MENU TITLE: Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996. Series: NIJ Research Report Published: September 1997 117 pages 193,195 bytes Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Research Report Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996 September 13, 1997 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice John C. Dwyer Acting Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Justice Information Center World Wide Web Site http://www.ncjrs.org Report compiled by Judy Reardon, Writer-Editor, National Institute of Justice. ------------------------------ The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Office for Victims of Crime. ------------------------------ NCJ 166142 ------------------------------ Message From the Director of the National Institute of Justice Crime is predominantly a local phenomenon, and in our system of government the administration of justice and the instrumentalities of crime prevention and control are also largely local in character. Although the Federal role in crime control and criminal justice has grown in size and scope over the past several decades, local systems of justice remain the first line of engagement. Yet there are occasions when the Federal Government, responding to needs expressed locally, steps in to provide support beyond its traditional role in law enforcement. The first such commitment was made more than a generation ago, when the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was enacted in response to the high crime levels of the 1960s. It was followed in 1986 and 1988 by major Federal legislation targeted at illicit drug use and violent crime. Most recently, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) was enacted in response to concern over the continuing high rates of violent crime. The 1994 Crime Act is the most ambitious of these Federal efforts. Over the 6-year life of the Act, Congress authorized the expenditure of $30.2 billion to support local criminal justice. In the first 3 years, $11.1 billion has been appropriated. But Federal support under the Crime Act is more than fiscal relief for overburdened local governments; it reflects the determination of the President and Congress to support distinct policy innovations. Not only are funds made available to hire 100,000 police officers over the life of the Act, but support is also provided to accelerate the adoption of community policing throughout the country. Not only are there funds for prison construction to house violent offenders, but the States are encouraged to adopt truth-in-sentencing measures to ensure more determinate punishment. The Violence Against Women title of the Act fosters a collaborative response among criminal justice agencies to reduce domestic violence and to promote the arrest of batterers. By supporting drug courts and in-prison drug treatment, the Act promotes new ways to address substance abuse. By definition, these innovations mean changes in practice and policy; accordingly, they represent opportunities to learn about what works and what doesn't to control and prevent crime and improve the administration of justice. For that reason, we view enactment of this historic legislation as a unique moment in the development of knowledge about crime and justice. The Crime Act has created, in essence, a network of national laboratories to incubate the innovations that ultimately will serve as a foundation for building the next century's policies and thinking about crime. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been assigned responsibility for much of the research and evaluation to be conducted under the Crime Act. The Institute's research agenda has been developed in close collaboration with the offices established in the Justice Department to administer the programmatic parts of the Act. With the support of our congressional appropriators, we have agreed to transfer funds from each of the Crime Act's funding streams to support NIJ research. As a result, the Nation's investment in building knowledge through rigorous, empirically based research has increased substantially. We are indebted to our colleagues in these offices for their insights about the research needs and opportunities presented by the Crime Act and for their support in this historic collaboration. As this report of criminal justice research and evaluation in the first 2 years of the 1994 Crime Act reveals, a good deal has been accomplished. The Institute has met and continues to meet the statutory obligation to produce reports on a number of issues (among them an agenda for further research on violence against women); has launched comprehensive, national evaluations of the Act's major programs; and has well under way an extensive program of research to measure the effectiveness with which various jurisdictions nationwide are "thinking outside the box" to reduce and prevent crime. These NIJ-sponsored studies are intended to help find out, for example, whether juvenile gun violence can be curbed by intensive focus on truants and curfew violators, how effectively gun markets can be tracked with computers, with what effect the police are able to cooperate with social service agencies to stem elder abuse, what makes for success in a boot camp designed for drug-involved teenaged offenders, what are the consequences of a State's no-parole policy, how changes in sentencing laws affect a probation office, in what ways stalking affects its victims, and whether provision of drug treatment within the context of judicial supervision can make a difference. Given the nature of social science research, not to speak of the complexity of the issues tackled, amassing the knowledge that can help answer these and other questions is a time-intensive process. That is why this report is an interim product, submitted 3 years into the life of the Crime Act. For the Institute the opportunities offered by the Act have brought a fresh infusion of energy and a recommitment to its founding mission. This renewed resolve has sharpened our focus on the important question: As the States, local jurisdictions, and communities chart and steer their new courses, how can the Federal Government be most effective in helping ensure that they and others after them meet the challenges posed by the Crime Act? It is our hope that the lessons learned during the life of the Act establish a strong foundation for the next generation of innovations in the prevention of crime and the administration of justice. Jeremy Travis ------------------------------ Contents Message From the Director of the National Institute of Justice Chapter 1. Research Under the Crime Act The Scope of the Crime Act The Role of Research Developing the Research Agenda Goals of the Research and Evaluation Program The Numbers A New Impetus for Research Chapter 2. Policing NIJ's Record of Policing Research Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Policing Research Now Under Way Related Policing Research Law Enforcement Family Support Police Use of Force The Issue of Police Integrity Higher Education Assistance for Police Officers Helping Police Track Crime: NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center Science and Technology To Aid Policing Chapter 3. Sentencing and Corrections NIJ's Record of Research in Sentencing and Corrections Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Sentencing and Corrections Research Now Under Way Assessing Treatment for Drug-Involved Prisoners Chapter 4. Violence Against Women NIJ's Record of Research on Violence Against Women Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Research Now Under Way on Violence Against Women National-Level Evaluations Meeting the Need for Information Chapter 5. Drug Courts NIJ's Record of Research in Substance Abuse by Offenders Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Plans for Research on Drug Courts Chapter 6. Science and Technology NIJ's Record of Research and Development for Law Enforcement Technology Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Research Now Under Way Improving DNA Forensics Laboratories Chapter 7. Other NIJ Crime Act Research Assessing the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Determining the Effects of the Assault Weapons Ban Appendix A. Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Appendix B. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning Appendix C. Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice Under the Crime Act 1995-1996 Chapter 1. Research Under the Crime Act The 1994 Crime Act is by now familiar to most Americans, who know it means that more police officers are being hired and trained, more money is available to build prisons for violent offenders, legal responses to violence against women are being strengthened, and an array of programs has been established to help States and local governments increase their ability to control and prevent crime. These and the other provisions of the Act hold the promise of helping communities throughout the country to be better places to live because they will be safer places to live. Less familiar than these provisions is a program of research that has been initiated to learn what impact the Crime Act programs are having throughout the country and the lessons that can be learned for future innovation in criminal justice. This document reports on the activities of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in conducting research and evaluation under the Crime Act. NIJ, the research and development agency of the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), is charged with research on and evaluation of major Federal anti-crime initiatives. (See "The Mission of the National Institute of Justice" on the next page.) The agenda of Crime Act research and evaluation has been and continues to be developed in association with the Department of Justice offices that administer the Crime Act programs; NIJ also drew heavily on the expertise and experience of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in criminal justice and allied fields from throughout the country. Nearly 3 years into the Crime Act's implementation, NIJ felt it opportune to report on the research and evaluation sponsored thus far. The Scope of the Crime Act Representing an investment of more than $30 billion over 6 years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994[1] is the largest Federal anti-crime legislation in the Nation's history. A major impetus for the Act was the concern of the President and Congress over the unacceptable level of crime, particularly violent crime, and the need for a heightened Federal response. Some of the best known components of the Act are its criminal provisions: the ban on assault weapons, tougher sentencing through expansion of the death penalty and creation of a Federal "three-strikes" law, establishment of Federal penalties for crossing State lines to engage in domestic violence, and new Federal enforcement powers to deal with criminal aliens. Federal assistance for innovation. The Crime Act also makes assistance available to States and local jurisdictions to strengthen their role as the primary governmental units responsible for crime control. New resources are available for a wide range of innovations: implementing community policing, devising new approaches to reducing violence against women, expanding prison capacity for the most serious offenders and providing for alternative means of incarceration, and monitoring and treating drug offenders through the agency of the courts. The centerpiece and one of the chief areas of innovation is in policing. The first part of the Crime Act represents a Federal commitment to support and encourage community policing, whose principles will guide the work of the 100,000 additional police officers being hired under the Act. Those principles promote interaction of the police with the community and the reorientation of law enforcement's emphasis from reacting to crime to preventing it. Under the Act, funds are also available for the development and application of advances in science and technology to improve community policing operations. And as amended in 1996, the Act also makes additional funding available to develop technology for criminal justice agencies. Other programs in the Crime Act also reveal the priorities of the President and Congress as they reflect citizens' concerns. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds State initiatives to bring together police, prosecutors, and victim service providers to combat violent crime against women. The drug courts title of the Act funds a creative approach to offenders' substance abuse that integrates judicial supervision, treatment, and sanctions to encourage (and coerce) compliance with court orders. Boot camps, designed to free up prison space for the confinement of serious, violent offenders, receive support as an alternative to traditional incarceration, particularly for young, nonviolent offenders. The Role of Research DOJ recognized the importance of conducting research and evaluation related to the Crime Act programs it administers. Some provisions of the Act include language mandating specific research and evaluation efforts. In other areas, DOJ, with the approval of the congressional appropriators, determined that the offices created to administer the programs of the Act should set aside 1 to 5 percent of their funding for evaluative research to be conducted by NIJ. (See Appendix A, Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.) The Crime Act has created innovative programs to help States and local jurisdictions control crime. NIJ believes that research linked to innovation is especially useful to criminal justice policymakers and practitioners. It provides the opportunity to learn by doing--to build knowledge about crime and crime control by studying new crime control and prevention initiatives in operation in the field. Evaluation of Crime Act innovations will help ensure the accountability necessitated by this major investment of taxpayer funds. Measuring the success of specific programs offers the chance to make midcourse corrections to improve their effectiveness, sunsetting programs that do not work, and institutionalizing the ones that do work. The knowledge built through this process is essential to intelligent design of the next set of innovations. Moreover, learning the impact of the Crime Act will aid in understanding the potential of the Federal Government to promote change at the local level. Other types of research conducted under the Crime Act will furnish information that can bring to light new areas where intervention--whether through enforcement or other means of crime control and prevention--may be effective. By helping to define the types of intervention strategies that can modify and control behavior, research can help build new or better programs. The partnership of program and research. Responsibility for many, though not all, of the programs established under the Crime Act was assigned to DOJ. New offices were established to help make sure the Department-administered funding was delivered to the field as quickly as possible. Categorized by program area, these Crime Act offices are: o The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). o The Violence Against Women Office. o The Violence Against Women Grants Office. o The Corrections Program Office. o The Drug Courts Program Office.[2] As their names indicate, these offices administer the programs that promote community policing; the control and prevention of violence against women; new directions in sentencing and corrections, including boot camps; and provision of court-based supervision and services for drug offenders. Each program office has allocated up to 5 percent of its funds to support evaluative studies of the new programs by NIJ. Developing the Research Agenda NIJ has worked and continues to work closely with the Crime Act offices to determine how best to learn from the innovations they are supporting in the field. In developing the Crime Act research agenda in partnership with these offices, NIJ followed its traditional practice of drawing on the expertise of the research community to help identify the most relevant research questions. NIJ also consulted with practitioners in law enforcement and other areas of the criminal justice system to gain insight into ways to implement research inquiries in the world of criminal justice practice. A series of strategy sessions focusing on the Institute's major responsibilities under the Crime Act were sponsored by NIJ as one means to obtain input. These sessions consisted of wide-ranging discussions, during which specific research objectives were defined following presentations by researchers and practitioners prominent in their respective fields. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) These discussions were an invaluable part of NIJ's subsequent development and dissemination of requests for proposals to conduct research. Selecting research projects. In selecting research projects to fund under the Act, NIJ followed its tested competitive procedures for funding research proposed by the criminal justice research community. The procedures are designed to ensure that the proposed projects are sound in study method and design and likely to generate findings relevant to public policy, that the investigators are qualified, and that proposed expenditures are reasonable. Review procedures require applicants to demonstrate to an independent panel of peer reviewers (both researchers and practitioners) that the proposed project meets these criteria. The results of the independent peer reviews are reviewed by NIJ staff, who then submit their recommendations to the NIJ Director. After consulting with the staff, the Director makes a final decision. In selecting projects to be funded under the Crime Act, the Crime Act offices were involved in staff-level assessments of the proposals after peer review. Goals of the Research and Evaluation Program Under the Crime Act, NIJ is supporting three types of projects: o National-level evaluations of the major components of the Act. o Evaluations of local implementations of Crime Act programs. o Research based on partnerships between practitioners and researchers. National evaluations. Consistent with the mandate of its founding legislation,[3] NIJ felt it appropriate to sponsor national evaluations of each of the major Crime Act initiatives: policing, violence against women, sentencing and corrections (including boot camps and residential substance abuse treatment in corrections), and drug courts. That involves asking such questions as "What is the impact of placing 100,000 additional police officers on the streets?" "How is society's approach to domestic violence changing by virtue of enactment of the Violence Against Women Act?" "How are the States reacting to the Federal legislation that offers funds for prison construction if they adopt `truth in sentencing' laws?" "How do local courts react to the Federal funds available for drug courts?" Local implementation. Research related to specific projects established at the State and local levels with Crime Act funding is also being conducted in the above program areas, with the aim of understanding the impact of the Act locally. The development and evaluation of innovative technologies for use in law enforcement and corrections is also being sponsored under the Act and the Act as amended in 1996. Practitioner-researcher partnerships. To establish the basis for ongoing collaboration between researchers and practitioners, NIJ is sponsoring a program of locally initiated research partnerships. Under the policing and corrections titles of the Act, these partnerships will tap local research expertise and apply it for the benefit of the criminal justice field. (Partnerships will also be established under VAWA in 1997.) The hope is that the collaboration will continue beyond the life of the specific projects, as practitioners and researchers both develop an understanding of how they can collaborate to improve criminal justice practice and policy. The Numbers In the first 2 years of the Crime Act, the Institute awarded a total of 275 grants in the areas identified above. (For a complete list, see Appendix C, Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice Under the Crime Act, 1995-1996.) Those grants were awarded following selection from among 1,346 proposals, whose dollar value totaled approximately $442 million. NIJ expenditures for research and evaluation linked to Crime Act initiatives amounted to more than $68 million in the 2-year period. (For a breakdown of costs by program area, see "Crime Act Research Expenditures, 1995-1996: National Institute of Justice" on opposite page.) A New Impetus for Research The Crime Act has prompted NIJ to take new directions in research. One has been creation of the partnerships, noted above, between researchers and criminal justice agencies. The Act also prompted NIJ to revisit and update some of the studies it sponsored in the past, such as those on police-citizen encounters in the field and measures of rates of criminal offending. They are being replicated so that research and public policy development can benefit, as they have in the past, from improving knowledge by new investments in basic research. With the support of Congress, the Attorney General, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Crime Act offices in the Justice Department, NIJ has been able under the Crime Act to substantially increase its capacity to conduct research related to the issues that are most important to criminal justice. The research and evaluation findings resulting from this investment should maximize the lessons learned from this unique period of innovation and reform in the Nation's approach to crime and justice. Notes 1. Public Law 103-322, signed into law September 13, 1994. 2. With the exception of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, all these offices are in the Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. 3. NIJ's founding legislation is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-351, 42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.). The statutory language at 42 U.S.C. section 3722 (c)(3) authorizes NIJ to carry out evaluative studies under chapter 42 of title 42 of the U.S. Code. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act) is codified at chapter 136 of title 42. ------------------------------ The Mission of the National Institute of Justice Established by Congress as the major Federal agency for criminal justice research, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is authorized to: o Conduct and sponsor basic and applied research in the causes and prevention of crime. o Sponsor evaluations of major Federal anti-crime initiatives. o Support research and demonstrations to develop new approaches, techniques, systems, and equipment to improve law enforcement and the administration of justice. o Make recommendations to Federal, State, and local governments on crime-related issues. o Sponsor conferences and workshops for criminal justice policymakers and professionals. o Collect and disseminate domestic and international criminal justice information obtained by the Institute or other Federal agencies. Since its establishment by Congress in 1968, NIJ has been contributing to the understanding of crime, criminal behavior, and the operations of the criminal justice system, with a view to informing public policy and practice. Early NIJ research emphasized the operations of law enforcement, but that focus expanded to all components of the criminal justice system: prosecution, the courts, and corrections. A major area of research has been evaluative studies that assess the effectiveness of criminal justice operations and innovative programs to reduce crime. Studies of criminal behavior have included investigation of "criminal careers" and the link between drugs and crime. An example is a long-term study now under way to explore factors determining antisocial, prosocial, and criminal behavior. NIJ's development and dissemination office brings emerging issues to the attention of the field and synthesizes the research that has been conducted in these areas. This office also seeks out local programs that show promise for adoption or adaption elsewhere and highlights them for interested practitioners. A recent example is a report on innovative methods used in several jurisdictions to prevent intimidation of witnesses in drug- and gang-related crime cases. The Institute's science and technology office supports the development of tools for use by the police, in corrections, and in the courts. In the field of forensics, DNA testing has been a special area of emphasis. The findings of NIJ-sponsored research--basic, evaluative, and applied--are disseminated in a variety of formats, through more traditional means (such as publication of hardcopy documents) and electronically. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service, created and managed by NIJ, is an international clearinghouse of information that carries out most of the dissemination and fulfillment tasks and houses a large data base used to respond to questions about criminal justice and juvenile justice matters. ------------------------------ Broadcasting Results The lessons learned from Crime Act programs operating at the local levels need to be shared with a national audience. The National Institute of Justice has a comprehensive program of dissemination that it will employ to make sure State and local policymakers and practitioners receive timely reports of research and evaluation findings from Crime Act studies. NIJ dissemination strategy involves multiple media- -print publications, electronic communications, video, and conferences and workshops. Most publications are available free of charge and can be obtained rapidly and easily through the international clearinghouse of criminal justice information, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.* All NIJ recent publications have been published electronically, and many can be downloaded with full text and graphics, including charts and photographs, via the World Wide Web. Other services include the availability of reference information, a publications catalog, fax on demand to order documents, and an online newsletter of information about programs and related activities of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs.** Opportunities are provided for personal contact and exchange of information among the various criminal justice professions and through the promotion of dialogue between the researcher and practitioner communities. An annual conference on criminal justice research and evaluation hosted by NIJ showcases new findings before representatives of the entire community of researchers, professionals, and practitioners. * Mailing address: NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; telephone 800-851-3420; e-mail address: askncjrs@ncjrs.org; World Wide Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org. ** The justice information electronic newsletter, JUSTINFO, is distributed free of charge on the 1st and 15th of each month. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org. ------------------------------ Chapter 2. Policing Research and evaluation related to the policing provisions of the Crime Act (Title I) are intended to provide information about the impact of community policing in the States and local jurisdictions. This is being done through studies of such issues as the organizational changes that need to be made in the transition to community policing, the relation of the police to the community, and innovative strategies and tactics employed in various jurisdictions. An example of the innovations being studied is the policing and enforcement efforts established in several cities to curb juvenile firearms violence. Researchers are examining several related policing issues covered by other provisions of the Crime Act, including the consequences of job-related stress for law enforcement personnel and their families, police integrity and use of excessive force, and measures of police performance. The development of technology for use by law enforcement, including improved DNA testing, is also being sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). NIJ's Record of Policing Research Policing has been a major focus of NIJ research since the Institute was founded, with some of the early work directed at developing and testing equipment and technology for use by law enforcement. Since then a body of knowledge has been developed documenting the performance of law enforcement agencies, assessing their effect on crime and other outcomes, and analyzing police behavior. The "quiet revolution" that began to reshape American policing in the 1980s is attributable in part to NIJ research. For example, NIJ-sponsored research showed that delay in responding to citizens' calls was due largely to the time lag between commission of the crime and the call to the police, not to slow police response. NIJ also sponsored field experiments that tested the effects of various forms of police-citizen contact in reducing fear of crime, as well as studies of problem-oriented policing and fear of crime that revealed new ways to save resources by the exercise of police initiative and by enlisting the community in helping to identify solutions. These and other early studies helped pave the way for modern policing strategies, with a strong emphasis on community-based policing. Much of the emphasis of NIJ's policing research in recent years has been in community policing and in the problem-solving approach to policing. NIJ has studied community policing in several jurisdictions, including such major cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Among the research projects are studies of officers' attitudes toward community policing, the role of supervisors, the quality of training, the role of community organizations, and the effectiveness of problem solving and crime mapping in controlling street-level drug trafficking. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda The community policing provisions of the Crime Act have given further impetus to NIJ's policing research and evaluation agenda. Three percent of Title I funds were authorized by Congress for evaluation, technical assistance, training, and administration. From this amount, NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the Department of Justice (see "The `COPS' Program" on the next page) have sponsored $27 million on policing research in the first 2 years of the Act. A major priority is a national evaluation of the Act's "COPS" hiring provisions. In other evaluations, NIJ is assessing the lessons learned from experiences in community policing at the local level. Process evaluations, which explore organizational changes that have taken place and benefit the field, are laying the groundwork for the longer-term impact evaluations. Specific topics for NIJ research, which became the basis for requests for proposals, were developed through strategic planning conducted shortly after the Act became law. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Researchers from academia and other institutions were convened in a strategy session held to identify key lines of inquiry for research and evaluation. At this session, which was also attended by representatives of police departments from several jurisdictions, papers commissioned by NIJ formed the basis of the discussions. They covered such issues as the "community" in community policing, how to measure public safety, retaining components of traditional policing, the extent of community commitment, the role of the media, mechanisms for identifying citizens' concerns, the effect of problem solving on other components of the criminal justice system, and supervisory styles in community policing. Policing Research Now Under Way NIJ's Crime Act research and evaluation in policing consists of: o A national evaluation of the policing provisions of the Act. o Local research and evaluation studies. o Partnerships between researchers and practitioners to study topics selected by the local jurisdiction. o Related policing studies. Evaluations of the Crime Act's COPS provisions. A national process evaluation of programs funded under Title I (the COPS hiring provisions of the Act) was begun in 1995. The Urban Institute, which is conducting the study, is addressing progress made and problems encountered, exploring such issues as the way COPS funds are distributed, how COPS implementation is proceeding, how it is reshaping local policing, and the long-term impacts of the programs. Among the components of the study are an examination of the readiness of police organizations for community policing, determined through surveys conducted among police executives; case-study-based exploration of the organizational change that accompanies community policing; and comparison of jurisdictions that have received grants for community policing with those that have not. Interim reports will be issued in 1997, with the report finalized early in 1998. In addition to the national evaluation, 12 awards were made in 1995-1996 to conduct long-term evaluative studies of the transition to community policing in Chicago; Tempe, Arizona; Dallas; Madison, Wisconsin; Joliet, Illinois; and Aurora, Illinois. Studies are also being sponsored in several issue areas and/or specific jurisdictions. Organizational and management issues in community policing. Ten projects were funded in 1995-1996, including studies of: o Steps in the philosophical realignment required in the move to community policing (based on studies of Seattle and six other cities). o The role of police officer "buy in" in a successful transition to community policing. o Problem-solving strategies used by the police to address street-level disorder. o Leadership and management techniques necessary for community policing. o The effect of problem-solving training on police recruits. o The elements of organizational change necessary in the transition to community policing (based on five case studies and a survey of police departments). The police and the community. The 14 projects funded include studies of: o The use of community policing techniques by Indian tribal police. o Street-level activities of officers engaged in community policing. o Police responses to emotionally disturbed people. o Citizens' attitudes toward police in the diverse neighborhoods of Los Angeles. o Awareness and perceptions of community policing in immigrant communities of Queens, New York. o The role of the media and the way police use them to publicize community policing. o How and why citizens cooperate with the police. New strategies, tactics, and programs. These seven studies focus on innovative strategies adopted locally, including: o Coordinated response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence in Portland, Oregon. o Family group conferencing, a technique used by police to address moderately serious juvenile crimes in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. o Geomapping of gun markets in Pittsburgh. o Public housing challenges for community policing in Philadelphia. o Joint community policing and social service response to elder abuse in New York City. Changing roles of the police. The two projects funded are: o An examination of the role and integration of the detective in community policing. o A comprehensive analysis of the current state of community policing. Assessing new ways to curb juvenile gun violence. The COPS Office is sponsoring programs to help police develop innovative ways of using community policing and enforcement to reduce firearms violence by young people. These projects, in 10 police departments, include such approaches as working with local schools to identify and deter curfew and truancy violators, motor vehicle stops and road checks in targeted "hot spots," and the use of civil sanctions against gangs. In NIJ's evaluation, Abt Associates Inc. is assessing the impact of these strategies, describing in detail how the sites have implemented them, and identifying factors contributing to their success or failure. Linking police and researchers. Working in partnership, police and researchers in several jurisdictions are studying topics important to the local jurisdiction. The aim is not only to address the particular issue but also to help police departments apply research in operations and planning, and to create the basis for long-term collaboration with the research institution. The 36 projects awarded include: o A national-level evaluation describing elements of successful police-research partnerships: how they are formed, how they operate, what factors lead to success, and what contribution research can make. o Development of useful measures of domestic violence cases in a partnership between the Seattle Police Department and a local consortium of university and medical researchers. o Setting policing research priorities statewide in Florida, in a partnership between the State's police chiefs and Florida State University. o Development of innovative strategies to communicate in rural areas, in a partnership of Boise State University (Idaho) with area sheriffs and police. o Development of a regional crime analysis strategy, in a partnership using information shared by several county police departments in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the University of Virginia. o Replication in Indianapolis, Indiana, and Prince George's County, Maryland, of the New York City Police Department's Compstat--the system for reengineering police operations in response to computerized analysis of crime data. Related Policing Research Related research is being conducted on other policing issues, including law enforcement family support, police use of force, police integrity, and higher education assistance for police officers. Law Enforcement Family Support The consequences of job-related stress for law enforcement personnel and their families were recognized in the Crime Act (Title XXI) through establishment of a program of support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Among other services, these include counseling, child care, marital and adolescent support, stress-reduction programs, stress education, and training to assist in these programs. Responsibility for providing program services and for undertaking related research was assigned to NIJ. NIJ first created an advisory panel of police labor and management representatives to lend their expertise. Then, using input from the panel and other sources, NIJ commissioned a review of stress reduction and employee assistance programs now operating in law enforcement agencies. The report of that review, a comprehensive look at a number of law enforcement stress programs, included suggestions that can help departments address the problem.[1] NIJ used the findings to develop a solicitation for proposals to establish service or training programs in stress reduction and for research and evaluation. Awards totaling more than $900,000 were made in 1996 to nine law enforcement and other organizations to conduct research, test innovative practices, or provide training to reduce stress among officers and their families. Grants were awarded to jurisdictions in several parts of the country, with focus on such specific issues as policing in rural areas, acculturation of new hires, and extension of support services to family members. Examples are the establishment of a statewide chaplain program (Arkansas) and expansion of a local program statewide (Louisiana). Under this provision of the Act, NIJ is also studying stress factors affecting female and minority law enforcement officers and their families. The study site is a large urban police agency and neighborhood. Police Use of Force The problem of police use of excessive force has received increased public attention in the past few years as a result of a number of highly publicized cases. The Crime Act (Title XXI) strengthened the Federal role in controlling conduct by government agents that deprives people of rights, privileges, or immunities under the Constitution, and instructed the Attorney General to "acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers" and publish an annual summary of that data. (See Appendix A, Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.) Lead responsibility was assigned to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is working with NIJ to sponsor a set of initiatives to heighten understanding of the issue. The two agencies first explored how to respond to the mandate of the Act. One means was by convening a workshop, featuring participation by researchers and police officials, to discuss data collection procedures and obstacles to acquiring the data needed. The police use of force workshop (see Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning) brought out several points that assisted in shaping the decisions to meet the requirements of the Crime Act. One is that no single data collection mechanism can provide a complete picture of police use of force. Several methods (for example, use of court records and data on citizen complaints to the police) were discussed and the advantages and disadvantages of each explored. Subsequently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) awarded the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) a grant, cofunded by NIJ, for the National Police Use of Force Database Project to collect incidence data nationwide. In the first year, the IACP developed software that enables police agencies to record a wide range of information such as type and level of force used, characteristics of the officer and the suspect, and outcome of complaints if one is filed. The next step is collecting the data from police agencies in the seven States where the project is being piloted. Because the mechanisms for systematically acquiring data on the use of force were not yet developed by the time of the first report required by the Act, that report discussed what is known from previous research and the lessons learned from them about collecting and analyzing data.[2] Among the other projects on which BJS and NIJ have embarked are a field test by BJS of a national household survey of the frequency with which police-public contacts result in use of force, and several site-specific studies sponsored by NIJ. They include one in which the kinds of force used and the circumstances of arrest are identified and one on police pursuits.[3] The Issue of Police Integrity The causes of and solutions to the problem of violations of the public trust by police are being explored by NIJ and the COPS Office. A national symposium on police integrity sponsored by the two agencies in 1996 brought together more than 200 police command officers, police union representatives, researchers, legal scholars, government officials, and representatives of the faith community.