State and Local Programs: Understanding and Combatting Violence.







                    State and Local Programs:
              Understanding and Combatting Violence


         Results From State and Local Programs Workshops

                        Sponsored by the 
             State Reporting and Evaluation Program
    Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs
                   U.S. Department of Justice



                            July 1994








                         Prepared by the
           Justice Research and Statistics Association
                 444 North Capitol Street, N.W.
                            Suite 445
                      Washington, DC  20001
                         (202) 624-8560                NCJ #148812Acknowledgements


This report resulted from a cooperative effort by the States and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance as part of the State Reporting and Evaluation Program, which is coordinated by the
Justice Research and Statistics Association.

The following staff of the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development contributed to the coordination and implementation of the workshop that is
reported in this publication:  Kay Boyd, Unit Manager, and Patrick Moran, Evaluation
Coordinator.  Special acknowledgement is made to the outstanding moderators of the working
meeting:  Jerry Hatfield, President, Systems Development Associates and David A. Kessler,
Director of Research, Justice Research and Statistics Association.  

The State Reporting and Evaluation Program relies on the expertise of the States to insure the
success of workshops and publications.  The following individuals contributed their knowledge
and time to make this workshop and publication a success:  Dr. Harold Becker, Professor,
Criminal Justice Department, California State University at Long Beach; Dr. Michael Sabath,
Associate Professor, San Diego State University; Kim English, Director of Research, Colorado
Division of Criminal Justice; Roger Przybylski, Director, Research and Analysis, Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority; Dr. Timothy Bynum, Director, Michigan Statistics
Center, Michigan State University; and Dr. Donald Rebovich, Director of Research, American
Prosecutors Research Institute.  

The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document under the direction of
Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director.  The following JRSA staff compiled and edited the
information for this report under the supervision of Project Director Kellie J. Dressler: David
A. Kessler, Director of Research; Melissa A. Ruboy, Research Analyst; Andrea G. Richards,
Program Assistant; Tara L. O'Connor, Intern; and Lourdes Prado, Intern.Table of Contents


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Perspectives on Understanding and Combatting Violence. . . . .  3
     Approaches Needed to Combat Violence. . . . . . . . . . .  5
     Three-Pronged Approach to Reducing Violence . . . . . . .  7
     Impact of Legislation on Violent Crime and Corrections. . 10
     Changing Nature of Violence in Society. . . . . . . . . . 15

State and Local Programs:  Understanding and Combatting Violence 17
     Hawaii:  Multi-Agency Family Violence Program . . . . . . 19
     Maryland:  School/Community-Based Drug and Violence Reduction Program 24
     Massachusetts:  Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project 29
     Michigan:  Community Oriented Policing Assisting Neighborhood                
       Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     Nebraska:  Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit. . . . 38
     North Carolina:  Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF) 42
     Tennessee:  Operation Saturation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     Spokane, Washington:  Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Program 51
     Yakima, Washington:Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition 56

Workshop Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Introduction


This publication reports on the results of the Bureau of Justice Assistance State Reporting and
Evaluation Program State and Local Programs Working Meeting:  Understanding and
Combatting Violence held May 12-14, 1994 in Seattle, Washington.  This meeting brought
together over 40 State planners and local practitioners as well as researchers and analysts from
15 States who have previously been or currently are involved in implementing and/or
evaluating programs designed to combat violence.  

This publication identifies and documents programs that focus on understanding and
combatting violence at the State and local level.  The first section of the publication presents
perspectives from four national experts, and the second section documents the State and local
programs that were presented at the workshop.     Perspectives on Understanding and Combatting Violence Approaches Needed to Combat Violence


Norman Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, King County, State of Washington, discussed the
problem of violence in society today and the need for community involvement to combat the
violence disrupting America.     

It is important not to overreact to the problem of crime and violence.  We should take issues
seriously, but we need to keep a balanced perspective.  Polls say crime and violence are a first
priority; in communities across the U.S., we can feel it in our hearts.

In Seattle and King County for example:

         A 15-year-old shot at a 16-year-old gang member and killed an innocent 16-
          year-old bystander.

         A good samaritan, who stopped along a roadside to help a young woman who
          was being assaulted by her boyfriend, was then killed by the boyfriend.

         A local 16-year-old high school student was killed in an act of youth violence.

These stories show a pattern across the U.S.  The wave of violence is random, senseless, and
morally bankrupt.

This conference focuses on violence in society.  Violent crime has always been an important
issue, but there has been a shift in the past six months; crime is now the number one issue,
surpassing the economy as a main concern.  The rate of violence has stabilized over the past
several years.  The shift in concern has occurred because of a decreased tolerance level over
time, and the major reason is the kind of violence occurring which increasingly is among
youth.

In the debate over punishment versus root causes of crime and violence, it is time each side
starts listening to what the other side has to say.  We need a new approach to end gridlock that
emphasizes tough law enforcement but also focuses on prevention and early intervention.  This
new approach can be called "punishment plus prevention."

Juvenile laws have not treated youth violence seriously enough.  Legislatures throughout the
country are taking steps to toughen their laws.  In Washington, the youth violence agenda
became a centerpiece of the crime bill passed at a recent session of the Washington State
legislature.  That agenda toughened laws regarding kids who commit crimes while armed with
firearms and also provided for mandatory adult jurisdiction for 16 and 17-year-olds who
commit more serious crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery.Punishment is only a first step; we also need to focus on prevention and intervention.  All
followed the story about a 13-year-old in Florida who killed a British tourist, but not many
read the article that said the youth had been arrested over 50 times and had been before the
court over a dozen times.  What might have happened if there had been some kind of
meaningful intervention after the first, second, or third time in court?

The Conference will look at the kinds of prevention or early intervention that can be developed
to deal not only with youth violence but also with the whole spectrum of domestic and adult
violence.

Effective prevention requires reaffirming moral values and strengthening the American family. 
Families provide for the spiritual, economic, and social needs of kids.  We also look to families
to set acceptable rules of behavior and standards, as well as sanctions when those rules are
breached.  Churches, schools, and community organizations play supportive roles to families. 
We need to reaffirm borders and boundaries.  We must "think big," we need new and
innovative thinking, we need to look at old concepts in different ways.  For example, one first
step might be enforcement of truancy laws.  Truancy laws have never really been enforced and
don't work.  In several areas, this enforcement effort is changing; schools are setting up groups
within schools, with parents and kids participating, to keep children in school.  One school in
Seattle closed the campus, and the burglary rate in the area dropped.  It may not be a
prescription or answer, but it is a way of looking at things in a new way.

A question was asked of a theologian, "What is your God's answer to all of the hurt and
suffering and violence that is occurring in our community?"  The theologian replied, "You are
the answer."  We are in the leadership roles to address these issues. It will require everyone's
involvement in developing new and innovative law enforcement community involvement
programs.Three-Pronged Approach to Reducing Violence


Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, State of Washington, discussed the government's role
in combatting violence in America today. 

Washington has 27 initiatives being fielded to the public, some of which are the aftermath of
"three-strikes-and-you're-out," some of which are the aftermath of "cap the funding and don't
ask us to pay for anything more."

I never intended to go into public office, but I decided to take the lead.  I went out to the
public and heard two significant frustrations in 1992: (1) with government and its inability to
take on and solve problems, and (2) with the legal profession and system and its inability to
carry out what it was intended to do.  These frustrations, together with violence, crime, and
gangs, has led the public to see the need for fundamental leadership in partnership with the
communities.

Crime has grown in public importance, as evidenced by President Clinton's agenda, contrary
to what anyone would have expected from a democrat.  The Crime Bill and the actions of State
legislators consider sentencing laws and attempt to ensure that people are held accountable. 
Washington has passed "three-strikes-and-you're-out" and the Violent Sexual Predator Act. 
How successful these bills are remains to be seen, but they were passed in response to public
sentiment that government and the legal system weren't solving problems.  

The long-term solution is to look at prevention and determine the root causes of crime and
violence.  I believe child abuse and neglect from age zero to six, and statistics show this
relationship, at least in Washington State, is responsible for violence in youth and adults today.

We need to discuss the issues of domestic violence and fetal alcohol syndrome, which are
important for prevention.  Politicians can get caught up in the legislative arena trying to look
tougher than the opponent, but unless we are willing to invest human and financial resources
in prevention, I think we're going to lock this generation up, and the next one and the next
one.  

It is time government started telling the public it is their problem to solve; government cannot
and will not be able to solve it.  Each and every individual has a part in the solution of this
issue.  Their activities, whether it is helping their neighbor or their community, are the answer
to the problem.  Government has turned to a support role of community-based programs.

The U.S. has garnered an international reputation for violence.  It is not a large city problem,
but everyone's.  Domestic violence occurs in the privacy of homes and goes largely unreported. 
According to the AMA, 20-30 percent of injuries to women seen in emergency rooms are
inflicted by their partners.  Youth violence has reached the height of the public's concern and
agenda.  Last year, the Washington public school system had over 1800 incidents of guns,knives, or other kinds of weapons, and there was one fetal alcohol syndrome child for every
700 live births.  The message is not out that the average cost to society for each child with
fetal alcohol syndrome is $1.4 million.  Prevention clearly is where we need to turn our
attention.

The price tag is huge for the violence we are seeing today, in health care, law enforcement,
and social services.  We need to talk about the innumerable statistic which is human and
emotional loss.  We must have a three-pronged approach:  (1) to protect members of society
and vulnerable populations, (2) to hold those who violate accountable for their actions, and (3)
to look to prevention for a long-term solution.

One of the most fundamental roles government must play is to protect society.  It must protect
individuals' constitutional rights while ensuring that we protect the public at large.  Those two
come in conflict in the Sexually Violent Predator Act, which calls for indefinite civil
commitment to the Department of Social and Health Services once an individual has finished
a criminal sentence.  The prosecutor must prove that the defendant has committed a sexually
predatory offense and the defendant must be found by a judge or jury to be suffering from a
mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to commit another
offense.  The statute was challenged in the Washington State Supreme Court and was ruled
constitutional; it is now in the Federal system.  The pendulum is swinging away from the
protection of constitutional rights.  It is a delicate balance, but we must recognize that the
protection of citizens is fundamental to our efforts.  The State court ruled that for constitutional
rights to be protected, treatment must be made available so that individuals can leave the
institutional setting, and society must be protected.

Another frustration is lack of accountability, particularly in the juvenile arena.  The public
believes children have learned to manipulate the system, knowing how much they can get by
with before the system will kick in.  Children also know there are waiting lists for services. 
Essentially, the system has broken down in terms of holding people accountable. 
Accountability for the first offense is important in order to prevent further offenses. 
Incarceration is not the answer because of a lack of resources; it is necessary to get at root
causes.

Before, those who talked about prevention were "soft on crime."  It is unfortunate that an
important social problem is turning into political rhetoric.  A three-pronged approach, including
protection, accountability, and perspective considering the long-term are necessary.  The
number of offenders who were victims of domestic violence is astounding.  The legislature said
it would continue the effort in juvenile justice but only with respect to the criminal side, but
by doing so it is only inheriting the failures of the at-risk and dependency systems.  A
comprehensive policy uses all three approaches to prevent crime.  The Carnegie report supports
this comprehensive approach, whose last chapter is entitled "Mobilizing the Community to
Support Young Children and Their Families."  In an essay by Wilbert Rudeau published in
Time magazine, the convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment in Louisiana in 1962
stated:  "The only effective way to curb crime is for society to work to prevent the criminalact in the first place, to come between the perpetrator and the crime.  Our youngsters must be
taught to respect the humanity of others and to handle disputes without violence.  As a
community, we must address the adverse life circumstances that spawn criminality.  These
things are not quick, and they are not easy, but they are effective."

With respect to the political process and partisan politics, I have always been in favor of
partnerships.  Rhetoric has to be toned down.  Washington has created a task force of
legislators to look at the sentencing portions of the juvenile justice act.  We must fight the 
"quick fix" approach that is not comprehensive.  Without partnership, public disgust with
politics will not end.  Crime is a public policy issue, not a partisan issue.

With respect to "hard" and "soft," or needed and unneeded money, government perpetuates the
image that "we'll do more with less" but can't achieve it.  The role of government should be
reassessed and defined until the public puts the money in for something more.  The role of
government is protection, accountability, and prevention.  It is not "soft" money but a long-
term solution that in the long run saves money.
Impact of Legislation on Violent Crime and Corrections


Jerome Skolnick, Ph.D., Professor of Jurisprudence and Social Policy, Center for the Study
of Law and Society, University of California at Berkeley, discussed the impact of "three
strikes" legislation on violent crime and corrections.  

During the past year, crime and associated violence have become America's number one policy
issue.  The public's concern could present the opportunity to set national crime policy on a
positive course, but instead it is a dangerous time.  Intuition is driving the country toward
untested, desperate, and often predictably ineffectual incapacitation responses that will raise
prison costs, divert tax dollars from other vital purposes such as prevention, and likely leave
the public as insecure and dissatisfied as ever.

