Title: National Institute of Justice Journal 238.
Series: N/A
Author: NIJ
Published: January 1999
Subject: Program evaluations, technology in law enforcement, police
equipment, evidence, criminal investigation, law enforcement
communications
70 pages
171,000 bytes

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

Figures, charts, photos, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file.  To view this document in its graphic format, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy
from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

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

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

National Institute of Justice Journal
January 1999

NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That
Add up to Success

Also in This Issue:

Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology

Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future

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

Director's Message 

Reviewing the drafts of the Journal articles a few weeks ago, I was struck
by the thought that they could not have been written 10 years ago--
probably not even 5 years ago. I think this is as true of Tom McEwen's
lead article on locally initiated research partnerships in policing as it is of
Lois Pilant's on developments in mobile technology for police, and Chris
Asplen's on the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. 


Even today it takes a real stretch of the imagination to visualize patrol cars
equipped with an array of technologically advanced devices that can
capture images of pursuits in progress, relay a patrol vehicle's exact
location to a command center via a global positioning system and, in less
than a minute, receive pictures of missing children on the vehicle's laptop
screen sent from scanned, digitized images. But as the author convincingly
demonstrates, these devices will some day be as commonplace in policing
as handcuffs are today. 

A number of high-profile criminal trials lately have made forensic DNA
evidence familiar to the general public. Yet not until recently has the full
potential of DNA testing, a technology that promises much greater
certitude in decisions about guilt or innocence, come to be widely
recognized. Attorney General Janet Reno's request that a commission be
established to explore the future of forensic DNA evidence testifies to its
growing role in the criminal justice system and her determination that the
many issues surrounding its use be addressed now. The Commission's
recommendations to the Attorney General are still in the development
stage, but reading about the Commission's work in the article by its
Executive Director, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that forensic
DNA testing will one day be as commonplace as fingerprinting and will be
a standard part of police operations as well as the courtroom tool it is
today. 

The "action research" model of NIJ's researcher-practitioner partnerships
is not something new, as author Tom McEwen reminds us. However, a
relatively recent development--the 1994 Crime Act, with its strong support
for community policing--prompted NIJ and the Justice Department's
COPS Office to apply this approach to policing research. Practitioners
who know their communities work on an equal footing with academically
trained researchers, the better to ensure findings applicable to the field.
The critical mass necessary to produce this innovation in policing research
has been reached only recently, as we came to appreciate the leverage
value of collaboration and the need to involve communities. We are
confident that by "seeding" the partnership projects at 41 sites nationwide,
the approach may become standard in much policing research.

Five years from now, the developments presented in the Journal today
may well be the norm, with greater efficiency and effectiveness in criminal
justice and safer communities the fruits of those endeavors. At that future
date, we anticipate the Journal will be featuring innovations in criminal
justice research and technology development unimaginable today.

Jeremy Travis

Director
National Institute of Justice

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

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis
Director

NIJ Journal Editorial Board

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

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

David Boyd
Deputy Director for Office of
Science and Technology 

Bernard V. Auchter
Saralyn Borrowman
Cheryl A. Crawford
James O. Finckenauer
Mary G. Graham
Christy A. Visher

Issue Editor
Judy Reardon

Managing Editor
Brenner Brown

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

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

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

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

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

JR000238
-------------------------------

CONTENTS
Issue No. 238 

FEATURES

--NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That
Add up to Success
Tom McEwen

--Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology
Lois Pilant

--Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future
Christopher H. Asplen

RESEARCH PREVIEW

--Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies

DEPARTMENTS

--New & Noteworthy
--NIJ Awards
--Solicitations
--Final Reports
--Events
--NIJ in the Journals
--Recent NIJ Publications

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

NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing--Factors That
Add Up to Success

by Tom McEwen*

* Tom McEwen, Ph.D., is Director of Research for the Institute for Law
and Justice, Inc. His research was conducted under NIJ grant 95-IJ-CX-
0083. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Geoff
Alpert, Tim Bynum, Cheron DuPree, Steve Gaffigan, and Brenda Uckert
to the evaluation, and of Phyllis McDonald of NIJ, who is overseeing the
evaluation project.

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

The traditional approach to most major policing research projects has been
for a police department to cooperate with a researcher who has written a
proposal and submitted it to the agency. The researcher controls all steps
of the process, with the department cooperating in the research by
providing access to records and staff or conducting an experiment in some
aspect of police operations.

This approach is changing. A program developed by the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ), with support from the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services within the Justice Department, enables police to
participate as equals with researchers. In the Locally Initiated Research
Partnerships, the partners share responsibility throughout the course of the
project, jointly selecting a topic of interest to the department (hence the
term "locally initiated") and collaborating on the research design, its
implementation, and interpretation of the study findings.

Aims of the program

Begun in 1995, the NIJ partnership program in policing currently consists
of 41 research projects.[1] (See "Genesis of the Police-Researcher
Partnerships.") The new approach complements the basic premise of
community policing: working as partners achieves more than working
alone. 

A project in Philadelphia exemplifies how the police can establish
productive partnerships with researchers just as they establish similar
relationships with the community. Philadelphia police worked in concert
with Temple University researchers to evaluate the department's
community policing initiative. Using multiple methods (surveys,
observation, and interviews, for example), the partners documented
exemplary community-oriented and problem-solving policing and brought
to light factors that facilitated or hindered implementation. 

What happened in Philadelphia also illustrates the aim of the partnership
approach. The university-based researchers gained experience in the field
and had the opportunity to better grasp the reality of police operations. The
police department was able to tap the expertise of the researchers and
apply it to solving an operational problem. The findings served as a basis
for mid-course corrections in the department's approach to community
policing--evidence that research partnerships can produce change in police
policy and practice. 

The long-term aim of the approach is for the partnerships to extend beyond
the life of the initial projects, to become an ongoing collaboration that will
build the research capacity of police departments, enabling them to
become more efficient and effective in reducing crime. 

Encouraged by the program's potential to improve research and practice,
NIJ applied the concept to other topics and is now sponsoring locally
initiated research partnerships in domestic violence and juvenile justice,
among other areas. (See "New Directions for the Research Partnerships.")
In an evaluation of the partnership program conducted by the Institute for
Law and Justice, NIJ set out to discover how the projects are working and
what factors add up to success.[2]

Learning about prospective partners 

Police executives and researchers who are interested in establishing a
partner-ship are likely to raise a number of questions before they make a
commitment to it. They will want to find out, for example, what police
practitioners should know about researchers in order to work effectively
with them and how researchers should approach police practitioners whom
they see as prospective partners.

Because one of the chief objectives in creating the partnership program
was to build foundations for ongoing police-researcher collaboration, that
raises the additional question of whether and how a particular partnership
can be sustained as a routine way to conduct research. The evaluators
addressed these questions through the broader question of what constitutes
a successful collaboration. The evaluation findings indicated that a
constellation of factors, from cultivating the police-researcher relationship
to ensuring the adequacy of information systems, are essential. The
evaluators also developed three practical measures of success for a project. 

What makes for success

It is no surprise that partnerships between police departments and
researchers have a greater chance of succeeding if the relationship is built
on a foundation of trust and open communication. But careful cultivation
of the relationship is only one component in the inventory of factors that
add up to success. 

The partners must develop good working relationships. Conducting
research as a partnership calls for individuals to work together to develop
common objectives and define roles and responsibilities for key staff. In
most of the projects, participants have found that to achieve these and
other ends it is advantageous to establish several modes of communication
during the course of the research. That includes frequent meetings, e-mail
exchanges, telephone calls, and brief progress reports. 

In some projects, inclusion of police union members has been essential. In
the Oakland, California, project, for example, in which the effects of
police officer stress on family life were studied, union representatives
were part of the research team and contributed ideas about how to
persuade officers and their spouses to be interviewed. Cultivating this
relationship paid off because the research resulted in a better
understanding of the effect of stress on families and provided the Oakland
Police Department with ideas on how to reduce the problems that stress
can create. 

Trust between the partners must be cultivated. Building trust is especially
important when the participants have not previously worked together. In
such instances, researchers have found it to their advantage to "pay their
dues" to achieve acceptance from police. They have used several
techniques, such as accompanying police officers on ride-alongs,
interviewing key staff departmentwide rather than confining interviews to
a single unit, and accommodating departmental requests for help on issues
and problems that fall outside the immediate scope of the research project.
The key researcher in one project spent the first six months interviewing
sergeants and commanders. She felt the approach enabled her to win the
trust and confidence of the police managers, laying a foundation for the
research she would conduct.

Researchers should invest in understanding local police culture. Parallel
with building trust, and as a foundation for it, researchers need to
understand the local police culture. Elements of that culture include police
officers' attitudes toward their jobs, the role of sergeants in community
policing, the history of the department's personnel relationships, and the
jurisdiction's political environment. Especially important for researchers is
understanding how the philosophy of community policing and its
implementation are perceived through the lens of the local police culture. 

The amount of effort required to understand the local police culture should
not be underestimated. That culture is likely to have developed over a long
period of time and may therefore not be as receptive to new ideas as
researchers might like to believe. Familiarity with the department's culture
helps the researcher formulate realistic recommendations from the
research findings.

Graduate students can be used effectively. In several projects involving
universities, graduate students have had key roles. They have performed a
variety of tasks, including collecting data, providing assistance in
developing the research design, analyzing information systems, and
interpreting results. In some projects, graduate students have been
assigned independent research projects, such as determining the feasibility
of computer mapping in a police department or identifying information
systems needs. The primary author of one project shared responsibility
with a graduate student on the report of a major evaluation of community
policing. Such use of graduate students can be a "win-win" situation--they
benefit from the "real world" experience of working in a police department
while the partnership gains by acquiring cost-effective support. 

Information systems must be able to support research. In several projects,
researchers have found that the police departments' information systems
are not able to fully support the research. The records in the system may
not contain the amount of detail needed for analysis or there may be no
information system at all. In these situations, the projects have had to
change the research timetable to allow the system to catch up. For
example, in some projects, the researchers found it necessary to either
establish a system for collecting the records needed or to substantially
change the existing system before useful analysis could proceed. In other
projects, the information systems contained the data needed, but
considerable manipulation was necessary before they could be analyzed.
Ironically, the analysis usually generated ideas for improving the
information systems for both operational and research purposes. 

Local research products have to fit their audience. The primary aim of the
partnership projects is to solve local problems and, secondarily, to
contribute to the general knowledge about a topic. For that reason, the
final products need to be tailored to a local audience. In general, police
commanders will not be interested in the details of the research design, for
example. Instead, they want to concentrate on the consequences for policy
and operations of what has been found. 

Experience with the partnership projects reveals that the findings can be
presented in a variety of formats--brief written or oral presentations, slide
presentations, memoranda, or summary tables, to name a few--with the
selection tailored to audience needs. Reports geared to scholars, containing
literature reviews and extensive bibliographical references, usually are not
appropriate for practitioners nor well received by them. In fact, researchers
must do double duty if they intend to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
They must develop one type of product for police practitioners and another
for the journals.

Key staff must remain in place. Retaining the same core group of people
over the life of a multi-year research project is especially important to
success, but can be difficult. During the normal course of events, police
may be transferred to other assignments, retire, or earn a promotion (which
usually means reassignment). Their participation in the research project
rarely blocks any of these changes. On the other side of the coin, some
researchers have left the projects to accept positions in other universities. 

Because turnover means assigning a new person to the project, it almost
always disrupts the research timetable. Where there has been stability,
project participants have expressed satisfaction with the research process. 

Measures of success

Close observation of the partnership projects suggests that their
"bottom-line success" includes at least one of three measures: 

o Whether the department changes as a result of the research.

o Whether information systems have been developed or improved. 

o Whether the partnership continues beyond the life of the initial research
project. 

Change. Because the immediate aim of the partnership is solving a local
problem, it goes without saying that change in operational procedures or
policies signals success. In some instances, the project evaluations have
produced mid-course corrections in the way community policing is
implemented. Philadelphia (noted above) is an example. Los Angeles is
another. There, a survey conducted among police officers by the
department and its partners, University of California at Los Angeles and
University of Southern California, led to changes in the department's
community policing initiative. Community policing in Charleston, West
Virginia; Hagerstown, Maryland; and Racine, Wisconsin, has also been
influenced by the partnerships with researchers in these jurisdictions.

The police departments in Rapid City, South Dakota; Pocatello, Idaho; and
Eureka and Redding, California, that are working with the research firm
LINC[3] have improved their procedures for reporting domestic violence
as a result of the partnership. Results of a single project may serve several
purposes. One commander noted the use of survey results "as the basis for
this year's strategic plan, as input for a continuing education program for
middle managers, and to show that morale in [his command] area is not as
bad as believed."

Managing information. Upgrading existing information systems or
installing a system is a sign of success because information lies at the core
of research and can drive a department's policy decisions. The Seattle
Police Department's partnership with the University of Washington to
address domestic violence illustrates this. As part of the partnership
project, the department established an information system to obtain and
manage data about domestic violence. A researcher commented on the
advantages for both researchers and practitioners by noting, "We helped
the police department set up the database for domestic violence, and
they've been entering data for more than a year. And we also get access to
that data." A database created to meet the daily operational needs of the
department also generates high-quality data for research purposes. 

Sustaining the partnership. Local research capacity increases as the
partnership develops and achieves success in individual projects. That
improvement is a product of the joint effort of equal partners. In some
other Federal initiatives, by contrast, the aim is to train police practitioners
to conduct research on their own.

Several partnerships have been sustained beyond the initial study when the
partners were asked, on the basis of their experience, to tackle other
projects. For example, researchers from the University of California at
Oakland who were working with the Oakland, California, Police
Department were subsequently asked to evaluate a federally sponsored
project on reducing gang-related crime. In New York City, the partnership
between the police department and researchers from the City University of
New York continued when additional Federal funding was provided to
improve computerized crime mapping. 

