TITLE: NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996. AUTHOR: National Institute of Justice SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Series: NIJ Annual Report to Congress Published: August 1997 167 pages 320,798 bytes Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 7th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice John C. Dwyer Acting Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Justice Information Center World Wide Web Site http://www.ncjrs.org NCJ 166585 ------------------------------------ Table of Contents Message from the Director Introduction Highlights of the Year Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues Drugs and Crime: Criminal Justice Responses Crime Control and Prevention: Focus on the Community Adjudication and Corrections: Trends and Emerging Concepts Science and Technology: Creating New Tools ------------------------------------ Message from the Director This Annual Report from the National Institute of Justice covers a year in which crime rates continued to drop. Many of the Nation's largest cities, which have struggled with high levels of crime for so long, are leading the decline. These major reductions in crime are hopeful signs. Our optimism is tempered, however, by knowledge that crime rates are still high and have historically risen and fallen. This challenges us to examine closely the causes for the improving crime picture and the factors that may play a significant role in whether these declines are likely to be sustained. This effort requires the talents and skills of many. The National Institute of Justice, for its part, offers the tools of research, evaluation, and technology development to expand knowledge and understanding of how public policies can control crime and achieve justice. This report reviews how the Institute applied these tools in 1996, a year in which the Institute's research portfolio increased multifold, spurred in large part by creative collaborations with partners at the Federal, State, and local level. The 1994 Crime Act and the partnerships NIJ has forged with the offices within the Department of Justice that administer the programs under the Act continued to provide opportunities for maximizing the learning process about the innovations now under way. These innovations reflect an exciting trend--the growing commitment to a community-based, problem-solving approach to a safer society. These learning partnerships are being emulated at the local level through another promising new effort-- locally initiated research partnerships between criminal justice agencies and researchers based in nearby universities or research organizations. With support from NIJ, these ventures focus on local needs and priorities. A primary goal in constructing these efforts is the establishment of long-term relationships in which practitioners and researchers routinely and systematically integrate their knowledge and skills to improve their community's safety and security. Partnerships with other Federal agencies are also having a major impact in other areas. Last year, for example, saw a burgeoning of NIJ research and development, supported in part by collaboration with the Department of Defense and a set-aside of 1 percent of the policing funds in the 1994 Crime Act, to realize the potential of advanced technology for criminal justice. Encouraging strides were made toward developing technologies for detecting concealed weapons. Science moved closer to delivering portable, affordable DNA evidence analysis capabilities to make this tool more widely available to exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty. Communicating the new and compelling knowledge and insights these efforts are yielding has been at the top of NIJ's agenda for several years. Through conferences, workshops, a wide variety of publications, our Web site, and other outreach efforts, we strive to improve services and relationships with our colleagues in criminal justice practice and research. The National Institute of Justice benefits from the perspective and insights of our colleagues throughout the country and the world. We welcome your comments about the programs highlighted here. Jeremy Travis Director ------------------------------ Introduction The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research and development arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. It is charged with developing knowledge that will inform policies to control crime, enhance public safety, and improve the administration of justice. Congress created NIJ as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, as amended, and gave the Institute a wide-ranging mandate to do the following: o Conduct and sponsor basic and applied research into the causes and prevention of crime. o Sponsor evaluations of major Federal initiatives. o Support research and demonstrations to develop new approaches, techniques, systems, and equipment to improve law enforcement and the administration of justice. o Develop new technologies to deter crime and enhance criminal justice operations. o Make recommendations to Federal, State, and local governments. o Conduct conferences and workshops for criminal justice policymakers and professionals. o Collect and disseminate both domestic and international criminal justice information obtained by the Institute or other Federal agencies. This report covers a year in which NIJ continued the accelerated pace of activity set in motion by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce-ment Act of 1994 (the 1994 Crime Act) and by the Institute's growing partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations whose missions relate to crime and justice. In fiscal year 1996, NIJ's appropriation from Congress totaled $30 million. This core budget was augmented by a $30 million transfer for technology research and development (which included $20 million in Crime Act funds and $10 million for a counterterrorism program). Another $39 million was transferred to NIJ through partnerships with other Federal agencies--principally the Justice Department agencies that administer Crime Act programs--to conduct research and evaluations of innovations fostered by the Act and other significant programs. These funds supported the award of 210 grants related to the Crime Act and 113 projects awarded from NIJ's base appropriations for extramural research. NIJ staff researchers were involved in an additional 40 intramural studies. Figure 1 shows how NIJ's total expenditures of $99 million in 1996 were allocated across its major program areas. Figure 2 shows NIJ's funding sources. This report describes how in 1996 the Institute carried out its mission to provide knowledge to control crime and achieve justice. The introduction provides a brief overview of the year's accomplishments. The remaining chapters discuss both new and continuing initiatives in NIJ's portfolio of research and evaluation investments. The appendixes list awards made in fiscal year 1996, recent NIJ publications, and partnerships. ------------------------------ Organization of NIJ The National Institute of Justice is made up of the Office of the Director and three major program offices, each with specific missions and functions but all closely integrated in overall purpose. The Office of the Director (OD) sets Institute policies and objectives, supervises the budget, and directs management and administrative activities. The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) develops, conducts, and directs a comprehensive portfolio of research and evaluations primarily through two integrated vehicles: the extramural and intramural programs. The majority of NIJ funds are awarded for extramural projects conducted by researchers and scientists in academia and in research organizations throughout the country. Many of these projects involve criminal justice practitioners working in collaboration with researchers on inquiries that address both tactical and strategic issues facing the criminal justice system. All funds are awarded through a process of competitive solicitation and external peer review. Intramural projects are carried out by NIJ staff and subjected to the same rigorous peer review as other research projects. Substantive areas of investigation are divided broadly into (1) crime control, which includes drug abuse, gangs, policing, targeted and community crime control and prevention strategies; and (2) criminal justice and criminal behavior, which includes violence, victims, corrections, prosecution, defense, and courts. In 1996 ORE established two centers to carry out key initiatives: the Crime Mapping Research Center, which engages in research and development on computerized systems to analyze crime and related data mapped by geographic location and time; and the Drug Testing Research Center, which oversees the new Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program and supports drug-related research and demonstration projects. Both of these centers and their work are highlighted in this report, as are findings from ORE-sponsored studies, both extramural and intramural. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) provides Federal, State, and local law enforcement and corrections agencies with access to the best technologies available and supports development or adaptation of advanced technologies that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The science and technology program involves work in six focus areas: forensic sciences, less-than-lethal technology, counterterrorism, detection technology, general science and technology, and community-oriented policing technologies. To bring technology closer to agencies around the country, OST operates a system composed of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center with its four regional centers, a Border Research and Technology Center, and two specialized offices (the Office of Law Enforcement Standards and the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization). Their work and the results of OST research and development are reviewed in this report. The Office of Development and Dissemination (ODD) makes information on research and innovation available to the field in several ways: by conducting studies of pressing operational issues facing criminal justice practitioners; by seeking out and sharing information on promising local initiatives and emerging ideas from around the country; by implementing demonstrations of innovative approaches to controlling crime; by providing opportunities for professionals in criminal justice to meet and exchange information and experience; and by communicating research-based knowledge to policymakers, legislators, elected officials, and professionals in criminal justice and related fields through print and electronic media. ------------------------------ Highlights of the Year At the conclusion of 1996, NIJ looked back on a year of intense activity and growing acceptance of the value of research in developing the Nation's capacity to understand crime, to evaluate society's responses to it, and to share the knowledge gained with individuals and agencies around the country. A heartening decrease in violent crime and a modest decrease in property crime stimulated greater attention to the operations of the criminal justice system and how changing practices may affect crime rates and public confidence in law enforcement. A shift in perspective was evident as all parts of the system moved toward greater recognition of the essential role of the community in the work of safeguarding citizens from crime, reducing disorder, and ensuring that justice is done-- and is seen as being done. Significant advances of the year, described in more detail in the following chapters, are as follows: o The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods--a collaborative effort supported by NIJ and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation--reached several milestones in data collection. The effort involved a massive longitudinal study in which Harvard researchers and their collaborators enrolled and interviewed 7,000 children, youths, and their caregivers. Researchers will track these groups of participants for the next 5-7 years, analyzing their development to gain insights into the family and neighborhood factors that encourage prosocial or antisocial behavior. Researchers also completed a pilot study of the exposure of children and youth to violence and began an examination of neighborhood characteristics and their impact on individual development. The researchers also interviewed nearly 3,000 neighborhood experts and observed the physical condition of 80 neighborhoods, videotaping more than 27,000 block faces. o The Institute's Drug Use Forecasting Program (DUF) celebrated its 10th year of providing data from quarterly surveys and drug screening of arrestees. The program, which began operation in 8 cities in 1986, had expanded to 23 cities by 1996. Research projects using DUF data provided new insights into gun use by those arrested and new data on the extent of methamphetamine use in major cities. To broaden the usefulness of such data, NIJ took steps in 1996 to reengineer the program into a research platform that can enhance national understanding of drug use trends. Proposed plans for the program, renamed the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, call for adding new sites to the 23 current sites in the coming year and eventually expanding to all cities with populations greater than 200,000. A rotating supplemental data collection program in each site (called Outreach) will ensure that ADAM moves beyond the central cities to monitor trends in suburban, rural, and Native American jurisdictions, thus shedding light on both the leading and trailing edges of drug abuse trends. o A new Crime Mapping Research Center established last year will be in the forefront of applying advanced geographic information systems (GIS) to link criminal incident data to demographic and neighborhood information in order to pinpoint crime hotspots and guide deployment of law enforcement resources. Headquartered at NIJ, the Mapping Center is linked to a satellite facility at the NIJ-funded National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Rocky Mountain Region, located within the University of Denver's Research Institute. o NIJ continued building the wide-ranging social science research and evaluation agendas related to community policing, violence against women, sentencing and corrections, and drug courts prompted by the 1994 Crime Act. More than $19.9 million in Crime Act funds were awarded for research last year, and 14 new solicitations were issued in these areas. o Development of technologies to detect concealed weapons moved at a faster than anticipated pace last year. Several different technologies are now being tested. Scholar James Q. Wilson noted the need for such technology in a 1994 New York Times article. After President Clinton read the article, he directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to explore the technology. NIJ has responded with several projects, some funded with Crime Act resources, others under a joint DOJ-Defense Department technology partnership established by a Memorandum of Understanding for the sharing and development of dual-use technologies applicable to military and law enforcement operations. Recent progress has provided technologies meeting some of the program goals. More robust capabilities are expected in 2 to 3 years. o A new series of lectures, "Perspectives on Crime and Justice," brought widely respected researchers to Washington, D.C., under the auspices of NIJ and with funding support from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Policymakers, practitioners, and legislators participated in the candid discussion of critical issues in crime policy. o The NIJ Director chaired the Department of Justice (DOJ) Research Council, created in 1995 by Attorney General Janet Reno to share information on research agendas and capabilities throughout DOJ; to coordinate research activities where appropriate; to identify gaps in DOJ research activities; and to link research with policy development at the Department. (A separate DOJ Technology Policy Council, chaired by the Deputy Attorney General with NIJ as executive agent, addresses Federal law enforcement agency research and development activities in this area.) o The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and NIJ collaborated in issuing a solicitation for proposals to create and apply innovative technology to community policing efforts. The solicitation generated more than 100 proposals, requesting a total of $47.2 million, from public-private partnerships. Peer review panels and staff reviewed the proposals and recommended 18 to receive grants with the available $6 million in funding. o The section of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act entitled "Technology Assistance" specified that 1 percent of the Crime Act funds for policing be reserved in each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998 for use by the National Institute of Justice in assisting local units of government to identify, select, develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement. That funding amounted to $20 million in 1996. NIJ received 467 proposals, totaling $234 million; 60 grants were made with the available $20 million. Specific project areas include concealed weapons detection, information technologies, forensics, crime mapping technologies, surveillance and monitoring, "smart gun" development and demonstration, and studies of the behavioral and organizational impact of technology research. o In January 1996, NIJ became a partner in a unique interagency consortium involving nine Federal offices in an initiative focusing on the abuse of children and the elderly, partner violence, sexual violence, and perpetrators and victims of multiple episodes of family violence. The consortium is cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and coordinated by NIH's Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.[1] The first interdepartmental and trans-NIH research funding program on violence, it is intended to bring together perspectives of the participating agencies, which include criminaljustice, mental health, public health and prevention, alcohol and drug abuse, and child development perspectives, to advance knowledge of family violence and violence against women. The interagency nature of the effort produced a synergy, attracting new and important applications that combined populations at risk, outcomes, programs, and researchers in a way not possible in a single-organization solicitation for proposals. The sponsoring organizations set aside $5.2 million over 3 years to conduct research on the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of family violence. Response to the announcement of funds was overwhelming; 121 applications were received; 18 scored in the top rating category; and 10 projects were funded. o In another collaboration, NIJ partnered with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs within the U.S. Department of State to build an information-sharing network linking the 14 institutes throughout the world, including NIJ, that are affiliated with the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme. UNOJUST (the United Nations Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse), which NIJ hosts, completed its phase-one implementation with the establishment of seven new Internet servers providing a variety of criminal justice resources. The Fifth United Nations Crime Commission Meeting in Vienna, Austria, in May 1996 adopted a resolution recommending UNOJUST as a model for its 40 member states. ------------------------------ Strategic Challenges Building on these accomplishments, NIJ in 1996 developed a blueprint for research, evaluation, and development to help set the foundation for knowledge that will inform criminal justice policy in the next century. NIJ is focusing its activities around five strategic challenges: rethinking justice, breaking the cycle, understanding the nexus, creating the tools, and expanding horizons. Rethinking Justice NIJ is committed to finding new ways to operate a justice system that results in fair, efficient, and effective outcomes for society. Fiscal year 1996 brought several opportunities to rethink how to respond to crime and achieve justice. The community-based approach to law enforcement, which has gained a strong foothold in policing, is now gaining ground in other areas of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors, for example, have begun reaching out to their communities to identify priorities and problems rather than relying on the more traditional case-based approach. Putting prosecutors in closer contact with the streets and the citizens who are touched directly by crime helps prosecutors devise new strategies for achieving justice that make the law more effective in minimizing crime and fear in neighborhoods. In many cities--including Austin, Boston, Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Portland (Oregon), and Washington, D.C.-- prosecutors are finding new ways to address serious crimes, family violence, drug abuse, and public disorder offenses that diminish the quality of neighborhood life. While no two cities' community prosecution efforts are exactly alike, they all share a problem-solving approach that relies on community outreach and new partnerships between prosecutors, police, and other municipal agencies. A natural outgrowth of the community-based response to controlling crime is a model of justice that brings the victim and community into the adjudication and corrections process. Called restorative justice, this model offers an alternative to the retributive model and encourages the active participation of victims and offenders in designing sanctions, such as restitution and community service, that require the offender to contribute to repairing the damage sustained by the victim and the community. A survey of policymakers and practitioners found that the restorative justice approach appears to produce greater satisfaction for victims and help offenders gain greater consciousness of the impact of their crimes.[2] In 1996 NIJ sponsored visiting fellowships in the areas of community prosecution and restorative justice and, with the Office for Victims of Crime, sponsored a conference for researchers, professionals, and victims services providers that featured discussion of the practical applications of the restorative justice model. NIJ also cosponsored the Office of Justice Programs conference on "Communities, Crime and Justice," which explored the role communities play in responding to crime and creating partnerships with criminal justice system agencies. Understanding the Nexus NIJ seeks to expand understanding of the link between crime and other social concerns, such as drugs, gangs, communities, and economic development. NIJ took steps last year to improve its Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system, which has been an integral part of the drug epidemiology field for more than a decade. The improved effort, which is proposed to be operational by 2001, will be called the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program and proposes to expand to a dozen cities and some suburban and rural areas and eventually to reach into all large cities contingent on the availability of funds. The data and its analysis will enhance understanding of the connection between crime and gun markets, gang migration, and other crime- and drug-related factors in the local jurisdictions. The expanded effort will further enhance the usefulness of the data for local policymaking. For example, DUF data recently revealed regional patterns in the use of methamphetamine in several western cities, including San Diego, Phoenix, Portland, and San Jose.[3] Such patterns signal law enforcement and treatment providers to develop and implement strategies to respond to changes in local drug use. The more comprehensive information provided by ADAM will inform both national and local drug policies. Deeper understanding of the links between sanctions and future criminal activity is critical for both safety and effective resource management. Which types of sanctions work best with which types of offenders? What impacts do sentencing guidelines and truth-in-sentencing policies have on offenders and corrections administration? The connections between various sanctions, combinations of sanctions, and the effects on recidivism rates are just beginning to emerge. To explore these relationships in more depth, NIJ in conjunction with the OJP Corrections Program Office awarded five grants in 1996 for research and evaluation of boot camps as well as grants to examine the changes that jails and prisons must make when new sentencing directives are put in place. Other projects examining the nexus between crime and social conditions include the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighbor-hoods, discussed earlier, which is sorting out how individual characteristics, family relationships, neighborhood cohesion, and other factors affect crime and neighborhood stability over time. Still other NIJ-supported studies have examined the relationship of firearms and crime. In a national survey of private ownership of firearms, NIJ-supported researchers found that about one-quarter of American adults own a firearm and about three-quarters of these persons keep the weapon for self-defense.[4] In another study involving arrestees, researchers found that more than 14 percent of arrestees carry a gun all or most of the time; that percentage rises to 20 percent for juvenile males and 31 percent for gang members.[5] With homicide rates declining in some, but not all, American communities, efforts are under way to explore the complicated links between homicide and local social conditions. NIJ staff in 1996 completed an intramural project to examine homicide trends in eight cities.[6] Specific local factors such as demographics, economic conditions, drug use, gun availability, gang activity, and criminal justice system response patterns were organized into three different categories: environment, situations, and system response. The project's findings indicate that homicide trends are affected by local factors, such as the local crack cocaine market, and that the homicide rate increases with higher availability and lethality of guns. Homicide trends may also be related to the quantity and quality of emergency medical services and the extent to which local gangs are involved in drug dealing. The findings reveal strong local support for multijurisdictional task forces and reinforce other studies showing that community-based approaches are working and offer the most promise. Breaking the Cycle NIJ is developing a select group of research demonstration projects that are designed to rigorously test new interventions that hold promise for significantly reducing crime. In 1996, NIJ expanded its involvement in testing new ways to reduce drug abuse and related criminal behavior. More than half of all persons brought into the criminal justice system have substance abuse problems, and many of these people are nonviolent offenders who repeatedly cycle through the system without being held accountable for changing their behavior. Such offenders face little certainty of punishment and represent a long-term, recurring problem for both the criminal justice system and society. Research and evaluation demonstrate that "drug courts" or "treatment courts" can reduce both drug abuse and drug-related crime. Recent research suggests that offenders sentenced to mandatory drug treatment do as well as offenders who voluntarily enter treatment both in completing the treatment program and in short-term recidivism.[7] To better understand the relationship between drug abuse and court-ordered treatment, NIJ in 1996 began three research demonstration projects, two of which involve testing the efficacy of treatment courts. In collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ oversaw implementation of a treatment court in Washington, D.C., and is currently evaluating this effort, which randomly assigns defendants to intensive out-patient drug treatment, a graduated sanctions program, or a control group that enters the standard court docket. Defendants in the treatment and graduated sanctions program are tested for drug use at least twice a week. While it is too early to draw conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the program, preliminary findings indicate that defendants assigned to either the treatment or the sanctions program were significantly more likely to test clean in the month before sentencing than were those who entered the standard court docket. In another joint effort--this one with the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy--NIJ is cosponsoring a demonstration program in Jackson County (Birmingham), Alabama, to test the hypothesis that if all drug abusers who are arrested are identified and required to remain drug-free and receive treatment as needed, drug abuse and criminal behavior will decrease. The demonstration begins in the summer of 1997; both a process and impact evaluation will take place over the next several years. Creating the Tools NIJ is helping practitioners, legislators, and policymakers devise improved crime control strategies. In New Orleans, for example, NIJ supports a diversion program for drug-involved offenders that uses hair analysis to test first-time, nonviolent drug offenders who are charged with simple possession. The study indicates that offenders who participate in hair analysis testing are less likely to evade detection.[8] In addition, clients who complete the program appear to have significantly lower rearrest rates than those who do not complete the program (although the researchers could not discern what caused the lower rearrest rate--personal motivation, the program alone, or both). In addition to using programmatic tools, NIJ develops tangible products and services to help criminal justice professionals do their jobs better. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) and its regional centers are the heart of NIJ's technology support and communication efforts. Established in fiscal year 1995, the centers became fully operational during fiscal year 1996. Each center specializes in a different aspect of technology; all serve as a conduit for learning practitioner needs, transmitting responsive technology information, and providing hands-on support and technical assistance to local agencies. Also during 1996, NIJ's Office of Science and Technology initiated major efforts to assist 52 State and local crime laboratories upgrading their equipment and developing simpler, quicker, and more portable methods of DNA testing. Funds for the program were made available under the Crime Act. NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center links practitioners, social science researchers, and software engineers to enhance efforts to track crime across time and space, especially distinct geographic areas such as neighborhoods, blocks, or specific locations. Using sophisticated geographic information systems software, mapping reveals patterns in the time and location of criminal incidents and pinpoints hot spots, such as street drug markets. Such information, when coupled with other data, helps agencies understand crime patterns and their changes in the context of social conditions, such as income distribution, health care, land use patterns, transportation systems, and demographic patterns. Analysis of the data can guide law enforcement problem-solving efforts. Another tool developed and tested during the year took place under NIJ's intramural research program. NIJ researchers and Florida Department of Corrections researchers and administrators collaborated to create a system to help corrections personnel classify individuals by their likelihood to "fail" during probation. The specifics of the mathematical model for the system apply to Florida's policies and probationers, but the methods developed appear to be appropriate to addressing the practical issues of risk assessment in other jurisdictions and program settings. Another intramural project used hair analysis as a tool for broadening understanding of the drugs-crime link and sought strategies to curtail illegal drug use in prisons. An NIJ intramural project with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections found that just under 10 percent of inmates tested positive for drugs while incarcerated. An analysis revealed that marijuana was more likely to be used by younger inmates, cocaine and heroin by older inmates, and that black and white inmates used drugs at about the same rate. These findings will be used to help prison administrators devise strategies to curtail drug use in prisons. Expanding Horizons Looking beyond traditional geographic, cultural, and intellectual boundaries is an important part of developing a fuller understanding of crime and justice issues. A manifestation of this commitment is seen in NIJ's recent development of stronger ties with the international criminal justice research community. Recently, the Institute formalized its commitment to that community by planning an NIJ International Center to be established in 1997 and dedicated to supporting programs and projects related to international criminal justice research and sharing knowledge about crime problems and efforts to solve them. The center will provide a focus for NIJ's international role as a member of the family of research institutes connected with the Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Division of the United Nations. Working in partnership with foundations and related Federal agencies is another way NIJ expands its horizons through interdisciplinary work and develops new research approaches through planning and discussion with other scientists and professionals. In addition to the extensive partnerships NIJ has forged with the Crime Act offices, NIJ's partners during 1996 included public health research agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health; social services agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development; and agencies dedicated to controlling and reducing drug abuse, such as the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. (A list of the Institute's partners can be found in Appendix C.) ------------------------------ The 1994 Crime Act In 1996, NIJ's research portfolio stemming from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) continued to grow. One of the most distinctive aspects of this legislation is that it promotes innovative approaches to reducing crime. It does so by providing support to the States and local jurisdictions for programs in four areas: community policing, violence against women, corrections and sentencing, and drug courts. In each area, the Crime Act fosters new ways to tackle old problems. Immediately after the Act became law, NIJ, with support from congressional appropriators and in partnership with the Department of Justice agencies administering these programs--the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Violence Against Women Grants Office, the Corrections Program Office, and the Drug Courts Program Office--began to develop strategies for conducting the research and evaluations that are essential to finding out whether and to what extent these innovations are working. The strategies, developed in 1995, continued as the basis for solicitations (requests for proposals) issued by NIJ to conduct research in fiscal year 1996. In response to the 14 solicitations issued, almost 1,000 proposals were received; 210 awards were made for Crime Act-related research in fiscal year 1996--more than a threefold increase over the previous year's 65. (See Figure 3, "NIJ Crime Act Expenditures.") For each of the four major areas, NIJ's strategy involves a three-tiered approach: national evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the program, evaluations of selected local implementations, and research based on partnerships between practitioners and researchers. This last approach is intended to build an infrastructure for ongoing practitioner-researcher collaboration that supports development of knowledge at the local level. In preparation is a full report of research and evaluation conducted by NIJ under the 1994 Crime Act: Criminal Justice Research under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996: the Role of the National Institute of Justice will be published in 1997.