[4] Perhaps the symposium's greatest achievement was broadening the discussion beyond a narrow focus on the investigative techniques of corrupt officers. It expanded to explore the need to develop police organizations that can establish and maintain integrity and, in particular, offer positive reinforcement to new recruits to help them retain the ideals they held on entering the force. One of the symposium aims was to help direct future research in police integrity. Topics suggested included studies of entry-level screening and hiring practices, supervisory behavior and training, disciplinary systems and nonpunitive approaches, the citizen complaint review process, performance evaluation systems, "early warning" systems, the impact of labor unions, and the dynamics of the police subculture. Subsequently, six awards were made in 1996 to: o Study the ability of preemployment psychological screening to predict police corruption. o Conduct a long-term, six-city study of citizen complaints against the police. o Analyze personnel records of police officers who were discharged in an attempt to identify the correlates of misconduct. o Study the impact in three cities of organizational leadership and department practices on misconduct. o Examine predictors of exemplary police performance among sergeants. o Develop State data bases that track the incidence of police use of force. Higher Education Assistance for Police Officers There is a consensus among police executives that higher education for officers is a priority. The "Police Corps Act," Title XX, Subtitle A, of the Crime Act (see Appendix A, Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation) helps reimburse officers for tuition costs and provides scholarship assistance and training expenses with the aim of ensuring the infusion of a core of college-educated police officers in local and State police agencies. A pilot Police Corps project, administered by the COPS Office, was established in 1996. NIJ will evaluate the project, documenting design and implementation in each of the six States piloting it: Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Nevada, Arkansas, and South Carolina. Helping Police Track Crime: NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center Crime mapping has made great strides in recent years. Today, virtually anyone equipped with a personal computer and a modest software budget can analyze crime patterns easily, rather than through the dated, labor-intensive practice of manually inserting push pins on wall maps. Geographic information systems (GIS) have led to advances in the criminal justice field, and research using such techniques--including NIJ's DMAP (Drug Market Analysis Program)--have enabled the police to make better deployment decisions. With these techniques, researchers who wish to test various hypotheses about crime can more easily link information about crime incidents to demographic data and location-specific environmental characteristics. Because computerized crime mapping has been adopted so rapidly, the analytical tools and the skills of many practitioner users have lagged. To hone their skills by tapping expertise to guide mapping, NIJ established the Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC). The goals of the CMRC, which is funded under the technology assistance provisions of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act amending the Crime Act, include: o Establishing a fellowship program to build an interdisciplinary knowledge base. o Establishing a crime mapping training center for practitioners and researchers. o Collecting and archiving geocoded crime data to make them available to researchers. o Creating partnerships among neighboring law enforcement agencies to facilitate spatial analysis across jurisdictional boundaries. o Promoting mapping for criminal justice applications in addition to policing. o Developing user-friendly analytic software with corporate and university partners. NIJ's interest in GIS predates establishment of the CMRC, and in a number of Institute-sponsored projects now under way researchers are using it for these and other aims: o To examine the impact of New Orleans' juvenile curfew on delinquency and violent crimes. o To identify the effect of crime mapping on preventing motor vehicle thefts. o To analyze violent crime and high-frequency calls for police service in Charlotte, North Carolina. o To inform policymakers of the types of communities most likely to benefit from an Oakland, California, Police Department initiative that uses civil remedies for drug and crime abatement. o To develop a model that will permit consistent replication of drug market analysis by State and local law enforcement. o To automate the analysis of crime data and enable police to identify patterns that reveal career-criminal activity. o To examine the nature and spatial distribution of gun markets, especially the source of guns for juveniles. o To evaluate how the police department of Tempe, Arizona, changes in response to community policing over time and spatially in the city. Established in 1996, with headquarters at NIJ in Washington, D.C., and a satellite office in Denver, the CMRC has taken several steps in the initial stages of operation. In early 1997, as part of strategy development, staff met with researchers and practitioners expert in geographic analysis to identify how to best meet the needs of the criminal justice community and to aid in planning a symposium (scheduled for fall 1997). The CMRC envisions providing technical assistance and training to law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, creating a Web site to disseminate information about crime mapping, and issuing proposals to evaluate specific crime mapping initiatives. To aid in planning specific CMRC initiatives, staff are conducting a survey of police departments to gauge the extent to which they currently use analytic mapping. Science and Technology To Aid Policing In technology research and development, support was given in 1996 to assist local governments in identifying, selecting, developing, modernizing, and purchasing new technologies for law enforcement. With respect to community policing in particular, technology research and development under the Crime Act is focusing on ways to improve interaction and partnerships of the police and the community, problem-solving approaches to crime, support for beat officers, and better methods of crime analysis. Funding has also been given to increase the ability of forensics laboratories to conduct state-of-the-art DNA testing for criminal investigations. (Details of NIJ's science and technology initiatives related to the Crime Act are presented in chapter 6.) Notes 1. The findings of the review of stress-reduction and employee assistance programs in law enforcement were published by NIJ in its Issues and Practices series under the title Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families by Peter Finn and Julie Esselman Tomz, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1996 (NCJ 163175). 2. The report, by Tom McEwen of the Institute of Law and Justice, is National Data Collection on Police Use of Force, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute of Justice, April 1996 (NCJ 160113). 3. A brief summary of one of the most recent NIJ studies of this issue is Understanding the Use of Force by and Against the Police, by Joel Garner et al., Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, November 1996 (NCJ 158614). 4. The report on the symposium was published as Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor: A Partnership Between the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, January 1997 (NCJ 163811). ------------------------------ The "COPS" Program The COPS provisions of the Crime Act (Title I: the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994) make grants available to the States and units of local government to help them hire additional police officers. What makes these provisions innovative is the endorsement of community policing: The officers hired will address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships. Training and technical assistance will accompany the transition to community policing. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), the agency established to administer the program, also funded a series of community policing programs that represent innovations in police response to youth firearms violence, violence against women, and gang crime. The intent of all these initiatives is to advance police departments beyond only reacting to crime and toward preventing it. Established in October 1994 within the Department of Justice, the COPS Office is responsible for putting the additional officers on the street and promoting community policing strategies, working toward these goals through a variety of initiatives, among them: o Grants to hire police officers. o COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective), which provides funds that enable police departments to acquire new technologies and equipment, hire civilians for administrative tasks, and pay for officer overtime. o Community Policing To Combat Domestic Violence, which provides grants to local jurisdictions to reduce domestic violence through community policing. o Training and technical assistance for agencies receiving COPS grants. o Administration of the Police Corps program, which provides assistance for higher education to students who agree to work in a State or local police force for at least 4 years. To date, more than half the policing agencies in the country have received grants. By February 1997, grants had been awarded to hire or redeploy 54,000 police officers and sheriffs' deputies who will serve more than 87 percent of the American population. ------------------------------ Tapping Research Expertise for Law Enforcement Use The best thinking in the research community on topics of interest to the police can be shared with them early, before long-term studies are completed. In collaboration with the COPS Office, NIJ organized the Policing Research Institute as a forum where this could be done. The forums feature meetings of management-level police officers with researchers to discuss issues raised in specially commissioned papers. The inaugural session, "Measuring What Matters," examined such indicators of police performance as crime, fear, disorder, and citizen satisfaction. The exchanges among participants challenged researchers to follow innovations in police practice and challenged practitioners to think critically about the impact of police work. The subsequent two sessions dealt with public measures of satisfaction with the police and with police departments' own internal performance measures.* NIJ is sponsoring studies of the fundamental question of measurement and will be assessing the relationship of what the police do to the expected results. A solicitation for proposals to conduct this research was issued in 1997, and grants will be awarded later in the year. These are some critical questions: What are appropriate measures? How do we improve their accuracy and utility? How do we demonstrate that what the police do has an effect on crime? And how do police agencies develop the capacity to routinely measure their performance? * NIJ published a summary of the first session: Measuring What Matters: Part One-Measures of Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996 (NCJ 162205). Summaries of the two subsequent sessions are being prepared for publication, and the commissioned papers will also be published. ------------------------------ Chapter 3. Sentencing and Corrections The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive provisions of the Crime Act (Title II) enable the States to expand their capacity to incarcerate violent offenders with more certainty and to impose longer and more determinate sentences. These provisions make it possible for them to construct and expand correctional facilities, including boot camps for nonviolent first offenders. Through the Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Department of Justice, funding has been made available to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) for research and evaluation to examine the effects of these provisions, including effects on public safety. (See "The Corrections Program" on the next page.) The aim of this research is to maximize the lessons learned from the projects established under the Act and feed back the findings to practitioners and policymakers in a timely fashion to inform subsequent years of program funding. National evaluations of the Crime Act's boot camp provisions and its sentencing and corrections provisions are being sponsored to inform policymakers of the overall effects of these initiatives. Locally based evaluations involving partnerships of practitioners and researchers are intended to explore topics relevant to particular jurisdictions. A range of specific topics raised by the sentencing reforms of the Crime Act will also be examined in NIJ-sponsored research. The effect of the Act's provision of substance abuse treatment for State prisoners in custody (under Title III) will be evaluated nationally, and assessments of selected local programs will also be conducted. NIJ's Record of Research in Sentencing and Corrections In States throughout the country there is a movement toward more determinate sentencing. NIJ sponsored some of the research that helped motivate the changes in sentencing, more often funding evaluations of the impacts of these changes. This evaluative research has included studies of mandatory-minimum laws, sentencing guidelines, and the abolition of parole boards. The influx of offenders that is now a major challenge for corrections has led to the development of alternatives to incarceration. NIJ has studied the effectiveness of these types of sanctions, evaluating boot camps, intensive supervision probation and parole, and electronic monitoring. The first evaluation of a State boot camp program was sponsored by NIJ in 1989; since then the Institute has conducted a nationwide multisite evaluation and a number of other studies. In 1996 NIJ published a major report on the various approaches to boot camps nationwide.[1] Studies of correctional facility design, construction, and financing have also been sponsored, and in 1993 NIJ published a supplement to its directory of corrections construction, a document containing practical information on designing, building, and renovating facilities. NIJ has funded studies of prison industries and the privatization of prisons. The growth of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Tuberculosis (TB) among inmates prompted NIJ's periodic surveys of the incidence of these conditions in prisons and jails and policy trends related to them. Other changes--the increase in elderly inmates and female inmates--have been studied, with a focus on special needs and implications for facilities management. Research in substance abuse treatment for offenders includes evaluations of model programs for felony offenders on probation and Federal offenders who have been released into the community, and a study of intensive management of drug-involved arrestees. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda The strategy for research related to truth in sentencing and incarceration of violent offenders was developed in association with the CPO. At a workshop cosponsored by NIJ and the CPO, prominent researchers presented papers that were used to inform the process of defining research priorities. A subsequent roundtable discussion that featured participation by public interest group members also helped frame the strategy. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Participants included directors of State corrections departments; city and State officials and administrators from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; and representatives of organizations of elected officials. Using the several perspectives represented in these sessions, NIJ devised a three-tiered strategy to address the themes that emerged from the discussions. That strategy involves sponsoring: o A national evaluation of the Act's primary sentencing initiatives: truth in sentencing and violent offender incarceration. o Research and evaluation studies of public policy questions related to the Act's sentencing and corrections reforms. These studies extend in scope from prosecution to parole and are intended to improve State and local sentencing policy and related correctional practices. o Evaluation partnerships between State and local correctional and sentencing agencies on the one hand and research institutions on the other. Together, the practitioners and researchers explore topics of interest to the specific jurisdiction. Similar to the locally initiated partnerships NIJ designed for policing research, the corrections partnerships are intended to build the evaluation capability of State and local sentencing and correctional organizations and furnish information immediately relevant to them. In judging the partnerships, NIJ gave considerable weight to the quality of the working relationship defined between the research organization and the operational agency. The hope is to create partnerships that last beyond the life of the specific project undertaken. For boot camps, which have emerged in recent years as a widely accepted alternative correctional approach, NIJ strategy includes support for a multisite assessment. Early research on boot camps revealed they had little impact on recidivism, but since then the program approach has evolved and with that evolution has come the need to measure the effects of the "new generation." The Crime Act research strategy resulted from indepth planning that drew on the expertise of criminal justice researchers, professionals in corrections and juvenile justice, and representatives of State governments. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) The strategy involves assessing first already existing boot camps, and then those created under the auspices of the Crime Act. Strategy development related to the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program was also undertaken in association with the CPO, which administers the program. The CPO developed an approach to providing the States with technical assistance and training to help them improve and expand substance abuse treatment by exploring the state and needs of the field. Strategy development moved on two tracks. One involved presentation and dissemination of information on best practices. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in the field came together in a series of "executive forums" in which they also suggested areas of concentration for delivering the assistance and training. The other track consisted of ongoing workgroups and partnerships involving several Federal agencies whose mission covers substance abuse. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Sentencing and Corrections Research Now Under Way Research and evaluation related to sentencing and corrections follow a course similar to that for policing: o A national-level evaluation of the Crime Act's violent offender and truth-in-sentencing provisions. o Evaluations of boot camps for nonviolent first-time offenders. o Evaluations and research studies of specific topics related to the sentencing and corrections provisions of the Act. o Research and evaluations based on partnerships of researchers and practitioners in the field of sentencing and corrections. o A national evaluation and local evaluations of the Crime Act's provision for assistance to the States in developing substance abuse treatment for prisoners. National evaluation. In this evaluation, being conducted by the RAND Corporation in association with several public-interest organizations, the researchers are investigating: o How the States interpreted and responded to the violent offender and truth-in-sentencing provisions of the Crime Act, which States adopted relevant legislation, what changes from previous practice were made to deal with violent offenders, and what factors influenced legislative action. o How the States' strategies were implemented: what decisions were made about who is sentenced to prison; how violent offenders were defined; how truth in sentencing was carried out; how length of time served, parole release policies, and good-time and gain-time policies changed; and what State and local characteristics appear to be related to successful implementation. o How changes at the State level affected county and local correctional policies: how pretrial processes changed, what changes were made by judges at the county level, and what impact the reforms had on the local jail system. Local evaluations. Nine awards were made to evaluate the effects of the sentencing and corrections reforms. Among these studies are the following: o Two evaluations of North Carolina's structured sentencing and community partnerships act. o Study of the impact of truth-in-sentencing reform in Massachusetts. o Evaluation of efforts by several Maryland counties to free up prison space for violent offenders by managing offenders released to the community using drug treatment and surveillance. o Examination of the response of probation and community corrections to the Crime Act's sentencing and corrections reforms. o Assessment of possible gender-based consequences of the sentencing reforms on confinement in Minnesota. Boot camps: alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. National and multisite evaluations include: o A national, multisite evaluation of boot camps for juveniles, conducted by the University of Maryland. This study is developing indexes to measure and compare the conditions of confinement and the environment at 27 sites and will assess the results for offenders. o A national, multisite evaluation of 10 publicly and privately operated boot camps, which will emphasize whether and how aftercare affects outcomes. In this study, conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), attention will be paid to recidivism, shifts in coping skills, changes in socioeconomic status, and correctional costs. o A study of all 44 federally funded boot camps, conducted by Abt Associates Inc., to determine the extent to which these boot camps achieve the goal of accelerating the release of nonviolent offenders and generate bedspace to confine violent offenders. o A study by the NCCD of the processes the States use to plan boot camps with funds awarded to them by the Office of Justice Programs. Researchers are examining factors that lead to success in meeting planning and implementation goals, as well as barriers to meeting them. A separate evaluation of Los Angeles County's Juvenile Drug Treatment Boot Camp, a facility for drug-involved offenders ages 16 to 18, is also under way. Researchers will compare the boot camp to a more conventional facility to determine whether drug use and postrelease criminal behavior are reduced. Promoting links between research and practice. To help improve the ability of States and local jurisdictions to conduct evaluations, NIJ is promoting collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the courts and corrections at the State and local level. The aim of this research and evaluation is to enhance understanding of the implementation and impact of sentencing policies under the Crime Act, with topics selected that are immediately relevant to the local jurisdiction. Six grants were awarded in the following areas: o Study of the extent to which an intensive discharge planning process for women incarcerated in Rhode Island improves their reintegration into the community. o Study of the implementation of the Commonwealth of Virginia's new no-parole policy. o Development of a statewide correctional research coalition in Florida to study secure drug treatment programs and habitual offender laws. o Study of the effectiveness of drug treatment programs offered by the Florida Department of Corrections in place of confinement. o Analysis of the impact of California's sentencing laws on Los Angeles County sheriff's and probation departments. o The impact of the Crime Act sentencing and corrections reforms in Wisconsin. Counting crimes. The estimate of annual crime rates has been a topic of NIJ research, some of it challenging conventional wisdom about the frequency of criminal activity by typical offenders and the link between drugs and crime. Using self-report data on individual offenders, NIJ will update estimates of these rates in inmate populations, addressing new issues and using new research methods. Assessing Treatment for Drug-Involved Prisoners Through the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, funds are available to the States to develop and implement treatment programs in State and local correctional and detention facilities. The States are encouraged to adopt comprehensive approaches to substance abuse treatment for offenders, including relapse prevention and aftercare services. Using funds from the CPO, NIJ awarded eight grants to evaluate the RSAT program. Of these, the national-level evaluation being conducted by National Development and Research Institutes has three components: o An examination of program operations, which will gather information on such factors as types of offenders participating, staff, treatment modalities, and program length, content, and duration. o Technical assistance to the States to enhance the utility of the data and the annual reports they are required to submit, to help ensure their programs can be evaluated. o Preliminary steps in conducting an evaluation of RSAT's impact. These include collecting baseline data and establishing standards and criteria for selecting candidate programs for the subsequent impact evaluation. Seven programs at the State level are being evaluated, including one at a facility for women and one at a youth facility. Some programs being evaluated use the therapeutic community model of treatment delivery, and some include strong aftercare components. In each case, researchers based at a local university or other research institution will conduct the evaluation with the appropriate State agencies in a partnership designed to promote ongoing researcher-practitioner collaboration. The topics selected reflect issues important to the States. Note 1. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Eugene E. Hebert, eds., Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1996 (NCJ 157639). ------------------------------ The Corrections Program Under Title II of the Crime Act of 1994, as amended, funds are available to the States to build and expand correctional facilities to incarcerate violent offenders,* to free space for these offenders, or to build or expand local jails. The funds are available through the Violent Offender and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program. To qualify for Violent Offender grants (for which half the funds are available), States must demonstrate that violent offenders serve a substantial portion of the sentence imposed, that their punishment is sufficiently severe, that prison time is appropriately related to crime, and that the public is protected. Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive grants (for which half the funds are available) are awarded to States that demonstrate that violent offenders serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed. In fiscal year 1995, the language of the congressional appropriation required that the funds be used to plan, construct, or renovate boot camp facilities. The program also includes a small set-aside for discretionary grants to Indian tribes for the purpose of constructing jails on tribal lands for the incarceration of offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program (Title III of the Crime Act) offers funds to the States to develop substance abuse treatment programs in State and local correctional facilities. These programs must meet several criteria: (1) they must be operated by a correctional agency; (2) they must last 6 to 12 months; (3) they must focus on substance abuse problems; (4) the inmates served must be set apart from the general correctional population; and (5) they must develop inmates' cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills to solve their substance abuse and related problems. The Tuberculosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program, created by Title III of the Crime Act, provides grants to State, Indian tribal, and local correctional authorities and public health authorities to assist in establishing and operating programs for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and followup care of tuberculosis among inmates of correctional institutions. The Corrections Program Office (CPO) was established within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the Department of Justice to administer the corrections programs created by the Crime Act. The CPO also engages in research and evaluation, in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice, to assess the impact of the expansion of correctional capacity and sentencing reforms. In addition, the CPO offers technical assistance related to the use of grant funds and the development and implementation of sentencing reforms; it also assists with data collection and improvement of information systems related to the confinement of violent offenders and other sentencing and correctional matters. The CPO promotes coordination among all bureaus of OJP that are responsible for correctional initiatives and works to form partnerships with other, related Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and its National Institute of Corrections, and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It seeks partnerships with professional associations representing State governments, adult and juvenile corrections, and local jails. In Fiscal Year 1995, the CPO funded 44 boot camp projects. The following year, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. Territories received funding to help build and expand correctional facilities. Of these, 25 qualified for a Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive award. Awards to establish Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs were made in Fiscal Year 1996 to 49 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories. * These offenders are defined in the Crime Act as those who commit "Part 1" violent crime. Part 1 crimes, which also include property offenses, are defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and used to compile its annual Crime Index from reports submitted by the States. Part 1 violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. ------------------------------ Linking Research to Sentencing and Corrections Practice Corrections is in a time of flux and growth, and as a result administrators face a number of challenges stemming from the need to adapt to an expanding prison population, changing demographics, and new sentencing laws that affect corrections. To provide these officials with information useful to dealing with these and other issues, NIJ, in collaboration with the Corrections Program Office, will convene a series of "Executive Sessions on Corrections." A group of corrections executives, sentencing experts, policymakers, and researchers will meet periodically over the next few years in seminars organized by the University of Minnesota on the interdependence of sentencing policy and correctional practice. The seminars are patterned on the executive sessions on policing sponsored by NIJ several years ago in association with Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government to bring together some of the leading thinkers in the field. They are intended to encourage new dialogue between high-level practitioners and scholars, with a view to redefining and proposing solutions to substantive policy issues. Five sessions will be held over a period of 3 years, each based on a review of the available research and papers commissioned from experts in the field. The papers, which NIJ will disseminate widely, and the collective thinking of the participants are intended to serve as a guide to future policy in corrections. ------------------------------ Chapter 4. Violence Against Women The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, Title IV of the Crime Act) responds to the needs of women who are victimized by violence and to the need for fundamental change in the way this violence is addressed. Prominent among the changes is Federal support to States and local jurisdictions to improve the response of law enforcement and prosecution as well as victim services. Research and evaluation related to VAWA, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), seeks to identify the impact of the justice programs and to provide a knowledge base for examining policy and programmatic experience and recommending improvements. The program of VAWA research encompasses a national-level evaluation of the Act's overall impact and topical evaluations of one or more programs, covering the seven "purpose areas" of the Act . (See "Violence Against Women Program" on the next page.) The research also includes several congressionally mandated studies, among them development of a research agenda on violence against women. NIJ's Record of Research on Violence Against Women NIJ has traditionally had a strong program of evaluation and research on violence against women and issues in family and intimate violence. Early research in spouse assault primarily addressed the police response, with examination of an experimental program in Minneapolis revealing a decline in the probability of repeat offending when this offense is treated as a crime and the police make an arrest. This finding became a major factor in a shift in police practice to favor arrest (although NIJ-sponsored replications produced mixed results and suggested the need for caution in generalizing). The current NIJ program of family violence research encompasses studies of behavior, including partner abuse and child abuse, as well as projects that focus on the criminal justice response--by law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, and probation and parole. Examples of behavioral research are studies of the developmental antecedents of partner violence, the developmental antecedents of sexual aggression, the role of alcohol and drug abuse in domestic violence, and an ongoing examination of the "cycle of violence"--the increased likelihood that victims of child abuse and neglect will engage in delinquent or criminal behavior later in life. Studies of the criminal justice response include a case study of prosecutorial handling of rape, an assessment of the current state of domestic violence prosecution, and an examination of how the justice system processes child abuse cases. Under joint sponsorship by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIJ, the Center for Policy Research (a Denver-based private research organization) is conducting a national survey among adult women to determine the extent, nature, and consequences of various forms of violence against women. The study includes a parallel survey of men. NIJ has sponsored studies of initiatives to meet victims' needs, including mediation and civil protection orders. A model stalking code for use by the States was recently developed under NIJ sponsorship, as was a guide for criminal justice agencies in confronting domestic violence. Among the studies recently published is one that describes how the States are implementing their sex offender community notification laws.[1] Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda NIJ's past and current research on domestic violence and related issues was a useful base on which to build the research agenda for Crime Act initiatives. Collaboration with the Violence Against Women Grants Office (in the Office of Justice Programs) was also essential. Because domestic violence is a health issue as well as a criminal justice issue, the community of health care professionals also participated in strategy development. The major planning session was organized by NIJ in association with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to representatives of the criminal justice research community, participants included the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC, professionals from the fields of nursing and such disciplines as sociology, representatives of victims organizations, and officials in policing, prosecution, and the judiciary. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Issues explored in developing the research strategy included the importance of coordinating approaches to domestic violence, the individual safety planning processes that women employ, the role of the fatality review process in determining cause of death in domestic violence cases, the role of advocacy in addressing these crimes, how communities can be effectively mobilized, and what interventions are most effective for victim and offender. NIJ subsequently developed and disseminated requests for proposals to conduct research and evaluation related to these and other issues. Research Now Under Way on Violence Against Women The components of the research and evaluation program include: o National-level and multisite evaluations of the impact of VAWA. o Evaluations conducted at the State and local levels, focusing on VAWA's seven "purpose areas." o Research directed to improving the coordinated justice, social service, and public health responses to spouse assault, violence against women, and family violence (including child and elder abuse). o Congressionally mandated studies. National-Level Evaluations Chief among the awards in the first year of the Crime Act was a grant to the Urban Institute for a 2-year study of the nationwide impact of the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) grants program. Through this program, the Office of Justice Programs' Violence Against Women Grants Office makes VAWA funding available to the States for programs in policing, prosecution, victim services, and information systems. The study is identifying the range of activities and programs adopted by the States under STOP, examining their planning and implementation processes, assessing the accomplishments of grant recipients, and developing a strategy for documenting long-term efforts. The first 1-year status report examined the plans of the States for implementing the programs they are establishing with STOP grant funding.2 For example, it summarized State intentions with respect to funding the program's seven "purpose areas," finding that victim services was the area most likely to receive the largest proportion of States' funding. Among the findings of the second-year status report of activity in 1996 was that the STOP planning and grants process is beginning to change interactions among law enforcement, prosecution, and nonprofit, nongovernmental victim service agencies, creating an environment for increased mutual understanding and coordinated program development. In several of the sites visited, the researchers found this was the first time such extensive interactions had occurred among the agencies.3 Under way in 1996 were studies of selected sites and an examination of specific "purpose areas" identified by VAWA: o Examination of the impact of law enforcement and prosecution under the STOP programs at 8 to 10 sites. Training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors, establishment of specialized units of police officers and prosecutors, changes in police and prosecution policies, and programs to address stalking are among the STOP-funded activities addressed in this study, which is being conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice. o Evaluation of the impact of the STOP programs for reducing violence against women in Native American communities, conducted by the University of Arizona. o Study of the impact of victim service programs under the STOP grants, conducted by the American Bar Association. o Evaluation of the impact of the data collection and communication systems components of the STOP grants, being conducted by the National Center for State Courts. The policy, operational, and technical issues related to data integration and coordination among law enforcement, prosecution, courts, corrections, and victim service providers are the focus of the study. (Evaluations of the VAWA provisions for grants to implement pro- and mandatory-arrest policies in police departments in domestic violence cases will be funded in 1997.) More specific, topical studies are under way in the following areas: o Victims and Offenders -- Association between violence against women and the alcohol problems of victims. -- Evolution and patterns of stalking behavior and its effects on victims. -- Extent and nature of sexual victimization of college women. o Criminal Justice System Response -- Factors influencing judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking and factors influencing victims' reluctance to bring charges. -- Prosecution strategies most likely to achieve conviction. -- Efficacy of court-mandated treatment for batterers. o Community Response -- Comparison of various models of community coordination in response to partner violence. -- One community's coordinated response to domestic violence. Meeting the Need for Information Recognizing the need for further research and data on violence against women, Congress, through the Crime Act, requested: o Development by the National Academy of Sciences of a research agenda on violence against women. o A study of the feasibility of establishing centralized data bases on the incidence of domestic violence offenses. o A study of battered women's syndrome--its medical and psychological basis and the extent to which evidence of the syndrome has been used in criminal trials. o An annual study of the incidence of stalking and domestic violence and an evaluation of State antistalking efforts and legislation. o A study of the means by which abusive spouses obtain information about the addresses or locations of estranged or former spouses. These studies, some of which were sponsored by NIJ and some by NIJ in association with other Federal agencies, have been completed. (See "Congressionally Mandated Reports on Violence Against Women.") Notes 1. Finn, Peter, Sex Offender Community Notification, Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997 (NCJ 162364). 2. The report on progress and accomplishments of the STOP program through December 1995, the period covering the first year of STOP program authorization, has been published. See Burt, Martha, The Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants To Combat Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 29, 1996. (Study funded by NIJ grant #95-WT-NX-0005.) 3. Burt, Martha, et al., 1997 Report: Evaluation of the STOP Formula Grants under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 1997. (Study funded by NIJ grant #95-WT-NX-0005). ------------------------------ Violence Against Women Program The Violence Against Women Act (Title IV of the Crime Act) combines an array of legal and practical reforms to reducing domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It is designed to improve the response of police and prosecutors to these crimes and offers a number of protections for victims. Among these protections are a requirement that sex offenders pay restitution to their victims, strengthened protection orders against abusers, a ban on firearms possession by convicted domestic abusers, increased funding for battered women's shelters, and the establishment of Federal penalties for sex crimes. Under VAWA a national domestic violence hotline was created that promises to reach every community in the Nation. Grants are available to the States and units of local government for programs in prosecution, education, outreach, and prevention. One of these, the law enforcement and prosecution grant program, provides funds to develop and strengthen law enforcement and prosecutorial strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving crimes against women. These STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) grants may be used for seven purposes: o Training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors. o Development, training, or expansion of special law enforcement and prosecutorial units. o Development and improvement of data collection and communications systems linking components of the criminal justice system. o Development and implementation of more effective police and prosecutorial policies and services. o Creation or enhancement of victim services programs. o Development of programs to address stalking. o Development and enhancement of programs to meet the needs of Indian tribes. Grants are also available under VAWA to implement mandatory arrest or proarrest policies in police departments. The grant programs are administered by the Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO) within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. VAWGO programs include funding to support cooperation among law enforcement, prosecution, victim advocates, and others involved in investigating and prosecuting domestic violence and child abuse in rural areas. Among the programs VAWGO sponsors are the STOP grants, the first step in helping the States and localities to restructure the response of law enforcement and prosecution to reduce violence against women and enhance victim services. Priority in funding is given to programs designed to reach traditionally underserved populations, including the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, women in rural areas, and migrant workers. ------------------------------ A Catalyst for Interdisciplinary Research With the Crime Act providing greater impetus to recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of violence against women, the first multiagency consortium on the topic has been established. NIJ joined with health research agencies--several offices of the National Institutes of Health and CDC--as well as the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect to study the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of family violence and other forms of violence against women, and the health and legal consequences for victims. The 10 funded projects focus on such topics as reducing the risk for abuse of battered women's children, the effectiveness of protection orders, domestic abuse among Latinos, the emotional effects of maltreatment on children, partner violence against Native American women, intervention for abuse against female caregivers, and treatment for violent adolescent males from abusive homes. In response to the congressionally mandated research agenda on violence against women developed by the National Academy of Sciences (and cofunded by NIJ and CDC), NIJ and CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control are working together to plan a coordinated, interagency, interdisciplinary approach to addressing the issues and priorities set forth in that agenda. The proposed partnership will link the criminal justice and public health approaches at the Federal level, as well as reduce any duplication of effort that might take place if the agencies acted on their own. The collaboration would take the form of a 5-year research strategy to understand the extent of violence against women, why it occurs, and how to prevent it. NIJ and the CDC have been working to identify areas of the NAS research agenda that each could best address. The two agencies would serve as liaison to other interested offices in Justice and Health and Human Services. Funding for the first year of the program is under consideration by Congress for Fiscal Year 1998. ------------------------------ Congressionally Mandated Reports on Violence Against Women Crowell, Nancy A., and Ann W. Burgess, eds., Understanding Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. This study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.