Seattle: improving police response to domestic violence 

The partnership forged in Seattle to improve police handling of domestic
violence exemplifies the way locally initiated research can change a
department's approach to reducing crime. The ability of the police
department's domestic violence unit to respond had been viewed internally
as inadequate in reporting and analyzing incident data. For this reason, the
partnership focused on evaluating the unit. 

Origins. The Seattle partnership, which began in 1996, brought researchers
from the University of Washington School of Public Health, the
Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, and other units of the
city government that handled domestic violence together with the police
department's domestic violence unit. The unit had been organized two
years earlier as part of the newly created Family and Youth Protection
Bureau to provide specialized followup investigation of domestic violence
crimes. Thus, the partnership was a logical extension of an already
established arrangement among the organizations whose key members had
collaborated on other projects, among them improving the medical release
form used by patrol officers in handling domestic disputes.

Results. As noted above, one result was upgrading the existing system of
collecting information about domestic violence. Other results were: 

o Designing and refining a domestic violence incident report used by the
police. 

o Obtaining physicians' assistance in designing the incident report. 

o Improving access to medical information from hospitals and physicians.

o Assigning more investigative responsibility to the domestic violence
unit. 

Partnership extended. The Seattle partnership continued the following
year, this time with the aim of developing a "lethality scale risk
assessment tool" [4] that would enable the department to work smarter in
investigating domestic violence cases. This was done by expanding the
officers' reporting form to enable them to cite risk factors (such as use of
alcohol and/or drugs) for the escalation of violence in particular situations.
As of this writing, data collected from the risk assessment tool by means
of the reporting form are being analyzed. 

A plus for both sides 

Even if the immediate problem defined by the partnership is not fully
resolved, both police and researchers gain from their experiences. Working
with researchers encourages police departments to approach issues more
systematically than they otherwise might, critically assess the quality and
utility of their information systems, and understand research findings in a
broad context. On the other side of the partnership, researchers have the
opportunity to apply the tools of their trade in an operational setting, see
the findings of empirical research influence local policymaking, and assess
whether operational changes made under community policing are
producing the desired results. 

If the attitudes of participating police and researchers are any indication,
the partnership projects will build a firm foundation for lasting
police-researcher relationships. One commander recognized the value of
the resources available to the department and was especially enthusiastic
about continuing the partnership: "We've traditionally been a closed
department...solving our problems on our own. The doors of the local
university were open, but our eyes were closed." One researcher was
typical in expressing the value of the partnership in helping researchers
better understand the challenges faced by police departments: "The policy
decisions that police make are some of the most difficult that I've seen,
and have major implications. I think I can help." 

Notes

[1] Forty-one locally initiated research partnerships in policing were
awarded as of 1997. Awards made in 1998 were supplements to those
made in previous years.

[2] The evaluation was conducted through a series of visits to participating
sites, cluster meetings (discussions among groups of program
participants), reviews of reports, and other approaches.

[3] LINC is a private research organization based in Virginia. 

[4] A "lethality scale risk assessment tool" is a means of determining the
degree of risk of serious injury that a domestic violence victim might
suffer by remaining with a particular partner. It usually takes the form of a
questionnaire.

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

GENESIS OF THE POLICE-RESEARCHER PARTNERSHIPS 

The Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in policing are rooted in the
Crime Act of 1994. The Act created an unprecedented opportunity to make
communities safer by building and improving police departments
nationwide. Under Title I of the Act, the number of officers deployed
increased and police departments received support in adopting community
and problem-solving policing. Part of the legislation included a mandate
for evaluation, periodic review, and production of reports. NIJ undertook
these tasks. With support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS Office), established by the Crime Act in the Department
of Justice, NIJ began the process of evaluating and otherwise studying
how police departments were using the funds to adopt new programs and
hiring initiatives.

Means and ends

The notion of police-researcher partnerships stemmed from NIJ and COPS
Office recognition of police executives' growing need for research to help
define problems, design solutions, and assess the effects of adopted
solutions. In developing the approach, the two agencies also drew on input
from local police departments.* The outcome was a program in which
police departments become active participants in, rather than passive
recipients of, Crime Act policing research. In the Locally Initiated
Research Partnerships, police departments and researchers work together
to find a solution to a problem defined by the agency. The partnership also
becomes the basis for ongoing cooperation between the two that extends
beyond the life of the initial project. The long-term aim is to build the
research capacity of the agency so that crime-reduction programs may be
developed or refined, and current policies re-evaluated or modified.

Structures and types 

Most often the partnership consists of a local police department or other
law enforcement agency and a local university. Less often the department
collaborates with a private, nonprofit research organization. Sometimes the
researchers and practitioners have worked together in the past and the
current partnership continues that relationship; in other instances it is a
new arrangement for both parties. Several partnerships include more than
one police department. 

Currently, NIJ is sponsoring 41 partnerships in jurisdictions ranging in
size from Council Grove, Kansas (population 2,000), to New York City
(population more than 7 million). (See exhibit 1 for a complete list of
sites.) The subject range is wide, covering domestic violence, workplace
violence, computer mapping, the role of sergeants in community policing,
and programs for youthful offenders, among other topics. Many projects
are an evaluation of a department's overall community policing effort.

* An approach to research that involves creating partnerships with
practitioners and that results in application of the findings is not new.
"Action research," as this approach is called, has been used in several
fields in addition to criminal justice. (See The "Action Research" Model.)

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

EXHIBIT 1. NIJ'S LOCALLY INITIATED RESEARCH
PARTNERSHIPS: THE ISSUES AND THE PARTNERS 

Community policing-
organizational development/implementation

--Albuquerque (New Mexico) Police Department with University of New
Mexico

--Alfred/Wellsville (New York) Police Department with Alfred University

--Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department with the Urban Institute 

--Baltimore Police Department with Johns Hopkins University

--Bay City (Michigan) Police Department with Saginaw College

--Boston Police Department with Northeastern University/Harvard
University

--Buffalo (New York) Police Department with State University of New
York at Buffalo

--Chandler, Glendale, and Scottsdale, Arizona, police departments with
Arizona State University

--Jefferson County (West Virginia) Police Department with FOCUS
Coalition, Inc.

--Lexington (Kentucky) Police Department with Eastern Kentucky
University

--Los Angeles Police Department with University of California at Los
Angeles/University of Southern California

--Omaha (Nebraska) Police Department with University of Nebraska at
Omaha

--St. Louis Police Department with St. Louis University  

Community policing-
surveys/evaluations 

--Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's Department with Boise State University

--Alachua County (Florida) Sheriff's Office with University of Florida

--Charleston (West Virginia) Police Department with Marshall University

--Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department with University of
Colorado

--Council Grove (Kansas) Police Department with University of Kansas

--El Centro (California) Police Department with San Diego State
University

--Forest Park (Ohio) Police Department with University of Cincinnati

--Hagerstown (Maryland) Police Department with Shippensburg
University

--Jersey City (New Jersey) Police Department with Rutgers University

--Lansing (Michigan) Police Department with Michigan State University

--Lowell, Salem, and Danvers, Massachusetts, police departments with
Salem State College 

--Oakland (California) Police Department with University of California,
Oakland

--Philadelphia Police Department with Temple University

--Racine (Wisconsin) Police Department with University of Wisconsin

--Southern Alabama (police departments in one rural county and three
small cities) with University of Southern Alabama

COMPSTAT*/computer mapping 

--Charlotte (North Carolina) Police Department with International
Association of Chiefs of Police 
(IACP)/Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) 

--Charlottesville (Virginia) Police Department with University of Virginia

--Indianapolis Police Department with Hudson Institute

--New Orleans Police Department with IACP/JRSA

--New York City Police Department with City University of New York

--Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Department with University
of Maryland

Domestic violence

--Berkeley (California) Police Department with National Council on
Crime and Delinquency/East Bay Public Safety Corridor

--Framingham (Massachusetts) Police Department with Social Science
Research and Evaluation, Inc.

--Rapid City, South Dakota; Pocatello, Idaho; Eureka, California; and
Redding, California, police departments with LINC

--Seattle Police Department with University of Washington

Multi-site research projects 

--Baltimore County, Maryland; Grand Rapids, Michigan; New Orleans,
Louisiana; and Wichita, Kansas, police departments with IACP/JRSA

--Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition (consisting of the School
of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the
Florida Department of Corrections) with Florida State University

--Multiple sites in southern Illinois with Southern Illinois University

* COMPSTAT (computer comparison statistics) is a computerized system
for analyzing crime data. It was pioneered by the New York City Police
Department, where the system is used in conjunction with regularly
scheduled meetings in which commanders respond to questions about their
coverage areas.

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

THE "ACTION RESEARCH" MODEL 

The Locally Initiated Research Partnerships are distinctive in fostering the
translation of research into action. They exemplify an inquiry strategy
known as "action research," described by psychologist Kurt Lewin, its
early champion, as a spiral of "planning, acting, and evaluating."[1] More
recently, action research has been characterized as "a cyclical process that
involves diagnosing a problem situation, planning action steps, and
implementing and evaluating outcomes."[2] The spiral or cycle means the
steps are repeated: Once an evaluation is conducted, the situation is
diagnosed again on the basis of what is learned from the previous round of
activity. A distinguishing feature of action research is partnership with
practitioners. 

Since the 1940s, action research has been applied successfully in the fields
of psychology, education, and medicine and has been used in criminal
justice.

The model's cyclical, multi-step process begins with nomination of a
research topic, continues with development and implementation of the
research design, and ends with communication and application of findings.
(See exhibit 2 [exhibit 2 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file])
Applied to police-researcher partnerships, those steps are as follows: 

o Nominating a research topic. Topic selection is determined by the
interests of the partners, police department initiatives, political influences,
and local police culture. 

o Reconnaissance. Following topic selection, police practitioners and
researchers gather more information about the nominated topic. This
includes reviewing the department's information systems to determine
their adequacy and to shed more light on the topic, interviewing key
department staff to learn their perceptions of the severity of the targeted
problem, and reviewing the literature on the topic. In some cases,
reconnaissance may result in rejection of the topic.

o Developing a research plan and implementing it. Depending on the
topic, the research may include, among other steps, data analysis, surveys
of citizens, and development of an experimental research design. Research
findings are analyzed on an ongoing basis. The graphic illustration of the
model (exhibit 2) depicts this as a loop that extends from analysis back to
developing and conducting research. In some projects, it has been
necessary to revise the approach as interim results become available. 

o Communication and application. The final steps in the first cycle are
communicating the research findings to the appropriate audience and
applying them in practice. Most locally based research concludes with
recommendations for changes in departmental procedures or policies.

o The next cycle. The entire process begins again with renomination of a
research topic. At this point there are two options. One is to conduct a
second round of research, retaining the initial topic. The aim might be to
evaluate changes made as a result of the first round of research. The other
option is to select a new problem to study. Selecting the latter option
assumes the previous problem has been successfully resolved or that only
marginal improvements can be made through additional research at this
point.

Notes

[1] Lewin, Kurt, "Action Research and Minority Problems," in: Resolving
Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, edited by Gertrud
Lewin, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948: 219-262.

[2] Elden, Max, and Rupert Chisholm, "Emerging Varieties of Action
Research: Introduction to the Special Issue," Human Relations 46(2)
(1993): 121-141.

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

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS

Encouraged by the promise of the Locally Initiated Research Partnerships
in policing, NIJ expanded the approach to encompass additional research
areas. 

Domestic violence. In conjunction with the Violence Against Women
Grants Office (Office of Justice Programs), NIJ is sponsoring evaluations
of law enforcement programs designed to encourage arrest in cases of
domestic violence. The centralized detectives unit established in the San
Diego Sheriff's Department to investigate domestic violence cases will be
evaluated to identify resulting changes, and deputies' knowledge of
relevant State laws will be tested. Courts specializing in domestic violence
cases are being examined to understand more about their effectiveness and
the enhanced advocacy and supervision they offer. In a
Pennsylvania-based project, training provided to police officers who
handle domestic violence cases will be assessed, technical assistance will
be provided in developing database systems to track these cases, and
victims' satisfaction with domestic violence services will be explored. The
Colorado Springs Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team
(DVERT), a comprehensive approach joining 15 agencies, will be
examined to identify the types of incidents occurring in the jurisdiction,
the nature and effect of intervention, and the nature of the agencies'
collaboration.

Sentencing and corrections. The aim of partnerships in these areas is to
better understand the implementation and impact of State sentencing and
correctional policies. Among some of the recently awarded projects are
studies of sentencing-related changes in correctional health care (Texas);
truth-in-sentencing laws (Virginia and Florida, among other States); the
mental health problems of juvenile offenders (California); prisoner drug
and alcohol treatment (Pennsylvania); the impact of State sentencing
reforms on violent offenders (West Virginia); the impact of sentencing on
corrections (California); and the effect of sentencing policies on the
racial/ethnic composition of prisons (Pennsylvania).

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for prisoners. The 1994
Crime Act provided States funding to develop substance abuse treatment
programs in correctional facilities. In conjunction with the Corrections
Program Office (Office of Justice Programs) and in collaboration with the
appropriate State agencies (such as the corrections department), NIJ is
sponsoring evaluations of individual State programs. Examples of studies
now under way are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections-Vera
Institute of Justice evaluation of the State's RSAT program, with an
emphasis on recidivism among parolees who have committed technical
violations; the study of a pre-release therapeutic community for women
offenders in Washington State; and a Texas-based study of the State's
chemical dependency treatment program for juvenile offenders. 

Juvenile justice. The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants
(JAIBG) offer support to States that are considering adopting policies or
practices to ensure accountability of juvenile offenders. JAIBG is
administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. NIJ is sponsoring a national evaluation of the program, in
addition to evaluating specific State programs and conducting related
research. The Institute also dedicated some of its support to research
partnerships. 

Public housing safety. The research partnerships for public housing
communities are intended to help housing authorities eliminate the
problem of drugs and crime that has particularly plagued residents of
public housing. NIJ and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development are providing support to seven of these agencies (in Omaha;
Nashville; Jonesboro, Arkansas; San Diego; Raleigh; Philadelphia; and
New Haven) to evaluate their crime-reduction programs or to identify
crime-related problems in the housing developments, develop solutions,
and evaluate their impact. NIJ and HUD also are sponsoring the
development of a system for use by HUD in reporting and processing
information about the agency's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.