California is the nation's leading jailer, with one out of eight American prisoners in a
California cell.  In the past 16 years, the State's prison population has increased sixfold, the
prison budget has increased 400 percent in the last decade, and the corrections budget has
increased 500 percent.  At the same time, violent crime has increased 40 percent.  In 1983 to
1984, 14 percent of the California budget was allocated to higher education and four percent
to prisons.  Today the education and prison budgets meet at nine percent, and "three strikes"
legislation hasn't taken its toll yet.  The other leading state prison systems of New York,
Texas, and Florida experienced half the growth of California's, and western European systems
about a quarter.  Californians should feel safer than they did in the 80s.  Yet the State is
looking to a future of unprecedented spending on imprisonment to finance the recently passed
"three strikes" measure.  The Governor is proposing to take $2.6 billion out of health, welfare,
and education funding--where crime prevention comes from--to fund a comparable increase in
the prison budget.

The California "three strikes" bill casts by far the widest net.  The law defines as the first two
strikes serious felonies as well as violent felonies, and the third strike is any felony.  One of
the first to be charged is a man who allegedly wrested 50 cents from a homeless man.  In San
Francisco a woman refused to testify against a burglar who had broken into her car because
he would get a life sentence.

Another important provision, which is certain to be challenged, is the counting of juvenile
convictions for the first two strikes for such crimes as burglarizing an unoccupied building. 
Prosecutors across the State have assailed the law, arguing that it will clog courts, result in
costly litigation, require an expansion of court and prison facilities, and result in
disproportionate punishment for non-violent offenders.

The Department of Corrections released an analysis of the costs of the measure.  They estimate
that 20 more prisons will be needed, in addition to the current 28, with 12 on the drawing
board.  By the year 2027, the cost of housing prison inmates will peak at $5.7 billion.  If it
passes, the measure would force the State to incarcerate 275,621 more inmates over the nextthree decades.  With California in the lead, the catchy slogan and its simplistic "tough on
crime" message appear to have mesmerized politicians across the nation.  The Senate proposed
to spend $22 billion, mostly for police, prisons, and bootcamps.  The House bill sets aside
about $9 billion for prevention.

Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart has pointed out that the Enlightenment made the severity and
form of punishment "a matter to be thought about, to be reasoned about and argued, and not
merely a matter to be left to feelings and sentiments."  It is true that crime policy has rarely
if ever attained the lofty aspirations of such enlightenment criminologists as Benthan and
Beccaria.  There has been mandatory sentencing in the past, and while they decreased judicial
discretion, these laws overcrowded prisons and allowed for great latitude in prosecutorial
charging and plea bargaining with no discernable reduction in crime.  The irony in California
is that in 1977 we passed a supposedly tough determinate sentencing law, declaring then that
the goal of imprisonment is punishment, not rehabilitation.  Ironically, it was the determinate
sentencing that was responsible for the freedom of Richard Alan Davis, the man who allegedly
abducted and murdered Polly Klaas.  Under indeterminate sentencing, he might have received
a sentence of one to 25 years or life for second degree murder, robbery, rape, or kidnapping,
all of which were crimes he had committed. Instead he was the beneficiary of two mandated
sentence reductions for precisely these crimes, despite the pre-sentencing report that warned
of Davis' "accelerated potential for violence" following his second major conviction.  Had the
indeterminate sentencing law been in effect, someone with Davis' personality and criminal
history would surely have been imprisoned far longer than the mandated six years for his first
set of offenses, and we wouldn't need a sexually violent predator law.

Most criminologists and policy analysts don't support reliance on expanded prisons and the
rigidities of habitual offender laws.  One of the reasons determinate sentencing came about was
the idea that under indeterminate sentencing, prison officials had too much control and power
over prisoners in the prison.  What could happen with "three strikes" is that correctional
officials will have no control, because prisoners in for life, unless they murder and face a death
sentence, won't face any other sanction.  Nor does it make sense for a sexual predator to let
a victim live, because the victim might testify against the offender.

Few criminologists take a hard line.  No one has proven that there is no relationship between
imprisonment and crime.  Rather, statistical evidence shows an ambiguous relationship between
crime rates and imprisonment, scarcely a mandate for "locking them all up."  Certainty of
punishment is more effective than length.  Even if prison pays at the margin, not every
convicted criminal deserves prison, nor is it cost effective to imprison every convicted felon,
nor is it more cost effective to imprison offenders than to supervise them intensively in the
community.

In California people are becoming aware of the potential costs of "three strikes."  Philip
Romero, chief economist and chief deputy director of the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research, argues that despite the high costs of incapacitation, incarceration saves money
because the costs of crime are so high.  According to Romero, each incarcerated offender savesaround $200,000 in victim and social costs.  This means that those now in prison should have
saved $28 billion last year in California.  There are at least three flaws in this analysis:  (1) It
assumes a finite group of criminals without considering youth who will become criminals while
the current group ages.  (2) It assumes an average criminal, although in California, more auto
thieves go to jail than violent offenders.  (3) It assumes hypothetical benefits, while prison
costs are real.  Where are the $28 billion savings predicted by the Romero formula?  They are
not in the State budget.

Statistics indicate that imprisonment "across the board" has scarcely reduced crime.  States with
the highest crime rates also have the highest imprisonment rates.

The goal is public safety.  The majority of serious violent offenders are teenagers and young
men in their twenties; serious violent offending declines with maturity.  Imprisoning youthful
offenders incapacitates them during the twilight of their criminal careers.  However, other
young and more active offenders take their place, and if we incarcerate them for life rather than
into their thirties, we will eventually fill our prisons with geriatric offenders whose care will
be increasingly expensive when their propensity to commit crime is at its lowest.  From a
crime prevention perspective, we need to address crime prevention by youthful offenders who
are growing into the high crime total. 

As teenagers, black and white males are roughly comparable in their disposition to violence. 
Once involved in a lifestyle of violence, theft, and substance abuse, persons from
disadvantaged families and neighborhoods find it more difficult to escape.  They have fewer
opportunities for conventional adult roles, and they are more deeply embedded in and
dependent upon gangs and the illicit economy to survive.

Two trends are responsible for the rise in confinement.  First, longer sentences are being
imposed for such non-violent felonies as larceny and theft.  In 1992 these crimes accounted
(according to the UCR) for 65.9 percent of crime in America.  

Second, drugs have been a driving force in the past 15 to 20 years.  According to the NIJ's
Drug Use Forecasting data, more than half of all violent offenders are under the influence of
drugs, most often alcohol, at the time of their offense.  There has been an explosion of arrests
and convictions and increasingly longer sentences for possessing and selling drugs.  A Justice
Department study found that of the 90,000 Federal prison inmates, one-fifth are low-level drug
offenders without charges of violent offenses or previous prison time.  They are jamming the
prisons.  Through mandated and determinate sentencing, the federal prison population has
tripled in the past decade.  It will rise 50 percent by the end of the century, with drug offenders
accounting for 60 percent of the Federal prison population.  Yet Jeffrey Fagan and William
Spelman point out, in a letter to the New York Times (2/11/94), that there is no relationship
between the severity of drug problems and numbers of arrests or imprisonments.  Their studies
of drug sellers and users found that criminal justice sanctions are far less influential in
controlling the demand for drugs than the word of mouth of consumers about the pleasures and
dangers of mind altering substances.  Drug treatment needs to be a key feature of crime prevention in prisons, jails, and other
custodial treatment centers.  Yet our primary anti-drug policy has been to threaten sizeable
dealers, or drug kingpins, with long prison terms or death to punish and incapacitate them, and
most of all, to deter others.  Unfortunately, this policy results in the "Felix Mitchell paradox,"
which I have named in honor of the West Coast's once most notorious drug kingpin.  In the
1980's, Oakland, California detectives provided evidence to the Federal government to send
Mr. Mitchell to a Federal prison for the rest of his life.  (He was killed in prison, so his life
was short.)  Did the theory of incapacitation and deterrence work?  Were potential drug sellers
in the Bay Area deterred by Mr. Mitchell's life, indeed his death, sentence?  On the contrary, 
drug sales continued and, with Mitchell's monopolistic pricing eliminated, competition reduced
the price of crack cocaine.  The main effect of Mitchell's imprisonment was to destabilize the
market, lowering drug prices and increasing violence as rival gang members challenged each
other for market shares with a consequent rise in drive-by shootings, street homicides and
felonious assaults.  Indirectly, effective law enforcement followed by incapacitation stimulated
serious random violence.  

Youngsters who sell drugs are part of a generation who have learned to see crime as economic
opportunity.  This view sheds light on the need to break the cycle of poverty, abuse, and
violence that dominate their lives and move them in that direction.  Prisons do not deter
because the Mitchells do not rationally calculate with the same evaluative standards as
legislators.  This is partly because they live in a world more threatening than any prison, in
which street-imposed death penalties are a constant danger.  Soaring homicide rates of the late
80's and early 90's are largely the result of an underground drug economy where legal
remedies for breach of contract are unavailable, but where assault weapons are increasingly
accessible.

If violent crime prevention is our strategy, we need to test approaches and make known their
results.  We need to go beyond the Brady Bill and introduce a tight regulatory system on
weapons and ammunition.  Effective gun and ammunition control would do far more to stem
the tide of life threatening violence than expensive prisons mandated sentences.  

There is no apparent relationship between crime rates and additional police on the streets. 
Washington D.C. boasts the highest police-per-resident ratio in the nation with one officer for
every 150 civilians.  Yet it is also America's homicide capital, with the nations's highest per
capita rate.  

There is no evidence that boot camps reduce recidivism.  But if boot camps are primarily a
place of punishment, it doesn't matter if they work.  They provide an end run around the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.  Under the Constitution,
we're not permitted to impose corporal punishment with whips and clubs.  In boot camps,
however, we can require painful exercises and hard and demeaning labor to teach these
miscreant youth a message of retribution.Military boot camps offer training and toughening for a potential combat experience, but if
correctional boot camps were intended to be resocialization interventions, then they are, to say
the least, inadequate.  We need to experiment with boot camps plus education, skills training,
jobs, and community reconstruction.  Conservatives who stress moral revitalization and family
values as an antidote to youth crime have the right idea, yet they rarely, if ever, consider the
importance of structural underpinnings--education, opportunity, employment, family
functioning, community support--for developing such values.  Developing those values is
necessary, but it is not done in isolation.

Conservative intellectual Paul Johnson, in his Wall Street Journal article "The People Want
Revenge" (1/4/94), argued that people want more than anything to punish.  More likely, people
want safety and security.  Politicians lead us to believe that revenge through lengthy
incapacitations offers safety along with punishment.  Eventually, however, citizens are going
to have to choose between the urge to be retributive and the possibilities of crime prevention,
especially of violent crime prevention.  Punishment is largely ineffective for public protection. 
It does deter some, incapacitate others, and send a  moral message to a limited extent.  But if
crime prevention and public safety are our major concerns, we criminal justice researchers have
to get the message across to the public to mistrust intuition and adopt strategies and tactics
which have been researched, tested, and reasoned.  To combat crime, we have to embrace the
values of the Enlightenment over those of the Dark Ages.Changing Nature of Violence in Society


Thomas Tutko, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University (CA),
discussed how violence was seen in the past, what can be done about violence today, and
why violence is a symptom of other problems in society today.

I wrote a paper thirty-some years ago speculating that the country was headed for an explosion
of violence.  I was criticized for pessimism, but now the paper is being brought up to date.

I have three areas to cover:  (1) how we saw violence in the past and how it has changed, (2)
what we can do about violence, and (3) why violence is a symptom.

(1) How we saw violence in the past and how it has changed.

Violence in the past was tied to passion and emotion.  It seemed to have purpose.  Desire for
punishment comes from fear, and represents retaliation.  Movies are popular which show
someone being violated but "bouncing back."  Now there is a new form of violence that
doesn't have any purpose.  We are confused by three kinds of violence:  (1) Gang violence,
which does have some explanation in drugs/economic benefit and comraderie.  (2) Narcissistic
violence, because someone "looked at me wrong" or "I want those shoes."  Movies and rap
music glorify this.  And (3) "fun and games" violence, trivial cases.

(2)  What we can do about violence.

The major problem is that kids don't know alternative ways to fulfill themselves.  We need to
teach negotiation techniques.  Young people need to learn civic responsibility.  Parents must
get involved.  Responsibility and accountability must be imparted.

(3)  Why violence is a symptom.

Corruption and unenforced rules and laws are everywhere, and kids observe this. 
Responsibility should come from the home, but often the home is the source of the problem. 
Unfortunately, people who could give good examples don't.                     State and Local Programs:
              Understanding and Combatting ViolenceHawaii


Multi-Agency Family Violence Program


Statement of the Problem

Over the past three years, the reported incidences of domestic violence in the County of Maui
increased 63 percent, from 1,318 in 1991 to 2,150 in 1993.  During this same period, the
number of arrests increased by approximately 109 percent, from 278 to 580.

The growing complexity of the cases is more disturbing than the increase of reported
incidences.  More children are witnessing family violence, victims are increasingly re-
victimized, and the cycle of violence has expanded to the point that it has a community-wide
impact.  This is evidenced by the increasing drain on social services, shelter services, and
perpetrator treatment programs.  It has also impacted the criminal justice system, police,
prosecutors, courts, corrections, and treatment systems, which have all been asked to respond
beyond their capacities.

