Title: National Institute of Justice Journal - Crime in Public Housing: Clarifying Research Issues.
Series: NIJ Journal
Author: NIJ
Published: March 1998
Subject: Restorative justice, terrorism, program evaluations
68 pages
152,000 bytes

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

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

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

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

National Institute of Justice Journal

March 1998

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

Director's Message 

Two themes run through this issue of the National Institute of Justice
Journal. Readers will find many examples of partnerships and
collaboration between researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and
agencies with related missions. This issue is also full of examples of how
the involvement of a community contributes to better understanding of
crime and an improved criminal justice system.

Jeffrey Fagan and his coauthors, for example, in the cover story offer
insights on conducting crime-related research in public housing. In this
emerging area of research, the authors highlight the significance of the
context in which crime occurs. The neighborhood, the larger community,
and public policies all have an effect on crime and the residents who live
in and near public housing. Researchers need to keep in mind these factors
as well as the community's history and socioeconomic trends when they
design research methods and interpret their findings.

Also in the cover story is a brief description of NIJ's new collaboration
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Office of Public and Indian Housing. This collaboration will link
researchers with local public housing agencies to more accurately assess
the effects of HUD's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. Working
together, public housing officials and researchers will develop information
that will bring into sharper focus the nature of crime in public housing.

Doing justice differently is the focus of the interview with Visiting Fellow
Thomas Quinn. Restorative justice, the topic of Mr. Quinn's visiting
fellowship, is an approach through which all parties involved -- offender,
victim, and community -- achieve justice. It is an innovative approach for
modern courts, although indigenous peoples have practiced it for
centuries. Restorative justice emphasizes the harm caused to the victim
and the impact on the broader community rather than the traditional view
that the crime is an act against the state.

Protecting communities from terrorists is the topic of the third article in
this issue. Although most Americans are not personally familiar with
terrorist attacks, accounts of the experiences from abroad are sobering. NIJ
has been a partner with several Federal agencies through task forces and
working groups created to enhance the American capability to deal with
terrorist attacks, especially attacks aimed at public transportation systems.
In April, NIJ and the U.S. Departments of State and Transportation are
cosponsoring an international gathering that will feature new technologies
and best practices to combat terrorist activity against land transportation
systems.

The themes of partnership and putting crime in the context of the
community will continue to be important messages in the NIJ Journal.
Watch for the June issue, which will feature the story about how Boston
officials collaborated and analyzed the context in which a particularly
troubling type of crime occurred and achieved an amazing decrease in
juvenile violence.

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 Dissemination

David Boyd
Deputy Director for Office of Science and Technology 

Cheryl A. Crawford
Mary G. Graham
Pamela K. Lattimore
Marj P. Leaming
Michelle-Marie Mendez
Christy A. Visher

Issue Editor
Jolene Hernon

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

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 busi-ness 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.

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

Contents

Issue No. 235

FEATURES

Crime in Public Housing: Clarifying Research Issues

Restorative Justice: An Interview With Visiting Fellow Thomas Quinn

Protecting Public Transportation From Terrorists

RESEARCH PREVIEW

Sentencing Guidelines: A State Perspective

DEPARTMENTS

New & Noteworthy

Solicitations

NIJ Awards

Final Reports

NIJ in the Journals

Recent NIJ Publications

Events

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

Crime in Public Housing: Clarifying Research Issues

by Jeffrey Fagan, Tamara Dumanovsky, J. Phillip Thompson, and Garth
Davies

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

Jeffrey Fagan is Director of the Center for Violence Research and
Prevention in the School of Public Health at Columbia University, and
Tamara Dumanovsky is Staff Associate at the Center. J. Phillip Thompson
is an Associate Professor in the School of Political Science at Columbia
University. Garth Davies is an Assistant Professor in the School of
Criminology at Simon Fraser University. This research is supported in part
by generous grants from the National Consortium on Violence Research,
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the National Institute of
Justice.

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

In recent years, crime and public housing have been closely linked in our
political and popular cultures. Tragic episodes of violence have reinforced
the notion that public housing is a milieu with rates of victimization and
offending far greater than other locales.[1] However, these recent
developments belie the complex social and political evolution of public
housing from its origins in the 1930s, through urban renewal, and into the
present.[2]

Stereotypes abound about public housing, its management, residents, and
crime rates. In reality, variation is the norm, and it is these variations that
affect crime. The study of crime in public housing is in its earliest phase,
and there is much to learn. A few studies suggest that crime rates are
higher in public housing complexes than in their immediate
surroundings;[3] other studies suggest quite the opposite.[4] Still others
suggest a process of diffusion and exchange of violent crimes between
public housing and the surrounding neighborhood contexts.[5]

Predictably, most studies vary in several important ways, complicating
comparisons of studies. Many focus on larger public housing authorities
(PHAs) in older cities, even though these communities are the exceptions
among the more than 3,000 PHAs in the United States.[6] Many studies
rely on crime complaints to the police or housing authorities rather than on
victimization studies. Conducting a victimization study or household
survey in a public housing community is a difficult logistical enterprise,
often characterized by undercounts of population and variation in
telephone ownership.[7] The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is currently supporting research to better understand
the process of conducting victimization surveys in public housing.

Few studies give adequate attention to public housing's historical,
socioeconomic, structural, and administrative contexts, despite the
variability among and within public housing communities. Multimeasure
studies of crime in public housing are rare, and efforts to assess the
epidemiology and correlates of crime have been quite limited. Attention to
the surrounding context has been uneven despite the likelihood that many
crimes are committed by nonresidents.

Despite the challenges, there are lessons to be learned from previous
research. This article summarizes some of these lessons, explores the
variability among public housing communities, and suggests that research
on communities, spatial analysis of crime locations and patterns, injury
epidemiology, and victimization surveys provide important new directions
for studying crime in public housing. (See "Methodology Challenges:
Design, Measurement, and Data Collection Issues for Researchers" and
"Collecting Data: Features and Possible Limitations.")

A brief history of public housing

Public housing's varied history is often intertwined with the social and
political history of its home city. Public housing in New York City, for
example, developed in response to historical needs as a job creation
program (such as First Houses), as housing for wartime workers (such as
Red Hook and Fort Greene), as veterans' housing, as filler between slums
and urban renewal projects, as relocation housing for people displaced by
transportation and infrastructure projects, as a way to keep working-class
whites from leaving the city, and, finally, as housing for poor minority
people -- especially in the 1960s.[8]

The bulk of public housing in the United States was built in the 1950s and
1960s as a vehicle for "slum clearance" in communities already
characterized by structural disadvantage, such as poverty, long-term
unemployment, and limited public services. Often the result was
large-scale, highrise developments in socially isolated areas where little
attention was paid to availability of or access to public or private services.
A second wave of development in the 1970s and 1980s paid closer
attention to the community context and resulted in lowrise developments
intended to be integrated into the neighborhood and with better access to
transportation, shopping areas, schools, and other social services.

Historically, public housing has perpetuated segregation through
"community preference" policies that gave priority to applicants already
living in the neighborhood. Although these policies receive credit for
maintaining social networks and organization within neighborhoods, they
also had the effect of maintaining a neighborhood's racial and ethnic
homogeneity.[9]

The social context of today's public housing varies widely, and much of it
suffers from poor design, deteriorating structures, inadequate funding, a
large concentration of poor people, isolation from social services, high
crime rates, and cumbersome management.[10]

The history of public housing policy is significant for research in several
respects. The structure and location of public housing sites necessarily and
reciprocally affected the surrounding areas, and the extent and type of
neighborhood change are important factors in understanding contemporary
variability in crime rates. Since many public housing sites were originally
built in otherwise undeveloped areas, understanding the subsequent
development of surrounding neighborhoods and patterns of neighborhood
change should provide a more complete analysis of changes within public
housing. In addition, a development's socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and
family characteristics may affect crime rates.

The limited research on crime in public housing has looked only at
structure-of-housing issues (for example, comparing crime rates between
highrise and lowrise developments or looking at differences between
larger and smaller public housing authorities). But structural variations
may mask underlying differences in location, composition, social
organization, and, most important, policy. (See "Variability Within
Chicago's Highrise Public Housing.")

Variation in the administration of public housing

In addition to contextual and structural factors, several aspects of
management and administration may affect crime rates in public housing.

Management of public housing. The administration of a public housing
authority affects the characteristics of a housing development. The
combinations of State and Federal supervision of PHAs, in addition to the
idiosyncratic policies of city governments, raise significant issues.
Developments are increasingly being turned over to private management
agencies; some PHAs are experimenting with resident management; other
PHAs sponsor homeownership programs that encourage qualified
residents to purchase apartments in rehabilitated buildings at bargain rates.
Many of these programs are new and tend to apply to smaller, rehabilitated
buildings. It may be too soon to measure the effects, if any, of the most
recent management trends.

Admission and eviction policies. Criteria for admission and eviction vary
across sites and can change the composition, attitudes, and perceptions of
both the residents and the wider neighborhood. Criminal history,
drug-related offenses, family composition, and employment status have
been used as criteria. Some PHAs are increasingly using employment
status as a criterion for admission to increase the numbers of
working-class families in developments. Others are converting highrise
developments into housing for the elderly. Because such changes are
intended to improve residents' quality of life, equal attention should be
paid to developments targeted and not targeted by such policies. One
consequence may be increased segregation and isolation of the most
disadvantaged residents in sites with these eviction and admission policies.

Police agencies. The amount and extent of police presence and response
vary across and within PHAs and to a certain degree depend on the
relationship between the local PHA and the police department. Some
larger PHAs have their own police agencies that patrol public housing
sites.[11] Larger public housing projects without housing authority police
agencies often require special police attention and relationships with the
city's police department, especially if the development is isolated from its
surrounding neighborhoods.

Assessments of crime need to take into account differences in types of
crime control programs in a public housing site. (See "NIJ and HUD
Collaborate on Research and Evaluation.") These programs vary
considerably both between and within cities, and the various strategies --
ranging from drug sweeps to curfews -- may conflate crime trends with
enforcement trends. A sharp increase in arrest rates in public housing may
indicate an increase in police presence, not necessarily an increase in
crime.

Tenant organizations and perceptions. Some PHAs have formal and
institutionalized tenant organizations that often act as a bridge between
residents and the PHAs and may form ties with local police departments,
social service agencies, and community organizations. The presence of an
active tenant organization may indicate a level of community stability and
cohesion that has a significant impact on crime rates. Since public safety is
most likely to be one of the more important issues for such organizations,
comparing the degree of tenant organizing and its effectiveness between
public housing developments may be an important component of studying
crime (and fear of crime) in public housing. (See "Variation in the Types
of Residents in Public Housing Communities.")

Residents' own perceptions of public housing may be influenced by the
history of its development. The composition of the housing, the length of
residents' tenancy, and their connections to the larger community all affect
residents' attitudes about public housing. The general reputation of public
housing in surrounding neighborhoods and in the city will affect how
people behave and, in turn, may affect crime and fear of crime.

Variations in physical structure and neighborhood

Many public housing projects are large-scale, multiple-building, highrise
developments covering several square city blocks. Research has shown
that the relationship between building size and crime rates varies by type
of crime.[12] For example, highrise buildings have lower burglary rates
than lowrise developments. However, there can be significant differences
between similarly structured public housing developments. More attention
should be paid to studying variability in types and rates of crime between
similar housing developments to learn about factors other than structure
that might explain variability in crime rates.[13]

Given their size and structural design, it is easy to argue that large public
housing developments are "spatial" neighborhoods. What needs to be
established is whether they are also "social" neighborhoods.[14] Most do
not contain within their boundaries, and often not on their immediate
periphery, facilities and institutions (schools, shopping centers, places of
worship) that are commonly associated with a "neighborhood." Social
dimensions of neighborhoods are dependent on interaction patterns and
social networks. Although in some cases spatial location determines social
interactions, such as school districts, spatial proximity is not a guarantee of
social interaction. The extent of informal interactions between tenants,
their level of familiarity and recognition, and the use of common spaces
may all be measures of social neighborhoods within public housing. It
could be argued that the spatial isolation of some public housing projects
makes them more like traditional neighborhoods than other areas where
individuals tend to have more interactions with people outside their
neighborhoods.

In his study of Section 8 public housing construction in Chicago, Robert
Bursik found that public housing construction was followed by high rates
of neighborhood instability which, in turn, was related to higher rates of
delinquency.[15] The Bursik study demonstrates the impact of policy
decisions on neighborhood change and shows that neighborhood
instability, independent of compositional changes, has a significant impact
on delinquency rates. It suggests that other studies could measure patterns
of stability in and around public housing, apart from compositional
changes, to see if stable public housing developments tend to be located in
stable neighborhoods and to determine the effects of varying rates of
stability on crime rates.

Notes

1. See, for example, Kotlowitz, A., There Are No Children Here, New
York: Doubleday, 1991; and Lemann, N., The Promised Land: The Great
Black Migration and How It Changed America, New York: Knopf, 1991.

2. Marcuse, P., "Interpreting 'Public Housing' History," Journal of
Architecture and Planning Research 12(3)(1995):241-258.

3. Roncek, D.W., R. Bell, and J.M.A. Francik, "Housing Projects and
Crime," Social Problems 29(2)(1981):151-166; and Dunworth, T., and A.
Saiger, Drugs and Crime in Public Housing: A Three-City Analysis,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
1994.

4. Farley, J.E., "Has Public Housing Gotten a Bum Rap? The Incidence of
Crime in St. Louis Public Housing Developments," Environment and
Behavior 14(4)(1982):443-477; and Harrell, A., and C. Gouvis, Predicting
Neighborhood Risk of Crime, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,
1994.

5. Fagan, J., and G. Davies, "Crime in Public Housing: Two-Way
Diffusion Effects in Surrounding Neighborhoods," presented at the
Workshop on Spatial Analysis of Criminal Justice Data, New York: City
University of New York, Graduate Center, 1997.

6. Holzman, H., "Criminological Research on Public Housing: Toward a
Better Understanding of People, Places, and Spaces," Crime and
Delinquency 42(3)(1996):361-378.