[9] Policing Studies sponsored in 1996 promise to shed light on the factors that can make for success in community policing, among them police- community collaboration, training, and the quality of investigations. A nationwide update of the strategic and tactical changes taking place in policing was begun and additional locally initiated partnership studies were funded. In 1996, NIJ's Crime Act-related initiatives in science and technology were launched. They included a program of technology research and development to support new community policing strategies and a major research and development program to enhance State and local law enforcement technology capabilities. To deal with the consequences of stress for law enforcement personnel and their families, NIJ is testing innovative practices, providing training, and sponsoring research. The issues of police integrity and police use of force are being addressed through research. Sentencing and Corrections The violent offender incarceration and truth- in-sentencing provisions of the Crime Act enable the States to expand their capacity to incarcerate violent offenders with more certainty and to impose longer and more definite sentences. Those provisions will affect not only corrections, but other components of the justice system as well. NIJ's national evaluation, begun in 1996, will determine what those changes are--how Title II of the Act is affecting prosecutorial strategies, judicial policies, and corrections policies and practices. Locally based research, in which practitioners and researchers form partnerships, is focusing on topics relevant to particular jurisdictions. The effect of the Crime Act's provision of residential substance abuse treatment for State prisoners is also being studied, both at the national level and in selected assessments of local programs. Violence Against Women The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is designed to improve the response of police, prosecutors, and service providers to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, makes this possible through grants to the States and local governments for programs in seven areas that relate to law enforcement, prosecution, and victims services. NIJ's study of progress and accomplishments of the VAWA grants program in the first year of the Crime Act was completed in 1996. Study of the impact of this program in the second year, including detailed examinations of several selected sites and of specific purpose areas identified by the Crime Act, will begin in 1997. The congressionally mandated studies of violence against women were completed in 1996 under NIJ sponsorship. (A complete list can be found in "Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues.") Among the five was development of an agenda for future research, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report became the basis for a proposal to Congress by NIJ, in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for a major interdisciplinary research initiative reflecting the NAS priorities. Drug Courts Drug courts exemplify a successful innovation for dealing with drug-involved nonviolent offenders; the Crime Act provides funding to support these specially designed court calendars or dockets, which have been established in more than 100 jurisdictions nationwide. These programs combine judicial supervision with drug testing, treatment, and aftercare services. During 1996, the Drug Court Program Office collaborated with NIJ to provide funding to evaluate the impact of four drug courts that were established before the Crime Act and received funding under the Act to enhance their operations. Additional evaluation activities are anticipated in 1997. ------------------------------ Sharing Research-Based Knowledge One of NIJ's primary missions is timely and broad dissemination of information that results from sound research methods so that public debate and policy are informed by empirical knowledge. To reach specific audiences for this kind of information--policymakers, practitioners, researchers, students, and concerned citizens--NIJ has an extensive print and electronic publishing program. (See "Getting the Word Out," for the highlights of the program.) NIJ research is frequently published in professional and scholarly journals--54 articles last year. Reaching Policymakers As part of its efforts to enhance the criminal justice policymaking process, NIJ has hosted seminars and lectures in Washington, D.C., and continued to support research that identifies and responds to key legislative concerns. In 1996, for example, NIJ published and disseminated to State legislators four Research in Action reports pulling together what is known about critical issues in adult and juvenile sentencing reforms.[10] Last year, NIJ inaugurated a new lecture series, Perspectives on Crime and Justice, that brought distinguished researchers to Washington, D.C., for candid, wide-ranging discussions on contemporary issues relating to crime and justice. Noted scholars discussed topics such as the role of the Federal Government in criminal justice research, Federal drug policy, child victims, the public legitimacy of crime policy, and crime and the media, in front of large audiences that included members of Congress and their staff members, other Federal officials, scholars, State and local government leaders, and practitioners. (See "Perspectives on Crime and Justice.") Responding to a request by Oregon State Senator Neil Bryant, NIJ conducted a sentencing policy seminar for members of the Oregon legislature. For this effort, NIJ organized a team of experts to present research findings on sentencing reform measures and to engage in a discussion on how legislative decisions affect public safety. Reaching Practitioners NIJ surveys the world of practice and policy to determine critical issues and important innovations at the local level. These become the subject of practical handbooks and bulletins, including the Issues and Practices report series and Program Focus bulletins. Last year's topics covered such widely different issues as child abuse, joint prison-private sector work opportunities, and community courts. NIJ, through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, initiated the Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) as a gateway--via the Internet and the World Wide Web--to information on new technologies, equipment, and other products and services available to the law enforcement, corrections, and criminal justice communities. NIJ's Research in Action Partnerships awarded grants to consortiums of national associations (Search Group, Inc.; National Conference of State Courts; Justice Research Statistics Association; National Conference of State Legislators; American Bar Association) to develop ways to disseminate criminal justice research findings to their memberships using electronic communications. New and creative approaches are being developed, implemented, and assessed by these organizations to better inform their memberships about using NIJ and other research results. NIJ also sponsored its third annual conference on Technology Solutions for Public Safety which was held in Los Angeles, California; and conducted five regional conferences on community-oriented policing technologies that took place in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego, California; Charleston, South Carolina; and Louisville, Kentucky. In addition, NIJ hosted a conference that explored the implications of DNA for the future of criminal justice. At the conference, practitioners, forensic scientists, and policymakers shared information about how emerging new technologies can rapidly and cost effectively improve DNA testing to meet the increasing demands of public and private DNA testing laboratories. (See "NIJ-Sponsored Conferences.") Reaching Researchers Through its ongoing Research in Progress seminar series, NIJ also provides opportunities for criminal justice policymakers and practitioners to meet with researchers in various disciplines to discuss how the research they are doing can help address key criminal justice problems. Presentations have covered such topics as domestic violence and substance abuse, adolescent firearms violence, and the prevalence of stalking. The Research in Progress series is available on videotape; last year, 2,563 were sold. In an effort to make data from the research projects it supports publicly available and easily accessible to support new investigations, NIJ has developed the Data Resources Program. Under the program, NIJ collects, preserves, and disseminates electronic research data for analysis by other researchers. More than 200 data sets have been deposited by NIJ with the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan. Much of the data can be downloaded from the Internet. NIJ also issues awards up to $25,000 for researchers to perform secondary analyses of archived data to encourage the efficient and effective use of data collected at public expense. This program has been heavily used and has produced numerous important publications. NIJ reached a milestone in 1996 in its efforts to integrate and synthesize knowledge with the publication of Volume 20 of Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. The Crime and Justice series, published by the University of Chicago Press, has become an authoritative reference source that offers succinct essays summarizing important theoretical knowledge, practical applications, and key trends in research and development. Essays in Volume 20 focus on such topics as academic performance and delinquency, intermediate sanctions, drug use trends in the United States, integration of criminology theories, and the historical context for several theories of punishment. Reaching the International Community Reaching American practitioners is not enough. NIJ is mandated by Congress to disseminate criminal justice information both nationally and internationally. In collaboration with the State Department, NIJ jointly sponsored a workshop on "Policing in Emerging Democracies." The workshop examined ways to help developing nations and governments meet their swiftly evolving law enforcement challenges and foster democratic policing worldwide. NIJ also participated in a conference on police ethics held in Strasbourg, France, that was hosted by the Council of Europe. This conference led to the participation of international delegates from seven nations at the National Symposium on Police Integrity held in Washington, D.C., which was jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Other international criminal justice conferences and workshops have taken NIJ officials to Barbados, Germany, Israel, and Korea. Some of NIJ's international efforts focus on hosting research fellows who study international and "transnational" criminal justice issues. Last year, the U.S. Information Agency accredited NIJ as a host institution for visiting scientists and practitioners from the former Soviet Union and other countries. An NIJ Fellow, a Ukrainian criminal justice official, continued the development of the Rule of Law online clearinghouse focusing on the information needs of the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Other NIJ Visiting Fellows with specialties in international issues included William Burnham, a retired United Nations official who is evaluating and analyzing global crime trends; William McDonald, a Georgetown University professor who has researched issues associated with immigration and related criminal behavior; and Caroline Nicholl, a high-ranking British law enforcement official and Harkness Fellow who studied American community policing practices. International Clearinghouse The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a national and international criminal justice information clearinghouse, responds to queries about criminal justice matters from its print and electronic library of more than 140,000 documents. Since its creation by NIJ 26 years ago, NCJRS has become an indispensable resource for researchers, criminal justice professionals, policymakers, academics, and students from around the globe. Last year, NCJRS distributed 2.6 million documents. More than 64,471 people requested publications. NCJRS expanded its international reach several years ago by going "online," allowing users linked through the Internet to download documents onto their personal computers and use special software (provided free of charge) to view or print documents exactly as they appear in the conventionally published version. NCJRS pathways help customers find documents located in other countries and allow them to access repositories all over the world. During fiscal year 1996, NIJ published 80 reports and bulletins (a complete list is in Appendix B), which can be accessed electronically from the Justice Information Center (JIC) home page on the World Wide Web. The JIC site provides all the clearinghouse services of NCJRS in a rapid and efficient electronic format. Publications can be ordered and downloaded online, saving on printing and distribution costs. Users can also download NIJ's Research Prospectus, Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice, and all NIJ research solicitations. (See "NIJ Publications Most Often Downloaded.") Recently, JIC was improved by adding new links to other sites as well as highlights of new information. The JIC Web site receives approximately 11,000 visitors each month and averages 365 visits per day, with peak activity reaching 689 at one point last year. (See "Accessing NIJ Online.") Informing Public Debate NIJ continues to inform public opinion and debate on crime control policies through media coverage of the release of important and topical research publications. For example, Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation was distributed to thousands of law enforcement agencies as part of a Federal initiative to reduce the spread of gangs and gang-related violence and drug trafficking. President Clinton announced the initiative--and the release of the report--during his weekly radio address. The release quickly generated print stories in several major national publications. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial effectively illustrates the tremendous potential of DNA technology. It reviews 28 cases in which postconviction DNA evidence was used to win the release of people convicted by juries of various serious offenses, including murder, rape, and kidnapping. The report also examines the legal history of the admission of DNA evidence and explores some of the issues raised by the growing acceptance of DNA evidence at the State level. One of the cases in Convicted by Juries was featured in the Frontline television program "What Jennifer Saw" and discussed in a New York Times article. In recent years, the Institute has worked to make the process of information retrieval easier for policymakers and professionals with services such as fax-on-demand and electronic publishing, including a new and improved NIJ Web site. NIJ continues to seek out and develop new ways of informing researchers and professionals about criminal justice trends and innovative approaches to longstanding crime problems, research data, and information about NIJ services and opportunities. ------------------------------ Perspectives on Crime and Justice At the Perspectives on Crime and Justice lecture series, nationally prominent scholars discuss issues related to creating effective policy. The lectures, hosted by NIJ with funding support from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, look at the challenges of crime and justice through a policy lens. During fiscal year 1996, the series featured the following subjects and scholars: o "What, if Anything, Can the Federal Government Do About Crime?" James Q. Wilson, University of California at Los Angeles o "Can We Make Prohibition Work Better? An Assessment of American Drug Policy," Peter Reuter, University of Maryland o "The Legitimation of Criminal Justice Policies and Practices," Mark H. Moore, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University o "Child Victims: In Search of Opportunities for Breaking the Cycle of Violence," Cathy Spatz Widom, State University of New York at Albany o "Crime, the Media, and Our Political Discourse," Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School Videotapes of each session are available for $29.50 from NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, or call 301-519-5500. ------------------------------ NIJ-Sponsored Conferences During Fiscal Year 1996 DNA, Washington, D.C., June 1996 Scientists, defense lawyers, and prosecutors discussed the capabilities, problems, and current applications of DNA technology. The report Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial was released. Locally Initiated Partnerships, Washington, D.C., January 1996, January 1997 These conferences were part of a program that partners researchers with police departments to design studies that will have immediate practical application for law enforcement professionals. National Conference on Technology Solutions for Public Safety, Los Angeles, California, April 9-11, 1996 Participants addressed the urgent need to provide local law enforcement with the best crime fighting technologies available. Proceedings were highlighted in a conference report, Technology Solutions for Public Safety. Business and Crime Prevention, Rutgers University, May 1996 Discussion centered on the role of business and industry as a creative force in crime prevention. Conference proceedings were summarized and published in the book Business and Crime Prevention.* * Business and Crime Prevention, edited by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke, 1997, Willow Tree Press: Monsey, New York National Symposium on Police Integrity, Washington, D.C., July 1996 Cohosted by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the conference participants examined the issue of public trust of police, threats to police integrity, and solutions for enhancing public respect for police. Discussion focused on police behavior and corruption as well as the factors that influence police integrity, such as command behavior, community values, political conditions, and the police subculture. Proceedings were highlighted in Police Integrity, Public Service With Honor, published jointly by NIJ and COPS. Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., August 1996 NIJ's annual conference highlighted two major themes: (1) crime prevention and (2) sentencing and its impact on corrections. Two highlights of the conference were presentations by David Weisburd on reorienting the focus of crime prevention research and policy and a discussion by Michael Block and Franklin Zimring presenting opposing views on imprisonment policies. Both presentations were prepared as NIJ publications. Communities, Crime and Justice, Arlington, Virginia, September 1996 Discussion focused on the relationships between communities, crime, and justice; the roles of different segments of the community in preventing and reducing crime; and the role of community organizations in addressing these issues. Attendees totaled more than 700. This conference was jointly sponsored by NIJ, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and other Office of Justice Programs offices. A special issue of the NIJ Journal, "Communities: Mobilizing Against Crime, Making Partnerships Work," was distributed. Restorative Justice Symposium, Washington, D.C., January 1996 This conference was jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Office for Victims of Crime in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Symposium panelists and participants discussed the concept and practical applications of restorative justice, such as victim-offender mediation and restitution. Regional Technology for Community Policing Conferences (five conferences), August-October 1996 These conferences, which focused on how technology can enhance community policing programs, were held in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego, California; Charleston, South Carolina; and Louisville, Kentucky. ------------------------------ NIJ Publications Most Often Downloaded From the Justice Information Center Web Site in Fiscal Year 1996 1. Cowles, E.L.; T.C. Castellano; and L.A. Gransky, "Boot Camp Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Report," Research in Brief, NCJ 155062. 2. Sexton, G.E., "Work in American Prisons: Joint Ventures with the Private Sector," Program Focus, NCJ 148410. 3. Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1995), JL 000219. 4. Bourque, B.B.; R.C. Cronin; F.R. Pearson; D.B. Felker; M. Han; and S.M. Hill, "Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An Implementation Evaluation of Three Demonstration Programs," Research Report, NCJ 157316. 5. Blumstein, A., "Breaking the Cycle of Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets," Research Preview, NCJ 152253. 6. Roth, J.R.,"Firearms and Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145553. 7. McGillis, D., "Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based Community Centers," Program Focus, NCJ 157667. 8. Roth, J.A, "Psychoactive Substances and Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145543. 9. Roth, J.A.,"Understanding and Preventing Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145645. 10. Curry, D.; R.A. Ball; and R.J. Fox, "Gang Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping," Research in Brief, NCJ 148345. ------------------------------ Accessing NIJ Online Methods of Accessing NIJ World Wide Web Through the Justice Information Center: http//www.ncjrs.org Bulletin Board Services If you do not have Internet access, direct dial through your modem: 301-738-8895. Modems should be set at 9600 baud and 8-N-1. If you have Internet access, telnet to bbs.ncjrs.org, or gopher to ncjrs.org:71 NCJRS Anonymous ftp For downloading full-text publications: ftp ncjrs.org E-mail To automatically receive information about NCJRS, send an e-mail to look@ncjrs.org. To ask a question or to obtain other services, send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org ------------------------------ Online Resources JUSTINFO The biweekly free newsletter from NCJRS, JUSTINFO, is delivered via e-mail. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org with the following message: "subscribe justinfo"; make sure you give your name and e-mail address. National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/nacjd Computer-readable copies of NIJ-sponsored data can be obtained from NACJD, which is maintained by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. PAVNET Online http://www.pavnet.org or gopher to: pavnet.esusda.gov This is an interagency data base containing descriptions of about 600 antiviolence programs and 325 sources for technical assistance, information, and potential funding. Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) Online http://www.nlectc.org This is a "one-stop shop" for law enforcement and corrections technology information that links visitors to all the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers, the National Institute of Justice, and other law enforcement and corrections agencies. United Nations Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse (UNOJUST) http://www.unojust.org A U.S. technical assistance program to help the UN Programme Network Institutes develop a global information exchange. Features online machine translation for English, French, Spanish, German, and Russian. Rule of Law http://www.rol.org An online data base of more than 6,400 annotated links to law and justice resources and an electronic mailing list that distributes weekly digests to more than 700 international subscribers primarily in Eastern Europe and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Also includes online machine translation software for the languages noted above under UNOJUST. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 In addition to NIJ, the members of the consortium include the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several agencies within the National Institutes of Health: the Office of Research on Women's Health, the Office of Research on Minority Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute on Aging. 2 Quinn, T., "Redefining and Restoring Justice," (draft report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 95-IJ-CX-0016), December 1996. 3 Feucht, T.E., and G.M. Kyle, "Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 161842. 4 Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 165476. 5 Decker, S.; S. Pennell; and A. Caldwell, "Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163496. 6 Lattimore, P.; J. Trudeau; K.J. Riley; and J. Leiter, Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 7 Mieczkowski, T., et al., "Responding to America's Drug Problems: Strategies for the 1990s," Journal of Urban Affairs, 14 (1992):337-357. Also see Anglin, M., and D.S. Lipton, "Prison-Based Therapeutic Communities: Their Success with Drug-Abusing Offenders," NIJ Journal, 230 (February 1996): 12-20. 8 Mumm, R., "Implementation of a Diversionary Program by the Orleans Parish District Attorney," (final report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 93-IJ-CX-K004), 1995. See also Mieczkowski, T.; R. Mumm; and H. Connick, "The Use of Hair Analysis in a Pretrial Diversion Program in New Orleans," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1995):222-241. 9 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996: The Role of the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 10 The four titles in the Research in Action series by Parent, D.; T. Dunworth; D. McDonald; and W. Rhodes are as follows: "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines," November 1996, NCJ 161837; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing," January 1997, NCJ 161839; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions," January 1997, NCJ 161838; and "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juveniles to Adult Courts," January 1997, NCJ 161840, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. ------------------------------ Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues Levels of crime and violence in the United States appear to be abating, continuing a trend that began about 1992. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the overall number of serious crimes fell 3 percent from 1995 to 1996, while violent crime dropped 7 percent.[1] However, the decline in crime, although positive news, has been unevenly distributed across American communities and represents merely a downturn from a record high level. Thirteen percent more serious crimes were committed in 1996 than in 1984--the last year before crime started edging up; for violent crimes, the difference was more than 30 percent. Thus, the threat of violence continues to cause great public fear and concern, more so perhaps than does any other domestic problem facing the Nation. Juvenile violence is also in decline following a steep rise that coincided with the spread of handguns and cocaine trafficking during the mid-1980s.[2] In 1995, for the first time in nearly a decade the FBI's Uniform Crime Report indicated that juvenile violent crime arrests had declined by 3 percent but were still 67 percent higher than the 1986 level.[3] Juvenile murder arrests decreased 14 percent in 1995, but were still 90 percent higher than in 1986. While the new crime statistics are encouraging, some experts have warned of a potential surge of juvenile crime as children of the "baby boomers" reach the crime-active years. Furthermore, it appears that more girls are participating in criminal acts. Since 1991, female arrest increases have been higher than male arrest increases in most offense categories. In 1995, one in four arrested juveniles was female.[4] No less alarming is the victimization rate among juveniles. While violent crime rates have slipped in recent years for most age groups, teens have continued to experience the highest rate of violent crime victimization, including homicide.[5] In recent years, many States--and the Federal Government--have enacted more stringent sanctions against violent juvenile offenders or have lowered the age at which juveniles can be waived or transferred to adult criminal court. Whether the general downturn in violent crime is the result of stricter penalties, shifting demographic trends, community-based policing initiatives, or other factors--or all of these--remains unclear. What is certain is that recent progress can only be maintained through a better understanding of both the factors that cause violent behavior and those that mitigate potential violence. Research is a key component in building such understanding. Uncovering Pathways to Delinquency and Violence An unprecedented longitudinal study in its third year reached several important data collection milestones in 1996. The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, which is jointly supported by NIJ and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, is examining how individual personalities, family relationships, and school and community environments affect the development of prosocial and delinquent and criminal behavior. For the study, Harvard University researchers and their colleagues interviewed nearly 8,800 adult residents (of 343 neighborhoods) and nearly 3,000 neighborhood experts. They also observed the physical condition of 80 neighborhoods, videotaping more than 27,000 city block faces. In a longitudinal component, researchers enrolled and interviewed 7,000 children, youths, and their caregivers. Researchers will track this group of participants for the next 5-7 years, analyzing their development to gain insights into family and neighborhood factors that encourage prosocial and antisocial behavior. The community survey of adult residents drew responses on topics such as perceived violence, neighborhood decline, stability and cohesion, signs of disorder, and social control. Preliminary results showed that drug dealing topped residents' lists of the most serious problems they face (36 percent), followed by loitering youths (28 percent), trash and litter (27 percent), public drinking (25 percent), graffiti (21 percent), and vacant houses (16 percent) (results add to more than 100 percent because of multiple responses). The participants, who through their responses revealed a lifetime violent crime victimization rate of 13 percent, generally agreed that police in their neighborhoods were responsive to their concerns, although some neighborhood clusters rated police more positively than others. When researchers combined census records with interview and survey responses, they identified three factors that seem to play into a neighborhood's level of informal social control: o "Concentrated disadvantage," the correlation between race and poverty, unemployment, and female-headed households in a community. o Ethnicity, which was important in measuring new patterns of immigration. o Residential stability, the frequency with which residents move in and out of a neighborhood. Areas that are characterized by high levels of "concentrated disadvantage" and residential instability tend to have higher crime and delinquency rates. The study found that "collective efficacy"-- social cohesion among neighbors and their willingness to get involved in solving community problems--helps reduce violence and lessens the effects of high poverty and residential instability.[6] Researchers also completed a pilot study of children and young people's exposure to violence and began an examination of neighborhood characteristics and their impact on individual development. As a way to test a new measurement tool they had developed for the project, researchers interviewed 80 young people aged 9 to 24, all of them participants in the longitudinal study. They were asked about their lifetime exposure as well as their recent exposure to 18 violent events they had either seen or experienced. Findings showed that the new method of assessing violence exposure is reliable and that exposure is high among urban residents. Fourteen percent of the respondents said they had been victims of violence, nearly one-quarter said they had seen an apparent murder victim in the past year, and 8 percent said that someone had shot at them.[7] Taking Action to Reduce Youth Violence Children at Risk Researchers have hypothesized that one of the keys to reducing youth violence and delinquency is to have a comprehensive program of integrated services involving social service agencies, schools, families, peers, criminal justice system components, and community groups. Through a unique public-private partnership, the Children at Risk (CAR) program is attempting to provide early intervention in the lives of high-risk youths and their families with multiple problems. The NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the program, conducted by the Urban Institute, demonstrated that family settings do indeed play a crucial role in predicting the outcome for high-risk youths.