The value of partnerships

The value of partnerships lies in bringing to bear on complex issues the
multiple perspectives, skills, and experiences of a group of individuals or
organizations. That is their "leverage" value. Partnerships also reduce
duplication of effort and help ensure that all parties with a stake in a
particular issue have a seat at the table. For researchers, working with
practitioners is particularly valuable because it helps ensure that the
practical and operational receive due emphasis.

It was with this in mind that NIJ and the other agencies of the Office of
Justice Programs chose "Viewing Crime from a Collaborative Perspective"
as the theme of their annual research and evaluation conference in 1998.
The major presentations from that conference, each one emphasizing a
different aspect of collaboration with community stakeholders and others
on issues of crime and justice, are being prepared for publication by NIJ
and will be available in mid-1999.

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

Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology

by Lois Pilant*

*Lois Pilant is President and CEO of Wings Publishing, which specializes
in writing, editing, and graphic design. She writes extensively about law
enforcement issues, particularly in the area of technology. 

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

When Corporal Clay Taylor tickets a driver for DWI, the process requires
at least nine forms and takes at least four hours. And that's on a good day.
But in the past year, this Texas Department of Public Safety trooper has
been field testing a new technology that greatly streamlines the process.
Corporal Taylor's patrol car has been equipped with a computer system he
uses to record information electronically. 

Corporal Taylor recently used this new technology while responding to a
six-vehicle accident that involved two commercial vehicles, required
writing tickets for DWI, and sent seven people to three different hospitals.
The paperwork alone would have generated at least 35 forms, all of which
required filling in the same information--for example, name, date of birth,
and driver's license number. Instead, using a handheld mobile computer
that communicates with the system in his car, Corporal Taylor entered the
basic information once and assigned it to as many forms as he needed. He
then entered the information electronically into the State's database.

The Advanced Law Enforcement Response Technology, or ALERT
[registered trademark][1], made all of this possible. The Texas
Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the technology. Although
originally the brainchild of the FHWA, the project to develop the
technology grew into a consortium that includes the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas
Department of Public Safety, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), several State and local law
enforcement agencies, and major manufacturers of police equipment. The
result is the police car of the future, one that puts technology to work in
ways that make an officer's job easier and safer.

Inside the ALERT [registered trademark] car 

The ALERT technology takes the masses of switches and controls out of
the "cockpit" of the patrol car and integrates the vehicle's functions into a
system entirely controlled by an onboard touch-screen computer. ALERT
cars currently being tested are equipped with computer-driven overhead
lights, radar, magnetic stripe and bar-code readers, license plate readers,
enhanced video camera/recording devices, and a global positioning
system/automatic vehicle locator. If the officer initiates a pursuit, for
example, he or she simply touches the word "pursue" on the screen to
activate the lights, siren, and a video camera, as well as a global
positioning system that shows dispatchers the patrol car's precise location.
A video multiplexor integrates multiple cameras and lenses and enables
the officer to record digital or video images inside and outside the vehicle
in wide-angle or close-up views. Those images can then be transmitted in
real time to a communications or command center. 

ALERT also includes a handheld, pen-based remote terminal, of the same
type used by Corporal Taylor, that can communicate with the onboard
computer. When an officer makes a stop and approaches a vehicle, the
programs needed to record information are in the handheld unit.
Information from the stop can be downloaded to the onboard computer or
sent by wireless transmission to the communications center.

The computer that serves as the traffic cop for all this sophisticated
technology sits in the trunk, routing communications between wireless
data collection devices, the vehicle itself, and the department's
communications center. 

What makes everything work is the ALERT technology's open
architecture, which allows departments to create a system unique to their
needs. Officers can add peripheral devices simply by plugging them in.
Agencies can combine equipment from different manufacturers and
transfer the ALERT equipment from one patrol car to another. They may
choose to incorporate the most basic technologies or opt for a more
sophisticated system. Either way, police departments will enhance the
functions of patrol officers with this "plug-and-play" system. 

A recent demonstration of the technology showed how a photograph of a
missing child could be scanned and digitized at a Texas police department,
forwarded to a nearby ALERT base station, and then sent to a Virginia
police department's patrol car where it was displayed on a laptop
computer. At the same time, the photo was conveyed electronically to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Arlington,
Virginia, for display and processing. The total transmission time was less
than 60 seconds.

Toward paperless patrol 

But it's the officers who truly benefit. When the ALERT technology
becomes commercially available, officers will have immediate access to
State and national databases (for example, those of State departments of
motor vehicles); they will be able to receive and transmit text and graphics
in seconds; and they will be able to use the digital and video cameras to
record images from accident sites and crime scenes and automatically
download it to their department's records management system. Information
from drivers' licenses can be swiped on magnetic stripe and bar-code
readers and automatically loaded into electronic forms, and officers will be
able to communicate with neighboring jurisdictions as well as other
emergency responders.

"Processing a typical DWI without ALERT is a four-hour operation," said
Corporal Taylor. "ALERT cuts it down to less than an hour.

"I have a lot of people asking me about ALERT, and the most common
question is, 'Tell me how it's saved your life.' But that isn't what ALERT
does. What's been really beneficial is that for every 10 minutes you block
a major roadway, you back traffic up for 10 miles. Think of how much
time and money I've saved by clearing an accident 45 minutes faster
because it only took minutes to process the paperwork."

Corporal Taylor uses ALERT to e-mail tickets to judges' offices rather
than hand-carrying them, and to enter accident information into the State's
database. It typically takes nine months for an accident to be entered into
the records system, which means Statewide accident statistics are well
over a year old by the time they are available. But with ALERT, a
property-only accident report, for example, can be entered in as little as 20
minutes. "With ALERT, we've just cut out a whole loop of people. From a
statistical standpoint, that means we can look at real-time data instead of
delayed data," Taylor said.

With FHWA funding, Taylor plans to field test ALERT technology by
giving five of his officers handheld computers and asking them to become
"paperless." He will then compare their productivity and activity with that
of the troopers who do not have the ALERT technology. The goal is to
transmit case reports, as well as the troopers' weekly reports, from the
field. "We can take a lot of the information from the handheld computer as
it's collected and automatically move it from there to the database or into
another report," Taylor said. "That keeps our troops on the road, instead of
being in the office doing paperwork."

The future of law enforcement technology is now 

Such forays into the future of technology are only the beginning.
Admittedly, a large number of the Nation's police agencies still do not
have computers--about 30 percent by some estimates. Agencies that do,
however, are increasing their technological sophistication with amazing
speed.

The potential of laptops. Chief Dennis Nowicki, of the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) in North Carolina, has
been working on his department's information management system for the
past three years. He is known as one of the country's most innovative and
technologically sophisticated police administrators. He has turned a
department that used a mainframe and pin maps into one with a
state-of-the-art network serving 1,800 users.

Laptops are the primary tool. One is issued to each officer rather than to
each vehicle and, as with a weapon, all officers must undergo training and
become qualified to use the computer. "Nobody has gone through the
training that they didn't take it home the first day," said Major Piper
Charles, who heads the CMPD's Police Master Information System
program. "Even the older officers whom you might expect to be
technologically resistant are liking it."

The system is set up on a local area network that links all workstations
within the headquarters building and at 18 remote facilities. A Mobile
Data Communications System enables officers to receive dispatches;
query local, State, and Federal databases; and transfer and query offense
reports and field interview records. Officers have access to mug shots and
can use e-mail to communicate with investigators and administrators.
Additional modules will roll out in phases: 

o KB-COPS (Knowledge-Based Community Oriented Policing System).
Started in the CMPD in spring 1998, KB-COPS features a
custom-developed database that provides advanced reporting detail and
querying capabilities. 

o Enhanced CAD.[2] The CAD system will be enhanced, becoming less
call-for-service oriented and more smoothly integrated with the
department's information and records system. It also will generate histories
and background information and interface directly with the KB-COPS
records management system.

o Field interview system. With this system, CMPD officers in the field can
directly input interview information from their laptops and query the field
interview database to better identify offending patterns among suspects. 

o Future Alert Contact Network (FALCON). A "triggering" software
developed by the CMPD and the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, FALCON helps officers as they sort through reports and records
to alert them to patterns and trends. 

o Internal affairs case management module. This tool automates internal
investigation forms and data and enables investigators to track case
dispositions and spot trends and problem behaviors by analyzing
complaints filed against the department and individual officers.

The CMPD also wants to develop modules for analyzing property and
evidence and managing investigations, and a problem-solving component
that will let officers enter information about community problems they are
working on or have solved. This database will be used as a resource in all
of the department's community policing efforts.

Strategic thinking is key. The CMPD has been successful because it has a
long-term plan and sees policing as a business and the information
management system as its foundation, not just as a short-term project that
would automate only one function. "A lot of people are using laptops as
mobile data terminals when they really should be the functional equivalent
of a desktop computer," said Major Charles. "We need to think beyond
running tags and warrants. We need to think about officers doing crime
mapping and crime analysis in their cars, about how these systems are
going to support what we do on the street." We need to think about
officers doing crime mapping and crime analysis in their cars, about how
these systems are going to support what we do on the street." 

Kelly Harris, manager of the SEARCH Group's technical assistance
program, agreed. "These systems support mobile computing and allow the
officers to be more productive in the field. They don't have to return to
headquarters to get messages or do more research. They can conduct their
own queries without waiting for a dispatcher. Also, the quality of the data
is better. It's more accurate because it's written immediately after the
incident. It isn't handwritten and deciphered by someone else, so there are
no transcription errors.

"The department shouldn't be just a storage facility or a place to dump
information," Harris added. "It can house a database and let us get
information back to the field in an interactive way. It's really a much more
dynamic system and a more cost-effective and efficient way of doing
business."

With a little help from a friend 

NIJ's view is that "technology saves lives;" hence its consistent funding of
projects and programs that put new and adapted technologies into the
hands of police officers. Projects like ALERT and the Justice Department's
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services' (COPS) COPS MORE
funding dovetail with the NIJ philosophy, supporting programs that keep
patrol officers abreast of the latest in mobile technology. (See "More on
COPS MORE.") A host of projects, encompassing every-thing from the
implementation of extensive information management systems to smaller
projects that put laptops in patrol cars, are now operating in jurisdictions
nationwide.[3]

A mobile technology sampler. Five hundred laptop computers were placed
in the vehicles of 22 Connecticut police agencies, thanks to funding
provided to the State's Regional Council of Governments from the State,
municipalities, and COPS MORE. Initially, the project allows immediate
wireless access, via a shared network, to State motor vehicle, National
Crime Information Center and National Law Enforcement
Telecommunication System information.[4] In the next phase of the
program, a data collection system for case reporting and motor-vehicle
accident reporting will be developed. The ultimate goal is complete
sharing of information among police departments.

A multi-jurisdictional information system is being developed by the
combined forces of four California police departments--Woodland, West
Sacramento, Winters, and Davis. The project started with an installation of
laptop computers, but the goal is an integrated CAD, records management,
and mobile data system that will inter-face with the district attorney's
office, the courts, and the probation office.

The city of San Francisco is taking communications and mobile
technologies a step further. In a project funded by voter initiatives, the city
is replacing its entire 911 infrastructure--the radios, computer systems,
even the physical facility--and combining dispatch systems for police, fire,
and paramedics under one roof. When the project is completed at the end
of 1999, a 911 call will go to one call-taker, who will then send it to
multiple dispatchers. In this way, fire, police, and paramedics can be
dispatched either individually or all at once. Recordkeeping will remain
separate, with a records management system serving as a repository for
police incident reports and the fire department database housing data on
fire incidents, medical incidents, and fire prevention. A mobile computing
module will be available to all personnel and will enable building
inspectors and paramedics to fill out reports from the field.

Moving toward the 21st century

When digital data were first transmitted to a police cruiser in the
mid-1980s, the information was available only to agencies that could
afford a private radio network and mobile terminals. Even then, the
equipment used proprietary protocols, which meant that agencies were
generally limited to only one manufacturer or vendor. Today, however,
departments can hook up a laptop computer and an RF (radio frequency)
modem and send encrypted data to officers in the field via a public cellular
network at a fraction of the cost of a private net-work that uses proprietary
protocols. In a survey conducted by the Illinois Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Council, officers were asked how they felt about using this
kind of mobile technology. One officer called it "the best tool I have been
given to work with in 19 years as a police officer."

Other tools that once were mere sparks of imagination now promise to one
day be as common as handcuffs and batons. Among them is Operation
Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS), one of the newest
components of the ALERT system. OREIS is a database that enables first
responders to rapidly obtain accurate information during hazardous
materials incidents. It links police and firefighters to databases of
participating rail and motor carriers that operate within their specific area.
Emergency workers can use OREIS to identify the cargo of a train car or
truck, allowing them to handle a hazardous materials incident in a way that
ensures the safety of the community and the response team. It also
provides schematics of Amtrak cars and locomotives, including seat
configuration, emergency exit doors and windows, and the location of
electric and fuel resources.

OREIS has proven its worth on more than one occasion. In one incident, a
vapor cloud was seen leaking from a tanker car in a New York rail yard.
Officials used OREIS to contact the railroad's mainframe database and,
within seven minutes, learned that the tanker contained 20,000 gallons of
hydrochloric acid. Although calm, wet weather meant the area did not
have to be evacuated, with OREIS, first responders knew they needed
protective gear and breathing apparatus. In another case, a tank car leaking
benzoic acid was spotted in a Texas industrial complex. Although the
facility had its own emergency response team, it used OREIS to verify the
tank car's contents and get information on how to manage the incident.

Chronicled here are just a few examples of how law enforcement agencies
are taking advantage of mobile technologies. There are hundreds more.
Not only do they prove the adage "technology saves lives," but they also
are evidence that technology can be a major force in enabling law
enforcement agencies to better and more efficiently deliver police services
to communities.