7. Holzman, H.R., T.R. Kudrick, and K.P. Voytek, "Revisiting the
Relationship Between Crime and Architectural Design: An Analysis of
Data from HUD's 1994 Survey of Public Housing Residents," Cityscape:
A Journal of Policy Development and Research 2 (1996):107-126.

8. Marcuse, Peter, "Public Housing in New York City: History of a
Program," unpublished manuscript, 1997.

9. Saegert, Susan, and G. Winkel, "Social Capital Formation in
Low-Income Housing," New York: City University of New York,
Graduate School and University Center, unpublished paper, 1997.

10. Public housing in several cities, including Detroit, Newark, Chicago,
and New Orleans, is considered "troubled." HUD considers housing
authorities troubled if they score less than 60 out of 100 points against
HUD's "PHMAP" (Public Housing Management Assessment Program)
indicators. See, for example, House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight, "Public Housing: Status of HUD's Takeover of the Chicago
Housing Authority," testimony before the Subcommittee on Human
Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, September 5, 1995.

11. In 1995, New York City consolidated the housing and transit police
departments with the New York Police Department. It may be too soon to
study the effects of this consolidation.

12. Holzman, Kudrick, and Voytek, "Revisiting the Relationship Between
Crime and Architectural Design," 107-126.

13. Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Jean M. Amendolia, Andrea A.
Anderson, Gordon Hanson, Wendell A. Johnson, Elise Martel, Lynn M.
Olson, and Dennis P. Rosenbaum, "The Hidden War: The Battle to
Control Crime in Chicago's Public Housing," unpublished report in
fulfillment of NIJ grant numbers 93-IJ-CX-0037 and 95-IJ-CX-0011.

14. Tienda, Marta, "Poor People and Poor Places: Deciphering
Neighborhood Effects on Behavioral Outcomes," in Macro-Micro
Linkages in Sociology, ed. Joan Huber, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc., 1991.

15. Bursik, Robert J., "Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and
Delinquency: Problems and Prospects," Criminology 26 (1988):519-551.

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

Methodology Challenges: Design, Measurement, and Data Collection
Issues for Researchers

Criminological research on public housing is still relatively new. Its
development can benefit from the methodological and conceptual
influences from related disciplines, especially urban sociology, political
economy, and crime prevention research, as well as geography,
demography, and the sophisticated techniques available from spatial
analysis, survey research, and qualitative methods.

The issues surrounding public housing research can be sorted into several
domains: design considerations, measurement considerations, and data
collection strategies.

Design considerations

Unit of analysis. Selecting the unit of analysis for research and an
appropriate design often depends on a series of questions relating to the
nature of the unit to be studied. For example, an intervention to prevent
crimes at specific locations may differ from an intervention designed to
reduce criminality among individuals, and an evaluation of the
intervention would require very different theories and designs.[1]

Comparison groups. The selection of the unit of analysis also affects other
design considerations, such as the selection of comparison groups.
Identifying valid and appropriate comparisons is a complex problem.
Public housing residents are nested within buildings, and buildings are
nested within developments. Researchers are increasingly concerned with
the nested or hierarchical effects of neighborhood, school, or other
contextual factors and their influence on outcomes.

Accordingly, researchers cannot simply select random samples of
individuals from the same buildings. Nor can they avoid the question of
comparison groups by using predesigns and postdesigns. This would raise
history, maturation, and other validity threats. One solution is to sample
individuals from other comparable public housing developments within
the same city. Other alternatives include using "bootstrapping"[2] or case
control designs in which projects and individuals serve as their own
controls. Research also can benefit from examining within-unit change
over time, based on interactions with specific social and structural
contexts.

Diffusion and displacement effects. The relationship of public housing to
surrounding areas reflects another dimension of the nested status of public
housing. Not only are individuals nested in buildings and developments,
but developments are nested in neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods
themselves exert both criminogenic and protective influences. Drug
transactions often involve persons from outside the housing development,
and their movements in and out of the development create a large area
where crimes may take place. Situational crime prevention efforts may
displace crime to nearby neighborhoods or to neighborhoods some
distance away.[3]

Some studies show higher rates of diffusion within public housing
compared with the overall city rate, but such comparisons are invalid
because of a lack of comparability of the areas. Other studies compared
blocks within and outside public housing developments and found higher
rates within the public housing blocks.[4] One study of violence in and
around public housing projects used weighted least-squares procedures to
approximate diffusion effects.[5] The researchers found evidence of
outward diffusion for some violent crimes (robbery, homicide) and
simultaneous diffusion only for assault.

Event locations. Some buildings within multibuilding housing
developments have higher crime rates than other buildings. Moreover,
crimes occur in a variety of locations inside and outside the development,
and sampling may be required even though it poses its own
methodological problems. Locations, too, are nested, and the effects of an
intervention in a specific location may be mediated by events that occur in
the surrounding area. Thus, for example, locating increased patrol in a
specific hot spot may have artifactual effects if the patrol in the
surrounding or control area is reduced (or increased) due to other,
serendipitous factors.

Apportioning effects. Multiple interventions are common in a public
housing project. Sorting and allocating their effects requires a highly
complex and disaggregated design. Designs should anticipate multiple
interventions, as well as interventions that span both developments and
neighboring areas.

Measurement considerations

Although there may be adequate scales and methods to count events, other
challenges emerge when attempting to standardize counts through
computation of rates. Geocoded complaint and arrest records present
strong advantages in dealing with spatial measurement concerns.
However, geocoding cannot pinpoint floors in highrises or shared spaces
in many public housing sites. Alternate data sources may be useful in
estimating crime problems within specific boundaries of housing
developments. Vital statistics and health data often contain address
information and can be sampled and geocoded to estimate violence rates in
and around public housing.

A related problem involves crimes that take place in shared spaces. For
example, when drug selling occurs on streets adjacent to, but officially
outside, housing developments and when it involves tenants, the
assignment of these events to a housing project becomes conceptually
difficult. Researchers need to develop rules for such occurrences, but the
rules may exert a strong influence on crime rates and estimates of program
effectiveness.

Data collection strategies

Surveys. Recent studies involving National Crime Victimization Surveys
in public housing developments suggest that advances are forthcoming in
measuring crime in public housing,[6] but sampling concerns continue to
arise from uneven patterns of telephone ownership. Additional sampling
problems reflect the gap in official versus actual occupancy patterns;
respondents are unlikely to provide data on victimization of unofficial
occupants. Household surveys are also important tools in gathering
observational and attitudinal data.

Conducting comparable surveys in surrounding neighborhoods creates
additional problems, especially in counting households. A related
theoretical and practical problem is the determination of the boundaries of
surrounding neighborhoods. Few theories suggest the size of an ecological
context for public housing -- whether it is 1 block, 100 yards, or a larger
social or administrative boundary. Practically, the distance in which
displacement and design effects are likely to be salient is also difficult to
determine.

Official records. Public housing authorities that have police departments
may be able to supply arrest and complaint records for specific public
housing communities, and data from the city's police department may be
geocoded to determine which crimes occur in public housing. In some
cases, though, arrests or other data may be generated by special task forces
(citywide drug or robbery details, for example) or by agencies from other
jurisdictions, such as the State police or the Drug Enforcement
Administration, but data from these additional sources are more difficult to
obtain.

A second complication involves the distinctions between location event,
offender residence, and victim residence. Rarely do crime data record all
three pieces of information. The importance of this triangulation for public
housing rivals, if not exceeds, its importance in understanding
victim-offender interactions and the contextual factors that shape these
interactions.

Observations. The advantages of direct observation are self-evident, but
such activity is labor intensive, expensive, and requires experienced
observers. Coding and reliability questions also need to be addressed.
Nevertheless, observation can overcome many of the limitations of other
data sources, and time and place sampling can streamline these efforts.

A related strategy is key informant interviews. Key informant strategies
have been used extensively in several notable studies of urban life,[7]
including data collection in public housing.[8] This method involves
identifying persons whose knowledge of neighborhood life is extensive
and who are capable and accurate reporters of the dynamic exchanges
among people within social networks and spaces. Repeated interviews
with key informants over time can establish a longitudinal database of
events and dynamics within the area of interest. Data can be either
structured, quantifiable responses to a protocol or open-ended qualitative
narratives that result from a structured conversation between researcher
and informant.

Notes

1. Ekblom, P., and K. Pease, "Evaluating Crime Prevention," in Building a
Safer Society, vol. 19, ed. M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1995:585-662.

2. Bootstrapping, which capitalizes on natural variation within a sample,
involves asking different types of questions to subsets within a sample. A
theory can then be constructed based on the answers.

3. Barnes, G.C., "Defining and Optimizing Displacement," in Crime and
Place, ed. J.E. Eck and D.L. Weisburd, Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum, 1995:95-113; Ekblom and Pease, "Evaluating Crime
Prevention"; and Clarke, R.V., "Situational Crime Prevention," in
Building a Safer Society, vol. 19, ed. M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995: 91-150.

4. Roncek, D.W., R. Bell, and J.M.A. Francik, "Housing Projects and
Crime," Social Problems 29(2)(1981):151-166. See also Harrell, A., and
C. Gouvis, Predicting Neighborhood Risk of Crime, Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute, 1994.

5. Fagan, J., and G. Davies, "Crime in Public Housing: Two-Way
Diffusion Effects in Surrounding Neighborhoods," presented at the
Workshop on Spatial Analysis of Criminal Justice Data, New York: City
University of New York, Graduate Center, 1997.

6. Holzman, H., and L. Piper, "Measuring Crime in Public Housing:
Methodological Issues and Research Strategies," paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston,
Massachusetts, November 1995; and Holzman, H., "Criminological
Research on Public Housing: Toward a Better Understanding of People,
Places, and Spaces," Crime and Delinquency 42(3)(1996):361-378.

7. Engle, S.M., Urban Danger, Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1981; and Fischer, C.S., To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in
Town and City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

8. Sullivan, M., Getting Paid, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

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

Collecting Data: Features and Possible Limitations

Public housing authorities

Features:

Larger PHAs may collect and report crime data, including records of
crime-related complaints by tenants or tenant organizations. Organized
tenant patrols may maintain victimization records.

Limitations:

Data on locations of events may be missing; such data are needed to assess
hot spots and evaluate safety measures. Official crime statistics may
undercount actual crime rates.

Police department records

Features:

Police records may include identifiers for public housing (that is, the data
may indicate that the incident occurred within public housing boundaries).
The records may also indicate the residence of the victims, offenders, or
both. Complaint and arrest reports may be available. National
Incident-Based Reporting System data also will contain event information.

Limitations:

Data may not be specific to units and locations in public housing. Official
crime statistics may undercount actual crime rates.

Injury surveillance data

Features:

Mortality and morbidity data for intentional injuries may include the
event's location as well as residential data about the injured or deceased
person. Geocoded data for residential and event locations would allow
analyses of violent crime in public housing and surrounding
neighborhoods.

Limitations:

Data often do not contain information about an offender's residence.

Tenant/resident surveys

Features:

Annual tenant surveys can measure crime rates, residents' fear of crime,
victimization rates of residents, and crime hot spots.

Limitations:

Data may undercount public housing residents, and telephone interviews
can result in sample bias.

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

Variability Within Chicago's HighRise Public Housing

An NIJ-sponsored study of the effectiveness of the Chicago Housing
Authority's (CHA's) comprehensive antidrug initiative illustrates the
difficulty of implementing programs and conducting research in public
housing settings.

The research tracked CHA's antidrug efforts for 3 years within three
developments -- Rockwell Gardens, Henry Horner Homes, and Harold
Ickes Homes -- and conducted a more limited assessment of an experiment
with intensive police patrols in the Robert Taylor Homes.[1]

Researchers found that reduction in crime and fear of crime varied
significantly not only between similar developments but also within the
same development. Despite several key similarities (structural,
programmatic, and targeted crime type), other more powerful differences
exerted greater influence on crime. For example, the program was
implemented inconsistently within a single development because of
variability in levels of disorder and social cohesion, management
practices, residents' perceptions toward the police and one another, and the
occurrence of such external events as visits by leading political figures and
lawsuits against the housing authority.

The CHA model antidrug program to control violent crime was both
comprehensive and collaborative, and CHA policies were well defined.
Yet onsite management practices varied considerably, making
implementation uneven. The program was also affected by the unique
nature of each development and, in some cases, the individual differences
between buildings in the same development. Strong resident leadership in
one building in Rockwell Gardens, for example, brought about tremendous
changes that never extended to other Rockwell buildings.

In addition to the buildings' variability, external developments affected the
researchers' ability to take accurate measurements. A class-action lawsuit
against CHA, settled during the evaluation period, resulted in a massive
redevelopment effort at Horner that clearly had a much larger impact than
any of the antidrug interventions.

In all four developments, gangs dominated daily life and wielded more
influence over the level of drug trafficking and violence than either the
police or housing authority management. However, the nature of gang
control varied both across the four sites and within individual sites. In
Rockwell and Horner, for example, multiple gangs fought over control of
buildings, turning them into virtual war zones. The gang warfare was so
extreme at Horner that the residents in one building formed a pact with the
gang members as a means of protection. Ickes, on the other hand, was
spared the turf battles because a single gang controlled the development.

The Chicago public housing experience points out the complexities of and
challenges to understanding crime issues in public housing. It also
illustrates that researchers need to consider the broad and subtle
differences that exist within an individual housing community,
recognizing that the same policy and program can have widely varying
results.

1. Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Jean M. Amendolia, Andrea A.
Anderson, Gordon Hanson, Wendell A. Johnson, Elise Martel, Lynn M.
Olson, and Dennis P. Rosenbaum, "The Hidden War: The Battle to
Control Crime in Chicago's Public Housing," final report submitted in
fulfillment of NIJ grant numbers 93-IJ-CX-0037 and 95-IJ-CX-0011. The
research examined the impact of the antidrug efforts through the eyes of
the residents. Researchers conducted four waves of door-to-door surveys,
six rounds of indepth interviews with a small group of residents, two
rounds of interviews with key staff involved in implementing the antidrug
initiative, and ethnographic observations of each of the developments. In
addition, official crime statistics from 1988 through 1995 were examined
to assess the effect of CHA's efforts on residents' demand for police
service.

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

NIJ and HUD Collaborate on Research and Evaluation

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) have become partners in an effort to build
safer public housing communities.