Several Maui County agencies recognized that the expeditious arrest and prosecution of
perpetrators of domestic violence positively impact the abuser, the victim, and the community. 
The police, prosecutors, and advocates realized that to protect victims of domestic violence and
minimize the risk of continued abuse, they must manage incidents of domestic violence in a
coordinated manner.  As a result, the Maui Police Department and the Maui Department of the
Prosecuting Attorney have engaged in joint projects.


Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of the program is to reduce the incidence and severity of domestic violence,
and in particular, repeat offenses.  Toward that end, a number of goals and objectives are
pursued.  The first goal is to respond to domestic violence incidents quickly and effectively. 
This is done through the Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) within the Maui Police Department
and through improved case management and processing techniques.  As part of this goal, all
patrol officers received domestic violence training.

The second goal is to expedite the prosecution of domestic violence cases.  For this purpose,
a Domestic Violence Prosecution Team was created, and a career criminal classification system
was established to track repeat offenders.

The third goal is to increase interagency cooperation.  A task force comprising members of law
enforcement, social service, and local government was created.  A coalition of police,
prosecutors, and staff members from Alternatives to Violence, a social service agency, wasestablished to meet monthly.  Interagency training/consultation among the coalition partners
takes place on a regular basis.  A community awareness presentation regarding law
enforcement response to domestic violence incidents was also developed.

The final goal is to provide treatment and support for victims of domestic violence. 
Alternatives to Violence received a contract to provide crisis counseling on domestic violence
calls.  A Victim/Witness Counselor assists the prosecutor and the victim in domestic violence
cases in court.


Program Components

The Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) within the Maui Police Department is assigned a sergeant
and two investigators to handle only domestic violence cases.  The unit developed written
procedures governing the role and responsibilities of police in responding to domestic violence
incidents and conducted training to implement them.  These procedures include a policy under
which all cases are referred for prosecution, and arrest is mandatory if there is a complaint or
evidence of physical abuse.  The unit receives directly and reviews all reported cases of
domestic violence, seeks out and arrests all physical abusers who initially avoid apprehension,
and provides a mechanism for treatment through Alternatives to Violence services.  In addition,
the DVU developed an educational presentation that is provided two to three times per month
to targeted communities.  The unit also responds to requests for information from community
groups.

The Domestic Violence Prosecution Team is assigned two deputy prosecuting attorneys, one
investigator, and one Victim/Witness Counselor.  The unit prosecutes only domestic violence
cases.  The vertical prosecution model is used in domestic violence cases so that the same
attorney or team handles the case through the entire process.  This unit systematically identifies
all repeat offenders for priority in prosecution by tracking the number of verbal and physical
abuse complaints.  Priority cases are moved to the front of the docket if the situation warrants
such action.

The Domestic Violence Task Force brings together members of the criminal justice, social
service, and political communities to coordinate the various components involved in domestic
violence issues.  Representatives from the police, prosecution, judiciary, social service agencies,
and a member of the Maui County Council meet on a quarterly basis to develop efforts to
resolve issues within the framework of the member agencies.  The task force also provides
education for community groups about the efforts of police and prosecutors to reduce the
incidence and severity of domestic violence.Results and Impact

Performance Measures


While it was expected that the program would reduce the incidence of domestic violence, the
police also expected community education and tougher law enforcement initially to lead to an
increase in the number of calls for service related to domestic violence.  The volume of calls
received after the program went into effect, however, exceeded what was anticipated.  As the
program progressed, program officials began to recognize that although their interventions
might not stop the first event from occurring, it could deter subsequent events.  As a result, the
program's goal was redefined to focus on reducing recidivism.  Program officials are
optimistic, however, that in the long run, first events may be deterred as attitudes intolerant of
domestic violence are established among youth. 

Several performance measures were selected to determine the program's success:

      general orders issued by the Maui Police Department regarding the handling of
       domestic violence, the Standard Operating Procedure Manual for the DVU, and the
       Police Training Manual/Lesson Plan;
      number/frequency of training sessions held for the Maui Police Department and the
       number of officers trained;
      total arrests during the project period compared to the previous period;
      number of community awareness presentations given by DVU;
      career criminal classification system put in place;
      number of domestic violence cases brought to court during the project period;
      number/frequency of meetings conducted by the Domestic Violence Task Force and
       the Domestic Violence Coalition; and
      execution of a service-provider contract with the Alternatives to Violence agency.

Implementation Problems and Successes


One of the main problems faced by the program is the general tolerance of domestic violence
in Hawaii's diverse cultures.  It is a challenge for the police department to convince the public
that domestic violence is not only a serious issue but a serious crime.  Among many ethnic
groups, domestic violence is viewed as acceptable behavior and not a problem requiring outside
intervention.

Police officers were initially resistant to the department's change in policy regarding domestic
violence.  Training from the highest levels in the department down to the patrol officers was
employed to overcome resistance and ensure compliance with department policy.

In addition, the police initially targeted ethnic groups for education efforts among whom they
believed most domestic violence occurred.  After closer examination, however, it becameapparent that their perceptions were based more on stereotypes than reality.  As a result, a
concerted effort was needed to market the program to an entirely different population.

Successes and Accomplishments


The police department provided domestic violence training to all officers through either in-
service training or Annual Recall Training.  The department also established the protocol to
coordinate the efforts of all agencies interacting with its DVU.  A change in the record keeping
process ensured that all cases of physical violence are documented by the end of the shift
during which the incident occurred.  The DVU is given a copy of the report immediately.

The police contracted with Alternatives to Violence to provide crisis counseling on a 24-hour
basis.  During the first year of the project, 284 calls were handled by the agency.  In addition,
the DVU provided two to three community presentations per month during this period.

The total number of reported incidents increased 30%, in part due to the community education
effort.  However, their severity decreased, as indicated by the decline in physical abuse cases
compared with verbal abuse cases.  Total arrests for domestic violence incidents increased five
percent.  Repeat offenders continued to represent less than seven percent of total arrests for
domestic violence.

There was a dramatic increase in the number of trials (240 compared to 14 prior to the project)
and in the number of criminal actions filed (1,034 versus 870 prior to the project).  The
number of domestic violence cases prosecuted during the project period increased 15%.  The
processing time of cases from receipt to court hearing was reduced from 90 days to within
three to five weeks.  The conviction rate for domestic violence cases is close to 100%.

The protocol adopted by the police department has enabled more successful prosecutions even
in cases when the witness is hostile to prosecution.  Police officers are obtaining statements
and videotapes to be used in court that are making prosecutions easier, even with uncooperative
witnesses.

The recently established career criminal classification has given the prosecution team ready
access to information on repeat offenders and enhanced their ability to determine an appropriate
prosecution strategy.

Prospects for Replication


Considerations for replication should include the following:

      To ensure familiarity and consistency with policies and procedures regarding
       domestic violence, training of personnel is critical, at all levels.  Personnel must be
       committed to the goals and philosophy of the program.      Understanding and acceptance of the project's goals and objectives by agency
       management, and law enforcement and community agencies affected by the policies
       and procedures are required.

      The appropriate personnel to staff the project is essential.  Staff must be
       knowledgeable and have a supportive attitude toward victims, offenders, and
       participating agencies.

      Communication among program participants must be regular and objective, to
       promote the degree of cooperation and understanding required in a community-wide
       effort.

      Management and senior officers must be alert to callousness or cynicism among
       officers, which will result in the failure of the program.


Contact Information

Lt. Paul Winters
Commander, Juvenile Section
Maui Police Department
55 Mahalani Street
Wailuku, HI  96793
Phone: (808) 244-6480
Fax: (808) 244-6482

James Takayesu
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
County of Maui
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI  96793
Phone: (808) 243-7691
Fax: (808) 243-7625Maryland


School/Community-Based Drug and Violence Reduction Program


Statement of the Problem

At a meeting of the Laurel High School Research and Development Committee, which is a
grassroots school/business/parent "think tank" designed to promote and develop positive
learning opportunities through shared resources, an officer of the Laurel High School (LHS)
Black Student Union told the group that the primary reasons for student drug use, disruption,
and academic failure are lack of positive self-esteem and communication skills.  This sixteen-
year-old young man explained that the absence of positive role models for young black males
in the community has created a void of desired values which leads to behaviors characteristic
of frustration and distrust.  The need for positive intervention at LHS was underscored by the
194 suspensions for fighting and other disruptive behavior in 1992-93.  Many of the incidents
resulting in suspension and/or expulsion were drug and alcohol-related.

With the development of the LHS School/Community Based Drug and Violence Reduction
Program through the Governor's Drug and Alcohol Commission via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988, Subtitle C, young adults have an opportunity to reexamine their values and acquire
additional skills and knowledge to make decisions that will lead to more productive and
effective outcomes.  Peer mediation promotes alternative solutions to violence.  The drug
demand reduction education program coordinated by D.A.R.E. in cooperation with local law
enforcement officers empowers youth to make positive choices.  The peer mediation program
provides opportunities for students to plan, implement, and maintain an investment in the
program.


Goals and Objectives

The goal of the program is the reduction of student drug use and disruptive behavior at Laurel
High School through the school/community-based peer mediation program.  This program
promotes positive problem solving skills in order to develop a learning atmosphere, increase
school attendance of "at risk" students, reduce substance abuse, and reduce activity requiring
discipline.

The program has four objectives:  (1) to train a group of approximately 24 students in the
conflict resolution process to serve as peer mediators and "trainers" of future mediators; (2) to
implement a "Conflict Resolution Through Student Mediation Curriculum" as part of the
regular ninth grade Social Studies program, including instruction in the Prince George's County
Schools' Student Code of Conduct, the role of law enforcement, and the process and objectives
of peer mediation; (3) to expand and maintain a team of qualified staff members andstudents who have successfully completed mediation training and eventually will perform in-
service training for LHS staff members so that the mediation format can be integrated into each
classroom on a regular basis; and (4) to expand and maintain a team of qualified staff members
and students who have successfully completed peer helper training to mentor incoming ninth
graders and promote a smooth and successful transition of "at risk" students into Laurel High
School.


Program Components

A steering committee oversees the implementation of the project.  It is accountable for ensuring
that the program's goals are met and monitors the achievements of the objectives identified. 
The steering committee consists of the principal, the Project Director, the Mediation
Coordinator/Director, the D.A.R.E. representative, the local D.A.R.E. officer, the Home/School
Relations Coordinator, the Social Studies Teacher Coordinator, and a student representative
from the Peer Mediation Group.

The foundation and development phases of the project contain three focus areas.  The first is
the organization and development of the "Social Studies Conflict Resolution Through Student
Mediation Curriculum" component.  Lessons with accompanying handouts include the Student
Code of Conduct, law enforcement, and Conflict Resolution Through Student Peer Mediation.
These lessons and the pre- and post-test results will be carefully evaluated during the summer
of 1994, and revisions will be made.  A teacher's guide that can easily be adopted by other
schools will be created at that time.

During the 1993-94 school year, the Social Studies Department of Laurel High School is
maintaining the D.A.R.E. program in the tenth grade curriculum.  The D.A.R.E. program
complements S.A.F.E. (Students Against a Fearful Environment) with the infusion of new
lessons and an emphasis on specific lessons related to Laurel's student population and the
Laurel community.  As part of this program, Laurel police officers are actually placed in the
high school.

The second phase was a three-day training retreat for the Peer Mediation Student Core Group
which took place during August 1993.  At this retreat, the students developed an increased
awareness of how they and others solve problems.  They were also tutored in listening, note
taking, and critical thinking skills.  As Peer Mediators, they learned how to ask questions,
gather information, facilitate communication, and develop alternative solutions for disputes. 
Special attention was given to the influence of their role as Peer Mediators in terms of their
self-perception as well as the view their peers hold of them.

Teachers now bring students to mediation instead of to administrators to settle disputes. 
During the mediation, the disputants are able to express their feelings without name calling,
and solutions are reached.  After the mediation session, the students sign a contract whichcontains what they have agreed to resolve.  This contract goes on file with the Mediation
Coordinator/Director so that the student can be referred if his/her file suggests that referral is
appropriate.  To encourage and enhance open lines of communication among school staff, a
copy of this contract also is sent to the grade level administrator and the guidance department
so that either can follow up with the students.

Failed mediations are followed up by the Mediation Coordinator/Director.  Follow-up may
include a call to the student's parents and/or suspension.  Some violations such as gun
violations or teacher/student conflicts are not dealt with by the program.  Parents are brought
into mediation only for severe cases and are used as a bargaining chip to ensure cooperation
and participation by recalcitrant students.

The Peer Mediation Class Course Curriculum includes instructional activities so that
participating students will continue to learn beneficial mediation techniques, coordinate and
conduct peer mediations as needed, and train additional Student Peer Mediators.  Guest
speakers on relevant topics and field trips to agencies such as prisons and law enforcement
facilities such as the State Police Department have emphasized the importance of guiding peers
to make positive choices.

The third phase, a program called Peer Helpers/Mentors, is in its second year.  A group of
incoming ninth graders were assigned upperclass mentors prior to entering Laurel High School. 
Opportunities were provided for mentors to meet their partners, establish a relationship based
on activities and seminars, and gain information during the summer on the techniques of peer
helpers.  Peer mentors had the responsibility of providing support and guidance to their
students in academic, emotional, and social concerns throughout the school year.