Notes

[1] ALERT [registered trademark] is a registered trademark of the Texas
Transportation Institute.

[2] Computer-assisted dispatch.

[3] Many of these projects, a number of which are supported with COPS
MORE grants, are listed on the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) Web site (at the IACP's Law Enforcement Information
Management Committee's technology page:
http://www.iacptechnology.org/). 

[4] The National Crime Information Center is the FBI's national database
that any officer in the country can query about warrants and other
crime-related information. The FBI's National Law Enforcement
Telecommunication System is a means by which alerts, bulletins,
warnings, and similar information are sent via teletype to every law
enforcement agency in the country.

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

MORE ON COPS MORE

COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective) enables law
enforcement agencies to acquire equipment that uses advanced
technologies. The program is administered by the Justice Department's
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which was
established under the 1994 Crime Act to put additional police officers on
the streets and promote community policing. 

The technology acquired by local policing agencies with COPS MORE
support is the means. The end is freeing up sworn officers' time so they
can engage in community policing. In addition to equipping officers with
new technologies, COPS MORE makes funds available to replace sworn
personnel with civilians in performing administrative tasks. Together, the
two approaches allow officers to spend more time on the streets solving
problems instead of at the station completing paperwork. 

The aims of COPS MORE are to improve police-citizen cooperation and
communication, increase police and citizen ability to innovatively solve
community problems, aid in restructuring agencies in a way that allows
optimal use of department and community resources, promote the flow
and use of information within and outside agencies, and improve law
enforcement responsiveness to members of the community. 

COPS MORE is one of several COPS Office programs. A series of hiring
grants is meeting the goal of recruiting an additional 100,000 community
policing officers; the COPS youth firearms violence initiative supports
creative approaches to reduce gun crime among young people; and a
program established in collaboration with the Office of Justice Programs'
Violence Against Women Grants Office is helping to apply community
policing to reduce domestic violence. COPS also makes training and
technical assistance available to agencies receiving COPS grants.

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

Forensic DNA Evidence: National Commission Explores Its Future

by Christopher H. Asplen*

*Christopher H. Asplen, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia, is Executive Director of the National Commission on the
Future of DNA Evidence. Because the Commission is still in deliberation,
the opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the Commission,
but rather of the author.

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

One day in 1989 Debbie Smith was dragged from her Virginia home,
blindfolded, and repeatedly raped. Her husband, a police officer home
from night duty, was asleep upstairs, unaware of the crime. As the rapist
fled, he warned his victim, "Remember, I know where you live and I will
come back if you tell anyone." Later Debbie recounted how, for the next
six years, she and her family were consumed by terror, pain, and guilt, and
frequently suffered nightmares because her assailant remained at large.
She even contemplated suicide. Then, in July 1995, everything changed
when the man who raped her was identified through the State of Virginia's
DNA database. 

"For the first time in six and a half years," Debbie testified, "I could feel
myself breathe. I felt validated. It was a real name and a real face to go
with the nightmare." A sample of her assailant's DNA, left as evidence in
the rape, had been routinely placed in the Virginia database after the
crime. When he was later convicted of a subsequent serious offense,
another sample was taken. Run through the database, it produced a "hit"--a
match with the DNA of the unknown man who raped Debbie Smith years
earlier. He now had, in her words, a real name and a real face.

Genesis of the Commission

Debbie Smith recounted her experiences before the National Commission
on the Future of DNA Evidence. The Commission was created in 1998 at
the request of Attorney General Janet Reno. When she read about the use
of DNA to exonerate someone wrongfully convicted of rape and homicide,
she became concerned that others might also have been wrongly
convicted. The Attorney General then directed the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) to identify how often DNA had exonerated wrongfully
convicted defendants. After extensive study, NIJ published a report that
presents case studies of 28 inmates for whom DNA analysis was
exculpatory.[1]

On learning of the breadth and scope of the issues related to forensic
DNA, the Attorney General asked NIJ to establish the Commission as a
means to examine the future of DNA evidence and how the Justice
Department could encourage its most effective use. 

"Postconviction" issues like the one that prompted the Attorney General's
interest are just one of several areas of inquiry for the Commission. The
other focal areas, for which corresponding working groups have been
established, each chaired by a Commissioner (see "The Commission and
the Commissioners"), are:

o Crime scene investigation and evidence collection.

o Laboratory funding. 

o Legal concerns. 

o Research and development.

The experiences of victims of violent crime like Debbie Smith and those
wrongfully convicted and incarcerated illustrate the urgency of the issues
the Commission faces. In cases such as these, each person's life is
irrevocably damaged. In Debbie Smith's case, her assailant had been jailed
for another offense only months after her rape, but his DNA sample from
that conviction went unanalyzed for years, so he was not identified as her
attacker as soon as he was jailed. Instead, as she told the Commission, "I
lost six years of my life to fear because of the backlog of DNA samples."
There were so many samples to be processed that years went by before her
attacker's DNA sample was processed and he was apprehended on the
basis of the match. The backlog of samples is still very large.

The mission 

The Commission's mandate is to submit recommendations to the Attorney
General that will help ensure more effective use of DNA as a
crime-fighting tool and foster its use throughout the criminal justice
system. The working groups will research and otherwise examine their
respective topics. Working groups may develop guidelines for the use of
DNA. At the Commission's direction, the products of the working groups
will be submitted to the full Commission for approval, amendment, or
further discussion and will provide the Commission with background for
its recommendations to the Attorney General.

As the Commission enters its second year, NIJ felt it timely to report on
why the Commission was established and how it operates, explain its
mission and that of the working groups, and elaborate on the issues it is
exploring.

Postconviction issues

A convicted individual's continued assertion of innocence is not new to the
criminal justice system and in fact is familiar to appeals courts. The use of
DNA technology may bring to courtroom proceedings a degree of
certitude to which neither the defense nor the prosecution is accustomed.
Typically in an appeal, the possibility that the original verdict will be
overturned is merely suggested. 

By contrast, the introduction of DNA evidence after conviction may
definitively prove innocence. Because of the high level of certainty made
possible by DNA evidence, the decision to oppose or not oppose a motion
requesting postconviction relief may now be based on a different
foundation of knowledge.

The implications of DNA technology for criminal justice are most evident
in postconviction appeals, both in the use of DNA evidence in specific
cases and in its broader impact on the criminal justice system. The
Commission is examining the use of DNA evidence in previously
adjudicated cases in order to develop recommendations about the
postconviction process and is exploring the effect that DNA technology
may have on the statutes of limitation for filing appeals and charges. The
latter issue arises because DNA samples last indefinitely, beyond the
periods of time permitted for such filings.

The working group on postconviction issues has developed
recommendations that will serve criminal justice system practitioners as
guidelines for analyzing cases in which DNA evidence is presented; these
recommendations have been approved by the Commission. The guidelines
constitute the scientific ground on which to make fully informed decisions
and on which to develop the legal approaches needed when DNA may
determine the outcome of an appeal. Separate chapters of the guidelines
are tailored to the needs of prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judiciary,
forensics laboratories, and victim advocates. 

Crime scene investigation

The unrealized potential of DNA evidence is evident in its use in crime
scene investigations.[2] Historically, the use of forensic DNA in this
country developed on two ends of a spectrum. On one end was a robust
laboratory technology that produced results reliable for criminal justice
system use. On the other end was the courtroom use of DNA evidence
(where the "admissibility wars" were waged). Little or no attention was
paid to law enforcement's vital role. Relatively few resources were
allocated to educating law enforcement officials, who are responsible for
identifying, collecting, and preserving criminal evidence. 

A new investigative tool. In the United States, law enforcement's role may
have been limited because forensic DNA technology developed primarily
as a prosecutorial weapon, not an investigative tool. In the United
Kingdom, however, forensic DNA was first applied in a mass testing of
more than 4,500 people in a case in which no one had yet been charged.
The aim was to use the DNA samples from all these people to identify the
offender. In the United States, by contrast, DNA evidence has been used
primarily to confirm the identity of someone already under suspicion.
Because in the United States the use of mass testing as an investigative
technique raises particular social and legal questions, and because, until
recently, there was no database of offenders' DNA samples, there was
scant opportunity to harness DNA's ultimate investigative power--its
application to cases that have no suspect ("non-suspect cases").
Prosecutors asked law enforcement for DNA samples to prove their case;
law enforcement did not use DNA to identify and arrest perpetrators.

The advent of the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) offender
database created a new paradigm of investigation for law enforcement.
(See "CODIS Decoded.") While it made no sense either for financial
reasons or investigative purposes to request (and pay for) DNA analysis
when a case had no suspect, access to a national database opened up the
possibility of investigating just such cases. The use of DNA evidence in
these cases represents the ultimate investigative value of the tool, although
the application is far from having realized its full potential.

A wider role for law enforcement. The Commission's crime scene
investigation working group will identify means and models for law
enforcement to harness the full investigative power of DNA technology.
As a result of preliminary discussions between the Commissioners and
working group members at a recent Commission meeting, the working
group was directed to consider and report on three major issues.

The first issue involves law enforcement's use of DNA evidence in
non-suspect cases. What this means is that in such cases investigators
would be able to send DNA samples for testing and subsequent
comparison with the samples in the offender database. 

The second issue involves the projected application of the technology by
law enforcement investigators in cases in which there is a suspect. In these
cases, DNA testing would be needed to con-firm the suspect's presence at
the crime scene. Because several recent high-profile trials have heightened
public awareness of DNA evidence and raised expectations that it will be
presented in court, the number of cases in which DNA is introduced as
evidence will increase. When the perpetrator's identity is at issue in a case,
biological evidence (blood or semen, for example) that lends itself to DNA
testing will be vigorously challenged in court if testing is not performed.

The third issue involves law enforcement's application of the technology
to cases that have remained unsolved. It seems that if law enforcement is
to take full advantage of DNA testing technology, analysis should be
conducted and the databases used in this type of case. Just as the use of
databases for nonsuspect cases has created a new investigative paradigm,
their use has opened a new avenue of investigation for cases previously
thought unsolvable. If during the investigation of a crime committed  5 or
even 10 or more years ago a biological sample from the perpetrator was
taken, confirmation of his or her identity may be in the evidence locker.
Investigators, however, would need to have the training and technology to
enable them to reevaluate these cases, identify those that lend themselves
to DNA testing, and process them for a possible match in the database.

Laboratory funding 

If law enforcement fully integrates DNA technology into the investigative
process, there will be major implications for the country's forensic
laboratories. Currently, demand on the laboratories to process DNA
samples is already outstripping their ability to respond. In addition, the
availability of the CODIS offender database system has generated a huge
backlog of samples to be tested. Further pressure on the labs comes from
the expanding list of crimes defined by the States as requiring DNA
samples from convicted offenders. The Commission has begun to provide
guidance by first examining the backlog in the CODIS system. The
Commission also has directed the working group to explore the broader
issue of laboratory capacity in the context of the increased integration of
DNA testing throughout the criminal justice system.

The backlog. Most State forensic labs are struggling just to process DNA
samples to meet the demand for presenting evidence in the courtroom.
Added to this is the CODIS backlog, which now stands at 300,000 to
500,000 samples to be processed. However, the laboratories that must
process the samples were not designed for high-volume testing.

Because the State DNA laboratories cannot prioritize and process database
samples quickly enough to be run through CODIS soon after the samples
are taken, criminals who could be identified remain free to re-offend.
Some samples have been stored in laboratory freezers for as long as five
years. They were taken upon conviction but remained un-analyzed before
the perpetrators' release. Given the recidivistic nature of many of the
crimes for which DNA is collected under State statutes, apprehending a
perpetrator through CODIS is likely to mean that more than one crime is
prevented. Yet the amount of time it will take to analyze the backlogged
samples and store them is estimated at six years. This failure to ensure the
timely analysis of samples from released or soon-to-be-released offenders
will significantly hinder the effectiveness of the database as a tool to both
identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. 

Solving the funding problem. These challenges create a unique
opportunity. The tangible, measurable, and identifiable effects on crime
prevention that would result from an infusion of financial resources into
improving forensic laboratories are a rarity, especially in the criminal
justice system.

One possible solution to the funding problem may be outsourcing to
private laboratories, an approach already being implemented by several
States. Many private forensic and research laboratories are capable of
high-volume testing of DNA samples. Because these database samples are
better suited to analysis by robotic technologies than samples from
criminal cases, the private laboratories, which use these advanced
technologies, can process a great many--1,000 to 10,000 per week.
Further, the cost per sample would be low--less than $50. At this cost, the
backlog could be reduced in less than two years rather than the six years
currently projected.[3] 

Another alternative is for the States to develop their own capacity for rapid
testing. For States able to quickly develop the ability to conduct rapid,
high-volume sample analysis "in-house," funding could be allotted, on the
basis of per-sample need, to create a robotic system of their own. 

Future laboratory capacity. Through the information gathered by the
working group on laboratory funding, the Commission will have access to
estimates of the resources needed to ensure that the laboratories operate
effectively and efficiently. 

First, if laboratories are to be effective, they must process crime scene
evidence expeditiously. They should not be put in the position of having to
prioritize samples to accommodate trial dates or prosecutors' demands.
Rather, the laboratories should have resources sufficient to enable them to
process samples in a time frame consistent with the effective use of DNA
evidence as an investigative tool. While solving this type of case is the
true purpose of the database, it may also be the most elusive goal, given
the other pressures on the laboratories. 

Second, the backlog of offender database samples must be reduced to zero
and the labs able to process samples at a speed that both maximizes
efficiency and prevents future backlogs. The optimal processing system
also assumes prioritizing to ensure that samples from people on probation
and parole (who are at risk of re-offending) are tested and entered into the
system before samples from people serving lengthy sentences. 

Third, laboratories should have the resources to enable them to process
old, unsolved cases. If the database system is put to this task, many cases
previously thought unsolvable will be closed. As law enforcement
develops the skills and resources needed to do this, however, the
laboratories will have that many more cases to process. 