By combining NIJ's expertise in research and evaluation with HUD's
expertise in providing housing authorities with resources, the two agencies
are collaborating to understand the implementation and effectiveness of
HUD's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP). HUD's
Office of Public and Indian Housing and NIJ have signed an interagency
agreement through which HUD has transferred $1.3 million to NIJ for a
two-part effort to conduct joint research and evaluation.

In the first part of the effort, NIJ and HUD have embarked on plans to
provide housing authorities with the resources to implement locally based
research partnerships. The researcher-housing authority partnerships are
designed to provide feedback on PHDEP initiatives at both the local and
national level. These partnerships build on a similar NIJ initiative that has
created dozens of successful researcher-criminal justice agency teams that
are cooperatively designing and implementing local research projects and
evaluations across the Nation.

The researcher-housing authority partnerships can take one of two forms:
(1) those that focus on developing and implementing technically sound
strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, with feedback so that
course corrections can occur throughout the life of the program, and (2)
those that focus on identifying problems, designing and implementing
testable solutions, and evaluating the impact of the solution.

The second part of the effort will develop a standard national reporting and
information system for PHDEP, a comprehensive effort to reduce and
eliminate drug-related crime that has supported $1.2 billion worth of
activities over the last 8 years. NIJ will assess current PHDEP reporting
requirements and develop a standard semiannual reporting form that
grantee housing authorities can use to measure crime reduction more
tangibly than current methods.

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

Variation in the Types of Residents in Public Housing Communities

Based on ongoing field research in New York City's public housing, J.
Phillip Thompson and Susan Saegert have categorized PHA families into
at least four types, who are usually found in the same buildings.[1] The list
is not exhaustive or necessarily representative of most PHAs; it simply
suggests the variety among public housing residents and some of the
complexities and sensitivities presented in gathering data from public
housing families and individuals.

o Long-term residents. These are middle-aged or older residents who have
typically lived in the same development for 25 years or more. They often
anchor the local tenant association, conduct social events for the residents,
help residents find jobs, and transmit local history, among other functions.
They are usually women with extended families in the building.

o Distressed families. These are families facing multiple and serious
physical, financial, and mental problems.

o Working-class loners. These families are usually headed by a working
adult. They typically keep to themselves, fearing crime and social disorder
within their development. They are trying to leave public housing.

o Coping but isolated. These residents are typically new to the community
and are socially isolated (they therefore may feel vulnerable to violent
assault). They try to keep their kids in the house and out of trouble and are
trying to adjust to their environment.

1. Thompson, J.P., and S. Saegert, "Social Capital in Public Housing,"
forthcoming, Center for Urban Studies, Columbia University, 1998.

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

Restorative Justice:

An Interview With Visiting Fellow Thomas Quinn

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

Thomas Quinn is the former Executive Director of the Delaware Criminal
Justice Council. In this article, he talks about the research he conducted as
an NIJ Visiting Fellow.

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

Q. Will you first define restorative justice?

A. The definition and practices are evolving -- in much the same way that
community policing evolved.

Let's look first at restorative justice in juxtaposition with the model that
dominates American justice: the retributive model. The retributive model,
which focuses on offenders and their punishment, does a good job of
incarcerating violent, repeat offenders, but it does not -- and many people
argue that it cannot -- adequately address victim and community harm.
Nor does it give offenders an adequate opportunity to earn back their place
in society. Offenders who sit in a prison cell complete their punishment,
but the results do little to reduce citizen fear of crime, heal victims, or
increase citizen satisfaction with the criminal justice system -- and
research indicates that the informed public wants nonviolent offenders to
work to repay the community rather than sit idly in jail.[1]

Restorative justice, in contrast, focuses on restoring the health of the
community, repairing the harm done, meeting victims' needs, and
emphasizing that the offender can -- and must -- contribute to those
repairs.

Restorative justice condemns the criminal act, holds offenders
accountable, involves the participants, and encourages repentant offenders
to earn their way back into the good graces of society.[2] Restorative
justice considers crime an act against the individual and the community
rather than against the State.

Q. How do community justice and restorative justice differ and how are
they the same?

A. I think we're still sorting out the precise definitions and practices of
community justice and restorative justice. The two concepts are alike in
many ways, especially in their inclusiveness and shift toward collective
problem solving. They differ, however, in that restorative justice focuses
to a greater extent on the underlying philosophy of repairing the harm to
the victim.

In terms of practices, some community justice practices encompass
restorative justice principles, others do not. For example, a neighborhood
watch program that creates a resident-police partnership is a community
justice effort but not a restorative justice practice. On the other hand, a
victim who communicates with the offender in a structured setting in an
effort to bring closure to an incident participates in a restorative justice
practice, not a community justice effort. (See exhibit 1.)

Q. What is the origin of restorative justice? Isn't it a return to ancient
models of justice?

A. Indeed yes. Unwritten codes as well as the earliest written codes
focused on repairing the harm. Before the Norman conquest of England,
local villages delivered justice by making the offender repay the victim.
Then, when William the Conqueror became ruler, crimes became a
disruption of the "King's peace," and offenders were fined in the King's
Court. By requiring citizens to come to his courts for justice, the king
gained power; by collecting fines that in the past would have gone to the
victims, he gained wealth. We still have that emphasis with crimes
"against the state." Today, other cultures include restoration to the victim
and community as core elements of justice, including Muslim, American
Indian, and many Pacific Rim societies.[3]

Q. Can you describe some restorative practices and talk about how widely
they are practiced?

A. Probably the most familiar examples are restitution and community
service -- although both are often applied solely as punitive sanctions
rather than linked meaningfully to the offense or as a way for the
community to be healed. (See "Varieties of Restorative Justice Practices.")
Victim-offender mediation is becoming more widespread, both as an
alternative to the traditional criminal justice system as well as a part of the
system. Hundreds of programs now exist in the United States with
hundreds more in other countries.

It's hard to quantify how widely these activities are practiced, but the
trends are clear. The National Association of Counties passed a resolution
in July 1996 calling for "the immediate incremental and eventual
systemic" movement toward restorative justice. At the Federal level, the
Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice has several
efforts under way to explore how best to bring attention and insight to both
restorative justice and community justice practices.

For these new approaches to move into the mainstream, however, I believe
existing criminal justice agencies must be infused with a restorative justice
philosophy -- something that moves away from simply adding programs or
policies and toward a change in the way we think about crime. The process
would be similar to the process police departments must go through to
convert to the community policing philosophy.

Q. As part of your fellowship, you conducted a survey to learn more about
restorative justice. What did the responses reveal?

A. We developed a survey with assistance from the University of
Delaware's Center for Applied Demography and Survey Research and sent
it to an interdisciplinary sample of 290 legislators, county executives,
prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, and police and corrections
professionals.[4]

On the whole, respondents gave the restorative justice movement a
positive rating. The facets that generated the most positive responses
related to:

o Increased victim and community involvement through a more personal
process.

o More direct involvement of offenders.

o The potential for improved system efficiency because of the fused
agency focus.

Q. Let's talk first about increased victim and community involvement.
Aren't victims reluctant to have contact with offenders?

A. Some victims have no interest in having contact with their offender,
and some offenders are recalcitrant, unrepentant, and unwilling to accept
any blame. But for victims who experience a restorative justice process,
there is widespread evidence -- beyond my survey -- supporting the
perceived benefits.

Victims who are exposed to restorative approaches are significantly more
satisfied with the process and the outcome, and their satisfaction is
consistently higher whether the findings are from adult or juvenile courts;
small towns or big cities; or the United States, Germany, Great Britain, or
elsewhere.[5] Fear of being revictimized by the same offender also
decreases after restorative justice practices are used. In one study, 50
percent fewer victims who participated in mediation expressed fear of
revictimization by the same offender compared to victims who had not
participated in mediation.[6]

Positive feedback is not limited to minor cases. In an evaluation of
victim-offender dialogues in 39 serious cases (including robbery, rape, and
homicide) in British Columbia, Canada, victims or their survivors were
given the option of a face-to-face, video, or written dialogue with the
offender. A followup survey found unanimous support for the process.
Offenders reported a sense of personal growth, and victims a sense of
closure.[7]

Q. If restorative justice increases victim satisfaction and reduces fear of
revictimization, are victim advocacy groups embracing it?

A. The victim advocacy community is cautiously endorsing restorative
justice practices. Many are suspicious that restorative justice is a veiled
attempt at "rehabilitation" with no serious effort to involve or address
victims' concerns.

Another aspect has been noted by Marlene Young, the Executive Director
of the National Organization of Victim Assistance: Most offenders return
to their communities, and for this reason, among others, she encourages
victim advocacy groups to work to ensure that restorative justice
interventions are positive ones for victims and the community as a
whole.[8]

Q. Let's turn to offenders. What does the research show?

A. Respondents in my survey saw two positive effects:

o Offenders are more likely to understand the impact of their crimes.

o Offenders are more likely to feel anxiety about having to face victims or
community representatives. Some respondents viewed this as a
disadvantage to the offender, but others believed increased anxiety about
facing the consequences of one's actions contributes to a heightened sense
of responsibility and therefore increases the reparative aspects.

In other research, offenders overwhelmingly express satisfaction with
restorative justice processes -- up to 90 percent of offenders say they are
satisfied with the process. Offenders' perception of fairness exceeds 80
percent.[9]

Further, some studies indicate that recidivism for offenders who
participate in restorative justice activities is lower than for comparison
groups of like offenders who are processed regularly.[10] A study of
Washington State's Department of Corrections Victim Awareness
Education Program found that offenders released from prison after taking
part in an approximately 6-week program to learn about the impact of
crime on victims were less likely to recidivate than a comparison group
who did not take part in those panels.[11] Those who completed the
program had much lower repeat offense rates than those who did not (9
percent versus 37 percent). More research is needed, but what is available
is promising.

Q. What about the system as a whole? What benefits did respondents see
forthe criminal justice system?

A. The respondents cited numerous benefits related to system efficiency:

o Minor cases can be diverted from the formal process.

o Dispositions can be reached more quickly.

o The use of incarceration can be reduced.

o The image of the justice system can be enhanced.

o Victim advocates can become allies with other reformers to effect
positive system change.

o All parties can focus on the same issues and share the same goals.

o Agencies can develop and use new measures of success.

Again, research supports many of the benefits the respondents envisioned.
For example, a study in North Carolina found that cases can be diverted,
freeing prosecutors' and judges' time.[12]

Law enforcement agencies, too, have shown that restorative justice
programs can save resources. When the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, police
randomly assigned citizen dispute cases to a mediation settlement
program, they found that cases that were settled by mediation were
significantly less likely to need police assistance in the future compared
with cases involving a control group.[13]

A common weakness often cited is that a relatively small proportion of the
eligible cases are actually handled by the optional alternative process. This
shortcoming is so common that the Fund for Dispute Resolution
commissioned a report on how to increase referrals and ensure that all
eligible cases are processed through alternative mechanisms.[14] The
resulting report contains a series of recommendations that call for a more
proactive, assertive process for case referral and more vigorous intake
methods.[15]

Q. What about the drawbacks? What disadvantages did respondents
identify?

A. Respondents identified several drawbacks. The three concerns that
evoked the strongest response (40 to 49 percent of respondents) relate to:

o The vagueness of the term "restorative justice."

The term can lead to some confusion and misunderstanding. It especially
seems to be confused with the term "community justice." As mentioned
earlier, the philosophy is still evolving.[16] We continue to benefit from
the debate over the definition and application of "community policing,"
and I believe it will be the same for "restorative justice."

o Due process issues.

Respondents expressed concerns about both procedural and substantive
due process. Just as we strive to avoid coercion and achieve fundamental
fairness in traditional procedures, so should we take care that restorative
justice efforts are also acceptable to all parties involved, that participation
is voluntary, and that all parties understand the implications of their
participation.[17]

o Possible resulting disparity.

Whole sentencing systems are designed to ensure that similar offenders are
treated similarly (based on the current offense and the criminal history).
When we also consider victim characteristics, some of these carefully
designed controls may no longer work. At the same time, injustice can
now result from rigid rules that prohibit consideration of all the factors
involved with a case. Suffice it to say that full consideration of the victim
will challenge some of the carefully crafted guideline systems now in
place, requiring criminal justice professionals to exercise new creativity in
light of more variables.

Although not cited as a drawback by the survey respondents, some
restorative justice practices take more time and preparation than the
routine procedures in most American courts. Although this seems to
conflict with reports of faster disposition, it should be noted that some
programs are designed to be expeditious; others -- like the family group
conferences practiced in New Zealand and Canada[18] -- aim to transform
relationships. Building a solution that blends support, involved
partnerships, and an involved community takes time, but it may well be
worth it.

Q. What conclusions have you come to as you end your fellowship?

A. The evidence has convinced me that the restorative justice model has
great potential to coexist with the existing incapacitative and retributive
models and to contribute to greater well-being for victims and
communities. I started this fellowship with a keen interest in citizen
satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Most of the practitioners and
policymakers I've talked with in the past 20 years have expressed similar
interests. The restorative justice approach makes us look through a
different lens, to envision a new paradigm for addressing the disruption
crime causes victims and communities.

I've come to believe that restorative justice is a logical next step in a
number of national trends. First, it is an integral part of the movement to
involve communities in solving their crime problems and encourage
justice components to participate in community solutions. Justice agencies
no longer simply interpret case law and process offenders. They are part of
the "devolution" of Federal responsibility that gives local communities a
greater role in criminal justice processes.

It is also an integral part of "reinventing" government, because it
encourages flexibility and interdisciplinary efforts among the parties that
are closest to the source of problems.[19] Both reinventing government
and restorative justice push to clearly link existing policies, expenditures,
and results.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that our institutions must change as
society evolves and matures. It is apparent that we are in a time of change,
and our system of justice must change as well. Fortunately, the impending
transition to involve the community and the victim has the potential to be
a positive one.

Notes

1. Doble, John, Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of
Vermont -- A Report to the Vermont Department of Corrections,
Englewood, NJ: John Doble Research Associates, Inc., 1994. See also
Doble, John, Stephen Immerwahr, and Amy Richardson, Punishing
Criminals: The People of Delaware Consider the Options, a report
prepared by the Public Agenda Foundation for the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation, New York: William S. Fell Co., 1991; John Doble Research
Associates, Inc., Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of
Oregon, a report prepared by the Oregon State-Centered Project for the
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Englewood, NJ: 1995; and "Media
Crime Wave Continues: Crime News Quadrupled in Four Years,"
Overcrowded Times (February 1996):3.

