OJP Drugs and Crime Working Group. Series: OJP Published: January 1996 58 pages 165,672 bytes U. S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs A Report to the Assistant Attorney General Office of Justice Programs OJP Drugs and Crime Working Group January 1996 OJP Drugs and Crime Working Group and other contributors to this report: OJP Stephen Amos Marlene Beckman Larry Meachum Marilyn Roberts Robert Samuels BJA Tom Albrecht Todd Brighton Robert Brown Luke Galant Bud Hollis Jay Marshall BJS Sue Lindgren Ben Renshaw NIJ Laurie C. Bright Thomas Feucht Ginger Kyle Carolyn Peake Jack Riley James Trudeau OJJDP Sharon Cantelon OVC David Osborne Catherine Sanders Health and Human Services Sarah Vogelsberg Special thanks to Frances Hamilton who provided invaluable assistance with producing this report. --------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents Introduction Reducing Demand Through Treatment 1. Crime Act Programs Aimed at Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Use 2. Corrections Options Program 3. Targeting Treatment for Juveniles 4. Drug Treatment Evaluation and Research Reducing Demand Through Prevention 1. Targeting Neighborhoods Through Comprehensive, Community-Based Strategies 2. Anti-Drug Coalitions and Partnerships 3. Focusing Prevention Activities On Our Youth 4. Drug Prevention Research and Program Evaluation Strengthening Enforcement and Interdiction Efforts 1. Byrne Discretionary Grant Drug Enforcement and Anti-Violence Initiatives 2. Byrne Formula Grant Multijurisdictional Task Force 3. Enforcement Strategies Aimed at Our Youth 4. Research and Evaluation of Enforcement Efforts Appendix ------------------------------------ A REPORT TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OJP DRUGS AND CRIME WORKING GROUP January 1996 INTRODUCTION Substance abuse and drug-related crime and violence continue to affect the lives of countless Americans in both urban and rural areas. The Office of Justice Programs supports states and localities in their efforts to reduce the demand for the use of illegal drugs through early intervention, prevention, and treatment, as well as innovative enforcement and prosecution approaches that target particularly high-risk groups and communities. Through funding, technical assistance, research, and data, OJP contributes ideas and resources for the development of integrated, comprehensive programs to reduce the demand for and use of illicit drugs and strategic approaches to combat the crime and violence that often accompany it. There are a variety of model programs and research and data initiatives that are being carried out in OJP's bureaus--the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics--which form the basis for OJP's strategy for breaking the cycle of drug abuse. In addition, under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the "Crime Act"), OJP has enhanced authorities, programs, and resources to meet the challenge of illegal drugs and violence in our communities. Collaboration among federal, state, and local law enforcement is essential to successfully address this country's drug and crime problems. In addition to a strong coordinated domestic law enforcement response to the drug trade, in its 1995 National Drug Control Strategy Report, the Office of National Drug Control Policy stresses both prevention and treatment efforts as the ultimate keys for addressing the illicit drug problem and ensuring the safe future of our communities. New generations must not become drug users, and existing users must be afforded treatment opportunities and convinced to stop. ------------------------------------ REDUCING DEMAND THROUGH TREATMENT The ONDCP Strategy Report recognizes that the best way to reduce the overall demand for illicit drugs is to reduce the number of chronic, hardcore drug users. This can only occur if communities, courts, and corrections facilities make effective treatment programs available to those that need them. Moreover, the criminal justice system must use its coercive authority to convince drug-using offenders to "clean up their act" and provide drug treatment to all drug users that fall within its jurisdiction. One of the few universally accepted propositions about crime is that offenders are disproportionately substance abusers. Since the origin of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system data, the proportion of drug using offenders among those arrested has never fallen below 60 percent and has reached 85 percent. In 1994, 33,146 adult and juvenile arrestees were interviewed; although important differences exist by age, gender, and other arrestee characteristics, some summary results are instructive. Twenty-two percent stated that they had received some drug or alcohol treatment at some time in the past, but only 2.16 percent of all arrestees interviewed in 1994 stated that they were currently enrolled in some form of drug or alcohol treatment. About 27 percent of all arrestees interviewed in 1994 stated that they needed treatment for alcohol or some other drug: 15 percent needed treatment for drugs, 6 percent needed treatment for alcohol, and the remainder indicated a need for drug and alcohol treatment. The proportion of drug using offenders among the incarcerated population is higher than even their proportion among arrestees. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys show that 78 percent of jail inmates in 1989, 79 percent of state prisoners in 1991, 60 percent of federal prisoners in 1991, and 83 percent of youth in long-term public juvenile facilities in 1987 had used drugs at some point in their lives. A quarter of convicted jail inmates, a third of state prisoners, and two-fifths of youths in long-term, state- operated facilities admit that they were under the influence of an illegal drug at the time of their offense. Significant research indicates that correctional drug treatment programs can have a substantial effect on the behavior of chronic drug abusing offenders. Moreover, effectiveness is not diminished when the criminal justice system coerces offenders into treatment prior to sentencing or as a postconviction condition of probation and parole. According to the BJS Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities, 43 percent of all inmates in 1991 had participated in a drug treatment program; 36 percent received their most recent treatment while incarcerated. Group counseling was the most frequent type of treatment program. The 1990 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities reported the following estimated numbers of prisoners in treatment: 4,800 federal inmates, 88,700 state inmates, and 6,200 in community-based facilities. Of federal inmates, 9 percent were in some type of drug treatment on the Census date of June 29, 1990. Among state prisoners, 14 percent in confinement facilities and 37 percent in community-based facilities were enrolled. The two most common types of programs for both federal and state correctional facilities were education and counseling. 1. Crime Act Programs Aimed at Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Use--OJP 1.1 Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Grant Programs Offenders must be held accountable for their criminal acts; tough sanctions are often needed to force drug-addicted offenders to stop using drugs and committing violent crimes. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the "Crime Act") creates programs to support both treatment and punishment to improve public safety and provide hardcore offenders an opportunity to receive treatment for their addiction. Federal money is being made available under the Crime Act for grants to states to address the immediate needs of correctional facilities and programs. The program recognizes that states and local jurisdictions have experienced substantial increases in jail, prison and juvenile confinement populations in recent years, resulting in escalating costs and serious difficulties in managing overcapacity correctional populations. Because of these constraints, correctional systems have often been unable to implement new programs, develop alternative confinement strategies, or open new facilities. In particular, the program emphasizes the need to make available both conventional jail and prison space for the confinement of violent offenders and to ensure that violent offenders remain incarcerated for substantial periods of time through the implementation of truth in sentencing laws. The federal funding is directed to two grant initiatives: the Violent Offender Incarceration Grant Program and the Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grant Program. These programs award grants to (1) build or expand correctional facilities to increase the prison capacity for violent offenders; and, (2) build or expand correctional facilities for nonviolent offenders, including facilities on military bases and boot camps in order to free existing secure prison space for the confinement of violent offenders. To be eligible for funding under either of the grant programs, states must comply with a series of assurances involving sentencing policies and practices and other guarantees of sound correctional systems to ensure that violent offenders are sufficiently incapacitated and that the public is protected. To receive funding under the Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, states must also meet certain sentencing requirements. In particular, states must have in effect sentencing laws that either provide for violent offenders to serve not less than 85 percent of their sentences or meet other requirements that ensure that violent offenders remain incarcerated for substantially greater percentages of their imposed sentences. 1.2 Corrections Boot Camp Initiative The Correctional Boot Camp Initiative implemented the discretionary grant component of the Violent Offender Incarceration Grant Program authorized by the 1994 Crime Act. Its genesis is rooted in the fact that states across the country are facing burgeoning prison, jail, and juvenile institution population growth--with insufficient space to house violent offenders and, thus adequately protect the public. Viewed as a intermediate punishment option, the boot camp concept targets nonviolent juvenile and adult offenders in need of a structured program of discipline, physical training, work and treatment services. In FY 1995, 44 projects were approved for funding: 27 planning grants, 7 renovation grants and 10 construction grants for a total award amount of $24.5 million. These OJP-funded boot camp projects--which will be implemented at the state and local levels--will include drug treatment and intensive, coordinated aftercare components as part of their programs. In announcing the awards on August 7, 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno said, "These programs will free up prison space for violent offenders. At the same time, they'll help young, nonviolent offenders get the intensive supervision and drug treatment they need to kick their drug habits and break the cycle of drug use and crime." 1.3 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Services for State Prisoners The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program provides formula grants to states to develop and implement residential substance abuse treatment programs within state and local correctional and detention facilities in which inmates are incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to permit substance abuse treatment. OJP has engaged in extensive planning to facilitate the immediate and effective implementation of the Residential Substance Abuse Program and treatment components of the other correctional programs as soon as the FY 1996 appropriation is enacted. OJP is developing program guidelines and an extensive technical assistance program to dispel commonly held beliefs among many policymakers that treatment does not work for offenders and to assist state and local governments in implementing effective treatment programs which reduce drug use and criminal behavior. The guidelines and technical assistance are being developed in conjunction with and are based on recent research conducted by the National Institute of Justice the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and others. Technical assistance will be provided through national and regional workshops, as well as on-site assistance to address site-specific needs. Through the technical assistance program, OJP will encourage state and local policymakers to reassess the importance of substance abuse treatment for offenders and to develop and implement comprehensive treatment programs, including intensive aftercare components. Workshops will focus on NIJ's comprehensive assessment of research and evaluation on drug abuse treatment strategies for offenders and "best practices" identified through program evaluations, including the following findings. o Drug use and criminal behavior are closely linked as evidenced by Drug Use Forecasting data and studies of addicts and criminals; heavy drug use accelerates criminal behavior among drug-involved offenders. o Most offenders who are processed through the criminal justice system during their drug-using careers have not been treated for their drug use and have no interest in entering treatment. o Studies show that large numbers of drug abusers are in prison. Hence, the criminal justice system is a logical, cost-effective and convenient point of intervention for these offenders. Without treatment, these offenders will return to drug use and crime upon release. o Recent surveys indicate broad public support for rehabilitation of offenders while in custody as a means of controlling crime. o Careful evaluations of correctional drug treatment programs in several states with diverse populations, including offenders with violent histories, show remarkably consistent reductions in recidivism rates for offenders completing these programs. Some new programs show that three out of four drug-involved offenders will succeed after program completion. o The "therapeutic community" residential treatment model which addresses drug use and the myriad problems associated with the lifestyle of addiction is the most effective approach. Successful outcomes are tied to length of time in treatment (at least 6 months) and provision of continuity of treatment in the community after release (i.e., aftercare). o Correctional institutions that have initiated programs of drug treatment report enhanced security within the institution: declines in drug use and drug dealing, gang activity, riots, and inmate violence. o A model for the states may be the comprehensive approach to drug abuse treatment involving drug education, treatment, and transitional service adopted in 1990 by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 1.4 Drug Courts Grant Program/Linking Criminal Justice and Treatment The Drug Courts Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs was established by the Attorney General to carry out Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322). The Crime Act authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments for the establishment of drug courts. The purpose of the grant program is to assist in the development and implementation of effective drug court programming and evaluation in state, local and tribal courts. The Drug Court Grant Program assists localities in their efforts to reduce drug related crime through continued direct judicial supervision of non-violent offenders. This system of coerced abstinence uses both sanctions and incentives to hold drug-using offenders accountable for their behavior. Drug court programs have proven to be effective tools in breaking the cycle of addiction and crime. There are over 50 drug courts now in operation and many more in the planning and early implementation stages as a result of the Drug Courts Grant Program. A study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice of the nation's first drug court in Miami, Florida showed a 33 percent reduction in rearrests for drug court graduates compared with non-drug court offenders. Preliminary results from the Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California, drug court programs have also indicated lower rates of recidivism. Interest in the 1995 Drug Courts Grant Program far surpassed the available funds for grants. OJP received 130 grant applications from 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia requesting funding totaling over $59 million. Congress appropriated $29 million for the Drug Courts Grant program in FY 1995, but then reduced the funding level to $11.9 million through the rescissions bill. The Drug Court Grants Program contributes to the accomplishment of the goals of the 1995 National Drug Control Strategy. The goal of strengthening linkages among the prevention, treatment, and criminal justice communities and other supportive social services, such as employment and training services, is at the heart of the drug court concept. A key component of successful drug courts is effective cooperation among the courts, other criminal justice system agencies, treatment and social services. Each new drug court established through the grant program and each existing court improved and supported by the grant program is a step toward achieving the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy. In FY 1995, five grants were awarded for the implementation of new drug courts and eight grants were awarded for the improvement and enhancement of established drug courts. Drug court implementation awards were given to localities to serve juveniles, women with children, as well as adult males. Enhancement awards will enable on-going programs to improve their effectiveness through the use of automated information systems, vocational/educational services and upgraded treatment and sanction systems. Each award includes an evaluation component which will allow OJP to identify the most effective program components. In addition to the implementation and enhancement grants OJP awarded 52 planning grants to assist jurisdictions in planning new drug courts. These jurisdictions will all be provided with technical assistance in the form of regional conferences that will aid the planning process. Drug courts will contribute to reduction of the demand for illicit drugs by mandating treatment for drug addicted offenders. The link between drug use and criminal activity has been well-documented and drug treatment has been shown to reduce both the drug use and the criminal activity of drug-involved offenders. 2. Corrections Options Program--BJA The purpose of the Corrections Option Program is to demonstrate the development and implementation of cost- effective correctional options that reduce reliance on incarceration within existing correctional systems and provide treatment and services to assist youthful offenders in pursuing a course of lawful and productive conduct. Recognizing the pandemic problems of prison and jail overcrowding and the high recidivism rates of youthful offenders who serve time in traditional correctional institutions, this program targets youthful offenders who are not career criminals but who, without some intervention, are likely to become career criminals and/or serious offenders. In addition to providing appropriate security and discipline, the program recognizes the need for a broad range of services, including substance abuse treatment. Since 1992, more than $40 million in Correctional Options Grants funds have been awarded to state and local correctional agencies to support the planning, development, operation and evaluation of Correctional Options demonstration projects. Each of these Correctional Options projects is striving to achieve the same basic goals: o Reduce the costs of incarceration; o Relieve prison and jail crowding; o Lower the recidivism rates for offenders; and, o Introduce innovation in correctional practices. In each demonstration project, state or local corrections professionals are testing a unique and innovative alternative that will help answer the question: "What works?" 2.1 Maricopa County, Arizona Youthful Offender Program The Youthful Offender Program (YOP) is designed to fill gaps in the existing continuum of sentencing options for youthful offenders (ages 16-25). The majority of these offenders have substance abuse problems as well as limited educational and vocational skills. The primary goals of the YOP are to reduce jail crowding and recidivism of youthful offenders who often fail to make a successful transition from incarceration to community living. The program is administered by the Maricopa County Adult Probation and Parole Department. The program has two components: Day Reporting Center Furlough, designed to divert jail inmates from a minimum of 30 jail days, and After Shock Transition, designed to provide a smooth transition back into the community for cases successfully exiting the Shock Incarceration Boot Camp program. Daily attendance at one of three day reporting centers (DRC) is mandatory. Program interventions include community restitution, community service, educational and vocational activities, general and substance abuse counseling and random urinalysis. (The After Shock component provides transitional housing for the neediest cases.) DRC Furlough and After Shock Transition interventions are designed to realize the YOP goals of, respectively, reduced jail crowding and reduced recidivism. The up-front diverted jail time for DRC Furlough clients, as well as the anticipated reduction in recidivism for both DRC Furlough and After Shock participants are expected to significantly impact jail overcrowding. In addition, given the program population, the majority of whom are under-educated and under-employed youths with substance abuse histories, program interventions are appropriate for addressing these goals. 2.2 Riverside County, California Boot Camp at Twin Pines Ranch This program is primarily intended as a boot camp using traditional military basic training as a tool to teach young offenders self-discipline and self-confidence. The program functions as an additional element of programming within Twin Pines Ranch, an established all-male juvenile facility. Because program activities are scheduled during evening hours, participants can still attend daytime academic classes and vocational training. The program consists of a 6-month boot camp program followed by a 6-month community supervision phase. The program has capacity for 100 offenders. The program uses basic training as an extra motivational force to propel participants toward reaching their educational and vocational training goals while in the facility. Special precautions are taken to ensure that there is no physical intimidation or verbal abuse during basic training, and military-like allegiance to authority is avoided. Program goals include both the intermediate goal of increased completion of educational and training programs within the highly structured environment of Twin Pines Ranch, and the long-term goal of graduates re-entering the community as productive and law-abiding citizens. Obviously, this long-term goal is less certain and more difficult to measure. 2.3 Washington State Department of Corrections Reintegration Project The Reintegration Project is designed to provide two alternatives for drug-involved offenders younger than age 25. The project provides an alternative to traditional incarceration using education, workplace readiness, and employment within the institution, and an intensive employment component and substance abuse treatment for youth who violate the terms of their community supervision. These youth would normally be returned to prison, a pre-release center, or standard work release program. The institutional option operates at three sites (two men's facilities and the Washington Corrections Center for Women); the community option is housed in the Pioneer Work Release facility in Seattle. The two programs will serve a combined population of 500 male and female offenders. 2.4 Vermont Department of Corrections Two Sentencing Tracks Restorative Justice Program The Vermont Reparative Justice Program provides the courts with an increased range of sanctions and programs for youthful offenders ages 16 to 26. The primary goal is to reduce prison crowding by diverting non-violent offenders from prison while maintaining public safety with intensive treatment and control activities. Secondarily, the program is designed to address the factors that contribute to recidivism among younger offenders. The program consists of two sentencing tracks: the Risk Management Service Track and the Court and Reparative Service Track. Each track provides a range of options that can be assigned depending upon the offender's assessed level of risk and successful participation in assigned programming. For each track, the levels include probation, intermediate sanctions, and incarceration. The Risk Management Track is designed for offenders who commit felony crimes that represent a significant likelihood to re-offend. Services within this track focus on key areas with demonstrated relationships to the likelihood of re- offense: life management skills, substance abuse treatment, and employability training. The primary emphasis is on development of appropriate decision-making abilities. Sanctions range from specialized probation caseloads to day treatment to incarceration in a correctional setting. Offenders are selected for this track through the DOC case management system. The DOC June 1991 population profile revealed a target population of 3,226 cases for this track. The Court and Reparative Service Track is designed for offenders who commit non-violent misdemeanor crimes and represent a relatively low risk to re-offend. The programs within this track focus exclusively upon repairing the victim(s) and community and instructing the offender about the consequences of his or her criminal conduct. Sanctions range from reparative probation to community service and restitution sentencing (which may include an electronic monitoring or house arrest component) to community service camp. Offenders will be chosen from probationers for this track through a community-based Reparation Board. The DOC June 1991 population profile revealed a target population of 6,951 cases for this track. 2.5 Maryland Department of Corrections Non-Violent Sanctions for Substance-Involved Offenders This program provides an alternative to incarceration for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems. The program is under the management of the Director of Probation and Parole within the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. It provides intensive case management and treatment services for parolees as they leave prison and begin to experience problems during community supervision. The program incorporates a graduated series of sanctions (Community Supervision Controls) and treatment and other program assistance. Supervision levels include specialized parole caseloads, day reporting, home detention, and a treatment center within a maximum security prison (Patuxent Institution). Specialized options are available for female offenders. Several non-violent populations are targeted for program participation: (1) detention center inmates who have sentences of more than 6 months, but less than 2 years; (2) inmates who have received a delayed release; (3) inmates with a sentences of 10 years or less; (4) technical parole violators (including those parole violators who have committed minor, non-violent offenses), and (5) boot camp offenders. Inmates are screened for eligibility by institutional case management staff according to criteria defined for each target population. Candidates must also evidence interest in the program; participation is voluntary. Currently, the program averages a monthly caseload of 45. Upon acceptance, participants are administered two diagnostic instruments (Addiction Severity Index) and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised) which assist in identifying treatment issues and needed program services for the participants. Individualized supervision and treatment plans are developed by program staff based on the results of these instruments. The program's treatment philosophy is remediation. This approach identifies specific deficits in the offender which are directly related to crime and seeks to correct, modify, or minimize these deficits through focused treatment services. Offenders participate in the intensity of treatment that is appropriate to their needs, attending formalized treatment modules such as social skills, moral problem solving, and relapse prevention. Participants are assigned to the intensive supervision parole unit upon release from incarceration. They agree to adhere to the supervision and treatment plan and to a very structured urinalysis schedule. 2.6 New Hampshire Department of Corrections Correctional Pathways Program This program provides youthful male and female offenders with an increased range of services designed to enhance rehabilitation, reduce crowding, and improve chances for successful release. There are four program elements: o The 60-bed Bridge program provides intensive pre-release services and release planning. Length of stay is typically expected to be 3 months; however, the program is designed to allow longer or shorter stays based on individual need. o The 50-bed Bypass program provides modified shock incarceration followed by intensive drug and alcohol treatment, and education and vocational programming, for medium security offenders. The program is an alternative to secure confinement. Length of stay is typically expected to be 10 to 12 months; however, longer or shorter stays will be possible. Upon completion, program graduates may be placed in the Bridge program for continuing services. o A new high intensity supervision unit provides statewide services for offenders with special release conditions. o Expanded pre- and post-release programming is provided in the areas of substance abuse treatment, employment and vocational training, work and employment. Program elements focus on the provision of intensive release planning, employment-focused education and work opportunities to youthful offenders. All participants are sentenced to the New Hampshire Department of Corrections; the program is a multi-disciplinary effort of the DOC, the Department of Post-Secondary Technical Education, the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, the Division of Employment Security, and the New Hampshire Department of Justice. These program elements are intended to increase the range of services available to sentenced individuals and to provide an opportunity to reduce or, in some cases, eliminate the individual's stay in a correctional facility. Inmates may be assigned directly to the Bypass program from system reception. 2.7 Florida Department of Corrections Drug Punishment Program This program offers intervention and treatment for male and female drug-involved offenders age 21 or younger. The program targets four Florida counties, three judicial circuits, and the cities of Tampa, Sarasota, and St. Petersburg. Suitable offenders are diverted from prison to probation with the provision that they complete the three- phased program. The program consists of 6 months of intensive residential treatment in a secure facility which includes diagnosis; development of an individual treatment plan with specific treatment interventions, measurable behavioral criteria, and group counseling; a 3-month transition to the community in a non-secure bed supplied by a contracted community drug treatment provider; and 9 months of regular probation with employment and/or study supervised by a specially trained correctional probation officer with a 30:1 caseload. In each phase, the consequences for non-compliance with supervised conditions are clearly stated, as are the rewards for compliance. Urinalysis is conducted throughout the program. Program candidates are subject to an initial screening followed by detailed professional assessment of their suitability and readiness for treatment. The judicial sentence to the Drug Punishment Program is based on this assessment. It is anticipated that approximately 200 candidates will enter the program over an 18-month period. 2.8 Washington, D.C. Superior Court Urban Services Program The District of Columbia Superior Court's Urban Services Program (USP) is an intermediate sanctions program for youthful offenders, both juvenile and adult, which builds upon and enhances existing correctional options available in the District. The first group of participants began the program on October 10, 1995. In 1993, there were 4,400 juvenile filings and 7,200 adult felony indictments in the Superior Court. An estimated 1,500 offenders annually drawn from these caseloads are eligible for consideration for USP. Juveniles and young adults (between ages 14 and 26) who would otherwise be incarceration or commitment bound, but who are determined to be eligible for diversion from traditional incarceration by the court, are considered for USP. Juvenile offenders between the ages of 14 and 17 with any serious offense for disposition are eligible for placement consideration. Young adults ages 18 to 26, a significant portion of who would be Youth Rehabilitation Act eligible (i.e., up to age 22), are particularly promising candidates because, under YRA, successful rehabilitation can result in the individual's record being expunged; and if the individual does not progress in rehabilitative reprogramming, he can be returned to the court for a no benefit determination which can result in incarceration or resentencing as an adult. Juvenile and adult offenders may enter the program in three primary statuses: as a court-ordered condition of probation set at the sentencing hearing; as a special condition of probation imposed at a probation revocation hearing; or as a special condition of probation imposed at any point during the normal course of supervision. Basic eligibility criteria for consideration for program entry is as follows: o Guilty of a felony charge by plea or trial which is not subject to a mandatory minimum term of incarceration; o No evidence of a primary addiction problem for which treatment alternatives are required; o Psychological competency to function in a group setting; and o No history of mental illness. USP is a special emphasis program operated by the Social Services Division of the Superior Court. It provides a minimum 12-month intensive supervision and retraining effort to prepare offenders for reintegration into the community. It is anticipated that a total of 120 juveniles and young adults will enter the program each year. Admissions take place on a monthly basis with approximately 10 offenders entering each month. USP consists of three phases. Phase I consists of two distinct elements--an assessment period and a shock supervision period which emphasizes team identification, physical conditioning, random but comprehensive drug testing, and 24-hour electronic monitoring. The Boot Camp is located in Laurel, Maryland, approximately 20 miles outside the District, at a facility near the District's juvenile secure detention facility. During Phase II, participants receive support services and intensive educational and/or vocational training designed to enable them to successfully reenter productive society. Standard services include basic remedial education via a self-paced Computerized Learning Laboratory system, alternative schools for juveniles, substance abuse education, values clarification, preliminary part-time employment, electronic monitoring, and family support services. Participants either work, attend class, or engage in activities for a total of eight hours per day, five days per week. This programming takes place in an urban community site in the District. In Phase III, the court uses its influence and contacts in the District's business community as a part of the program's Corporate Outreach component to identify substantial, full- time job and career opportunities for offenders who are job- ready. This involves the active involvement of judges, administrators, and other high level court officials in networking with the USP Advisory Council, the D.C. Board of Trade, the private employment sector, personal contacts, labor organizations, and others in advocating for specific job placements for program participants. Federal grant funds may be utilized to develop subsidized full-time employment options in collaboration with the private sector. In cooperation with the higher education community, educational programs at the associate degree level are also offered in this phase, as will technical literacy, work place skills development, and computer system knowledge and skills transferable to the workplace. The final 90 days of the transformation period is known as the "Bridge Period" where an offender is gradually returned to regular probation supervision with all program supports in place for the duration of the supervision term. In fact, the youth is encouraged (if not required) to return indefinitely to the program site for ongoing supportive services. 2.9 State of Connecticut Fresh Start Program "Fresh Start" is a residential treatment program based in Hartford, Connecticut, designed to provide female offenders with drug treatment, develop their parenting and living skills, and to reduce their involvement with the criminal justice system. The target population is prison-bound, substance-abusing mothers ages 16 to 30. The program is composed of four tiers with an overall length of stay of 16 to 18 months. Tier 1, Assessment, includes a needs assessment and full medical examination. Tier 2, Intensive Drug Treatment, is a therapeutic community sensitive to women's issues. Tier 3, Community Re-Entry Preparation, emphasizes basic living skills such as parenting, budgeting, cooking, nutrition, family planning, recreation, and smoking cessation. Tier 4, Independent Living, provides subsidized apartments and develops supportive networks for Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous entitlements, health care, and other social services. Fresh Start was designed to compliment Connecticut's current efforts to respond to prison and jail overcrowding and high rates of recidivism. Because the State's existing intermediate sanctions do not adequately address the special needs of female youthful offenders, this project's goals are to: develop and implement a community-based sanction and treatment continuum for prison-bound, youthful female offenders that will serve as a state- and nationwide model for intermediate sanctions; provide judges with constructive, enforceable sentencing options at pretrial arraignment, sentencing, and parole/probation violation hearings; provide counseling, treatment, education, and employment services that specifically address women's multiple needs and the needs and behavior of their children; and form partnerships among public and private organizations to create an integrated services delivery network. 2.10 State of California Youth Authority LEAD: A Boot Camp and Intensive Parole Program In September of 1993, the California Youth Authority opened its second institutional site for LEAD, a juvenile boot camp and intensive parole program. This program is based in southern California, at the Fred C. Nelles School. LEAD (Leadership, Esteem, Ability, Discipline) and its evaluation are mandated by legislation initiated by the Wilson administration in 1991. LEAD is a 10-month program designed in two phases--a 4- month, highly structured boot camp phase and a 6-month intensive parole phase (followed by standard parole for any remaining commitment time). The treatment modality encompasses a diversified array of training, counseling, and physically challenging activities; military procedures (established in collaboration with the California National Guard); and intensive parole supervision activities, including relapse-management strategies. The program has two major goals: reduce recidivism and provide a cost-effective treatment option. Based on court documents, the ethnic and racial classifications of wards sent to LEAD are predominantly older minority juveniles with first-time convictions. About one quarter are parole violators. 3. Targeting Treatment for Juvenile Offenders--OJJDP 3.1 Building Capacity in the Juvenile Justice System The Building Capacity in the Juvenile Justice System project is a partnership with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and the American Probation and Parole Association to expand the juvenile justice system's ability to provide treatment for drug-involved youth. The program's activities include a 6-month planning and development phase devoted to review of existing drug treatment and training programs, training needs assessment, development of a court/probation/parole-based drug treatment program model, development of a training and technical assistance curriculum, and performance of auxiliary tasks such as curriculum testing and information sharing with other entities in the drug treatment area. A 12-month implementation phase includes three or more regional training events and two or more technical assistance workshops for CSAT's Juvenile Justice Treatment Networks and in cooperation with CSAT's Network Contractor. 3.2 Bethesda Day Treatment Center Services Bethesda Day Treatment Center Services is being implemented by Pennsylvania's Bethesda Day Treatment Center to provide training and technical assistance to replicate their program in up to 10 sites, including the Safe Futures sites. For 4 years, OJJDP has funded the Bethesda Day Treatment Center to develop and document intensive outpatient, community-based treatment and care centers of juveniles at risk of delinquency and juveniles who have been referred to court and are in the preadjudication or postadjudication stages of the juvenile justice system. The Center services were initially designed to help youth in rural areas and small towns who committed offenses related to lack of family supervision and control. More recently, the program has been used in larger cities. The Center offers technical assistance in the development of five distinct units of program services: day treatment, a prep school, drug and alcohol abuse, foster care, and family systems counseling. 4. Drug Treatment Evaluation and Research--NIJ 4.1 Using DUF Data to Understand Treatment Needs of the Offender Population The Drug Use Forecasting Program (DUF) consists of 23 sites that perform interviews and drug tests of persons arrested and brought to booking facilities. The test findings indicate levels of drug use, determine what drugs are used in specific jurisdictions, and track changes in drug use patterns. Because the DUF interview gathers basic information regarding arrestees' self-reported substance abuse treatment history and current need for treatment, DUF allows treatment providers to identify gaps in needed treatment services and to react to changes in substance abuse patterns by altering the services they provide. 4.1.1 DUF as a Research Platform: Drug Markets and Drug Procurement DUF, in conjunction with the Office of National Drug Control Policy and BOTEC Analysis Corporation, has fielded an addendum on drug markets and drug procurement. The instrument is being used in six cities over four quarters, and focuses on recent users' participation in cocaine, crack and heroin markets, the structure of drug markets and patterns of drug purchases and use. Expected results will include information on the causes for lapses in use among heavy users; the extent, frequency and location of drug buys; users' involvement in drug sales; and a variety of other purchase and sales-related subjects. 4.1.2 Multiple Indicators of Drug Abuse in American Cities: Relationships Between DUF and DAWN and Arrest Data This project will examine the relationships between and compare alternative measures of heroin and cocaine abuse. Data to be used include DUF, DAWN-Emergency room, DAWN- Medical examiners, and police arrests for drug trafficking and possession. Cross-sectional and temporal relationships among these indicators will be studied for all DUF sites. In addition, time series analysis will be performed to determine the strength and pattern of temporal relationships among selected indicators. The outcomes to this project can help to forecast, explain, and respond effectively to the drug crisis in communities across the nation. 4.1.3 Relationship Between Price and Demand for Cocaine and Heroin: An Investigation Using DUF Data The objectives of this research are primarily to estimate the own and cross elasticities of demand for cocaine and heroin. These quantities are of great interest because they allow one to forecast by how much consumption of those drugs would change in response to changing prices, including price changes induced by varying enforcement effort. In addition, these elasticities will be measured separately for men and women and for adults and youths in an effort to shed light on consumption behavior of particular subpopulations of interest. 4.1.4 Monitoring the Decline in the Crack Epidemic with Data from the DUF Program This project proposes an analysis of trends in the use of crack cocaine based on data from the DUF program. The project will expand upon results from an earlier study that identified a decline in the crack epidemic. Using data from six DUF sites, the researcher will explore whether, when, and how a decline in crack cocaine might be detected. Reports from this study will address explanations for changing patterns of crack cocaine use as well as policy implications of these changes. 4.2 Drug Testing and Detection Initiatives These programs primarily aim to contribute to the knowledge of the extent and nature of abuse, treatment, and technology regarding drugs throughout the criminal justice system. They aim to ensure that drug testing is used effectively and that the drug testing effort is coordinated. Furthermore, they aim to test and evaluate new technologies related to drug detection, and provide knowledge for research and improvement related to drug use within the criminal justice system. 4.2.1 Criminal Justice System Testing Programs in Drug Use Forecasting Cities This study is comprised of four case studies of programs that employ drug testing at all stages of the criminal justice process, from identifying users at arrest to monitoring their behavior and treatment progress while on pretrial release or post adjudication. The goal of the project is to identify those program attributes and practices that jurisdictions can adopt to ensure that drug testing is used effectively for both supervision and treatment. 4.2.2 Hair Assays and Urinalysis for Drug Use Among Juvenile Offenders: A Comparison of Two Cities Based Upon the DUF System This research is directed at improving our knowledge of the extent and nature of drug use among arrested juveniles through the use of hair testing technology. Hair testing provides evidence of drug use over extended periods, while urine testing provides information for much shorter time periods. Both technologies will be used to measure drug use among juveniles in two different cities. This study builds on a pilot effort that found that hair testing revealed six times more drug use than did urinalysis among a juvenile arrestee population. 4.2.3 Drug Monitoring in Criminal Justice Management Applications: Integrating the Ion Mobility Spectrometer This study is a 2-year assessment of a criminal justice population for exposure to illicit drugs using an ion mobility spectrometer (IMS). The IMS is a very new technology for detecting traces of drugs on clothing, in sweat, and other media. The grantee will evaluate the potential for this technology in the criminal justice setting by experimentally integrating an IMS into the drug testing protocols of a pretrial diversion program operating in New Orleans. This program currently relies upon urinalysis and radioimmunoassay (RIA) of hair to monitor participants and assess their compliance to the program requirement of drug abstinence. Using various sources of drug data on these cases (self- reported drug use, urinalysis outcomes, RIA-based hair assay outcomes, and IMS data) this project will examine their convergence and concordance patterns. The project will also assess the clinical dynamics and effects of IMS testing on the diversion program. Objectives will include a review of the reliability of the IMS in this setting and a report on the practical and operational effects associated with IMS in this particular field application. 4.2.4 Drug Testing Working Group Last Spring, the Attorney General sought from NIJ information about new developments and applications in drug testing in the criminal justice system. NIJ proposed to sponsor a focus group on a wide range of drug testing technologies that would (1) solicit input from leading technicians and practitioners in the area of drug testing, (2) provide a forum for a comprehensive discussion of the issues involved, and (3) provide important input to NIJ regarding appropriate actions to be taken with respect to research involving drug testing. The focus group will be designed as a "futures" discussion. The tentative title for the focus group is The Future of Drug Testing: Toward a 5-Year Plan for Drug Testing Technology and Its Applications in the Criminal Justice System. The meeting will be held in January 1996. Represented at the meeting will be three groups: toxicologist/technologists familiar with the technical aspects, limitations, and potentials of various drug testing procedures; criminal justice practitioners who implement various drug testing strategies at various points throughout the criminal justice system; and researchers who are familiar with the implications of drug testing and aware of the need to balance scientific standards against institutional needs and constraints. The meeting will facilitate a discussion on the following: (1) the state of the art in current and future drug testing; and (2) issues in the application and/or evaluation of drug testing technologies in the criminal justice field. Through the group's discussions, the meeting will provide input to NIJ that can be used as a basis for developing a 5- year plan for drug testing in the criminal justice system. Among other objectives, this plan could form the basis of an NIJ RFP focusing on issues of drug testing in the criminal justice system. 4.2.5 Drug Testing and Interdiction in Prisons New technologies and modern statistical techniques provide an arsenal of detection and interdiction strategies to combat the widespread use of drugs in our prisons. These give our prison officials a new advantage in ensuring that the conditions of incarceration are drug free, and that prisoners who have substance abuse problems are held in an environment that eliminates, rather than promotes, the use of illegal drugs. Prisoners throughout the Pennsylvania State prison system will be the subject of a drug testing that will document specifically the scope of drug use in our prisons and will lay the foundation for a major prison drug interdiction effort. This initiative is being conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections with support and technical assistance from the National Institute of Justice in Fall 1995. The drug testing in the Pennsylvania prisons will reveal the exact extent and type of drug use in the state prison system. This effort will be followed with an array of drug interdiction and drug control measures to stop the supply and use of drugs in the prisons. These interdiction activities will include the use of drug detection dogs, the latest in electronic drug detection technology, and other drug control strategies that have been developed by DOJ and the Department of Defense. This initiative will make important advances in fighting drug use among prisoners in the Pennsylvania state prison system. But just as important, it will provide a model for developing and implementing drug testing, drug interdiction, and drug control strategies that can be replicated in other states around the country. 4.3 Treatment Needs in Correctional Settings 4.3.1 The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision As part of NIJ's 1995 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation, Dr. Douglas Lipton, Senior Research Fellow and Principal Investigator, National Development and Research Institute, prepared a research report on the effectiveness of treatment on incarcerated offenders. This paper--which provides a synthesis of the research in this area--will be published by NIJ in early 1996. The proportion of people in the criminal justice system who are substance abusers is very high and has grown larger in recent years. Rehabilitation and treatment offered to prison inmates has had a checkered history in this country, however. The paper interweaves two themes related to these facts: the relationship of drugs to crime the current overcrowded situation in correctional facilities, and state- of-the-art treatment approaches used with substance-abusing offenders who are in custody. The paper presents the findings of studies that have demonstrated that in-custody treatment, particularly the therapeutic community (TC) model, can be effective in preventing rearrest and in other outcomes. Moreover, with this approach, successful outcomes are positively related to the amount of time spent in treatment. Several successful projects--notably Stay'n Out, Cornerstone, Amity Prison TC, Key-Crest, KEEP, and TASC--are highlighted. The CDATE project, a 25-year update of the author's study of the effectiveness of correctional treatment, is also described. The author shares his view regarding our ability to effectively treat offenders deemed by conventional wisdom to be "very high risk" (namely, chronic heroin and cocaine users with extensive predatory criminal histories). Careful evaluations of intervention efforts in several states show remarkably consistent levels of success. There is mounting evidence that high rate addict-felons who each commit 40 to 60 robberies a year, 70 to 100 burglaries a year, and many violent offenses, as well as more than 4,000 drug transactions a year, can be effectively and cost-efficiently helped. Moreover, Dr. Lipton points to reliable evidence from studies from diverse areas that have demonstrated a substantial reduction in recidivism after treatment--a reduction of sufficient size to yield a tangible improvement in the quality of life. 4.3.2 Research in Progress: The Delaware Therapeutic Continuum Program In January 1995, as part of NIJ's Research in Progress Seminar Series, Dr. James Inciardi of the University of Miami and the University of Delaware delivered a talk on drug treatment for offenders in the criminal justice system. The results show real promise for breaking cycles of crime and addiction. Dr. Inciardi followed results for offenders in the Delaware Therapeutic Continuum program. The four groups he is comparing (the study is still ongoing) are: o Control group (no in-prison Therapeutic Community treatment or after-prison work release treatment program), o "Key" group (in-prison Therapeutic Community treatment only), o "Crest" group (after-prison work release treatment program only), and o "Key-Crest" group (in-prison. T.C. treatment and after- prison work release program). The results to date show the following: GROUP: Control At 6 Months Drug free - 35% Arrest free - 62% At 18 Months Drug free - 19% Arrest free - 30% GROUP: Key At 6 Months Drug free - 70% Arrest free - 82% At 18 Months Drug free - 30% Arrest free - 48% GROUP: Crest At 6 Months Drug free - 85% Arrest free - 85% At 18 Months Drug free - 45% Arrest free - 65% GROUP: Key & Crest At 6 months Drug free - 95% Arrest free - 97% At 18 months Drug free - 76% Arrest free - 71% The 30-month follow-up, still to come, will be the most telling. Dr. Inciardi's research will be published by NIJ. 4.3.3 Criminal Justice Drug Treatment Programs for Female Offenders This program examined drug treatment for female offenders at two levels. First, a national survey of such programs was completed which confirmed that program capacity is far less than treatment demand. Furthermore, the majority of operating programs can be expected to have little long-term positive effect since they are typically short-term programs that offer too little in important ancillary services. At the second level, case studies are in preparation of programs that are the exception to the norm, and which can be used as models for improving drug treatment for female offenders. 4.3.4 Distinguishing Between Effects of Criminality and Drug Use This project will distinguish the effects of drug use on violent offenders that are directly related to the specific type of drug used from indirect effects that are related to characteristics of the offenders. The method intends to control for stable unmeasured sources of population heterogeneity across offenders, and in so doing to permit better estimates of the magnitude of effects from drug consumption in stimulating or inhibiting individual violence. The study is based on a random sample of adults who were arrested during a recent year in the District of Columbia. 4.3.5 A Study to Assess the Feasibility of a Demonstration of In-Prison Therapeutic Communities and Shock Incarceration Programs This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a demonstration to test the effectiveness and cost- effectiveness of in-prison therapeutic communities (TCs) and shock incarceration ("boot camp") programs for drug involved offenders. The study was launched in October 1995 and will result in a report to the National Institute of Justice. The demonstration project is needed because our knowledge of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these in-prison treatment approaches is limited and uncertain. The studies published to date have not employed experimental designs, have relied instead on comparisons of questionable equivalence groups, and have relied on statistical controls in the absence of sufficient control over the design and implementation of the interventions being evaluated. Investigators will review all relevant literature, examine existing programs, and develop a working document which will summarize the methodological and logistical issues in developing demonstration programs which can provide a strong test of the efficacy of the use of these two approaches for drug involved offenders. The investigators will also assemble a group of experts in research and service delivery from the criminal justice and treatment fields to assist in the project. The project will involve performing several tasks: (1) convene a meeting of NIJ and CSAT program staff; (2) review published literature and assess ongoing research; (3) identify and describe existing in-prison TCs and boot camps; (4) develop a working document discussing principal issues of design and implementation; (5) convene a meeting of selected experts in the field, both researchers and program operators; (6) assess feasibility of research designs and implementation issues; and (7) develop a final report on options for design and implementation of a demonstration project. 4.3.6 Substance Abuse Treatment Using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Oklahoma Department of Corrections' System-Wide Strategy In late 1993, Oklahoma Department of Corrections officials implemented a cognitive behavioral treatment program, Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), throughout their correctional system. An important objective of this approach was to alter individuals' moral reasoning skills. Relying on official records of institutional misconduct and community recidivism, the analysis of the implementation of this program compared the behavior of individuals who participated in MRT to individuals who participated in other programs and individuals who did not participate in any programming. The analysis also focused on behavior changes within individuals before and after they began programs. Preliminary analysis results indicate that making group comparisons may be premature because treatment effects and factors that lead people to participate in treatment are difficult to disentangle. Among individuals who initiate MRT, the program appears to lead to moderate but statistically significant reductions in the risk of misconduct and recidivism incidents. Anticipated results of this study--expected to be completed by early 1996--will inform drug treatment policymakers and practitioners as to the effectiveness of this program. 4.3.7 Boot Camp, Drug Treatment and Aftercare: An Evaluation Review This report includes a descriptive assessment of treatment and aftercare in several boot camps. The research addressed many issues including the nature and validity of drug treatment interventions in the boot camps and during the aftercare phase. The research also provides practitioners with information about the improvement, development, functioning, and proficiency of drug intervention and aftercare programs in adult shock incarceration (SI) camps. The report offers five recommendations regarding the need for greater SI program emphasis on: (1) substance abuse treatment tailored to conditions found within specific SI programs, including greater use of bona fide therapeutic community models and approaches; (2) more individualized treatment programming; (3) the utilization of more highly qualified substance abuse treatment personnel; (4) improved aftercare programs and linkages between the imprisonment and community release phases of the boot camp sanction; and (5) increased emphasis upon evaluation in order to determine which treatment strategies are effective and which are not. 4.3.8 Evaluation of Boot Camps For Juvenile Offenders A National Survey of Aftercare Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates describes the types of aftercare programs available to graduates of boot camps across the nation, identifies critical issues in boot camp aftercare programming, and highlights several innovative or promising program features and models for integrating the aftercare functions with the boot camp. The study finds that aftercare arrangements for the full spectrum of boot camps are no different from those that target substance abuse populations. (The latter were identified during previous research by Cowles and Castellano in 1994.) The bulk of the boot camp programs release graduates to traditional probation and parole supervision. Of the 52 programs surveyed, only 13 have developed aftercare programs specifically targeted to boot camp graduates. In some of these 13 programs, an effort is made to integrate the aftercare functions with the boot camp. For example, integration is accomplished by carrying forward the program philosophy and rational into the aftercare program and through parole agents who become familiar with the boot camp and help to develop individualized release plans for graduates. "An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for Fifty- two Boot Camp Programs" provides brief synopses of residential boot camps and their aftercare provisions as well as points of contact. The programs include 34 adult programs run by state correctional agencies in 32 states, 8 local programs operated by Sheriff's Departments or local probation or correctional departments; 2 programs operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 9 juvenile programs operated by a variety of public and private youth-serving agencies. 4.4 Linking Treatment with Criminal Justice Populations in the Community 4.4.1 Drug Testing for Youthful Offenders on Parole: Experimental Study This project is examining the impact of different levels of testing on the parole performance of California Youth Authority parolees. Parolees have been randomly assigned to different frequencies of urine testing (ranging from a single test at intake to once a week). Those sent to the California Youth Authority are serious and/or chronic youthful offenders that exhibit extremely high levels of recidivism. Parole supervision is at relatively low caseloads, e.g. thirty or so cases per officer. Preliminary findings show few differences in the parole performance among the groups exposed to different frequencies of drug testing. This study is scheduled for completion in March 1996. 4.4.2 Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population Hair analysis has the potential of replacing urine testing as a means of detecting illicit drug use. The purpose of this study is to test the utility of hair testing in the supervision of users under probation supervision. Additionally, the study will provide information comparing the accuracy of hair testing with that of urinalysis. 4.4.3 Evaluation Of Two Models For Treating Sentenced Federal Drug Offenders This project will inform other jurisdictions that do not have access to privately provided treatment resources of the advantages and disadvantages of using a probation/parole delivered treatment strategy. A process evaluation and experimental design impact evaluation will examine two drug treatment models for federal probationers or recently released federal prisoners. The first model, Drug Aftercare Counseling (DAC), relies upon private drug treatment providers to provide individual and group counseling. The second model, Cognitive Skills Training (COG), relies upon probation officers to correct living skills deficits that drug offenders exhibit. The process evaluation will describe the major differences between the two treatment models. The impact design will be used to assess the effectiveness of the two programs in modifying offender attitudes, educational levels, employability, drug use, recidivism, and program costs. Preliminary findings for this project focus on the difficulties of implementing a program designed to use probation officers in treatment delivery: o Proponents of the COG program were not able to get strong and continuous support from higher officials in the criminal justice system, and as a result, the probation department was unable to deliver the number of cases promised for use in this study. o There is a high level of probation officer turnover because the program takes a lot of extra work hours and no incentives or benefits are offered to probation officers that participated. Participating probation officer caseloads were never reduced as was promised and probation officers often did not have time to fill out the forms needed for the study. o Offenders are scattered throughout the bay area and must put forth a lot of effort to get to the 2-hour COG group that meets twice a week. Transportation difficulties resulted in a high dropout rate. o Experimental group participants in COG appear to fail more often because probation officers are able to keep a closer eye on them due to the greater meeting frequency. Individuals in the traditional system may not be charged with violations as often because the treatment providers get paid based on the delivery of treatment (i.e., the treatment providers have an economic interest to keep individuals in treatment rather than charge them with a violation and risk their going back to jail). This evaluation is scheduled for completion in late 1996. 4.4.4 An Evaluation of the New York City Department of Probation's Drug Treatment Initiative This project will inform policymakers of the outcomes of various treatment strategies and of the advantages and disadvantages of using specialized units versus regular probation units. A process and impact evaluation will examine four models of implementing drug treatment (i.e., contracted outpatient programs versus other non-contracted programs and regular probation units versus specialized units) currently used for felony offenders in New York City probation. The evaluation will examine formal case decision criteria, operating procedures, linkages between the probation department and treatment providers (including client supervision and sanctions used), probation officer and client characteristics, type of treatment and perceptions about drug treatment. The project will include a retrospective analysis of client outcomes for 2,000 probationers. Various multivariate analyses will be used to identify the variables that are significantly correlated with behavioral outcomes and survival analysis on recidivism outcomes. Preliminary findings indicate that drug treatment appears to reduce recidivism during the year following discharge from drug treatment. Three-fourths of probationers admitted to contracted treatment programs had fewer arrests during the year following discharge from drug treatment than during the year preceding sentencing to probation. Retention in outpatient drug treatment can be improved by contracting with programs located in the neighborhoods where most probationers live and by having programs provide transportation assistance. Participation in treatment can be improved by scheduling more treatment sessions and by developing strategies to monitor and enforce attendance (50 percent of the probationers drop out of treatment in the first few months). 4.4.5 Longitudinal Evaluation Of Fresh Start (Renamed - Opportunity To Succeed) Program The Opportunity To Succeed Program delivers an array of services, including drug treatment, family counseling, job counseling and housing to probationers and parolees leaving prisons and jails and returning to their community. The services are a condition of release and are provided through unique teams of social case workers and probation/parole officers for a period of up to 2 years after confinement. Also, included in the package is intensive community supervision, drug testing, and graduated sanctions to reward and punish compliance. Five cities will be selected from seven candidates for participation in the 3-year experiment. The evaluation is a 4-year effort (the 3-year program interval plus 1 year of follow-up for at least the cohort completing services) that includes a process evaluation, an impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation will use statistics derived from a management information system plus staff interviews and site visits to determine the degree of implementation and the nature of services delivered. The impact evaluation will be run as a controlled experiment with a randomly drawn control group exiting from the same treatment and incarceration facilities. The project results will be of interest and use to many practitioner and legislative audiences, especially among health and justice groups. Participant sites in the study are Kansas City, Missouri; Oakland, California; St. Louis, Missouri; Tampa, Florida; and West Harlem, New York. Program participants thus far have generally expressed satisfaction with the OPTS project, services, and staff but indicated dissatisfaction with the high level of supervision and number of meetings they are required to attend. Staff report that the program does provide more services than clients would otherwise receive. Staff at several sites reported fairly widespread discontent on the part of clients who feel that because they graduated from the in-jail treatment program the community component is unnecessary. This has created some obstacles as such participants are unwilling to truly commit themselves to full participation in treatment. 4.5 Court-Related Treatment Efforts 4.5.1 Sentencing Practices for Drug Offenders: A National Assessment This survey, completed in 1994, revealed that while court resources have increased significantly in the past 5 years, felony courts in general have been unable to cope with the overwhelming number of drug defendants coming before the bench. Survey respondents identified the need for improved supervision practices and increased treatment resources, both pretrial and postconviction, to address the problem. 4.5.2 Implementation of a Diversionary Program by the Orleans Parish District Attorney for Drug Offenders, Utilizing Hair and Urine Testing A pilot prosecution diversion program in New Orleans focuses on the use of case management techniques, including random urine tests, hair analysis, treatment, and individual monitoring, to reduce drug use and criminal activity among first-time felony drug offenders. Preliminary results from the research demonstration indicate that program completers are much less likely to be rearrested than non-completers or offenders who refused the program. Analyses using a quasi- experimental comparison group are ongoing. Analysis of the hair samples, including from those who left the program early, showed a significant decrease in the level of cocaine from intake to discharge. The overall unemployment rate (including non-completers) has been reduced. Finally, program counselors report that hair testing is particularly useful in getting clients to admit to drug use and to reduce or abstain from drugs; they realize they cannot evade the hair tests. 4.5.3 The Effects of Different Criminal Justice System Strategies Aimed at Increasing Rates of Completion in Mandated Drug Treatment Programs This study by the Vera Institute of Justice will examine the effect of factors that affect the length of retention in a drug treatment program, which is an important issue since research findings indicate that persons who attend and remain in drug treatment programs for a sufficient length of time show reduced recidivism and other favorable treatment outcomes, but also that relatively few individuals remain in treatment long enough to show these favorable effects. This research will focus on whether the criminal justice system can increase retention by effecting the swift and certain return to prison of offenders diverted to residential treatment through the Brooklyn District Attorney's Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, who subsequently violate the conditions of their diversion, versus a matched comparison group of offenders admitted to the same residential programs under typically less stringent enforcement of violations. Project products, expected in early 1996, will include a final technical report and executive summary which will describe the study method and conclusions, highlighting the substantive findings and the use of the findings by the criminal justice system and drug treatment practitioners. Project findings will be of value to criminal justice system administrators designing and implementing compulsory treatment programs, and those considering their adoption. 4.5.4 Substance User Accountability and Long-Term Recidivism This research will update a previous NIJ impact evaluation by extending the outcome analysis of the original 7,012 offenders to a 6-year follow-up study. Because all of the cases are now closed, the researchers have the opportunity to study long-term recidivism. The original study looked at an Arizona demand reduction program that provided either full prosecution or diversion to substance abuse treatment for those who qualified. One finding of the original study was that, controlling for offender and offense characteristics, length of time to recidivism was significantly longer for those who entered treatment (compared to those who did not) and for those who completed treatment (compared to those who failed to complete it). Survival analysis will be used as the major analytic technique. Anticipated results of this study--expected in early 1996--will inform policymakers as to the effectiveness of this program in reducing recidivism. 4.6. Evaluation Of Drug Treatment In Local Corrections This study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency develops a catalog of local correctional initiatives in the drug treatment area by providing detailed program descriptions and qualitative assessments of five jail in- custody/aftercare drug treatment programs in local corrections settings. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs were also used to provide program-specific and comparative assessments of the efficacy of the five programs in reducing participant post-release recidivism (within 12 months of release) and substance-abuse relapse. The five programs were selected for their diverse populations and programmatic approaches. However, the extent to which these programs are representative cannot presently be answered because the treatment programs were not randomly selected. In general, the in-custody substance abuse programs did have an effect on post-release recidivism and there is a positive relationship between the duration of the treatment intervention and successful outcomes. In addition, these substance abuse programs contributed to dramatic reductions in serious behavioral problems, such as physical violence, and incident reports of less serious infractions, such as insubordination and possession of contraband, among offenders in treatment housing units. The major factors that appear to limit the potential impacts of the treatment programs include: 1. limitations in the comprehensiveness, intensity, and duration of in-custody services; 2. the very small numbers of offenders served within the jail systems; 3. the mismatch between the "ideal" or the designed length of program stay and the actual length of stay possible given the jail system flow (suggesting the need to develop services for those who are in jail for three days as well as longer); and 4. the lack of time and resources to provide extensive pre- release planning and linked aftercare services. Information on levels and types of offenders' actual post-custody participation in treatment is unavailable because integrated data systems are rare and attrition rates are very high. Seventeen percent of the treatment group and 23 percent of the controls were re-convicted at least once during the follow-up period. Taking into account time at risk in the community, probabilities of reconviction were calculated for each study group and for each site. For the total sample, the probabilities of being re-convicted were .16 (treatment cases) and .22 (controls). Attempting to serve the many jail inmates with both substance abuse problems and psychiatric issues was viewed by treatment staff as one of the most important problems facing them. These individuals require relatively large amounts of program resources, such as staff time, and appear to do less well in drug treatment than do other offenders. It is generally concluded that these programs showed modest positive effects upon probabilities, but not timing of recidivism (for those who recidivated) within 1 year of jail release. Mentally ill offenders, minority offenders and younger offenders were less likely to be successful in the programs and had higher probabilities of recidivating. 4.7 Drug Courts/Specialized Courts Evaluation Programs 4.7.1 Drug Court Initiative Evaluation NIJ's drug court initiative addresses the evaluation and research requirements related to the Drug Court section (Part V, Title V) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is responsive to both the Congressional and public demand for accountability and the need to develop a knowledge base that examines policy and programmatic experience and continually recommends improvements to them. In March 1995, NIJ convened a workshop to assist in shaping a long-range strategy for research and evaluation on drug courts. The opening workshop brought together researchers, practitioners and policymakers from a variety of disciplines involved in drug court issues. A broad range of research and evaluation topics and potential methodologies emerged from the workshop discussions. Topics highlighted in the workshop were incorporated into a solicitation that had a due date of November 30, 1995. The planned multi-year evaluation strategy will support research on determinants of drug court success, development of drug court typologies and experimental impact evaluations of drug courts. This strategy will result in the identification of factors that appear to be related to the success of existing drug courts; differences between drug court goals, objectives and performance measures; specified target populations and their expected performance levels; as well as levels of funding for program operations. Process and impact evaluations will include randomized experiments that assess the extent to which the drug court program goals and objectives reduce criminal recidivism. Also of particular interest is research on whether pre-trial or post-trial program structures are most effective; whether a single judge or some other system, such as a group of rotating judges, appears to produce more promising outcomes; and how treatment drug court programs affect detention practices. Additional key issues, listed in the solicitation, will be addressed as well. Over time, as the programmatic experience and the accompanying research knowledge unfold, the results of NIJ's initial workshop will be supplemented and perhaps even redirected by various new findings, recommendations, and research results. Further, a joint NIDA and NIJ workshop concerning drug courts and substance abuse treatment/health service issues is being planned tentatively, for February, 1996. The workshop will produce a report that outlines a preliminary strategy for assessing key research questions and key methodological, measurement, and data issues. This report will in turn be used as the basis for a joint NIDA/NIJ solicitation addressing this area. 4.7.2 Drug Court Program in the District of Columbia--An Evaluation NIJ is managing funds from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to evaluate the drug court in the District of Columbia. This 5-year process and impact evaluation utilizes random assignment to treatment, sanctions, or control groups (regular court processing). A cost-benefit analysis will be conducted as well. Defendants charged with felonies in the DC Drug Court are randomly assigned to one of three dockets--the Enhanced Treatment Program, the Sanctions Program, or the "Business as Usual." The Business as Usual docket follows the standard procedures of the DC Superior Court, where each defendant is drug tested at lock-up. If a defendant is given pretrial release, drug testing is continued at court determined intervals. To be eligible for either of the DC Drug Court special programs, a defendant must test positive for drugs at lock- up, receive pretrial release and have two additional 'bad' drug test outcomes. A bad drug test outcome is one of three things: a positive test for drugs, a missed drug test, or a tampered urine sample. If a defendant meets each of these conditions and is on one of the special dockets, he or she is offered the opportunity to join either the Enhanced Treatment or the Sanctions Program. Participation in either program is voluntary, and each defendant can only join the program that is available in his or her docket. For example, a defendant assigned to the Enhanced Treatment docket cannot choose to join the Sanctions Program. (On occasion, defendants are offered entrance in one of the programs without specifically meeting the above criteria. Defendants are offered the program because they provide information to the court that establishes that a drug problem exists.) Defendants in both of the programs report to the court frequently for status hearings, and usually develop a positive personal relationship with the judge. If a client joins the Enhanced Treatment Program, he or she receives intensive out-patient drug treatment sponsored by the court through the DC Pretrial Services Agency. The treatment program is both rigorous and comprehensive. Clients are drug tested daily Monday through Friday at 8 a.m. and spend the remainder of the day (until 3:30 p.m.) participating in drug treatment. The Enhanced Treatment Program addresses not only drug abuse problems, including relapse prevention, but also health issues and life skill building. Clients struggling with their addiction can either be ordered into a detox program by the court at the recommendation of their treatment counselor or can request that they be admitted. Treatment counselors work closely with the court to track a client's progress. As a client begins to get his or her addiction under control, he or she moves through the phases of the treatment program. Each phase emphasizes different aspects of drug treatment, and life skill building. Progress through the phases is recognized by the court and eventually results in graduation from the Enhanced Treatment Program. The Sanctions Program does not provide clients with court sponsored drug treatment. Defendants who choose to join this program subject themselves to a set of sanctions for continued bad drug test outcomes. If bad outcomes continue, a client receives progressively harsher sanctions, culminating in an extended stay in jail. The first sanction is that clients are required to sit in the jury box and observe court proceedings for a specified period of time, usually 3 days. Continued bad outcomes result in sanctions of time in jail, beginning with one day in jail and building to a possible 10 days in jail, or referral to detoxification. Both Sanctions Program and Enhanced Treatment Program clients have the opportunity to receive reduced sentences if they successfully complete their respective programs. Instead of time in prison, successful clients may be sentenced to probation. If sentenced to probation, clients are placed under the supervision of a special probation unit designed to continue the progress begun in the DC Drug Court. As of 30 September 1995, the Enhanced Treatment Program monthly report shows a census of 83 clients. The monthly report shows a total of 71 participants in the Sanctions Program. Approximately 42 percent of the defendants in the Enhanced Treatment docket are program eligible. On the Sanctions docket, approximately 37 percent of the defendants are program eligible. Between July 1994 and June 1995, 23 percent of the eligible defendants joined the Enhanced Treatment program, and 56 percent of the eligible defendants joined the Sanctions Program. Preliminary results show that defendants in both the Enhanced Treatment and the Sanctions program have consistently fewer bad drug test outcomes than defendants in the standard docket. By the fifth month after becoming program eligible, 64 percent of the Enhanced Treatment defendants and 38 percent of the Sanctions Program defendants had a bad drug test outcome. In contrast, the standard docket control group had a bad outcome over 80 percent of the time. Between July 1, 1994 and July 1, 1995, 253 defendants participated in the Sanctions Program. This represents 59 percent of those meeting the eligibility criteria. During that same period, 194 completed the Sanctions Program and moved on to sentencing. Between July 1, 1994 and August 13, 1995, 169 program participants received a first level sanction. However, only 37 received a level 4 sanction (3 days in jail). This finding tentatively suggests that sanctions result in fewer bad drug test outcomes. 4.7.3 The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: An Integrated Approach in Dade County's Domestic Violence Court This study by Crime and Justice Research Institute will inform other jurisdictions as to the effectiveness of offering integrated violence reduction and drug abuse treatment. The Dade County, Miami Florida, domestic violence court will evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy that employs a diversionary or alternative sentencing approach that is carefully balanced by other deterrent options such as short-term and long-term incarceration. The evaluation will assess the impact of the domestic violence court's efforts to integrate substance abuse and violence reduction treatment by examining offender treatment program outcomes, criminal case outcomes, and domestic violence/drug abuse recidivism rates. The study will also examine the relationship between domestic violence and the role of drug abuse by examining predictors of re-offending, prior patterns of offending, court outcomes, and subsequent offending patterns. A final report is expected in early 1996. 4.7.4 Dispensing Justice Locally: Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court This evaluation will examine the process of establishing and implementing the Midtown Community Court, a 3-year demonstration project, in the Times Square area of Manhattan. The Midtown Community Court is unique among New York City courts in several respects: defendants are assessed before arraignment to determine whether they have a substance abuse problem, a place to sleep, a history of mental illness, or other relevant conditions; a resource coordinator, working in the well of the courtroom, helps the court match defendants with drug treatment, community service and other sanctions; court hearings, social services and community service punishments take place under one roof in the harmed community; punishment begins immediately; the community helps develop and supervise community-based sanctions; and computer technology improves communication among the police, the court, social service providers and the community. Research staff at the Fund for the City of New York (FCNY), working in conjunction with researchers from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), will conduct process analysis and an impact evaluation of the first 18 months of court operations. The research includes three distinct components: documentation of the implementation and evolution of the community court; quantitative analyses of the court's impact and caseloads and case processing; and a preliminary analysis of community impacts, including the court's effects on perceptions and attitudes toward the court's handling of misdemeanor offenses and effects on the concentration of quality-of-life offenses in the target area. Preliminary findings indicate that: o The court's physical presence in the community has fostered closer communication between the court and police. Police officers alert the court's social services to recently arrested defendants needing special attention and sometimes bring in people who are not at risk of arrest but who need services. In turn, the court provides police officers with information about case outcomes. o Nearly 70 percent of the sentenced offenders at the Midtown Community Court are ordered to perform community service work in the harmed neighborhoods--more than twice the rate found in the centralized Manhattan court. More than 3,300 sentenced offenders have provided nearly $170,000 of labor to the community. o Many defendants return to the Court voluntarily after completing their sentences (over 800 have done so). o The court imposes justice swiftly. Of those who have failed to complete their sentences satisfactorily, 79 percent have been rearrested and of these, 84 percent have been sentenced to jail. o There is evidence that the Court's new approach has impacted street-level prostitution. During the court's first 9 months prostitution arrests in Midtown have fallen 31 percent while increasing 5 percent in the rest of Manhattan. 4.7.5 Parental Drug Testing to Facilitate Judicial and Social Service System Collaboration in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases This project by the Urban Institute will provide information on procedures, costs, outcomes and legal and policy issues in using urinalysis to monitor parents involved with substance abuse. The project will assess the impact of testing on parents' compliance with treatment, compliance with other services, and repeated charges of neglect and abuse. A final report is expected in late 1995. 4.8 Break the Cycle Initiative A consortium of federal agencies, led by the Office of the Director of National Drug Control Policy and including the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and the Drug Courts Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs, is developing a multi-year demonstration program to test the effectiveness of a system-wide criminal justice intervention with drug- addicted defendants/offenders. Through this initiative, called Break the Cycle (BTC), defendants/offenders with substance abuse problems will receive treatment no matter where they are in the criminal justice system or the stage of their contact with the criminal justice system. Demonstration project funds are expected to be awarded in March. To carry out the demonstration project, the local systems-- the criminal justice system and the system of treatment providers--will ideally have the following capabilities: o A demonstrated history of coordination and collaboration within the criminal justice agencies and between the criminal justice agencies and treatment networks. o A demonstrated structural leadership role on the part of the judiciary. o A sophisticated system-wide management information system (MIS) that integrates all relevant information and decisions made by the involved agencies. o The ability to test all involved defendants/offenders at appropriate times--upon intake, and when needed under the terms of treatment--and to convey those test results to the involved agencies as soon as possible via the MIS. o The ability to convey relevant treatment information to the same parties at the same time as test results. o The ability to provide a "broker" service between the court, other criminal justice agencies, and the treatment community. o The ability to perform initial and follow-up assessments for the substance abuse type, severity, etc. in order to more effectively determine the service needs of defendants/ offenders. o The ability to provide appropriate treatment to all defendants/offenders referred by the courts; from solely drug testing to residential treatment and including treatment within the jail and prison systems and in connection with pretrial release and probation supervision. o The ability to maintain the continuity of treatment supervision for the same defendant as the defendant/offender moves through the criminal justice system. o The ability to enforce orders of the court to revoke release conditions when they have been violated and to enforce either new conditions of release or confinement if they are imposed by the court. o The ability to collect relevant data, including court outcomes; drug testing outcomes; drug treatment variables; personal indicators from defendants and their families; relevant variables regarding drug markets, public health indicators, enforcement activities, etc. o A willingness within the jurisdiction to implement a rigorous evaluation design, preferably a control group design. o Evidence of the ability to sustain systemic changes, once federal funding has ended. As a critical part of the BTC demonstration program, a rigorous evaluation will be conducted to determine the outcomes of this system-wide intervention. Overall, a process and impact evaluation will focus on whether the demonstration appears to have met its stated objectives: o Major Objectives -- reduce recidivism/criminal behavior and substance abuse among adult substance abusing offenders; -- improve social function indicators in the subject population; and -- improve resource utilization, particularly detention capacity, throughout the criminal justice system. o Intermediate Objectives -- increase the population's exposure to drug treatment; -- improve the match between the type of treatment and user needs; and -- increase social services delivered to the population. 4.9 Impact of Mandatory Minimums/Sentencing Guidelines NIJ in-house research is focusing on the impact of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines on local drug markets using data from eight states to evaluate the effect of sentencing on heroin, cocaine, crack and marijuana markets. It is hypothesized that sentencing sanctions have become sufficiently severe and widespread that they are affecting the risks associated with drug dealing. However, price and availability information indicate prices remain low and drugs readily available. It is therefore thought that sentencing is influencing drug markets through secondary effects. Effects that are being tested for include changes in purities, changes in transaction size and volume, changes in the age of retail dealers, and changes in the geographic locations in which transactions occur. ------------------------------------ REDUCING DEMAND THROUGH PREVENTION It is widely acknowledged that a key way to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in the long run is through prevention. Prevention is critically important in keeping new users from entering the pipeline to become chronic, hardcore users and in breaking the cycle through which children of addicts become users themselves. This section describes OJP-funded demonstration efforts aimed at preventing illicit drug use, primarily focused at the community level and, in particular, targeting the juvenile population at risk. In addition, the research and evaluation initiatives described recognize the particularly complex problems posed when measuring and evaluating the impact of prevention programs. 1. Targeting Neighborhoods Through Comprehensive, Community- Based Strategies OJP provides leadership to facilitate the development of community-based approaches to the interrelated problems of drugs, crime and violence in our neighborhoods. The model programs described here bring together the full range of community resources, including law enforcement, housing, educational, and health organizations to build a community- based drug control infrastructure. These models also empower local communities through emphasis on coordinated planning and partnerships among state, local, and federal agencies that leverage public and private resources and involve broad representation and participation from community stakeholders. A focal point in these programs is the emphasis on young people at risk. 1.1 Operation Weed and Seed--BJA, OJP/EOWS Operation Weed and Seed is a community-based, comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach to combating drugs, violence and gang activity in high-crime neighborhoods. The overall goal is to weed out crime from targeted neighborhoods and then to seed the targeted sites with a wide range of prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development to prevent crime from recurring. The Weed and Seed strategy emphasizes the importance of community involvement in combatting drugs and violent crime. Community residents are empowered to assist in solving crime-related problems in their neighborhoods. In addition, the private sector is mobilized to become involved in reducing crime and in revitalizing the targeted area. In all 36 funded demonstration sites--which serve as models to be replicated in other high-crime areas--federal, state, and local government, the community, and the private sector work together in partnership to create a safe, crime and drug- free environment. The Weed and Seed program encompasses four major elements: Enforcement, adjudication, prosecution and supervision activities are designed to target, apprehend and incapacitate violent street criminals who terrorize neighborhoods and account for a disproportionate percentage of criminal activity. Community policing operates in support of intensive law enforcement suppression and containment activities and provides a "bridge" to prevention, intervention and treatment, as well as to the neighborhood reclamation and revitalization components. Prevention, intervention and treatment focuses on activities such as youth services, school programs, community and social programs, and support groups to develop positive community attitudes towards combatting narcotics use and trafficking, and providing opportunities for neighborhood residents. Neighborhood restoration supports economic development activities designed to strengthen legitimate community institutions. Programs are developed in partnership with law enforcement to organize and train citizens and resident groups to resist and repel the drug culture. These programs improve living conditions, enhance home security procedures, allow for low-cost physical improvements within neighborhoods, develop long-term efforts to renovate and maintain housing, as well as provide educational, economic, social, recreational and other vital opportunities. In addition to the 36 fully-funded sites, there are approximately 100 sites which either have developed or are developing strategies for "Official Recognition." Official Recognition is a designation accorded to sites implementing a Weed and Seed strategy without DOJ funding. Sites which competed for funding in FY 1994 have priority eligibility for a one-time $35,000 award to fund a coordinator or for other program needs. The Officially Recognized sites form the eligible pool for competing for full funding. 1.2 Evaluating Operation Weed and Seed--NIJ 1.2.1 National Evaluation of the Weed and Seed Program The draft report of the process evaluation of the first 19 Weed and Seed demonstration sites offers the following suggestions: o It is critical to bring the right people "to the table" from the start; future endeavors should include key representatives from district attorney's offices and target neighborhoods as well as federal law enforcement and municipal agencies. o Program guidelines should continue to be structured with enough flexibility to enable communities to do what they think is needed within their neighborhoods. o Weeding efforts should involve interagency task forces consisting of all relevant federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. o Further documentation should be gathered on innovative enforcement efforts that were reported by the sites to have been particularly effective. Additional research is needed on the overall quality of arrests, final disposition of cases, community response to weeding and protection of individual rights. o Future efforts should recognize and support the critical role of local prosecutors. They should be included from the start on interagency task forces and granted additional resources to address the increased caseloads and community involvement required by Weed and Seed. o Community prosecution efforts should be supported and studied along with further research on prosecution strategies, rates of convictions in these prosecutions, types and lengths of sentences ultimately served by Weed and Seed offenders, and offender recidivism. o Community policing principles and practices should be advocated and supported by the police department and city government with appropriate training, recognition, compensation and room for advancement. o Training and technical assistance should be provided for planning and developing the dual "seeding" approach of prevention and community revitalization. o Uniform data collection should be required and monitored. o Further evaluations should be conducted into the impact and effectiveness of the Weed and Seed initiative, particularly in methods of supporting prevention, intervention, treatment services, and neighborhood restoration. 1.2.2 Impact Evaluation of Weed and Seed NIJ has awarded a grant to conduct an impact evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed. This 24-month study will evaluate eight sites (utilizing eight comparison sites) and the National Performance Review Laboratory (NPRL) as it is applied to Weed and Seed. The eight selected sites are in Bradenton, Florida; Shreveport, Louisiana; Hartford, Connecticut; Las Vegas, Nevada; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Seattle, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Akron, Ohio. Process and impact data will be assessed through a multi- method approach including comparison sites, topical case studies, phone interviews, in-person interviews, observations, and records extractions. The evaluation will focus on the following issues: o extent to which the strategy has been implemented as intended (e.g., the extent of citizen involvement in anti- crime/anti-drug community events) o services provided in relation to the elements of the strategy (e.g., weeding, prosecution, community policing, seeding) o costs of the strategy, including federal, state, local, and private funds and in-kind resources o whether the strategy changes/reduces drug-related and violent crime in the target neighborhood o whether the strategy reduces fear of crime among residents and businesses o whether crime is displaced to adjacent neighborhoods o whether neighborhood restoration and economic development, including increased employment opportunities, has been implemented o changes in the quality of life of target neighborhoods, including perceptions of safety, education and social improvements o impact of Weed and Seed on public safety by examining the extent to which offenders have been removed (weeded) from the target areas o comparisons across Weed and Seed programs in order to examine the strengths, limitations, and issues regarding NPRL-funded sites versus non-NPRL funded sites. Anticipated results of this study will inform policymakers and practitioners of the impact of Weed and Seed NPRL at these sites. Findings should be useful for planned replications or expansions of Weed and Seed. 1.3 Comprehensive Communities--BJA The Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) encourages the development and implementation of comprehensive strategies to reduce and prevent drug-related crime and violence. Law enforcement and other governmental agencies work in partnership with communities to address crime problems, as well as the factors that increase the risk that individuals will become involved in problem behaviors. In FY 1994, 16 jurisdictions faced with high rates of crime and violence were selected to participate in CCP, including the four Pulling America's Communities Together (Project PACT) sites. Each jurisdiction was provided with planning funds to develop a strategy that demonstrates a jurisdictionwide commitment to community policing, coordination among public and private agencies (including social services, public health, and others), and an active role by the community in problem solving. NIJ is evaluating the coordination and implementation process in six of the sites (Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Columbia, SC; Fort Worth, TX; Salt Lake City, UT; and Seattle, WA) through case studies, observations, and interviews. The evaluation will focus on: o how comprehensive community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention evolve; o how each of the sites implements its comprehensive strategy; and o how differences in pre-existing external and internal environments and structures affect the evolution of a comprehensive community-wide drug abuse and crime control effort. Each of the 16 CCP sites has implemented crime control strategies. For example, in Salt Lake City, Community Action Teams, representing citizens, police, probation, code enforcement, the health department, and the mayor's office, are engaged in implementing neighborhood-based public safety activities to make communities safe again. Part of that effort is the juvenile court with diversion to treatment which now operates to serve over 400 youth who will receive intensive supervision, group counseling, and substance abuse prevention services. In Boston, the CCP initiative has created neighborhood partnership councils in 10 districts and has trained the core team members of those counsels in planning and operating neighborhood-based initiatives. In addition, a One-Stop Drug Diversion program is starting which focuses on juvenile and family drug abuse problems through a holistic justice/social service approach. Hartford has started to reshape the delivery of many neighborhood services throughout the city under its CCP initiative. Police, utilities, and selected social services have been decentralized to directly support communities in solving crime and quality of life problems. Phoenix and Fort Worth are implementing comprehensive community strategies by expanding neighborhood-based Weed and Seed efforts in existing target neighborhoods into new communities. Four sites participating in the Comprehensive Communities Program are engaged in a companion effort--Pulling America's Communities Together (PACT). This initiative encourages the development of multi-jurisdictional crime prevention and control strategies in a partnership among local communities; federal, state, and local governments; businesses; and private foundations. Metropolitan Denver, Metropolitan Atlanta, the State of Nebraska, and Washington, D.C., are applying CCP funding to implement portions of their strategies. Although the strategies focus on violence prevention, all of the sites are implementing community- based initiatives which address drug education and intervention, recognizing that violence and serious crime are symptomatic of drug use and abuse. Denver, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C., use the Communities That Care process to identify risk and protective factors and have selected appropriate promising approaches to meet neighborhood issues, including an emphasis on drug abuse. Denver is expanding its drug court capacity to provide adjudication services at night to handle the increasing number of drug felony filings. In addition, a special project to target "at risk" youths will begin to build their self esteem and independence and reduce the likelihood of involvement in drugs, gangs, and guns. In Atlanta, jurisdictions will expand the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program throughout elementary, middle, and high schools to ensure early and comprehensive drug abuse education opportunities. Further, a judicial program coordinator and probation officer within the Cobb County Juvenile Court are dedicated to identify, screen, and assess juvenile offenders for substance abuse, develop intervention and treatment strategies, administer drug screening, and monitor cases of juvenile participants. 2. Anti-Drug Coalitions and Partnerships 2.1 Communities In Action To Prevent Drug Abuse II "Reclaiming Our Neighborhoods"--BJA Through a cooperative funding agreement negotiated with the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, BJA continues its work at the grassroots level with the National Training and Information (NTIC) in conducting a unique crime, violence, and drug reduction demonstration program. In recent years, BJA has tested the concept of partnership and coalition building at the neighborhood level to mobilize citizens and representatives of local units of government to work closely on prevention education and providing direct services to youth and their families; to test innovative community-based prevention strategies; and to reestablish and revitalize drug-ridden communities. Through Reclaiming Our Neighborhoods, NTIC is focusing its efforts on: (1) the building and/or enhancing of local planning teams and partnerships that include public officials, law enforcement, private industry councils, and other public/private service providers (e.g., businesses, religious institutions, schools, community organizations); and (2) the development and implementation of short, intermediate, and long-term strategies regarding community policing, prevention education, and job training opportunities placement. Of the more than 40 groups that entered into a competitive selection process, 11 nonprofit neighborhood-based organizations were selected to take part in the 2-year demonstration program begun on October 1, 1995. Project participants include: o Action Through Churches Together, Virginia, MN o Education Safety Organizing Project, Cleveland, OH o Northwest Bronx Community & Clergy Coalition, Bronx, NY o Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Des Moines, IA o The Resource Center, Chicago, IL o Congregations United for Community Action, St. Petersburg, FL o Citizens for Action in New Britain, CT o Syracuse United Neighbors, NY o Working in Neighborhoods, Cincinnati, OH o Michigan Organizing Project, Muskegon Heights o South Austin Coalition Community Council, Chicago, IL 2.2 National Night Out--BJA Administered by the National Association of Town Watch of Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, National Night Out (NNO) is the culmination of a year-long effort of coalition and partnership building among law enforcement, public and private service providers, businesses, community-based organizations, residents, youth groups, and others to coordinate the development of comprehensive neighborhood- wide strategies to combat crime, violence, and drug abuse. A recent addition to the program is Project 365 which encourages law enforcement and citizen volunteer leaders to target and assess particular problem areas in their city or town such as drugs, graffiti, or a lack of Neighborhood Watch groups. This action is followed by the group working together over the next year to implement change that will help resolve identified issues and needs. First launched in 1984 by the National Association of Town Watch (NATW), a total of 400 communities from 23 states participated in community building and crime watch activities. Since that time, the initiative has continued to grow and flourish in both metropolitan and rural areas. The 12th annual National Night Out, which culminated on August 1, 1995, involved a record 28.1 million people in 8,820 communities from all 50 states, U.S. territories, Canadian cities, and military bases worldwide. Communities of all sizes celebrated NNO in diverse ways. Reports show a broad array of events, including: o 750 block parties citywide in Minneapolis, MN, involving more than 35,000 residents and coordinated by the community crime prevention division of the Minneapolis Police Department. o A kick-off at City Hall Park in New York City attended by the mayor, police commissioner, and other city officials. o An NNO Cavalcade in Boston, MA, led by the mayor and police commissioner that traveled across the city, stopping at each police district to present awards to volunteer crime fighters. o Through Project 365, Somerville, New Jersey, police and citizens worked in the South Bridge and Second Street area to curtail the selling, distribution, and use of drugs. o Project 365 leaders in Puyallup, Washington, targeted a low income housing complex because of frequent problems involving domestic violence, drugs, and juvenile delinquency. The police department conducted special training for apartment managers on substance abuse prevention, dealing with problem tenants, and personal safety, resulting in an Apartment Watch program that has significantly reduced calls for service. 2.3 Race Against Drugs--OJJDP The Race Against Drugs (RAD) program is a collaborative effort with BJA, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The purpose of the program is to implement a unique drug awareness, educational, and prevention program in 50 sites that will reach at-risk young people, many of whom likely live in public housing and crime-infested areas. The program uses motor sports racing events and well-recognized racing heroes as role models to rally the community, family, children, or schools to get involved in exciting, colorful, fun, anti- drug programs. 2.4 Faith Community Involvement--OJJDP The Congress of National Black Churches' (CNBC) National Anti-Drug/Violence Technical Assistance and Training program is providing a national training and technical assistance program to increase public awareness and mobilize residents to address the problems of drug abuse and related crimes in targeted communities throughout the United States. The program works to summon, focus, and coordinate church, public, and community leadership to launch local anti-drug campaigns. 2.5 Drug-Abuse Prevention Technical Assistance Voucher Program--OJJDP The Drug-Abuse Prevention Technical Assistance Voucher Program provides technical assistance funding to neighborhood organizations throughout the country. The purpose of the program is to provide assistance to help organizations establish or strengthen youth programs and encourage activities designed to reclaim communities from drug abuse and violence and to reduce delinquency. The emphasis of the program is on building the capacity of local groups to fight drug abuse and crime and develop healthy, safe, and economically-sound environments in urban neighborhoods. 3. Focusing Prevention Activities on Our Youth 3.1 Safe Haven Program--BJA The Safe Haven Program is sponsored jointly by the Departments of Justice and Education and joins school, health, and education components in 10 demonstration sites. The goal of a Safe Haven is to enable neighborhood youth and adults to become healthy, productive, law-abiding citizens, free from drug and alcohol abuse, through the establishment of a neighborhood-based multi-service center, located in a safe environment. o A Safe Haven is a multi-service center where a variety of youth and adult services are co-located in a highly visible and accessible facility that is secure against crime and illegal drug activity. It brings together law enforcement, community services, basic and continuing education, health, recreation, employment, and other key sector to provide opportunities, skills, and recognition for young people, their family members, and other residents of the community in a safe environment. A special emphasis is placed on education about preventing drug abuse. o The preferable location in which to locate a Safe Haven is in a neighborhood school, since it is usually a well-known facility with ample room for a broad variety of activities. A school has certain attributes that tend to make it defensible against crime, and often it is protected by drug- free zone laws. The facility should be open from early morning through the evening, and the services should be provided by highly experienced personnel. o If it is not possible to locate the Safe Haven in a school setting, other sites may be considered, such as a community center, a public housing development, a church or temple, or other secure, accessible and ap- propriately equipped building. 3.2 Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)--BJA D.A.R.E. is a drug and violence prevention collaborative effort between education and law enforcement whose primary design is to equip students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels with appropriate life skills that will aid them in decision-making. To date, more than 22,000 community-oriented law enforcement officers from 7,000 communities throughout the country have provided the core (elementary) curriculum to over 25 million youth. In 1995 alone, it is expected that 5.5 million children (representative of 250,000 classrooms) will participate in the program and an additional 20 million more students will be impacted by other components of the D.A.R.E. Program, which include: D.A.R.E. Junior High (10 lessons); D.A.R.E. Senior High (6 lessons with 3 follow-up lessons by the teacher); D.A.R.E. Parent Program; and, the D.A.R.E. + P.L.U.S. (Play and Learn Under Supervision) after-school activity program. The core curriculum (K-4th grades) focuses on child safety and prevention issues. Students are alerted to the potential dangers in the misuse of drugs, medicine, and other substances. There is recognition of the need to help students at this level develop an awareness that alcohol and tobacco are also drugs. Under the 5-6th grade curriculum, D.A.R.E. helps students to understand the effects of mind- altering drugs and the consequences; teaches resistance techniques--ways to say "NO"; builds self-esteem; makes students aware of the kinds of peer pressure they may face and helps them learn appropriate responses to say no to offers to use drugs; helps students recognize stress and suggests ways to deal with it other than by taking drugs; helps students identify nonviolent ways to deal with anger and disagreement; and, helps students develop the understanding and skills needed to analyze and resist media presentations about alcohol, drug use, and violence. The emphasis of the D.A.R.E. Junior High Program is on providing information and skills which enable students to resist peer pressure and other influences in making personal choices. The lessons concentrate on helping students to manage their feelings of anger and aggression and show how conflicts may be resolved without resorting to violence or using alcohol or drugs. The D.A.R.E. Senior High Program was developed to coincide with the everyday situations students encounter in their environment. The curriculum addresses drug abuse and its effect on communities and young people. Specifically, the program reinforces information and skills which enable students to act in their own best interest when facing high-risk, low-gain choices. This includes resisting peer pressure and other influences which can affect those choices. Equal emphasis is placed on helping students handle feelings of anger without causing harm to themselves or others. The D.A.R.E. Parent Program addresses the growing need for comprehensive family support and involvement in school programs. It is intended for any adult interested in ensuring the health, safety, and development of life skills for children. The program provides information on: communication and self-esteem building; risk factors associated with young children; basic information on drug usage and stages of adolescent chemical dependency; peer pressure and protective factors; violence and conflict resolution; and opportunities for networking in the community. BJA also supports D.A.R.E. technical assistance, training, and accreditation through five D.A.R.E. Regional Training Centers (RTCs). Working in conjunction with D.A.R.E. America, the non-profit organization that is responsible for the program's oversight and for maintaining up-to-date curricula, RTCs provide: D.A.R.E. Officer Training for new officers; D.A.R.E. In-service Training for experienced officers; Mentor Officer Training; D.A.R.E. Parent Program Training for instructors who work with and train parents using the D.A.R.E. curriculum; D.A.R.E. junior and senior high school student training; program development; assessments for D.A.R.E. Training Centers; accreditation of law enforcement agencies as D.A.R.E. Training Centers; and, monitoring and technical assistance for agencies across the country that are replicating the D.A.R.E. Program. In July of 1993, a Gallup Poll Survey of over 2,000 D.A.R.E. graduates showed that over 90 percent felt that D.A.R.E. assisted them in avoiding drugs and alcohol. The program also was credited with increasing both their self-esteem and ability to deal with peer pressure. Students reported that they had used one or two of the avoidance techniques taught to them by their D.A.R.E. Officer. An NIJ evaluation report is currently available entitled "Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review". This study was conducted by the Research Triangle Institute. In summary, the evaluation found that: o D.A.R.E. has strong support and user satisfaction that cuts across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines; o D.A.R.E. programs are best at increasing students' knowledge about substance abuse and enhancing their social skills; and o A revised D.A.R.E. curriculum that includes more participatory learning is planned for implementation. 3.3 Cities in Schools Partnership Programs--OJJDP The Federal Interagency Partnership program reduces school dropout rates and school-related violence by mobilizing and coordinating public and private sector resources within a given community and focusing communities' efforts and resources on the schoolhouse. This program supports continuation of the national school dropout prevention model developed and implemented by Cities In Schools, Inc. (CIS). CIS provides training and technical assistance to states and local communities enabling them to adapt and implement the CIS model. The model brings social, employment, mental health, drug prevention, entrepreneurship, and other resources to high-risk youth and their families at the school level. The goal of the program is to create and support local programs with the capacity to serve 150,000 students and their families, and positively impact an additional 600,000 young people annually by September 30, 1996. Also, CIS is fostering working relationships between the local CIS programs, the National Network, and federal partners of CIS to strategically apply available state, federal, and local private and public resources to improve the quality and expand the capacity of local CIS programs. The CIS Partnership With the Department of the Army program supports the expansion and enhancement of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corp (JROTC) Program by establishing up to ten Partnership Academies, enhancing existing JROTC and Career Academies through CIS training and technical assistance, and implementing special collaborative initiatives for the benefit of CIS and JROTC programs. Enrolling JROTC cadets in CIS programs gives the cadets access to such CIS programs as counseling, conflict resolution, health and medical issues, alcohol and other drug abuse prevention, reducing family and classroom violence, teen pregnancy prevention, and minority male initiatives. CIS is also providing JROTC instructors with training in how to locate additional health and human services for their students in communities not yet served by CIS. 3.4 Children At Risk--OJJDP/BJA/NIJ The Children At Risk (CAR) program is testing a specific intervention strategy for reducing and controlling illegal drugs and related crime in target neighborhoods of six sites and fostering healthy development among youth from drug and crime-ridden neighborhoods. This program supports diverting inner-city youth ages 11-13 from involvement in drugs, gangs, and crime. The program comprises two components: a service intervention component, including one-on-one case management, after school and summer programs, individual and family counseling, community policing, tutoring, mentoring, and more; and a criminal justice component, including neighborhood-based activities designed to reduce the prevalence of drug dealing and drug use. Schools, service providers, police, and other criminal justice agencies collaborate at both a policy and service delivery level to provide a coordinated array of services and support for at-risk youths and their families. Certain elements of the program--case management, community policing, safe passages, drug-free zones, individual and family counseling--are common to all five sites. The sites are Austin, Bridgeport, Memphis, Newark, Savannah, and Seattle. Preliminary analysis of initial findings reflect promising effects. CAR youth had fewer contacts with police in the first 12 months after joining the program than youth in the randomly assigned control group (41 versus 69). CAR youth also had fewer contact with juvenile court in the first 12 months than the control group (34 versus 71). In addition, CAR youth were also more likely than control group youth to be promoted to the next grade (82 percent versus 70 percent for the 1993-94 school year). These preliminary findings are based on a relatively small sample (228) and short timeframe (1 year), however. The full evaluation will be based on a 2- year follow-up of 874 youth. Funding for this program, including its evaluation, is provided by a partnership of public and private agencies: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Institute of Justice and the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York. 3.5 Organizations That Promote Safe and Healthy Family Environments--OJJDP The Parents Anonymous program enhances the capability of Parents Anonymous' state and local organizations to prevent child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency by strengthening families through Parents Anonymous' (PA) unique, self-help programming. In the context of this self-help program, PA addresses those alcohol and other drug abuse issues through their work with parents who recognize and determine to deal with their substance abuse problems or abuse problems of other family members. PA also serves as a continuing support group for recovering substance abusers and/or their family members. Finally, there are certain PA groups that are directly linked to alcohol and other drug treatment programs and serve as a supporting partner to the recovery process for families. 4. Drug Prevention Research and Program Evaluation 4.1 National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign Research Findings--BJA The 1992-93 evaluation of the media component of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign--involving nearly 1,800 interviews in 100 communities across the country--found that a substantial majority of the public, the media, and the law enforcement community has accepted the McGruff character and related themes (e.g., Take A Bite Out Of Crime) as positive symbols easily adapted to influence youth and their families about prevention awareness. In fact, an analysis of McGruff messages over the years indicate that the campaign's effectiveness has increased. Investigators credit this to the carefully controlled use of the symbol(s) and that each new campaign phase, which is distinct, has incorporated familiar themes which have served to maintain audience interest and provide a platform for action. Following is just a sampling of what the study found. o 95 percent of the media managers were aware of the McGruff PSAs. o Media gatekeepers rated the PSAs high on quality and regarded them as effective and influential within their communities. o 98 percent of prevention practitioners were familiar with the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign overall. o 76 percent had used its materials, and most users said they were of high value. o 85 percent of those aware called the PSAs effective for children, and 60 percent said they were effective for adults in building prevention awareness. o Those crime prevention programs most receptive to Campaign materials tended to: -- be in larger communities -- face more crime problems -- have larger, more diverse prevention programs -- be more supportive of citizen prevention overall o People generally paid attention to the PSAs with 86 percent of citizens reporting high attention to the anti- violence ads. o Citizens more familiar with Campaign PSAs displayed the following characteristics: -- younger, with children at home -- more attentive to overall media -- more interested in crime prevention -- more needful of information about it -- more aware of neighborhood crime problems -- more prevention responsible and confident -- more likely to take preventive actions o Somewhat greater impact was found among: -- women -- less educated, lower income citizens -- Black citizens -- parents with children in the home 4.2 Researching Prevention Programs Aimed at Our Youth-- OJJDP 4.2.1 Causes and Correlates Study The OJJDP Causes and Correlates Study is developing research that is germane to the prevention of alcohol and other drug use as well as delinquency prevention. Funded for 8 years, it has one more year to run. Data collection for this study is currently being funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Human Services, while OJJDP is funding the data analysis. The three demonstration sites are Pittsburgh, PA, Rochester, NY, and Denver, CO. Early results based on self-reported data shows a strong correlation between drug use and violence and drug sales and violence. 4.2.2 Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders The Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders contains a summary of delinquency prevention programs. The purpose of this guide is to assist communities in setting up collaborative, system-wide efforts for youth in their community. It includes a delinquency prevention section. Due to the overlap of the risk factors concerning delinquency prevention and alcohol and other drug prevention, the summary and program descriptions will contribute to the reduction of demand for alcohol and other drugs through prevention. ------------------------------------ STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT AND INTERDICTION EFFORTS 1. Byrne Discretionary Grant Drug Enforcement and Anti-Violence Initiatives--BJA BJA Byrne discretionary grant funds are made available for specific initiatives showing dramatic results and for new approaches to combatting violent crime and drug abuse. 1.1 Clandestine Laboratory Model Enforcemen Training Program Clandestine drug laboratories are found in a wide range of sites across the United States, from large urban areas to remote rural regions. These illicit laboratories often house substantial quantities of chemicals that may pose serious health and environmental risks. "Taking down" such a laboratory requires a strategically precise enforcement action, often involving federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Once seized, these laboratories remain possible hazardous waste sites, often with large quantities of toxic chemicals and unknown corrosives, carcinogens, and combustibles. Since clandestine laboratory enforcement efforts, unlike most other narcotics cases, are complicated by the presence of hazardous materials, the traditional narcotics task force investigation and prosecution approach must be expanded to encompass health, occupational safety, and environmental specialists, with all agencies collaborating in carefully planned, multidisciplinary responses. The Clandestine Laboratory Model Enforcement Training Program assists state and local policymakers and practitioners responsible for law enforcement resource allocation decisions in developing policies, procedures and programs related to the hazardous chemical problems associated with clandestine laboratories. The program provides a foundation from which a comprehensive, multi- agency response can be developed at the state and regional levels. The training program, which is based on the collective experiences and best practices of the BJA demonstration sites, represents a significant investment and effort on the part of BJA to develop an effective method for combating clandestine drug laboratories in the United States. During Phase I of this program, from June 1994 through June 1995, the project selected a national cadre of instructors from subject matter experts in the fields of clandestine laboratory investigation, toxicology and hazardous materials response; developed trainers' manuals, student guides, and training curricula for an 8-hour introductory course and a 16-hour strategic planning course; and, delivered 6 training programs that reached nearly 500 state and local personnel in over 50 agencies. 1.2 Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program The RISS Program is composed of six regional projects that share intelligence and coordinate efforts against criminal networks that operate in many locations across jurisdictional lines. Typical targets of RISS activities are drug trafficking, white-collar crime, and organized criminal activities. Although the six RISS projects are primarily drug-crime focused, they may select additional target crimes, and provide a range of services to assist their member agencies. Mandatory services include information sharing through a criminal intelligence data base; provision of analytical services; and provision of telecommunication services to facilitate the flow of information between the project and its members. Optional services include investigative support through the provision of confidential funds; specialized investigative equipment loans; the provision or sponsorship of training; and technical assistance. The six RISS projects include: New England States Police Information Network - NESPIN Mid-Atlantic Great Lakes Organized Crime Information Network - MAGLOCLEN Regional Organized Crime Information Center - ROCIC Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center - MOCIC Rocky Mountain Information Network - RMIN Western States Information Network - WSIN The RISS projects operate under the general policy and program guidance of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Each RISS project is managed by an executive director, and is overseen by a policy board or executive board representative of the project's membership. Each project's policy board determines the substantive focus of that project and the range of services which that project will provide. Technical assistance and management support is provided to the six RISS projects by the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) under a separate grant from BJA. 1.3 Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program The Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Trafficking Enforcement Program establishes a multi-jurisdictional investigative and prosecutorial approach to the problems posed by high level conspiratorial drug crime. Individual projects are designed to develop and implement centrally coordinated and managed investigations involving federal, state, and local investigative agencies. Emphasis is on establishing a multi- agency response to commonly shared major drug crimes throughout a regional area. The development of effective cases against high echelon narcotics trafficking conspirators requires maximum use of investigative expertise and innovative techniques. Successful cases most often result when skilled local, state, and federal investigators and prosecutors pool their resources, capabilities, and talents in planned and coordinated investigations. The OCN Program establishes a formal mechanism whereby investigative and prosecutorial resources can be allocated, focused and managed against targeted offenses and offenders at the highest conspiratorial levels. The "shared management approach" to high level, multi-jurisdictional, conspiratorial drug cases eliminates fragmented, duplicative, and counter-productive investigations. The use of pooled physical and intelligence resources and manpower combined with well planned investigative activities and prosecution strategies will result in a high rate of successful arrests and prosecutions. All participating agencies are members of a Control Group, each member having an equal voice in its operation. There is a strong sense of project ownership among the participants, and solid partnerships are formed among the participating agencies. The Control Groups are composed of state, local, and federal authorities (to include DEA at a minimum) and must have a prosecutor represented. During the 1-year period from October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995, the OCN Program accounted for 25 new cases approved for investigation, 631 arrests (mid-level and upper level traffickers), narcotics seizures with a wholesale value of $23,352,700, property seizures of $4,811,496, and currency seizures of $781,636. 1.4 Financial Investigations Program (FINVEST) Illegal drug trafficking conspiratorial enterprises exist for one purpose--to reap the tremendous profits to be obtained through drug crime. Development of successful cases against organized narcotics trafficking conspiracies requires use of unique investigative techniques. Civil and criminal forfeiture of assets are now recognized by law enforcement as an effective means of depriving illicit drug traffickers of economic support and incentive. The Financial Investigations demonstration projects are designed to develop and implement centrally coordinated multi-jurisdictional financial investigations which involve identifying the hidden assets acquired by drug dealers from the proceeds of drug crime, tracing narcotics-related financial transactions, analyzing movement of currency, identifying criminal financial structures and money laundering schemes, and asset forfeiture administration. The FINVEST projects have demonstrated that formal mechanisms, whereby shared interdisciplinary resources are centrally coordinated, can work to immobilize targeted offenders who manage these networks and organizations, and to remove the assets they have accrued. During the 1-year period from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995, the FINVEST Program accounted for 96 new cases approved for investigation, 420 arrests, $18,966,992 in wholesale narcotics seizures, $5,148,158 in property seizures, $5,248,319 in currency seizures, and total forfeitures of $3,391,446. 2. Byrne Formula Grant Multijurisdictional Task Forces--BJA Of the $358 million in BJA-administered Byrne formula funds for FY 1994, $134.4 million was used to support multijurisdictional task forces in drug enforcement operations and anti-violence initiatives in both urban and rural communities. Over 900 multijurisdictional task forces (in 48 states and Guam) can be credited with making over 120,000 arrests, seizing assets worth over $100 million, seizing or eradicating over 100,000 pounds of drugs, and dismantling approximately 438 clandestine drug laboratories. Some examples of outstanding results are reported in the FY 1994 BJA Annual Report: o Alabama: Byrne formula funds of $3.47 million supported 27 state and local task forces, which made 6,582 arrests, seized more than 400 weapons, and removed more than $31 million of illegal drugs from Alabama streets. o California: Byrne formula funds supported 51 drug and violent crime task forces resulting in 10,330 arrests, 5,666 drug seizures, 3,569 seized weapons, $11.64 million in seized currency, and 419 dismantled clandestine laboratories. o Georgia: The state disbursed $5.97 million in Byrne formula funds for 37 task forces. A total of 7,526 arrests were made and ill-gained property, vehicles, currency, and other forfeitures totaling $6.77 million were seized. o Louisiana: Using $1.1 million in Byrne formula funds, 43 local task forces made 6,577 arrests, and seized 587 firearms, 33 explosive devices, and $3.88 million in criminal assets. o Michigan: The state allocated $6.24 million in Byrne formula funds to support task forces and urban street enforcement units, whose agents made 8,943 arrests and seized illegal drugs with an estimated street value of $78.1 million. o New Jersey: Agents made 5,018 arrests; seized $7.3 million in currency, 485 vehicles, and 257 weapons; and removed more than 15,000 pounds of illegal drugs. o New York: Task force agents seized nearly $30 million in illegal drugs-more than four times the amount of the Byrne formula funds used to support the operation. o Tennessee: Twenty-six task forces funded by the Byrne formula grant program arrested 4,293 drug offenders, seized $3.52 million in currency and 1,211 weapons, forfeited 408 vehicles, and received $2.62 million in forfeited assets. o Texas: Forty-nine task forces seized $727 million in illegal drugs and $21 million in assets, destroyed 18 clandestine labs, and made 15,135 arrests. o Virginia: $2.7 million in Byrne formula funds supported 43 task forces, which removed more than $11.6 million in drugs from the streets. More than 2,600 drug-related arrests were made and 250 weapons seized. 3. Enforcement Strategies Aimed at Our Youth--OJJDP 3.1 Alcohol Abuse by Minors The Enhancing Enforcement Strategies for Juvenile Impaired Driving Due to Drug and Alcohol Abuse program is a collaborative effort with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to develop a systemwide enforcement model. The model unites key criminal justice agency components--police, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers--into a comprehensive DUI enforcement program to affect juvenile impaired driving due to alcohol and other drug use. The goal of the program is to increase the capacity of law enforcement to deal with juveniles who drive while impaired by alcohol or other drugs by developing, testing in selected demonstration sites, and then disseminating training and technical assistance materials for police agencies, judges, prosecutors, and probation officers on effective administrative and law enforcement approaches. In addition, the program seeks to foster a coordinated approach to the problem of juveniles driving while impaired through the involvement of other elements in the community such as the courts and schools, and in encouraging and supporting law enforcement efforts. The program, administered by the Police Executive Research Forum, is currently operating in five demonstration sites: (1) Astoria, Oregon, (2) Hampton, Virginia, (3) Phoenix, Arizona, (4) Albany County, New York, and (5) Tulsa, Oklahoma. Case studies involving these sites will be available next year. 3.2 Gang and Drug Policy Approach Gang and Drug Policy is an intensive "team" oriented program designed to assist communities in their ability to recognize gang existence in their community and to develop a plan to combat the threat of gangs and drugs. The course offers current information on gang characteristics and activities, current approaches to gangs, and the key concepts involved in developing community strategy and tactics. Teams are assisted in conducting a community self-assessment of their gang/drug problem and in the development of a plan of action to address their own unique community problems related to the emergence or existence of gangs. 4. Research and Evaluation of Enforcement Efforts--NIJ 4.1 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Evaluation NIJ and ONDCP are collaborating on a cooperative agreement to conduct an assessment of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. The assessment will focus upon the five original "gateway" HIDTAs, which are the point-of-entry for much of the drugs entering the United States. These five HIDTAs are Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and the Southwest Border, which extends from California through Texas. The HIDTA program provides resources to local, state, and federal agencies to implement their regional strategy jointly. The program, administered by ONDCP, is designed to empower officials from all government units to institutionalize their collaborative efforts, to foster innovation and systems solutions, and to require measurable objectives and product outcomes. NIJ will soon be re-issuing a solicitation for the assessment, with the level of funding increased from the original solicitation (from $100,000 to $200,000). 4.2 An Evaluation of the Chicago Housing Authority's Anti- Drug Initiative This project will conduct an evaluation of a comprehensive program involving law enforcement efforts to rid buildings of drugs, weapons, and illegal residents. The study will also assess the planned development and implementation of an in-house security force and drug prevention/intervention activities. 4.3 Colombian Drug Trafficking Organizations This study by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) will examine the drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities of the Medellin, Cali, and other Colombian syndicates both in Colombia and the United States, following their history from the past to the present and their likely directions in the future. Exemplary law enforcement strategies will be documented with special emphasis on interagency task forces. Data will be collected from surveys and interviews with law enforcement officials in both Colombia and the United States as well as from archival sources. 4.4 A Multi-Agency Approach to Drug and Gang Enforcement The San Diego Association of Governments is evaluating a multi-agency task force, consisting of prosecutors, probation officers, and law enforcement officers in San Diego County who target drug-involved gang members. The Jurisdiction United for Drug Gang Enforcement Programs (JUDGE) enforces conditions of probation and drug laws and provides vertical prosection for probation violations and new offenses involving targeted offenders. The research includes a process and impact evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the program. The final report of this effort will be submitted to NIJ by early 1996. 4.5 Emerging Drug Enforcement Tactics: A Program Assessment This project surveyed nearly 750 state and local law enforcement agencies serving populations of 50,000 or greater to determine the approaches used by police agencies to deal with the problem of drugs, the effectiveness of the approaches used, and to identify promising or innovative approaches. Over 140 different tactics were identified as currently being used by police departments. It was found that patrol personnel employ a wide variety of tactics primarily aimed at disrupting street markets and improving the visual appearance of neighborhoods; investigations personnel rely upon a smaller number of anti-drug techniques (e.g., confidential informants, asset forfeiture, buy-bust tactics). A number of new or promising drug enforcement tactics were selected for more in-depth analysis and included airport profiling, citizens academies, clone pagers, drug-dealing ordinances, drug taxes, thermal imagery, and post-seizure analysis. 4.6 Drug Market Analyses Projects 4.6.1 Drug Market Analysis: An Enforcement Model The objective of this project was to examine the experience of the other NIJ drug market analysis projects and synthesize what had been learned in the form of a program model that would permit consistent replication of the program by state and local law enforcement. Documents and guidebooks have been developed describing the technology, software, and their use for law enforcement. 4.6.2 Data, Research, and Analysis for Geographic Narcotic Enforcement Targets: DRAGNET, Phase III The three components of this project were to develop a hotline for citizen tips and integrate citizen information with police information, to investigate the effectiveness of raids targeted at drug markets, and to evaluate the effectiveness of expedited prosecution of drug dealers. Project results found that raids have little effect on crime and disorder around crack houses other than causing displacement and that there is little overlap between the drug-dealing locations known to citizens and those known to the police, so that police and citizens can identify drug- dealing locations most accurately by working together. 4.6.3 Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Program The objectives of this project were to develop an information delivery system to analyze drug markets, conduct innovative street-level strategies to reduce drug market activities, and evaluate their effectiveness. Information from arrests, officer observation, citizen informants, and community surveys were used to identify the drug markets. The information delivery system integrates data from arrests, calls for service, investigative reports, and property information and is capable of producing automated area maps. 4.6.4 San Diego Drug Market Analysis and Street-Level Enforcement This project created a system to integrate drug information from several sources, developed a computer mapping system for the integrated data, and used the system to plan street- level drug enforcement strategies and to evaluate their impact. The project discovered that multiple markets for different substances can exist in the same area, that where dealers locate is influenced by how well they and their customers are acquainted, and that property owners of marginal apartment buildings need special attention because such properties are highly attractive to drug dealers. 4.7 An Evaluation of Drug Enforcement Techniques Implemented Within a Problem-Oriented Policing Framework in Two Cities This examination of anti-drug activities in Tulsa and San Diego analyzed police activities conducted in problem- solving, assessed their effectiveness, and examined the organizational contexts that impede or support police problem-solving. It was found that more successful efforts were those that were focused on smaller areas and more specific problems, that the definition of neighborhood problems differed among residents and the police, and that police officers showed ability to marshall non-police resources when appropriate. 4.8 Controlling Crime and Disorder Hotspots Using Civil Remedies: Oakland, California's Beat Health Program This NIJ-funded randomized experimental evaluation assesses the Oakland, California Police Department's Beat Health Initiative which utilizes civil remedies for drug and crime abatement, neighborhood improvement, and cooling down hot spots. Begun in October 1995, valid intake cases (address locations) were randomly allocated to an experimental condition (Beat Health intervention) and a control condition (patrol response). The total number of cases in the study will be 100 (50 experimental and 50 control cases). The aforementioned cases are primarily residential or commercial properties that prompt calls for service to the police. Both social and physical observations are conducted at each of the problem locations in the study. Videotaped photography of the sites are filmed at randomly selected hours of the day (11 a.m. to 11 p.m.). Other outcome measures include emergency calls for service, arrests, field contacts, citations, and hot line calls. While cases allocated to the experimental condition are assigned to Beat Health officers, cases allocated to the control condition are assigned to patrol officers working beats. Intervention tactics utilized in experimental locations are detailed and analyzed via on-site inspections and interviews with Beat Health personnel. In control cases, beat officers determine the type of intervention required which can include drive-bys, stop and frisks, surveillance, field contacts, or arrests. In-depth interviews will survey both experimental and control group sites. A total of 400 interviews (four per site) are expected to contribute a measure of impact via the provision of information regarding changes at the site. Multivariate regression techniques, as well as qualitative content analysis will be used to analyze the data. Anticipated results of this study will inform policy makers of the types of communities which are most likely to provide successful environments for such initiatives. In summary, this study will describe: (1) the implementation of Beat Health at 40 sites including in-depth interviews with key program participants regarding the roles of officers, city agencies, community organizations and other participants in the program; (2) the extent to which citizens living in targeted areas are involved in the initiative, as well as a 400 resident community survey of their perceptions of changes in the quality of neighborhood life; (3) how civil remedies are applied and how effective they are in changing the physical environment and various crime, disorder, and drug problems at a sample of 200 cities; and (4) the extent to which the initiative displaces problems or leads to a diffusion of benefits in other areas. ------------------------------------ APPENDIX Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Containing Drug Information The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics. BJS collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded. The following is a list of BJS publications that include information on drug use, drug enforcement, or the justice system's response to drug law violators. Please use the NCJ numbers following the title when ordering. Single copies are free from the BJS Clearinghouse National Criminal Justice Reference Service Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850 1-800-732-3277 These reports, statistical information published by other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as unpublished information and other special services are also available from the Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse National Criminal Justice Reference Service Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850 1-800-666-3332 The Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse is a specialty clearinghouse funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and managed by BJS. ------------------------------------ Comparing Federal and State Prison Inmates, 1991, September, 1994, NCJ-145864 Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1990, September 1993, NCJ-143499 Correctional Populations in the United States, 1993, October 1995, NCJ-156241 Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992, April 1994, NCJ-145125 Drug Enforcement and Treatment in Prisons, 1990 (Special Report), July 1992 Drug Enforcement by Police and Sheriffs' Departments, 1990 (Special Report), May 1992, NCJ-134505 Drug Law Violators, 1980-86: Federal Offenses and Offenders, June 1988, NCJ-111763 Drug Use and Crime (Special Report), July 1988, NCJ-111940 Drugs and Crime Facts, 1994, June 1995, NCJ-154043 Drugs and Jail Inmates, 1989 (Special Report), August 1991, NCJ-130836 Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System, December 1992, NCJ- 133652 Federal Criminal Case Processing, 1982-1991: With Preliminary Data for 1992, November 1993, NCJ-144526 Federal Drug Case Processing, 1985-91: With Preliminary Data for 1992, March 1994, NCJ-144392 Federal Drug Data for National Policy, April 1990, NCJ- 122715 Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 1993 (Bulletin), December 1994, NCJ-151166 Federal Sentencing in Transition, 1986-90 (Special Report), June 1992, NCJ-134727 Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992, July 1995, NCJ-148826 Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1992 (Bulletin), January 1995, NCJ-151167 Guns Used in Crime (Selected Findings), July 1995 HIV in U.S. Prisons and Jails (Special Report), September 1993, NCJ-143292 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1993: Data for Individual State and Local Agencies With 100 or More Officers, September 1995, NCJ-148825 Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988 (Special Report), May 1993, NCJ-140614 National Corrections Reporting Program, 1992, October 1994, NCJ-145862 National Judicial Reporting Program, 1990, December 1993, NCJ-145323 Pretrial Release of Federal Felony Defendants (Special Report), February 1994, NCJ-145322 Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1992 (Bulletin), November 1994, NCJ-148818 Prisoners in 1994 (Bulletin), August 1995, NCJ-151654 Probation and Parole Violators in State Prison (Special Report), August 1995, NCJ-149076 Profile of Inmates in the United States and in England and Wales, 1991, October 1994, NCJ-145863 Profile of Jail Inmates, 1989 (Special Report), April 1991, NCJ-129097 Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986 (Special Report), January 1988, NCJ-109926 Prosecuting Criminal Enterprises: Federal Offenses and Offenders (Special Report), November 1993, NCJ-142524 Prosecutors in State Courts, 1992 (Bulletin), December 1993,NCJ-145319 Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89 (Special Report), February 1992, NCJ-134177 Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983 (Special Report), April 1989, NCJ-116261 Recidivism of Young Parolees (Special Report), May 1987, NCJ-104916 Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter? The Transition to Sentencing Guidelines, 1986-90 December 1993, NCJ-145328 School Crime, September 1991, NCJ-131645 Sheriffs' Departments 1990 (Bulletin), February 1992, NCJ-133283 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1994, October 1995, NCJ-154591 Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties, September 1995, NCJ-153256 State and Local Police Departments, 1990 (Bulletin), February 1992, NCJ-133284 State Drug Resources: 1994 National Directory, September 1994, NCJ-147709 Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991, March 1993, NCJ-136949 Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987 (Special Report), September 1988, NCJ-113365 Tracking Offenders, 1990 (Bulletin), July 1994, NCJ-148200 Violent State Prisoners and Their Victims (Special Report), July 1990, NCJ-124133 Weapons Offenses and Offenders (Selected Findings), November 1995, NCJ-155284 Women in Jail 1989 (Special Report), March 1992, NCJ-134732 Women in Prison (Special Report), March 1994, NCJ-145321