MENU TITLE: National Institute of Justice Journal -Probation in the United States: Practices and Challenges.
Series: NIJ Journal
Published: September 1997
63 pages
133,269 bytes

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included 
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document 
in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic 
file available from this Web site or order a print 
copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Probation in the United States: Practices and Challenges

Also in this Issue:

Americans' Views on Crime and Law Enforcement: 
Survey Findings

Who Wrote It? Steps Toward a Science of Authorship
Identification

------------------------------

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

A common thread running through much of this
issue's content is its relevance to some of the
strategic challenges being addressed by NIJ--
challenges that arise from and build on the
evolving body of knowledge generated by research
during the past quarter century.

For example, Joan Petersilia's lead article on
probation practices and challenges pertains, in its
larger context, to NIJ's strategic challenge of
rethinking justice, which encompasses the task of
examining the role of agencies in dispensing
justice. Professor Petersilia notes that probation
departments are more extensively involved with
offenders and their cases than any other justice
agency and states that probation officers interact
with many criminal justice agencies and affect a
wide spectrum of justice-processing decisions. Her
analysis of probation practices leads to a number
of suggestions to strengthen probation departments
so they can effectively execute their justice
system role and thereby benefit from the essential
ingredient of increased public support.

The importance of public support to justice
agencies' achieving goals and addressing challenges
is an underlying theme of Jean Johnson's article
about survey findings on Americans' views on crime
and law enforcement. She notes robust public
support for police agencies but cautions that such
support should not be taken for granted.

A critical strategic challenge for NIJ is to help
create the tools--especially in the area of
technology--that practitioners can use to enhance
performance. NIJ Visiting Fellow Carole Chaski--in
her article Who Wrote It?--describes her progress
toward creating a computer-based system designed to
put authorship identification on a scientific
footing whether the text is handwritten, typed, or
found on a computer disk.

Among the many items in this issue's departments is
one relating to NIJ's strategic challenge of
breaking the cycle of crime and violence: In June
of this year, a project--appropriately named
Breaking the Cycle and designed by a consortium of
Federal agencies, including NIJ--was launched in an
effort to break the cycle between drugs and crime.
Another department item pertains to rethinking
justice--a series of symposiums on restorative
justice. Three items relate to "creating the
tools": NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center
Visiting Fellowship Program; the upcoming land
transportation security technology conference,
cosponsored by NIJ and the Department of
Transportation, in cooperation with the State
Department; and NIJ's first Summer Institute, which
focused on making technology viable and effective
for law enforcement agencies.

Future issues of the National Institute of Justice
Journal will continue to report on how the
Institute addresses its challenges, such as by
transforming its Drug Use Forecasting program into
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program and by
intensifying research on violence against women.

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

------------------------------

NIJ Journal Editorial Board

Sally T. Hillsman
Deputy Director for Office of Research and Evaluation

John L. Schwarz
Deputy Director for Office of Development and Dissemination

David Boyd
Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Cheryl A. Crawford
Mary G. Graham
Marj Leaming
Christy Visher
Edwin W. Zedlewski

Issue Editor
William D. Falcon

------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice Journal 
is published by the National Institute of Justice,
the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice,
to announce the Institute's policy-relevant
research results and initiatives. The Attorney
General has determined that publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by law of the Department
of Justice. 

Opinions or points of view expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of the
U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), a centralized national clearinghouse of
criminal justice information, is sponsored by the
Office of Justice Programs agencies and the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. Registered users
of NCJRS receive the National Institute of Justice
Journal and NCJRS Catalog free. To become a
registered user, write NCJRS User Services, Box
6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call 800-851-3420,
or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention, and Office for Victims of Crime.

------------------------------

Issue No. 233

Contents

Features

Probation in the United States:
Practices and Challenges

Americans' Views on Crime and Law Enforcement:
Survey Findings

Who Wrote It?: Steps Toward a Science of 
Authorship Identification

Research Preview

Civil Protection Orders: 
Victims' Views on Effectiveness

Departments

Events 

NIJ in the Journals

Publications

NIJ Awards  

Final Reports

Solicitations

New & Noteworthy 

------------------------------

PROBATION in the UNITED STATES

Practices and Challenges

by Joan Petersilia

This article is adapted from Professor Petersilia's
essay in volume 22 of Crime and Justice, edited by
Michael Tonry (University of Chicago Press, 1997). 

Adult probationers in the United States surged to
nearly 3.2 million at the end of 1996, up from
almost 2 million in 1985 and 1.1 million in
1980.[1] Today they comprise about 58 percent of
all adults under correctional supervision.[2] 

To cope with their workload, probation agencies--
often the target of intense criticism--receive less
than 10 percent of State and local government
corrections funding.[3] Probation's funding
shortfall often results in lax supervision of
serious felons, thereby encouraging offender
recidivism and reinforcing the public's soft-on-
crime image of probation as permissive, uncaring
about crime victims, and committed to a
rehabilitative ideal that ignores the reality of
violent, predatory criminals. This poor public
image leaves probation agencies unable to compete
effectively for scarce public funds. 

Although current programs are often seen as
inadequate, the concept of probation--begun in 1841
(see "Origin and Evolution of Probation")--has
great appeal and much unrealized potential. As one
judge noted, "Nothing is wrong with probation. It
is the execution of probation that is wrong."[4]

Exactly how would one go about reforming probation?
Many judges are monitoring probationers more
closely, while others are imposing more punitive
and meaningful probation sentences. Some
jurisdictions have implemented policies and
programs designed to overcome the difficult problem
of finding jail and prison capacity to punish
probation violators. 

Unfortunately, debating the merits of those and
other probation-reform strategies is severely
limited because so little is known about current
probation practices. Assembling what is known about
U.S. probation practices so public policy can be
better informed is the main purpose of this
article--along with offering suggestions on meeting
the challenges facing probation agencies.

Probation and modern sentencing practice

Probation departments are more extensively involved
with offenders and their cases--often starting at
arrest--than any other justice agency. Many who are
arrested and all who are convicted come into
contact with the probation department. Probation
officers interact with many criminal justice
agencies and significantly affect a wide spectrum
of justice processing decisions, including these:

o Probation officers, in addition to pretrial
service agencies, usually perform personal
investigations to determine whether defendants will
be released on their own recognizance or bail.

o They prepare reports that courts use as the
primary source of information to determine whether
to divert defendants from formal prosecution.
Probation officers supervise diverted offenders and
inform courts about whether the diversionary
sentence was successfully complied with, thereby
influencing the court's decision to proceed or not
with formal prosecution.

o They prepare presentence reports containing
pertinent information about convicted defendants
and their crimes. The information is critically
important, for research repeatedly indicates that
(1) the judge's knowledge of the defendant is 
usually limited to what is contained in the
presentence report, and (2) the probation officer's
recommendation for or against prison correlates
strongly with the judge's sentence of probation,
prison, or a combination thereof.

o They supervise offenders sentenced to probation,
determine which court-ordered probation
conditions[5] to enforce and monitor most closely,
decide which violations of conditions to bring to
the court's attention, and recommend sanctions. 

o They affect, through presentence reports, the
initial security classification (and eligibility
for parole) of offenders sentenced to prison.

More than 2,000 probation agencies in the United
States[6] carry out those and other
responsibilities. The agencies differ in terms of
whether they reside within the executive or
judicial branch of government, how they fund
services, and whether those services are primarily
a State or local function.

According to one study, 52 percent of staff in the
typical probation department are line officers; 48
percent are clerical, support staff, and
management.[7] Of line probation officers, only
about 17 percent supervise adult felons. The
remaining line officers supervise juveniles (half
of adult probation agencies have that
responsibility) or misdemeanant probationers or
prepare presentence reports.

Given an estimated 50,000 probation employees in
1994,[8] and given that 23 percent of them (11,500
officers) were supervising about 2.9 million adult
probationers, the average caseload that year was
258 adult offenders per line officer. This
contrasts with what many believe to be the ideal
caseload of 30 adult probationers per line officer.

Of course, offenders are not supervised on
"average" caseloads. Rather, probation staffs use a
variety of risk and needs classification
instruments to identify offenders needing more
intensive supervision or services. Although risk
instruments can identify offenders who are more
likely to reoffend, funds are usually insufficient
to implement the levels of supervision predicted by
classification instruments.[9] Research findings
indicate that, across all sites and felony crimes
studied, about 20 percent of adult felony 
probationers were assigned to caseloads requiring
no personal contact.[10]

Probation funding has long been recognized as
woefully inadequate. From the beginning, probation
has continually been asked to take on greater
numbers of probationers and conduct a greater
number of presentence investigations despite stable
or declining funding. "Apparently, community
supervision has been seen as a kind of elastic
resource that could handle whatever numbers of
offenders the system required it to."[11] (See "Who
Is on Probation?")

Does probation work?

The most common question asked about probation is,
"Does it work?" By "work," most mean whether the
person granted probation has refrained from further
crime or reduced his or her recidivism--that is,
the number of rearrests. Recidivism is currently
the primary outcome measure for probation, as it is
for all corrections programs. 

Probationer recidivism. Summaries of probation
effectiveness usually report the recidivism rates
of felons as if they represented the total adult
probation population, instead of 55 percent[12] of
it. Failure to make this distinction between felons
and misdemeanants is why profoundly different
assessments have been offered as to whether
probation "works." 

In reality, there are two stories about probationer
recidivism rates. Recidivism rates are low for
adults on probation for misdemeanors--data suggest
that three-quarters successfully complete their
supervision. However, recidivism rates are high for
felony probationers, particularly in jurisdictions
that use probation extensively, where offenders are
serious to begin with, and where supervision is
minimal.[13]

Recidivism rates vary greatly from place to place,
depending on the seriousness of the underlying
population characteristics, length of followup, and
surveillance provided. A summary of 17 followup
studies of adult felony probationers found that
felony rearrest rates ranged from 12 to 65
percent.[14] Such wide variation in recidivism is
not unexpected, given the wide variability in
granting probation and monitoring court-ordered
conditions. Despite the desirability of predicting 
offender recidivism, available data and statistical
methods are insufficient to do so very accurately
at this time.

Other probation outcomes. Another way to examine
probation effectiveness is to look at the
contribution of those on probation to the overall
crime problem. Of all persons arrested and charged
with felonies in 1992, 17 percent of them were on
probation at the time of their arrest.[15]

Practitioners have expressed concern about the use
of recidivism as the primary, if not sole, measure
of probation's success.[16] The American Probation
and Parole Association (APPA), representing U.S.
probation officers nationwide, argues that
recidivism rates measure just one probation task
while ignoring others.[17] APPA has urged its
member agencies to collect data on alternative
outcomes, such as amount of restitution collected,
number of offenders employed, amount of fines/fees
collected, hours of community service, number of
treatment sessions, percentage of financial
obligations collected, enrollment in school, days
employed, educational attainment, and number of
days drug free. 

Some probation departments have begun to report
such alternative outcome measures to their
constituencies and believe this practice is having
a positive impact on staff morale, public image,
and funding.[18]

How can probation be revived?

The public has come to understand that not all
criminals can be locked up, and so renewed
attention is being focused on probation.
Policymakers are asking whether probation
departments can implement credible and effective
community-based sentencing options. No one
advocates the abolition of probation, but many call
for its reform. But how should that be done?

Implement quality programs for appropriate
probation target groups. Probation needs first to
regain the public's trust as a meaningful, credible
sanction. During the past decade, many
jurisdictions developed "intermediate sanctions,"
such as house arrest, electronic monitoring, and
intensive supervision, as a response to prison
crowding. These programs were designed to be
community-based sanctions that were tougher than 
regular probation but less stringent and expensive
than prison.[19]

The program models were plausible and could have
worked, except for one critical factor: They were
usually implemented without creating organizational
capacity to ensure compliance with court-ordered
conditions. When courts ordered offenders to
participate in drug treatment, for example, many
probation officers could not ensure compliance
because local treatment programs were
unavailable.[20] 

Over time, what was intended as tougher community
corrections in most jurisdictions did not
materialize, thereby further tarnishing probation's
image. Although most judges still report a
willingness to use tougher, community-based
programs as alternatives to routine probation or
prison, most are skeptical that the programs
promised "on paper" will be delivered in
practice.[21] As a result, some intermediate
sanction programs are beginning to fall into
disuse.[22]

However, some communities invested adequate
resources in intermediate sanctions and made the
necessary treatment and work programs available to
offenders.[23] In programs where offenders received
both surveillance (e.g., drug tests) and
participated in relevant treatment, recidivism
declined 20 to 30 percent.[24]

Solid empirical evidence shows that recidivism is
reduced by ordering offenders into treatment and
requiring them to participate.[25] So, the first
order of business must be to allocate sufficient
resources so that the designed programs
(incorporating both surveillance and treatment) can
be implemented. The resources will be forthcoming
only if the public believes that the programs are
both effective and punitive. 