The implementation phase of the three program components -- the Social Studies Conflict
Resolution Through Student Mediation Curriculum, S.A.F.E. and D.A.R.E., and the Peer
Helping/Mentoring program -- commenced simultaneously with the opening of the Fall 1993
school term.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures


The expected results based on the program's performance measures are as follows:

      From September 1993 to June 1994, the attendance average for students will
       increase a minimum of two percent over the previous year.

      From September 1993 to June 1994, the number of discipline referrals for drug-
       related offenses, insubordination, disrespect, class disruption, and inciting violence
       will be reduced by a minimum of five percent from the previous year's level.      From September 1993 to June 1994, the suspension rates for all students will be
       reduced a minimum of five percent from the previous year.

      Peer mediation training will take place during August 1993.

      The ninth grade Social Studies S.A.F.E. Curriculum component will be written by
       Social Studies teachers, and one lesson will be taught by police officers.

      The Social Studies Department will continue the D.A.R.E. program as part of the
       tenth grade curriculum.

      The peer mentoring program will be maintained and enhanced.

      An informal evaluation will take place at the end of the 1993-1994 school year. 
       Administrators will compare the 1992-1993 academic year's data on absenteeism,
       disciplinary referrals, and suspensions with the 1993-1994 school years' data.  There
       is a potential for an outside, formal evaluation by the State of Maryland.

Implementation Problems and Successes   


When the program was first introduced, some administrators did not believe that the Mediation
Coordinator/Director would be tough enough on students.  The Guidance Department felt
threatened by the program, which seemed to encroach on their duties.  These problems were
rectified, in part, because of the principal's support for the program.  The four vice-principals,
whose job description includes handling disciplinary cases, were reluctant to send students to
mediation at first.  When they realized the value of the program, they began to bring the
students directly to mediation.

Successes and Accomplishments


      Peer mediation training was completed.  Ninety students attended a 1/2 credit Peer
       Mediation course and have mediated 1,500+ cases through April 1994, effectively
       helping over 3,000 students resolve their disputes without violence.  These
       mediations have reduced the vice-principals' disciplinary cases by one-third.  In
       addition, the student mediators have instructed other students in mediation techniques
       both at LHS and at other schools.

      Social Studies teachers completed writing the S.A.F.E. curriculum, and police
       officers taught Lesson 3 to 658 ninth graders.

      The Peer Helper/Mentoring Program was maintained with approximately 100 ninth
       graders participating.

      Approximately 550 tenth graders were taught the D.A.R.E. curriculum.As a whole, the program has been viewed as very successful.  The student mediators have
       helped thousands of students resolve their difficulties.  The disputing students have learned by
       experience that talking out problems can be empowering and satisfying.  The Student
       Mediators have received a boost in self-esteem, and have developed important life skills. 
       Students are now becoming mediators for the prestige that the position entails.

Attendance, disciplinary referrals, and suspensions have neither decreased nor increased.  This
is significant because every other school in the same school district has suffered from an
increase in these negative indicators.  As a result, every other high school in Prince George's
County will be required by the school board to replicate this program.

The impact of the D.A.R.E., S.A.F.E., and peer helper programs may be similarly judged. 
They may also have helped to prevent an increase in negative indicators witnessed by nearby
schools.

Prospects for Replication


The program was designed by a school staff person in such a way that others could replicate
it.  A S.A.F.E. curriculum has been produced.  A manual for starting a peer mediation program
is in the process of being developed.  Video productions have been generated which
demonstrate various parts of the program.

The most difficult facets to replicate are recognition of the value of the program and the
willingness to put adequate resources into the program.  A full-time position for a Peer
Mediation Coordinator is needed.  Laurel High School's Peer Mediation Program has been so
successful that LHS's school system is in the process of arranging for full-time Peer Mediation
Coordinators in each of its 18 high schools.  One of the most important components of a peer
mediation program is full support from top administrators.  In the case of Laurel High School,
the Principal gave his full support to the program and caused an actual shift in the school's
disciplinary policy.  Another potential means of replicating mediation in other schools is to
make conflict resolution a mandatory part of teacher certification.  This program is not only
appropriate for high schools.  It can also be replicated in middle and elementary schools and
has been successful with fourth and fifth graders.


Contact Information

Dr. Dennis S. Woroniecki
Special Assistant to the Principal
Laurel High School
8000 Cherry Lane
Laurel, MD  20707
Phone: (301) 725-8300
Fax: (301) 725-2652Massachusetts


Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project


Statement of the Problem

Nationwide studies indicate that law enforcement officers are unclear about their role in
responding to all forms of domestic elder abuse, are largely unaware of legislative reporting
requirements, and generally, are not trained in the detection of different forms of abuse.  A
number of Massachusetts police commanders have echoed a desire for more training in elder
issues.  They understand the need for increased attention to elder issues in view of the dramatic
increase in the elderly population which is projected to continue well into the next century. 
Police commanders also recognize that careful and sensitive service for the elderly is an
important component of any successful community policing program.

Elder victims are afraid to report abuse for fear of retaliation or the loss of services provided
by the offender.  Shame also prevents elder victims from reporting the abuse.  In addition,
police officers often have mixed feelings about intervening in disputes with the elderly or
cannot detect that the victim is an elder.  

Studies have demonstrated that officers with specialized training on elderly victimization
consistently receive favorable ratings from the older citizens they serve.  In contrast, officers
lacking specialized training generally receive poor ratings from elderly citizens.  This results
in the elderly having a negative view about the overall effectiveness of police services. 
Equally as compelling, studies have found that specially trained officers solve twice as many
crimes against the elderly as those officers who do not receive special training.  Training can
be the catalyst for better police/community interaction and more effective crime fighting.

In this context, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, under the direction of Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger, created the Elderly Protection Project to help police officers detect
domestic elder abuse and assist those victims.


Goals and Objectives

The goal of the Elderly Protection Project is to protect older citizens from abuse, neglect, and
financial exploitation.  The project objectives are to enhance officers' skills in preventing,
reporting, and responding to elder cases, and to secure active collaboration between the
Attorney General's Office, police officers, and local elder protective service workers.  

Training must be comprehensive to have a significant impact.  Comprehensive training involves
all of the actors that confront a given social problem.  In the case of elder abuse, the majoractors are the police, protective service workers, and the prosecutor.  The first priority of the
project is to strengthen the working relationship between the police and protective services.  

The project also focuses on recruit and in-service training.  Recruits are generally receptive to
innovation and alternative techniques and represent the future of community policing.  In the
coming year, the project plans to provide intermediate, in-service training for veteran officers
to help ensure that all officers are aware of their basic responsibilities concerning elder abuse. 
The project also plans to present training for prosecutors and victim/witness advocates
throughout Massachusetts.


Program Components

The Elderly Protection Project, in operation since February 1993, is coordinated by a Project
Director with assistance from a part-time administrator.  The project's training initiatives began
in September of 1993.  The six months prior to the start of training were devoted to developing
training materials and contacts within the protective service agencies, law enforcement, and
communities.

Police training by the Attorney General's Office appears to increase the project's credibility. 
The Project Director has taught all recruit and advanced programs, which ensures consistency
of the information conveyed and eliminates the logistical burden of arranging for a completely
different slate of trainers at each locale.  In the advanced training, the Director is assisted by
local protection service workers and a representative from the Massachusetts Alzheimer's
Association and the Registry of Motor Vehicles.  Following are the components of the project.

Advanced Training.  Advanced Training is the centerpiece of the project and corresponds to
the regions covered by local protection service workers -- 27 local Protective Service Agencies
in Massachusetts that are supervised by the Executive Office of Elder Affairs.  These local
agencies are responsible for investigating elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation reports
generated by local police departments and other mandated reporters.  The protective service
agencies also provide a number of services and referrals to elders in need of assistance.

The foundation of an effective response to elder victimization begins by cultivating and
maintaining a working relationship between local departments and protective service agencies. 
For this reason, the 16 advanced trainings were geographically arranged for workers from all
27 protective service agencies and police officers from the corresponding local departments. 
In this way, officers not only received training in their reporting obligations but also
established contact with their local protective service agencies' representatives.  Conducting
training at local sites made seminars smaller, more interactive, and focused on local issues. 
Local sites also promoted inter-departmental alliances and a greater understanding of elder
issues in each community.  Target audience.  Individual Police chiefs were in the best position to determine who should
receive this training.  Their decisions depended upon the size and structure of their
departments.  Some executives sent their domestic violence detectives; others sent crime
prevention specialists; still others saw these seminars as an opportunity for training patrol
officers who expressed an interest in elder issues.

Recruit Training.  Recruit training took place at 12 different academies.  Flexibility was
necessary since different academies provided different time periods for this block of instruction
-- anywhere from two to eight hours -- and had different class sizes -- anywhere from 29 to
191 -- which affected the instructor's ability to use class exercises and discussion versus lecture
presentation.

Curriculum and Learning Techniques.  Depending on the level of audience expertise, the
training explored the following topics: (1) the demographics of an increasing elder population
and its implications for police services; (2) myths and facts about aging; (3) effective
communication techniques, including background on the concerns, fears and vulnerabilities of
the elderly; (4) enhanced investigation through detailed report writing and photographs; (5)
financial exploitation in its various forms; (6) the elder abuse reporting law and coordination
with the protective services system; (7) understanding domestic violence and its applicability
to the elderly; (8) mental health issues; (9) police response to missing persons with Alzheimer's
Disease; and (10) case studies in elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation.

Finally, the courses utilized a variety of learning techniques including lecture, testing, written
materials, videotapes and overhead transparencies, discussion and case studies, and
opportunities for professional interaction.


Results  and  Impact

Implementation Problems and Successes


After the initial implementation, this project needed to determine the type of officer who would
benefit the most from the training.  Officers felt that the training would be most beneficial for
supervisors, who are in a better position to pass on what they learned to the department.

The Attorney General's Elderly Protection Project's budget is intended to be small.  The
project's administrative leanness and ability to organize and conduct a series of training
sessions throughout the State in a short time were considered obstacles before the upstart of
the project.  However, the Project Director was able to provide the training within the time
limit.   Decreasing police overtime and budgets made it difficult for a number of police chiefs
to release officers for training.  The project tried to rectify this by providing chiefs with more
than one opportunity to send officers to training sessions.

One unanticipated implementation success has been the professional settings in which the
training takes place.  Officers appreciated being treated like professionals instead of beingtrained in an academy-like atmosphere.  Upon completion of the training, officers were given
patches and certificates.

Successes and Accomplishments


The Elderly Protection Project has achieved the following: 

      Conducted 15 regional, two-day advanced trainings.  By the end of the grant
       cycle, this project will have completed 16 two-day trainings involving over 200
       police departments and all 27 local protective service agencies in Massachusetts. 
       Also trained were 445 officers, 58 protection service workers, and 34 other
       professionals.

      Created Elderly Protection Project Advanced Law Enforcement Training
       Manual.  Rather than invent each training component, the project relied on
       established agencies for much of its training materials, especially the Association of
       American Retired Persons (AARP) and the Police Executive Research Forum
       (PERF).  The project adapted those materials to its overall program.  This manual
       may be the project's most enduring accomplishment.  The manual has received
       excellent reviews by course participants.  A number of protective service agencies
       have decided to use the manual as their training tool.  In addition to providing a
       manual to each course participant, the project has distributed another 200 copies to
       police departments, protection service workers, and other human service agencies. 
       
      Conducted 12 recruit training programs.  These programs were of various lengths
       depending on the schedule of the particular academy.  A total of 755 recruits were
       trained.  The Academy Directors at the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training
       Council facilities, the Boston Police Department, and the State Police have informed
       the Project Director that the recruits uniformly praised the training.  A 26-page
       recruit handout was provided for further assistance.   

      In-service training.  The training sessions confirmed the need for all veteran
       officers to participate in shorter, concentrated, in-service training that describes their
       reporting obligations and provides insight on effective communication and
       investigation techniques.  Developing an effective mechanism for accomplishing this
       in light of the decentralized nature of Massachusetts' law enforcement education
       represents a continuing challenge.  In the coming year, the Project Director will
       attempt to gain acceptance of a model curriculum at a number of regional academies
       and conduct a train-the-trainer program that will provide a core group of trained
       police instructors.

The project has received very strong evaluations from course participants.  In evaluations,
approximately 75% of the participants gave this course the highest possible rating for content,
delivery and quality of training materials, and 75% strongly believe that this training "increased[their] sensitivity to older people."  Beyond statistical information, both officers and protection
service workers commented that the training helped to strengthen their working relationship
with each other which, in the future, should cause them to investigate and collaborate on cases
in a different, more effective way.  Finally, many commented that the manual will be used on
an ongoing basis as a reference tool.

Plans are being discussed for an evaluation of the project. The Elderly Protection Project
Advanced Law Enforcement Training Manual is available upon request.