Legal issues

The legal issues working group will identify for the Commission the
lessons to be learned about how the legal system approaches a new
technology, ensures its reliability, and ultimately integrates it. By studying
the history of DNA's integration into the criminal justice system, the group
will provide the Commission with methods that could ensure both
reliability and public safety. 

This group is also providing the Commission with information about
numerous issues that arise in other working groups' discussions. One such
issue is how to deal with "privacy," given the fact that the DNA profiles of
tens of thousands of people are now on file. Of particular interest is the
practice of storing offenders' DNA samples. In many instances the sample
is stored indefinitely. Anticipated changes in DNA technology
development suggest that types of analyses unanticipated at the time the
samples were collected may one day be a reality. What are the possibilities
and implications of these developments? What legal issues must be
considered to ensure public safety while avoiding the erosion of privacy
rights? 

Statutes of limitations as they apply to filing charges and appeals also will
be addressed. DNA technology can be used to investigate crimes
committed beyond the period of time defined by many States' statutes of
limitation. For this reason, a statute's arbitrary allocation of 5 or 10 years
to the investigative process may be unfair to both crime victims and those
wrongfully convicted. DNA recovered from a crime committed years ago
could today provide the evidence needed for conviction. Similarly, for
defendants who were wrongly convicted but who may be exonerated by
DNA evidence, time limits on the appeals process established before the
technology was developed are hardly appropriate. 

Research and development 

Through the research and development working group, the Commission
will receive information on the future technological capabilities of DNA
evidence testing.

There are many issues to be explored in this area. The criminal justice
community needs to know what tools may be available in the future to law
enforcement officers working crime scenes. Will they be equipped with
portable units that they can take to crime scenes to conduct on-scene DNA
analysis? If so, will they be able to connect directly from the crime scene
to the CODIS database? Will a technology be developed in the near term
that permits creating a phenotypic description[4] of a perpetrator based on
a DNA sample taken at a crime scene? And as the ability to generate
results from ever smaller DNA samples increases, there must be a way to
distinguish between samples likely to identify the perpetrator and those
likely to mislead investigators.

Laboratory funding depends on future technological development. The
commitment to the genetic markers now used in forensic DNA testing
(called STR's) exemplifies this.[5] That commitment is based on
confidence that STR's will continue to be the most efficient and effective
technology for DNA analysis--that there will be no near-term change.
Similarly, the implications for forensics of automated DNA typing,[6]
microchip-based instrumentation, and increased use of mitochondrial
DNA[7] need to be considered in order to evaluate their use in the criminal
justice system. In these areas too, funding will depend on the extent to
which technology remains state-of-the-art.

The Commission and DNA's future

It is hoped that thorough examination of the multiple issues raised by the
use of forensic DNA evidence will promote better application of DNA
technology, expedite its use as a crime-fighting tool and, equally
important, build public trust in the criminal justice system that uses this
technology. The issues the Commission is examining have evolved as the
technology and its use have evolved, but, until now, they have not been
addressed systematically. Although the Commission may not fully resolve
all the issues, the recommendations it will make to the Attorney General
can help maximize the potential of forensic DNA to ensure that the guilty
are convicted, the innocent are exonerated, and crime is prevented. 

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

For updates on the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,
visit the Commission's Web page (http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/nij/dna/), on
the NIJ Web site. The Web page contains the complete transcripts of the
Commission's quarterly meetings and the public is welcome to read these. 

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

Notes

[1] The NIJ report is Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case
Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial,
by Edward Connors, et al., Research Report, Washington, D.C., U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1996 (NCJ
161258). Many of the people whose cases are reported here had been on
death row; the average time spent in prison for crimes they did not commit
was seven years. As of this writing, at least 57 people have been shown by
DNA evidence to have been wrongfully convicted. 

[2] For a full discussion of the issue, see The Unrealized Potential of DNA
Testing, by Victor Walter Weedn and John W. Hicks, Research in Action,
Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1998 (NCJ 170596). 

[3] The National Institute of Justice also is contributing to the
improvement of State and local DNA laboratories. Through a five-year,
$40 million program authorized under the DNA Identification Act of 1994
(part of the 1994 Crime Act), laboratories receive grants to improve their
capabilities and create databases that comply with the CODIS system.
Thus far, 89 grants and supplemental grants have been awarded in the
program's first three years. 

[4] A phenotype refers to the physical appearance or functional expression
of a particular trait found encoded in the genes. 

[5] STR (short tandem repeats) refers to the region on a DNA strand where
a sequence of nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) is repeated a
different number of times in different people. The standard method for
DNA typing--RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) is limited
because it requires a large amount of relatively undegraded DNA. The
RFLP method is being replaced by the more efficient PCR-STR
(polymerase chain reaction using short tandem repeat markers).

[6] For a discussion, see Automated DNA Typing: Method of the Future?
Research Preview, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, February 1997 (FS 000163).

[7] Currently, nuclear DNA (from the cell nucleus) is used more often than
mitochondrial DNA (from the mitochondria--other structures in the cell) in
evidence testing. 

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

THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSIONERS 

The members of the National Commission on the Future of DNA
Evidence represent a broad spectrum of the criminal justice system. The
Honorable Shirley S. Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin State
Supreme Court, is the chair. There also are representatives from
prosecution, the defense bar, law enforcement, the scientific community,
the medical examiner community, academia, and victims' rights
organizations.

To ensure an even broader range of interests are represented on the
Commission, experts from various other fields were appointed to the
working groups. 

Commission Membership

Chair

Shirley S. Abrahamson 
Chief Justice
Wisconsin State Supreme Court

Members

Dwight E. Adams
Section Chief, Scientific Analysis
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Jan S. Bashinski
Chief, Bureau of Forensic Services 
California Department of Justice 

George W. Clarke
Deputy District Attorney
San Diego, California

James Crow
Professor
Department of Genetics
University of Wisconsin 
Madison, Wisconsin

Lloyd N. Cutler
Wilmer, Cutler, & Pickering
Washington, D.C.

Joseph H. Davis
Former Director
Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department

Paul B. Ferrara
Director, Division of Forensic Sciences
Commonwealth of Virginia

Norman Gahn
Assistant District Attorney
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Terrance W. Gainer
Executive Assistant Chief of Police 
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department

Terry G. Hillard
Superintendent of Police
Chicago Police Department

Aaron D. Kennard
Sheriff
Salt Lake County (Utah) Sheriff's Office

Philip Reilly
President and CEO
Shriver Center for Mental Retardation
Harvard University

Ronald S. Reinstein
Supervising Criminal Judge
Maricopa County (Arizona) 
Superior Court 

Darrell L. Sanders
Chief of Police
Frankfort (Illinois) Police Department

Kurt L. Schmoke
Mayor
City of Baltimore

Barry C. Sheck
Professor 
Cardozo Law School
New York City

Michael Smith
Professor
University of Wisconsin 
Law School

Jeffrey E. Thoma 
Public Defender
Mendocino County, California

Kathryn M. Turman
Acting Director
Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice

William Webster 
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & McCloy
Washington, D.C.

James R. Wooley
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Cleveland, Ohio

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

CODIS DECODED

CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) arguably is the most significant
advance in criminal investigation of the 20th century. It is a computer
database of DNA "profiles" of offenders convicted of serious crimes (such
as rape, other sexual assault, and murder) and unknown suspects. Law
enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels take DNA
from biological evidence (blood and saliva, for example) gathered in
crimes that have no suspect and compare it to the DNA in the "profiles"
stored in the CODIS system. The profiles come from data on offenders
collected by the States. 

The CODIS user can rapidly identify the perpetrator if there is a match
between the sample and a stored profile. Matches made among profiles
can link crime scenes together, possibly identifying serial offenders. So
valuable is the technology that every State has enacted legislation
establishing a CODIS database and requiring that DNA from offenders
convicted of certain serious crimes be entered into the system.

First launched in 1990 as a pilot program, CODIS was formally authorized
by the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (part of the 1994 Crime Act) and
placed under the direction of the FBI. The CODIS software currently is
installed in 94 forensic laboratories in 41 States and the District of
Columbia. The FBI provides the software, together with installation,
training, and user support free of charge to State and local law
enforcement laboratories performing DNA analysis. 

As of this writing, CODIS contains approximately 250,000 DNA profiles.
The database in the United Kingdom, where the population is much
smaller, contains 300,000 samples. Because the U.S. system still contains
a relatively limited number of profiles, CODIS identifies 1 perpetrator for
every 1,000 samples recorded. In the United Kingdom, the Forensic
Science Service reports between 300 and 500 hits per week. CODIS has
thus far recorded more than 400 matches, or "hits."

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

RESEARCH PREVIEW

Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies

Summary of Research by Alexander Weiss, Northwestern University 

The American police system is among the most decentralized and
fragmented, consisting of thousands of agencies at the Federal, State, and
local levels. Whether large or small, however, these agencies need
adequate, timely information to perform effectively. Of particular
importance is information about changes in policy, law, and practice--
including innovative ways to address problems and issues.

Two systems have emerged to meet the demands for information. One is a
formal system that centers on the distribution of information by
government sources and by professional organizations such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive
Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. Although this formal system
provides enormous amounts of information to an array of agencies,
another system is also engaged in these dissemination efforts--an informal
network among police organizations. This study examines the informal
network.

Through this informal network or system of information sharing, police
planners and others contact other law enforcement agencies directly to
gather information needed to manage their departments. As the study
demonstrates, this system, although informal, is relatively sophisticated
and frequently used by police planners. Often, these consultations with
other agencies lead to the introduction of successful ideas from other
communities or help to reduce the perceived risk of civil liability within an
agency.

Communication survey

The study is based on a survey administered to police planners in 360 local
organizations (all with 100 or more sworn officers) and 43 State law
enforcement agencies between March and June 1996. The overall response
rate was quite favorable--71 percent. The survey focused on seven issues:

o What agencies are planners most likely to contact when they look for
information?

o What factors influence the choice of a contact?

o How frequent are these contacts?

o What is the mode of communication?

o What are the resource requirements associated with these requests? 

o Are requests for information specific?

o How well are police planning and research units prepared to conduct
research?

Communication patterns 

The major findings of this study are as follows:

o The communication between law enforcement planners is both frequent
and relatively well organized. About 40 percent of respondents contact
another agency at least once a month.

o The principal mode of this communication is by telephone, but newer
technologies like electronic bulletin boards and World Wide Web sites
show significant potential.

o Police organizations devoted significant resources to responding to
outside agencies' requests for information. The typical agency received 22
such requests (mean) per year, while a few received more than 90. On
average, an agency spent 13 percent of its planning staff time preparing
responses.

o Agency similarity and reputation of the organization are key factors for
police planners when choosing which agency to contact. For instance,
requests for information on administrative issues tended to go to agencies
facing similar problems, and requests about specific topics like problem
solving or gangs to agencies with strong reputations in these areas.

o Most planning and research managers believe that their staff have not
had adequate preparation in the skills required to conduct research in their
own organizations.

Policy implications

As this study indicates, the network of police planners is a significant
resource for the police community, particularly to the extent that it
facilitates the diffusion of new ideas. The informal network among police
planners appears to be a critical element in the research planning process,
which may be further enhanced as follows:

o Acknowledge and encourage the network of communication among
police organizations. While this network probably cannot replace more
formal channels of communication, it is nonetheless a key component of
the dissemination process.

o Provide resources to key organizations in this network to support their
dissemination activities. Supporting this network could prove most
beneficial to police and government agencies alike. For example, many
program agencies in the U.S. Department of Justice disseminate copies of
their relevant publications to police departments. That practice leverages
the Government's dissemination efforts to the extent that the departments
pass along the content of those publications through the informal
information-sharing network.

o Continue efforts to enhance the research capacity of police
organizations. In the recent past, the Federal Government instituted a
number of programs designed to increase the internal research capacity of
police organizations. Programs such as the National Institute of Justice's
Locally Initiated Research Partnerships, which team researchers with
police practitioners, are a very positive step and are consistent with the
findings of this study. Additional efforts might include providing police
planners with training in research methodology or offering support to
professional associations serving police planning and research officers. 

o Choose sites for research and demonstration projects on the basis of an
agency's prominence in the communication network. Many police planners
equate agency expertise with research experience. That is, police planners
are inclined to believe that the sites of large research or demonstration
projects are the best places to look for information on particular subjects.
For example, the Milwaukee Police Department, site of one of the spouse
assault replication projects, was cited as an organization to contact for
information on domestic violence. This suggests that an agency is likely to
serve a dissemination role after the project is completed. It would seem
that agencies active in this network would prove to be more efficient in
these dissemination functions.

o Continue efforts to make research available through electronic media.
The study results suggest that the Internet and electronic bulletin boards
could play a significant role in enhancing the police communication
network, particularly for smaller agencies.

While this study was comprehensive, results indicate several additional
areas of research worth pursuing. First, it is important to closely examine
the nature of smaller agencies' (fewer than 100 sworn officers)
participation in this informal network of police agencies. Second, it would
be helpful to explore more fully the planning operations of the major
departments that serve as major information providers. Such a study may
reveal whether factors endemic to those units make them more attractive
as information providers. Finally, it may be useful to conduct studies of
the relationship between the formal means of dissemination and the
informal police network.

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

This summary is based on a study by Alexander Weiss, Ph.D., while at
Indiana University. He is now Executive Associate Director of the
Northwestern University Traffic Institute and Associate Professor of
Management and Strategy at the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of
Management at Northwestern University. The research was sponsored
under NIJ grant number 95-IJ-CX-0052, with funding from the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.

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


NEW & NOTEWORTHY

Criminal justice programs prominent among Innovations in American
Government Award winners

Criminal justice programs captured 3 of the 10 Innovations in American
Government Awards announced by the Ford Foundation in the 1998
competition. The winners, representing the States of New York and
Vermont and the city of San Francisco, were selected in October from
among 25 finalists. The winning programs address court innovation;
mediation among offenders, victims, and communities; and prostitutes and
their customers. Each winner will receive $100,000 to replicate and
expand the work. 