Public opinion is often cited by officials as a
reason for supporting expanded prison policies.
According to officials, the public's "get tough on
crime" demands are synonymous with sending more
offenders to prison for longer terms.[26] Recent
evidence must be publicized showing that many
offenders--whose opinions on such matters are
critical for deterrence--judge some intermediate
sanctions as more punishing than prison.[27] 

When, for example, nonviolent offenders in Marion
County, Oregon, were given the choice of serving a
prison term or returning to the community to
participate in intensive supervision probation
(ISP) programs--which imposed drug testing,
mandatory community services, and frequent visits
with the probation officer--about one-third chose
prison over ISP.[28]

Why should anyone prefer imprisonment to remaining
in the community, no matter what the conditions?
Some have suggested that prison has lost some of
its punitive sting and, hence, its ability to scare
and deter. One study found that for drug dealers in
California, imprisonment confers a certain elevated
"homeboy" status, especially for gang members for
whom prison and prison gangs can be an alternative
site of loyalty.[29] According to the California
Youth Authority, inmates steal State-issued prison
clothing for the same reason. Wearing it when they
return to the community lets everyone know they
have done "hard time."[30]

It is important to publicize these results,
particularly to policymakers who say they are
imprisoning such a large number of offenders
because of the public's desire to get tough on
crime. But it is no longer necessary to equate
criminal punishment solely with prison. The balance
of sanctions between probation and prison can be
shifted, and at some level of intensity and length,
intermediate punishments can be the more dreaded
penalty. 

Once probation's political support and
organizational capacity are in place, offender
groups need to be targeted on the basis of what is
known about the effectiveness of various programs.
Targeting drug offenders makes the most sense for a
number of reasons. Large-scale imprisonment of drug
offenders has only recently taken place, and new
evidence suggests that the public seems ready to
accept different punishment strategies for low-
level drug offenders.

The public appears to want tougher sentences for
drug traffickers and more treatment for addicts--
what legislators have instead given them are long
sentences for everyone. Public receptiveness to
treatment for addicts is important, because those
familiar with delivering treatment say that is
where treatment can make the biggest impact. A
report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the
National Academy of Sciences notes that about one-
fifth of the estimated population needing
treatment--and two-fifths of those clearly needing
it--are under the supervision of the justice system
as parolees or probationers. 

Because the largest single group of serious drug
users in any locality comes through the justice
system every day, IOM concludes that the justice
system is one of the most important gateways to
treatment delivery and should be used more
effectively. Research has shown that those under
corrections supervision stay in treatment longer,
thereby increasing positive treatment outcomes.[31]

On the one hand, good-quality treatment is not
cheap. On the other hand, it is an investment that
pays for itself immediately in terms of crime and
health costs averted. Researchers in California[32]
concluded that treatment was very cost beneficial:
For every dollar spent on drug and alcohol
treatment, California saved $7 in reduced crime and
health care costs. The study found that each day of
treatment paid for itself on the day treatment was
received, primarily through an avoidance of crime.
The level of criminal activity declined by two-
thirds from before treatment to after treatment.
The greater the length of time spent in treatment,
the greater the reduction in crime.

Of course, there is much more to reforming the
probation system than simply targeting low-level
drug offenders for effective treatment, but this
would be a start. There also needs to be serious
reconsideration of probation's underlying mission,
administrative structure, and funding base. And a
program of basic research to address some of
probation's most pressing problems should be
funded.

Make probation a priority research topic. Noted
below are a few of the questions that would be
highly useful for probation research to address.

What purpose is served by monitoring and revoking
probation for persons committing technical
violations, and is the benefit worth the cost? If
technical violations identify offenders who are
"going bad" and likely to commit crime, time could
be well spent uncovering such violations and
incarcerating those persons. But if technical
violators are simply troublesome, but not
criminally dangerous, devoting scarce prison
resources to this population may not be warranted.

Despite the policy significance of technical
violations, little serious research has focused on
this issue. As the cost of monitoring and
incarcerating technical violators increases,
research must examine its crime control
significance.

Who is in prison, and is there a group of prisoners
who, based on crime and prior criminal records,
could safely be supervised in the community? Some
contend that many, if not most, prisoners are minor
property offenders, low-level drug dealers, or
technical violators--ideal candidates for
community-based alternatives. Others cite data
showing that most prisoners are violent recidivists
with few prospects for reform.

Research examining the characteristics of inmates
in different States (by age, criminal record, and
substance-abuse history) is necessary to clarify
this important debate. Also critical are better
followup studies (ideally, using experimental
designs) of offenders who have been sentenced to
prison as opposed to various forms of community
supervision. By tracking similarly-situated
offenders who are sentenced differently,
researchers will be able to refine recidivism
prediction models and begin to estimate more
accurately the crime and cost implications of
different sentencing models.

How do probation departments and other justice
agencies influence one another and, together,
influence crime? Decisions made in one justice
agency have dramatic workload and cost implications
for other agencies and for later decisions (such as
probation policy on technical violations). To date,
these systemic effects have not been well studied
but research examining how various policy
initiatives affect criminal justice agencies,
individually and collectively, is likely to
generate many benefits.

Conclusion

Several steps may be taken to achieve greater crime
control over probationers: 

o Provide adequate financial resources to deliver
treatment programs that have been shown to work.

o Combine both treatment and surveillance in
probation programs and focus them on appropriate 
offender subgroups. Current evidence suggests that
low-level drug offenders are prime candidates for
enhanced probation programs.

o Work to garner more public support by convincing
citizens that probation sanctions are punitive and
in the long run cost-effective.

o Convince the judiciary that offenders will be
held accountable for their behavior.

o Give priority to research addressing probation's
most pressing problems. Over time, probation will
demonstrate its effectiveness, in terms of both
reducing the human toll that imprisonment exacts on
those incarcerated and reserving scarce resources
to ensure that truly violent offenders remain in
prison. 

------------------------------

Joan Petersilia is Professor of Criminology, Law,
and Society at the School of Social Ecology at the
University of California, Irvine.

------------------------------

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and
Parole Population Reached Almost 3.9 Million Last
Year, Press Release, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, August 14, 1997. See also Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the
United States, 1995, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, May 1997.

2. Ibid.

3. Petersilia, Joan, "A Crime Control Rationale for
Reinvesting in Community Corrections," Prison
Journal, 1995, 75(4):479-496.

4. Judge Burton Roberts, administrative judge of
the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts. Cited in
Klein, Andrew R., Alternative Sentencing,
Intermediate Sanctions, and Probation, Cincinnati,
Ohio: Anderson, 1997:72.

5. The judge's (and probation officer's) required
conditions can include standard conditions
(reporting to the probation officer and the like),
punitive conditions (house arrest, for example)
that reflect the seriousness of the crime and
increase the burden of probation, and treatment 
conditions (such as for substance abuse).

6. Abadinsky, Howard, Probation and Parole: Theory
and Practice, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1997.

7. Cunniff, Mark, and Ilene R. Bergsmann, Managing
Felons in the Community: An Administrative Profile
of Probation, Washington, D.C.: National
Association of Criminal Justice Planners, 1990.

8. Camp, George M., and Camille Camp, The
Corrections Yearbook 1995: Probation and Parole,
South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute,
1995. 

9. Jones, Peter R., "Risk Prediction in Criminal
Justice," in Choosing Correctional Options That
Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the
Supply, ed. Alan Harland, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1996.

10. Langan, Patrick A., and Mark A. Cunniff,
Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1986-89,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992. 

11. Clear, Todd, and Anthony A. Braga, "Community
Corrections," in Crime, ed. James Q. Wilson and
Joan Petersilia, San Francisco, California:
Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1995:423.

12. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nation's
Probation and Parole Population Reached Almost 3.9
Million Last Year.

13. Petersilia, Joan, Susan Turner, James Kahan,
and Joyce Peterson, Granting Felons Probation:
Public Risks and Alternatives, Santa Monica,
California: RAND Corporation, R-3186-NIJ, 1985.

14. Geerken, Michael, and Hennessey D. Hayes,
"Probation and Parole: Public Risk and the Future
of Incarceration Alternatives," Criminology, 1993,
31(4):549-564. 

15. Reaves, Brian A., and Pheny Z. Smith, Felony
Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1992,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995. 

16. Boone, Harry N., and Betsy A. Fulton, Results-
Driven Management: Implementing Performance-Based 
Measures in Community Corrections, Lexington,
Kentucky: American Probation and Parole
Association, 1995.

17. Ibid.

18. Griffin, Margaret, "Hunt County, Texas, Puts
Performance-Based Measures to Work," Perspectives,
1996:9-11.

19. Tonry, Michael, and Mary Lynch, "Intermediate
Sanctions," in Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 20, ed. Michael Tonry, Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

20. Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner, "Intensive
Probation and Parole," in Crime and Justice: A
Review of Research, vol. 17, ed. Michael Tonry,
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1993.

21. Sigler, Robert, and David Lamb, "Community-
Based Alternatives to Prison: How the Public and
Court Personnel View Them," Federal Probation,
1994, 59(2):3-9. 

22. Petersilia, "A Crime Control Rationale for
Reinvesting in Community Corrections." 

23. Klein, Alternative Sentencing, Intermediate
Sanctions, and Probation. 

24. Petersilia and Turner, "Intensive Probation and
Parole." 

25. Gendreau, Paul, "The Principles of Effective
Intervention with Offenders," in Choosing
Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand
and Evaluating the Supply, ed. Alan Harland,
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.,
1996. 

26. Bell, Griffin B., and William J. Bennett, The
State of Violent Crime in America, Washington,
D.C.: Council on Crime in America, 1996.
27. Crouch, Ben, "Is Incarceration Really Worse?
Analysis of Offenders' Preferences for Prisons over
Probation," Justice Quarterly, 1993, 10:67-88;
Petersilia, Joan, and Elizabeth Piper Deschenes,
"Perceptions of Punishment: Inmates and Staff Rank
the Severity of Prison versus Intermediate
Sanctions," Prison Journal, 1994, 74:306-328;
Spelman, William, "The Severity of Intermediate 
Sanctions," Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 1995, 32:107-135; and Wood, Peter B.,
and Harold G. Grasmick, "Inmates Rank the Severity
of Ten Intermediate Sanctions Compared to Prison,"
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research
Consortium, 1995, 2:30-42.

28. Petersilia and Deschenes, "Perceptions of
Punishment: Inmates and Staff Rank the Severity of
Prison versus Intermediate Sanctions."

29. Skolnick, Jerome, "Gangs and Crime Old as Time:
But Drugs Change Gang Culture," Crime and
Delinquency in California, 1989, Sacramento,
California: California Department of Justice,
Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1990.

30. Petersilia, Joan, "California's Prison Policy:
Causes, Costs, and Consequences," Prison Journal,
1992, 72(1):8-36.

31. Institute of Medicine, Committee for Substance
Abuse Coverage Study, "A Study of the Evolution,
Effectiveness, and Financing of Public and Private
Drug Treatment Systems," in Treating Drug Problems,
vol. 1, ed. D.R. Gerstein and H.J. Harwood,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.

32. Gerstein, Dean, R.A. Johnson, H.J. Harwood, D.
Fountain, N. Suter, and K. Malloy, Evaluating
Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol
Treatment Assessment, Sacramento, California: State
of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs, 1994. The researchers studied a sample of
1,900 treatment participants, followed them up for
as long as 2 years of treatment, and studied
participants from all four major treatment
modalities (therapeutic communities, social models,
outpatient drug-free, and methadone maintenance).

------------------------------

American's Views on Crime and Law Enforcement

Survey Findings by Jean Johnson

This article updates and summarizes a presentation
made at the first of three discussion sessions
entitled "Measuring What Matters," held under the
auspices of the Policing Research Institute and
sponsored jointly by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Each session brought together 
about 40 police executives, leading researchers,
community leaders, journalists, and government
officials to discuss the challenges of assessing
police performance.

Papers prepared for the sessions will be published
in book-length form by NIJ. A synopsis of the first
session, "Measuring What Matters--Part One:
Measures of Crime, Fear, and Disorder" (NCJ 162205)
can be obtained from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service at 800-851-3420.