Prospects For Replication


The Elderly Protection Project may be successfully replicated in other States for three reasons: 
(1) police executives and officers are interested in learning more about how to successfully
serve the community's growing elderly populations; (2) protective services agencies usually
are very interested in developing better relationships with local law enforcement; and (3)
effective and comprehensive training programs can be developed and implemented without a
substantial commitment of personnel or resources.  Training initiatives would have to be
adapted to the structure of police training and accreditation already present in the particular
State.


Contact Information

John S. Scheft, Esquire
Project Director, Elderly Protection Project 
Office of Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts  02108-1698
Phone: (617) 727-2200, Extension 2888
Fax: (617) 727-3251Michigan


Community Oriented Policing Assisting Neighborhood Reclamation


Statement of the Problem

In 1988, when crack cocaine first reached Lansing, the Department responded with a Street
Level Enforcement Team which initiated proactive arrest methods in an attempt to eliminate
the problem.  After 90 raids and 600 arrests in the first eight months, it became apparent that
proactive police methods alone would not impact the overall problem.  In some neighborhoods,
decreasing the number of houses available for illegal drug trade increased the violence between
drug sellers and buyers.

Through statistical information, it was determined that the majority of drug complaints were
concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods whose owner occupancy rate was hovering at the 50%
or lower level.  Even though street sales are the predominant source of distribution,
investigations revealed that the vast majority of street dealers operate out of houses close to
"their" corners.  Crack houses remained at the same addresses, but were occupied by new
renters after police intervention.  

Lansing had developed over 133 Neighborhood Watch groups during the 1980's that focused
on crime prevention and reporting.  In 1990, it became apparent that the police department
could not respond to citizen complaints of drug dealing and related violence through traditional
call-response policing.  A process was initiated to find solutions.

In 1989, the staff at the Lansing Police Department worked with a professional Strategic
Planner to develop a vision, mission, and goal statement for the Department and the
community.  The Department's current vision statement, "Police and Community Partnerships
for Progress and Excellence," initiated community oriented policing and community
reclamation.

The Mayor established a committee of city departments to define the problem clearly.  The
committee is chaired by the Mayor's Assistant, and members include the City Attorney, the
Chief Judge of the District Court, a Probation Department staff member, a Building Safety
Department staff member, a member of the Zoning Department, a representative from the
Planning Department, the Chief of Police, and Division Commanders from the Uniform
Division and the Special Operations Division.  The committee began attending Neighborhood
Watch community meetings.  The community had the opportunity to communicate directly with
the Mayor's Office and the city departments affecting the quality of life within their
neighborhoods.  The city departments educated the community regarding the resources
available and how to access them.Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of community-based partnerships is to reduce crime through police
departments that work with and empower the community.  One objective of the program is to
develop citizen volunteer action in support of and in conjunction with the police, designed to: 
(1) reduce drug houses within assigned areas; (2) reduce street sales; and (3) reduce violent and
non-violent criminal activity supportive of drug activity.  Other objectives include providing
police services consistent with the identified needs of target neighborhoods; bringing more
accessible programs and services to the neighborhoods; working in partnership with individual
and group volunteers and organizations to deliver a comprehensive set of services through
referrals, interventions, and links to various social agencies; and working with target residents
to eliminate problem tenants and landlords and restore community pride through neighborhood
revitalization and increased owner occupancy.


Program Components

Community Oriented Policing.  Community Oriented Policing empowers personnel at all levels
of the police department to solve problems.  A major key to Community Policing is that it
allows public access to police officers.  Lansing currently has ten district patrol offices in the
city's neighborhoods, whose sites were donated by the community.  Approximately 34 officers
are assigned to these offices.  Patrol officers have access to the Department's mainframe
computer at the district offices.  This allows them to generate reports in less time so that, they
are able to remain in the field longer, access pertinent intelligence information, and increase
communication with the neighborhood.

When a neighborhood is preparing for the program, a series of meetings take place in the first
two months.  The police department's expectations of the residents are explained.  The
neighborhood is clearly told that the program will not be effective if its citizens are apathetic.

Community officers quickly became aware of needs within their neighborhoods beyond the
removal of drug dealers.  Residents requiring human services had no idea which services were
available or how to access them.  Officers were given manuals created by the Lansing Police
Department on the services available to residents.  One innovative officer found an available
office building within his neighborhood that has developed into a full Network Center bringing
over 22 human services into the neighborhood.  These services include Operation Graduation,
a Community Mental Health program, parenting classes, and Neighborhood Partnership
Consultants.

Community Reclamation.  Landlord/Tenant Detective:  Street level drug sales and criminal
activity are directly related to the residential property where dealers store, distribute, or use
controlled substances.  A detective has been assigned to work full time with landlords and
property owners.  With the help of a full time assistant city attorney, the detective targetsnuisance complaints. Cooperative landlords receive the detective's assistance at eviction
hearings.  Uncooperative landlords face charges of violations of city and State nuisance
abatement ordinances and statutes.

Community/Landlord Organizer:  In 1992, the Department realized the need to start removing
police from leadership roles and empowering citizens to fill the positions.  A contractual
employee was hired from Lansing's Neighborhood Council to organize Landlord and
Neighborhood Development (L.A.N.D.) Committees composed of tenants, landlords, and
property owners.  Each committee is trained in landlord/tenant rights, complaint filing and
resolution, and finding both public and private financial resources.  Each committee is
supported by a police officer, a code compliance officer, and an assistant city attorney.

Each L.A.N.D. Committee chooses the activities it will pursue.  The committees have identified
income sources, developed lists of services available within the community, produced brochures
to promote their neighborhoods, and filed nuisance complaints against properties owned by
uncooperative landlords.

The Committees' long-term goal is increased home ownership.  An increase in home ownership
should increase community pride and decrease apathy toward crime because home ownership
gives residents a stake in the neighborhood.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures


Community reclamation targets drug houses, which are the key to street level drug sales and
related violence.  If allowed to continue after police intervention, the neighborhood gives up
or is too frightened to step forward.  Post-eviction is the critical period.  New residents must
understand that the neighborhood does not tolerate drug dealing.

Computerized databases are used to collect the necessary data to measure project results. 
These databases consist of the Department's Law Enforcement Management System, Raid and
Suspected/Confirmed Drug House System, civil abatement complaints, criminal complaints,
location and calls for service, and UCR index.  In addition, the Community Bureau conducts
satisfaction surveys of neighborhood residents to determine the quality of life in the
neighborhoods.  Police officers are also sent into neighborhoods on "walk and talk" missions. 
These assignments involve walking the neighborhoods on a weekend night and talking to
residents about crime in the area.

Implementation Problems and Successes


One implementation problem was changing the officers focus to community policing rather
than arrests.  The officers must adopt the philosophy that they are responding to problems
rather than to "quick fix" calls.Successes and Accomplishments


All community policing neighborhoods have reached a 95% or better drug house-free goal. 
Drug house complaints have decreased by 20% citywide over the past two years.  The city's
overall Part I crimes decreased by three percent, and calls for service decreased by two percent
in 1993.  Home ownership increased in 1993, and the average value of residential property
increased by $1,800.

The landlord/tenant detective was able to assist in 333 evictions without the necessity of a raid. 
Because each raid cost the Department approximately $900 in personnel costs, a total of
$299,700 was saved.

The community/landlord organizer has received the endorsement of the city's Landlord
Organization.  Volunteer action committees have identified income sources, developed lists of
services available within the community, produced brochures to promote their neighborhood,
and filed nuisance complaints against properties owned by uncooperative landlords.

An office building has been turned into a network center which brings over 22 human services
into the neighborhood.

Prospects for Replication


Community-based policing has taken on many forms throughout the country.  The key
component is police recognition of the strength of the communities they serve.  Communities
willing to fight crime must have the complete cooperation of combined governmental services. 
When an active community understands its responsibility, community reclamation begins.


Contact Information

Captain James Rapp
Lansing Police Department
120 West Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI  48933
Phone: (517) 483-4812
Fax: (517) 483-6003Nebraska


Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit


Statement of The Problem

With the exception of Omaha and Lincoln, most Nebraska residents live in rural areas.  New
industry, drug gangs, and other forces have combined to increase the flow of controlled
substances and violent crime throughout the State.  Large numbers of drug arrests have
occurred within the past year in towns of less than 10,000 people.  Rural law enforcement are
less equipped to handle the increase in crime because they (1) usually work longer hours; (2)
have fewer opportunities for training; and (3) have less equipment and support. 

In addition to the lack of resources, Nebraska suffers from problems common to rural areas. 
It is estimated that every four years prosecutorial staff turnover reaches 50%.  Almost 85% of
this staff is part-time.  This absence of long-term experience on the part of rural prosecutors
has contributed to an increase of the number of cases referred to the appellate court.  Working
in a sparsely populated State results in prosecutors spending many hours traveling from one
jurisdiction to another.  "Turf wars" among local law enforcement and prosecutors create
additional problems.

These conditions demonstrated the need to provide direct prosecutorial services, training, and
stronger working relationships among Federal, State, and local law enforcement.  In response,
the Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Unit of the Nebraska Attorney General's Office was
created in July 1988 to improve the response to drugs and violent crime.


Goals and Objectives

The goal of the Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution program is to enhance the direct delivery
of local prosecutorial services and to assist both local prosecutors and law enforcement
agencies in responding to drug activity and violent crime across the State.

The objectives designed to achieve this goal are to:  (1) assist local prosecutors in all phases
and aspects of the prosecution and trial process for drug and violent crime cases; (2) provide
research assistance to regional task forces, State and local law enforcement, and county
attorneys; (3) develop educational and resource material for law enforcement and prosecutors;
(4) train law enforcement and prosecutors in the area of investigation and prosecution of
violent crime; (5) maintain assistance and training for State and local law enforcement officers;
(6) instruct students at the State universities and colleges in criminal justice issues; and (7)
publicize to State and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors the expansion of the
program's scope to include violent crime.Program Components

Supplement Existing Prosecutorial Resources.  The program consists of four full-time,
experienced prosecutors and a support staff.  It is designed to supplement existing prosecutorial
resources in the following ways:  by accepting and prosecuting referrals of drug and violent
crime cases; by prosecuting appropriate cases in Federal court through cross-designation; by
consulting and advising local prosecuting attorneys; by consulting with and advising Regional
Task Force operations and staff; by participating and assisting in task force investigations; and
by attending and facilitating task force meetings.

Facilitate Inter-Agency Cooperation.  This component is designed to facilitate inter-agency
cooperation by encouraging cooperation among local sheriffs, police, State patrol, and Federal
agencies; by assisting and participating in multijurisdictional investigations with local, State,
and Federal agencies; and by participating in Federal investigative, pre-trial, trial, and appellate
functions.

Train Prosecutors and Law Enforcement.  This program component is designed to educate
and train prosecutors and law enforcement officers.  This is accomplished through:  training
seminars for law enforcement officers conducted by the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training
Center; training for law enforcement officers conducted in conjunction with Regional Task
Force activities; training seminars for prosecutors sponsored by the Nebraska County Attorneys
Association and Federal agencies; and the publication of training aids, reference materials, and
prosecutor manuals.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures


The program anticipates a statewide increase in the direct prosecution of drug and violent crime
cases.  Performance indicators will be determined by reviewing the number of homicide and
other violent crime cases for which local prosecutors request assistance from the unit.  In
addition, the number of drug-related cases that are handled directly by the unit or in a joint
prosecution with local authorities will be evaluated.

Performance evaluation regarding the number of research and technical assistance requests will
be measured by tabulation and documentation of the number, nature, and topic of research
requests received from  county attorneys, local, or regional task force officers.

Evaluation of training efforts will be ascertainable through monitoring of the number of
attendees in each seminar, the number of seminars presented by the unit, and the topics covered
at the training functions.  Also, participants can be surveyed to determine the extent of
information absorbed and to measure participant satisfaction.Implementation Problems and Successes


The main implementation problem is the time prosecutors spend traveling.  It often takes a
prosecutor a day to reach the crime scene.  This required the project to have four FTE's even
though the State has a sparse population.  

One success was the prosecutors' approach to implementing the program.  With "turf wars"
hindering the implementation of the program, prosecutors spent time on-site getting to know
the local law enforcement.  This informal approval seemed to help the local law enforcement
understand the role of State agents and to accept the services of the prosecutors.

Successes and Accomplishments


As a result of the expanded focus and the decrease in boundary "turf wars," State prosecutors
are being asked by local law enforcement to assist with cases.  The unit within the last three
months has received requests for direct prosecution in three first-degree murder cases, one
motor vehicle homicide case, a sexual assault, and a Federal drug and weapons case involving
multiple defendants.  The unit has also been requested to assist in ongoing investigations of
violent deaths in five additional counties.  In calendar year 1993, the special unit received
requests for assistance from 41% of the counties in addition to other requests for assistance
from State and Federal agencies.    

In cooperation with the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center, during 1993
approximately 400 law enforcement officers were trained at 18 training sessions held
throughout the State.

In 1993, the unit prosecuted 49 felony cases and handled over 60 appeals to the Court of
Appeals and the Nebraska Supreme Court involving drug offenses.  Several significant
appellate decisions both established new laws and affirmed current law enforcement practices. 
These cases involved the articulation of standing requirements, specification of issues on
motions to suppress, criteria for inventory searches, the use of drug dogs, search issues, and
the innocent owner defense issue involved in forfeitures.

