Title: National Institute of Justice Journal 238. Series: N/A Author: NIJ Published: January 1999 Subject: Program evaluations, technology in law enforcement, police equipment, evidence, criminal investigation, law enforcement communications 70 pages 171,000 bytes ------------------------------- Figures, charts, photos, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its graphic format, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users). ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Journal January 1999 NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That Add up to Success Also in This Issue: Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future ------------------------------- Director's Message Reviewing the drafts of the Journal articles a few weeks ago, I was struck by the thought that they could not have been written 10 years ago-- probably not even 5 years ago. I think this is as true of Tom McEwen's lead article on locally initiated research partnerships in policing as it is of Lois Pilant's on developments in mobile technology for police, and Chris Asplen's on the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Even today it takes a real stretch of the imagination to visualize patrol cars equipped with an array of technologically advanced devices that can capture images of pursuits in progress, relay a patrol vehicle's exact location to a command center via a global positioning system and, in less than a minute, receive pictures of missing children on the vehicle's laptop screen sent from scanned, digitized images. But as the author convincingly demonstrates, these devices will some day be as commonplace in policing as handcuffs are today. A number of high-profile criminal trials lately have made forensic DNA evidence familiar to the general public. Yet not until recently has the full potential of DNA testing, a technology that promises much greater certitude in decisions about guilt or innocence, come to be widely recognized. Attorney General Janet Reno's request that a commission be established to explore the future of forensic DNA evidence testifies to its growing role in the criminal justice system and her determination that the many issues surrounding its use be addressed now. The Commission's recommendations to the Attorney General are still in the development stage, but reading about the Commission's work in the article by its Executive Director, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that forensic DNA testing will one day be as commonplace as fingerprinting and will be a standard part of police operations as well as the courtroom tool it is today. The "action research" model of NIJ's researcher-practitioner partnerships is not something new, as author Tom McEwen reminds us. However, a relatively recent development--the 1994 Crime Act, with its strong support for community policing--prompted NIJ and the Justice Department's COPS Office to apply this approach to policing research. Practitioners who know their communities work on an equal footing with academically trained researchers, the better to ensure findings applicable to the field. The critical mass necessary to produce this innovation in policing research has been reached only recently, as we came to appreciate the leverage value of collaboration and the need to involve communities. We are confident that by "seeding" the partnership projects at 41 sites nationwide, the approach may become standard in much policing research. Five years from now, the developments presented in the Journal today may well be the norm, with greater efficiency and effectiveness in criminal justice and safer communities the fruits of those endeavors. At that future date, we anticipate the Journal will be featuring innovations in criminal justice research and technology development unimaginable today. Jeremy Travis Director National Institute of Justice ------------------------------- National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director NIJ Journal Editorial Board Sally T. Hillsman Deputy Director for Office of Research and Evaluation John L. Schwarz Deputy Director for Office of Development and Communications David Boyd Deputy Director for Office of Science and Technology Bernard V. Auchter Saralyn Borrowman Cheryl A. Crawford James O. Finckenauer Mary G. Graham Christy A. Visher Issue Editor Judy Reardon Managing Editor Brenner Brown ------------------------------- The National Institute of Justice Journal is published by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, to announce the Institute's policy-relevant research results and initiatives. The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a centralized national clearinghouse of criminal justice information, is sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs agencies and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Registered users of NCJRS receive the National Institute of Justice Journal and NCJRS Catalog free. To become a registered user, write NCJRS User Services, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call 800-851-3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. JR000238 ------------------------------- CONTENTS Issue No. 238 FEATURES --NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That Add up to Success Tom McEwen --Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology Lois Pilant --Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future Christopher H. Asplen RESEARCH PREVIEW --Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies DEPARTMENTS --New & Noteworthy --NIJ Awards --Solicitations --Final Reports --Events --NIJ in the Journals --Recent NIJ Publications ------------------------------- NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That Add Up to Success by Tom McEwen* * Tom McEwen, Ph.D., is Director of Research for the Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. His research was conducted under NIJ grant 95-IJ-CX- 0083. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Geoff Alpert, Tim Bynum, Cheron DuPree, Steve Gaffigan, and Brenda Uckert to the evaluation, and of Phyllis McDonald of NIJ, who is overseeing the evaluation project. ------------------------------- The traditional approach to most major policing research projects has been for a police department to cooperate with a researcher who has written a proposal and submitted it to the agency. The researcher controls all steps of the process, with the department cooperating in the research by providing access to records and staff or conducting an experiment in some aspect of police operations. This approach is changing. A program developed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services within the Justice Department, enables police to participate as equals with researchers. In the Locally Initiated Research Partnerships, the partners share responsibility throughout the course of the project, jointly selecting a topic of interest to the department (hence the term "locally initiated") and collaborating on the research design, its implementation, and interpretation of the study findings. Aims of the program Begun in 1995, the NIJ partnership program in policing currently consists of 41 research projects.[1] (See "Genesis of the Police-Researcher Partnerships.") The new approach complements the basic premise of community policing: working as partners achieves more than working alone. A project in Philadelphia exemplifies how the police can establish productive partnerships with researchers just as they establish similar relationships with the community. Philadelphia police worked in concert with Temple University researchers to evaluate the department's community policing initiative. Using multiple methods (surveys, observation, and interviews, for example), the partners documented exemplary community-oriented and problem-solving policing and brought to light factors that facilitated or hindered implementation. What happened in Philadelphia also illustrates the aim of the partnership approach. The university-based researchers gained experience in the field and had the opportunity to better grasp the reality of police operations. The police department was able to tap the expertise of the researchers and apply it to solving an operational problem. The findings served as a basis for mid-course corrections in the department's approach to community policing--evidence that research partnerships can produce change in police policy and practice. The long-term aim of the approach is for the partnerships to extend beyond the life of the initial projects, to become an ongoing collaboration that will build the research capacity of police departments, enabling them to become more efficient and effective in reducing crime. Encouraged by the program's potential to improve research and practice, NIJ applied the concept to other topics and is now sponsoring locally initiated research partnerships in domestic violence and juvenile justice, among other areas. (See "New Directions for the Research Partnerships.") In an evaluation of the partnership program conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice, NIJ set out to discover how the projects are working and what factors add up to success.[2] Learning about prospective partners Police executives and researchers who are interested in establishing a partner-ship are likely to raise a number of questions before they make a commitment to it. They will want to find out, for example, what police practitioners should know about researchers in order to work effectively with them and how researchers should approach police practitioners whom they see as prospective partners. Because one of the chief objectives in creating the partnership program was to build foundations for ongoing police-researcher collaboration, that raises the additional question of whether and how a particular partnership can be sustained as a routine way to conduct research. The evaluators addressed these questions through the broader question of what constitutes a successful collaboration. The evaluation findings indicated that a constellation of factors, from cultivating the police-researcher relationship to ensuring the adequacy of information systems, are essential. The evaluators also developed three practical measures of success for a project. What makes for success It is no surprise that partnerships between police departments and researchers have a greater chance of succeeding if the relationship is built on a foundation of trust and open communication. But careful cultivation of the relationship is only one component in the inventory of factors that add up to success. The partners must develop good working relationships. Conducting research as a partnership calls for individuals to work together to develop common objectives and define roles and responsibilities for key staff. In most of the projects, participants have found that to achieve these and other ends it is advantageous to establish several modes of communication during the course of the research. That includes frequent meetings, e-mail exchanges, telephone calls, and brief progress reports. In some projects, inclusion of police union members has been essential. In the Oakland, California, project, for example, in which the effects of police officer stress on family life were studied, union representatives were part of the research team and contributed ideas about how to persuade officers and their spouses to be interviewed. Cultivating this relationship paid off because the research resulted in a better understanding of the effect of stress on families and provided the Oakland Police Department with ideas on how to reduce the problems that stress can create. Trust between the partners must be cultivated. Building trust is especially important when the participants have not previously worked together. In such instances, researchers have found it to their advantage to "pay their dues" to achieve acceptance from police. They have used several techniques, such as accompanying police officers on ride-alongs, interviewing key staff departmentwide rather than confining interviews to a single unit, and accommodating departmental requests for help on issues and problems that fall outside the immediate scope of the research project. The key researcher in one project spent the first six months interviewing sergeants and commanders. She felt the approach enabled her to win the trust and confidence of the police managers, laying a foundation for the research she would conduct. Researchers should invest in understanding local police culture. Parallel with building trust, and as a foundation for it, researchers need to understand the local police culture. Elements of that culture include police officers' attitudes toward their jobs, the role of sergeants in community policing, the history of the department's personnel relationships, and the jurisdiction's political environment. Especially important for researchers is understanding how the philosophy of community policing and its implementation are perceived through the lens of the local police culture. The amount of effort required to understand the local police culture should not be underestimated. That culture is likely to have developed over a long period of time and may therefore not be as receptive to new ideas as researchers might like to believe. Familiarity with the department's culture helps the researcher formulate realistic recommendations from the research findings. Graduate students can be used effectively. In several projects involving universities, graduate students have had key roles. They have performed a variety of tasks, including collecting data, providing assistance in developing the research design, analyzing information systems, and interpreting results. In some projects, graduate students have been assigned independent research projects, such as determining the feasibility of computer mapping in a police department or identifying information systems needs. The primary author of one project shared responsibility with a graduate student on the report of a major evaluation of community policing. Such use of graduate students can be a "win-win" situation--they benefit from the "real world" experience of working in a police department while the partnership gains by acquiring cost-effective support. Information systems must be able to support research. In several projects, researchers have found that the police departments' information systems are not able to fully support the research. The records in the system may not contain the amount of detail needed for analysis or there may be no information system at all. In these situations, the projects have had to change the research timetable to allow the system to catch up. For example, in some projects, the researchers found it necessary to either establish a system for collecting the records needed or to substantially change the existing system before useful analysis could proceed. In other projects, the information systems contained the data needed, but considerable manipulation was necessary before they could be analyzed. Ironically, the analysis usually generated ideas for improving the information systems for both operational and research purposes. Local research products have to fit their audience. The primary aim of the partnership projects is to solve local problems and, secondarily, to contribute to the general knowledge about a topic. For that reason, the final products need to be tailored to a local audience. In general, police commanders will not be interested in the details of the research design, for example. Instead, they want to concentrate on the consequences for policy and operations of what has been found. Experience with the partnership projects reveals that the findings can be presented in a variety of formats--brief written or oral presentations, slide presentations, memoranda, or summary tables, to name a few--with the selection tailored to audience needs. Reports geared to scholars, containing literature reviews and extensive bibliographical references, usually are not appropriate for practitioners nor well received by them. In fact, researchers must do double duty if they intend to publish in peer-reviewed journals. They must develop one type of product for police practitioners and another for the journals. Key staff must remain in place. Retaining the same core group of people over the life of a multi-year research project is especially important to success, but can be difficult. During the normal course of events, police may be transferred to other assignments, retire, or earn a promotion (which usually means reassignment). Their participation in the research project rarely blocks any of these changes. On the other side of the coin, some researchers have left the projects to accept positions in other universities. Because turnover means assigning a new person to the project, it almost always disrupts the research timetable. Where there has been stability, project participants have expressed satisfaction with the research process. Measures of success Close observation of the partnership projects suggests that their "bottom-line success" includes at least one of three measures: o Whether the department changes as a result of the research. o Whether information systems have been developed or improved. o Whether the partnership continues beyond the life of the initial research project. Change. Because the immediate aim of the partnership is solving a local problem, it goes without saying that change in operational procedures or policies signals success. In some instances, the project evaluations have produced mid-course corrections in the way community policing is implemented. Philadelphia (noted above) is an example. Los Angeles is another. There, a survey conducted among police officers by the department and its partners, University of California at Los Angeles and University of Southern California, led to changes in the department's community policing initiative. Community policing in Charleston, West Virginia; Hagerstown, Maryland; and Racine, Wisconsin, has also been influenced by the partnerships with researchers in these jurisdictions. The police departments in Rapid City, South Dakota; Pocatello, Idaho; and Eureka and Redding, California, that are working with the research firm LINC[3] have improved their procedures for reporting domestic violence as a result of the partnership. Results of a single project may serve several purposes. One commander noted the use of survey results "as the basis for this year's strategic plan, as input for a continuing education program for middle managers, and to show that morale in [his command] area