* Zepp, James, et al., Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1996. Study conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association. (NCJ 161405)** The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 1996. (NCJ 160972)** Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation: NIJ Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996. (NCJ 160943)** Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims' Addresses, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Association, November 1995. Unpublished report of study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. (NCJ 164064) * Available from the National Academy Press at 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20055. Phone 800-624-6242, or order via the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/nap/bookstore. ** Available from the National Institute of Justice through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; telephone 800-851-3420; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Also available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm. ------------------------------ Chapter 5. Drug Courts Drug courts exemplify the way the Crime Act encourages innovative approaches to reducing crime. They were created by local courts as a response to the pattern of behavior that brings substance abusers into repeated contact with the criminal justice system. Research has shown that substance abuse tends to increase other criminal behavior, but it also shows that treatment can be effective in reducing substance abuse and criminal activity. Many communities have established these specially designed courts, which work through coalitions of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officials, substance abuse treatment providers, and others. Drug courts use the coercive power of the judiciary to control and alter behavior through a combination of early and continual judicial supervision, sanctions, incentives, mandatory drug testing, treatment, and aftercare. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has issued requests for proposals to evaluate the drug court programs sponsored by the Act, specifically to conduct research in implementation and process issues and in the impact of the courts. These studies are intended to provide information about whether and to what extent drug courts are effective. They will generate a knowledge base that jurisdictions nationwide can tap to create new programs or refine existing ones. NIJ's Record of Research in Substance Abuse by Offenders NIJ has conducted research in the link between drug use and crime and in ways to improve criminal justice handling of drug-related offending. These research projects include early studies confirming that reducing the level of drug use can reduce criminality. NIJ has also sponsored studies of ways to better detect drug abuse among offenders. In one of the earliest applications of drug testing in the justice system, NIJ piloted demonstrations of drug testing to monitor the behavior of people on pretrial release. Using urinalysis as the testing technology, these programs uncovered high drug use and high risk for recidivism. The findings about the level of drug use by arrestees led NIJ to establish the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program.1 Recognized as one of the leading indicators of illegal drug use, DUF periodically tests arrestees in major urban areas nationwide, providing data on an ongoing basis about the drugs and crime nexus, and information useful at the local level for making policy decisions regarding drug abuse among offenders. DUF data are also used by researchers as a "platform" on which to conduct studies of substance abuse and related issues. Among them are studies of arrestees' familiarity with and use of firearms and their involvement in the crack, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine markets. Other studies have focused on the characteristics of different types of drug-involved offenders, enforcement strategies, criminal justice handling of drug cases, community efforts to reduce demand and control drug trafficking, the problem of drugs and crime in public housing and in prisons, and drug prevention education. NIJ has also supported the development of hair analysis and other technologies as a means of detecting substance abuse. If research has shown that substance abuse is linked to other criminal behavior, it has also shown that treatment can be effective in reducing substance abuse and criminal activity. Treatment for drug-involved offenders is also a focus of NIJ research and development. The Institute has published research documenting the efficacy of treatment in prisons and jails and is currently supporting a demonstration project and accompanying evaluation intended to test the hypothesis that the "cycle" of drug use and criminality can be broken. The hypothesis suggests a systematic approach that provides judicially monitored services and treatment as needed, in the context of drug testing, for all drug-using arrestees through the entire period of criminal justice supervision starting with arrest. NIJ is in the process of selecting researchers to evaluate a similar program, recently begun for Federal arrestees at several locations. One of the pioneering programs combining testing and treatment for offenders--the Dade County (Miami), Florida Drug Court--was documented by NIJ and was the subject of an evaluation cosponsored with the State Justice Institute. That study revealed drug court "graduates" were arrested less often than nongraduates. Graduates who were rearrested stayed arrest free roughly three times longer than other similar felony drug defendants whose cases were handled outside the drug court.2 Currently, in collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), NIJ is evaluating the D.C. Drug Court, an experimental program for felony drug defendants in Washington, D.C. Researchers are comparing the efficacy of intensive outpatient drug treatment, graduated sanctions, and case handling by the standard court docket to find out the effect on rearrest, substance abuse, and social functioning. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda Despite their increasing numbers, drug courts have generated little research and evaluation. The Attorney General was authorized under the Crime Act to evaluate them, and NIJ began to develop a strategy to guide the direction of these evaluations and other future research. A first step included calling on practitioners in the judiciary, experts in treatment, and researchers for information relevant to the subsequent development of a plan for research. The Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, also played a key role. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) At the workshop convened by NIJ, discussions of method emphasized the need for innovation, particularly in qualitative measures. As experience with drug court programs and accompanying research grows, NIJ will supplement and perhaps even redirect the research strategy. The strategy informed the development of a request for proposals to conduct the evaluations authorized by the Crime Act and to provide technical assistance in evaluation design and in documenting program results. NIJ has worked and continues to work with the Drug Courts Program Office on a number of fronts, including coordinating the development of an electronic listserv to facilitate communication among operating drug courts and drug court professionals, and exchanging information about the field. Plans for Research on Drug Courts Although NIJ sought in the first 2 years of the Crime Act to sponsor evaluations of the impact of drug courts in reducing drug abuse and associated criminality, no proposals initially submitted met the stated needs. After consulting with the Drug Courts Program Office, NIJ decided to make no awards. Instead, the two agencies worked to set research priorities and to develop criteria for selecting courts as candidates for evaluative studies. In 1997 NIJ is again requesting proposals to assess the implementation and impact of drug courts. The first request is for studies of some of the courts that have received grants from the Drug Courts Program Office to enhance existing programs. The courts targeted for study are in Las Vegas, Nevada; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; and Pensacola, Florida. These studies will examine such "process" issues as the operational features of the courts and the dynamics of program development. This type of information provides the context within which to assess changes in criminal behavior and other outcomes. The impact of the drug courts on criminal recidivism will be measured, as will the extent of participants' retention in treatment and changes in their life circumstances and productivity. Through a cost-benefit analysis of each drug court, researchers will identify the savings to each participating organization (e.g., the court or the prosecutor's office) accruing from its involvement in the drug court. A second request will solicit proposals to evaluate courts in jurisdictions that received funds for implementation from the Drug Courts Program Office in Fiscal Years 1995 through 1997. The first phase will set up the capacity for conducting subsequent evaluations of the impact of the courts in selected sites. The impact evaluations will be conducted as the second phase. Note 1. DUF was recently renamed ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring). The program's use as a research platform is being enhanced, and the number of sites will increase. 2. Finn, P., and A.K. Newlyn, Miami's "Drug Court": A Different Approach, Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993 (NCJ 142412); Goldkamp, J.S., and D. Weiland, Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug Court, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993 (NCJ 145302). ------------------------------ The Drug Courts Program The Crime Act (Title V) makes funds available to States and local jurisdictions to establish programs that involve judicial supervision of nonviolent offenders who have substance abuse problems and the potential for rehabilitation. The criminal justice system often fails to impose the sanctions and offer the services necessary to change these offenders' deviant behavior, and as a result, many of them repeatedly cycle through the courts, corrections, and probation systems. More than 100 jurisdictions throughout the country have responded by creating innovative programs known as "drug courts," specially designed court calendars or dockets that combine judicial supervision with treatment services, drug testing, sanctions, and incentives. The drug courts being established (or improved) under the Crime Act are intended to provide continuing judicial supervision, drug testing, treatment, and case management and aftercare. The grass roots "movement" that gave rise to this innovation holds the promise not only of reducing criminal activity, including substance abuse, but also of relieving pressure on correctional facilities by freeing up space for more serious, felony drug offenders, whose cases have inundated the courts. The program is administered by the Drug Courts Program Office, within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. It was established to assist in developing and implementing effective drug court programs, improve services in those already in existence, and provide training technical assistance to plan, create, and improve them. In 1995, 52 planning grants were awarded, implementation grants were awarded to 5 jurisdictions, and 7 sites that currently have drug court programs were awarded funds to improve them. In 1996, 9 implementation grants and 7 improvement grants were awarded. Drug courts funded under the program must meet the following criteria: o Target nonviolent substance-abusing offenders. o Provide early, continuing, judicial supervision. o Involve mandatory periodic drug testing during any period of supervised release or probation. o Provide substance abuse treatment for each participant. o Include the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration in cases of noncompliance or unsatisfactory progress. o Provide strong aftercare services, such as relapse prevention, health care, education, vocational training, and job placement. ------------------------------ Chapter 6. Science and Technology Both the Crime Act and the Act as amended in 1996 (through the Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-134) make funds available for the development of technologies to support law enforcement at the State and local levels. Technology research and development for community policing was authorized in 1994 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in "reorienting the emphasis of their activities from reacting to crime to prevention of crime." This research and development is being sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The Crime Act also provides funds (under Title XXI, the DNA Identification Act) to support the improvement and expansion of State and local forensics laboratories to perform DNA testing, and specifically authorizes NIJ to determine the feasibility of performing blind external DNA testing in public and private laboratories. The 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act allocates to technology development 1 percent of the funding for law enforcement under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. The section of the law titled "Technology Assistance" specifies that "the Attorney General shall reserve 1 percent (of the Crime Act funds) in each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998 of the amount authorized to be appropriated for use by NIJ in assisting local units [of government] to identify, select, develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement." That funding amounts to $12 million. NIJ's Record of Research and Development for Law Enforcement Technology NIJ has pioneered many of the advances in science and technology that help deter, identify, and apprehend offenders and that ensure access by criminal justice professionals to the tools and equipment they need to perform their jobs more efficiently. For example, the development of effective body armor, under NIJ sponsorship, has been credited with saving the lives of hundreds of police officers. The Institute's work in testing products and setting voluntary industry performance standards for criminal justice equipment has helped criminal justice professionals make informed decisions about equipment purchases. Although much of NIJ's early technology development was directed to the needs of law enforcement, it has since expanded to include corrections, courts, and the entire criminal justice system. By charter under the founding legislation, the focus of this work is in support of State and local needs. Over the past few years, NIJ's science and technology program has grown significantly. NIJ is developing a range of technologies that will have direct relevance to law enforcement, such as devices that will stop fleeing vehicles or that offer a broader range of alternatives to conventional use-of-force methods for arresting a resisting suspect. Other technology development areas include: o Officer protection and safety. o Noninvasive drug testing. o Electronic monitoring of personnel and vehicle movements. o Information technology and data base integration. o Crime mapping. o Judicial processing, court proceedings, and corrections monitoring. o Situational awareness and crime prevention applications and technologies. o Simulation and modeling technology for training and operations. o Concealed weapons and contraband detection, and explosives detection. o Telemedicine for corrections. Establishment of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system,[1] with its four regional centers and a Border Research and Technology Center, has made NIJ developments in technology more accessible to the field. In the forensic sciences, NIJ has contributed to the development of DNA testing technologies and DNA testing performance standards, the implementation and expansion of DNA data bases, and the certification of forensic science personnel. Forensic research has also included the development of a portable device for lifting fingerprints and better reagents for making them visible, entomological analysis for identifying time of death, and tools to speed the identification of cyanide and carbon monoxide in poisoning cases. Projects currently under way include the development of model death investigation procedures, creation of a data base of linguistic methods to enhance the ability to identify authors of documents, and investigation of means to determine guilt or innocence by analyzing gunshot residue. In partnership with the Department of Defense (DOD), NIJ is sharing, transferring, and developing technologies that apply to both law enforcement and military operations. Chief among these technologies are less-than-lethal weapons, explosive detections, voice identification, information systems, and telemedicine. In collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), NIJ and DOD have been developing noninvasive technologies for detecting weapons concealed under clothing. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda In developing the research agenda in support of technology for community policing under the Crime Act, NIJ worked with the COPS Office and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council. Early in 1996, NIJ and COPS convened a conference at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government to examine the role of technology in community policing. This strategy session would provide NIJ with information relevant to the preparation of a solicitation for proposals to develop community oriented policing technologies and would help in selecting recipients of the $4 million in funding. An indepth strategy was also developed by NIJ to guide implementation of the 1-percent technology assistance funding provision under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. Addressing near-term, midterm, and long-term technology needs, this strategy enlisted the other NIJ offices--the Office of Research and Evaluation and the Office of Development and Dissemination--to work with the Office of Science and Technology to carry out the research, development, testing, and evaluation mandates of that provision. NIJ's strategy for DNA improvement was developed in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI provided additional funding and part-time personnel in 1996 to help NIJ begin the first year of the 5-year, $40 million DNA laboratory improvement program. The FBI also collaborated with NIJ in developing and distributing solicitations for proposals for DNA laboratory improvements and assisted in reviewing the proposals submitted. Research Now Under Way Technology to support community policing. To promote the development of new and innovative technologies in support of community oriented policing, NIJ made 15 awards, using $4 million of the $6 million provided by the COPS Office. Because the intent of Congress was to advance technology beyond the current state of the art, funding was not available to purchase products now on the market. The technologies are being developed by industry and national laboratories in partnership with law enforcement agencies. The goal is to increase information flow and redeployment and effect other changes that enhance community policing. The categories considered for awards were: o Technologies that improve partnership and communication between the police and the community. o Problem-solving technology approaches to reducing crime and fear. o Technology to support beat officers. o Crime analysis and response. o Organizational change and creative solutions to community policing problems. Among the projects funded were: o Demonstrations of concealed weapons detection systems. o Community and law enforcement agency computer networking. o Real-time data base access and input by patrol officers. o Crime analysis software tools. Of the $6 million in COPS funding, $1.5 million was used to develop: o Portable voice command translation technology. o Electronic monitoring technology to reduce domestic violence. o Examination of the feasibility of remote vehicle disabling technology. The remaining $0.5 million was used by NIJ to provide the policing community with information about how technology can enhance community policing. This took the form of a series of conferences held in 1996 in five regions of the country. Conference panels featured noted law enforcement professionals who shared innovative approaches to using technology for strengthening partnerships with the community and for developing problem-solving strategies to reduce crime. Individual panel sessions were held on global positioning systems, concealed weapons detection, the criminal use of technology, and liability issues related to technology. Several relevant technologies were demonstrated by industry.