs can be found in every major metropolitan area across the Nation. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded 15 Boys and Girls Clubs of America in public housing sites. In fiscal year 1995, an NIJ-funded evaluation found that securing the trust of neighborhood youths and residents was both a major challenge and a primary key to the success of the programs. Programs that met their goals most successfully were likely to be managed by experienced, energetic coordinators; to have the active involvement of parents, schools, and community organizations; and to have links to existing community-based service providers.45 ------------------------------ Family Violence: Developing New Strategies for Responding Effective responses to family violence involve close collaboration among multiple agencies. Unlike most crimes, family violence usually consists not of a single incident but rather a series of escalating abuses. For this reason, counting incidents of family violence -- whether spouse assault, child abuse, or elder abuse -- is more complicated than counting other crimes, which are generally limited in time and do not involve one offender repeatedly victimizing the same person. Studies have shown that a history of family violence, abuse, or neglect is a significant factor leading to delinquency and later adult criminal behavior. (See the accompanying sidebar, "The Cycle of Violence.") Incidence of Family Violence To improve mechanisms for assessing the incidence of family violence and to respond to a mandate of the Violence Against Women Act (Title IV of the 1994 Crime Act), NIJ and the Justice Research and Statistics Association studied the methods by which States report the incidence of domestic and sexual violence offenses.46 The project was part of an effort to identify ways to improve the national collection of this information. The study found that a majority of States currently collect statistics on domestic violence (35 States collect data on domestic violence; 30 collect it on sexual violence). The States vary widely, however, in how they define these offenses, determine what is counted, and measure or report incidents. The variations reflect the differences in State criminal codes, the characteristics of State information systems, and the attention States give to domestic and sexual violence. Thus, State statistics are often not comparable and cannot be aggregated easily to develop national statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently redesigned its National Criminal Victimization Survey to improve its ability to capture information about violent victimizations of women. In the new survey, women reported about 500,000 rapes and sexual assaults. Friends and acquaintances of the victims committed more than half of these rapes or sexual assaults. The new BJS data reveal that women who experience violence at the hands of an intimate are more likely to be injured as a result of their victimization than are women who are victimized by a stranger.47 Ending an abusive relationship does not necessarily ensure a woman's safety. Many victims of spouse abuse leave an abusive relationship only to be stalked and threatened by the former partner. In March 1996, NIJ completed the first annual report to Congress on stalking and domestic violence in response to a mandate of the Violence Against Women Act. The report notes that 49 States and the District of Columbia now have antistalking legislation that can be used to protect women.48 ------------------------------ The Cycle of Violence The majority of abused and neglected children do not become delinquents, adult criminals, or violent offenders, although children who are abused and neglected are more likely than others to become involved in criminal behavior, including violent crime, later in life. The most recent research findings indicate that 20 years after their victimization, 49 percent of adults who were abused or neglected as children had been arrested compared to 38 percent of a control group.1 By 1994, 18 percent of abuse and neglect victims and 14 percent of controls had been arrested for a violent crime.2 As the box below shows, however, among certain groups, a large majority of abuse or neglect victims had been arrested: -------------------- Arrests for Victims of Abuse and Neglect by Race and Sex Numbers in column 1 represent: Abuse/Neglect (N = 908) Percent Numbers in column 2 represent: Control (N = 667) Percent Column 3 represents: Statistical Significance Violent offenses White females 4 3 ns Black females 18 5 p < or = .01 White males 18 17 ns Black males 50 38 p < or = .05 All nontraffic offenses White females 32 19 p < or = .001 Black females 50 27 p < or = .001 White males 53 50 ns Black males 82 64 p < or = .001 -------------------- These preliminary results suggest that the cycle of violence may affect black and white childhood victims differently. Childhood victimization appears to increase the already high risk of arrest among black males. "As one of a constellation of risk factors, abuse or neglect magnifies preexisting disparities between blacks and whites."3 These findings support policy initiatives to intervene early. It is also important to develop policies that recognize the high risks of neglect since the incidence of neglect is almost three times that of physical abuse.4 Abuse and neglect appear to have a greater impact on arrests for violent offenses as a juvenile than as an adult. Persons with juvenile arrests for violence are much more likely to have adult arrests for violence. This confirms other study findings that juvenile violence is a pathway to adult violence. Early intervention therefore assumes greater importance as abuse or neglect increases adult violence through juvenile violence. The findings also add urgency to the need to respond to the links between childhood abuse and neglect and later violence among black males, especially during adolescence. These results underscore the pressing need for early intervention to link these children and their families to appropriate treatment and social services. 1 Maxfield, M.G., and C.S. Widom, "The Cycle of Violence: Revisited Six Years Later." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 150:390-395 (1996). 2 Widom's research followed two groups of children: one group known to be abused or neglected during the years 1967-71 and a matched sample with no official record of abuse. Records of arrests for all subjects were obtained in 1987- 88 and again in 1994. 