The unit has been assigned the responsibility of defending a recently adopted drug tax as well
as responding to the administrative appeals arising out of the imposition and assessment of the
tax.

For the first time, a database has been set up to monitor appeals, types of drugs, violent crime,
and victim information.  This is a major step in the development of the prosecution unit and
will be extremely helpful for future evaluations.

Another important accomplishment was the recent distribution of the second edition of the
Drug and Violent Crime Prosecution Manual to all 93 sheriffs and county attorneys.  In
addition, 25 of the major police departments, all regional task force operations, and the
Nebraska State Patrol received the manual.  The manual covers topics on search and seizure,asset forfeiture, wiretap/electronic surveillance, and the use of expert witnesses.  In addition
to the manual, the unit writes a weekly article for the State Patrol Bulletin.  These articles
critique a case and provide information on the latest case research.  All materials are available
upon request.

Prospects for Replication


Replication of the Nebraska project in other jurisdictions depends on a number of factors:  (1)
the constitutional or statutory prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General in the respective
States; (2) the extent and nature of the available prosecutorial resources in the respective
county jurisdictions; (3) the existing training mechanisms or institutions responsible for law
enforcement training; (4) the division and assignment of investigative responsibilities; (5) the
existence and makeup of multijurisdictional task forces; (6) the nature and extent of multi-
venue criminal activity; (7) the extent of cooperation and interface with local, State, and
Federal agencies; (8) the demographics of the jurisdiction; and (9) the financial ability of the
local and State entities to support the project.


Contact Information

William L. Howland
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Criminal Prosecution Division
Project Director
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, Nebraska  68509
Phone: (402) 471-3833
Fax: (402) 471-4725North Carolina


Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF)


Statement of the Problem

The public's concern about crime continues to increase as crime appears to be more random
and committed by people without prior contact with their victims.  The rise in violent predatory
crime (e.g., robberies, carjackings, break-ins, random shootings) alarms the public and is
causing the present lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.  Victims traditionally
have included friends and loved ones of the offender, but the trend in recent years has been
an increase in the number of crimes committed by strangers.

North Carolina has always experienced high rates of assault and homicide, most of them taking
place between perpetrators and victims who knew each other.  Armed robbery rates were
previously consistently low, but currently are increasing faster than that of any other violent
crime.  Murder committed by strangers is also increasing.

A series of studies conducted by criminologists confirm a view shared by experienced law
enforcement investigators:  a relatively small number of repeat offenders are responsible for
a disproportionate amount of violent predatory crime.  Traditional ways of targeting repeat
violent offenders have had disappointing results.  Career criminal programs use court records
to identify targets.  Court records focus on defendants who qualify for enhanced charges and
are already under arrest by local law enforcement.  This approach is based on the theory that
putting high-rate predatory offenders behind bars prevents crime.  However, evaluations of
career criminal programs and other programs that use court records to target high-rate violent
predatory criminals show that they are not largely effective.

Programs that get offenders off the streets during their highest crime producing years --
between the ages of 17 and 24 -- will have the greatest impact on predatory crime.  Despite
their limited number, the impact of these criminals on communities is growing.  By the time
criminals build up a court record long enough to qualify for most career criminal programs,
more often than not they are beyond their highest crime-producing years.


Goals and Objectives

The goal of the Violent Career Criminal Task Force (VCCTF) program is to improve the
quality of life in high crime areas by enhancing law enforcement's ability to remove targeted
repeat violent criminals from society.The VCCTF program attempts to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct
proactive investigations against these dangerous individuals through the following objectives: 
(1) develop better methods to identify repeat violent felons; (2) target, investigate, arrest, and
convict violent felons; (3) improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to engage in
proactive investigations; and (4) improve methods for gathering investigative information and
using it more strategically.


Program Components

The VCCTF identifies violent criminals and incarcerates them during their high crime years. 
The VCCTF uses the investigative resources of local and Federal law enforcement agencies
and the enhanced sentencing capabilities in the Federal Firearms Statutes to target, investigate,
and convict active violent offenders.  VCCTF differs from similar programs in four significant
ways:  (1) law enforcement intelligence rather than court records develop targets for active
investigation; (2) the lead agency in the VCCTF is a State investigative agency rather than a
local law enforcement agency; (3) investigations are aggressive and proactive, making
extensive use of sophisticated audio and video surveillance equipment and special funds to buy
guns, drugs, and information; and (4) the VCCTF funds undercover work to develop Federal
firearms charges.

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is the lead agency in the North
Carolina VCCTF program.  State investigative agencies like the SBI bring a number of
advantages to this kind of program, one of which is their statewide jurisdiction.  Criminals do
not pay attention to political boundaries.  Active criminals work in a number of jurisdictions,
and State agencies like the SBI can follow offenders and their activities in any jurisdiction.

Few local law enforcement agencies are organized to do proactive investigations.  Only the
largest local law enforcement agencies have access to the surveillance and communication
resources needed for this type of long term investigation.

Most programs rely on local agencies to make arrests.  Those cases are sorted through to
identify targets for Federal court.  State investigative agencies like the SBI conduct proactive
investigations and build cases against known targets.  The SBI has an intelligence unit to
compile and track investigative leads and a financial crime unit to provide computer support
and help identify assets.  SBI agents assigned to the VCCTF also have experience with
proactive drug task force investigations.  

Program Operation.  Local agencies submit violent criminal targets to the task force which
are reviewed by the regional coordinator and the special agent in charge from each task force
office.  It is then decided if the case will be accepted as a target.  The criteria used in this
review include the violent criminal history of the subject; evidence that the subject is currently
"active" as a violent criminal; and the likelihood that the subject can be successfully Federally
prosecuted for criminal violations.If accepted as a target, task force law enforcement officers from local, State, and/or Federal
agencies investigate the criminal.  These investigators focus on the criminal activities of targets
until they develop a credible Federal prosecution case.  The active criminal is then arrested and
prosecuted at the Federal level.

After a case becomes a target, all tools are used to build a Federal case.  A tremendous amount
of time is spent observing each target, using informants, undercover operatives, and other
methods to make a strong case.  If targets are correctly chosen and closely watched, serious
criminal behavior is usually observed within a short period of time.  The keys to this program
are patience and resources.  A substantial portion of the VCCTF grant funds has been spent
on surveillance and communications equipment, computers, and analytical support for the
Federal, State, and local officers working on the task forces.

Surveillance.  While there is active involvement in the investigations by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the SBI provides the
surveillance equipment and computer support needed for investigations.  Federal agents
working on violent crime task force cases rely on State and local agencies for the same
resources.

Intelligence and Data.  Each VCCTF investigation is supported by civilian analysts who run
criminal history checks and enter all investigative leads, contacts, and other relevant
information into relational database programs.  This has proven invaluable in developing cases.


Results and Impact

Successes and Accomplishments


Since the inception of the program through April 1, 1994, approximately 467 offenders have
been submitted for consideration as task force targets.  The status of these 467 targets is as
follows:

      27 potential targets are in the review process;

      106 targets are pending investigation;

      42 targets are pending arrest;

      99 targets are pending prosection;

      60 targets have been arrested and prosecuted;

      71 targets' cases have been closed in court or other; and       62 targets have been rejected.

Some of the cases included five drug ringleaders, four of whom were sentenced to as many as
30 years in Federal prison; four offenders who robbed a delicatessen and killed the attending
counterperson, sentenced Federally to terms including life imprisonment; and a gang leader
who was sentenced to four life terms plus 305 years on a multitude of charges involving drugs
and murder.

Because of the program's success, other jurisdictions in North Carolina are requesting this kind
of task force initiative.  The SBI would like to continue the program and expand it to other
parts of North Carolina with two modifications:  using the same techniques, pursue individuals
who are supplying guns to criminals and coordinate VCCTF with local agencies involved in
community policing.  If the VCCTF is expanded, additional surveillance equipment and
clerical, analytical, and computer support will be needed to achieve results.

Prospects for Replication


Violent career criminal task forces can easily be replicated.  A commitment from the other
agencies involved in VCCTF and computer and clerical support is necessary for the program
to be successful.


Contact Information

Charles Overton, III
Assistant Director
North Carolina State Bureau
  of Investigations
P.O. Box 29500
3320 Garner Road
Raleigh, NC  27626-0500
Phone: (919) 662-4500
Fax: (919) 662-4523Tennessee


Operation Saturation


Statement of the Problem

The measure of success for police agencies has traditionally been the number of arrests made
during a given year.  This mindset of ever-increasing arrests has filled our prisons and has
contributed to large segments of our population being unemployable because of their criminal
records.  The measure of success for police officers should not be how many arrests are made,
but how many arrests do not have to be made.  Police agencies and citizens must work together
to reduce both the desire and the opportunity to engage in criminal activity.  

The Memphis Police Department's commitment to community-based police service through its
Operation Saturation programs are returning police officers to the community and providing
more efficient service delivery to the citizens of Memphis.  Police officers and supervisors are
most effective when they are allowed to use their own creativity and problem solving abilities
at the operational level to address specific needs within a given neighborhood.  Total quality
management programs and citizen involvement are the foundation for the Memphis community
policing efforts.

The Memphis Police Department currently has four Operation Saturation/Community Policing
Programs: (1) Hurt Village (expanded into the neighborhood); (2) Orange
Mound/Binghampton; (3) AdVance (which includes safe corridors to school); and (4)
Downtown Precinct (bicycle and foot patrol).

The concepts of community policing are simple:  police have the authority to solve problems
that otherwise could lead to crime, and they work with community leaders with a holistic
approach to help empower the community to solve some of their problems.


Goals and Objectives

The mission of the Memphis Police Department, in partnership with the community, is to
protect life and property, to understand and serve the needs of the city's neighborhoods, and
to improve the quality of life by maintaining order, solving problems, and apprehending
criminals.

The Operation Saturation program has many objectives:  (1) to provide a secure environment
that will foster residential, commercial, and cultural advancement; (2) to ensure collaboration
between the Memphis Police Department and the community to provide high quality police
services to all elements of the community; (3) to achieve effective citizen, police, public, andprivate agency involvement in the Memphis Police Department's strategies to improve the
quality of life and enhance public safety; and (4) to provide a highly motivated and well
trained work force which is professional, ethical, and representative of the community it serves.


Program Components 

One of the Memphis Police Department's greatest successes, Operation Saturation, Hurt Village
began in 1992. This program was established in Hurt Village, one of the toughest public
housing communities.  Although geographically small, this development had the highest crime
rate of all the housing communities in Memphis.  The operation began with covert activities,
and after obtaining indictments for the major criminals, began to make arrests and to saturate
the development with uniformed officers. 

A partnership was formed with an umbrella agency called "Free the Children" which utilizes
the gamut of social and educational services in conjunction with community policing.  Today,
Hurt Village has been stabilized.  It is now one of the safest housing communities in Memphis. 
It is apparent that the residents' fear of crime has diminished, and they have begun to take
pride in the place where they live.  They are planting flowers and keeping the yards and
exteriors of their buildings clean and free of graffiti.  A number of the residents have taken
advantage of job training and educational opportunities and no longer require public housing.

The Memphis Police Department expanded this successful program in other neighborhoods
with similar problems.  Orange Mound and Binghampton had begun to show signs of
deterioration, open-air drug markets were becoming noticeable, and violent crimes were
increasing. 

Orange Mound possesses vacant houses, many condemned, and vacant lots with no plans for
re-development.  The Orange Mound Development Corporation is in the process of
rehabilitating home owner property, at no cost to the owner, in exchange for community
volunteer work.  A home buyers program was developed to educate residents about buying a
home and assist them financially to buy a new home.  An outreach program identifies people
who are eligible for these programs.  A youth entrepreneur program is underway to teach youth
how to start and operate businesses such as screen printing, landscaping, and concessions.  

In Binghampton, Early Grove Baptist Church, one of the more active churches in the area,
houses Project Vision, Inc.  This project has programs for preventive health education, home
ownership through Project Nehemiah, day care, adolescent conflict resolution training through
the High Five Program, and other social services.

The Memphis Police Department obtained a mini-mobile Precinct which provides the flexibility
of taking a precinct, with all of its technology, into the neighborhood.  Therefore, on July 1,
1993, covert activity began in Orange Mound and Binghampton.  While undercover officers
were making their "buys," Crime Prevention Officers conducted door-to-door surveys, whichallowed identification of community leaders as well as the needs, hopes, and fears of the
communities.  Officers also assisted community groups in door-to-door surveys, assessing the
needs of residents, and performed home repairs.  After 54 indictments were obtained and
arrests made, the neighborhoods were saturated with uniformed officers, who immediately
began holding public meetings.  The Mayor of Memphis often would attend these meetings.

The Memphis Police Department assigned ten officers and two Lieutenants to the Orange
Mound/Binghampton area.  Officers have offices in the Orange Mound and Binghampton
Community Centers.  Officers attend weekly community meetings in order to be responsive
to the needs of the communities they are serving.  After four months in these communities, an
increase in public trust could be perceived. 