2. Braithwaite, John, Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Braithwaite calls the process
"reintegrative shaming."

3. Consedine, Jim, Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime,
Lyttleton, New Zealand: Ploughshares Publications, 1995; Melton, Ada
Pecos, "Indigenous Justice Systems and Tribal Society," Judicature
79(3)(November-December 1995):126-133; and Meyer, Manu, "To Set
Right -- Ho'oponopono: A Native Hawaiian Way of Peacemaking," The
Compleat Lawyer (Fall 1995). See also Accord 14(1)(June 1995) for a
collection of articles related to historical aspects of restorative justice.

4. The survey recipients were participants in discussion groups at
professional gatherings between mid-1995 and mid-1996. All survey
respondents had at least some knowledge of restorative justice. Some had
only limited exposure; others had more extensive understanding of the
philosophy, programs, and research findings. Of the 290 surveys mailed,
145 usable surveys were returned by the deadline. Respondents were
asked to rate statements on a five-point scale from "very positive" to "very
negative."

5. Most of the research on alternative approaches to increasing victim
satisfaction involves victim-offender mediation, which has grown
significantly in the past 15 years. There are now more than 650
community mediation programs in the United States involving almost
20,000 volunteer mediators. See Ray, Larry, "Overview of Community
Mediation," an unpublished report prepared by the National Association
for Community Mediation, Washington, DC, 1996. See also Ray, Erica,
"Multidoor Courthouse," in National Symposium on Court-Connected
Dispute Resolution Research: A Report on Current Research Findings --
Implications for Courts and Future Research Needs, ed. Susan Keilitz,
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1994.

For examples of international experiences, see Pelikan, Crista, "Conflict
Resolution Between Victim and Offender in Austria and the Federal
Republic of Germany," in Crime in Europe, ed. Frances Heidensohn and
Martin Farrell, London, England: Routledge, 1991:167; Umbreit, Mark,
with Robert B. Coates and Boris Kalanj, Victim Meets Offender: The
Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation, Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press, 1994; Coates, Robert B., Victim Meets Offender: An
Evaluation of Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs, Valparaiso, IN:
PACT Institute of Justice, 1985; and Roberts, Tim, "Evaluation of the
Victim-Offender Mediation Project: Final Report for the Solicitor
General," an unpublished report, Langley, British Columbia, Canada,
1995.

6. A review in 10 sites and 3 countries found that victim satisfaction with
the outcome of mediation ranged from 84 to 90 percent. See, for example,
Umbreit, with Coates and Kalanj, Victim Meets Offender. See also Vera
Institute of Justice, "Mediation and Arbitration as Alternatives to
Prosecution in Felony Arrest Cases: An Evaluation of the Brooklyn
Dispute Resolution Center (First Year)," New York: Vera Institute of
Justice, 1978.

7. Roberts, "Evaluation of the Victim-Offender Mediation Project."

8. Young, Marlene, "Restorative Community Justice: A Call to Action," a
discussion draft paper presented by the National Organization for Victim
Assistance, Washington, DC, 1995.

9. Umbreit, with Coates and Kalanj, Victim Meets Offender; and Roberts,
"Evaluation of the Victim-Offender Mediation Project."

10. For example, a study in Utah indicated that juveniles involved in
robbery, assault, burglary, theft, auto theft, and vandalism who agreed to
or were ordered to pay restitution had, after 1 year, lower rates of
recidivism (32 percent) than similar offenders who did not (38 percent).
Schneider, Anne, "Restitution and Recidivism Rates of Juvenile
Offenders: Results from Four Experimental Studies," Criminology
24(3)(August 1986); and Butts, Jeffrey A., and Howard N. Snyder,
"Restitution and Recidivism," Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, September 1992.

For cases informally handled through diversion programs, for example, the
difference was even greater: Those involved with restitution had a
12-percent recidivism rate compared with a 20-percent rate for those not
so involved. These findings are consistent with a 1989 national evaluation
of restitution and recidivism that indicated that, in three of the four sites
evaluated, the restitution group had lower repeat offense rates in the 3-year
followup period than the control group. The sites were Boise, Idaho;
Washington D.C.; Clayton County, Georgia; and Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma. The nonrestitution alternative differed in the four jurisdictions.
Statistics were significant at the .05 level in two jurisdictions and at .27 in
the third. In the fourth site, there was no difference between the two
groups. National Trends in Juvenile Restitution Programming,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, July 1989:9-10.

11. Stutz, William, Victim Awareness Education Program Evaluation,
Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Corrections, May 1994.
See also Umbreit, with Coates and Kalanj, Victim Meets Offender;
Schneider, "Restitution and Recidivism Rates of Juvenile Offenders"; and
Consedine, Restorative Justice, 24.

12. See, for example, Clark, S.H., E. Valente, Jr., and R.R. Mace,
Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes: An Evaluation of North Carolina's
Programs, Chapel Hill, NC: Mediation Network of North Carolina, 1992.
The findings were statistically significant, however, in only one of the
three counties studied. As with other studies, victims in the diverted
projects reported high satisfaction.

13. For the cases referred to mediation, the number of repeat calls for
service to the same address dropped 83 percent (from 272 to 47) compared
to callbacks for cases processed routinely, which dropped 17 percent (from
118 to 98). Researchers theorize that the dispute settlement approach is
better able to solve repeat problems, thus freeing up substantial police
time. Shepard, Roosevelt, "Executive Summary, Neighborhood Dispute
Settlement: An Evaluation Report," Harrisburg, PA: Board of Directors,
Neighborhood Dispute Settlement of Dauphine County, 1995. Subsequent
updated data were submitted by Program Director Stephen J. Roy.

14. Clark, Valente, and Mace, Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes; and
Umbreit, Mark, How To Increase Referrals to Victim-Offender Mediation
Programs, Ontario, Canada: Fund for Dispute Resolution, 1993.

15. Keilitz (ed.), National Symposium on Court-Connected Dispute
Resolution Research.

16. Recently, 47 percent of police chiefs and sheriffs surveyed were
unclear about the practical meaning of community policing. See Wycoff,
Mary Ann, Community Policing Strategies, Research Preview,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1995.

17. In 1994, the American Bar Association (ABA) endorsed
victim-offender dialogue programs urging that the choice to participate be
voluntary. "ABA Endorsement of Victim-Offender Mediation/Dialogue
Programs," approved by the ABA House of Delegates, August 1994,
unpublished paper. Victim advocates joined in the ABA's
recommendations.

18. Burford, Gale, and Joan Pennell, "Family Group Decision Making:
Generating Indigenous Structures for Resolving Family Violence,"
Protecting Children 12(3)(1996); McElrea, F.W.M., "Restorative Justice:
The New Zealand Youth Court: A Model for Development in Other
Courts?" Journal of Judicial Administration 4(1994); and Immarigeon,
Russ, "Family Conferences, Juvenile Offenders, and Accountability," The
New York State Child Advocate 3(Fall 1994).

19. Gaebler, Ted, and David Osborne, Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992.

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

Varieties of Restorative Justice Practices

Victim impact statements provide an opportunity for victims to express
their concerns to the prosecutors and the court. 

Victim impact panels give victims an opportunity to confront groups of
offenders -- not necessarily the ones who committed their crimes -- and to
talk about the anger and hurt caused by the crime.

Family group conferences are an indigenous Maori approach recently
being adapted to the majority culture in some areas of New Zealand,
Australia, and the United States. These group victim-offender mediations
include family members of both victims and offenders.[1]

Sentencing circles are an American and Canadian Indian approach that is
being revived. They involve a wide array of interested parties, including
those closest to the victim and offender and others likely to affect their
future. Saskatchewan is increasingly using sentencing circles.[2]

The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) project, which is supported
by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention and is in place in several sites,[3] calls for every
sanction involving juveniles to include consideration of public safety,
accountability to victim and community, and the development of
competency by offenders.

Vermont uses citizen reparative boards to determine the nature and details
of the conditions of probation for convicted offenders. Trained volunteers
provide offenders with a clear understanding of the impact their crimes
had on the community as well as an appropriate and relevant assignment
to repair the damage.

Restorative justice sentencing plans are being developed in Winnipeg,
Canada, as strategies that are individualized to the offender and victim and
are cost-effective sanctions that help repair the harm.[4]

Notes

1. McElrea, F.W.M., "Restorative Justice -- The New Zealand Youth
Court: A Model for Development in Other Courts?" Journal of Judicial
Administration 4(1994); and Immarigeon, Russ, "Family Conferences,
Juvenile Offenders, and Accountability," The New York State Child
Advocate 3(Fall 1994).

2. Stuart, Barry, "Circle Sentencing -- Mediation and Consensus: Turning
Swords into Ploughshares," Accord 14(1)(June 1995).

3. Bazemore, Gordon, and Mark Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative
Justice Program Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 1994.

4. The Restorative Resolutions Project in operation in Winnipeg, Canada,
prepares client-specific plans based on restorative principles. See
Galaway, Burt, and Gord Richardson, "Evaluation of the Restorative
Resolutions Project of The John Howard Society of Manitoba, Final
Report," Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba, June 1995.

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

Protecting Public Transportation From Terrorists

by Eric Barnes

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

Eric Barnes is the operations and planning coordinator with the National
Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-Southeast Region.
Contributors to this article include Marj P. Leaming, Ph.D., NIJ program
manager, and Linda Cavazos, NIJ intern.

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

Few Americans have been victims of terrorist attacks, but the general
public's peace of mind and confidence in Federal, State, and local
government can be shattered by such devastating events as the bombings
at the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building, and
Atlanta's Centennial Park. These acts have underscored the harsh reality
that citizens of the United States are not immune from terrorist targeting.

The number of terrorist groups have grown substantially during the 1990s,
both domestically and internationally. The U.S. Department of State has
designated 30 foreign extremist organizations as terrorist groups; many of
these operate within the United States.[1] The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has identified an ever-increasing number of organized
or ad hoc domestic terrorist groups with political and social agendas.

When President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) on April 24, 1996, he ensured
that developing strategies and enhancing capabilities to combat domestic
and international threats will continue to receive high priority.

Transit systems as targets

Metropolitan public transportation networks are enticing targets for
terrorists because they typically carry large numbers of people in a
concentrated, predictable geographic area under routine timeframes. (See
"What Is Land Transportation?") They also are highly accessible.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there were 702
violent attacks against transportation and transportation infrastructures
worldwide in 1996. Fewer than 2 percent of these attacks occurred in the
United States. In addition, the U.S. Department of State recorded 296
international terrorist attacks in 1996. Ninety-two of these attacks -- or
nearly one-third -- were against transportation and transportation
infrastructures.[2]

European, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries rely on their public transit
systems more heavily than the United States and have experienced more
terrorist attacks than the United States. Yet even officials in these more
experienced countries could not prevent the Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo
subway or bombings on Paris trains.

Most American cities give responsibility for transportation security to their
municipal law enforcement agencies, although some larger municipalities
support specifically designated transportation security forces. These
officers are trained to handle assault, larceny, vandalism, fare evasion, and
similar offenses, but most lack the specialized training and advanced
protective gear and equipment needed to respond to the enormous death
and destruction that can occur in a terrorist attack.

Formulating the Federal policy response

The Federal response to protecting public transportation systems involves
many agencies working toward two primary goals: (1) to enhance the
capability of local agencies to detect and prevent a terrorist attack, and (2)
to improve the emergency response and containment capabilities after an
attack.

Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) is leading the effort to identify technology needs and priorities,
develop enhanced capabilities, and bring newly developed products to the
commercial market. To accomplish its goal, NIJ participates in the
activities of three groups with different missions related to
counterterrorism: (1) the G-7 plus Russia, which is composed of
policymakers and experts with an international focus; (2) the Infrastructure
Protection Task Force, which works to prevent terrorist acts against the
infrastructures of the United States; and (3) the Technical Support
Working Group, which focuses on developing technology to respond to all
types of domestic terrorism. Each is discussed below.

The G-7 plus Russia. The advanced industrial nations (Canada, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the United States -- the G-7 --
plus Russia) met at the Lyons Summit in France on July 30, 1996, and
adopted a 25-point plan calling for close cooperation in international
efforts to combat terrorist acts. The plan included tightened control on
firearms and explosives, improved bomb detection methods, prevention of
terrorist communications on the Internet, and faster exchange of
information on terrorist activities, including those involving chemical,
biological, or nuclear materials.

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno led the United States delegation to the
Lyons Summit. Based on commitments made at the Lyons meeting, two
gatherings for land transportation security policymakers were held in
Washington, D.C., in November 1996 and April 1997. The international
strategy continues to develop through these cooperative meetings.

Infrastructure Protection Task Force. This domestic interagency task force,
which is chaired by the FBI, is mandated by Congress and the President to
identify and coordinate government and private-sector efforts to protect
the United States' critical infrastructures from debilitating threats and
ensure their continued operation.[3]

Transportation is one of the eight critical national infrastructures
determined by the President and Congress to be of such importance that its
incapacity or destruction would have a dramatic effect on the defense,
economic security, and public welfare of the United States.[4] Many of the
critical infrastructures are privately owned and operated, thus necessitating
a partnership between the private sector and government agencies.

The task force considers both physical threats to facilities and cyberthreats
to controlling information components. Participants are:

Federal Bureau of Investigation (chair)

Department of Justice

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Transportation

Central Intelligence Agency

Defense Information Systems Agency

National Communications System

National Security Agency

Department of the Treasury

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technical Support Working Group. The Department of Justice also
participates in the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), which was
established by the National Security Council's Policy Coordinating
Committee on Terrorism. TSWG conducts rapid prototyping research and
development related to counterterrorism, with primary funding from the
U.S. Departments of State and Defense. Members of the U.S. Departments
of Defense and Energy cochair the group.

TSWG brings together technical developers, such as national laboratories,
to discuss how technology can best meet identified needs, the level of
effort required to develop capabilities, and ways to commercialize
products. TSWG's designated research priorities through fiscal year 1998
include the following:

o A new first-responder mask, designed for chemical and biological
weapons protection and ease of breathing and adequate vision, that
provides 12-hour protection in a one-size-fits-all design.

o A mechanical car bomb extractor consisting of a saw mounted on an
articulating arm that would be integrated with existing bomb squad robots
to provide remote operations and removal.

o A portable, easy-to-use, real-time, and digital X-ray unit to inspect
suspicious packages.

o A small percussion-activated nonelectric device that fires shotgun
cartridges filled with liquid at a bomb and disrupts the bomb's circuitry but
leaves evidence intact.

o An enhanced explosives ordnance disposal suit providing blast
resistance and chemical and biological protection in a single unit.

o A chemical and biological mitigation system consisting of a tent filled
with aqueous foam placed around a bomb delivery device to mitigate
dispersion effects.

o Several enhanced chemical agent detection devices.

Focus groups help define needs and identify priorities

As the United States prepared its position paper on counterterrorism for
submission to the G-7, NIJ and the U.S. Department of Transportation
surveyed select groups of people closely involved in issues of terrorist
attacks on land transportation systems, including first responders and
transportation security officials. (See "Assessing Technology Needs to
Combat Terrorism.")

Transportation and security officials served as a sounding board for an
upcoming international conference on land transportation security
technology. (See "International Conference on Land Transportation
Security Technology.") Participants were particularly interested in training
packages and products, especially a new training program the Bureau of
Justice Assistance is offering to first responders in more than 140
jurisdictions. (See "For More Information . . . .")

Formulating the field response

NIJ's response to identified counterterrorism needs falls into two broad
categories -- technology and training.

Develop new technologies. NIJ is entering the second year of an initiative
to put better counterterrorism tools into the hands of State and local law
enforcement officers. (See "Examples of Counterterrorism Technology.")
NIJ's approach, which takes advantage of existing technology to maximize
the impact of the funds provided by Congress, is two-pronged:

o Identify potential solutions related to infrastructure security, hostage
rescue, explosive detection and remediation, and information technology.
These activities are managed for NIJ by the Joint Program Steering Group
(which is cosponsored by NIJ and the U.S. Department of Defense's
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and coordinated with
agencies involved in combating terrorism, such as the FBI.

o Develop standards for these new technologies funded by NIJ and
managed by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Law
Enforcement Standards.

Several research and development efforts are already generating products.
Two examples of concealed weapon detection systems are now being
demonstrated. A highly sensitive prototype electromagnetic system with a
low false alarm rate is being demonstrated in Bannock County, Idaho. A
portable, through-the-wall surveillance system that employs radar
technology was demonstrated with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department during summer 1997. In addition, NIJ, the FBI, and the U.S.
Navy will participate in the evaluation of a state-of-the-art, X-ray-based
explosive diagnostic system.

As new technology develops and existing technology improves, NIJ
identifies and upgrades high-priority advancements in combating terrorism
and creates new standards to ensure that those technologies are adequate
and compatible with other relevant systems.[5]

Training for first responders. To give law enforcement and first responders
practice handling terrorist attacks, NIJ, through its National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-Southeast Region, is
developing a mock transportation security exercise in partnership with
Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

The exercise will provide a venue for selected law enforcement and
transportation security agencies to face various scenarios of hostage,
explosive, and chemical attacks on public transportation systems.[6] It will
also showcase new products and technologies to support the
counterterrorism operation and demonstrate their capabilities. The rail
lines, tunnels, and facilities at Oak Ridge, supplemented by actual public
transit railcars and buses, will provide an excellent training ground for this
endeavor.

Videotape and training materials regarding the operation and application
of technological tools will be produced and provided to law enforcement,
transportation security, and public safety agencies.

Training for bomb disposal teams. Another hands-on training experience,
Operation Albuquerque, is a series of exercises designed for teams that
handle bombs and other explosives. NIJ is sponsoring the training in
conjunction with Sandia National Labs and the National Law Enforcement
Corrections and Technology Center-Rocky Mountain Region.

Sandia Labs staff plant mock explosive devices throughout Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and participant teams try to locate and defuse them.
Realistic scenarios test the planning, procedures, and command and
control of emergency bomb response operations. The exercise also
showcases technology and evaluates products such as a bomb disabler that
will be used against low-yield explosive devices.

Interactive training resources. NIJ is developing training tools to help law
enforcement agencies learn about virtual reality and training simulation
technology. These tools are being developed in partnership with the
University of Central Florida, the Naval Air Warfare Center Training
Systems Division, and the U.S. Army Simulation, Training &
Instrumentation Command.

The interactive Bomb Threat Training Simulator gives land transportation
security personnel training related to bomb threats. The training consists of
three modules, each of which responds to a particular aspect of a typical
bomb threat scenario: receipt of the threat, assessment of its seriousness,
and response; proper searching of the building; and selection of evacuation
routes. The simulation ends with an evaluation of the trainees'
performance. The computer-based nature of the training allows a greater
number of people to be trained than might otherwise be possible due to
time, cost, or operational considerations.

Another interactive simulator training is the Weapons Team Engagement
Trainer, which provides trainees an opportunity to confront armed
adversaries in an interactive, realistic scenario. Through the training,
hostage rescue units and SWAT teams improve their decisionmaking,
tactical, and marksmanship skills. Wall-sized video screens play scenarios
for users outfitted with specially designed weapons and Multiple
Integrated Laser Engagement Systems (MILES) that record when both
offenders and users are "hit." Cameras record trainee actions so the system
can replay scenes and stress important points.

Plowshares is another interactive emergency management training
program. Now under development by the U.S. Army, the system was
originally designed to train personnel to respond to natural disasters, but it
can be modified to portray a scenario in which terrorists attack public
transportation networks. Plowshares offers training on coordinating a
response to large-scale disasters.

Transferring excess Federal property to local law enforcement. To enhance
transportation security, the Section 1033 Program (named for the
legislation that created it) allows State and local law enforcement and
public safety agencies to acquire U.S. Department of Defense equipment
for use against terrorism at no (or low) cost. Coupled with standard State
surplus programs and the complementary 1122 Program (which authorizes
State use of the General Services Administration purchasing procedures),
the Section 1033 Program can greatly enhance the capability of agencies
with counterterrorism responsibilities by making it easier for them to
purchase equipment. NIJ is the U.S. Department of Justice focal point for
these excess property programs.[7]

The commitment

The Attorney General is committed to thwarting and apprehending both
foreign and domestic terrorists who attempt to commit criminal acts
against U.S. citizens. Enhancing the capability of State and local law
enforcement and public safety officers to counter terrorism requires the
combined efforts of many agencies working collaboratively. These efforts
involve identifying areas for research and development, sharing the
lessons learned from past domestic and international encounters with
terrorists, and developing and applying appropriate training and
operational techniques.

Notes

1. Giacomo, Carol, "U.S. Designates 30 Foreign Groups as Terrorist,"
Reuters National News, October 8, 1997.

2. U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 1996, Office of
the Secretary of State, Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
Department of State Publication No. 10433, April 1997.

3. The Infrastructure Protection Task Force (IPTF) was created on July 15,
1996, when President Clinton signed Executive Order 13010. IPTF is a
component of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection.

4. In addition to transportation, the task force may consider other major
infrastructure categories, including banking and finance, continuity of
government services, electrical power, emergency services, gas and oil
distribution and storage, telecommunications, and water supply systems.

5. Among the standards now in development are NIJ Standard 0101.03,
"Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor"; NIJ Standard 0601.00,
"Walk-Through Metal Detectors for Use in Weapons Detection"; and NIJ
Standard 0603.00, "X-ray Systems for Bomb Disarmament." Other tasks
include the development of law enforcement community communications
standards, concealed weapons detectors operating on different physical
principles from those of existing metal detectors, and digital
communications intercept systems.

6. Participation at training sessions is by invitation only. For more
information, contact NLECTC-Rocky Mountain Region at 800-416-8086.

7. For more information, contact Ken Dover at NLECTC-Southeast
Region at 800-292-4385.

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

What Is Land Transportation?

Land transportation in the United States represents approximately $777
billion, or 11 percent of the gross domestic product. Disruption of
transportation infrastructure affects a massive network of commuters and
travelers, businesses, and military activities that depend on the rapid
movement of people and products.

Presently, the definition of "land transportation" is evolving, but the
general components include:

Land

o 3.9 million miles of public roads and highways.

o 6.9 million freight trucks, driven 0.2 trillion miles.

o 58 million light trucks, driven 0.7 trillion miles.

o 686,000 buses, driven 8.4 billion miles.

o 136 million personal vehicles, driven 1.5 trillion miles.

Pipelines

o 114,000 miles of crude oil pipelines, transporting 323 billion ton-miles.

o 276,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines.

o 919,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines.

Rail and Transit

o 170,433 miles of railroad track.

o 1.2 million freight cars and 18,800 locomotives, carrying 1.3 trillion
ton-miles.

o 1,921 passenger cars and 356 passenger locomotives, carrying 20.7
million passengers.

o 43,723 transit buses, traveling 17.2 billion passenger-miles.

o 9,048 rapid and light rail trains, traveling 11.5 billion passenger-miles.

o 4,300 commuter railways, traveling 8.0 billion passenger-miles.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Transportation in the United States: A Review, Washington,
DC: 1997.

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

Assessing Technology Needs to Combat Terrorism

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Public Law 104-132),
signed April 24, 1996, authorized $5 million in fiscal year 1997 for the
U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs to develop
training services for local firefighters and emergency services personnel
and $10 million to develop counterterrorism technologies.

To determine the technology needs of State and local law enforcement,
NIJ went to the practitioners. With help from four of its regional National
Corrections and Law Enforcement Technology Centers, NIJ conducted
interviews and discussions in May 1997 with 195 representatives from 138
agencies across the country. These representatives were drawn from State
government, large and small municipalities, rural and regional agencies,
and a number of law enforcement disciplines, including transportation
security agencies, SWAT teams, hostage rescue units, and bomb squads.
The assessment is ongoing and should be completed in spring 1998. The
interim findings formed the basis of NIJ's fiscal year 1998
counterterrorism technology development program.

Among the most pressing issues raised by law enforcement participants
were cyberterrorism, intelligence collection and sharing, and improving
the ability to deal with weapons of mass destruction in situations such as
bomb threats, hostage rescues, and attacks on mass transit. Among the
most often cited technology needs to combat terrorism were the following:

o A secure national intelligence database accessible by State and local law
enforcement agencies.

o A better means of detecting and classifying explosive devices in a timely
manner.

o A secure communications link between those who first respond to the
scene.

o An improved means of detecting and classifying chemical and biological
agents in a timely manner.

o An interagency communications system for crisis management --
interoperability for the many public safety agencies that respond to the
scene. Interoperability is the ability of firefighters, for example, to
communicate with the police department's bomb squad and medical
emergency teams.

A review of the inventory of needs points to the fact that the capabilities
needed to combat terrorism are the same as those needed to combat crime
in general, with the possible exception of the capability to address the
threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Overall, the technology
needs expressed by participants in this inventory correspond with the
technology development efforts NIJ has undertaken to address law
enforcement needs in general.

For a copy of the study, State and Local Law Enforcement Technology
Needs to Combat Terrorism -- Volume I: Inventory of Needs (January
1998), write to Dr. Peter Nacci, Deputy Chairman of the Joint Program
Steering Group, National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street N.W.,
Room 7208, Washington, DC 20531.

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

International Conference on Land Transportation Security Technology

More than 20 percent of terrorist activities occur on land transportation
systems, including trains, buses, subways, and roadways. In response to
the need to protect these systems, the National Institute of Justice, the U.S.
Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Transportation will
cosponsor the first international conference to feature new technologies
and best practices to combat terrorist activity against land transportation
systems.

The conference will be held at the Marriott Marquis in Atlanta, Georgia,
April 7-9, 1998. Both domestic and international presenters (particularly
from the G-7 nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy,
Japan, and the United States -- plus Russia), will discuss current and
emerging terrorist threats, results from case studies, lessons learned and
techniques developed during response to terrorist actions, and new
technologies. Featured technologies will include the following:

o Explosive and chemical detection systems and sensors.

o Surveillance systems and technologies.

o Information systems security and multijurisdictional command and
control structure.

o Emergency management.

o Protection/mitigation.

o Terrorism vulnerability assessments.

o Overview of 29 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 1910, hazardous
materials protection.

o Hands on, simulation, and virtual reality training tools.

o Enhancement of first-responder capabilities through the International
Association of Chiefs of Police "First Responder Practical Exercise."

Policymakers, transportation security professionals, and first responders
(local and State law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services
personnel) should attend. For information on attending or exhibiting at the
conference, call Marina Leight at Government Technology, 916-363-5000,
ext. 3764, or e-mail mleight@govtech.net.

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

For More Information . . .

A great deal of information is available on terrorism and counterterrorism.
Some of the best sources are listed below:

o The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers:
http://www.nlectc.org; NLECTC-National, 800-248-2742.

o Infrastructure Protection Task Force World Wide Web home page:
http://www.fbi.gov/programs/iptf/iptf.htm.

o Transit Security Newsletter, Office of Safety and Security, Federal
Transit Administration:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/program/tsn/tsn.htm.

o U.S. Department of Transportation Web page: http://www.dot.gov.

o U.S. Department of State Web page:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/index.html.

o For information about first responder training, order FY 1997
Metropolitan Firefighter and Emergency Services National Training
Program for First Responders to Terrorist Incidents, Bureau of Justice
Assistance Fact Sheet, FS 000185, from the BJA Clearinghouse, 800-688-
4252, or obtain a copy electronically from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja
(click on "Special Programs").