Surveys cited in this article were national in
scope, except those conducted by the Empire
Foundation and Quinnipiac College (New York City
focused). Unless otherwise noted, they were random
sample telephone surveys conducted in 1994 or
later. Overall, the margin of error of survey
findings was about plus or minus 3 percentage
points (exceptions noted). This article relied
extensively on data from the Roper Center Public
Opinion Location Library, operated by the Roper
Center for Public Opinion Research at the
University of Connecticut. The library, accessible
through NEXIS, can provide full-question wording
(see exhibits 1, 2, and 3 for some of the
questions), complete responses, and, in most cases,
demographic breakdowns for the surveys cited in
this article.

------------------------------

There are a number of reasons to take a close look
at public attitudes about crime and law
enforcement. Perhaps foremost is that public safety
is a preeminent responsibility of government,
involving expenditures by thousands of police
agencies for the salaries of hundreds of thousands
of sworn and nonsworn personnel. For that reason
alone, policymakers seem obligated to take the
public's assessment of law enforcement performance
seriously.

Another reason to examine the public's thinking
about criminality and policing is that Americans
routinely make decisions that strengthen or hinder
the country's ability to fight crime. When citizens
choose not to report crimes or press charges or
when jurors decide to accept or discount police
testimony for any reason other than merit, they
profoundly affect the quality of law enforcement
and justice. The most obvious action citizens take
to affect crime occurs when they elect the governors, 
mayors, and legislators who shape crime-related policy.

Presented below is an analysis of recent public
opinion data on crime, the criminal justice system,
and the role and effectiveness of the police. In
summarizing key findings, this article notes where
attitudes can vary sharply between African-
Americans and whites. (Unfortunately, most national
surveys are not large enough to report with
confidence on the views of Hispanics or other
minority groups.)

An urgent issue even in the best of times

Despite falling crime rates and remarkably good
news from some of the Nation's large cities, crime
remains an urgent issue for most Americans. Crime
routinely appears at or near the top of surveys
asking Americans to name the most important issues
facing the country. Eight in ten Americans say
"reducing crime" is a top priority for Congress,
with 57 percent giving it the highest possible
priority rating (Hart and Teeter Research
Companies, December 1996).

The public's concerns about crime seem to be
somewhat independent of the actual crime rate, a
phenomenon that may discourage law enforcement
professionals but underscores just how frightening
this issue is for most people. Deeply held public
fears developed over decades may be slow to
dissipate even in the best of circumstances. 

Public attitudes in New York City, which has
experienced dramatic and highly publicized
decreases in violent crime, provide a case in
point. Polls show a remarkable jump in the New York
Police Department's approval rating, which rose
from 37 percent in 1992 to 73 percent in 1996
(Empire Foundation, April 1996). Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, former Commissioner William Bratton, and
current Commissioner Howard Safir have earned good
marks for their efforts in fighting crime
(Quinnipiac College, April 1996 and February
1997).[1] Although half of New Yorkers say the city
is now safer, 65 percent say they worry about being
a victim of crime (Quinnipiac College, February
1997). 

Many observers have suggested that public fears
about crime are driven by media coverage rather
than by any real knowledge of crime rates in their 
area. And 65 percent of Americans themselves say
this is true: They get their information about
crime from the media (Los Angeles Times, January
1994).

However, almost 6 in 10 say their own community has
less crime than the country as a whole (Los Angeles
Times, January 1994); 8 in 10 say they feel safe in
their own community (Los Angeles Times, October
1995). Even in New York City, where 81 percent of
residents say crime is a "big problem," only 38
percent say crime is a "big problem" in their own
community (Quinnipiac College, February 1997).

But people's fears are nevertheless real, and they
may be intensified by the conviction of many
Americans that the crime problem is getting worse,
not better--67 percent think that violent crime in
the country is increasing (Louis Harris and
Associates, May 1997). Half of Americans think the
amount of crime in their own community will be
worse in the year 2000 (Yankelovich Partners for
Time/CNN, January 1997).

Causes of crime: complex and multifaceted

Americans identify a wide variety of social,
economic, and moral conditions as the causes of
crime. Twenty-three percent cite drugs as a chief
cause of crime; 22 percent, a lack of parental
responsibility or family breakdown; and 11 percent,
economic problems and lack of jobs. Other Americans
blame declining moral values, TV, movies, or rap
music (Los Angeles Times, June 1995).

Only 6 percent consider flaws in the criminal
justice system or lax law enforcement as actual
causes of crime (Los Angeles Times, June 1995), but
the public exhibits substantial interest in
remedies involving the police and courts. People
seem to distinguish between what they see as root
causes of crime and what they believe must be done
in the near term--catching violent criminals and
incarcerating them for long periods of time. 

Approaches to reducing crime

People back a variety of approaches they view as
effective ways to reduce crime--some designed to
remove dangerous criminals from their
neighborhoods, some to prevent youngsters from
falling into a life of crime, some to express
society's outrage at those who disdain its laws. 
Sixty-nine percent of Americans want to make owning
handguns or assault weapons more difficult.
Seventy-one percent want to make greater use of the
death penalty (Hart and Teeter Research Companies,
December 1996).

Public views on reducing crime do not fall neatly
into either a liberal or conservative political
framework. People consider "mandatory life
sentences for three-time felons" and "youth crime
prevention programs" equally effective as crime-
fighting measures (Los Angeles Times, April 1994).
Asked about the best overall approach to reducing
crime, 30 percent of surveyed Americans want to
emphasize punishment; 18 percent, the causes; and
51 percent, both (Hart and Teeter Research Group,
January 1995). 

Research on incarceration and alternative
sentencing by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research
organization, for the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation also strongly suggests that most
Americans believe in a mixture of approaches.[2] 
For youngsters in particular, peoplewant the preventive
approach--"stop them before they start, if you can." 
But for most Americans,the worst possible lesson 
for young offenders would be to not get caught or 
to receive the "slap on the wrist" of probation.[3] 
Indeed, the Public Agenda studies found that the most 
popular sentence for young offenders is boot camp. 
Most Americans are convinced that the young person 
who "gets away with it" is all the more likely to 
continue a life of crime.

Justice not served

Opinion research strongly suggests that, for the
public, the concept of justice includes both
protecting the rights of the accused and redressing
wrongs done to victims and society. The vast
majority of Americans appears to believe that the
balance between these two goals has tipped too far
in favor of the accused.

Eighty-six percent of Americans say the court
system does too much to protect the rights of the
accused and not enough to protect the rights of
victims (ABC News, February 1994). Only 3 percent
of Americans say the courts deal too harshly with
criminals; 85 percent say they are not harsh enough
(National Opinion Research Center, May 1994). 

The police: public confidence high but racial
differences

Putting more police on the streets as an effective
way to fight crime is broadly supported. Nine in
ten Americans say that increasing the number of
police is a very (46 percent) or somewhat (44
percent) effective way to reduce crime (ABC News,
November 1994). And, given the general skepticism
people feel about many institutions and most of
government, Americans voice substantial confidence
in law enforcement. Fifty-eight percent say they
have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence
in the police; another 30 percent say they have
"some" confidence in the police; only a handful (11
percent) express very little or no confidence (The
Gallup Organization for CNN/USA Today, April 1995).

In a 1995 Gallup survey, only one major American
institution rated higher than the police: 64
percent of the public have a great deal or quite a
lot of confidence in the military. The police score
about as well as "organized religion" (57 percent),
and many groups--business corporations, Congress,
the news media--do much worse. The police also
score significantly higher than the criminal
justice system as a whole; only one in five
Americans voices strong confidence in it (The
Gallup Organization, 1995). (See exhibit 1.) 

But confidence in law enforcement is an area where
African-Americans and white Americans differ
dramatically. While 63 percent of whites say they
have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in
the police, only 26 percent of African-Americans
feel the same way. Perhaps even more important,
while only a handful of whites (8 percent) say they
have very little or no confidence in the police, 35
percent of blacks make this statement (The Gallup
Organization, April 1995).

Incidents that shape perceptions

Much of the recent opinion research on police bias
and brutality has focused on two widely publicized
incidents in the last several years: the trial of
four Los Angeles police officers in the beating of
Rodney King and the role of now-retired Los Angeles
detective Mark Fuhrman in the murder trial of O.J.
Simpson.

Public attitudes about these two incidents suggest
the basis for some of the public's thinking about 
what constitutes appropriate police behavior and
the degree to which people believe most officers
act professionally most of the time. Surveys
conducted during periods of extensive press
coverage and heightened public debate can, of
course, show levels of concern or anger that recede
in quieter times. Mark Fuhrman, for example, has
made numerous media appearances in the wake of the
civil judgment against O.J. Simpson, and public
attitudes about him personally may shift somewhat
with time. But the initial public reaction to these
two incidents as people understood them at the time
was revealing. 

Surveys of public reaction to the Rodney King
beating--undoubtedly shaped by repeated broadcast
of a videotape of the incident--showed that the
overwhelming majority of Americans did not like
what they saw. Just 6 percent of Americans surveyed
after the officers' initial acquittal said they
thought the verdict was "right" (CBS News/New York
Times, May 1992). Only 9 percent said they
"sympathize[d]" more with police than the beating
victim (Yankelovich Clancy Schulman for Time/CNN,
April 1992.) 

Reactions to the tape-recorded comments of Mark
Fuhrman played during the Simpson criminal trial
show a similar public recoil against an officer who
did not seem to fit commonly held standards for
appropriate police behavior. At the time, 87
percent of Americans, with blacks and whites
agreeing in roughly equal numbers, said they had an
"unfavorable impression" of Fuhrman (The Gallup
Organization, October 1995), although Americans
were split largely along racial lines about whether
he actually planted evidence in the Simpson case
(CBS News, September 1995).

Regardless of differing perceptions by blacks and
whites about what Fuhrman actually did or did not
do, only 9 percent of either group said that
watching the Simpson trial gave them more
confidence that "police officers perform their
duties in a professional and ethical manner" (The
Gallup Organization for CNN/USA Today, October
1995).

The exception or the rule?

For many white Americans, these kinds of incidents
are mainly viewed as regrettable exceptions to the
rule, a belief not shared by a majority or near 
majority of surveyed blacks. As noted in exhibit 2:

o Only 15 percent of white Americans, compared to
53 percent of blacks, think that "the kind of
improper behavior by police described on the
Fuhrman tapes (racism and falsification of
evidence)" is common among their local police
(Princeton Survey Research Associates, August
1995).

o Twenty-four percent of surveyed whites, compared
to 43 percent of blacks, said "police overreaction
to crime" is a very serious threat (The Gallup
Organization for America's Talking, June 1994). 

o Seventy-six percent of surveyed whites, compared
to 47 percent of blacks, say police in their
community "mostly" treat the races equally (The
Gallup Organization for CNN/USA Today, September
1995).

Concern among African-Americans about their chances
of being treated fairly extends beyond law
enforcement: 61 percent of whites, compared to 19
percent of African- Americans, say that racial and
other minorities receive equal treatment in the
criminal justice system (ABC News, February 1997).

Common standards, different experiences

Interestingly, blacks and whites are in substantial
agreement about what constitutes appropriate police
behavior. Nine in ten Americans--with no
significant differences between blacks and whites--
disapprove of an officer striking a citizen who is
being vulgar and obscene. A roughly equal number
(92 percent) disapprove of an officer striking a
murder suspect during questioning, with no
significant differences between blacks and whites.
Ninety-three percent say a police officer should be
allowed to strike a citizen who is attacking the
officer with his fists, with blacks and whites
again in agreement (General Social Survey, 1994).
However, when the behavioral setting is more
problematic, important differences emerge in the
views of surveyed blacks and whites (see exhibit
3). 

Judgments differ widely about what actually happens
in most communities regarding police behavior.
Middle-class whites generally have only positive
interactions with the police, and most experience a
sense of relief at seeing police officers out and 
about. In contrast, a study by the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies (April 1996) reports
that 43 percent of blacks consider "police
brutality and harassment of African-Americans a
serious problem" in their own community.

Although blacks and whites disagree about the
prevalence of police bias and brutality, neither
group finds such behavior acceptable. Both blacks
and whites disapproved of the Rodney King beating,
at least as they saw it. Both groups were repulsed
by the attitudes and behavior initially associated
with Mark Fuhrman.

Americans of both races seem dubious that police
departments will act forcefully to address problems
of racism, dishonesty, or brutality to the extent
that they exist in police ranks. Only 14 percent of
white Americans and 15 percent of black Americans
think it is "very likely" that the controversy
surrounding detective Fuhrman will lead to
"significant improvement in the way police in this
country treat blacks" (The Gallup Organization for
CNN/USA Today, October 1995).

A fault line in public support

In a decade when many Americans seem to think that
"government" can do no right, law enforcement is
viewed as an essential public service and the
police enjoy a robust vote of confidence from most
of the public.