The program, which began in 1986, recognizes creative and successful
problem solving in local, State, and Federal government programs across
the country. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government administers the
program in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government.
The winners were chosen by a selection committee chaired by David
Gergen, Editor-at-Large of U.S. News and World Report, and made up of
former members of Congress, former mayors, and specialists in public
policy.

The 1998 criminal justice winners are:

o The State of New York's Center for Court Innovation, a public-private
partnership designed to foster innovation within the State's courts. Among
its model projects is the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan, which
was described in In New York City, a "Community Court" and a New
Legal Culture, by David C. Anderson (NIJ Program Focus, February 1996,
NCJ 158613). 

o The State of Vermont's Reparative Probation Program, which provides a
medium enabling citizens to make sentencing decisions about adult
criminal offenders and meet with offenders and victims to resolve their
disputes. The program also provides offenders the opportunity to
acknowledge their wrongdoing, apologize to their victims, and make
amends to their community. 

o The City of San Francisco's First Offender Prostitution Program, which
provides counseling to prostitutes' customers in an effort to reduce arrests,
recidivism rates, and exploitation of women.

The Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance provided
funding to support the latter two programs.

This year's finalists were selected from among 1,400 applicants. Each
finalist received $20,000 to replicate and expand the program. The 1998
finalists included two additional criminal justice programs:

o Shelby County, Tennessee's Building for the Future, which provides
nonviolent inmates the opportunity to gain job-training skills by building
affordable homes for lower-income families in the area. 

o The U.S. Department of Justice's Secure Electronic Network for
Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), which allows people who
frequently travel between Mexico and the United States for legitimate
business to use a specially designed traffic lane to expedite entry at the
border. Program participants receive an identification card and have their
cars equipped with a device that can be identified by a sensor imbedded in
the roadway. 

To learn more about this year's finalists and winners, visit the Innovations
in American Government Web site at
http//:www.ksg.harvard.edu/innovation/ or call 617--495--0558.

Corrections professionals focus on technology at first annual Corrections
Technology Institute

State and local practitioners representing jails, prisons, and community
corrections agencies met in October at NIJ's first annual Corrections
Technology Institute to learn about ways technology can help them
confront current challenges in the corrections field. Technology is playing
an increasingly important role in meeting those challenges and effectively
managing corrections agencies. 

NIJ's Office of Science and Technology (OST) selected 23 corrections
practitioners who have experience with technology needs in their
respective agencies to participate in the Institute. Presentations were made
by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Office of Justice Programs'
Corrections Program Office. 

Participants addressed the use of technology to deal with such immediate
concerns as exchanging information; detecting drug use among inmates,
probationers, and parolees; detecting contraband in their facilities; and
securing their facilities. The Institute also served as an open forum in
which practitioners discussed the specific problems they faced, solicited
feedback, and problem solved among their peers.

OST also sponsors an annual Law Enforcement Technology Institute. To
learn more about the Institutes and how to apply, contact Kevin Jackson of
NIJ at 202-307-2956 or by e-mail at jacksonk@ojp.usdoj.gov.

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

NIJ AWARDS


NIJ doubles number of awards in three years; work in progress exceeds
900 projects

In fiscal year 1998, NIJ issued more than 30 solicitations and made almost
400 awards, representing an investment of $153.5 million (this includes
carryover funds from fiscal year 1997). The number of 1998 awards is
almost double the 200 grants NIJ awarded in 1995. The NIJ portfolio of
work in progress now exceeds 900 research, science and technology
development, program development, and information dissemination
projects.

Congress appropriated $41 million for core NIJ operations in 1998. This
was augmented by transfers of funds from other Federal agencies and from
offices established under the 1994 Crime Act (see exhibit 1 [exhibit 1:
Sources of NIJ Funds, in Millions, FY 1994-98 is not included in this
ASCII plain-text file]). Much of NIJ's current research portfolio is
supported by those transfers, which fund jointly planned research and
evaluation projects. For example, NIJ awards made in fiscal year 1998
with transferred Crime Act funds accounted for 42 percent of total
expenditures by the Institute that year (see exhibit 2 [exhibit 2: Allocation
of NIJ Funds as a Percentage of Total Expenditure, FY 1998 is not
included in this ASCII plain-text file]).

1998 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program research and
evaluation grants awarded

In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program, which
encourages States to hold juveniles to strict accountability for delinquent
behavior. A State is eligible for funds by demonstrating it is actively
considering or will consider legislation, policies, or practices that provide
accountability-based sanctions for violent and repeat juvenile offenders.
Such practices include the transfer of juveniles age 15 or older to adult
court and creation of expanded record-keeping systems for habitual and/or
violent juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) administers the grant program. 

Of the total appropriation, Congress set aside 3 percent for research,
evaluation, and demonstration programs. Of that, $2.75 million was
transferred by OJJDP to NIJ for research and evaluation. NIJ recently
awarded $500,000 for a national process evaluation of the JAIBG program
that will document how the program was administered, how State and
local jurisdictions used the grants, the attitudes of practitioners and
policymakers regarding the program, and the extent to which States made
progress in implementing JAIBG initiatives. NIJ awarded funds for 
six additional projects that will examine policy issues related to the
program and establish practitioner-research partnerships in this area (see
chart above [FY 1998 JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE
BLOCK GRANT AWARDS]). 

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

FY 1998 JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK
GRANT AWARDS
[categorized by project types: National Evaluation, Practitioner-
Researcher Partnerships, and Policy Issues]

National Evaluation

Project: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant National
Evaluation
Purpose: Conduct a national process evaluation of the JAIBG program.
Principal Investigator(s): Dale G. Parent, Abt Associates Inc.
Award Amount: $499,875
Grant Number: To be assigned

Practitioner-Researcher Partnerships

Project: Structured Decision Making for Alameda County Probation
Purpose: Establish a practitioner-researcher partner ship that will evaluate
the effectiveness of Alameda County's Juvenile Risk Assessment System
Principal Investigator(s): Isami Arifuku, National Council on Crime and
Delinquency
Award Amount: $75,000
Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0109

Project: Understanding Needs and Outcomes of Substance Abuse
Treatment for Juvenile Offenders
Purpose: Establish a practitioner-researcher partnership with a local
nonprofit organization that runs drug treatment programs for adults and
adolescents to enhance development of a database for monitoring clients.
Principal Investigator(s): Patricia A. Ebener, Suzanne L. Wenzel, RAND
Award Amount: $74,976
Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0112

Policy Issues

Project: Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: An Evaluation of the
Youthful Level of Service Inventory
Purpose: Assess a case classification instrument, the Youthful Level of
Service Inventory, as a guide to case management and treatment of
youthful offenders in Ohio.
Principal Investigator(s): Lawrence F. Travis, III, Edward J. Latessa, Jr.,
University of Cincinnati
Award Amount: $187,437
Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0108

Project: Impact of the 1997 Juvenile Justice Sentencing Guidelines
Purpose: Assess the effectiveness of the juvenile sentencing guidelines and
early intervention mandates that the Utah legislature passed in 1997 to
prevent young delinquents from becoming serious offenders.
Principal Investigator(s): Russell Van Vleet, University of Utah
Award Amount: $199,824

Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0111

Project: Process and Outcome Evaluation of Prosecutorial Waiver to
Criminal Court in Virginia
Purpose: Help policymakers and practitioners develop and implement laws
relating to juvenile transfers by assessing which types of offenders and
communities are most likely to benefit or lose from such laws.
Principal Investigator(s): S. Sridharan, Lynette Greenfield, The Urban
Institute
Award Amount: $194,803
Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0107

Project: The Use of Risk Assessment in Achieving Accountability-Based
Sanctions
Purpose: Examine how judicial and correctional officials use risk
assessment/needs classification for establishing accountability-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders.
Principal Investigator(s): Rosemary C. Sarri, University of Michigan
Award Amount: $199,824
Grant Number: 98-JB-VX-0110

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

Grants awarded to corrections and law enforcement family support
projects 

The 1994 Crime Act authorized the Attorney General to address the
harmful effects of stress on law enforcement and correctional officers and
their families. The Act called for research on job-related stress and for
development, demonstration, and evaluation of intervention approaches.

NIJ's Corrections and Law Enforcement Family Support (CLEFS)
program supports these activities. Since 1996, NIJ has awarded 15 grants
to support such activities as education, training, and treatment; comparison
of stress intervention methods; research on the extent and nature of stress
among officers; and critical incident stress debriefings.

In 1998, NIJ issued a third solicitation seeking proposals for innovative
approaches to reducing stress among officers and awarded funds for 10
additional projects. (See chart below [FY 1998 CORRECTIONS AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY SUPPORT AWARDS].)

For more information about NIJ's CLEFS program, visit its Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/lefs/welcome.html.

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

FY 1998 CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY
SUPPORT AWARDS 

Project: Correction Officer Maintenance Program
Purpose: Implement a proactive, integrated program of education and
intervention services for correctional officers and their families at four
State correctional facilities.
Principal Investigator(s): Robert Munroe, Connecticut Department of
Corrections
Award Amount: $99,990
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0003

Project: Creating Positive Mentors: Provision of Supervisory Skills for
Sergeants and Field Training Officers
Purpose: Provide specialized training to sergeants and field training
officers to better serve a police force made up of many new and young
officers.
Principal Investigator(s): Mark Axelberd, Miami Police Department
Award Amount: $45,425
Grant Number: 96-FS-VX-0003

Project: East Lansing Police Chaplain's Program
Purpose: Develop, monitor, and evaluate a chaplain's program for police
and correctional officers, police department personnel, and their families.
Principal Investigator(s): Patricia Nowak, East Lansing Police Department
Award Amount: $10,202 
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0001

Project: Law Enforcement Assistance and Development Program
Purpose: Develop a multi-dimensional approach to the assessment,
prevention, and reduction of stress among law enforcement personnel and
their families.
Principal Investigator(s): Eugene Deisinger, Iowa State Department of
Public Safety
Award Amount: $147,395
Grant Number: 96-FS-VX-0006


Project: Online Education, Resource, and Support for Law Enforcement
Families
Purpose: Develop stress prevention and reduction curricula for law
enforcement family members and a World Wide Web site for law
enforcement families worldwide.
Principal Investigator(s): Lorraine Williams Greene, Metropolitan
Nashville Police Department
Award Amount: $99,559
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0004

Project: Peer Support Programs in Two Native American Police
Departments and a University Police Department
Purpose: Develop methods for reducing stress among police officers and
their families in tribal and campus police department.
Principal Investigator(s): Larry A. Morris, Old Pueblo Fraternal Order of
Police, Tucson, Arizona
Award Amount: $224,016
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0005

Project: Police Family Life Education Project
Purpose: Improve and expand the Philadelphia Police Department's
existing stress reduction program for officers and their families.
Principal Investigator(s): Mitchell Yanak, Philadelphia Police Department
Award Amount: $73,447
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0002

Project: Prevention and Treatment of Stress Development Project
Purpose: Establish a task force to develop a comprehensive stress
prevention and treatment program for law enforcement personnel and their
families.
Principal Investigator(s): Cole Mykelbust, Longview Police Guild,
Longview, Washington
Award Amount: $49,252
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0006

Project: Reaching Out to North Carolina's Law Enforcement Community
Purpose: Implement and evaluate a stress prevention and treatment
program for State highway patrol troopers.
Principal Investigator(s): Thomas R. Griggs, North Carolina Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety
Award Amount: $67,020
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0008

Project: The Recruit Socialization Process and Work-Family Conflict
Purpose: Examine factors that lead to the development of stress among
police recruits and their families and design a stress prevention training
program for recruits and their families.
Principal Investigator(s): Gary Kaufmann, Michigan Department of State
Police
Award Amount: $41,422
Grant Number: 98-FS-VX-0007

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

Two new sites chosen for Breaking the Cycle demonstration

Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, each received a
three-year, $3 million award in November to implement Breaking the
Cycle, a statewide intervention strategy designed to identify, supervise,
and treat all drug-using defendants. The two jurisdictions join
Birmingham, Alabama, as participants in the Breaking the Cycle research
demonstration initiative, which tests the hypothesis that continuous drug
testing, treatment, and supervision, enhanced by proactive judicial
involvement, will reduce an arrestee population's level of drug use. This
reduction should then result in a decline in criminal behavior, an
improvement in that population's social functioning, and more effective
use of criminal justice resources. 

The principal objectives of Breaking the Cycle are to:

o Drug test all defendants as soon as possible after arrest. 

o Place drug-using defendants in appropriate treatment.

o Actively monitor defendants' compliance with drug-related conditions
imposed by courts.

o Impose appropriate graduated sanctions or incentives to influence
defendants' behavior.

NIJ supports the initiative in partnership with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP). In 1996, the University of Alabama at
Birmingham's Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime program received
the first award to implement the strategy in Jefferson County
(Birmingham), Alabama. That jurisdiction began full implementation of
Breaking the Cycle in 1998 and has seen several changes in its criminal
justice system, including a reduction from months to days in the amount of
time needed to assess and refer defendants to treatment; an increase in the
number of substance-abusing defendants placed in appropriate treatment
programs; and enhancement of available treatment and supervision
programming for drug users.

NIJ and ONDCP plan to award funds in 1999 to two sites to implement
juvenile Breaking the Cycle demonstration projects. One site, Lane
County (Eugene), Oregon, was invited by NIJ to submit a proposal. Final
selection is dependent on NIJ's accepting the proposal. For more
information about the Breaking the Cycle initiative, visit its Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/brekprog.htm.

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

SOLICITATIONS

Solicitations forecast 1999

NIJ funding opportunities are announced throughout the fiscal year in the
Federal Register, Commerce Business Daily, and on NIJ's Web site at
http://ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Information about solicitations also is available
from the Department of Justice Response Center at 800-421-6770, or 202-
307-1480 from the Washington, D.C., area. Researchers and practitioners
interested in applying for NIJ funding may find it helpful to consult
Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: the 1999 Research
Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice, which is available on NIJ's
Web site. (See "NIJ Releases 1999 Research Prospectus.") 