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

Examples of Counterterrorism Technology

Technologies under development that could be applied to counterterrorism
efforts include the following:

o "Bullet resistant" vests with titanium or ceramic inserts that are
lightweight, inconspicuous, and protect against rifle and handgun fire.
Enhanced helmets of the same materials are also being developed.

o Weapons detection systems that can identify a weapon containing little
or no metal at a distance of 30 feet. Multiple technologies are being
evaluated (X-ray sensors, a sensor system combining passive millimeter
wave and infrared cameras, a sensor system combining ultrasound and
radar sensors, and a low magnetic sensor system). Current efforts are
based on portal applications; portable and handheld systems are
long-range goals. The Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, New
York, and the Office of Science and Technology's National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-Northeast Region are
key players in this effort.

o Less-than-lethal incapacitation technologies that are both legal and
socially acceptable include eye-safe laser dazzlers, pyrotechnic devices,
enhanced pepper spray delivery systems, and net devices.

o Information sharing systems that involve both tactical communications
and existing commercial communications, such as the Internet and cellular
telephones, are being evaluated. Architectures that exchange and retrieve
data and are protected by firewalls and encryption devices, such as the
National Security Agency's FORTEZZA Card, are being demonstrated.
The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-
Rocky Mountain Region has just finished documenting the requirements
needed for a communication system that can be used for crisis
management involving multiple public safety agencies and more than one
jurisdiction.

o Sniper fire identification systems capable of detecting and locating a
sniper to within a 10- by 10-foot area in either urban or rural
environments. The effort is focusing on developing systems that can be
handcarried, worn, or mounted on vehicles. Acoustic, integrated infrared
and/or laser systems to track shots fired back to their source are being
evaluated.

o Location and tagging systems that identify and monitor the movement of
individuals and vehicles. Accurate tagging and navigation technologies
include Global Positioning Systems, command and control systems, and
Global Information Systems. These technologies need enhancements and
miniaturization to be incorporated into decisionmaking support, to
promote rapid response to critical events, and to enhance officer
protection.

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

Research Preview

Sentencing Guidelines: A State Perspective

Summary of a Presentation by James Austin, National Council on Crime
and Delinquency

Sentencing reform legislation mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s. Amid
public cries of "Get tough on crime," State policymakers across the Nation
responded with stricter and harsher sentencing guidelines and laws, such
as truth in sentencing, three strikes and you're out, and mandatory
minimum sentences. These forms of structured sentencing are intended to
reduce both leniency and bias by limiting the discretion of prosecutors,
defense counsel, judges, prison officials, and parole boards whose actions
at various points in the criminal justice system affect sentences.

With funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA), the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency (NCCD) documented recent State sentencing legislation and
current practices. Preliminary findings indicate an initial flurry of State
interest in determinate sentencing, in which the offender is given a fixed
term that may be reduced by "good-time" credits. Nearly three-fourths of
States, however, have retained indeterminate sentencing, in which an
administrative agency -- typically a parole board -- has the authority to
release an offender and to revoke parole. A number use a blend of the two
sentencing structures. In addition, all States use some version of
mandatory minimum sentences, which are imposed by statute and target
habitual offenders and such crimes as possession of a deadly weapon,
driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and drug trafficking
and possession.

In the juvenile justice system, States are making it easier to transfer
youthful offenders to adult courts. Some States are now allowing juvenile
records to be used in future adult court proceedings, opening juvenile court
proceedings to the public, and making the family, as well as the offender,
more accountable for crimes committed.

Adult corrections

The survey of State sentencing practices revealed that 36 States and the
District of Columbia continue to use indeterminate sentencing.
Additionally, the vast majority of States, including those that have adopted
determinate and sentencing guideline models, retain some form of
discretionary parole release, such as the use of good-time credits and
postrelease supervision. Only Hawaii and Utah do not allow inmates to
earn some type of good-time credit to reduce their sentences or hasten
their eligibility for parole.

Although most States retain indeterminate sentencing, sentencing in many
States is becoming more determinate through the increased use of
mandatory minimums, truth in sentencing (in which inmates are required
to serve a certain percentage of their sentences), and reductions in the
amount of good-time credits an inmate can potentially earn.

To date, 19 States and the Federal Government have sentencing
commissions, while 17 States have implemented either presumptive
sentencing guidelines (which are developed by sentencing commissions,
prescribe policies for officials to follow, and provide procedures for
departing from the guidelines) or voluntary/advisory sentencing
guidelines. Of these 17 States, 10 use presumptive guidelines while 7
States' guidelines are voluntary or advisory. (Some States have both
sentencing commissions and sentencing guidelines. However, some States
with sentencing commissions have not yet adopted guidelines, while in
one State -- Tennessee -- the commission was abolished though the
guidelines remain.)

Juvenile justice

Across the Nation, States are facilitating the process of transferring
juveniles to adult court by adding specific transferable offenses and by
lowering the maximum age for the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
Twenty-three States changed their exclusion laws (legislation specifying
which offenses are excluded from the juvenile court's jurisdiction and
must be handled in adult court) by adding crimes to be excluded, and six
lowered the age limit at which a juvenile can be transferred. Ten States
changed their judicial waiver laws (legislation enabling the juvenile judge
to waive the juvenile to adult court) by adding crimes to be waived, and 11
lowered the age limit for waivers.

As of 1995, 47 States allowed judicial waivers based on such factors as
age, current offense, criminal history, and possibility for rehabilitation.
Thirty-seven States had provisions for statutory exclusions. Eleven States
provided for prosecutorial waivers, which allow the prosecutor to decide
which court will have jurisdiction when the juvenile and adult courts have
concurrent jurisdiction. Also, 22 States provided for reverse waivers,
which allow the criminal court to transfer cases from adult to juvenile
court under certain circumstances. In 18 States, once a juvenile is waived
to adult court, all subsequent charges are prosecuted in adult court.

Possible effects on prison populations

NCCD's research included projecting prison populations for approximately
22 States. Data show that, as of mid-1997, more than 1.2 million people
were incarcerated in the United States. If current practices continue,
researchers predict, this figure will rise to 1.4 million by the year 2000. In
addition, they note that if all States adopt truth-in-sentencing regulations,
as proposed by the Federal Government, prison populations could increase
by an additional 200,000 to 300,000 by 2000. Throughout the States
included in NCCD studies, incarceration rates have gradually risen since
the early 1980s. 

These numbers are not driven by an influx of prisoners into the system --
overall increases in sentence lengths are the primary factor in prison
population increases. According to NCCD researchers, in the past 5 years
the average prison stay has increased to 48 months from 30 months. This
has caused a "stacking effect" in prisons (i.e., inmates with very long
sentences cannot be released for many years), so that, with more offenders
receiving sentences of up to 25 years to life, it is only when inmates die in
prison that the population will stabilize or begin to decline.

Future developments

It is likely that in the next decade the States will continue to move toward
more blended systems of determinate and indeterminate sentencing. To
achieve more flexibility in sentencing, many States that passed fixed
sentencing guidelines are now beginning to use indeterminate sentences
with parole for certain types of offenses, whereas States with
indeterminate sentencing practices are assigning fixed sentence lengths to
particular crimes. 

NCCD researchers emphasize that researchers, practitioners, and
especially policymakers will find it useful to be aware of the impact of
sentencing reforms on the correctional system now and in the future. They
conclude that without major changes in sentencing laws over the next few
years, the prison population will continue to grow and to consist
increasingly of minority group members and women.

The issues raised by the adoption of sentencing reforms offer opportunities
for further study. Researchers may want to look at the efficiency of
different ways of managing an inmate population whose size and
characteristics are changing and at the relative cost-effectiveness of these
different techniques.

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

This document is based on Dr. James Austin's presentation to an audience
of researchers and criminal justice practitioners as part of NIJ's Research
in Progress Seminar Series. The study was sponsored in part by NIJ
(contract number 95-IJ-CX-0026). Dr. Austin is the Executive Vice
President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. A 60-minute
VHS videotape of the seminar, Sentencing Guidelines: A State
Perspective, is available for $19 ($24 in Canada and other countries). Ask
for NCJ 164726.

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

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

FS 000197

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

New & Noteworthy

NIJ revamps its Web page

The National Institute of Justice has completely revised its home page on
the World Wide Web -- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Bookmark this site
and stay up to date on:

o NIJ funding opportunities.

o Program activities.

o Recently released publications and products in many topic areas.

o Contact information for NIJ staff.

o Recent awards as well as the complete portfolio of NIJ research projects.

The page also includes a keyword search within NIJ, NCJRS, or OJP.NIJ
updates its home page regularly, so click the "What's New" button each
time you visit.

Training system for SWAT teams wins award

The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD)
received an Award of Excellence in Technology Transfer from the Federal
Laboratory Consortium for its upgrade of the Weapons Team Engagement
Training (WTET) system and its transfer of this technology to law
enforcement agencies.

Developed with NIJ funding, the WTET system offers a realistic,
interactive environment to train and evaluate the proficiency of hostage
rescue units and SWAT teams. It consists of wall-sized videoscreens that
play hostage scenarios for users outfitted with specially designed weapons
and laser tags that record when the user is "hit." The system can replay the
scenario and give the trainee information on the location, number of
"shots" fired, and number of hits.

The Federal Laboratory Consortium's award recognizes the outstanding
job done by member laboratories in developing and transferring
technology to outside partners, primarily in the private sector. The award
will be presented as part of the Consortium's annual Technology Transfer
Meeting in San Antonio, Texas, in May 1998.

Criminal justice programs win coveted innovations award

Programs to improve criminal justice operations were among the winners
and finalists in the most recent round of awards given by the prestigious
Innovations in American Government competition. Each year, the Ford
Foundation, which funds the competition, and Harvard University's John
F. Kennedy School of Government, which administers it in partnership
with the Council for Excellence in Government, selects 25 programs that
have taken a fresh approach to a problem in government in such areas as
criminal justice, education, transportation, and the environment.

1997 winners

o Operation Cease Fire, based in the Boston Police Department, deals with
gang violence preemptively by identifying potential "hot spots" of gang
trouble. The program has virtually eliminated deaths of young people by
guns through intervention that taps the knowledge of a wide range of
stakeholders, including clergy, community leaders, academics, and gang
members themselves. The program is summarized in Juvenile Gun
Violence and Gun Markets in Boston, by David Kennedy, Research
Preview, March 1997, FS 000160. The program is also the subject of an
NIJ-sponsored evaluation, which will be reported in forthcoming NIJ
publications.

o Structured sentencing is a legislative approach to managing prison
growth while ensuring that violent offenders serve their full sentences. The
legislation, devised by North Carolina's Sentencing and Policy Advisory
Commission and passed by the General Assembly, mandates sentences
based on the severity of the crime and the offender's record. Early-release
parole is eliminated and career and violent criminals are channeled into
longer prison stays. The program is the topic of an NIJ report, Managing
Prison Growth in North Carolina Through Structured Sentencing, by
Ronald F. Wright, Program Focus, February 1998, NCJ 168944. (See page
35 for more information.) The approach is also the subject of an
NIJ-sponsored evaluation, which will be reported in forthcoming
publications.

1997 finalists

o Disarming the criminal, a program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, aims to reduce
firearms violence by tracing illegal firearms to their sources and applying
aggressive, focused enforcement. In 1996, the netting of 2,230 traffickers
by the program prevented an estimated 53,500 firearms-related crimes.

o First Offender Prostitution Program, operated by the San Francisco
District Attorney's Office in collaboration with law enforcement, public
health, and private agencies, offers women and girls counseling and
resources to help them escape prostitution and allows "johns" who are
first-time offenders to pay a fine and attend an educational program
instead of being prosecuted.

o The Constituent Services Office of Missouri's Department of Corrections
has improved communication with and services to prisoners, lowered
costs, and reduced the number of inmate lawsuits by identifying and
addressing questions and complaints about inmate medical services,
visiting procedures, and transfer policies.

o Healthy Start, operated by the State of Hawaii's Department of Health,
prevents child abuse and neglect by identifying problems early and
offering intensive home-based services to families with young children.
Healthy Start is described in Helping To Prevent Child Abuse -- and
Future Criminal Consequences: Hawai'i Healthy Start, by Ralph B. Earle,
Program Focus, October 1995, NCJ 156216.

o Gallery 37, a program of the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs,
offers arts-based employment and skills to Chicago's 14- to 21-year-olds,
including at-risk young people. Designed to improve job skills and work
habits, Gallery 37 has attracted national and international attention.

For more information. More details about the winners and finalists from
this year and previous years and about the Innovations in American
Government program are available at Web site
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/innovations, or by calling 617-495-0558.

Video series spotlights intermediate sanctions

Judges and policy teams interested in a broader, more practical
understanding of intermediate sanctions can turn to a new instructional
video seminar series. Facilitating the Appropriate Use of Intermediate
Sanctions conveys lessons learned from almost 100 jurisdictions that have
worked with a policy team approach to intermediate sanctions. This work,
begun through the joint efforts of the State Justice Institute and the
National Institute of Corrections and its National Intermediate Sanctions
Project, provides assistance to jurisdictions around the Nation interested in
forming policy teams to guide the appropriate use of intermediate
sanctions. The Center for Effective Public Policy produced the videos.

The tapes combine footage from the April 1996 broadcast of a national
videoconference on the same topic with extensive new footage of
interviews, panel discussions, and presentations from a wide variety of
practitioners. State Justice Institute board member Tommy Jewell, a judge
in the Second Judicial District, Albuquerque, New Mexico, hosts the
series. Roger Warren, President of the National Center for State Courts
and a former judge in Sacramento, California, serves as moderator.

Titles of each module are:

o Seminar 1: An Introduction to Intermediate Sanctions for Judges.

o Seminar 2: The Judicial Role in the Development and Use of
Intermediate Sanctions.

o Seminar 3: The Policy Team's Role in the Developing and Implementing
Intermediate Sanctions.

o Seminar 4: A Guide for a Policy Team Meeting on the Appropriate Use
of Intermediate Sanctions.

The first three seminars each take about 11/2 hours to view and discuss;
the fourth requires a half-day to complete the viewing and discussion
portions. Each is accompanied by materials to guide discussion. 

A complete set of the seminars, including videotapes, instructions,
participant materials, and reference materials, is available from State
Justice Institute-designated libraries and the judicial educator in each
State. Copies of the series are also available directly from the Center for
Effective Public Policy, 8403 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910;
telephone 301-589-9383; or fax 301-589-3505. The videotapes are free,
but please include $25 for shipping and handling.