But support for law enforcement has a fault line.
Opinion research surveys suggest that many black
Americans are disaffected and suspicious. They are
not confident that the police will be fair. They
are not confident that the police will be
professional. They are not confident that the
police will "protect and serve." And while the
personal encounters most whites have with police
officers may be positive, white Americans have
witnessed some graphic, highly publicized examples
of police behavior that, in their view, is entirely
unacceptable. They may regard these incidents as
exceptions but not ones to be glossed over as "the
cost of doing business."

Public Agenda has looked closely at public
attitudes about teachers, another group of
government workers whom the public likes. Both
teachers and police officers are seen as performing
an essential public service and are generally 
regarded with respect. But Public Agenda research
also shows a rising frustration with teachers and
their unions for seeming to tolerate and protect
the few incompetents among them. Focus groups erupt
in anger when discussion turns to teacher tenure.
The stories pour out about the one bad teacher the
school cannot seem to get rid of. Anger against the
few infects attitudes about teachers overall. 

Law enforcement may now be in a similar position.
Police departments that are seen as tolerating
racist, brutal, or corrupt officers or police
unions perceived as protecting them could slowly
and incrementally jeopardize the overall strong
support for law enforcement. It is fair to ask how
long police departments can tolerate widespread
lack of confidence among the black community--an
outlook that must daily undermine police
effectiveness in fighting crime. Public confidence
in law enforcement is, for the country and for law
enforcement itself, a priceless asset, but it is
neither indestructible nor a cause for complacency.

------------------------------

Jean Johnson is senior vice president at Public
Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group
located in New York City.

------------------------------

Notes

1. Quinnipiac College's April 1996 poll included
741 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 3.6
percent. The February 1997 poll included 845
respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 3.4
percent.

2. Public Agenda has conducted three studies on
public attitudes about incarceration and
alternative sentencing in Pennsylvania (1993),
Delaware (1991), and Alabama (1989). The research
was sponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation. 

3. Readers are referred to Joan Petersilia's
article in this issue for data showing that many
probationers are largely unsupervised. She notes
that when given the choice between incarceration
and closely supervised probation, many offenders
choose incarceration because they view closely
supervised probation as too restrictive. In
addition, in some communities "doing hard time"
carries status rather than stigma.

------------------------------

Who Wrote It? Steps Toward a Science of Authorship
Identification

by Carole E. Chaski

A forged check, a ransom note, a farewell letter
printed at a university computer lab, a threatening
letter, a diary of crimes, motel receipts, suicide
notes on computer disks--such documents create
paper trails leading to suspects. The authorship of
documents has played an important role in the
investigation of such recent high-profile cases as
the Una-bomber, the Oklahoma City bombing, the
World Trade Center bombing, and the murder of
JonBenet Ramsey. From an investigative standpoint,
tools eliminating or furnishing suspects on the
basis of authorship are invaluable (see
"Investigative Uses of Language-Based Author
Identification"). 

Once a case goes to court, an investigator or
expert witness must be prepared to show that the
paper trail from document to author was constructed
in a manner that justifies its admissibility as
testimony and that enhances trust and acceptance by
judge and jury. 

But how can one be certain about a document's
origin? Is the document authentic or forged? This
article outlines methods used to address those
questions and offers preliminary insights into what
approaches and techniques must be developed to keep
pace (or catch up) with authorship-related
technology (e.g., computer disks) and with court-
developed criteria affecting the admissibility of,
and weight given to, testimony pertaining to
authorship identification.

From eyewitness to questioned document examiner

Legal proceedings have long required some kind of
authentication of documentary evidence. Until the
19th century, a document was typically
authenticated by an eyewitness to its creation or
signing (much as notaries do)--or by someone, such
as a spouse, other close relative, or banker, who
knew and recognized the writing. This kind of
document authentication is still admissible
testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence
(specifically Rule 901, "Requirement of
Authentication or Identification"). 

But what if no such person is available or willing
to testify in that regard? 

In the early 19th century, another kind of document
authentication came on the scene: comparison by an
expert of the questioned document with known
writing samples. Through the 1800s and into the
early 1900s, most State courts allowed such expert
testimony on the basis of court decision or State
statute. In 1913, the United States Code permitted
the admissibility of handwriting identification by
expert testimony. 

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 1923 ruling in
Frye v. United States that scientific testimony
should be limited by its "general acceptance"
within the scientific community, questioned
document examination (QDE) was, in a sense, immune
from such scrutiny since any lawyer seeking to
introduce it in court could argue that it was
directly admissible by statute. When the Federal
Rules of Evidence (FRE) were enacted by Congress in
1975, testimony based on "comparison by trier or
expert witness"--that is, handwriting identification 
by a questioned document examiner--continued to be 
admissible through Rule 901.

In 1993, 70 years after Frye, the U.S. Supreme
Court heard Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (113 S. Ct. 2786), which resulted in major
changes in the way that expert testimony is
admitted as scientific evidence. The Court ruled
that testimony, if it is to be considered
"scientific," must be demonstrated to have
characteristics shared by established sciences,
like biology or chemistry. The Court listed some of
those characteristics: empirical testing, known or
potential rate of error, standard procedures for
performing a technique, peer review and
publication, as well as general acceptance in the
scientific community. 

Key criteria distinguishing scientific endeavors
from others are stepwise procedures, identifiable
(or discrete) units, measurement, replication, and
predictability. The laboratory experiments
conducted in high school embody those
characteristics. So does cooking: 

o A recipe is a procedure with steps that must be
performed in a stated order. 

o The ingredients in a recipe are separate, 
distinguishable items. 

o The ingredients or units are measured using
standard measuring devices. 

o Anyone can repeat these procedures using the
standard measures and standard tools.

o Anyone repeating the recipe in the same way with
the same units, measures, and tools will get the
same result.

In a Daubert hearing--one held to determine whether
evidence can be admitted as scientific--Professor
Barry Scheck attacked questioned document
examination on the basis of its scientific
foundation (United States v. Starzecpyzel, 1995).
District Judge McKenna agreed: "The Daubert hearing
established that forensic document examination,
which clothes itself with the trappings of science,
does not rest on carefully articulated postulates,
does not employ rigorous methodology, and has not
convincingly documented the accuracy of its
determinations."

Judge McKenna ruled that handwriting identification
testimony could not be considered scientific and so
would not fall under Daubert criteria for admitting
scientific evidence. This ruling, however, would
still admit handwriting identification testimony as
long as it was perceived as "technical or other
specialized knowledge" (as specified admissible by
FRE Rule 702, "Testimony by Experts") rather than
as science.

Judge McKenna's ruling initiated a series of
judicial decisions from Federal, State, and
military courts challenging the admissibility of
handwriting identification by expert comparison 
in various ways. For example, at the trial of
Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing,
after the defense requested a Daubert hearing on
the proffered questioned document testimony,
prosecutors withdrew such testimony and relied on
other means of authenticating motel receipts,
identification cards, and other documentary
evidence. 

The choices available appear to be not presenting
handwriting identification testimony at all,
presenting QDE as "technical" rather than
scientific knowledge, or building a foundation for
handwriting identification that meets Daubert 
criteria for scientific testimony. 

Thus, questioned document examination is facing a
steep legal and intellectual challenge to create an
authentic science of document authentication via
handwriting. 

Toward a science of authorship: handwriting
identification

In July 1996, the National Institute of Justice
sponsored a workshop on developing a research
agenda for questioned document examination. The
workshop included questioned document examiners
working in local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies; forensic linguists;
attorneys; and experts in voice identification,
computer engineering, neural networks,
neuroscience, and statistics.

Workshop participants discussed this question: What
would be needed to argue successfully in a Daubert
hearing that QDE testimony is accurate, reliable,
and based on sound, empirically tested principles?
The fundamental requirement, workshop participants
agreed, is empirical evidence to support the two
central principles underlying handwriting
identification: 

o Each person's handwriting differs from any
other's. Because this requires a comparison between
documents from different people, the difference
between individuals' writing is called interwriter
variation.

o Each person's handwriting contains some
variation. Because this requires a comparison
between different documents from the same person,
the differences within one person's handwriting
samples are called intrawriter variation.

The workshop reached a consensus that proof of the
foregoing principles is the highest priority for
research.

For handwriting identification to be within the
realm of the possible, a distinct difference must
be detectable between interwriter variation and
intrawriter variation so that, even if one's
handwriting changes from document to document, it
is still identifiably different from another's.
Writing samples from one individual may differ, but
an individual writing pattern exists in all of 
them.

If these principles are not proved true, the
current approach of QDE should stop because
testimony could be based on a false belief about
the human behavior of writing and have very serious
legal consequences. Thus, a prime scientific
challenge to QDE is to demonstrate that its
principles and methods meet or exceed the Daubert
criteria for scientific evidence, such as by taking
the following steps:

o Create a database by collecting samples from
writers. 

o Determine how to measure the samples. What
characteristics should be measured (slant, height,
etc.)? Which units of measure should be counted?
What procedures should be established for measuring
characteristics?

o Analyze statistically the results of quantifying
handwriting samples. 

Replication would test the hypothesis that
handwriting is individually identifiable and
validate the predictive ability of QDE to identify
and differentiate handwriting samples. 

The next step would be to determine how to apply
these principles of interwriter and intrawriter
variation--if proved true--to actual cases.
Applying scientific criteria (stepwise procedures,
identifiable units, measurement, replication, and
predictability) would create a standard protocol
for performing QDE, much like existing protocols
for conducting DNA analyses.

But it would not be sufficient just to have a
standard protocol that everyone agrees on (which
itself may be difficult to obtain). The standard
protocol must be tested to determine if it actually
works and the rate at which it works correctly. The
development and testing of a standard protocol is
essential to demonstrating that handwriting
identification is reliable. Reliability means that
using the protocol on the same set of documents at
different times under different circumstances--even
by different people--will yield the same results. 

Once a standard protocol for performing handwriting
identification is tested and shown reliable, it can
be taught as part of training for QDE.

At this point, yet another scientific challenge to
QDE arises: the question of proficiency among
examiners trained to use the standard protocol.
Until a standard protocol is developed and
practiced by questioned document examiners,
proficiency tests may measure luck, visual acuity,
persistence, or an odd talent, but not the ability
to apply a scientific method to solve a problem in
handwriting identification. (See "Recent
Developments in Handwriting Identification.")

From pen and pencil to electronic texts

Meanwhile, what kind of authentication is available
if a document is not handwritten? Society is
rapidly moving beyond pen and pencil and producing
more and more electronic documents. Documents
composed on the computer, printed over networks,
faxed over telephone lines, or simply stored in
electronic memory defy traditional handwriting
identification techniques.

When authorship of an electronically produced
document is disputed, analysis of handwriting and
typing does not apply. In the case of networked
printers--to which thousands of potential users
have access--even ink, paper, and printer
identification cannot narrow the range of suspects
or produce a solitary identification. The language
of a document, however, is independent of whether a
document is handwritten or printed or faxed or
stored electronically.

In the past 20 years, techniques of language-based
authorship identification have been developing
within university departments--classics, English,
and applied linguistics--in Great Britain, Germany,
Australia, and the United States. But if these
methods of language-based document authentication
were offered as scientific evidence in a criminal
trial, one would expect a Daubert hearing to
conclude in much the same way Judge McKenna ruled
with regard to handwriting identification.[1] Even
without such a ruling, language-based author
identification needs to develop a sound scientific
method if it is to serve justice and truth. 

Foundation for scientific linguistic identification

A good starting point for developing a scientific
method of linguistic identification is to ask
whether a theoretical foundation for language-based
author identification exists within linguistic 
science.

Theoretical foundations for language-based author
identification derive from various branches of
linguistics. The following concepts are well
founded and uncontroversial among linguists:
dialect and idiolect, language processing, and
metalinguistic awareness. 

Dialect and idiolect. Dialect is a variation within
a language, while an idiolect is an individual
variation within a dialect. For instance, a speaker
of the Southern American English dialect may say
"John might should check his parking meter," while
a speaker of Northern American English dialect
would say "Maybe John should check his parking
meter." 

Because dialect is a group phenomenon, one might
predict that Southerners who use "might should" are
a fairly homogeneous group. But this is not
necessarily so. One Southerner may use "might
should" in statements only, while another may
produce "might should" in statements as well as in
questions such as "Should you might check the
meter?" Even though Southerners can be identified
by their Southern American English dialect, they
can be individuated by their idiosyncratic uses of
the dialect, that is, by idiolect. 

The theoretical notions of language, dialect, and
idiolect suggest that individual identity in
language is feasible. But can we control and
manipulate idiolectal features, or is language use
unconscious enough to be reliably indicative of a
specific person? To answer, from a theoretical
perspective, one must consider language processing.