NIJ issues a solicitation for investigator-initiated research and more
targeted solicitations that seek research proposals in particular subject
areas or on specific topics.

Look for the following solicitations for research, evaluation, and
development proposed for fiscal year 1999. This is a partial list, as NIJ
expects to release additional solicitations. 

Research and evaluation 

o Investigator-initiated solicitation--will invite proposals that cover broad
criminal justice and social themes related to NIJ's areas of interest. 

Violence against women

o Violence against women research--will seek proposals that highlight
research gaps in this area.

o Violence against women program evaluation--will call for proposals to
evaluate what is working to improve the outcome of domestic/intimate
partner violence and sexual assault cases and enhance the safety of women
and their children.

o Evaluation of enhanced judicial oversight in domestic violence cases--
will call for proposals to conduct a single evaluation of Violence Against
Women Grants Office-supported demonstration programs of coordinated
community approaches to preventing domestic violence. The programs
will involve strong judicial control and involvement, victim services for
safety and transition to a nonviolent environment, and batterer
intervention.

o Evaluation of victim programs funded under the Violence Against
Women S.T.O.P. Grants program--will seek proposals for impact
evaluations of nonprofit victim services and advocacy programs funded
under the S.T.O.P. program.

Evaluation of violence against women civil legal assistance program--will
seek proposals for a national evaluation of programs designed to
strengthen direct civil legal assistance to domestic violence victims. 

Research on violence against women issues affecting Native American
women. 

Evaluations of programs to encourage arrest policies--will call for
proposals for researcher-practitioner partnerships to conduct process
evaluations of programs that encourage States, Indian tribal governments,
and local governments to treat domestic violence as a serious violation of
criminal law.

Drugs and crime

o ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program--will seek proposals
for research that will use the ADAM program as a platform to conduct
primary data collection or secondary data analysis. Among the
components of this solicitation will be a call for research on the link
between drug use and domestic/intimate partner violence. 

Corrections and sentencing

Corrections and sentencing--the Corrections Program Office, in
partnership with NIJ, will call for research in a variety of topics of concern
to both researchers and practitioners in the field of corrections and
sentencing.

Policing

o Policing research and evaluation. 

o Law Enforcement Family Support program--will seek proposals for
research, evaluation, development, and demonstration projects in the areas
of law enforcement and corrections officer stress and family support. 

Other

o Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant research--will request
proposals for research on increasing juvenile offenders' accountability.

Science and technology

o DNA forensic laboratories improvement program, Phase 5--will seek
proposals to improve the capabilities of State and local forensic DNA
laboratories.

o DNA research--will seek proposals for research on new methods to
achieve highly discriminating, reliable, cost-effective, and rapid DNA
testing.

o Initiative on technologies for safe schools.

o Through-wall sensor/concealed weapons detection program.

o Operation of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center--Western Region.

o Operation of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center--Northeastern Region.

For additional information on these and other forthcoming solicitations,
including eligibility, funding levels, and application deadlines, watch for
announcements on NIJ's Web page.

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

FINAL REPORTS

The following final reports of completed NIJ-sponsored research projects
were submitted by the authors in manuscript form. The reports are
available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
through interlibrary loan and as photocopies. For information about fees,
call NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

"Carjacking: A Descriptive Analysis of Carjacking in Four States,
Preliminary Report," by S.D.C. Friday and C. Wellford, ACCN 167169,
53 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K018. The authors examined carjacking
trends in the District of Columbia; Jacksonville, Florida; Maryland; and
Fort Worth, Texas. 

"Children's Out-of-Court Statements: Effects of Hearsay on Jurors'
Decisions, Final Report," by G.S. Goodman, J.E.B. Myers, and A.D.
Redlich, ACCN 172225, 274 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0013. This
report summarizes the findings of three studies that investigated the effects
of children's out-of-court statements on juror perceptions of witness
credibility and defendant guilt. 

"Citizen Reactions to Community Policing, Final Report," by R.K. Hersch
and R.F. Cook, ACCN 172232, 68 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0092. The
authors assessed citizen reactions to specific community policing activities
in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Manatee County, Florida. The research
identified conditions that facilitated or hindered citizen involvement in
community policing and related crime prevention efforts. Community
policing officers and citizens reported that individual contacts improved
police-citizen relations and contributed to neighborhood safety.

"Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of
Domestic Violence, Final Report," by S.L. Keilitz, P.L. Hannaford, and
H.S. Efkeman, ACCN 172223, 112 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0035.
This report is based on a 1994 National Center for State Courts study of
the effectiveness of civil protection orders (CPOs) for victims of domestic
violence. The research found that CPOs helped victims of domestic
violence regain a sense of well-being. In most cases, CPOs deterred
repeated incidents of physical and psychological abuse.

"Confronting Excessive Force in the Police Culture, Final Report: Phase
Two Research on Excessive Force," by E. Scrivner, ACCN 171951, 26
pp., grant number 92-IJ-CX-0002. This report presents case studies of
programs to prevent police officers' excessive use of force in Denver, San
Antonio, and Atlanta. The author found that the three programs provided
insights on important human resource issues related to preventing the
excessive use of force by police officers: selecting the right police officers,
giving police officers the right tools, and proactively supervising police
officers to help them correct performance problems.

"Effectiveness of Line Operations, Final Report," by the Los Angeles
Police Department, ACCN 171956, 228 pp., grant number 92-IJ-CX-
K039. This report describes issues, strategic goals, situational analyses,
and proposed strategies based on the Los Angeles Police Department's
1993 strategic planning process. The process involved detective and
juvenile issues; police patrols; community policing; and centralization
versus decentralization of the police department.

"Investigating the Scope of Measurement Error in Calls-for-Service as a
Measure of Crime," by D.A. Klinger, ACCN 171946, 31 pp., grant
number 95-IJ-CX-0023. The author investigated the validity of police calls
for service as a crime indicator by examining how crime counts may be
biased by all types of citizen inaccuracies and the fact that many crimes
come to police attention by means other than calls to dispatch centers.

"Long-Term Comparison of Force and Rates of Recidivism Between
Child Molesters and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis," by R.A.
Prentky, et al., ACCN 171957, 48 pp., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0031. The
studies reported in this paper address the high variability in sex offender
recidivism rates by examining several of the critical methodological
differences associated with this variability.

"Micro-Deterrent Effects of Police Raids on Crack Houses: A
Randomized, Controlled Experiment," by L.W. Sherman, et al., ACCN
171954, 41 pp., grant numbers 90-IJ-CX-K002, 91-DD-CX-K015, and 92-
IJ-CX-K035. Using a study design that focused on indicators of public
order and safety, the authors tested the block-level deterrent effects of
uniformed police raids of crack houses in Kansas City, Missouri. The
authors concluded that alternative police methods may be far more
cost-effective in reducing harm created by crack houses. 

"Non-Lethal Systems Research and Development: Pepper Spray
Launcher/Disperser, Final Report," by R. Kelly, ACCN 171948, 8 pp.,
grant number 93-IJ-CX-K020. Researchers have developed an improved
less-than-lethal projectile that is capable of dispersing the incapacitating
agent oleoresin capsicum (OC), or pepper spray. This report discusses the
use of OC when launched from a standoff position in hostage, barricade,
and tactical assault situations.

"Prosecution of Drug Cases: Assessing the Mechanisms That Enhance
Case Processing," by D. Braschel, et al., ACCN 172227, 263 pp., grant
number 91-IJ-CX-0011. The authors surveyed local prosecutors' offices
throughout the United States about their case processing operations.
Survey respondents concurred that cooperation with law enforcement had
the greatest impact on the quality of drug case processing.

"Report to the National Institute of Justice: The Proposed Juvenile Court
Intake Risk Assessment," by D. Huff and L. Prell, ACCN 171950, 17 pp.,
grant number 93-IJ-CX-K019. This report describes a proposed juvenile
risk assessment tool that the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Planning developed to assist the State's planning and evaluation of
juvenile service delivery and program impact.

"Risk Factors Associated With Recidivism Among Extrafamilial Child
Molesters," by R.A. Prentky, R.A. Knight, and A.F.S. Lee, ACCN
171958, 46 pp., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0031. This research assessed
reoffense risk among extrafamilial child molesters using followup data on
111 child molesters discharged from the Massachusetts Treatment Center
between 1960 and 1984. The data suggested that a composite of 10
variables associated with reoffense risk among child molesters had
reasonable predictive accuracy in sexual and nonsexual offense domains.

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

EVENTS

NIJ 1998--1999 "Perspectives" lecture dates set

For the third consecutive year, NIJ has invited some of the country's
leading researchers in criminology and related fields to Capitol Hill to
discuss major crime and justice issues from the perspective of public
policy. The lecture series, "Perspectives on Crime and Justice," began its
third year in December with "Getting Deterrence Right," a lecture by Mark
Kleiman of the University of California, Los Angeles. The schedule for
the remaining lectures is as follows:

o Felton Earls, Harvard University, "Men, Fathers, and Community
Capacity," February 3, 1999.

o Richard Freeman, Harvard University, "Crime and the Job Market,"
March 10, 1999.

o Sissela Bok, Harvard University, "Violence, Free Speech, and the
Media," April 12, 1999.

o James Jacobs, New York University School of Law, "Dilemmas of
Corruption Control," May 18, 1999.

For more information or to register for the Perspectives lectures, contact
the Institute for Law and Justice at 703-684-5300. Space is limited.

NIJ has published the first two years' series, featuring lectures by Randall
Kennedy, Joan Petersilia, Cathy Spatz Widom, James Q. Wilson, and
others. Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series,
Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1997 (NCJ 166609), and Perspectives on Crime and Justice:
1997-1998 Lecture Series, Volume II, Research Forum, U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998 (NCJ 178851) are
available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-
851-3420. Refer to the documents' NCJ numbers. Electronic copies are
available at the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. For
information about previous lectures, visit NIJ's Professional Conference
Series home page at http://www.nijpcs.org and click on "Past Conference
Materials."

NIJ sponsors Technology Fair

Law enforcement and corrections professionals examined state-of-the-art
technology for law enforcement and corrections at a Technology Fair in
September. This was the second consecutive year for the event, which
took place in Washington, D.C., and featured technologies that NIJ is
developing, testing, and evaluating. Staff from NIJ's Office of Science and
Technology were on hand to answer questions about the projects. Among
those who attended were representatives from the U.S. Department of
Defense, the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
Washington-area police departments, and CBS News. 

Visitors had the opportunity to examine several technologies, including:

o Telemedicine in correctional settings, which uses telecommunications
technology for remote diagnosis of prisoners. From a prison's clinic, a
health care professional can present a patient and operate scopes and
cameras that transmit a video image in real time to a physician at another
location. Medical specialists can thus provide health care to prisoners
without transporting them from the correctional facility. The technology
offers the potential to reduce costs and improve public safety.

o Thermal imagers, which detect heat or infrared radiation, allow law
enforcement officers to see any heat-emitting object, even in total
darkness. The device resembles a typical palm-sized camcorder with a
much wider lens. NIJ is evaluating and documenting the imagers'
effectiveness for law enforcement operations. 

o Voice response translator (VRT), a belt-mounted device that enables
English-speaking law enforcement officers to communicate with people
who have difficulty with or cannot comprehend English. (See photo
above.) It is designed to emit an audible phrase in a language other than
English after receiving a spoken prompt in English. With voice-prompted
commands, officers can choose from three different languages. An NIJ
project in Oakland, California, has evaluated a prototype device capable of
emitting more than 500 Cantonese, Spanish, and Vietnamese phrases.

For additional information about NIJ research and development in law
enforcement and corrections technology, contact the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center at 800-248-2742.
Information also is available from the Justice Technology Information
Network--JUSTNET--on the Web at http://www.nlectc.org.

Sentencing and corrections policies are topic of Executive Sessions

Of all the components of the justice system, sentencing and corrections
have arguably experienced the most change in recent years. The
establishment of sentencing commissions, the adoption of sentencing
guidelines, and the enactment of truth-in-sentencing laws, plus the
implications of these and other developments for prisons and jails, are
among the changes. To promote the development of public policy as it
relates to these issues, NIJ and the Corrections Program Office (Office of
Justice Programs) are sponsoring a series of Executive Sessions modeled
on the policing policy sessions held at Harvard in the 1980s and early
1990s. 

At the sessions, which began in September 1997, researchers and
practitioners in the field meet to examine major issues, using
commissioned papers as the basis of their discussions. Promoting dialog
between leaders in sentencing and corrections is an additional aim. The
most recent session, held last September in Minneapolis, featured an
examination of sentencing models, including structured sentencing,
community and restorative sentencing, and risk-based sentencing. Earlier
sessions were held at the law schools of the University of Wisconsin and
the University of Minnesota, and additional sessions are planned through
the year 2000.

Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy at the
University of Minnesota Law School, is the series organizer and director.
Professor Mark Moore of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and
Professor Norval Morris of the University of Chicago Law School also are
involved in planning and conducting the sessions. NIJ will publish a
selection of the commissioned papers.

International approach to gang research 

Youth crime is not confined to the United States. Other countries are
experiencing problems similar to those in the United States. As one way of
addressing the issue, NIJ, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and the German
Ministry of Justice are jointly sponsoring the development of a
coordinated approach to gang research. At an October conference in
Schmitten, Germany (near Frankfurt), some 40 participants discussed how
researchers from the United States, Canada, and Europe can work together.
The participants represented 12 countries, including Russia, Belgium,
France, Greece, Britain, and Slovenia. Among the topics discussed were
how to define gangs, methods for studying gangs, and female involvement
in gangs. 

Followup discussions will take place at future meetings of the American
Society of Criminology. As a component of its gang research initiative,
NIJ anticipates publishing a report on the group's work.

NIJ IN THE JOURNALS

The following articles are based on studies sponsored by NIJ. Copies are
available on loan from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS); in some cases, photocopies may be obtained. For information on
availability, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 or e-mail askncjrs@ ncjrs.org.
Please cite the accession (ACCN) number.