High-tech police car is online and ready to roll

The Advanced Law Enforcement and Response Technology (ALERT)
system is a powerful mix of computer and communications technology
incorporated into the front seat of police squad cars. The integrated system
is expected to revolutionize the way police officers conduct business.
Originally the brainchild of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
ALERT has evolved into a cooperative intergovernmental undertaking and
cofunded by NIJ, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and
other partners. The ALERT technology gives police officers immediate
access to information at the touch of a screen or button. The system
integrates a handheld, wireless computer with a dashboard-mounted touch
screen that controls all of a vehicle's emergency response functions,
including lights, sirens, videocameras, Global Positioning System
coordinates, radio, and radar. ALERT technology was developed by the
Texas Transportation Institute.

All necessary citation and accident forms are stored within ALERT's
handheld unit. Police officers can enter data at the scene of an incident and
access Federal, State, and local traffic and criminal records without
returning to their vehicles. Using ALERT's digital camera, officers can
capture visual information in the field and send images electronically to
local and national databases. Using the same technology, local and
national law enforcement departments can send images to officers in the
field. Depending on the complexity of an incident, an officer can reduce
data collection time 20 to 50 percent.

The ALERT system enhances officer safety by providing critical
information regarding stopped subjects and vehicles, improving data
collection and dissemination, and optimizing incident response and
management. Ultimately, the system may be customized for use in other
first-response applications, including emergency medical services,
commercial vehicle operations, and roadside services.

For more information about the ALERT vehicle, point your Web browser
to http://alert.tamu.edu, or write to Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3135.

NIJ experiences remarkable growth

Stimulated by the 1994 Crime Act, NIJ's programs and staff have grown
considerably. The portfolio of activities related to the Crime Act priority
areas (policing, violence against women, sentencing and corrections, and
drug courts) now totals roughly $60 million. The science and technology
portfolio, because of strong support from Congress, has more than tripled
in the last 2 years.

Major partnerships with other Federal agencies include a 5-year,
approximately $35 million joint research effort with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention on violence against women. NIJ and the
Office of National Drug Control Policy are launching a multisite research
demonstration project to test a systemwide approach to drug abuse among
offenders. NIJ is adding 12 new sites to the 23 now in the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. (See page 31 for more details about
ADAM.)

To learn more about NIJ's expanding programs and activities and the staff
involved in them, visit the NIJ home page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

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

Solicitations

Watch the NIJ Web page (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij) for funding
announcements, or call NCJRS at 800-851-4320 to place your name on a
mailing list to receive a specific solicitation.

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment. NIJ, in collaboration with the
Corrections Program Office, continues to assemble a portfolio of
evaluation projects to provide a comprehensive assessment of the
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners program. A
solicitation is now available that pertains to locally conducted process and
outcome evaluations of programs that develop an inmate's cognitive,
behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills to solve substance abuse
and related problems.

Process evaluations are due May 5 and September 15, 1998. Outcome
evaluations are due April 14 and August 18, 1998, and February 16, 1999.

Development of guidelines for questioned documents. NIJ will request
proposals in two interest areas: (1) development of scientifically based and
validated guidelines for evaluating and identifying questioned documents;
and (2) assessment, evaluation, and validation of the five major questioned
document database technologies (those developed by the FBI, Secret
Service, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Carol
Chaski). Funding is expected to be approximately $300,000. The release
date is anticipated to be May 1998, with a due date of August 1998.

Fellowships. NIJ offers several types of study fellowships for graduate
students, practitioners, and academics. They include the Graduate
Research Fellowship, Visiting Fellowship, Crime Mapping Fellowship,
and Data Resources Program Fellowship. Submissions are accepted
throughout the year. An announcement about the John B. Pickett
Fellowship at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government is expected soon.

Violence against women. A solicitation is expected in late April for
proposals for research and evaluation on violence against women. The
solicitation will have five parts: partnerships, experimental designs,
longitudinal studies, program evaluations, and basic research.

Law enforcement family support. A new solicitation will be issued on the
NIJ Web page on March 13 (and mailed shortly after) for proposals for
demonstration services, training, research, and criminal justice system
development related to stress reduction for police officers and their
families.

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

NIJ's investigator-initiated solicitation 

NIJ is seeking proposals for investigator-initiated criminal justice research
and development. Prospective investigators are invited to submit proposals
to explore topics relevant to State and local criminal justice policy and
practice. Awards generally range from $25,000 to $300,000 for 1- to
2-year projects. 

The deadlines for receipt of proposals under the two funding cycles are
June 16 and December 15, 1998. 

Call NCJRS at 800-851-3420 to order Solicitation for
Investigator-Initiated Research, 1998 (SL 000240). Or access NIJ on the
World Wide Web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm for online
copies and guidelines. 

Of particular interest are proposals that reflect these themes:

o Rethinking justice and the processes that create just communities.

o Understanding the nexus between crime and its social context.

o Breaking the cycle of crime by testing research-based interventions.

o Creating the tools and technologies that meet the needs of practitioners.

o Expanding the horizons through interdisciplinary and international
perspectives.

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

NIJ Awards

Recipients of ADAM awards announced

The Institute's former Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program has been
expanded and enhanced. Renamed Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM), the program added 12 new sites in December and plans to
increase the sites to 75 by the year 2000, significantly enhancing the
program's role as a research platform for conducting studies of
drug-related crime. Once fully developed, ADAM will collect information
about drug use in cities, suburbs, rural areas, and Native American sites.

The ADAM program consists of collecting and analyzing interviews and
urinalyses of adult and juvenile arrestees and detainees in police lockups
to respond to and predict drug use in ADAM communities.

The new sites are presented in exhibit 1. They join the established sites:
Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Ft.
Lauderdale, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Manhattan, Miami, New
Orleans, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San
Diego, San Jose, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C.

NIJ awards funds for law enforcement family support

The Law Enforcement Family Support program was mandated by the
1994 Crime Act to respond to the negative consequences job-related stress
can exert on law enforcement personnel and their families. 

NIJ issued two rounds of solicitations seeking proposals for innovative
approaches to reducing the stress imposed by law enforcement work. The
recipients, listed in exhibit 2, will manage projects that range from
educational training programs to counseling to peer support groups to
improved management for handling critical incidents.

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

Final Reports

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

"Preventing Assassination: Secret Service Exceptional Case Study
Project," by R.A. Fein and B. Vossekuil, ACCN 167224, 1997, 182 pp.,
grant number 92-IJ-CX-0013. The authors collected data about all persons
known to have engaged in assassination-type behaviors directed at
prominent public officials in the United States since 1949. The data
indicate that assassinations and attacks on public officials result from
patterns of discernable thinking and behavior.

"National Survey of Municipal Police Departments on Urban Quality of
Life Initiatives," by C.A. Cosgrove and A.C. Grant, ACCN 167172, 1997,
104 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0050. This study collected information on
how local agencies respond to panhandling, public incivilities, disorderly
conduct, unauthorized camping in public places, and juvenile curfews. The
analysis focused on the law enforcement response, law enforcement
tactics, and the use of ordinances to prevent public disorder problems.

"Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for
Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona," by E.P. Deschenes, S. Turner,
P.W. Greenwood, and J. Chiesa, ACCN 165181, 1996, 172 pp., grant
number 91-DD-CX-K050. Maricopa County implemented a drug testing
and alternative interventions program for adult probationers convicted of
drug possession. The findings suggest that increasing drug testing provides
a quick measure of substance use and other technical violations and that
the drug court program has been successful in providing treatment for drug
offenders but has had little impact on recidivism.

"Corporate Sector Response to Domestic Violence," by N.E. Isaac, ACCN
166617, 1997, 104 pp., grant number 94-IJ-CX-0050. The corporate sector
increasingly recognizes that domestic violence is a problem employees are
likely to bring to employee assistance programs. The study examines the
issues through interviews and an indepth case study at Polaroid
Corporation, which has been particularly proactive in responding to
domestic violence as an issue both for employees and within the
community.

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

NIJ in the Journals

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

"Boys' Experimentation and Persistence in Developmental Pathways
Toward Serious Delinquency," Journal of Child and Family Studies
6(3)(1997):321-357, by R. Loeber, K. Keenan, and Q. Zhang, ACCN
169595. Mental health professionals (for example, social workers, child
care workers, parole officers, and psychologists) need information to
better identify those young people who are most at risk, exhibit behavior
that will be only temporary or of little long-term consequence, or are likely
to show worsening problem behavior over time. In this article, the authors
expand their earlier exploration of how children's disruptive and
delinquent behavior develops over time. They distinguish between boys
who experiment and boys who persist in disruptive behavior, and they
outline pathways to serious delinquency. They also examine the
relationship between persistent disruptive behavior and a diagnosis of
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and find that the diagnosis is
more common among boys who persist than in those who experiment.

"The Effect of a Videotaped Arrest on Public Perceptions of Police Use of
Force," Journal of Criminal Justice 25(5)(1997):381-395, by E.S. Jefferis,
R.J. Kaminski, S. Holmes, and D.E. Hanley, ACCN 169147. This article
examines the impact of a controversial, violent arrest captured on
videotape and widely broadcast on local television. Findings indicate that
the videotaped arrest had a negative impact on citizens' perceptions of
force used by police during arrest situations; the effect was substantially
greater among non-Caucasians. Furthermore, over a 10-year period,
non-Caucasians were consistently more likely than Caucasians to believe
police used force excessively.

"Evaluating a Domestic Violence Program in a Community Policing
Environment: Research Implementation Issues," Crime & Delinquency
43(3)(July 1997):279-297, by A. Jolin and C.A. Moose, grant number 95-
IJ-CX-0054, ACCN 167228. The authors trace the impact of community
policing values on the formation and operation of a special domestic
violence reduction unit, which emerged as a solution to the family
violence problem in Portland, Oregon. The article highlights the
differences between the police response to domestic violence in the
context of traditional policing versus community policing. Particular
attention is paid to the role of research in police policy formation when
community policing principles are implemented.

"Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings, and a Theory of
Prevention," Valparaiso University Law Review 31(2)(Spring 1997):449-
484, by D.M. Kennedy, grant number 94-IJ-CX-0056, ACCN 169596.
Professor Kennedy explains how Boston's criminal justice and social
services agencies joined forces to reduce serious youth violence in the city.
The power of the Boston approach was enhanced by strategic use of
communication between authorities and offenders. The intervention
strategy, which he calls "pulling levers," imposed costs on offenders
across many dimensions by permitting officials to apply a varied menu of
sanctions and incentives that greatly increased the effectiveness of the
strategy.

"Recidivism Rates Among Child Molesters and Rapists: A
Methodological Analysis," Law and Human Behavior 21(6)(1997):635-
659, by R.A. Prentky, A.F.S. Lee, R.A. Knight, and D. Cerce, ACCN
169594. This article addresses the high variability of sex offender
recidivism rates by examining several of the critical methodological
differences that underlie this variability. The authors used a data set of 251
sex offenders (136 rapists and 115 child molesters) discharged over a
25-year period to examine changes in recidivism as a function of changes
in dispositional definition of reoffense (i.e., whether an offender was
arrested, indicted, or convicted of another offense), categories of criminal
offenses considered, and the length of exposure time. The data indicate
that sex offenders remain at risk to reoffend long after their discharge,
sometimes as long as 15-20 years. Forensic, clinical, and policy
implications of this high variability are discussed.

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

Recent NIJ Publications

The following recent and forthcoming NIJ publications are available in
both online and hardcopy formats. To order hardcopy, call NCJRS at 800-
851-3420; or send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Electronic copies can
be downloaded from the NIJ Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

Managing Prison Growth in North Carolina Through Structured
Sentencing, Program Focus, by Ronald F. Wright, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1998, 16 pp., NCJ 168944.
Not long ago, North Carolina's prisons were full of nonviolent,
low-priority offenders rather than violent, high-priority offenders. Today,
after a fundamental change in sentencing policy, North Carolina judges
can sentence more violent offenders to longer prison sentences while
sentencing less violent offenders to less costly alternatives. This report
describes how North Carolina's General Assembly and its Sentencing and
Policy Advisory Commission, working cooperatively, designed a
sentencing structure that increased the certainty and length of
imprisonment for the most serious felonies while creatively using
community and intermediate sanctions for lesser offenses.

National Guidelines for Death Investigation, Research Report, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1997, 48
pp., NCJ 167568. The National Institute of Justice teamed with the Bureau
of Justice Assistance and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
to develop the first set of National Guidelines for Death Investigation.
Until now there were no nationally accepted standards of practice for
conducting death-scene investigations. Then, in February 1998, the
first-ever national standards were released in the form of this 48-page
booklet. National Guidelines for Death Investigation outlines 29
guidelines for evaluating the body, establishing and recording information
to construct a profile of the decedent, and completing the scene
investigation. In addition, the report discusses 52 tools necessary to
thoroughly investigate a death scene.

National Guidelines for Death Investigation has been endorsed by the
National Association of Medical Examiners. It was produced with the
vigorous participation of the highly experienced officials and professionals
who served on the National Medicolegal Review Panel and with
grassroots input from a Technical Working Group of Death Investigators
consisting of 12 executive board members and 144 field committee
members.

Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, Research in Brief, by Mary J. Taylor, Robert
C. Epper, and Thomas K. Tolman, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, January 1998, 12 pp., NCJ 168945; and State and
Local Law Enforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability: A
Quantitative Analysis, Research Report, by Mary J. Taylor, Robert C.
Epper, and Thomas K. Tolman, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, January 1998, 130 pp., NCJ 168961. Routine police
work requires effective coordination and communication with other police
agencies, fire departments, and emergency medical services to mount a
well-coordinated response. But wireless communication across
jurisdictions -- interoperability -- can be difficult. This report presents the
results of a 1997 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center survey of State and local law enforcement agencies regarding their
current and planned use of communications equipment and services. More
than half of the agencies with outdated equipment (older than 10 years)
had plans to replace or upgrade their radio systems.

In addition to presenting the quantitative data, the report describes the
agencies' experiences with common obstacles to interoperability. Limited
funds, frequency incompatibility, and the fragmented nature of the radio
spectrum currently allocated to public safety were reported to be the
biggest interoperability problems.

As a response to the recommendations to alleviate spectrum shortfalls and
promote interoperability, the Federal Communications Commission in
January 1998 allocated 24 megahertz (Mhz) to the fixed and mobile
services for public safety use. This spectrum allocation doubles the
spectrum available to public safety services, including police, fire
departments, and emergency medical services.