[8] The evaluation of the impact of CAR is assessing demonstration programs supported by a coalition of public and private agencies. CAR was developed and funded by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University with support from private foundations and Federal agencies, including NIJ.[9] During the second year of operation, the average CAR program served about 90 high-risk youths and 83 additional family members at an annual cost of approximately $2,400 per person.[10] Followup interviews with youth conducted 1 year after the end of the program indicate that CAR youth were significantly less likely to be current drug users. At the time of the survey (when most youths were 15), 51 percent of the CAR youths had used a gateway drug (i.e., cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, or inhalants) in the past month compared with 64 percent of the control youth. CAR youths were also significantly less likely than control youths to be currently involved in drug sales (14 percent of the CAR youths compared with 24 percent of the control group). The kinds of services CAR youths and family members received varied according to case managers' assessments of needs and local resources and the willingness of youths and family members to take part in offered services. Services were likely to be offered when youths got into trouble or at the time of a major family disruption. Many participants were reluctant to accept services--or even to participate in general prevention activities--during these times of crisis. In practice, CAR became a crisis intervention program rather than a program aimed at prevention. The experiences of the CAR program illustrate the difficulties inherent in delivering a comprehensive set of services to high-risk youths and their families. For instance, case managers, faced with cases of severe neglect (and sometimes abuse), spent more time in crisis management and less time on prevention. One result was that youths in trouble tended to receive intensive attention, while those not in crisis tended to receive less. Another consequence was that case managers took on caregiver functions, making it difficult for them to devote their attention to other key program components. The levels of abuse and neglect reported by case managers indicate the need to include child welfare intervention in any integrated service delivery program. Four of the five CAR sites are continuing the program with enhanced collaborative service delivery involving police departments and other agencies. Three levels of coordination occur in these sites: among agency directors, agency supervisors, and case managers. Experience with CAR showed that coordination is necessary at all three levels for successful implementation. The Ford Foundation is building on many of the lessons learned in the CAR program and is funding several replications of the program. Meanwhile, the evaluation team is continuing to analyze additional information from the children's school and criminal justice records to assess the impact of the CAR program on specific aspects of the lives of these children. Firearms and Boston's Youth Dramatic fluctuations in juvenile violence nationwide this decade have been mirrored by trends in Boston. Between 1990 and 1995, 155 youth homicides occurred in Boston; they appeared to be part of a larger cycle of gang activity involving firearms, which mainly victimized young black men. But since the beginning of a novel "problem-solving" approach to youth violence that targets gangs and firearms, death by homicide among young people under the age of 25 has fallen by two-thirds from the level Boston experienced in 1989 when the city's crack problem soared. In fact, youth violence in Boston is currently at a level 25 percent below the previous low point, which was in 1976. Called "Operation Cease-Fire," the program was launched by Boston police officials; Harvard University researchers; and members of a number of local, State, and Federal agencies. Participants formed a working group to analyze supply and demand for guns and devise innovative strategies to disrupt the illicit firearms market as a means of deterring serious youth violence.[11] The team found that youth homicides were concentrated in several neighborhoods that were home to an estimated 61 gangs. Most youths involved in these violent crimes were no strangers to the justice system--75 percent of known homicide victims and offenders had been arraigned for some offense, one-quarter had been detained in a juvenile or adult facility, and more than half had been on probation at one time. The research team also found that a disproportionate percentage of the handguns confiscated from youths were new semiautomatics, that the single largest source (about one-third) was retail sales in Massachusetts,[12] and that about one in five had obliterated serial numbers. These findings pointed to the existence of a flow of new guns diverted into the illicit juvenile market at points close to first retail sale. Guns confiscated from adults were for the most part older models from a number of manufacturers. Police, prosecutors, probation officers, and gang social workers held meetings with gang members to let them know that they would be subjected to intense scrutiny; that further violence would be met with an immediate interagency response; and that they could face arrest, incarceration, and severe personal restrictions if violence continued. They backed their tough words with action, focusing resources on two violent gangs, one a notorious crack era "posse." The first gang faced strict probation supervision, heavy police presence, and the Federal prosecution of a member for pointing a firearm at a police officer; the other gang was hobbled by a series of drug arrests. While NIJ is supporting an indepth evaluation of the long-term impact of this strategy, Boston's drop in youth homicide and violence suggests that such measures concentrated on a few gangs--if properly publicized--might serve as an effective deterrent to other gangs across the city. Gangs and Violence NIJ's portfolio on gangs covers a diverse array of research topics; several projects are coordinated with other agencies, such as the Family and Youth Services Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Ongoing projects include evaluations of gang prevention initiatives, including one aimed primarily at young women; the G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training) program; prosecution strategies in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; and efforts to identify patterns of gang offending and the factors that lead to criminal incidents. Research on the relationship between gangs and delinquency has shown that gang members have significantly higher levels of delinquency than other youths and that law enforcement focus on gang-related crime and delinquency has consistently increased over the past two decades.[13] While some studies suggest that organized drug-dealing by gangs is not as widespread or common as once believed and that gang migration occurs primarily because the gang member's family moves,[14] gangs by their very nature foster criminalbehavior, especially violence. In fact, one national survey found that the most commonly reported criminal activity for gangs was violence. Other research suggests that increases in gang violence are the result of a "contagion" effect, subsequent acts of violence--usually in retaliation--following an initial act of violence.[15] A study of responses to gang crime in the United States found that gang-related programs have continually failed to make a distinction between gang delinquency and general delinquency and have rarely been systematically evaluated.[16] In addition, programs have not always taken into account the influence of community or ethnic factors on gang organization and behavior, nor is there always a discernible relationship between the perceived cause of a gang problem and the subsequent strategy. Many communities deny gang problems until some dramatic, violent attack occurs because they fear the effects an admission of a gang problem might have on politics or tourism. Episodes of violence are often followed by a period of stepped-up enforcement, possibly further exacerbating community tensions. Gang-related conflicts are just one of many catalysts for juvenile violence. Another study identified a variety of motives and factors behind acts of violence involving youths living in one of two New York City neighborhoods--East New York in Brooklyn and the South Bronx.17 NIJ- supported researchers asked adolescent boys to provide detailed descriptions of four violent events in which they had been participants, two with a gun, two without a gun. From the lengthy narratives that emerged, researchers isolated a number of contexts for street violence that went beyond gang conflicts, such as recurring disputes involving the same individuals, fights over girlfriends, extortion or robbery, preemptive violence for self-preservation, dating violence, and violence rituals to achieve status or prove manhood. Some respondents used violence as a way of establishing social identity, expressing defiance or urges to dominate, or exerting social control. Other respondents seemed to have developed two identities and codes, one as a "street person" and another as a "decent person." The need for self-preservation motivated otherwise "decent kids" to take on the symbolic representation of toughness. Bystanders and alcohol are two significant influences on violent behavior, the study found. Bystanders can "egg you on"--encourage violent behavior--or "cool you out"--diffuse potentially violent situations. Alcohol was found to be an enormous factor in heightening the potential for violence. Drinking tends to magnify adolescents' emotions and desires and raise the social stakes. The mere presence of alcohol drinking near a neighborhood hangout substantially increased the likelihood of violence. Researchers further discovered that holidays and the anniversaries of deaths can be associated with increased likelihood of engaging in violent behavior. In the study neighborhoods, the Fourth of July--a holiday that inspires outdoor parties, fireworks, and drinking--was identified as the day of the year when adolescent behavior is likely to be most volatile. Researchers concluded that conflict resolution skills training in schools would be more effective if it were taught within the context of these realistic street conditions. They also suggested that qualitative research methods--such as those used in the East New York and South Bronx study--may be valuable tools for understanding the dynamics of juvenile violence and other types of violence, such as domestic violence. Exploring the Relationship Between Guns and Violence Evaluation of the Ban on Assault Weapons Assault-type weapons are considered to be the deadliest of firearms. They appear to be disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, many wounds per victim, or with police officers as victims. The 1994 Crime Act banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of designated semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Under a mandate of the Act, NIJ supported research to gauge the ban's effects. The study, conducted by the Urban Institute, found that the effect of the ban on gun murders was too small to detect statistically in the study's short time period (1 year) because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders prior to the ban.[18] The best estimate possible given the time frame is that the Federal ban may have contributed to a decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995 in States without prior State bans (specifically, there was a 6.7 percent greater decrease in States without prior bans). Such a decrease did not occur in States that already had banned assault weapons. A drop in police officer killings since mid-1995 could be linked to the ban, but the decline came during a period when the use of bullet-resistant vests may also have increased. The Urban Institute's analysis suggests that the primary market prices of the banned guns, as reflected in gun publications, rose by nearly 50 percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was being debated in anticipation of passage. At the same time, production surged, so that more than an extra year's supply of assault weapons was manufactured during 1994. After the ban took effect on September 13, 1994, primary market prices fell to nearly pre-ban levels and remained there through mid-1996, reflecting both the oversupply of grandfathered guns and the variety of legal substitutes that emerged. Researchers examined the number of times law enforcement agencies across the country requested that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms trace the origins of assault weapons seized by local law enforcement. Initial examination of trace requests showed a 20-percent drop in requests for assault weapons compared to an 11-percent drop in such requests for all guns. Moreover, the drop in assault weapons traces was substantially greater than the declines in gun murder (12 percent), gun robbery (8 percent), and gun assault (6 percent) during the same period. The greater decrease in assault weapons tracing requests compared to other gun tracing requests suggests a short-term reduction in carrying and use of assault weapons following the ban. Clearly, research is needed to gauge the full impact of the assault weapons ban over the course of several years in a larger number of jurisdictions, with data on both fatal incidents and those without fatalities. The researchers also recommended improving local, State, and Federal data bases on firearms and violence (both for assault weapons and other guns). Ownership and Use by the General Public According to recently released findings of an NIJ-funded national survey of private ownership of firearms, about 35 percent of U.S. households and one-quarter of all American adults own a firearm. There is no typical firearm owner, but the likelihood of ownership is greater for middle-aged, middle-class white males. In addition, ownership is fairly concentrated--about 10 percent of the Nation's adults own 77 percent of the Nation's stock of firearms. Of the 192 million working firearms in private possession, about one-third are handguns and at least 40 percent of these are semiautomatics.[19] On a given day, 1.1 million Americans carry guns on their person outside the workplace; another 2.1 million store guns in their cars or trucks. About one in five households with firearms have at least one unlocked, loaded gun. About three-quarters of survey respondents who own handguns indicated they own the weapon for self-defense, and about two-thirds of respondents said they also own at least one rifle or shotgun, suggesting that many owners also use guns for sporting purposes. Ownership and Use by Arrestees More than one-third of arrestees have owned a gun at some time, and 14 percent carry guns all or most of the time. That proportion rises to 20 percent among juvenile male arrestees and to 31 percent among gang members.[20] These are among the key results of an analysis of data from 11 cities in NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting program. While arrestees who tested positive for drugs were no more likely to own and use firearms than arrestees overall, the study helped confirm the role of gangs and drug markets in increasing access to and use of guns. Among the arrestees interviewed, nearly one-fourth of the adults who owned guns and one-third of juveniles said they had used them to commit crimes. Among drug sellers and gang members, the figures are 42 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The study found that more than half of all arrestees said that guns "are easy to obtain illegally," and more than three-quarters of arrestees who sell drugs and belong to gangs claimed guns were easy to obtain by illegal means. And it does not take long to obtain an illegal firearm--37 percent said they could obtain a gun in less than a week. The authors concluded that one factor in the prevalence of guns is the power of the "gun culture" among arrestees, which condones gun use, especially for protection. Forty-two percent of arrested criminals cited protection as the reason for needing a gun. Arrestees have also been on the other side of the gun--nearly three-fifths replied they had been threatened with a gun, and two out of five had been fired upon. Again, this number was higher for juveniles and gang members. These findings suggest a high correlation between firearms, youths, gangs, and drugs. They also suggest that recent strategies focusing on increased penalties for illegal possession or use of a gun in a crime do not appear to have deterred arrestees from owning and using firearms. The study suggests that a more promising approach to reducing illegal access to firearms might involve a coordinated response by a variety of agencies, including law enforcement, youth support groups, and community organizations. For example, in St. Louis, Missouri, police initiated a firearm suppression program in which officers obtain permission from parents to search the houses where juveniles reside for illegal firearms in return for a guarantee not to prosecute if guns are found. Other comprehensive initiatives involving enforcement, prevention, and deterrence through credible curfews and sanctions are finding success in Boston and in Inglewood, California.[21] Responding to Violence in the Family Research has shown that violence within the family is widespread and consequential. NIJ's family violence portfolio examines several facets of family violence. Family Violence as a Public Health Issue As part of its focus on breaking the cycle of family violence, NIJ collaborated with the National Institutes of Health and other Federal research agencies on a joint solicitation to support research on violence against women and within the family.[22] The sponsoring organizations set aside $5.2 million to support grants lasting 2-3 years. The grants will support research on the causes, course, treatment, management, and prevention of family violence, as well as the health and legal consequences of this violence for victims. Projects funded in fiscal year 1996 are addressing ways of reducing the risk of abuse to children of battered women, the effectiveness of protection orders, domestic abuse among Latinos and Native Americans, the effects of abuse and maltreatment on children's cognition and self-esteem, the abuse of aging caregivers, the effects of neighborhood violence on women and children, and studies to evaluate interventions for rape victims and for adolescent boys from abusive homes. As part of another ambitious joint project, NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) have developed a plan to study violence against women based on a research agenda developed by the National Academy of Sciences in response to a mandate of the Crime Act. Funding for the first year of the 5-year collaboration is under consideration by Congress for fiscal year 1998. Contingent on funding, NIJ and NCIPC will solicit research to learn what works in prevention and intervention programs and will study new approaches and promising practices. NIJ will communicate the results of this research and sponsor research partnerships between universities or research firms and local community agencies. The Role of Drugs, Alcohol, and Weapons Research suggests that assaulted women are often repeatedly victimized by a single assailant and that drugs and alcohol frequently play a role in the attacks. A study funded by the Methodist Hospital Foundation of Memphis of 62 domestic violence incidents in that city found that the vast majority of assaulted women were repeat victims of the same assailant and that 42 percent of the victims and 92 percent of the assailants had used drugs prior to the assault.[23] The study also found that two-thirds of domestic violence assailants were on probation or parole at the time of the assault; nearly half were reported to be dependent on alcohol, drugs, or both; and two-thirds had used a combination of cocaine and alcohol prior to the assault. The presence of firearms and other weapons also seems to play a significant role in the outcome of attacks reported to police. In the Memphis study, 68 percent of the reported battering incidents involved the use or display of a weapon, and 15 percent of victims suffered injuries severe enough to require emergency medical attention. The Role of Civil Protection Orders As part of its effort to learn how to prevent and intervene in domestic violence cases, NIJ has sought to examine how courts can better serve victims. Building on prior research, NIJ funded a study on the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Previous studies concluded that the success of protection orders relied on the thoroughness and specificity of the order itself and how well it is enforced. For the new study, researchers interviewed victims to identify other factors, including accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the abuser. Over one-third of the study participants reported they had been threatened or injured with a weapon, over half had been beaten or choked, and 84 percent had suffered milder physical abuse, such as slapping, kicking, and shoving. The longer a woman experienced abuse, the more intense the abusive behavior became. Thus, victim interviews indicate that the longer a victim stays in a relationship, the more likely it is she will be severely injured by the abuser. The study concluded that victims' views on the effectiveness of protection orders vary with how accessible the courts are for victims and how well-established the links are between public and private services and support resources for victims.[24] Stalking Women who attempt to end relationships with partners sometimes find themselves telephoned incessantly or visited at their place of employment. Other women report being followed by acquaintances or total strangers who want to form a relationship or are acting on the impulses of an obsession. In recent years the stalking of celebrities, both male and female, has drawn headlines and prompted new policies and laws. But how does one differentiate between annoying behavior, harassment, and true criminal stalking? Little research exists specifically on stalking; much of it has been limited to studies of small, unrepresentative, or clinical samples of known stalkers of public figures. To learn more about violence and threats of violence against women, including stalking, NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jointly sponsored a nationwide telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men aged 18 years or older. Preliminary findings reveal that stalking is a much larger problem than previously assumed, affecting an estimated 2 million victims annually. The vast majority of victims are female (78 percent) and the vast majority of perpetrators are male (87 percent). Eight percent of women and 2 percent of men surveyed had been stalked in their lifetimes. White women are as likely to be stalked as women of color, while men of color are at a slightly greater risk of being stalked than white men. In general, women tend to be stalked by former intimate partners, while men tend to be stalked by male strangers and male acquaintances. (See figure 5, Relationship Between Stalking Victim and Offender.) The survey found a strong link between stalking and domestic violence: of the men who stalked their wives or intimate partners, 81 percent also physically assaulted and 31 percent sexually assaulted the stalking victim.[25] The Violence Against Women Act Title IV of the Crime Act, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), represented a major step forward in the Federal response to the many crimes whose victims are women. In 1996 as in 1995, the Crime Act served as an impetus for expanded NIJ research about crimes against women, including evaluations of the effectiveness of State and local initiatives established under VAWA as well as investigations of specific issues, such as the relationship of alcohol to domestic violence, the efficacy of court-mandated domestic violence counseling, and how victims' and witnesses' reluctance to testify can affect court disposition. In 1996, NIJ also completed several congressionally mandated studies. (See "Reports on Violence Against Women Required Under the 1994 Crime Act.") VAWA's program of assistance to improve prosecutorial and police handling of violence against women, the STOP Program (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors), is being evaluated in a nationwide study of the progress that participating States are making in meeting their planning and implementation goals. The first year of the study found that the States were in compliance or moving rapidly toward compliance in such areas as ensuring that victims do not bear the costs of forensic examinations. Review of the States' plans indicates a wide range of specific activities but close adherence to the intent of VAWA. Specific plans include developing model law enforcement protocols, developing a domestic violence manual for police and prosecutors, and establishing oversight committees to identify criminal justice system problems.[26] The plans of most States indicate that victim services will be expanded. Now under way is a second-year evaluation report on the State grants awarded in the first year of the STOP Program. Other nationwide evaluations begun in 1996 focus on the impact of the STOP Program at selected sites, including its effectiveness in Native American communities; on victim services established under VAWA; and on the data collection and communication systems components of the States' programs. ----------------------------- Reports on Violence Against Women Required Under the 1994 Crime Act Crowell, N.A., and A.W. Burgess, eds., Understanding Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. This study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the National Academy of Science.* Zepp, J., et al., "State Databases: Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection," Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1996. Study conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association, NCJ 161405. The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 1996, NCJ 160972. Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking Legislation: NIJ Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160943. Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims' Addresses, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Association, November 1995. Report of a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, NCJ 164064. * Available from the National Academy Press at 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20055. Phone 800-624-6242, or order via the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/nap/bookstore. þ Available from the National Institute of Justice through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 600, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; telephone 800-851-3420; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. þ Available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Uniform Crime Report," 1996 Preliminary Annual Release, June 23, 1997. (Final figures and crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants will be published in Crime in the United States--1996, scheduled for release in the fall of 1997.) 2 Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?," NIJ Journal, (August 1995):3-9. 3 Snyder, H.N., "Juvenile Arrests 1995," Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, February 1997, NCJ 163813. 4 Ibid. See also U.S. Department of Justice, Press Release, December 12, 1996. 5 Criminal Victimization in the United States: 1973-92 Trends, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1994, NCJ 147006. 6 Earls, F.J., and C.A. Visher, "Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: A Research Update," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997, FS 163603. 7 Selner-O'Hagan, M.B., et al., "Assessing the Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence: A Summary of a Pilot Study from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 000159. 8 Harrell, A.V., "Findings from the Evaluation of the Children At Risk Program," (a report in partial fulfillment of cooperative agreement no. 92-DD-CX-0031), April 1997. This evaluation examined the impact of the Children At Risk program, a drug and delinquency prevention program for high-risk adolescents aged 11-13 years old who live in narrowly defined, severely distressed neighborhoods. 9 In addition to NIJ, other Federal funders are the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Participating foundations include the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Prudential, Rockefeller, and American Express Foundations, the Pew Charitable Trust, Ronald McDonald Children's Charities, and United Technologies. 10 Pindus, N., "Costs of the Children At Risk Program," (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 92-DD-CX-0031), 1997. 11 The working group included representatives of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, Massachusetts Department of Probation, Massachusetts Department of Parole, Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, City of Boston School Police, and city-employed gang outreach and mediator workers. Kennedy, D.M., "Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 160766. 12 About one-third were purchased in southern States, and the other two-thirds were purchased from all other States combined. 13 Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency," (a report in partial fulfillment of grant no. OJP-C-94-007), 1997. 14 The second most frequently cited motivation for migrating is drug market expansion. Maxson, C.L.; K.J. Woods; and M.W. Klein, "Street Migration: How Big a Threat?" NIJ Journal, (February 1996):26. 15 Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency." 16 Ibid, pp.ii, 13-22. 17 "Adolescent Violence: A View From the Street," a Research in Progress seminar video, presented by Fagan, J., Director of the Center for Violence Research and Prevention, Columbia University, New York, December 1996, NCJ 163059. 18 Roth, J.A., and C.S. Koper, Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 1997. 19 Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 165476. 20 Decker, S.H.; S. Pennell; A. Caldwell, "Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163496. 21 Kennedy, D.M., "Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 160766. 22 The initiative is coordinated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences and is cosponsored by the National Institute of Justice, NIH Office of Research on Minority Health, NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Mental Health, National Institute on Aging, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 23 Brookoff, D., "Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis," findings presented at NIJ at Research in Progress seminar, February 24, 1997. 24 Keilitz, S.L., et al., Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence, (final report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 93-IJ-CX-0035), Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, 1997. 25 Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, "Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey," findings presented at NIJ Research in Progress seminar, January 16, 1997. 26 Burt, M., The Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 95-WT-NX-0005), Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 29, 1996. The next report will be published in 1997. ------------------------------ Drugs and Crime: Criminal Justice Responses NIJ research has made major contributions to understanding the links between drug use and crime by measuring prevalence of drug use among individuals who enter the criminal justice system and by determining the effectiveness of interventions at various points along the path offenders take through the criminal justice system. In 1996, NIJ continued to chart new directions that will provide more insights about the links between drugs and crime and the combinations of sanctions and treatment that hold the most promise in breaking the drug-crime cycle. The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which entered its 10th year in 1996, is NIJ's pioneering effort to establish the research infrastructure necessary to understand the nexus between crime and drugs. Under the current DUF system, researchers conduct voluntary, confidential, and anonymous interviews and urinalyses of adult and juvenile arrestees at booking facilities in 23 American cities. After being compiled, analyzed, and published, the data became a key element in the Federal Government's leading drug use indicators.[1] The latest data from DUF sites reveal that in most of the 23 sites where DUF is operational about two-thirds of adult male arrestees and more than half of female adult arrestees tested positive for at least one drug. Marijuana use among adult and juvenile arrestees rose during 1996 at most sites, with dramatic increases at a few sites.[2] Regional patterns of drug use are more evident for cocaine, opiates, and methamphetamine. For example, marijuana use has surpassed cocaine use in many Western sites, and high rates of opiate use are confined to a few large DUF cities. High rates of methamphetamine use continue to be mainly a Western phenomenon, but rates fell significantly in 1996 in all sites that had reported increases in 1995. An NIJ-supported study tracing use patterns associated with the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that began in the 1980s found that crack use among arrestees appears to be declining in most DUF cities, especially those on the east and west coasts. It appears that the crack epidemics in New York City and Washington, D.C., began to decline around 1990, while the epidemics in Los Angeles and San Diego began to subside in 1989 and 1992, respectively. In several DUF cities, notably Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, and St. Louis, the epidemic seemed to be still in the "plateau" or stable phase in 1996.