3 Maxfield and Widom, op. cit. 4 Widom, C.S., "The Cycle of Violence," Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1992. ------------------------------ Responding to Domestic Violence Responding effectively to family violence requires coordination among many professions.49 Health officials, for example, play a significant role in identifying, intervening in, and preventing family violence. Many reports come from hospitals or physicians after a battered woman has sought medical attention. In one recent study of employee assistance program professionals, nearly all the respondents knew employees who had been abused; many employees had experiences involving restraining orders or stalking.50 The corporate sector is beginning to recognize the value of domestic violence education programs in reducing the isolation and shame victims feel, in putting the violator on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated, and in increasing the victim's options and therefore willingness to seek help. Intervention by social service, law enforcement, and justice agencies must accompany or closely follow that of medical practitioners so that survivors of abuse receive immediate protection as well as the information and support necessary to escape continued violence.51 Law Enforcement Response To improve law enforcement's response to domestic violence, many agencies participate in interagency coordinating committees and training programs that recognize the key role law enforcement can play in linking victims to needed services. The most effective multiagency responses delineate the roles and responsibilities of each agency and encourage each to collaborate without interfering with the work of another.52 Such approaches may be difficult to build and maintain, but the results are well worth the effort. NIJ's evaluation of family violence training and technical assistance programs considered the impact of specific materials and training activities on the knowledge and behavior of law enforcement officers. The evaluation helps guide law enforcement agencies in training design and delivery.53 New research under the Violence Against Women Act of the 1994 Crime Act will examine the longer range impact of arrest. It will look beyond arrest to what happens at the prosecution stage. One study, awarded to Applied Research Associates, for example, is assessing a program that combines a mandatory arrest policy with a no-drop prosecution strategy and court-mandated treatment for batterers.54 Prosecutor Response NIJ awarded a grant to the American Prosecutors Research Institute to assess the present state of domestic violence prosecution.55 Preliminary findings indicate that half the prosecutors' offices that responded to a survey said their offices operated separate units or sections devoted to domestic violence prosecution.56 Almost all (95 percent) reported giving prosecutors special training. Formal policies at the arrest and prosecution stages had a noticeable impact on the volume of cases -- 92 percent of responding prosecutors said their jurisdiction's proarrest policies had affected the volume of domestic violence cases coming to them. However, few believed that the increased volume affected either general prosecutorial decision-making processes, or more specifically, plea negotiating procedures. When the victim was deemed uncooperative at the case screening and charging stage, 20 percent of prosecutors stated that the case was dropped. In larger jurisdictions (those with populations over 500,000), 8 percent felt that the victim's willingness to cooperate affected their decision to prosecute, whereas 36 percent of respondents from medium-sized jurisdictions (those with populations of 250,000 to 500,000) felt that victim cooperation affected their decision to prosecute. In another study, researchers surveyed offices in large metropolitan areas where the heavy caseload allowed prosecutors to specialize and see trends.57 These prosecutors expressed both a need and a willingness to learn more about domestic violence and found that victim participation increased when cases were prosecuted vertically because the victim and attorney tended to develop a rapport. Early contact with a prosecutor usually gave the victim better protection as well. Although the reluctance of victims to testify continues to impede domestic violence prosecution, some offices are moving toward investigating domestic violence cases in much the same way they handle homicide cases. They may, for example, look for other evidence, such as recordings from 911 calls, hospital records, photographs, and the statements of neighbors and other potential witnesses, to support the case without the victim's testimony. At the same time, victim advocates recommend working closely with women who fear retaliation to help them recognize their alternatives and follow through on them. Other Tools for Helping Victims Arrest and prosecution are not the only approaches available to victims of family violence. Two other common mechanisms involve civil protection orders, which can be issued to keep the perpetrator away from the victim, and mediation services, which require both parties to work out mutually agreeable arrangements about their situation. Civil Protection Orders Civil protection orders are one of the primary tools courts use to deter domestic violence, advise the perpetrator that domestic violence is illegal, and provide sanctions against further abuse or threats of violence or even contact. Previous research suggests that protection orders can be more effective when the terms are specific, comprehensive, and enforced. The more specific the terms, the greater the basis law enforcement officers and the courts have for enforcing violations. However, research also indicates that enforcement of civil protection orders is often inconsistent,58 that many courts have no guidelines for ordering relief, and that judges may not grant terms that offer greater safety and autonomy to the petitioner.59 Mediation Services Some research supports proponents' claims that, compared to the traditional adversary process, mediation is perceived as fairer because it puts less pressure on participants to make unwanted agreements. Proponents say that mediation produces more satisfying agreements and gives participants more control over decisions. Arguing against the use of mandatory mediation programs when domestic violence is involved are advocates for battered women and feminist scholars, who warn that a consensual or collaborative decision-making process is not possible between a victim and an abuser. Although some advocates for abused women favor voluntary mediation, all strongly oppose requiring victims to mediate, and some have gone so far as to insist that women who have been abused not be allowed to mediate. At least one area of consensus exists: both groups support the need for adequate training of mediators and the practice of screening mediation referrals for domestic abuse.60 Mediators report that when domestic violence is an issue, they make subtle adjustments in their role as mediator, such as being more proactive, being satisfied with a lowering of the level of hostility when an agreement appears unlikely, or referring parties to additional resources. Responding to Child Abuse The number of children who were "substantiated" victims of maltreatment increased from nearly 800,000 in 1990 to more than one million in 1994, an increase of 27 percent.61 Getting convictions in child abuse cases requires a specialized set of skills and teamwork. To discover what makes a team successful, researchers studied the San Diego district attorney's office, which has aggressively prosecuted cases involving child physical abuse and neglect and has achieved high felony conviction rates.62 San Diego employs a closely coordinated, multiagency approach that involves specialized staff from the police department, the prosecutor's office, child protective services, and the medical community. However, every professional interviewed believed that jurors needed more information about the dynamics and seriousness of physical abuse cases because the juries tended not to believe that parents or caretakers intentionally harm children. Many cases of child maltreatment run into problems because they involve both criminal and family court proceedings. Cases can be initiated by different government entities and pursue processes that may be