Language processing. In normal language processing,
we communicate so quickly that we can finish each
other's sentences. Typically we do not even
remember the exact words we used but do remember
the gist of a conversation long after it has
concluded. The form (or syntax) is disposable,
while the message (or semantics) is durable. In
normal language processing, the construction of the
form is automatic or unconscious. Automatic or
unconscious control of language enables us to do
all we are doing while we are speaking (selecting
and retrieving words, combining words into phrases
and larger units, attaching phrases to other
phrases and larger units) while we as communicators
focus consciously only on the meaning of our 
message. 

From the perspective of automatized processing,
linguistic production (especially syntactic
structures) would appear to be very difficult to
control. The more automatic a behavior, the more
reliably it indicates a personal identity.
Fingerprints are reliable indicators of
individuality because, normally, we do not control
them. Likewise, syntactic structures may be so
automatic as to be reliable indicators of
individuality. 

Metalinguistic awareness. Although unconscious
control of language is normal behavior, we can
distance ourselves from language and make conscious
commentary about it. This ability to think
consciously and talk about language itself (rather
than the message language conveys) is called
metalinguistic awareness.

The possibility of metalinguistic awareness raises
the question of linguistic disguise. Suppose
someone is so sensitive to language, so
metalinguistically aware, that such a person can
overcome the automatization of language processing
and actually change natural patterns to such a
degree as to imitate the idiolectal patterns of
another speaker and suppress one's own idiolectal
patterns. Research has already shown that adults
vary in their metalinguistic abilities.[2]
Therefore, until more is known about metalinguistic
awareness in adults, the theoretical position
should be taken that linguistic disguise is
possible depending on the author's particular level
of metalinguistic awareness.

So, because the notion of individual identity in
language is credible, language-based author
identification is theoretically feasible. Because
some kinds of linguistic production, especially
syntactic processing, are unconscious, detection of
authorship through reliable linguistic patterns is
also feasible. Because individual awareness of and
sensitivity to language varies, an individual may
be able to manipulate linguistic patterns; thus,
disguising authorship is also theoretically
possible.

Basic steps toward a science of linguistic
identification

Since language-based author identification seems 
theoretically feasible, a scientific method that
results in an identification would require
analytical approaches and technologies--some taken
directly from linguistic theory, others to be
developed for this application of the theory--
enabling repetitions of a stepwise procedure to
yield consistent results that could be tested
statistically.

Standard procedures for analyzing a document into
syntactic structures--noted above as difficult to
manipulate or disguise--are already available from
theoretical linguistics. Having the analytical
method at the ready leads to the question, What
sort of documents should be assembled on which to
apply the standard analytical procedure? 

A database of documents should be assembled with
the principles of linguistic performance in mind.
If we compare two different document types, say a
business letter and a diary entry, some differences
in the linguistic patterns will be at least in part
due to the differing social context and
communicative goals of business letters and diary
entries. A person's idiolect will vary depending on
the document type being produced. Further, since
this database is being constructed for forensic
application, the document types should be similar
to the document types found in actual cases--
similar, rather than same, because one would not
request, for example, actual suicide notes or
actual threatening letters or actual ransom notes
from human subjects. So the database should contain
several writing samples from each writer, and these
writing samples should be similar to document types
found in actual forensic cases. 

Once the document database is assembled and each
document is analyzed into its syntactic structures,
the next step is to examine writing samples for
idiolectal markers--those fragments of syntactic
structures that serve to identify idiolects, or
individual language patterns. DNA typing provides
an interesting analogy. We share an enormous amount
of DNA; only a minute fraction distinguishes us as
individuals. So, analogous to DNA, the bulk of
linguistic patterns are shared, and the minor
quantitative variation is where we need to look for
idiolectal markers.

There is no list of idiolectal markers available
from linguistic theory. Thus, we need standard
operating procedures for how to determine 
idiolectal markers in documents of varying size,
type, and authorship.

As with QDE, when evidence of the idiolect and
standard operating procedures are developed for
performing language-based author identification,
proficiency testing of forensic linguists can be
designed and conducted on a regular basis.

Progress in scientific linguistic identification

An NIJ Visiting Fellowship provided the opportunity
for developing a computer system--Automated
Linguistic Authentication System (ALAS), which has
two main components (see exhibit 1). The first is a
database of documents (see "The Writing Sample
Database"). The second embodies natural language
parsing programs that "process" documents in the
writing sample database by assigning syntactic
labels to the words, phrases, and larger units of
each text, which can then be quantified and used
statistically to categorize texts into authorship
clusters.

Currently, ALAS is being used to analyze writing
samples from a small subset of subjects to search
for idiolectal markers--that is, syntactic
structures or combinations of syntactic features
that can both discriminate between documents
authored by different writers and group together
documents written by the same person. Texts of
varying lengths were examined to determine which
markers are feasible to use depending on the amount
of text available, taking into account the special
problem of very short texts typical of forensic
cases.

In a pilot study, ALAS parsed and computed the
syntactic distribution in writing samples from two
subjects. These subjects, known as 016 and 080, are
both women, white, in their 40s, with 2 to 3 years
of college education and similar dialectal
backgrounds. Since these sociological features may
affect linguistic performance, one would expect
that the two women might be similar--perhaps
indistinguishable--linguistically. Indeed, in
response to the first writing task, both discussed
their fear of dying and leaving their children
motherless. ALAS analyzed three samples of 343,
557, and 405 words from subject 016, and one sample
of 240 words from subject 080.

The first task was to discover whether any 
linguistic features were constant through different
samples of one subject's writing so that such
features could be used to identify the subject's
writing. One linguistic feature exemplifying an
"identifying ability" is the number of combinations
per sentence. The combinations tested here were
both clauses per sentence and phrases per sentence.
On average, writer 016 produced 5.4 clauses per
sentence in text 1, 5.13 clauses per sentence in
text 2, and 3.75 clauses per sentence in text 5--
and 23.5 phrases per sentence in text 1, 24.85
phrases per sentence in text 2, and 22.33 phrases
per sentence in text 5. When the measures of these
combinations for the three writing samples are
examined statistically, one may conclude that the
three texts were written by the same person.

The second task was to find out whether any
linguistic features could discriminate between
different writers. For this purpose, three writing
samples were compared from 016 with the 240-word
sample from subject 080. One linguistic feature
exemplifying a "differentiating ability" is the
variant structures of prepositional phrases. The
most frequent form of the prepositional phrase is a
preposition followed by a noun phrase. Variant
forms of the prepositional phrase include a
"stranded" preposition, as in "what are you up
to?," or prepositions followed by verb phrases, as
in "tired of living a lie." 

When computing the ratio between the most frequent
form of the prepositional phrase and the variant
forms, one finds that writer 016's ratios are 18:1,
38:7, and 38:3 for her three samples. Writer 080's
ratio is 11:5 for her one sample. Statistically,
the chance of these documents coming from the same
source is 2 percent; put another way, the chance
that these documents were written by different
authors is 98 percent, which, of course, is the
case. 

But an idiolectal marker must serve both to
identify and to differentiate. So a third task is
to test whether any linguistic features had both
"identifying" and "differentiating" ability and so
could serve as idiolectal markers.

For this purpose, measures of the feature
differentiating subject 080 from subject 016--ratio
of types of prepositional phrases--were compared
with the measures of this same feature within the
writing samples of subject 016. The feature 
differentiated between 016 and 080. Would it also
have an identifying ability for 016? Statistical
testing of the three samples of subject 016 did not
detect statistically significant differences among
the three samples' ratios of prepositional phrase
types. This suggests that the samples were 
written by the same person. Thus, the ratio of
prepositional phrase types serves both to
discriminate between the writing samples of 080 
and 016, and to cluster together the writing samples 
of 016. 

An exciting finding of this pilot study is that
idiolectal markers were found in writing samples
that are well under 1,000 words in length. Because
such small writing samples can be used for
syntactic analysis, the method is forensically
applicable--in contrast to other techniques, which
require much longer texts. The pilot study
indicates that language-based author identification
may be possible with samples in sizes actually
found in kidnaping, homicide, and libel cases. Much
more work, however, is needed. 

At this point, the essential conclusion this and
other pilot studies demonstrate is that a syntactic
method of analysis, which is grounded in linguistic
theory and implemented within a computer program,
may be the route to an authentic science of
language-based author identification.

------------------------------

Carole E. Chaski, Ph.D., is an NIJ Visiting Fellow.
After earning her doctorate in linguistics at Brown
University, she taught syntax and computational
linguistics at the University of South Carolina and
North Carolina State University. She has consulted
for law enforcement agencies since 1992.

------------------------------

Notes

1. In technical report 95-IJ-CX-0012-01, A Daubert-
Inspired Assessment of Currently Available
Language-Based Methods of Authorship
Identification, I show that previous methods of
language-based identification either violate well-
established principles of linguistic theory or do
not flow from linguistics but from literary studies
and thus lack a scientific method. In their
reviews, Crystal and Goutsos found similar problems
with McMenamin's work (see Crystal, David, "Review
of Forensic Stylistics by Gerald R. McMenamin,"
Language, 71 (1995):2, 381-385; and Goutsos,
Dionysis, "Review Article: Forensic Stylistics," 
Forensic Linguistics, 2(1995):1, 99-113). On the
issue of replicability, Tiersma and Finegan report
problems in previous methods, including lack of
publication, lack of peer review, and nonreplicated
results (see Tiersma, Peter M., "Linguistic Issues
in the Law," Language, 69(1993): 1, 113-137; and
Finegan, Edward, "Variation in Linguists' Analyses
of Author Identification," American Speech, Winter
1990:334-340.) Hardcastle was unable to replicate
results using Morton's CUSUM method (see
Hardcastle, R.A., "Forensic Linguistics: An
Assessment of the CUSUM Method for the
Determination of Authorship," Journal of the
Forensic Science Society, 33(1993):2, 95-106). 
At this point, language-based authorship
identification would fail a Daubert hearing.

2. Metalinguistic ability in adults is related to
literacy level (Chaski, Carole E., and Randall
Engle, Cognitive and Metalinguistic Characteristics
of Adult Illiterates, Technical Report, State of
South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,
1990; Chaski, C.E., "Segmental Manipulation and
Metalinguistic Ability in Adult Literates and Pre-
literates," Linguistic Society of America Annual
Winter Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1991)
and also to training in disciplines related to
language (Davis, Hayley, "Ordinary People's
Philosophy: Comparing Lay and Professional
Metalinguistic Knowledge," Language Sciences,
19(1997):1, 33-46).

------------------------------

Research Preview

Civil Protection Orders: Victims' Views on 
Effectiveness

Summary of a Research Study by Susan L. Keilitz,
Courtenay Davis, Hillery S. Efkeman, Carol Flango,
and Paula L. Hannaford of the National Center for
State Courts 

Domestic violence has moved into the
spotlight in public debate in this country,
particularly with the 1994 passage of the Violence
Against Women Act. After years of considering
domestic violence a "family matter," the criminal
justice, legal, and medical communities are now
collaborating to protect women and children from
abusers. 

Previous research has shown that the
effectiveness of civil protection orders for
victims of family violence depends on how specific
and comprehensive the orders are and how well they
are enforced. Recent National Institute of Justice
(NIJ)-sponsored research, conducted by the National
Center for State Courts (NCSC) and involving
interviews with women who filed protection orders,
concluded that victims' views on the effectiveness
of protection orders vary with how accessible the
courts are for victims and how well established the
links are between public and private services and
support resources for victims. In addition,
violations of the protection order increase and
reported effectiveness decreases as the criminal
record of the abuser becomes more serious.

In the majority of cases, victims felt that civil
protection orders protected them against repeated
incidents of physical and psychological abuse and
were valuable in helping them regain a sense of
well-being. A protection order alone, however, was
not as likely to be effective against abusers with
a history of violent offenses; women in these cases
were more likely to report a greater number of
problems with violations of the protection order.
The researchers noted that criminal prosecution of
these individuals may be required to curb such
behavior.

The study confirmed previous research showing a
strong correlation between the severity and
duration of abuse--the longer women experience
abuse, the more intense the behavior is likely to
become and the more likely women are to be severely
injured by their abusers. These findings led
researchers to suggest:

o Safety planning is of paramount importance at the
earliest point of contact with the victim. 

o The criminal record of the abuser should be considered
in fashioning the protection order. 

In addition, researchers called for further 
research on the interactive aspects of domestic 
violence, such as the:

o Use of criminal history information in crafting
orders and counseling victims. 

o Effects and enforcement of specific terms of 
protection orders.

o Actions of police and prosecutors.