One of the key elements in Operation Saturation is gaining trust and support from the
community.  Officers recruit, train, and supervise volunteers.  Officers contact and solicit the
active participation of businesses and act as both liaisons and facilitators with non-profit
agencies.  

Because of the size of these neighborhoods, foot patrol alone was ineffective.  Therefore,
officers were given pagers and business cards to distribute in an effort to bring them into
contact with the community.  Foot patrols are used when applicable, in specific areas such as
apartment complexes and high density areas.  To decrease the response time to calls for
service, officers assigned to this detail were in addition to the regular cars assigned to the
patrol area.

The term COACT, a synonym for interaction, was adopted as the unit call sign and assigned
to all Operation Saturation/Community Policing Units.  COACT officers are not subject to
regular calls for service, which allows them the time necessary to provide special attention to
the citizens of the community.  COACT teams are made up of representatives from civic
organizations, the police department, and community volunteers.  They identify problems which
impact the community in a negative way, evaluate them, and outline a plan of action.  

March 1994 marked the beginning of a program in one of the Binghampton Apartment
Complexes which outlines aggressive tactics to eradicate drugs from the environment.  The
program acts on complaints of drug trafficking by requesting that tenants cooperate with
consents to search their residence.  A thorough, neat search of the premises is conducted, and
if drugs are located, appropriate arrest action is taken and the contraband seized.  This
information is shared with the management, which has entered into agreements with the police
department to follow up by initiating eviction proceedings.  The illegal activity is often taken
elsewhere.  Also, those prone to seek an apartment for this type of activity are discouraged
because of the enforcement.

Recently, a coalition was formed between the Memphis Police Department, business leaders,
elected leaders, and media personnel to conduct a gun for food program.  A gift certificate for
food and gasoline was given to any person who turned in a working gun. Operation Drive Out Crime allows uniformed officers to take home their patrol vehicles. 
Another non-profit group has raised money to allow officers to purchase houses in target
neighborhoods at very low interest rates.  These neighborhoods no longer possess the "us
against them" syndrome; citizens who used to exhibit indifference toward officers now consider
them allies.


Results and Impact

Implementation Problems and Successes


The officers assigned to Operation Saturation experience resentment from other officers and
police administrators and managers who are not familiar with community policing.  The
department is addressing this problem with community policing training for the entire
department through technical assistance from Community Research Associates.  This
organization is working in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

A number of the drug dealers and criminals moved out of the Hurt Village development and
into the adjacent neighborhoods when Operation Saturation began.  The program was expanded
to encompass the neighboring areas to combat this problem.

Successes and Accomplishments


As a whole, the program is viewed as a successful partnership between the police and the
community.  The flow of information from the community to the officers has improved, and
the citizens now view the officers as a vital resource for helping them solve the problems in
their community.

During the period from January 1, 1994 to April 30, 1994, the officers held 41 community
meetings with a total attendance of 2,001 citizens.  In addition, the officers made 770
individual contacts with the citizens they serve. 

In the first quarter of 1994, COACT officers worked successfully with the Motor Vehicle
Theft, General Investigation, and Robbery Bureaus to recover property, arrest suspects, and
solve a variety of cases.  The unit has improved communication among police divisions,
community agencies, and uniformed patrol officers. 

At the elementary school where officers patrol, the after school program enrollment is up by
70 students.  By April 15, 1994, an analysis conducted by the Memphis Police Department
determined that no drug arrests have been made in the area around this elementary school since
February 1, 1994.  This reflects a drastic reduction in criminal activity in the area, previously
known for its high drug traffic.

In February 1994, Memphis experienced the worst ice storm in its history, knocking out power
in some areas for as long as two weeks.  Officers were instrumental in checking on elderlyresidents and directing citizens to shelters.  Citizen patrols were formed by the COACT
officers, and the citizens themselves surveyed damage and assessed the medical needs of the
community.  This effort has been credited with keeping the incidence of crime associated with
the power outage to a minimum.  There were few burglaries, no reports of looting, and an
improved community spirit.


Contact Information

Officer Martha Lott
Memphis Police Department
Grants Management Office
201 Poplar Avenue
Room 12-01
Memphis, TN  38103
Phone: (901) 576-3404
Fax: (901) 576-3877Spokane, Washington


Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) Program


Statement of the Problem

Spokane, Washington, is a mid-sized, urban city in the largely rural plains of eastern
Washington.  While the city's population is estimated to be 185,000, police service demands
are also generated from many of the 450,000 people in the surrounding small communities and
unincorporated areas who work and shop within the city.  Despite its geographic isolation,
Spokane experiences the violent crime and neighborhood decay characteristic of big cities. 
Like large urban areas, Spokane has found its limited resources drained by violent crime. 
Residents of Spokane, many of whom fled big cities for a better quality of life, are
experiencing crime and victimization as drug-trafficking and violent crime escalates.

Like most law enforcement agencies dealing with increasingly violent offenses, more drug-
related crime, limited staffing and fiscal resources, and changing community goals, Spokane
had fallen into an incident-driven policing model.  Officers felt rushed to go "from call to call,"
and civilian support staff felt caught between decreasing resources and increasing demands
from the community for quality services.  On going patrol practices isolated the community,
and traditional deployment models fostered long-term employee stress and frustration.

The department struggled to meet minimum staffing levels under sick leave, training, and court
time restraints.  Officers felt no connection with neighborhood residents; they were more
concerned with officer safety and low staffing.  The personal incentive to invest in the
community was low, and a programmatic switch to community policing held no promise of
sustainability.  Experience was showing that incident-driven policing did little to reduce crime,
fear of crime, criminal opportunity, or repeat offenses.  Traditional service delivery models also
did little to address the root social causes of crime and neighborhood decay, and were not seen
as productive toward building community cohesiveness.

The department opted for a philosophical and operational switch to a patrol-based, community
empowerment model which emphasized problem solving at a base level:  the neighborhood
level.  Recognizing that no one lives at the "community" level, the department created
"Neighborhood Resource Officers" or "NROs."  The NROs became the foundation for many
successful neighborhood-based initiatives, such as the Community Oriented Policing Stations,
or "C.O.P.S. Shops."  The NROs and C.O.P.S. Shops are the catalysts for community
mobilization against violent crime in Spokane.

Spokane began working toward these philosophical and operational changes in 1988, when it
began a department-wide effort to redefine the organization through a sense of shared values. 
The organization was rooted in its crime control mission but had not integratedits values with those of the community.  By building strong community partnerships and shared
values through the NRO program and other community empowerment programs, the
department has been able to identify and solve problems of crime and disorder, and improve
the quality of life in neighborhoods.


Goals and Objectives

The goals of the NRO program are to:  (1) emphasize community empowerment and
collaborative problem solving at the neighborhood level in law enforcement and crime
prevention; (2) establish a relationship with community members at the neighborhood level to
improve communication, increase personal investment by police employees, reduce isolation
and anonymity of community members, and foster shared values and a sense of responsibility
for public safety and quality of life issues; (3) change the police organization from a rigid,
para-militaristic, incident-driven agency to a more decentralized, results-driven organization
sensitive to client needs; and (4) improve the quality of life in city neighborhoods by fostering
interagency cooperation and community partnerships to identify and solve problems of crime,
neighborhood disorder, and neighborhood decay.

To achieve these goals, the NRO program has established the following objectives:  (1)
redefine organizational values and  philosophies to emphasize and support innovation, creative
problem-solving, and positive outreach to the community; (2) develop and provide community
empowering/policing training for all supervisors, commissioned officers, and civilians that
emphasizes communication, customer service, problem-solving and analytical skills, leadership,
community outreach, and resource management skills; (3) base the NRO program in the patrol
division, to emphasize the fact that community policing is an operational philosophy at base
organizational levels, and not a special or separate "community services" unit; (4) allocate
staffing to maximize response to serious crimes and emergencies while ensuring sufficient time
to engage in problem-solving and community interaction; (5) establish and maintain productive
relationships with other city departments and resource agencies to facilitate service delivery and
cross-training in support of neighborhood initiatives or identified needs; and (6) through NROs
and the C.O.P.S. Shops, improve quality of life by analyzing neighborhood needs, crime
concerns, environmental, health, educational, and social issues, and "wrapping" services around
those neighborhoods to meet identified needs.


Program Components

In 1992, two NROs were assigned with the assistance of grant funds to two economically
disadvantaged neighborhoods.  A third NRO was added with continuation funding in 1993 in
a third city neighborhood.  Each of these NROs was based either at a neighborhood community
center or neighborhood school, and was supplied with a vehicle, pager, and cellular phone. 
The NROs work with established neighborhood steering committees, community center boards,schools, parent groups, and neighborhood residents to identify crime and environmental
problems which inhibit neighborhood cohesiveness.  Community members know their
neighborhood officer is a phone call away, and they are more forthcoming with investigative
information.  Neighborhood residents are directly involved in crime prevention and
enforcement efforts, and welcome the neighborhood-based approach.

When the first NROs began to see success, other officers voluntarily adopted many of the
community empowerment methods they observed.  A small "ad-hoc" NRO movement was
born, and officers assigned to general patrol duties began adopting specific neighborhoods
themselves.  In 1993-94, this movement led to the establishment of partnerships in at least six
other neighborhoods.  These ad-hoc NROs, working without grant funds, cellular phones, or
personalized vehicles, have continued their patrol and call-taking responsibilities while
engaging in community problem-solving.  In the last six months, these neighborhoods have
mobilized against crime, secured buildings for their own C.O.P.S. Shops, and raised over
$20,000 in private funding for their volunteer efforts.  This ad-hoc movement is the true
integration of community policing philosophies into patrol operations and is being further
developed as the Spokane operational model for expansion of programs to reduce crime and
violence in neighborhoods.

The C.O.P.S. Shops began in Spokane's West Central neighborhood after the tragic kidnapping
of two young girls.  This working-class family neighborhood mobilized a mass volunteer effort;
one girl was found murdered, and the other was never found.  But the force of that tragedy
pulled the neighborhood together, and their community identity has continued to strengthen.
"C.O.P.S. West" opened in May 1992, a place for the neighborhood to unite.  As residents
began voicing their concerns, a broad range of crime, social, and family problems were
identified.  Over 200 neighbors received training from the police department in community
problem-solving, available city and social service resources, and neighborhood watch and crime
prevention strategies.  Educational programs, such as conflict resolution, anger management,
parenting skills, budgeting, and other family skills are offered regularly.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures


The NRO program anticipated high initial expectations from community center directors,
school administrators, and citizens of what NROs might accomplish in their neighborhoods. 
It is expected that citizens will be more satisfied with police contact by a NRO who will help
solve their problem directly.  While initial increases in reported crime are to be expected with
a more involved citizenry, reductions in fear, victimization, and violent crime are expected over
the long term.

Performance measures were established with the assistance of professors from Washington
State University (WSU) and the Washington State Institute for Community Oriented Policing(WSICOP).  In the first two years of the program, four distinct sources of data collection were
used to assess program implementation and outcome.  First, responses from standardized
questionnaires administered to neighborhood residents were used to establish a baseline of
program expectations.  Second, a direct observation of NROS in 1993 was undertaken.  As the
ad-hoc movement grew, the scope of direct observation was expanded to include all NRO
activities.  Third, the NROs themselves collected contact sheet data using a standardized coding
form designed by the research team to document the frequency  and quality of officer-citizen
interactions.  And fourth, telephone call-back verification of a random sample of local citizens
who had been contacted by the NROs during the course of the research program was
conducted.  Subjective measurements were based on these direct observations, while objective
measurements were based on survey results, crime statistics, and other quantitative data such
as the number of referrals made, educational classes attended, and documented problems solved
at the neighborhood level.

Implementation Problems and Successes


One problem was a lack of developed training for all department personnel (especially
supervisory personnel) in support of community policing.  Early on, a key element for success
was identified as supervisory training and support of non-traditional policing methods and
community problem-solving efforts by officers.  Supervisors needed to be encouraged to foster
an environment where creative approaches to assigned duties was facilitated and rewarded. 
Other implementation problems included internal management of NROs and external
coordination of C.O.P.S. Shops while they rapidly multiplied due to community demands and
demonstrated success.  Because the NRO program was originally based in patrol and remained
a part of patrol, the typical patrol-community officer rivalries were minimized.

Implementation successes included the ad-hoc movement described earlier, which was born of
a desire to do more effective policing by regular patrol officers not actively identified or
organizationally supported as "NROs."  The growth and expansion of the NRO program and
C.O.P.S. Shops demonstrate positive support of the police-community partnership.

Successes and Accomplishments


The original NRO pilot began with two officers; Spokane now has some ten patrol officers
active in individual neighborhoods and ad-hoc NRO activities.  The Community Oriented
Policing Station concept, which began in one neighborhood, has spread throughout the city. 
There are now eight established C.O.P.S. Shops and five more in the planning stages. 
Additionally, other neighborhoods are mobilizing against crime and violence.  To date, over
1,000 community members have been trained to staff the C.O.P.S. Shops as volunteers, and
many related services (such as probation, parole, family focus classes, and youth activities) are
delivered through the C.O.P.S. Shops directly to neighborhoods.

The Spokane Police Department has implemented several other successful community-based
programs.  They include "C.O.P.Y. Kids," "Every 15 Minutes," a Citizens' Police Academy,
a downtown summer event for youths, and a leadership camp experience for middle-schoolstudents which aims to strengthen positive peer influence, service commitment, academic
excellence, and productive citizenship at the high school level.  Both the "Every 15 Minutes"
program and "C.O.P.Y Kids" have received State recognition for their innovation and
replicability.

Prospects for Replication


The NRO program and the C.O.P.S. Shop concept are suitable for adoption and replication in
other jurisdictions.  Each program is based on forming a strong partnership with citizens at the
community level, and could easily be tailored to meet neighborhood-specific needs in any city
or county.


Contact Information

David Ingle
Administrative Services Director
Spokane Police Department
West 1100 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, WA  99260
Phone: (509) 625-4053
Fax: (509) 625-4066Yakima, Washington


Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition


Statement of the Problem

The City of Yakima suffers from high rates of unemployment, teen pregnancy, and school
drop-out in its youth population.  There is also intergenerational conflict in the Hispanic
community between bilingual children and monolingual parents.  These characteristics have led
to a lack of bonding between youth and their schools, communities, and families.  Instead,
many youth have bonded with their peers to engage in negative behaviors, including alcohol
and drug abuse and violence.  In the past five years, Yakima has seen a steady increase in
youth violence, including gang confrontation, which is exacerbated by the ethnic diversity of
the population.  Many Caucasian, Hispanic, and African-American youth lack the conflict
resolution skills necessary to mediate their cultural differences.

Youth violence has increasingly permeated the neighborhoods of Yakima without regard to
ethnic and socioeconomic boundaries.  A drive-by shooting in 1990 in west Yakima--a white,
middle-class neighborhood--prompted leaders in Yakima to realize that preventive measures
had to be taken to ensure safety throughout the city.  In 1991, government, non-profit, and
business leaders created the Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition.  In discussing the
root cause of youth violence, officials recognized the need for a multifaceted program that
includes recreational and enrichment activities, tutoring, and crisis counseling.


Goals and Objectives

The mission of the Coalition is to reduce the rate of youth violence in Yakima by providing
positive opportunities in several community centers.  The goals of the Coalition are fourfold: 
(1) to develop prevention/intervention activities for at-risk youth at five sites in Yakima with
high rates of youth violence; (2) to provide information and resources to at-risk youth; (3) to
recruit adult and youth volunteers to provide prevention/intervention activities for at-risk youth;
and (4) to maintain an advisory board that is representative of Yakima to publicize the goals
and results of the Coalition.


Program Components

The Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition Advisory Board comprises individuals
representing the following organizations:  Centro Campesino, Central Washington
Comprehensive Mental Health, Mercy Enterprises, Yakima County Juvenile Court, YakimaCounty Substance Abuse Coalition, Yakima Housing Authority, Yakima Parks and Recreation,
Yakima Police Department, Yakima Public Schools, YMCA, and YWCA.

The Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition administers the program.  The Program
Coordinator plans recreational, tutorial, and enrichment activities for all program sites and
supervises site staff.  The Intervention/Volunteer Coordinator plans conflict resolution/anger
management skills training, coordinates intervention and services, and recruits adult and youth
volunteers for the program.  The Intervention Assistant provides individual/group counseling
and referral to site participants at particular risk for violent behavior.

Five "Kid's Place" programs are housed in four elementary/middle schools and one community
center.  Kid's Place provides after-school recreational, tutorial, and enrichment activities for
youth ages 5-12.  Four "Night Action" programs provide recreational activities, tutoring,
conflict resolution/anger management skills training, and intervention services, including
substance abuse and mental health counseling, to youth ages 13-19.  The programs operate
Monday-Friday, 6-12 p.m., in three elementary/middle schools and one community center. 
"Family Night" provides family activities such as potlucks, athletic tournaments, and pool
parties.  "Family Night" is held at each site every Friday from 7-10 p.m.  Each Kid's Place and
Night Action program is staffed by a facility supervisor, a recreational leader, and a
recreational aide.

The Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition receives funding from the Washington
State Department of Community Development and the City of Yakima.


Results and Impact

Performance Measures


The Advisory Board and Coalition staff expect to measure a significant decrease in youth
violence surrounding the five program sites.  The Yakima Police Department monitors the
incidence of gang confrontation, assault, vandalism, and other violent behaviors near each site
on a quarterly basis.  Staff expect improved conflict resolution/anger management skills and
improved academic performance from participants as evidenced by their number of arrests,
grade point average, and other factors that would indicate success.  The Advisory Board
expects continued collaboration between organizations in the City of Yakima and Yakima
County.

Implementation Problems and Successes


The Advisory Board identified schools as ideal program sites, but experienced initial difficulty
receiving approval from school principals, concerned about property damage, etc., to operate
during afternoon/evening hours.  Eventually, board members were able to persuade principals
to open four buildings for Coalition programs.  The Advisory Board also had difficulty
identifying local start-up funding for the Coalition.  Board members donated in-kind and cashfunding to begin the Coalition; after twelve months of operation, community sponsors,
including the City of Yakima, provided financial support.

Community denial of youth violence proved to be a major obstacle in the implementation of
the Coalition program.  However, the Board publicized the problem of youth violence and the
results of the Coalition to the degree that the Coalition is included as a model program for the
City of Yakima in its 1994 All-American City application.  The Coalition also received the
1992 Governor's Award for Collaboration and Volunteerism for its efforts to solve a significant
community problem.

Successes and Accomplishments


In the five sites of Coalition operation, youth violence has decreased by 80% over the past
three years.  The Coalition has provided 24,342 incidents of service to 1,030 Kid's Place
participants.  It has provided 18,357 incidents of service to 1,758 Night Action participants. 
The collaborative effort of the Yakima Gang Prevention/Intervention Coalition has influenced
similar models throughout Yakima County.

Prospects for Replication


The Coalition staff has received numerous requests from communities throughout Washington
to speak about the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program.  Staff have
assisted two communities in Washington in replicating the program, and the program was
included as a model in the Governor's "Youth Violence Prevention Bill."


Contact Information

Ester Huey
Executive Director
Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition
1211 South 7th Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: (509) 575-6114
Fax: (509) 575-4649                       Workshop ParticipantsARIZONA

Joseph Farmer
Program Manager
Drug Control & System Improvement
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
1501 West Washington Street
Suite 207
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602-542-1928
Fax: 602-542-4852


CALIFORNIA

Harold Becker, D. Crim.
Professor
Criminal Justice Department
California State University at Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840
Phone: 310-985-4713
Fax: 310-985-8086

Michael Sabath, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
San Diego State University
Imperial Valley Campus
720 Herber Avenue
Calexico, CA 92231
Phone: 619-357-5535
Fax: 619-357-5568

Jerome Skolnick, Ph.D.
Professor of Jurisprudence and Social Policy
School of Law
University of California at Berkeley
2240 Piedmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-642-4038
Fax: 510-642-2951

Thomas Tutko, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
San Jose State University
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192
Phone: 408-924-1374
Fax: 408-924-5605

Ray Youngdahl
Deputy Probation Officer III
San Mateo County Adult Probation
1024 Mission Road
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: 415-877-5750
Fax: 415-742-0253


COLORADO

Kim English
Director of Research
Division of Criminal Justice
Colorado Department of Public Safety
700 Kipling Street
Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80215
Phone: 303-239-4453
Fax: 303-239-4449


HAWAII

James Takayesu
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
County of Maui
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Phone: 808-243-7691
Fax: 808-243-7625

Lt. Paul Winters
Supervisor, Juvenile Section
Maui Police Department
55 Mahalani Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Phone: 808-244-6480
Fax: 808-244-6482

Anthony Wong
Planning Specialist
Department of the Attorney General
Resource Coordination Division
425 Queen Street
Room 221
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 808-586-1096
Fax: 808-586-1097ILLINOIS

Roger Przybylski
Director
Research and Analysis 
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
120 South Riverside Plaza
Suite 1016
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-793-8550
Fax: 312-793-8422


MARYLAND

Ellen Gibson-Adler
Director of Communications
Governor's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission
300 East Joppa Road
Suite 1105
Towson, MD 21286
Phone: 410-321-3526
Fax: 410-321-3116

Dennis Woroniecki, Ph.D.
S.A.F.E. Coordinator
Laurel High School
8000 Cherry Lane
Laurel, MD 20707
Phone: 301-725-8300
Fax: 301-725-2652


MASSACHUSETTS

Dennis Humphrey, Ed.D.
Executive Director
Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice
100 Cambridge Street
Room 2100
Boston, MA 02202
Phone: 617-727-6301
Fax: 617-727-5356








John Scheft
Director
Elderly Protection Project
Office of the Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place
Eighteenth Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-727-2200 ext. 2888
Fax: 617-727-3251

MICHIGAN

Timothy Bynum, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
560 Baker Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1118
Phone: 517-355-2197
Fax: 517-336-1787

Ardith DaFoe
Director
Drug Law Enforcement Division
Office of Drug Control Policy
1200 Michigan National Tower
Post Office Box 30026
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517-373-2952
Fax: 517-373-2963

Captain James Rapp
Lansing Police Department
120 West Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: 517-483-4812
Fax: 517-483-6003


NEBRASKA

William Howland, J.D.
Assistant Attorney General
Nebraska Attorney General's Office
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402-471-3814
Fax: 402-471-4725NEBRASKA (Continued)

Nancy Steeves
Federal Aid Administrator
Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement
  and Criminal Justice
Post Office Box 94946
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402-471-3416
Fax: 402-471-2837


NEVADA

Mary Lynne Evans
Administrator
Office of Narcotics Control Assistance
555 Wright Way
Carson City, NV 89711-0910
Phone: 702-687-5282
Fax: 702-687-6798


NORTH CAROLINA

Charles J. Overton, III
Assistant Director, Field Operations
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations
Post Office Box 29500
3320 Garner Road
Raleigh, NC 27626-0500
Phone: 919-662-4500
Fax: 919-662-4523

Virginia Price
Executive Director
North Carolina Governor's Crime Commission
3824 Barrett Drive
Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27609-7220
Phone: 919-571-4736
Fax: 919-571-4745


RHODE ISLAND

Jerry Hatfield
President
Systems Development Associates
2100 Broad Street
Cranston, RI 02905
Phone: 401-781-5330
Fax: 401-781-5330

TENNESSEE

Roy Ryall
Director
State of Tennessee
Criminal Justice Administration
509 John Sevier Building
Nashville, TN 37243-1600
Phone: 615-532-2983
Fax: 615-532-2989


UTAH

Susan Burke
Anti-Violence Coordinator
Commission on Criminal 
  & Juvenile Justice
101 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: 801-538-1031
Fax: 801-538-1024


VIRGINIA

Donald Rebovich, Ph.D.
Director of Research
American Prosecutors Research Institute
99 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 510
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-519-1675
Fax: 703-836-3195


WASHINGTON

Kay Boyd
Unit Manager
Department of Community, Trade
  and Economic Development
906 Columbia Street, S.W.
Post Office Box 48300
Olympia, WA 98504-8300
Phone: 206-586-0665
Fax: 206-586-0873WASHINGTON (Continued)

Larry Fehr
Executive Director
Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency
1305 Fourth Avenue
Suite 602
Seattle, WA 98101-2401
Phone: 206-461-3421
Fax: 206-461-8360

Christine Gregoire
Washington State Attorney General
905 Plum Street
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
Phone: 206-664-8565
Fax: 206-664-0228

Esther Huey
Executive Director
Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition
Post Office Box 554
Yakima, WA 98407
Phone: 509-575-6114
Fax: 509-575-4649

David Ingle
Administrative Services Director
Spokane Police Department
West 1100 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260
Phone: 509-625-4053
Fax: 509-625-4066

Paula Jellison
Director of Community and Legislative Affairs
King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206-296-9067
Fax: 206-296-9013

Norm Maleng
Prosecuting Attorney
King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206-296-9067
Fax: 206-296-9013





Chief Terry Mangan
Chief of Police
Spokane Police Department
West 1100 Mallon Avenue
Spokane, WA 99260
Phone: 509-625-4050
Fax: 509-625-4066

Patrick Moran, Ed.D.
Evaluation Coordinator
Department of Community, Trade
  and Economic Development
906 Columbia Street, Southwest
Post Office Box 48300
Olympia, WA 98504-8300
Phone: 206-586-0492
Fax: 206-586-6868









Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20531




STAFF

Barbara Bodnar
Program Specialist
Phone: 202-514-6638
Fax: 202-514-5956


Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D.
Chief, Program Evaluation
Phone: 202-616-3212
Fax: 202-307-0036


Denise Schulze
Grant Manager
Phone: 202-514-6638
Fax: 202-514-5956


Steven Yonkers
Program Specialist, East Branch
Phone: 202-307-6638
Fax: 202-514-5956























Justice Research and Statistics Association
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 445
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-624-8560  Fax 202-624-5269




STAFF

Charleen McAllister Cook
Conference Manager


Kellie J. Dressler
Project Director


David A. Kessler, Ph.D.
Director of Research


Andrea Richards
Program Assistant


Melissa A. Ruboy
Research Analyst