State and Local Programs: Understanding and Combatting Violence. State and Local Programs: Understanding and Combatting Violence Results From State and Local Programs Workshops Sponsored by the State Reporting and Evaluation Program Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice July 1994 Prepared by the Justice Research and Statistics Association 444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 445 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-8560 NCJ #148812 Acknowledgements This report resulted from a cooperative effort by the States and the Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the State Reporting and Evaluation Program, which is coordinated by the Justice Research and Statistics Association. The following staff of the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development contributed to the coordination and implementation of the workshop that is reported in this publication: Kay Boyd, Unit Manager, and Patrick Moran, Evaluation Coordinator. Special acknowledgement is made to the outstanding moderators of the working meeting: Jerry Hatfield, President, Systems Development Associates and David A. Kessler, Director of Research, Justice Research and Statistics Association. The State Reporting and Evaluation Program relies on the expertise of the States to insure the success of workshops and publications. The following individuals contributed their knowledge and time to make this workshop and publication a success: Dr. Harold Becker, Professor, Criminal Justice Department, California State University at Long Beach; Dr. Michael Sabath, Associate Professor, San Diego State University; Kim English, Director of Research, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice; Roger Przybylski, Director, Research and Analysis, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; Dr. Timothy Bynum, Director, Michigan Statistics Center, Michigan State University; and Dr. Donald Rebovich, Director of Research, American Prosecutors Research Institute. The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document under the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. The following JRSA staff compiled and edited the information for this report under the supervision of Project Director Kellie J. Dressler: David A. Kessler, Director of Research; Melissa A. Ruboy, Research Analyst; Andrea G. Richards, Program Assistant; Tara L. O'Connor, Intern; and Lourdes Prado, Intern. Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Perspectives on Understanding and Combatting Violence. . . . . 3 Approaches Needed to Combat Violence. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Three-Pronged Approach to Reducing Violence . . . . . . . 7 Impact of Legislation on Violent Crime and Corrections. . 10 Changing Nature of Violence in Society. . . . . . . . . . 15 State and Local Programs: Understanding and Combatting Violence 17 Hawaii: Multi-Agency Family Violence Program . . . . . . 19 Maryland: School/Community-Based Drug and Violence Reduction Program 24 Massachusetts: Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project 29 Michigan: Community Oriented Policing Assisting Neighborhood Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Nebraska: Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit. . . . 38 North Carolina: Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF) 42 Tennessee: Operation Saturation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Spokane, Washington: Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Program 51 Yakima, Washington:Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition 56 Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Introduction This publication reports on the results of the Bureau of Justice Assistance State Reporting and Evaluation Program State and Local Programs Working Meeting: Understanding and Combatting Violence held May 12-14, 1994 in Seattle, Washington. This meeting brought together over 40 State planners and local practitioners as well as researchers and analysts from 15 States who have previously been or currently are involved in implementing and/or evaluating programs designed to combat violence. This publication identifies and documents programs that focus on understanding and combatting violence at the State and local level. The first section of the publication presents perspectives from four national experts, and the second section documents the State and local programs that were presented at the workshop. Perspectives on Understanding and Combatting Violence Approaches Needed to Combat Violence Norman Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, King County, State of Washington, discussed the problem of violence in society today and the need for community involvement to combat the violence disrupting America. It is important not to overreact to the problem of crime and violence. We should take issues seriously, but we need to keep a balanced perspective. Polls say crime and violence are a first priority; in communities across the U.S., we can feel it in our hearts. In Seattle and King County for example: A 15-year-old shot at a 16-year-old gang member and killed an innocent 16- year-old bystander. A good samaritan, who stopped along a roadside to help a young woman who was being assaulted by her boyfriend, was then killed by the boyfriend. A local 16-year-old high school student was killed in an act of youth violence. These stories show a pattern across the U.S. The wave of violence is random, senseless, and morally bankrupt. This conference focuses on violence in society. Violent crime has always been an important issue, but there has been a shift in the past six months; crime is now the number one issue, surpassing the economy as a main concern. The rate of violence has stabilized over the past several years. The shift in concern has occurred because of a decreased tolerance level over time, and the major reason is the kind of violence occurring which increasingly is among youth. In the debate over punishment versus root causes of crime and violence, it is time each side starts listening to what the other side has to say. We need a new approach to end gridlock that emphasizes tough law enforcement but also focuses on prevention and early intervention. This new approach can be called "punishment plus prevention." Juvenile laws have not treated youth violence seriously enough. Legislatures throughout the country are taking steps to toughen their laws. In Washington, the youth violence agenda became a centerpiece of the crime bill passed at a recent session of the Washington State legislature. That agenda toughened laws regarding kids who commit crimes while armed with firearms and also provided for mandatory adult jurisdiction for 16 and 17-year-olds who commit more serious crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery. Punishment is only a first step; we also need to focus on prevention and intervention. All followed the story about a 13-year-old in Florida who killed a British tourist, but not many read the article that said the youth had been arrested over 50 times and had been before the court over a dozen times. What might have happened if there had been some kind of meaningful intervention after the first, second, or third time in court? The Conference will look at the kinds of prevention or early intervention that can be developed to deal not only with youth violence but also with the whole spectrum of domestic and adult violence. Effective prevention requires reaffirming moral values and strengthening the American family. Families provide for the spiritual, economic, and social needs of kids. We also look to families to set acceptable rules of behavior and standards, as well as sanctions when those rules are breached. Churches, schools, and community organizations play supportive roles to families. We need to reaffirm borders and boundaries. We must "think big," we need new and innovative thinking, we need to look at old concepts in different ways. For example, one first step might be enforcement of truancy laws. Truancy laws have never really been enforced and don't work. In several areas, this enforcement effort is changing; schools are setting up groups within schools, with parents and kids participating, to keep children in school. One school in Seattle closed the campus, and the burglary rate in the area dropped. It may not be a prescription or answer, but it is a way of looking at things in a new way. A question was asked of a theologian, "What is your God's answer to all of the hurt and suffering and violence that is occurring in our community?" The theologian replied, "You are the answer." We are in the leadership roles to address these issues. It will require everyone's involvement in developing new and innovative law enforcement community involvement programs. Three-Pronged Approach to Reducing Violence Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, State of Washington, discussed the government's role in combatting violence in America today. Washington has 27 initiatives being fielded to the public, some of which are the aftermath of "three-strikes-and-you're-out," some of which are the aftermath of "cap the funding and don't ask us to pay for anything more." I never intended to go into public office, but I decided to take the lead. I went out to the public and heard two significant frustrations in 1992: (1) with government and its inability to take on and solve problems, and (2) with the legal profession and system and its inability to carry out what it was intended to do. These frustrations, together with violence, crime, and gangs, has led the public to see the need for fundamental leadership in partnership with the communities. Crime has grown in public importance, as evidenced by President Clinton's agenda, contrary to what anyone would have expected from a democrat. The Crime Bill and the actions of State legislators consider sentencing laws and attempt to ensure that people are held accountable. Washington has passed "three-strikes-and-you're-out" and the Violent Sexual Predator Act. How successful these bills are remains to be seen, but they were passed in response to public sentiment that government and the legal system weren't solving problems. The long-term solution is to look at prevention and determine the root causes of crime and violence. I believe child abuse and neglect from age zero to six, and statistics show this relationship, at least in Washington State, is responsible for violence in youth and adults today. We need to discuss the issues of domestic violence and fetal alcohol syndrome, which are important for prevention. Politicians can get caught up in the legislative arena trying to look tougher than the opponent, but unless we are willing to invest human and financial resources in prevention, I think we're going to lock this generation up, and the next one and the next one. It is time government started telling the public it is their problem to solve; government cannot and will not be able to solve it. Each and every individual has a part in the solution of this issue. Their activities, whether it is helping their neighbor or their community, are the answer to the problem. Government has turned to a support role of community-based programs. The U.S. has garnered an international reputation for violence. It is not a large city problem, but everyone's. Domestic violence occurs in the privacy of homes and goes largely unreported. According to the AMA, 20-30 percent of injuries to women seen in emergency rooms are inflicted by their partners. Youth violence has reached the height of the public's concern and agenda. Last year, the Washington public school system had over 1800 incidents of guns, knives, or other kinds of weapons, and there was one fetal alcohol syndrome child for every 700 live births. The message is not out that the average cost to society for each child with fetal alcohol syndrome is $1.4 million. Prevention clearly is where we need to turn our attention. The price tag is huge for the violence we are seeing today, in health care, law enforcement, and social services. We need to talk about the innumerable statistic which is human and emotional loss. We must have a three-pronged approach: (1) to protect members of society and vulnerable populations, (2) to hold those who violate accountable for their actions, and (3) to look to prevention for a long-term solution. One of the most fundamental roles government must play is to protect society. It must protect individuals' constitutional rights while ensuring that we protect the public at large. Those two come in conflict in the Sexually Violent Predator Act, which calls for indefinite civil commitment to the Department of Social and Health Services once an individual has finished a criminal sentence. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant has committed a sexually predatory offense and the defendant must be found by a judge or jury to be suffering from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to commit another offense. The statute was challenged in the Washington State Supreme Court and was ruled constitutional; it is now in the Federal system. The pendulum is swinging away from the protection of constitutional rights. It is a delicate balance, but we must recognize that the protection of citizens is fundamental to our efforts. The State court ruled that for constitutional rights to be protected, treatment must be made available so that individuals can leave the institutional setting, and society must be protected. Another frustration is lack of accountability, particularly in the juvenile arena. The public believes children have learned to manipulate the system, knowing how much they can get by with before the system will kick in. Children also know there are waiting lists for services. Essentially, the system has broken down in terms of holding people accountable. Accountability for the first offense is important in order to prevent further offenses. Incarceration is not the answer because of a lack of resources; it is necessary to get at root causes. Before, those who talked about prevention were "soft on crime." It is unfortunate that an important social problem is turning into political rhetoric. A three-pronged approach, including protection, accountability, and perspective considering the long-term are necessary. The number of offenders who were victims of domestic violence is astounding. The legislature said it would continue the effort in juvenile justice but only with respect to the criminal side, but by doing so it is only inheriting the failures of the at-risk and dependency systems. A comprehensive policy uses all three approaches to prevent crime. The Carnegie report supports this comprehensive approach, whose last chapter is entitled "Mobilizing the Community to Support Young Children and Their Families." In an essay by Wilbert Rudeau published in Time magazine, the convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment in Louisiana in 1962 stated: "The only effective way to curb crime is for society to work to prevent the criminal act in the first place, to come between the perpetrator and the crime. Our youngsters must be taught to respect the humanity of others and to handle disputes without violence. As a community, we must address the adverse life circumstances that spawn criminality. These things are not quick, and they are not easy, but they are effective." With respect to the political process and partisan politics, I have always been in favor of partnerships. Rhetoric has to be toned down. Washington has created a task force of legislators to look at the sentencing portions of the juvenile justice act. We must fight the "quick fix" approach that is not comprehensive. Without partnership, public disgust with politics will not end. Crime is a public policy issue, not a partisan issue. With respect to "hard" and "soft," or needed and unneeded money, government perpetuates the image that "we'll do more with less" but can't achieve it. The role of government should be reassessed and defined until the public puts the money in for something more. The role of government is protection, accountability, and prevention. It is not "soft" money but a long- term solution that in the long run saves money. Impact of Legislation on Violent Crime and Corrections Jerome Skolnick, Ph.D., Professor of Jurisprudence and Social Policy, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California at Berkeley, discussed the impact of "three strikes" legislation on violent crime and corrections. During the past year, crime and associated violence have become America's number one policy issue. The public's concern could present the opportunity to set national crime policy on a positive course, but instead it is a dangerous time. Intuition is driving the country toward untested, desperate, and often predictably ineffectual incapacitation responses that will raise prison costs, divert tax dollars from other vital purposes such as prevention, and likely leave the public as insecure and dissatisfied as ever. California is the nation's leading jailer, with