Research design

Initiated in 1994, after a wave of reform across
the country had expanded the availability and scope
of relief provided in civil protection orders, the 
project selected for the study three jurisdictions 
using disparate processes and service models for
providing protection orders: the Family Court in
Wilmington, Delaware; the County Court in Denver,
Colorado; and the District of Columbia Superior
Court.

Two primary measures of effectiveness were applied.
First was self-reported improvement in quality of
life after obtaining the order. Second were the
extent and types of problems related to the
protection order reported by the women, including
repeated physical or psychological abuse and
continued attempts by the abuser to contact the
women at work or home.

Four data sources were used in the study: telephone
interviews conducted with 285 women petitioners for
protection orders approximately 1 month after they
received a protection order (temporary or
permanent), followup interviews with 177 of these
same women 6 months later, the civil case records
of these women, and criminal history records of men
named in the orders.

Key findings 

Victims. Before receiving a protection order, study
participants experienced abuse ranging from
intimidation to injury with a weapon. Researchers
found that 37 percent of the women had been
threatened or injured with a weapon; more than half
had been beaten or choked; and 99 percent had been
intimidated through threats, stalking, and
harassment. More than 40 percent experienced severe
physical abuse at least every few months, and
nearly one-quarter had suffered abusive behavior
for more than 5 years.

Abusers. Among men named in the protection orders
filed by participants, 65 percent had an arrest
history. Researchers noted that many of these men
appeared to be career criminals, with more than
half having four or more arrests. Charges included
violent crimes, drug- and alcohol-related crimes,
and property, traffic, and miscellaneous offenses.
Of the 129 abusers with any history of violent
crime, 43 percent had 3 or more prior arrests for
violent crimes other than domestic violence.

Effects of protection orders. The act of applying
for a civil protection order was associated with
helping participants to improve their sense of
well-being. In the initial interviews, 72 percent
of participants reported that their lives had
improved. During followup interviews, the
proportion reporting life improvement increased to
85 percent, more than 90 percent reported feeling
better about themselves, and 80 percent felt safer.

Seventy-two percent of participants in the initial
interviews and 65 percent in the followup
interviews reported no continuing problems. In
several areas, however, the proportion reporting
problems rose between the two interviews: calls
from the abuser to the participant at home or work
(16 percent in the initial interview and 17 in the
followup), stalking the victim (4 percent and 7
percent), repeated physical abuse (3 percent and 8
percent), and repeated psychological abuse (4
percent and 13 percent).

Victim services. The study also looked at the use
of services by participants before and after
obtaining a protection order. These were grouped
into eight categories: private legal services,
medical assistance, police protection, assistance
from government services, counseling services,
moral support and guidance from friends or
relatives, support groups, and assistance from
private community organizations.

Overall, 78 percent of participants reported they
had used at least one type of service. Assistance
from friends and relatives was most frequently
used, with 46 percent of participants seeking help
from people they knew. Next were private community
services, such as battered women's shelters and
victim advocacy services provided by universities
and private agencies (32 percent).

Researchers felt that more could be done to ensure
that victims are provided with user-friendly
information about available services as well as
information regarding protection orders and their
enforcement through the contempt process. They
suggested that judges and police both make this a
priority when dealing with domestic violence
victims. In addition, a more centralized court
process and direct assistance to petitioners make
it more likely that victims will develop safety
plans and seek services. 

In conclusion, the researchers noted that the 
Violence Against Women Act offers a pivotal 
opportunity through changes in current practice 
to increase awareness of and access to protection 
orders and to enhance enforcement strategies. They 
also emphasized, however, that civil protection 
orders are only one part of the fight against 
domestic violence.
 
------------------------------

Susan L. Keilitz, Project Director; Courtenay Davis;
Hillery S. Efkeman; Carol Flango; and Paula L.
Hannaford conducted this study at the National
Center for State Courts. This research was
supported by NIJ grant number 93--IJ--CX--0035.

------------------------------

Points of view in this document do not necessarily
reflect the official position of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

FS 000191

------------------------------

Events

The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society--
30 years later

Responding to the high level of public concern
about crime in the 1960s, President Lyndon B.
Johnson ordered the establishment of the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. The Commission was to
examine "every facet of crime and law enforcement
in America." The results of that examination were
published in 1967 as The Challenge of Crime in a
Free Society, a landmark report that called for a
"revolution in the way America thinks about crime."

The Commission's work laid the foundation for the
current Federal role in assisting State and local
law enforcement and justice administration. The
U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) evolved from predecessor
organizations created as a result of the
Commission.

To commemorate publication of the report, OJP and
its components--including the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ)--and the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services sponsored a
retrospective symposium held in Washington, D.C.,
in June 1997. Attending the symposium, whose theme
was "Looking Backward, Looking Forward," were
prominent criminologists; professionals and
practitioners from law enforcement, the courts, and
corrections; Federal and State officials; and
members of the Commission staff. 

Participants examined changes in the nature of crime 
and the criminal justice system, the use of research 
and statistics, and the societal response to crime and
the criminal justice system. Focusing on the results 
of the Commission's recommendations, attendees assessed 
the reach of change that has occurred since the report 
was issued. 

A publication based on symposium presentations 
is planned by NIJ. Details of its availability 
will be announced in the NCJRS Catalog.

Record attendance at annual research and evaluation
conference 

Sponsored by NIJ and other components of
the Office of Justice Programs, the annual
conference on criminal justice research and
evaluation (July 20-23, 1997) attracted about 850
participants. They attended a wide range of
presentations--some tailored to researchers, others
to practitioners, and still others of interest to
both. Topics encompassed community policing, drug
testing and drug treatment, juvenile and violent
crime, violence against women, correctional
programs, community restorative justice, place-
based crime prevention, DNA databases, and
evaluation methodology and issues, among other
areas. 

Addressing the conference, held in Washington, D.C., 
were William Bratton, former New York City 
police commissioner and now president of First 
Security Consulting, and Dr. Alan Leshner,
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Next year's conference will be held in Washington,
D.C., July 26-29. 

Under way: Breaking the cycle of drug use and crime

NIJ Director Jeremy Travis participated in
launching Breaking the Cycle (BTC) in a ceremony at
the University of Alabama at Birmingham on June 10,
1997. Developed by a consortium of Federal
agencies--including NIJ and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)--BTC is a research
demonstration project to test the effectiveness of
a systemwide criminal justice intervention with
drug-addicted offenders. 

The goal of BTC in Birmingham is to provide drug 
testing, graduated sanctions, judicial supervision, 
and drug treatment to each felony drug-using defendant 
regardless of charge and detention status. NIJ is 
responsible for administering and evaluating BTC 
demonstration projects. The Birmingham project is 
funded by a $1 million grant from ONDCP through NIJ. 
The project is a collaboration between the university's
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC)
project, the Jefferson County court system, the
district attorney's office, and the Jefferson
County sheriff's department.

ONDCP has committed $9 million in fiscal year 1997
to fund an expansion of the BTC concept. Of that
sum, $4 million has been allocated for the
expansion of additional adult sites. NIJ expects to
fund a minimum of two additional sites and will
continue to fund rigorous evaluation.

NIJ also plans to hold a strategic planning meeting
in mid-November 1997 to design a juvenile BTC
project. Three million dollars has been allocated
for creation of juvenile sites. NIJ expects to fund
two juvenile sites and an evaluation.

Summer Institute for law enforcement technology

Nineteen law enforcement officers from 15 States
participated in NIJ's first annual Summer
Institute, held in Washington, D.C., August 18-22,
1997, and hosted by NIJ's Office of Science and
Technology. The Institute's goal is to facilitate
the sharing of technology information. Officers
were briefed on NIJ's efforts in support of law
enforcement, with particular focus on how
participants can make technologies viable and
effective in their own agencies.

In addition to NIJ program and technology
briefings, participants toured the Department of
Justice; the Pentagon; the Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms Laboratory; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Crime Laboratory; the Drug
Enforcement Administration Training Center; the FBI
Hostage Rescue Center in Quantico, Virginia; and
the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center in Rockville, Maryland. Look for
more details about the results of the Summer
Institute in a forthcoming NIJ Journal.

Continuation of perspectives lecture series

NIJ Director Jeremy Travis announced the
continuation of the Institute's successful policy
lecture series, "Perspectives on Crime and
Justice," which will resume in December and run
through May 1998. Nationally prominent scholars
will address such issues as gun markets and the
U.S. approach to substance abuse. A speaker
schedule will appear in a forthcoming NIJ Journal.

Concluding the recent five-lecture series were
Cathy Spatz Widom, State University of New York at
Albany, in April 1997, and Norval Morris,
University of Chicago Law School, in May. Their
topics were, respectively, "Child Victims: In
Search of Opportunities for Breaking the Cycle of 
Violence" and "Crime, the Media, and Our Public
Discourse." Previous speakers were James Q. Wilson,
University of California; Peter Reuter, University
of Maryland; and Mark H. Moore, Harvard University.

Upcoming land transportation security technology
conference 

Scheduled for Atlanta, Georgia, in April 1998, 
an international land transportation security
technology conference will feature presentations 
by experts in the field and exhibits of new
technologies. Cosponsored by NIJ and the Department
of Transportation (DOT), in cooperation with the
Department of State, the conference will focus 
on counterterrorism technology. Among the planned
conference topics are terrorism vulnerability
assessments, multijurisdictional command structure, 
weapons detection technology, night vision equipment, 
analytical tools, information-technology sharing, 
and lessons learned from previous land transportation 
security incidents.

The conference evolved from a 1996 meeting that
Attorney General Janet Reno held with
transportation officials regarding terrorism-
related concerns. Two subsequent international
conferences, organized by DOT and the State
Department, focused on sharing counterterrorism
technologies related to land-based transportation
targets. 

NIJ, through its Office of Science and
Technology, agreed to support DOT's efforts by
gathering information from first-responders, while
the American Public Transit Association (APTA)
obtained information from transit law enforcement. 
Topics that first-responders indicated as important 
included detection equipment, contingency planning, 
toxicology, computer modeling, hazard prediction 
analysis, standards for vulnerability assessments, 
procedures for dealing with chemical/biological attacks, 
and a unified command structure.

The APTA group added the following topics: light,
portable, and effective detection devices; closed-
circuit television; silent alarms; enhanced and
secure radio communications; encrypted digital
computer systems; electronic information networks;
bomb-resistant garbage receptacles and windows;
access-control systems; new facility and
environmental designs; and specialized personal
protective equipment for first-responders. 

To assist the Department of Transportation in
synthesizing position papers regarding technology
needs, NIJ cosponsored a focus group in March 1997.
Participants were asked to provide information
about their counterterrorism technology and
training needs. The upcoming Atlanta conference is
designed to build upon, synthesize, and disseminate
the information obtained as the result of the
foregoing efforts. 

Restorative justice regional symposiums

Among the most promising new approaches to criminal
justice are those focusing on victim and community
involvement in the system. Through various programs
and initiatives, the principles of restorative
justice help to repair the harm caused by crime and
provide a more substantive role for victims and the
community.

A series of regional symposiums is being held
between June 1997 and January 1998 to provide
policymakers and practitioners with the opportunity
to discuss restorative justice philosophy,
practices, issues, and roadblocks with national
experts and regional representatives. The
symposiums are sponsored by NIJ, other components
of the Office of Justice Programs, and the National
Institute of Corrections. 

The symposiums follow on the heels of a national 
symposium held in January 1996 in Washington, D.C. 
The event proved so successful that many participants 
recommended that sponsors build on the momentum generated 
by the first symposium and hold regional events. 

The first regional symposium was held for the Northeast
region in Burlington, Vermont, early this summer.
Following are the dates and regions for future
symposiums: 

o North Central Region. Sept. 28-30, 1997, in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin. Invited States: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

o Southwest Region. October 26-28, 1997, in
Santa Fe, New Mexico. Invited States: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah.

o Northwest Region. December 11-13, 1997, in
Portland, Oregon. Invited States: Alaska, Idaho,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, South
Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming.

o Southeast Region. January 1998, in Austin,
Texas. Invited States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Because of limited space, attendance is determined
by competitive application process. Potential
participants must form a five-person team
representing a jurisdiction that has some
experience with restorative justice. Each team
should have a balance of juvenile and adult
perspectives and should draw from among the
following: policymaker, prosecutor, defense bar,
representative of victim and community
organizations, law enforcement, courts,
corrections, and system research or administration.

For more information or to submit an application
for attendance, contact the Institute for Law and
Justice, 1018 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314;
703-684-5300.

------------------------------

NIJ IN THE JOURNALS

The following articles, based on research funded by
NIJ, are available from the National Criminal
Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). For information
on ordering copies, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

"Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood
Victimization: Part 1. Childhood Physical Abuse,"
Psychological Assessment, 8(1996):4, by C.S. Widom
and S. Morris, grant numbers 86-IJ-CX-0033, 89-
IJ-CX-0007, and 93-IJ-CX-0031, accession number
(ACCN) 166613. This article discusses a study
assessing the accuracy of recollections of adults
who were physically abused as children.
Retrospective self-reports of early childhood
physical abuse were compared with official cases of
physical abuse documented and substantiated through
court records.

"Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood
Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse,"
Psychological Assessment, 9(1997):1, by C.S. Widom
and S. Morris, grant numbers 86-IJ-CX-0033 and
89-IJ-CX-0007, ACCN 166614. The article
discusses a study assessing the accuracy of
recollections of adults who were sexually and
physically abused or neglected as children.
Findings indicate gender differences in self-
reporting and accuracy and substantial
underreporting by sexually abused respondents in
general. Self-reported measures of childhood sexual
abuse are significant predictors of alcohol abuse,
depression, and suicide attempts among women.

"Childhood Victimization and Subsequent Risk for
Promiscuity, Prostitution, and Teenage Pregnancy: A
Prospective Study," American Journal of Public
Health, 86(1996):11, by C.S. Widom and J.B. Kuhns,
grant numbers 86-IJ-CX-0033 and 89-IJ-CX-0007, 
ACCN 166615. Among the findings of the study
described in this article is that early childhood
abuse and/or neglect was a significant predictor of
prostitution for females but was not associated
with increased risk for promiscuity or teenage
pregnancy. 

"Drug Policy and Community Context: The
Case of Small Cities and Towns," Crime and
Delinquency, 42(1996):2, by M.J. McDermott and J.
Garofalo, grant number 91-DD-CX-K049, ACCN
163484. This article reports the findings of a
national assessment of drug problems and antidrug
initiatives in small jurisdictions. Findings
indicate that school officials and community
leaders consider alcohol a top concern, while law
enforcement and government officials give that
distinction to crack and other forms of cocaine.
Marijuana use is seen as a problem in most small
jurisdictions. Community leaders favor drug
education and prevention measures over law
enforcement.

"Further Exploration of the Flight From Discretion:
The Role of Risk/Need Instruments in Probation 
Supervision Decisions," Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24(1996):2, by A.L. Schneider, L. Ervin,
and Z. Snyder-Joy, ACCN 162937. This article
discusses the findings of a study of the
implementation and role of risk/need assessment
instruments in probation and parole decisions in
Oklahoma. Findings indicate that corrections
officials have generally negative or neutral
attitudes toward quantitative risk/need instruments
but, paradoxically, found it difficult to envision
a probation system without them. A small majority
believe the probation system is better off with the
instruments than with discretionary decisions.

"Citizen Involvement in the Coproduction of Police
Outputs," Journal of Crime and Justice, 19(1996):2,
by J. Frank, S.G. Brandl, R.E. Worden, and T.S.
Bynum, grant number 89-DD-CX-0049, ACCN 163880.
This article examines how citizens' attitudes
toward the police affect their willingness to help
the police. Findings of a study indicate little
correlation between citizens' attitudes toward
police and their "coproductive behaviors" with
police, especially to maintain order. Citizen
attitudes toward police performance in drug law
enforcement, however, do appear to affect whether
they will provide police (or community groups) with
drug-related information. 

"Moral Reconation Therapy and Problem Behavior 
in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections," 
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice 
Research Consortium, volume 2 (August 1995), 
by D.R. MacKenzie and R. Brame, grant number
94-IJ-CX-0064, ACCN 163402. The authors discuss
an evaluation of Oklahoma's use of moral reconation
therapy (MRT), a treatment program designed to
alter offenders' moral reasoning skills. Findings
indicate that individuals who participated in MRT
showed a moderate but statistically significant
drop in misconduct and recidivism.

"Inmates' Attitude Change During Incarceration: A
Comparison of Boot Camp With Traditional Prison,"
Justice Quarterly, 12(1995):2, by D.L. MacKenzie
and C. Souryal, grant number 90-DD-CX-0061, ACCN
158211. This article reports the findings of a
study on the impact of a military-type regime on
inmates' attitudes in six State-level shock
incarceration programs. Findings suggest that boot
camp inmates develop more positive and less
oppositional and antisocial attitudes than inmates 
in traditional settings.

"Less-Than-Lethal Force Weaponry: Law Enforcement
and Correctional Agency Civil Law Liability for the
Use of Excessive Force," Creighton Law Review,
28(1995):3, by N. Miller, grant number 91-IJ-CX-
K017, ACCN 161863. The author reviews the legal
principles applicable to officer use of less-than-
lethal (LTL) force and makes recommendations to
policymakers and agency heads on limiting their
exposure to liability claims. The liability
principles that govern use of LTL force are similar
to those that apply to the use of conventional and
deadly force. Recommendations for avoiding
liability include adopting policies, providing
training, and requiring incident reporting and
internal affairs reviews of excessive-force
incidents.

"Published Findings From the Spouse Assault
Replication Program: A Critical Review," Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 11(1995):1, by J. Garner,
J. Fagan, and C. Maxwell, grant number 93--IJ-CX-
0021, ACCN 153919. This article reviews the
published findings of the spouse assault
replication program (SARP), which addressed whether
arrest effectively deters misdemeanor spouse
assault. Findings indicate that while many
methodological approaches used to assess
experiments in six jurisdictions were sound, not
one was used consistently. The authors conclude
that available information is inadequate to support
a definitive statement about the results of the
experiments.

------------------------------

Publications

The following recent publications disseminated by
NIJ are available from NCJRS in both online and
hard-copy formats. For ordering information, call
NCJRS at 800-851-3420. 

Annual Report to Congress 1996, U.S. Department 
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 
1997, 104 pp., NCJ 166585.

NIJ offers the tools of research, evaluation, and
technology development to expand knowledge and
understanding of how public policies can control
crime and achieve justice. This report reviews how
NIJ applied those tools and its $99 million in
total expenditures in 1996, a year in which the
Institute's research portfolio increased multifold,
spurred in large part by creative collaborations
with partners at the Federal, State, and local
levels. 

After reviewing the year's highlights, the
report presents essays that focus on NIJ research
and development projects pertaining to the
underlying issues of violence, criminal justice
responses to drugs and crime, community crime
control and prevention, trends and emerging
concepts in adjudication and corrections, and
science and technology. 

Youth Afterschool Programs and Law Enforcement, 
Research Preview, summary of a presentation by 
Marcia Chaiken, U.S. Department of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice, August 1997, 
4 pp., FS 000169. 

This publication is based on a presentation 
describing the results of a survey of 
youth-serving organizations to identify the 
nature of the crime problem affecting them 
during nonschool hours and the approaches 
they are using to prevent crime.

Jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the survey found that
local affiliates of national organizations are
serving many high-risk juveniles. To the extent
that the local affiliates are themselves imperiled
by crime and violence, they are likely to enlist
police assistance in implementing prevention
programs. Findings indicate that young people
prefer programs that provide a range of choices--
sports and recreation activities and those that
bolster educational and social skills, offer help
in coping with peer pressure, and provide
instruction in computer and technical subjects.

A 60-minute VHS videotape (NCJ 163057), "Youth
Afterschool Programs and the Role of Law
Enforcement," is also available.

Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities,
Research in Brief, by Andrew Lang Golub and Bruce
D. Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, July 1997, 16 pp., NCJ
165707.

Research shows that drug epidemics, like their
epidemiological counterparts, follow a natural
course, from incubation to decline. For 10 years,
NIJ has been gathering information on the course of
illicit drug use through its Drug Use Forecasting
(DUF) program. This publication examines the
progress of the crack cocaine drug epidemic at 24
DUF locations from as early as 1987 through 1996.

DUF data show that crack use has followed a
distinct four-phase pattern: incubation, expansion,
plateau, and decline. Pinpointing crack's current
phase in a locality helps criminal justice and
health officials to develop better strategies and
deploy resources more effectively. The authors
state that crack use appears to be in the decline
phase in DUF cities on the east and west coasts; at
some DUF sites in the interior regions of the
country, the drug is at the plateau stage.

Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, Research
Report, by Robert A. Prentky, Raymond A. Knight,
and Austin F.S. Lee, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, June 1997, 24 pp.,
NCJ 163390.

The information included in this publication has
been distilled from several interrelated reports
and studies sponsored by NIJ to strengthen the
efficacy of intervention and prevention strategies
and ultimately reduce child sexual victimization
rates. 

The publication discusses the frequency of
child sexual molestation and factors leading to
sexual deviancy in individual offenders, describes 
classification models for typing and diagnosing
child molesters, notes treatment approaches and
strategies for community-based maintenance and
control, addresses reoffense risk as it relates to
criminal justice decisions, and discusses
predictors of sexual recidivism. To illustrate the
variability of recidivism among child molesters,
the authors present findings of a 25-year followup
study of 115 released offenders.

Reorienting Crime Prevention Research and Policy:
From the Causes of Criminality to the Context of
Crime, Research Report, by David Weisburd, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1997, 28 pp., NCJ 165041. 

Crime prevention research and policy have 
traditionally been concerned with offenders or 
potential offenders. This publication focuses not on
criminals but on the context in which crime occurs.
This approach--often associated with situational
crime prevention--seeks to develop a greater
understanding of crime and prevention strategies
through studying the physical, organizational, and
social environments that make crime possible. 

The author reviews factors that have either hindered 
or contributed to the development of a situational
approach to crime prevention research and policy,
compares the relative strengths of this approach
with more traditional approaches to crime
prevention, and identifies areas where situational
crime prevention has generated new insights into
the crime problem and potential responses to it.

Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms, Research in Brief,
by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May
1997, 12 pp., NCJ 165476.

Survey findings indicate that, in 1994, 44 million
Americans owned 192 million firearms, of which 65
million were handguns. About 74 percent of gun
owners possessed two or more firearms. Gun
ownership was highest among middle-aged, college-
educated people living in rural small-town America.
Whites were substantially more likely to own guns
than African-Americans. Survey results indicate
that the proportion of American households that
keeps firearms appears to be declining.

The authors also discuss findings pertaining to the
methods of, and reasons for, acquiring firearms;
storage of firearms; and the frequency with which
guns are used against criminal attackers.

Solving Crime Problems in Residential
Neighborhoods: Comprehensive Changes in Design,
Management, and Use, Issues and Practices, by
Judith D. Feins, Joel C. Epstein, and Rebecca
Widom, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, April 1997, 116 pp., NCJ
164488.

This publication discusses place-specific 
crime prevention in urban and suburban
neighborhoods. Place-specific crime prevention
builds on crime prevention through environmental
design and draws on results of research on active
crime prevention tactics (such as community
policing) to emphasize modification of design, use,
and management of a specific place to prevent and
reduce crime.

The authors stress that selection of place-specific
crime prevention strategies and tactics should be
made in close collaboration with the community.
Physical design changes and management changes can
be combined to combat criminal activity, reduce
disorder, improve safety, and enhance the quality
of life in a variety of settings. The publication
emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring and
evaluation of the place-specific strategies
selected.

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's
Promising, Research Report, by the University of
Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, February 1997, 536 pp., NCJ
165366. 

This state-of-the science publication
responds to the latest in the long line of
congressional initiatives to ensure that its local
assistance funding is effective in preventing
crime. The authors report on what is known--and
what is not--about the effectiveness of local crime
prevention programs and practices.

Chapters focus on communities and crime prevention,
family-based crime prevention, school-based crime
prevention, labor markets and crime risk factors,
crime prevention in specific places, the role of
police in crime prevention, and the role of the
rest of the criminal justice system.

------------------------------

NIJ AWARDS

Three NIJ publications--Research in Brief titles
issued in July 1997--summarize awards made by the 
Institute in fiscal year 1996. The publications
provide the following information for each award:
identification number of the grant, contract, or
other award; project title; name of entity that 
received the award; name of principal
investigator(s); award amount; and a brief
description of the award.

Awards made under the Crime Act (Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
represented more than half of all NIJ awards and
more than half of the Institute's spending for
fiscal year 1996. Of the two publications listing
those awards, one focuses on science and technology
awards: NIJ Science and Technology Awards Under the
Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996 (NCJ 165586); the
second presents all other awards under the Crime
Act: NIJ Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year
1996 (NCJ 165700). 

NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year 1996
(NCJ 165701) lists all non-Crime Act awards for
1996 and categorizes them as follows: criminal
behavior, crime control and prevention, criminal
justice system, technology research and
development, and information dissemination and
technical support.

For information about ordering copies of the
foregoing publications or accessing them online,
please call the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service at 800-851-3420.
 