incompatible, inefficient, and deleterious to the child and family. In family court, the goal is to protect the child, rehabilitate the family if possible, and ensure a permanent home for the child. A criminal proceeding, on the other hand, is brought to determine guilt or innocence as a primary element in protecting the public, deterring future crime, punishing wrongdoing, and rehabilitating the criminal. An NIJ-funded study conducted by the Education Development Center, Inc., and the American Bar Association found that many child protection and law enforcement agencies work reasonably well together during the investigation process but frequently do not cooperate in litigation proceedings.63 The researchers suggested that because family court proceedings precede criminal proceedings in most cases, steps should be taken to allow juvenile cases to go forward without prejudicing the rights of the parents or harming the prosecution. Ultimately, coordination of child maltreatment proceedings depends on good communication between counsel for the child protection agency and the criminal prosecutor. Child protection attorneys should be included on the multidisciplinary case review teams that operate in many communities. ------------------------------ Community Policing: A Focal Point of Innovation An NIJ study of 2,000 law enforcement agencies found strong support for community policing and a need for training both police and citizens. Community policing represents a shift in emphasis from reactive, incident-driven police service to a proactive, problem-solving approach in which the community plays a role in identifying public safety issues to be addressed.64 Police agencies across the country are making community policing a key part of their strategy. In a 1993 NIJ-supported study of more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies, researchers found both strong support for community policing and a need to develop training for practitioners and citizens.65 Almost half the respondents had either implemented community policing (19 percent) or were in the process of doing so (28 percent). According to the study, about 40 percent of the Nation's larger police departments had adopted community policing. This percentage is likely to increase in the next several years as funding from the 1994 Crime Act strengthens efforts to implement community policing. Title I of the Act authorized expanded and improved cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community. The Act authorized an increase of nearly 20 percent in the number of police officers already at work on the streets and stipulated that the funding be used to increase the number of officers who participate in community policing programs. The Nature of Community Policing Jurisdictions tailor their community policing programs to meet local needs, but all programs possess two core components: partnership with the community and problem solving.66 Citizens are integral to prevention and deterrence efforts, and early police participation in planning anticrime efforts is critical. The most effective community organizers are often professional organizers with ethnic, language, and political ties to the community. Their role involves maintaining program momentum, resolving conflicts between groups, and encouraging coalition building.67 A variety of problems affect a neighborhood's quality of life, and community policing looks for relationships among incidents to determine whether individual occurrences are part of a more complex problem. The police can ask members of the community to define problems and help them understand their causes and potential solutions. Problem solving is the area where interagency involvement is most critical and cooperative efforts show the greatest rewards. (See sidebar: Typical Community Policing Problem-Solving Techniques.) In an NIJ-sponsored evaluation of community policing programs in eight urban and suburban sites established with Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) support, researchers from the Vera Institute of Justice found that community policing represents a major change for both the police and the residents and is likely to take a long time to institutionalize.68 Experience in the eight sites indicated that the major implementation challenges were as follows: o Resistance from police officers, who did not fully understand the process. o Difficulty in involving other public agencies. o Barriers to organizing the community (such as fear of retaliation by drug dealers and cynicism about the perceived short duration of the project). Communities have found that meshing the operating styles and internal politics of citizen groups, police departments, and nongovernmental agencies can be difficult. The BJA Comprehensive Communities Program, now in place in 16 sites, works to overcome these problems by engaging all key stakeholders in an extensive startup phase of team building and planning for interagency and community-government coordination.69 Evaluation of the Program is now under way. Implementing community policing requires an examination of a department's fundamental values, mission, and organization. This approach affects every facet of a department's operation and expands the role of police beyond solving crime to improving quality of life. Implementation can take many years -- at least 5, perhaps even 10, according to one estimate.70 Most jurisdictions begin by converting a small part of the force to community policing. For example, the Tempe, Arizona, department began by converting 1 of its 15 patrol beats. Several years later, it expanded community policing to two other beats and finally to the entire city.71 ------------------------------ Typical Community Policing Problem-Solving Techniques Police apply problem-solving techniques to improve a neighborhoods quality of life, focus police activities, and better understand a community. Typical problems and potential solutions include: o Loitering Remove pay phones that attract drug dealing and coordinate with homeless shelters to deflect the homeless from the streets. o Public drinking Issue public-drinking summons and cite bars that permit underage drinking and illegal sales. o Abandoned buildings Install fencing or otherwise secure abandoned buildings and initiate procedures leading to demolition. Problem-solving techniques also can be applied to the difficulties inner-city students may experience as they travel to and from school (such as being teased, robbed, harassed, intimidated, bullied, or drawn into a fight), to street-level drug markets, to concentrations of serious traffic accidents, and to police handling of mental health emergencies. ------------------------------ Impact of Community Policing Research to date suggests that community policing can make a positive difference; it reduces fear of crime and social and physical disorder and improves citizens' relationship with the police.72 Preliminary findings from about 60 empirical studies of community policing found the following:73 o Crime A slight majority of the studies report a decrease in crime, which gives reason for optimism, although limitations in evaluation design preclude authoritative conclusions. o Fear of crime The now widely accepted view that community policing helps reduce fear of crime and increase perceptions of safety seems reasonably well founded, although some police efforts have failed to reduce fear. o Disorder Available evidence suggests that community policing -- especially foot patrols and problem-solving efforts -- helps reduce levels of disorder. o Community relations The vast majority of studies report positive effects. Citizens generally appreciate foot patrols, ministations in their neighborhoods, emphasis on problem solving, and other facets of community policing. o Police officer attitudes Most studies that have investigated the impact of community policing on officers' job satisfaction, on community members' perceptions of the police, and on related attitudes indicate beneficial effects, even though many sites report initial resistance among officers.74 o Police officer behavior Significant anecdotal evidence suggests that foot patrols, problem-solving techniques, permanent assignments, ministations, and other features of community policing lead to changes in some police officers' behavior. But many officers also resist community policing because they oppose its philosophical underpinnings, lack a complete understanding of their new role, or simply dislike change.75 According to one study of its wider impact, community policing appears to affect most often agencies that deal with lower level crimes by increasing, for example, the workload of courts that handle offenses such as prostitution, loitering, and vandalism.76 Community policing also has promoted proactive partnerships between police and prosecutors; in Multnomah County, Oregon, for example, the prosecutor followed the lead of police and established a community prosecution program that assigned district attorneys to neighborhoods. Community policing also was found to create strong ties with many local government offices and agencies -- such as housing departments, child welfare agencies, health departments, schools, and the like -- that assist law enforcement agencies in many ways. ------------------------------ Drug-Related Crime: Trends and Responses The criminal justice system is a logical, potentially cost-effective point of treatment intervention for incarcerated drug abusers. Both alcohol and drug abuse continue to take their toll on users, the community, and the criminal justice system as the number of drug-involved offenders keeps increasing.77 Several characteristics of drug-related crime and of the people who commit such crime are generally acknowledged: o Drug abusers commit a disproportionate number of crimes, both violent and nonviolent. (A discussion of the linkage of violence, drugs, and youths can be found in the section on Violence.) o Treatment can make a difference. Treatment supervised within the criminal justice system can reduce drug use, and a reduction in drug use decreases criminality, even among relatively hard-core drug users.78 o In most jurisdictions, nonviolent addicted offenders typically become caught in a chronic pattern of drug use, criminal activity, arrest, release, then continued drug use and crime; they often receive little jail time and no treatment for their addictions. Detecting Drug Use and Analyzing Trends The Drug Use Forecasting program was pioneered by NIJ in the late 1980's. Now operating in 23 sites around the country, DUF documents trends in the use of specific drugs among arrestees by tracking the extent and type of drug use in this population through the use of urinalyses and interviews.79 A successful example of Federal and local partnership, DUF remains one of the leading providers of information about illegal drug use. Criminologists, epidemiologists, local practitioners, and others regard DUF as an important source of statistics about drug abuse. In 1995, DUF found that rates of cocaine use were somewhat lower than in previous years, but that marijuana rates had increased; opiate use was largely unchanged. For the second year in a row, juveniles and young adults increased their marijuana use, and 8 of the 12 DUF sites that collect data on juvenile arrestees reported that juveniles also increased their cocaine use. The increases raise questions about the relationship between cocaine and marijuana use and what the consequences of this increased use will be for the decisions that policymakers, practitioners, and researchers will need to make in the near future. The DUF program provides a flexible research platform upon which to build a wide array of special studies based on arrestee data. Already NIJ has undertaken special studies on the procurement of cocaine and heroin as well as on the availability of firearms to arrestees and their use of these weapons. By adding questions to the basic DUF interview, information on a number of special issues can be gathered. This flexibility enables DUF to respond rapidly to emerging criminal justice issues of national, regional, and local importance. As part of the DUF program, NIJ has supported research into hair analysis, a simpler and relatively less invasive method than urinalysis for detecting illegal drug use.80 A 2-inch strand of hair can reveal drug use over a 4-month period, although, unlike urinalysis, hair analysis cannot detect very recent drug usage.81 Hair analysis is being used in correctional settings in three States, and NIJ is funding projects to more fully integrate hair testing into DUF data collection as well as to compare detection rates for hair analysis and urinalysis.82 Treatment for Offenders The literature shows clearly that drug treatment can result in substantial reductions in drug use, criminality, and associated problems. Because significant numbers of drug abusers are incarcerated at some point, the criminal justice system is a logical, potentially cost-effective, and convenient point of intervention. This approach also provides the opportunity to use the power of the court to coerce treatment, which research has shown to be effective in reducing drug use. Without treatment, abusers are likely to return to drug use and crime upon release.83 But the success rate of treatment programs depends on many factors that are often hard to measure and compare across settings -- the kinds of offenders and their criminal history, the type and frequency of drug abuse, and the characteristics of the program. Efforts to mitigate drug abuse have usually centered on short-term treatment alternatives.84 One of the more innovative approaches in use around the country is the treatment-oriented drug court (discussed in the Adjudication section of this report). Considered an effective way to handle drug offenders, drug courts impose the minimum amount of punishment while coercing treatment in an effort to reduce drug use and associated criminality.85 Drug treatment for incarcerated offenders generally has received lower priority, although in-custody programs are becoming more common. About 30 percent of Federal prisoners with moderate to severe drug problems are being treated in residential therapeutic communities (TC's), programs that address the myriad problems of the drug-abusing lifestyle as well as the addiction itself.86 The most recent evaluations of prison-based TC's offer solid evidence of their effectiveness. Across programs and over time, these programs can produce significant reductions in recidivism among chronically drug-abusing felons.87 Successful completion of treatment programs appears to hinge on two primary characteristics: o Frequency of attendance The more often offenders attend treatment, the more likely they are to stay in treatment. o Duration The longer offenders attend programs and stay in contact with treatment counselors, the more likely they are to stay free of substance abuse.88 Outpatient programs also are more likely to retain clients when they are located in the neighborhood where the offender lives or provide transportation assistance to those who need it. Offenders also are more likely to stay in treatment programs when swift, certain detection of continued drug use or of missed treatment sessions is coupled with appropriate consequences. Those who believe that court or probation officials will learn quickly that they have left treatment and believe they will be swiftly apprehended are more likely to remain in treatment. In addition, those who expect more severe sanctions appear more likely to stay in treatment, as do those who report being highly averse to prison.89 Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Treatment A number of recent studies have demonstrated the cost savings obtained by treating drug abusers -- and thereby reducing drug consumption and resulting criminal activity and avoiding the medical and interdiction costs associated with drug abuse. In some typical programs, the cost of diversion into treatment is roughly $1,000 to $1,200 per person, an amount that would quickly be spent in a few weeks of detention.90 A cost-benefit analysis of the treatment of 150,000 participants in California found $1.5 billion in savings to taxpayers, due mostly to reductions in crime.91 Retaining Offenders in Treatment Several studies have compared retention rates for mandated and voluntary treatment programs.92 Although some studies show that coerced clients do as well as those entering voluntarily, assessment of the findings must consider a variety of factors, such as the varying degrees and types of legal coercion, treatment settings, and the offender's legal status and motivations. For voluntary programs, it is important to know why individuals choose not to enter treatment when attendance would result in benefits such as having criminal charges dismissed and court records expunged. One possible explanation may be that in certain subcultures a felony conviction is no longer a mark of shame; indeed, it may be a badge of honor or at least part of the expected course of life. Prosecutors also surmise that the sentences of first-time, nonviolent offenders are so light (usually probation) that these individuals prefer a less structured, though longer, supervision to the shorter, but more demanding, rigors of drug treatment.93 Understanding how treatment reduces drug use and criminality in major offender subgroups is a central objective of NIJ-funded research. One New York study found that retention rates do not appear to be related to the offender's age or ethnic background but rather to the type of drug the offender abuses -- crack users, for example, have relatively high dropout rates compared with offenders who abuse other types of drugs.94 Responding to Drug Abuse All jurisdictions face the problems associated with illegal drug use and abuse and are challenged to develop a range of effective solutions. Narcotic Eviction Program One innovative approach to dealing with drug dealers has been adopted in Manhattan, where drug dealers are being removed from residential and commercial properties on the basis of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Between June 1988 and August 1994, the program used civil procedures to remove drug dealers from 2,005 apartments and retail stores.95 In the Narcotic Eviction Program, witnesses can give anonymous tips and therefore do not have to testify in court. Because proceedings are civil rather than criminal, the judge can authorize an eviction based on a preponderance of evidence that drug dealing is occurring; no arrest is necessary. The State need only present credible evidence in court that an illegal drug business is taking place on the property. The program requires close collaboration among neighborhood residents, the police, and the district or city attorney. Drug Market Analysis NIJ supports the development of computer information systems that enhance law enforcement's ability to identify "hot spots" of street-level drug activity. A key element of the effort, called Drug Market Analysis, is the use of computer mapping to pinpoint illegal drug activity.96 The program combines multiple sources of drug information to produce a more complete and accurate picture of the geographic distribution of local drug problems. With a grant from NIJ, the Institute for Law and Justice found that targeting the "hot spots" resulted in a strong, consistent reduction in emergency calls for assistance in those locations; little evidence was found that drug activity was displaced to adjoining areas.97 Mapping technology can generate three types of information: o Descriptive data on distribution of calls for service, traffic accidents, or other events. o Analytical data, which identify "hot spots" of activity. o Interactive mapping, which allows the user to direct queries to a data base, map the results, make a decision on the basis of the maps, and start anew through the cycle. Interactive mapping in particular extends the capabilities of a law enforcement agency by allowing officers to continuously assess and evaluate information. Testing the Market Price of Drugs Understanding how drug use responds to changes in price is critical to understanding how enforcement affects drug consumption. NIJ has awarded grants to the RAND Corporation and Abt Associates, Inc., to examine the relationships among price, demand, and enforcement.98 Enforcement seeks to reduce consumption by deterring and incapacitating users and, through enforcement against dealers, by reducing availability and increasing price. Hence, enforcement acts as a kind of tax by raising the price of drugs, but whether police enforcement can actually increase the price depends on the elasticity of the demand. The RAND Corporation measured the elasticity of demand for cocaine and heroin and assessed the impact of enforcement on reducing consumption. The findings suggest that the dramatic increase in cocaine use during the 1980's and in heroin use since the late 1980's might be attributable more to significant price declines than to changes in taste or demand. The findings further suggest that when enforcement succeeds in increasing prices, it is more effective in curbing drug use than is commonly thought. ------------------------------ Adjudication: Experimenting With Specialized Approaches Evidence suggests that specialized courts can significantly reduce case processing time and backlogs. In response to increasing caseloads, courts are experimenting with ways to increase productivity and reduce case processing time. Specialized courts or dockets, which deal with specific types of cases and are linked to community services, are becoming more common. This approach appears to be especially effective with drug-related crime and family violence. Specialized courts or dockets offer a number of potential advantages: o Cases can receive more attention than they might otherwise because they are consolidated on the same docket. (It is argued that lower level drug cases sometimes receive limited attention because they are scattered across dockets that contain large numbers of more serious crimes.) o Specialized courts or dockets can often strengthen the ties between the criminal justice system and the community when offenders need the services of community agencies, such as drug treatment or spouse abuse counseling programs. o Better case management practices can result as staff become more adept at handling cases that have similar features. Where specialized courts or dockets have been instituted, processing times usually have been dramatically reduced.99 Although critics charge that "fast track" specialized courtrooms may encourage assembly-line justice, supporters counter that the increased efficiency may work to the defendant's advantage. Sentences become more uniform and more appropriate, and victims can put the crime behind them more quickly. Drug Courts More than half the offenders in most criminal justice systems have substance abuse problems.100 Many are nonviolent defendants who face little certainty of punishment and represent a long-term recurring problem for both the criminal justice system and society; they repeatedly cycle through the court, corrections, and probation systems, often without being held accountable for changing their behavior. NIJ research indicates that substantial numbers of arrestees have never been in treatment despite strong evidence that: (1) drug use and criminal activity are closely linked, and (2) treatment reduces both drug use and criminal activity among drug-involved offenders.101 (See the discussion of the effectiveness of drug treatment earlier in this report.) Title V of the 1994 Crime Act authorized the Attorney General to make grants to State and local jurisdictions to establish drug courts in response to the increased numbers of nonviolent substance-abusing offenders; this group has a high recidivism rate and accounts for a good deal of prison and jail crowding. NIJ evaluation results suggest that drug court programs can increase treatment success and decrease recidivism.102 Drug courts are configured in a variety of ways, but as they have matured and been implemented in more locations, several common characteristics have emerged: o Judges generally exercise considerable authority in leveraging the court's dispositional power to supervise and support the defendant's performance directly. o In some courts, current charges against nonviolent drug-dependent defendants who successfully complete the drug court regimen are dismissed or some other sanction is mitigated. However, not all drug courts use diversion; some pursue cases to conviction and impose other forms of punishment for more serious offenders as well as drug testing and treatment. o Nonadversarial or less adversarial working relationships among judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are typical in the most effective courts, especially those that use diversion. o Providers of drug treatment and rehabilitation services are also partners and play a critical role in providing options for judges. Domestic Violence Courts An NIJ-supported survey of 319 full-service victim assistance programs in law enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices found that the majority of individuals seeking assistance were victims of domestic assault; the most common assistance they received was information about legal rights.103 Like drug-related crime, domestic violence cases exhibit particular characteristics that make them candidates for specialized handling. In domestic violence courts, traditional justice system adversaries (prosecution and defense) and supporting agencies operate as a team to try to reduce the opportunity for continued abuse while the case is being prosecuted. These courts were established in the hope that speedier case processing would reduce opportunities for new violence to erupt and that special handling would make the court process less onerous for victims while giving ambivalent victims less time to recant. Specialized domestic violence court programs are operating in Duluth, Miami, Milwaukee, San Francisco, and Seattle. NIJ is evaluating the impact of the domestic violence courts in Milwaukee and Miami. The Milwaukee court is part of an evaluation being conducted by the American Bar Association of the substantive and procedural due process issues surrounding specialized courts.104 In Miami, the Crime and Justice Research Institute is studying the impact of an approach that focuses on substance abuse treatment for domestic violence offenders. It is well documented that alcohol abuse is a predisposing factor for violence among adults who show a history of chronic and aggressive behavior and alcohol abuse in adolescence. Other psychoactive drugs, too, may predispose an individual to violent behavior, depending on the amount and pattern of use.105 The Miami domestic violence court has adopted a new, more proactive judicial role pioneered by the Miami drug court. Because the domestic violence court jointly targets substance abuse and domestic violence, the evaluation of its effectiveness will have direct application to our understanding of the new role judges are playing in these specialized courts; of the collaboration between the criminal and civil justice systems; and of the partnerships forming among the staffs of treatment programs, community service programs, and the court. Community Courts In most large urban settings, criminal courts are crowded and often appear chaotic and overwhelming to people not familiar with them. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys may confront hundreds of misdemeanants every day, many of whom have appeared numerous times for similar offenses. Because of inadequate jail space and a lack of suitable alternatives, many courts have difficulty demonstrating to misdemeanants and to the larger community that crime has consequences. In New York City, one response to this problem is the Midtown Community Court, which handles misdemeanor cases that arise in Times Square and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.106 The Midtown Community Court has made a significant contribution to easing some of the problems that nag typical high-volume courts, such as the difficulty in developing appropriate, constructive court responses to low-level offenses (such as prostitution, shoplifting, and illegal vending), which contribute to a deteriorating quality of life in the community. The Midtown Community Court, which NIJ is evaluating, dispenses justice in the neighborhood where the crime was committed and encourages community participation in developing and supervising alternative sanctions such as community service. The Midtown Community Court operates in the following way: o Defendants are assessed before arraignment to determine whether they have a substance abuse problem, a history of mental illness, a place to live, or other life issues to be resolved. o A resource coordinator, working in the well of the courtroom, helps the court match defendants with drug treatment programs, community service and other sanctions, and a variety of services. The Midtown Community Court is the first criminal court in the country to locate health care, drug treatment, social services, and education programs within the court building. The court has created a set of graduated sanctions, ranging from single-session engagement groups -- for example, health education sessions for both prostitutes and their clients -- to long-term mandatory substance abuse treatment as an alternative to short-term incarceration. o Punishment begins immediately; in 62 percent of cases it involves community service, which is performed in the Times Square neighborhood.107 Compliance with community service requirements is substantially higher in the Midtown Community Court (75 percent) than in the centralized downtown court (50 percent). o Computer technology improves communication among police officers, court personnel, social services staff, and residents and increases each team member's capacity to be accountable. One unexpected result of the court's under-one-roof service delivery approach is that many offenders (roughly 16 percent of those sentenced to intermediate sanctions) have returned to the court to seek the results of tuberculosis and HIV tests, to get help writing a resume, to attend classes in English as a second language, and to earn a general equivalency diploma (GED). More than 110 offenders have returned to enroll in longer term drug treatment programs. Another benefit of the Midtown Community Court is the growing evidence of a reduction in street-level prostitution and in illegal vending on Midtown streets. During the court's first 9 months, prostitution arrests in Midtown fell by 31 percent while such arrests increased by 5 percent in the rest of Manhattan. During the court's first 15 months, arrests for illegal vending dropped 26 percent. Interviews with community leaders, residents, and police officers support the view that the visible incidence of quality-of-life offenses in Midtown has decreased dramatically. The Midtown Manhattan Community Court has demonstrated that development of a community court requires assembling a broad coalition of support, including residents, community leaders, social service providers, criminal justice officials, foundation and corporate supporters, and local politicians. Strong neighborhood support helped the Midtown Community Court find its home, overcome early opposition to court decentralization, and complete the complicated project in less than 2 years. Although other jurisdictions may face different issues, the obstacles inherent in the process of assembling a coalition of divergent constituencies -- each with its own unique agenda or special area of interest -- are likely to be encountered in other urban settings. Evaluation of Specialized Courts Although specialized courts have not been universally successful, evidence suggests that they can significantly reduce case-processing time and backlogs. For example, a study conducted by the State Justice Institute found significant reductions in case-processing time in special drug courts in Chicago and Milwaukee.108 An NIJ-supported American Bar Association study of the impact of specialized drug and violent crime courts in Milwaukee revealed that both courts substantially reduced the time from initial appearance to case disposition from nearly a year to under 3 months in both types of cases.109 In addition, plea rates, trial rates, incarceration rates, and rates of drug assessment and referral have remained relatively constant since the specialized courts opened several years ago, even though time to disposition has decreased radically. Other findings: o In neither of the Milwaukee courts was there a trend toward fewer prison sentences or shorter terms of incarceration or probation. Past studies have found that although specialized narcotics courts can process cases more quickly, they may also give lighter sentences. Arrangements are made, explicitly or implicitly, whereby the defense bar agrees to have clients plead earlier in exchange for more lenient sentences. Such a tradeoff between faster processing times and sentence severity, however, was not apparent in either of Milwaukee's specialized courts. o Trial rates in both drug and violent crime cases remained about the same after the specialized courts opened. The number of motions filed per case did not change in drug cases, but declined significantly in violent crime cases, from an average of 1.4 to just under 1 motion per case. o Although additional analysis needs to be conducted to confirm preliminary results, the specialized courts appear to have reduced sentencing disparity (that is, the extent to which sentences were not uniform for similar offenses).110 Evaluation findings and anecdotal evidence about specialized courts -- especially drug courts -- indicate that these approaches are working. Cases are expedited, defendants receive appropriate sanctions for the most part, the quality of justice is not compromised, and the severity of sanctions does not decrease. Using Juvenile Records in Adult Courts Research confirms that a small group of offenders is responsible for a disproportionate share of all violent crime, that adult crimes are correlated with juvenile crimes, and that identifying adult career criminals often requires the use of juvenile records.111 Reviewing the juvenile records of adult defendants can help judges, prosecutors, and probation officers make a number of specific decisions; in the past 15 years, many jurisdictions have enacted laws to ensure that juvenile records are available during adult court proceedings.112 If there is no access to juvenile records, adults with a history of violent juvenile offenses may be treated as first offenders. A study by the Institute for Law and Justice reviewed State laws on the use of juvenile records and suggests that States should consider enacting laws that authorize fingerprinting of juveniles charged with weapons violations that would be felonies if committed by adults.113 According to the study, States also should consider creating central repositories for storing and releasing juvenile arrest and disposition records to adult courts, permitting law enforcement use of juvenile records for investigative purposes, and creating limitations on expungement of juvenile records when subsequent adult convictions have occurred. ------------------------------ Corrections: New Challenges and Alternatives Boot camp graduates appear to do no worse than prison releases and, in addition, report positive experiences in boot camp. America's correctional population has grown about 7 to 8 percent annually in recent years and is now triple the 1980 figure.114 About 75 percent of the correctional population, however, is under supervision within the community.115 Of those incarcerated, about two-thirds are in Federal and State prisons; local jails hold the rest.116 Policymakers are considering a number of issues associated with the increase in the correctional population: the trend toward longer sentences, the advent of intermediate sanctions, the management of special subgroups, and rising health care needs. Since the 1970's, the social, cultural, and political factors that affect sentencing practices have undergone major transformations. There has been a significant shift away from judicial discretion and indeterminate sentences toward increasingly structured decision-making processes and sentences of imprisonment.117 Loss of confidence in the efficacy of rehabilitation and increased acceptance of deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation as primary goals of sentencing may further erode judges' discretion. Sentencing commissions and legislative guidelines require judges to apply a narrower range of statutory sentencing options or mandatory sentences as part of the effort to adopt comprehensive sentencing policies. Structured sentencing also helps implement truth-in-sentencing practices, reduce sentencing disparities in general and racial and gender disparities in particular, and link sentencing policies with correctional resources.118 Much of the discussion surrounding longer sentences focuses on violent offenders, both adult and juvenile. Between 1980 and 1993, violent offenders accounted for the greatest growth in State prison populations.119 Furthermore, almost all State-level criminal justice legislation today includes proposals to lower the age at which youths can be tried and sentenced as adults.120 As States continue to grapple with how best to use limited prison resources to keep the most dangerous criminals off the streets, the Corrections Program Office, created within the Office of Justice Programs following passage of the 1994 Crime Act, will make grants in fiscal year 1996 to States to construct new or improve existing correctional facilities to "ensure that prison cell space is available for the confinement of violent offenders."121 These grants are tied to the States' implementation of truth-in-sentencing laws requiring violent offenders to serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed. NIJ has developed a comprehensive evaluation strategy to maximize the lessons learned from previous projects and provide timely feedback to inform subsequent program activity. Alternative Sanctions for Nonviolent Offenders A major option for dealing with nonviolent offenders is the imposition of intermediate sanctions, which are more stringent than standard probation but less punitive than incarceration. Designed to supervise certain types of offenders more effectively than regular probation or incarceration, intermediate sanctions include electronic monitoring, home detention, intensive supervision, day reporting centers, community service, day fines, and boot camps.122 Part of the promise of intermediate sanctions is their potential to help reduce prison crowding by applying them to those offenders for whom imprisonment is not the most appropriate sanction relative to their risk to the community. For intermediate sanctions to work properly, however, offenders and programs must be well matched, and programs must be well managed and adequately financed so that staff can monitor offenders' compliance with court-ordered conditions, such as restitution, curfews, drug testing, and treatment.123 Judges and correctional administrators often express strong support for intermediate sanctions, but in a national survey judges also expressed concern about their lack of knowledge about available programs.124 Boot Camps Boot camp programs, sometimes called shock incarceration, continue to be one of the fastest growing forms of correctional intervention.125 Initially designed for young males convicted of nonviolent offenses, boot camps currently house a broader spectrum of offenders, including juveniles and women.126 Confinement generally lasts 90 to 120 days, although several States operate 6-month programs. Boot camps are highly structured, intensive, and regimented and have military-type goals, such as building self-discipline and instilling a work ethic.127 Many programs allocate a significant amount of time to education, drug treatment, and other rehabilitation activities and regard assignment of offenders to community-based aftercare services as critical to reducing recidivism. Most research supports the conclusion that boot camp graduates do no worse than comparable groups of prison releasees, and unlike inmates incarcerated in conventional prisons, boot camp participants say their experiences were positive and that they changed for the better.128 Results in one State suggest that boot camp graduates who are supervised more intensively during the aftercare period may adjust to the community better and ultimately have lower reincarceration rates.129 As noted earlier, the 1994 Crime Act authorized continued funding for boot camps, and NIJ awarded grants totaling $630,000 for research and evaluation of this alternative method of incarceration. Day Reporting Centers By the end of 1994, 114 day reporting centers were operating in 22 States.130 Several characteristics distinguish this approach from other intermediate sanctions. First, as a condition of release, offenders must report to the center frequently and must participate in the programs, activities, and services offered there. Second, the number of hours of contact per week are generally higher than the offender would otherwise be required to have. Finally, centers provide or broker services, activities, or treatments that either would not be available or would be available only in a less focused and intensive manner.131 Operated by private or public agencies, centers usually accept serious offenders and aim to accept: (1) those who otherwise would be incarcerated, or (2) those on probation or parole who represent the highest risk to the community. Many programs, however, appear to be selecting low-risk drug- and alcohol-using offenders. Experience to date indicates that the rate at which offenders must leave the program because they have committed new crimes, failed to participate in treatment, or violated other rules is high, ranging from 14 percent to 86 percent and averaging 50 percent.132 Rigorous process and outcome evaluations are now being conducted to determine more precisely the effects of the centers on offenders' behavior, including recidivism.133 Health Care and Special Needs in Prisons Like the larger society, America's prison administrators face rising health care costs; in response, they are developing comprehensive management information systems to monitor how various cost-containment measures are working.134 They are also keenly aware of the record high numbers of inmates who have tested positive for tuberculosis and HIV135 and the growing diversity of the correctional population. A major challenge facing prison officials is the development of efficient, effective methods for classifying and responding to issues relating to the increasing numbers of elderly, female, and mentally ill inmates with diverse and special needs.136 Elderly Offenders The next decade will witness more inmates who will have spent not only what would have been their adult working lives but also their retirement years in institutions. The typical prison was designed to hold and control the young and physically vigorous; it is ill-suited for older populations. Approximately one-third of older offenders are known to have one or more chronic health problems, such as diabetes, vision or hearing loss, cardiovascular problems, AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), tuberculosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and disproportionate amounts of resources must be spent caring for them. Not surprisingly, many elderly inmates have special needs -- special diets, physical therapy, pharmacy services, nursing care, separate or accessible housing, and related supportive services -- most of which do not fit into the traditional structure and operation of prisons. Female Offenders In the last decade, the number of women in State prisons has increased 75 percent.137 The majority of these women are young, low income, and members of minority groups. Most are their children's primary caretakers. Many also have serious drug problems. Despite the rapid increase in imprisoned women, their relatively small number (compared with men) has limited the amount of attention they receive, the variety of programs offered to them, and innovations in their management. Regardless of the risk a woman presents or whether she is pregnant, drug addicted, or HIV positive, she is often assigned to one or two State facilities that must serve a range of inmates with