[2] One-percent set-aside for local law enforcement technology. NIJ is using the 1-percent set-aside for local law enforcement technology (amounting to $20 million in Fiscal Year 1996) to develop a multifaceted initiative. The core funding of this new initiative supports the development of selected technologies intended to advance law enforcement capabilities. The projects were chosen from the proposals submitted in response to NIJ's solicitation and were competitively selected. The remaining funds are being used to sponsor promising technology projects from proposals previously submitted and approved, to provide follow-on funding of critical technologies already under development, to test and evaluate existing technologies, and to provide direct technical assistance. NIJ is also funding studies that will examine the technology acquisition process from the perspective of local law enforcement agencies, large and small, that apply these advances. Grant purposes. The grants awarded by NIJ with the 1996 congressional appropriation for law enforcement technology will be made to: o Improve the variety of technology options available to law enforcement, the courts, and corrections on a day-to-day basis. o Increase the ability of police to solve problems innovatively. o Develop technologies that may serve as workforce multipliers and free up agency resources to permit their fullest use. o Promote the flow and use of information within and outside an agency. o Improve the responsiveness of the agencies in enhancing the quality of life of the communities they serve. A solicitation for proposals to develop, implement, and evaluate technology for law enforcement, courts, and corrections, which was issued by NIJ and used $10 million in funding, covered the following categories: o General technology "purpose areas." These technologies address solutions to identified current needs of law enforcement, courts, and corrections. They encompass less-than-lethal weapons, officer protection and safety, situational awareness and crime prevention, forensic sciences (including DNA testing), and simulation and modeling technology for training and operational use. o Special technology development and demonstration projects. These high-priority areas, identified for accelerated, near-term realization, include information technology and data base integration assessment and adoption; concealed weapons detection; vehicle-stopping technology; noninvasive drug testing; crime mapping; electronic monitoring; and improved judicial processing, court proceedings, and corrections monitoring. o Behavioral and organizational impacts of technological advances. Projects include early identification and overcoming of barriers to technology adoption and modernization, adoption processes for existing technologies not currently in use, development of ways to identify new technologies that respond to emerging social and demographic needs, and ways to increase the capacity of criminal justice to use technology innovatively. o Creative technology solutions. Projects address the development of innovative technologies to benefit law enforcement, courts, and corrections not included in the first three categories. Thus far, more than 30 projects have been approved or awards made in all 4 of the above categories. Specific project areas include concealed weapons detection, information technologies, forensics, crime mapping technologies, surveillance and monitoring, "smart gun" development and demonstration, and studies of the behavioral and organizational impact of technology research. Other technology development activities. Part of the remaining technology development appropriation was used by NIJ for a number of other purposes, among them: o Making NIJ's technology center system, comprising the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), the regional centers, and the Border Research and Technology Center more accessible and responsive to State and local users. o Enhancing the development of law enforcement standards by the NIJ-funded Office of Law Enforcement Standards, within the National Institute of Standards and Technology. o Supporting NIJ's new Crime Mapping Research Center. (Details are presented in chapter 2.) o Maintaining and upgrading the home page of NIJ's online resource for technology information, the Justice Information Network (JUSTNET). o Providing planning and program development support for less-than-lethal technology assessment and surplus property distribution and facilitating domestic and international partnerships in areas related to technology. o Providing general test support and health hazard assessments of concepts, technologies, and products for law enforcement agencies. o Conducting a law enforcement technology needs assessment. Forensics research. In response to the solicitation, NIJ received 45 applications requesting more than $19 million for forensic science. Of these, 10 were selected to receive approximately $3 million in funding. Projects funded covered a wide range of topics, including development of a fluorescence imaging capability for crime scene investigation; a computer program of entomological evidence for determining time of death; a microchip, fully integrated DNA testing system; rapid DNA typing using laser dispersion mass spectrometry; microchip capability to perform DNA extraction and purification of biological samples; and technologies for identifying various trace evidence samples. The future of DNA and its implications for criminal justice were the topic of a conference held by NIJ to bring together members of the forensic science community who are familiar with the current demands being made on public and private forensic DNA laboratories. Participants at the conference, held in June 1996, also included representatives of law enforcement, prosecution, the defense bar, and the judiciary. They discussed technologies now emerging that could rapidly and cost-effectively improve DNA testing to meet current needs. Joining with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIJ awarded a grant to a group of medicolegal professionals to develop recommended guidelines for death investigations and for training death investigators. A National Medicolegal Review Panel was also formed, comprising representatives of the National Association of Medical Examiners, International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners, American Medical Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Sheriffs' Association, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, College of American Pathology, and the National Mayors Association and National Governors Association. A report of panel findings and recommendations will be published. Improving DNA Forensics Laboratories The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Title XXI, Subtitle C of the Crime Act) makes Federal funds available to improve the quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement identification purposes. The aim is to increase the capabilities of State and local forensic laboratories to conduct state-of-the-art DNA testing to support investigation and prosecution of violent crime. In collaboration with the FBI, NIJ developed and issued in September 1995 a solicitation for proposals for these laboratory improvement projects. Of the $8.75 million in funding available, $8 million was provided by the FBI from its funds for the Combined DNA Identification System (CODIS). From the 46 applications received, 37 grants totaling $8.75 million were made to States or units of local government. The Act also requires that NIJ develop a proficiency testing program for DNA analysis that will be available to public and private laboratories conducting forensic DNA testing. NIJ awarded a $250,000 grant to the University of Illinois to investigate the feasibility and practicality of this type of testing. Note 1. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), a program of the National Institute of Justice, assists in identifying technology and research needs, identifies and evaluates available technologies, facilitates partnerships among private and public organizations to develop new technologies, demonstrates these technologies, and helps find new ways to leverage limited law enforcement resources and funding. NLECTC also conducts commercialization and standards-setting activities. 2. See Technology for Community Policing: Conference Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1997. NCJ 163601. ------------------------------ Chapter 7. Other NIJ Crime Act Research Assessing the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants To help further reduce crime and improve public safety, Congress amended the Crime Act in 1996 to make funds available for block grants to State and local governments (through the Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104- 134). The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) within the Office of Justice Programs, makes these funds available for the following purposes: o Hiring, training, and employing additional law enforcement officers and support staff. o Enhancing security measures in and around schools or other areas at special risk for crime. o Establishing or supporting drug courts. o Enhancing the adjudication of cases involving violent offenders. o Establishing multijurisdictional task forces on crime, particularly in rural areas. o Establishing cooperative crime prevention programs. o Defraying the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers. Local jurisdictions are the primary recipients. As of midyear 1996, BJA had distributed grants to 3,000 of them and to all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Using funds from BJA, NIJ will sponsor a national evaluation of program activities conducted with grants made in 1996 to States and local governments. The evaluation will consist of: o Analysis of the utilization of funds by units of local and State governments. o Analysis of decisionmaking models used by jurisdictions to allocate funds. o Development of methods to define and identify innovations, implementation of a "scanning" process to identify the innovations, and a process evaluation of a selected number of them. o Assessment of BJA's allocation and distribution processes for the program. The award to conduct the evaluation, in the amount of $750,000, was made to the COSMOS Corporation. Determining the Effects of the Assault Weapons Ban One of the best known provisions of the Crime Act is its prohibition against the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. Several categories of military-style weapons, assault weapons with specific combat features, and "copycat" models are covered, as are large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices. The ban is a tool to deter the proliferation of combat-style firearms that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. While these weapons constitute only 1 percent of privately owned firearms in this country, they account for 8 percent of the firearms traced to crime--a disproportionately high number, which has been rising in recent years. Moreover, every year these weapons kill police officers. Since the effective date of the Crime Act, this provision (Title XI) has begun to generate criminal prosecutions. NIJ awarded the Urban Institute a $149,643 grant to conduct the statutorily mandated study of the effects of the ban, including its impact on drug trafficking and violent crime. (See Appendix A, Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.) One measure of the effects were requests made by law enforcement agencies to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) for traces of guns associated with crime. Using that measure, the researchers found: o Criminal use of assault weapons fell 20 percent between 1994 and 1995. This figure is 8 percent more than the nationwide decrease in gun murders and 9 percent more than the overall decrease in trace requests made of BATF in the same period. o Nationwide decreases in trace requests related to violent and drug crimes were at least as great as decreases in criminal use of guns overall (although those categories contained small numbers). o The best estimate of the short-term effect on gun murders is that the ban caused a 6.7 percent reduction in 1995. However, with only 1 year of data, the statistical possibility that there was no effect cannot be ruled out. The congressionally mandated schedule for the study limited the findings to short-term effects, which are not necessarily a reliable guide to effects taking place over the long term.1 Note 1. Roth, Jeffrey A., and Christopher S. Koper, Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, February 19, 1997 (final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, grant #95-IJ-CX-0111). Appendix A Appendix B Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning Contents Strategic Planning for Research on Community Policing Strategic Planning for COPS Technology Strategic Planning for Data Collection on Police Use of Force Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections (Public Interest Group Roundtable) Strategic Planning for Research on Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Strategic Planning for Research on Boot Camps Strategic Planning for Research on Violence Against Women Strategic Planning for Research on Drug Courts Strategic Planning for Research on Community Policing Developing a Police Research and Evaluation Agenda Washington, D.C., December 14, 1994 Commissioned Papers Presented Goldstein, Herman, "Concepts for Building a Policing Research and Evaluation Agenda." Moore, Mark H., "Developing a 5-Year Police Research and Evaluation Plan." Sherman, Lawrence W., "Community Policing Research and Evaluation." Skolnick, Jerome H. "Basic Research on Policing." Smith, Michael, "`National Evaluation' of the Crime Act: The Responsible Thing To Do?" Participants Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice University of South Carolina David H. Bayley, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice State University of New York at Albany William A. Geller, J.D. Associate Director and Director, Midwest Office Police Executive Research Forum Herman Goldstein, M.G.A. School of Law University of Wisconsin Jack R. Greene, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice Temple University Donna L. Hansen Chief of Police Fort Myers (Florida) Police Department Clarence Harmon, Jr. Chief of Police St. Louis Police Department Frank X. Hartmann Executive Director and Senior Research Fellow Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University George L. Kelling, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice Northeastern University Stephen D. Mastrofski, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Mark H. Moore, Ph.D. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph.D. President Crime Control Institute Wesley G. Skogan, Ph.D. Department of Political Science and Urban Affairs Northwestern University Jerome K. Skolnick, Ph.D. Center for the Study of Law and Society University of California Michael E. Smith President Vera Institute Darrell W. Stephens Chief of Police St. Petersburg Police Department John R. Schmidt Associate Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Strategic Planning for COPS Technology Technology Pathways to Community Policing John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 30, 1996 Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice Sessions The Trajectory of Community Policing: The Future 5 Years Out." "The Problems of Community Policing: Constraints on Development." "The Technology Revolution and Its Implications for Government and Policing." "Bringing the Paths Together: Technology Opportunities To Advance Community Policing." "The Federal Opportunity: Making the Valuable Investment." Participants Carl Baker Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Commonwealth of Virginia Joseph Brann Director Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice John Cohen Director Judicial and Criminal Justice Markets AT&T Edward Connors President Institute for Law and Justice George Crawley Assistant City Manager City of Norfolk, Virginia Sergeant John Daley Youth Services Dorchester (Massachusetts) Police Department Edward Flynn Chief of Police Chelsea, Massachusetts Kimberly Glenn Director Information Systems Division San Diego Police Department Francis X. Hartmann Executive Director Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University George R. Havens Deputy Director U.S. Marshals Service U.S. Department of Justice Arnold M. Howitt Executive Director Taubman Center for State and Local Government Kennedy School of Government Harvard University David Kennedy Research Fellow Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Professor Mark A.R. Kleiman Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Harlin McEwen Deputy Assistant Director Criminal Justice Information Services Division Federal Bureau of Investigation Jerry Mechling Director Program in Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector Harvard University Rick Neimiller Product Line Manager National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center Jerry Sanders Chief of Police San Diego, California Larry J. Singer Executive Director Government Solutions Texas Instruments Professor Malcolm Sparrow Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Christopher Stone Director Vera Institute of Justice Patrick Sullivan, Jr. Sheriff Arapahoe County (Colorado) Police Department Zachary Tumin Research Affiliate Program in Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector Harvard University James Wise Senior Technical Consultant Burkhalter Associates, Inc. William Zeiner Technical Director Criminal Justice Information Systems Division MITRE Corporation Strategic Planning for Data Collection on Police Use of Force Police Use of Force Workshop Washington, D.C., May 1995 Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Participants Yoshio Akiyama Uniform Crime Reporting Program Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice University of South Carolina Tom Arnold Deputy Director Metro-Dade (Miami) Police Department Ronald Banks Assistant Chief Los Angeles Police Department John L. Buchanan Captain Phoenix Police Department Jan M. Chaiken Director Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Bennie Clark Chief of Police Dallas Police Department Jay Cochran, Jr. Executive Director Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police Dora Falls Lieutenant Dallas Police Department John R. Firman Director of Research International Association of Chiefs of Police Lorie Fridell Assistant Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University James J. Fyfe Professor Department of Criminal Justice Temple University Joel Garner, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Rutgers University William A. Geller Associate Director Police Executive Research Forum Jack Greene Professor Department of Criminal Justice Temple University Edwin E. Hamilton Research Analyst Police Foundation Ira Harris Executive Director National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives William Johnson General Counsel National Association of Police Organizations William Matthews Deputy Director--Administration Police Foundation Dennis E. Nowicki Chief of Police Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department Antony M. Pate Assistant Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University James W. Powers Chief of Police Fredericksburg (Virginia) Police Department Elsie L. Scott Deputy Commissioner of Training Police Academy New York City Police Department Michael E. Smith President Vera Institute of Justice, Inc. Hector Soto Executive Director New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Ronald Sylve Lieutenant Seattle Police Department Peggy Triplett Chief Executive Officer Triplett Associates Public Administration Service Larry Vardell Chief of Police Williamsburg Police Department Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections Sentencing and Corrections Workshop Washington, D.C., February 14-15, 1996 Sponsors: National Institute of Justice and Corrections Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice Commissioned Papers Presented Clear, Todd R., "The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration." Dickey, Walter J., "Managing Change in Correctional Institutions." Greenwood, Peter, "Measuring Sentencing Impacts Using Extant Data." Jacobson, Michael P., "Managing Correctional Change in Community Corrections." MacKenzie, Doris Layton, "Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments." Tonry, Michael, "Sentencing and Corrections Research." Participants Stephen Amos Deputy Director Corrections Program Office U.S. Department of Justice James Austin Executive Vice President National Council on Crime and Delinquency Robert E. Coleville District Attorney 5th Judicial District Pittsburgh Walter J. Dickey School of Law University of Wisconsin Tony Fabelo Executive Director Criminal Justice Policy Council John Feinblatt, Director Midtown Community Court (Manhattan) Jon Felde General Counsel National Conference of State Legislatures Gerry Gaes, Chief Office of Research Federal Bureau of Prisons John Goerdt Senior Researcher National Center for State Courts Peter W. Greenwood, Director Criminal Justice Program The RAND Corporation Norman Helber Chief Probation Officer Maricopa County (Phoenix) Adult Probation Michael Jacobson Acting Commissioner New York Department of Corrections Susan Katzenelson, Director Policy Analysis Department U.S. Sentencing Commission John J. Larivee Executive Director Crime and Justice Foundation President International Community Corrections Association Joseph Lehman, Commissioner Maine Department of Corrections Robin Lubitz, Chairman National Association of Sentencing Commissions Executive Director North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland Larry Meachum, Director Corrections Program Office U.S. Department of Justice Phyllis D. Modley Correctional Program Specialist National Institute of Corrections U.S. Department of Justice Merry A. Morash, Director School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Phyllis J. Newton Staff Director U.S. Sentencing Commission Chase Rivland, Secretary Washington State Department of Corrections Dora Schriro, Director Missouri Department of Corrections Michael E. Smith School of Law University of Wisconsin Michael Tonry School of Law University of Minnesota Reginald Wilkinson, Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections Public Interest Group Roundtable Discussion on Sentencing Policy and Its Impact Washington, D.C., April 17, 1996 Participants Sharon Anderson Policy Manager National League of Cities Patrick Avalos City Councilman Pueblo, Colorado Eric Brenner Director of Executive Management Council of Governors' Policy Advisors Devon Brown, Director Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Corrections Hon. Neil Brown Oregon State Senate Anthony W. Crowell Municipal Law and Policy Analyst International City/County Management Association Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts Lisa Doyle Moran Assistant Director for Legal Affairs National Criminal Justice Association Jon R. Felde General Counsel and Senior Committee Director National Conference of State Legislatures Russell E. Hamill Senior Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Office of the County Executive Montgomery County (Maryland) Gwen A. Holden Executive Vice President National Criminal Justice Association Nolan E. Jones, Ph.D. Group Director Human Resources Group National Governors' Association Zee B. Lamb, Chairman Board of Commissioners Pasquotank County, North Carolina Patrick M. Meacham Senior Staff Associate National Criminal Justice Association Larry Meachum, Director Corrections Program Office U.S. Department of Justice Heidi Munger Senior Staff Associate National Association of State Budget Officers Patrick Murphy, Director Policy Board U.S. Conference of Mayors Donald Murray Associate Legislative Director National Association of Counties Edward O'Connell Senior Counsel National Center for State Courts Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Hon. Jeffrey Rosinek Judge 11th Judicial Circuit Dade County (Florida) Todd Shapiro Senior Policy Analyst for Criminal Justice Programs Council of State Governments Daniel T. Vindigni Assistant Town Manager Enfield, Connecticut Ferris Wharton Chief Prosecutor Delaware Department of Justice William R. Woodward, Director Division of Criminal Justice Colorado Department of Public Safety Strategic Planning for Research on Residential Substance Abuse Treatment NIJ developed its strategy for research in conjunction with the Corrections Program Office (Office of Justice Programs), which administers the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for the State Prisoners Formula Grant Program. Executive Forums Sponsored by the Corrections Program Office Strategic Planning for Research on Boot Camps Strategic Planning Meeting on Boot Camps Washington, D.C., January 13, 1995 Paper Presented Castellano, Thomas C., Ph.D., "An Action Research Agenda and Strategy for Correctional Boot Camps." Participants Thomas Albrecht, Director Corrections Branch Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice David W. Aziz New York State Department of Correctional Services Marlene D. Beckman Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Jean Bottcher Research Specialist California Youth Authority Elizabeth S. Cass Management Review Specialist Bureau of Data and Research Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D. Visiting Fellow National Institute of Justice Cheryl L. Clark, Director Shock Incarceration New York State Department of Correctional Services Ernest L. Cowles, Director Center for Legal Studies Sangamon State University Roberta C. Cronin Principal Research Scientist American Institutes for Research Michael DeGasperin Probation Assistant Division Director Twin Pines Ranch Boot Camp Robert A. Gangi Executive Director Correctional Association of New York Thomas J. Herzog Assistant to the Director of Operations New York State Division of Parole Arnold J. Hopkins Social Science Program Specialist Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice James B. Howell, Director National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice Robert J. Jones Research Scientist Planning and Research Unit Illinois Department of Corrections Carole Knapel Capitola, California Katherine A. Lewis Research Associate Criminal Justice Associates Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D. Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Maryland James W. Marquart Criminal Justice Center Sam Houston State University Larry R. Meachum Former Commissioner of Corrections State of Connecticut Merry A. Morash School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Dale G. Parent, Associate Abt Associates Inc. George E. Sexton, President Criminal Justice Associates Michael D. Shively Deputy Director of Research Massachusetts Department of Corrections Larry Solomon Deputy Director National Institute of Corrections U.S. Department of Justice William K. Wilkey Chief of International Programs National Institute of Corrections U.S. Department of Justice Strategic Planning for Research on Violence Against Women Violence Against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop Washington, D.C., March 31, 1995 Sponsors: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Commissioned Papers Presented Edleson, Jeffrey L., "Mothers and Children: Understanding the Links Between Woman Battering and Child Abuse." Ford, David A., "Responses to the Victim: Research Directions for Improving Responses." Ghez, Marissa, "Communications and Public Education: Effective Tools To Promote a Cultural Change on Domestic Violence." Goldolf, Edward W., "Batterer Intervention: What We Know and Need to Know." Hart, Barbara J., "Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence." Participants Susan Blumenthal Department Assistant Secretary for Health Office of Women's Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Bonnie Campbell Director Violence Against Women Office U.S. Department of Justice Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D., R.N. The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing Peter Edelman Counselor to the Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Jeffrey Edleson, Ph.D. School of Social Work University of Minnesota Director, Evaluation and Research Domestic Abuse Project, Minneapolis Donna Edwards President, Board of Directors D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence David Ford, Ph.D. Department of Sociology Indiana University Lucy Friedman, Ph.D. Executive Director Victim Services Agency Donna Garske Executive Director Transforming Communities Marissa E. Ghez, M.A. Communications Director Family Violence Prevention Fund Edward Gondolf, Ed.D. Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute Indiana University of Pennsylvania Clarence Harmon Chief of Police St. Louis Police Department Adele Harrell, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate The Urban Institute Barbara Hart Associate Director Battered Women's Justice Project Francis X. Hartmann Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Hon. Robert Keating Judge Supreme Court, Second Judicial District New York Professor Patricia King Georgetown University Law School Ethel Klein, Ph.D., President EDK Associates Ralph Martin, II District Attorney Suffolk County (Boston), Massachusetts Ada Pecos Melton Indian Desk Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P. Director National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Kathy Schwartz Administrator Violence Against Women Grants Office U.S. Department of Justice Evan Stark, Ph.D., Director Domestic Violence Training Project Murray Straus, Ph.D. Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire Deborah Tucker Executive Director Texas Council on Family Violence Strategic Planning for Research on Drug Courts NIJ Drug Court Strategic Planning Workshop Washington, D.C., March 22, 1995 Commissioned Papers Presented Anglin, Douglas, "Evaluation of Coerced Treatment." Goldkamp, John, "Overall Evaluation Issues for Drug Courts." Judge, Michael, "Public Defenders' Evaluation Needs." McCaskill, Claire, "Prosecutors' Evaluation Needs." Swartz, James, "Treatment Practitioners' Evaluation Needs." Participants Steve Belenko Senior Research Fellow New York City Criminal Justice Agency Belinda Biscoe, Ph.D. Eagle Ridge Institute Edward Brekke The Administratively Unified Courts of Los Angeles John Carver Washington, D.C., Pretrial Services John Feinblatt Midtown Manhattan Community Court John Goldkamp, President Crime and Justice Research Institute Adele Harrell The Urban Institute Hon. Harl Hass Judge Circuit Court of Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) Douglas McDonald Abt Associates Inc. Michael Judge Public Defender's Office Los Angeles Douglas Lipton, Ph.D. National Development and Research Institutes Robert May Executive Director National Consortium of TASC Programs Janice Munsterman State Justice Institute Timothy Murray Acting Director Drug Courts Program Office U.S. Department of Justice Barbara Pease Residential and Outpatient Treatment Manager Arapahoe House (Colorado) Hon. Lee Satterfield Judge Washington, D.C., Superior Court James Swartz TASC [Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime], Inc. Hon. Henry Weber Judge Jefferson District Court (Louisville, Kentucky) Appendix C Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice Under the Crime Act 1995-1996 1995 Awards[1] Community Policing 95-IJ-CX-0042 Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Family Group Conferencing Project Community Service Foundation, Inc. Theodore Wachtel $246,551 95-IJ-CX-0092 Citizen Involvement in Community Policing Institute for Social Analysis Royer F. Cook $233,508 95-IJ-CX-0079 Collaboration Between Abt Associates and the Hartford Police Department Abt Associates Inc. Joan Mullen $124,790 95-IJ-CX-0074 Community Policing Activities: Ohio Task Analysis Project University of Cincinnati--Office of Sponsored Programs Lawrence F. Travis $33,779 95-IJ-CX-0071 Community Policing at the Street Level Michigan State University Stephen D. Mastrofski $1,969,701 95-IJ-CX-0067 Consent To Search and Seize University of Missouri--St. Louis Scott H. Decker $326,554 95-IJ-CX-0085 Development of the Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition (FLERC) Florida State University (FSU) Robert M. Johnson $112,589 95-IJ-CX-0055 Educating the Public About Police: The Lima Public Service Announcement Project University of Cincinnati--Office of Sponsored Programs Mitchell Chamlin $44,518 95-IJ-CX-0052 Enhancing Dissemination of Technological Innovation Indiana University--Bloomington Alexander Weiss $47,212 95-IJ-CX-0041 Evaluating Community Policing in Public Housing Temple University Jack R. Greene $351,491 95-IJ-CX-0090 Evaluation of Community Policing in Tempe, Arizona Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. J. Thomas McEwen $249,098 ------------------------------ 1. A list of the Crime Act awards made by NIJ in 1995, with descriptions of the projects, is appended to NIJ's annual report for that year: Research on Crime and Justice: National Institute of Justice Year in Review, 1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1996, NCJ order #162042). A list of the Crime Act awards made by NIJ in 1996, with descriptions, is in the publication NIJ Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ order #165700). A list of Crime Act awards in science and technology made in 1996, with descriptions, is in the publication NIJ Science and Technology Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ order #165586). A list of NIJ awards other than those made under the Crime Act is in the publication NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ order #165701). ------------------------------ 95-IJ-CX-0068 An Evaluation of Community Policing in Two Medium-Sized Cities University of Illinois--Chicago Dennis P. Rosenbaum $675,554 95-IJ-CX-0070 An Evaluation of the Dallas Police Department's Interactive Community Policing Program University of Texas--Arlington Charles H. Mindel $254,671 95-IJ-CX-0078 Everyday Perceptions of Disorder, Self-Protection Against Crime, and Community Policing Regents of the University of California--Los Angeles Jack Katz $246,765 95-IJ-CX-0091 Examining the Transformation to Community Policing: Organizational Development Characteristics and Issues Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. Edward F. Connors $263,764 95-IJ-CX-0101 Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational Evaluations University of South Carolina Geoffrey P. Alpert $199,975 95-IJ-CX-0050 Fighting Disorder Within the Law American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities Roger L. Conner $152,647 95-IJ-CX-0065 Integrating Community Policing Into the San Diego Regional Law Enforcement Training Center Curriculum San Diego Police Department Donna Warlick $249,130 95-IJ-CX-0061 Joint Police and Social Services Response to Abused Elders Victim Services Robert Davis $270,340 95-IJ-CX-0059 Organizational Change and Leadership: Conditions and Strategies for Creating a Culture of Community Policing President and Fellows of Harvard Mark Moore $296,978 95-IJ-CX-0056 Partners for Prevention? Obstacles to Police-Community Cooperation in Problem Solving Northwestern University Wesley G. Skogan $338,429 95-IJ-CX-0075 Policing Local Illicit Gun Markets Carnegie Mellon University Jacqueline Cohen $220,416 95-IJ-CX-0086 Policing on American Indian Reservations President and Fellows of Harvard Francis Hartmann $335,252 95-IJ-CX-0073 Process Evaluation of Title I of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 The Urban Institute Jeffrey A. Roth $2,449,416 95-IJ-CX-0111 Process Evaluation of Title XI of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 The Urban Institute Jeffrey A. Roth $149,643 95-IJ-CX-0064 Scanning for Innovation National League of Cities Institute Renee Winsky $273,451 95-IJ-CX-0044 Stage Model of Community Policing Seattle Police Department Dan W. Fleissner $100,291 95-IJ-CX-0097 Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence: Assessment, Review, and Recommendation Seattle Police Department Dan W. Fleissner $108,972 95-IJ-CX-0087 The Two-Stage Model of Change: Madison Police Department Police Executive Research Forum Mary Ann Wycoff $391,464 95-IJ-CX-0082 Using Technology To Enhance Police Problem Solving Board of Trustees of University of Illinois-- Champaign John Gardiner $196,392 Locally Initiated Research Partnerships 95-IJ-CX-0081 Building Effective Strategies for Community Policing State University of New York--Sponsored Programs Administration Raymond Hunt $110,008 95-IJ-CX-0046 Collaboration Between the Oakland Police Department and the University of California Regents of the University of California--Berkeley Jerome Skolnick $188,622 95-IJ-CX-0049 Community Policing in El Centro, California: Strengthening Police-Citizen Cooperation in a Bilingual, Multicultural Community City of El Centro Harold D. Carter $42,119 95-IJ-CX-0045 Council Grove, Kansas State University Law Enforcement Team Project Kansas State University Kay K. Cogley $30,000 95-IJ-CX-0077 Criminologists and Crime Control for the Indianapolis Police Department City of Indianapolis Donald Christ $75,281 95-IJ-CX-0083 Cross-Site Research on Locally Initiated Collaboration Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. J. Thomas McEwen $233,918 95-IJ-CX-0047 Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for Locally Initiated Police Research in Small and Medium-Sized Cities LINC Marcia R. Chaiken $199,721 95-IJ-CX-0053 DI-LEARN: Downstate Illinois Law Enforcement Research Network (Phase I) Southern Illinois University James Garofolo $72,857 95-IJ-CX-0057 Establishing a Research Partnership Between the Omaha Police Department and the University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nebraska--Omaha Vincent Webb $132,564 95-IJ-CX-0051 Evaluation of Community Policing Project Hagerstown Department of Police Dale J. Jones $42,180 95-IJ-CX-0085 Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition Florida State University Antony Pate $137,000 95-IJ-CX-0093 Forming a Research Partnership: Lansing Police Department and Michigan State University City of Lansing Richard Cook $49,992 95-IJ-CX-0060 Implementing Community Policing in Los Angeles: A Partnership Between the LAPD, UCLA, and USC Training Research Corporation Edward Smith $223,180 95-IJ-CX-0080 Increasing the Effectiveness of Rural Police Departments Alfred University William Hall $18,840 95-IJ-CX-0062 A Joint Research Partnership for Community-Oriented Policing St. Louis University James F. Gilsinan $146,616 95-IJ-CX-0076 Locally Initiated Research: Developing and Expanding Problem-Solving Partnerships in Jersey City Jersey City Police Department Frank Gajewski $129,000 95-IJ-CX-0103 Measuring and Analyzing Crime Patterns and Trends With the Geographic Information System (GIS) John Jay College of Criminal Justice--Research Foundation of the City University of New York (CUNY) John Mollenkopf $174,787 95-IJ-CX-0072 A Partnership for Research in Community Policing Strategies in a Rural County and Four Small Cities University of South Alabama Robert Galbraith $52,760 95-IJ-CX-0006 Police Researcher-Partnership: Building the Infrastructure for Effective Program Evaluation Justice Research and Statistics Association Kellie Dressler $99,542 95-IJ-CX-0043 Policing Evaluation Through Academic Research: Creating a Special Policing Analysis Network City of Colorado Springs Teresa Schultz $48,723 95-IJ-CX-0063 A Proposal To Integrate Objective Performance Evaluation Into Community Policing City of Boston James T. Jordan $127,474 95-IJ-CX-0048 A Research Partnership Between the Lexington Division of Police and Eastern Kentucky University Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government Larry Gaines $67,700 95-IJ-CX-0084 Temple University-Philadelphia Police Department Collaboration Temple University Jack R. Greene $50,688 95-IJ-CX-0097 Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence: Assessment, Review, and Recommendations City of Seattle Dan Fleissner $120,000 Sentencing and Corrections: Boot Camps[2] 96-SC-VX-0005 Boot Camps and Their Impact on Confinement Populations Abt Associates Inc. Dale G. Parent $275,000 96-SC-LX-0001 Correctional Boot Camps for Juveniles: A Proposal for a Multisite Study University of Maryland Doris MacKenzie $398,000 96-SC-VX-0003 Evaluation of Los Angeles County Juvenile Drug Treatment Boot Camp California State University, San Marcos Sheldon Zhang $179,000 96-SC-VX-0004 Evaluation of OJP FY 95 Boot Camp Planning Grants National Council on Crime and Delinquency Sandra Tunis $73,000 ------------------------------ 2. These awards used funds from 1995 but were awarded in 1996. ------------------------------ 96-SC-LX-0002 National Multisite Impact Evaluation of Private and Public Boot Camp Programs National Council on Crime and Delinquency James F. Austin $268,000 Violence Against Women 95-IJ-CX-0054 Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon, Experiment Portland State University Annette Jolin $199,994 95-WT-NX-0004 Evaluation of a Coordinated Response to Domestic Violence Applied Research Associates Stan Orchowsky $114,412 95-WT-NX-0002 An Exploration of the Experience and Needs of Former Intimate Stalking Victims West Chester University Mary P. Brewster $74,940 95-WT-NX-0001 Extent and Nature of Sexual Victimization of College Women University of Cincinnati Bonnie Fisher $224,719 95-IJ-R025 Family Violence and the Courts: Exploring Expert Testimony on Battered Women The Women Judges' Fund for Justice Esther Ochsman $18,791 95-WT-NX-0006 Models of Community Coordination in Response to Partner Violence State University of New York--Albany, Research Foundation Alissa Worden $104,289 95-WT-NX-0005 National Evaluation of the Violence Against Women Act Grants The Urban Institute Martha Burt $346,003 95-IJ-CX-0006 Panel on Research on Violence Against Women National Academy of Sciences Elaine Smialek $298,742 95-WT-NX-0003 Prosecution Strategies in Domestic Violence University of Iowa Carolyn Hartley $99,080 95-IJ-CX-0009 Public Access to Information Concerning the Whereabouts of Abuse Victims National Criminal Justice Association Gwen A. Holden $50,000 1996 Awards Community Policing 95-IJ-CX-0069 National Evaluation of the Youth Firearm Violence Initiative Abt Associates Inc. Marianne Beauregard $300,000 96-IJ-CX-0067 Orienting Overview on Broken Windows, Disorder, and Decline Temple University Ralph B. Taylor, NIJ Fellow $168,000 96-IJ-CX-0082 Police Response to Emotionally Disturbed Persons: Analyzing New Models of Police Interactions With the Mental Health System Policy Research Associates Henry J. Steadman $211,000 96-IJ-CX-0074 Reducing Disorder, Fear, and Crime in Public Housing: An Evaluation of an Advanced Stage Drug Crime Elimination Program Washington State University Quint Thurman $172,000 95-IJ-CX-0073 Supplemental Activities for the Process Evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act Urban Institute Alexandra Ferguson $360,000 Changing Roles of Police 96-IJ-CX-0045 Community Policing Strategies: First National Survey Update Macro International, Inc. Sampson O. Annan $286,000 96-IJ-CX-0081 Investigative Function in the Community Policing Context Police Executive Research Forum Mary Ann Wycoff $406,000 Evaluation and Problem Solving 94-IJ-CX-0046 Evaluation of Chicago's Citywide Community Policing Program Northwestern University Wesley G. Skogan $996,000 96-IJ-CX-0046 Evaluation of the Effects of Fatigue on Police Patrol Officers and Their Relations With the Community Police Executive Research Forum Dennis Jay Kenney $285,000 94-IJ-CX-0056 Firearms and Violence: Juveniles, Illicit Markets, and Fear Presidents and Fellows of Harvard Susan Michaelson $190,000 96-IJ-CX-0060 Impact of Community Policing Training and Implementation on Police Personnel Arizona State University Robin Haarr $94,000 Locally Initiated Research Partnerships 96-IJ-CX-0085 Ada County Sheriff's Office and Boise State University Boise State University John Crank $91,000 96-IJ-CX-0087 Alachua County Sheriff's Office Research Partnership With the University of Florida Alachua County Sheriff's Office Louise Grimm $36,000 95-IJ-CX-0084 Assessing Community Police Performance in Philadelphia Temple University Jack R. Greene $184,000 96-IJ-CX-0068 Creating a Culture of Community Policing: An Albuquerque Police Department-University of New Mexico Research Partnership University of New Mexico Lydia Salas $151,000 95-IJ-CX-0083 Cross-Site Research on Locally Initiated Collaborations Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. J. Thomas McEwen $296,000 95-IJ-CX-0047 Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for Locally Initiated Police Research in Small- and Medium-Size Cities LINC Marcia R. Chaiken $199,000 96-IJ-CX-0098 Domestic Violence Intervention Project East Bay Community Foundation Maria Theresa Viramontes $100,000 96-IJ-CX-0088 Establishing a Research Partnership: Forest Park, Ohio, Police Division and the University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati Lawrence Travis $46,000 96-IJ-CX-0072 Fast Track Program Study: Tracking Nonviolent Juvenile Criminal Offenders Bay City Police Department Penny Phelps $33,000 95-IJ-CX-0085 Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition Florida State University Antony Pate $137,000 95-IJ-CX-0093 Forming a Research Partnership: Lansing Police Department and Michigan State University City of Lansing Timothy S. Bynum $118,000 96-IJ-CX-0063 Impact of Charleston, West Virginia, Community Oriented Policing Marshall University Research Corporation Girmay Berhie $111,000 96-IJ-CX-0092 Indianapolis Management Accountability Program: A Collaboration Between the Indianapolis Police Department and Indiana University Indiana University, Bloomington Alexander Weiss $202,000 95-IJ-CX-0088 Locally Initiated Research on Community Policing Jefferson County, West Virginia, Coalition on Substance Abuse (FOCUS) Diane C. McCoy $61,000 95-IJ-CX-0076 Locally Initiated Research: Developing and Expanding Problem-Solving Partnerships in Jersey City Jersey City Police Department Frank Gajewski $129,000 96-IJ-CX-0070 Locally Initiated Research Partnership: Framingham, Massachusetts, Police Department and Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc. Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc. Robert Apsler $98,000 96-IJ-CX-0093 Meeting the Needs of Racine Citizens: Evaluation of a Community Policing Program University of Wisconsin, Parkside Helen Rosenberg $82,000 96-IJ-CX-0080 Partnership Against Crime: University of Maryland and Prince George's County Police Department University of Maryland Lawrence W. Sherman $78,000 96-IJ-CX-0044 Police-Academic Partnership for Evaluation and Research University of Virginia, Office of Sponsored Programs Janet Warren $129,000 96-IJ-CX-0086 Restructuring the Role of Police Sergeants by Identifying the Character Traits Associated With Success City of Baltimore Joseph R. Bolesta $195,000 95-IJ-CX-0097 Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence II: Testing of Lethality Scale To Predict Recidivism and Escalating Violence (grant continuation) City of Seattle Dan Fleissner $120,000 Measuring the Impact of Police 96-IJ-CX-0047 Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Clearance of Homicides Justice Research and Statistics Association Joan C. Weiss $270,000 96-IJ-CX-0042 Reducing Repeat Victimization of Residential Burglary Police Executive Research Forum John Stedman $443,000 Police and the Community 96-IJ-CX-0064 Assessing a Model of Police Community Collaboration Vera Institute of Justice, Inc. Douglas Young $74,000 96-IJ-CX-0073 Awareness and Perceptions of Community Policing in Immigrant Communities Victim Services, Inc. Rob Davis $244,000 96-IJ-CX-0069 Community Component of Community Policing in Los Angeles University of Southern California Cheryl Maxson $371,000 96-IJ-CX-0071 Determinants of Citizen and Police Involvement in Community Policing City of Boston Luis Garcia $172,000 96-IJ-CX-0078 Identifying Strategies To Market the Police in the News Indiana University, Bloomington Steven Chermak and Alex Weiss $133,000 95-IJ-CX-0064 Police and the Community: National League of Cities Search for Excellence in Community Policing National League of Cities Institute William B. Whiteside $249,000 96-IJ-CX-0075 Street-Level Policing in Cincinnati: The Content of Community and Traditional Policing and the Perceptions of Policing Audiences University of Cincinnati James Frank $235,000 Police Integrity 96-IJ-CX-A056 Development of Guidelines for Using Psychological Test Results To Help Combat Corruption in Law Enforcement Organization Defense Personnel Security Research Center Howard Timm $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0053 Identifying Correlates of Police Deviance: An Empirical Study of Police Corruption and Brutality in New York (1975-1996) Temple University Jack R. Greene $413,000 96-IJ-CX-0077 Perceptions of Police Accountability in Citizen Complaints Sam Houston State University Kenneth Adams $300,000 Law Enforcement Family Support Program 96-FS-VX-0001 Law Enforcement Family Support Police Research Education Project Robert Scully $146,000 96-FS-VX-0005 Law Enforcement Family Support Demonstration Project Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 Kevin McCarthy $180,000 96-FS-VX-0006 Law Enforcement Family Support Program Iowa State University Eugene Deisinger $170,000 96-FS-VX-0008 Law Enforcement Family Support Program Vermont Department of Public Safety Michael Sorenson $30,000 96-FS-VX-0002 Law Enforcement Family Support: Training Program for Reduction of Stress Among Law Enforcement Officers and Their Families New York Division of Criminal Justice Services Stephen M. Bernardi $25,000 96-FS-VX-0004 Police Chaplaincy: An Innovative Law Enforcement Stress Reduction Delivery System Arkansas State Police Jim Tudor $59,000 96-IJ-CX-0056 Stress Reduction Among Law Enforcement Officers and Families Exploratory Study City of Buffalo R. Gil Kerlikowski $97,000 96-FS-VX-0007 Stress Reduction Program for New York City Police Officers New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association Membership Assistance Program William Genet $130,000 96-FS-VX-0003 Stress Training for Officers and Partners Miami Police Department Gerald Darling $47,000 Sentencing and Corrections 96-CE-VX-0012 Collaborative Development of Individual Discharge Planning for Incarcerated Women University of Rhode Island Kathryn Quina $140,000 96-CE-VX-K001 Crime and Justice: Thematic Volume on Prisons Castine Research Corporation Michael Tonry $197,000 96-CE-VX-0008 Effect of Correctional Resources on the Sentencing of Male and Female Defendants in Minnesota Florida International University Lisa Stolzenberg $37,000 96-CE-VX-0005 Evaluation of the Development and Implementation of Virginia's Sentencing Law National Center for State Courts Brian Ostrom $114,000 96-CE-VX-0010 Evaluation of Florida's Residential Drug Treatment and Prison Diversion Program Richard L. Linster $112,000 96-CE-VX-0013 Evaluation of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Law Research Triangle Institute John W. Rintoul 96-CE-VX-0007 Forging a Florida Correctional Research Coalition Florida State University Gordon Waldo $174,000 96-CE-VX-0017 HIDTA Seamless System for Drug-Involved Offenders: A Randomized Multicenter Evaluation University of Maryland Faye S. Taxman $200,000 96-CE-VX-0011 Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing Reform in Massachusetts Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice Francis J. Carney $50,000 96-CE-VX-0001 Local Impact of Violent Offender and Truth-in- Sentencing Legislation: How Probation and Community Corrections Respond RAND Corporation Peter Greenwood $199,000 96-CE-VX-0018 Managing Felons in Los Angeles County RAND Corporation Joan Petersilia $188,000 96-CE-VX-0016 Multisite Evaluation of Second Generation Sentencing Commissions Abt Associates Inc. Marianne Beauregard $300,000 96-CE-VX-0004 Offender Outcomes Under North Carolina Criminal Justice Partnership Act Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Amy Craddock $225,000 96-CE-VX-0009 Study of Legislation and Impact of Two-Strikes Legislation National Council on Crime and Delinquency James F. Austin $97,000 96-CE-VX-0015 The Unintended Impacts of Sentencing Reforms and Incarceration on Family Structure University of Minnesota Samuel Myers $150,000 96-CE-VX-0006 Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing: National Evaluation of Implementation Experiences and Impact on Corrections RAND Corporation Susan Turner $600,000 96-CE-VX-0003 The Wisconsin Idea: Evaluation Partnership on Sentencing and Corrections Wisconsin Department of Corrections Michael E. Smith $102,000 Boot Camps See 1995 awards list. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 97-RT-VX-K004 Client Motivation in Therapeutic Community Treatment for Offenders University of Delaware Steven S. Martin $62,500 97-RT-VX-K007 Evaluation of Florida Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program Florida State University C. Aaron Neece $49,998 97-RT-VX-K003 An Evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse Program University of California at Los Angeles Michael Prendergast $39,292 97-RT-VX-K008 Evaluation of the Maxey Substance Abuse Treatment Program University of Michigan William C. Birdsall $49,022 97-RT-VX-K002 Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prison Inmates University of New Mexico Gary LaFree $50,000 97-RT-VX-K001 Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program University of Wisconsin D. Paul Moberg $49,285 97-RT-VX-K006 National Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. Douglas Lipton $449,960 97-RT-VX-K005 The Therapeutic Milieu in Treatment of Offenders: A Process and Outcome Evaluation in Maryland University of Maryland Faye Taxman $50,000 Violence Against Women 96-WT-NX-0005 Alcohol Problems and Violence Against Women University of Northern Iowa William R. Downs $92,000 96-WT-NX-0002 Data Collection and Communication: An Implementation Guide National Center for State Courts Susan Keilitz $145,000 96-IJ-CX-0057 Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Data Systems in States Justice Research and Statistics Association Stan Orchowsky $138,000 96-WT-NX-0008 Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic Violence Offenders: A Broward County Experiment Florida Atlantic University Lynette Feder $135,000 95-WT-NX-0004 Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence (supplement) Applied Research Associates Stan Orchowsky $13,000 (Original grant was $114,412.) 96-WT-NX-0004 Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Disposition in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim-Witness Reluctance University of Cincinnati Joanne Belknap $119,000 96-WT-NX-0006 Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for Reducing Violence Against Women Among Indian Tribes University of Arizona Eileen M. Luna $145,000 96-WT-NX-0007 Impact Evaluation of STOP Grants Law Enforcement and Prosecution Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. J. Thomas McEwen $325,000 96-WT-NX-0003 Impact Evaluation of Victim Services Programs: STOP Grants Funded by the Violence Against Women Act American Bar Association Barbara Smith $200,000 95-WT-NX-0005 National Evaluation of the Violence Against Women Act Grants Urban Institute Martha Burt $350,000 Science and Technology Facilitation of Domestic and International Technology Partnerships in Counter Terrorism Efforts Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc. Robert Greenberg $298,000 96-LB-VX-K002 NIJ Surplus Property Program Ultimate Enterprise Limited Michael Simpson $150,000 96-LB-VX-K007 Regional Gang Information System: Phase I Police Executive Research Forum Clifford Karchmer $425,000 96-LB-VX-A038 Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance for the National Institute of Justice Office of Science and Technology U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Support Office Carl F. Kiele $850,000 94-IJ-CX-A004 Technology Assessment Program U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Kathleen Higgins $1,500,000 (plus $1,100,000 base funds) 96-LB-VX-K004 Working With Technology in Corrections American Correctional Association John J. Greene $100,000 Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology 96-MU-MU-K016 Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Technology, and Policy Assessment SEASKATE, Inc. E.A. Burkhalter $154,000 (plus $79,000 base funds) 96-LB-VX-K006 Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology, and Policy Liability Assessment SEASKATE, Inc. E.A. Burkhalter $198,000 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers 96-MU-MU-K011 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Rockville, Maryland Aspen Systems Corporation Richard Rosenthal $1,600,000 (plus $100,000 base funds) 96-IJ-CX-A032 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Northeastern Region--Rome, N.Y. U.S. Air Force, Rome Laboratory John A. Ritz $250,000 96-LB-VX-K005 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Southeastern Region--Charleston, South Carolina South Carolina Research Authority Gary Mastrandrea $1,562,000 96-MU-MU-K012 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Western Region--Denver, Colorado University of Denver, Colorado Seminary Deborah G. Bradford $550,000 (plus $202,000 base funds) 96-MU-MU-K006 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Western Region--San Diego, California Aerospace Corporation Robert M. Pentz $117,000 (plus $598,000 base funds) "COPS" Technology[3] 97-IJ-CX-K005 APD Intranet/Briefing Stations City of Arlington (Texas) Police Department Larry Barclay $183,375 97-IJ-CX-K006 Affordable Crime Mapping and Information-Sharing Technology for Community Police Officers City of New Orleans Police Department Lieutenant Michael Pfeiffer $203,328 97-IJ-CX-K011 Algorithmic Image Matching: Police Technology Research and Development Project Santa Ana Police Department Captain Paul M. Walters $250,041 97-IJ-CX-K007 Artificial Neural Network System for Classification of Offenders in Murder and Rape Cases Battelle Memorial Institute Jennifer Miles $310,000 97-IJ-CX-K009 Automation of Local Police Functions New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services Jim Shea $409,035 Crime Analysis Extension Application Environmental Systems Research Institute John Perry $522,382 97-IJ-CX-K013 Demonstration of a Concealed Weapons Detection System Using Electromagnetic Resonances Akela, Inc. Alan Hunt $442,229 ------------------------------ 3. Grants without identifying numbers will be assigned them after final processing. Numbers prefixed with "97" indicate grants awarded in 1997 with 1996 funding. ------------------------------ Development of a Neighborhood Problem-Solving System Abt Associates Inc. Marianne Beauregard $100,343 97-IJ-CX-K004 FALCON (Future Alert and Contact Network) City of Charlotte Police Department Maureen Brown $234,980 97-IJ-CX-K012 Internet Community Oriented Policing Tools Project City of Davis (California) Police Department Christian Sandvig $167,675 97-IJ-CX-K002 Largo (Florida) Police Department Wireless Internet Project Largo Police Department Sergeant Brian McKeon $56,150 97-IJ-CX-K003 Metropolitan Nashville Police Department's Palm Top Project Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Lieutenant Ken Peace $128,875 Portable Concealed Weapon Detector Chang Industries, Inc. Yu-Wen Chang $496,624 96-LB-VX-K008 Portable Voice-Command Translation System Integrated Wave Technologies, Inc. A. Robert Sabo $493,000 96-IJ-CX-K007 Pursuit Management Task Force Aerospace Corporation Donald Peterson $236,000 97-IJ-CX-K010 Seamless Mobile Law Enforcement Computer Network Virginia Department of State Police Captain John Furlough $348,362 97-IJ-CX-K008 Software Development for Intelligence Gathering Monroe County (Florida) Sheriff's Office Deputy Terry Armstrong $187,900 96-IJ-CX-A047 Vehicle Stopper Technology Evaluation Program U.S. Department of the Army Edward P. Scannell $250,000 DNA Identification 96-DN-VX-0001 Development of Criteria for Model External DNA Proficiency University of Illinois, Chicago Joseph L. Peterson $250,000 96-MU-VX-0020 Expansion of DNA Analysis Capabilities: Illinois State Police Forensic Sciences Command Illinois State Police, Springfield Susan Hart Johns $450,000 96-DN-VX-0002 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Maryland Maryland Department of Public Safety Louis C. Portis $300,000 96-LB-VX-A043 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Forensic Sciences Program U.S. Department of Energy Susan Heiser $250,000 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program 96-IJ-CX-0043 Development of a PCR Laboratory: Minnesota Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Terry Laber $249,000 96-IJ-CX-0028 Development of a Rapid, Immobilized Probe Assay for the Detection of mtDNA Variation Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Kathleen H. Gonzalez $193,000 96-IJ-CX-0038 DNA Forensic Laboratory Enhancements Anne Arundel County Jane C. Cooke $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0090 DNA Identification Project: Montana Montana Department of Justice Bill Unger $150,000 96-IJ-CX-0051 DNA Offender Data Base Program: South Carolina South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Matthew G. Fitts $210,000 96-IJ-CX-0052 DNA STR Evaluation Project: Indiana Marion County, Indiana, Prosecutor James E. Hamby $151,000 96-IJ-CX-0059 Enhancement of Capability To Analyze DNA: Virginia Virginia Department of General Services, Division of Forensic Science Deanne Dabbs $375,000 96-IJ-CX-0048 Enhancement of DNA Testing Capabilities: Alaska Alaska Department of Public Safety, Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory George M. Taft $129,000 96-IJ-CX-0032 Enhancement of DNA Testing Capabilities: Arizona City of Tucson Walter Tannert $75,000 96-IJ-CX-0079 Enhancement of DNA Typing: Georgia Georgia Bureau of Investigation George Harrin $292,000 96-IJ-CX-0041 Enhancement of Serological Analysis to DNA Technologies: Kentucky Kentucky State Police Lonnie Moert $119,000 96-IJ-CX-0089 Enhancement of STR Capabilities in the New Jersey Forensic DNA Laboratory New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Law and Public Safety Margaret Tarver $126,000 96-IJ-CX-0055 Enhancement of STR Capabilities in the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory West Virginia Division of Public Safety Ted Smith $153,000 96-IJ-CX-0066 Enhancement of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Forensic DNA Capabilities Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Services Division William Darby $200,000 96-IJ-CX-0040 Expansion of DNA Laboratory Program: Missouri Missouri State Highway Patrol Lori Maloney $375,000 96-IJ-CX-0062 Expansion of DNA Services: North Carolina North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation Mark Nelson $206,000 96-IJ-CX-0049 Expansion of the Felon DNA Data Bank Program: Alabama Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs John Hicks $375,000 96-IJ-CX-0094 Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Arizona Arizona Department of Public Safety Susan Narveson $330,000 96-IJ-CX-0084 Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Texas Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Service J.R. Urbanovsky $400,000 96-IJ-CX-0095 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Florida Florida Department of Law Enforcement Dale Heideman $450,000 96-IJ-CX-0061 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Kansas Sedgwick County and Wichita Police Department Consortium Carrie May $324,000 96-IJ-CX-0039 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: New Mexico City of Albuquerque Ann Talbot $290,000 96-IJ-CX-0034 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Police Christine Tomsey $375,000 96-IJ-CX-0054 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Pittsburgh Allegheny County Department of Laboratories Charles Winek $151,000 96-IJ-CX-0033 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: South Dakota South Dakota Office of the Attorney General Rex Riis $60,000 96-IJ-CX-0076 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: Vermont Vermont Department of Public Safety Eric Buel $74,000 96-IJ-CX-0096 Implementation of a PCR Program for the Scottsdale Police Crime Lab City of Scottsdale Allen Garrett $85,000 Crime Act Amendment, 1996-- Law Enforcement Technology Support Forensic Sciences Application of Static Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry to Trace Evidence INEL $230,000 Ballistics and Matching Using 3-D Images of Bullets and Cartridge Cases Intelligence Automation, Inc. $249,708 A Chip-Based Genetic Detector for Rapid Identification of Individuals Nanogen, Inc. $509,919 97-LB-VX-0001 Estimation of the Postmortem Interval From Entomological Evidence University of Florida $32,819 Fluorescence Imaging Tools for Law Enforcement Sandia National Laboratories $393,700 Implementation and Evaluation for Collection and Analysis of Explosives Trace Chemical Evidence Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge) $200,699 Improved Analysis of DNA Short Tandem Repeats for Human Identification Mass Spectrometry Gene Trace Systems, Inc. $307,664 Microchip DNA Fingerprinting Devices Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge) $401,330 Rapid DNA Typing by Laser Description Mass Spectroscopy Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge) $328,654 Tactical Robotics--Antiterrorism/Archival Crime Scene Evaluation (TRACE) FBI Laboratory $275,000 Science and Technology in Law Enforcement The Analytical Utility of GIS for Policing: Moving Beyond the Descriptive Southern Illinois University $200,078 Body Cavity Screening System Quantum Magnetics $325,000 Concept Development for a Personal Alarm Monitor Telephonics Corporation $450,000 COPLINK Data Base Integration and Access for Law Enforcement Intranet City of Tucson Police Department $595,000 97-LB-VX-K007 Development and Implementation of a Data Base Image Matching Software Engine Visionics $399,462 97-LB-VX-K004 Demonstration of Orthophotographic Representation and Analysis University of Maryland $144,701 Deployment and Evaluation of Low-Cost, Uncooled Thermal Imagers To Enhance Law Enforcement Operations Texas Instruments, Inc. $250,000 95-IJ-CX-A027 Detecting and Classifying Concealed Weapons for Enhanced Courthouse Security Using Magnetic Gradient Measurement Techniques U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies) $236,137 Development of a Computerized Data Base of Firearm-Delivered Less-Than-Lethal Munitions ProTac International (amount to be determined) Development of a Law Enforcement Baton with a Projectable Restraining Net L.R.F. & Associates $250,000 97-LB-VX-K008 Handheld Remote Concealed Weapons Detector JAYCOR $396,322 Innovative Crime Mapping Techniques and Spatial Analysis City University of New York $249,930 Passive Millimeter-Wave Camera for Concealed Weapons Detection Thermo Trex Corporation $400,000 Police and Sheriff's Department Assessment CTC $299,559 97-LB-VX-K006 Smart Gun Development and Prototype Colt's Manufacturing $502,488 97-LB-VX-K005 Who Gets What in Policing? A National Assessment of Police Chief Experiences in the Budgetary Area Police Executive Research Forum $296,243 Other Development of a Community Access System Abt Associates Inc. $474,546 96-MU-MU-0018 Field Evaluation of the System for the Effective Control of Urban Environment Security (SECURES) University of Cincinnati Loraine Green Mazerolle $150,000 (plus $50,000 base funds) Polygraph for Sex Offenders Colorado Division of Criminal Justice $108,509 97-IJ-CX-0022 Public Acceptance of Various Concealed Weapons Detection Technologies Johns Hopkins University $266,945 ------------------------------ For more information on the National Institute of Justice, please contact: National Criminal Justice Reference Service P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 800-851-3420 e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the NCJRS Justice Information Center World Wide Web site. To access the World Wide Web site, go to http://www.ncjrs.org Other Department of Justice publications noted in this report can be ordered from NCJRS. Most are available free of charge and most can be downloaded from the Justice Information Center Web site. If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.