[3] Although cocaine use among male and female arrestees continued to decline or remain stable in many DUF cities, remarkable increases were noted in several cities, especially Omaha, Nebraska, and Miami, Florida. And in keeping with trends of recent years, women exhibited higher rates of cocaine and methamphetamine use than men. ADAM: A Better Way to Gauge Drug Use DUF has shown itself to be a highly important vehicle for collecting arrestee drug use data, and NIJ took steps in 1996 to improve and expand its data collection infrastructure by requesting congressional funding to transform the program into a more comprehensive effort. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, which is proposed to be operational by 2001, is designed to build on DUF's success by more than tripling the size of the program. As currently envisioned, ADAM will operate in at least 75 cities, primarily those with populations greater than 200,000.[4] As part of an outreach component, researchers at each urban ADAM site will also collect data annually in suburban, rural, Indian territory areas, or in other arrestee populations outside the urban core. The data generated will provide local and national policymakers with earlier warnings about coming drug epidemics as well as insights into the links between crime and drugs outside of inner-city areas. ADAM will collect a core set of data in each city and provide local communities with the means of collecting arrestee information that will inform issues of local concern. Aggregated ADAM data will provide an important national picture of annual drug use among the arrestees tested, as well as trends over time. The expanded data will assist policymakers in making informed decisions about drug enforcement and treatment interventions. At each ADAM site, Local Coordinating Councils--composed of law enforcement, drug treatment personnel, community action groups and others--will help select outreach sites, generate local research projects for existing ADAM sites, and help disseminate site findings.[5] Using DUF Data to Reveal Drug Use Patterns Expanding the DUF/ADAM programs into rural and suburban areas will provide important research data on the manufacture, distribution, and use of specific drugs. A good example of how DUF data can be used is illustrated by recent findings about methamphetamine use. Across the Nation, methamphetamine use is modest, but there have been pockets of concentrated use in cities in the West and Southwest.[6] Use is typically higher among female arrestees than male arrestees, and use among white arrestees far exceeds that among black or Hispanic arrestees. About 2 percent of adult arrestees in the eight sites with the highest methamphetamine use tested positive for both cocaine and methamphetamine, a finding that suggests that methamphetamine users are a distinct population, perhaps with distinguishable acquisition patterns and treatment needs. What the routine DUF data do not provide, however, are indications why individuals begin using methamphetamine, patterns of use of the drug, dynamics of the methamphetamine market, or indicators of the possible success of treatment.[7] To provide some of these answers, in 1996 NIJ commissioned a special study of methamphetamine markets and use in five Western cities (San Jose, Los Angeles, Portland, Phoenix, and San Diego), which is being conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments and is based on the DUF/ADAM research platform. When completed in 1997, this study will provide the first comprehensive, cross-site analysis of the use and sale of methamphetamine.[8] Preliminary data from the study indicate that nearly half of methamphetamine users in the five cities studied prefer to snort the drug, about one-quarter prefer smoking it, and the rest prefer injection. Most of the users in three of the five cities reported they had used the drug four or more days in a row at least once. Portland and Phoenix seem to have the highest percentage of users who inject methamphetamine, possibly indicating that those cities have more serious users, as injection is the most efficient form of ingestion. According to the preliminary data, most users in the five cities prefer methamphetamine over cocaine because it provides a better "high," is longer lasting, and is inexpensive. Most complained of sleeplessness, weight loss, and family problems, however, and about one in three said they had sought treatment for methamphetamine at least once. Most users seem to buy the drug from people they know and, unlike crack cocaine users, conduct nearly all transactions indoors. Findings from this study are being used by San Diego and other cities to develop meaningful action plans encompassing drug prevention, treatment, and interdiction. Through ADAM, NIJ hopes to continue to produce more of this kind of research data, which can be linked directly to policy and action. Drug Testing: New Uses, Better Methods Judges weigh all available evidence when making a pretrial release decision. Having the results of a urinalysis available might assist a judge in choosing an appropriate placement, such as supervised release, drug treatment, or sanctions. In an NIJ-funded study involving six sites and more than 14,000 cases, researchers found some evidence that urinalysis results may be useful in predicting some type of pretrial misconduct, although more research is needed to make solid predictions. In some sites a positive test for opiates helped predict rearrest, and a positive test for cocaine helped predict a defendant's failure to appear; on the other hand, data at other sites indicated drug tests could not predict any type of problem behavior. Finally, at some sites, tests predicted either rearrest or failure to appear but seldom both.[9] Although urinalysis remains the most commonly used drug testing technique, it cannot detect opiates and cocaine later than 48 to 72 hours after use. Hair analysis, by contrast, has a longer window of detection--7 days to 6 months--but it cannot detect recent use. Still, it represents an alternative medium for estimating the use of rapidly excreted drugs. NIJ recently released findings of a test designed to replicate findings from an earlier study that had examined drug use among juvenile offenders through the use of self reports, urinalysis, and hair assays.[10] The findings from the first study were indeed replicated; for example, hair analysis detected cocaine more frequently than did urinalysis. The investigators found that in almost no instance was a positive urine test accompanied by a negative hair assay. Hair analysis also can detect chronic cocaine use because evidence stays in the hair longer than it stays in urine. For example, urinalysis cannot detect cocaine in a person who has not used the drug within the last 3 days even though the person may be a long-time user. Persons who use cocaine infrequently or in very low doses are likely to pass a periodic urine screen.[11] Further evidence of the usefulness of hair analysis was reported in an NIJ evaluation of a diversion program operated by the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office in Louisiana. The evaluation relied on urinalysis, hair analysis, and self-reported drug use to monitor compliance. Hair analysis proved to be a more efficacious method of identifying drug exposure than either urinalysis or self-reported use. In addition, the study revealed patterns of abstinence from drug use and of compliance with conditions of diversion and probation related to drugs; it also encouraged drug-involved offenders to participate in treatment.[12] At the request of the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, NIJ researchers were asked to develop baseline data on drug use in the State's prison system. In response, NIJ staff researchers collected hair samples from inmates at five prisons. All inmates in the study had been in custody of the department for at least 3 months, and the hair samples represented growth over the previous 3 months. The samples were tested for evidence of use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP. Results revealed considerable variation between facilities in the frequency of drug use by inmates during their incarceration. In one prison, 2.3 percent of the participants tested positive for marijuana, while in another, 20.1 percent tested positive. Overall, 6 to 9 percent tested positive for marijuana, 2 percent tested positive for cocaine, and 1 percent tested positive for heroin. Only one inmate tested positive for PCP. The data will assist prison officials in their development of policies to reduce the availability of and access to drugs in prisons. Assessing Intervention Approaches Estimates of the annual number of drug-using arrestees who probably need treatment range as high as 2 million. The scope of treatment needs is even more extensive than indicated by this figure as many drug users who come into the criminal justice system use more than one drug and also abuse other substances, such as alcohol.[13] The percentage of arrestees using multiple drugs ranged from 13 percent to 37 percent at DUF sites in 1996; the average for both males and females was 22 percent. In a major new effort, NIJ, with funding from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is implementing a research demonstration project in Birmingham, Alabama, known as Breaking the Cycle. The project is testing the hypothesis that providing arrestees with a comprehensive response to drug use that includes judicially supervised testing, treatment, and sanctions will result in lower recidivism rates and a greater likelihood that arrestees will abstain from drug use. The project combines urinalysis, needs assessment, and the provision of appropriate treatment, supervision, and services to all arrestees who show evidence of recent drug use. NIJ will conduct both implementation and impact evaluations of Breaking the Cycle over the next several years. NIJ is also evaluating a second program, Operation Drug TEST (Testing, Effective Sanctions, Treatment), which will operate in approximately 25 Federal judicial districts. Federal arrestees in participating districts will be tested prior to their initial court appearance. Court officials will use test results together with other pretrial information to impose testing, treatment, sanctions, and other conditions of pretrial release. Specialized "drug courts" or "treatment courts" have gained recognition in recent years as promising vehicles for breaking the cycle of drugs and crime by providing close supervision to encourage abstinence and by ordering treatment for those who can benefit most.[14] Many drug courts offer diversion, deferred prosecution, or deferred sentencing arrangements to first-time offenders who complete treatment; other drug courts target offenders with multiple arrests. Understanding what conditions or combinations of conditions are most effective is the aim of NIJ's research in the area of drug courts. In a collaborative venture with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ is overseeing the evaluation of a specialized drug court in Washington, D.C., in which offenders are randomly assigned to drug treatment, graduated sanctions, or the traditional court docket. This project is designed to test the comparative value of drug treatment and criminal justice sanctions. Early findings from the NIJ-supported evaluation indicate that arrestees in both the treatment group and graduated sanctions group are more likely to be drug free in the month before sentencing than are those in the control group. It appears that those who receive sanctions are also less likely to be rearrested than the control group. Another experiment, involving arrestees in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, found that when drug-involved offenders were closely supervised, rates of drug use, recidivism, and high-risk behavior decreased significantly.[15] The study, funded by NIJ and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was designed to test whether case management interventions could reduce high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex and needle sharing as well as drug use itself. The case management interventions included (1) viewing a videotape in lockups and booking facilities that sought to motivate help-seeking behavior about drug use and HIV prevention; (2) viewing the videotape and also attending a single face-to-face session with a referral specialist who completed a needs assessment and recommended an action plan tailored to the participant's needs; (3) viewing the videotape, attending the referral session, and receiving 6 months of sustained case management. Analysis of the participants, who were randomly assigned to one of the interventions, found statistically significant and often dramatic changes in behavior after enrollment. The proportion of participants reporting heavy drug use declined for all three treatment categories in both sites. In Washington, D.C., for example, the percentage of participants reporting heavy drug use dropped from 85 percent to 17 percent at 6 months after case management enrollment. Time spent in jail was lower for those in case management than for other participants, and all participants reported reduced needle use and needle sharing as well as increased needle cleaning.[16] Prison-Based Interventions Drug treatment has been available in some prisons for the better part of a generation, but the 1980s saw a large upsurge in programs, as the percentage of State inmates receiving some form of treatment tripled during this decade. As evidence of a commitment to providing drug treatment in prisons, Congress has appropriated $36 million in fiscal year 1997 and authorized up to $72 million in coming years to fund the Residential Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which was established by the 1994 Crime Act to expand drug treatment in correctional settings. Guidelines require States to drug-test participants and separate those found to be users from the general inmate population. NIJ is supporting several evaluations related to RSAT in a collaborative effort with the Office of Justice Programs' Corrections Program Office, which administers the program. Through RSAT, States may receive formula grant funds to establish a program of drug and alcohol testing for participants: the program gives preference to subgrant applicants that provide aftercare services.[17] NIJ has funded a national evaluation of RSAT as well as local evaluations in seven States. The national study includes an examination of the types of offenders participating in drug treatment and the treatment given and takes preliminary steps in evaluating RSAT's impact. The project also includes technical assistance to the States to enhance the usefulness of the data collected in the program and the reports States are required to submit. Program evaluations at the local level are being conducted as partnerships between researchers and practitioners. Some of the programs studied are based on the "therapeutic community" model, and some include strong aftercare components. The RSAT evaluations include: o A study of the effects of the Florida Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program at three facilities. o Assessment of Delaware's continuum of residential treatment, the "Crest" program, which has expanded with Crime Act support. o Assessment of a program for female prisoners in California that offers an intensive 6-months of residential treatment followed by community treatment during parole. o Examination of a restructured therapeutic community program at a New Mexico facility. o Assessment of a program in Michigan that provides treatment to juveniles. o Assessment of a Wisconsin program that helps drug-using inmates who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. Understanding the enormous impact that drug-related arrests have had on jail and prison populations, NIJ funded an evaluation of five local corrections-based drug treatment programs, four in California and one in New York.[18] All five programs offered counseling and self-help groups as part of the treatment regimen and housed participants in separate living units. Researchers found that these jail-based drug treatment programs had only modest success in reducing recidivism within a year of release.[19] Nevertheless, considering their limitations (weak or nonexistent aftercare, mismatches between length of program and time incarcerated, and budget constraints), these programs appear to have potential for greater success. Aftercare services are particularly important in keeping participants away from drugs and crime, as other studies have shown. The researchers concluded that the greatest immediate benefit of jail drug treatment programs has been to provide a "behavioral management tool" that contributes particularly to lower levels of violence within the jail. Drug Prevention Programs: The Missouri Experience Corrections-based drug treatment and other interventions, although effective, are only one approach to reducing drug abuse. Residents of Kansas City, Missouri, and of areas of Jackson County, Missouri, decided in 1989 to try a new approach to funding drug abuse and drug-related crime initiatives in the community. In the first referendum of its kind, the city and county enacted a special sales tax called COMBAT (Community-Backed Anti-Drug Tax), which funds a broad-based strategy for reducing drug use and drug-related crime.[20] In November 1995, county residents demonstrated their continued support for COMBAT by voting for a 7-year renewal of the tax. COMBAT's 0.25 percent levy funds a comprehensive range of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement activities and gives the county prosecutor discretion and authority to guide the county's anti-drug strategies, which include community-based policing and prevention and treatment programs. COMBAT's broad mission has enabled police to establish a strong presence in the community and has improved coordination between treatment providers, courts, and corrections agencies. In the first 5 years since COMBAT was implemented, more than 100,000 students participated in drug-abuse prevention programs, and more than 700 drug-addicted individuals received treatment each month. On the law enforcement side, more than 2,200 drug houses were raided, and more than 1,200 cases were prosecuted through the Eastern Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task Force. In partnership with the Kauffman Foundation of Kansas City, NIJ is currently evaluating this program. Endnotes 1 Others include the Monitoring the Future Survey, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the Drug Abuse Warning Network, and Pulse Check. 2 1996 Drug Use Forecasting: Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1997, NCJ 165691. Data collected from 19,845 male arrestees, 7,532 female arrestees, 4,145 juvenile male and 645 juvenile female detainees. 3 Golub, A.L., and B.D. Johnson, "Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 165707. 4 NIJ has requested $6.7 million for ADAM for fiscal year 1998, or $4.4 million more than the annual cost of the more limited DUF program. If provided by Congress, this funding level will allow for an initial expansion of the program from 23 to 35 cities. 5 1996 Drug Use Forecasting, p. 72. 6 Feucht, T.E., and G.M. Kyle, "Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 161842. 7 Ibid. 8 Pennell, S., and A. Caldwell, "Examining Methamphetamine Users and Sellers in Five Cities," (a report in partial fulfillment of grant no. 96-IJ-CX-0026), forthcoming. 9 Mieczkowski, T., "Hair Assays and Urinalysis Results for Juvenile Offenders," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1997, FS000171; William, R.; R. Hyatt; and P. Scheiman, "Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1996, NCJ 150551. 10 Feucht, T. E.; R. Stevens; and M. Walker, "Drug Use Among Juvenile Arrestees: A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis, and Hair Assays," Journal of Drug Issues, 24 (1994):99-116. 11 Mieczkowski, T., "Hair Assays and Urinalysis Results for Juvenile Drug Offenders," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1997, FS 000171. 12 Mieczkowski, T.; R. Mumm; and H.F. Connick, "The Use of Hair Analysis in a Pretrial Diversion Program in New Orleans," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1995): 222-241. 13 According to 1996 Drug Use Forecasting, more than 60 percent of arrestees in 20 of the 23 DUF sites in 1996 tested positive for drugs. Also see Lipton, D.S., "The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision," November 1995, NIJ Research Report; Lipton, D.S., "Prison-Based Therapeutic Communities: Their Success with Drug-Abusing Offenders," NIJ Journal, (February 1996):12; and Prendergast, M.L.; Y.I. Hser; and J. Hsieh, "Drug Treatment Need Among Offender Populations," paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, November 4-7, 1992. 14 See for example, Goldkamp, J., "The Drug Court Movement," NIJ Update, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1995; Bureau of Justice Assistance, "Special Drug Courts," Program Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1993, NCJ 144531. 15 Rhodes, W., and M. Gross, "Case Management Reduces Drug Use and Criminality Among Drug-Involved Arrestees: An Experimental Study of an HIV Prevention Intervention," Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 155281. 16 The one behavior that did not show universal improvement across sites was the use of condoms, which did not increase in Portland. 17 Criminal Justice Research under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996: The Role of the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 18 Tunis, S.; J. Austin; M. Morris; P. Hardyman; and M. Bolyard, "Evaluation of Drug Treatment in Local Corrections," Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1997, FS 000173. 19 Seventeen percent of the treatment group and 23 percent of the comparison group were reconvicted at least once in the year after release, most for property or drug crimes. 20 Mills, G., "COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax: COMBAT in Jackson County, Missouri," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1996, NCJ 160937. ------------------------------ Crime Control and Prevention: Focus on the Community The Nation's law enforcement agencies reported a 3-percent decrease in property crime and a 5-percent decline in violent crime during 1996, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.[1] Cities, rural areas, and suburban counties all reported declines. Cities with populations greater than 1 million had the greatest decline--6 percent--in serious crime. New York City, for example, continued to post declining crime rates, with a 9-percent drop in serious crime. Cities in the middle range--500,000 to 1 million inhabitants--recorded a 5-percent decrease. Better police strategies, improved crime prevention measures, tougher gun control laws, and a dramatic increase in the number of imprisoned criminals have been credited for the dramatic decline. But what strategies--many supported with Federal funds--are most likely to sustain the momentum? And how can other jurisdictions apply similar efforts? Most important, how are the most stubborn crime problems, those of poor inner-city neighborhoods, best addressed? To find answers to these questions, NIJ research and evaluation projects are applying scientific tools to study, test, assess, and share reliable knowledge on the impact of law enforcement innovations and the effect of crime prevention efforts on the safety and security of neighborhoods and communities. The lessons learned are then disseminated widely so that other local jurisdictions can experiment with promising approaches and the accumulating knowledge can be used to design the next level of innovation. Police Role in Crime Control Much of the current discussion about crime rates centers on the police and the ways in which they can best prevent and control crime. Thus, there is a new urgency about trying to determine which factors best gauge the effect of police work. One key development was the 1994 Crime Act, which has given significant impetus to applying and learning more about innovative processes for policing. The 100,000 officers being hired under Title I of the Crime Act will be deployed in community policing settings where they will address the causes of crime rather than simply react to it. With support from the Justice Department offices involved in the administration of programs adopted by the States, NIJ is conducting evaluations to find out whether the new approaches are working and to make that knowledge available to other communities. Last year, a series of policing research institutes, sponsored by NIJ in collaboration with the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), tackled these issues. Police executives, leading researchers, community leaders, journalists, and government officials met in three sessions to discuss the challenges of "Measuring What Matters" in policing.[2] The inaugural session of NIJ's Policing Research Institute generated stimulating debate about the myriad ways to measure police effectiveness. Participants agreed on several key themes in measurement: o Communities--It is important to measure the impact of police at the neighborhood level; to consider the effects of political, cultural, and social realities of communities; and to measure the larger economic and social forces in the community. There is also a need for communities to be involved in resolving crime and disorder problems. One commentator noted as particularly significant ". . . the development of a powerful community movement . . . an alternative paradigm to the criminal justice system . . . and law enforcement paradigm." o Decline in Crime Rates--Potential explanations that need to be measured and regularly tracked include aggressive, results-oriented police management in some departments; maturation of big-city drug markets, which means less violence; and coordinated efforts by police, communities, and other agencies and organizations in comprehensive crime prevention efforts. One participant cautioned, "Police action can impact crime in small localized settings if there is a clear . . . focus." o Police and Citizens--Public expectations and attitudes toward police are shaped by individual encounters of citizens; satisfaction is highly correlated with police process, which should be a key outcome measure. At the same time, measurement efforts should not lose sight of other, fundamental outcomes, including integrity, fairness, and accessibility of services. o Data for Measuring--In addition to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, victimization surveys, and the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) gathered by BJS as aggregate measures of performance, participants noted the importance of analyzing other data sources such as calls for service and regular citizen surveys which can be carried out relatively simply. The two other sessions dealt with public measures of satisfaction with the police and internal police performance measures. Highlights of the sessions are reported in NIJ's Research in Brief series, and the full conference papers will be published in 1997. NIJ plans to support research on the fundamental issue of measurement, with a request for proposals slated for 1997. Community Policing Research by NIJ and others has been a potent force in the development and implementation of community policing. As a result of the Crime Act, the proportion of NIJ research dedicated to community policing has increased substantially. The focus continued in 1996, the second year of the Act's implementation, with the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) setting aside funding for NIJ-sponsored evaluations of this approach.[3] The research strategy continues to encompass locally based studies, partnerships between researchers and practitioners to study topics of interest in a local jurisdiction, and a national evaluation of Title I. Now under way at the Urban Institute, the national evaluation is expected to be finalized in early 1998, with interim reports issued in 1997. The innovation embodied in community policing--the expansion of policing beyond enforcement alone--is evident in a number of research studies launched under the Crime Act in 1996. A central aim of community policing is strengthening the bond between the police and the community they serve; understanding this dynamic is key to the success of the approach. In turn, only with good measurement tools can assessments of the police-community relationship be conducted with confidence. The need for good measurement tools motivated NIJ to sponsor a study of the community component of community policing in Los Angeles, in a project that will develop tools for measuring residents' attitudes toward and perceptions of the police. Among the policing studies supported with Crime Act funds is a Boston-based study, that is identifying what determines citizens' involvement and is looking at factors in the community and at the individual level that motivate participation in community policing. Because the fatigue that frequently accompanies police work may adversely affect officers' relations with community residents, NIJ is examining how long hours affect officers' job performance. NIJ is also taking a new look at the citizen complaint, the traditional measure of police accountability to the community. In this project, undertaken from the citizens' perspective, researchers are exploring experiences with the process and whether or not citizens were satisfied with the results. Responding to special-needs groups in a community is integral to community policing. With immigrants a growing part of the country's population, it is important to understand their relationship with police officers, as men and women wearing police uniforms in the immigrants' country of origin may have been a force for oppression. NIJ is investigating the extent to which awareness of community policing is penetrating immigrant communities and is trying to understand how residents perceive this approach to law enforcement. The police response to emotionally disturbed people is the subject of an NIJ study that will identify best practices by examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. Substance abusers are also of particular interest; a study of police interaction with clients of substance abuse treatment programs now under way aims to understand how to minimize the negative consequences of criminal justice intervention for clients and their families. What actually happens on the street when officers are deployed in community policing? NIJ will document the activities that constitute community policing in a study of Cincinnati, exploring whether neighborhood officers are performing tasks commonly associated with community policing and doing so in a way that embodies the community policing philosophy. Because community policing calls for major shifts from the more traditional "911-driven" approach to crime control, police departments need to adopt new strategies and tactics to accommodate it. Several years ago the Police Foundation studied the strategic and tactical changes occurring in policing, and NIJ is now updating that study. One shift is in the role of individual officers. Because their role is so important in community policing, NIJ is studying whether training produces the desired changes in the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs officers bring to this approach. Police performance is measured in a number of ways. Clearance rates (that is, the percentage of cases in which an arrest is made, the arrestee charged with the commission of the offense, and the case turned over to the court for prosecutions) are a traditional measure of success in policing, but how they fit into the context of community policing calls for further understanding. Homicide clearance rates are being studied in several major cities in an attempt to find out how well they measure police effectiveness on the job. Building Police-Researcher Collaboration The "locally initiated partnerships" between researchers and police introduced in the first year of the Crime Act under NIJ sponsorship continued in 1996. These projects, which typically involve a local law enforcement agency and neighboring university or other research institution, include the application of New York City's computerized crime tracking program (COMPSTAT) in Prince George's County, Maryland, an area bordering Washington, D.C.; a study in Alachua County, Florida, of sheriff's office communication skills; a partnership in Berkeley, California, to develop testing tools that can help police with decision-making in domestic violence situations; and continuation of a project begun in 1995 to integrate evaluation and information dissemination into the Lansing, Michigan, community policing program. Law Enforcement Family Support Title XXI of the Crime Act provides for stress reduction, stress education, counseling, child care, marital and adolescent support, and training to assist in these programs for law enforcement officers and their families. Responsibility for establishing these services and for undertaking related research was assigned to NIJ, which created an advisory panel of police labor and management to lend their expertise and then followed up on the panel's advice by commissioning a review of similar programs now in operation. The results were published in an NIJ Issues and Practices report, "Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families."[4] With these findings as a basis, NIJ awarded grants to several law enforcement agencies as well as to other groups to conduct research, test innovative practices, or provide training to reduce stress among police officers and their families. Grants were awarded to jurisdictions in widely dispersed parts of the country, with special attention to such specific issues as policing in rural areas, acculturation of newly hired officers, and extension of support service to family members. With NIJ support, programs, services, and training are being established or expanded in Iowa, Vermont, Louisiana, New York, the city of Miami, and elsewhere. For example, the Iowa project consists of development and evaluation of a comprehensive, model stress management program for county, municipal, and university law enforcement officers and their families in rural areas. In another example, innovative stress reduction educational training programs to meet officers' work and family needs are being developed and subsequently evaluated in Dallas, Minneapolis, and Erie County, New York. Exploring Ethical Issues in Policing Effective community policing means building from the neighborhood up--spending time in the community and listening to what is important to the people who live there. Public trust and confidence in police is central to the process, making the question of police integrity more important than ever. To look at this issue in greater detail, NIJ, in partnership with the COPS office, assembled law enforcement executives, researchers, representatives of labor groups, police officers, representatives of civil rights groups, Federal law enforcement officers, ethicists, and representatives of other professions that have faced ethical challenges for a National Symposium on Police Integrity.[5] As a measure of public interest in the subject, more than 4,000 requests for the proceedings of the symposium were received in the months following its publication by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Five research projects were subsequently awarded by NIJ on the subject of police integrity. Use of Force by Police Public distrust of police often centers around when and how police use force in carrying out their duties. Images of police using excessive force raise disturbing questions about the integrity and fairness of law enforcement officers. Data on the frequency and extent of the use of force are limited, but one nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies showed that in 1993 there were 11.3 complaints of excessive use of force per 100,000 population.[6] Males, who represented 48 percent of the general population studied, accounted for 73 percent of the complaints and 83 percent of the sustained complaints. To determine the extent of, and causes for, excessive use of force and to find ways to respond, the 1994 Crime Act directed the Attorney General to "acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers" and to "publish an annual summary of the data acquired . . . ." The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NIJ, and the Institute for Law and Justice, cooperating in this task, have produced an initial report on use of force.[7] The report notes that police, researchers, and legal analysts have yet to agree on a standard definition of what constitutes excessive force; it summarizes what is known about the issue from previous research studies. NIJ and BJS also are jointly funding the development of a national data base on police use of force based on information voluntarily provided by police departments. Under a grant project, the International Association of Chiefs of Police will establish a National Use of Force Database Center to collect this information. BJS also intends to field-test a police-public- contact questionnaire by expanding its National Crime Victimization Survey to include a series of questions about the use of both appropriate and inappropriate force during police-civilian encounters. The Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction with Rutgers University and Arizona State University, received an NIJ grant to study the incidence and nature of the force used by and against Phoenix police officers during arrest situations.[8] A survey of officers over a 2-week period in June 1994 yielded 1,585 adult custody arrests for analysis or approximately 85 percent of the total adult custody arrests made during the study period. An additional sample of 185 suspect interviews were matched to the officer surveys to obtain the suspect's perspective on the arrest incident. After examining the full range of degrees of force used during arrests (from police presence to the use of deadly force), this study found that officers and suspects used some physical force in about one of every five and one of every six arrests, respectively. The magnitude of the force used by officers and suspects was typically at the low end of the range; officers used a weapon--most often a flashlight--in only 2 percent of the arrests. The single best predictor of police use of force was use of force by the suspect. Replication of this research is now under way in five other cities: Dallas, Texas; St. Petersburg, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and San Diego, California--where both the city and county police departments are participating. Patterns and Correlates of Assaults on Police NIJ has also supported research on violence against the police, including an indepth study of 52 officers who were seriously assaulted.[9] Routine, repetitive tasks have emerged as a continuing threat to officer safety. Traffic stops, inability to communicate with the dispatcher or with other involved jurisdictions, searches, and use of handcuffs are tasks that should be second nature to officers but posed problems in the cases studied. The study found that officers cited training as critical to the actions they took to protect themselves. However, while many assaulted officers credited repeated safety training as effective preparation, others noted inadequate or improper training that actually made them unsure of the proper action. Some recounted that training taught them what "not to do," leaving them uncertain about what "to do." Finally, while there is no definitive answer as to why one officer survives a life-threatening attack and another does not, many of the assaulted officers in the study displayed an uncommon "will to survive." Many officers believed this attitude was ingrained by concentrated training. The study did not identify whether this will-to-survive was brought to law enforcement or learned on the job. In another study, an NIJ-funded researcher is analyzing and comparing information on police use of force in three police departments (Eugene and Springfield, Oregon; Metro-Dade County, Florida). These data will be analyzed to determine the relationships between the degree of resistance met by police, the levels of force used by officers to control suspects, and the demographic characteristics of suspects and officers. A novel aspect of this study is that the use-of-force data collected by the Eugene and Springfield police departments were obtained within the broader context of determining the essential types and minimum levels of physical abilities that police officers require to perform their duties.[10] Making Pursuit Driving Safer High-speed pursuit of criminals is another issue raising concern, particularly in densely populated areas where other drivers or pedestrians may unwittingly become involved with the pursuit. Chases at high speeds have long been recognized as a dangerous activity, and law enforcement agencies must weigh which offenses and what conditions warrant taking the risks associated with pursuing fleeing suspects. According to an NIJ national survey of police departments, police officers, not surprisingly, are more willing to engage in a car chase as the severity of the crime grows, and supervisors are more likely to approve a pursuit in such instances.[11] Public opinion surveys conducted as part of the research show that the public supports pursuit driving to apprehend those suspected of violating the law, but the danger inherent in high-speed pursuits makes better police training essential. The study made several recommendations for local law enforcement agencies to consider: revamping training to focus on risk evaluation as well as realistic methods of apprehending a fleeing suspect--not just how but when; increasing the number of supervisory-level evaluations after pursuits, with more meaningful discipline if the pursuit is judged to have been inappropriate; and creating and maintaining data collection on pursuit driving to improve the quality and relevance of pursuit policies, many of which were written 20 years ago. Controlling Police Overtime The Justice Department contributes approximately 60 percent of Federal Government expenditures to support State and local law enforcement; other agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Transportation and of Housing and Urban Development contribute lesser amounts. An NIJ-supported evaluation of the effect of Federal funding used for police overtime found that the Department of Justice's expenditures on overtime support rather than supplant local spending: for every dollar of Federal money invested in overtime, localities spend another $1.68.[12] The evaluation concluded that overtime funds in the sites studied were usually spent on traditional policing practices rather than programmatic innovations. This finding led researchers to suggest that, while Federal expenditures may shift enforcement priorities somewhat, they may not be able to bring about substantial organizational change. In addition, while the overtime payments may have enhanced community policing in some departments, the evaluation revealed that the majority of community policing initiatives appear to be supported entirely by local funds. Federal support made a greater difference in the more ambitious community policing programs, such as problem solving, beat patrol officers, and foot patrols. Developing New Technologies for Crime Control One of the critical roles played by NIJ is in the creation of new tools for law enforcement and corrections practitioners. Dramatic advances in technology offer important benefits in controlling crime, and NIJ is committed to bringing these advances to criminal justice agencies. At the same time, NIJ is integrating the perspectives of social scientists and technology researchers and developers to ensure that the effects of the technology on the operations of the system and behavior of its personnel are carefully assessed. Computerized Mapping The development of computerized geographic information systems has revolutionized crime tracking. Police no longer need to push pins into wall maps--instead, sophisticated computer systems can update maps comprehensively and quickly. These new systems allow temporal as well as spatial analysis of crime patterns, and maps can be printed and kept as a permanent record. Crime mapping by computer may be a powerful tool for police departments as they work to reduce crime, whether on the street corner, in an entire jurisdiction, or across jurisdictional lines. To advance both applied and basic research involving the analytic mapping of crime, NIJ established the Crime Mapping Research Center in 1996. The Center's goals include providing spatial-statistical resources to both practitioners and researchers, forging partnerships between Federal agencies and the research and criminal justice communities, and spearheading research efforts in spatial and temporal analysis of crime. The Center also conducts surveys of police departments to gauge the extent to which they use analytic mapping and provides technical support and training to law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. During 1996, NIJ published a case study of the integrated computerized crime mapping program of the Chicago Police Department.[13] Called ICAM, short for Information Collection for Automated Mapping, this program is especially user friendly. With minimal training, Chicago police officers can create maps of reported offenses of a particular type in a specified area. Or, by clicking the computer mouse several times, they can produce a chart of the 10 most frequently reported offenses in an area. The program also allows dispatchers to locate calls for service and match them with the nearest patrol car or other response unit. The ICAM system also provides important information for beat officers working with community groups. By reviewing ICAM maps, residents can see problems and develop new strategies for improving neighborhoods. Beat police can use maps to make decisions about where to concentrate their foot patrols. Although no research has yet been done on how effective ICAM is as a crime-reducing tool, anecdotal information points to its effectiveness. Detecting Gunshots by Remote Means In an example of an intramural partnership, NIJ's Office of Science and Technology and Office of Research and Evaluation are overseeing two evaluation programs conducted by the University of Cincinnati to collect data on remote acoustical gunshot detection systems being field-tested in Dallas, Texas, and Redwood City, California. Results from both evaluations will be published in 1997. It is still too early to tell whether these devices have been successful in suppressing gunshots in the areas under study; a number of preliminary findings are being developed. In terms of the technology itself, it is clear that a key success factor will be the depth and level of information these remote systems are able to capture. Triangulation, which provides an accurate street address for shots fired, is critical if police are to respond quickly to an emergency call. Another key element is the acceptance of this technology by police officers, which requires that local jurisdictions view these systems as valuable additional tools in their crime-solving repertoire. Finally, early indications from the field are that community support is critical for this--or any other--system to work. Not only is community support necessary to allocate the additional monies required to purchase such systems, but the backing of community leaders also leads to stronger public-police partnerships. Thus technology can become, in effect, a means to build stronger communities and provide a potentially more effective community policing tool. The Community's Role in Crime Control Interventions that reach out to communities, identify their needs, and encourage them to participate in crime control efforts have been a focal point of NIJ's evaluations in recent years. During fiscal year 1996, 16 cities participated in a major effort to develop a comprehensive, community-based strategy to control crime--the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), which is supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. An NIJ-sponsored evaluation of CCP is being conducted to determine the overall benefits from communities working in partnership with police departments and other city agencies. Measuring the Effectiveness of Community-Wide Approaches Launched in 1991, Operation Weed and Seed is a comprehensive, coordinated approach that follows a two-pronged strategy of "weeding out" violent offenders through law enforcement and prosecution and "seeding" the neighborhood with prevention, intervention, treatment, and revitalization. Community policing serves as a bridge between the two programs.[14] Approximately $1.1 million was provided to each of 19 sites selected for an 18-month demonstration. Each city worked from a blueprint provided by the Department of Justice, which it customized to suit its particular needs. An NIJ-funded process evaluation of this demonstration noted that grant funds were used more often to support weeding efforts and community policing than for seeding programs. The emphasis was usually on drug- and gun-related crime or other violent crimes. The process evaluation also suggested that groups that did not ordinarily consult with one another-- such as prosecutors, community residents and leaders, police officers, and social service providers--have been able to coordinate their efforts, share resources, and solve problems through Weed and Seed. This finding points to the need for future programs to include key representatives from district attorneys' offices and the target neighborhoods as well as from Federal law enforcement agencies. Seeding, the most complex element of the program, received about 18 percent of resources, according to the process evaluation. Thus, seeding usually became the responsibility of city agencies. Prevention, intervention, and treatment usually took the form of substance abuse programs, alternative activities for youth, health and nutrition services, personal and family development and education, victim assistance, and community crime prevention. "Safe Havens," multiservice centers with a variety of youth and adult services, were also a major focus of prevention activities. A 2-year outcome evaluation of eight Weed and Seed sites is now under way; findings are anticipated in late 1997. An evaluation of another major program to control violent and drug-related crime, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, found that the program funds have gone predominantly to multijurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) that integrate Federal, State, and local antidrug activities.[15] Between 1989 and 1994, approximately 40 percent of all grants were for MJTFs. Generally, these MJTFs brought together multiple agencies across multiple jurisdictions. Although it has not been possible to comprehensively assess the impact of the MJTFs on the drug problem, the enhanced coordination has had a lasting impact on law enforcement agency cooperation. The evaluation also found that the strategic planning required to obtain a grant has resulted in better use of resources and that the Byrne Program is well implemented at the State level. Federal assistance for criminal justice remains small, however, compared with State and local expenditures, and thus it is almost impossible to correlate Federal dollars invested directly with crime reduction. Physical Environment and Crime NIJ has supported a body of research assessing whether the physical features of a particular environment can reduce or prevent crime. Called crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), this research focuses on ways to reduce vulnerability through better design and management of the physical environment. Building on CPTED, newer place-specific crime prevention policies offer a broader approach to planning.[17] The idea that crime prevention is not a "one size fits all" effort has been borne out by NIJ-funded research that has revealed two principal lessons: o Physical design modifications, management changes, and changes in use should be tailored to specific locations and coordinated in their planning and implementation. o The most effective security and crime prevention efforts are those that involve a coalition of different players working together to define the problem and then seek solutions.[18] Public Transportation and Crime Evidence that crime prevention can be taken into account during design and construction of a physical setting has been documented in the case of the Washington, D.C., "Metro," a public transit system recognized as one of the safest subways in the world.[19] Metro officials attribute their success to a combination of three factors: architectural design that employed crime prevention principles, vigilant maintenance policies, and stringent crime prevention techniques. An NIJ-funded evaluation concluded that these efforts have been successful in keeping crime rates low, despite what would be expected to be a high-victimization environment. Parking Facilities and Crime More violent crimes occur in parking facilities than in any other commercial area, according to an NIJ study completed in 1996.[20] Because of their vulnerability, parking facilities can benefit greatly from CPTED strategies, including increased lighting that meets codes established by the Engineering Society of North America, natural surveillance, emergency communications systems, and closed circuit television in high-risk facilities. Liability for Property Owners The fact that architects, developers, and property owners can use better design to prevent crime has resulted in an increase in litigation based on premise liability. Increasingly, crime victims are looking to owners and managers of properties for compensation. They argue that if property owners had used techniques of good security planning and design, crimes would not have occurred. Courts have tended to agree and have used the research in deliberations to assess whether design and security planning would have been a substantial factor in deterring the crime.[21] Environmental Design and Community Policing Crime prevention through environmental design that includes community policing is yet another part of an effective strategy. CPTED and community policing go hand-in-hand when planning comprehensive crime prevention programs. Research by NIJ indicates that when police are involved in neighborhoods both on foot and working with community groups they can reduce not only crime but also the fear of crime.[22] Residents, working together and with police, can improve a neighborhood's appearance, thereby providing an additional deterrent to crime. Finally, government can use its building code and inspection power to increase environmental security and discourage drug use and other criminal activities. Public Housing NIJ-supported research conducted between 1994 and 1996 at three high-rise developments managed by the Chicago Housing Authority illustrated the critical importance of making physical design and management changes to reduce violence.[23] Although the study did not set out specifically to examine environmental design issues in the public housing community, it became clear that permanent improvement in the effort to control crime was not achieved in part because the design of the high-rise buildings made it easy for gang members to intimidate residents. Improvement in site management was essential to success, as was financial support to maintain programs and services and to improve social cohesion among residents. Linking Business and Crime Control Studies of crime and business usually focus on crimes committed by corporations. Few studies, for example, focus on the wide range of crime prevention techniques that businesses pursue or the vital role that small businesses play in maintaining the stability of marginal neighborhoods. Nor is there extensive research into the ways that new business products and services or the design of business environments can create or reduce crime opportunities. Finally, the nature of crimes suffered by businesses, their customers, and their employees is not studied enough. A new book, "Business and Crime Prevention," edited by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clark, discusses ways in which applied criminology and recent research can help reduce the crime problems faced by business.[24] The book was a product of an NIJ-sponsored conference at Rutgers University that presented the work of an international group of academic criminologists, experts from the security industry, criminologists working in retailing and insurance, and private and public sector researchers. These researchers have pointed to the central role business can play in improving public safety. Most ordinary crime occurs on streets, in parking lots, in stores, and in other public and private places where business actions can supplement police presence. For example, manufacturers have begun making car radios with removable face plates, a good example of engineering out, or at least reducing, a common theft problem. In the garment industry, ink tags are attached to make clothing not worth stealing. Business, too, can benefit from crime research. One of the ideas proposed at the conference was a "crime prevention extension service" modeled on the familiar agriculture model that would use experts in crime prevention to help businesses solve their crime problems while feeding knowledge back to scholars and researchers. ------------------------------ Focusing on Repeat Victimization A novel approach to preventing crime was discussed in an NIJ Research in Action last year. "Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims" reported on research in the United Kingdom suggesting that a useful focal point for crime prevention is the victim who repeatedly suffers crime. About 4 percent of British victims surveyed suffered approximately 44 percent of all crimes. Another study in a major British city indicated that 43 percent of domestic violence incidents over a 25-month period involved about 7 percent of the households. The British researchers concluded that exploration of the repeat-victimization approach is a valuable component of crime prevention strategy.[16] NIJ is now funding research on repeat residential burglary victimization in San Diego, Baltimore, and Dallas. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 1996 Preliminary Annual Release, June 1997. The Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) uses an index of violent and property crimes to measure serious crime. From 1994 to 1995, violent crimes decreased by 3 percent. See also Taylor, B., National Crime Victimization Survey Change in Criminal Victimization, 1994-95, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1997, NCJ 162032. This report suggests the drop in crime affected white victims to a greater degree than blacks and Hispanics. 2 Brady, T.V., "Measuring What Matters," Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1996, NCJ 162205. Additional information will be available in 1997 that summarizes two subsequent sessions; the complete set of commissioned papers will be published in a single volume. 3 The number of grants awarded in 1996 for policing research under the Crime Act was 51, versus 54 in 1995. Corresponding funding was $14.5 million in 1996, versus $14.6 million in 1995. These figures do not include grants awarded for law enforcement technology or family support. 4 Finn, P., and J.E. Tomz, "Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families," Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1996, NCJ 163175. 5 Police Integrity: Public Service with Honor, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, January 1997, NCJ 163811. The National Symposium on Police Integrity, which took place July 14-16, 1996, brought together 200 professionals to discuss the issue of police integrity. 6 Pate, A.M., and L.A. Fridell, Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, and Legal Consequences, Vol. I and II, Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1993. 7 McEwen, T., National Data Collection on Police Use of Force, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1996, NCJ 160113. 8 Garner, J.; J. Buchanan; T. Schade; and J. Hepburn, "Understanding the Use of Force by and against the Police," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 158614. 9 Pinizzotto, A.J.; E.F. Davis; and C.E. Miller III, "In the Line of Fire: A Study of Selected Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, forthcoming. See also an analysis of trends and circumstances of felonious killings of law enforcement officers in Fridell, L.A., and A.M. Pate, "Death on Patrol: Felonious Homicides of American Police Officers," (draft final report in partial fulfillment of grant no. 91-IJ-CX-K025), 1995. 10 In this study being conducted by Geoffrey Alpert, officers in the three agencies were asked to complete a physical abilities job task analysis data collection form for one month beginning in 1995. Because the focus of the survey was not to obtain data on use of force for departmental review purposes, some of the validity problems typically associated with the reporting on use of force by officers may be avoided. "An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force Data" is expected to be completed in 1997. 11 Alpert, G.P., "Police Pursuit: Policies and Training," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 164831. See also Alpert, G.P.; D. Kenney; R. Dunham; W. Smith; and M. Cosgrove, "Police Pursuit and the Use of Force: A Final Report to the National Institute of Justice," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996, NCJ 164833. 12 Bayley, D.H., and R.E. Worden, "Federal Funding of Police Overtime: A Utilization Study," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 13 Rich, T.F., "The Chicago Police Department's Information Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM)," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1996, NCJ 160764. 14 Roehl, J.A.; R. Huitt; M.A. Wycoff; A. Pate; D. Rebovich; and K. Coyle, "National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1996, NCJ 161624. 15 Dunworth, T.; P. Haynes; and A.J. Saiger, "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1997, NCJ 162203. Four reports of the study are available: An examination of Federal records of the State and local projects supported by the program from fiscal years 1989 to 1994, a historical review of Federal legislation that provides criminal justice assistance, State and local views of the program, and a general summary. "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program, Report #1: Where the Money Went--An Analysis of State Subgrant Funding Decisions Under the Byrne Formula Grant Program," December 1996, NCJ 163381. "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program, Report #2: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988--A Comparative Analysis of Legislation," December 1996, NCJ 163382. "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program, Report #3: A Seven-State Study--An Analysis of State and Local Responses to the Byrne Formula Grant Program," December 1996, NCJ 163383. "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program, Report #4: A Policy Maker's Overview," December 1996, NCJ 163384. "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: Executive Summary," December 1996, NCJ 163385. 16 Pease, K., and G. Laycock, "Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims," Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996, NCJ 162951. 17 Feins, J.D.; J.C. Epstein; and R. Widom, "Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods: Comprehensive Change in Design Management and Use," Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1997, NCJ 164488. 18 Ibid. 19 La Vigne, N., "Visibility and Vigilance: Metro's Situational Approach to Preventing Subway Crime," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 20 Smith, M.K., "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 157310. 21 Gordon, C.L., and W. Brill, "The Expanding Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Premises Liability," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 157309. 22 Fleissner, D., and F. Heinzelman, "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Community Policing," Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1996, NCJ 157308. 23 Popkin, S.; V. Gwiasda; J.M. Amendolia; A.A. Anderson.; G. Hanson; W.A. Johnson; E. Martel; L.M. Olson; and D.P. Rosenbaum, "The Hidden War: The Battle to Control Crime in Chicago's Public Housing," (draft report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grants no. 93-IJ-CX-0037 and 95-IJ-CX-001), December 1996. 24 Felson, M., and R.V. Clark, eds., Business and Crime Prevention, Monsey, N.Y.: Willow Tree Press, 1997. ------------------------------ Adjudication and Corrections: Trends and Emerging Concepts Perhaps no other area of criminal justice has undergone more changes in the past decade than the body of laws that govern sentencing. New State and Federal legislation has sought to fundamentally alter sentencing outcomes for offenders, especially violent offenders, repeat offenders, and drug offenders. Whether called "truth in sentencing," "three strikes and you're out," or "sentencing guidelines," these reforms have inspired much debate and media attention but little systematic information and data with which to judge their efficacy. NIJ has funded a number of studies to learn how some of these laws are playing out in the States and whether they are having a positive impact on crime and violence. By 1994, all 50 States and the Federal Government had enacted one or more mandatory sentencing laws. When NIJ interviewed State legislators and other State policymakers nationwide in 1995 to find out the criminal justice issues they considered most important on their legislative agendas, mandatory sentencing was one of the top issues selected, as were other, related reforms: sentencing guidelines, intermediate sanctions, and the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court. To provide State policymakers with the information they needed to help make informed decisions about these issues, NIJ reviewed and synthesized the research literature. The result was a series of overviews of the sentencing reforms sweeping through the States.[1] Sentencing Guidelines The review of sentencing guidelines revealed that by 1996, nine States and the Federal Government had enacted such laws and policymakers in eight other States were developing them to increase sentences for violent offenders and make sentencing more uniform. While evaluations indicate that voluntary guidelines do not increase sentencing uniformity, presumptive guidelines (those that strictly limit judicial discretion) have fostered sentencing uniformity; lessened racial, ethnic, and gender differences in sentencing decisions; and helped to reduce penalties for property offenders and increase penalties for violent offenders.[2] "Three Strikes" Legislation The purpose of "three-strikes" legislation is to remove serious repeat offenders from society for long periods of time, in many cases for life. Most States have enhanced sentencing provisions in their laws for repeat offenders. Between 1993 and 1994, 24 States and the Federal Government enacted laws using the three-strikes label;[3] similarly titled bills were introduced in a number of other States.[4] There is great variety among jurisdictions in how sentencing reforms are applied. Consider, for example, the differences between two States' "strike" laws. In California, an individual with two burglary convictions who is subsequently convicted of felony theft would receive a mandatory life sentence under California's three-strikes law. In Washington State, an individual who committed the identical crimes would have no strikes and would be incarcerated for a maximum of 1 year under that State's sentencing guidelines. The differences between those two States' strike laws reflect the differences in strike laws across the Nation. According to an NIJ-sponsored study of three strikes laws, early evidence shows that, with the exception of California, most of the State laws will have minimal impact on those States' prison systems because they were drafted to apply to only the most violent repeat offenders. Only broadly defined two-strikes provisions like California's have the potential to drastically alter existing sentencing practices.[5] States vary significantly in their definitions of "strikeable" offenses, how many strikes it takes to be "out," and the kinds of penalties that being "out" can trigger. States also vary widely in their definition of the "strike zone." While violent felonies such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, aggravated assault, and carjacking are typically included as strike offenses, burglary, drug-related offenses, vehicle theft, embezzlement, and bribery may or may not be. Twenty States require three strikes to be out, but at least six of them-- Arkansas, California, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Montana, and Tennessee--have enhanced sentences for two strikes. Finally, the word "out" has many different meanings. In 11 States, it means a mandatory life sentence without parole. In three States, parole is possible after the offender serves a significant period of incarceration. When NIJ looked at the effect of three-strike laws on the corrections systems in two States, Washington and California, researchers found that the impact has not been as severe as projected. California's prison system has admitted a far larger number of strike offenders (more than 26,000 as of December 1996) than has any other State's system since April 1994, although those admissions were fewer than originally projected. Planners in Washington State expected that between 40 and 75 persons would fall under three-strikes provisions each year. However, more than 3 years after the law took effect, only 85 offenders have been admitted to the State prison system under this statute. How the law is applied and its impact vary considerably across jurisdictions within a State. San Francisco and Alameda counties in California, for example, have rarely applied the law, while San Diego and Sacramento, which have comparable populations and crime rates, have applied the law far more actively. Los Angeles County, the State's most populous county, is the most frequent user, sending nearly half of the State's cases to prison. In addition, the Los Angeles court system has seen a 25-percent increase in jury trials as more defendants who face long sentences demand a trial.[6] The reluctance to release strike defendants pending trial has caused jail populations to explode, and the increase in felons serving long sentences has swelled prison populations. In Los Angeles, two-strike cases remain pending in court 16 percent longer and three-strike cases 41 percent longer than nonstrike cases. In addition, strike cases are three times more likely to go to trial than nonstrike felonies and four times more likely to go to trial than the same types of cases before the law took effect. Intermediate Sanctions To help relieve the overcrowded conditions of many prisons, more jurisdictions are looking toward intermediate sanctions--neither prison nor conventional probation--for nonviolent offenders. Such sanctions include intensive supervision, home confinement, community service, boot camps, and day fines--programs that can substitute for traditional incarceration. An NIJ-funded study that reviewed evaluations of programs in several jurisdictions found that some intermediate sanctions work better than others. Offenders sentenced to home detention and electronic monitoring appear to have lower recidivism rates than other offenders. Conclusions from boot camp research have been mixed: boot camps that provide intensive treatment-oriented aftercare show positive results compared to other alternatives, although it is uncertain whether the boot camp or the aftercare made the difference.[7] Intensive supervision probation and community services have not rehabilitated or deterred participants from committing future crimes any better than traditional sentencing options such as imprisonment. (See "A Different Model of Justice" for a discussion of one alternative to traditional approaches.) Measuring the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions is made difficult by limitations in the design of programs, evaluations, or both; constraints in the local environment; and insufficient control over how and on what type of offender the sanctions are imposed. In addition, the costs of operating intermediate sanctions have often exceeded expectations.[8] New Directions Under the Crime Act The Crime Act of 1994 seeks to encourage States to increase the certainty that violent offenders will be incarcerated and that they will receive longer and more determinate sentences. Through the Act's "violent offender incarceration and truth-in-sentencing" provisions, the States receive Federal support to expand their capacity to house offenders who must serve longer sentences or be incarcerated for a greater portion of the sentence. NIJ's role, in collaboration with the Corrections Program Office of the Department of Justice, is to examine the effects of the programs the States have established under this section of the Crime Act. Truth-in-Sentencing and Violent Offender Incarceration With NIJ support, the RAND Corporation is conducting a nationwide assessment of the 1994 Crime Act's truth-in-sentencing and violent offender incarceration provisions that are tied to grants to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Researchers are investigating how States interpreted the provisions and responded to them (for example, what changes were made in dealing with violent offenders and what legislative action was taken); how State strategies to implement the program grants were accomplished (for example, how violent offenders were defined); and how changes at the State level affected county and local correctional policies. The evaluation also will include case studies of recent sentencing and corrections reforms in six States. The effects of the 1994 Crime Act's sentencing and corrections reforms at the local level are also being assessed. Among these projects are: o Two evaluations of North Carolina's structured sentencing and community partnerships act. o Establishment of the Florida Correctional Research Coalition (FCRC), a partnership between the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the Florida Department of Corrections. o A study of the impact of truth-in-sentencing reform in Massachusetts. o Examination of how probation and community corrections have responded to the Crime Act's sentencing and corrections reforms. o Assessment of possible gender-based consequences of the sentencing reforms on confinement in Massachusetts. Boot Camps One way the States can expand prison capacity for violent offenders is by freeing up space through alternatives to traditional prison for nonviolent offenders. Boot camps, an alternative to prison for some types of offenders, are one way to do this. As part of its Crime Act research strategy, NIJ is sponsoring a national evaluation of boot camps, with several studies focused on specific topics or at specific sites. Five studies are under way, among them assessments of all 44 Federally funded boot camps, 27 juvenile boot camps, and selected facilities for adults and for juveniles. The Los Angeles County's Drug Treatment Boot Camp Program is being assessed to gauge its effects on drug use and criminal behavior and to identify factors that lead to success for participants.[9] Linking Researchers and Practitioners Crime Act-supported studies not only focus on local-level topics of interest but also aim to create an infrastructure for sustaining links between researchers and practitioners. Grants awarded in 1996 and based on partnerships between researchers and officials in correctional agencies and the courts include: o Study of the implementation of Virginia's new no-parole policy. o Development in Florida of a Statewide correctional research coalition 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 the Los Angeles County sheriff's and probation departments. o Impact of Crime Act sentencing and corrections reforms in Wisconsin. Findings from these studies are anticipated during 1997 and 1998. Handling the Needs of Special Corrections Populations NIJ also supports research on innovative methods of controlling, rehabilitating, and meeting the needs of special groups of inmates and individuals under corrections supervision. Such groups, discussed below, include sex offenders, juveniles, female offenders, drug users, inmates who lack job skills, and elderly prisoners. Controlling Sex Offenders Although sex offenders represent a growing percentage of the prison population, studies have shown that few receive treatment in prison, and the extent of recidivism is not well documented.[10] Many States have responded to a series of highly publicized violent sex offenses by enacting statutes that require offenders to register with police agencies in the communities where they live. As of early 1996, 32 States had taken the additional step of enacting notification statues that make information about sex offenders available to the public or require that authorities disseminate information about released offenders to the community. Congress has enacted laws that withhold Federal funding from States that do not implement such laws. To identify the various notification approaches and problems as well as the effects notification has had on communities and offenders, NIJ conducted a survey of 13 criminal justice system practitioners in eight States.[11] Results reveal that notification statutes are diverse: some mandate proactive notification, others merely authorize it, while still others permit notification only in response to community requests. Most practitioners recommend that States give local jurisdictions the flexibility to develop their own criteria for deciding which offenders should be subject to notification and which individuals, agencies, and institutions should be notified. Requiring offenders to handle their own notification process, they say, is problematic. Educating the community about the nature and purposes of notification is considered essential to preventing community alarm and vigilantism. While there is little empirical evidence of the impact of notification on recidivism, several respondents said they believe it will influence offender behavior in positive ways. Other NIJ research on sex offenders has shown that the best approach to managing and containing sex offenders under community supervision is to hold offenders accountable for their actions by combining internal and external controls. A containment approach, implemented through interagency and interdisciplinary teamwork, places the highest value on public safety, victim protection, and reparation for victims.[12] NIJ research suggests a variety of interventions to help control sex offenders. In a survey of 732 probation and parole supervisors, more than 80 percent of the respondents reported that mental health treatment is mandated for sex offenders under their supervision. The sex offender's intervention team can, for example, emphasize the protection of potential victims by providing close supervision and by teaching the offender to avoid high-risk situations and recognize and manage the thoughts and attitudes that promote deviant sexual behavior. Handling Juvenile Offenders in Adult Prisons In response to increased violent crime among juveniles, many States have enacted laws that allow more juveniles to be tried and punished as adults and open juvenile records and proceedings to public scrutiny. Proponents of the approach maintain that transferring youthful offenders to adult systems may deter other youths from violent crime. An NIJ-funded study of the trend toward placing serious juvenile offenders in adult courts found that juvenile detention facilities are backlogged with juveniles awaiting transfer to adult prisons, and that 10 States account for the vast majority of juveniles admitted to adult prisons.[13] Although little is known about the effects of transfers on the juveniles' future behavior (in terms of overall delinquency rates or later adult recidivism rates), transfer is a trend that is likely to continue and have long-term effects on correctional facilities. Yet placing younger youths in adult facilities raises several management issues that need further investigation:[14] o Housing children and youths with adults may increase their risk of being raped or assaulted by older inmates. If kept in isolation for protection, however, they may then be at increased risk for suicide. o Young people have nutritional needs and physical exercise requirements different from those of adults, and many respond differently to discipline. Staff responses based on adult patterns of misconduct may be less effective in managing youths. When young offenders are housed with adults, it is impractical (and probably impossible) to develop specialized programming that addresses their particular needs and problems. Accordingly, some States, such as Georgia and Colorado, are building special units to house youths within adult facilities as well as providing specially trained staff and an enhanced range of programming. Responding to the Needs of Women Offenders For decades, increasing numbers of women have been entering the criminal justice system. Between 1980 and 1994 the arrest rate for women increased nearly three times more than the arrest rate for men. During the same period, the inmate population rose dramatically--the female inmate population increased 379 percent compared with a 200-percent increase for men.[15] It is not clear whether these startling increases reflect an increase in criminal behavior among women, a reduced level of tolerance toward female offenders, more substance abuse by women, a change in the composition of the female population sent to jails and prisons, or differential treatment of women by judges. Clearly some needs of girls and women within the criminal justice system, whether they be victims, offenders, or working professionals, are different from those of men.[16] The criminal justice system has begun to address women offender issues in the face of litigation and increased public recognition of women's rights. But women offenders still have a number of unmet needs for programs, including those involving mental and physical health, substance abuse, domestic abuse counseling, and help in developing parenting skills. Often mental health or substance abuse services offered to women inmates are based on models designed for male populations. In fact, States generally use identical screening and classification systems for men and women. An NIJ-funded national study of innovative and promising programs for female offenders found that the lower the number of female inmates in a State, the less chance that all of them are screened adequately to detect mental health issues. Teaching Inmates Job Skills Rehabilitation professionals know that offenders released into the community from prison have a high chance of recidivism unless they are given opportunities to become self-sustaining members of society. Today, businesses in South Carolina, California, and Connecticut are partnering with State and local corrections agencies. Such joint ventures provide job training for inmates, decreasing the idleness that often leads to disruptions and other behavior problems during incarceration.[17] Companies that employ inmate labor from nearby prisons benefit from a readily available work force. They often can take advantage of financial incentives, such as low-cost industrial space and equipment purchase subsidies offered by corrections agencies, and can be assured of a safe work environment because of the presence of security guards and weapons detectors. Prisons can use private-sector jobs as motivations for good behavior and work habits. Said Richard Bazzle, warden of the Leath Correctional Facility in South Carolina: "The inmate who realizes that an initial assignment in the [prison] kitchen might some day lead to a higher-paying job in our garment plant is more likely to work hard and stay out of trouble in order to get that better job tomorrow."[18] Society, too, benefits when inmates' earnings are used to pay State and Federal taxes to offset incarceration costs, help support the inmates' families, and compensate victims. Nonetheless, prisons and participating companies still face several challenges in implementing successful programs, including high employee absenteeism and turnover, limited opportunities for training, and certain logistical problems. Project Re-Enterprise (PRE), a Texas-based program administered by the Crime Prevention Institute (CPI) and two Federal agencies (the National Institute of Corrections and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Correctional Education), enlists the participation of local business leaders to assist inmates in completing job applications and practicing interview techniques, where the norm is six interviews with employers per inmate.[19] Four years ago, PRE involved one correctional facility and nine participating employers; by 1996, PRE had more than 300 participating businesses and was providing service to several facilities across the State. Participating offenders surveyed by CPI indicated that inmates like being exposed to different employer interviewing styles and benefit from employer assessments of their performance. Some employers have been so impressed with the "job candidates" that they have voluntarily changed their policies related to hiring offenders. Frank Henry of Fluor Daniel, an international construction engineering company, has hired 18 ex-offenders. Said Mr. Henry, a human resources officer: "My opinion used to be hardline. I was a `lock `em up and throw away the key' guy. Now I realize that my attitude was just not realistic. Most of these folks are coming home and will become our neighbors." Rigorous evaluation has not been conducted, however, to determine the effectiveness of the program. Rethinking Adjudication and Corrections Across the Nation, community groups are circulating petitions, marching, organizing block patrols, and voicing their concerns before public officials. Citizens are mobilizing to meet the challenges of the "broken window syndrome" in their neighborhoods--those quality-of-life problems that create environments where disorder and crime often flourish. Criminal justice agencies, recognizing the power of residents, victims, and community organizations, have begun to explore ways to make the community a full partner and more directly involve citizens not only in community policing but in prosecution, sentencing, courts, and corrections activities. Community-Based Prosecution Several cities are experimenting with new ways for prosecutors to collaborate with the community. For example, in Portland, Oregon, prosecutors have developed neighborhood partnerships that can keep the pressure on neighborhood crime problems. Portland's experiment with community prosecution began when a grassroots effort of business leaders prompted the district attorney to appoint a special prosecutor for a commercial area called the Lloyd District. The Portland Neighborhood District Attorney (NDA), as this prosecutor was called, negotiated with diverse neighborhood groups, collaborated with the police to implement a police sweep, supported cleanup campaigns, and used civil remedies when appropriate. The NDA approach led to the development of a variety of innovative strategies, such as using information provided by citizens as part of the evidence needed for a search warrant, and neighborhood campaigns to remove illegal transient campers from vacant public areas such as expressway underpasses, cemeteries, and railroad right-of-ways.[20] The program resulted in reductions in public drunkenness, drug use, prostitution, visible trash, abandoned automobiles, and illegal dumping. In Indianapolis, six "street-level advocates" from the district attorney's office work out of four district police stations to develop a "situational perspective" for reducing public disorder. Using a variety of criminal and civil tactics, the community prosecutors bring to bear the legal expertise and resources of the office as well as the clout of the district attorney to find innovative solutions to a neighborhood's specific problems. They screen and prosecute cases in the traditional mode, but they also involve themselves in outreach to neighborhood groups, help police obtain and execute search warrants, mediate neighborhood conflicts, and teach citizens ways to assist authorities in solving crime problems such as keeping logs of suspected drug activity in a specific location. Community-Based Defender Services The concept of community justice extends to the provision of public defender services. Defying traditional stereotypes of the indigent-public defender relationship, the Vera Institute of Justice in 1990 opened a public defender agency that provides continuity in representing criminal suspects who live in a Harlem neighborhood. The Institute aggressively investigates a client's case before arraignment and helps clients with personal and family problems that lead to legal trouble and collateral civil cases. The Harlem Neighborhood Defender Service (NDS) organizes lawyers into teams that stay informed of a client's case through a management information system that runs on software tailored especially for the NDS. Since it opened, NDS has represented more than 5,000 clients and has become a positive force in Harlem. Today the staff totals 30, organized into three teams carrying a load of 180 to 200 cases each. A review of the program found the cost per client is about the same as traditional public defender services.[21] Community Courts Urban social problems eventually manifest themselves in the courts. The Midtown Community Court in New York City exemplifies the renewed interest in adjudicating criminal cases, especially misdemeanors, within the community that is most affected by these cases. The Midtown Community Court includes the Times Square and Theatre District neighborhoods of Manhattan and embraces people who live, work, or shop in the area. An essential component of the Midtown Community Court is its close collaboration with residents, local organizations, and business groups (such as the Times Square Business Improvement District).[22] These groups provide opportunities for and supervise community service sentences for offenders and are a vital link to the treatment, health, support, and educational services available to offenders and offered within the courthouse. An NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the Midtown Community Court conducted by the National Center for State Courts found that the Court used intermediate sanctions more frequently than Manhattan's downtown, centralized court. Community service sentences, for example, were twice as common at the Midtown Community Court.[23] Changing sentencing patterns and linking defendants to community services had a substantial effect on defendant behavior, too, especially among prostitutes and illegal vendors who significantly reduced their illegal behavior. According to preliminary figures, arrests for neighborhood prostitution dropped by 63 percent over the Court's first 2 years and illegal vending dropped by 24 percent. The Midtown Community Court has cut arrest-to-arraignment times substantially, from an average of 31 hours to 18. By emphasizing immediacy and using technology to enhance accountability, the Court also has improved community service compliance rates. The evaluators concluded that the Midtown Community Court experiment has made a dramatic contribution to reducing crime in the neighborhood and improving perceptions of the court system. The findings indicate that the Court is efficient and effective and, because of support and participation from the people the system is supposed to serve, has become an important ingredient in the improved quality of life in the community. Community Justice in Corrections As with community policing, community- centered corrections techniques move away from sole emphasis on the offender and concentrate instead on the situation and the community that has been harmed by the offender. It is the community's laws that have been violated, the community's life that has been disturbed. Thus the community must play a role in recovering from criminality.[24] Examples of how two States have begun to move toward a community-centered corrections program can be found in Oregon and Vermont. Oregon's community corrections legislation calls for the creation of local advisory boards with responsibility for helping set the direction for local programming. Vermont's Reparative Probation Board, established in 1994, is composed of citizens who develop and oversee community-based sentences for low-risk offenders. In a community-centered corrections program, opportunities would exist to integrate offenders into the community through contributions they can make to the improved health of the neighborhood. For example, residents, offenders, and neighborhood groups might participate in meetings to discuss crime problems in their neighborhood, analyze the problems, and develop mechanisms for reducing targeted crimes. Offenders might contribute by rebuilding and renovating neighborhood housing or partnering with elderly residents who are without needed social services. Offenders under community supervision also might participate in workshops for the children and spouses of incarcerated offenders to help them strengthen their relationships with the incarcerated offender. All these activities would be made possible through partnerships with existing organizations, such as the probation and police departments, and citizen volunteers. Reaching out to the community--whether through law enforcement, courts, or corrections--means tapping into local resources and expertise to head off crime problems. In all community-centered criminal justice activities, the key to successful citizen participation is the authentic desire to involve residents and neighborhood business and civic groups as full partners in policymaking and service delivery. ------------------------------ A Different Model of Justice The ancient and venerable concept of "restorative justice" has attracted a great deal of interest in recent years. Inherent in the concept is the idea that crime victims--both individuals and the community--are an integral part of the justice process. Proponents of restorative justice propose that a more personal involvement of victims and offenders, where appropriate, needs to take place to bring them together for the purpose of negotiating a resolution. The restorative model of justice emphasizes crime as an offense against the individual and the community, in contrast with the conventional, retributive model, which centers on the adversarial process in which guilt is established for a violation against the State. Programs in accord with the restorative justice philosophy include those involving restitution or community service performed by the offender, victim impact statements, victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and citizen reparative boards. The number ofjurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere that have adopted restorative justice as part of their criminal justice system is growing. By one count, almost 300 jurisdictions in this country have adopted the practice of victim-offender mediation, one of the oldest expressions of restorative justice. The State of Vermont has completely restructured its corrections program around the concept, in an effort to make its criminal justice system more responsive to the needs of victims and communities and to help offenders understand the impact of their crimes. In keeping with its mission of bringing emerging and innovative ideas and practices to the attention of the criminal justice field, NIJ has been exploring restorative justice and its potential for improving the criminal justice system and benefiting the individuals and communities who are victims of crime. Part of that study included finding out how public policymakers, victim advocates, and professionals in various components of the criminal justice system feel about restorative justice. In a survey conducted among people in these groups who are familiar with the concept, restorative justice was found to be viewed favorably by the group as a whole. The aspects they viewed most favorably were those related to increased victim and community involvement, the potential for greater efficiency in the criminal justice system, and more active involvement by offenders. A synthesis of other studies suggests findings similar to those of the NIJ survey, including such benefits as victim satisfaction and faster case disposition.[1] National attention was focused on restorative justice in January 1996, when NIJ and the Office for Victims of Crime, in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, sponsored a symposium that brought together policymakers, practitioners, victim advocates, representatives of community organizations, and researchers from the United States and elsewhere to explore the concept. Featured were presentations by representatives of jurisdictions that had adopted the restorative justice philosophy and discussions of how to measure success, what the potential effects of restorative justice on the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems might be, and how to advance the concept of restorative justice. NIJ will be holding a series of followup symposiums in 1997 at sites throughout the country to explore ways to move toward putting the concept into practice. ------------------------------ 1 Quinn, Thomas, "Redefining and Restoring Justice," draft report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no.95-IJ-CX-0016, December 1996. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 Four overview reports were published in the Research in Action series: Parent, D.; T. Dunworth; D. McDonald; and W. Rhodes, "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines," November 1996, NCJ 161837; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions," January 1997, NCJ 161838; "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing," January 1997, NCJ 161839; and "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juvenile Offenders to Adult Courts," January 1997, NCJ 161840, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2 Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines." 3 Lyons, D., Three Strikes Legislation Update, Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures, December 1995. 4 Turner, M., et al., "Three Strikes and You're Out Legislation: A National Assessment," Federal Probation, 59 (September 1995):16-35. 5 Clark, J.; J. Austin; and A. Henry, "Three Strikes and You're Out: A Review of State Legislation," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1997, NCJ 165369. 6 Ibid. 7 MacKenzie, D.L., "Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention," in Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, L. W. Sherman et al., eds., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997, NCJ 165366. 8 Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions." 9 Boot camp evaluations sponsored under the Crime Act were funded in 1995; the grants were awarded in 1996. 10 Finn, P., "Sex Offender Community Notification," Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997, NCJ 162364. 11 Ibid. 12 English, K.; S. Pullen; and L. Jones, "Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community--A Containment Approach," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163387. 13 Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juvenile Offenders to Adult Courts." 14 Ibid. 15 Women in Criminal Justice: A Twenty-Year Update, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1996 draft. To enhance the understanding of and response to issues related to girls and women in the criminal justice system, Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, in 1994 established the OJP Coordination Group on Women, which was composed of representatives of five agencies including NIJ. Three separate studies, on victims, offenders, and working professionals, were funded to follow up on the findings of a 1975 report produced by a special task force on women. 16 Corrothers, H.; V. Gowdy; et al., "Women Offenders," in the Office of Justice Program's 1996 draft of Women in Criminal Justice: A Twenty-Year Update. Cited to National Study for Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, Morash, M.; T. Bynum; and B.A. Koons, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. 17 Sexton, G.E., "Work in American Prisons: Joint Ventures with the Private Sector," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1995, NCJ 156215. 18 Ibid., p. 4. 19 Moses, M., "Project Re-Enterprise: A Texas Program," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1996, NCJ 161448. 20 Boland, B., "What is Community Prosecution," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):35, JL 000219. See also, "How Portland Does It: Community Prosecution," (final report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 94-IJ-CX-0004), 1996, NCJ 165182. 21 Anderson, D.C., "Public Defenders in the Neighborhood: A Harlem Law Office Stresses Teamwork, Early Investigation," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 163061. The evaluation was funded by the Vera Institute. 22 Rottman, D., "Community Courts: Prospects and Limits," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):46, JL 000219. 23 Feinblatt, J.; M. Sviridoff; and G. Berman, "Neighborhood Justice: Lessons from the Midtown Community Court," working draft paper presented at the National Institute of Justice Annual Research and Evaluation Conference, July 22, 1997. 24 Clear, T., and R. Corbett, Jr., "The Community Corrections of Place," draft paper presented at the National Institute of Justice's Annual Research and Evaluation Conference, July 22, 1997. See also Clear, T., "Toward a Corrections of `Place': The Challenge of `Community' in Corrections," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):52, JL 000219. ------------------------------ Science and Technology: Creating New Tools Electromagnetic pulses that detect concealed weapons; a "smart" gun that can only be fired when activated by sensors that detect fingerprints or speech patterns; a portable DNA kit that tests samples from several suspects concurrently at the crime scene and provides results in minutes--the potential of such technological breakthroughs is enormous. These technologies are among the latest advances stemming from NIJ's science and technology research program. Building on a long history of pioneering work that produced such innovations as the life-saving soft body armor now routinely worn by law enforcement officers, electronic monitoring of offenders on probation, and improvements in drug testing, NIJ's science and technology program has grown in both scope and complexity in recent years. While exploiting the power of technology to increase safety and advance justice, NIJ research also looks beyond the purely technical to anticipate how new technologies may affect practice and explore how they mesh with emerging principles of criminal justice. Thus, NIJ technology research is a collaborative effort involving scientists, engineers, and criminal justice practitioners and policymakers. Within this framework, NIJ supports several types of research and development, including forensic science, less-than-lethal weapons technology, and new approaches to improved technologies that facilitate modernization of law enforcement operations. These efforts are augmented by a program that fosters technology transfer initiatives and develops performance standards for law enforcement and corrections equipment. As in other areas of research, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act) is making it possible to support the development of technology for use in law enforcement, particularly in community policing as well as DNA forensic testing and laboratory improvement. These and other projects funded by the Crime Act are discussed in this chapter. Gateway to New Technologies To bring technological developments to users at the local level, Congress appropriated funds to NIJ for the development of a technology information exchange network. To fulfill the mandate, NIJ created the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system, composed of a national center in Rockville, Maryland, and several regional centers. This system provides an avenue for NIJ to learn more about the needs of local law enforcement and corrections agencies and to coordinate technology development projects. The centers serve as a gateway to relevant technology information for law enforcement and corrections agencies in their regions and provide hands-on technical assistance in applying technology to help solve cases. Regional centers are located in Rome, New York; Charleston, South Carolina; Denver, Colorado; and El Segundo, California; each focuses on a specific area of expertise and meets the specific needs of agencies in the region, as determined by a local advisory board. In 1996, the Rocky Mountain Center (Denver) was designated as a communications technology center, and a satellite branch of the new NIJ Crime Mapping Center was established at the site. The Southeast Center (Charleston) focuses on corrections technology and the distribution of surplus Federal property to the law enforcement community. NIJ also supports the Border Research and Technology Center in San Diego, California, which focuses on developing and enhancing border patrol research and technology. The Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization (OLETC), located at the National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) in Wheeling, West Virginia, is another part of the network. Its goal is the development of effective means to bring technologies to the law enforcement and corrections marketplace. Recently, the Office unveiled the first such technology, the RoadSpike, a portable strip that can selectively puncture the tires of a fleeing vehicle and induce a controlled deflation, bringing the vehicle to a safe stop. Last year marked the 25th anniversary of NIJ's Law Enforcement Standards program, designed to ensure that equipment purchased by criminal justice agencies meets standards of safety, reliability, and effectiveness. The Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), a component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), develops objective performance standards for law enforcement and corrections equipment such as body armor and patrol vehicles as well as for DNA profiling. NLECTC then tests the commercially available equipment against these standards. NIJ publishes standards, test reports, user guides, and bulletins and disseminates them to the criminal justice community (see Appendix B). Technology Partnerships As part of the overall strategy to coordinate resources, maximize benefits from developing technologies in other areas, and target technological research where it is most needed, NIJ has actively sought partnerships with other agencies and organizations. Under a 1994 Department of Justice (DOJ)-Department of Defense (DOD) agreement, NIJ and DOD are working together to convert advances in defense technology into new technologies for use in civilian law enforcement and corrections settings. A Joint Program Steering Group (JPSG) was established to identify areas of common need and manage technology development efforts to address these needs. Congress appropriated more than $60 million over 2 years in the Defense Department budget to support this partnership and the technologies that flow from it. These efforts have yielded a number of products, including a prototype personnel armor system called Concealable Body Armor, which is being developed by the U.S. Army's Soldier Systems Command; sniper and concealed weapons detection technologies; an operational prototype telemedicine system used in four Federal prison facilities; and a prototype inter-agency crisis management system. JPSG is also focusing efforts on countering domestic terrorism in the areas of infrastructure security, hostage rescue, explosives detection and remediation, and information technology. In December 1995, the Technology Policy Council was established, with DOJ and Department of Treasury (DOT) participation, to coordinate technology policy and development among all DOJ/DOT law enforcement and corrections agencies. The Council, chaired by the Deputy Attorney General, serves the following purposes: o To provide a forum for assessing and sharing information among the components and facilitating useful partnerships and opportunities for resource savings; o To identify and eliminate potential duplication or overlap; o To identify technology needs and requirements for proposed integration into the research and development programs of individual agencies; and o To make recommendations to the Deputy Attorney General on priorities for technology development. DNA Testing: A Powerful Tool for Justice Typing or profiling of DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid-- has become widely accepted as a forensics identification tool since it was first introduced as evidence only 9 years ago. Last year, NIJ awarded funds for the first projects in what will be a 5-year, $40 million DNA laboratory improvement program to enhance State and local DNA laboratory processing capabilities by the year 2000. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Title XXI, Subtitle C, Sec. 210302 of the Crime Act), provides the funding for this research. The program is also designed to facilitate implementation of State laws requiring creation of DNA data bases on convicted offenders. Funds went to 37 State and local governments to increase or enhance DNA testing in 50 laboratories. The efforts will ensure that DNA testing is conducted according to national standards and that State and local data bases are compatible with the FBI's Combined DNA Index System. NIJ is also using Crime Act funds to develop a proficiency testing program for DNA analysis that will be available to public and private laboratories conducting DNA forensic testing. On the same day the DNA laboratory improvement awards were announced, NIJ released a major report entitled Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science that documents 28 case studies where DNA evidence presented after trial led to the release of people convicted of violent felonies.[1] Researchers found cases in 14 States and the District of Columbia of men who had been convicted and sentenced for sexual offenses before DNA test results proved their innocence. Another report funded by NIJ, the National Research Council's (NRC) Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, was also released in 1996.[2] This report resolved statistical issues for probabilities of DNA matches and recommended that whenever feasible, samples be divided between the prosecution and the defense before DNA testing so that both may have the opportunity and material to test or retest the specimen. NIJ sponsored a National Conference on the Future of DNA: Implications for the Criminal Justice System, in Washington, D.C. This conference brought together more than 200 leading researchers and practitioners to discuss issues on the use of DNA, including data collection and preservation, analytical methods, creation of data bases, and the NRC report. The success of this conference led NIJ to make it an annual event, with the next conference to be held in Sacramento, California. Within the next 3 to 5 years, law enforcement agencies will have the tools necessary to set up portable DNA labs at crime scenes to test multiple samples concurrently, with virtually immediate results and at relatively low cost. To develop the potential of this important forensic tool, NIJ is undertaking several initiatives. Four projects are designed to improve the collection, handling, and testing of DNA samples for use in homicide investigations--two are exploring a microchip system that will enable quick DNA testing to match samples and include or exclude suspects from an investigation; the other two are supporting development of a rapid and reliable testing system in which mass spectrometry technology is applied to forensic DNA testing.[3] In addition to sponsoring the annual DNA conference, NIJ plans to convene a group of scientists and practitioners to consider the future of DNA and develop a vision of the technological and laboratory infrastructure that will be needed to realize the full potential of DNA testing. Detecting Concealed Weapons Perhaps the most exciting development on the technology front is the potential for nonintrusive remote detection of weapons concealed on individuals. NIJ is addressing this challenge through several efforts, some of them involving partnerships under the 1994 Crime Act and others undertaken in collaboration with the Department of Defense. The work is being supported by technical expertise from the NLECTC Northeast Center in Rome, New York. In a collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, research supported by the Crime Act is under way using sensors that detect electromagnetic pulses at millimeter wave lengths. Any item concealed by clothing--metallic or nonmetallic weapons, plastic explosives, drugs-- will show up as a dark image against the lighter background image of the body. The approach has been successfully demonstrated, and industry is developing the technology to facilitate use with fixed or hand-held camera systems. Another approach uses extremely low doses of X-rays that penetrate the clothing but not the skin of an individual to produce a picture that will reveal the presence of a weapon or other contraband. Developed under the auspices of the DOJ-DOD partnership, the technology was successfully demonstrated in a California correctional institution and will also be demonstrated in a correctional institution in North Carolina in 1997. The technology is being improved to function while the subject is moving. Officer Protection Technologies When police officers are killed with their own handguns, the tragedy always prompts the question: what could have been done to prevent this incident? The traditional emphasis has been on training and the use of special holsters that make it more difficult to remove an officer's handgun. Capitalizing on recent advances in several commercial technologies, NIJ awarded a grant to Sandia National Laboratories to investigate development of a "smart" gun that could be fired only by an authorized user. Subsequently, 14 technologies were evaluated and 5 were selected for the construction of "smart" gun models. These included devices involving touch memory, such as wearing a special ring that contains a radio frequency tag read by the gun; carrying a remote control device to activate the gun; fingerprint scanning; and speech recognition. Officers are understandably cautious about making any changes to their firearms, and initial reactions to the technology have varied from skeptical to enthusiastic. One gun manufacturer has initiated a prototype development program to further apply the results of this project and test the feasibility of the "smart" gun. Examples of other technologies that have been developed to increase law enforcement officer safety include an enhanced concealable body armor that can be worn more comfortably under a uniform. The equipment, developed under the JPSG, consists of a soft body armor system with ceramic composite or titanium inserts over the heart and spine. The inserts are designed to protect against rifle bullets, while the soft component provides protection from handguns. One vest has already been purchased by the Secret Service for evaluation, and the military has obtained 1,800. In an effort to promulgate both a standard and a testing program for protective gloves worn by law enforcement and corrections professionals, NIJ is sponsoring a joint project of the Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), and the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization (OLETC). Under the program, NLECTC and OLETC took steps to learn the types of gloves typically used by police officers and prison guards and whether improved puncture- and stab-resistant materials were being developed. A needs assessment confirmed that officers' highest priorities for protective gloves are protection against blood-borne infectious diseases, resistance to punctures and tears, and adequate dexterity and tactile response. Research is under way at OLES to identify any existing protocols that could be used or adapted by NIJ to measure glove performance. OLES will leverage its relationships with the scientific community, industry, and its parent organization-- the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--to develop test parameters and performance requirements for protective gloves. Solicitations for participation in NIJ's voluntary protective glove testing program will be made through Commerce Business Daily, JUSTNET, professional publications, and direct mail. Offender Control and Processing Technologies Another NIJ priority is to develop technologies that make it easier for criminal justice agencies to process and monitor convicted offenders. Over the past decade, NIJ has conducted several evaluations of electronic monitoring (EM) devices, which impose punishment and ensure public safety by restricting movement of offenders and monitoring their whereabouts. At the same time, electronic monitoring helps reduce the number of offenders who must be incarcerated and allows offenders to keep their jobs while under correctional supervision. First-generation devices enabled monitoring of offenders while they were at home or leaving from and returning to their residence. More recent developments have made it possible for probation and parole agents to use portable devices to track offenders at other locations, such as treatment programs or schools. New NIJ research is exploring the feasibility of constructing "second-generation" continuous tracking systems for monitoring offenders in an urban environment. A project recently completed by the Westinghouse Corporation describes the technical difficulties inherent in continuous tracking approaches, the current state of technology that could be applied, and the results of a feasibility test of one promising approach. A terrestrial antenna-based system using spread-spectrum receivers and signal time-of-arrival circuitry was tested in a downtown location of one city. The initial test suggests that a fully developed and deployed system should be able to continuously detect and locate the presence of an offender's transmitting monitoring device, but further testing and development is necessary. Other technologies for continuous electronic monitoring based on use of the Global Positioning System in combination with a wireless communication system--a cellular phone, for example--are beginning to appear on the probation and parole scene. Advances in telecommunication and global positioning hardware and expansion of the national infrastructure of satellites and supplemental antennas will benefit all electronic monitoring approaches under consideration. Another NIJ-funded evaluation has focused on the Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), a communications and data base program created to catalog fingerprints, mug shots, supporting evidence, and background data on an offender arrested or processed by any of five Federal law enforcement agencies: the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The JABS evaluation noted the improved quality of photographs, fingerprints, and personal data; the elimination of duplication of offender records; and an enhanced sharing of data between agencies, which led to improved investigations.[4] Although some operational difficulties were identified during the evaluation, JABS is considered to be a success. Practitioners have expressed high expectations that JABS data collection and data exchange functions can be expanded or incorporated into a variety of other current and planned law enforcement information systems. Technology Aids Coordination Police departments with common jurisdictional borders often enter into mutual aid agreements, but their practical implementation in times of need is often difficult and time consuming because of a lack of common communication channels and an imprecise knowledge of patrol vehicles' locations. To learn what benefits might be realized by neighboring law enforcement jurisdictions if barriers to vehicle location information were removed, a public-private partnership was formed between two police departments in the South Bay area of Los Angeles. The results of the study indicated a reduction in voice radio traffic, more efficient routing of officers, more active participation by dispatch in police pursuits, and a reduction in response times to priority calls.[5] Although the project test period was limited, numerous documented mutual aid incidents demonstrate the success and value of this technology in apprehending suspects and enhancing officer safety. Initial cost is the only significant hindrance to widespread application of this technology in mutual assistance and cooperation agreements. Pepper Spray Effectiveness Violent encounters between police officers and individuals resisting arrest, increased civil liability, and court-imposed limitations on the use of deadly force have stimulated the search for safe and effective nonlethal deterrent methods. An NIJ-sponsored assessment of pepper spray (oleoresin capsicum or OC) focused on the Baltimore County Police Department during the period July 1993 to March 1994.[6] A research team from the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that the use of pepper spray during 194 incidents (174 human and 20 animal) of arrest and other confrontational encounters effectively neutralized aggressive suspects; it also reduced the incidence of assaults on police officers, injuries to both officers and suspects, and use-of-force or brutality complaints registered against the police department. Sprayed individuals were, for the most part, intoxicated, belligerent, and/or combative, with most suspects physically threatening an officer. Baltimore County incorporated OC training into officer in-service firearms training and required the carrying of OC spray for all officers whose normal duties included making arrests or supervising arrest situations. Findings from the study suggest that a well-developed and successfully implemented OC spray program can provide a variety of operational benefits for law enforcement agencies, including decreased assaults on officers and a smaller number of use-of-force complaints. ------------------------------ NLECTC Center Assists Local Investigators On November 1, 1996, Charles Rathbun was found guilty of brutally killing a 27-year-old woman. The jury said that on the basis of the physical evidence, especially the enhanced photographs and the analysis of the defendant's computer files, it believed Rathbun lied during testimony. The evidence that weighed so heavily with the jury involved photographs the defendant, a professional photographer, claimed he had taken of the victim the day she was killed. Rathbun, who had alleged that the death was accidental, maintained that the victim had consented to being photographed. To verify his claim, investigators sought the assistance of engineers at the western regional office of the National Institute of Justice's National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) in El Segundo, California. The Center's imagery experts enhanced the retrieved photos of a woman whose face was hidden. Forensic experts compared these photos with the autopsy photos and concluded that the bodies in the two sets of photos were not the same person. Additionally, the forensic experts said that the car shown in Rathbun's photos was not the same one in which he claimed the photos had been taken. The Center's engineers were also able to recover data from the defendant's computer, including an address book he had deleted before turning himself in to police. This evidence helped convince the jury that Rathbun had lied on the witness stand. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. ------------------------------ Information Gateway to NLECTC The Justice Technology Information Network-- JUSTNET--is the Internet link to law enforcement and corrections technology. It is designed to be a "one-stop shop" for law enforcement and corrections technology information. It links users to all the Technology Centers, the National Institute of Justice, other law enforcement and corrections Web sites, manufacturer Web sites, and data about technology. JUSTNET also offers visitors two additional services: o Interactive services. Visitors can converse with one another by posting and responding to comments and questions. JUSTNET provides passwords for users who want access to their discussions restricted. (To allow NLECTC to track usage and to provide better assistance to State and local law enforcement and corrections agencies, users must register when they enter the Interactive Services area for the first time.) o Data and publications. Visitors can access and download a data base of commercially available law enforcement and corrections products and technologies. They can also be linked to information provided by agencies that have used the products and posted comments about them on the Internet. The JUSTNET address is: http://www.nlectc.org. Or call 800-248-2742 for assistance. ------------------------------ National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers (NLECTC) National Center NLECTC--National Center 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: 800-248-2742 Fax: 301-519-5149 E-mail: mcaplan@aspensys.com Senior Project Manager: Marc H. Caplan Northeast Region NLECTC--Northeast Region 26 Electronic Parkway Rome, NY 13441-4514 Phone: 888-338-0584 Fax: 315-330-4315 E-mail: ritzj@rl.af.mil Director: John Ritz Southeast Region NLECTC--Southeast Region 7325 Peppermill Parkway North Charleston, SC 29418 Phone: 800-292-4385 Fax: 803-207-7776 E-mail: sextont@awod.com Director: Thomas Sexton Rocky Mountain Region NLECTC--Rocky Mountain Region 2050 East Iliff Avenue Denver, CO 80208 Phone: 800-416-8086, or 303-871-2522 in the Denver, Colorado, area Fax: 303-871-2500 E-mail: jkeller@du.edu Director: James A. Keller Western Region NLECTC--Western Region P.O. Box 92957, Mail Station M1/300 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 Phone: 310-336-2171 Fax: 310-336-2227 E-mail: pentz@aero.org Director: Robert Pentz Border Research and Technology Center Border Research and Technology Center 1250 Sixth Avenue, Suite 130 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-685-1491 Fax: 619-685-1484 E-mail: brtcchrista@aol.com Director: Chris Adridge ------------------------------ International Cooperation in Technology The Office of Science and Technology (OS&T) is developing frameworks for cooperation and collaboration with sister agencies in other nations. These organizational structures will encourage agencies to work together to identify suitable areas for information sharing, technology transfer, or codevelopment. The following are examples of the types of international cooperative efforts that NIJ hopes to expand in the future: o United Kingdom: Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB)--Formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) o Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Research (RCMP)--R&D liaison o Israel: Israel National Police (INP)--Formal MoU in process The PSDB, RCMP, and INP are represented on the NIJ-funded Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC), which is composed of over 150 practitioners from all over the United States. ------------------------------ Conferences: Sharing Ideas About Technology NIJ-sponsored conferences promote public- and private-sector cooperation and bring usable technology directly to the local law enforcement and corrections marketplace. The conferences allow law enforcement personnel from different jurisdictions to talk about common technology needs and share their experiences with various new technologies. At the conferences, industry representatives exhibit new products on the market or in development. o Technology Solutions for Public Safety This conference explored topics such as Legal and Liability Issues of Technology Employment, Simulation Training Technologies, Investigative Technologies, Concealed Weapons and Contraband Detection, Information Technology, Training Technology Delivery Applications, Electronic Crime Detection and Apprehension, Crime Scene/Crime Lab Technologies, Location and Tracking Technologies, Less-Than-Lethal Technology Update, and Video Surveillance and Imagery Analysis. o National Conference on the Future of DNA: Implications for the Criminal Justice System This conference brought together more than 300 leading researchers and practitioners to discuss emerging issues in DNA testing in criminal justice. o Technology and Community Policing NIJ's NLECTC and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hosted five regional conferences that focused on how technology can enhance community policing programs. Sessions examined law enforcement use of the Internet; technology as a force multiplier; communication technologies; geographic information systems; concealed weapons detection technologies; technology liability issues; and mountain bike patrols for community policing. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1 Connors, E.; T. Lundregan; N. Miller; and T. McEwen, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1996, NCJ 161258. 2 Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1996. 3 Travis, J., "Technology in Criminal Justice: Creating the Tools for Transformation," address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 13, 1997. 4 Young, R., "Evaluation of JABS: The Joint Automated Booking Station Program," (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 95-IJ-CX-0040). 5 Neustadter, J.T., "Installation and Evaluation of an Intercity Automatic Vehicle Location System," (a report in partial fulfillment of grant no. 95-IJ-CX-K010). 6 Edwards, S.M.; J. Granfield; and J. Onnen, "Evaluation of Pepper Spray," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997, NCJ 162358. ------------------------------ Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996 This appendix reflects the grants and contracts awarded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1996. The first section presents awards made as part of NIJ's base appropriations. The second and third sections present awards made under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act). Awards made under the Crime Act accounted for more than half of all NIJ awards and more than half the Institute's spending for the year. Project descriptions for all awards were published in the following documents: "NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year 1996," NCJ 165701; "NIJ Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996," NCJ 165700; "NIJ Science and Technology Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996," NCJ 165586. These documents are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; 1-800-851-3420; http://www.ncjrs.org. For each project listed, the number is that of the grant, contract, or other award. The number is followed by the project title; name of the institution, agency, or corporation that received the award; name of the principal investigator or contractor; and award amount. Within each topic, the awards are listed alphabetically. Awards beginning with a number other than 96 are supplements of previous years' awards. Awards Under the Base Appropriation Criminal Behavior 96-IJ-CX-0065 Breaking the Cycle University of Alabama, Birmingham L. Foster Cook $1,000,000 95-IJ-CX-0115 Changing Patterns of Homicide and Social Policy in Three American Cities North Carolina State University Margaret Zahn $39,000 96-IJ-CX-0091 COMBAT (COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax) Program Evaluation Abt Associates Inc. Dana Hunt $250,000 95-IJ-CX-0001 Committee on the Assessment of Family Violence Interventions National Academy of Sciences Rosemary Chalk $150,000 96-IJ-CX-0017 Family and Community Violence: Experiences of Adolescents University of California, Los Angeles Susan B. Sorenson $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0005 Female Gang Involvement in the Midwest: Two-City Comparison University of Southern California Jody Miller $34,000 96-IJ-CX-0027 Firearm Acquisition, Violent Crime, and Juvenile Offenders Battelle Human Affairs Research Center Barbara Rader $39,000 96-IJ-CX-0016 Homicide in New York City, 1790-1990 University of California, Los Angeles Eric Monkkonen $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0015 Patterns of Violence: An Analysis of Individual Offenders University of Nebraska, Omaha Julie Horney $250,000 93-IJ-CX-K005 Program on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods President and Fellows of Harvard Felton J. Earls $2,888,000 96-IJ-CX-0020 Risk of Serious Injury or Death in Intimate Violence Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Carolyn R. Block $252,000 96-IJ-CX-0012 Secondary Analyses of the Impact of Co-Offending in Criminal Justice Data Sets Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Elin J. Waring $25,000 96-IJ-CX-0013 Situational Contexts of Gun Use by Young Males in an Inner City Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York Jeffrey Fagan $200,000 96-IJ-CX-C005 Testing Hair Samples and the Pennsylvania Prison Project Psychemedics Corporation Chris Berka $63,000 93-IJ-CX-0012 Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women in America Center for Policy Research Patricia Tjaden $300,000 (grant transferred from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Drug Use Forecasting Program The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program sites perform drug tests on arrestees brought to booking facilities. The test findings indicate levels of drug use and are used to determine what drugs are used in specific jurisdictions and to track changes in drug use patterns. 96-IJ-CX-A009 DUF--Cleveland Telecommunications Pilot Project Cleveland State University Sonia Alemagno $25,000 96-IJ-CX-0026 DUF--Examination of Methamphetamine Use San Diego Association of Governments Susan Pennell $70,000 96-IJ-CX-0031 DUF--Identifying and Prioritizing Local Social Risk Factors Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Kim English $52,000 94-IJ-CX-C009 DUF--Laboratory Analysis of Urine Specimens National Center for Forensic Science Lionel Menard $290,000 93-IJ-CX-C002 DUF--Statistical Analysis Aspen Systems Corporation Lilly Gardner $616,000 96-IJ-CX-A025 DUF--Atlanta Georgia State University Institute of Government Administration Kirk Elifson $36,000 95-IJ-CX-A005 DUF--Birmingham City of Birmingham Foster Cook $33,000 95-IJ-CX-A020 DUF--Chicago TASC of Illinois, Inc. Melody Heaps $44,000 96-IJ-CX-A039 DUF--Cleveland Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners Bob Pace $74,000 95-IJ-CX-A010 DUF--Denver Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Kim English $61,000 94-IJ-CX-A030 DUF--Fort Lauderdale Broward County Sheriff's Office Ron Cochran $50,000 95-IJ-CX-A013 DUF--Indianapolis Marion County, Indiana, Justice Agency Cindy Mowery $35,000 94-IJ-CX-A013 DUF--Manhattan New York City Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Alcoholism Services Patricia Thomas $60,000 95-IJ-CX-A023 DUF--Miami Metro-Dade Police Department Dorothy Fletcher $29,000 94-IJ-CX-A014 DUF--New Orleans Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office William C. Hunter $33,000 93-IJ-CX-A023 DUF--Omaha Office of Public Safety, Police Division Frederick Power $23,000 96-IJ-CX-A026 DUF--Philadelphia Temple University Jack R. Greene $49,000 94-IJ-CX-A042 DUF--Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Department Mitchell Yanak $6,000 95-0J-CX-A011 DUF--Phoenix TASC of Maricopa County $45,000 94-IJ-CX-A019 DUF--Portland TASC of Oregon, Inc. Diane Wiscarson $45,000 94-IJ-CX-A045 DUF--St. Louis St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Scott H. Decker $3,000 95-IJ-CX-A009 DUF--San Antonio San Antonio Metropolitan Health District Sergio Soto $70,000 95-IJ-CX-A012 DUF--San Diego San Diego Association of Governments Susan Pennell $69,000 94-IJ-CX-A027 DUF--San Jose Santa Clara County Bureau of Drug Abuse Services Robert Garner $75,000 Crime Control and Prevention 96-IJ-CX-A022 Computer Mapping of Crime in Public Housing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Harold Holzman $100,000 96-IJ-CX-0030 Gang Activity in Orange County University of California, Irvine Bryan Vila $226,000 96-IJ-CX-A029 Geographic Information Systems Spatial Crime Analysis Application Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Police Timothy Delaney $142,000 96-IJ-CX-0010 Health Care Fraud Control in an Electronic Environment: Phase II President and Fellows of Harvard Malcolm K. Sparrow $102,000 94-IJ-CX-0010 Impact Evaluation of the Opportunity To Succeed Program Urban Institute Shellie Rossman $252,000 95-DD-BX-0134 Impact Evaluation of the Weed and Seed Program Abt Associates Inc. Terence Dunworth $200,000 (initial grant) plus an additional $245,000 96-MU-MU-0008 National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools Gottfredson Associates, Inc. Gary D. Gottfredson $188,000 96-IJ-CX-0006 Police-Researcher Partnerships: Building the Infrastructure for Effective Program Evaluation Justice Research and Statistics Association Joan C. Weiss $100,000 96-MU-MU-0019 Preventing Crime: A Critical Assessment University of Maryland, College Park Lawrence W. Sherman $199,000 96-IJ-CX-0050 Technical Assistance for the Birmingham Breaking the Cycle Program Fund for the City of New York Eric Lee $160,000 96-IJ-CX-0009 Using Traffic Barriers To Design Out Crime California State University, Fullerton Foundation Stuart A. Ross $19,000 Criminal Justice System 96-IJ-CX-0019 Dispensing Justice Locally: An Analysis of the Impacts, Costs, and Benefits of the Midtown Community Court Fund for the City of New York Michele Sviridoff $190,000 94-IJ-CX-A051 Drug Court Intervention Project of the D.C. Superior Court District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency John A. Carver $2,327,000 96-IJ-CX-0001 Drug Monitoring in Criminal Justice Management Applications Orleans Parish District Attorney Tom Mieczkowski $151,000 96-IJ-CX-0058 Effects of Procedural Justice in Spouse Assault: A Reanalysis of the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment University of Maryland, College Park Raymond Paternoster $23,000 96-IJ-CX-0037 Evaluation of the Client Management Classification System Sam Houston State University Billy C. Covington, and Jennifer D. Frisbee-- Graduate Research Fellows $27,000 94-IJ-CX-K011 Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Court Intervention Program Urban Institute Adele Harrell $576,530 96-IJ-CX-0022 Evaluation of a Metropolitan Area DWI Night Court New Mexico State University L. Thomas Winfree, Jr. $131,000 96-IJ-CX-0029 Family Violence: Building a Coordinated Community Response American Medical Association Larry S. Goldman $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0021 Identifying Effective Correctional Programs for Female Felony Offenders Michigan State University Timothy S. Bynum $233,000 96-IJ-CX-0014 Impact of Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Policies and Practices University of Illinois, Chicago David E. Olson--Graduate Research Fellow $11,000 96-IJ-CX-0035 Impact of Managerial Style on the Colombian Distribution of Cocaine to the Wholesale Level City University of New York, Research Foundation Joseph R. Fuentes--Graduate Research Fellow $16,000 96-IJ-CX-0004 Implications for Corrections of the Community Movement in Criminal Justice Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Todd R. Clear--NIJ Fellow $81,000 95-IJ-CX-0034 Improving Alien Adjudication and Pretrial Release Procedures Vera Institute of Justice, Inc. Christopher E. Stone $293,000 96-IJ-CX-0097 Indian Country Justice Initiative Evaluation Plan Arizona State University Carol Lujan $150,000 92-IJ-CX-0012 John B. Pickett Fellowship in Criminal Justice Policy and Management President and Fellows of Harvard Susan Michaelson $91,000 95-IJ-CX-0012 Linguistic Methods for Determining Document Authorship Carole Elisabeth Chaski--NIJ Visiting Fellow $68,000 96-MU-CX-0005 Medicolegal Death Investigator Guidelines and Training Project Occupational Research and Assessment, Inc. Steven C. Clark $150,000 93-IJ-CX-0045 Probationer Compliance With Conditions of Supervision University of Maryland, College Park Doris MacKenzie $38,000 96-IJ-CX-0083 Process and Impact Evaluation of Services Provided to Victims of Crime by the Cook County State Attorney's Office Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Candice Kane $220,000 96-IJ-CX-0007 Public Support for Corrections Rehabilitation: A Factorial Survey Approach University of Cincinnati Brandon K. Applegate--Graduate Research Fellow $14,000 96-IJ-CX-0036 Race and Sentencing: Effects of Case Strength and Seriousness University of Nebraska, Omaha Cassia C. Spohn $22,000 96-IJ-CX-0008 Restoring Accountability in Pretrial Release in the 1990s: An Experiment in Managing Safe and Effective Release Crime and Justice Research Institute John S. Goldkamp $200,000 96-IJ-CX-K005 Task Force on Community Action on Crime and Justice The George Washington University Amitai Etzioni $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0002 Teen Court Planning Grant Time Dollar, Inc. Edgar S. Cahn $50,000 96-IJ-CX-0024 Texas Prison-Based Treatment Assessment Texas Christian University D. Dwayne Simpson $178,000 96-DD-BX-0036 Undocumented Aliens in Federal, State, and Local Criminal Justice Systems Urban Institute Rebecca Clark $100,000 96-IJ-CX-0011 Violations of Release Conditions and the Prediction of Criminal Recidivism University of Maryland, College Park Claire Souryal $9,000 Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers NIJ's National Law Enforcement Technology Center and its regional centers offer centralized sources of product and technology information, assessment, and referral services to law enforcement, corrections, and other criminal justice professionals. NIJ also supports a Border Research and Technology Center that focuses on developing and enhancing border research and technology. 96-IJ-CX-K001 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-Rockville, MD Aspen Systems Corporation David C. Shinton $600,000 96-IJ-CX-A010 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Southeastern Region-Charleston, SC U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Electronic Systems Engineering Center Ronald L. Polkowsky $1,500,000 96-IJ-CX-A036 Support for the Border Research and Corrections Technology Center U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center Michael J. Gill $120,000 95-IJ-CX-K005 Border Research and Corrections Technology Center: Western Region-San Diego, CA Aerospace Corporation Robert M. Pentz $921,000 Technology Research and Development 96-IJ-CX-0025 Bomb Threat Training Simulator University of Houston, Office of Sponsored Programs Christopher Chung $64,000 95-IJ-CX-A027 Detection and Classification of Concealed Weapons Using Magnetic Gradient Measurements U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Jonathan Nadler $35,000 95-IJ-CX-K004 Determination of the Comparative Ballistics of Enhanced Threat Weapons University of Denver, Colorado Seminary Deborah Bradford $49,000 93-IJ-CX-0061 Effectiveness of Helicopters in Police Pursuit University of South Carolina Geoffrey P. Alpert $34,000 96-IJ-CX-0018 Evaluation of the Department of Transportation Regulation of Auto Parts Marking Abt Associates Inc. William Rhodes $100,000 95-IJ-CX-A017 Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization at the National Technology Transfer Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jonathan Root $2,800,000 95-IJ-CX-K001 Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Technology, and Policy Assessment SEASKATE, Inc. E.A. Burkhalter $373,764 95-IJ-CX-K006 Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology, and Policy Liability Assessment SEASKATE, Inc. E.A. Burkhalter $199,938 95-IJ-CX-0031 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers: Governance and Technology Delivery Processes Pymatuning Group, Inc. Ruth M. Davis $523,000 96-IJ-CX-K006 SkyTracker Surveillance System National Systems and Research Company Paul Scheffer $185,000 Forensic Sciences 95-IJ-CX-0007 Estimation of Population Structure Parameters North Carolina State University Bruce S. Weir $26,000 95-IJ-CX-0008 Isolation and Characterization of Population-Specific Alleles University of Pittsburgh Mark D. Shriver $100,000 96-IJ-CX-0023 Validation of PCR-Based DNA Typing Data Bases for Forensic Use University of Texas, Houston Ranajit Chakraborty $147,000 Information Dissemination and Technical Support 92-IJ-CX-K044 Annual Review of Justice Research Castine Research Corporation Michael H. Tonry $158,000 91-IJ-CX-A009 Computer Support for Data Analysis University of Maryland, College Park Ira Gold $5,000 This grant provides mainframe computer services to NIJ's research staff. 95-IJ-CX-A033 Criminal Justice Research Training Program University of Maryland, College Park Charles Wellford $15,000 95-IJ-CX-C005 Data Resources Program University of Michigan Paul J. Stemple $312,000 95-IJ-CX-0033 Developing an Internet Model for Cross-National Information Sharing and Dissemination Center Sergey S. Chapkey--NIJ Visiting Fellow $150,000 96-IJ-CX-0003 Developing Publications and Communications Strategies for the Policing Research Institutes CF Productions, Inc. Thomas V. Brady $24,000 94-IJ-CX-C005 Development and Production of Annual Reports and Other Materials Cygnus Corporation Todd Phillips $109,000 96-IJ-CX-A004 DNA Data Banks and Repositories Conference in Birmingham, Alabama U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner Victor W. Weedn $2,500 94-MU-CX-C006 National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Aspen Systems Corporation Richard Rosenthal $8,139,000 96-IJ-CX-A049 Partnerships Against Violence Network (PAVNET) U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library John Gladstone $30,000 94-MU-CX-C008 Professional Conference Series Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. Edward F. Connors $650,000 96-IJ-CX-K003 Research in Action Partnership Search Group, Inc. Gary R. Cooper $113,000 96-IJ-CX-K002 Research in Action Partnership: Disseminating Family Violence Research American Bar Association Susan Hillenbrand $111,000 96-IJ-CX-K004 Research in Action Partnership: Sentencing Policy and Practice National Center for State Courts Victor E. Flango $112,000 94-MU-CX-C007 Research Applications Contract Abt Associates Inc. Joan Mullen $545,000 96-IJ-CX-C004 Technical Assistance and Support CSR, Inc. Edward J. Spurlock $585,000 96-IJ-CX-C003 Technical Assistance Support Services Justice Research and Statistics Association Joan C. Weiss $296,000 96-IJ-CX-A013 Technical Support to the Science and Technology Program U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories James R. Anderson $152,000 96-IJ-CX-A040 Technical Support for UNOJUST (United Nations Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse) U.S. Department of Justice Sheila B. Gear $20,000 Awards Under the Crime Act The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) makes programs of assistance available to States and local jurisdictions. The Act supports the development of community policing, interagency responses to domestic violence, drug courts, and incarceration of violent offenders. The National Institute of Justice sponsors studies that evaluate the effectiveness of these innovative programs, and conducts related research. The programs are administered within the Department of Justice by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Corrections Program Office, the Violence Against Women Grants Office, and the Drug Courts Program Office. Each of them allocated funds to support NIJ research in their respective areas: community policing, sentencing and corrections (including boot camps), violence against women, and drug courts.[1] Listed here are the specific research projects sponsored by NIJ in 1996 in these program areas and in other, related areas of the Crime Act.[2] Community Policing 95-IJ-CX-0069 National Evaluation of the Youth Firearm Violence Initiative Abt Associates Inc. Terence Dunworth $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 Jeffrey Roth $360,000 Changing Roles of Police 96-IJ-CX-0045 Community Policing Strategies: First National Survey Update Macro International, Inc. Billy Jones $286,000 96-IJ-CX-0081 Investigative Function in the Community Policing Context Police Executive Research Forum Mary Ann Wycoff $406,000 Evaluation and Problemsolving 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, Idaho, Sheriff's Office and Boise State University Boise State University John Crank $91,000 96-IJ-CX-0087 Alachua, Florida, 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, Berkeley, California 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, Michigan, Police Department Penny Phelps $33,000 95-IJ-CX-0085 Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition Florida State University Anthony 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 Problemsolving Partnerships in Jersey City--Center for Crime Prevention Studies at Rutgers University 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, College Park Lawrence W. Sherman $78,000 96-IJ-CX-0044 Police-Academic Partnership for Evaluation and Research University of Virginia 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 Organizations 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 James Collins $235,000 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, College Park 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. William Rhodes $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 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, College Park 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 1995 Boot Camp Planning Grants National Council on Crime and Delinquency Sandra Tunis $73,000 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 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 $50,000 97-RT-VX-K003 Evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse Program University of California--Los Angeles Michael Prendergast $39,000 97-RT-VX-K008 Evaluation of the Maxey Substance Abuse Treatment Program University of Michigan--Ann Arbor William C. Birdsall $49,000 97-RT-VX-K002 Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prison Inmates University of New Mexico--Albuquerque Gary LaFree $50,000 97-RT-VX-K001 Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program University of Wisconsin--Madison D. Paul Moberg $49,000 97-RT-VX-K006 National Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. Douglas Lipton $500,000 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 (supplement) Urban Institute Martha Burt $350,000 Science and Technology Awards Under the Crime Act The National Institute of Justice has pioneered many of the advances in science and technology that help deter, identify, and apprehend offenders, and that ensure access by criminal justiceprofessionals to the tools and equipment they need to perform their jobs more efficiently. The Crime Act has served as a major catalyst for additional NIJ science and technology developments, especially in the area of community policing. In partnership with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice, NIJ has supported the development of "COPS technologies" with Crime Act funding that will aid police departments and officers in adopting the principles and strategies of community policing. DNA testing, which is proving its effectiveness in the adjudication process and which has long been a focus of NIJ research, is receiving added support from the Crime Act, with NIJ funding for improvements in State and local forensics laboratories. And as amended in 1996, the Crime Act contains provisions to identify, develop, and purchase technologies for use by State and local law enforcement, and vests NIJ with the authority to provide this assistance. Each of the technology development and related projects sponsored by NIJ under the Crime Act in 1996 in these areas is listed here. General Technology Support 96-LB-VX-K008 Facilitation of Domestic and International Technology Partnerships in Counter Terrorism Efforts Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc. Robert Greenberg $298,000 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 NIJ base funds) 96-LB-VX-K002 NIJ Surplus Property Program Ultimate Enterprise Limited Michael Simpson $150,000 96-LB-VX-A043 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Forensic Sciences Program U.S. Department of Energy Susan Heiser $250,000 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 NIJ 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 NIJ 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 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 96-IJ-CX-A032 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Northeastern Region--Rome, New York 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 96-MU-MU-K006 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center: Western Region-- San Diego, California Aerospace Corporation Robert M. Pentz $117,000 Community-Oriented Policing Technology* 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, Louisiana, Police Department Lieutenant Michael Pfeiffer $203,328 97-IJ-CX-K011 Algorithmic Image Matching: Police Technology Research and Development Project Santa Ana, California, 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 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, North Carolina, 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 Police Department Wireless Internet Project Largo, Florida, Police Department Sergeant Brian McKeon $56,150 97-IJ-CX-K003 Metropolitan Nashville Police Department's Palm Top Project Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee, Police Department Lieutenant Ken Peace $128,875 Portable Concealed Weapon Detector Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff's Office 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 Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program The awards below represent part of an ongoing NIJ effort to enhance the DNA analysis capabilities of crime laboratories across the country. The projects were selected under a competitive solicitation and peer reviewed by experts in DNA testing and laboratory operation. They include installing and upgrading lab equipment, development of simpler and faster methods of DNA typing, links to DNA databases, and training in DNA analysis. Under the second phase of the solicitation, additional awards will be made in fiscal year 1997, bringing the total funding for the effort to $11.4 million. 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: Maryland Anne Arundel County, Maryland 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 ------------------------------ Appendix B: NIJ Publications in Fiscal Year 1996 The publications listed in this appendix were published by NIJ during fiscal year 1996 (October 1, 1995, to September 30, 1996). Most NIJ materials are free. NIJ offers several ways to obtain copies: o Call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420. (Outside the United States, call 301-519-5500.) o Download documents from the World Wide Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org o Order Research Previews via fax-on-demand by calling 1-800-851-3420. o For many science and technology publications, call the national headquarters of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center at 1-800-248-2742 or download documents from the World Wide Web site at http://www.nlectc.org NIJ publishes several different types of publications: o Research in Action: Overviews of specific research topics and demonstration programs. o Research in Brief: Summaries of recent NIJ research and evaluation findings. o Research Reports: Comprehensive reports on NIJ-sponsored research and development projects. o Research in Progress Videotapes: 60-minute lecture and question-and-answer segment presented by well-known scholars and accompanied by a Research Preview summarizing the salient points of the discussion. o Research Previews: Two-page fact sheets on research and evaluation findings and activities (previously called Updates). o Issues and Practices: Reports presenting program options and issues for criminal justice managers and administrators. o Program Focus: Highlights of specific State and local criminal justice programs. Community Policing Community Policing in Chicago: Year Two, Skogan, W.G., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000105. Community Policing Strategies, Mastrofski, S.D., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000126. Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities, Sadd, S., Grinc, R.M, Research in Brief, 20 pages, NCJ 157932. Law Enforcement in a Time of Community Policing, Mastrofski, S.D., et al., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000149. Corrections Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Court Proceedings in Child Maltreatment Cases, Whitcomb, D., Hardin, M., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000157. In New York City, a "Community Court" and a New Legal Culture, Anderson, D.C., Program Focus, 12 pages, NCJ 158613. Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing, Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., Rhodes, W., Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 161839. Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines, Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., Rhodes, W., Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 161837. Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juvenile Offenders to Adult Courts, Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., Rhodes, W., Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 161839. State Laws on Prosecutors' and Judges' Use of Juvenile Records, Miller, N., Research in Brief, 20 pages, NCJ 155506. Courts Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview of Germany's Sentencing Practices, Pfeiffer, C., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000137. Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An Implementation Evaluation of Three Demonstration Programs, Bourque, B.B., Cronin, R.C., Pearson, F.R., Felker, D.B., Han, M., Hill, S.M., Research Report, 116 pages, NCJ 157316. Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, MacKenzie, D.L., Hebert, E., eds., Research Report, 308 pages, NCJ 157639. A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment, Inciardi, J.A., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000145. Evaluation of Drug Treatment in Local Corrections, Tunis, S., Austin, J., Morris, M., Hardyman, P., Bolyard, M., Research Report, 162 pages, NCJ 159313. HIV/AIDS and STDs in Juvenile Facilities, Widom, R., Hammett, T.M., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 155509. Implementing Performance-Based Measures in Community Corrections, Boone, H.N., Fulton, B.A., Research in Brief, 8 pages, NCJ 158836. An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for 52 Boot Camp Programs, Bourque, B.B., Han, M., Hill, S.M., Research Report, 142 pages, NCJ 157104. Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and Their Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, Moses, M.C., Program Focus, 12 pages, NCJ 156217. Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community--A Containment Approach, English, K., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 163387. A National Survey of Aftercare Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates, Bourque, B.B., Han, M., Hill, S.M., Research in Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 157664. Project Re-Enterprise: A Texas Program, Moses, M.C., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 161448. Resolution of Prison Riots, Useem, B., Camp, C.G., Dugan, R., Research in Brief, 20 pages, NCJ 155283. Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities 1994-95, Wilcock, K., Hammett, T.M., Widom, R., Epstein, J., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 157809. Work in American Prisons: Joint Ventures with the Private Sector, Sexton, G.E., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 156215. Work Release: Recidivism and Corrections Costs in Washington State, Turner, S., Petersilia, J., Research In Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 163706. 1994 Update: HIV/AIDS and STDs in Correctional Facilities, Hammett, T.M., Widom, R., Epstein, J., Gross, M., Sifre, S., Enos, T., Issues and Practices, 88 pages, NCJ 156832. Crime Prevention Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based Community Centers, McGillis, D., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 157667. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Community Policing, Fleissner, D., Heinzelmann, F., Research in Action, 4 pages, NCJ 157308. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities, Smith, M.S., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 157310. Evaluation of Boys and Girls Clubs in Public Housing, Pope, C.E., Bynum, T.S., Greene, J.R., Feyerherm, W.H., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000100. The Expanding Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Premises Liability, Gordon, C.L., Brill, W., Research in Brief, 8 pages, NCJ 157309. Helping to Prevent Child Abuse and Future Criminal Consequences: Hawaii Healthy Start, Earle, R.B., Program Focus, 12 pages, NCJ 156216. Intervening with High-Risk Youth: Preliminary Findings from the Children-at-Risk Program, Harrell, A., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000140. The New Immigrant Hispanic Population: An Integrated Approach to Preventing Delinquency and Crime, Rodriguez, O., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000144. Physical Environment and Crime, Taylor, R.B., Harrell, A.V., Research Report, 32 pages, NCJ 157311. Criminal Justice System Civil Rights and Criminal Justice: Primer on Sexual Harassment, Rubin, P.N., Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 156663. National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed, Roehl, J.A., Huitt, R., Wycoff, M.A., Coyle, K., Research in Brief, 15 pages, NCJ 161624. Criminology and Research Adult Patterns of Criminal Behavior, Horney, J., Osgood, D.W., Marshall, I.H., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000146. Delinquency in China: Study of a Birth Cohort, Wolfgang, M., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000143. Estimating the National Scope of Gang Crime From Law Enforcement Data, Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., Decker, S.H., Research in Brief, 6 pages, NCJ 161477. Measuring What Matters: Part One-- Measures of Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Brady, T.V., Research in Action, 16 pages, NCJ 162205. Drug Testing Hair Analysis as a Drug Detector, Mieckowski, T., Research in Brief, 4 pages, NCJ 156434. Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, Feucht, T.E., Kyle, G.M., Research in Brief, 8 pages, NCJ 161842. Drugs and Crime Case Management with Drug-Involved Arrestees, Rhodes, W., Gross, M., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000980. COMmunity Backed Anti-drug Tax: COMBAT in Jackson County, Missouri, Mills, G., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 160937. The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision, Lipton, D.S., Research Report, 64 pages, NCJ 157642. Policing Drug Hot Spots, Weisburd, D., Green, L., Gajewski, F., Belluci, C., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000128. Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of Arrestees: Evidence From Six Sites, Rhodes, W., Hyatt, R., Scheiman, P., Research in Brief, 6 pages, NCJ 157108. Law Enforcement Managing Innovation in Policing: The Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager, Geller, W.A., Swanger, G., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000130. Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 96 pages, NCJ 163811. Understanding Use of Force By and Against the Police, Garner, J., Buchanan, J., Schade, T., Hepburn, J., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 158614. Technology* Autobid 2.0--The Microcomputer System for Police Patrol Vehicle Selection, Eberhardt, S., 6 pages, software program and instructional manual, NISTIR 5787. The Chicago Police Department's Information Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM) Program, Rich, T.F., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 160764. A Comparison of the Use of Three Different Mounting Fixtures for Ballistic Tests of Body Armor, Eliason, L.K., Daniel, F.E., 24 pages, NIJ Report 100-91. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., McEwen, T., Research Report, 88 pages, NCJ 161258. Directory of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Associations and Research Centers, NIST Special Publication 480-20, 57 pages. Hands-Off Frisking: High Tech Concealed Weapons Detection, NLECTC Technology Beat, 5 pages. High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Corner, Bulletin, 5 pages. Improved Postmortem Detection of Carbon Monoxide and Cyanide, Logan, B.K., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000142. Justice on the Net: The National Institute of Justice Promotes Internet Services, Lively, G.M., Reardon, J.A., Research in Action, 8 pages, NCJ 158838. JUSTNET Brochure, 1996. Metallic Handcuffs: Consumer Product List--5th Edition, Consumer Product List, 2 pages. Michigan State Police Tests 1997 Patrol Vehicles, Bulletin, 4 pages. Scoping Out Night Vision, Bulletin, 8 pages. Smokeless Powder Residue Analysis by Capillary Electrophoresis, Northrop, D.M., MacCrechan, W.A., 16 pages, NIJ Report 600-91. Specification for Interoperability Between Ballistic Imaging Systems: Part 1--Cartridge Cases, McCabe, M.R., Field, B.F., Kelley, E.F., 42 pages, NISTIR 585. Technology Solutions for Public Safety, Conference Report, 84 pages, NCJ 162532. Victims Childhood Victimization and Risk for Alcohol and Drug Arrests, Ireland, T., Widom, C.S., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000108. The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: A New Look, Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000131. Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation, Finn, P., Healy, K.M., Issues and Practices, 152 pages, NCJ 163067. Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims, Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 162951. Victim and Witness Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging Responses, Healey, K.M., Research in Action, 16 pages, NCJ 156555. Violence Assessing the Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence, O'Hogan-Selner, M.B., et al., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000159. A Coordinated Approach to Reducing Family Violence: Conference Highlights, Witwer, M.B., Crawford, C., Research Report, 40 pages, NCJ 155184. The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits, Fagan, J., Research Report, 64 pages, NCJ 157641. The Cycle of Violence Revisited, Widom, C.S., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000136. Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection: A Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act, Justice Research and Statistics Association, Research Report, 84 pages, NCJ 161405. Evaluation of Family Violence Training Programs, Newmark, L., Harrell, A., Adams, W.P., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000125. Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees, Decker, S.H., Pennell, S., Caldwell, A., Research in Brief, 6 pages, NCJ 163496. Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston, Kennedy, D.M., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000160. Mental Illness and Violent Crime, Monahan, J., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000158. Reducing Violent Crimes and Intentional Injuries, Roth, J.A., Moore, M.H., Research in Action, 12 pages, NCJ 156089. Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Public Health Perspective, Kellermann, A.L., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000141. The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials: Report Responding to Section 40507 of the Violence Against Women Act, Report to Congress, 178 pages, NCJ 160972. Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets, Blumstein, A., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000129. Research and Evaluation Solicitations COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax (COMBAT) Solicitation, 16 pages, SL 000140. Drug Use Forecasting Challenge Grants: A Special NIJ Research Solicitation, 16 pages. Law Enforcement Family Support: Solicitation for Demonstration and Training Programs for Reduction of Stress Among Law Enforcement Officers and Their Families, 28 pages, SL 000154. NIJ Solicitation: Boot Camp Research and Evaluation for Fiscal Year 1996, 28 pages, SL 000139. NIJ Solicitation: Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections, 24 pages, SL 000155. Policing Research and Evaluation: FY 1996, 12 pages, SL 000223. Reissue for an Assessment of the HIDTA Program, 16 pages, SL 000143. Solicitation for Evaluation of Arrest Policies Program under the Violence Against Women Act, 8 pages, SL 000216. Solicitation for Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program, 8 pages, SL 000220. Solicitation for Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, 38 pages, SL 000166. Solicitation for Law Enforcement, Courts and Corrections Technology Development, Implementation and Evaluation, 36 pages, SL 000168. Solicitation for Policing Research and Evaluation: Fiscal Year 1996, 32 pages, SL 000148. Solicitation for Proposals to Evaluate and Research Sentencing Reforms and Their Effects on Corrections, 32 pages, SL 000141. Solicitation for Research and Evaluation on Violence Against Women: Fiscal Year 1996, 28 pages, SL 000144. Solicitation for Technology Research and Development Partnership Projects for Community Policing, 24 pages, SL 000149. Other Data Resources of the National Institute of Justice, 8th Edition, NCJ 156714. John B. Pickett Fellowships in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Solicitation, 2 pages, SL 000199. NIJ Journal--Communities, 56 pages, JL 000219. NCJRS Catalog No. 30, 24 pages, BC 000254. NCJRS Catalog No. 31, 24 pages, BC 000255. NCJRS User's Guide, 38 pages, NCJ 155063. NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year, 1995, Research in Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 159653. NIJ Publications Catalog, 5th Edition, 1985-1995, 26 pages, NCJ 157688. NIJ Research Portfolio, Research in Brief, 35 pages, NCJ 157932. ------------------------------ Appendix C: List of Partnerships The National Institute of Justice encourages collaborative research efforts. During fiscal year 1996, NIJ entered into memorandums of agreement or collaborated in other ways with the following agencies and private organizations. Federal Agencies Office of National Drug Control Policy National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect National Science Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Center for Substance Abuse Treatment National Institutes of Health Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Office of Research on Women's Health Office of Research on Minority Health National Institute of Mental Health National Institute on Aging National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute on Drug Abuse U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance Bureau of Justice Statistics Corrections Program Office Criminal Division Drug Court Program Office Executive Office of Weed and Seed National Institute of Corrections Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office for Victims of Crime Violence Against Women Grants Office U.S. Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs U.S Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Foundations Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse Edna McConnell Clark Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Kauffman Foundation