"Alternative Placements for Juvenile Offenders: Results From the
Evaluation of the Nokomis Challenge Program," Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 35(3)(1998):267-294, by E.P. Deschenes and
P.W. Greenwood, ACCN 173140. This article discusses the findings of an
evaluation of 192 low- and medium-risk juvenile offenders who
participated in the Nokomis Challenge Program, a correctional program
implemented in 1989 by the Michigan Department of Social Services. The
findings indicate significant cost savings, but few differences in
participants' outcomes.

"Can Corrections Operate Therapeutic Communities for Inmates? The
Impact on the Social Environment of Jails," Journal of Correctional Health
Care 4(1)(Spring 1997):9-36, by M. Natarajan and G.P. Falkin, grant
number 92-IJ-CX-K018, ACCN 171860. This article discusses an
evaluation of the Substance Abuse Intervention Division program for
women at Riker's Island. The researchers found that jail authorities can
successfully implement a modified therapeutic community in a large jail
and that this approach to correctional administration can significantly
improve the jail's psychosocial climate.

"The Influence of Crack Cocaine on Robbery, Burglary, and Homicide
Rates: A Cross-City, Longitudinal Analysis," Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 35(3)(1998): 316-340, by E. Baumer, et al., grant
number 94-IJ-CX-0030, ACCN 173142. This article examines rates of
burglary and robbery in the United States, their divergence in the late
1980s, and the possible role that crack cocaine may have had in this
divergence. The research results suggest that the emergence and
proliferation of crack did play a role in the increase in robbery and
simultaneous decrease in burglary in urban areas during the late 1980s.

"Predicting Rapist Type From Crime-Scene Variables," Criminal Justice
and Behavior 25(1)(March 1998):46-80, by R.A. Knight, et al., grant
numbers 91-IJ-R027 and 91-IJ-CX-0049, ACCN 170755. The authors
analyzed data sets from the FBI and the Massachusetts Treatment Center
Rapist Typology Version 3 database to assess the ability of crime-scene
variables observed in serial rapes to predict rapist classification. The
findings address adult antisocial behavior, expressive aggression,
pervasive anger, sadism, sexualization, offender relationship with the
victim during the crime, vindictiveness, and offense planning.

"Pretrial Release Decision," Judicature 81(2)(September-October
1997):76-81, by J. Clark and D.A. Henry, contract number OJP-94-007,
ACCN 172031. This article discusses areas for improvement in the pretrial
release decision-making process, including the delay in adjudication of
inmates in local jails; high failure-to-appear rates relative to those in the
1960s and 1970s; the inability of some defendants to post bail or hire a
bonding agent; and the disparities between minority and white defendants'
detention rates and length of detentions.

"Reaching Seriously At-Risk Populations: Health Interventions in
Criminal Justice Settings," Health Education & Behavior 25(1)(1998):99-
120, by T. Hammett, J. Gaiter, and C. Crawford, contract number OJP-94-
C-007, ACCN 173403. In this article, the authors discuss the health-care
risks and needs of incarcerated adults and confined juveniles and the
opportunities for health interventions by criminal justice and public health
agencies during the various stages of the criminal justice process. The
authors conclude that agencies have not taken full advantage of
intervention opportunities and recommend considering incarcerated
populations within broader public health prevention efforts.

"Three Strikes and You're Out: Are Repeat Offender Laws Having Their
Anticipated Effects?" Judicature 81(4)(January-February 1998):144-149,
by J. Clark, J. Austin, and D.A. Henry, contract number 95-IJ-CX-0026,
ACCN 172239. This article discusses the three-strikes laws in the States
and their differing impacts on local courts, jails, and State prison systems.

Also of Interest: 

"The Association of Early Risk Factors to Opiate Addiction and
Psychological Adjustment," Criminal Behavior and Mental Health
(7)(1997):213-228, by D.N. Nurco, K.E. O'Grady, and T.W. Kinlock,
ACCN 173404. This article discusses research on the relationship between
risk factors and the development of opiate addiction. The research
involved 252 opiate-addicted subjects and 342 members of a control group
from similar neighborhoods in Baltimore. The researchers found that
addicts and nonaddicts had different risk profiles, and white addicts scored
significantly higher than nonwhite addicts on all 10 risk factors. According
to the authors, the findings have implications for both the course and
treatment of drug addiction. The study was supported by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 

"Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders:
Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms," American
Sociological Review (63)(August 1998):554-570, by G.S. Bridges and S.
Steen (will be available from NCJRS). Bridges and Steen analyzed
probation officers' accounts of juvenile offenders and their crimes and
court records to examine the links among court officials' perceptions of
offenders and their classification, assessment, and final recommendations
for punishment. The authors focused on the race of offenders and found
differences between officers' attributions about the causes of crime when
comparing juveniles who are white with those from a minority group.


RECENT NIJ PUBLICATIONS

 The following recent NIJ publications are available both electronically
and in hardcopy. Download electronic copies from the NIJ Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. To order the reports, call the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420; or send an e-mail to
askncjrs@ncjrs.org. 

Civilian Police and Multinational Peacekeeping--A Workshop Series: A
Role for Democratic Policing, Research Forum, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 30 pp., NCJ 172842. A
series of workshops organized by the Police Executive Research Forum
and the Center for Strategic and International Studies is exploring the role
of civilian police in multinational operations. In this, the second
workshop, keynoter David Bayley presented an address on the
distinguishing features of democratic policing. His address and selected
responses of other participants are presented here. 

Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youths,
Research in Brief, by C. Ronald Huff, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1998, 8 pp., NCJ 172852. This
Research in Brief presents a comparative study of the criminal behavior of
gang members and nongang at-risk youths in three urban and suburban
communities. The findings suggest that gang membership increases the
likelihood and frequency of members committing serious and violent
crimes. 

Delaware Life Skills Program, Program Focus, by Peter Finn, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 19 pp.,
NCJ 169589. The Delaware Department of Correction Life Skills Program
helps inmates with academics, violence reduction, and applied life skills.
The findings presented in this Program Focus indicate that the program
has successfully helped students start their new lives after release. 

"Designing Out" Gang Homicides and Street Assaults, Research in Brief,
by James Lasley, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1998, 6 pp., NCJ 172837. The Los Angeles Police
Department's Operation Cul de Sac used traffic barriers to block
automobile access to streets in neighborhoods where gangs and
accompanying gang violence had risen dramatically. This Research in
Brief presents the results of an NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the initiative,
which found that homicide and aggravated assault rates fell in the targeted
areas and did not increase in other surrounding areas.

The Detroit Handgun Intervention Program: A Court-Based Program for
Youthful Handgun Offenders, Research Preview, by Jeffrey Roth, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 
4 pp., FS 000231. The Detroit Handgun Intervention Program requires
offenders who are arrested for carrying concealed weapons to attend a
class focused on the negative consequences of gun use and how they can
take responsibility for reducing those consequences. This Research
Preview presents the preliminary findings of an evaluation of the program.
The researchers found that participants' attitudes about gun use improved.

Drug Courts and the Role of Graduated Sanctions, Research Preview, by
Adele Harrell, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
August 1998, 4 pp., FS 000219. This Research Preview summarizes a
study of a promising Washington, D.C., drug court program. The study
found that the program's success was a result of the swift application of
established sanctions when participants violated the rules of treatment. 

Helicopters and Their Use in Police Pursuit, Research in Action, by
Geoffrey P. Alpert, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, August 1998, 6 pp., NCJ 171695. This Research in Action
presents findings and assessments from a study of helicopters used in
pursuit operations for the Baltimore City and Miami Dade County Police
Departments. The research indicates that helicopters' versatility, range, and
vantage point enable ground officers to conduct pursuits more successfully
by decreasing the use of high-speed pursuits and increasing apprehension
rates. 

High School Youth, Weapons, and Violence: A National Survey, Research
in Brief, by Joseph F. Sheley and James D. Wright, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998, 8 pp., NCJ 172857.
This Research in Brief examines the extent to which a national sample of
male high school sophomores and juniors was involved in, or otherwise
affected by, firearms-related activity. The authors recommend that
communities begin exploring policy initiatives that identify and address
the antecedents of weapon-related activity among their youth. 

Linking Community Factors and Individual Development, Research
Preview, by Felton Earls, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, September 1998, 4 pp., FS 000230. During the past 3 years, a
research team has surveyed cohorts of young people in selected Chicago
communities to study the factors that lead to delinquent, criminal, and
violent behavior. This Research Preview briefly describes the research,
which examines the development sequences that lead some children to
engage in antisocial behavior. 

Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1997-1998 Lecture Series, Volume II,
Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1998, 125 pp., NCJ 172851. These are the collected addresses
from a series of lectures in which prominent researchers present their
perspectives on topical issues in crime and justice with a view toward
informing public policy. In this, the second year of the series,
presentations were made by George Kelling on "broken windows,"
Randall Kennedy on race and crime, David Musto on the history of drug
use in America, Joan Petersilia on intermediate sanctions, and Philip Cook
on youth gun violence. Each presentation also is available separately on
videotape.

Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: A
National Survey, Research in Brief, by Pat Tjaden, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998, 16 pp., NCJ 172837.
This Research in Brief is based on a national survey of men's and women's
experiences with violence. It provides data on the prevalence and
incidence of rape, physical assault, and stalking; the prevalence of
male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence; the
prevalence of rape and physical assault among women of different racial
and ethnic backgrounds; the rate of injury among rape and physical assault
victims; and injured victims' use of medical services. 

Pursuit Management Task Force, Research Preview, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998, 3 pp., FS 000225. This
Research Preview summarizes the Pursuit Management Task Force's
report on police pursuit practices and the role of technology, which
presents findings of a survey of law enforcement agency heads in nine
western States.

Reducing Drug Dealing Through Place Management, Research Preview,
by John Eck and Julie Wartell, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, November 1998, 2 pp., FS 000235. This Research
Preview summarizes research on rental properties in San Diego that have
drug dealing problems. The researchers examined whether police action
would result in improved onsite property management and reductions in
crime and found that police followup with landlords appeared to reduce
crime.

Reintegrating Juvenile Offenders into the Community, Research Preview,
by David Altschuler, December 1998, 4 pp., FS 000234. This Research
Preview presents the preliminary evaluation findings of the Intensive
Aftercare Program, a demonstration project to provide juvenile offenders
with comprehensive, ongoing services, both while they are incarcerated
and when they return to their communities. The researchers found that
juveniles under community supervision who participated in the program
averaged between two and four times as many face-to-face and telephone
contacts with parole officers as juveniles who did not participate in the
program.

Resolving Community Conflict: The Dispute Settlement Center of
Durham, North Carolina, Program Focus, by Daniel McGillis, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1998, 15
pp., NCJ 172203. Community mediation programs train local volunteers
in conflict resolution skills; these volunteers then provide dispute
resolution services to individual citizens and groups. This Program Focus
provides an overview of the Dispute Settlement Center of Durham, North
Carolina, which has been providing mediation services to the surrounding
community since 1983.

The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?
Research in Brief, by Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan Smith
Howley, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
December 1998, 12 pp., NCJ 173839. This Research in Brief presents the
findings of a survey that measured whether State constitutional
amendments and other legal measures designed to protect crime victims'
rights have been effective. More than 1,300 crime victims participated.
The authors found that while strong victims' rights laws make a difference,
victims' needs are not fully met in some instances.

Selection and Application Guide to Police Body Armor, NIJ Guide 100-
98, by Lance Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center,
October 1998, 90 pp., NCJ 169587. This publication responds to
commonly expressed concerns about police body armor. It provides
information to help determine what level of protection is consistent with
the threats to which individual officers are exposed.

Systematic Observation of Public Police, Research Report, by Stephen D.
Mastrofski, et al., U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
December 1998, 43 pp., NCJ 172859. This report describes "systematic
social observation," a field research method researchers may use to
evaluate police. It also explores the method's potential as a policy analysis
tool. The authors suggest that systematic social observation offers many
advantages for gathering and analyzing information on police at work.

What Can the Federal Government Do to Decrease Crime and Revitalize
Communities? Research Forum, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, October 1998, 105 pp., NCJ 172210. Crime prevention
and community revitalization are issues that concern Federal, State, and
local governments and communities. This Research Forum describes a
variety of promising programs and approaches that cities and towns are
implementing across the country to address the issue of crime and its
impact on communities.

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

NIJ RELEASES 1999 RESEARCH PROSPECTUS

Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: The 1999 Research
Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 16 pp., NCJ 172883. In this
research prospectus, NIJ presents its mission and fiscal resources and
outlines its five strategic challenges--Rethinking Justice, Understanding
the Nexus, Breaking the Cycle, Creating the Tools, and Expanding
Horizons. The prospectus discusses how NIJ will meet these challenges
and provides information about opportunities for research, evaluation, and
development funding available from NIJ.

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

NEW LIST OF ONGOING NIJ RESEARCH, EVALUATION, AND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

All of NIJ's ongoing projects constitute the agency's "research portfolio."
The NIJ Research Portfolio 1999 lists NIJ's approximately 900 ongoing
grants and contracts, interagency agreements, and fellowships, as well as
intramural research conducted by NIJ staff. Each project is part of NIJ's
overall strategic plan to respond to the Nation's critical criminal justice
concerns. 

Researchers and others will find the Portfolio useful as a guide to NIJ's
research priorities. The Portfolio provides specific information about each
of NIJ's current projects through May 30, 1998, and is organized into four
main topic areas reflecting the breadth of concerns of the Institute and the
researcher and practitioner communities: criminal behavior, crime control
and prevention, criminal justice system, and technology research and
development. An index offers ready access to topic areas.

NIJ Research Portfolio 1999, Research Report, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999, 64 pp., NCJ 171670.
An online version is available at the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.
usdoj.gov/nij. 

The Institute's approach to research is described in the NIJ Prospectus.
(See "NIJ Releases 1999 Research Prospectus.")

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

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

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Noel Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij