Title: National Institute of Justice 1997 Annual Report to Congress.
Series: Annual Report
Author: National Institute of Justice
Published: August 1998
Subject: Funding resources
135 pages
240,000 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 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

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

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

National Institute of Justice 1997 Annual Report To Congress

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

Letter of Transmittal

To the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress:

I have the honor to transmit the National Institute of Justice's annual report
on research, development, and evaluation for fiscal year 1997, pursuant to
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (as amended) and the
1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC

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

National Institute of Justice

1997 Annual Report To Congress
August 1998

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

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

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

NCJ 171679

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

Table of Contents

Message From the Director

Part 1: NIJ in Brief

Part 2: Overview of the Year

Part 3: Selected Highlights

Creating Safer Streets
Community Policing in Chicago: An Evaluation
Observing Policing in Neighborhoods
Reducing Officer Stress

Breaking the Links Between Drugs and Crime
Experimenting With Mandatory Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders
Helping Identify Drug Use Patterns
Evaluating Corrections-Based Treatment Programs
Reducing Substance Abuse Relapse Through Aftercare

Understanding the Nature of Violence
Homicide in Eight Cities
Stalking: Findings From a National Survey
Family Violence: A Vigorous Research Agenda

Working to Prevent Crime
Preventing Delinquency: Evaluation of the Children-at-Risk Program
Evaluating a Comprehensive Approach to Safer Communities
What Schools Are Doing to Prevent Delinquency

Applying Technology to Reduce Crime
Regional Centers Offer Technical Assistance
Supporting Investigative and Forensic Sciences
Helping to Protect the Public from Terrorism
Innovative Devices Help Control Crime
Computerized Mapping: High-Tech Crime Analysis Tool

Appendixes

Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1997
Criminal Behavior
Crime Control and Prevention
Criminal Justice System
Technology Research and Development
Information Dissemination and Technical Support

Appendix B: Documents Published in Fiscal Year 1997

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

Message From the Director

For the National Institute of Justice, fiscal year 1997 was characterized by
continued growth, collaboration, and intellectual stimulation. The
partnerships created over the last several years with bureaus and offices of
the U.S. Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and private
foundations are flourishing.

This Annual Report to Congress summarizes the Institute's major activities
during fiscal year 1997 and describes 18 of the year's key projects and
programs. Several of the 18 relate to the priorities and programs spelled
out in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Crime Act). The Department of Justice offices established to administer
Crime Act funds allocate to NIJ up to 5 percent of their funds for research
and evaluation of Crime Act programs and priorities. In fiscal year 1997,
transfers from Crime Act offices totaled $51.1 million. 

The resources available have bolstered research, evaluation, and
development in key areas. Many of these areas relate to strengthening
community efforts to control and prevent crime. Research has shown that
comparable communities can vary in the type of crime they experience
and in their reaction to it. Healthy communities are a powerful crime
prevention "program"; they can magnify and sustain the impact of
interventions and innovations. Understanding how innovations affect
communities not only adds to the knowledge base and helps ensure
accountability of public funds but also allows communities to make
midcourse corrections and learn from one another. 

Developing tools, especially the tool of knowledge, and communicating
findings will continue to be priorities as NIJ works to understand how
public policies can control crime and achieve justice. 

Jeremy Travis
Director

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

Part 1: NIJ in Brief

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, was created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, as amended. NIJ is authorized to support research,
evaluation, and demonstration programs; technology development; and
both national and international information dissemination. Specific
mandates of the Act direct NIJ to focus its efforts on strengthening and
improving criminal justice and on reducing and preventing crime and
delinquency.

The Institute's Director, appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, establishes the Institute's objectives guided by the needs of the
criminal justice field and the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs
within the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report summarizes NIJ's role, operation, and overall achievements
during fiscal year 1997 in three parts:

o Part 1: NIJ in Brief, describes the Institute's organization, funding, and
growth. This introduction to the Institute contains budget figures and
explanations and an organization chart. 

o Part 2: Overview of the Year, uses broad brush strokes and brief
examples to explain how NIJ accomplished its goals. It contains a list of
the Institute's strategic challenges, descriptions of partnership activities
with Federal agencies and private foundations, and a reporting of outreach
and dissemination efforts. 

o Part 3: Selected Highlights, is a cross section of NIJ's research and
development activities. It presents 18 notable programs and projects in
more depth. Space limitations prevent the inclusion of more than a
sampling of the important activity the Institute undertook during the fiscal
year. The 18 programs and projects fall into five main sections: policing,
drugs and crime, crime prevention, violence, and technology. 

Appendix A lists the awards the Institute made during the fiscal year.
Appendix B lists the documents published.

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

NIJ's Organization, Funding, and Growth

Fiscal year 1997 marked the fourth consecutive year of remarkable growth
and achievement for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research
and development arm of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Higher levels of congressional funding, greater use of partnering
arrangements with Federal agencies, and increased staffing enabled NIJ to
expand the breadth and depth of its research and development activities to
address key strategic challenges.

NIJ's Organization

NIJ conducts business through its four main components or offices (see
exhibit 1). Each office is responsible for carrying out specific aspects of
the Institute's mission. 

o The Office of the Director sets policy for the Institute, shapes its efforts,
directs its research and development agenda, and guides its direction. The
Office identifies priorities for the agency, oversees management and
administrative activities, initiates and fosters collaboration with other
Federal agencies and private foundations, coordinates the Institute's
interaction with its partners, develops and implements the Institute's
strategic plans, and supervises the Institute's budget. The Director reviews
all solicitations for research and development and approves all grant
awards, cooperative agreements, contracts, and publications.

o The Office of Development and Communications seeks out emerging
ideas and promising new practices and brings them to the attention of the
field, implements demonstrations of innovative approaches to controlling
crime, and conducts studies of pressing operational issues. The Office
disseminates information about research findings and technology
innovations in multiple ways: through traditional and electronic means of
publication in a variety of formats, by providing opportunities for criminal
justice professionals to meet and exchange ideas, and by encouraging the
exchange of ideas regarding transnational issues. Priority is given to the
needs of State and local officials and criminal justice practitioners. 

o The Office of Research and Evaluation develops, conducts, directs, and
supervises comprehensive research and evaluation activities through two
integrated vehicles: extramural research, which involves outside
researchers who often collaborate with criminal justice practitioners, and
intramural research, conducted by Office staff. Such research and
evaluation cuts across a wide array of distinct topics that exist within the
Institute's charter. Substantive areas include violence, drug abuse, criminal
behavior, organized crime, gangs, corrections, prosecution, sentencing,
victimization, policing, drug testing, crime prevention, and crime
mapping. The Office identifies priority issues and builds knowledge that
informs policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and members of the
public. 

o The Office of Science and Technology provides Federal, State, and local
law enforcement and corrections agencies access to the best technologies
available and helps them develop capabilities essential to improving
efficiency and effectiveness. One of the primary mechanisms through
which the Office accomplishes this mission is its network of regional
technical assistance centers--the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers. The Office also supports the
development of new technologies to serve the needs of law enforcement
and corrections agencies, while avoiding unnecessary and expensive
overlap and duplication. 

NIJ's Funding and Growth

NIJ's total funding topped $100 million in fiscal year 1997, compared to
$23.5 million in 1994 (see exhibit 2). The major source of funds in 1997,
as well as in 1996, was transfers from program offices [1] established
under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Crime Act).

Exhibit 3 indicates NIJ's spending pattern in fiscal year 1997. The primary
expenditure component was awards made under the Crime Act. How the
Institute allocated Crime Act funds is shown in exhibit 4.

Concomitant with the more than quadrupling of NIJ's funding during the
1994-1997 period, the Institute's portfolio of research and development
projects and programs also grew substantially. As indicated in exhibit 5,
the research portfolio approximately doubled during the period, both in
terms of the number of awards made each year and in terms of the number
of awards active during a given year. The dollar value of active awards
more than tripled over the 4-year period. 

To manage its rapidly increasing workload, NIJ almost doubled the size of
its staff, to 96 in fiscal year 1997 from 50 in 1994. 

Growth Factors

As noted above, the additional funds infused into the agency by the 1994
Crime Act led to major enlargement of the Institute's research and
development portfolio. Not to be overlooked, however, are several other
factors that also played an instrumental role in portfolio growth and
continue to do so:

o Greater emphasis on partnerships with other public agencies and private
foundations.

o Advances in technology and the interest in adapting or transferring
technology developed by the military to State and local law enforcement
and corrections agencies.

o A heightened interest in international crime. 

o A reinvigorated intramural and extramural research agenda. 

Partnerships. Crime affects all aspects of a community, and the criminal
justice system operates in conjunction with other public services. It is
logical then that NIJ collaborates with private and public agencies and
organizations dedicated to improving public health, housing, and other
community services. 

Advances in Technology. Many of the advances in the development of law
enforcement and corrections technology have been supported by Crime
Act funding. For example, NIJ's strong program to develop dual-use
technologies (technologies that benefit both national defense and local law
enforcement) is supported in large part by Crime Act funds. Much of the
technology research and development involves interaction between
Federal laboratories, NIJ staff, and organizations that turn research and
development efforts into commercial products. 

International Criminal Justice. The Institute's links with the international
community are being strengthened through membership in the United
Nations network of criminological institutes; participation in developing
the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network; sponsorship of two World
Wide Web-based global electronic information resources (UNOJUST, the
U.N. Online Justice Clearinghouse, and the Rule of Law [2]); and the
establishment of an International Center within NIJ's Office of
Development and Communications.

Reinvigorated Research Agenda. Beginning in 1994, NIJ's research and
evaluation staff and program development staff have refocused their
efforts and infused them with new vision and energy. For example, in
fiscal year 1997, NIJ's research and evaluation program explored key
issues in community policing, violence against women, sentencing reform,
the nexus between drugs and crime, and specialized courts, such as those
devoted exclusively to drug offenses and family violence. 

Key intramural analyses completed by agency staff included:

o Homicide in eight cities (see Part 3, "Homicide in Eight Cities" for a
complete description).

o The purchase and use patterns of crack, powder cocaine, and heroin. 

o Methamphetamine use among arrestees.

o Development of a risk classification system for probationers.

o Drug use in prisons.

o The impact of a controversial televised arrest on citizens' satisfaction
with the police.

o Examination of crime prevention through design in the Washington,
D.C., subway system.

o The incapacitative and deterrent effects of police use of oleoresin
capsicum (pepper spray).

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

1. Corrections Program Office, Drug Courts Program Office, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and Violence Against
Women Grants Office. Except for COPS, they are located in the Office of
Justice Programs.

2. Visit UNOJUST at http://www.unojust.org and the Rule of Law at
http://www.rol.org.

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

Part 2: Overview of the Year

In 1997, crime rates continued to decline in many localities across the
Nation. This is good news, although the reasons are not completely clear
and severe problems persist in many jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the overall
picture spurs optimism. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997
report on crime victimization, the violent crime rate is the lowest since the
early 1970s. [3]

To ensure that its activities will have maximum impact on crime's overall
decline, NIJ developed--within the context of its legislative mandate--a
blueprint for research, evaluation, and development to help generate the
knowledge that will inform criminal justice policy as the Nation
approaches and enters the next century. The blueprint consists of five
strategic challenges:

o Rethinking justice and the processes that create just communities. NIJ is
committed to finding new ways to operate the justice system that result in
fair, efficient, and effective outcomes. For example, Criminal Justice 2000
is a multiyear NIJ program seeking to foster a national dialogue on the
justice system with the goal of understanding where it is now and where it
is heading as we approach the 21st century.

o Understanding the nexus between crime and its social context. NIJ seeks
to identify the links between crime and other social phenomena by
illuminating the relationships between criminal activity and the context in
which it occurs.

o Breaking the cycle of crime by testing researched-based interventions.
The Institute designs and evaluates experiments that focus on breaking
identified linkages between crime and certain social conditions, such as
drug abuse.

o Creating the tools and technologies that meet the needs of practitioners. 
NIJ is developing, testing, and evaluating new and transferable techniques,
practices, and technologies, such as crime mapping and DNA testing.

o Expanding the horizons through interdisciplinary and international
perspectives. The Institute looks beyond traditional geographic and
intellectual boundaries to develop a fuller understanding of crime and
justice issues through its International Center and its exploration of how
other disciplines, such as economics, can be applied to those issues. 

Many of NIJ's projects and programs address these challenges. [4] This
overview reviews those and other NIJ activities in fiscal year 1997 under
four broad NIJ endeavors: putting crime in context, testing big ideas,
collaborating with others, and extending the influence of research and
development.

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


3. Taylor, B.M., National Crime Victimization Survey: Changes in
Criminal Victimization 1994-95, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1997. NCJ 162032.

4. See National Institute of Justice, Building Knowledge About Crime and
Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, November 1997. NCJ 167570.

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

A Review of Projects, Programs, and Activities

Fiscal year 1997 was one of continued intense activity across a wide
spectrum of programs and projects spawned by the Institute's legislative
mandate. One way to view that spectrum is to envision it as a blend of four
major, complementary components:

o An emphasis on the value of examining in communities the social
conditions and other characteristics that define the context in which crime
occurs. Such a focus on context contributes to a better understanding of
the links between crime and such factors as drug abuse, firearms use, and
economic status.

o Ongoing support of experimental programs and approaches that test
what could be referred to as "big ideas" for controlling and preventing
criminal activity by severing identified links between crime and certain
community conditions.

o Continuation of forging new, and solidifying previous, partnerships with
other government agencies and with private foundations whose goals
intersect in varying degrees with those of the Institute, an approach that
leverages the resources and productivity of all parties and promotes
coordination of effort.

o Widespread dissemination of the results of NIJ's research and
development to practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and the general
public to maximize the influence and impact of the Institute's work.

Putting Crime in Context

Crime does not occur in a vacuum--an obvious but often underappreciated
fact. The context in which crime occurs includes socioeconomic and other
characteristics of a community. To identify and better understand them is
to gain insight into the links that may exist between those characteristics
and crime--often an essential first step in developing effective
interventions to control and prevent criminal activity. 

For example, part of NIJ's reinvigorated intramural research program
focused on understanding and explaining factors affecting homicide rates
in eight cities. The research included an examination of the social context
within which homicide and other violence occurs, such as demographics,
employment rates, and educational attainment of residents. Among other
findings, the study showed that the nature of homicide differs from city to
city, suggesting a need for community responses that are local and based
on data that reflect specific local--not necessarily national--trends. (For
more on this study, see "Homicide in Eight Cities" in Part 3.)

Such findings lend credibility to indications that many promising
approaches to preventing violence capitalize on and link community
resources and are configured with the community's characteristics in mind. 

Part of the context in which crime occurs is drug use. One way many
communities learn about its extent and nature involves testing arrestees to
determine what drugs are being used, what crimes they are linked to, and
what types of offenders are buying which drugs. NIJ's Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) system opens a window into the drug cultures
of arrestees and helps the criminal justice system monitor the types of
drugs being used in a community and then make appropriate responses.
For example, ADAM data indicate that powder cocaine is a problem
associated mostly with offenders age 36 years and older. In contrast,
marijuana use among arrestees is disproportionately concentrated among
youthful offenders. ADAM data also indicate that drug use varies from
one community to another. In San Diego, for example, more arrestees test
positive for methamphetamine than cocaine; in eastern cities such as New
York and Washington, methamphetamine barely registers on the scale. In
Baltimore, the drug problem centers on heroin; in Washington, the drug
problem is crack cocaine. (For more about ADAM, see "Helping Identify
Drug Use Patterns" in Part 3.)

Other social characteristics that affect crime rates are being investigated by
researchers with the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods, another major NIJ effort to understand the relationship
between community and crime. The Chicago neighborhoods study, which
is cofunded with other Federal agencies and the MacArthur Foundation, is
an ambitious, long-term inquiry into the relationship between community,
crime, delinquency, family, and individual development. 

Researchers with the Chicago neighborhoods project hypothesize that
residential stability is an overlooked feature of relatively safer
neighborhoods and have set out to better understand the community
factors that contribute to interpersonal violence. The project has surveyed
more than 8,700 adult residents in 343 neighborhoods throughout Chicago
and has identified 80 neighborhoods as the focus for a longitudinal cohort
study to be conducted over the next 8 years. As part of the first wave of
this longitudinal study, researchers have conducted interviews with 6,000
children and adolescents and their primary care givers. 

The Chicago neighborhoods project has found that cohesion within a
community--labeled "collective efficacy" and defined as mutual trust and a
willingness to intervene in the supervision of children and the maintenance
of public order--offers a deeper understanding of the social mechanisms
that have linked neighborhood poverty and instability with a
neighborhood's high crime rates. A neighborhood's active and shared
willingness to monitor children's play groups, help one another, and
intervene in preventing acts such as juvenile truancy or street-corner
loitering are key examples of collective efficacy.

Another example of assessing the social context is the formation of
community acceptance panels, which NIJ has assembled to obtain
opinions and flesh out issues and concerns about the introduction of
various technologies designed to combat crime. Consisting of
representatives of community advocacy and public interest groups, the
panels are ongoing and their composition changes with the nature of the
technology scrutinized. One panel, for example, explored the use of
closed-circuit television within a business district and gunshot detection
technologies. Members of the panel included representatives from the
National Rifle Association, the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People, Miami's Independent Review Panel, the Chicago
Alliance for Neighborhood Safety, the Kansas City Crime Commission,
United Neighbors Against Drugs, and the California Community
Foundation.

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

Testing Big Ideas

NIJ supports the implementation of innovative ideas, such as experiments
that intervene to break links between crime and certain social and
community conditions. In Boston, NIJ supported attempts to curb juvenile
violence. Community officials knew they would need to disrupt the city's
illegal gun market; they also knew that young gang-involved, repeat
offenders were victimizing each other at high rates and that youth
homicides were concentrated in certain neighborhoods. 

An interagency working group was formed to deter violent behavior by
these chronic gang offenders. The police department sought the
cooperation of the clergy and enlisted probation officers, community
workers, educators, and school police to identify potential "hot spots" of
gang trouble. The working group initiated a deceptively simple operation
that made use of a wide variety of traditional criminal justice tools, but
assembled them in some fundamentally new ways. 

The working group reached out directly to gangs, set clear standards for
their behavior, and backed up the message by pulling every lever legally
available when those standards were violated. Swiftness and sureness of
response was critical. Probationers were quickly punished for violations,
warrants were served expeditiously, the streets swarmed with law
enforcement officers (including a Federal presence), and disorder offenses,
such as drinking in public, were pursued.

The effort was effective. Between 1990 and 1994, 155 young people age
21 years and under were killed in Boston; 84 percent of these deaths were
due to firearms. Of the 155 deaths, 37 were juveniles under age 16.
Between 1995 and 1997, there was one homicide among juveniles under
17. In addition, Boston has experienced a 60-percent decrease in firearm
homicides among victims under age 24. 

NIJ is currently supporting another major idea--an experiment that aims to
break the cycle of drugs and crime. In Birmingham, Alabama, NIJ is
supporting a demonstration program and evaluation called "Breaking the
Cycle," which is testing the hypothesis that drug testing, mandatory
treatment, and social service interventions, if applied across the board to
all adult drug-abusing offenders, would reduce crime. (Read more about
Breaking the Cycle in "Experimenting With Mandatory Treatment for
Drug-Involved Offenders" in Part 3).

Collaborating With Others

In the last several years, the Institute has reached out to develop
partnerships with numerous government agencies and foundations. Among
the many projects on which such partnerships focus are these: 

o The causes, treatment, and prevention of violence against women and
violence within the family.

o The development of technology for law enforcement and corrections.

o International crime control and counterterrorism.

o Firearms use and programs to prevent related violence. 

All of NIJ's partnership programs engage practitioners in identifying the
research agenda, linking knowledge to program implementation and
change, and heightening the awareness of the dynamic nature of program
development and evaluation. Interdisciplinary research helps all the
partners look at the issues through a different lens and see implications
that a narrower focus might miss. 

Technology Partnerships. The substantial Federal effort devoted to
technology-related research and development requires a considerable
degree of coordination. The Attorney General established the Technology
Policy Council to coordinate and maximize the Federal investment in
technologies related to law enforcement and corrections. Fifteen Federal
agencies from five cabinet-level departments meet every 6 to 8 weeks to
discuss ongoing research and development and coordinate future activity.
NIJ serves as executive agent, and the Deputy Attorney General chairs the
Council.

To help NIJ understand and respond to State and local law enforcement
and corrections agencies, the Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC) helps guide NIJ's technology
agenda. Highly experienced law enforcement and corrections practitioners
constitute LECTAC. They make recommendations about user
requirements and priorities for developing technologies that are affordable,
effective, and meet the special needs of the law enforcement and
corrections communities. NIJ translates these priorities into an agenda for
funding technology research and development programs.

NIJ is also collaborating with these agencies:

o U.S. Department of Defense--to conduct research and development in a
number of areas, including counterterrorism and concealed weapons
detection. 

o U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology--to develop standards and test equipment for law enforcement
and corrections personnel.

o U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration--
to develop an advanced law enforcement patrol vehicle. 
(Read more about technology-related activities in "Applying Technology
to Reduce Crime" in Part 3.)

Locally Initiated Research Partnerships. Partnerships between researchers
and practitioners enhance NIJ's efforts to make research applicable to the
field. When practitioners who know their community issues firsthand
become partners with researchers who know how to measure, quantify,
and analyze, both gain insight and citizens benefit. 

In 1997, NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) continued to support partnerships between researchers and police
practitioners, an effort initiated in fiscal year 1995. This effort has
developed a remarkably creative collection of collaborations--from those
involving individual researchers and police departments to those between
groups of police agencies and consortia of universities. The topics of
interest have also varied widely, from conducting analysis of needs and
problems to developing problem-solving strategies to enhance crime
mapping as a tool in crime analysis. 

In the area of law enforcement, NIJ supports more than 35 local research
partners. The Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department, for example, is
collaborating with scholars at Eastern Kentucky University to learn how
the police might better measure the effectiveness of their services. Arizona
police departments are working with Arizona State University to assess
each department's community policing program. NIJ has also funded a
national evaluation of these locally initiated research partnerships. The
evaluation involves case studies, telephone interviews, review of grant
products, and informal interaction at partnership gatherings. 

In the area of corrections and substance abuse treatment, NIJ is partnering
with the Corrections Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs to
evaluate the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs for
inmates in State and local correctional institutions. The program, called
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State prisoners,
involves collaboration among researchers, corrections officials, and
program administrators. (Read more about RSAT in "Evaluating
Corrections-Based Treatment Programs" in Part 3.) 

Crime Act Partnerships. The Crime Act was the stimulus for a great many
of the Institute's partnerships with Federal agencies. Immediately after the
Act became a law, NIJ began to form partnerships with the Crime Act
offices and develop strategies for conducting the research and evaluations
that are essential to determining the extent to which innovations outlined
in the Act are working. The primary strategy involves collaboration
between the Crime Act offices, which develop and fund the programs, and
NIJ, which studies and evaluates them.

For each of the four program areas identified by the Act (community
policing, corrections, violence against women, and drug courts), NIJ takes
a three-pronged research and evaluation approach:

o National evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the program.

o Evaluations of selected local implementations.

o Research based on partnerships between practitioners and researchers. 

For example, COPS funds the hiring of community police officers and
supports extensive community policing programs throughout the Nation.
In partnership with COPS, NIJ is supporting an extensive array of research
and evaluation studies on many aspects of community policing, as well as
police-researcher partnerships and efforts to provide technology to
community policing programs.

Through another Crime Act partnership, with the Corrections Program
Office (CPO), NIJ is conducting a wide array of sentencing and
corrections initiatives involving CPO's Violent Offender
Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing activities as well as the Residential
substance Abuse Treatment program mentioned previously. 

NIJ and the Drug Courts Program Office are collaborating to examine a
framework for describing the operational aspects of drug courts and to
evaluate their effectiveness. Drug courts, which are special judicial
proceedings generally used for nonviolent drug offenders, use the coercive
power of the judiciary to control and alter behavior through a combination
of early and continual judicial supervision, sanctions, incentives,
mandatory drug testing, treatment, and aftercare. 

NIJ is also collaborating with the Violence Against Women Grants Office
on a host of research and evaluation projects undertaken in conjunction
with the STOP Violence Against Women grants program. Among the
studies under way are examinations of the effectiveness of antistalking
efforts, the impact of police domestic violence training, the use of medical
records as legal evidence in domestic violence cases, and the relationship
between alcohol use and domestic violence. 

Other Federal Partnerships. Federal research partners also include:

o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--investigating the incidence
and prevalence of family violence and the effectiveness of intervention
programs, and conducting research about public health in corrections
facilities.

o Office of National Drug Control Policy--implementing and evaluating a
demonstration program in Birmingham designed to break the cycle
between drugs and crime, and analyzing drug purchase and use patterns in
six U.S. cities.

o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--evaluating the
implementation and effectiveness of HUD's Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program, and linking public housing agencies with local
researchers in new locally initiated research partnerships.

o U.S. State Department--establishing and maintaining the United Nations
Online Crime and Justice Clearinghouse (UNOJUST) through which NIJ
shares technical assistance and empirical research with the 14 criminal
research institutes affiliated with the United Nations Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice Programme Network.

Foundation Partnerships. A number of foundations have a keen interest in
supporting social science research. During fiscal year 1997, NIJ
collaborated with several foundations to further criminal justice research.
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is supporting the
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods; the Edna
McConnell Clark Foundation helped launch the "Perspectives on Crime
and Justice" lecture series, described below; the Kauffman Foundation is
supporting an evaluation of the sales tax levied by Kansas City, Missouri,
to fund broad-based antidrug efforts; and the National Center for
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University is heavily
involved in two major studies described in Part 3--the Children at Risk
program's comprehensive and integrated approach to preventing
delinquency and the Opportunity to Succeed program, which provides an
array of support services to former drug abusers. 

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

Extending the Influence Of Research and Development

NIJ reaches out to its constituents in a number of ways, including lectures
and presentations, conferences and planning meetings, an international
clearinghouse of information, and electronic and print publications.

Reaching Out Through Lectures and Presentations. NIJ launched the
Perspectives on Crime and Justice lecture series during fiscal year 1997.
This well-attended series brings nationally recognized academics to
Capitol Hill to discuss research perspectives on the challenges of
contemporary crime issues faced by policymakers. Approximately 900
people attended the 1996-97 series, which featured:

o James Q. Wilson, University of California at Los Angeles, "What If
Anything Can the Federal Government Do About Crime?"

o Peter Reuter, University of Maryland, "Can We Make Prohibition Work
Better? An Assessment of American Drug Policy."

o Mark H. Moore, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
"The Legitimation of Criminal Justice Policies and Practices."

o Cathy Spatz Widom, State University of New York at Albany, "Child
Victims: In Search of Opportunities for Breaking the Cycle of Violence." 

o Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School, "Crime, the Media,
and Our Political Discourse."

Every month NIJ also brings scholars and researchers to Washington,
D.C., to discuss findings from their research in progress. Videotapes of
presentations of their preliminary findings bring the latest research in a
timely fashion to practitioners, researchers, and students. The
presentations are designed to encourage discussion of ongoing analysis
and stimulate the re-evaluation and re-examination of findings and policy
implications. 

Reaching Out Through Conferences and Meetings. Gatherings of
professionals stimulate thinking and generate new ideas. Conferences
provide the opportunity for two-way communication between researchers
and practitioners. Recipients of NIJ grants present their findings to
researchers and practitioners, and NIJ staff have a chance to get firsthand
feedback from the field. 

NIJ's planning meetings and technical working group meetings help the
Institute focus its research agenda as it relates to a particular topic. At
these meetings, invited experts from the field discuss the most pressing
issues of the day, emerging trends, the proper role of government, and
what specific actions NIJ can take. (See "NIJ-Sponsored Conferences
During Fiscal Year 1997.") 

Reaching Out Through an International Clearinghouse. NIJ, its OJP
partners, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy sponsor the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), the primary source
of information about national and international criminal justice issues. 

In 1997, NCJRS distributed close to 1.4 million documents via mail; more
than 600,000 documents were downloaded from the NCJRS World Wide
Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org. (See "Getting the Word Out: Fiscal Year
1997.")

At its Web site, NCJRS provides an online virtual library containing the
full text of more than 1,000 documents. At its physical location in
Rockville, Maryland, NCJRS maintains a traditional library of more
148,000 justice-related Federal, State, and local government documents,
books, reports, journal articles, program descriptions, and evaluations.
These 148,000 documents are abstracted and indexed in the NCJRS
abstracts database, which went online (at
http://www.ncjrs.org/database.htm) during fiscal year 1997. 

Reaching Out Through the Internet. NIJ rebuilt its World Wide Web page
during the year and officially unveiled it in November 1997. The new page
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij) is easier to use and organizes the agency's
services into discreet sections: programs, funding opportunities,
publications and products, and contacting NIJ, as well as "What's New"
and "About NIJ" sections.

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

Part 3: Selected Highlights

To develop its research, evaluation, and development agenda, NIJ
regularly consults with practitioners and researchers to ascertain their
needs and priorities and then adds elements of the Institute's strategic plans
to create an integrated, comprehensive mix of research, evaluation, and
development. 

The essays in Part 3 reflect the Institute's wide range of topics and the
knowledge accumulated from its vigorous agenda: 

o "Creating Safer Streets" contains two essays on the effects of community
policing and one on innovative programs that address the stress in the lives
of law enforcement officers and their families.

o "Breaking the Links Between Drugs and Crime" discusses the state of
the research on the relationships between drug-abusing offenders and
crime. 

o "Understanding the Nature of Violence" contains essays on homicide,
stalking, and family violence. 

o "Working to Prevent Crime" covers crime prevention innovations in
schools and communities. 

o "Applying Technology to Reduce Crime" describes briefly the Institute's
energetic program of forensic science and law enforcement and corrections
technology.

Sometimes quantifying a problem is the first step in the process of solving
the problem. The essays in Part 3 highlight NIJ's efforts to measure, test
hypotheses, apply experimental techniques, and take risks. The challenges
inherent in such activities are worth embracing.  

Creating Safer Streets

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime
Act) requires the Attorney General to substantially increase the number of
law enforcement officers who interact directly with members of the
community, provide law enforcement officers with training to enhance
their problem-solving skills, and encourage innovative programs to permit
members of the community to assist officers in preventing crime in the
community. [5] 

Since passage of the Crime Act, NIJ has strengthened its policing
partnerships, especially with the Department of Justice's Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS office). NIJ and the
COPS office have collaborated to develop and assess strategies for
achieving the goals established by the Crime Act. With funds transferred
from the COPS office through fiscal year 1997, NIJ has awarded 129
grants totaling $34 million for community policing research. This section
highlights three efforts that are representative of NIJ's response to the
Crime Act mandates. 

Both the evaluation of Chicago's community policing program and the
systematic observation of policing in St. Petersburg and Indianapolis are
contributing to a deeper understanding of how community policing works
and why.

The third highlighted effort, "Reducing Officer Stress," responds to the
Crime Act's mandate to study the effects of stress on law enforcement
personnel and family well-being and provide technical assistance and
develop training programs that foster stress reduction and family support
for State and local law enforcement agencies. [6] 

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

5. See Title I: Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of
1994. 

6. See Title XXI: State and Local Law Enforcement; Subtitle B: Law
Enforcement Family Support.

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

Community Policing in Chicago: An Evaluation

Chicago is attempting to reinvent policing through its Chicago Alternative
Policing Strategy (CAPS), a flagship community policing effort initiated
in 1993. CAPS is distinguished by the extent to which the police mandate
has been broadened to include promoting community safety through new
tasks ranging from hosting community meetings at the beat level, to
assisting residents' organizing efforts, to coordinating delivery of city
services. 

Almost everywhere community policing is tried, the effort involves hard
work by dedicated police officers, community relations personnel, and
local political and community leaders. Chicago has accomplished a great
deal during the first years of its experiment with community policing.
Whether Chicago provides a paradigm for the rest of the country remains
an open question, but it does illustrate how difficult--and potentially
rewarding--reinventing policing can be.

Results of an Evaluation

When Chicago decided to adopt a community-oriented, problem-solving
approach to policing in 1993, NIJ committed to supporting an evaluation
of the implementation and effects of the program. (See "Key Elements of
CAPS in Action: 1993-97.")

At the program's inception, researchers conducted an indepth evaluation of
CAPS in five districts that reflect a broad cross section of the city's
neighborhoods. The districts vary in their demographic and socioeconomic
profile, type and extent of problems, and resources to deal with problems.
In a quasi-experimental approach, researchers also collected data from a
set of matched comparison districts. 

The evaluation evidence shows the following accomplishments:

o Crime is going down. CAPS appears to have contributed to a significant
decline in crime-related problems in three districts, declines in drug- and
gang-related problems in two districts, and a significant decrease in
physical decay in two districts. 

o Perceptions of the police have improved. Residents in all five districts
reported more favorable perceptions about the police, although perceptions
among Hispanics showed the least change as a result of community
policing. Most residents in the five districts found the police more
responsive to community concerns, and perceptions of police misconduct
[7] generally declined, especially among African-Americans. Before the
program began, African-Americans and Hispanics were less satisfied than
now with how police treated people in their neighborhood. Despite the
subsequent improvement in perception, class and race differences
persisted; minorities and those with less education were still more apt to
view the police as out of line or corrupt.

o Police are more visible. Residents in the five districts reported seeing
police more often than residents in comparison districts, as the visibility of
foot-patrol officers, neighborhood patrolling, and informal contacts with
citizens all increased. 

Many elements of routine policing showed no change. There was no
evidence of change in the quality of routine police services or the rate at
which people contacted the police and were stopped by them. 

Because the extent of community policing's effects varied in each district
vis-a-vis comparison districts, researchers report that the evidence on the
effectiveness of CAPS is somewhat mixed. The most consistent evaluation
finding to date is that community policing improves public assessments of
police performance.

Citizen Perceptions About the Police

One part of the CAPS evaluation was a special 12-month study of the
citizens most involved with CAPS throughout the city. This study found
citizens highly optimistic about progress under CAPS. They were the most
satisfied with beat community meetings, their district commanders' efforts
to implement CAPS, program marketing efforts, and the quality of service
being delivered by beat officers.

Another 12-month assessment involved a survey of citizens who came in
contact with the police about some matter. Of these respondents, close to
three-fourths reported being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the
outcomes of their contacts. Of those who were stopped for traffic offenses,
about 62 percent thought they were treated fairly, 58 percent thought they
were treated politely, and 61 percent were satisfied with the outcome.
Males, African-Americans, and poorer residents expressed less satisfaction
than others.

More than 62 percent of those surveyed thought police misconduct was
not a problem, 24 to 28 percent indicated that it was "some" problem, and
10 to 13 percent believed misconduct was serious. When asked about
perceptions of police corruption (bribes and drug trade involvement),
responses were very similar to those for general misconduct.

Key Role of Leadership 

Researchers determined that what stood out as having the greatest impact
on CAPS' effectiveness was the performance of the beat team leader,
usually a sergeant, who monitors officers' problem-solving activities and
attends beat community meetings. Researchers found that when these beat
team leaders (usually a sergeant) supported CAPS and expected officers to
do the same, the beat officers were more likely to work on problems
identified as priorities, use the problem-solving model, and develop
nontraditional ways to tackle problems. When beat team leaders did not
support and promote CAPS, officers were much less likely to function as
problem solvers.

In a separate indepth study of 15 beats, researchers found that 4 beats had
made excellent progress in implementing CAPS, 5 had made good
progress, 2 were struggling, and 4 had made little progress. A key
evaluation question was whether CAPS is effective in beats that need and
use police services the most, or whether it is strong only in better-off areas
that have traditionally worked well with police. Researchers found that
about half the beats with great need for police services had strong, well-
organized programs; in the other half, CAPS was poorly implemented.
Differences appear to be attributable primarily to the quality of leadership
exercised at the beat level. 

Strengths and Weaknesses 

The evaluation identified a number of strengths and weaknesses associated
with the implementation of CAPS. They include the following.

Strengths. Beat meetings are one of the most innovative and visible
features of CAPS. Many cities hold occasional public meetings. In
Chicago, beat meetings are held regularly all over the city with residents
and police who patrol their neighborhood. Making the meetings an
effective means of communication between police and citizenry can be
challenging. Yet, attendance at beat meetings has increased steadily over
the 4 years, and police and residents interact cooperatively and without
confrontation. 

Many beat team-leader sergeants and their officers have begun to identify
as a team. Requests to other city agencies for service (e.g., to tow
abandoned cars or demolish abandoned buildings) have become
commonplace, and requests are acted on in a timely manner.

Weaknesses. Beat team leaders find their workload heavy and resent the
added paperwork. Problem analysis and strategy development by police
teams on many beats are weak. Although interaction between citizens and
police can be high, interaction that involves joint problem solving is not
common. 

In spite of the police department's stated commitment to involving the
entire organization in community policing, there has been limited
accomplishment in the 4 years toward implementing community policing
in divisions other than patrol units. Although civilians involved in the
program are enthusiastic about it, they report being unclear about the exact
nature of their role. 

On balance, citizens expressed high levels of confidence in and
satisfaction with Chicago's police. The evaluation also shows that many
officers have accepted community policing as the norm, and police-
community partnerships continue to form, strengthen, and grow at the
neighborhood level.

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

For More Information

Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. Community
Policing in Chicago, Year Four: An Interim Report. Chicago: Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority, 1997.

Skogan, W.G. and S.M. Hartnett. Community Policing, Chicago Style.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Publications on various aspects of CAPS are available at Northwestern
University's Institute for Policy Studies World Wide Web site:
http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/publications/policing.html.

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

7. Measures of misconduct were gleaned from responses to three questions
about police practices in respondents' neighborhoods: Do police stop too
many people on the streets without good reason? Are police too tough on
people they stop? Are police using excessive force; that is, being verbally
or physically abusive to people in your neighborhood?

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

Observing Policing in Neighborhoods

Community policing aims to increase interaction and cooperation between
local police and neighborhoods served. It strives to build police-
community partnerships and employs problem-solving techniques to
enhance neighborhood safety and reduce fear. Obtaining data on how this
relatively new approach affects the behavior and attitudes of police and
residents is essential. 

With funds provided by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, the National Institute of Justice is sponsoring the Project on
Policing Neighborhoods. Researchers are using a combination of
methodologies to obtain detailed data on police-citizen interactions and
related issues in St. Petersburg, Florida, which initiated citywide
implementation of community policing in 1990, and in Indianapolis,
Indiana, which began the approach in 1992. (See "Project
Methodologies.")

Data from the ongoing project will provide a rich resource for examining a
variety of issues. Highlighted here are some of the study's initial findings.

Officers' Views on Police Role

One would expect that officers who work in a community policing context
would conceive the police role in fairly broad terms and would include a
wider range of functions and tasks than law enforcement alone. In both
Indianapolis and St. Petersburg, all but a tiny fraction of interviewed
officers agreed that assisting citizens is as important as enforcing the law;
however, more than 80 percent said that enforcing the law is by far a
patrol officer's most important responsibility.

Almost all interviewed officers agreed that a good patrol officer will try to
find out what residents think the problems are in their neighborhood;
however, about 25 percent of respondents said they have reason to be
distrustful of most citizens. Most officers in both cities accepted
responsibility for handling disputes all or much of the time and extended
their role to dealing with businesses that cause problems for neighbors.

More than two-thirds of interviewed officers identified handling calls for
service as one of the top two goals. That view reflects a traditional
incident-driven focus, as does the importance attributed to making arrests,
issuing citations, and seizing drugs and guns. But one-third of the officers
in St. Petersburg and one-quarter in Indianapolis recognized the value of
problem solving to reduce repeat calls. The researchers note that officers'
support for goals that are aligned with community policing tenets as well
as goals consistent with a more reactive, traditional approach is not
unusual in agencies that are moving toward a community and problem-
solving orientation. 

Of particular interest in St. Petersburg was the difference in perceptions of
the police role by patrol officers assigned to special community policing
tasks and by patrol generalists (911 officers). Compared with 911 officers,
community policing officers expressed, as a group, the following:

o Stronger agreement that assisting citizens is as important as enforcing
the law.

o Stronger support for seeking out the views of neighborhood residents.

o Stronger disagreement that police have reason to be distrustful of
citizens. 

Community policing officers were much more likely to believe that police
should always or "much of the time" handle problems involving neighbor
disputes, public nuisances, parents who do not control their children, and
litter and trash. Two-thirds of the community policing officers in St.
Petersburg indicated that reducing the number of repeat calls for service
was one of their most important goals; 60 percent said that one of the most
important goals was to involve the public in improving the neighborhood.

Allocation of Officer Time

Differences between community policing officers and their 911
counterparts in St. Petersburg were also apparent in how they spent their
time. About 83 percent of community policing officers reported some
involvement in community policing projects during the previous year,
compared with 57 percent of 911 officers. Most projects took at least 2
months to complete and typically focused on a geographic area no larger
than a block. 

Individual officers tended to take responsibility for identifying problems,
planning the response, and carrying out the plan. Community policing
officers were more likely to use nontraditional strategies, such as working
with community organizations or other agencies, whereas 911 officers
were more likely to use traditional strategies, such as increased
surveillance and visibility. 

Based on systematic observation, the researchers found that 911 officers
spent more time on general patrol, on violent and nonviolent crime, and in
face-to-face encounters with the public than did community policing
officers. Community policing officers spent more time than did 911
officers on administrative activities, information gathering, disorders, and
information exchange with the public.

In general, 911 officers spent more time dealing with problems associated
with traditional police work, while community policing officers spent
more time on activities that community policing advocates have identified
as worthy of attention. 

Police-Citizen Interactions in Face-to-Face Encounters

Researchers found that citizens showed high levels of cooperation during
face-to-face encounters. In Indianapolis police fulfilled at least partially
the requests of about 8 of every 10 citizens making a request. When
officers made requests of citizens, almost 90 percent fulfilled or promised
to fulfill all or some of officers' requests. A similar pattern was found in
St. Petersburg.

Disrespect between police and public was observed infrequently. Citizens
were about twice as likely to show disrespect to police as were police to
display disrespect to citizens.

In both cities, the most common threat to maintaining order during an
encounter was the presence of citizens with elevated emotions. Such
citizens far outnumbered other threats to order and safety, such as
intoxication, weapons possession, fleeing police, or threatening or
assaulting police. Indianapolis officers encountered about four citizens
with elevated emotions per average work shift; St. Petersburg officers
averaged between five and six, depending on the nature of the job
assignment.

Training and Knowledge

In Indianapolis and St. Petersburg, interviewed patrol officers appear to
have had ample training in conventional police topics and consider
themselves knowledgeable in those areas. Officers have received training
in concepts and principles of community policing and feel moderately
knowledgeable about it. But they reported having received little or modest
training in some skills that presumably are necessary to practice
community policing. For example, most officers reported neither training
nor knowledge in organizing community groups and using crime data to
analyze neighborhood problems.

Findings on supervisors' training and knowledge follow a pattern similar
to that found among patrol officers. 

Officer and Supervisor Attitudes Toward One Another

In both St. Petersburg and Indianapolis, researchers found that officers
held their supervisors in high regard, and supervisors also thought well of
their subordinates. 

Officers regarded supervisors as experienced, supportive, and motivating.
Supervisors characterized their subordinates as motivated more by
intrinsic factors (desire to work hard and do well) than by extrinsic factors
(a concern for job security or punishment), and more by supervisors' and
other officers' approval than by tangible organizational rewards. 

Community policing calls for changes in the way officers are supervised--
that is, shifting from controlling subordinates to supporting them and
facilitating their efforts. 

In Indianapolis, supervisors considered supportive activities (helping
officers develop sound judgment, providing feedback on their
performance, and helping them work on problems in their beats) more
important than those emphasizing control (enforcing rules, disseminating
information on departmental directives, and monitoring officers'
completion of reports). A similar analysis for St. Petersburg is under way.

Such conditions may provide fertile ground for the transition to the kind of
supervision community policing advocates prescribe.

Neighborhood Resident Satisfaction And Cooperation With Police

In both Indianapolis and St. Petersburg, a high percentage (77 percent and
85 percent, respectively) of interviewed residents said that they were very
or somewhat satisfied with police services in their neighborhood. 

Even in highly distressed neighborhoods in Indianapolis, 70 percent of
residents expressed satisfaction with police. In neighborhoods with
comparable problems, black respondents were slightly more likely to
express satisfaction than were their white neighbors. In St. Petersburg, 86
percent of interviewed residents said they strongly or somewhat agreed
that police were trying to provide services that people in their
neighborhoods wanted. Among blacks, satisfaction with their
neighborhood police was quite high, at 76 percent.

In both cities, about two-thirds of surveyed residents said that police were
excellent or good at working with people in their neighborhoods to solve
problems and that more than half of their neighbors would cooperate with
police. In Indianapolis, researchers found that as cooperation between
police and citizens in solving problems increased, residents felt more
secure in their neighborhoods.

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

For More Information

Mastrofski, S., R.B. Parks, and R.E. Worden. Community Policing in
Action: Lessons From an Observational Study. Research Preview.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1998. FS 000199.

Reiss, A.J., Jr. Patterns of Behavior in Police-Citizen Transactions:
Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 1966. NCJ 117744.

______. Attitudes and Perceptions of Police Officers in Boston, Chicago,
and Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
1966. NCJ 117743. 

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's World Wide Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)851-
3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Reducing Officer Stress

Law enforcement and correctional officers of all ranks are subjected to
more occupational stress than people in most other occupations. Stress
takes a toll on officers' physical and mental health, as well as the
effectiveness of law enforcement and corrections agencies. This stress is
associated with alcoholism, divorce, and suicide among officers. Work-
related stress often affects officers' family members--people who ideally
would be a source of support for officers.

Recognizing this problem, Congress established the Law Enforcement
Family Support (LEFS) program under Title XXI of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Congress authorized the U.S.
Attorney General to research the effects of stress, identify effective
support services, and provide stress reduction information and training to
State and local agencies. Research was to be conducted by the National
Institute of Justice and grant recipients.

Review of Stress-Reduction Programs

NIJ commissioned a review of stress-reduction programs now operating in
law enforcement agencies and published the findings in Developing a Law
Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families. The report
discusses several stress-causing factors, including shift work,
labor/management tensions, perceptions of favoritism or poor
management, inadequate career advancement opportunities, periods of
either too much or too little work to do, and the inherent dangers of police
work. Also discussed are childcare needs, media scrutiny, public criticism,
threats of lawsuits, inadequate equipment or training, and the contribution
of stress to incidents of excessive use of force and police corruption. 

Although the report found limited empirical research about correctional
officers' stress, it is clear that stress may be caused by chronic
understaffing and overtime work, shift work, confusion over officers'
roles, threat of or actual inmate violence, low public recognition, low pay,
and poor employee relations.

Findings suggest that stress-reduction programs need to address all
stressful conditions in a way that is agreeable to the varying concerns of
police and corrections management, labor organizations, and family
members.

NIJ also conducted a study to determine the nature and extent of police
stress in one geographic region of the U.S. The study's findings were still
under analysis in fiscal year 1997. 

Besides the two studies mentioned above, NIJ awards LEFS grants to
police and corrections agencies or law-related organizations (such as
officer unions). The grants support research into the nature and extent of
law enforcement and corrections stress as well as demonstration and
testing of innovative treatment and training programs. Among the topics
addressed by the grants are these: debriefing and stress management for
officers involved in critical incidents; police organizational change;
development of training methods for stress-management; and development
of networks of psychological services for police officers. Grantees are
providing stress reduction services to officers while increasing the Nation's
understanding of treatment for police stress. Fifteen grants had been
awarded through the end of fiscal year 1997. (See "Law Enforcement and
Family Support Grantees.")

NIJ has developed comprehensive plans to increase national awareness of
law enforcement officer and family stress. The plan includes a national
survey of the extent of stress prevention and treatment programs in law
enforcement and correctional agencies; establishment of a national referral
system for information and treatment of family and officer stress issues;
and an online network and forum to enable the exchange of information
and support systems for ameliorating officer and family stress.

Collaboration and Program Expansion

NIJ is also collaborating on stress issues with other agencies within the
Office of Justice Programs, specifically the Corrections Program Office,
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Working with these
organizations will contribute toward a better understanding of stress issues
and result in communication to a wide audience.

NIJ's long-term goal is to expand its program beyond understanding the
nature, causes, and consequences of stress issues. Eventually, NIJ will
understand and demonstrate how to actually prevent stress throughout
policing and corrections. This goal could involve large-scale policy
development and training. Toward that end, NIJ is actively seeking input
from other branches of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and law
enforcement and corrections officer or family public interest groups. Such
information would help NIJ coordinate its efforts with other programs in
DOJ and improve its LEFS program in general.

-------------------------------
For More Information

Additional information about the Law Enforcement Family Support
program is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on
"Programs."

Finn, P. and J.E. Tomz. Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program
for Officers and Their Families. Issues and Practices. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1997. 
NCJ 163175.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Breaking the Links Between Drugs and Crime

This section highlights four projects and programs illustrative of NIJ
efforts to break the nexus between drugs and crime. Those efforts
encompass the spectrum from arrest to incarceration to postrelease. 

NIJ's Breaking the Cycle demonstration project tests certain arrestees for
drugs and requires court-supervised treatment if test results are positive. 

The Institute's ADAM program screens arrestees at many sites nationwide
for a variety of drugs and other health threats; resulting data help State and
local policymakers better understand and more effectively break the link
between drugs and criminal activity.

Descriptions of residential substance abuse treatment in correctional
facilities and of probationer/parolee aftercare services conclude this
section.

Experimenting With Mandatory Treatment For Drug-Involved Offenders

Criminal justice professionals are often the first to point out that they have
been operating a "revolving door" by which drug-using defendants, left
untreated, are sooner or later returned to their communities, only to fall
back into the old patterns of behavior that originally contributed to their
troubles. By contrast, use of treatment-oriented drug courts appears to
convert arrests of drug-dependent individuals into opportunities to
intervene, which can generate favorable outcomes if intervention is
accompanied by accountability, treatment, encouragement, and support.

In 1997, NIJ launched a demonstration project--Breaking the Cycle
(BTC)--in Birmingham, Alabama, designed to apply research findings
indicating that when the coercive power of the criminal justice system is
used to reinforce substance abuse treatment, defendants are more likely to
change their behavior. Funded by NIJ and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, the project fully integrates systemwide drug testing,
referral to treatment, judicial supervision of treatment, and graduated
sanctions throughout pretrial and postconviction processes. In this way,
BTC expands the criminal justice system's focus beyond the resolution of
traditional legal issues. BTC deals with a factor discovered at arrest that
commonly contributes to criminal behavior--substance abuse. The
program illustrates NIJ's efforts to sever the linkages between crime and
drug abuse. 

Intended Program Consequences and Objectives

BTC is designed to answer a key question: What would be the impact on
the incidence of drug use and crime in a given community if all arrested
drug users could be identified early, assessed for their drug treatment
needs, referred to appropriate drug treatment, monitored through regular
drug testing, and sanctioned immediately if pretrial drug use occurs? 

Specific BTC objectives include the following: 

o Close collaboration between criminal justice and drug treatment
professionals. BTC envisions that every drug-using defendant entering the
criminal justice system--regardless of offense or likely case outcome--will
be assessed by an organization that is an advocate for neither defense nor
prosecution. Treatment is ordered by the court and individualized
treatment plans are written. Judicial supervision takes the form of reviews
of defendants' treatment participation or drug testing at each court
appearance.

o Early intervention. BTC calls for identifying eligible subjects for drug
treatment immediately after arrest, perhaps the most propitious moment to
intervene. Prearraignment drug testing is followed by clinical assessment
and placement in appropriate treatment shortly afterwards.

o Judicial oversight. BTC involves regular drug tests and close judicial
oversight of drug treatment. Judges have broad authority to impose and
enforce pretrial conditions that address public safety. This requires that
judges have speedy access to compliance information, so they can review
drug test results and treatment participation at each scheduled court
hearing.

o Use of graduated sanctions and incentives. Judges review the progress of
drug-abusing offenders and steadily apply leverage--both sanctions and
incentives--to keep offenders in treatment and off drugs. Sanctions are
graduated, and certainty in their application is more important than
severity of consequences. They are imposed as soon as possible after a
violation of judicial orders occurs.

Putting the Program Into Action

As it implemented BTC, Birmingham confronted significant problems in
expanding its drug monitoring and treatment services. Like most courts in
the United States, Birmingham's faced huge caseloads and backlogs. The
county jail, built to hold 750 inmates, was housing more than 1,200 when
BTC was proposed, limiting its ability to provide staff as well as space for
screening, urine testing, and jail-based treatment. The probation staff was
shorthanded. 

To overcome those obstacles, the city made major procedural changes and
substantial investments to upgrade its basic infrastructure. These upgrades
included changes in the physical facility, better case management
techniques, and a state-of-the-art management information system. To
build a system capable of intervening with substantial numbers of
offenders in need of treatment, Birmingham began a multipronged strategy
calling for:

o Collaborative planning. Implementing BTC required input and support
from all agencies involved to determine how the new drug system would
operate and to identify the challenges facing various agencies and the
resources available to deal with these challenges. Ongoing planning
meetings with staff from the jail, district attorney's office, probation
department, and other justice system agencies culminated in creation of a
BTC policy board. The full board meets at least monthly to review
progress and recommend changes. Smaller groups meet more often to
focus on specific problems.

o Early identification and intervention. Under the traditional Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program for drug-involved offenders
in Birmingham, intervention occurred when a defendant pled guilty and
applied for probation. BTC has moved TASC intervention to arrest or
shortly thereafter, drastically changing what it means to be a drug-
involved offender on bond awaiting trial in Birmingham. Three district
court judges have adopted a policy ordering all offenders charged with
felony drug possession to appear at TASC within 48 hours of release on
bond. This order is expected to be broadened soon to defendants facing
other charges.

o Computerized assessment and case tracking. BTC depends on building a
case management and tracking system to facilitate timely exchange of
information on an offender's legal status, treatment need and progress, and
compliance with treatment. For every offender found to be drug involved,
there is a case management plan and recommendations to the court.
Supervision extends from pretrial all the way through probation and
parole.

o Expanded options for intervention. BTC addressed the need for more
treatment and supervision options by developing a day reporting center
where pretrial defendants can attend a drug education program, expanding
an electronic monitoring program, instituting a cognitive behavioral
training program to help drug-involved defendants learn to make better
choices, contracting for additional drug treatment beds from community-
based providers, and expanding intensive outpatient treatment. These steps
have helped, but waiting lists for treatment have grown since BTC began.

Early Indications

BTC so far has admitted only drug cases at arrest and certain other cases
further along in the system. Approximately 1,000 defendants are now
enrolled in BTC. All participants receive case management services
through TASC, and all are monitored by the court. 

BTC is being evaluated to determine its impact in four key areas: lowering
drug use among offenders; reducing criminal behavior among offenders;
improving indicators of social functioning, such as employment and
health; and making more effective use of criminal justice resources,
especially detention capacity.

Preliminary findings suggest BTC has helped identify drug-abusing
offenders and admit them to treatment much earlier and that pretrial
supervision has improved dramatically. Retention rates in treatment
programs are high, and 70 percent of defendants are in compliance with
the rigorous BTC drug-testing protocol. 

During 1998, the program will expand eligibility to all noncapital felony
offenders who test positive for drug use, and NIJ will award grants to
implement BTC in two additional adult and two juvenile courts elsewhere
in the United States. The program for juveniles will be adjusted for
juvenile court proceedings and the special needs of the young people
involved. 

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

For More Information

Harrell, A., F. Cook, and J. Carver. "Breaking the Cycle of Drug Abuse in
Birmingham." NIJ Journal, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, forthcoming summer 1998. 

Harrell, A., S. Cavanagh, and E. Hirst. Breaking the Cycle in Birmingham:
Implementation of Phase I. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 
forthcoming fall 1998. 

For more information about Breaking the Cycle, visit NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on "Programs."

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Helping Identify Drug Use Patterns

Since its founding in 1987, NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program
has generated data at the local level that have played an important role in
constructing the national picture of drug abuse. In major urban areas
nationwide, the program's staff test and interview booked arrestees four
times per year for recent drug use. The results help State and local
policymakers as well as researchers understand the links between drugs
and crime.

Because of its 10-year success in generating trend data about drug use at
23 participating sites, DUF was redesign-ed and its mission expanded
during 1997 and is now known as the ADAM program (Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring).

Growth of ADAM 

Twelve sites will be added to the program in 1998, bringing the total to 35
in what is planned to be a 75-site ADAM system. (See "ADAM Sites.")
The expansion will broaden our understanding of national drug abuse
trends while, at the same time, providing additional local policymakers
with an important tool to address specific, local substance abuse problems.

As redesigned, ADAM is expected to be an increasingly valuable source
for useful research because data collection and sampling methods have
been broadened and strengthened. In addition, ADAM will permit testing
for a broader range of substances and health threats by making additional
drugs and certain sexually transmitted diseases part of the quarterly testing
procedures or protocol. 

An international component is planned. Several countries have expressed
interest in establishing programs modeled on ADAM. England has
completed a pilot project, and Australia and Scotland are now moving
forward with plans to adopt such a program. International sites could
provide baseline information about substance abuse problems throughout
the world and serve as a foundation for conducting comparative research
on criminal justice policies and substance abuse. The international
component would include NIJ technical assistance to participating
countries.

ADAM: Some Uses and Findings

Using ADAM data, researchers can examine the relationship between
drugs and violent crime, overdoses and other drug-related medical
emergencies, gun use and attitudes toward guns among arrestees, and
arrestees' need for drug treatment. 

Researchers have already used the program's data to analyze variations in
the purchase and use of powder cocaine, crack, and heroin; access to and
use of illegal firearms by arrestees; and the decline of crack use. Data from
a number of participating ADAM jurisdictions were a key element in
illuminating and analyzing the links between drug activity and homicide
revealed in NIJ's "Homicide in U.S. Cities" project. (See "Homicide in
Eight Cities" in this Part.)

ADAM will accommodate the needs of local researchers and policymakers
through specialized questionnaires (addenda or supplements to the
standard questionnaire) developed for specific purposes. In this way,
Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
National Institute on Drug Abuse), U.S. Attorneys, and local organizations
can collect addendum data on an array of timely questions from arrestees
in specific areas or regions of the country. NIJ and researchers at the
University of Missouri, St. Louis, are currently developing a supplemental
questionnaire on gangs and gang activity.

Among the findings gleaned from analyses of ADAM data are these:

o About two-thirds of arrestees who are tested for drugs are found to be
positive for at least one drug. 

o Drug use among arrestees is at high levels, with distinctive regional, age,
and gender patterns.

o Older arrestees are testing positive for cocaine at 2 to 10 times the rate of
the younger arrestees. In Washington, D.C., and Detroit, for example,
approximately 5 percent of 15- to 20-year-old arrestees test positive for
cocaine compared with 50 percent for arrestees who are 36 years old and
older.

o Marijuana use among arrestees continues to be disproportionately
concentrated among youthful offenders, but 1997 data also show that
marijuana use among youthful arrestees is leveling off and in some cities
decreasing noticeably. Generally, rates of positive test results for
marijuana use among juvenile male arrestees/detainees who have left
school without graduating range from 3 to 30 percentage points higher
than rates for juvenile males still in school.

o Methamphetamine use continues to be found primarily among arrestees
in ADAM sites in the western United States.

Local Outreach and Involvement

Outreach components will also strengthen the value of the ADAM data.
Each site will continue to collect quarterly data in the central cities but will
now reach beyond the urban base. This will be done by collecting data
annually from a targeted population, such as a suburban, rural, or Native
American jurisdiction. Selection of outreach populations will change
annually. By including areas beyond the central cities, ADAM will
provide a more comprehensive vision of shifts in substance abuse and of
emerging problems. 

At each ADAM site, NIJ will establish local coordinating councils that
will use ADAM data and generate local research projects. The councils
will identify issues of local interest that could become topics for
questionnaire addenda, and they will play a prominent role in
disseminating the site-based data to practitioners, public constituencies,
researchers, and evaluators.

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

For More Information

Decker, S.H., S. Pennell, and A. Caldwell. Illegal Firearms: Access and
Use by Arrestees. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997. NCJ 163496.

Feucht, T.E. and G.M. Kyle. Methamphetamine Use Among Adult
Arrestees: Findings From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program.
Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, November 1996. NCJ 161842.

Golub, A.L. and B.D. Johnson. Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across
U.S. Cities. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997. NCJ 165707.

Lattimore, P.K. et al. Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and
Policy Implications. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1997. NCJ 167262.

National Institute of Justice. 1996 Drug Use Forecasting Annual Report on
Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1997. NCJ
165691.

Reardon, J.A. The Drug Use Forecasting Program: Measuring Drug Use in
a "Hidden" Population. Issues and Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1993. 
NCJ 144784. 

Riley, K.J. Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use
Patterns in Six U.S. Cities. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Justice and Office of National Drug Control Policy, December
1997. NCJ 167267.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Evaluating Corrections-Based Treatment Programs

Many incarcerated offenders have a history of drug use that has often
contributed to criminal behavior resulting in imprisonment. Designed to
help "break the cycle" between drugs and crime, residential substance
abuse treatment (RSAT) in correctional facilities seeks to motivate and
help these offenders overcome drug involvement and thereby reduce
subsequent criminal behavior.  

Several past evaluations of corrections-based substance abuse treatment
provide evidence of significant reductions in recidivism rates among
chronic drug-abusing felons. In reviewing the effectiveness of treatment
for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision, one researcher noted
that such treatment is propitious because many of those receiving it would
be unlikely to seek treatment on their own. [8]

NIJ is developing a portfolio of projects to evaluate residential substance
abuse treatment in State and local correctional institutions. (See
"Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Grantees.") Funding for these
NIJ evaluation projects is provided by the Office of Justice Programs'
Corrections Program Office (CPO), which administers the 1994 Crime
Act's RSAT Formula Grant Program and has contributed to the planning
and development of NIJ's RSAT evaluation portfolio. (See "Origin and
Nature of the RSAT Program.") The NIJ/CPO partnership reflects both
agencies' commitment to fostering practitioner/researcher partnerships,
building a relevant and timely knowledge base, and improving corrections
and other related programs.

Local RSAT Evaluations

An important element of NIJ's RSAT evaluation portfolio consists of local
evaluations of individual RSAT programs. Requiring collaboration among
researchers, corrections officials, and program administrators, 20 local
RSAT process evaluations were under way in 1997 in 17 States. [9] NIJ
anticipates funding additional local evaluations in fiscal years 1998 and
1999.

Local evaluations initially focused on process--the implementation and
operation of RSAT programs--by collecting information on such topics as
program design and integrity of implementation, custodial setting for the
program, number and characteristics of clients, and level of participation.
Independent local evaluators in partnership with corrections officials will
be able to compete for additional funding to study the RSAT program,
especially its impact on substance use and criminal behavior. 

Though funding for each evaluation is relatively modest, local evaluations
are expected to provide, in aggregate, extensive information about the
local programs and corrections-based RSAT in general.

Obtaining a National Perspective

NIJ's overall RSAT evaluation effort also includes a national evaluation,
designed to augment and complement the local evaluations. The national
evaluation has a broader focus than the evaluations of specific RSAT
programs and includes surveys of all State corrections officials,
institutional administrators, and RSAT program directors. 

The national assessment should provide broad information on how RSAT
funds were spent and to what effect. In addition, the national evaluation
will enhance local evaluations by helping to develop common data
collection instruments and by facilitating coordination, information
sharing, and problem solving. The national project may also identify for
further study RSAT programs not included in the local evaluations.

Collaboration, Coordination, And Partnerships

NIJ and CPO have held "cluster conferences" to bring together local
evaluators and the national evaluation team to share information and
resources, develop an information-sharing network, and foster
comparability across sites. At two cluster conferences, held in spring and
fall 1997, program sites reported on progress, shared various
implementation problems and solutions, and described their data collection
instruments and sources. 

At the conferences, the national evaluation team explained to program
administrators and State corrections officials its research plan and the
survey instruments, which were developed in conjunction with local
RSAT evaluators. The national team and local evaluators discussed
coordination and collaboration of their respective efforts. As the RSAT
evaluation portfolio grows and matures, future meetings will address
emerging research concerns.

To expand and deepen partnerships between researchers and corrections
practitioners and officials, NIJ and CPO will sponsor a workshop in spring
1998 to support the formation of effective partnerships and encourage the
development of promising research applications for NIJ funding.

Disseminating Findings

To share knowledge gained from the RSAT evaluations, NIJ has
coordinated conference presentations by local and national evaluators at
annual meetings of professional associations. As the evaluations proceed
and the knowledge base grows, NIJ will continue to coordinate and host
presentations and disseminate reports of RSAT evaluation findings. 

Presentations and reports will take advantage of the richness of the RSAT
evaluation portfolio, synthesizing information from a variety of programs,
including those for juveniles or adults and those operating in local jails
and State prisons. Such information will greatly enhance our
understanding of RSAT in correctional settings and of the RSAT program
in particular. Special attention will be paid to developing policy
suggestions based on solid empirical research.

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

For More Information

Gorski, T.T., J.M. Kelley, and L. Havens. Relapse Prevention and the
Substance Abusing Criminal Offender. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, 1993. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 95-3071.

Gorski, T.T., and J.M. Kelley. Counselor's Manual for Relapse Prevention
with Chemically Dependent Criminal Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, 1996. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 96-
3115. 

Tunis, S., J. Austin, M. Morris, P. Hardyman, and M. Bolyard. Evaluation
of Drug Treatment in Local Corrections. Research Preview. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. June 1996.
FS 000173.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

8. Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers
Under Criminal Justice Supervision, Research Report, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1995,
NCJ 157642.

9. California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan,
Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

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

Reducing Substance Abuse Relapse Through Aftercare

The Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) program is designed to reduce
substance abuse relapse and criminal recidivism by providing
comprehensive aftercare services to adult probationers and parolees.
Developed by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, the program model assumes that various risk factors
typify the lives of substance-involved offenders, predisposing them to
repetitive episodes of substance use and criminal activity. OPTS is
designed to reduce risk factors and facilitate a smooth transition to
responsible social roles by sustaining and building upon the gains
offenders achieved through their participation in prerelease treatment
programs.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and NIJ are supporting a national
evaluation of OPTS implementation and impact evaluations in Kansas
City, St. Louis, and Tampa. (See "Evaluation Methodology and Goals.")
Final results are expected in late 1998.

OPTS Goals and Operation

The specific goals of OPTS include reducing the prevalence and frequency
of substance abuse and associated criminal behavior; strengthening the
positive ties of probationers and parolees to work, family, and community;
increasing participants' involvement in social service programs and
primary health care; and enhancing the coordination and integration of
parole and probation agencies and social service providers. 

Offenders returning to targeted neighborhoods are eligible for OPTS
participation if they must serve a minimum of 1 year of probation or
parole, have a history of substance abuse, have completed a substance
abuse treatment program while incarcerated or in a residential facility (in
lieu of jail), have felony convictions, and are 18 years of age or older. 

OPTS is structured around case management with collaborative
partnerships between a lead service agency and the local probation and
parole office.

Research indicates that a high proportion of substance abusers lead
disadvantaged lives, characterized by low educational attainment, poverty
or income instability, family dysfunction, and serious health and mental
health problems that are undertreated. The OPTS intervention therefore
pairs intensive supervision with the following five aftercare services: 

o Substance abuse treatment, ranging from 12-step programs through
intensive residential placements, is the only one of the five services in
which offenders must participate to remain in the program. 

o Employability training includes services to assist clients in finding and
maintaining legitimate employment. Gainful employment is a requirement
of probation and parole. OPTS services include assessment of client skills
and career interests; basic job search skills and training, including
developing resumes, filling out applications, identifying job openings, and
learning interviewing techniques; and job referral and placement. Some
agencies offer additional services, such as GED courses, vocational skills
training, and apprenticeship programs or other opportunities for on-the-job
training.

o Housing is a central concern of probation and parole supervision because
incarcerated offenders cannot be released without a home plan indicating
that satisfactory living arrangements have been designated. Housing
services include placement in drug-free, supportive environments (e.g.,
halfway houses, group houses, and apartments to share), as well as other
related emergency services such as crisis assistance if a domestic situation
suddenly deteriorates and requires immediate relocation, or emergency
funds to cover unexpected expenses (e.g., unusually high utility bills).

o Family intervention and parenting training includes such services as
parenting classes, family counseling, anger management, and domestic
violence counseling to help clients assume responsibility for their children
and to end violent or destructive behaviors at home. 

o Health and mental health services, ranging from regular checkups to
specialized care when needed, are envisioned because substance abusers
often have a wide range of physical and mental health problems.

Participants can receive OPTS services, on an as-needed basis, for a
maximum of 2 years. 

Preliminary Findings And Policy Implications

Although analysis of OPTS evaluation data is ongoing, a baseline survey
underscored the importance of the link between full-time employment and
a reduction in predatory and drug-dealing crimes. Hence, findings
regarding employment are presented here while findings regarding other
OPTS services are expected in late 1998.

Being fully employed decreased the odds of committing a predatory crime
by 46 percent, and the odds of committing a drug crime by 65 percent.
[10]

OPTS participants were more likely to be employed than the control
group: 82 percent of clients, as compared with 73 percent of controls, had
full-time jobs during the first year of supervision. 

Clients worked for an average of 6.4 months during their first year, as
compared with 5.1 months for controls. In addition, more clients reported
increased job search skills, and more clients reported improved work
habits.

Based on the preliminary analysis, several policy implications and lessons
learned are evident. 

o Case managers can, and do, play a proactive role in helping clients find
employment. They play a central role in delivering services and effectively
serve as advocates for their clients. Managers' knowledge of their
communities allows them to better serve their clients. 

o Many employment services are structured to serve the least skilled, least
educated job seekers. Such agencies are generally unable to adequately
serve the small but important group of clients with professional
backgrounds or well-developed vocational or technical skills. As a result,
programs that cultivate relationships with multiple employment service
providers are more effective because they can cater to various clienteles
with diverse skills and skill levels. 

o Centrally locating multiple agencies near one another benefits both
clients and staff. When case managers, probation officers, substance abuse
treatment, and employment services are colocated, effectiveness of
services increases.

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

10.  Rossman, S.B., and S. Sridharan, "Using Survey Data to Study
Linkages Among Crime, Drug Use, and Life Circumstances: Findings
From the Opportunity to Succeed Program." Presentation at the Nineteenth
Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis
and Management, Washington, D.C., November 1997.

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

For More Information

Visit the OPTS Web site at the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University at http://www.casacolumbia.org.
Click on "Prevention and Treatment."

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

Understanding the Nature of Violence

This section briefly describes NIJ-supported research pertaining to
homicide, stalking, and family violence. 

The homicide study exemplifies not only work conducted within NIJ's
intramural research program but also how the Institute addresses its
strategic challenge of identifying links between crime and other social
phenomena by illuminating the relationships between criminal activity and
the context in which it occurs.

Both the stalking and family violence research are illustrative of NIJ's
efforts to build a comprehensive knowledge base for shaping more
effective public policies on crime and justice. The research is also
indicative of the many partnerships the Institute has forged with other
agencies.

Homicide in Eight Cities

In recent years, homicide rates declined in many major U.S. cities. New
York City, for example, experienced a 53-percent homicide-rate decline
between 1991 and 1996. However, despite highly publicized dramatic
decreases in homicides, such declines were not universal; some cities
experienced increases and others little change.  

As part of its program of intramural research, which is conducted by NIJ
staff rather than by outside researchers, the Institute launched a study in
1995 to identify factors affecting homicide rates in eight U.S. cities. Now
completed, the study exemplifies how NIJ is addressing one of its strategic
challenges: understanding the nexus, or link, between crime and other
social factors, such as drugs, communities, and economic development. To
maximize the study's analytic power, NIJ compared and contrasted cities
with increasing, decreasing, and stable homicide trends from 1985 to 1994
(the most recent year for which data were available when the study began).
(See "Scope of the Homicide Study.")

Homicide Victims and Offenders: Findings

Homicide trends varied greatly by age, sex, and race of victim and
offender. Homicide victimization rates for 18- to 24-year-old black males
greatly exceeded the rates for other groups and increased over the study
period in all cities, even those experiencing overall declines. The
victimization rate for 13- to 17-year-old black males also increased in
most cities but at much lower levels. White males were murdered at
uniformly lower rates than black males, although in Detroit, 18- to 24-
year-old white males were murdered at rates approaching those of black
males by 1994; the homicide rate among this group of white males
increased fourfold from 1985 to 1994.

Black females ages 18 to 24 experienced homicide rates roughly
comparable to those experienced by white males ages 18 to 24 (except in
Detroit) and far below those experienced by black males of the same age.
Rates for 13- to 17-year-old black females were relatively low in general
across cities from 1985 to 1994. White females experienced the lowest
homicide rates of the groups studied.

Generally, homicide perpetrators are younger than their victims; the age
difference did not change greatly from 1985 to 1994. When analyzed by
age bracket (0-17, 18-24, and 25+), victims were likely to have been
murdered by offenders in the same age group. Murders by those in the
youngest age group composed a relatively small portion of the total.
Murders of black males by black males were predominant, often
outnumbering murders in the other race/sex categories combined.

Findings: Influence of Domain Factors on Homicides

As noted in the accompanying sidebar, NIJ researchers studied three
categories, or domains, of factors believed to affect homicide rates:
environmental, situational, and criminal justice system domains.

Environmental Domain. Researchers found some support for a
hypothesized link between economic factors and homicide. Of the five
cities with higher homicide rates in 1994 than 1985, census data showed a
decline (1980 to 1990) in employment among black males in four cities
(Atlanta, Washington, D.C., New Orleans, and Richmond); data were
unavailable for the fifth city (Indianapolis). Further supporting the
hypothesis, Tampa showed decreased homicides and higher employment
levels for all groups. 

In New Orleans, Richmond, and Indianapolis, poverty among blacks
increased from 1980 to 1990, providing some support for a hypothesized
link between poverty and homicide. On the other hand, at the city level,
changes over time in income distribution, education level, and household
type were not associated with homicide trends. Preliminary analysis of the
spatial distribution of homicide in Washington, D.C., at the neighborhood
level strongly suggests that homicide is more prevalent in high-poverty
areas.

Homicides between related or intimate individuals composed a small
percentage of the overall homicides for the eight cities but represented a
relatively high percentage of the homicides with female victims. In cases
where the victim-offender relationship was reported, approximately 50
percent of female victims but less than 20 percent of male victims were
killed by family or intimates. In three of the four cities with decreasing
homicide trends, a disproportionately large part of the decrease occurred in
intimate/family homicides; data were insufficient for an assessment of this
trend in the fourth city.

All eight cities reported improvements in emergency medical services
(EMS), such as better technology and more extensive staff training.
Because EMS improvements occurred in cities with increasing and
decreasing trends in homicide rates, such improvements could not explain
or account for the homicide trends. EMS directors noted that the increased
use and power of guns made saving lives more difficult, offsetting
improved EMS capabilities. Viewed more positively, EMS enhancements
probably helped dampen what other-wise would have been even higher
homicide rates. 

Situational Domain. In five of six cities for which Drug Use Forecasting
(DUF) data were available, homicide rates generally rose and fell with
increases and decreases in positive test rates among arrestees for cocaine,
especially crack cocaine. In all study sites, crack use in particular was
perceived by respondents as highly associated with violence. Drugs other
than cocaine were not consistently associated with homicide trends by
either respondents or through analysis of DUF and homicide data. 

The percentage of homicides involving guns increased over time in all
eight cities, even where homicide rates decreased. Cities with the greatest
growth in homicide rates had the highest percentage of homicides
involving guns. Federal task forces and other efforts to fight gun violence
were generally appreciated locally, as most cities lacked comprehensive
gun violence prevention programs.

Gangs did not appear to contribute significantly to homicide trends in the
cities studied, but none was a "classic" gang city.

Criminal Justice System Domain. Focusing on the influence of clearance
rates (percentage of cases resulting in arrests) on homicide rates,
researchers compared one year's clearance rate with the following year's
homicide count. Lower clearance rates were followed by increased
homicides the next year in cities that had experienced rapid homicide
growth throughout the study timeframe (New Orleans and Richmond) or
for part of the time, followed by decreases (Atlanta and Washington,
D.C.).

Homicide trends were loosely linked to inmate flows into and out of
prisons: an increase in incarcerations was associated with a decrease in
homicide rates and vice versa. Data were limited, however, and this
conclusion is extremely tentative.

Community- and problem-oriented policing strategies were operational in
all study cities, but data were insufficient to link these strategies with
homicide trends. This finding is due in part to such efforts being relatively
recent.

Conclusions

Among the conclusions and policy implications of this study are the
following: 

o In some cities, reductions in family/intimate homicides are contributing
substantially to the overall decrease in homicides, supporting local beliefs
that domestic violence programs are having an effect. 

o Guns played an increasing role in homicides, regardless of the
underlying homicide trend. 

o Communities should study local factors, such as drug use at the
community level, rather than relying on national statistics, which may not
reflect local trends.

o A potentially important but complicated relationship between homicide
and clearance rates exists.

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

For More Information 

Lattimore, P.K., J. Trudeau, K.J. Riley, J. Leiter, and S. Edwards.
Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy Implications.
Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, December 1997. NCJ 167262. 

This report is summarized in A Study of Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities:
An NIJ Intramural Research Project. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997.
NCJ 167263.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Stalking: Findings From a National Survey

The past decade witnessed heightened interest in the crime of stalking. To
gather much needed empirical data on the nature of stalking, NIJ and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cosponsored the National
Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey, a nationally representative
telephone survey of 8,000 women and an equal number of men. This first-
ever survey is illustrative of NIJ's efforts to build a comprehensive
knowledge base for shaping more effective public policies on crime and
justice. 

What Is Stalking?

Legal definitions of stalking vary widely among States, but most require
that the behavior be repeated and that it be harassing or threatening. The
definition in the NVAW Survey closely resembles that in the model
antistalking code for States developed by NIJ several years ago. The
survey defined stalking as "a course of conduct directed at a specific
person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual
communication, or verbal, written or implied threats, or a combination
thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear," with the term repeated
meaning on two or more occasions. 

How Much Stalking Occurs in America?

When the NVAW Survey used a definition of stalking that required
victims to feel a high level of fear, 8 percent of women and 2 percent of
men reported having been stalked at some time in their lives. These figures
are significantly higher than previously cited "guesstimates" of 5 percent
[11] and equate to an estimated 8.2 million women and 2 million men
based on U.S. Census Bureau figures. 

When a less stringent definition of stalking was used--one requiring
victims to feel only somewhat frightened or a little frightened by their
assailant's behavior--stalking prevalence rates rise to 12 percent for
women and to 4 percent for men. These higher prevalence rates equate to
an estimated 12.1 million women and 3.7 million men who have been
stalked at some time in their lives. 

Who Stalks Whom?

Although stalking is a gender-neutral crime, women are the primary
victims and men the primary perpetrators. Seventy-eight percent of
stalking victims identified in the survey were women; 22 percent were
men. By comparison, 94 percent of stalkers identified by female victims
and 60 percent identified by male victims were male. Overall, 87 percent
of stalkers were male.

Young adults were stalkers' primary targets. Fifty-two percent of victims
were 18 to 29 years old when the stalking began, and 22 percent were 30
to 39. On average, victims were 28 years old when the stalking started. 

Most victims knew their stalkers. Seventy-seven percent of female victims
and 64 percent of male victims knew their stalker. Current or former
husbands and former dates or boyfriends stalked 38 percent and 14 percent
of female victims, respectively. Overall, 59 percent of female victims
compared with 30 percent of male victims were stalked by intimate
partners or former intimate partners.

Previous reports indicate that the stalking of a woman by an intimate or a
former intimate partner typically occurs after she attempts to leave the
relationship. The NVAW Survey found that 21 percent of victims who
were stalked by intimate partners said it occurred before the relationship
ended, 43 percent said afterward, and 36 percent said both before and
afterward. 

How Often Do Stalkers Overtly Threaten?

Under many State antistalking laws, stalking occurs only when it involves
an overt threat of violence. However, the survey found that fewer than half
of the surveyed victims--both male and female--were directly threatened
by their stalkers. Findings indicate that stalkers often engage in conduct
that, although not involving overt threats, does cause a reasonable person
to become fearful. 

How Often Is Stalking Reported and Prosecuted?

Fifty-five percent of female and 48 percent of male surveyed stalking
victims reported the incidents to police. Those who did not report felt the
stalkings were not a police matter, believed police would be ineffective, or
feared reprisals from stalkers.

Overall, the 50 percent of victims who reported stalkings were pleased
with police results. Survey respondents who said their stalkers were
arrested were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the way the
police handled their case than were respondents who said their stalkers
were not arrested (76 percent versus 42 percent).

Twenty-four percent of female victims and 19 percent of male victims in
cases with police reports indicated that their cases were prosecuted.
Respondents reported that 54 percent of the stalkers who had criminal
charges filed against them were convicted of a crime, and of those, 63
percent were believed to have been sent to jail or prison. 

What Are the Psychological and Social Consequences of Stalking?

The survey produced strong confirmation of the negative mental health
impact of stalking. Thirty percent of women and 20 percent of men said
they sought psychological counseling as a result of the stalking. Stalking
victims were significantly more likely than nonstalking victims to be
concerned about their personal safety, to carry a self-defense item, and to
think that their personal safety had worsened in recent years.

Twenty-six percent of victims said the stalkings caused them to lose time
from their jobs. Seven percent never returned to work. Of victims who did
return, most lost 11 days.

Of the 92 percent of victims no longer being stalked at the time of their
interviews, 19 percent said the stalking stopped because they moved away,
18 percent because the stalkers developed new love interests, 15 percent
because their assailants received warning from police, 9 percent because
the stalkers were arrested, and less than 1 percent because victims obtained
restraining orders.

What Are the Implications For Policy?

Although victims reported being very frightened or fearing bodily harm or
death, less than half were directly threatened by their stalkers. Researchers
suggest that State laws should drop the requirement that to be legally
considered a stalker, a perpetrator must make an overt threat.

Four out of five women (81 percent) who were stalked by an intimate
partner (either before or after the relationship ended) were also physically
assaulted by that partner, and 31 percent were also sexually assaulted by
that partner. Criminal justice professionals should be made aware (through
comprehensive training) of the very real safety risks that stalking victims
face. Because more than a quarter of stalking victims seek psychological
help, mental health professionals also should receive special training about
the needs of stalking victims.

Given that 70 percent of all restraining orders obtained against stalkers
were violated and that victims were more likely to credit the cessation of
their stalking to informal police warnings, more research is needed on the
effectiveness of formal and informal police techniques. Because about a
fifth of all stalking victims move to new locations to escape their stalkers,
the availability of address confidentiality programs is important. These
programs enable victims facing continued pursuit and unusual safety risks
to develop personal safety plans that include relocating as far from their
offenders as possible and securing a mail-forwarding service that will not
reveal their new locations.

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

For More Information

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes. Stalking in America: Findings From the
National Violence Against Women Survey. Research in Brief.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, April 1998. NCJ 169592. 

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or contact the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500. 

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

11. The NVAW Survey's estimate that 8 percent of U.S. women are
stalked at some time in their life is 1.6 times greater than a 1992 estimate
by psychiatrist Park Dietz, and the survey's estimate that 1,006,970 U.S.
women are stalked annually is five times greater than Dietz's guesstimate.

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

Family Violence: A Vigorous Research Agenda

As more information has surfaced over the past 10 years about the
frequency and consequences of family violence, criminal justice
practitioners, policymakers, and researchers have focused increased
attention on such behavior. 

Constituting a significant extension of NIJ's longstanding efforts to build a
knowledge base and explore measures to counteract family violence, the
Institute's Violence Against Women and Family Violence Research and
Evaluation program seeks to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
the criminal justice system in this area and to promote the safety of women
and family members. (See "Evolution of the Program.") The following are
specific program objectives:

o Estimating the scope and trends of violence against women and family
members.

o Identifying causes and consequences to gain insight into the reasons for
such violent behavior and to determine the risk and protective factors
associated with such behavior.

o Evaluating promising prevention and intervention programs.

o Communicating and disseminating research results to the field quickly.

o Encouraging partnerships across disciplines that facilitate collaboration,
coordination, and cooperation in conducting research and evaluation. 

The program addresses those objectives primarily through three broad
activities: an NIJ and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Joint Program, an NIJ and Violence Against Women Grants Office
(VAWGO) Joint Program, and an Interagency Consortium.

NIJ and CDC Joint Program

NIJ and CDC are collaborating on a significant 5-year effort to better
understand the extent of violence against women, why such violence
occurs, how to prevent it, and how to increase the effectiveness of legal
and health care interventions. This program is based on Understanding
Violence Against Women, a 1996 National Research Council Report. The
long-range goal of this NIJ/CDC initiative is to achieve highly effective,
interdisciplinary, widely useful, and efficient approaches to the prevention,
intervention, and control of violence against women. 

A series of research solicitations initiated the joint program. It includes
secondary data analysis, synthesis of research for practitioners in criminal
justice and public health, program evaluation, basic research, practitioner-
researcher collaborations, and a joint announcement with CDC on injury
prevention research addressing sexual and intimate partner violence. 

NIJ and VAWGO Joint Program

For several years, NIJ and VAWGO have collaborated on a host of
research and evaluation projects undertaken in conjunction with the STOP
Violence Against Women grants program. NIJ manages a research and
evaluation program that provides for a national evaluation and several
State and local evaluations. 

The joint program is evaluating the key purposes of the STOP Violence
Against Women program as well as additional topics relevant to the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The topics include the
effectiveness of antistalking efforts, impact of domestic violence training
for police, the use of medical records as legal evidence in domestic
violence cases, sexual victimization of college women, the relationship
between alcohol use and domestic violence among women in alcohol
treatment and those receiving domestic violence services, and victim
advocacy in domestic violence cases. 

Interagency Consortium 

Prompted by the emphasis on partnerships spelled out in VAWA, NIJ and
eight other Federal offices formed a consortium in 1996 to examine issues
on family violence and violence against women. The members issued a
joint Request for Applications focusing on research on violence against
women and violence within the family. Participating agencies initially set
aside $4.7 million; two of the cosponsors added $500,000. Twelve projects
were funded as a result of the jointly sponsored solicitation. (See "Projects
Funded by the Interagency Consortium.") 

The interagency consortium grant program brings together perspectives of
the participating agencies: criminal justice, mental health, public health
and prevention, alcohol and other drug abuse, and child development. 

NIJ conducts annual consortium grantee meetings and anticipates
publishing results from the research. Topics of inquiry include abuse of
children and the elderly, partner violence, sexual violence, and
perpetrators and victims of multiple episodes of family violence. The
consortium's members are:

o Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (at the National
Institutes of Health).

o Office of Research on Minority Health (at the National Institutes of
Health).

o National Institute on Drug Abuse.

o National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

o National Institute of Mental Health.

o National Institute on Aging.

o National Institute of Justice.

o National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

For More Information 

See NIJ's Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on "Programs." 

National Research Council. Understanding Violence Against Women. N.
A. Crowell and A.W. Burgess, eds. Panel on Research on Violence
Against Women. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. 

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Violence in
Families: Assessing Prevention and Treatment Programs. R. Chalk and P.
King, eds. Committee on the Assessment of Family Violence
Interventions. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998. 

The foregoing publications are available from the National Academy Press
at (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313.

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

Working to Prevent Crime

Comprehensive, community-based approaches to interventions have been
a focal point of NIJ evaluations for several years. Evaluations of
prevention programs indicate that the most effective efforts appear to be
those that carefully identify community needs, warmly welcome
community participation, and encompass multiple facets. 

The prevention activities described in this section--Children at Risk,
Comprehensive Communities, and Delinquency Prevention in Schools--
exhibit features of all three. Children at Risk focuses on young people and
interventions designed to reduce at-risk behavior. The Comprehensive
Communities Program is a broad, multifaceted, community-based
intervention. The survey of school-based programs that is the heart of the
National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools lays the groundwork
for an evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs in schools.  


Preventing Delinquency: Evaluation of the Children-at-Risk Program 

The Children-at-Risk Program (CAR), a demonstration effort initiated in
1992, tested two key ideas about preventing juvenile delinquency. First,
drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors can be prevented by
lowering family, neighborhood, peer group, and individual risk factors.
Second, a comprehensive 2-year program offering intensive services can
reduce these risk factors.

CAR targeted high-risk adolescents, male and female, ages 11 to 13 who
lived in small, severely distressed neighborhoods in five cities: Austin,
Seattle, Bridgeport, Memphis, and Savannah. The targeted neighborhoods
suffered from high rates of poverty, crime, and drug dealing. 

CAR featured comprehensive and integrated delivery of services tailored
to suit the values and culture of each community. It also involved close
collaboration among police, schools, case managers, and other service
providers to meet the needs of these youths and their families.

Evaluating the Effects of CAR

NIJ and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University jointly awarded the Urban Institute a grant to assess
the impact of the program in all five cities, and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse made an award for an additional 1-year followup. The
evaluation measured the program's effect on school performance, family
functioning, delinquent behavior, and substance use. 

In each city, a treatment group and a control group (to permit comparison)
were randomly selected from youths who met CAR eligibility criteria and
lived in the target neighborhoods. Each CAR program included several
service components (see "Service Components of CAR").

Initial Evaluation Findings

When researchers assessed the program's impact at the end of 1 year--
when the youths were 12 to 14 years old--they found that CAR had made a
measurable difference in some areas but not in others. Overall the program
attained its primary goal of preventing drug use and delinquency. The
program was apparently successful in preventing some problem behaviors
and reducing some peer factors associated with longer term risk of such
behavior. Findings from the ongoing analysis indicate that prevention of
drug use and violent behavior is directly related to reductions in risk
factors. 

Drug Use. CAR youths were asked about their use in the past month and
past year of both "gateway" drugs [12] (alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or
cigarettes) and such other drugs as psychedelics, crack, other cocaine,
heroin, or prescription drugs. The youths participating in CAR were
significantly less likely than the control group to report use of either set of
drugs for either period. The difference was greater for the previous month:
51 percent of CAR participants reported using gateway drugs in that
period versus 65 percent of control youth, and 5 percent of CAR youths
reported using other drugs versus 9 percent of the control group.

Delinquency. CAR youths reported significantly lower levels of violent
crime (fighting at school, group fighting, assault, robbery, and sexual
assault) in the previous year than the control group. They also reported
significantly less involvement than the control group in selling drugs
(including acting as a lookout or courier or helping prepare drugs for sale)
in the previous month. 

However, with regard to property crime (motor vehicle and other theft,
dealing in stolen property, vandalism, and arson), there was no significant
difference between the two groups of young people in the previous year.

Other Problem Behaviors. Young people were also asked about running
away, having sex, exchanging sex for drugs or money, and pregnancy or
parenthood. No significant differences were found in any of these areas
between CAR youths and the control group in the previous year.

Individual Risk Factors. Such factors were seen as low self-esteem,
alienation, and propensity for doing things that are a little dangerous.
Contrary to expectations, CAR participants did not report significant
differences in these areas compared with the control group.

Personal Problems. Personal problems were expected to result in lower
levels of psychological and social functioning that can lead to problem
behaviors. However, CAR youths did not report significantly fewer or less
severe personal problems than those in the control group.

Peer Risk Factors. Association with antisocial peers reflects an
adolescent's susceptibility to negative influences. Young people were
asked (1) whether their friends engage in certain delinquent behaviors
(peer delinquency), (2) whether friends try to get them to engage in such
behavior (peer instigation), and (3) how much pressure they feel to join in
delinquent behavior (peer pressure). They were also asked how well they
resist peer pressure to use drugs. Compared with the control group, CAR
youths reported significantly lower levels of association with delinquent
peers, significantly less peer pressure, and significantly less peer
instigation. 

Protective Peer Factors. Association with positive peers and peer support
are potentially protective factors against problem behaviors. Peer support
refers to how often an adolescent received emotional support from friends.
Positive peer influence refers to various positive behaviors or prosocial
values exhibited by friends. CAR youths reported significantly higher
levels of positive peer influence than the control group, but they did not
report significantly higher levels of peer support.

In contrast to such generally positive findings, as noted above, CAR
participants did not report significantly less property crime and other
misconduct, including running away, sexual activity, or gang involvement,
than the control group. In addition, certain individual risk factors among
CAR youths, including personal problems, low self-esteem, alienation,
and risk-taking, did not decline compared with the control group.

Implications

Although the magnitude of the CAR prevention effects was relatively
small and the costs relatively high, results are encouraging. They show
that a comprehensive, integrated program staffed with dedicated case
managers can promote positive behaviors in high-risk youth. Three of the
original programs are continuing to operate under local funding, and
replication programs are under way in four cities. 

The findings also suggest that a longer followup period is needed to
measure continued success in the treatment group. Researchers
hypothesize that as CAR youths enter their late teens, the program's
impact on their behavior may become more pronounced. NIJ is funding a
pilot project to determine the feasibility of locating CAR participants for
such a followup.

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

12. Gateway drugs are those whose use is often associated with subsequent
use of other drugs.

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

For More Information

Harrell, A., and S. Cavanagh. "Reducing Risk Factors and Problem
Behaviors Among High-Risk Youth: Findings from the Evaluation of the
Children-at-Risk Program." Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal
Justice Sciences. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, March 14, 1998. 

Hebert, E. Doing Something About Children at Risk. Research in Action.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1993. NCJ 145124. Available through photocopying or
interlibrary loan. Contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800) 851-3420 or (301)
519-5500. 

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

Evaluating a Comprehensive Approach To Safer Communities 

Record levels of violence in American cities in the early 1990s led to a
half-dozen national programs that introduced some degree of
comprehensiveness and community involvement into efforts at crime
reduction. One of these was the Comprehensive Communities Program
(CCP), initiated by the Bureau of Justice Assistance in 1994 and now
undergoing an NIJ-sponsored evaluation. 

CCP, which is under way in 16 urban areas across the country, seeks to
control violent crime and improve community life through community
mobilization and the close cooperation of public and private agencies. The
two defining principles of CCP call for:

o Communities to take a leadership role in developing partnerships to
combat crime and violence.

o States and localities to establish coordinated and multidisciplinary
approaches to crime and violence-related problems and the conditions that
foster them.

During the first phase of the NIJ-sponsored evaluation, 12 sites were
studied broadly. Currently, six are being evaluated intensively: Baltimore,
Boston, Columbia (South Carolina), Fort Worth, Salt Lake City, and
Seattle. Early evaluation findings indicate that the program shows
promise.

Phase 2 of the evaluation will include an intensive study of six other sites:
Metropolitan Denver, Metropolitan Omaha, Phoenix, Hartford,
Wilmington, and the East-Bay area of northern California. The research
will focus on such issues as synergistic effects of the program, changes in
service delivery systems, community mobilization, and the maintenance of
program goals and programs once funding ends.

Strategies and Approaches

Each CCP urban area is pursuing a strategy designed to fit its individual
needs, but every strategy includes an areawide commitment to community
policing, coordination between public (social services, juvenile justice,
etc.) and private agencies, and use of community groups to engage citizens
in problem solving. Most of the strategies also include some or all of these
elements: gang prevention and intervention, drug courts with diversion to
treatment, expedited prosecution and diversion, community-based
prosecution and diversion, and community-based alternatives to
incarceration.

Every site entered CCP with different assets, liabilities, preexisting
agendas, and sources of leadership, and each has carried out the program
differently. Local leaders generally selected persons and organizations
with proven track records to lead and participate in CCP. Self-evaluation
and accountability of participants and subcontractors were often built-in
components. Some sites, such as Boston, Baltimore, Fort Worth, and
Columbia, had preexisting agendas, which allowed them to begin CCP
rapidly.

Findings and Implications

The effectiveness of comprehensive community initiatives like CCP are
difficult to measure. Their complexity makes cause and effect hard to
establish; comparable sites are hard to find; and experiments are difficult
to conduct. In addition, not all leaders of community-based programs are
receptive to impact evaluations.

The process evaluation is developing insights into how community
approaches evolved; tracking how sites implemented comprehensive
strategies; determining what impact preexisting ecological, social,
economic, and political factors had on implementation; and monitoring the
evolution of strategies and projects over time.

This preliminary evaluation of CCP has yielded the following key findings
and implications:

o Comprehensive strategies supported by a Federal grant to combat crime
and violence can be implemented but must be adapted to local
circumstances and issues.

o CCP's funding mechanism allowed for the fast startup of programs, so
enthusiasm generated during the planning process remained high and
established CCP as a program of action.

o In many sites, CCP planning catalyzed new community leadership
against crime, while including long-standing community leaders.

o The partnerships that developed in some sites among citizens,
government agencies, and private sector institutions were unexpectedly
robust and persistent.

o Powerful partnerships developed, in a variety of ways, from diverse
origins--community organizations and organizers, mayors' and city
managers' offices, and police departments.

o Some partnerships were broader and deeper than expected, holding up
through crises and encompassing businesses, churches, hospitals, and
business improvement districts.

o BJA's requirement for community representation and coordinated,
multidisciplinary approaches to crime was instrumental in ensuring that, in
most sites, community policing and community mobilization did not
merely proceed on parallel tracks but were integral partners.

o CCP funds were used at many different levels and for varying activities
in the implementation of community policing, depending on the
characteristics of the police department.

o Police departments consistently pursued departmentwide community
policing, not just individual programs.

In some cities, CCP has been the catalyst for "reinventing" neighborhood
service delivery systems--not just public safety services but also basic city
services such as sanitation and housing. In Baltimore, for example, trash
was removed, crack houses shut down, and properties put in receivership
to be managed on behalf of neighborhoods. Associations were being
formed to help renters buy homes in neighborhoods that were formerly
abandoned. In Columbia, police could again park both their personal and
police cars in public housing developments without fear of vandalism, and
pizza was again being delivered to residents.

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

For More Information

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Comprehensive Communities Program Fact
Sheet. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 1997.

Connell, J.P., A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, and C.H. Weiss, eds.
Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and
Contexts. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, 1995.

Kelling, G., M.R. Hochberg, S.L. Kaminska, A.M. Rocheleau, D.P.
Rosenbaum, J.A. Roth, and W.G. Skogan. The Bureau of Justice
Assistance Comprehensive Communities Program: A Preliminary Report.
Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice. Forthcoming 1998.

Sherman, L.W., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.
Bushway. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's
Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. Research Report.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
February 1997. NCJ 165366.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

What Schools Are Doing to Prevent Delinquency

Recent instances of school violence have heightened concern for students'
safety and have lent even greater urgency to the development of strategies
to foster a safe learning environment. The issue of school violence remains
of great concern even though, after a steep rise in the mid-1980s, overall
rates of juvenile violence have begun to decline. [13] 

NIJ-supported research has revealed that among at-risk middle school and
high school students, violent incidents often begin as seemingly trivial
events that fall into certain patterns. [14] 

With varying degrees of success, schools throughout the country have
established programs to prevent problem behavior and ensure a safe
learning environment. [15] Whether or not problem behavior is school-
based, the school is a key locus for intervention because it is the primary
institution aside from the family in which there is access over extended
periods of time to young people. 

Obtaining Wide-Ranging Information

Recognizing the value of wide-ranging information on school-based
prevention programs, their diversity, and their potential for success, NIJ in
1996 launched the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools.
The study is beginning to identify well-implemented school-based
prevention programs and the factors promoting or predicting their success.
"Prevention" includes policies, instructional activity, supervision,
coaching, and other interventions with students, their families, or the
students' peer environment. It also includes changes in school or classroom
management and discipline practices. "Problem behaviors" include
criminal activity; alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and risky sexual
behavior. 

The information is being obtained from principals and program providers
at the schools, and students and teachers in middle/junior high schools will
also be surveyed.16 The researchers are seeking information about school
safety, victimization, drug use, violence, weapons, and other delinquent
behavior; the school "climate" (morale, administrative leadership,
discipline practices); level of implementation of program components;
demographics and other correlates of problem behavior; leadership style of
the principal and program staff; staff background and experience;
organizational origins of the programs; funding; and student exposure to
program elements. 

The national study developed an inventory of prevention programs after
reviewing hundreds of examples nationwide. Researchers used a
classification of program types and objectives that will organize
information about the programs as a means of structuring an evaluation of
their effectiveness. 

The researchers are also examining the adequacy of program
implementation, the school setting, and the program staff to assess the
influence of these factors. Elementary, middle/junior, and high schools are
included in the study, which covers not only urban areas but also suburban
and rural jurisdictions. 

Among the Study's Initial Findings

A sample of 900 schools is the source of information about 14 types of
delinquency prevention models and about school organization and other
arrangements to promote security. Some preliminary findings are as
follows: 

o A very wide range of activities relating to delin-quency prevention or the
promotion of a safe and orderly school environment is in operation.

o Some schools, particularly religious and other private schools, report
few prevention activities; some schools report a great many.

o In general, schools report many activities, arrangements, and programs
undertaken to prevent problem behavior or to promote a safe and orderly
environment--an average of 9 program types per school and sometimes
more than 60 programs per school.

o Once activities are adopted, they may be quickly abandoned. Schools
may report the existence of a program or activity, but often when
researchers seek additional information, they find it no longer exists. 

o Many programs or activities represent unusual or seemingly inaccurate
understanding of the intervention model adopted. For instance, activities
identified as "behavior modification" by school staff may fail to track
targeted behavior. 

Preliminary analysis revealed that the simple provision of information to
students is the most common. (See "Types of Delinquency Prevention
Programs and Proportions of Schools Adopting Them.") This type of
activity, however, is known not to be particularly effective, especially
when undertaken in isolation. Prevention curricula were found to be more
common in elementary and middle schools than in high schools, and some
approaches that may be expected on the basis of the research literature to
be very effective (behavior modification, school planning, and
organization development) were reported less often than those expected to
be less effective (counseling). 

A large percentage of the schools take steps to alter the composition of
their student population to prevent problem behavior or to promote a safe
and orderly learning environment. For example, they use selective
admissions practices or assign students with behavior problems to other
schools. 

What Works to Prevent Problem Behavior? 

In the current phase of the study, researchers are focusing on the context
within which the programs operate and on the detailed measurement of
program quality. Their goal is to determine which types of programs tend
to be best implemented and what influences the quality of program
implementation. The expected result is a set of validated predictors of
success, which are hypothesized to include the following:

o Organizational capacity.

o Leadership and staff competency.

o Budget and other support.

o Training.

o Useful program features (such as quality control mechanisms).

o Stability of staff.

o Links to program developers, trainers, and technical assistance
providers. 

o Feasibility.

A better understanding of the success characteristics should be useful to
school officials and others in improving program design, building school
capacity to implement prevention programs, and devising technical
assistance to promote program effectiveness. The findings will also be
used as the basis for the indepth outcome evaluation.

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

13. Snyder, H.N., Juvenile Arrests 1996, Juvenile Justice Bulletin,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, November 1997, NCJ 167578. This report
on FBI crime data reveals that in 1996, for the second year in a row, the
total number of juvenile arrests for violent crime declined. The decrease
was 3 percent in 1995 and 6 percent in 1996.

14. Lockwood, D., Violence Among Middle School and High School
Students: Analysis and Implications for Prevention, Research in Brief,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, October 1997, NCJ 166363. 

15. One study identified 83 programs for young adolescents in 20 States in
1991. See Wilson-Brewer, et al., Violence Prevention for Young
Adolescents: A Survey of the State of the Art, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1991. Government agencies and
private foundations have supported scores of programs directed at high-
risk young people. 

16. NIJ and the U.S. Department of Education, which is conducting a
study of school violence and prevention, have established a formal
collaboration to exchange survey instruments, coordinate the collection of
data on prevention programs, archive the data, and develop a report. 


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

For More Information

Gottfredson, D.C., "School-based Crime Prevention." In L.W. Sherman et
al., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A
Report to the United States Congress. Research Report. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997. NCJ
165366.

Gottfredson, G.D., and D.C. Gottfredson. A National Study of
Delinquency Prevention in Schools: Rationale for a Study to Describe the
Extensiveness and Implementation of Programs to Prevent Adolescent
Problem Behavior in Schools. Technical Report. Ellicott City, Maryland:
Gottfredson Associates, Inc., 1998. 

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Applying Technology to Reduce Crime

NIJ has long shared the Nation's enthusiasm for technology, and the
technology NIJ supported yesterday is commonplace today. Police officers
routinely wear bullet-resistant vests, for example, and judges routinely
sentence offenders to wear electronic monitoring devices. 

The Crime Act has made it possible for NIJ to expand its technology-
related research and development program. Congress and the President
earmarked 1 percent of the policing funds of the Crime Act--$20 million a
year--to support the development of new technologies for law enforcement
and criminal justice. Congress also funded within NIJ the creation of a
network of five regional law enforcement and corrections technology
centers around the country to bring technologies closer to the end users at
the local level.

This section gives an overview of the activities that bring science to bear
on the problems of crime and justice.

Regional Centers Offer Technical Assistance

NIJ established the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers (NLECTC) as a network of technological expertise to
help State and local law enforcement and corrections personnel do their
jobs more safely and efficiently. The NLECTC system consists of the
National Center and several regional and specialty centers that are located
across the country. (See map.) They are colocated with a host organization
or agency that specializes in one or more specific areas of technology
assistance services or unique research and development expertise.
Although each of the NLECTC facilities has a different technology focus,
they work together to form a seamless web of support to help the State and
local law enforcement and corrections communities.

The National Center: Information and Referral Services

The National Center, located in Rockville, Maryland, is the hub of the
NLECTC system. It provides substantive information and referral services
to the law enforcement and corrections community about equipment or
technology. The staff manages the voluntary equipment standards and
testing program that tests and verifies the performance of such equipment
as body armor, metallic handcuffs, shotguns, police vehicles, and tires.
The National Center also conducts or coordinates national level
conferences that address state-of-the-practice technology and tools and
produces consumer product lists of equipment meeting a specific set of
performance standards.

The Northeast Center: Concealed Weapons Detection

The Northeast Center is located in Rome, New York, and supports unique
technology research and development efforts, such as concealed weapons
detection and audio enhancement. The Concealed Weapons Detection
program is expected to yield a stationary portal-type device for use in
buildings and hand-held devices for use by patrol officers. Other areas of
research and development include the creation of automated firearm
identification and computerized automatic language translation systems.

The Southeast Center: Corrections Technologies and Surplus Property

The Southeast Center is located in Charleston, South Carolina, and focuses
on corrections technologies and surplus property acquisition and
distribution. The Center facilitates the acquisition and redistribution of
Federal surplus/excess property to State and local law enforcement and
corrections agencies. The surplus/excess property project has given
agencies the opportunity to receive equipment they could not otherwise
afford or obtain. The Southeast Center, for example, helped transfer more
than 20 trailer-mounted radio towers to various agencies, including several
North Carolina coastal communities that lost radio towers during
hurricanes and the Mississippi State Police, which lost a tower during a
tornado. The Center also helped South Carolina's department of
corrections purchase three mobile classrooms, gas masks, and generators.

The Center also studies the needs of corrections agencies and is guided in
this mission by a committee of criminal justice, law enforcement, and
corrections practitioners that identifies requirements and sets priorities for
research and development. Other areas of focus include simulation training
and transportation security technology and special projects.

The Rocky Mountain Center: Communication Interoperability And Crime
Mapping

The Rocky Mountain Center, located in Denver, Colorado, focuses on
communication interoperability and the difficulties that occur when
different agencies and jurisdictions try to communicate with one another.
The Center works closely with law enforcement agencies, private industry,
and national organizations to implement projects that will identify and
field test new technologies to help solve problems of interoperability. It
also coordinates research on ballistics and weapons technology and
detection and neutralization of explosive devices. Additionally, the Center
houses the Crime Mapping Technology Center, a training and practical
application program to provide direct technical assistance to local
agencies. 

The Western Center: Forensic Evidence Analysis

The Western Center is located in El Segundo, California, and draws on
scientific experts to analyze and enhance audio, video, and photographic
evidence. Several major crimes have been solved by using video
enhancement technology available at this Center. 

The Western Center contains an extensive array of sophisticated analytic
instrumentation to aid State and local law enforcement organizations in
criminal investigations, including a scanning electron microscope, an X-
ray microscope, and a mass spectrometer, all of which are used to process
trace evidence. The Center's other areas of expertise include computer
crime investigation and emergency communications systems. The Center
also coordinated the preparation of an important report addressing
problems associated with stopping fleeing vehicles. (The report is
discussed below in "Innovative Devices Help Control Crime.")

The Border Research and Technology Center: Southwest Border Control

The Border Research and Technology Center (BRTC), located in San
Diego, California, coordinates with Federal, State, and local organizations
to develop strategies and technologies that will facilitate control of the
southwest border. These agencies include the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs Service,
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of California. 

One of the Center's most recognized accomplishments has been the
implementation of SENTRI (Secured Electronic Network for Travelers'
Rapid Inspection) to facilitate faster border crossing for prescreened
individuals. The BRTC also works on programs with the Western Center
to identify technologies that will stop fleeing vehicles and is currently
participating in a project to detect the heartbeats of people concealed in
vehicles or other containers crossing the border.

Reaching Out Via the Internet with JUSTNET

Information about NIJ's science and technology activities are accessible on
the World Wide Web through the Justice Information Technology
Network (JUSTNET), which is maintained by the NLECTC--National
Center and accessed by more than 40,000 law enforcement and corrections
users each month.

JUSTNET is a gateway to information on new technologies, equipment,
and other products and services available to law enforcement, corrections,
and criminal justice communities. JUSTNET provides access to:

o A database of more than 4,000 available law enforcement and
corrections products and technologies.

o Publications that can be viewed or downloaded by the user.

o Interactive topic boards that allow users to post questions and exchange
information. 

o Frequently asked questions.

o A calendar of events of upcoming meetings, seminars, and training.

o Links to other important law enforcement and corrections Web sites.

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

For More Information

For additional information about the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers, visit the JUSTNET Web site at
http://www.nlectc.org.

For more information about NIJ's Technology Center program, contact
Mr. Mike Grossman at (202) 305-3307.

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

Supporting Investigative and Forensic Sciences

NIJ is a major leader in research, development, and training related to
investigative and forensic sciences. For example, since 1986 NIJ has
supported the use of DNA technology in criminal investigations. NIJ is
developing unique crime scene investigative and forensic tools, such as the
recently published National Guidelines for Death Investigation. This
document, the first of its kind, gained the quick endorsement of the
National Association of Medical Examiners. 

Several key elements of the Institute's Investigative and Forensic Sciences
program are described below. (See "Key Elements of the NIJ Investigative
and Forensic Sciences Program.")

Postconviction DNA Evidence Exonerates the Innocent

NIJ has long been addressing issues surrounding the use of DNA in
criminal cases. These efforts gained new impetus when Attorney General
Janet Reno directed the Institute to determine how often DNA has been
used to exculpate a convicted person and how else DNA could be used in
the criminal justice system's pursuit of the truth. This directive resulted in
the 1996 publication Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case
Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial,
which identified 28 men who were exonerated by DNA analysis after
spending an average of 7 years behind bars. 

Next, NIJ sponsored a DNA focus group meeting with leading authorities
from the legal, law enforcement, and scientific communities. The group
concluded that the criminal justice system should develop thorough and
comprehensive policies on issues affecting the forensic use of DNA. The
focus group's recommendations led to the creation of the National
Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence during fiscal year 1997. 

National Commission Explores Impact and Future of DNA Evidence

The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence is charged with
making recommendations to the Attorney General on the use of current
and future DNA methods, applications, and technologies in the operation
of the criminal justice system from crime scene to courtroom. 

The Commission will review critical policy issues regarding DNA
evidence and recommend action to improve its use as a tool of
investigation and adjudication in criminal cases. This review will address
five specific issues: (1) use of DNA in postconviction relief; (2) legal
concerns and the scope of discovery in DNA cases; (3) criteria for training
and technical assistance for criminal justice professionals involved in
identifying, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence at the crime scene;
(4) essential laboratory capabilities in the face of emerging technologies;
and (5) the impact of future technological developments on the use of
DNA in the criminal justice system.

Enhanced DNA Laboratory Testing Supports Investigation and
Prosecution 

NIJ's Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, which was
authorized by the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-332),
seeks to maximize both the capabilities and the capacity of State and local
forensic laboratories to conduct state-of-the-art DNA testing. NIJ's goals
for this program include:

o Developing or establishing forensic DNA testing capabilities in State
and local forensic laboratories that do not currently conduct DNA testing. 

o Improving or expanding DNA testing in State and local forensic
laboratories that already conduct DNA testing.

o Improving the ability of DNA labs to meet national standards for DNA
quality assurance and proficiency testing.

o Fostering cooperation and mutual assistance among forensic DNA
laboratories by funding laboratory compliance with the FBI's Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS).

By the close of fiscal year 1997, the second year of this program, $11.4
million in NIJ grant funding had been awarded to 50 State and local
agencies, plus an additional $250,000 grant to study the feasibility of
external, blind DNA proficiency testing for public and private laboratories,
as required by the Act.

Five-Year Commitment for DNA Research and Development

The goal of NIJ's 5-year DNA research and development program is to
achieve a highly accurate, reliable, economic, quick, and acceptable DNA
testing approach for suspect identification or exclusion in violent crime
investigation. Main objectives for 1999 to 2003 include (1) reducing DNA
testing costs from roughly $700 per test to less than $10; (2) reducing
performance time for DNA testing to minutes instead of hours; (3)
developing inexpensive, portable DNA test kits suitable for use in the
field; and (4) increasing the reliability and legal credibility of DNA testing
through the development of an approach that uses two different
methodologies--microchip devices and mass spectrometry.

Many of these research projects are already well on the way to successful
fruition. A prototype DNA testing device exists that will allow laboratories
to test 6,000 samples per day rather than the current laboratory rate of only
100. Such advanced technology will greatly reduce the backlog of samples
to be tested, enhance the DNA database of convicted offenders, and help
prevent people from being victimized by repeat offenders.

Establishing a National Center For Forensic Science

NIJ's new National Center for Forensic Science, located in Orlando,
Florida, will initially conduct research into the basic nature of fire and
explosives reactions and provide the support for developing standard
protocols and guidelines for analyzing arson and explosion debris. This
newly established facility will draw on the experience and expertise of the
University of Central Florida.

A Novel Approach to Examining Questioned Documents

Because traditional methods of examining questioned documents have
been challenged, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
asked NIJ to help strengthen the scientific basis for conventional
handwriting identification. NIJ's efforts have shifted the focus from
analysis of handwriting to analysis of a document's language patterns,
including vocabulary, phrase structure, and sentence structure. NIJ is also
developing unique computer software to perform these analyses, quantify
the results, and compare documents statistically.

Answering the Call for National Death Investigation Guidelines

NIJ teamed with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to develop the first set of guidelines that
identify, delineate, and assemble a set of investigative tasks that should
and could be performed at every death scene. The National Guidelines for
Death Investigation was the result of the rigorous participation of several
highly experienced groups of State and local officials and professionals
and exemplifies NIJ's proven Technical Working Group process. 

The Technical Working Group process brings together experts with highly
specialized knowledge to discuss a topic, come to a consensus, and make
recommendations about how best to proceed. The National Medicolegal
Review Panel, which developed the death investigation guidelines,
received essential input from a Technical Working Group consisting of a
12-member executive board and a 144-member field committee. The
guidelines were based on these experts' collective knowledge and focused
on the death scene, the body, and the interactive skills and knowledge
required to maximize prospects for a successful case outcome.

The guidelines identify the specific steps and tools needed to identify,
collect, preserve, and present evidence crucial to death scene
investigations. They also offer the courts a way to assess whether evidence
was collected in a thorough and systematic fashion. Next steps for this
research effort include the development of training criteria, a training
workbook, and a national strategy for the implementation and validation of
each guideline.

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

For More Information

Visit the NIJ Web site for information about The National Commission on
the Future of DNA Evidence: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on
"Programs."

National Medicolegal Review Panel. National Guidelines for Death
Investigation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, December 1997. NCJ 167568.

Conners, E., T. Lundregan, N. Miller, and T. McEwen. Convicted by
Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence
to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1996. NCJ 161258

For more Investigative and Forensic Sciences program information,
contact Dr. Richard Rau at (202) 307-0648.

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800)
851-3420 or (301) 519-5500.

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

Helping to Protect the Public From Terrorism

State and local law enforcement personnel must help protect the American
public from terrorism regardless of its scope or source--from the relatively
rare but deadly acts of violence sponsored by international or domestic
groups, such as the bombings of the Murrah Federal Building and the
World Trade Center, to the more frequent acts of terror perpetrated by
disturbed youths and adults. 

Partnerships for Action

The Federal response to protecting the public from terrorism involves
partnerships among many agencies working toward two primary goals: to
enhance the capability of local agencies to detect and prevent a terrorist
attack, and to improve the emergency response and containment
capabilities after an attack. Within the U.S. Department 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, through its partnership with the U.S.
Department of Defense, collaborates with three groups with different
missions related to counterterrorism: (1) policymakers and experts in
transportation security from the international community as well as from
the U.S. Departments of Transportation and State; (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. Central to this partnership is the Joint
Program Steering Group, established by a 1994 Justice/Defense
Memorandum of Understanding.

Assessing Counterterrorism Needs

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 requires NIJ
to assess the technology needs of State and local law enforcement to
combat terrorism. To accomplish its task, NIJ conducted a nationwide
inventory of the technology needs of State and local law enforcement to
combat terrorism and analyzed those needs to determine whether existing
and developing technology could fulfill the needs or whether new
technology was required. During 1997, the needs assessment was
completed and published in the Inventory of State and Local Law
Enforcement Technology Needs to Combat Terrorism. 

The needs fall into two broad categories: enhanced technology and
improved training. NIJ is entering the second year of an initiative to put
better counterterrorism tools into the hands of State and local law
enforcement officers. To maximize the impact of congressional funds, the
program is taking advantage of existing technology. 

Counterterrorism Technology Today

Research and development efforts in detection technology are already
generating products and successful techniques for preventing and
responding to terrorist attacks.

Through-the-Wall Surveillance. NIJ has demonstrated a briefcase-sized
radar system, developed by Raytheon, that can locate and track the
movements of an individual behind an 8-inch thick concrete wall to a
range of more than 75 feet from the radar.

Explosives Detection and Destruction. NIJ has developed a portable, easy-
to- use, real-time, digital X-ray unit that can inspect suspicious packages.
It has also developed and demonstrated a mechanism to safely neutralize
large explosive devices.

Expanded Counterterrorism Technology Training

Training for those who respond first in a crisis situation is vital to effective
counterterrorism practices. To assist transportation security and law
enforcement officers and other first responders who handle terrorist
attacks, NIJ is filming a mock transportation security exercise that will
showcase specific counterterrorism technologies and supplement various
first responder training programs. NIJ is conducting this exercise in
partnership with Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 

Another hands-on training experience, Operation Albuquerque, is a series
of exercises designed for teams who handle bombs and other explosives.
NIJ is sponsoring the training in conjunction with Sandia National
Laboratories and the National Law Enforce-ment and Corrections Center--
Rocky Mountain. Mock explosives are planted and participant teams work
to locate and defuse the mock explosive devices.

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

For More Information 

For more information about NIJ's counterterrorism program, contact Dr.
Pete Nacci, (703) 351-8821. 

Inventory of State and Local Law Enforcement Technology Needs to
Combat Terrorism. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1998. Visit the
JUSTNET Web site at http://www.nlectc.org for the full report.

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

Innovative Devices Help Control Crime 

The Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council
(LECTAC) serves as a voice of State and local law enforcement and
corrections agencies. The highly experienced law enforcement and
corrections practitioners who constitute LECTAC provide input and
priorities for the development, demonstration, and application of new
standards, guidelines, tools, products, services, and publications to NIJ. 

The Council's recommendations encourage the development of near-term
technology tools that are affordable, effective, and meet the special needs
of the law enforcement and corrections community. (See "LECTAC's
Priorities.") Progress in several of the LECTAC program areas is
described below.

Detecting Concealed Weapons And Contraband

In its partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (through the Joint
Program Steering Group and the NIJ Counterterrorism program), NIJ is
conducting research to develop safe, affordable means to accurately detect
from a safe distance concealed weapons, both metal weapons and those
with little or no metal content. 

The concealed weapons program has already produced two promising
systems: an electromagnetic portal system installed in the Bannock
County, Idaho, courthouse and a back scatter imaging system capable of
detecting both magnetic and nonmagnetic weapons, which was
successfully demonstrated and tested in a Federal courthouse in Los
Angeles and at a prison in North Carolina. 

Technologies under development include a stationary system for quick
scanning of large crowds and hand-held systems to detect weapons at a
greater distance than the currently used hand wands.

Protecting Officers

NIJ's body armor program was instrumental in developing a garment that
not only is lightweight and wearable but also has contributed significantly
to high standards of safety for our Nation's law enforcement officers.
Today, NIJ's efforts to enhance officer protection encompass several
programs: body armor improvement, smart gun development, air bag
restraints for patrol vehicles, and development of a testing protocol to
validate the performance of protective gloves. A major focus continues to
be testing body armor to ensure that it meets safety standards.

The NIJ standard for police body armor has gained worldwide acceptance
as a benchmark to judge the effectiveness of body armor models. Today,
more than 60 manufacturers produce body armor and participate in NIJ's
voluntary program to test body armor to determine whether it complies
with the NIJ standard. Since 1978, more than 2,300 individual models of
armor have been tested (just over half have been in full compliance with
the NIJ standard) and more than 2,000 officers' lives have been saved. 

Less-Than-Lethal Incapacitation 

When an officer must use extraordinary measures to subdue a combative
individual or to stop a fleeing vehicle, technology can help accomplish the
task safely, effectively, and without serious harm to suspects. Among
projects within the less-than-lethal incapacitation technology program are
the development of the ring airfoil projectile; vehicle stopping technology,
including development of new net restraint systems and the retractable
spiked barrier strip; completion of blunt trauma studies; and the Pursuit
Management Task Force.

Car/Vehicle Stopping (Pursuit Management). NIJ formed the Pursuit
Management Task Force (PMTF) to examine the need for and the role of
technology in the management of high-speed pursuits. 

Funded by NIJ, the task force is composed of law enforcement and legal
experts and managed through the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)--Western Center. (See above
"Regional Centers Offer Technical Assistance" for a complete description
of NLECTC.) The task force made a number of significant
recommendations for new technology and improvements in pursuit record
keeping. It discusses technical, legal, operational, and public awareness
issues in a soon-to-be available report, which will serve as an important
reference for discussing police pursuits.

Ring Airfoil Projectile (RAP). This doughnut-shaped rubber projectile,
developed more than 20 years ago for the National Guard to use during
riots, is a nonlethal device to deter individuals at a standoff distance. The
law enforcement community has recently expressed interest in modifying
the original design for use as an alternative to existing rubber bullet and
shotbag projectiles and to include pepper spray as part of the projectile. A
device for demonstration has been developed that uses the current launcher
adapter for the RAP. Efforts are under way to develop a stand-alone device
using a CO2 cartridge as the driver and to encapsulate pepper spray in the
device.

Secure Communications

Anecdotal evidence shows that police units from multiple departments or
agencies engaging in a joint operation, such as a high-speed pursuit,
frequently cannot communicate directly. This inability to communicate
may result from use of different radio frequencies, varying and proprietary
protocols or system architectures, or operational restraints. To address this
issue, NIJ assigned the NLECTC--Rocky Mountain Center the task of
conducting a communications interoperability analysis for State and local
law enforcement agency concerns.

The NLECTC--Rocky Mountain conducted an indepth survey, and the
results have been published in NIJ's report entitled State and Local Law
Enforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability: A
Quantitative Analysis. This ongoing project includes direct assistance to
specific requesting agencies for such purposes as radio system
replacement, use of private services, and competitive procurement
practices.

ALERT Patrol Vehicle

NIJ is a partner in the development and demonstration of a police patrol
vehicle that will enhance officer safety and productivity by applying state-
of-the-art technology to the problems of information management, vehicle
systems control, and communication interoperability. The Advanced Law
Enforcement Response Technology (ALERT) patrol vehicle is being
developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration in concert with NIJ and the Texas Transportation Institute. 

The ALERT vehicle system consists of a police car with an integrated
systems management computer, state-of-the-art data communication links,
and a wireless hand-held unit. The Alert Car won a National Performance
Review Hammer Award, given by Vice President Al Gore to Federal
Government projects that exemplify the principle of making Government
work better and cost less. 

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

For More Information 

Taylor, M.J., R.C. Epper, and T.K. Tolman. State and Local Law
Enforcement Wireless Communications and Interoperability: A
Quantitative Analysis. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1998. NCJ
168961.

_____. Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and
Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1998.
NCJ 168945.

Task Force on Pursuit Management. Research Preview. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming
1998.

For more information on NIJ's technology research, development, testing,
and evaluation programs, contact Mr. Trent DePersia at (202) 305-4686.

For more information on the ALERT Program, contact Ms. Brenna Smith
at (202) 305-3305. 

Obtain NIJ publications through NIJ's Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij or through JUSTNET at
http://www.nlectc.org or from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, (800) 851-3420 or
(301) 519-5500.

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

Computerized Mapping: High-Tech Crime Analysis Tool 

For several years, criminal justice agencies have been exploring the
benefits of geographic information system (GIS) technology, which gives
crime analysts the ability to study complex geographic patterns, detect
criminal activity, and identify high-crime areas known as hot spots. 

During fiscal year 1997, NIJ began offering full-service crime mapping
resources to State and local agencies interested in improving their
programs, technology, and services and in understanding how crime is 
related to other social phenomena in their jurisdictions. 

Through the Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC), social scientists in
NIJ's Office of Research and Evaluation conduct research, evaluation,
development, and dissemination activities. CMRC headquarters is located
at NIJ in Washington, D.C. The CMRC coordinates with other Department
of Justice (DOJ) and national entities, such as the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, the DOJ Criminal Division GIS staff, the
Police Executive Research Forum, and the International Association of
Crime Analysts.

Research Activities 

CMRC research efforts include: 

o Intramural projects, in which CMRC staff work with State and local
agencies to gather and analyze data. 

o Fellowship grants, which bring criminal justice researchers and
practitioners to NIJ to learn more about crime mapping and to develop
GIS analytic and training tools useful to practitioners.

o Grant awards to conduct crime mapping activities. 

In fiscal year 1997, CMRC staff initiated and conducted intramural
research to assess the mobility of drug-abusing arrestees in Atlanta by
analyzing the ZIP codes of the residences and arrest locations of offenders.
Data revealed which communities serve as export and import areas for
various illegal activities. The staff also participated in a project that
examined homicide data from Washington, D.C., to see whether certain
types of geographic analyses may obscure the identification of hot spots.
In addition, CMRC staff in collaboration with criminal justice researchers
in the field assessed the accuracy, consistency, and user friendliness of hot
spot identification tools in several software packages. 

CMRC's Visiting Fellowship Program offers researchers the opportunity
to undertake independent research in a unique area of study. Visiting
Fellows study topics of mutual interest while in residence at NIJ for 3 to
18 months.

CMRC's first Visiting Fellow was Professor James LeBeau from Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale. During his 3-month fellowship, Dr.
LeBeau shared his knowledge of cartography and spatial analysis with
CMRC staff and collaborated on intramural research projects.

NIJ awarded four grants for crime mapping research in 1997: 

o "Demonstration of Orthophotographic Representation and Analysis" to
the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. 

o "Crime Analysis Extension Application" to Environmental Systems
Research Institute.

o "Identification, Development, and Implementation of Innovative Crime
Mapping" to Hunter College of the City University of New York.

o "Techniques and Spatial Analysis Demonstrating the Analytical Unity of
GIS for Policing: Moving Beyond the Descriptive" to Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. 

Evaluation Efforts

Understanding how the criminal justice community already uses GIS
technology is critical to improving services. During 1997, the CMRC staff
conducted a survey of 2,700 law enforcement agencies, asking what types
of hardware and software they use; what types of maps they produce; and
what their needs are for equipment, technical assistance, and training. The
survey response rate was 75 percent. A final report is expected in 1998.

Dissemination Strategies

CMRC worked during the Center's first year to spread the word about its
services. CMRC staff made formal presentations at large and small
meetings and conferences, established a monograph series, launched a 
Web page, and established a listserv. 

CMRC hosted three meetings: Crime Mapping Strategic Planning
(Washington, D.C.); Exploring the Future of Crime Mapping: National
Symposium on the Use of GIS in Criminal Justice Research and Practice
(Denver); and Hot Spot Meeting: An Assessment of Definitions and
Methods (Washington, D.C.). 

In addition, papers about crime mapping were presented at five major
conferences:

o Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology (San
Diego), "The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Aggregation on the Analysis
of Patterns of Homicide."

o Sixth International Seminar on Environmental Criminology and Crime
Analysis (Oslo, Norway), "How Hot Is That Spot? The Utility and
Application of Place-Based Theories of Crime."

o Seminar on Mapping and Analysis of Geographically-Referenced Crime
Data (Liverpool, England), "Crime Mapping Initiatives in the United
States: An Overview of Recent Efforts and Future Initiatives."

o Annual Conference of the Drug Use Forecasting/Arrestee Drug Use
Monitoring System (Denver), "Assessing the Mobility of DUF Arrestees:
An Import/Export Analysis."

o Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting (San Diego), "Spatial
Analysis of Crime and Offender Movement Patterns."

CMRC staff also attended and presented at 30 additional meetings to help
inform others of the value of crime mapping for criminal justice
researchers and practitioners. 

The most frequently asked questions about crime mapping pertain to
starting a program, software options, and the benefits and limitations of
crime mapping. To answer these questions, CMRC is producing "How to
Get Started with GIS for Crime Mapping," the first title in its Crime
Mapping Monograph Series. Staff also have produced the Crime Mapping
Briefing Book, which provides various examples of crime mapping. 

In July 1997, CMRC unveiled its Web site at http://www.nlectc.org/cmrc.
The site is an international clearinghouse for information about crime
mapping that also lists staff, grants, and activities. CMRC also created a
listserv (Crimemap), which now has more than 500 subscribers who can
post information and respond to queries from other members. 

Future plans involve reaching out to both criminal justice practitioners and
academic communities through the development of training curriculums in
GIS technology, crime mapping, and spatial analysis methods. Training
will be tailored for a range of audiences, from introductory through
advanced.

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

For More Information

Visit the Crime Mapping Research Center's Web page
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cmrc) to download a copy of the Center's
Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1997 and Crime Mapping Briefing Book. 

To subscribe to the listserv (Crimemap), send an Internet message to
listproc@aspensys.com. Leave the subject line blank, and in the body of
the message type: subscribe crimemap <Your Name>. 

For more information about the Crime Mapping Research Center, contact
Dr. Nancy La Vigne, (202) 616-4531.

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

Appendixes

Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1997

This appendix presents the grants, interagency and cooperative
agreements, contracts, and fellowships awarded by the National Institute
of Justice during fiscal year 1997. The awards reflect research,
development, evaluation, training, dissemination, and technical support
projects, including those supported by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) and those conducted in
partnership with other Federal agencies.

An annual open solicitation for proposals invites investigators to initiate
research and evaluation in broadly defined topic areas; more focused
solicitations are issued throughout the year on specific topics and
programs, including those emphasized by the Crime Act. 

Organization Of This Appendix

The awards are listed alphabetically by project title within five major topic
areas and additional subcategories. Listed under each project title are the
awardee organization, principal investigator or contractor, award amount,
and award or proposal application number. Award numbers beginning
with a number other than 97 identify previous years' awards that received
supplements in 1997. Grant numbers starting with 98 were selected in
fiscal year 1997 but processed after October 1. (Projects with application
numbers rather than grant numbers were in processing as the list went to
the printer.)

An asterisk (*) before the project name means the award was made with
funds appropriated under the Crime Act.

Criminal Behavior

Correlates of Specialization and Escalation in Criminal Careers
Pennsylvania State University
Chester Britt
$23,245
97-IJ-CX-0020

Cost Analysis of Day Reporting Centers
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Amy Craddock
$49,998
97-IJ-CX-0006

Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Finn-Aage Esbensen
$483,204
94-IJ-CX-0058

Immigration and Naturalization Service Detention and Removal: A White
Paper 
Yale Law School
Peter H. Schuck
$32,468
97-IJ-CX-0005

Impact Evaluation of the Opportunity To Succeed Program
The Urban Institute
Shellie Rossman
$101,271
94-IJ-CX-0010

Drugs and Crime

Assessment of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)
BOTEC Analysis Corporation
Patricia M. Reinhardt
$199,843
97-IJ-CX-0044

Cocaine Alternative Treatment Study (CATS)
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University
Herbert D. Kleber
$100,000
97-IJ-CX-0026

Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle
The Urban Institute
Adele Harrell
$599,705
97-IJ-CX-0013

*Evaluation of Drug Treatment Courts: Kansas City, Missouri, and
Pensacola, Florida
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$345,236
97-DC-VX-K002

Evaluation of Operation Drug TEST (Testing, Effective Sanctions,
Treatment)
University of California, Los Angeles, and RAND Corporation
Douglas Longshore
$748,629
97-IJ-CX-0041

Homeless and Nonhomeless Persons: Patterns of Arrest and Drug Use
California Public Health Foundation
Richard Speigelman
$24,961
97-IJ-CX-0045

Influence of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Delinquency and Drug Use
State University of New York, Albany, Research Foundation
Eric P. Baumer
$30,485
97-IJ-CX-0028

Life Course Model of Careers in Crime and Substance Abuse
University of Minnesota
Christopher Uggen
$45,903 
98-8989-MN-IJ

Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors
University of Maryland, College Park
Andre B. Rosay
$12,068
97-IJ-CX-0051

Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) [17]

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program in 23 sites performs drug tests
on samples of arrestees brought to booking facilities. The test findings
indicate levels of drug use, determine what drugs are used in specific
jurisdictions, and track changes in arrestees' drug use patterns.

DUF--Statistical Support
Aspen Systems Corporation
Lilly Gardner
$430,333
93-IJ-CX-C002

Atlanta DUF
Georgia State University Institute of Government Administration
Kirk Elifson
$73,596
96-IJ-CX-A025

Birmingham DUF
City of Birmingham
L. Foster Cook
$70,003
95-IJ-CX-A005

Chicago DUF
TASC of Illinois, Inc.
Melody Heaps
$58,032
95-IJ-CX-A020

Dallas DUF
Dallas County Sheriff's Department
Charles Fawn
$30,544
94-IJ-CX-A039

Denver DUF
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
Kim English
$80,444
95-IJ-CX-A010

Detroit DUF
Michigan State University
Tim Bynum
$74,875
94-IJ-CX-A020

Ft. Lauderdale DUF
Broward County Sheriff's Office
Ron Cochran
$49,171
94-IJ-CX-A030

Houston DUF
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Brett Arkinson
$63,930
95-IJ-CX-A008

Indianapolis DUF
Marion County Justice Agency
Cindy Mowery
$11,554
95-IJ-CX-A013

Los Angeles DUF
Los Angeles, Inc., Public Health Foundation
Karen Garcia
$96,315
97-IJ-CX-A007

Manhattan DUF
New York City Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and
Alcoholism Services
Patricia Thomas
$79,768
94-IJ-CX-A013

Miami DUF
Metro Dade County
Dorothy Fletcher
$38,937
95-IJ-CX-A023

New Orleans DUF
Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office
William C. Hunter
$32,820
94-IJ-CX-A014

Omaha DUF
Omaha Office of Public Safety
Frederick Power
$33,387
93-IJ-CX-A023

Philadelphia DUF
Temple University
Jack R. Green
$70,784
96-IJ-CX-A026

St. Louis DUF
St. Louis (Missouri) Metropolitan Police Department
Scott H. Decker
$119,455
97-IJ-CX-A008

San Antonio DUF
San Antonio Metropolitan 
Health District
Sergio Soto
$70,003
95-IJ-CX-A009

Washington, DC DUF
District of Columbia Pretrial Services
Janis Bergin 
$34,266
95-IJ-CX-A024

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

*Client Motivation in Therapeutic Community Treatment
University of Delaware, Newark
Steve S. Martin
$50,000
97-RT-VX-K004

*Collaborative Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Program for Drug-Involved
Parole Violators
Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.
Douglas Young
$59,952
98-RT-VX-K002

*Evaluation of Florida's RSAT for State Prisoners Program
Florida State University
Aaron McNeece
$49,998
97-RT-VX-K007

*Evaluation of Jail-Based Treatment in Virginia
University of Maryland, College Park
Faye Taxman
$59,982
98-RT-VX-K001

*Evaluation of RSAT
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Paul D. Moberg 
$49,285
97-RT-VX-K001

*Evaluation of RSAT for State Prison Inmates
University of New Mexico
Paul Guerin
$50,000
97-RT-VX-K002

*Evaluation of RSAT for State Prisoners Program
University of Missouri, St. Louis
Mary Beth Johnson
$59,938
97-RT-VX-K013

*Evaluation of Texas Youth Commission RSAT Chemical Dependency
Treatment
University of Texas, Austin
William R. Kelly
$58,577
97-RT-VX-K016

*Evaluation of the Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center's Treatment of
Substance Abusing Juvenile Offenders
Virginia Commonwealth University
Jill Gordon
$59,538
97-RT-VX-K020

*Evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse Program
University of California, Los Angeles
Michael Prendergast
$50,000
97-RT-VX-K003

*Evaluation of the Harris County (Texas) Sheriff's Department "New
Choices" Program
University of Houston
Joseph Cabonari
$59,739
97-RT-VX-K010

*Evaluation of the Maxey Substance Abuse Treatment Program
University of Michigan
William Birdsall
$49,022
97-RT-VX-K008

*Evaluation of the Pine Lodge Prerelease RSAT Community for Women
Washington State University
Dretha Phillips
$60,000
97-RT-VX-K014

*Evaluation of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections RSAT
Program
Brown University
Craig Love
$44,985
97-RT-VX-K012

*Evaluation of the RSAT for State Prisoners Program
University of Illinois, Champaign
Ernest L. Cowles
$59,697
97-RT-VX-K019

*Evaluation of the South Carolina RSAT for State Prisoners
University of South Carolina
Bill Ruefle
$59,746
97-RT-VX-K015

*Evaluation of the Therapeutic Community Program for Female
Substance Abusing Offenders at the Dwight Corrections Center
Governors State University
Cheryl L. Mejta
$60,000
97-RT-VX-K017

*National Evaluation of RSAT 
National Development and Research Institute
Douglas S. Lipton
$499,960
97-RT-VX-K006

*Ohio RSAT Evaluation
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services
Richard Mukisa
$59,900
97-RT-VX-K011

*"The Other Way" Program Evaluation
University of Iowa
Anita Patterson
$59,953
97-RT-VX-K009

*Therapeutic Milieu in Treatment of Offenders
University of Maryland, College Park
Faye S. Taxman
$50,000
97-RT-VX-K005

Violence

Adolescent Violence in Schools and Communities
Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.
Mercer Sullivan
$250,000
97-IJ-CX-0050

Adolescent Violence: Lethal and Nonlethal
Columbia University, School of Public Health
Jeffrey Fagan
$175,455
97-IJ-CX-0023

*Alcohol and Drugs in Domestic Violence: Their Effect on Women's
Utilization of the Police
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Ira W. Hutchison
$40,571
97-IJ-CX-0047

*Alcohol Problems and Violence Against Women
University of Northern Iowa
William R. Downs
$86,918
96-WT-NX-0005

*Assessing the Use of Medical Records as Legal Evidence in Domestic
Violence Cases
Northeastern University
Nancy Isaac
$165,990
97-WT-VX-0008

Brooklyn Domestic Violence Experiment
Victim Services, Inc.
Robert Davis
$63,433
94-IJ-CX-0047

Comparing Adult and Juvenile Homicides in Los Angeles
University of Southern California
Cheryl Maxson
$50,000
97-IJ-CX-0018

Domestic Violence Shelter Population in San Diego
San Diego Association of Governments
Susan Pennell
$39,946
97-IJ-CX-0007

Domestic Violence: Understanding the Criminal Justice Support Systems 
for Women in Rural Communities
New Mexico State University
Satya P. Krishnan
$152,506
97-WT-VX-0003

Drugs and Alcohol and Their Connections to Domestic Violence
University of New Mexico
Marjorie Hudson
$49,206
98-IJ-CX-0031

Estimating the Population at Risk for Violence During Child Visitation
Victim Services Agency
Chris O'Sullivan
$44,797
98-IJ-CX-0021

Evaluation of Tribal Stategies Against Violence Initiative
Orbis Associates
Richard Nichols
$239,583
97-DD-BX-0031

*Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services in Ohio's Domestic Violence
Cases
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services
Carol Bohmer
$140,038
97-WT-VX-0009

Exploring the Links Between Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence
Research Triangle Institute
James Collins, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$209,301
97-IJ-CX-0009

From Probable Cause to Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Longview (Washington) 
Police Department
Bob Burgreen
$104,500
97-DD-BX-0053

*Impact of Legal Advocacy on Intimate Partner Homicide
Carnegie Mellon University
Daniel Nagin
$191,870
97-WT-VX-0004

Murder in Space City Re-examined: Houston Homicide
Sam Houston State University
Victoria Brewer
$49,824
97-IJ-CX-0014

*National Evaluation of the Violence Against Women Act Grants
The Urban Institute
Martha Burt
$150,032
95-WT-NX-0005

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods
Harvard University
Felton J. Earls
$2,405,295
93-IJ-CX-K005

*Richmond (Virginia)-Police Foundation Domestic Violence Partnership
Police Foundation
Rosann Greenspan
$199,098
98-WT-VX-0001

Risk of Serious Injury or Death in Intimate Violence
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Carolyn R. Block
$59,975
96-IJ-CX-0020

*Stalking: Its Role in Serious Domestic Violence Cases
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Cindy B. Kamilar
$26,276
97-WT-VX-0002

*Study of the Effectiveness of State Antistalking Efforts
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
J. Thomas McEwen
$200,779
97-WT-VX-0007

*Violence Against Women in El Paso, Texas
Texas A&M University
Andrew Giacomazzi
$49,998
97-WE-VX-0131

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

Crime Control and Prevention

*Boston's Safe Neighborhood Initiatives
Harvard University
Mark Moore
$274,223
97-MU-MU-0013

Childhood Victimization and Delinquency, Adult Criminality, and Violent
Criminal Behavior: A Replication and Extension
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
Diana J. English
$285,719
97-IJ-CX-0017

*Enhancing Police Integrity
University of Delaware, Newark
Carl B. Klockars
$879,987
97-IJ-CX-0025

Housing Conditions, Fear, and Victimization
University of Utah
Barbara Brown
$236,195
98-IJ-CX-0022

Impact Evaluation of the Weed and Seed Program
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$245,000
95-DD-BX-0134

National Crime Victimization Survey: Survey Attrition, Victimization,
and Crime Reporting
Arizona State University
Sharon Lohr
$25,000
97-IJ-CX-0043

Phoenix Use of Force Project: Predictors of Suspects' Use of Force
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
David J. Hirschel
$24,953
97-IJ-CX-0054

Role of Local Law Enforcement in Controlling Illegal Immigration 
and Other Transnational Crimes
Georgetown University
William McDonald, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$22,710
95-IJ-CX-0110

Security Technologies in Schools
Sandia National Laboratories
Mary W. Green
$202,000
97-IJ-CX-A072

Tenant Organization and Its Effects on Neighborhood Crime
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Research Foundation 
of the City University of New York
Gary Winkel
$49,962
97-IJ-CX-0030

*Who Gets What in Policing? National Assessment of Police Chiefs'
Experiences with Budgets
Police Executive Research Forum
Clifford L. Karchmer
$296,358
97-LB-VX-K005

Community Policing

*Analysis of the Indirect Impacts of Community Policing
Police Foundation
David Weisburd
$412,011
97-IJ-CX-0055

Building Effective Strategies for Community Policing: Phase 3
State University of New York, Albany, Research Foundation
Ray Hunt  
$140,991
95-IJ-CX-0081

Community Justice Conferences: Restorative Policing
University of Maryland, College Park
Lawrence W. Sherman
$221,772
98-IJ-CX-0033

Community Policing in a Commercial District
Temple University
Jack R. Greene
$280,699
97-IJ-CX-0049

*Community Variables in Community Policing
State University of New York, Albany Research Foundation
David Duffee
$468,453
97-IJ-CX-0052

*Computer-Aided Dispatch in Support of Community Policing
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
J. Thomas McEwen
$283,818
97-IJ-CX-0048

Effects of Geographical and Staffing Models on Community Policing
San Diego (California) Police Department
Donna J. Warlick
$176,230
98-IJ-CX-0016

*Evaluation of Computers in Patrol Cars
San Francisco State University
Caran Colvin
$255,000 
98-IJ-CX-0012

Evaluation of the Dallas (Texas) Police Department's Interactive
Community Policing Program
Center for Research, Evaluation, and Technology
Charles Mindel
$295,570
95-IJ-CX-0070 

*Evaluation of the Police Corps Program
Westat, Inc.
Stephen K. Dietz
$250,000
97-IJ-CX-0057

*Force Factor
University of South Carolina
Geoffrey P. Alpert
$270,173
98-IJ-CX-0018

Implementing Community Policing in Los Angeles, California: An Action
Partnership
Training Research Corporation
Edward Smith
$179,560
95-IJ-CX-0060 

Leaders' Perceptions of Community Policing
University of Cincinnati
Lawrence Travis
$139,052
98-IJ-CX-0005 

*Responding to the Problem Police Officer: An Evaluation of Early
Warning Systems
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Mary Laura Farnham
$174,643
98-IJ-CX-0002 

*Structure of Large Municipal Police Organizations During the
Community Policing Era
University of Nebraska
Mary Laura Farnham
$177,159
98-IJ-CX-0003

Using a High-Definition Geo-graphic Information System to Enhance
Community Policing on College Campuses
Temple University
George F. Rengert
$248,662
98-IJ-CX-0001

*Women in Policing: Assess-ing the Work Environment
New Traditions for Women, Inc.
Donna Milgram
$92,434
98-IJ-CX-0013

Crime Mapping

*Demonstrating the Analytical Utility of GIS for Policing
Southern Illinois University
James LeBeau
$200,378
97-LB-VX-K010

Development of a Geographic Information System Analysis Software
Environmental Systems 
Research Institute
John Perry
$519,892
97-IJ-CX-0042

Development of a Spatial Analysis Tool Kit for Use in a Metropolitan
Crime Incident Geographic Information System
Ned Levine and Associates
Ned Levine
$49,920
97-IJ-CX-0040

*Enhancing the Design and Analytical Potential of Crime Mapping
Southern Illinois University
James LeBeau
$49,990
97-LB-VX-0002

*Innovative Crime Mapping Techniques and Spatial Analysis
Hunter College, Research Foundation of the City University of New York
Victor Goldsmith
$249,930
97-LB-VX-K013

Firearms Research

Effectiveness of Denial of Handgun Purchase
University of California, Davis
Garen Wintemute
$199,794
98-IJ-CX-0024

Handgun Intervention Program Evaluation
The Urban Institute
Jeffrey A. Roth
$25,502
95-IJ-CX-0106

Illegal Firearms Markets
Northeastern University
Glenn L. Pierce
$499,990
97-IJ-CX-0053

Youth, Firearms, and Violence in Atlanta: A Problem-Solving Approach
Emory University
Arthur Kellermann
$198,015
94-MU-CX-K003

Locally Initiated Partnerships--Policing

*Development of a Multiagency Police Research Partnership Involving
Arizona's Police Departments
Arizona State University
Vince Webb
$113,273 
98-IJ-CX-0006 

Locally Initiated Research Partnership with Arlington County, Virginia
The Urban Institute
Elizabeth Langston
$133,911
98-IJ-CX-0009

National Evaluation of Locally Initiated Research Partnership
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
J. Thomas McEwen
$299,971
95-IJ-CX-0083

Research Partnership Between Lexington (Kentucky) Police Department
and Eastern Kentucky University
Eastern Kentucky University
Larry K. Gaines
$33,464 
98-IJ-CX-0004 

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

Criminal Justice System

*Analysis of Global Database on Crime and Criminal Justice
Robin W. Burnham, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$113,615
97-MU-CX-0002

Community Justice: A Comprehensive and Analytical Review
George Washington University and Florida State University
David Karp and Todd R. Clear
$52,802
97-IJ-CX-0032

Criminal Justice Research Training Program for Graduate Students
Howard University
Florence B. Bonner
$33,300
97-IJ-CX-A087

Developing an Internet Model for Cross-National Information Sharing and
Dissemination
Sergey S. Chapkey, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$49,550
95-IJ-CX-0033

*Development of a National Study of Victim Needs and Assistance
Victim Services, Inc.
Robert Davis
$204,329
98-VF-GX-0011

*Evaluation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program
Cosmos Corporation
Robert Yin
$749,981
97-LB-VX-0013

*Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Through a Team Approach
Wayne State University
Arlene N. Weisz
$153,491
97-WT-VX-0006

Investigating Repeat Victimization with the National Crime Victimization
Survey
American University
Peter Koutsandreas
$50,000
97-IJ-CX-0027

*Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship
Carole E. Chaski, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$79,000
97-LB-VX-0011

*Lummi Automated Case Tracking and Management System
Lummi Indian Nation
Darrell Hillaire
$63,941
97-LB-VX-K016

*Police Response to Officer-Involved Shootings
University of Houston
David A. Klinger
$49,332
97-IJ-CX-0029

Psychological and Behavioral Effects of Hate Crimes on Victims
Boston (Massachusetts) 
Police Department
Luis Garcia
$97,478
97-IJ-CX-0011

*Public Attitudes Concerning the Use of New Technologies To Detect
Weapons
Johns Hopkins University
Daniel W. Webster
$266,945
97-LB-VX-0012

Public Responses to Vermont's Experiment with Restorative Justice
Doble Research Associates, Inc.
John Doble
$94,757
98-IJ-CX-0028

*Sex Offenders in the Community: The Value of Polygraphs
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
Kim English
$252,231
97-LB-VX-0014

Sex Offender Notification in Wisconsin Communities
Marquette University
Richard G. Zevitz
$49,972
98-IJ-CX-0015

Toward Common Sense in Sentencing
Thomas J. Quinn, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$163,000
95-IJ-CX-0016

Workshop on Longitudinal Surveys of Children
National Science Foundation
Cheryl Eavey
$80,000
97-IJ-CX-A061

Corrections

Analysis of Post-Prison Employment of the Herman Toulson Boot Camps
Prerelease Employment Program
Coppin State University
Sherrise Y. Truesdale
$15,000
97-IJ-CX-0037

Case Classification in Community Corrections: A National Survey
University of Cincinnati
Edward Latessa
$59,556
98-IJ-CX-0008

Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Housing and Programming Policies
in Adult Prisons
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$208,146
98-CE-VX-0003

*Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Correctional Options
Demonstration Program
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
James F. Austin
$200,000
95-DD-BX-K009

Evaluation of the National Institute of Corrections' Criminal 
Justice System Project
Policy Studies, Inc.
David Price
$499,949
97-IJ-CX-0056

*Evaluation of New Mexico's Private-Public Partnership Offender Work
Program
University of New Mexico
Bert Useem
$204,181
98-CE-VX-0005

*Executive Seminar Series on Sentencing and Corrections
University of Minnesota
Michael Tonry
$498,812
97-MU-MU-K006

*Government Management of Correctional Privatization and Its Impact on
Public Administration
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$247,438
98-CE-VX-0002

Health Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Inmates
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Robert Greifinger
$500,000
97-IJ-CX-K018

*Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing on Length of Stay in Prison
The Urban Institute
William J. Sabol
$212,491
98-CE-VX-0006

New Boys On the Block: Under 18-Year-Olds in Adult Prisons
American Correctional Association
Robert B. Levinson
$49,592
97-IJ-CX-0024

*New Jersey's No Early Release Act: Its Impact on Prosecution,
Sentencing, Corrections, Parole, and Victim Satisfaction
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Candace McCoy
$124,219
98-CE-VX-0007

Nighttime Incarceration as an Intermediate Sanction
University of Oklahoma
Thomas James
$167,114
98-IJ-CX-0011

Parents in Prisons: Understanding the Attitudes and Practices of
Incarcerated Men Toward Their Children
National Trust for the Development of African-American Men
Garry A. Mendez
$49,998
97-IJ-CX-0036

*Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and Crime, Law, and Justice: A
Research Partnership
Pennsylvania State University
Barry Ruback
$344,975
97-CE-VX-0001

Sentencing Reforms and Their Effects on Corrections
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Phillip Lemman 
$310,152
8-8893-OR-IJ

*Unintended Consequences of Removal on Community Organization
The Urban Institute
William J. Sabol
$166,827
98-CE-VX-0004

*Unintended Consequences of Sentencing Policy: 
The Creation of Long-Term Healthcare Obligations
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$127,077
98-CE-VX-0001

Courts

Assessment of Washington, D.C.'s Pilot Community Prosecution Initiative
Barbara Boland, NIJ Visiting Fellow
$98,721
97-IJ-CX-0058

Clients of Street Prostitutes: Exploring Court Diversion Programs
University of Portland
Martin A. Monto
$50,000
97-IJ-CX-0033

Domestic Violence Courts
National Center for State Courts
Victor Flango
$124,170
98-WT-VX-0002

Evaluating Treatment Drug Courts in Portland, Oregon, and Las Vegas,
Nevada
Crime and Justice Research Institute
John Goldkamp
$375,000
98-DC-VX-K001

Evaluation and Review of the Peacemaker Court of the Navajo Nation
Temple University
Eric Gross
$33,700
97-IJ-CX-0039

Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Drug Court Intervention
Program
The Urban Institute
Adele Harrell
$108,471
94-IJ-CX-K011

*Evaluation of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court
Fund for the City of New York
Michele Sviridoff
$179,961
97-WT-VX-0005

Law Enforcement Family Support Program

*Collier County (Florida) Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Family
Support Initiative
Collier County
Edward Ferguson
$57,575
97-FS-VX-0004

*Family Violence Prevention and Recovery Project
Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Department
Audrey L. Honig
$100,000
97-FS-VX-0003

*Law Enforcement Family Support: Demonstration Project
Tennessee Sheriff's Association, Inc.
Paul Jennings
$230,000
97-FS-VX-0005

*Law Enforcement Work and Family Stress Support
Baltimore City (Maryland) Fraternal Order of Police
Gary McLhinney
$180,000
97-FS-VX-0001

*Stress Reduction Program for Law Enforcement Officers and Their
Families
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
Carol Logan
$85,690
97-FS-VX-0002

Stress Reduction Program for Law Enforcement Personnel and Their
Families
Los Angeles (California) 
Police Department
Kevin Jablonski
$89,785
98-IJ-CX-0010

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

Technology Research and Development

Community-Oriented Policing Technology

Affordable Crime Mapping and Information-Sharing Technology for
Community Police Officers
New Orleans (Louisiana) 
Police Department
Michael Pfeiffer
$203,328
97-IJ-CX-K006

Algorithmic Image Matching: Police Technology Research and
Development Project
Santa Ana (California) Police Department
Paul M. Walters
$250,041
97-IJ-CX-K011

APD Intranet/Briefing Stations
Arlington (Texas) Police Department
Larry Barclay
$183,375
97-IJ-CX-K005

Artificial Neural Network System for Classification of Offenders in
Murder and Rape Cases
Battelle Memorial Institute
Jennifer Miles 
$310,000
97-IJ-CX-K007

Automation of Local Police Functions
New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services
Jim Shea
$409,035
97-IJ-CX-K009

Demonstration of Concealed Weapons Detection System Using
Electromagnetic Resonances
Akela, Inc.
Allan R. Hunt
$442,229
97-IJ-CX-K013

Development of a Neighbor-hood Problem-Solving System
Abt Associates Inc.
Marianne Beauregard
$100,343
97-IJ-CX-K017

FALCON (Future Alert and Contact Network)
Charlotte (North Carolina) 
Police Department 
Maureen Brown
$234,980
97-IJ-CX-K004

Largo Police Department Wireless Internet Project
Largo (Florida) Police Department 
Brian McKeon
$56,150
97-IJ-CX-K002

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Palm Top Project
Metropolitan Nashville (Tennessee) Police Department
Kenneth R. Peace
$128,875
97-IJ-CX-K003

Portable Concealed Weapon Detector
Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff's Office
Yu-Wen Chang
$496,624
97-IJ-CX-K015

*Portable Voice-Command Translation System
Integrated Wave Technologies, Inc.
A. Robert Sabo
$50,000
96-IJ-CX-K008

Seamless Mobile Law Enforcement Computer Network
Virginia Department of State Police
John Furlough
$348,362
97-IJ-CX-K010

Software Development for Intelligence Gathering
Monroe County (Florida) Sheriff's Office
Tyrrell Armstrong
$187,900
97-IJ-CX-K008

DNA Identification

*Chip Based Genetic Detector for Rapid Identification of Individuals
Nanogen, Inc.
Michael I. Nerenberg
$709,919
97-LB-VX-0004

*Development of the Human Y Chromosome as a Forensic Tool
University of Arizona
Michael F. Hammer
$147,529
97-LB-VX-0010

*Enhancement of the DNA Program in the Utah State Criminalistics
Laboratory
Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Investigation
Pilar A. Shortsleeve
$175,000
97-DN-VX-0014

*Evaluation of New STR Markers for Forensic Analysis
University of Pittsburgh
Ranjan Deka
$220,359
97-LB-VX-0009

*Forensic Typing of Mitochondrial DNA Using Peptide Nucleic Acid
Probes
American University
James E. Girard
$49,965
97-LB-VX-0005

*Implementation of DNA Analysis at the Louisiana State Police Crime
Lab
Louisiana State Police
Frank L. Tridico
$147,570
97-DN-VX-0012

*Improved Analysis of DNA Short Tandem Repeats for Human
Identification
Genetrace Systems, Inc.
Christopher H. Becker
$307,664
97-LB-VX-0003

*Ohio Statewide Consortium DNA Grant
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification
Roger Kahn
$367,538
97-DN-VX-0009

*State of Oklahoma DNA Offender Database
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
Darrel W. Wilkins
$291,880
97-DN-VX-0011

*Validation of Pattern Recognition Methods Applied to Forensic
Chemical Data
University of South Carolina
Stephen L. Morgan
$200,025
97-LB-VX-0006

*Validation of STR Typing of Convicted Offender Samples
Oregon Department of State Police
Cec von Beroldingen
$171,380
97-DN-VX-0013

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program

The awards below represent an ongoing NIJ effort to enhance the DNA
analysis capabilities of State and local crime laboratories across the
country. Projects focus on installation and upgrade of laboratory
equipment, implementation of a national DNA database, development of
faster methods of DNA typing, and training for analysts.

California: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services
Jan Bashinski
$350,000
97-IJ-CX-0001

Charlotte, North Carolina: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement
Program
City of Charlotte, North Carolina
Roger Thompson
$50,000
97-IJ-CX-0016

Connecticut: Forensic DNA Laboratory Program
Connecticut Department of Public Safety
Elaine Pagliaro
$375,000
97-IJ-CX-0003

*Delaware: Establishment of a Statewide DNA Database with CODIS
Capability
Delaware Health and Social Services
Richard T. Callery
$182,762
97-DN-VX-0010

*Idaho: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
Idaho Department of Law Enforcement
R. Dan Charboneau
$133,605
97-DN-VX-0003

*Iowa: DCI Laboratory DNA Improvement Project
Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigation
Michael L. Rehberg
$175,000
97-DN-VX-0016

*Kansas: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
Eileen Burnau
$152,000
97-IJ-CX-0015

*Maine: Statewide DNA Laboratory Program
Maine Department of Public Safety
Timothy D. Kupferschmid
$147,258
97-DN-VX-0008

*Massachusetts: State Police-Boston Police DNA Laboratory
Improvement Project
Massachusetts State Police
Kathleen M. Stefani
$250,000
97-DN-VX-0015

Michigan: Forensic DNA Laboratory Program
Michigan Department of State Police, Forensic Science Division
Frank Schehr
$375,000
97-IJ-CX-0004

*Mississippi: PCR DNA Analyses Improvement Program
Mississippi Department of Public Safety
Deborah K. Haller
$110,880
97-DN-VX-0004

*Nebraska: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
Nebraska State Patrol
John Dietrich
$150,000
97-DN-VX-0002

New York: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Carl M. Selavka
$400,000
97-IJ-CX-0021

North Dakota: Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
North Dakota Department of Health
Aaron E. Rash
$77,000
97-IJ-CX-0012

*Rhode Island: Forensic DNA Laboratory STR and CODIS Expansion
Rhode Island Department of Health
David B. Uliss
$111,533
97-DN-VX-0005

*South Carolina: State DNA Offender Database Program
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
Matthew G. Fitts
$178,864
97-DN-VX-0006

*Vermont: Capillary Electrophoresis for Forensic STR Analysis:
Validation and Cost-Effectiveness
Vermont Department of Public Safety
Eric Buel
$58,958
97-DN-VX-0007

Washington: Forensic DNA Laboratory Program
Washington State Patrol
James S. Stuart
$145,000
97-IJ-CX-0008

Wisconsin: DNA Improvement Project
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Jerry Guerts
$300,000
97-IJ-CX-0002

General Technology Support

Application of Static Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry to Trace Evidence
Analysis
Lockheed Martin Energy Research, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
Gary S. Groenwold
$230,000
97-LB-VX-A050

Armstrong Laboratory Acoustic Study
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Armstrong Laboratories
James R. Jauchem
$400,000
97-DT-CX-A069 

Assessment of Explosively Formed Penetrator (Flying Plate)
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Mard Magdinec
$50,000
97-DT-CX-A074

*Assessment of Law Enforcement Technology Training Needs
Sam Houston State University
Larry T. Hoover
$50,000
97-LB-VX-K020

Assessment of Police and Sheriff Departments
Center for Technology Commercialization, Inc.
Thomas Kennedy
$299,241
97-LB-VX-K012

Ballistics Matching Using Three-Dimensional Images of Bullets and
Cartridge Cases
Intelligent Automation, Inc.
Leonard S. Haynes
$249,708
97-LB-VX-0008

*Body Cavity Screening System
Quantum Magnetics, Inc.
Geoff Barrall
$324,643
97-LB-VX-K019

Collection and Analysis of Explosives Trace Chemical Evidence
Lockheed Martin Energy Research, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Michael E. Sigman
$200,699
97-LB-VX-A052

*Computerized Mug Book
Southeastern Louisiana University
Hunter A. McAllister
$69,578
97-LB-VX-K024

Concealed Weapons and Counterterrorism Detection System
Nicolet Imaging Systems
Christopher McBee 
$704,000
97-IJ-CX-K016

*Containment Devices for Small Terrorist Bombs
JAYCOR Defense Sciences Group
Herman H. Klein
$145,877
97-DT-CX-K001

*Database Integration and Access for Law Enforcement Intranet
Tucson (Arizona) Police Department
Bradley Cochran
$502,213
97-LB-VX-K023

*Demonstration of Orthophotographic Representation and Analysis
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Keith D. Harries
$144,701
97-LB-VX-K004

Detection and Classification of Concealed Weapons Using Magnetic
Gradient Measurements
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Jonathan Nadler
$789,721
95-IJ-CX-A027

*Development of a Baton with a Projectable Restraining Net
LRF, Inc.
Guy Javarone
$250,000
97-LB-VX-K011

*Development of a Personal Alarm and Location Monitoring System for
Corrections Officers
Telephonics Corporation
Dennis Fortner
$439,899
97-LB-VX-K021

*Development of Advanced Wireless Technology Standards
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, Inc.
Craig M. Jorgensen
$150,000
97-LB-VX-K002

Development of Certification Examinations for Practicing Firearms and
Toolmark Examiners
Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners
Kenneth F. Kowalski
$50,000
97-IJ-CX-0038

Development of DNA Identification Techniques for Forensically
Important Insects
University of California, Berkeley
Felix A.H. Sperling
$60,000
97-IJ-CX-0035

DOD-DOJ Joint Program Steering Group, Concealed Weapons Detection 
U.S. Department of the Navy
Jerry A. Koenig
$1,344,125
97-IJ-CX-A013

DOD-DOJ Joint Program Steering Group, Counterterrorism
U.S. Department of Defense
David Fields
$537,000
97-IJ-CX-A025

Domestic Violence Electronic Monitoring Project in San Diego
Science Applications International Corporation
Sid Chillcott
$474,130
97-IJ-CX-K014

*Estimation of the Postmortem Interval from Entomological Evidence
University of Florida, Gainesville
Jon C. Allen
$32,819
97-LB-VX-0001

*Evaluation of Oleoresin Capsicum
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Michael Bowling
$218,000
97-LB-VX-K018

Explosives Detection and Remediation Research and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Special Technology
Jeffrey David
$600,000
97-DT-CX-A068

*Face Recognition Technology for Internet Based Gang Tracking
Visionics Corporation
Notman A. Redlich
$399,462
97-LB-VX-K007

*Facial Recognition Technology
Analytic Services, Inc.
Helena Wisniewski
$3,096,711
97-LB-VX-K025

*Field Evaluation of the System for the Effective Control of Urban
Environment Security (SECURES)
University of Cincinnati
Lorainne Green Mazerolle
$49,874
96-MU-MU-0018

*Handheld Remote Concealed Weapons Detector
JAYCOR Defense Sciences Group
Franklin S. Felber
$377,693
97-LB-VX-K008

Hazardous Devices Training Tool
U.S. Department of the Navy
Walter H. Ott
$149,975
97-DT-CX-A044

Health Hazard Assessment for Kinetic Energy Impact Weapons
U.S. Department of the Army
Gregory J. Argyros
$100,000
97-LB-VX-A024

Immigration and Naturalization Service Tire Deflator Development: Phase
3 Follow-On
Eagle Research Group, Inc.
John Rhines
$149,998
97-IJ-CX-K001

*Investigative and Surveil-lance Technology: Training and Technical
Support
Institute of Investigative Technology
John S. Ramming
$3,041,238
97-LB-VX-K014

Microchip DNA Fingerprinting Devices
Lockheed Martin Energy Research, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
J. Michael Ramsey
$584,248
97-LB-VX-A063

*National Center for Arson and Explosion Research
University of Central Florida
William McGee
$299,972
97-DN-VX-0001

Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance Inservice Engineering
Laboratory
East Coast Division (NISE-E)
U.S. Department of the Navy 
Steve Morrison
$187,000
97-LB-VX-A043

*New Radio Location Technology for Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
in the Community
Signatron Technology Corporation
Steen A. Parl
$49,997
97-LB-VX-K003

*NIJ Surplus Property Program
Ultimate Enterprise Limited
Michael Simpson
$149,616
96-LB-VX-K002

Operation of the Center for Advanced Support in Technology for Law
Enforcement
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Steven McPeak
$200,000
97-LB-VX-A070

*Passive Millimeter-Wave Camera for Concealed Weapons Detection
ThermoTrex Corporation
John A. Lovberg
$400,000
97-LB-VX-K015

Rapid DNA Typing by Laser Desorption Mass Spectrometry
Lockheed Martin Energy Research, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
C.H. Winston Chenn
$328,654
97-LB-VX-A047

Ring Airfoil Projectile System
Guilford Engineering Associates, Inc.
David Findlay
$199,788
97-IJ-CX-K019

Sandia National Laboratories Test Facility
Sandia National Laboratories
Debra D. Spencer
$700,000
97-LB-VX-A004

*Smart Card Systems for Prison Pharmacies
Battelle Memorial Institute
Frank J. Lukz
$237,962
97-LB-VX-K017

*Smart Gun Development and Prototype
Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Douglas G. Overbury
$500,079
97-LB-VX-K006

*Southwest Border States Antidrug Information System
Criminal Information Sharing Alliance
Glen Gillum
$11,500,000
97-LB-VX-K009

Testing Reliability of Animal Models in Forensic Entomology: Phase 2
University of Indianapolis
Neal H. Haskell
$100,000
97-IJ-CX-0046

Training Technology Development and Implementation
U.S. Department of Defense, Naval Air Warfare Center
Janet Weisenford
$200,000
97-LB-VX-A042

*Two-Dimensional Concrete Penetrating Imaging Radar
Hughes Missile Systems Company
Larry M. Frazier
$107,907
97-DT-CX-K002

Law Enforcement And Corrections Technology Centers

NIJ's National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center and
its regional centers offer product and technology information, assessment,
and referral services to law enforcement, corrections, and other criminal
justice professionals. NIJ also supports a Border Research and Technology
Center that focuses on developing and enhancing border control.

*National Headquarters--Rockville, Maryland: National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center
Aspen Systems Corporation
Marc H. Caplan
$1,456,393
96-MU-MU-K011

Northeastern Region--Rome, New York: National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center
U.S. Air Force, Rome Laboratory (AFMC)
John A. Ritz
$2,526,410
95-IJ-CX-A040
$1,850,000
96-IJ-CX-A032

*Rocky Mountain Region--Denver, Colorado: National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Center
University of Denver, Colorado Seminary
Jim Keller
$1,512,758
96-MU-MU-K012

*San Diego, California: Border Research and Technology Center
Aerospace Corporation 
Robert M. Pentz
$150,000
96-IJ-CX-A036
$1,838,233
96-MU-MU-K006

*Southeast Region--Charleston, South Carolina: National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
South Carolina Research Authority
Gary A. Mastrandrea
$923,885
97-MU-MU-K020

U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Electronic Systems Engineering
Center
Ronald L. Polkowsky
$199,030
96-IJ-CX-A010

Less-Than-Lethal Technology

*Less-Than-Lethal Technology Policy Assessment Panel
SEASKATE, Inc.
E.A. Burkhalter
$46,852
96-MU-MU-K016

*Pepper Spray Projectile Disperser
Delta Defense, Inc.
Roy Kelly
$250,776
97-MU-MU-K011

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

Information Dissemination and Technical Support

Annual Review of Justice Research
Castine Research Corporation
Michael Tonry
$164,644
92-IJ-CX-K044

Crime and Social Organization Conference
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Elin Waring
$20,501
97-IJ-CX-0031

Development and Production of Annual Reports and Other Material
Cygnus Corporation
Todd Phillips
$49,500
94-IJ-CX-C005

Dissemination and Communication Activities of the National Consortium
for Violence Research
National Science Foundation
Harmon M. Hosch
$200,000
97-IJ-CX-A060

*Gordon Research Conference on Illicit Substance Detection
Gordon Research Conferences
Jimmie C. Oxley
$20,000
97-LB-VX-0007

*Idaho Criminal Justice Statistics: Support for Analysis and Information
Sharing
Idaho Department of Law Enforcement
Robert C. Uhlenkott
$50,000
97-MU-MU-K016

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
Aspen Systems Corporation
Richard Rosenthal
$3,783,583
94-MU-CX-C006

Partnership Against Violence Network (PAVNET)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
John Gladstone
$30,000
97-IJ-CX-A085

Professional Conference Series
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
Edward F. Connors
$525,000
94-MU-CX-C008

Research and Dissemination Activities and Events
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
Edward F. Connors
$355,000
97-MU-MU-K015

Research Applications Contract
Abt Associates Inc.
Joan Mullen
$590,0000
94-MU-CX-C007

Support for the Report on Trends in Child Well-Being
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Antonio Clinkscales
$5,000
97-IJ-CX-A073

Technical Assistance and Support
CSR, Inc.
Edward J. Spurlock
$1,378,101
96-MU-MU-C004

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

For More Information

The Institute's mission and approach to research is described in the NIJ
Prospectus Building Knowledge about Crime and Justice. 

For online access to this listing as well as information about publications,
programs, funding opportunities, and other aspects of NIJ, connect to NIJ's
World Wide Web page at http://www.ojp.gov/nij, the Justice Information
Center at http://www.ncjrs.org, or contact the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service at (301) 519-5500 or (800) 851-3420.

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

17. This program was expanded into the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
System (ADAM) in 1997.

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

Appendix B: Documents Published in Fiscal Year 1997

Most NIJ materials are free and can be obtained in several ways:

o Download documents from the World Wide Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

o Call or write to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS) at (800) 851-3420 (outside the United States, call (301) 519-
5500), P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, or download
documents from the NCJRS Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org.

o Order Research Previews via fax-on-demand by calling (800) 851-3420.

o For many science and technology publications, call the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) at (800) 248-
2742 or download documents from the NLECTC Web site at
http://www.nlectc.org.

NIJ publishes several types of publications, including:

o Research in Action: Overviews of specific topics and programs in
research and practice. 

o Research in Brief: Summaries of recent NIJ research, development, and
evaluation findings.

o Research Reports: Comprehensive reports on NIJ-sponsored research
and development projects.

o Research in Progress Videotapes: Sixty-minute lectures with a question-
and-answer segment presented by well-known scholars and accompanied
by a Research Preview summarizing the salient points of the discussion.

o Research Previews: Two-page fact sheets on research and evaluation
findings and activities.

o Issues and Practices: Reports presenting program options and issues for
criminal justice managers and administrators.

o Program Focus: Highlights of specific innovative State and local
criminal justice programs.

Catalogs of Publications

NCJRS Catalog #30, September/October 1996, 24 pages, BC 000254.

NCJRS Catalog #31, November/December 1996, 24 pages, BC 000255.

NCJRS Catalog #32, January/February 1997, 24 pages, BC 000256.

NCJRS Catalog #33, March/April 1997, 24 pages, BC 000257.

NCJRS Catalog #34, May/June 1997, 24 pages, BC 000258.

NCJRS Catalog #35, July/August 1997, 24 pages, BC 000259.

The NIJ Publications Catalog, 1996-1997, November 1997, 64 pages, NCJ
166144.

The NIJ Publications Catalog, 6th Edition, 1986-1996, November 1997,
25 pages, NCJ 167244.

Electronic Newsletters

JUSTINFO is an electronic newsletter service sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs and is published the 1st
and 15th of each month. It provides the latest criminal justice news,
information, services, and publications.

NIJ Journal

NIJ Journal, June 1997, No. 232, 32 pages, JR 000232.

NIJ Journal, September 1997, No. 233, 32 pages, JR 000233.

Annual Reports

NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996, 101 pages, NCJ 166585.

1996 Drug Use Forecasting, Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile
Arrestees, 72 pages, NCJ 165691.

Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: The 1997 Research
Prospectus of the National Institute of Justice, 22 pages, NCJ 163708.

Award Lists

NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year 1996, Research in Brief, July 1997, NCJ
165701.

NIJ Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996, Research in Brief,
July 1997, NCJ 165700.

NIJ Science and Technology Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year
1996, Research in Brief, July 1997, 8 pages, NCJ 165586.

Solicitations for Research and Evaluation

Data Resources Program Funding for the Analysis of Existing Data,
January 1997, SL 000232.

Effectiveness of Victims of Crime Act Funding in Meeting the Needs of
Crime Victims, January 1997, SL 000231.

The Study of Illegal Firearms Markets: Fiscal Year 1997, January 1997
(no SL assigned).

Evaluations of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State
Prisoners Program (1997), January 1997, SL 000220.

Measuring What Matters in Community Policing: Fiscal Year 1997,
January 1997, SL 000219.

Drug Court Evaluation I, January 1997, SL 000214.

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, January 1997, SL
000166.

Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle Program, January 1997, SL 000142.

Law Enforcement, Courts and Corrections Technology Development,
Implementation and Evaluation, January 1997, SL 000168.

Investigator-Initiated Research, March 1997, SL 000201.

Evaluation of Arrest Policies Program Under the Violence Against
Women Act, April 1997, SL 000216.

Research and Evaluation on Violence Against Women, April 1997, SL
000217.

Law Enforcement Family Support: Solicitation for Demonstration and
Training Programs for Reduction of Stress Among Law Enforcement
Officers and Their Families, April 1997, SL 000202.

Research and Evaluation on Sentencing Reforms and Their Effects on
Corrections (1997), June 1997, SL 000229.

Policing Research and Evaluation: Fiscal Year 1997, June 1997, SL
000223.

Evaluation of the National Institute of Corrections Criminal Justice
System Project, July 1997, SL 000218.

Information Technology Acquisition: Local and State Law Enforcement,
August 1997, SL 000233.

Visiting Fellowship Program: NIJ Residency Research Opportunities,
August 1997, NCJ 165588.

Graduate Research Fellowship Program, September 1997, NCJ 166367.

Corrections

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions, Parent,
D.,T. Dunworth, D. McDonald, and W. Rhodes, Research in Action,
January 1997, 6 pages, NCJ 161838.

Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community--A Containment
Approach, English, K., S. Pullen, and L. Jones, Research in Brief, January
1997, 12 pages, NCJ 163387.

Providing Services for Jail Inmates With Mental Disorders, Steadman,
H.J., and B.M. Veysey, Research in Brief, April 1997, 12 pages, NCJ
162207.

Two Views on Imprisonment Policies: Lethal Violence and the Overreach
of American Imprisonment and Supply Side Imprisonment Policy:
Presentations From the 1996 Annual Research and Evaluation Conference,
Zimring, F.E., with the collaboration of Hawkins, G., and M.K. Block,
Research Report, July 1997, 30 pages, NCJ 165702.

Work Release: Recidivism and Corrections Costs in Washington State,
Turner, S., and J. Petersilia, Research in Brief, December 1996, 16 pages,
NCJ 163706.

Courts and Sentencing

Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Court Proceedings in Child
Maltreatment Cases, Whitcomb, D., and M. Hardin, Research Preview,
October 1997, 4 pages, FS 000157.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juvenile
Offenders to Adult Courts, Parent, D., T. Dunworth, D. McDonald, and J.
Hepburn, Research in Action, January 1997, 6 pages, NCJ 161840.

Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines, Tonry, M., Issues and
Practices, 56 pages, NCJ 165043.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing, Parent,
D., T. Dunworth, D. McDonald, and W. Rhodes, Research in Action,
January 1997, 6 pages, NCJ 161840.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing
Guidelines, Parent, D., T. Dunworth, D. McDonald, and W. Rhodes,
Research in Action, November 1996, 6 pages, NCJ 161837.

Public Defenders in the Neighborhood: A Harlem Law Office Stresses
Teamwork, Early Investigation, Anderson, D.C., Program Focus, March
1997, 12 pages, NCJ 163061.

Three Strikes and You're Out: A Review of State Legislation, Clark, J., J.
Austin, and D.A. Henry, 15 pages, Research in Brief, September 1997,
NCJ 165369.

Crime Prevention

Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration, Tonry, M., Research Preview, April
1997, 4 pages, FS 000170.

Labor Markets, Employment, and Crime, Crutchfield, R., Research
Preview, July 1997, 4 pages, FS 000166.

National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed, Roehl, J.A., R.
Huitt, M.A. Wycoff, and K. Coyle, Research in Brief, October 1996, 15
pages, NCJ 161624.

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising,
Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.
Bushway, Research Report, February 1997, 530 pages, NCJ 165366.

Reorienting Crime Prevention Research and Policy: From the Causes of
Criminality to the Context of Crime, Weisburd, D., Research Report, June
1997, 28 pages, NCJ 165041.

Sex Offender Community Notification, Finn, P., Research in Action,
February 1997, 20 pages, NCJ 162364.

Drugs and Crime

Case Management Reduces Drug Use and Criminality Among Drug-
Involved Arrestees: An Experimental Study of an HIV Prevention
Intervention, jointly produced by NIJ and National Institute on Drug
Abuse, Rhodes, W., and M. Gross, Research Report, February 1997, 46
pages, NCJ 155281.

Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities, Golub, A.L., and
B.D. Johnson, Research in Brief, July 1997, 16 pages, NCJ 165707.

Drug Treatment Needs Among Adult Arrestees in Baltimore, Wish, E.,
Research Preview, September 1997, 4 pages, FS 000168.

Hair Assays and Urinalysis Results for Juvenile Drug Offenders, Research
Preview, April 1997, 4 pages, FS 000171.

Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings From the Drug
Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, Feucht, T.E., and G.M. Kyle, Research
in Brief, November 1996, 8 pages, NCJ 161842.

Law Enforcement

Measuring What Matters: Part One: Measures of Crime, Fear, and
Disorder, Brady, T.V., Research in Action, December 1996, 16 pages,
NCJ 162205.

Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor, Gaffigan, S.J., and P.P.
McDonald, Research Report, January 1997, 96 pages, NCJ 163811.

Police Pursuit: Policies and Training, Alpert, G.P., Research in Brief, May
1997, 8 pages, NCJ 164831.

Understanding Use of Force by and Against the Police, Garner, J., J.
Buchanan, T. Schade, and J. Hepburn, Research in Brief, November 1996,
12 pages, NCJ 158614.

Youth Afterschool Programs and Law Enforcement, Chaiken, M.,
Research Preview, August 1997, 4 pages, FS 000169.

Technology

1997 Evaluation of Replacement Brake Pads for Police Patrol Vehicles,
Bulletin, October 1997.

1997 Model Year Patrol Vehicle Testing, Equipment Performance Report,
January 1997.

1997 Patrol Vehicle Tires, Equipment Performance Report, August 1997.

Automated DNA Typing: Method of the Future? Hammond, H.A., C.T.
Caskey, Research Preview, March 1997, 4 pages, FS 000163.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of 1997 Patrol Vehicle Tires, Bulletin, May
1997.

Department of Justice and Department of Defense Joint Technology
Program: Second Anniversary Report, Research Report, March 1997, 20
pages, NCJ 164268.

Evaluation of Pepper Spray, Edwards, S.M., J. Granfield, and J. Onnen,
Research in Brief, March 1997, 8 pages, NCJ 162358.

Metallic Handcuffs 6th Edition, Consumer Product List, September 1997.

Michigan State Police Tests 1998 Patrol Vehicles, Bulletin, October 1997.

TechBeat, Newsletter, October 1997.

Police Body Armor Consumer Product List Update--Fall 1997, Consumer
Product List, October 1997.

Technology for Community Policing, Conference report, December 1996.

Victims

Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, Prentky, R.A., R.A. Knight,
and A.F.S. Lee, Research Report, June 1997, 18 pages, NCJ 163390.

The Prevalence and Consequences of Child Victimization, Kirkpatrick, D.,
and B. Saunders, Research Preview, April 1997, 4 pages, FS 000179.

Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation, Finn, P., and K.
Murphy Healey, Issues and Practices, November 1996, 152 pages, NCJ
163067.

Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims, Pease, K., and G.
Laycock, Research in Action, November 1996, 6 pages, NCJ 162951.

Violence

Assessing the Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence, Selner-O'Hagan,
M.B, D.J. Kindlon, S.L. Buka, S.W.Raudenbush, and F.J. Earls, Research
Preview, November 1996, 4 pages, FS 000159.

Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of
Firearms, Cook, P.J., and J. Ludwig, Research in Brief, May 1997, 12
pages, NCJ 165476.

Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees, Decker, S.H., S. Pennell,
and A. Caldwell, Research in Brief, January 1997, 6 pages, NCJ 163496.

Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston, Kennedy, D.M.,
Research Preview, March 1997, 4 pages, FS 000160.

Lethal Violence, Proceedings of the 1995 Meeting of the Homicide
Research Working Group, Reidel, M., and J. Boulahanis, eds., Research
Report, June 1997, 234 pages, NCJ 165708.

Mental Illness and Violent Crime, Research Preview, October 1996, 4
pages, FS 000158.

The Nature of Homicide: Trends and Changes, Proceedings of the 1996
Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group, Lattimore, P.K. and
C.A. Nahabedian, eds., Research Report, June 1997, 261 pages, NCJ
166149.

Partner Violence Among Young Adults, Moffitt, T., Research Preview,
April 1997, 4 pages, FS 000167.

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: A Research
Update, Earls, F.J., and C.A. Visher, Research in Brief, February 1997, 6
pages, NCJ 163603.

Other

Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act 1995 to 1996, Research
Report, September 1997, 85 pages, NCJ 166142.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program, Dunworth, T.,
P. Haynes, and A.J. Saiger, Research in Brief, June 1997, 12 pages, NCJ
162203.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: A Policy
Maker's Overview: Report 4, Dunworth, T., P. Haynes, and A.J. Saiger,
Research Report, December 1996, 111 pages, NCJ 163384.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: A Seven State
Study An Analysis of State and Local Responses to the Byrne Formula
Grant Program: Report 3, Dunworth, T., P. Haynes, and A.J. Saiger,
Research Report, December 1996, 164 pages, NCJ 163383.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: Executive
Summary, Dunworth, T., P. Haynes, and A.J. Saiger, Research Report,
December 1996, 49 pages, NCJ 163385.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: The Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1998 A Comparative Analysis of Legislation: Report 2,
Dunworth, T., S. Green, P. Jacobson, and A.J. Saiger, Research Report,
December 1996, 63 pages, NCJ 163382.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program: Where the
Money Went An Analysis of State Subgrant Funding Decisions Under the
Byrne Formula Grant Program: Report 1, Dunworth, T., and A.J. Saiger,
Research Report, December 1996, 44 pages, NCJ 163381.

NIJ Application Forms and Guidelines for Submitting Proposals for
National Institute of Justice-Sponsored Research, March 1997, 35 pages,
SL 000284.

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

For more information on the National Institute of Justice and to obtain an
electronic version of this report, please visit the NIJ World Wide Web site
at http://www.ojp.usdoj/nij or contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Phone: 800-851-3420
Phone: 301-519-5500
E-mail: askncjrs.org