------------------------------

FINAL REPORTS

The following final reports--in manuscript form 
as submitted by authors--pertain to completed NIJ-
sponsored research projects. The reports are available 
from NCJRS through interlibrary loan and as photocopies.
For information about applicable fees, call NCJRS
at 800-851-3420.

"Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence," by J.
Pearson, NCJ 164658, 1997, 234 pp., grant number
93-NIJ-CX-0036. The divorce mediation and
spousal violence project used several information
collection procedures to examine how divorce
mediation programs address the problem of domestic
violence. Findings revealed that domestic violence
is a frequent problem in divorce mediation and that
most of the surveyed mediation programs have
revised their procedures to enhance victim safety
during and after mediation. The report states that
domestic violence victims need a variety of
community services and dispute resolution forums.

"How Portland Does It: Community Prosecution," by
B. Boland, NCJ 165182, 1996, 21 pp., grant number
94-IJ-CX-0004. This report describes the
genesis, activities, and nature of a community
prosecution experiment in the Multnomah County
(Portland, Oregon) district attorney's office.
Community prosecution is an organizational response
to grassroots public safety demands of
neighborhoods. Portland's experiment focuses
predominantly on quality-of-life and 
low-level disorder crimes. Other prosecutors'
offices are devising surprisingly similar
organizational responses to deal with serious
violent crime. 

"Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation 
Cognitive Skills Development Program as Implemented 
in Juvenile ISP in Colorado," by K. English, NCJ 165183, 
1996, grant number 93-IJ-CX-K017. This report presents 
findings from the Division of Criminal Justice's 
evaluation of the reasoning and rehabilitation (R&R) 
cognitive skills development program as it is delivered 
to juveniles placed on juvenile intensive supervision 
probation (JISP) in Colorado. The R&R program is 
mandatory for all JISP clients unless they are deemed by 
the probation officer to be too disruptive or have
characteristics that would prohibit them from
benefiting from it. The report indicates that JISP
could do more to meet the standards of R&R program
developers and to prepare for program delivery.

"Prosecutor and Criminal Court Use of Juvenile
Court Records: A National Study," by N. Miller and
T. McEwen, NCJ 165184, 1996, 105 pp., grant number
93-IJ-CX-0020. This report examines how prosecutors 
and judges use juvenile records of defendants charged
with violent crimes in court. One indicator of a violent 
repeat criminal is the offender's juvenile record, and 
the use of this identifier can lead to both priority 
prosecution and increased court sanctioning. This study 
was conducted in two phases by the Institute for Law
and Justice (ILJ). In phase I, ILJ reviewed the
legal and programmatic status of adult courts'
juvenile record use in the 50 States. In phase II,
ILJ examined use of juvenile records by court
decisionmakers in Wichita, Kansas, and Montgomery
County, Maryland. 

------------------------------

Solicitations

Visiting Fellowship Program

NIJ's Visiting Fellowship Program supports research
and development on high-priority topics that
enhance the capabilities of the criminal justice
system to combat crime, violence, and substance
abuse. Visiting Fellows, while in residence for 6
to 18 months, study topics of mutual interest to
Fellows and the Institute.

NIJ seeks research-oriented practitioners at the
middle and upper levels of the justice profession
as well as persons with extensive experience in
criminal justice research. Concept papers may be
submitted at any time. Applicants should anticipate
a decision timeframe of 6 to 9 months from receipt
of concept paper to award. For application
procedures, selection criteria, eligibility
requirements, and other information, call NCJRS at
800-851-3420 and ask for brochure NCJ 165588.

Graduate research fellowship

NIJ's Graduate Research Fellowship Program provides
dissertation research support to outstanding
doctoral students undertaking independent research
on issues in the criminal justice field. Students
from any discipline may apply. Research must focus
on a topic relevant to national criminal justice
policy or related to concerns of operating criminal
justice agencies.

Fellowship awards of as much as $35,000 are for
periods of up to 24 months. Application deadlines
are January 15 and May 15, 1998. For application
information, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 and ask
for brochure NCJ 166367.

Crime mapping fellowship

Through its Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC),
NIJ is supporting research and development
pertaining to computerized crime mapping. CMRC's
Visiting Fellowship Program offers research
opportunities to individuals interested in criminal
justice applications of mapping.

Award periods range from 3 to 18 months, during
which Fellows are in residence at NIJ. Applications
may be submitted at any time. Applicants should
anticipate a period of 3 to 9 months between
proposal receipt and award decision. For more
information, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 and ask
for brochure NCJ 166375.

Investigator-initiated research

NIJ continues to seek proposals for investigator-
initiated criminal justice research. Investigators
are invited to submit proposals to explore any
topic relevant to State or local criminal justice
policy. The deadline for receipt of proposals is
December 16, 1997. Call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 to
receive a copy of the Solicitation for
Investigator-Initiated Research (SL 000201).

------------------------------

NEW & NOTEWORTHY

Crime and justice

Volume 22, the most recent book in the NIJ-
sponsored, 20-year Crime and Justice series,
reviews research on hate crimes, homicide,
probation, sentencing, and other topics. In 
the preface, editor Michael Tonry pays special 
tribute to those at NIJ who created and nourished 
the series throughout the years. 

To order volume 22, contact The University of 
Chicago Press,  Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, 
Chicago, IL 60637; 773-753-3347.

------------------------------

Origin and Evolution of Probation

Probation: "A court-ordered disposition alternative
through which an adjudicated offender is placed
under the control, supervision, and care of a
probation field staff member in lieu of
imprisonment, so long as the probationer meets
certain standards of conduct."--American
Correctional Association, Probation and Parole
Directory, 1995-1997. 

Probation in the United States began in 1841 
with the innovative work of John Augustus, 
a Boston bootmaker, who was the first to post 
bail for a man charged with being a common drunk. 
Thanks to Augustus's persistence, a Boston court 
gradually accepted the notion that not all offenders 
required incarceration.

Virtually every basic practice of probation was
conceived by Augustus. He developed the ideas of
presentence investigation, supervision conditions,
social casework, reports to the court, and
revocation of probation.

By 1956, all States had adopted adult and juvenile
probation laws. Between the 1950s and the 1970s,
U.S. probation evolved in relative obscurity. But a
number of reports issued in the 1970s brought
national attention to the inadequacy of probation
services and their organization.

In recent years, probation agencies have struggled-
-with continued meager resources--to upgrade
services and supervision. Important developments
have included the widespread adoption of case
classification systems and various types of
intermediate sanctions (e.g., electronic monitoring
and intensive supervision). Those programs have had
varied success in reducing recidivism, but
evaluations of them have been instructive in terms
of future program design.

------------------------------

Who Is on Probation?

According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study
of correctional populations in the United States in
1996:[1]

o About 55 percent of all offenders on
probation had been convicted of a felony, 26
percent of a misdemeanor. About 17 percent had been
convicted of driving while intoxicated, which can
be considered either a felony or misdemeanor, and 2
percent for other offenses.

o Women comprised 21 percent of the Nation's
probationers.    

o About 64 percent of adult probationers were 
white, 35 percent black. Hispanics, who may be of 
any race, comprised 15 percent of the probation 
population.    

o Southern States generally had the highest per capita 
ratio of adult probationers. Texas had the largest 
probation population, followed by California. Data from 
one study suggest that many offenders who are granted 
felony probation are indistinguishable in terms of 
their crimes or criminal record from those who are 
imprisoned (or vice versa).[2]

Another analysis found that 50 percent of
probationers did not comply with court-ordered
terms of their probation; 50 percent of known
violators went to jail or prison for their
noncompliance.[3] A more recent analysis indicates
that 33 percent of those exiting probation failed
to successfully meet the conditions of their
supervision.[4] A study of a national sample of
felons placed on probation found that, on any given
day, about 10 to 20 percent of probationers were on
abscond status, their whereabouts unknown; no
agency actively invested time finding those 
offenders.[5]

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nation's
Probation and Parole Population Reached Almost 3.9
Million Last Year, Press Release, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, August 14, 1997.

2. Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner, Prison
versus Probation in California: Implications for
Crime and Offender Recidivism, Santa Monica,
California: RAND Corporation, 1986. 

3. Langan, Patrick, "Between Prison and Probation:
Intermediate Sanctions," Science, 1994, 264:791-
793.

4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nation's Probation
and Parole Population Reached Almost 3.9 Million
Last Year.

5. Taxman, Faye S., and James Byrne, "Locating
Absconders: Results from a Randomized Field
Experiment," Federal Probation, 1994, 58(1):13-23.

------------------------------

Investigative Uses of Language-Based 
Author Identification

Even though language-based author identification
has a long way to go before achieving status as
scientific testimony, it certainly can be used
effectively now as an investigative tool.

On April 29, 1992, Michael Hunter died of a lethal
injection of lidocaine, Benadryl, and Vistaril. One
of his two roommates, Joseph Mannino, reported the
death. The other roommate, Gary Walston, was out of
town.

A fourth-year medical student, Mannino was only
weeks away from his medical degree. He admitted
giving antihistamines to Hunter for a migraine
headache. After an autopsy report showed the
presence of lidocaine, Mannino denied injecting
Hunter with the drug, which can induce central
nervous system collapse. He declared that Hunter
must have injected the drug himself.

Mannino produced computer disks containing suicide
notes from Hunter. Detective W. Allison Blackman of
the Raleigh, North Carolina, Police Department
contacted Dr. Carole E. Chaski about the
possibility of determining the authorship of the
suicide notes on the basis of the language used.

Detective Blackman gathered almost 10,000 running
words of documents spontaneously written by Hunter,
Mannino, and Walston. Dr. Chaski's analysis of the
syntax, vocabulary, and punctuation patterns of the
documents, with statistical testing, showed that
the suicide notes were most likely not written by
Hunter or by Walston but by Mannino. Soon after,
Mannino was charged with first-degree homicide.

Through his attorney, Mannino admitted to writing
the phony suicide notes. Due to ambiguous test
results concerning the level of lidocaine in
Hunter's blood, Mannino was convicted of the lesser
charge of involuntary manslaughter. In the
sentencing phase of the trial, Judge Stephens said,
"It's terrible that Michael Hunter died. It's
terrible that the defendant unlawfully caused his
death. But to give the impression that Michael
Hunter took his own life, I find that extremely
aggravating in this case" (Raleigh News and
Observer, July 28,1994). Mannino was sentenced to 
7 years in prison.

------------------------------

Recent Developments in Handwriting 
Identification

Electronic approaches to verifying interwriter
variation are under way. The Secret Service uses
the German-based FISH computer program, which
measures the pixel positions of handwriting scanned
into digital format. Funded by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), Professor Kam of Drexel
University and his students are developing another
automated system for measuring pixels in digitized
samples of handwriting from 400 bank robbery notes.

The FBI has formed the Technical Working Group on
Documents (TWGDOC). A TWGDOC subcommittee has
already begun work on documenting standard
procedures for questioned document examination.

Proficiency testing of document examiners has been
undertaken by Professor Kam. The most recent test
revealed that trained document examiners and
untrained laypersons with comparable educational
backgrounds match handwriting samples correctly at
approximately the same level, with each group
making correct matches 87 percent of the time.
However, trained document examiners made false
positive matches 7 percent of the time, compared to
38 percent for untrained laypersons.

------------------------------

The Writing Sample Database

The Writing Sample Database--a major component of
the Automated Linguistic Authentication System--is
designed to take into account general statistical
sampling issues and linguistic performance.
Decisions about selecting the types of subjects for
inclusion were based on a variety of factors, such
as a subject's availability, the prominence of
writing in the subject's normal lifestyle, dialect
similarity or dialect grouping, generally
equivalent educational level, and representation of
both genders and several ethnicities. Factors
considered in selecting topics for writing samples
from the subjects included document type and
similarity to actual types of questioned documents.
Writing tasks assigned to subjects included
narrative essays describing traumatic events and
personal influences, business letters, personal
letters, and threatening letters.

Data were collected from two groups: criminal
justice majors at a community college and business
and nursing majors at a private 4-year college.
Subjects wrote, at their leisure, on 10 topics.

At present, the Writing Sample Database includes
samples from 98 persons, almost evenly divided
between males and females, ranging in age from 18
to 49. Almost three-quarters of subjects are white;
the rest are black or multiracial. Because the
writing samples were collected in a community
college environment, writing is part of the
subjects' lifestyles, and the subjects generally
share equivalent educational levels and dialect
backgrounds. The texts produced by the subjects
contain approximately 100,000 words. Some subjects
contributed as few as 50 words while others
produced several thousand.

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

John C. Dwyer
Acting Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice

------------------------------ 
Justice Information Center 
World Wide Web Site 
http://www.ncjrs.org