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

Events

Perspectives on crime stimulate policy discussions

George Kelling on broken windows. "Broken Windows and Cultural
Pluralism" was the topic of George Kelling's lecture opening the
"Perspectives on Crime and Justice" lecture series on December 2, 1997.
Professor Kelling, a Visiting Professor at Rutgers University and Fellow at
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, discussed the core concepts
from the widely known "Broken Windows" article he authored with James
Q. Wilson, which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982. He described
the application of the concepts to today's crime issues, emphasizing that
citizens and community groups are among the best sources for crafting
solutions and establishing neighborhood priorities.

Randall Kennedy on race and reasonable searches. In the second lecture in
the series, held February 3, Randall Kennedy, Professor of Law at the
Harvard Law School, spoke about "Race, the Police, and 'Reasonable
Suspicion.'" He proposed reforms to eliminate race as a factor in law
enforcement policies related to reasonable suspicion. He emphasized that,
except in extraordinary situations, police officers should not consider the
color of a person's skin in making a decision to stop a suspect. He believes
racial considerations can poison law enforcement-citizen relationships,
but, more importantly, race is -- with few exceptions -- an invalid factor in
determining likely guilt.

David Musto on drug use in America. Knowing the history of drug use in
the United States can serve as a useful perspective on the current substance
abuse problem. David Musto, M.D., Professor of Child Psychiatry and
History of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, spoke about "The
American Experience with Stimulants and Opiates" at the third
Perspectives lecture on March 3. Dr. Musto reviewed the rise and fall of
drug epidemics and the alternating periods of tolerance for and
criminalization of drugs, and he suggested that public policy shapes the
response to drugs less than it is shaped by a constellation of social and
other factors.

The full presentations of these lectures are available on video from the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). To order Dr.
Kelling's presentation, ask for NCJ 168103; to order Professor Kennedy's
presentation, ask for NCJ 168967; to order Dr. Musto's presentation, order
NCJ 169283. Each videotape is approximately 1 hour and costs $29.50 in
the United States and $33 in Canada and other countries. The collected
papers from last year's series are available at no charge in Perspectives on
Crime and Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series, NCJ 166609. For ordering
information, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420; or send an e-mail to
askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Electronic copies of Perspectives on Crime and
Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series can be downloaded from the Justice
Information Center Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org, or from the NIJ Web
site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

Future Perspectives lectures are:

o Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology, Law, and Society,
University of California-Irvine, "If Not Prison, What? Assessing
Alternative Punishment," April 1, 1998.

o Philip J. Cook, Ph.D., Director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Policy
Studies, Duke University, "The Epidemic of Youth Gun Violence," May
5, 1998.

For more information or to register for the next Perspectives lecture,
contact the Institute for Law and Justice at 703-684-5300. Space at the
lectures is limited. To obtain information about previous Perspectives
lectures, point your Web browser to the Professional Conference Series
home page at http://www.nijpcs.org and click on "Past Conference
Materials."

Planning meetings explore new research issues

As research in a topic area continues to evolve and new issues surface, NIJ
refines its research and evaluation agenda to respond to the newest
findings and the implications for policy and practice. One method of doing
this involves holding invitation-only planning sessions with leading
practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. Recent meetings involved
child abuse and neglect, crime in Washington, D.C., and police overtime.

Child abuse and neglect interventions. Research continues to document the
link between child abuse and neglect and subsequent delinquency and
criminality. At a 2-day meeting in October 1997, 24 participants gathered
to develop research topics related to criminal justice policy and practice in
this area. Presentations focused on:

o Statutes and policies governing child abuse and neglect.

o Current services and practices.

o Child abuse and neglect interventions and theoretical perspectives.

o Federal agency initiatives and perspectives.

o Findings and lessons learned from research and intervention studies.

o Research design issues, especially as they relate to effective
demonstrations.

The commissioned papers and presentation materials are available on NIJ's
Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij) or through interlibrary loan at
NCJRS, 800-851-3420.

Crime and justice in Washington, D.C. Passage of the D.C. Revitalization
Act signed by President Clinton in August 1997 gave the District of
Columbia's criminal justice leaders an opportunity to reassess and refine
the city's criminal justice system. To support the process, NIJ sponsored a
gathering in January at which local leaders and some of the country's
foremost criminal justice thinkers shared innovative ideas, discussed
strategies that are working elsewhere in the Nation, and began establishing
an agenda for the future.

Police overtime focus group. In January 1998, NIJ hosted a focus group
concerned about overtime issues that are problematic to policymakers,
management practices that assist in controlling overtime expenditures, and
ways that the Federal Government can assist in promoting progress in the
management and control of police overtime. Participants included law
enforcement officials, court systems personnel, city managers, and labor
union representatives. Observers included representatives of law
enforcement professional associations, specialists in police integrity, and
researchers.

"Cluster conferences" bring together grantees with related projects

NIJ's research and evaluation portfolio contains a number of projects
related by topic areas, such as violence against women and drug abuse. To
foster coordination and communication among these related projects, NIJ
brings those carrying out the projects to Washington, D.C., to share
information and resources, expand their networks, and explore ways to
leverage the impact of findings. The gatherings, called "cluster
conferences," give project investigators an opportunity to describe
problems and share solutions and early findings. Three recent cluster
conferences are described below.

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment teams. Representatives from the
20 projects evaluating the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT)
programs for State and local correctional facilities met in November 1997
to share problems and solutions. RSAT is funded by the Office of Justice
Programs' (OJP's) Corrections Program Office (CPO); NIJ manages a
portfolio of evaluations, including a national evaluation project as well as
local projects. Participants outlined data collection instruments and
sources to foster comparability across the sites and discussed coordination
and collaboration of their efforts.

NIJ and CPO plan to expand the RSAT program evaluation portfolio and
are organizing national and regional meetings and workshops to support
partnerships between correctional administrators and researchers.
Information on RSAT evaluation solicitations and partnership meetings
and workshops may be obtained from the Department of Justice Response
Center at 800-421-6770 (in the Washington, D.C., area at 202-307-1480)
or on NIJ's home page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on "Search"
and enter the words "Residential Substance Abuse Treatment."

Law enforcement family support. The Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act) recognized the negative
consequences that job-related stress exerts on law enforcement personnel
and their families and mandated the establishment of the Law Enforcement
Family Support (LEFS) program. NIJ has now awarded grants to 15
agencies and organizations to develop, demonstrate, and test innovative
stress-reduction and support programs and to deliver training on how to
plan, implement, and manage stress-reduction and family support
programs and services. (See page 33 for a complete listing of the LEFS
program grantees.) The grantees and NIJ staff met in January to discuss
startup efforts and brainstorm about disseminating their findings and
recommendations.

Conferences: recent and upcoming

January

Community vitality and crime reduction. NIJ, OJP, and the Executive
Office for Weed and Seed cosponsored "What Can the Federal
Government Do to Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities?" in
January 1998 to examine the role of government, police, and community
residents in public safety programs. Panelists discussed trends in health
care, trade, economics, demographics, welfare reform, and aging and their
impact on communities. Themes centered around promising programs and
approaches; participants identified research questions and implications for
evaluation design. Featured speakers were David Kennedy and Deborah
Prothrow-Stith from Harvard University and Roger Conner from the
Center for the Community Interest.

March

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS). NIJ-sponsored research
and development programs were well represented at the 35th annual ACJS
conference, March 10-14, 1998, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Among the
NIJ presentations were:

o Oleoresin Capsicum: An Analysis of Pepper Spray Failures, presented
by Stephen M. Edwards and Robert J. Kaminski, which focused on
incidents in which pepper spray had no incapacitating effect on suspects to
discover factors associated with its failure.

o A Multimethod Exploration of Crime Hot Spots, presented by Eric
Jefferis, Nancy La Vigne, Cyndy Nahabedian, and Joe Szakas, which
compared accuracy, consistency, face validity, utility for statistical
analyses, and user friendliness of crime mapping hot spot identification
software packages.

o Long-Term NIJ Evaluations of Community Policing, presented by Lois
Mock, Wes Skogan, Tom McEwen, Mary Ann Wycoff, Dennis
Rosenbaum, and Charles Mindel, which discussed results from
longitudinal evaluations of community policing programs in several
jurisdictions.

o Prevention and Control of Firearms Violence, presented by Lois Mock,
Scott Decker, Rick Rosenfeld, Jeffrey Roth, David Kennedy, and Ed
McGarrel, which presented results of ongoing research about the
effectiveness of techniques to prevent and control firearms violence,
including directed patrols, targeted handgun interventions, and others.

o Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities, presented by Pamela Lattimore, which
summarized the findings from NIJ's recently completed research project
that examined varying homicide trends in Atlanta, Detroit, Indianapolis,
Miami, New Orleans, Richmond, Tampa, and Washington, D.C.

o Making Partnerships Work, presented by Voncile Gowdy, which
discussed ways to improve partnerships between researchers and
practitioners in corrections.

o Responding to Crime in Indian Country, presented by Winnie Reed,
Norena Henry, Carol Lujan, Eileen Luna, and Stewart Wakeling, which
presented the results of three NIJ projects: Policing on American Indian
Reservations, Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for Reducing
Violence Against Women Among Indian Tribes, and Indian Country
Justice Initiative Evaluation.

April

Alcohol and crime connection. Recognizing the need to explore more fully
the link between alcohol abuse and crime, OJP will sponsor a symposium
entitled "Alcohol and Crime: Impacting the Criminal Justice System" from
April 5 to April 7, 1998, in Tysons Corner, Virginia.

OJP is inviting researchers, biochemical and medical experts, treatment
providers, substance abuse and prevention specialists, criminal justice
practitioners, and domestic violence specialists. The goals are to raise
consciousness about the connection between alcohol and crime, solicit
ideas for research and demonstration projects from experts in the field,
identify responses appropriate to OJP's mission and funding, and
encourage other relevant Federal agencies to support programs.

Sessions will focus on four key themes: contribution of alcohol abuse to
family violence, alcohol abuse interventions for offender populations,
underage alcohol use, and place-based intervention initiatives.

Land transportation security technology. Practitioners responsible for
designing land transportation security systems will be attending the first
International Land Transportation Security Technology Conference,
sponsored by NIJ and the U.S. Departments of Transportation and State,
from April 7 to April 9, 1998.

The conference evolved from a 1996 international meeting attended by
Attorney General Janet Reno that highlighted that 20 percent of all
terrorist attacks are directed at land transportation targets. It will showcase
new technologies and best practices and will feature presentations by
experts as well as technology exhibits applicable to land transportation
security.

For more information, contact Marina Leight with Government
Technology at 916-363-5000, ext. 374, or e-mail mleight@govtech.net.

Police-corrections cooperative efforts. NIJ, the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, and CPO will sponsor a symposium on
police-corrections partnerships from April 23 to April 25, 1998, in
Knoxville, Tennessee. More than 150 police chiefs, sheriffs, wardens,
probation officers, community corrections officials, and researchers will
examine the origins, goals, operations, and achievements of existing
partnerships. Participants will discuss administrative aspects of
partnerships (such as sharing databases and resources and conducting joint
planning and training sessions) as well as substantive issues (such as the
relationship of prison gang leadership to street gang activities, fugitive
apprehension, and weapons reduction).

June

Managed care and criminal justice conference. OJP and the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment are Federal sponsors of the first annual
conference on managed care and its impact on offenders who receive
substance abuse treatment and aftercare services. The conference will be
held June 28 to June 30, 1998, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and hosted
by the Institute for Behavioral Healthcare in joint sponsorship with the
criminal justice partnership/CentraLink and national Treatment
Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC). The program will bring
together professionals from criminal justice, health and human services,
and managed health care to discuss the emerging impact of managed care
on offender populations, provide information on promising models and
options for service delivery, and continue discussion among professionals
from various disciplines. For more information, contact CentraLink, 415-
435-7286, fax 415-435-9092.

Workshops offer hands-on experience

Drug-involved youths. NIJ hosted a workshop on developing interventions
for drug-involved juveniles for researchers, treatment providers, juvenile
court judges, and juvenile counselors. Topics included coordination
difficulties among Federal, State, and local agencies; conflicts inherent in
meeting the interests of juveniles, their families, and the community; and
the importance of monitoring program progress and making midcourse
corrections. Recommendations from the workshop, held December 11,
1997, included:

o Intensive case management to make certain that services provided
matched services ordered.

o Coordination of resources through a leadership agency.

o Continuous evaluation and monitoring to maintain program integrity.

o Culturally and developmentally appropriate rewards and punishments
for participating youths.

Forecasting prison populations. NIJ, CPO, and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics hosted a national workshop entitled "Prison Population
Forecasting and Projection: Managing Capacity" in December 1997. The
143 participants shared technical details about their approaches to
forecasting and projecting their State's prison population and capacity.
They discussed changing crime conditions, legislative trends and
uncertainties, and fiscal constraints.

Many States needed basic assistance and information about forecasting
techniques and software; a 3-hour session before the workshop offered an
introduction to and overview of various statistical techniques. The
remainder of the 2-day workshop featured presentations from experts in
State offices and other organizations who are currently forecasting or
projecting prison populations. 

The presentations answered questions and led to discussion about the
strengths and limitations of various methodologies and the details of
implementing those methodologies.

The proceedings from "Prison Population Forecasting and Projection:
Managing Capacity" are expected later this year.

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

Sentencing and Corrections Problem Solving for State Policymakers

This unique multiyear initiative will bring together for the first time
State-level policymakers from all three branches of government and from
all 50 States to engage in open and candid conversation over important
sentencing and corrections issues.

Invited participants from each State include the governor, chief budget
officer, heads of adult and juvenile corrections, the chief justice, and the
heads of both houses of the legislature.

The event will take place June 8 and 9, 1998, in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Participants will discuss common critical problems, including:

o How to deal with competing financial demands of prison building and
other State needs.

o How to effectively handle serious juvenile offenders, especially when
sentenced as adults.

o How to meet truth-in-sentencing concerns and at the same time deal with
prison management issues.

o How to make and keep prisons free of drugs and other contraband.

For more information, contact John Thomas at NIJ (e-mail
johnt@ojp.usdoj.gov, or phone 202-514-6206).

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

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

Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

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