one out of eight American prisoners in a California cell. In the past 16 years, the State's prison population has increased sixfold, the prison budget has increased 400 percent in the last decade, and the corrections budget has increased 500 percent. At the same time, violent crime has increased 40 percent. In 1983 to 1984, 14 percent of the California budget was allocated to higher education and four percent to prisons. Today the education and prison budgets meet at nine percent, and "three strikes" legislation hasn't taken its toll yet. The other leading state prison systems of New York, Texas, and Florida experienced half the growth of California's, and western European systems about a quarter. Californians should feel safer than they did in the 80s. Yet the State is looking to a future of unprecedented spending on imprisonment to finance the recently passed "three strikes" measure. The Governor is proposing to take $2.6 billion out of health, welfare, and education funding--where crime prevention comes from--to fund a comparable increase in the prison budget. The California "three strikes" bill casts by far the widest net. The law defines as the first two strikes serious felonies as well as violent felonies, and the third strike is any felony. One of the first to be charged is a man who allegedly wrested 50 cents from a homeless man. In San Francisco a woman refused to testify against a burglar who had broken into her car because he would get a life sentence. Another important provision, which is certain to be challenged, is the counting of juvenile convictions for the first two strikes for such crimes as burglarizing an unoccupied building. Prosecutors across the State have assailed the law, arguing that it will clog courts, result in costly litigation, require an expansion of court and prison facilities, and result in disproportionate punishment for non-violent offenders. The Department of Corrections released an analysis of the costs of the measure. They estimate that 20 more prisons will be needed, in addition to the current 28, with 12 on the drawing board. By the year 2027, the cost of housing prison inmates will peak at $5.7 billion. If it passes, the measure would force the State to incarcerate 275,621 more inmates over the next three decades. With California in the lead, the catchy slogan and its simplistic "tough on crime" message appear to have mesmerized politicians across the nation. The Senate proposed to spend $22 billion, mostly for police, prisons, and bootcamps. The House bill sets aside about $9 billion for prevention. Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart has pointed out that the Enlightenment made the severity and form of punishment "a matter to be thought about, to be reasoned about and argued, and not merely a matter to be left to feelings and sentiments." It is true that crime policy has rarely if ever attained the lofty aspirations of such enlightenment criminologists as Benthan and Beccaria. There has been mandatory sentencing in the past, and while they decreased judicial discretion, these laws overcrowded prisons and allowed for great latitude in prosecutorial charging and plea bargaining with no discernable reduction in crime. The irony in California is that in 1977 we passed a supposedly tough determinate sentencing law, declaring then that the goal of imprisonment is punishment, not rehabilitation. Ironically, it was the determinate sentencing that was responsible for the freedom of Richard Alan Davis, the man who allegedly abducted and murdered Polly Klaas. Under indeterminate sentencing, he might have received a sentence of one to 25 years or life for second degree murder, robbery, rape, or kidnapping, all of which were crimes he had committed. Instead he was the beneficiary of two mandated sentence reductions for precisely these crimes, despite the pre-sentencing report that warned of Davis' "accelerated potential for violence" following his second major conviction. Had the indeterminate sentencing law been in effect, someone with Davis' personality and criminal history would surely have been imprisoned far longer than the mandated six years for his first set of offenses, and we wouldn't need a sexually violent predator law. Most criminologists and policy analysts don't support reliance on expanded prisons and the rigidities of habitual offender laws. One of the reasons determinate sentencing came about was the idea that under indeterminate sentencing, prison officials had too much control and power over prisoners in the prison. What could happen with "three strikes" is that correctional officials will have no control, because prisoners in for life, unless they murder and face a death sentence, won't face any other sanction. Nor does it make sense for a sexual predator to let a victim live, because the victim might testify against the offender. Few criminologists take a hard line. No one has proven that there is no relationship between imprisonment and crime. Rather, statistical evidence shows an ambiguous relationship between crime rates and imprisonment, scarcely a mandate for "locking them all up." Certainty of punishment is more effective than length. Even if prison pays at the margin, not every convicted criminal deserves prison, nor is it cost effective to imprison every convicted felon, nor is it more cost effective to imprison offenders than to supervise them intensively in the community. In California people are becoming aware of the potential costs of "three strikes." Philip Romero, chief economist and chief deputy director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, argues that despite the high costs of incapacitation, incarceration saves money because the costs of crime are so high. According to Romero, each incarcerated offender saves around $200,000 in victim and social costs. This means that those now in prison should have saved $28 billion last year in California. There are at least three flaws in this analysis: (1) It assumes a finite group of criminals without considering youth who will become criminals while the current group ages. (2) It assumes an average criminal, although in California, more auto thieves go to jail than violent offenders. (3) It assumes hypothetical benefits, while prison costs are real. Where are the $28 billion savings predicted by the Romero formula? They are not in the State budget. Statistics indicate that imprisonment "across the board" has scarcely reduced crime. States with the highest crime rates also have the highest imprisonment rates. The goal is public safety. The majority of serious violent offenders are teenagers and young men in their twenties; serious violent offending declines with maturity. Imprisoning youthful offenders incapacitates them during the twilight of their criminal careers. However, other young and more active offenders take their place, and if we incarcerate them for life rather than into their thirties, we will eventually fill our prisons with geriatric offenders whose care will be increasingly expensive when their propensity to commit crime is at its lowest. From a crime prevention perspective, we need to address crime prevention by youthful offenders who are growing into the high crime total. As teenagers, black and white males are roughly comparable in their disposition to violence. Once involved in a lifestyle of violence, theft, and substance abuse, persons from disadvantaged families and neighborhoods find it more difficult to escape. They have fewer opportunities for conventional adult roles, and they are more deeply embedded in and dependent upon gangs and the illicit economy to survive. Two trends are responsible for the rise in confinement. First, longer sentences are being imposed for such non-violent felonies as larceny and theft. In 1992 these crimes accounted (according to the UCR) for 65.9 percent of crime in America. Second, drugs have been a driving force in the past 15 to 20 years. According to the NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting data, more than half of all violent offenders are under the influence of drugs, most often alcohol, at the time of their offense. There has been an explosion of arrests and convictions and increasingly longer sentences for possessing and selling drugs. A Justice Department study found that of the 90,000 Federal prison inmates, one-fifth are low-level drug offenders without charges of violent offenses or previous prison time. They are jamming the prisons. Through mandated and determinate sentencing, the federal prison population has tripled in the past decade. It will rise 50 percent by the end of the century, with drug offenders accounting for 60 percent of the Federal prison population. Yet Jeffrey Fagan and William Spelman point out, in a letter to the New York Times (2/11/94), that there is no relationship between the severity of drug problems and numbers of arrests or imprisonments. Their studies of drug sellers and users found that criminal justice sanctions are far less influential in controlling the demand for drugs than the word of mouth of consumers about the pleasures and dangers of mind altering substances. Drug treatment needs to be a key feature of crime prevention in prisons, jails, and other custodial treatment centers. Yet our primary anti-drug policy has been to threaten sizeable dealers, or drug kingpins, with long prison terms or death to punish and incapacitate them, and most of all, to deter others. Unfortunately, this policy results in the "Felix Mitchell paradox," which I have named in honor of the West Coast's once most notorious drug kingpin. In the 1980's, Oakland, California detectives provided evidence to the Federal government to send Mr. Mitchell to a Federal prison for the rest of his life. (He was killed in prison, so his life was short.) Did the theory of incapacitation and deterrence work? Were potential drug sellers in the Bay Area deterred by Mr. Mitchell's life, indeed his death, sentence? On the contrary, drug sales continued and, with Mitchell's monopolistic pricing eliminated, competition reduced the price of crack cocaine. The main effect of Mitchell's imprisonment was to destabilize the market, lowering drug prices and increasing violence as rival gang members challenged each other for market shares with a consequent rise in drive-by shootings, street homicides and felonious assaults. Indirectly, effective law enforcement followed by incapacitation stimulated serious random violence. Youngsters who sell drugs are part of a generation who have learned to see crime as economic opportunity. This view sheds light on the need to break the cycle of poverty, abuse, and violence that dominate their lives and move them in that direction. Prisons do not deter because the Mitchells do not rationally calculate with the same evaluative standards as legislators. This is partly because they live in a world more threatening than any prison, in which street-imposed death penalties are a constant danger. Soaring homicide rates of the late 80's and early 90's are largely the result of an underground drug economy where legal remedies for breach of contract are unavailable, but where assault weapons are increasingly accessible. If violent crime prevention is our strategy, we need to test approaches and make known their results. We need to go beyond the Brady Bill and introduce a tight regulatory system on weapons and ammunition. Effective gun and ammunition control would do far more to stem the tide of life threatening violence than expensive prisons mandated sentences. There is no apparent relationship between crime rates and additional police on the streets. Washington D.C. boasts the highest police-per-resident ratio in the nation with one officer for every 150 civilians. Yet it is also America's homicide capital, with the nations's highest per capita rate. There is no evidence that boot camps reduce recidivism. But if boot camps are primarily a place of punishment, it doesn't matter if they work. They provide an end run around the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Under the Constitution, we're not permitted to impose corporal punishment with whips and clubs. In boot camps, however, we can require painful exercises and hard and demeaning labor to teach these miscreant youth a message of retribution. Military boot camps offer training and toughening for a potential combat experience, but if correctional boot camps were intended to be resocialization interventions, then they are, to say the least, inadequate. We need to experiment with boot camps plus education, skills training, jobs, and community reconstruction. Conservatives who stress moral revitalization and family values as an antidote to youth crime have the right idea, yet they rarely, if ever, consider the importance of structural underpinnings--education, opportunity, employment, family functioning, community support--for developing such values. Developing those values is necessary, but it is not done in isolation. Conservative intellectual Paul Johnson, in his Wall Street Journal article "The People Want Revenge" (1/4/94), argued that people want more than anything to punish. More likely, people want safety and security. Politicians lead us to believe that revenge through lengthy incapacitations offers safety along with punishment. Eventually, however, citizens are going to have to choose between the urge to be retributive and the possibilities of crime prevention, especially of violent crime prevention. Punishment is largely ineffective for public protection. It does deter some, incapacitate others, and send a moral message to a limited extent. But if crime prevention and public safety are our major concerns, we criminal justice researchers have to get the message across to the public to mistrust intuition and adopt strategies and tactics which have been researched, tested, and reasoned. To combat crime, we have to embrace the values of the Enlightenment over those of the Dark Ages. Changing Nature of Violence in Society Thomas Tutko, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University (CA), discussed how violence was seen in the past, what can be done about violence today, and why violence is a symptom of other problems in society today. I wrote a paper thirty-some years ago speculating that the country was headed for an explosion of violence. I was criticized for pessimism, but now the paper is being brought up to date. I have three areas to cover: (1) how we saw violence in the past and how it has changed, (2) what we can do about violence, and (3) why violence is a symptom. (1) How we saw violence in the past and how it has changed. Violence in the past was tied to passion and emotion. It seemed to have purpose. Desire for punishment comes from fear, and represents retaliation. Movies are popular which show someone being violated but "bouncing back." Now there is a new form of violence that doesn't have any purpose. We are confused by three kinds of violence: (1) Gang violence, which does have some explanation in drugs/economic benefit and comraderie. (2) Narcissistic violence, because someone "looked at me wrong" or "I want those shoes." Movies and rap music glorify this. And (3) "fun and games" violence, trivial cases. (2) What we can do about violence. The major problem is that kids don't know alternative ways to fulfill themselves. We need to teach negotiation techniques. Young people need to learn civic responsibility. Parents must get involved. Responsibility and accountability must be imparted. (3) Why violence is a symptom. Corruption and unenforced rules and laws are everywhere, and kids observe this. Responsibility should come from the home, but often the home is the source of the problem. Unfortunately, people who could give good examples don't. State and Local Programs: Understanding and Combatting Violence Hawaii Multi-Agency Family Violence Program Statement of the Problem Over the past three years, the reported incidences of domestic violence in the County of Maui increased 63 percent, from 1,318 in 1991 to 2,150 in 1993. During this same period, the number of arrests increased by approximately 109 percent, from 278 to 580. The growing complexity of the cases is more disturbing than the increase of reported incidences. More children are witnessing family violence, victims are increasingly re- victimized, and the cycle of violence has expanded to the point that it has a community-wide impact. This is evidenced by the increasing drain on social services, shelter services, and perpetrator treatment programs. It has also impacted the criminal justice system, police, prosecutors, courts, corrections, and treatment systems, which have all been asked to respond beyond their capacities. Several Maui County agencies recognized that the expeditious arrest and prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence positively impact the abuser, the victim, and the community. The police, prosecutors, and advocates realized that to protect victims of domestic violence and minimize the risk of continued abuse, they must manage incidents of domestic violence in a coordinated manner. As a result, the Maui Police Department and the Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney have engaged in joint projects. Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the program is to reduce the incidence and severity of domestic violence, and in particular, repeat offenses. Toward that end, a number of goals and objectives are pursued. The first goal is to respond to domestic violence incidents quickly and effectively. This is done through the Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) within the Maui Police Department and through improved case management and processing techniques. As part of this goal, all patrol officers received domestic violence training. The second goal is to expedite the prosecution of domestic violence cases. For this purpose, a Domestic Violence Prosecution Team was created, and a career criminal classification system was established to track repeat offenders. The third goal is to increase interagency cooperation. A task force comprising members of law enforcement, social service, and local government was created. A coalition of police, prosecutors, and staff members from Alternatives to Violence, a social service agency, was established to meet monthly. Interagency training/consultation among the coalition partners takes place on a regular basis. A community awareness presentation regarding law enforcement response to domestic violence incidents was also developed. The final goal is to provide treatment and support for victims of domestic violence. Alternatives to Violence received a contract to provide crisis counseling on domestic violence calls. A Victim/Witness Counselor assists the prosecutor and the victim in domestic violence cases in court. Program Components The Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) within the Maui Police Department is assigned a sergeant and two investigators to handle only domestic violence cases. The unit developed written procedures governing the role and responsibilities of police in responding to domestic violence incidents and conducted training to implement them. These procedures include a policy under which all cases are referred for prosecution, and arrest is mandatory if there is a complaint or evidence of physical abuse. The unit receives directly and reviews all reported cases of domestic violence, seeks out and arrests all physical abusers who initially avoid apprehension, and provides a mechanism for treatment through Alternatives to Violence services. In addition, the DVU developed an educational presentation that is provided two to three times per month to targeted communities. The unit also responds to requests for information from community groups. The Domestic Violence Prosecution Team is assigned two deputy prosecuting attorneys, one investigator, and one Victim/Witness Counselor. The unit prosecutes only domestic violence cases. The vertical prosecution model is used in domestic violence cases so that the same attorney or team handles the case through the entire process. This unit systematically identifies all repeat offenders for priority in prosecution by tracking the number of verbal and physical abuse complaints. Priority cases are moved to the front of the docket if the situation warrants such action. The Domestic Violence Task Force brings together members of the criminal justice, social service, and political communities to coordinate the various components involved in domestic violence issues. Representatives from the police, prosecution, judiciary, social service agencies, and a member of the Maui County Council meet on a quarterly basis to develop efforts to resolve issues within the framework of the member agencies. The task force also provides education for community groups about the efforts of police and prosecutors to reduce the incidence and severity of domestic violence. Results and Impact Performance Measures While it was expected that the program would reduce the incidence of domestic violence, the police also expected community education and tougher law enforcement initially to lead to an increase in the number of calls for service related to domestic violence. The volume of calls received after the program went into effect, however, exceeded what was anticipated. As the program progressed, program officials began to recognize that although their interventions might not stop the first event from occurring, it could deter subsequent events. As a result, the program's goal was redefined to focus on reducing recidivism. Program officials are optimistic, however, that in the long run, first events may be deterred as attitudes intolerant of domestic violence are established among youth. Several performance measures were selected to determine the program's success: general orders issued by the Maui Police Department regarding the handling of domestic violence, the Standard Operating Procedure Manual for the DVU, and the Police Training Manual/Lesson Plan; number/frequency of training sessions held for the Maui Police Department and the number of officers trained; total arrests during the project period compared to the previous period; number of community awareness presentations given by DVU; career criminal classification system put in place; number of domestic violence cases brought to court during the project period; number/frequency of meetings conducted by the Domestic Violence Task Force and the Domestic Violence Coalition; and execution of a service-provider contract with the Alternatives to Violence agency. Implementation Problems and Successes One of the main problems faced by the program is the general tolerance of domestic violence in Hawaii's diverse cultures. It is a challenge for the police department to convince the public that domestic violence is not only a serious issue but a serious crime. Among many ethnic groups, domestic violence is viewed as acceptable behavior and not a problem requiring outside intervention. Police officers were initially resistant to the department's change in policy regarding domestic violence. Training from the highest levels in the department down to the patrol officers was employed to overcome resistance and ensure compliance with department policy. In addition, the police initially targeted ethnic groups for education efforts among whom they believed most domestic violence occurred. After closer examination, however, it became apparent that their perceptions were based more on stereotypes than reality. As a result, a concerted effort was needed to market the program to an entirely different population. Successes and Accomplishments The police department provided domestic violence training to all officers through either in- service training or Annual Recall Training. The department also established the protocol to coordinate the efforts of all agencies interacting with its DVU. A change in the record keeping process ensured that all cases of physical violence are documented by the end of the shift during which the incident occurred. The DVU is given a copy of the report immediately. The police contracted with Alternatives to Violence to provide crisis counseling on a 24-hour basis. During the first year of the project, 284 calls were handled by the agency. In addition, the DVU provided two to three community presentations per month during this period. The total number of reported incidents increased 30%, in part due to the community education effort. However, their severity decreased, as indicated by the decline in physical abuse cases compared with verbal abuse cases. Total arrests for domestic violence incidents increased five percent. Repeat offenders continued to represent less than seven percent of total arrests for domestic violence. There was a dramatic increase in the number of trials (240 compared to 14 prior to the project) and in the number of criminal actions filed (1,034 versus 870 prior to the project). The number of domestic violence cases prosecuted during the project period increased 15%. The processing time of cases from receipt to court hearing was reduced from 90 days to within three to five weeks. The conviction rate for domestic violence cases is close to 100%. The protocol adopted by the police department has enabled more successful prosecutions even in cases when the witness is hostile to prosecution. Police officers are obtaining statements and videotapes to be used in court that are making prosecutions easier, even with uncooperative witnesses. The recently established career criminal classification has given the prosecution team ready access to information on repeat offenders and enhanced their ability to determine an appropriate prosecution strategy. Prospects for Replication Considerations for replication should include the following: To ensure familiarity and consistency with policies and procedures regarding domestic violence, training of personnel is critical, at all levels. Personnel must be committed to the goals and philosophy of the program. Understanding and acceptance of the project's goals and objectives by agency management, and law enforcement and community agencies affected by the policies and procedures are required. The appropriate personnel to staff the project is essential. Staff must be knowledgeable and have a supportive attitude toward victims, offenders, and participating agencies. Communication among program participants must be regular and objective, to promote the degree of cooperation and understanding required in a community-wide effort. Management and senior officers must be alert to callousness or cynicism among officers, which will result in the failure of the program. Contact Information Lt. Paul Winters Commander, Juvenile Section Maui Police Department 55 Mahalani Street Wailuku, HI 96793 Phone: (808) 244-6480 Fax: (808) 244-6482 James Takayesu Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Department of the Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui 200 South High Street Wailuku, HI 96793 Phone: (808) 243-7691 Fax: (808) 243-7625 Maryland School/Community-Based Drug and Violence Reduction Program Statement of the Problem At a meeting of the Laurel High School Research and Development Committee, which is a grassroots school/business/parent "think tank" designed to promote and develop positive learning opportunities through shared resources, an officer of the Laurel High School (LHS) Black Student Union told the group that the primary reasons for student drug use, disruption, and academic failure are lack of positive self-esteem and communication skills. This sixteen- year-old young man explained that the absence of positive role models for young black males in the community has created a void of desired values which leads to behaviors characteristic of frustration and distrust. The need for positive intervention at LHS was underscored by the 194 suspensions for fighting and other disruptive behavior in 1992-93. Many of the incidents resulting in suspension and/or expulsion were drug and alcohol-related. With the development of the LHS School/Community Based Drug and Violence Reduction Program through the Governor's Drug and Alcohol Commission via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Subtitle C, young adults have an opportunity to reexamine their values and acquire additional skills and knowledge to make decisions that will lead to more productive and effective outcomes. Peer mediation promotes alternative solutions to violence. The drug demand reduction education program coordinated by D.A.R.E. in cooperation with local law enforcement officers empowers youth to make positive choices. The peer mediation program provides opportunities for students to plan, implement, and maintain an investment in the program. Goals and Objectives The goal of the program is the reduction of student drug use and disruptive behavior at Laurel High School through the school/community-based peer mediation program. This program promotes positive problem solving skills in order to develop a learning atmosphere, increase school attendance of "at risk" students, reduce substance abuse, and reduce activity requiring discipline. The program has four objectives: (1) to train a group of approximately 24 students in the conflict resolution process to serve as peer mediators and "trainers" of future mediators; (2) to implement a "Conflict Resolution Through Student Mediation Curriculum" as part of the regular ninth grade Social Studies program, including instruction in the Prince George's County Schools' Student Code of Conduct, the role of law enforcement, and the process and objectives of peer mediation; (3) to expand and maintain a team of qualified staff members and students who have successfully completed mediation training and eventually will perform in- service training for LHS staff members so that the mediation format can be integrated into each classroom on a regular basis; and (4) to expand and maintain a team of qualified staff members and students who have successfully completed peer helper training to mentor incoming ninth graders and promote a smooth and successful transition of "at risk" students into Laurel High School. Program Components A steering committee oversees the implementation of the project. It is accountable for ensuring that the program's goals are met and monitors the achievements of the objectives identified. The steering committee consists of the principal, the Project Director, the Mediation Coordinator/Director, the D.A.R.E. representative, the local D.A.R.E. officer, the Home/School Relations Coordinator, the Social Studies Teacher Coordinator, and a student representative from the Peer Mediation Group. The foundation and development phases of the project contain three focus areas. The first is the organization and development of the "Social Studies Conflict Resolution Through Student Mediation Curriculum" component. Lessons with accompanying handouts include the Student Code of Conduct, law enforcement, and Conflict Resolution Through Student Peer Mediation. These lessons and the pre- and post-test results will be carefully evaluated during the summer of 1994, and revisions will be made. A teacher's guide that can easily be adopted by other schools will be created at that time. During the 1993-94 school year, the Social Studies Department of Laurel High School is maintaining the D.A.R.E. program in the tenth grade curriculum. The D.A.R.E. program complements S.A.F.E. (Students Against a Fearful Environment) with the infusion of new lessons and an emphasis on specific lessons related to Laurel's student population and the Laurel community. As part of this program, Laurel police officers are actually placed in the high school. The second phase was a three-day training retreat for the Peer Mediation Student Core Group which took place during August 1993. At this retreat, the students developed an increased awareness of how they and others solve problems. They were also tutored in listening, note taking, and critical thinking skills. As Peer Mediators, they learned how to ask questions, gather information, facilitate communication, and develop alternative solutions for disputes. Special attention was given to the influence of their role as Peer Mediators in terms of their self-perception as well as the view their peers hold of them. Teachers now bring students to mediation instead of to administrators to settle disputes. During the mediation, the disputants are able to express their feelings without name calling, and solutions are reached. After the mediation session, the students sign a contract which contains what they have agreed to resolve. This contract goes on file with the Mediation Coordinator/Director so that the student can be referred if his/her file suggests that referral is appropriate. To encourage and enhance open lines of communication among school staff, a copy of this contract also is sent to the grade level administrator and the guidance department so that either can follow up with the students. Failed mediations are followed up by the Mediation Coordinator/Director. Follow-up may include a call to the student's parents and/or suspension. Some violations such as gun violations or teacher/student conflicts are not dealt with by the program. Parents are brought into mediation only for severe cases and are used as a bargaining chip to ensure cooperation and participation by recalcitrant students. The Peer Mediation Class Course Curriculum includes instructional activities so that participating students will continue to learn beneficial mediation techniques, coordinate and conduct peer mediations as needed, and train additional Student Peer Mediators. Guest speakers on relevant topics and field trips to agencies such as prisons and law enforcement facilities such as the State Police Department have emphasized the importance of guiding peers to make positive choices. The third phase, a program called Peer Helpers/Mentors, is in its second year. A group of incoming ninth graders were assigned upperclass mentors prior to entering Laurel High School. Opportunities were provided for mentors to meet their partners, establish a relationship based on activities and seminars, and gain information during the summer on the techniques of peer helpers. Peer mentors had the responsibility of providing support and guidance to their students in academic, emotional, and social concerns throughout the school year. The implementation phase of the three program components -- the Social Studies Conflict Resolution Through Student Mediation Curriculum, S.A.F.E. and D.A.R.E., and the Peer Helping/Mentoring program -- commenced simultaneously with the opening of the Fall 1993 school term. Results and Impact Performance Measures The expected results based on the program's performance measures are as follows: From September 1993 to June 1994, the attendance average for students will increase a minimum of two percent over the previous year. From September 1993 to June 1994, the number of discipline referrals for drug- related offenses, insubordination, disrespect, class disruption, and inciting violence will be reduced by a minimum of five percent from the previous year's level. From September 1993 to June 1994, the suspension rates for all students will be reduced a minimum of five percent from the previous year. Peer mediation training will take place during August 1993. The ninth grade Social Studies S.A.F.E. Curriculum component will be written by Social Studies teachers, and one lesson will be taught by police officers. The Social Studies Department will continue the D.A.R.E. program as part of the tenth grade curriculum. The peer mentoring program will be maintained and enhanced. An informal evaluation will take place at the end of the 1993-1994 school year. Administrators will compare the 1992-1993 academic year's data on absenteeism, disciplinary referrals, and suspensions with the 1993-1994 school years' data. There is a potential for an outside, formal evaluation by the State of Maryland. Implementation Problems and Successes When the program was first introduced, some administrators did not believe that the Mediation Coordinator/Director would be tough enough on students. The Guidance Department felt threatened by the program, which seemed to encroach on their duties. These problems were rectified, in part, because of the principal's support for the program. The four vice-principals, whose job description includes handling disciplinary cases, were reluctant to send students to mediation at first. When they realized the value of the program, they began to bring the students directly to mediation. Successes and Accomplishments Peer mediation training was completed. Ninety students attended a 1/2 credit Peer Mediation course and have mediated 1,500+ cases through April 1994, effectively helping over 3,000 students resolve their disputes without violence. These mediations have reduced the vice-principals' disciplinary cases by one-third. In addition, the student mediators have instructed other students in mediation techniques both at LHS and at other schools. Social Studies teachers completed writing the S.A.F.E. curriculum, and police officers taught Lesson 3 to 658 ninth graders. The Peer Helper/Mentoring Program was maintained with approximately 100 ninth graders participating. Approximately 550 tenth graders were taught the D.A.R.E. curriculum. As a whole, the program has been viewed as very successful. The student mediators have helped thousands of students resolve their difficulties. The disputing students have learned by experience that talking out problems can be empowering and satisfying. The Student Mediators have received a boost in self-esteem, and have developed important life skills. Students are now becoming mediators for the prestige that the position entails. Attendance, disciplinary referrals, and suspensions have neither decreased nor increased. This is significant because every other school in the same school district has suffered from an increase in these negative indicators. As a result, every other high school in Prince George's County will be required by the school board to replicate this program. The impact of the D.A.R.E., S.A.F.E., and peer helper programs may be similarly judged. They may also have helped to prevent an increase in negative indicators witnessed by nearby schools. Prospects for Replication The program was designed by a school staff person in such a way that others could replicate it. A S.A.F.E. curriculum has been produced. A manual for starting a peer mediation program is in the process of being developed. Video productions have been generated which demonstrate various parts of the program. The most difficult facets to replicate are recognition of the value of the program and the willingness to put adequate resources into the program. A full-time position for a Peer Mediation Coordinator is needed. Laurel High School's Peer Mediation Program has been so successful that LHS's school system is in the process of arranging for full-time Peer Mediation Coordinators in each of its 18 high schools. One of the most important components of a peer mediation program is full support from top administrators. In the case of Laurel High School, the Principal gave his full support to the program and caused an actual shift in the school's disciplinary policy. Another potential means of replicating mediation in other schools is to make conflict resolution a mandatory part of teacher certification. This program is not only appropriate for high schools. It can also be replicated in middle and elementary schools and has been successful with fourth and fifth graders. Contact Information Dr. Dennis S. Woroniecki Special Assistant to the Principal Laurel High School 8000 Cherry Lane Laurel, MD 20707 Phone: (301) 725-8300 Fax: (301) 725-2652 Massachusetts Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project Statement of the Problem Nationwide studies indicate that law enforcement officers are unclear about their role in responding to all forms of domestic elder abuse, are largely unaware of legislative reporting requirements, and generally, are not trained in the detection of different forms of abuse. A number of Massachusetts police commanders have echoed a desire for more training in elder issues. They understand the need for increased attention to elder issues in view of the dramatic increase in the elderly population which is projected to continue well into the next century. Police commanders also recognize that careful and sensitive service for the elderly is an important component of any successful community policing program. Elder victims are afraid to report abuse for fear of retaliation or the loss of services provided by the offender. Shame also prevents elder victims from reporting the abuse. In addition, police officers often have mixed feelings about intervening in disputes with the elderly or cannot detect that the victim is an elder. Studies have demonstrated that officers with specialized training on elderly victimization consistently receive favorable ratings from the older citizens they serve. In contrast, officers lacking specialized training generally receive poor ratings from elderly citizens. This results in the elderly having a negative view about the overall effectiveness of police services. Equally as compelling, studies have found that specially trained officers solve twice as many crimes against the elderly as those officers who do not receive special training. Training can be the catalyst for better police/community interaction and more effective crime fighting. In this context, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, under the direction of Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, created the Elderly Protection Project to help police officers detect domestic elder abuse and assist those victims. Goals and Objectives The goal of the Elderly Protection Project is to protect older citizens from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. The project objectives are to enhance officers' skills in preventing, reporting, and responding to elder cases, and to secure active collaboration between the Attorney General's Office, police officers, and local elder protective service workers. Training must be comprehensive to have a significant impact. Comprehensive training involves all of the actors that confront a given social problem. In the case of elder abuse, the major actors are the police, protective service workers, and the prosecutor. The first priority of the project is to strengthen the working relationship between the police and protective services. The project also focuses on recruit and in-service training. Recruits are generally receptive to innovation and alternative techniques and represent the future of community policing. In the coming year, the project plans to provide intermediate, in-service training for veteran officers to help ensure that all officers are aware of their basic responsibilities concerning elder abuse. The project also plans to present training for prosecutors and victim/witness advocates throughout Massachusetts. Program Components The Elderly Protection Project, in operation since February 1993, is coordinated by a Project Director with assistance from a part-time administrator. The project's training initiatives began in September of 1993. The six months prior to the start of training were devoted to developing training materials and contacts within the protective service agencies, law enforcement, and communities. Police training by the Attorney General's Office appears to increase the project's credibility. The Project Director has taught all recruit and advanced programs, which ensures consistency of the information conveyed and eliminates the logistical burden of arranging for a completely different slate of trainers at each locale. In the advanced training, the Director is assisted by local protection service workers and a representative from the Massachusetts Alzheimer's Association and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Following are the components of the project. Advanced Training. Advanced Training is the centerpiece of the project and corresponds to the regions covered by local protection service workers -- 27 local Protective Service Agencies in Massachusetts that are supervised by the Executive Office of Elder Affairs. These local agencies are responsible for investigating elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation reports generated by local police departments and other mandated reporters. The protective service agencies also provide a number of services and referrals to elders in need of assistance. The foundation of an effective response to elder victimization begins by cultivating and maintaining a working relationship between local departments and protective service agencies. For this reason, the 16 advanced trainings were geographically arranged for workers from all 27 protective service agencies and police officers from the corresponding local departments. In this way, officers not only received training in their reporting obligations but also established contact with their local protective service agencies' representatives. Conducting training at local sites made seminars smaller, more interactive, and focused on local issues. Local sites also promoted inter-departmental alliances and a greater understanding of elder issues in each community. Target audience. Individual Police chiefs were in the best position to determine who should receive this training. Their decisions depended upon the size and structure of their departments. Some executives sent their domestic violence detectives; others sent crime prevention specialists; still others saw these seminars as an opportunity for training patrol officers who expressed an interest in elder issues. Recruit Training. Recruit training took place at 12 different academies. Flexibility was necessary since different academies provided different time periods for this block of instruction -- anywhere from two to eight hours -- and had different class sizes -- anywhere from 29 to 191 -- which affected the instructor's ability to use class exercises and discussion versus lecture presentation. Curriculum and Learning Techniques. Depending on the level of audience expertise, the training explored the following topics: (1) the demographics of an increasing elder population and its implications for police services; (2) myths and facts about aging; (3) effective communication techniques, including background on the concerns, fears and vulnerabilities of the elderly; (4) enhanced investigation through detailed report writing and photographs; (5) financial exploitation in its various forms; (6) the elder abuse reporting law and coordination with the protective services system; (7) understanding domestic violence and its applicability to the elderly; (8) mental health issues; (9) police response to missing persons with Alzheimer's Disease; and (10) case studies in elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Finally, the courses utilized a variety of learning techniques including lecture, testing, written materials, videotapes and overhead transparencies, discussion and case studies, and opportunities for professional interaction. Results and Impact Implementation Problems and Successes After the initial implementation, this project needed to determine the type of officer who would benefit the most from the training. Officers felt that the training would be most beneficial for supervisors, who are in a better position to pass on what they learned to the department. The Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project's budget is intended to be small. The project's administrative leanness and ability to organize and conduct a series of training sessions throughout the State in a short time were considered obstacles before the upstart of the project. However, the Project Director was able to provide the training within the time limit. Decreasing police overtime and budgets made it difficult for a number of police chiefs to release officers for training. The project tried to rectify this by providing chiefs with more than one opportunity to send officers to training sessions. One unanticipated implementation success has been the professional settings in which the training takes place. Officers appreciated being treated like professionals instead of being trained in an academy-like atmosphere. Upon completion of the training, officers were given patches and certificates. Successes and Accomplishments The Elderly Protection Project has achieved the following: Conducted 15 regional, two-day advanced trainings. By the end of the grant cycle, this project will have completed 16 two-day trainings involving over 200 police departments and all 27 local protective service agencies in Massachusetts. Also trained were 445 officers, 58 protection service workers, and 34 other professionals. Created Elderly Protection Project Advanced Law Enforcement Training Manual. Rather than invent each training component, the project relied on established agencies for much of its training materials, especially the Association of American Retired Persons (AARP) and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The project adapted those materials to its overall program. This manual may be the project's most enduring accomplishment. The manual has received excellent reviews by course participants. A number of protective service agencies have decided to use the manual as their training tool. In addition to providing a manual to each course participant, the project has distributed another 200 copies to police departments, protection service workers, and other human service agencies. Conducted 12 recruit training programs. These programs were of various lengths depending on the schedule of the particular academy. A total of 755 recruits were trained. The Academy Directors at the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council facilities, the Boston Police Department, and the State Police have informed the Project Director that the recruits uniformly praised the training. A 26-page recruit handout was provided for further assistance. In-service training. The training sessions confirmed the need for all veteran officers to participate in shorter, concentrated, in-service training that describes their reporting obligations and provides insight on effective communication and investigation techniques. Developing an effective mechanism for accomplishing this in light of the decentralized nature of Massachusetts' law enforcement education represents a continuing challenge. In the coming year, the Project Director will attempt to gain acceptance of a model curriculum at a number of regional academies and conduct a train-the-trainer program that will provide a core group of trained police instructors. The project has received very strong evaluations from course participants. In evaluations, approximately 75% of the participants gave this course the highest possible rating for content, delivery and quality of training materials, and 75% strongly believe that this training "increased [their] sensitivity to older people." Beyond statistical information, both officers and protection service workers commented that the training helped to strengthen their working relationship with each other which, in the future, should cause them to investigate and collaborate on cases in a different, more effective way. Finally, many commented that the manual will be used on an ongoing basis as a reference tool. Plans are being discussed for an evaluation of the project. The Elderly Protection Project Advanced Law Enforcement Training Manual is available upon request. Prospects For Replication The Elderly Protection Project may be successfully replicated in other States for three reasons: (1) police executives and officers are interested in learning more about how to successfully serve the community's growing elderly populations; (2) protective services agencies usually are very interested in developing better relationships with local law enforcement; and (3) effective and comprehensive training programs can be developed and implemented without a substantial commitment of personnel or resources. Training initiatives would have to be adapted to the structure of police training and accreditation already present in the particular State. Contact Information John S. Scheft, Esquire Project Director, Elderly Protection Project Office of Attorney General Scott Harshbarger One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1698 Phone: (617) 727-2200, Extension 2888 Fax: (617) 727-3251 Michigan Community Oriented Policing Assisting Neighborhood Reclamation Statement of the Problem In 1988, when crack cocaine first reached Lansing, the Department responded with a Street Level Enforcement Team which initiated proactive arrest methods in an attempt to eliminate the problem. After 90 raids and 600 arrests in the first eight months, it became apparent that proactive police methods alone would not impact the overall problem. In some neighborhoods, decreasing the number of houses available for illegal drug trade increased the violence between drug sellers and buyers. Through statistical information, it was determined that the majority of drug complaints were concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods whose owner occupancy rate was hovering at the 50% or lower level. Even though street sales are the predominant source of distribution, investigations revealed that the vast majority of street dealers operate out of houses close to "their" corners. Crack houses remained at the same addresses, but were occupied by new renters after police intervention. Lansing had developed over 133 Neighborhood Watch groups during the 1980's that focused on crime prevention and reporting. In 1990, it became apparent that the police department could not respond to citizen complaints of drug dealing and related violence through traditional call-response policing. A process was initiated to find solutions. In 1989, the staff at the Lansing Police Department worked with a professional Strategic Planner to develop a vision, mission, and goal statement for the Department and the community. The Department's current vision statement, "Police and Community Partnerships for Progress and Excellence," initiated community oriented policing and community reclamation. The Mayor established a committee of city departments to define the problem clearly. The committee is chaired by the Mayor's Assistant, and members include the City Attorney, the Chief Judge of the District Court, a Probation Department staff member, a Building Safety Department staff member, a member of the Zoning Department, a representative from the Planning Department, the Chief of Police, and Division Commanders from the Uniform Division and the Special Operations Division. The committee began attending Neighborhood Watch community meetings. The community had the opportunity to communicate directly with the Mayor's Office and the city departments affecting the quality of life within their neighborhoods. The city departments educated the community regarding the resources available and how to access them. Goals and Objectives The overall goal of community-based partnerships is to reduce crime through police departments that work with and empower the community. One objective of the program is to develop citizen volunteer action in support of and in conjunction with the police, designed to: (1) reduce drug houses within assigned areas; (2) reduce street sales; and (3) reduce violent and non-violent criminal activity supportive of drug activity. Other objectives include providing police services consistent with the identified needs of target neighborhoods; bringing more accessible programs and services to the neighborhoods; working in partnership with individual and group volunteers and organizations to deliver a comprehensive set of services through referrals, interventions, and links to various social agencies; and working with target residents to eliminate problem tenants and landlords and restore community pride through neighborhood revitalization and increased owner occupancy. Program Components Community Oriented Policing. Community Oriented Policing empowers personnel at all levels of the police department to solve problems. A major key to Community Policing is that it allows public access to police officers. Lansing currently has ten district patrol offices in the city's neighborhoods, whose sites were donated by the community. Approximately 34 officers are assigned to these offices. Patrol officers have access to the Department's mainframe computer at the district offices. This allows them to generate reports in less time so that, they are able to remain in the field longer, access pertinent intelligence information, and increase communication with the neighborhood. When a neighborhood is preparing for the program, a series of meetings take place in the first two months. The police department's expectations of the residents are explained. The neighborhood is clearly told that the program will not be effective if its citizens are apathetic. Community officers quickly became aware of needs within their neighborhoods beyond the removal of drug dealers. Residents requiring human services had no idea which services were available or how to access them. Officers were given manuals created by the Lansing Police Department on the services available to residents. One innovative officer found an available office building within his neighborhood that has developed into a full Network Center bringing over 22 human services into the neighborhood. These services include Operation Graduation, a Community Mental Health program, parenting classes, and Neighborhood Partnership Consultants. Community Reclamation. Landlord/Tenant Detective: Street level drug sales and criminal activity are directly related to the residential property where dealers store, distribute, or use controlled substances. A detective has been assigned to work full time with landlords and property owners. With the help of a full time assistant city attorney, the detective targets nuisance complaints. Cooperative landlords receive the detective's assistance at eviction hearings. Uncooperative landlords face charges of violations of city and State nuisance abatement ordinances and statutes. Community/Landlord Organizer: In 1992, the Department realized the need to start removing police from leadership roles and empowering citizens to fill the positions. A contractual employee was hired from Lansing's Neighborhood Council to organize Landlord and Neighborhood Development (L.A.N.D.) Committees composed of tenants, landlords, and property owners. Each committee is trained in landlord/tenant rights, complaint filing and resolution, and finding both public and private financial resources. Each committee is supported by a police officer, a code compliance officer, and an assistant city attorney. Each L.A.N.D. Committee chooses the activities it will pursue. The committees have identified income sources, developed lists of services available within the community, produced brochures to promote their neighborhoods, and filed nuisance complaints against properties owned by uncooperative landlords. The Committees' long-term goal is increased home ownership. An increase in home ownership should increase community pride and decrease apathy toward crime because home ownership gives residents a stake in the neighborhood. Results and Impact Performance Measures Community reclamation targets drug houses, which are the key to street level drug sales and related violence. If allowed to continue after police intervention, the neighborhood gives up or is too frightened to step forward. Post-eviction is the critical period. New residents must understand that the neighborhood does not tolerate drug dealing. Computerized databases are used to collect the necessary data to measure project results. These databases consist of the Department's Law Enforcement Management System, Raid and Suspected/Confirmed Drug House System, civil abatement complaints, criminal complaints, location and calls for service, and UCR index. In addition, the Community Bureau conducts satisfaction surveys of neighborhood residents to determine the quality of life in the neighborhoods. Police officers are also sent into neighborhoods on "walk and talk" missions. These assignments involve walking the neighborhoods on a weekend night and talking to residents about crime in the area. Implementation Problems and Successes One implementation problem was changing the officers focus to community policing rather than arrests. The officers must adopt the philosophy that they are responding to problems rather than to "quick fix" calls. Successes and Accomplishments All community policing neighborhoods have reached a 95% or better drug house-free goal. Drug house complaints have decreased by 20% citywide over the past two years. The city's overall Part I crimes decreased by three percent, and calls for service decreased by two percent in 1993. Home ownership increased in 1993, and the average value of residential property increased by $1,800. The landlord/tenant detective was able to assist in 333 evictions without the necessity of a raid. Because each raid cost the Department approximately $900 in personnel costs, a total of $299,700 was saved. The community/landlord organizer has received the endorsement of the city's Landlord Organization. Volunteer action committees have identified income sources, developed lists of services available within the community, produced brochures to promote their neighborhood, and filed nuisance complaints against properties owned by uncooperative landlords. An office building has been turned into a network center which brings over 22 human services into the neighborhood. Prospects for Replication Community-based policing has taken on many forms throughout the country. The key component is police recognition of the strength of the communities they serve. Communities willing to fight crime must have the complete cooperation of combined governmental services. When an active community understands its responsibility, community reclamation begins. Contact Information Captain James Rapp Lansing Police Department 120 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: (517) 483-4812 Fax: (517) 483-6003 Nebraska Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit Statement of The Problem With the exception of Omaha and Lincoln, most Nebraska residents live in rural areas. New industry, drug gangs, and other forces have combined to increase the flow of controlled substances and violent crime throughout the State. Large numbers of drug arrests have occurred within the past year in towns of less than 10,000 people. Rural law enforcement are less equipped to handle the increase in crime because they (1) usually work longer hours; (2) have fewer opportunities for training; and (3) have less equipment and support. In addition to the lack of resources, Nebraska suffers from problems common to rural areas. It is estimated that every four years prosecutorial staff turnover reaches 50%. Almost 85% of this staff is part-time. This absence of long-term experience on the part of rural prosecutors has contributed to an increase of the number of cases referred to the appellate court. Working in a sparsely populated State results in prosecutors spending many hours traveling from one jurisdiction to another. "Turf wars" among local law enforcement and prosecutors create additional problems. These conditions demonstrated the need to provide direct prosecutorial services, training, and stronger working relationships among Federal, State, and local law enforcement. In response, the Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit of the Nebraska Attorney General's Office was created in July 1988 to improve the response to drugs and violent crime. Goals and Objectives The goal of the Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution program is to enhance the direct delivery of local prosecutorial services and to assist both local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies in responding to drug activity and violent crime across the State. The objectives designed to achieve this goal are to: (1) assist local prosecutors in all phases and aspects of the prosecution and trial process for drug and violent crime cases; (2) provide research assistance to regional task forces, State and local law enforcement, and county attorneys; (3) develop educational and resource material for law enforcement and prosecutors; (4) train law enforcement and prosecutors in the area of investigation and prosecution of violent crime; (5) maintain assistance and training for State and local law enforcement officers; (6) instruct students at the State universities and colleges in criminal justice issues; and (7) publicize to State and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors the expansion of the program's scope to include violent crime. Program Components Supplement Existing Prosecutorial Resources. The program consists of four full-time, experienced prosecutors and a support staff. It is designed to supplement existing prosecutorial resources in the following ways: by accepting and prosecuting referrals of drug and violent crime cases; by prosecuting appropriate cases in Federal court through cross-designation; by consulting and advising local prosecuting attorneys; by consulting with and advising Regional Task Force operations and staff; by participating and assisting in task force investigations; and by attending and facilitating task force meetings. Facilitate Inter-Agency Cooperation. This component is designed to facilitate inter-agency cooperation by encouraging cooperation among local sheriffs, police, State patrol, and Federal agencies; by assisting and participating in multijurisdictional investigations with local, State, and Federal agencies; and by participating in Federal investigative, pre-trial, trial, and appellate functions. Train Prosecutors and Law Enforcement. This program component is designed to educate and train prosecutors and law enforcement officers. This is accomplished through: training seminars for law enforcement officers conducted by the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center; training for law enforcement officers conducted in conjunction with Regional Task Force activities; training seminars for prosecutors sponsored by the Nebraska County Attorneys Association and Federal agencies; and the publication of training aids, reference materials, and prosecutor manuals. Results and Impact Performance Measures The program anticipates a statewide increase in the direct prosecution of drug and violent crime cases. Performance indicators will be determined by reviewing the number of homicide and other violent crime cases for which local prosecutors request assistance from the unit. In addition, the number of drug-related cases that are handled directly by the unit or in a joint prosecution with local authorities will be evaluated. Performance evaluation regarding the number of research and technical assistance requests will be measured by tabulation and documentation of the number, nature, and topic of research requests received from county attorneys, local, or regional task force officers. Evaluation of training efforts will be ascertainable through monitoring of the number of attendees in each seminar, the number of seminars presented by the unit, and the topics covered at the training functions. Also, participants can be surveyed to determine the extent of information absorbed and to measure participant satisfaction. Implementation Problems and Successes The main implementation problem is the time prosecutors spend traveling. It often takes a prosecutor a day to reach the crime scene. This required the project to have four FTE's even though the State has a sparse population. One success was the prosecutors' approach to implementing the program. With "turf wars" hindering the implementation of the program, prosecutors spent time on-site getting to know the local law enforcement. This informal approval seemed to help the local law enforcement understand the role of State agents and to accept the services of the prosecutors. Successes and Accomplishments As a result of the expanded focus and the decrease in boundary "turf wars," State prosecutors are being asked by local law enforcement to assist with cases. The unit within the last three months has received requests for direct prosecution in three first-degree murder cases, one motor vehicle homicide case, a sexual assault, and a Federal drug and weapons case involving multiple defendants. The unit has also been requested to assist in ongoing investigations of violent deaths in five additional counties. In calendar year 1993, the special unit received requests for assistance from 41% of the counties in addition to other requests for assistance from State and Federal agencies. In cooperation with the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center, during 1993 approximately 400 law enforcement officers were trained at 18 training sessions held throughout the State. In 1993, the unit prosecuted 49 felony cases and handled over 60 appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Nebraska Supreme Court involving drug offenses. Several significant appellate decisions both established new laws and affirmed current law enforcement practices. These cases involved the articulation of standing requirements, specification of issues on motions to suppress, criteria for inventory searches, the use of drug dogs, search issues, and the innocent owner defense issue involved in forfeitures. The unit has been assigned the responsibility of defending a recently adopted drug tax as well as responding to the administrative appeals arising out of the imposition and assessment of the tax. For the first time, a database has been set up to monitor appeals, types of drugs, violent crime, and victim information. This is a major step in the development of the prosecution unit and will be extremely helpful for future evaluations. Another important accomplishment was the recent distribution of the second edition of the Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Manual to all 93 sheriffs and county attorneys. In addition, 25 of the major police departments, all regional task force operations, and the Nebraska State Patrol received the manual. The manual covers topics on search and seizure, asset forfeiture, wiretap/electronic surveillance, and the use of expert witnesses. In addition to the manual, the unit writes a weekly article for the State Patrol Bulletin. These articles critique a case and provide information on the latest case research. All materials are available upon request. Prospects for Replication Replication of the Nebraska project in other jurisdictions depends on a number of factors: (1) the constitutional or statutory prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General in the respective States; (2) the extent and nature of the available prosecutorial resources in the respective county jurisdictions; (3) the existing training mechanisms or institutions responsible for law enforcement training; (4) the division and assignment of investigative responsibilities; (5) the existence and makeup of multijurisdictional task forces; (6) the nature and extent of multi- venue criminal activity; (7) the extent of cooperation and interface with local, State, and Federal agencies; (8) the demographics of the jurisdiction; and (9) the financial ability of the local and State entities to support the project. Contact Information William L. Howland Assistant Attorney General Chief, Criminal Prosecution Division Project Director 2115 State Capitol Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 Phone: (402) 471-3833 Fax: (402) 471-4725 North Carolina Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF) Statement of the Problem The public's concern about crime continues to increase as crime appears to be more random and committed by people without prior contact with their victims. The rise in violent predatory crime (e.g., robberies, carjackings, break-ins, random shootings) alarms the public and is causing the present lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. Victims traditionally have included friends and loved ones of the offender, but the trend in recent years has been an increase in the number of crimes committed by strangers. North Carolina has always experienced high rates of assault and homicide, most of them taking place between perpetrators and victims who knew each other. Armed robbery rates were previously consistently low, but currently are increasing faster than that of any other violent crime. Murder committed by strangers is also increasing. A series of studies conducted by criminologists confirm a view shared by experienced law enforcement investigators: a relatively small number of repeat offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent predatory crime. Traditional ways of targeting repeat violent offenders have had disappointing results. Career criminal programs use court records to identify targets. Court records focus on defendants who qualify for enhanced charges and are already under arrest by local law enforcement. This approach is based on the theory that putting high-rate predatory offenders behind bars prevents crime. However, evaluations of career criminal programs and other programs that use court records to target high-rate violent predatory criminals show that they are not largely effective. Programs that get offenders off the streets during their highest crime producing years -- between the ages of 17 and 24 -- will have the greatest impact on predatory crime. Despite their limited number, the impact of these criminals on communities is growing. By the time criminals build up a court record long enough to qualify for most career criminal programs, more often than not they are beyond their highest crime-producing years. Goals and Objectives The goal of the Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF) program is to improve the quality of life in high crime areas by enhancing law enforcement's ability to remove targeted repeat violent criminals from society. The VCCTF program attempts to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct proactive investigations against these dangerous individuals through the following objectives: (1) develop better methods to identify repeat violent felons; (2) target, investigate, arrest, and convict violent felons; (3) improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to engage in proactive investigations; and (4) improve methods for gathering investigative information and using it more strategically. Program Components The VCCTF identifies violent criminals and incarcerates them during their high crime years. The VCCTF uses the investigative resources of local and Federal law enforcement agencies and the enhanced sentencing capabilities in the Federal Firearms Statutes to target, investigate, and convict active violent offenders. VCCTF differs from similar programs in four significant ways: (1) law enforcement intelligence rather than court records develop targets for active investigation; (2) the lead agency in the VCCTF is a State investigative agency rather than a local law enforcement agency; (3) investigations are aggressive and proactive, making extensive use of sophisticated audio and video surveillance equipment and special funds to buy guns, drugs, and information; and (4) the VCCTF funds undercover work to develop Federal firearms charges. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is the lead agency in the North Carolina VCCTF program. State investigative agencies like the SBI bring a number of advantages to this kind of program, one of which is their statewide jurisdiction. Criminals do not pay attention to political boundaries. Active criminals work in a number of jurisdictions, and State agencies like the SBI can follow offenders and their activities in any jurisdiction. Few local law enforcement agencies are organized to do proactive investigations. Only the largest local law enforcement agencies have access to the surveillance and communication resources needed for this type of long term investigation. Most programs rely on local agencies to make arrests. Those cases are sorted through to identify targets for Federal court. State investigative agencies like the SBI conduct proactive investigations and build cases against known targets. The SBI has an intelligence unit to compile and track investigative leads and a financial crime unit to provide computer support and help identify assets. SBI agents assigned to the VCCTF also have experience with proactive drug task force investigations. Program Operation. Local agencies submit violent criminal targets to the task force which are reviewed by the regional coordinator and the special agent in charge from each task force office. It is then decided if the case will be accepted as a target. The criteria used in this review include the violent criminal history of the subject; evidence that the subject is currently "active" as a violent criminal; and the likelihood that the subject can be successfully Federally prosecuted for criminal violations. If accepted as a target, task force law enforcement officers from local, State, and/or Federal agencies investigate the criminal. These investigators focus on the criminal activities of targets until they develop a credible Federal prosecution case. The active criminal is then arrested and prosecuted at the Federal level. After a case becomes a target, all tools are used to build a Federal case. A tremendous amount of time is spent observing each target, using informants, undercover operatives, and other methods to make a strong case. If targets are correctly chosen and closely watched, serious criminal behavior is usually observed within a short period of time. The keys to this program are patience and resources. A substantial portion of the VCCTF grant funds has been spent on surveillance and communications equipment, computers, and analytical support for the Federal, State, and local officers working on the task forces. Surveillance. While there is active involvement in the investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the SBI provides the surveillance equipment and computer support needed for investigations. Federal agents working on violent crime task force cases rely on State and local agencies for the same resources. Intelligence and Data. Each VCCTF investigation is supported by civilian analysts who run criminal history checks and enter all investigative leads, contacts, and other relevant information into relational database programs. This has proven invaluable in developing cases. Results and Impact Successes and Accomplishments Since the inception of the program through April 1, 1994, approximately 467 offenders have been submitted for consideration as task force targets. The status of these 467 targets is as follows: 27 potential targets are in the review process; 106 targets are pending investigation; 42 targets are pending arrest; 99 targets are pending prosection; 60 targets have been arrested and prosecuted; 71 targets' cases have been closed in court or other; and 62 targets have been rejected. Some of the cases included five drug ringleaders, four of whom were sentenced to as many as 30 years in Federal prison; four offenders who robbed a delicatessen and killed the attending counterperson, sentenced Federally to terms including life imprisonment; and a gang leader who was sentenced to four life terms plus 305 years on a multitude of charges involving drugs and murder. Because of the program's success, other jurisdictions in North Carolina are requesting this kind of task force initiative. The SBI would like to continue the program and expand it to other parts of North Carolina with two modifications: using the same techniques, pursue individuals who are supplying guns to criminals and coordinate VCCTF with local agencies involved in community policing. If the VCCTF is expanded, additional surveillance equipment and clerical, analytical, and computer support will be needed to achieve results. Prospects for Replication Violent career criminal task forces can easily be replicated. A commitment from the other agencies involved in VCCTF and computer and clerical support is necessary for the program to be successful. Contact Information Charles Overton, III Assistant Director North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations P.O. Box 29500 3320 Garner Road Raleigh, NC 27626-0500 Phone: (919) 662-4500 Fax: (919) 662-4523 Tennessee Operation Saturation Statement of the Problem The measure of success for police agencies has traditionally been the number of arrests made during a given year. This mindset of ever-increasing arrests has filled our prisons and has contributed to large segments of our population being unemployable because of their criminal records. The measure of success for police officers should not be how many arrests are made, but how many arrests do not have to be made. Police agencies and citizens must work together to reduce both the desire and the opportunity to engage in criminal activity. The Memphis Police Department's commitment to community-based police service through its Operation Saturation programs are returning police officers to the community and providing more efficient service delivery to the citizens of Memphis. Police officers and supervisors are most effective when they are allowed to use their own creativity and problem solving abilities at the operational level to address specific needs within a given neighborhood. Total quality management programs and citizen involvement are the foundation for the Memphis community policing efforts. The Memphis Police Department currently has four Operation Saturation/Community Policing Programs: (1) Hurt Village (expanded into the neighborhood); (2) Orange Mound/Binghampton; (3) AdVance (which includes safe corridors to school); and (4) Downtown Precinct (bicycle and foot patrol). The concepts of community policing are simple: police have the authority to solve problems that otherwise could lead to crime, and they work with community leaders with a holistic approach to help empower the community to solve some of their problems. Goals and Objectives The mission of the Memphis Police Department, in partnership with the community, is to protect life and property, to understand and serve the needs of the city's neighborhoods, and to improve the quality of life by maintaining order, solving problems, and apprehending criminals. The Operation Saturation program has many objectives: (1) to provide a secure environment that will foster residential, commercial, and cultural advancement; (2) to ensure collaboration between the Memphis Police Department and the community to provide high quality police services to all elements of the community; (3) to achieve effective citizen, police, public, and private agency involvement in the Memphis Police Department's strategies to improve the quality of life and enhance public safety; and (4) to provide a highly motivated and well trained work force which is professional, ethical, and representative of the community it serves. Program Components One of the Memphis Police Department's greatest successes, Operation Saturation, Hurt Village began in 1992. This program was established in Hurt Village, one of the toughest public housing communities. Although geographically small, this development had the highest crime rate of all the housing communities in Memphis. The operation began with covert activities, and after obtaining indictments for the major criminals, began to make arrests and to saturate the development with uniformed officers. A partnership was formed with an umbrella agency called "Free the Children" which utilizes the gamut of social and educational services in conjunction with community policing. Today, Hurt Village has been stabilized. It is now one of the safest housing communities in Memphis. It is apparent that the residents' fear of crime has diminished, and they have begun to take pride in the place where they live. They are planting flowers and keeping the yards and exteriors of their buildings clean and free of graffiti. A number of the residents have taken advantage of job training and educational opportunities and no longer require public housing. The Memphis Police Department expanded this successful program in other neighborhoods with similar problems. Orange Mound and Binghampton had begun to show signs of deterioration, open-air drug markets were becoming noticeable, and violent crimes were increasing. Orange Mound possesses vacant houses, many condemned, and vacant lots with no plans for re-development. The Orange Mound Development Corporation is in the process of rehabilitating home owner property, at no cost to the owner, in exchange for community volunteer work. A home buyers program was developed to educate residents about buying a home and assist them financially to buy a new home. An outreach program identifies people who are eligible for these programs. A youth entrepreneur program is underway to teach youth how to start and operate businesses such as screen printing, landscaping, and concessions. In Binghampton, Early Grove Baptist Church, one of the more active churches in the area, houses Project Vision, Inc. This project has programs for preventive health education, home ownership through Project Nehemiah, day care, adolescent conflict resolution training through the High Five Program, and other social services. The Memphis Police Department obtained a mini-mobile Precinct which provides the flexibility of taking a precinct, with all of its technology, into the neighborhood. Therefore, on July 1, 1993, covert activity began in Orange Mound and Binghampton. While undercover officers were making their "buys," Crime Prevention Officers conducted door-to-door surveys, which allowed identification of community leaders as well as the needs, hopes, and fears of the communities. Officers also assisted community groups in door-to-door surveys, assessing the needs of residents, and performed home repairs. After 54 indictments were obtained and arrests made, the neighborhoods were saturated with uniformed officers, who immediately began holding public meetings. The Mayor of Memphis often would attend these meetings. The Memphis Police Department assigned ten officers and two Lieutenants to the Orange Mound/Binghampton area. Officers have offices in the Orange Mound and Binghampton Community Centers. Officers attend weekly community meetings in order to be responsive to the needs of the communities they are serving. After four months in these communities, an increase in public trust could be perceived. One of the key elements in Operation Saturation is gaining trust and support from the community. Officers recruit, train, and supervise volunteers. Officers contact and solicit the active participation of businesses and act as both liaisons and facilitators with non-profit agencies. Because of the size of these neighborhoods, foot patrol alone was ineffective. Therefore, officers were given pagers and business cards to distribute in an effort to bring them into contact with the community. Foot patrols are used when applicable, in specific areas such as apartment complexes and high density areas. To decrease the response time to calls for service, officers assigned to this detail were in addition to the regular cars assigned to the patrol area. The term COACT, a synonym for interaction, was adopted as the unit call sign and assigned to all Operation Saturation/Community Policing Units. COACT officers are not subject to regular calls for service, which allows them the time necessary to provide special attention to the citizens of the community. COACT teams are made up of representatives from civic organizations, the police department, and community volunteers. They identify problems which impact the community in a negative way, evaluate them, and outline a plan of action. March 1994 marked the beginning of a program in one of the Binghampton Apartment Complexes which outlines aggressive tactics to eradicate drugs from the environment. The program acts on complaints of drug trafficking by requesting that tenants cooperate with consents to search their residence. A thorough, neat search of the premises is conducted, and if drugs are located, appropriate arrest action is taken and the contraband seized. This information is shared with the management, which has entered into agreements with the police department to follow up by initiating eviction proceedings. The illegal activity is often taken elsewhere. Also, those prone to seek an apartment for this type of activity are discouraged because of the enforcement. Recently, a coalition was formed between the Memphis Police Department, business leaders, elected leaders, and media personnel to conduct a gun for food program. A gift certificate for food and gasoline was given to any person who turned in a working gun. Operation Drive Out Crime allows uniformed officers to take home their patrol vehicles. Another non-profit group has raised money to allow officers to purchase houses in target neighborhoods at very low interest rates. These neighborhoods no longer possess the "us against them" syndrome; citizens who used to exhibit indifference toward officers now consider them allies. Results and Impact Implementation Problems and Successes The officers assigned to Operation Saturation experience resentment from other officers and police administrators and managers who are not familiar with community policing. The department is addressing this problem with community policing training for the entire department through technical assistance from Community Research Associates. This organization is working in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Assistance. A number of the drug dealers and criminals moved out of the Hurt Village development and into the adjacent neighborhoods when Operation Saturation began. The program was expanded to encompass the neighboring areas to combat this problem. Successes and Accomplishments As a whole, the program is viewed as a successful partnership between the police and the community. The flow of information from the community to the officers has improved, and the citizens now view the officers as a vital resource for helping them solve the problems in their community. During the period from January 1, 1994 to April 30, 1994, the officers held 41 community meetings with a total attendance of 2,001 citizens. In addition, the officers made 770 individual contacts with the citizens they serve. In the first quarter of 1994, COACT officers worked successfully with the Motor Vehicle Theft, General Investigation, and Robbery Bureaus to recover property, arrest suspects, and solve a variety of cases. The unit has improved communication among police divisions, community agencies, and uniformed patrol officers. At the elementary school where officers patrol, the after school program enrollment is up by 70 students. By April 15, 1994, an analysis conducted by the Memphis Police Department determined that no drug arrests have been made in the area around this elementary school since February 1, 1994. This reflects a drastic reduction in criminal activity in the area, previously known for its high drug traffic. In February 1994, Memphis experienced the worst ice storm in its history, knocking out power in some areas for as long as two weeks. Officers were instrumental in checking on elderly residents and directing citizens to shelters. Citizen patrols were formed by the COACT officers, and the citizens themselves surveyed damage and assessed the medical needs of the community. This effort has been credited with keeping the incidence of crime associated with the power outage to a minimum. There were few burglaries, no reports of looting, and an improved community spirit. Contact Information Officer Martha Lott Memphis Police Department Grants Management Office 201 Poplar Avenue Room 12-01 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 576-3404 Fax: (901) 576-3877 Spokane, Washington Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Program Statement of the Problem Spokane, Washington, is a mid-sized, urban city in the largely rural plains of eastern Washington. While the city's population is estimated to be 185,000, police service demands are also generated from many of the 450,000 people in the surrounding small communities and unincorporated areas who work and shop within the city. Despite its geographic isolation, Spokane experiences the violent crime and neighborhood decay characteristic of big cities. Like large urban areas, Spokane has found its limited resources drained by violent crime. Residents of Spokane, many of whom fled big cities for a better quality of life, are experiencing crime and victimization as drug-trafficking and violent crime escalates. Like most law enforcement agencies dealing with increasingly violent offenses, more drug- related crime, limited staffing and fiscal resources, and changing community goals, Spokane had fallen into an incident-driven policing model. Officers felt rushed to go "from call to call," and civilian support staff felt caught between decreasing resources and increasing demands from the community for quality services. On going patrol practices isolated the community, and traditional deployment models fostered long-term employee stress and frustration. The department struggled to meet minimum staffing levels under sick leave, training, and court time restraints. Officers felt no connection with neighborhood residents; they were more concerned with officer safety and low staffing. The personal incentive to invest in the community was low, and a programmatic switch to community policing held no promise of sustainability. Experience was showing that incident-driven policing did little to reduce crime, fear of crime, criminal opportunity, or repeat offenses. Traditional service delivery models also did little to address the root social causes of crime and neighborhood decay, and were not seen as productive toward building community cohesiveness. The department opted for a philosophical and operational switch to a patrol-based, community empowerment model which emphasized problem solving at a base level: the neighborhood level. Recognizing that no one lives at the "community" level, the department created "Neighborhood Resource Officers" or "NROs." The NROs became the foundation for many successful neighborhood-based initiatives, such as the Community Oriented Policing Stations, or "C.O.P.S. Shops." The NROs and C.O.P.S. Shops are the catalysts for community mobilization against violent crime in Spokane. Spokane began working toward these philosophical and operational changes in 1988, when it began a department-wide effort to redefine the organization through a sense of shared values. The organization was rooted in its crime control mission but had not integrated its values with those of the community. By building strong community partnerships and shared values through the NRO program and other community empowerment programs, the department has been able to identify and solve problems of crime and disorder, and improve the quality of life in neighborhoods. Goals and Objectives The goals of the NRO program are to: (1) emphasize community empowerment and collaborative problem solving at the neighborhood level in law enforcement and crime prevention; (2) establish a relationship with community members at the neighborhood level to improve communication, increase personal investment by police employees, reduce isolation and anonymity of community members, and foster shared values and a sense of responsibility for public safety and quality of life issues; (3) change the police organization from a rigid, para-militaristic, incident-driven agency to a more decentralized, results-driven organization sensitive to client needs; and (4) improve the quality of life in city neighborhoods by fostering interagency cooperation and community partnerships to identify and solve problems of crime, neighborhood disorder, and neighborhood decay. To achieve these goals, the NRO program has established the following objectives: (1) redefine organizational values and philosophies to emphasize and support innovation, creative problem-solving, and positive outreach to the community; (2) develop and provide community empowering/policing training for all supervisors, commissioned officers, and civilians that emphasizes communication, customer service, problem-solving and analytical skills, leadership, community outreach, and resource management skills; (3) base the NRO program in the patrol division, to emphasize the fact that community policing is an operational philosophy at base organizational levels, and not a special or separate "community services" unit; (4) allocate staffing to maximize response to serious crimes and emergencies while ensuring sufficient time to engage in problem-solving and community interaction; (5) establish and maintain productive relationships with other city departments and resource agencies to facilitate service delivery and cross-training in support of neighborhood initiatives or identified needs; and (6) through NROs and the C.O.P.S. Shops, improve quality of life by analyzing neighborhood needs, crime concerns, environmental, health, educational, and social issues, and "wrapping" services around those neighborhoods to meet identified needs. Program Components In 1992, two NROs were assigned with the assistance of grant funds to two economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. A third NRO was added with continuation funding in 1993 in a third city neighborhood. Each of these NROs was based either at a neighborhood community center or neighborhood school, and was supplied with a vehicle, pager, and cellular phone. The NROs work with established neighborhood steering committees, community center boards, schools, parent groups, and neighborhood residents to identify crime and environmental problems which inhibit neighborhood cohesiveness. Community members know their neighborhood officer is a phone call away, and they are more forthcoming with investigative information. Neighborhood residents are directly involved in crime prevention and enforcement efforts, and welcome the neighborhood-based approach. When the first NROs began to see success, other officers voluntarily adopted many of the community empowerment methods they observed. A small "ad-hoc" NRO movement was born, and officers assigned to general patrol duties began adopting specific neighborhoods themselves. In 1993-94, this movement led to the establishment of partnerships in at least six other neighborhoods. These ad-hoc NROs, working without grant funds, cellular phones, or personalized vehicles, have continued their patrol and call-taking responsibilities while engaging in community problem-solving. In the last six months, these neighborhoods have mobilized against crime, secured buildings for their own C.O.P.S. Shops, and raised over $20,000 in private funding for their volunteer efforts. This ad-hoc movement is the true integration of community policing philosophies into patrol operations and is being further developed as the Spokane operational model for expansion of programs to reduce crime and violence in neighborhoods. The C.O.P.S. Shops began in Spokane's West Central neighborhood after the tragic kidnapping of two young girls. This working-class family neighborhood mobilized a mass volunteer effort; one girl was found murdered, and the other was never found. But the force of that tragedy pulled the neighborhood together, and their community identity has continued to strengthen. "C.O.P.S. West" opened in May 1992, a place for the neighborhood to unite. As residents began voicing their concerns, a broad range of crime, social, and family problems were identified. Over 200 neighbors received training from the police department in community problem-solving, available city and social service resources, and neighborhood watch and crime prevention strategies. Educational programs, such as conflict resolution, anger management, parenting skills, budgeting, and other family skills are offered regularly. Results and Impact Performance Measures The NRO program anticipated high initial expectations from community center directors, school administrators, and citizens of what NROs might accomplish in their neighborhoods. It is expected that citizens will be more satisfied with police contact by a NRO who will help solve their problem directly. While initial increases in reported crime are to be expected with a more involved citizenry, reductions in fear, victimization, and violent crime are expected over the long term. Performance measures were established with the assistance of professors from Washington State University (WSU) and the Washington State Institute for Community Oriented Policing (WSICOP). In the first two years of the program, four distinct sources of data collection were used to assess program implementation and outcome. First, responses from standardized questionnaires administered to neighborhood residents were used to establish a baseline of program expectations. Second, a direct observation of NROS in 1993 was undertaken. As the ad-hoc movement grew, the scope of direct observation was expanded to include all NRO activities. Third, the NROs themselves collected contact sheet data using a standardized coding form designed by the research team to document the frequency and quality of officer-citizen interactions. And fourth, telephone call-back verification of a random sample of local citizens who had been contacted by the NROs during the course of the research program was conducted. Subjective measurements were based on these direct observations, while objective measurements were based on survey results, crime statistics, and other quantitative data such as the number of referrals made, educational classes attended, and documented problems solved at the neighborhood level. Implementation Problems and Successes One problem was a lack of developed training for all department personnel (especially supervisory personnel) in support of community policing. Early on, a key element for success was identified as supervisory training and support of non-traditional policing methods and community problem-solving efforts by officers. Supervisors needed to be encouraged to foster an environment where creative approaches to assigned duties was facilitated and rewarded. Other implementation problems included internal management of NROs and external coordination of C.O.P.S. Shops while they rapidly multiplied due to community demands and demonstrated success. Because the NRO program was originally based in patrol and remained a part of patrol, the typical patrol-community officer rivalries were minimized. Implementation successes included the ad-hoc movement described earlier, which was born of a desire to do more effective policing by regular patrol officers not actively identified or organizationally supported as "NROs." The growth and expansion of the NRO program and C.O.P.S. Shops demonstrate positive support of the police-community partnership. Successes and Accomplishments The original NRO pilot began with two officers; Spokane now has some ten patrol officers active in individual neighborhoods and ad-hoc NRO activities. The Community Oriented Policing Station concept, which began in one neighborhood, has spread throughout the city. There are now eight established C.O.P.S. Shops and five more in the planning stages. Additionally, other neighborhoods are mobilizing against crime and violence. To date, over 1,000 community members have been trained to staff the C.O.P.S. Shops as volunteers, and many related services (such as probation, parole, family focus classes, and youth activities) are delivered through the C.O.P.S. Shops directly to neighborhoods. The Spokane Police Department has implemented several other successful community-based programs. They include "C.O.P.Y. Kids," "Every 15 Minutes," a Citizens' Police Academy, a downtown summer event for youths, and a leadership camp experience for middle-school students which aims to strengthen positive peer influence, service commitment, academic excellence, and productive citizenship at the high school level. Both the "Every 15 Minutes" program and "C.O.P.Y Kids" have received State recognition for their innovation and replicability. Prospects for Replication The NRO program and the C.O.P.S. Shop concept are suitable for adoption and replication in other jurisdictions. Each program is based on forming a strong partnership with citizens at the community level, and could easily be tailored to meet neighborhood-specific needs in any city or county. Contact Information David Ingle Administrative Services Director Spokane Police Department West 1100 Mallon Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Phone: (509) 625-4053 Fax: (509) 625-4066 Yakima, Washington Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition Statement of the Problem The City of Yakima suffers from high rates of unemployment, teen pregnancy, and school drop-out in its youth population. There is also intergenerational conflict in the Hispanic community between bilingual children and monolingual parents. These characteristics have led to a lack of bonding between youth and their schools, communities, and families. Instead, many youth have bonded with their peers to engage in negative behaviors, including alcohol and drug abuse and violence. In the past five years, Yakima has seen a steady increase in youth violence, including gang confrontation, which is exacerbated by the ethnic diversity of the population. Many Caucasian, Hispanic, and African-American youth lack the conflict resolution skills necessary to mediate their cultural differences. Youth violence has increasingly permeated the neighborhoods of Yakima without regard to ethnic and socioeconomic boundaries. A drive-by shooting in 1990 in west Yakima--a white, middle-class neighborhood--prompted leaders in Yakima to realize that preventive measures had to be taken to ensure safety throughout the city. In 1991, government, non-profit, and business leaders created the Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition. In discussing the root cause of youth violence, officials recognized the need for a multifaceted program that includes recreational and enrichment activities, tutoring, and crisis counseling. Goals and Objectives The mission of the Coalition is to reduce the rate of youth violence in Yakima by providing positive opportunities in several community centers. The goals of the Coalition are fourfold: (1) to develop prevention/intervention activities for at-risk youth at five sites in Yakima with high rates of youth violence; (2) to provide information and resources to at-risk youth; (3) to recruit adult and youth volunteers to provide prevention/intervention activities for at-risk youth; and (4) to maintain an advisory board that is representative of Yakima to publicize the goals and results of the Coalition. Program Components The Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition Advisory Board comprises individuals representing the following organizations: Centro Campesino, Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health, Mercy Enterprises, Yakima County Juvenile Court, Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition, Yakima Housing Authority, Yakima Parks and Recreation, Yakima Police Department, Yakima Public Schools, YMCA, and YWCA. The Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition administers the program. The Program Coordinator plans recreational, tutorial, and enrichment activities for all program sites and supervises site staff. The Intervention/Volunteer Coordinator plans conflict resolution/anger management skills training, coordinates intervention and services, and recruits adult and youth volunteers for the program. The Intervention Assistant provides individual/group counseling and referral to site participants at particular risk for violent behavior. Five "Kid's Place" programs are housed in four elementary/middle schools and one community center. Kid's Place provides after-school recreational, tutorial, and enrichment activities for youth ages 5-12. Four "Night Action" programs provide recreational activities, tutoring, conflict resolution/anger management skills training, and intervention services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, to youth ages 13-19. The programs operate Monday-Friday, 6-12 p.m., in three elementary/middle schools and one community center. "Family Night" provides family activities such as potlucks, athletic tournaments, and pool parties. "Family Night" is held at each site every Friday from 7-10 p.m. Each Kid's Place and Night Action program is staffed by a facility supervisor, a recreational leader, and a recreational aide. The Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition receives funding from the Washington State Department of Community Development and the City of Yakima. Results and Impact Performance Measures The Advisory Board and Coalition staff expect to measure a significant decrease in youth violence surrounding the five program sites. The Yakima Police Department monitors the incidence of gang confrontation, assault, vandalism, and other violent behaviors near each site on a quarterly basis. Staff expect improved conflict resolution/anger management skills and improved academic performance from participants as evidenced by their number of arrests, grade point average, and other factors that would indicate success. The Advisory Board expects continued collaboration between organizations in the City of Yakima and Yakima County. Implementation Problems and Successes The Advisory Board identified schools as ideal program sites, but experienced initial difficulty receiving approval from school principals, concerned about property damage, etc., to operate during afternoon/evening hours. Eventually, board members were able to persuade principals to open four buildings for Coalition programs. The Advisory Board also had difficulty identifying local start-up funding for the Coalition. Board members donated in-kind and cash funding to begin the Coalition; after twelve months of operation, community sponsors, including the City of Yakima, provided financial support. Community denial of youth violence proved to be a major obstacle in the implementation of the Coalition program. However, the Board publicized the problem of youth violence and the results of the Coalition to the degree that the Coalition is included as a model program for the City of Yakima in its 1994 All-American City application. The Coalition also received the 1992 Governor's Award for Collaboration and Volunteerism for its efforts to solve a significant community problem. Successes and Accomplishments In the five sites of Coalition operation, youth violence has decreased by 80% over the past three years. The Coalition has provided 24,342 incidents of service to 1,030 Kid's Place participants. It has provided 18,357 incidents of service to 1,758 Night Action participants. The collaborative effort of the Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition has influenced similar models throughout Yakima County. Prospects for Replication The Coalition staff has received numerous requests from communities throughout Washington to speak about the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program. Staff have assisted two communities in Washington in replicating the program, and the program was included as a model in the Governor's "Youth Violence Prevention Bill." Contact Information Ester Huey Executive Director Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition 1211 South 7th Street Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 575-6114 Fax: (509) 575-4649 Workshop Participants ARIZONA Joseph Farmer Program Manager Drug Control & System Improvement Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 1501 West Washington Street Suite 207 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 602-542-1928 Fax: 602-542-4852 CALIFORNIA Harold Becker, D. Crim. Professor Criminal Justice Department California State University at Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90840 Phone: 310-985-4713 Fax: 310-985-8086 Michael Sabath, Ph.D. Associate Professor San Diego State University Imperial Valley Campus 720 Herber Avenue Calexico, CA 92231 Phone: 619-357-5535 Fax: 619-357-5568 Jerome Skolnick, Ph.D. Professor of Jurisprudence and Social Policy School of Law University of California at Berkeley 2240 Piedmont Avenue Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone: 510-642-4038 Fax: 510-642-2951 Thomas Tutko, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology San Jose State University One Washington Square San Jose, CA 95192 Phone: 408-924-1374 Fax: 408-924-5605 Ray Youngdahl Deputy Probation Officer III San Mateo County Adult Probation 1024 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 415-877-5750 Fax: 415-742-0253 COLORADO Kim English Director of Research Division of Criminal Justice Colorado Department of Public Safety 700 Kipling Street Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80215 Phone: 303-239-4453 Fax: 303-239-4449 HAWAII James Takayesu Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Department of the Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui 200 South High Street Wailuku, HI 96793 Phone: 808-243-7691 Fax: 808-243-7625 Lt. Paul Winters Supervisor, Juvenile Section Maui Police Department 55 Mahalani Street Wailuku, HI 96793 Phone: 808-244-6480 Fax: 808-244-6482 Anthony Wong Planning Specialist Department of the Attorney General Resource Coordination Division 425 Queen Street Room 221 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 808-586-1096 Fax: 808-586-1097 ILLINOIS Roger Przybylski Director Research and Analysis Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 120 South Riverside Plaza Suite 1016 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-793-8550 Fax: 312-793-8422 MARYLAND Ellen Gibson-Adler Director of Communications Governor's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission 300 East Joppa Road Suite 1105 Towson, MD 21286 Phone: 410-321-3526 Fax: 410-321-3116 Dennis Woroniecki, Ph.D. S.A.F.E. Coordinator Laurel High School 8000 Cherry Lane Laurel, MD 20707 Phone: 301-725-8300 Fax: 301-725-2652 MASSACHUSETTS Dennis Humphrey, Ed.D. Executive Director Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice 100 Cambridge Street Room 2100 Boston, MA 02202 Phone: 617-727-6301 Fax: 617-727-5356 John Scheft Director Elderly Protection Project Office of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place Eighteenth Floor Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-727-2200 ext. 2888 Fax: 617-727-3251 MICHIGAN Timothy Bynum, Ph.D. Professor, School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University 560 Baker Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1118 Phone: 517-355-2197 Fax: 517-336-1787 Ardith DaFoe Director Drug Law Enforcement Division Office of Drug Control Policy 1200 Michigan National Tower Post Office Box 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 517-373-2952 Fax: 517-373-2963 Captain James Rapp Lansing Police Department 120 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 Phone: 517-483-4812 Fax: 517-483-6003 NEBRASKA William Howland, J.D. Assistant Attorney General Nebraska Attorney General's Office 2115 State Capitol Lincoln, NE 68509 Phone: 402-471-3814 Fax: 402-471-4725 NEBRASKA (Continued) Nancy Steeves Federal Aid Administrator Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Post Office Box 94946 301 Centennial Mall South Lincoln, NE 68509 Phone: 402-471-3416 Fax: 402-471-2837 NEVADA Mary Lynne Evans Administrator Office of Narcotics Control Assistance 555 Wright Way Carson City, NV 89711-0910 Phone: 702-687-5282 Fax: 702-687-6798 NORTH CAROLINA Charles J. Overton, III Assistant Director, Field Operations North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations Post Office Box 29500 3320 Garner Road Raleigh, NC 27626-0500 Phone: 919-662-4500 Fax: 919-662-4523 Virginia Price Executive Director North Carolina Governor's Crime Commission 3824 Barrett Drive Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609-7220 Phone: 919-571-4736 Fax: 919-571-4745 RHODE ISLAND Jerry Hatfield President Systems Development Associates 2100 Broad Street Cranston, RI 02905 Phone: 401-781-5330 Fax: 401-781-5330 TENNESSEE Roy Ryall Director State of Tennessee Criminal Justice Administration 509 John Sevier Building Nashville, TN 37243-1600 Phone: 615-532-2983 Fax: 615-532-2989 UTAH Susan Burke Anti-Violence Coordinator Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice 101 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Phone: 801-538-1031 Fax: 801-538-1024 VIRGINIA Donald Rebovich, Ph.D. Director of Research American Prosecutors Research Institute 99 Canal Center Plaza Suite 510 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-519-1675 Fax: 703-836-3195 WASHINGTON Kay Boyd Unit Manager Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 906 Columbia Street, S.W. Post Office Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Phone: 206-586-0665 Fax: 206-586-0873 WASHINGTON (Continued) Larry Fehr Executive Director Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency 1305 Fourth Avenue Suite 602 Seattle, WA 98101-2401 Phone: 206-461-3421 Fax: 206-461-8360 Christine Gregoire Washington State Attorney General 905 Plum Street Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Phone: 206-664-8565 Fax: 206-664-0228 Esther Huey Executive Director Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition Post Office Box 554 Yakima, WA 98407 Phone: 509-575-6114 Fax: 509-575-4649 David Ingle Administrative Services Director Spokane Police Department West 1100 Mallon Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Phone: 509-625-4053 Fax: 509-625-4066 Paula Jellison Director of Community and Legislative Affairs King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-9067 Fax: 206-296-9013 Norm Maleng Prosecuting Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-296-9067 Fax: 206-296-9013 Chief Terry Mangan Chief of Police Spokane Police Department West 1100 Mallon Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Phone: 509-625-4050 Fax: 509-625-4066 Patrick Moran, Ed.D. Evaluation Coordinator Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 906 Columbia Street, Southwest Post Office Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Phone: 206-586-0492 Fax: 206-586-6868 Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20531 STAFF Barbara Bodnar Program Specialist Phone: 202-514-6638 Fax: 202-514-5956 Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. Chief, Program Evaluation Phone: 202-616-3212 Fax: 202-307-0036 Denise Schulze Grant Manager Phone: 202-514-6638 Fax: 202-514-5956 Steven Yonkers Program Specialist, East Branch Phone: 202-307-6638 Fax: 202-514-5956 Justice Research and Statistics Association 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 445 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-624-8560 þ Fax 202-624-5269 STAFF Charleen McAllister Cook Conference Manager Kellie J. Dressler Project Director David A. Kessler, Ph.D. Director of Research Andrea Richards Program Assistant Melissa A. Ruboy Research Analyst