is not as bad as believed." Managing information. Upgrading existing information systems or installing a system is a sign of success because information lies at the core of research and can drive a department's policy decisions. The Seattle Police Department's partnership with the University of Washington to address domestic violence illustrates this. As part of the partnership project, the department established an information system to obtain and manage data about domestic violence. A researcher commented on the advantages for both researchers and practitioners by noting, "We helped the police department set up the database for domestic violence, and they've been entering data for more than a year. And we also get access to that data." A database created to meet the daily operational needs of the department also generates high-quality data for research purposes. Sustaining the partnership. Local research capacity increases as the partnership develops and achieves success in individual projects. That improvement is a product of the joint effort of equal partners. In some other Federal initiatives, by contrast, the aim is to train police practitioners to conduct research on their own. Several partnerships have been sustained beyond the initial study when the partners were asked, on the basis of their experience, to tackle other projects. For example, researchers from the University of California at Oakland who were working with the Oakland, California, Police Department were subsequently asked to evaluate a federally sponsored project on reducing gang-related crime. In New York City, the partnership between the police department and researchers from the City University of New York continued when additional Federal funding was provided to improve computerized crime mapping. Seattle: improving police response to domestic violence The partnership forged in Seattle to improve police handling of domestic violence exemplifies the way locally initiated research can change a department's approach to reducing crime. The ability of the police department's domestic violence unit to respond had been viewed internally as inadequate in reporting and analyzing incident data. For this reason, the partnership focused on evaluating the unit. Origins. The Seattle partnership, which began in 1996, brought researchers from the University of Washington School of Public Health, the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, and other units of the city government that handled domestic violence together with the police department's domestic violence unit. The unit had been organized two years earlier as part of the newly created Family and Youth Protection Bureau to provide specialized followup investigation of domestic violence crimes. Thus, the partnership was a logical extension of an already established arrangement among the organizations whose key members had collaborated on other projects, among them improving the medical release form used by patrol officers in handling domestic disputes. Results. As noted above, one result was upgrading the existing system of collecting information about domestic violence. Other results were: o Designing and refining a domestic violence incident report used by the police. o Obtaining physicians' assistance in designing the incident report. o Improving access to medical information from hospitals and physicians. o Assigning more investigative responsibility to the domestic violence unit. Partnership extended. The Seattle partnership continued the following year, this time with the aim of developing a "lethality scale risk assessment tool" [4] that would enable the department to work smarter in investigating domestic violence cases. This was done by expanding the officers' reporting form to enable them to cite risk factors (such as use of alcohol and/or drugs) for the escalation of violence in particular situations. As of this writing, data collected from the risk assessment tool by means of the reporting form are being analyzed. A plus for both sides Even if the immediate problem defined by the partnership is not fully resolved, both police and researchers gain from their experiences. Working with researchers encourages police departments to approach issues more systematically than they otherwise might, critically assess the quality and utility of their information systems, and understand research findings in a broad context. On the other side of the partnership, researchers have the opportunity to apply the tools of their trade in an operational setting, see the findings of empirical research influence local policymaking, and assess whether operational changes made under community policing are producing the desired results. If the attitudes of participating police and researchers are any indication, the partnership projects will build a firm foundation for lasting police-researcher relationships. One commander recognized the value of the resources available to the department and was especially enthusiastic about continuing the partnership: "We've traditionally been a closed department...solving our problems on our own. The doors of the local university were open, but our eyes were closed." One researcher was typical in expressing the value of the partnership in helping researchers better understand the challenges faced by police departments: "The policy decisions that police make are some of the most difficult that I've seen, and have major implications. I think I can help." Notes [1] Forty-one locally initiated research partnerships in policing were awarded as of 1997. Awards made in 1998 were supplements to those made in previous years. [2] The evaluation was conducted through a series of visits to participating sites, cluster meetings (discussions among groups of program participants), reviews of reports, and other approaches. [3] LINC is a private research organization based in Virginia. [4] A "lethality scale risk assessment tool" is a means of determining the degree of risk of serious injury that a domestic violence victim might suffer by remaining with a particular partner. It usually takes the form of a questionnaire. ------------------------------- GENESIS OF THE POLICE-RESEARCHER PARTNERSHIPS The Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in policing are rooted in the Crime Act of 1994. The Act created an unprecedented opportunity to make communities safer by building and improving police departments nationwide. Under Title I of the Act, the number of officers deployed increased and police departments received support in adopting community and problem-solving policing. Part of the legislation included a mandate for evaluation, periodic review, and production of reports. NIJ undertook these tasks. With support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), established by the Crime Act in the Department of Justice, NIJ began the process of evaluating and otherwise studying how police departments were using the funds to adopt new programs and hiring initiatives. Means and ends The notion of police-researcher partnerships stemmed from NIJ and COPS Office recognition of police executives' growing need for research to help define problems, design solutions, and assess the effects of adopted solutions. In developing the approach, the two agencies also drew on input from local police departments.* The outcome was a program in which police departments become active participants in, rather than passive recipients of, Crime Act policing research. In the Locally Initiated Research Partnerships, police departments and researchers work together to find a solution to a problem defined by the agency. The partnership also becomes the basis for ongoing cooperation between the two that extends beyond the life of the initial project. The long-term aim is to build the research capacity of the agency so that crime-reduction programs may be developed or refined, and current policies re-evaluated or modified. Structures and types Most often the partnership consists of a local police department or other law enforcement agency and a local university. Less often the department collaborates with a private, nonprofit research organization. Sometimes the researchers and practitioners have worked together in the past and the current partnership continues that relationship; in other instances it is a new arrangement for both parties. Several partnerships include more than one police department. Currently, NIJ is sponsoring 41 partnerships in jurisdictions ranging in size from Council Grove, Kansas (population 2,000), to New York City (population more than 7 million). (See exhibit 1 for a complete list of sites.) The subject range is wide, covering domestic violence, workplace violence, computer mapping, the role of sergeants in community policing, and programs for youthful offenders, among other topics. Many projects are an evaluation of a department's overall community policing effort. * An approach to research that involves creating partnerships with practitioners and that results in application of the findings is not new. "Action research," as this approach is called, has been used in several fields in addition to criminal justice. (See The "Action Research" Model.) ------------------------------- EXHIBIT 1. NIJ'S LOCALLY INITIATED RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS: THE ISSUES AND THE PARTNERS Community policing- organizational development/implementation --Albuquerque (New Mexico) Police Department with University of New Mexico --Alfred/Wellsville (New York) Police Department with Alfred University --Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department with the Urban Institute --Baltimore Police Department with Johns Hopkins University --Bay City (Michigan) Police Department with Saginaw College --Boston Police Department with Northeastern University/Harvard University --Buffalo (New York) Police Department with State University of New York at Buffalo --Chandler, Glendale, and Scottsdale, Arizona, police departments with Arizona State University --Jefferson County (West Virginia) Police Department with FOCUS Coalition, Inc. --Lexington (Kentucky) Police Department with Eastern Kentucky University --Los Angeles Police Department with University of California at Los Angeles/University of Southern California --Omaha (Nebraska) Police Department with University of Nebraska at Omaha --St. Louis Police Department with St. Louis University Community policing- surveys/evaluations --Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's Department with Boise State University --Alachua County (Florida) Sheriff's Office with University of Florida --Charleston (West Virginia) Police Department with Marshall University --Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department with University of Colorado --Council Grove (Kansas) Police Department with University of Kansas --El Centro (California) Police Department with San Diego State University --Forest Park (Ohio) Police Department with University of Cincinnati --Hagerstown (Maryland) Police Department with Shippensburg University --Jersey City (New Jersey) Police Department with Rutgers University --Lansing (Michigan) Police Department with Michigan State University --Lowell, Salem, and Danvers, Massachusetts, police departments with Salem State College --Oakland (California) Police Department with University of California, Oakland --Philadelphia Police Department with Temple University --Racine (Wisconsin) Police Department with University of Wisconsin --Southern Alabama (police departments in one rural county and three small cities) with University of Southern Alabama COMPSTAT*/computer mapping --Charlotte (North Carolina) Police Department with International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)/Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) --Charlottesville (Virginia) Police Department with University of Virginia --Indianapolis Police Department with Hudson Institute --New Orleans Police Department with IACP/JRSA --New York City Police Department with City University of New York --Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Department with University of Maryland Domestic violence --Berkeley (California) Police Department with National Council on Crime and Delinquency/East Bay Public Safety Corridor --Framingham (Massachusetts) Police Department with Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc. --Rapid City, South Dakota; Pocatello, Idaho; Eureka, California; and Redding, California, police departments with LINC --Seattle Police Department with University of Washington Multi-site research projects --Baltimore County, Maryland; Grand Rapids, Michigan; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Wichita, Kansas, police departments with IACP/JRSA --Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition (consisting of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the Florida Department of Corrections) with Florida State University --Multiple sites in southern Illinois with Southern Illinois University * COMPSTAT (computer comparison statistics) is a computerized system for analyzing crime data. It was pioneered by the New York City Police Department, where the system is used in conjunction with regularly scheduled meetings in which commanders respond to questions about their coverage areas. ------------------------------- THE "ACTION RESEARCH" MODEL The Locally Initiated Research Partnerships are distinctive in fostering the translation of research into action. They exemplify an inquiry strategy known as "action research," described by psychologist Kurt Lewin, its early champion, as a spiral of "planning, acting, and evaluating."[1] More recently, action research has been characterized as "a cyclical process that involves diagnosing a problem situation, planning action steps, and implementing and evaluating outcomes."[2] The spiral or cycle means the steps are repeated: Once an evaluation is conducted, the situation is diagnosed again on the basis of what is learned from the previous round of activity. A distinguishing feature of action research is partnership with practitioners. Since the 1940s, action research has been applied successfully in the fields of psychology, education, and medicine and has been used in criminal justice. The model's cyclical, multi-step process begins with nomination of a research topic, continues with development and implementation of the research design, and ends with communication and application of findings. (See exhibit 2 [exhibit 2 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file]) Applied to police-researcher partnerships, those steps are as follows: o Nominating a research topic. Topic selection is determined by the interests of the partners, police department initiatives, political influences, and local police culture. o Reconnaissance. Following topic selection, police practitioners and researchers gather more information about the nominated topic. This includes reviewing the department's information systems to determine their adequacy and to shed more light on the topic, interviewing key department staff to learn their perceptions of the severity of the targeted problem, and reviewing the literature on the topic. In some cases, reconnaissance may result in rejection of the topic. o Developing a research plan and implementing it. Depending on the topic, the research may include, among other steps, data analysis, surveys of citizens, and development of an experimental research design. Research findings are analyzed on an ongoing basis. The graphic illustration of the model (exhibit 2) depicts this as a loop that extends from analysis back to developing and conducting research. In some projects, it has been necessary to revise the approach as interim results become available. o Communication and application. The final steps in the first cycle are communicating the research findings to the appropriate audience and applying them in practice. Most locally based research concludes with recommendations for changes in departmental procedures or policies. o The next cycle. The entire process begins again with renomination of a research topic. At this point there are two options. One is to conduct a second round of research, retaining the initial topic. The aim might be to evaluate changes made as a result of the first round of research. The other option is to select a new problem to study. Selecting the latter option assumes the previous problem has been successfully resolved or that only marginal improvements can be made through additional research at this point. Notes [1] Lewin, Kurt, "Action Research and Minority Problems," in: Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, edited by Gertrud Lewin, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948: 219-262. [2] Elden, Max, and Rupert Chisholm, "Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue," Human Relations 46(2) (1993): 121-141. ------------------------------- NEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS Encouraged by the promise of the Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in policing, NIJ expanded the approach to encompass additional research areas. Domestic violence. In conjunction with the Violence Against Women Grants Office (Office of Justice Programs), NIJ is sponsoring evaluations of law enforcement programs designed to encourage arrest in cases of domestic violence. The centralized detectives unit established in the San Diego Sheriff's Department to investigate domestic violence cases will be evaluated to identify resulting changes, and deputies' knowledge of relevant State laws will be tested. Courts specializing in domestic violence cases are being examined to understand more about their effectiveness and the enhanced advocacy and supervision they offer. In a Pennsylvania-based project, training provided to police officers who handle domestic violence cases will be assessed, technical assistance will be provided in developing database systems to track these cases, and victims' satisfaction with domestic violence services will be explored. The Colorado Springs Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT), a comprehensive approach joining 15 agencies, will be examined to identify the types of incidents occurring in the jurisdiction, the nature and effect of intervention, and the nature of the agencies' collaboration. Sentencing and corrections. The aim of partnerships in these areas is to better understand the implementation and impact of State sentencing and correctional policies. Among some of the recently awarded projects are studies of sentencing-related changes in correctional health care (Texas); truth-in-sentencing laws (Virginia and Florida, among other States); the mental health problems of juvenile offenders (California); prisoner drug and alcohol treatment (Pennsylvania); the impact of State sentencing reforms on violent offenders (West Virginia); the impact of sentencing on corrections (California); and the effect of sentencing policies on the racial/ethnic composition of prisons (Pennsylvania). Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for prisoners. The 1994 Crime Act provided States funding to develop substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities. In conjunction with the Corrections Program Office (Office of Justice Programs) and in collaboration with the appropriate State agencies (such as the corrections department), NIJ is sponsoring evaluations of individual State programs. Examples of studies now under way are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections-Vera Institute of Justice evaluation of the State's RSAT program, with an emphasis on recidivism among parolees who have committed technical violations; the study of a pre-release therapeutic community for women offenders in Washington State; and a Texas-based study of the State's chemical dependency treatment program for juvenile offenders. Juvenile justice. The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) offer support to States that are considering adopting policies or practices to ensure accountability of juvenile offenders. JAIBG is administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NIJ is sponsoring a national evaluation of the program, in addition to evaluating specific State programs and conducting related research. The Institute also dedicated some of its support to research partnerships. Public housing safety. The research partnerships for public housing communities are intended to help housing authorities eliminate the problem of drugs and crime that has particularly plagued residents of public housing. NIJ and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are providing support to seven of these agencies (in Omaha; Nashville; Jonesboro, Arkansas; San Diego; Raleigh; Philadelphia; and New Haven) to evaluate their crime-reduction programs or to identify crime-related problems in the housing developments, develop solutions, and evaluate their impact. NIJ and HUD also are sponsoring the development of a system for use by HUD in reporting and processing information about the agency's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. The value of partnerships The value of partnerships lies in bringing to bear on complex issues the multiple perspectives, skills, and experiences of a group of individuals or organizations. That is their "leverage" value. Partnerships also reduce duplication of effort and help ensure that all parties with a stake in a particular issue have a seat at the table. For researchers, working with practitioners is particularly valuable because it helps ensure that the practical and operational receive due emphasis. It was with this in mind that NIJ and the other agencies of the Office of Justice Programs chose "Viewing Crime from a Collaborative Perspective" as the theme of their annual research and evaluation conference in 1998. The major presentations from that conference, each one emphasizing a different aspect of collaboration with community stakeholders and others on issues of crime and justice, are being prepared for publication by NIJ and will be available in mid-1999. ------------------------------- Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology by Lois Pilant* *Lois Pilant is President and CEO of Wings Publishing, which specializes in writing, editing, and graphic design. She writes extensively about law enforcement issues, particularly in the area of technology. ------------------------------- When Corporal Clay Taylor tickets a driver for DWI, the process requires at least nine forms and takes at least four hours. And that's on a good day. But in the past year, this Texas Department of Public Safety trooper has been field testing a new technology that greatly streamlines the process. Corporal Taylor's patrol car has been equipped with a computer system he uses to record information electronically. Corporal Taylor recently used this new technology while responding to a six-vehicle accident that involved two commercial vehicles, required writing tickets for DWI, and sent seven people to three different hospitals. The paperwork alone would have generated at least 35 forms, all of which required filling in the same information--for example, name, date of birth, and driver's license number. Instead, using a handheld mobile computer that communicates with the system in his car, Corporal Taylor entered the basic information once and assigned it to as many forms as he needed. He then entered the information electronically into the State's database. The Advanced Law Enforcement Response Technology, or ALERT [registered trademark][1], made all of this possible. The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the technology. Although originally the brainchild of the FHWA, the project to develop the technology grew into a consortium that includes the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), several State and local law enforcement agencies, and major manufacturers of police equipment. The result is the police car of the future, one that puts technology to work in ways that make an officer's job easier and safer. Inside the ALERT [registered trademark] car The ALERT technology takes the masses of switches and controls out of the "cockpit" of the patrol car and integrates the vehicle's functions into a system entirely controlled by an onboard touch-screen computer. ALERT cars currently being tested are equipped with computer-driven overhead lights, radar, magnetic stripe and bar-code readers, license plate readers, enhanced video camera/recording devices, and a global positioning system/automatic vehicle locator. If the officer initiates a pursuit, for example, he or she simply touches the word "pursue" on the screen to activate the lights, siren, and a video camera, as well as a global positioning system that shows dispatchers the patrol car's precise location. A video multiplexor integrates multiple cameras and lenses and enables the officer to record digital or video images inside and outside the vehicle in wide-angle or close-up views. Those images can then be transmitted in real time to a communications or command center. ALERT also includes a handheld, pen-based remote terminal, of the same type used by Corporal Taylor, that can communicate with the onboard computer. When an officer makes a stop and approaches a vehicle, the programs needed to record information are in the handheld unit. Information from the stop can be downloaded to the onboard computer or sent by wireless transmission to the communications center. The computer that serves as the traffic cop for all this sophisticated technology sits in the trunk, routing communications between wireless data collection devices, the vehicle itself, and the department's communications center. What makes everything work is the ALERT technology's open architecture, which allows departments to create a system unique to their needs. Officers can add peripheral devices simply by plugging them in. Agencies can combine equipment from different manufacturers and transfer the ALERT equipment from one patrol car to another. They may choose to incorporate the most basic technologies or opt for a more sophisticated system. Either way, police departments will enhance the functions of patrol officers with this "plug-and-play" system. A recent demonstration of the technology showed how a photograph of a missing child could be scanned and digitized at a Texas police department, forwarded to a nearby ALERT base station, and then sent to a Virginia police department's patrol car where it was displayed on a laptop computer. At the same time, the photo was conveyed electronically to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Arlington, Virginia, for display and processing. The total transmission time was less than 60 seconds. Toward paperless patrol But it's the officers who truly benefit. When the ALERT technology becomes commercially available, officers will have immediate access to State and national databases (for example, those of State departments of motor vehicles); they will be able to receive and transmit text and graphics in seconds; and they will be able to use the digital and video cameras to record images from accident sites and crime scenes and automatically download it to their department's records management system. Information from drivers' licenses can be swiped on magnetic stripe and bar-code readers and automatically loaded into electronic forms, and officers will be able to communicate with neighboring jurisdictions as well as other emergency responders. "Processing a typical DWI without ALERT is a four-hour operation," said Corporal Taylor. "ALERT cuts it down to less than an hour. "I have a lot of people asking me about ALERT, and the most common question is, 'Tell me how it's saved your life.' But that isn't what ALERT does. What's been really beneficial is that for every 10 minutes you block a major roadway, you back traffic up for 10 miles. Think of how much time and money I've saved by clearing an accident 45 minutes faster because it only took minutes to process the paperwork." Corporal Taylor uses ALERT to e-mail tickets to judges' offices rather than hand-carrying them, and to enter accident information into the State's database. It typically takes nine months for an accident to be entered into the records system, which means Statewide accident statistics are well over a year old by the time they are available. But with ALERT, a property-only accident report, for example, can be entered in as little as 20 minutes. "With ALERT, we've just cut out a whole loop of people. From a statistical standpoint, that means we can look at real-time data instead of delayed data," Taylor said. With FHWA funding, Taylor plans to field test ALERT technology by giving five of his officers handheld computers and asking them to become "paperless." He will then compare their productivity and activity with that of the troopers who do not have the ALERT technology. The goal is to transmit case reports, as well as the troopers' weekly reports, from the field. "We can take a lot of the information from the handheld computer as it's collected and automatically move it from there to the database or into another report," Taylor said. "That keeps our troops on the road, instead of being in the office doing paperwork." The future of law enforcement technology is now Such forays into the future of technology are only the beginning. Admittedly, a large number of the Nation's police agencies still do not have computers--about 30 percent by some estimates. Agencies that do, however, are increasing their technological sophistication with amazing speed. The potential of laptops. Chief Dennis Nowicki, of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) in North Carolina, has been working on his department's information management system for the past three years. He is known as one of the country's most innovative and technologically sophisticated police administrators. He has turned a department that used a mainframe and pin maps into one with a state-of-the-art network serving 1,800 users. Laptops are the primary tool. One is issued to each officer rather than to each vehicle and, as with a weapon, all officers must undergo training and become qualified to use the computer. "Nobody has gone through the training that they didn't take it home the first day," said Major Piper Charles, who heads the CMPD's Police Master Information System program. "Even the older officers whom you might expect to be technologically resistant are liking it." The system is set up on a local area network that links all workstations within the headquarters building and at 18 remote facilities. A Mobile Data Communications System enables officers to receive dispatches; query local, State, and Federal databases; and transfer and query offense reports and field interview records. Officers have access to mug shots and can use e-mail to communicate with investigators and administrators. Additional modules will roll out in phases: o KB-COPS (Knowledge-Based Community Oriented Policing System). Started in the CMPD in spring 1998, KB-COPS features a custom-developed database that provides advanced reporting detail and querying capabilities. o Enhanced CAD.[2] The CAD system will be enhanced, becoming less call-for-service oriented and more smoothly integrated with the department's information and records system. It also will generate histories and background information and interface directly with the KB-COPS records management system. o Field interview system. With this system, CMPD officers in the field can directly input interview information from their laptops and query the field interview database to better identify offending patterns among suspects. o Future Alert Contact Network (FALCON). A "triggering" software developed by the CMPD and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, FALCON helps officers as they sort through reports and records to alert them to patterns and trends. o Internal affairs case management module. This tool automates internal investigation forms and data and enables investigators to track case dispositions and spot trends and problem behaviors by analyzing complaints filed against the department and individual officers. The CMPD also wants to develop modules for analyzing property and evidence and managing investigations, and a problem-solving component that will let officers enter information about community problems they are working on or have solved. This database will be used as a resource in all of the department's community policing efforts. Strategic thinking is key. The CMPD has been successful because it has a long-term plan and sees policing as a business and the information management system as its foundation, not just as a short-term project that would automate only one function. "A lot of people are using laptops as mobile data terminals when they really should be the functional equivalent of a desktop computer," said Major Charles. "We need to think beyond running tags and warrants. We need to think about officers doing crime mapping and crime analysis in their cars, about how these systems are going to support what we do on the street." We need to think about officers doing crime mapping and crime analysis in their cars, about how these systems are going to support what we do on the street." Kelly Harris, manager of the SEARCH Group's technical assistance program, agreed. "These systems support mobile computing and allow the officers to be more productive in the field. They don't have to return to headquarters to get messages or do more research. They can conduct their own queries without waiting for a dispatcher. Also, the quality of the data is better. It's more accurate because it's written immediately after the incident. It isn't handwritten and deciphered by someone else, so there are no transcription errors. "The department shouldn't be just a storage facility or a place to dump information," Harris added. "It can house a database and let us get information back to the field in an interactive way. It's really a much more dynamic system and a more cost-effective and efficient way of doing business." With a little help from a friend NIJ's view is that "technology saves lives;" hence its consistent funding of projects and programs that put new and adapted technologies into the hands of police officers. Projects like ALERT and the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services' (COPS) COPS MORE funding dovetail with the NIJ philosophy, supporting programs that keep patrol officers abreast of the latest in mobile technology. (See "More on COPS MORE.") A host of projects, encompassing every-thing from the implementation of extensive information management systems to smaller projects that put laptops in patrol cars, are now operating in jurisdictions nationwide.[3] A mobile technology sampler. Five hundred laptop computers were placed in the vehicles of 22 Connecticut police agencies, thanks to funding provided to the State's Regional Council of Governments from the State, municipalities, and COPS MORE. Initially, the project allows immediate wireless access, via a shared network, to State motor vehicle, National Crime Information Center and National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System information.[4] In the next phase of the program, a data collection system for case reporting and motor-vehicle accident reporting will be developed. The ultimate goal is complete sharing of information among police departments. A multi-jurisdictional information system is being developed by the combined forces of four California police departments--Woodland, West Sacramento, Winters, and Davis. The project started with an installation of laptop computers, but the goal is an integrated CAD, records management, and mobile data system that will inter-face with the district attorney's office, the courts, and the probation office. The city of San Francisco is taking communications and mobile technologies a step further. In a project funded by voter initiatives, the city is replacing its entire 911 infrastructure--the radios, computer systems, even the physical facility--and combining dispatch systems for police, fire, and paramedics under one roof. When the project is completed at the end of 1999, a 911 call will go to one call-taker, who will then send it to multiple dispatchers. In this way, fire, police, and paramedics can be dispatched either individually or all at once. Recordkeeping will remain separate, with a records management system serving as a repository for police incident reports and the fire department database housing data on fire incidents, medical incidents, and fire prevention. A mobile computing module will be available to all personnel and will enable building inspectors and paramedics to fill out reports from the field. Moving toward the 21st century When digital data were first transmitted to a police cruiser in the mid-1980s, the information was available only to agencies that could afford a private radio network and mobile terminals. Even then, the equipment used proprietary protocols, which meant that agencies were generally limited to only one manufacturer or vendor. Today, however, departments can hook up a laptop computer and an RF (radio frequency) modem and send encrypted data to officers in the field via a public cellular network at a fraction of the cost of a private net-work that uses proprietary protocols. In a survey conducted by the Illinois Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Council, officers were asked how they felt about using this kind of mobile technology. One officer called it "the best tool I have been given to work with in 19 years as a police officer." Other tools that once were mere sparks of imagination now promise to one day be as common as handcuffs and batons. Among them is Operation Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS), one of the newest components of the ALERT system. OREIS is a database that enables first responders to rapidly obtain accurate information during hazardous materials incidents. It links police and firefighters to databases of participating rail and motor carriers that operate within their specific area. Emergency workers can use OREIS to identify the cargo of a train car or truck, allowing them to handle a hazardous materials incident in a way that ensures the safety of the community and the response team. It also provides schematics of Amtrak cars and locomotives, including seat configuration, emergency exit doors and windows, and the location of electric and fuel resources. OREIS has proven its worth on more than one occasion. In one incident, a vapor cloud was seen leaking from a tanker car in a New York rail yard. Officials used OREIS to contact the railroad's mainframe database and, within seven minutes, learned that the tanker contained 20,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid. Although calm, wet weather meant the area did not have to be evacuated, with OREIS, first responders knew they needed protective gear and breathing apparatus. In another case, a tank car leaking benzoic acid was spotted in a Texas industrial complex. Although the facility had its own emergency response team, it used OREIS to verify the tank car's contents and get information on how to manage the incident. Chronicled here are just a few examples of how law enforcement agencies are taking advantage of mobile technologies. There are hundreds more. Not only do they prove the adage "technology saves lives," but they also are evidence that technology can be a major force in enabling law enforcement agencies to better and more efficiently deliver police services to communities. Notes [1] ALERT [registered trademark] is a registered trademark of the Texas Transportation Institute. [2] Computer-assisted dispatch. [3] Many of these projects, a number of which are supported with COPS MORE grants, are listed on the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Web site (at the IACP's Law Enforcement Information Management Committee's technology page: http://www.iacptechnology.org/). [4] The National Crime Information Center is the FBI's national database that any officer in the country can query about warrants and other crime-related information. The FBI's National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System is a means by which alerts, bulletins, warnings, and similar information are sent via teletype to every law enforcement agency in the country. ------------------------------- MORE ON COPS MORE COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective) enables law enforcement agencies to acquire equipment that uses advanced technologies. The program is administered by the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which was established under the 1994 Crime Act to put additional police officers on the streets and promote community policing. The technology acquired by local policing agencies with COPS MORE support is the means. The end is freeing up sworn officers' time so they can engage in community policing. In addition to equipping officers with new technologies, COPS MORE makes funds available to replace sworn personnel with civilians in performing administrative tasks. Together, the two approaches allow officers to spend more time on the streets solving problems instead of at the station completing paperwork. The aims of COPS MORE are to improve police-citizen cooperation and communication, increase police and citizen ability to innovatively solve community problems, aid in restructuring agencies in a way that allows optimal use of department and community resources, promote the flow and use of information within and outside agencies, and improve law enforcement responsiveness to members of the community. COPS MORE is one of several COPS Office programs. A series of hiring grants is meeting the goal of recruiting an additional 100,000 community policing officers; the COPS youth firearms violence initiative supports creative approaches to reduce gun crime among young people; and a program established in collaboration with the Office of Justice Programs' Violence Against Women Grants Office is helping to apply community policing to reduce domestic violence. COPS also makes training and technical assistance available to agencies receiving COPS grants. ------------------------------- Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future by Christopher H. Asplen* *Christopher H. Asplen, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, is Executive Director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Because the Commission is still in deliberation, the opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the Commission, but rather of the author. ------------------------------- One day in 1989 Debbie Smith was dragged from her Virginia home, blindfolded, and repeatedly raped. Her husband, a police officer home from night duty, was asleep upstairs, unaware of the crime. As the rapist fled, he warned his victim, "Remember, I know where you live and I will come back if you tell anyone." Later Debbie recounted how, for the next six years, she and her family were consumed by terror, pain, and guilt, and frequently suffered nightmares because her assailant remained at large. She even contemplated suicide. Then, in July 1995, everything changed when the man who raped her was identified through the State of Virginia's DNA database. "For the first time in six and a half years," Debbie testified, "I could feel myself breathe. I felt validated. It was a real name and a real face to go with the nightmare." A sample of her assailant's DNA, left as evidence in the rape, had been routinely placed in the Virginia database after the crime. When he was later convicted of a subsequent serious offense, another sample was taken. Run through the database, it produced a "hit"--a match with the DNA of the unknown man who raped Debbie Smith years earlier. He now had, in her words, a real name and a real face. Genesis of the Commission Debbie Smith recounted her experiences before the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. The Commission was created in 1998 at the request of Attorney General Janet Reno. When she read about the use of DNA to exonerate someone wrongfully convicted of rape and homicide, she became concerned that others might also have been wrongly convicted. The Attorney General then directed the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to identify how often DNA had exonerated wrongfully convicted defendants. After extensive study, NIJ published a report that presents case studies of 28 inmates for whom DNA analysis was exculpatory.[1] On learning of the breadth and scope of the issues related to forensic DNA, the Attorney General asked NIJ to establish the Commission as a means to examine the future of DNA evidence and how the Justice Department could encourage its most effective use. "Postconviction" issues like the one that prompted the Attorney General's interest are just one of several areas of inquiry for the Commission. The other focal areas, for which corresponding working groups have been established, each chaired by a Commissioner (see "The Commission and the Commissioners"), are: o Crime scene investigation and evidence collection. o Laboratory funding. o Legal concerns. o Research and development. The experiences of victims of violent crime like Debbie Smith and those wrongfully convicted and incarcerated illustrate the urgency of the issues the Commission faces. In cases such as these, each person's life is irrevocably damaged. In Debbie Smith's case, her assailant had been jailed for another offense only months after her rape, but his DNA sample from that conviction went unanalyzed for years, so he was not identified as her attacker as soon as he was jailed. Instead, as she told the Commission, "I lost six years of my life to fear because of the backlog of DNA samples." There were so many samples to be processed that years went by before her attacker's DNA sample was processed and he was apprehended on the basis of the match. The backlog of samples is still very large. The mission The Commission's mandate is to submit recommendations to the Attorney General that will help ensure more effective use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool and foster its use throughout the criminal justice system. The working groups will research and otherwise examine their respective topics. Working groups may develop guidelines for the use of DNA. At the Commission's direction, the products of the working groups will be submitted to the full Commission for approval, amendment, or further discussion and will provide the Commission with background for its recommendations to the Attorney General. As the Commission enters its second year, NIJ felt it timely to report on why the Commission was established and how it operates, explain its mission and that of the working groups, and elaborate on the issues it is exploring. Postconviction issues A convicted individual's continued assertion of innocence is not new to the criminal justice system and in fact is familiar to appeals courts. The use of DNA technology may bring to courtroom proceedings a degree of certitude to which neither the defense nor the prosecution is accustomed. Typically in an appeal, the possibility that the original verdict will be overturned is merely suggested. By contrast, the introduction of DNA evidence after conviction may definitively prove innocence. Because of the high level of certainty made possible by DNA evidence, the decision to oppose or not oppose a motion requesting postconviction relief may now be based on a different foundation of knowledge. The implications of DNA technology for criminal justice are most evident in postconviction appeals, both in the use of DNA evidence in specific cases and in its broader impact on the criminal justice system. The Commission is examining the use of DNA evidence in previously adjudicated cases in order to develop recommendations about the postconviction process and is exploring the effect that DNA technology may have on the statutes of limitation for filing appeals and charges. The latter issue arises because DNA samples last indefinitely, beyond the periods of time permitted for such filings. The working group on postconviction issues has developed recommendations that will serve criminal justice system practitioners as guidelines for analyzing cases in which DNA evidence is presented; these recommendations have been approved by the Commission. The guidelines constitute the scientific ground on which to make fully informed decisions and on which to develop the legal approaches needed when DNA may determine the outcome of an appeal. Separate chapters of the guidelines are tailored to the needs of prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judiciary, forensics laboratories, and victim advocates. Crime scene investigation The unrealized potential of DNA evidence is evident in its use in crime scene investigations.[2] Historically, the use of forensic DNA in this country developed on two ends of a spectrum. On one end was a robust laboratory technology that produced results reliable for criminal justice system use. On the other end was the courtroom use of DNA evidence (where the "admissibility wars" were waged). Little or no attention was paid to law enforcement's vital role. Relatively few resources were allocated to educating law enforcement officials, who are responsible for identifying, collecting, and preserving criminal evidence. A new investigative tool. In the United States, law enforcement's role may have been limited because forensic DNA technology developed primarily as a prosecutorial weapon, not an investigative tool. In the United Kingdom, however, forensic DNA was first applied in a mass testing of more than 4,500 people in a case in which no one had yet been charged. The aim was to use the DNA samples from all these people to identify the offender. In the United States, by contrast, DNA evidence has been used primarily to confirm the identity of someone already under suspicion. Because in the United States the use of mass testing as an investigative technique raises particular social and legal questions, and because, until recently, there was no database of offenders' DNA samples, there was scant opportunity to harness DNA's ultimate investigative power--its application to cases that have no suspect ("non-suspect cases"). Prosecutors asked law enforcement for DNA samples to prove their case; law enforcement did not use DNA to identify and arrest perpetrators. The advent of the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) offender database created a new paradigm of investigation for law enforcement. (See "CODIS Decoded.") While it made no sense either for financial reasons or investigative purposes to request (and pay for) DNA analysis when a case had no suspect, access to a national database opened up the possibility of investigating just such cases. The use of DNA evidence in these cases represents the ultimate investigative value of the tool, although the application is far from having realized its full potential. A wider role for law enforcement. The Commission's crime scene investigation working group will identify means and models for law enforcement to harness the full investigative power of DNA technology. As a result of preliminary discussions between the Commissioners and working group members at a recent Commission meeting, the working group was directed to consider and report on three major issues. The first issue involves law enforcement's use of DNA evidence in non-suspect cases. What this means is that in such cases investigators would be able to send DNA samples for testing and subsequent comparison with the samples in the offender database. The second issue involves the projected application of the technology by law enforcement investigators in cases in which there is a suspect. In these cases, DNA testing would be needed to con-firm the suspect's presence at the crime scene. Because several recent high-profile trials have heightened public awareness of DNA evidence and raised expectations that it will be presented in court, the number of cases in which DNA is introduced as evidence will increase. When the perpetrator's identity is at issue in a case, biological evidence (blood or semen, for example) that lends itself to DNA testing will be vigorously challenged in court if testing is not performed. The third issue involves law enforcement's application of the technology to cases that have remained unsolved. It seems that if law enforcement is to take full advantage of DNA testing technology, analysis should be conducted and the databases used in this type of case. Just as the use of databases for nonsuspect cases has created a new investigative paradigm, their use has opened a new avenue of investigation for cases previously thought unsolvable. If during the investigation of a crime committed 5 or even 10 or more years ago a biological sample from the perpetrator was taken, confirmation of his or her identity may be in the evidence locker. Investigators, however, would need to have the training and technology to enable them to reevaluate these cases, identify those that lend themselves to DNA testing, and process them for a possible match in the database. Laboratory funding If law enforcement fully integrates DNA technology into the investigative process, there will be major implications for the country's forensic laboratories. Currently, demand on the laboratories to process DNA samples is already outstripping their ability to respond. In addition, the availability of the CODIS offender database system has generated a huge backlog of samples to be tested. Further pressure on the labs comes from the expanding list of crimes defined by the States as requiring DNA samples from convicted offenders. The Commission has begun to provide guidance by first examining the backlog in the CODIS system. The Commission also has directed the working group to explore the broader issue of laboratory capacity in the context of the increased integration of DNA testing throughout the criminal justice system. The backlog. Most State forensic labs are struggling just to process DNA samples to meet the demand for presenting evidence in the courtroom. Added to this is the CODIS backlog, which now stands at 300,000 to 500,000 samples to be processed. However, the laboratories that must process the samples were not designed for high-volume testing. Because the State DNA laboratories cannot prioritize and process database samples quickly enough to be run through CODIS soon after the samples are taken, criminals who could be identified remain free to re-offend. Some samples have been stored in laboratory freezers for as long as five years. They were taken upon conviction but remained un-analyzed before the perpetrators' release. Given the recidivistic nature of many of the crimes for which DNA is collected under State statutes, apprehending a perpetrator through CODIS is likely to mean that more than one crime is prevented. Yet the amount of time it will take to analyze the backlogged samples and store them is estimated at six years. This failure to ensure the timely analysis of samples from released or soon-to-be-released offenders will significantly hinder the effectiveness of the database as a tool to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Solving the funding problem. These challenges create a unique opportunity. The tangible, measurable, and identifiable effects on crime prevention that would result from an infusion of financial resources into improving forensic laboratories are a rarity, especially in the criminal justice system. One possible solution to the funding problem may be outsourcing to private laboratories, an approach already being implemented by several States. Many private forensic and research laboratories are capable of high-volume testing of DNA samples. Because these database samples are better suited to analysis by robotic technologies than samples from criminal cases, the private laboratories, which use these advanced technologies, can process a great many--1,000 to 10,000 per week. Further, the cost per sample would be low--less than $50. At this cost, the backlog could be reduced in less than two years rather than the six years currently projected.[3] Another alternative is for the States to develop their own capacity for rapid testing. For States able to quickly develop the ability to conduct rapid, high-volume sample analysis "in-house," funding could be allotted, on the basis of per-sample need, to create a robotic system of their own. Future laboratory capacity. Through the information gathered by the working group on laboratory funding, the Commission will have access to estimates of the resources needed to ensure that the laboratories operate effectively and efficiently. First, if laboratories are to be effective, they must process crime scene evidence expeditiously. They should not be put in the position of having to prioritize samples to accommodate trial dates or prosecutors' demands. Rather, the laboratories should have resources sufficient to enable them to process samples in a time frame consistent with the effective use of DNA evidence as an investigative tool. While solving this type of case is the true purpose of the database, it may also be the most elusive goal, given the other pressures on the laboratories. Second, the backlog of offender database samples must be reduced to zero and the labs able to process samples at a speed that both maximizes efficiency and prevents future backlogs. The optimal processing system also assumes prioritizing to ensure that samples from people on probation and parole (who are at risk of re-offending) are tested and entered into the system before samples from people serving lengthy sentences. Third, laboratories should have the resources to enable them to process old, unsolved cases. If the database system is put to this task, many cases previously thought unsolvable will be closed. As law enforcement develops the skills and resources needed to do this, however, the laboratories will have that many more cases to process. Legal issues The legal issues working group will identify for the Commission the lessons to be learned about how the legal system approaches a new technology, ensures its reliability, and ultimately integrates it. By studying the history of DNA's integration into the criminal justice system, the group will provide the Commission with methods that could ensure both reliability and public safety. This group is also providing the Commission with information about numerous issues that arise in other working groups' discussions. One such issue is how to deal with "privacy," given the fact that the DNA profiles of tens of thousands of people are now on file. Of particular interest is the practice of storing offenders' DNA samples. In many instances the sample is stored indefinitely. Anticipated changes in DNA technology development suggest that types of analyses unanticipated at the time the samples were collected may one day be a reality. What are the possibilities and implications of these developments? What legal issues must be considered to ensure public safety while avoiding the erosion of privacy rights? Statutes of limitations as they apply to filing charges and appeals also will be addressed. DNA technology can be used to investigate crimes committed beyond the period of time defined by many States' statutes of limitation. For this reason, a statute's arbitrary allocation of 5 or 10 years to the investigative process may be unfair to both crime victims and those wrongfully convicted. DNA recovered from a crime committed years ago could today provide the evidence needed for conviction. Similarly, for defendants who were wrongly convicted but who may be exonerated by DNA evidence, time limits on the appeals process established before the technology was developed are hardly appropriate. Research and development Through the research and development working group, the Commission will receive information on the future technological capabilities of DNA evidence testing. There are many issues to be explored in this area. The criminal justice community needs to know what tools may be available in the future to law enforcement officers working crime scenes. Will they be equipped with portable units that they can take to crime scenes to conduct on-scene DNA analysis? If so, will they be able to connect directly from the crime scene to the CODIS database? Will a technology be developed in the near term that permits creating a phenotypic description[4] of a perpetrator based on a DNA sample taken at a crime scene? And as the ability to generate results from ever smaller DNA samples increases, there must be a way to distinguish between samples likely to identify the perpetrator and those likely to mislead investigators. Laboratory funding depends on future technological development. The commitment to the genetic markers now used in forensic DNA testing (called STR's) exemplifies this.[5] That commitment is based on confidence that STR's will continue to be the most efficient and effective technology for DNA analysis--that there will be no near-term change. Similarly, the implications for forensics of automated DNA typing,[6] microchip-based instrumentation, and increased use of mitochondrial DNA[7] need to be considered in order to evaluate their use in the criminal justice system. In these areas too, funding will depend on the extent to which technology remains state-of-the-art. The Commission and DNA's future It is hoped that thorough examination of the multiple issues raised by the use of forensic DNA evidence will promote better application of DNA technology, expedite its use as a crime-fighting tool and, equally important, build public trust in the criminal justice system that uses this technology. The issues the Commission is examining have evolved as the technology and its use have evolved, but, until now, they have not been addressed systematically. Although the Commission may not fully resolve all the issues, the recommendations it will make to the Attorney General can help maximize the potential of forensic DNA to ensure that the guilty are convicted, the innocent are exonerated, and crime is prevented. ------------------------------- For updates on the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, visit the Commission's Web page (http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/nij/dna/), on the NIJ Web site. The Web page contains the complete transcripts of the Commission's quarterly meetings and the public is welcome to read these. ------------------------------- Notes [1] The NIJ report is Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, by Edward Connors, et al., Research Report, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1996 (NCJ 161258). Many of the people whose cases are reported here had been on death row; the average time spent in prison for crimes they did not commit was seven years. As of this writing, at least 57 people have been shown by DNA evidence to have been wrongfully convicted. [2] For a full discussion of the issue, see The Unrealized Potential of DNA Testing, by Victor Walter Weedn and John W. Hicks, Research in Action, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1998 (NCJ 170596). [3] The National Institute of Justice also is contributing to the improvement of State and local DNA laboratories. Through a five-year, $40 million program authorized under the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (part of the 1994 Crime Act), laboratories receive grants to improve their capabilities and create databases that comply with the CODIS system. Thus far, 89 grants and supplemental grants have been awarded in the program's first three years. [4] A phenotype refers to the physical appearance or functional expression of a particular trait found encoded in the genes. [5] STR (short tandem repeats) refers to the region on a DNA strand where a sequence of nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) is repeated a different number of times in different people. The standard method for DNA typing--RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) is limited because it requires a large amount of relatively undegraded DNA. The RFLP method is being replaced by the more efficient PCR-STR (polymerase chain reaction using short tandem repeat markers). [6] For a discussion, see Automated DNA Typing: Method of the Future? Research Preview, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997 (FS 000163). [7] Currently, nuclear DNA (from the cell nucleus) is used more often than mitochondrial DNA (from the mitochondria--other structures in the cell) in evidence testing. ------------------------------- THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSIONERS The members of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence represent a broad spectrum of the criminal justice system. The Honorable Shirley S. Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, is the chair. There also are representatives from prosecution, the defense bar, law enforcement, the scientific community, the medical examiner community, academia, and victims' rights organizations. To ensure an even broader range of interests are represented on the Commission, experts from various other fields were appointed to the working groups. Commission Membership Chair Shirley S. Abrahamson Chief Justice Wisconsin State Supreme Court Members Dwight E. Adams Section Chief, Scientific Analysis Federal Bureau of Investigation Jan S. Bashinski Chief, Bureau of Forensic Services California Department of Justice George W. Clarke Deputy District Attorney San Diego, California James Crow Professor Department of Genetics University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Lloyd N. Cutler Wilmer, Cutler, & Pickering Washington, D.C. Joseph H. Davis Former Director Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department Paul B. Ferrara Director, Division of Forensic Sciences Commonwealth of Virginia Norman Gahn Assistant District Attorney Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Terrance W. Gainer Executive Assistant Chief of Police Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department Terry G. Hillard Superintendent of Police Chicago Police Department Aaron D. Kennard Sheriff Salt Lake County (Utah) Sheriff's Office Philip Reilly President and CEO Shriver Center for Mental Retardation Harvard University Ronald S. Reinstein Supervising Criminal Judge Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court Darrell L. Sanders Chief of Police Frankfort (Illinois) Police Department Kurt L. Schmoke Mayor City of Baltimore Barry C. Sheck Professor Cardozo Law School New York City Michael Smith Professor University of Wisconsin Law School Jeffrey E. Thoma Public Defender Mendocino County, California Kathryn M. Turman Acting Director Office for Victims of Crime U.S. Department of Justice William Webster Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & McCloy Washington, D.C. James R. Wooley Assistant U.S. Attorney Cleveland, Ohio ------------------------------- CODIS DECODED CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) arguably is the most significant advance in criminal investigation of the 20th century. It is a computer database of DNA "profiles" of offenders convicted of serious crimes (such as rape, other sexual assault, and murder) and unknown suspects. Law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels take DNA from biological evidence (blood and saliva, for example) gathered in crimes that have no suspect and compare it to the DNA in the "profiles" stored in the CODIS system. The profiles come from data on offenders collected by the States. The CODIS user can rapidly identify the perpetrator if there is a match between the sample and a stored profile. Matches made among profiles can link crime scenes together, possibly identifying serial offenders. So valuable is the technology that every State has enacted legislation establishing a CODIS database and requiring that DNA from offenders convicted of certain serious crimes be entered into the system. First launched in 1990 as a pilot program, CODIS was formally authorized by the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (part of the 1994 Crime Act) and placed under the direction of the FBI. The CODIS software currently is installed in 94 forensic laboratories in 41 States and the District of Columbia. The FBI provides the software, together with installation, training, and user support free of charge to State and local law enforcement laboratories performing DNA analysis. As of this writing, CODIS contains approximately 250,000 DNA profiles. The database in the United Kingdom, where the population is much smaller, contains 300,000 samples. Because the U.S. system still contains a relatively limited number of profiles, CODIS identifies 1 perpetrator for every 1,000 samples recorded. In the United Kingdom, the Forensic Science Service reports between 300 and 500 hits per week. CODIS has thus far recorded more than 400 matches, or "hits." ------------------------------- RESEARCH PREVIEW Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies Summary of Research by Alexander Weiss, Northwestern University The American police system is among the most decentralized and fragmented, consisting of thousands of agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. Whether large or small, however, these agencies need adequate, timely information to perform effectively. Of particular importance is information about changes in policy, law, and practice-- including innovative ways to address problems and issues. Two systems have emerged to meet the demands for information. One is a formal system that centers on the distribution of information by government sources and by professional organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. Although this formal system provides enormous amounts of information to an array of agencies, another system is also engaged in these dissemination efforts--an informal network among police organizations. This study examines the informal network. Through this informal network or system of information sharing, police planners and others contact other law enforcement agencies directly to gather information needed to manage their departments. As the study demonstrates, this system, although informal, is relatively sophisticated and frequently used by police planners. Often, these consultations with other agencies lead to the introduction of successful ideas from other communities or help to reduce the perceived risk of civil liability within an agency. Communication survey The study is based on a survey administered to police planners in 360 local organizations (all with 100 or more sworn officers) and 43 State law enforcement agencies between March and June 1996. The overall response rate was quite favorable--71 percent. The survey focused on seven issues: o What agencies are planners most likely to contact when they look for information? o What factors influence the choice of a contact? o How frequent are these contacts? o What is the mode of communication? o What are the resource requirements associated with these requests? o Are requests for information specific? o How well are police planning and research units prepared to conduct research? Communication patterns The major findings of this study are as follows: o The communication between law enforcement planners is both frequent and relatively well organized. About 40 percent of respondents contact another agency at least once a month. o The principal mode of this communication is by telephone, but newer technologies like electronic bulletin boards and World Wide Web sites show significant potential. o Police organizations devoted significant resources to responding to outside agencies' requests for information. The typical agency received 22 such requests (mean) per year, while a few received more than 90. On average, an agency spent 13 percent of its planning staff time preparing responses. o Agency similarity and reputation of the organization are key factors for police planners when choosing which agency to contact. For instance, requests for information on administrative issues tended to go to agencies facing similar problems, and requests about specific topics like problem solving or gangs to agencies with strong reputations in these areas. o Most planning and research managers believe that their staff have not had adequate preparation in the skills required to conduct research in their own organizations. Policy implications As this study indicates, the network of police planners is a significant resource for the police community, particularly to the extent that it facilitates the diffusion of new ideas. The informal network among police planners appears to be a critical element in the research planning process, which may be further enhanced as follows: o Acknowledge and encourage the network of communication among police organizations. While this network probably cannot replace more formal channels of communication, it is nonetheless a key component of the dissemination process. o Provide resources to key organizations in this network to support their dissemination activities. Supporting this network could prove most beneficial to police and government agencies alike. For example, many program agencies in the U.S. Department of Justice disseminate copies of their relevant publications to police departments. That practice leverages the Government's dissemination efforts to the extent that the departments pass along the content of those publications through the informal information-sharing network. o Continue efforts to enhance the research capacity of police organizations. In the recent past, the Federal Government instituted a number of programs designed to increase the internal research capacity of police organizations. Programs such as the National Institute of Justice's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships, which team researchers with police practitioners, are a very positive step and are consistent with the findings of this study. Additional efforts might include providing police planners with training in research methodology or offering support to professional associations serving police planning and research officers. o Choose sites for research and demonstration projects on the basis of an agency's prominence in the communication network. Many police planners equate agency expertise with research experience. That is, police planners are inclined to believe that the sites of large research or demonstration projects are the best places to look for information on particular subjects. For example, the Milwaukee Police Department, site of one of the spouse assault replication projects, was cited as an organization to contact for information on domestic violence. This suggests that an agency is likely to serve a dissemination role after the project is completed. It would seem that agencies active in this network would prove to be more efficient in these dissemination functions. o Continue efforts to make research available through electronic media. The study results suggest that the Internet and electronic bulletin boards could play a significant role in enhancing the police communication network, particularly for smaller agencies. While this study was comprehensive, results indicate several additional areas of research worth pursuing. First, it is important to closely examine the nature of smaller agencies' (fewer than 100 sworn officers) participation in this informal network of police agencies. Second, it would be helpful to explore more fully the planning operations of the major departments that serve as major information providers. Such a study may reveal whether factors endemic to those units make them more attractive as information providers. Finally, it may be useful to conduct studies of the relationship between the formal means of dissemination and the informal police network. ------------------------------- This summary is based on a study by Alexander Weiss, Ph.D., while at Indiana University. He is now Executive Associate Director of the Northwestern University Traffic Institute and Associate Professor of Management and Strategy at the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. The research was sponsored under NIJ grant number 95-IJ-CX-0052, with funding from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. ------------------------------- NEW & NOTEWORTHY Criminal justice programs prominent among Innovations in American Government Award winners Criminal justice programs captured 3 of the 10 Innovations in American Government Awards announced by the Ford Foundation in the 1998 competition. The winners, representing the States of New York and Vermont and the city of San Francisco, were selected in October from among 25 finalists. The winning programs address court innovation; mediation among offenders, victims, and communities; and prostitutes and their customers. Each winner will receive $100,000 to replicate and expand the work. The program, which began in 1986, recognizes creative and successful problem solving in local, State, and Federal government programs across the country. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government administers the program in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government. The winners were chosen by a selection committee chaired by David Gergen, Editor-at-Large of U.S. News and World Report, and made up of former members of Congress, former mayors, and specialists in public policy. The 1998 criminal justice winners are: o The State of New York's Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership designed to foster innovation within the State's courts. Among its model projects is the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan, which was described in In New York City, a "Community Court" and a New Legal Culture, by David C. Anderson (NIJ Program Focus, February 1996, NCJ 158613). o The State of Vermont's Reparative Probation Program, which provides a medium enabling citizens to make sentencing decisions about adult criminal offenders and meet with offenders and victims to resolve their disputes. The program also provides offenders the opportunity to acknowledge their wrongdoing, apologize to their victims, and make amends to their community. o The City of San Francisco's First Offender Prostitution Program, which provides counseling to prostitutes' customers in an effort to reduce arrests, recidivism rates, and exploitation of women. The Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance provided funding to support the latter two programs. This year's finalists were selected from among 1,400 applicants. Each finalist received $20,000 to replicate and expand the program. The 1998 finalists included two additional criminal justice programs: o Shelby County, Tennessee's Building for the Future, which provides nonviolent inmates the opportunity to gain job-training skills by building affordable homes for lower-income families in the area. o The U.S. Department of Justice's Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), which allows people who frequently travel between Mexico and the United States for legitimate business to use a specially designed traffic lane to expedite entry at the border. Program participants receive an identification card and have their cars equipped with a device that can be identified by a sensor imbedded in the roadway. To learn more about this year's finalists and winners, visit the Innovations in American Government Web site at http//:www.ksg.harvard.edu/innovation/ or call 617--495--0558. Corrections professionals focus on technology at first annual Corrections Technology Institute State and local practitioners representing jails, prisons, and community corrections agencies met in October at NIJ's first annual Corrections Technology Institute to learn about ways technology can help them confront current challenges in the corrections field. Technology is playing an increasingly important role in meeting those challenges and effectively managing corrections agencies. NIJ's Office of Science and Technology (OST) selected 23 corrections practitioners who have experience with technology needs in their respective agencies to participate in the Institute. Presentations were made by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Office of Justice Programs' Corrections Program Office. Participants addressed the use of technology to deal with such immediate concerns as exchanging information; detecting drug use among inmates, probationers, and parolees; detecting contraband in their facilities; and securing their facilities. The Institute also served as an open forum in which practitioners discussed the specific problems they faced, solicited feedback, and problem solved among their peers. OST also sponsors an annual Law Enforcement Technology Institute. To learn more about the Institutes and how to apply, contact Kevin Jackson of NIJ at 202-307-2956 or by e-mail at jacksonk@ojp.usdoj.gov. ------------------------------- NIJ AWARDS NIJ doubles number of awards in three years; work in progress exceeds 900 projects In fiscal year 1998, NIJ issued more than 30 solicitations and made almost 400 awards, representing an investment of $153.5 million (this includes carryover funds from fiscal year 1997). The number of 1998 awards is almost double the 200 grants NIJ awarded in 1995. The NIJ portfolio of work in progress now exceeds 900 research, science and technology development, program development, and information dissemination projects. Congress appropriated $41 million for core NIJ operations in 1998. This was augmented by transfers of funds from other Federal agencies and from offices established under the 1994 Crime Act (see exhibit 1 [exhibit 1: Sources of NIJ Funds, in Millions, FY 1994-98 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file]). Much of NIJ's current research portfolio is supported by those transfers, which fund jointly planned research and evaluation projects. For example, NIJ awards made in fiscal year 1998 with transferred Crime Act funds accounted for 42 percent of total expenditures by the Institute that year (see exhibit 2 [exhibit 2: Allocation of NIJ Funds as a Percentage of Total Expenditure, FY 1998 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file]). 1998 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program research and evaluation grants awarded In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program, which encourages States to hold juveniles to strict accountability for delinquent behavior. A State is eligible for funds by demonstrating it is actively considering or will consider legislation, policies, or practices that provide accountability-based sanctions for violent and repeat juvenile offenders. Such practices include the transfer of juveniles age 15 or older to adult court and creation of expanded record-keeping systems for habitual and/or violent juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the grant program. Of the total appropriation, Congress set aside 3 percent for research, evaluation, and demonstration programs. Of that, $2.75 million was transferred by OJJDP to NIJ for research and evaluation. NIJ recently awarded $500,000 for a national process evaluation of the JAIBG program that will document how the program was administered, how State and local jurisdictions used the grants, the attitudes of practitioners and policymakers regarding the program, and the extent to which States made progress in implementing JAIBG initiatives. NIJ awarded funds for six additional projects that will examine policy issues related to the program and establish practitioner-research partnerships in this area (see chart above [FY 1998 JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT AWARDS]). ------------------------------- FY 1998 JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT AWARDS [categorized by project types: National Evaluation, Practitioner- Researcher Partnerships, and Policy Issues] National Evaluation Project: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant National Evaluation Purpose: Conduct a national process evaluation of the JAIBG program. Principal Investigator(s): Dale G. Parent, Abt Associates Inc. Award Amount: $499,875 Grant Number: To be assigned Practitioner-Researcher Partnerships Project: Structured Decision Making for Alameda County Probation Purpose: Establish a practitioner-researcher partner ship that will evaluate the effectiveness of Alameda County's Juvenile Risk Assessment System Principal Investigator(s): Isami Arifuku, National Council on Crime and Delinquency Award Amount: $75,000 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0109 Project: Understanding Needs and Outcomes of Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Offenders Purpose: Establish a practitioner-researcher partnership with a local nonprofit organization that runs drug treatment programs for adults and adolescents to enhance development of a database for monitoring clients. Principal Investigator(s): Patricia A. Ebener, Suzanne L. Wenzel, RAND Award Amount: $74,976 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0112 Policy Issues Project: Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: An Evaluation of the Youthful Level of Service Inventory Purpose: Assess a case classification instrument, the Youthful Level of Service Inventory, as a guide to case management and treatment of youthful offenders in Ohio. Principal Investigator(s): Lawrence F. Travis, III, Edward J. Latessa, Jr., University of Cincinnati Award Amount: $187,437 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0108 Project: Impact of the 1997 Juvenile Justice Sentencing Guidelines Purpose: Assess the effectiveness of the juvenile sentencing guidelines and early intervention mandates that the Utah legislature passed in 1997 to prevent young delinquents from becoming serious offenders. Principal Investigator(s): Russell Van Vleet, University of Utah Award Amount: $199,824 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0111 Project: Process and Outcome Evaluation of Prosecutorial Waiver to Criminal Court in Virginia Purpose: Help policymakers and practitioners develop and implement laws relating to juvenile transfers by assessing which types of offenders and communities are most likely to benefit or lose from such laws. Principal Investigator(s): S. Sridharan, Lynette Greenfield, The Urban Institute Award Amount: $194,803 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0107 Project: The Use of Risk Assessment in Achieving Accountability-Based Sanctions Purpose: Examine how judicial and correctional officials use risk assessment/needs classification for establishing accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders. Principal Investigator(s): Rosemary C. Sarri, University of Michigan Award Amount: $199,824 Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0110 ------------------------------- Grants awarded to corrections and law enforcement family support projects The 1994 Crime Act authorized the Attorney General to address the harmful effects of stress on law enforcement and correctional officers and their families. The Act called for research on job-related stress and for development, demonstration, and evaluation of intervention approaches. NIJ's Corrections and Law Enforcement Family Support (CLEFS) program supports these activities. Since 1996, NIJ has awarded 15 grants to support such activities as education, training, and treatment; comparison of stress intervention methods; research on the extent and nature of stress among officers; and critical incident stress debriefings. In 1998, NIJ issued a third solicitation seeking proposals for innovative approaches to reducing stress among officers and awarded funds for 10 additional projects. (See chart below [FY 1998 CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY SUPPORT AWARDS].) For more information about NIJ's CLEFS program, visit its Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/lefs/welcome.html. ------------------------------- FY 1998 CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY SUPPORT AWARDS Project: Correction Officer Maintenance Program Purpose: Implement a proactive, integrated program of education and intervention services for correctional officers and their families at four State correctional facilities. Principal Investigator(s): Robert Munroe, Connecticut Department of Corrections Award Amount: $99,990 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0003 Project: Creating Positive Mentors: Provision of Supervisory Skills for Sergeants and Field Training Officers Purpose: Provide specialized training to sergeants and field training officers to better serve a police force made up of many new and young officers. Principal Investigator(s): Mark Axelberd, Miami Police Department Award Amount: $45,425 Grant Number: 96-FS-VX-0003 Project: East Lansing Police Chaplain's Program Purpose: Develop, monitor, and evaluate a chaplain's program for police and correctional officers, police department personnel, and their families. Principal Investigator(s): Patricia Nowak, East Lansing Police Department Award Amount: $10,202 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0001 Project: Law Enforcement Assistance and Development Program Purpose: Develop a multi-dimensional approach to the assessment, prevention, and reduction of stress among law enforcement personnel and their families. Principal Investigator(s): Eugene Deisinger, Iowa State Department of Public Safety Award Amount: $147,395 Grant Number: 96-FS-VX-0006 Project: Online Education, Resource, and Support for Law Enforcement Families Purpose: Develop stress prevention and reduction curricula for law enforcement family members and a World Wide Web site for law enforcement families worldwide. Principal Investigator(s): Lorraine Williams Greene, Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Award Amount: $99,559 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0004 Project: Peer Support Programs in Two Native American Police Departments and a University Police Department Purpose: Develop methods for reducing stress among police officers and their families in tribal and campus police department. Principal Investigator(s): Larry A. Morris, Old Pueblo Fraternal Order of Police, Tucson, Arizona Award Amount: $224,016 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0005 Project: Police Family Life Education Project Purpose: Improve and expand the Philadelphia Police Department's existing stress reduction program for officers and their families. Principal Investigator(s): Mitchell Yanak, Philadelphia Police Department Award Amount: $73,447 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0002 Project: Prevention and Treatment of Stress Development Project Purpose: Establish a task force to develop a comprehensive stress prevention and treatment program for law enforcement personnel and their families. Principal Investigator(s): Cole Mykelbust, Longview Police Guild, Longview, Washington Award Amount: $49,252 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0006 Project: Reaching Out to North Carolina's Law Enforcement Community Purpose: Implement and evaluate a stress prevention and treatment program for State highway patrol troopers. Principal Investigator(s): Thomas R. Griggs, North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Award Amount: $67,020 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0008 Project: The Recruit Socialization Process and Work-Family Conflict Purpose: Examine factors that lead to the development of stress among police recruits and their families and design a stress prevention training program for recruits and their families. Principal Investigator(s): Gary Kaufmann, Michigan Department of State Police Award Amount: $41,422 Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0007 ------------------------------- Two new sites chosen for Breaking the Cycle demonstration Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, each received a three-year, $3 million award in November to implement Breaking the Cycle, a statewide intervention strategy designed to identify, supervise, and treat all drug-using defendants. The two jurisdictions join Birmingham, Alabama, as participants in the Breaking the Cycle research demonstration initiative, which tests the hypothesis that continuous drug testing, treatment, and supervision, enhanced by proactive judicial involvement, will reduce an arrestee population's level of drug use. This reduction should then result in a decline in criminal behavior, an improvement in that population's social functioning, and more effective use of criminal justice resources. The principal objectives of Breaking the Cycle are to: o Drug test all defendants as soon as possible after arrest. o Place drug-using defendants in appropriate treatment. o Actively monitor defendants' compliance with drug-related conditions imposed by courts. o Impose appropriate graduated sanctions or incentives to influence defendants' behavior. NIJ supports the initiative in partnership with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In 1996, the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime program received the first award to implement the strategy in Jefferson County (Birmingham), Alabama. That jurisdiction began full implementation of Breaking the Cycle in 1998 and has seen several changes in its criminal justice system, including a reduction from months to days in the amount of time needed to assess and refer defendants to treatment; an increase in the number of substance-abusing defendants placed in appropriate treatment programs; and enhancement of available treatment and supervision programming for drug users. NIJ and ONDCP plan to award funds in 1999 to two sites to implement juvenile Breaking the Cycle demonstration projects. One site, Lane County (Eugene), Oregon, was invited by NIJ to submit a proposal. Final selection is dependent on NIJ's accepting the proposal. For more information about the Breaking the Cycle initiative, visit its Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/brekprog.htm. ------------------------------- SOLICITATIONS Solicitations forecast 1999 NIJ funding opportunities are announced throughout the fiscal year in the Federal Register, Commerce Business Daily, and on NIJ's Web site at http://ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Information about solicitations also is available from the Department of Justice Response Center at 800-421-6770, or 202- 307-1480 from the Washington, D.C., area. Researchers and practitioners interested in applying for NIJ funding may find it helpful to consult Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: the 1999 Research Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice, which is available on NIJ's Web site. (See "NIJ Releases 1999 Research Prospectus.") NIJ issues a solicitation for investigator-initiated research and more targeted solicitations that seek research proposals in particular subject areas or on specific topics. Look for the following solicitations for research, evaluation, and development proposed for fiscal year 1999. This is a partial list, as NIJ expects to release additional solicitations. Research and evaluation o Investigator-initiated solicitation--will invite proposals that cover broad criminal justice and social themes related to NIJ's areas of interest. Violence against women o Violence against women research--will seek proposals that highlight research gaps in this area. o Violence against women program evaluation--will call for proposals to evaluate what is working to improve the outcome of domestic/intimate partner violence and sexual assault cases and enhance the safety of women and their children. o Evaluation of enhanced judicial oversight in domestic violence cases-- will call for proposals to conduct a single evaluation of Violence Against Women Grants Office-supported demonstration programs of coordinated community approaches to preventing domestic violence. The programs will involve strong judicial control and involvement, victim services for safety and transition to a nonviolent environment, and batterer intervention. o Evaluation of victim programs funded under the Violence Against Women S.T.O.P. Grants program--will seek proposals for impact evaluations of nonprofit victim services and advocacy programs funded under the S.T.O.P. program. Evaluation of violence against women civil legal assistance program--will seek proposals for a national evaluation of programs designed to strengthen direct civil legal assistance to domestic violence victims. Research on violence against women issues affecting Native American women. Evaluations of programs to encourage arrest policies--will call for proposals for researcher-practitioner partnerships to conduct process evaluations of programs that encourage States, Indian tribal governments, and local governments to treat domestic violence as a serious violation of criminal law. Drugs and crime o ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program--will seek proposals for research that will use the ADAM program as a platform to conduct primary data collection or secondary data analysis. Among the components of this solicitation will be a call for research on the link between drug use and domestic/intimate partner violence. Corrections and sentencing Corrections and sentencing--the Corrections Program Office, in partnership with NIJ, will call for research in a variety of topics of concern to both researchers and practitioners in the field of corrections and sentencing. Policing o Policing research and evaluation. o Law Enforcement Family Support program--will seek proposals for research, evaluation, development, and demonstration projects in the areas of law enforcement and corrections officer stress and family support. Other o Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant research--will request proposals for research on increasing juvenile offenders' accountability. Science and technology o DNA forensic laboratories improvement program, Phase 5--will seek proposals to improve the capabilities of State and local forensic DNA laboratories. o DNA research--will seek proposals for research on new methods to achieve highly discriminating, reliable, cost-effective, and rapid DNA testing. o Initiative on technologies for safe schools. o Through-wall sensor/concealed weapons detection program. o Operation of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Western Region. o Operation of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Northeastern Region. For additional information on these and other forthcoming solicitations, including eligibility, funding levels, and application deadlines, watch for announcements on NIJ's Web page. ------------------------------- FINAL REPORTS The following final reports of completed NIJ-sponsored research projects were submitted by the authors in manuscript form. The reports are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) through interlibrary loan and as photocopies. For information about fees, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420. "Carjacking: A Descriptive Analysis of Carjacking in Four States, Preliminary Report," by S.D.C. Friday and C. Wellford, ACCN 167169, 53 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K018. The authors examined carjacking trends in the District of Columbia; Jacksonville, Florida; Maryland; and Fort Worth, Texas. "Children's Out-of-Court Statements: Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions, Final Report," by G.S. Goodman, J.E.B. Myers, and A.D. Redlich, ACCN 172225, 274 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0013. This report summarizes the findings of three studies that investigated the effects of children's out-of-court statements on juror perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt. "Citizen Reactions to Community Policing, Final Report," by R.K. Hersch and R.F. Cook, ACCN 172232, 68 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0092. The authors assessed citizen reactions to specific community policing activities in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Manatee County, Florida. The research identified conditions that facilitated or hindered citizen involvement in community policing and related crime prevention efforts. Community policing officers and citizens reported that individual contacts improved police-citizen relations and contributed to neighborhood safety. "Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence, Final Report," by S.L. Keilitz, P.L. Hannaford, and H.S. Efkeman, ACCN 172223, 112 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0035. This report is based on a 1994 National Center for State Courts study of the effectiveness of civil protection orders (CPOs) for victims of domestic violence. The research found that CPOs helped victims of domestic violence regain a sense of well-being. In most cases, CPOs deterred repeated incidents of physical and psychological abuse. "Confronting Excessive Force in the Police Culture, Final Report: Phase Two Research on Excessive Force," by E. Scrivner, ACCN 171951, 26 pp., grant number 92-IJ-CX-0002. This report presents case studies of programs to prevent police officers' excessive use of force in Denver, San Antonio, and Atlanta. The author found that the three programs provided insights on important human resource issues related to preventing the excessive use of force by police officers: selecting the right police officers, giving police officers the right tools, and proactively supervising police officers to help them correct performance problems. "Effectiveness of Line Operations, Final Report," by the Los Angeles Police Department, ACCN 171956, 228 pp., grant number 92-IJ-CX- K039. This report describes issues, strategic goals, situational analyses, and proposed strategies based on the Los Angeles Police Department's 1993 strategic planning process. The process involved detective and juvenile issues; police patrols; community policing; and centralization versus decentralization of the police department. "Investigating the Scope of Measurement Error in Calls-for-Service as a Measure of Crime," by D.A. Klinger, ACCN 171946, 31 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0023. The author investigated the validity of police calls for service as a crime indicator by examining how crime counts may be biased by all types of citizen inaccuracies and the fact that many crimes come to police attention by means other than calls to dispatch centers. "Long-Term Comparison of Force and Rates of Recidivism Between Child Molesters and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis," by R.A. Prentky, et al., ACCN 171957, 48 pp., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0031. The studies reported in this paper address the high variability in sex offender recidivism rates by examining several of the critical methodological differences associated with this variability. "Micro-Deterrent Effects of Police Raids on Crack Houses: A Randomized, Controlled Experiment," by L.W. Sherman, et al., ACCN 171954, 41 pp., grant numbers 90-IJ-CX-K002, 91-DD-CX-K015, and 92- IJ-CX-K035. Using a study design that focused on indicators of public order and safety, the authors tested the block-level deterrent effects of uniformed police raids of crack houses in Kansas City, Missouri. The authors concluded that alternative police methods may be far more cost-effective in reducing harm created by crack houses. "Non-Lethal Systems Research and Development: Pepper Spray Launcher/Disperser, Final Report," by R. Kelly, ACCN 171948, 8 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K020. Researchers have developed an improved less-than-lethal projectile that is capable of dispersing the incapacitating agent oleoresin capsicum (OC), or pepper spray. This report discusses the use of OC when launched from a standoff position in hostage, barricade, and tactical assault situations. "Prosecution of Drug Cases: Assessing the Mechanisms That Enhance Case Processing," by D. Braschel, et al., ACCN 172227, 263 pp., grant number 91-IJ-CX-0011. The authors surveyed local prosecutors' offices throughout the United States about their case processing operations. Survey respondents concurred that cooperation with law enforcement had the greatest impact on the quality of drug case processing. "Report to the National Institute of Justice: The Proposed Juvenile Court Intake Risk Assessment," by D. Huff and L. Prell, ACCN 171950, 17 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K019. This report describes a proposed juvenile risk assessment tool that the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning developed to assist the State's planning and evaluation of juvenile service delivery and program impact. "Risk Factors Associated With Recidivism Among Extrafamilial Child Molesters," by R.A. Prentky, R.A. Knight, and A.F.S. Lee, ACCN 171958, 46 pp., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0031. This research assessed reoffense risk among extrafamilial child molesters using followup data on 111 child molesters discharged from the Massachusetts Treatment Center between 1960 and 1984. The data suggested that a composite of 10 variables associated with reoffense risk among child molesters had reasonable predictive accuracy in sexual and nonsexual offense domains. ------------------------------- EVENTS NIJ 1998--1999 "Perspectives" lecture dates set For the third consecutive year, NIJ has invited some of the country's leading researchers in criminology and related fields to Capitol Hill to discuss major crime and justice issues from the perspective of public policy. The lecture series, "Perspectives on Crime and Justice," began its third year in December with "Getting Deterrence Right," a lecture by Mark Kleiman of the University of California, Los Angeles. The schedule for the remaining lectures is as follows: o Felton Earls, Harvard University, "Men, Fathers, and Community Capacity," February 3, 1999. o Richard Freeman, Harvard University, "Crime and the Job Market," March 10, 1999. o Sissela Bok, Harvard University, "Violence, Free Speech, and the Media," April 12, 1999. o James Jacobs, New York University School of Law, "Dilemmas of Corruption Control," May 18, 1999. For more information or to register for the Perspectives lectures, contact the Institute for Law and Justice at 703-684-5300. Space is limited. NIJ has published the first two years' series, featuring lectures by Randall Kennedy, Joan Petersilia, Cathy Spatz Widom, James Q. Wilson, and others. Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series, Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997 (NCJ 166609), and Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1997-1998 Lecture Series, Volume II, Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998 (NCJ 178851) are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800- 851-3420. Refer to the documents' NCJ numbers. Electronic copies are available at the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. For information about previous lectures, visit NIJ's Professional Conference Series home page at http://www.nijpcs.org and click on "Past Conference Materials." NIJ sponsors Technology Fair Law enforcement and corrections professionals examined state-of-the-art technology for law enforcement and corrections at a Technology Fair in September. This was the second consecutive year for the event, which took place in Washington, D.C., and featured technologies that NIJ is developing, testing, and evaluating. Staff from NIJ's Office of Science and Technology were on hand to answer questions about the projects. Among those who attended were representatives from the U.S. Department of Defense, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington-area police departments, and CBS News. Visitors had the opportunity to examine several technologies, including: o Telemedicine in correctional settings, which uses telecommunications technology for remote diagnosis of prisoners. From a prison's clinic, a health care professional can present a patient and operate scopes and cameras that transmit a video image in real time to a physician at another location. Medical specialists can thus provide health care to prisoners without transporting them from the correctional facility. The technology offers the potential to reduce costs and improve public safety. o Thermal imagers, which detect heat or infrared radiation, allow law enforcement officers to see any heat-emitting object, even in total darkness. The device resembles a typical palm-sized camcorder with a much wider lens. NIJ is evaluating and documenting the imagers' effectiveness for law enforcement operations. o Voice response translator (VRT), a belt-mounted device that enables English-speaking law enforcement officers to communicate with people who have difficulty with or cannot comprehend English. (See photo above.) It is designed to emit an audible phrase in a language other than English after receiving a spoken prompt in English. With voice-prompted commands, officers can choose from three different languages. An NIJ project in Oakland, California, has evaluated a prototype device capable of emitting more than 500 Cantonese, Spanish, and Vietnamese phrases. For additional information about NIJ research and development in law enforcement and corrections technology, contact the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center at 800-248-2742. Information also is available from the Justice Technology Information Network--JUSTNET--on the Web at http://www.nlectc.org. Sentencing and corrections policies are topic of Executive Sessions Of all the components of the justice system, sentencing and corrections have arguably experienced the most change in recent years. The establishment of sentencing commissions, the adoption of sentencing guidelines, and the enactment of truth-in-sentencing laws, plus the implications of these and other developments for prisons and jails, are among the changes. To promote the development of public policy as it relates to these issues, NIJ and the Corrections Program Office (Office of Justice Programs) are sponsoring a series of Executive Sessions modeled on the policing policy sessions held at Harvard in the 1980s and early 1990s. At the sessions, which began in September 1997, researchers and practitioners in the field meet to examine major issues, using commissioned papers as the basis of their discussions. Promoting dialog between leaders in sentencing and corrections is an additional aim. The most recent session, held last September in Minneapolis, featured an examination of sentencing models, including structured sentencing, community and restorative sentencing, and risk-based sentencing. Earlier sessions were held at the law schools of the University of Wisconsin and the University of Minnesota, and additional sessions are planned through the year 2000. Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School, is the series organizer and director. Professor Mark Moore of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Professor Norval Morris of the University of Chicago Law School also are involved in planning and conducting the sessions. NIJ will publish a selection of the commissioned papers. International approach to gang research Youth crime is not confined to the United States. Other countries are experiencing problems similar to those in the United States. As one way of addressing the issue, NIJ, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the German Ministry of Justice are jointly sponsoring the development of a coordinated approach to gang research. At an October conference in Schmitten, Germany (near Frankfurt), some 40 participants discussed how researchers from the United States, Canada, and Europe can work together. The participants represented 12 countries, including Russia, Belgium, France, Greece, Britain, and Slovenia. Among the topics discussed were how to define gangs, methods for studying gangs, and female involvement in gangs. Followup discussions will take place at future meetings of the American Society of Criminology. As a component of its gang research initiative, NIJ anticipates publishing a report on the group's work. NIJ IN THE JOURNALS The following articles are based on studies sponsored by NIJ. Copies are available on loan from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS); in some cases, photocopies may be obtained. For information on availability, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 or e-mail askncjrs@ ncjrs.org. Please cite the accession (ACCN) number. "Alternative Placements for Juvenile Offenders: Results From the Evaluation of the Nokomis Challenge Program," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(3)(1998):267-294, by E.P. Deschenes and P.W. Greenwood, ACCN 173140. This article discusses the findings of an evaluation of 192 low- and medium-risk juvenile offenders who participated in the Nokomis Challenge Program, a correctional program implemented in 1989 by the Michigan Department of Social Services. The findings indicate significant cost savings, but few differences in participants' outcomes. "Can Corrections Operate Therapeutic Communities for Inmates? The Impact on the Social Environment of Jails," Journal of Correctional Health Care 4(1)(Spring 1997):9-36, by M. Natarajan and G.P. Falkin, grant number 92-IJ-CX-K018, ACCN 171860. This article discusses an evaluation of the Substance Abuse Intervention Division program for women at Riker's Island. The researchers found that jail authorities can successfully implement a modified therapeutic community in a large jail and that this approach to correctional administration can significantly improve the jail's psychosocial climate. "The Influence of Crack Cocaine on Robbery, Burglary, and Homicide Rates: A Cross-City, Longitudinal Analysis," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(3)(1998): 316-340, by E. Baumer, et al., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0030, ACCN 173142. This article examines rates of burglary and robbery in the United States, their divergence in the late 1980s, and the possible role that crack cocaine may have had in this divergence. The research results suggest that the emergence and proliferation of crack did play a role in the increase in robbery and simultaneous decrease in burglary in urban areas during the late 1980s. "Predicting Rapist Type From Crime-Scene Variables," Criminal Justice and Behavior 25(1)(March 1998):46-80, by R.A. Knight, et al., grant numbers 91-IJ-R027 and 91-IJ-CX-0049, ACCN 170755. The authors analyzed data sets from the FBI and the Massachusetts Treatment Center Rapist Typology Version 3 database to assess the ability of crime-scene variables observed in serial rapes to predict rapist classification. The findings address adult antisocial behavior, expressive aggression, pervasive anger, sadism, sexualization, offender relationship with the victim during the crime, vindictiveness, and offense planning. "Pretrial Release Decision," Judicature 81(2)(September-October 1997):76-81, by J. Clark and D.A. Henry, contract number OJP-94-007, ACCN 172031. This article discusses areas for improvement in the pretrial release decision-making process, including the delay in adjudication of inmates in local jails; high failure-to-appear rates relative to those in the 1960s and 1970s; the inability of some defendants to post bail or hire a bonding agent; and the disparities between minority and white defendants' detention rates and length of detentions. "Reaching Seriously At-Risk Populations: Health Interventions in Criminal Justice Settings," Health Education & Behavior 25(1)(1998):99- 120, by T. Hammett, J. Gaiter, and C. Crawford, contract number OJP-94- C-007, ACCN 173403. In this article, the authors discuss the health-care risks and needs of incarcerated adults and confined juveniles and the opportunities for health interventions by criminal justice and public health agencies during the various stages of the criminal justice process. The authors conclude that agencies have not taken full advantage of intervention opportunities and recommend considering incarcerated populations within broader public health prevention efforts. "Three Strikes and You're Out: Are Repeat Offender Laws Having Their Anticipated Effects?" Judicature 81(4)(January-February 1998):144-149, by J. Clark, J. Austin, and D.A. Henry, contract number 95-IJ-CX-0026, ACCN 172239. This article discusses the three-strikes laws in the States and their differing impacts on local courts, jails, and State prison systems. Also of Interest: "The Association of Early Risk Factors to Opiate Addiction and Psychological Adjustment," Criminal Behavior and Mental Health (7)(1997):213-228, by D.N. Nurco, K.E. O'Grady, and T.W. Kinlock, ACCN 173404. This article discusses research on the relationship between risk factors and the development of opiate addiction. The research involved 252 opiate-addicted subjects and 342 members of a control group from similar neighborhoods in Baltimore. The researchers found that addicts and nonaddicts had different risk profiles, and white addicts scored significantly higher than nonwhite addicts on all 10 risk factors. According to the authors, the findings have implications for both the course and treatment of drug addiction. The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms," American Sociological Review (63)(August 1998):554-570, by G.S. Bridges and S. Steen (will be available from NCJRS). Bridges and Steen analyzed probation officers' accounts of juvenile offenders and their crimes and court records to examine the links among court officials' perceptions of offenders and their classification, assessment, and final recommendations for punishment. The authors focused on the race of offenders and found differences between officers' attributions about the causes of crime when comparing juveniles who are white with those from a minority group. RECENT NIJ PUBLICATIONS The following recent NIJ publications are available both electronically and in hardcopy. Download electronic copies from the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. To order the reports, call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420; or send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Civilian Police and Multinational Peacekeeping--A Workshop Series: A Role for Democratic Policing, Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 30 pp., NCJ 172842. A series of workshops organized by the Police Executive Research Forum and the Center for Strategic and International Studies is exploring the role of civilian police in multinational operations. In this, the second workshop, keynoter David Bayley presented an address on the distinguishing features of democratic policing. His address and selected responses of other participants are presented here. Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youths, Research in Brief, by C. Ronald Huff, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998, 8 pp., NCJ 172852. This Research in Brief presents a comparative study of the criminal behavior of gang members and nongang at-risk youths in three urban and suburban communities. The findings suggest that gang membership increases the likelihood and frequency of members committing serious and violent crimes. Delaware Life Skills Program, Program Focus, by Peter Finn, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 19 pp., NCJ 169589. The Delaware Department of Correction Life Skills Program helps inmates with academics, violence reduction, and applied life skills. The findings presented in this Program Focus indicate that the program has successfully helped students start their new lives after release. "Designing Out" Gang Homicides and Street Assaults, Research in Brief, by James Lasley, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 6 pp., NCJ 172837. The Los Angeles Police Department's Operation Cul de Sac used traffic barriers to block automobile access to streets in neighborhoods where gangs and accompanying gang violence had risen dramatically. This Research in Brief presents the results of an NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the initiative, which found that homicide and aggravated assault rates fell in the targeted areas and did not increase in other surrounding areas. The Detroit Handgun Intervention Program: A Court-Based Program for Youthful Handgun Offenders, Research Preview, by Jeffrey Roth, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 4 pp., FS 000231. The Detroit Handgun Intervention Program requires offenders who are arrested for carrying concealed weapons to attend a class focused on the negative consequences of gun use and how they can take responsibility for reducing those consequences. This Research Preview presents the preliminary findings of an evaluation of the program. The researchers found that participants' attitudes about gun use improved. Drug Courts and the Role of Graduated Sanctions, Research Preview, by Adele Harrell, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 4 pp., FS 000219. This Research Preview summarizes a study of a promising Washington, D.C., drug court program. The study found that the program's success was a result of the swift application of established sanctions when participants violated the rules of treatment. Helicopters and Their Use in Police Pursuit, Research in Action, by Geoffrey P. Alpert, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 6 pp., NCJ 171695. This Research in Action presents findings and assessments from a study of helicopters used in pursuit operations for the Baltimore City and Miami Dade County Police Departments. The research indicates that helicopters' versatility, range, and vantage point enable ground officers to conduct pursuits more successfully by decreasing the use of high-speed pursuits and increasing apprehension rates. High School Youth, Weapons, and Violence: A National Survey, Research in Brief, by Joseph F. Sheley and James D. Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998, 8 pp., NCJ 172857. This Research in Brief examines the extent to which a national sample of male high school sophomores and juniors was involved in, or otherwise affected by, firearms-related activity. The authors recommend that communities begin exploring policy initiatives that identify and address the antecedents of weapon-related activity among their youth. Linking Community Factors and Individual Development, Research Preview, by Felton Earls, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1998, 4 pp., FS 000230. During the past 3 years, a research team has surveyed cohorts of young people in selected Chicago communities to study the factors that lead to delinquent, criminal, and violent behavior. This Research Preview briefly describes the research, which examines the development sequences that lead some children to engage in antisocial behavior. Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1997-1998 Lecture Series, Volume II, Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 125 pp., NCJ 172851. These are the collected addresses from a series of lectures in which prominent researchers present their perspectives on topical issues in crime and justice with a view toward informing public policy. In this, the second year of the series, presentations were made by George Kelling on "broken windows," Randall Kennedy on race and crime, David Musto on the history of drug use in America, Joan Petersilia on intermediate sanctions, and Philip Cook on youth gun violence. Each presentation also is available separately on videotape. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: A National Survey, Research in Brief, by Pat Tjaden, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 16 pp., NCJ 172837. This Research in Brief is based on a national survey of men's and women's experiences with violence. It provides data on the prevalence and incidence of rape, physical assault, and stalking; the prevalence of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence; the prevalence of rape and physical assault among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds; the rate of injury among rape and physical assault victims; and injured victims' use of medical services. Pursuit Management Task Force, Research Preview, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 3 pp., FS 000225. This Research Preview summarizes the Pursuit Management Task Force's report on police pursuit practices and the role of technology, which presents findings of a survey of law enforcement agency heads in nine western States. Reducing Drug Dealing Through Place Management, Research Preview, by John Eck and Julie Wartell, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 2 pp., FS 000235. This Research Preview summarizes research on rental properties in San Diego that have drug dealing problems. The researchers examined whether police action would result in improved onsite property management and reductions in crime and found that police followup with landlords appeared to reduce crime. Reintegrating Juvenile Offenders into the Community, Research Preview, by David Altschuler, December 1998, 4 pp., FS 000234. This Research Preview presents the preliminary evaluation findings of the Intensive Aftercare Program, a demonstration project to provide juvenile offenders with comprehensive, ongoing services, both while they are incarcerated and when they return to their communities. The researchers found that juveniles under community supervision who participated in the program averaged between two and four times as many face-to-face and telephone contacts with parole officers as juveniles who did not participate in the program. Resolving Community Conflict: The Dispute Settlement Center of Durham, North Carolina, Program Focus, by Daniel McGillis, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1998, 15 pp., NCJ 172203. Community mediation programs train local volunteers in conflict resolution skills; these volunteers then provide dispute resolution services to individual citizens and groups. This Program Focus provides an overview of the Dispute Settlement Center of Durham, North Carolina, which has been providing mediation services to the surrounding community since 1983. The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference? Research in Brief, by Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan Smith Howley, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1998, 12 pp., NCJ 173839. This Research in Brief presents the findings of a survey that measured whether State constitutional amendments and other legal measures designed to protect crime victims' rights have been effective. More than 1,300 crime victims participated. The authors found that while strong victims' rights laws make a difference, victims' needs are not fully met in some instances. Selection and Application Guide to Police Body Armor, NIJ Guide 100- 98, by Lance Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, October 1998, 90 pp., NCJ 169587. This publication responds to commonly expressed concerns about police body armor. It provides information to help determine what level of protection is consistent with the threats to which individual officers are exposed. Systematic Observation of Public Police, Research Report, by Stephen D. Mastrofski, et al., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1998, 43 pp., NCJ 172859. This report describes "systematic social observation," a field research method researchers may use to evaluate police. It also explores the method's potential as a policy analysis tool. The authors suggest that systematic social observation offers many advantages for gathering and analyzing information on police at work. What Can the Federal Government Do to Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998, 105 pp., NCJ 172210. Crime prevention and community revitalization are issues that concern Federal, State, and local governments and communities. This Research Forum describes a variety of promising programs and approaches that cities and towns are implementing across the country to address the issue of crime and its impact on communities. ------------------------------- NIJ RELEASES 1999 RESEARCH PROSPECTUS Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: The 1999 Research Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 16 pp., NCJ 172883. In this research prospectus, NIJ presents its mission and fiscal resources and outlines its five strategic challenges--Rethinking Justice, Understanding the Nexus, Breaking the Cycle, Creating the Tools, and Expanding Horizons. The prospectus discusses how NIJ will meet these challenges and provides information about opportunities for research, evaluation, and development funding available from NIJ. ------------------------------- NEW LIST OF ONGOING NIJ RESEARCH, EVALUATION, AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS All of NIJ's ongoing projects constitute the agency's "research portfolio." The NIJ Research Portfolio 1999 lists NIJ's approximately 900 ongoing grants and contracts, interagency agreements, and fellowships, as well as intramural research conducted by NIJ staff. Each project is part of NIJ's overall strategic plan to respond to the Nation's critical criminal justice concerns. Researchers and others will find the Portfolio useful as a guide to NIJ's research priorities. The Portfolio provides specific information about each of NIJ's current projects through May 30, 1998, and is organized into four main topic areas reflecting the breadth of concerns of the Institute and the researcher and practitioner communities: criminal behavior, crime control and prevention, criminal justice system, and technology research and development. An index offers ready access to topic areas. NIJ Research Portfolio 1999, Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 64 pp., NCJ 171670. An online version is available at the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/nij. The Institute's approach to research is described in the NIJ Prospectus. (See "NIJ Releases 1999 Research Prospectus.") ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noel Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij