TITLE: NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996.  
AUTHOR: National Institute of Justice
SUBJECT: Program Evaluation              
Series: NIJ Annual Report to Congress 
Published: August 1997
167 pages
320,798 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.

NIJ Annual Report to Congress 1996

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

John C. Dwyer
Acting Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice

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

NCJ 166585

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

Table of Contents

Message from the Director 

Introduction 

Highlights of the Year 

Violence: Revealing the 
Underlying Issues 

Drugs and Crime: Criminal 
Justice Responses 

Crime Control and 
Prevention: Focus on
the Community 


Adjudication and Corrections: 
Trends and Emerging 
Concepts 

Science and Technology:
Creating New Tools 

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

Message from the Director

This Annual Report from the National Institute of
Justice covers a year in which crime rates
continued to drop. Many of the Nation's largest
cities, which have struggled with high levels of
crime for so long, are leading the decline. These
major reductions in crime are hopeful signs. Our
optimism is tempered, however, by knowledge that
crime rates are still high and have historically
risen and fallen. This challenges us to examine
closely the causes for the improving crime picture
and the factors that may play a significant role in
whether these declines are likely to be sustained.

This effort requires the talents and skills of
many. The National Institute of Justice, for its
part, offers the tools of research, evaluation, and
technology development to expand knowledge and
understanding of how public policies can control
crime and achieve justice. This report reviews how
the Institute applied these tools in 1996, a year
in which the Institute's research portfolio
increased multifold, spurred in large part by 
creative collaborations with partners at the
Federal, State, and local level.

The 1994 Crime Act and the partnerships NIJ has
forged with the offices within the Department of
Justice that administer the programs under the Act
continued to provide opportunities for maximizing
the learning process about the innovations now
under way. These innovations reflect an exciting
trend--the growing commitment to a community-based,
problem-solving approach to a safer society. These
learning partnerships are being emulated at the
local level through another promising new effort--
locally initiated research partnerships between
criminal justice agencies and researchers based in
nearby universities or research organizations. With
support from NIJ, these ventures focus on local
needs and priorities. A primary goal in
constructing these efforts is the establishment of
long-term relationships in which practitioners and
researchers routinely and systematically integrate
their knowledge and skills to improve their
community's safety and security.

Partnerships with other Federal agencies are also
having a major impact in other areas. Last year,
for example, saw a burgeoning of NIJ research and
development, supported in part by collaboration
with the Department of Defense and a 
set-aside of 1 percent of the policing funds in 
the 1994 Crime Act, to realize the potential 
of advanced technology for criminal justice.
Encouraging strides were made toward developing
technologies for detecting concealed weapons.
Science moved closer to delivering portable,
affordable DNA evidence analysis capabilities to
make this tool more widely available to exonerate
the innocent and identify the guilty.

Communicating the new and compelling knowledge and
insights these efforts are yielding has been at the
top of NIJ's agenda for several years. Through
conferences, workshops, a wide variety of
publications, our Web site, and other outreach
efforts, we strive to improve services and
relationships with our colleagues in criminal
justice practice and research.

The National Institute of Justice benefits from 
the perspective and insights of our colleagues
throughout the country and the world. We 
welcome your comments about the programs
highlighted here.
      
Jeremy Travis
Director

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

Introduction 
      
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is 
the research and development arm of the U.S.
Department of Justice. It is charged with
developing knowledge that will inform policies to
control crime, enhance public safety, and improve
the administration of justice. 

Congress created NIJ as part of the Omnibus Crime
Control Act of 1968, as amended, and gave the
Institute a wide-ranging mandate to do the
following: 

o    Conduct and sponsor basic and applied 
     research into the causes and prevention 
     of crime.

o    Sponsor evaluations of major Federal 
     initiatives.

o    Support research and demonstrations to 
     develop new approaches, techniques, systems, 
     and equipment to improve law enforcement 
     and the administration of justice.

o    Develop new technologies to deter crime and
     enhance criminal justice operations.

o    Make recommendations to Federal, State, 
     and local governments.

o    Conduct conferences and workshops for 
     criminal justice policymakers and 
     professionals.

o    Collect and disseminate both domestic and
     international criminal justice information 
     obtained by the Institute or other Federal 
     agencies. 

This report covers a year in which NIJ continued
the accelerated pace of activity set in motion 
by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce-ment
Act of 1994 (the 1994 Crime Act) and by the
Institute's growing partnerships with other Federal
agencies and private foundations whose missions
relate to crime and justice. In fiscal year 1996,
NIJ's appropriation from Congress totaled $30
million. This core budget was augmented by a $30
million transfer for technology research and
development (which included $20 million in Crime
Act funds and $10 million for a counterterrorism 
program). Another $39 million was transferred to
NIJ through partnerships with other Federal
agencies--principally the Justice Department
agencies that administer Crime Act programs--to
conduct research and evaluations of innovations
fostered by the Act and other significant programs.
These funds supported the award of 210 grants
related to the Crime Act and 113 projects awarded
from NIJ's base appropriations for extramural
research. NIJ staff researchers were involved in an
additional 40 intramural studies. Figure 1 shows
how NIJ's total expenditures of $99 million in 1996
were allocated across its major program areas. 
Figure 2 shows NIJ's funding sources.

This report describes how in 1996 the Institute
carried out its mission to provide knowledge to
control crime and achieve justice. The 
introduction provides a brief overview of the 
year's accomplishments. The remaining chapters 
discuss both new and continuing initiatives in 
NIJ's portfolio of research and evaluation 
investments. The appendixes list awards made in 
fiscal year 1996, recent NIJ publications, and 
partnerships. 

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

Organization of NIJ

The National Institute of Justice is made up of 
the Office of the Director and three major 
program offices, each with specific missions and 
functions but all closely integrated in overall 
purpose. 

The Office of the Director (OD) sets Institute
policies and objectives, supervises the budget, 
and directs management and administrative 
activities. 

The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) 
develops, conducts, and directs a comprehensive
portfolio of research and evaluations primarily
through two integrated vehicles: the extramural 
and intramural programs. The majority of NIJ funds 
are awarded for extramural projects conducted by
researchers and scientists in academia and in
research organizations throughout the country. 
Many of these projects involve criminal justice
practitioners working in collaboration with
researchers on inquiries that address both tactical
and strategic issues facing the criminal justice
system. All funds are awarded through a process of
competitive solicitation and external peer review.
Intramural projects are carried out by NIJ staff
and subjected to the same rigorous peer review as
other research projects. 

Substantive areas of investigation are divided
broadly into (1) crime control, which includes drug
abuse, gangs, policing, targeted and community
crime control and prevention strategies; and (2)
criminal justice and criminal behavior, which
includes violence, victims, corrections,
prosecution, defense, and courts. In 1996 ORE
established two centers to carry out key
initiatives: the Crime Mapping Research Center, 
which engages in research and development on
computerized systems to analyze crime and related
data mapped by geographic location and time; and
the Drug Testing Research Center, which oversees
the new Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
program and supports drug-related research and
demonstration projects. Both of these centers 
and their work are highlighted in this report, as
are findings from ORE-sponsored studies, both
extramural and intramural. 

The Office of Science and Technology (OST) provides
Federal, State, and local law enforcement and
corrections agencies with access to the best
technologies available and supports development or
adaptation of advanced technologies that will
increase efficiency and effectiveness of the
criminal justice system. The science and technology
program involves work in six focus areas: forensic
sciences, less-than-lethal technology,
counterterrorism, detection technology, general
science and technology, and community-oriented
policing technologies. To bring technology closer
to agencies around the country, OST operates a
system composed of the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center with its four
regional centers, a Border Research and Technology
Center, and two specialized offices (the Office 
of Law Enforcement Standards and the Office of Law
Enforcement Technology Commercialization). Their
work and the results of OST research and
development are reviewed in this report. 

The Office of Development and Dissemination (ODD)
makes information on research and innovation
available to the field in several ways: by
conducting studies of pressing operational issues
facing criminal justice practitioners; by seeking
out and sharing information on promising local
initiatives and emerging ideas from around the
country; by implementing demonstrations of
innovative approaches to controlling crime; by
providing opportunities for professionals in
criminal justice to meet and exchange information
and experience; and by communicating research-based
knowledge to policymakers, legislators, elected
officials, and professionals in criminal justice
and related fields through print and electronic
media. 

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

Highlights of the Year

At the conclusion of 1996, NIJ looked back on a
year of intense activity and growing acceptance of
the value of research in developing the Nation's
capacity to understand crime, to evaluate society's
responses to it, and to share the knowledge gained
with individuals and agencies around the country. A
heartening decrease in violent crime and a modest
decrease in property crime stimulated greater
attention to the operations of the criminal justice
system and how changing practices may affect crime
rates and public confidence in law enforcement. A
shift in perspective was evident as all parts of
the system moved toward greater recognition of the
essential role of the community in the work of
safeguarding citizens from crime, reducing 
disorder, and ensuring that justice is done--
and is seen as being done. 

Significant advances of the year, described in more
detail in the following chapters, are as 
follows:

o    The Project on Human Development in Chicago
     Neighborhoods--a collaborative effort 
     supported by NIJ and the John D. and 
     Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation--reached 
     several milestones in data collection. The 
     effort involved a massive longitudinal study 
     in which Harvard researchers and their 
     collaborators enrolled and interviewed 
     7,000 children, youths, and their caregivers. 
     Researchers will track these groups of 
     participants for the next 5-7 years, 
     analyzing their development to gain
     insights into the family and neighborhood 
     factors that encourage prosocial or 
     antisocial behavior. Researchers also 
     completed a pilot study of the exposure of 
     children and youth to violence and began an 
     examination of neighborhood characteristics 
     and their impact on individual development. 
     The researchers also interviewed nearly 3,000 
     neighborhood experts and observed the
     physical condition of 80 neighborhoods, 
     videotaping more than 27,000 block faces.

o    The Institute's Drug Use Forecasting Program
     (DUF) celebrated its 10th year of providing 
     data from quarterly surveys and drug screening 
     of arrestees. The program, which began 
     operation in 8 cities in 1986, had expanded 
     to 23 cities by 1996. Research projects using 
     DUF data provided new insights into gun use 
     by those arrested and new data on the extent 
     of methamphetamine use in major cities. To 
     broaden the usefulness of such data, NIJ
     took steps in 1996 to reengineer the program 
     into a research platform that can enhance 
     national understanding of drug use trends. 
     Proposed plans for the program, renamed the 
     Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) 
     program, call for adding new sites to the 
     23 current sites in the coming year and 
     eventually expanding to all cities with
     populations greater than 200,000. A rotating
     supplemental data collection program in each 
     site (called Outreach) will ensure that 
     ADAM moves beyond the central cities to 
     monitor trends in suburban, rural, and Native 
     American jurisdictions, thus shedding light 
     on both the leading and trailing edges of 
     drug abuse trends.

o    A new Crime Mapping Research Center 
     established last year will be in the 
     forefront of applying advanced geographic 
     information systems (GIS) to link criminal 
     incident data to demographic and neighborhood 
     information in order to pinpoint crime 
     hotspots and guide deployment of law 
     enforcement resources. Headquartered at NIJ, 
     the Mapping Center is linked to a satellite 
     facility at the NIJ-funded National Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology
     Center--Rocky Mountain Region, located 
     within the University of Denver's Research 
     Institute.

o    NIJ continued building the wide-ranging 
     social science research and evaluation 
     agendas related to community policing, 
     violence against women, sentencing and 
     corrections, and drug courts prompted by 
     the 1994 Crime Act. More than $19.9
     million in Crime Act funds were awarded for
     research last year, and 14 new solicitations 
     were issued in these areas.

o    Development of technologies to detect 
     concealed weapons moved at a faster than 
     anticipated pace last year. Several 
     different technologies are now being tested. 
     Scholar James Q. Wilson noted the need for 
     such technology in a 1994 New York Times
     article. After President Clinton read the 
     article, he directed the Department of 
     Justice (DOJ) to explore the technology. 
     NIJ has responded with several projects, 
     some funded with Crime Act resources, 
     others under a joint DOJ-Defense Department 
     technology partnership established by a 
     Memorandum of Understanding for the sharing 
     and development of dual-use technologies 
     applicable to military and law enforcement 
     operations. Recent progress has provided 
     technologies meeting some of the program 
     goals. More robust capabilities are expected 
     in 2 to 3 years.

o    A new series of lectures, "Perspectives 
     on Crime and Justice," brought widely 
     respected researchers to Washington, D.C., 
     under the auspices of NIJ and with funding 
     support from the Edna McConnell Clark 
     Foundation. Policymakers, practitioners, 
     and legislators participated in the candid 
     discussion of critical issues in crime policy. 

o    The NIJ Director chaired the Department of
     Justice (DOJ) Research Council, created in 
     1995 by Attorney General Janet Reno to share 
     information on research agendas and 
     capabilities throughout DOJ; to coordinate 
     research activities where appropriate; to 
     identify gaps in DOJ research activities; 
     and to link research with policy development 
     at the Department. (A separate DOJ Technology 
     Policy Council, chaired by the Deputy 
     Attorney General with NIJ as executive agent, 
     addresses Federal law enforcement agency
     research and development activities in this 
     area.)

o    The Office of Community Oriented Policing
     Services (COPS) and NIJ collaborated in 
     issuing a solicitation for proposals to 
     create and apply innovative technology to 
     community policing efforts. The solicitation 
     generated more than 100 proposals, requesting 
     a total of $47.2 million, from public-private 
     partnerships. Peer review panels and staff 
     reviewed the proposals and recommended 18 to 
     receive grants with the available $6 million 
     in funding. 

o    The section of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations
     Act entitled "Technology Assistance" specified 
     that 1 percent of the Crime Act funds for 
     policing be reserved in each of fiscal years 
     1996 through 1998 for use by the National 
     Institute of Justice in assisting local units 
     of government to identify, select, develop, 
     modernize, and purchase new technologies for 
     use by law enforcement. That funding amounted 
     to $20 million in 1996. NIJ received 467 
     proposals, totaling $234 million; 60 grants 
     were made with the available $20 million.
     Specific project areas include concealed 
     weapons detection, information technologies, 
     forensics, crime mapping technologies, 
     surveillance and monitoring, "smart gun" 
     development and demonstration, and studies 
     of the behavioral and organizational impact 
     of technology research.

o    In January 1996, NIJ became a partner in a
     unique interagency consortium involving nine
     Federal offices in an initiative focusing on 
     the abuse of children and the elderly, 
     partner violence, sexual violence, and 
     perpetrators and victims of multiple 
     episodes of family violence. The 
     consortium is cosponsored by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) and coordinated 
     by NIH's Office of Behavioral and Social 
     Sciences Research.[1] The first 
     interdepartmental and trans-NIH research 
     funding program on violence, it is intended 
     to bring together perspectives of 
     the participating agencies, which include 
     criminaljustice, mental health, public 
     health and prevention, alcohol and drug 
     abuse, and child development perspectives, 
     to advance knowledge of family violence and 
     violence against women. The interagency 
     nature of the effort produced a synergy, 
     attracting new and important applications 
     that combined populations at risk, outcomes, 
     programs, and researchers in a way not 
     possible in a single-organization 
     solicitation for proposals.

     The sponsoring organizations set aside $5.2
     million over 3 years to conduct research on 
     the causes, course, treatment, management, 
     and prevention of family violence. Response 
     to the announcement of funds was overwhelming; 
     121 applications were received; 18 scored in 
     the top rating category; and 10 projects were 
     funded. 

o    In another collaboration, NIJ partnered with 
     the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
     Enforcement Affairs within the U.S. Department 
     of State to build an information-sharing 
     network linking the 14 institutes throughout 
     the world, including NIJ, that are affiliated 
     with the United Nations Crime Prevention and 
     Criminal Justice Programme. UNOJUST (the 
     United Nations Online Crime and Justice 
     Clearinghouse), which NIJ hosts, completed 
     its phase-one implementation with the
     establishment of seven new Internet servers
     providing a variety of criminal justice 
     resources. The Fifth United Nations Crime 
     Commission Meeting in Vienna, Austria, in 
     May 1996 adopted a resolution recommending 
     UNOJUST as a model for its 40 member states. 

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

Strategic Challenges

Building on these accomplishments, NIJ in 1996
developed a blueprint for research, evaluation, 
and development to help set the foundation for
knowledge that will inform criminal justice 
policy in the next century. NIJ is focusing its
activities around five strategic challenges:
rethinking justice, breaking the cycle,
understanding the nexus, creating the tools, and
expanding horizons. 

Rethinking Justice

NIJ is committed to finding new ways to operate a
justice system that results in fair, efficient, and
effective outcomes for society. Fiscal year 1996
brought several opportunities to rethink how to
respond to crime and achieve justice. The
community-based approach to law enforcement, which
has gained a strong foothold in policing, is now
gaining ground in other areas of the criminal
justice system. Prosecutors, for example, have
begun reaching out to their communities to identify
priorities and problems rather than relying on the
more traditional case-based approach. Putting
prosecutors in closer contact with the streets and
the citizens who are touched directly by crime
helps prosecutors devise new strategies for
achieving justice that make the law more effective
in minimizing crime and fear in neighborhoods. 

In many cities--including Austin, Boston,
Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, Los Angeles,
Portland (Oregon), and Washington, D.C.--
prosecutors are finding new ways to address serious
crimes, family violence, drug abuse, and public
disorder offenses that diminish the quality of
neighborhood life. While no two cities' community
prosecution efforts are exactly alike, they all
share a problem-solving approach that relies on
community outreach and new partnerships between
prosecutors, police, and other municipal agencies.

A natural outgrowth of the community-based response
to controlling crime is a model of justice that 
brings the victim and community into the 
adjudication and corrections process. Called
restorative justice, this model offers an
alternative to the retributive model and encourages
the active participation of victims and offenders
in designing sanctions, such as restitution and
community service, that require the offender to
contribute to repairing the damage sustained by the
victim and the community. A survey of policymakers
and practitioners found that the restorative
justice approach appears to produce greater
satisfaction for victims and help offenders gain
greater consciousness of the impact of their
crimes.[2]

In 1996 NIJ sponsored visiting fellowships in the
areas of community prosecution and restorative
justice and, with the Office for Victims of Crime,
sponsored a conference for researchers,
professionals, and victims services providers that 
featured discussion of the practical applications
of the restorative justice model. NIJ also
cosponsored the Office of Justice Programs
conference on "Communities, Crime and Justice,"
which explored the role communities play in
responding to crime and creating partnerships with
criminal justice system agencies.

Understanding the Nexus

NIJ seeks to expand understanding of the 
link between crime and other social 
concerns, such as drugs, gangs, communities, and
economic development. 

NIJ took steps last year to improve its Drug Use
Forecasting (DUF) system, which has been an
integral part of the drug epidemiology field for
more than a decade. The improved effort, which is
proposed to be operational by 2001, will be called
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program
and proposes to expand to a dozen cities and some
suburban and rural areas and eventually to reach
into all large cities contingent on the
availability of funds. The data and its analysis
will enhance understanding of the connection
between crime and gun markets, gang migration, 
and other crime- and drug-related factors in the 
local jurisdictions. 

The expanded effort will further enhance the
usefulness of the data for local policymaking. 
For example, DUF data recently revealed regional
patterns in the use of methamphetamine in several
western cities, including San Diego, Phoenix,
Portland, and San Jose.[3] Such patterns signal law
enforcement and treatment providers to develop and
implement strategies to respond to changes in local
drug use. The more comprehensive information
provided by ADAM will inform both national and
local drug policies. 

Deeper understanding of the links between sanctions
and future criminal activity is critical for both
safety and effective resource management. Which
types of sanctions work best with which types of
offenders? What impacts do sentencing guidelines
and truth-in-sentencing policies have on offenders
and corrections administration? The connections
between various sanctions, combinations of
sanctions, and the effects on recidivism rates 
are just beginning to emerge. To explore these 
relationships in more depth, NIJ in conjunction 
with the OJP Corrections Program Office awarded 
five grants in 1996 for research and evaluation 
of boot camps as well as grants to examine the 
changes that jails and prisons must make when 
new sentencing directives are put in place. 

Other projects examining the nexus between crime
and social conditions include the Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighbor-hoods, discussed
earlier, which is sorting out how individual
characteristics, family relationships, 
neighborhood cohesion, and other factors affect 
crime and neighborhood stability over time.
Still other NIJ-supported studies have examined 
the relationship of firearms and crime. In a 
national survey of private ownership of firearms,
NIJ-supported researchers found that about
one-quarter of American adults own a firearm and
about three-quarters of these persons keep the
weapon for self-defense.[4] In another study
involving arrestees, researchers found that 
more than 14 percent of arrestees carry a gun 
all or most of the time; that percentage rises 
to 20 percent for juvenile males and 31 percent 
for gang members.[5]

With homicide rates declining in some, but not all,
American communities, efforts are under way to
explore the complicated links between homicide and
local social conditions. NIJ staff in 1996
completed an intramural project to examine homicide
trends in eight cities.[6] Specific local factors
such as demographics, economic conditions, drug
use, gun availability, gang activity, and criminal
justice system response patterns were organized
into three different categories: environment,
situations, and system response. The project's
findings indicate that homicide trends are affected
by local factors, such as the local crack cocaine
market, and that the homicide rate increases with
higher availability and lethality of guns. Homicide
trends may also be related to the quantity and
quality of emergency medical services and the
extent to which local gangs are involved in drug
dealing. The findings reveal strong local support
for multijurisdictional task forces and reinforce
other studies showing that community-based
approaches are working and offer the most promise. 

Breaking the Cycle

NIJ is developing a select group of research
demonstration projects that are designed to 
rigorously test new interventions that hold 
promise for significantly reducing crime. In 
1996, NIJ expanded its involvement in testing 
new ways to reduce drug abuse and related 
criminal behavior. More than half of all persons
brought into the criminal justice system have
substance abuse problems, and many of these people
are nonviolent offenders who repeatedly cycle
through the system without being held accountable
for changing their behavior. Such offenders face
little certainty of punishment and represent a
long-term, recurring problem for both the criminal
justice system and society. Research and evaluation
demonstrate that "drug courts" or "treatment courts" 
can reduce both drug abuse and drug-related crime. 
Recent research suggests that offenders sentenced 
to mandatory drug treatment do as well as offenders 
who voluntarily enter treatment both in completing 
the treatment program and in short-term 
recidivism.[7]

To better understand the relationship between drug
abuse and court-ordered treatment, NIJ in 1996
began three research demonstration projects, two 
of which involve testing the efficacy of treatment 
courts. In collaboration with the Center for 
Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ oversaw 
implementation of a treatment court in Washington, 
D.C., and is currently evaluating this effort, 
which randomly assigns defendants to intensive 
out-patient drug treatment, a graduated sanctions 
program, or a control group that enters the 
standard court docket. Defendants in the
treatment and graduated sanctions program are
tested for drug use at least twice a week. While 
it is too early to draw conclusions about the 
overall effectiveness of the program, 
preliminary findings indicate that defendants
assigned to either the treatment or the sanctions
program were significantly more likely to test
clean in the month before sentencing than 
were those who entered the standard court 
docket. 

In another joint effort--this one with the White
House's Office of National Drug Control Policy--NIJ
is cosponsoring a demonstration program in Jackson
County (Birmingham), Alabama, to test the
hypothesis that if all drug abusers who are
arrested are identified and required to remain
drug-free and receive treatment as needed, drug
abuse and criminal behavior will decrease. The
demonstration begins in the summer of 1997; both 
a process and impact evaluation will take place 
over the next several years. 

Creating the Tools

NIJ is helping practitioners, legislators, and
policymakers devise improved crime control
strategies. In New Orleans, for example, NIJ
supports a diversion program for drug-involved 
offenders that uses hair analysis to test 
first-time, nonviolent drug offenders who are 
charged with simple possession. The study 
indicates that offenders who participate in 
hair analysis testing are less likely to evade 
detection.[8] In addition, clients who complete 
the program appear to have significantly lower 
rearrest rates than those who do not complete the 
program (although the researchers could not 
discern what caused the lower rearrest 
rate--personal motivation, the program alone, 
or both). 

In addition to using programmatic tools, NIJ
develops tangible products and services to help
criminal justice professionals do their jobs
better. The National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) and its
regional centers are the heart of NIJ's technology
support and communication efforts. Established 
in fiscal year 1995, the centers became fully
operational during fiscal year 1996. Each center
specializes in a different aspect of technology; 
all serve as a conduit for learning practitioner
needs, transmitting responsive technology
information, and providing hands-on support and
technical assistance to local agencies.

Also during 1996, NIJ's Office of Science and
Technology initiated major efforts to assist 
52 State and local crime laboratories upgrading
their equipment and developing simpler, quicker,
and more portable methods of DNA testing. Funds 
for the program were made available under the 
Crime Act. 

NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center links 
practitioners, social science researchers, and 
software engineers to enhance efforts to track
crime across time and space, especially distinct
geographic areas such as neighborhoods, blocks, 
or specific locations. Using sophisticated 
geographic information systems software, mapping 
reveals patterns in the time and location of 
criminal incidents and pinpoints hot spots, such 
as street drug markets. Such information, when 
coupled with other data, helps agencies understand 
crime patterns and their changes in the context 
of social conditions, such as income distribution, 
health care, land use patterns, transportation 
systems, and demographic patterns. Analysis of 
the data can guide law enforcement problem-solving 
efforts.

Another tool developed and tested during the year
took place under NIJ's intramural research program.
NIJ researchers and Florida Department of
Corrections researchers and administrators
collaborated to create a system to help 
corrections personnel classify individuals 
by their likelihood to "fail" during probation. 
The specifics of the mathematical model for 
the system apply to Florida's policies and 
probationers, but the methods developed appear 
to be appropriate to addressing the practical 
issues of risk assessment in other jurisdictions 
and program settings. 

Another intramural project used hair analysis 
as a tool for broadening understanding of the
drugs-crime link and sought strategies to curtail
illegal drug use in prisons. An NIJ intramural
project with the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections found that just under 10 percent of
inmates tested positive for drugs while
incarcerated. An analysis revealed that marijuana
was more likely to be used by younger inmates,
cocaine and heroin by older inmates, and that 
black and white inmates used drugs at about the 
same rate. These findings will be used to help 
prison administrators devise strategies to curtail 
drug use in prisons. 

Expanding Horizons

Looking beyond traditional geographic, cultural,
and intellectual boundaries is an important part 
of developing a fuller understanding of crime and
justice issues. A manifestation of this commitment
is seen in NIJ's recent development of stronger
ties with the international criminal justice 
research community. Recently, the Institute
formalized its commitment to that community by
planning an NIJ International Center to be
established in 1997 and dedicated 
to supporting programs and projects related to
international criminal justice research and 
sharing knowledge about crime problems and 
efforts to solve them. The center will provide 
a focus for NIJ's international role as a member 
of the family of research institutes connected 
with the Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention 
Division of the United Nations.

Working in partnership with foundations and 
related Federal agencies is another way NIJ 
expands its horizons through interdisciplinary 
work and develops new research approaches through 
planning and discussion with other scientists and 
professionals. In addition to the extensive 
partnerships NIJ has forged with the Crime Act 
offices, NIJ's partners during 1996 included 
public health research agencies, such as the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the National Institutes of Health; social 
services agencies, such as the U.S. Departments 
of Health and Human Services and Housing and 
Urban Development; and agencies dedicated to 
controlling and reducing drug abuse, such as 
the White House's Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. (A list of the Institute's 
partners can be found in Appendix C.)

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

The 1994 Crime Act

In 1996, NIJ's research portfolio stemming from 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (the Crime Act) continued to grow. One of 
the most distinctive aspects of this legislation 
is that it promotes innovative approaches to 
reducing crime. It does so by providing support 
to the States and local jurisdictions for programs 
in four areas: community policing, violence 
against women, corrections and sentencing, and 
drug courts. In each area, the Crime Act fosters 
new ways to tackle old problems. Immediately 
after the Act became law, NIJ, with support from 
congressional appropriators and in partnership 
with the Department of Justice agencies
administering these programs--the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, the 
Violence Against Women Grants Office, the 
Corrections Program Office, and the Drug Courts 
Program Office--began to develop strategies for 
conducting the research and evaluations that 
are essential to finding out whether and to what
extent these innovations are working.
The strategies, developed in 1995, continued as 
the basis for solicitations (requests for 
proposals) issued by NIJ to conduct research in 
fiscal year 1996. In response to the 14 
solicitations issued, almost 1,000 proposals were 
received; 210 awards were made for Crime 
Act-related research in fiscal year 1996--more 
than a threefold increase over the previous year's 
65. (See Figure 3, "NIJ Crime Act Expenditures.") 
For each of the four major areas, NIJ's strategy
involves a three-tiered approach: national
evaluations of the overall effectiveness of the
program, evaluations of selected local
implementations, and research based on partnerships
between practitioners and researchers. This last
approach is intended to build an infrastructure 
for ongoing practitioner-researcher collaboration 
that supports development of knowledge at the 
local level.

In preparation is a full report of research and
evaluation conducted by NIJ under the 1994 Crime
Act: Criminal Justice Research under the 
Crime Act--1995 to 1996: the Role of the
National Institute of Justice will be published 
in 1997.[9]

Policing 

Studies sponsored in 1996 promise to shed 
light on the factors that can make for success 
in community policing, among them police-
community collaboration, training, and the 
quality of investigations. A nationwide update 
of the strategic and tactical changes taking 
place in policing was begun and additional locally
initiated partnership studies were funded. 

In 1996, NIJ's Crime Act-related initiatives in 
science and technology were launched. They 
included a program of technology research and 
development to support new community policing 
strategies and a major research and development 
program to enhance State and local law 
enforcement technology capabilities.

To deal with the consequences of stress for law
enforcement personnel and their families, NIJ is
testing innovative practices, providing training,
and sponsoring research. The issues of police
integrity and police use of force are being
addressed through research. 

Sentencing and Corrections

The violent offender incarceration and truth-
in-sentencing provisions of the Crime Act enable
the States to expand their capacity to incarcerate
violent offenders with more certainty and to 
impose longer and more definite sentences. Those
provisions will affect not only corrections, but
other components of the justice system as well.
NIJ's national evaluation, begun in 1996, will
determine what those changes are--how Title II 
of the Act is affecting prosecutorial 
strategies, judicial policies, and corrections 
policies and practices. 

Locally based research, in which practitioners 
and researchers form partnerships, is focusing 
on topics relevant to particular jurisdictions. 
The effect of the Crime Act's provision of 
residential substance abuse treatment for 
State prisoners is also being studied, both at 
the national level and in selected assessments 
of local programs. 

Violence Against Women

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is
designed to improve the response of police,
prosecutors, and service providers to domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking, makes 
this possible through grants to the States and
local governments for programs in seven areas 
that relate to law enforcement, prosecution, 
and victims services. NIJ's study of progress 
and accomplishments of the VAWA grants program 
in the first year of the Crime Act was completed 
in 1996. Study of the impact of this program in 
the second year, including detailed examinations 
of several selected sites and of specific purpose 
areas identified by the Crime Act, will begin in 
1997. The congressionally mandated studies of 
violence against women were completed in 1996 
under NIJ sponsorship. (A complete list can be 
found in "Violence: Revealing the Underlying 
Issues.") Among the five was development of an 
agenda for future research, conducted by the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS 
report became the basis for a proposal to 
Congress by NIJ, in partnership with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
for a major interdisciplinary research 
initiative reflecting the NAS priorities.

Drug Courts 

Drug courts exemplify a successful innovation for
dealing with drug-involved nonviolent offenders;
the Crime Act provides funding to support these 
specially designed court calendars or dockets, 
which have been established in more than 100 
jurisdictions nationwide. These programs combine 
judicial supervision with drug testing, treatment, 
and aftercare services. During 1996, the Drug 
Court Program Office collaborated with NIJ to 
provide funding to evaluate the impact of four 
drug courts that were established before the 
Crime Act and received funding under the Act 
to enhance their operations. Additional 
evaluation activities are anticipated in 1997. 

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

Sharing Research-Based Knowledge

One of NIJ's primary missions is timely and broad
dissemination of information that results from
sound research methods so that public debate and
policy are informed by empirical knowledge. To
reach specific audiences for 
this kind of information--policymakers, 
practitioners, researchers, students, and 
concerned citizens--NIJ has an extensive print 
and electronic publishing program. (See 
"Getting the Word Out," for the highlights 
of the program.) NIJ research is frequently 
published in professional and scholarly 
journals--54 articles last year.

Reaching Policymakers

As part of its efforts to enhance the criminal 
justice policymaking process, NIJ has hosted
seminars and lectures in Washington, D.C., 
and continued to support research that 
identifies and responds to key legislative 
concerns. In 1996, for example, NIJ published 
and disseminated to State legislators four 
Research in Action reports pulling together 
what is known about critical issues in adult 
and juvenile sentencing reforms.[10]

Last year, NIJ inaugurated a new lecture series,
Perspectives on Crime and Justice, that brought
distinguished researchers to Washington, D.C., for
candid, wide-ranging discussions on contemporary
issues relating to crime and justice. Noted
scholars discussed topics such as the role of the
Federal Government in criminal justice research,
Federal drug policy, child victims, the public
legitimacy of crime policy, and crime and the
media, in front of large audiences that included
members of Congress and their staff members, other
Federal officials, scholars, State and local
government leaders, and practitioners. (See
"Perspectives on Crime and Justice.")

Responding to a request by Oregon State Senator
Neil Bryant, NIJ conducted a sentencing policy
seminar for members of the Oregon legislature. For
this effort, NIJ organized a team of experts to
present research findings on sentencing reform
measures and to engage in a discussion on how
legislative decisions affect public safety.

Reaching Practitioners

NIJ surveys the world of practice and policy to
determine critical issues and important innovations
at the local level. These become the subject of
practical handbooks and bulletins, including the
Issues and Practices report series and Program
Focus bulletins. Last year's topics covered such
widely different issues as child abuse, joint
prison-private sector work opportunities, and
community courts. NIJ, through the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center,
initiated the Justice Technology Information
Network (JUSTNET) as a gateway--via the Internet
and the World Wide Web--to information on new
technologies, equipment, and other products and
services available to the law enforcement,
corrections, and criminal justice communities.

NIJ's Research in Action Partnerships awarded
grants to consortiums of national associations
(Search Group, Inc.; National Conference of State
Courts; Justice Research Statistics Association;
National Conference of State Legislators; American
Bar Association) to develop ways to disseminate 
criminal justice research findings to their 
memberships using electronic communications.
New and creative approaches are being developed,
implemented, and assessed by these organizations 
to better inform their memberships about using 
NIJ and other research results.

NIJ also sponsored its third annual conference on
Technology Solutions for Public Safety which was
held in Los Angeles, California; and conducted 
five regional conferences on community-oriented 
policing technologies that took place in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego,
California; Charleston, South Carolina; and
Louisville, Kentucky. In addition, NIJ hosted a
conference that explored the implications of DNA
for the future of criminal justice. At the
conference, practitioners, forensic scientists, 
and policymakers shared information about how 
emerging new technologies can rapidly and cost 
effectively improve DNA testing to meet the 
increasing demands of public and private DNA 
testing laboratories. (See "NIJ-Sponsored 
Conferences.") 

Reaching Researchers

Through its ongoing Research in Progress 
seminar series, NIJ also provides opportunities 
for criminal justice policymakers and 
practitioners to meet with researchers in 
various disciplines to discuss how the research 
they are doing can help address key criminal 
justice problems. Presentations have covered 
such topics as domestic violence and substance 
abuse, adolescent firearms violence, and the 
prevalence of stalking. The Research in Progress 
series is available on videotape; last year, 
2,563 were sold. 

In an effort to make data from the research 
projects it supports publicly available and 
easily accessible to support new investigations, 
NIJ has developed the Data Resources Program. 
Under the program, NIJ collects, preserves, 
and disseminates electronic research data for 
analysis by other researchers. More than 200 
data sets have been deposited by NIJ with the 
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at 
the University of Michigan. Much of the data 
can be downloaded from the Internet. NIJ also 
issues awards up to $25,000 for researchers to 
perform secondary analyses of archived data to 
encourage the efficient and effective use of 
data collected at public expense. This program 
has been heavily used and has produced numerous 
important publications.

NIJ reached a milestone in 1996 in its efforts 
to integrate and synthesize knowledge with the
publication of Volume 20 of Crime and Justice: 
An Annual Review of Research. The Crime and 
Justice series, published by the University 
of Chicago Press, has become an authoritative
reference source that offers succinct essays 
summarizing important theoretical knowledge,
practical applications, and key trends in 
research and development.

Essays in Volume 20 focus on such topics as 
academic performance and delinquency, 
intermediate sanctions, drug use trends in 
the United States, integration of criminology 
theories, and the historical context for 
several theories of punishment.

Reaching the International Community

Reaching American practitioners is not enough. 
NIJ is mandated by Congress to disseminate 
criminal justice information both nationally 
and internationally. 

In collaboration with the State Department, 
NIJ jointly sponsored a workshop on "Policing 
in Emerging Democracies." The workshop examined
ways to help developing nations and governments
meet their swiftly evolving law enforcement
challenges and foster democratic policing
worldwide. 

NIJ also participated in a conference on police
ethics held in Strasbourg, France, that was hosted
by the Council of Europe. This conference led to
the participation of international delegates from
seven nations at the National Symposium on Police
Integrity held in Washington, D.C., which was
jointly sponsored by NIJ and the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services. Other
international criminal justice conferences and
workshops have taken NIJ officials to Barbados,
Germany, Israel, and Korea.

Some of NIJ's international efforts focus on 
hosting research fellows who study 
international and "transnational" criminal 
justice issues. Last year, the U.S. Information
Agency accredited NIJ as a host institution for
visiting scientists and practitioners from the
former Soviet Union and other countries. An NIJ
Fellow, a Ukrainian criminal justice official,
continued the development of the Rule of Law online
clearinghouse focusing on the information needs of
the newly independent states of the former Soviet
Union. Other NIJ Visiting Fellows with specialties
in international issues included William Burnham, 
a retired United Nations official who is evaluating 
and analyzing global crime trends; William 
McDonald, a Georgetown University professor who 
has researched issues associated with immigration 
and related criminal behavior; and Caroline 
Nicholl, a high-ranking British law enforcement 
official and Harkness Fellow who studied American 
community policing practices. 

International Clearinghouse 

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), a national and international criminal
justice information clearinghouse, responds to
queries about criminal justice matters from 
its print and electronic library of more than
140,000 documents. Since its creation by NIJ 
26 years ago, NCJRS has become an indispensable
resource for researchers, criminal justice
professionals, policymakers, academics, and 
students from around the globe. Last year, 
NCJRS distributed 2.6 million documents. More 
than 64,471 people requested publications. 

NCJRS expanded its international reach several
years ago by going "online," allowing users 
linked through the Internet to download 
documents onto their personal computers and 
use special software (provided free of charge) 
to view or print documents exactly as they appear 
in the conventionally published version. NCJRS 
pathways help customers find documents located 
in other countries and allow them to access 
repositories all over the world.

During fiscal year 1996, NIJ published 80 reports
and bulletins (a complete list is in Appendix B),
which can be accessed electronically from the
Justice Information Center (JIC) home page on the
World Wide Web. The JIC site provides all the
clearinghouse services of NCJRS in a rapid and
efficient electronic format. Publications can be
ordered and downloaded online, saving on printing
and distribution costs. Users can also download
NIJ's Research Prospectus, Building Knowledge 
About Crime and Justice, and all NIJ research
solicitations. (See "NIJ Publications Most Often
Downloaded.")

Recently, JIC was improved by adding new links 
to other sites as well as highlights of new
information. The JIC Web site receives
approximately 11,000 visitors each month and
averages 365 visits per day, with peak activity 
reaching 689 at one point last year. (See 
"Accessing NIJ Online.") 

Informing Public Debate

NIJ continues to inform public opinion and debate
on crime control policies through media coverage 
of the release of important and topical research
publications. For example, Preventing Gang- and
Drug-Related Witness Intimidation was distributed
to thousands of law enforcement agencies as part 
of a Federal initiative to reduce the spread of 
gangs and gang-related violence and drug 
trafficking. President Clinton announced the 
initiative--and the release of the report--during 
his weekly radio address. The release quickly 
generated print stories in several major 
national publications. 

Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case
Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish
Innocence After Trial effectively illustrates
the tremendous potential of DNA technology. It 
reviews 28 cases in which postconviction DNA 
evidence was used to win the release of people 
convicted by juries of various serious offenses, 
including murder, rape, and kidnapping. The 
report also examines the legal history of the 
admission of DNA evidence and explores some of 
the issues raised by the growing acceptance of 
DNA evidence at the State level. One of the 
cases in Convicted by Juries was featured in 
the Frontline television program "What Jennifer
Saw" and discussed in a New York Times article. 

In recent years, the Institute has worked to 
make the process of information retrieval 
easier for policymakers and professionals with 
services such as fax-on-demand and electronic 
publishing, including a new and improved NIJ Web 
site. NIJ continues to seek out and develop new 
ways of informing researchers and professionals 
about criminal justice trends and innovative 
approaches to longstanding crime problems, 
research data, and information about NIJ 
services and opportunities.

------------------------------
             
Perspectives on Crime and Justice

At the Perspectives on Crime and Justice lecture
series, nationally prominent scholars discuss
issues related to creating effective policy. The
lectures, hosted by NIJ with funding support from
the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, look at the
challenges of crime and justice through a policy
lens. During fiscal year 1996, the series featured
the following subjects and scholars:

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

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

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

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

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

     Videotapes of each session are available 
     for $29.50 from NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, 
     MD 20849-6000, or call 301-519-5500.

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

NIJ-Sponsored Conferences During Fiscal 
Year 1996

DNA, Washington, D.C., June 1996 
Scientists, defense lawyers, and prosecutors
discussed the capabilities, problems, and 
current applications of DNA technology. 
The report Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by 
Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence 
to Establish Innocence After Trial was released.

Locally Initiated Partnerships, Washington, D.C.,
January 1996, January 1997
These conferences were part of a program that
partners researchers with police departments to
design studies that will have immediate practical 
application for law enforcement professionals. 

National Conference on Technology Solutions for
Public Safety, Los Angeles, California, April 9-11,
1996 
Participants addressed the urgent need to provide
local law enforcement with the best crime fighting
technologies available. Proceedings were
highlighted in a conference report, Technology
Solutions for Public Safety.

Business and Crime Prevention, Rutgers University,
May 1996
Discussion centered on the role of business and
industry as a creative force in crime prevention.
Conference proceedings were summarized and
published in the book Business and Crime
Prevention.*

* Business and Crime Prevention, edited by
Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke, 1997, Willow
Tree Press: Monsey, New York

National Symposium on Police Integrity, Washington,
D.C., July 1996
Cohosted by NIJ and the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the conference
participants examined the issue of public trust of 
police, threats to police integrity, and solutions 
for enhancing public respect for police. Discussion
focused on police behavior and corruption as well
as the factors that influence police integrity,
such as command behavior, community values,
political conditions, and the police subculture.
Proceedings were highlighted in Police Integrity,
Public Service With Honor, published jointly by 
NIJ and COPS. 

Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation,
Washington, D.C., August 1996
NIJ's annual conference highlighted two major
themes: 
(1) crime prevention and (2) sentencing and its
impact on corrections. Two highlights of the
conference were presentations by David Weisburd 
on reorienting the focus of crime prevention 
research and policy and a discussion by Michael 
Block and Franklin Zimring presenting opposing 
views on imprisonment policies. Both 
presentations were prepared as NIJ publications.

Communities, Crime and Justice, Arlington,
Virginia, September 1996
Discussion focused on the relationships between
communities, crime, and justice; the roles of
different segments of the community in preventing 
and reducing crime; and the role of community 
organizations in addressing these issues. 
Attendees totaled more than 700. This conference 
was jointly sponsored by NIJ, the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance, and other Office 
of Justice Programs offices. A special issue of 
the NIJ Journal, "Communities: Mobilizing Against 
Crime, Making Partnerships Work," was distributed.

Restorative Justice Symposium, Washington, D.C., 
January 1996 
This conference was jointly sponsored by NIJ and
the Office for Victims of Crime in cooperation 
with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
Symposium panelists and participants discussed the 
concept and practical applications of restorative 
justice, such as victim-offender mediation and 
restitution. 

Regional Technology for Community Policing
Conferences (five conferences), August-October 
1996 
These conferences, which focused on how 
technology can enhance community policing 
programs, were held in Colorado Springs, 
Colorado; Rochester, New York; San Diego, 
California; Charleston, South Carolina; and 
Louisville, Kentucky.

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

NIJ Publications Most Often Downloaded From 
the Justice Information Center Web Site 
in Fiscal Year 1996

1.   Cowles, E.L.; T.C. Castellano; and L.A.
     Gransky, "Boot Camp Drug Treatment and 
     Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation 
     Report," Research in Brief, NCJ 155062.

2.   Sexton, G.E., "Work in American Prisons: 
     Joint Ventures with the Private Sector," 
     Program Focus, NCJ 148410.

3.   Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: 
     Why the Deadly Nexus," NIJ Journal, 229 
     (August 1995), JL 000219.

4.   Bourque, B.B.; R.C. Cronin; F.R. Pearson; 
     D.B. Felker; M. Han; and S.M. Hill, "Boot 
     Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An 
     Implementation Evaluation of Three 
     Demonstration Programs," Research Report, 
     NCJ 157316.

5.   Blumstein, A., "Breaking the Cycle of Youth
     Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets," 
     Research Preview, NCJ 152253.

6.   Roth, J.R.,"Firearms and Violence," 
     Research in Brief, NCJ 145553.

7.   McGillis, D., "Beacons of Hope: New York
     City's School-Based Community Centers," 
     Program Focus, NCJ 157667.

8.   Roth, J.A, "Psychoactive Substances and
     Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145543.

9.   Roth, J.A.,"Understanding and Preventing
     Violence," Research in Brief, NCJ 145645.

10.  Curry, D.; R.A. Ball; and R.J. Fox, "Gang 
     Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping," 
     Research in Brief, NCJ 148345.

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

Accessing NIJ Online

Methods of Accessing NIJ

World Wide Web

Through the Justice Information Center:
http//www.ncjrs.org

Bulletin Board Services

If you do not have Internet access, direct dial
through your modem: 301-738-8895. Modems should 
be set at 9600 baud and 8-N-1. If you have 
Internet access, telnet to bbs.ncjrs.org, or 
gopher to ncjrs.org:71

NCJRS Anonymous ftp

For downloading full-text publications: ftp
ncjrs.org

E-mail

To automatically receive information about 
NCJRS, send an e-mail to look@ncjrs.org. To 
ask a question or to obtain other services, 
send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org

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

Online Resources

JUSTINFO

The biweekly free newsletter from NCJRS, 
JUSTINFO, is delivered via e-mail. To subscribe, 
send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org with the 
following message: "subscribe justinfo"; make 
sure you give your name and e-mail address.

National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD)

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/nacjd         
Computer-readable copies of NIJ-sponsored data can 
be obtained from NACJD, which is maintained by the 
Inter-University Consortium for Political and
Social Research at the University of Michigan. 


PAVNET Online

http://www.pavnet.org or gopher to:
pavnet.esusda.gov
This is an interagency data base containing
descriptions of about 600 antiviolence programs 
and 325 sources for technical assistance, 
information, and potential funding.          

Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET)
Online

http://www.nlectc.org
This is a "one-stop shop" for law enforcement and
corrections technology information that links
visitors to all the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers, the National
Institute of Justice, and other law enforcement 
and corrections agencies. 

United Nations Online Crime and Justice
Clearinghouse (UNOJUST)

http://www.unojust.org
A U.S. technical assistance program to help the UN
Programme Network Institutes develop a global
information exchange. Features online machine
translation for English, French, Spanish, German,
and Russian.

Rule of Law
http://www.rol.org
An online data base of more than 6,400 annotated
links to law and justice resources and an
electronic mailing list that distributes weekly
digests to more than 700 international subscribers
primarily in Eastern Europe and the newly
independent states of the former Soviet Union. Also
includes online machine translation software for
the languages noted above under UNOJUST.

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

Endnotes

1    In addition to NIJ, the members of the  
     consortium include the National Center on 
     Child Abuse and Neglect, the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, and several 
     agencies within the National Institutes of 
     Health: the Office of Research on Women's 
     Health, the Office of Research on Minority 
     Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
     the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
     Alcoholism, the National Institute of Mental 
     Health, and the National Institute on Aging.

2    Quinn, T., "Redefining and Restoring Justice,"
     (draft report in partial fulfillment of NIJ 
     grant no. 95-IJ-CX-0016), December 1996.

3    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.

4    Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America:   
     Results of a Comprehensive National Survey 
     on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in 
     Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 
     1997, NCJ 165476.

5    Decker, S.; 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.

6    Lattimore, P.; J. Trudeau; K.J. Riley; 
     and J. Leiter, Homicide in Eight U.S. 
     Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy, 
     Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, 
     forthcoming 1997. 

7    Mieczkowski, T., et al., "Responding to
     America's Drug Problems: Strategies for 
     the 1990s," Journal of Urban Affairs, 14 
     (1992):337-357. Also see Anglin, M., and 
     D.S. Lipton, "Prison-Based Therapeutic 
     Communities: Their Success with Drug-Abusing 
     Offenders," NIJ Journal, 230 (February 1996):
     12-20. 

8    Mumm, R., "Implementation of a Diversionary
     Program by the Orleans Parish District 
     Attorney," (final report in partial 
     fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 93-IJ-CX-K004), 
     1995. See also Mieczkowski, T.; R. Mumm; 
     and H. Connick, "The Use of Hair Analysis
     in a Pretrial Diversion Program in New 
     Orleans," International Journal of Offender 
     Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 
     (1995):222-241.

9    U.S. Department of Justice, National 
     Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice 
     Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 
     1996: The Role of the National Institute 
     of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 

10   The four titles in the Research in Action
     series by Parent, D.; T. Dunworth; D. 
     McDonald; and W. Rhodes are as follows: 
     "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal 
     Justice: The Impact of Sentencing 
     Guidelines," November 1996, NCJ 161837; 
     "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal 
     Justice: Mandatory Sentencing," January 
     1997, NCJ 161839; "Key Legislative Issues 
     in Criminal Justice: Intermediate 
     Sanctions," January 1997, NCJ 161838; and 
     "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal 
     Justice: Transferring Serious Juveniles 
     to Adult Courts," January 1997, NCJ 161840, 
     Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
     National Institute of Justice.

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

Violence: Revealing the Underlying Issues
      
Levels of crime and violence in the United 
States appear to be abating, continuing a 
trend that began about 1992. According to the 
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the overall number 
of serious crimes fell 3 percent from 1995
to 1996, while violent crime dropped 7 
percent.[1] However, the decline in crime, 
although positive news, has been unevenly 
distributed across American communities and
represents merely a downturn from a record 
high level. Thirteen percent more serious 
crimes were committed in 1996 than in 
1984--the last year before crime started 
edging up; for violent crimes, the difference 
was more than 30 percent. Thus, the threat of 
violence continues to cause great public fear 
and concern, more so perhaps than does any 
other domestic problem facing the Nation.

Juvenile violence is also in decline following 
a steep rise that coincided with the spread of
handguns and cocaine trafficking during the
mid-1980s.[2] In 1995, for the first time in 
nearly a decade the FBI's Uniform Crime Report 
indicated that juvenile violent crime arrests 
had declined by 3 percent but were still 67 
percent higher than the 1986 level.[3] Juvenile 
murder arrests decreased 14 percent in 1995, 
but were still 90 percent higher than in 1986.

While the new crime statistics are encouraging,
some experts have warned of a potential surge 
of juvenile crime as children of the "baby 
boomers" reach the crime-active years. 
Furthermore, it appears that more girls are 
participating in criminal acts. Since 1991, 
female arrest increases have been higher than 
male arrest increases in most offense categories. 
In 1995, one in four arrested juveniles was 
female.[4] No less alarming is the victimization 
rate among juveniles. While violent crime rates 
have slipped in recent years for most age groups, 
teens have continued to experience the highest 
rate of violent crime victimization, including 
homicide.[5] 

In recent years, many States--and the Federal
Government--have enacted more stringent sanctions
against violent juvenile offenders or have 
lowered the age at which juveniles can be waived 
or transferred to adult criminal court. Whether 
the general downturn in violent crime is the 
result of stricter penalties, shifting demographic 
trends, community-based policing initiatives, or 
other factors--or all of these--remains unclear. 
What is certain is that recent progress can only 
be maintained through a better understanding of 
both the factors that cause violent behavior 
and those that mitigate potential violence. 
Research is a key component in building such 
understanding. 

Uncovering Pathways to Delinquency and 
Violence 

An unprecedented longitudinal study in its third
year reached several important data collection
milestones in 1996. The Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, which is
jointly supported by NIJ and the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, is examining 
how individual personalities, family 
relationships, and school and community 
environments affect the development of 
prosocial and delinquent and criminal behavior. 
For the study, Harvard University researchers 
and their colleagues interviewed nearly 8,800 
adult residents (of 343 neighborhoods) and 
nearly 3,000 neighborhood experts. They also 
observed the physical condition of 80 
neighborhoods, videotaping more than 27,000 
city block faces. In a longitudinal component, 
researchers enrolled and interviewed 7,000 
children, youths, and their caregivers. 
Researchers will track this group of
participants for the next 5-7 years, 
analyzing their development to gain insights 
into family and neighborhood factors that 
encourage prosocial and antisocial behavior. 

The community survey of adult residents drew
responses on topics such as perceived violence,
neighborhood decline, stability and cohesion, 
signs of disorder, and social control. 
Preliminary results showed that drug dealing 
topped residents' lists of the most serious 
problems they face (36 percent), followed by 
loitering youths (28 percent), trash and litter 
(27 percent), public drinking (25 percent), 
graffiti (21 percent), and vacant houses 
(16 percent) (results add to more than 100 percent 
because of multiple responses).

The participants, who through their responses
revealed a lifetime violent crime victimization
rate of 13 percent, generally agreed that police 
in their neighborhoods were responsive to their
concerns, although some neighborhood clusters 
rated police more positively than others. 

When researchers combined census records with
interview and survey responses, they identified
three factors that seem to play into a
neighborhood's level of informal social control:

o    "Concentrated disadvantage," the 
     correlation between race and poverty, 
     unemployment, and female-headed 
     households in a community. 

o    Ethnicity, which was important in 
     measuring new patterns of immigration.

o    Residential stability, the frequency with
     which residents move in and out of a 
     neighborhood. 

Areas that are characterized by high levels 
of "concentrated disadvantage" and residential 
instability tend to have higher crime and 
delinquency rates.

The study found that "collective efficacy"-- 
social cohesion among neighbors and their 
willingness to get involved in solving community
problems--helps reduce violence and lessens the
effects of high poverty and residential 
instability.[6]

Researchers also completed a pilot study of 
children and young people's exposure to violence
and began an examination of neighborhood
characteristics and their impact on individual
development. As a way to test a new measurement
tool they had developed for the project,
researchers interviewed 80 young people aged 
9 to 24, all of them participants in the
longitudinal study. They were asked about their
lifetime exposure as well as their recent 
exposure to 18 violent events they had either 
seen or experienced. Findings showed that the 
new method of assessing violence exposure is 
reliable and that exposure is high among urban 
residents. Fourteen percent of the respondents 
said they had been victims of violence, nearly 
one-quarter said they had seen an apparent murder 
victim in the past year, and 8 percent said that 
someone had shot at them.[7]

Taking Action to Reduce Youth Violence 

Children at Risk

Researchers have hypothesized that one of the 
keys to reducing youth violence and delinquency 
is to have a comprehensive program of integrated 
services involving social service agencies, 
schools, families, peers, criminal justice 
system components, and community groups. Through 
a unique public-private partnership, the 
Children at Risk (CAR) program is attempting 
to provide early intervention in the lives of 
high-risk youths and their families with 
multiple problems. The NIJ-sponsored evaluation 
of the program, conducted by the Urban Institute, 
demonstrated that family settings do indeed 
play a crucial role in predicting the outcome 
for high-risk youths.[8] The evaluation of the 
impact of CAR is assessing demonstration 
programs supported by a coalition of public and 
private agencies. CAR was developed and funded 
by the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University with 
support from private foundations and Federal 
agencies, including NIJ.[9]

During the second year of operation, the average
CAR program served about 90 high-risk youths and 
83 additional family members at an annual cost of
approximately $2,400 per person.[10] Followup
interviews with youth conducted 1 year after the
end of the program indicate that CAR youth were
significantly less likely to be current drug 
users. At the time of the survey (when most 
youths were 15), 51 percent of the CAR youths 
had used a gateway drug (i.e., cigarettes, 
alcohol, marijuana, or inhalants) in the past 
month compared with 64 percent of the control 
youth. CAR youths were also significantly less 
likely than control youths to be currently 
involved in drug sales (14 percent of the CAR 
youths compared with 24 percent of the control
group). 



The kinds of services CAR youths and family 
members received varied according to case 
managers' assessments of needs and local 
resources and the willingness of youths and 
family members to take part in offered services.
Services were likely to be offered when youths 
got into trouble or at the time of a major family 
disruption. Many participants were reluctant to
accept services--or even to participate in 
general prevention activities--during these 
times of crisis. In practice, CAR became a 
crisis intervention program rather than a program 
aimed at prevention. 

The experiences of the CAR program illustrate 
the difficulties inherent in delivering a 
comprehensive set of services to high-risk 
youths and their families. For instance, case 
managers, faced with cases of severe neglect 
(and sometimes abuse), spent more time in 
crisis management and less time on prevention. 
One result was that youths in trouble tended to
receive intensive attention, while those not in
crisis tended to receive less. Another 
consequence was that case managers took on 
caregiver functions, making it difficult for 
them to devote their attention to other key 
program components. The levels of abuse and 
neglect reported by case managers indicate the 
need to include child welfare intervention in 
any integrated service delivery program.

Four of the five CAR sites are continuing the 
program with enhanced collaborative service
delivery involving police departments and other
agencies. Three levels of coordination occur in
these sites: among agency directors, agency
supervisors, and case managers. Experience 
with CAR showed that coordination is necessary 
at all three levels for successful implementation. 
The Ford Foundation is building on many of 
the lessons learned in the CAR program and is
funding several replications of the program.
Meanwhile, the evaluation team is continuing 
to analyze additional information from the 
children's school and criminal justice records 
to assess the impact of the CAR program on 
specific aspects of the lives of these children. 

Firearms and Boston's Youth

Dramatic fluctuations in juvenile violence
nationwide this decade have been mirrored 
by trends in Boston. Between 1990 and 1995, 
155 youth homicides occurred in Boston; 
they appeared to be part of a larger cycle of 
gang activity involving firearms, which mainly
victimized young black men. But since the 
beginning of a novel "problem-solving" approach 
to youth violence that targets gangs and 
firearms, death by homicide among young people 
under the age of 25 has fallen by two-thirds 
from the level Boston experienced in 1989 when 
the city's crack problem soared. In fact, youth 
violence in Boston is currently at a level 25 
percent below the previous low point, which was 
in 1976.

Called "Operation Cease-Fire," the program 
was launched by Boston police officials; 
Harvard University researchers; and members 
of a number of local, State, and Federal 
agencies. Participants formed a working group to
analyze supply and demand for guns and devise
innovative strategies to disrupt the illicit
firearms market as a means of deterring serious
youth violence.[11]

The team found that youth homicides were 
concentrated in several neighborhoods that 
were home to an estimated 61 gangs. Most 
youths involved in these violent crimes were 
no strangers to the justice system--75 percent 
of known homicide victims and offenders had 
been arraigned for some offense, one-quarter 
had been detained in a juvenile or adult 
facility, and more than half had been on 
probation at one time. The research team also 
found that a disproportionate percentage of
the handguns confiscated from youths were new
semiautomatics, that the single largest source
(about one-third) was retail sales in
Massachusetts,[12] and that about one in five 
had obliterated serial numbers. These findings 
pointed to the existence of a flow of new guns 
diverted into the illicit juvenile market at 
points close to first retail sale. Guns
confiscated from adults were for the most part
older models from a number of manufacturers.

Police, prosecutors, probation officers, and gang
social workers held meetings with gang members to
let them know that they would be subjected to
intense scrutiny; that further violence would be
met with an immediate interagency response; and
that they could face arrest, incarceration, and 
severe personal restrictions if violence 
continued. They backed their tough words with 
action, focusing resources on two violent gangs, 
one a notorious crack era "posse." The first 
gang faced strict probation supervision, heavy 
police presence, and the Federal prosecution of 
a member for pointing a firearm at a police
officer; the other gang was hobbled by a series 
of drug arrests. 

While NIJ is supporting an indepth evaluation of
the long-term impact of this strategy, Boston's
drop in youth homicide and violence suggests that
such measures concentrated on a few gangs--if
properly publicized--might serve as an effective
deterrent to other gangs across the city.

Gangs and Violence

NIJ's portfolio on gangs covers a diverse array 
of research topics; several projects are 
coordinated with other agencies, such as the 
Family and Youth Services Bureau of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. 
Ongoing projects include evaluations of gang 
prevention initiatives, including one aimed 
primarily at young women; the G.R.E.A.T. 
(Gang Resistance Education and Training)
program; prosecution strategies in Las Vegas 
and Reno, Nevada; and efforts to identify 
patterns of gang offending and the factors 
that lead to criminal incidents.

Research on the relationship between gangs and
delinquency has shown that gang members have
significantly higher levels of delinquency than
other youths and that law enforcement focus 
on gang-related crime and delinquency has 
consistently increased over the past two 
decades.[13] While some studies suggest that 
organized drug-dealing by gangs is not as 
widespread or common as once believed and that 
gang migration occurs primarily because the 
gang member's family moves,[14] gangs by their 
very nature foster criminalbehavior, especially 
violence. In fact, one national survey found that
the most commonly reported criminal activity for
gangs was violence. Other research suggests that
increases in gang violence are the result of a 
"contagion" effect, subsequent acts of 
violence--usually in retaliation--following 
an initial act of violence.[15] 

A study of responses to gang crime in the United
States found that gang-related programs have
continually failed to make a distinction between
gang delinquency and general delinquency and have
rarely been systematically evaluated.[16] In
addition, programs have not always taken into
account the influence of community or ethnic
factors on gang organization and behavior, nor 
is there always a discernible relationship 
between the perceived cause of a gang problem 
and the subsequent strategy. Many communities 
deny gang problems until some dramatic, violent 
attack occurs because they fear the effects an 
admission of a gang problem might have on 
politics or tourism. Episodes of violence are 
often followed by a period of stepped-up 
enforcement, possibly further exacerbating 
community tensions.

Gang-related conflicts are just one of many 
catalysts for juvenile violence. Another study
identified a variety of motives and factors behind
acts of violence involving youths living in one of
two New York City neighborhoods--East New York in
Brooklyn and the South Bronx.17 NIJ- supported
researchers asked adolescent boys to provide
detailed descriptions of four violent events in
which they had been participants, two with a gun,
two without a gun. From the lengthy narratives 
that emerged, researchers isolated a number of 
contexts for street violence that went beyond 
gang conflicts, such as recurring disputes 
involving the same individuals, fights over 
girlfriends, extortion or robbery, preemptive 
violence for self-preservation, dating violence, 
and violence rituals to achieve status or prove 
manhood. 

Some respondents used violence as a way of
establishing social identity, expressing defiance
or urges to dominate, or exerting social control.
Other respondents seemed to have developed two
identities and codes, one as a "street person" 
and another as a "decent person." The need for
self-preservation motivated otherwise "decent kids"
to take on the symbolic representation of
toughness. 

Bystanders and alcohol are two significant 
influences on violent behavior, the study found.
Bystanders can "egg you on"--encourage  violent 
behavior--or "cool you out"--diffuse potentially 
violent situations. Alcohol was found to be an 
enormous factor in heightening the potential for 
violence. Drinking tends to magnify adolescents' 
emotions and desires and raise the social stakes. 
The mere presence of alcohol drinking near a 
neighborhood hangout substantially increased the 
likelihood of violence. 

Researchers further discovered that holidays 
and the anniversaries of deaths can be associated
with increased likelihood of engaging in violent
behavior. In the study neighborhoods, the Fourth 
of July--a holiday that inspires outdoor parties,
fireworks, and drinking--was identified as the 
day of the year when adolescent behavior is 
likely to be most volatile. 

Researchers concluded that conflict resolution
skills training in schools would be more 
effective if it were taught within the context 
of these realistic street conditions. They also 
suggested that qualitative research methods--such 
as those used in the East New York and South Bronx 
study--may be valuable tools for understanding the
dynamics of juvenile violence and other types of 
violence, such as domestic violence. 

Exploring the Relationship Between Guns and 
Violence

Evaluation of the Ban on Assault Weapons

Assault-type weapons are considered to be the
deadliest of firearms. They appear to be
disproportionately involved in murders with
multiple victims, many wounds per victim, or 
with police officers as victims. The 1994 Crime 
Act banned the manufacture, transfer, and 
possession of designated semiautomatic assault 
weapons and large-capacity magazines. Under a 
mandate of the Act, NIJ supported research to 
gauge the ban's effects. The study, conducted 
by the Urban Institute, found that the effect 
of the ban on gun murders was too small to 
detect statistically in the study's short time 
period (1 year) because the banned guns and 
magazines were never used in more than a 
fraction of all gun murders prior to the
ban.[18] 

The best estimate possible given the time frame 
is that the Federal ban may have contributed to a
decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 
1995 in States without prior State bans 
(specifically, there was a 6.7 percent greater 
decrease in States without prior bans). Such a 
decrease did not occur in States that already 
had banned assault weapons. A drop in police 
officer killings since mid-1995 could be linked 
to the ban, but the decline came during a period 
when the use of bullet-resistant vests may also 
have increased. 

The Urban Institute's analysis suggests that the 
primary market prices of the banned guns, as
reflected in gun publications, rose by nearly 50
percent during 1993 and 1994, while the ban was
being debated in anticipation of passage. At the
same time, production surged, so that more than 
an extra year's supply of assault weapons was
manufactured during 1994. After the ban took effect
on September 13, 1994, primary market prices fell 
to nearly pre-ban levels and remained there 
through mid-1996, reflecting both the 
oversupply of grandfathered guns and the 
variety of legal substitutes that emerged.

Researchers examined the number of times law
enforcement agencies across the country requested
that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
trace the origins of assault weapons seized by
local law enforcement. Initial examination of 
trace requests showed a 20-percent drop in 
requests for assault weapons compared to an 
11-percent drop in such requests for all guns. 
Moreover, the drop in assault weapons traces was 
substantially greater than the declines in gun 
murder (12 percent), gun robbery (8 percent), and 
gun assault (6 percent) during the same period. 
The greater decrease in assault weapons tracing 
requests compared to other gun tracing requests 
suggests a short-term reduction in carrying and 
use of assault weapons following the ban.

Clearly, research is needed to gauge the full
impact of the assault weapons ban over the course
of several years in a larger number of
jurisdictions, with data on both fatal incidents
and those without fatalities. The researchers 
also recommended improving local, State, and 
Federal data bases on firearms and violence 
(both for assault weapons and other guns).

Ownership and Use by the General Public

According to recently released findings of an 
NIJ-funded national survey of private ownership of
firearms, about 35 percent of U.S. households and
one-quarter of all American adults own a firearm.
There is no typical firearm owner, but the
likelihood of ownership is greater for middle-aged,
middle-class white males. In addition, ownership 
is fairly concentrated--about 10 percent of the
Nation's adults own 77 percent of the Nation's
stock of firearms. Of the 192 million working
firearms in private possession, about one-third 
are handguns and at least 40 percent of these are
semiautomatics.[19]

On a given day, 1.1 million Americans carry guns 
on their person outside the workplace; another 
2.1 million store guns in their cars or trucks. 
About one in five households with firearms have 
at least one unlocked, loaded gun. About 
three-quarters of survey respondents who own 
handguns indicated they own the weapon for
self-defense, and about two-thirds of 
respondents said they also own at least one 
rifle or shotgun, suggesting that many owners 
also use guns for sporting purposes.

Ownership and Use by Arrestees

More than one-third of arrestees have owned a gun
at some time, and 14 percent carry guns all or 
most of the time. That proportion rises to 20 
percent among juvenile male arrestees and 
to 31 percent among gang members.[20] These are 
among the key results of an analysis of data from 
11 cities in NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting program.

While arrestees who tested positive for drugs 
were no more likely to own and use firearms than
arrestees overall, the study helped confirm the
role of gangs and drug markets in increasing 
access to and use of guns. Among the arrestees
interviewed, nearly one-fourth of the adults who
owned guns and one-third of juveniles said they 
had used them to commit crimes. Among drug sellers 
and gang members, the figures are 42 percent and 
50 percent, respectively.

The study found that more than half of all
arrestees said that guns "are easy to obtain 
illegally," and more than three-quarters of
arrestees who sell drugs and belong to gangs
claimed guns were easy to obtain by illegal means.
And it does not take long to obtain an illegal
firearm--37 percent said they could obtain a gun 
in less than a week.

The authors concluded that one factor in the
prevalence of guns is the power of the "gun
culture" among arrestees, which condones gun use,
especially for protection. Forty-two percent of
arrested criminals cited protection as the reason
for needing a gun.

Arrestees have also been on the other side of the
gun--nearly three-fifths replied they had been
threatened with a gun, and two out of five had been
fired upon. Again, this number was higher for
juveniles and gang members.

These findings suggest a high correlation between
firearms, youths, gangs, and drugs. They also
suggest that recent strategies focusing on
increased penalties for illegal possession or use
of a gun in a crime do not appear to have deterred
arrestees from owning and using firearms. The study
suggests that a more promising approach to reducing
illegal access to firearms might involve a
coordinated response by a variety of agencies,
including law enforcement, youth support groups,
and community organizations. For example, in St.
Louis, Missouri, police initiated a firearm
suppression program in which officers obtain
permission from parents to search the houses where
juveniles reside for illegal firearms in return for
a guarantee not to prosecute if guns are found.
Other comprehensive initiatives involving
enforcement, prevention, and deterrence through
credible curfews and sanctions are finding success
in Boston and in Inglewood, California.[21]

Responding to Violence in the Family 

Research has shown that violence within the 
family is widespread and consequential. NIJ's 
family violence portfolio examines several 
facets of family violence.

Family Violence as a Public Health Issue

As part of its focus on breaking the cycle of 
family violence, NIJ collaborated with the 
National Institutes of Health and other Federal 
research agencies on a joint solicitation to 
support research on violence against women and 
within the family.[22] The sponsoring 
organizations set aside $5.2 million to support 
grants lasting 2-3 years. The grants will support 
research on the causes, course, treatment, 
management, and prevention of family violence, as
well as the health and legal consequences of this
violence for victims. Projects funded in fiscal
year 1996 are addressing ways of reducing the risk
of abuse to children of battered women, the
effectiveness of protection orders, domestic abuse
among Latinos and Native Americans, the effects of
abuse and maltreatment on children's cognition and
self-esteem, the abuse of aging caregivers, the
effects of neighborhood violence on women and
children, and studies to evaluate interventions for
rape victims and for adolescent boys from abusive
homes. 

As part of another ambitious joint project, 
NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control (NCIPC) have developed a plan to study
violence against women based on a research agenda
developed by the National Academy of Sciences in
response to a mandate 
of the Crime Act. Funding for the first year of 
the 5-year collaboration is under consideration 
by Congress for fiscal year 1998.

Contingent on funding, NIJ and NCIPC will solicit
research to learn what works in prevention and
intervention programs and will study new approaches
and promising practices. NIJ will communicate the
results of this research and sponsor research
partnerships between universities or research 
firms and local community agencies. 

The Role of Drugs, Alcohol, and Weapons

Research suggests that assaulted women are often
repeatedly victimized by a single assailant and
that drugs and alcohol frequently play a role in 
the attacks. A study funded by the Methodist 
Hospital Foundation of Memphis of 62 domestic 
violence incidents in that city found that the 
vast majority of assaulted women were repeat 
victims of the same assailant and that 42 
percent of the victims and 92 percent of the
assailants had used drugs prior to the assault.[23]
The study also found that two-thirds of domestic
violence assailants were on probation or parole at
the time of the assault; nearly half were reported
to be dependent on alcohol, drugs, or both; and
two-thirds had used a combination of cocaine and 
alcohol prior to the assault.

The presence of firearms and other weapons also
seems to play a significant role in the outcome of
attacks reported to police. In the Memphis study,
68 percent of the reported battering incidents
involved the use or display of a weapon, and 15
percent of victims suffered injuries severe enough
to require emergency medical attention.


The Role of Civil Protection Orders

As part of its effort to learn how to prevent and
intervene in domestic violence cases, NIJ has
sought to examine how courts can better serve
victims. Building on prior research, NIJ funded 
a study on the effectiveness of civil protection
orders. Previous studies concluded that the 
success of protection orders relied on the 
thoroughness and specificity of the order itself
and how well it is enforced. For the new study,
researchers interviewed victims to identify other
factors, including accessibility to the court
process, linkages to public and private services
and sources of support, and the criminal record of
the abuser.

Over one-third of the study participants reported
they had been threatened or injured with a weapon,
over half had been beaten or choked, and 84 percent
had suffered milder physical abuse, such as
slapping, kicking, and shoving. The longer a woman
experienced abuse, the more intense the abusive
behavior became. Thus, victim interviews indicate
that the longer a victim stays in a relationship, 
the more likely it is she will be severely injured 
by the abuser.

The study concluded that victims' views on the
effectiveness of protection orders vary with how
accessible the courts are for victims and how
well-established the links are between public and
private services and support resources for
victims.[24]

Stalking 

Women who attempt to end relationships with
partners sometimes find themselves telephoned
incessantly or visited at their place of
employment. Other women report being followed by
acquaintances or total strangers who want to form 
a relationship or are acting on the impulses of an
obsession. In recent years the stalking of
celebrities, both male and female, has drawn
headlines and prompted new policies and laws. 
But how does one differentiate between annoying
behavior, harassment, and true criminal 
stalking?

Little research exists specifically on stalking;
much of it has been limited to studies of small,
unrepresentative, or clinical samples of known
stalkers of public figures. To learn more about
violence and threats of violence against women,
including stalking, NIJ and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention jointly sponsored a
nationwide telephone survey of 8,000 women and
8,000 men aged 18 years or older.

Preliminary findings reveal that stalking is a much
larger problem than previously assumed, affecting
an estimated 2 million victims annually. The vast
majority of victims are female (78 percent) and 
the vast majority of perpetrators are male 
(87 percent). Eight percent of women and 2 percent 
of men surveyed had been stalked in their lifetimes.

White women are as likely to be stalked as women of
color, while men of color are at a slightly greater
risk of being stalked than white men. In general, 
women tend to be stalked by former intimate 
partners, while men tend to be stalked by male 
strangers and male acquaintances. (See figure
5, Relationship Between Stalking Victim and
Offender.) The survey found a strong link between 
stalking and domestic violence: of the men who 
stalked their wives or intimate partners, 81 
percent also physically assaulted and 31 percent 
sexually assaulted the stalking victim.[25]

The Violence Against Women Act 

Title IV of the Crime Act, the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA), represented a major step forward
in the Federal response to the many crimes whose
victims are women. In 1996 as in 1995, the Crime
Act served as an impetus for expanded NIJ research
about crimes against women, including evaluations
of the effectiveness of State and local initiatives
established under VAWA as well as investigations of
specific issues, such as the relationship of
alcohol to domestic violence, the efficacy of
court-mandated domestic violence counseling, and
how victims' and witnesses' reluctance to testify
can affect court disposition. In 1996, NIJ also 
completed several congressionally mandated studies. 
(See "Reports on Violence Against Women Required 
Under the 1994 Crime Act.")

VAWA's program of assistance to improve
prosecutorial and police handling of violence
against women, the STOP Program (Services,
Training, Officers, Prosecutors), is being
evaluated in a nationwide study of the progress
that participating States are making in meeting
their planning and implementation goals. The first
year of the study found that the States were in
compliance or moving rapidly toward compliance in
such areas as ensuring that victims do not bear 
the costs of forensic examinations. Review of the
States' plans indicates a wide range of specific
activities but close adherence to the intent of
VAWA. Specific plans include developing model law
enforcement protocols, developing a domestic
violence manual for police and prosecutors, and
establishing oversight committees to identify
criminal justice system problems.[26] The plans 
of most States indicate that victim services will 
be expanded. Now under way is a second-year 
evaluation report on the State grants awarded in 
the first year of the STOP Program. 

Other nationwide evaluations begun in 1996 focus 
on the impact of the STOP Program at selected 
sites, including its effectiveness in Native 
American communities; on victim services 
established under VAWA; and on the data 
collection and communication systems components 
of the States' programs. 

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

Reports on Violence Against Women Required 
Under the 1994 Crime Act

Crowell, N.A., and A.W. Burgess, eds.,
Understanding Violence Against Women, 
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. 
This study was sponsored by the National 
Institute of Justice and the National Center for 
Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by 
the National Academy of Science.*

Zepp, J., et al., "State Databases: Domestic and
Sexual Violence Data Collection," Research Report,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice and Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, July 1996. Study conducted 
by the Justice Research and Statistics 
Association, NCJ 161405.

The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning
Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials:
Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice and U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, May 1996, NCJ 160972.

Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking
Legislation: NIJ Report to Congress, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ 160943.

Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims'
Addresses, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal
Justice Association, November 1995. Report of a
study sponsored by the National Institute of
Justice, NCJ 164064.

*    Available from the National Academy Press 
     at 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
     Washington, DC 20055. Phone 800-624-6242, 
     or order via the Internet at 
     http://www.nap.edu/nap/bookstore.

    Available from the National Institute of
     Justice through the National Criminal Justice
     Reference Service, Box 600, Rockville, MD 
     20849-6000; telephone 800-851-3420; or e-mail
     askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

    Available online at
     http://www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm.

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

Endnotes

1    Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Uniform
     Crime Report," 1996 Preliminary Annual Release,
     June 23, 1997. (Final figures and crime rates 
     per 100,000 inhabitants will be published in 
     Crime in the United States--1996, scheduled 
     for release in the fall of 1997.)

2    Blumstein, A., "Violence by Young People: Why
     the Deadly Nexus?," NIJ Journal, (August 
     1995):3-9.

3    Snyder, H.N., "Juvenile Arrests 1995,"
     Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington D.C.: 
     U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 
     February 1997, NCJ 163813.

4    Ibid. See also U.S. Department of Justice, 
     Press Release, December 12, 1996.

5    Criminal Victimization in the United States:
     1973-92 Trends, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, July 1994, NCJ 147006.

6    Earls, F.J., and C.A. Visher, "Project on
     Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: 
     A Research Update," Research in Brief, 
     Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
     National Institute of Justice, February 1997, 
     FS 163603.

7    Selner-O'Hagan, M.B., et al., "Assessing the
     Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence: A 
     Summary of a Pilot Study from the Project on 
     Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods," 
     Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, National Institute of 
     Justice, November 1996, 
     NCJ 000159.

8    Harrell, A.V., "Findings from the Evaluation
     of the Children At Risk Program," (a report 
     in partial fulfillment of cooperative 
     agreement no. 92-DD-CX-0031), April 1997. 
     This evaluation examined the impact of the 
     Children At Risk program, a drug and 
     delinquency prevention program for high-risk 
     adolescents aged 11-13 years old who live in 
     narrowly defined, severely distressed 
     neighborhoods.

9    In addition to NIJ, other Federal funders 
     are the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau 
     of Justice Assistance and Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 
     Participating foundations include the Annie 
     E. Casey, Ford, Prudential, Rockefeller, and 
     American Express Foundations, the Pew 
     Charitable Trust, Ronald McDonald Children's
     Charities, and United Technologies.

10   Pindus, N., "Costs of the Children At Risk
     Program," (a report in partial fulfillment 
     of NIJ grant no. 92-DD-CX-0031), 1997.

11   The working group included representatives 
     of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms, the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
     Boston, the Suffolk County District 
     Attorney's Office, Massachusetts Department 
     of Probation, Massachusetts Department
     of Parole, Massachusetts Department of 
     Youth Services, City of Boston School 
     Police, and city-employed gang outreach 
     and mediator workers. Kennedy, D.M., 
     "Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets 
     in Boston," Research Preview, Washington, 
     D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
     Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 160766.

12   About one-third were purchased in southern
     States, and the other two-thirds were 
     purchased from all other States combined.

13   Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding 
     to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency," (a 
     report in partial fulfillment of grant no. 
     OJP-C-94-007), 1997.

14   The second most frequently cited motivation
     for migrating is drug market expansion. 
     Maxson, C.L.; K.J. Woods; and M.W. Klein, 
     "Street Migration: How Big a Threat?" NIJ 
     Journal, (February 1996):26.

15   Curry, G.D., and S.H. Decker, "Responding 
     to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency."

16    Ibid, pp.ii, 13-22.

17   "Adolescent Violence: A View From the 
     Street," a Research in Progress seminar 
     video, presented by Fagan, J., Director of 
     the Center for Violence Research and 
     Prevention, Columbia University, New York, 
     December 1996, NCJ 163059.

18   Roth, J.A., and C.S. Koper, Impact Evaluation
     of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms 
     Use Protection Act of 1994, Washington, D.C.: 
     The Urban Institute, March 1997.

19   Cook, P., and J. Ludwig, "Guns in America:
     Results of a Comprehensive National Survey 
     on Firearms Ownership and Use," Research in 
     Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 
     1997, NCJ 165476.

20   Decker, S.H.; S. Pennell; 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. 

21   Kennedy, D.M., "Juvenile Gun Violence and 
     Gun Markets in Boston," Research in Brief,
     Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
     National Institute of Justice, March 1997, 
     NCJ 160766.

22   The initiative is coordinated by the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office 
     of Behavioral and Social Sciences and is 
     cosponsored by the National Institute of 
     Justice, NIH Office of Research on Minority 
     Health, NIH Office of Research on Women's
     Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
     National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
     Alcoholism, National Institute on Mental 
     Health, National Institute on Aging, 
     National Center on Child Abuse and 
     Neglect, and Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention.

23   Brookoff, D., "Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic
     Violence in Memphis," findings presented 
     at NIJ at Research in Progress seminar, 
     February 24, 1997. 

24   Keilitz, S.L., et al., Civil Protection
     Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for 
     Victims of Domestic Violence, (final 
     report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant 
     no. 93-IJ-CX-0035), Williamsburg, Va.: 
     National Center for State Courts, 1997.

25   Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, "Stalking 
     in America: Findings from the National 
     Violence Against Women Survey," findings 
     presented at NIJ Research in Progress 
     seminar, January 16, 1997.

26   Burt, M., The Violence Against Women Act 
     of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block 
     Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, 
     (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ 
     grant no. 95-WT-NX-0005), Washington, D.C.:
     The Urban Institute, March 29, 1996. The 
     next report will be published in 1997. 

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

Drugs and Crime: Criminal Justice Responses

NIJ research has made major contributions to 
understanding the links between drug use and 
crime by measuring prevalence of drug use
among individuals who enter the criminal justice
system and by determining the effectiveness of
interventions at various points along the path
offenders take through the criminal justice 
system. In 1996, NIJ continued to chart new 
directions that will provide more insights about 
the links between drugs and crime and the 
combinations of sanctions and treatment that 
hold the most promise in breaking the drug-crime 
cycle.

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which
entered its 10th year in 1996, is NIJ's 
pioneering effort to establish the research 
infrastructure necessary to understand the nexus 
between crime and drugs. Under the current DUF 
system, researchers conduct voluntary, 
confidential, and anonymous interviews and 
urinalyses of adult and juvenile arrestees at 
booking facilities in 23 American cities. After 
being compiled, analyzed, and published, the 
data became a key element in the Federal 
Government's leading drug use indicators.[1]

The latest data from DUF sites reveal that in most
of the 23 sites where DUF is operational about
two-thirds of adult male arrestees and more than
half of female adult arrestees tested positive for
at least one drug. Marijuana use among adult and
juvenile arrestees rose during 1996 at most sites,
with dramatic increases at a few sites.[2] 
Regional patterns of drug use are more evident for 
cocaine, opiates, and methamphetamine. For 
example, marijuana use has surpassed cocaine use 
in many Western sites, and high rates of opiate 
use are confined to a few large DUF cities. High 
rates of methamphetamine use continue to be 
mainly a Western phenomenon, but rates fell 
significantly in 1996 in all sites that had 
reported increases in 1995. 

An NIJ-supported study tracing use patterns
associated with the rise and fall of the crack
cocaine epidemic that began in the 1980s found 
that crack use among arrestees appears to be 
declining in most DUF cities, especially those 
on the east and west coasts. It appears that the 
crack epidemics in New York City and Washington, 
D.C., began to decline around 1990, while the 
epidemics in Los Angeles and San Diego began to 
subside in 1989 and 1992, respectively. In 
several DUF cities, notably Atlanta, Denver, 
Phoenix, and St. Louis, the epidemic seemed to 
be still in the "plateau" or stable phase in 
1996.[3] Although cocaine use among male and 
female arrestees continued to decline or remain 
stable in many DUF cities, remarkable increases 
were noted in several cities, especially Omaha, 
Nebraska, and Miami, Florida. And in keeping with 
trends of recent years, women exhibited higher 
rates of cocaine and methamphetamine use than 
men.

ADAM: A Better Way to Gauge Drug Use

DUF has shown itself to be a highly important
vehicle for collecting arrestee drug use data, 
and NIJ took steps in 1996 to improve and expand 
its data collection infrastructure by requesting
congressional funding to transform the program 
into a more comprehensive effort. The Arrestee 
Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, which is 
proposed to be operational by 2001, is designed 
to build on DUF's success by more than tripling 
the size of the program. As currently envisioned, 
ADAM will operate in at least 75 cities, 
primarily those with populations greater than 
200,000.[4] As part of an outreach component, 
researchers at each urban ADAM site will also 
collect data annually in suburban, rural, Indian 
territory areas, or in other arrestee populations 
outside the urban core. The data generated will 
provide local and national policymakers with 
earlier warnings about coming drug epidemics as 
well as insights into the links between crime and 
drugs outside of inner-city areas. 

ADAM will collect a core set of data in each city
and provide local communities with the means of
collecting arrestee information that will inform
issues of local concern. Aggregated ADAM data 
will provide an important national picture of 
annual drug use among the arrestees tested, as 
well as trends over time. The expanded data will 
assist policymakers in making informed decisions 
about drug enforcement and treatment 
interventions. At each ADAM site, Local 
Coordinating Councils--composed of law 
enforcement, drug treatment personnel, 
community action groups and others--will help 
select outreach sites, generate local research 
projects for existing ADAM sites, 
and help disseminate site findings.[5]

Using DUF Data to Reveal Drug Use Patterns

Expanding the DUF/ADAM programs into rural and
suburban areas will provide important research 
data on the manufacture, distribution, and use 
of specific drugs. A good example of how DUF 
data can be used is illustrated by recent 
findings about methamphetamine use. Across the 
Nation, methamphetamine use is modest, but 
there have been pockets of concentrated use in 
cities in the West and Southwest.[6] Use is 
typically higher among female arrestees than 
male arrestees, and use among white arrestees far 
exceeds that among black or Hispanic arrestees. 
About 2 percent of adult arrestees in the eight 
sites with the highest methamphetamine use tested 
positive for both cocaine and methamphetamine, a 
finding that suggests that methamphetamine users 
are a distinct population, perhaps with 
distinguishable acquisition patterns and 
treatment needs. What the routine DUF data do not 
provide, however, are indications why individuals 
begin using methamphetamine, patterns of use of 
the drug, dynamics of the methamphetamine market, 
or indicators of the possible success of 
treatment.[7]

To provide some of these answers, in 1996 NIJ
commissioned a special study of methamphetamine
markets and use in five Western cities (San Jose,
Los Angeles, Portland, Phoenix, and San Diego),
which is being conducted by the San Diego
Association of Governments and is based on the
DUF/ADAM research platform. When completed in 1997,
this study will provide the first comprehensive,
cross-site analysis of the use and sale of 
methamphetamine.[8]

Preliminary data from the study indicate that
nearly half of methamphetamine users in the five
cities studied prefer to snort the drug, about
one-quarter prefer smoking it, and the rest 
prefer injection. Most of the users in three of 
the five cities reported they had used the drug 
four or more days in a row at least once. 
Portland and Phoenix seem to have the highest 
percentage of users who inject methamphetamine, 
possibly indicating that those cities have more 
serious users, as injection is the most efficient 
form of ingestion. 

According to the preliminary data, most users 
in the five cities prefer methamphetamine over 
cocaine because it provides a better "high," is 
longer lasting, and is inexpensive. Most 
complained of sleeplessness, weight loss, and 
family problems, however, and about one in three 
said they had sought treatment for methamphetamine 
at least once. Most users seem to buy the drug 
from people they know and, unlike crack cocaine 
users, conduct nearly all transactions indoors.

Findings from this study are being used by San
Diego and other cities to develop meaningful 
action plans encompassing drug prevention, 
treatment, and interdiction. Through ADAM, NIJ 
hopes to continue to produce more of this kind 
of research data, which can be linked directly 
to policy and action.

Drug Testing: New Uses, Better Methods

Judges weigh all available evidence when making a
pretrial release decision. Having the results of 
a urinalysis available might assist a judge in
choosing an appropriate placement, such as
supervised release, drug treatment, or sanctions.
In an NIJ-funded study involving six sites and 
more than 14,000 cases, researchers found some 
evidence that urinalysis results may be useful 
in predicting some type of pretrial misconduct, 
although more research is needed to make solid 
predictions. In some sites a positive test for 
opiates helped predict rearrest, and a positive 
test for cocaine helped predict a defendant's 
failure to appear; on the other hand, data at 
other sites indicated drug tests could not 
predict any type of problem behavior. Finally, 
at some sites, tests predicted either rearrest 
or failure to appear but seldom both.[9]

Although urinalysis remains the most commonly used
drug testing technique, it cannot detect opiates
and cocaine later than 48 to 72 hours after use.
Hair analysis, by contrast, has a longer window of
detection--7 days to 6 months--but it cannot detect
recent use. Still, it represents an alternative
medium for estimating the use of rapidly excreted
drugs.

NIJ recently released findings of a test designed
to replicate findings from an earlier study that
had examined drug use among juvenile offenders
through the use of self reports, urinalysis, and
hair assays.[10] The findings from the first study
were indeed replicated; for example, hair analysis
detected cocaine more frequently than did
urinalysis. The investigators found that in almost
no instance was a positive urine test accompanied
by a negative hair assay. Hair analysis also can
detect chronic cocaine use because evidence stays
in the hair longer than it stays in urine. For
example, urinalysis cannot detect cocaine in a
person who has not used the drug within the last 3
days even though the person may be a long-time
user. Persons who use cocaine infrequently or in
very low doses are likely to pass a periodic urine
screen.[11]

Further evidence of the usefulness of hair 
analysis was reported in an NIJ evaluation of a 
diversion program operated by the Orleans Parish 
District Attorney's office in Louisiana. The 
evaluation relied on urinalysis, hair analysis, 
and self-reported drug use to monitor compliance. 
Hair analysis proved to be a more efficacious 
method of identifying drug exposure than either 
urinalysis or self-reported use. In addition, 
the study revealed patterns of abstinence from 
drug use and of compliance with conditions of 
diversion and probation related to drugs; it 
also encouraged drug-involved offenders to 
participate in treatment.[12] 

At the request of the Commissioner of the 
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, NIJ
researchers were asked to develop baseline data 
on drug use in the State's prison system. In 
response, NIJ staff researchers collected hair 
samples from inmates at five prisons. All 
inmates in the study had been in custody of the 
department for at least 3 months, and the hair 
samples represented growth over the previous 3 
months. The samples were tested for evidence of 
use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, 
and PCP. 

Results revealed considerable variation between
facilities in the frequency of drug use by 
inmates during their incarceration. In one prison, 
2.3 percent of the participants tested positive 
for marijuana, while in another, 20.1 percent 
tested positive. Overall, 6 to 9 percent tested 
positive for marijuana, 2 percent tested positive 
for cocaine, and 1 percent tested positive for 
heroin. Only one inmate tested positive for PCP. 
The data will assist prison officials in their 
development of policies to reduce the availability 
of and access to drugs in prisons.

Assessing Intervention Approaches 

Estimates of the annual number of drug-using
arrestees who probably need treatment range as 
high as 2 million. The scope of treatment needs 
is even more extensive than indicated by this 
figure as many drug users who come into the 
criminal justice system use more than one drug 
and also abuse other substances, such as 
alcohol.[13] The percentage of arrestees using 
multiple drugs ranged from 13 percent to 37 
percent at DUF sites in 1996; the average for 
both males and females was 22 percent. 

In a major new effort, NIJ, with funding from the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy,
is implementing a research demonstration project in
Birmingham, Alabama, known as Breaking the Cycle.
The project is testing the hypothesis that
providing arrestees with a comprehensive response
to drug use that includes judicially supervised
testing, treatment, and sanctions will result in
lower recidivism rates and a greater likelihood
that arrestees will abstain from drug use. The
project combines urinalysis, needs assessment, 
and the provision of appropriate treatment,
supervision, and services to all arrestees who 
show evidence of recent drug use. NIJ will 
conduct both implementation and impact 
evaluations of Breaking the Cycle over the next 
several years. NIJ is also evaluating a second 
program, Operation Drug TEST (Testing, Effective 
Sanctions, Treatment), which will operate in 
approximately 25 Federal judicial districts. 
Federal arrestees in participating districts 
will be tested prior to their initial court 
appearance. Court officials will use test results 
together with other pretrial information to 
impose testing, treatment, sanctions, and other 
conditions of pretrial release.

Specialized "drug courts" or "treatment courts"
have gained recognition in recent years as
promising vehicles for breaking the cycle of 
drugs and crime by providing close supervision 
to encourage abstinence and by ordering treatment 
for those who can benefit most.[14] Many drug 
courts offer diversion, deferred prosecution, or 
deferred sentencing arrangements to first-time 
offenders who complete treatment; other drug 
courts target offenders with multiple arrests. 
Understanding what conditions or combinations 
of conditions are most effective is the aim of 
NIJ's research in the area of drug courts. 

In a collaborative venture with the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment, NIJ is overseeing the
evaluation of a specialized drug court in
Washington, D.C., in which offenders are randomly
assigned to drug treatment, graduated sanctions, 
or the traditional court docket. This project is
designed to test the comparative value of drug
treatment and criminal justice sanctions. Early
findings from the NIJ-supported evaluation 
indicate that arrestees in both the treatment 
group and graduated sanctions group are more 
likely to be drug free in the month before 
sentencing than are those in the control group. 
It appears that those who receive sanctions are 
also less likely to be rearrested than the 
control group.

Another experiment, involving arrestees in
Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, found 
that when drug-involved offenders were closely
supervised, rates of drug use, recidivism, and
high-risk behavior decreased significantly.[15] 
The study, funded by NIJ and the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, was designed to test 
whether case management interventions could 
reduce high-risk behaviors such as unprotected 
sex and needle sharing as well as drug use itself. 
The case management interventions included (1) 
viewing a videotape in lockups and booking 
facilities that sought to motivate help-seeking 
behavior about drug use and HIV prevention; 
(2) viewing the videotape and also attending a 
single face-to-face session with a referral 
specialist who completed a needs assessment and 
recommended an action plan tailored to the 
participant's needs; (3) viewing the videotape, 
attending the referral session, and receiving 
6 months of sustained case management. Analysis 
of the participants, who were randomly assigned 
to one of the interventions, found statistically 
significant and often dramatic changes in 
behavior after enrollment. The proportion of 
participants reporting heavy drug use declined 
for all three treatment categories in both
sites. In Washington, D.C., for example, the
percentage of participants reporting heavy drug 
use dropped from 85 percent to 17 percent at 
6 months after case management enrollment. Time 
spent in jail was lower for those in case 
management than for other participants, and 
all participants reported reduced needle use 
and needle sharing as well as increased needle 
cleaning.[16]

Prison-Based Interventions

Drug treatment has been available in some prisons
for the better part of a generation, but the 1980s
saw a large upsurge in programs, as the percentage
of State inmates receiving some form of treatment
tripled during this decade. As evidence of a
commitment to providing drug treatment in 
prisons, Congress has appropriated $36 million 
in fiscal year 1997 and authorized up to $72 
million in coming years to fund the Residential 
Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which was 
established by the 1994 Crime Act to expand 
drug treatment in correctional settings. 
Guidelines require States to drug-test 
participants and separate those found to be 
users from the general inmate population. NIJ 
is supporting several evaluations related to 
RSAT in a collaborative effort with the Office 
of Justice Programs' Corrections Program Office, 
which administers the program. 

Through RSAT, States may receive formula grant
funds to establish a program of drug and alcohol
testing for participants: the program gives
preference to subgrant applicants that provide
aftercare services.[17]

NIJ has funded a national evaluation of RSAT 
as well as local evaluations in seven States. 
The national study includes an examination of 
the types of offenders participating in drug 
treatment and the treatment given and takes 
preliminary steps in evaluating RSAT's impact. 
The project also includes technical assistance 
to the States to enhance the usefulness of the 
data collected in the program and the reports 
States are required to submit. 

Program evaluations at the local level are being
conducted as partnerships between researchers and
practitioners. Some of the programs studied are
based on the "therapeutic community" model, and
some include strong aftercare components. The 
RSAT evaluations include:

o    A study of the effects of the Florida 
     Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for 
     State Prisoners Program at three facilities.

o    Assessment of Delaware's continuum of
     residential treatment, the "Crest" program, 
     which has expanded with Crime Act support. 

o    Assessment of a program for female prisoners
     in California that offers an intensive 
     6-months of residential treatment followed 
     by community treatment during parole. 

o    Examination of a restructured therapeutic
     community program at a New Mexico facility. 

o    Assessment of a program in Michigan that
     provides treatment to juveniles.

o    Assessment of a Wisconsin program that helps
     drug-using inmates who have been diagnosed 
     with psychiatric disorders.

Understanding the enormous impact that 
drug-related arrests have had on jail and 
prison populations, NIJ funded an evaluation 
of five local corrections-based drug treatment 
programs, four in California and one in New 
York.[18] All five programs offered counseling 
and self-help groups as part of the treatment 
regimen and housed participants in separate 
living units. 

Researchers found that these jail-based drug 
treatment programs had only modest success in 
reducing recidivism within a year of release.[19]
Nevertheless, considering their limitations 
(weak or nonexistent aftercare, mismatches 
between length of program and time incarcerated, 
and budget constraints), these programs appear 
to have potential for greater success. Aftercare 
services are particularly important in keeping 
participants away from drugs and crime, as other 
studies have shown.

The researchers concluded that the greatest
immediate benefit of jail drug treatment 
programs has been to provide a "behavioral 
management tool" that contributes particularly 
to lower levels of violence within the jail. 

Drug Prevention Programs: The Missouri 
Experience

Corrections-based drug treatment and other
interventions, although effective, are only one
approach to reducing drug abuse. Residents of
Kansas City, Missouri, and of areas of Jackson
County, Missouri, decided in 1989 to try a new
approach to funding drug abuse and drug-related
crime initiatives in the community. In the first
referendum of its kind, the city and county 
enacted a special sales tax called COMBAT 
(Community-Backed Anti-Drug Tax), which funds a 
broad-based strategy for reducing drug use and 
drug-related crime.[20] In November 1995, county 
residents demonstrated their continued support 
for COMBAT by voting for a 7-year renewal of the 
tax. 

COMBAT's 0.25 percent levy funds a comprehensive 
range of prevention, treatment, and law 
enforcement activities and gives the county 
prosecutor discretion and authority to guide the 
county's anti-drug strategies, which include 
community-based policing and prevention and 
treatment programs. COMBAT's broad mission has 
enabled police to establish a strong presence 
in the community and has improved coordination 
between treatment providers, courts, and 
corrections agencies. 

In the first 5 years since COMBAT was implemented,
more than 100,000 students participated in
drug-abuse prevention programs, and more than 
700 drug-addicted individuals received treatment 
each month. On the law enforcement side, more 
than 2,200 drug houses were raided, and more 
than 1,200 cases were prosecuted through the 
Eastern Jackson County Drug Enforcement Task 
Force. In partnership with the Kauffman 
Foundation of Kansas City, NIJ is currently 
evaluating this program.

Endnotes

1    Others include the Monitoring the Future
     Survey, the National Household Survey on 
     Drug Abuse, the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 
     and Pulse Check. 

2    1996 Drug Use Forecasting: Annual 
     Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, 
     Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, 
     June 1997, NCJ 165691. Data collected from 
     19,845 male arrestees, 7,532 female
     arrestees, 4,145 juvenile male and 645 
     juvenile female detainees. 

3    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, May 1997, NCJ 165707.

4    NIJ has requested $6.7 million for ADAM for
     fiscal year 1998, or $4.4 million more than 
     the annual cost of the more limited DUF 
     program. If provided by Congress, this 
     funding level will allow for an initial 
     expansion of the program from 23 to 35 
     cities.

5    1996 Drug Use Forecasting, p. 72. 

6    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.

7    Ibid.

8    Pennell, S., and A. Caldwell, "Examining
     Methamphetamine Users and Sellers in Five 
     Cities," (a report in partial fulfillment 
     of grant no. 96-IJ-CX-0026), forthcoming.

9    Mieczkowski, T., "Hair Assays and 
     Urinalysis Results for Juvenile Offenders," 
     Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, National Institute 
     of Justice, April 1997, FS000171; William, 
     R.; R. Hyatt; and P. Scheiman, "Predicting 
     Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of 
     Arrestees," Research in Brief, Washington, 
     D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
     Institute of Justice, January 1996, NCJ
     150551.

10   Feucht, T. E.; R. Stevens; and M. Walker,
     "Drug Use Among Juvenile Arrestees: 
     A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis, 
     and Hair Assays," Journal of Drug Issues, 
     24 (1994):99-116. 

11   Mieczkowski, T., "Hair Assays and Urinalysis
     Results for Juvenile Drug Offenders," Research
     Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 
     1997, FS 000171. 

12   Mieczkowski, T.; R. Mumm; and H.F. Connick,
     "The Use of Hair Analysis in a Pretrial 
     Diversion Program in New Orleans," 
     International Journal of Offender Therapy 
     and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1995):
     222-241.

13   According to 1996 Drug Use Forecasting, more
     than 60 percent of arrestees in 20 of the 23 
     DUF sites in 1996 tested positive for drugs. 
     Also see Lipton, D.S., "The Effectiveness of 
     Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal 
     Justice Supervision," November 1995, NIJ 
     Research Report; Lipton, D.S., "Prison-Based 
     Therapeutic Communities: Their Success with 
     Drug-Abusing Offenders," NIJ Journal, 
     (February 1996):12; and Prendergast, M.L.; 
     Y.I. Hser; and J. Hsieh, "Drug Treatment Need
     Among Offender Populations," paper presented 
     at the American Society of Criminology, New 
     Orleans, November 4-7, 1992.

14   See for example, Goldkamp, J., "The Drug 
     Court Movement," NIJ Update, Washington, 
     D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
     Institute of Justice, September 1995; 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance, "Special Drug 
     Courts," Program Brief, Washington, D.C.: 
     U.S. Department of Justice, National 
     Institute of Justice, November 1993, NCJ
     144531.

15   Rhodes, W., and M. Gross, "Case Management
     Reduces Drug Use and Criminality Among
     Drug-Involved Arrestees: An Experimental 
     Study of an HIV Prevention Intervention," 
     Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, National Institute 
     of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 155281.

16   The one behavior that did not show 
     universal improvement across sites was 
     the use of condoms, which did not increase 
     in Portland.

17   Criminal Justice Research under the Crime 
     Act--1995 to 1996: The Role of the National 
     Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Department of Justice, National Institute of 
     Justice, forthcoming 1997. 

18   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 1997, FS 000173.

19   Seventeen percent of the treatment group and
     23 percent of the comparison group were 
     reconvicted at least once in the year after 
     release, most for property or drug crimes. 

20   Mills, G., "COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax:
     COMBAT in Jackson County, Missouri," Program 
     Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
     Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 
     1996, NCJ 160937.

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




Crime Control and Prevention: Focus on the 
Community
      
The Nation's law enforcement agencies reported 
a 3-percent decrease in property crime and a 
5-percent decline in violent crime during 1996, 
according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.[1] 
Cities, rural areas, and suburban counties all 
reported declines. Cities with populations 
greater than 1 million had the greatest 
decline--6 percent--in serious crime. New York 
City, for example, continued to post declining 
crime rates, with a 9-percent drop in serious 
crime. Cities in the middle range--500,000 to 
1 million inhabitants--recorded a 5-percent
decrease. 

Better police strategies, improved crime
prevention measures, tougher gun control laws, 
and a dramatic increase in the number of 
imprisoned criminals have been credited for the 
dramatic decline. But what strategies--many 
supported with Federal funds--are most likely 
to sustain the momentum? And how can other 
jurisdictions apply similar efforts? Most 
important, how are the most stubborn crime 
problems, those of poor inner-city neighborhoods, 
best addressed? To find answers to these 
questions, NIJ research and evaluation projects 
are applying scientific tools to study, test, 
assess, and share reliable knowledge on the 
impact of law enforcement innovations and the 
effect of crime prevention efforts on the safety 
and security of neighborhoods and communities. 
The lessons learned are then disseminated widely 
so that other local jurisdictions can experiment 
with promising approaches and the accumulating 
knowledge can be used to design the next level of 
innovation.

Police Role in Crime Control

Much of the current discussion about crime 
rates centers on the police and the ways in 
which they can best prevent and control crime.
Thus, there is a new urgency about trying to
determine which factors best gauge the effect 
of police work. One key development was the 1994
Crime Act, which has given significant impetus to
applying and learning more about innovative
processes for policing. The 100,000 officers 
being hired under Title I of the Crime Act will 
be deployed in community policing settings where 
they will address the causes of crime rather than 
simply react to it. With support from the Justice 
Department offices involved in the administration 
of programs adopted by the States, NIJ is 
conducting evaluations to find out whether the 
new approaches are working and to make that
knowledge available to other communities.

Last year, a series of policing research
institutes, sponsored by NIJ in collaboration 
with the Department of Justice's Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), 
tackled these issues. Police executives, 
leading researchers, community leaders, 
journalists, and government officials met in 
three sessions to discuss the challenges of 
"Measuring What Matters" in policing.[2]

The inaugural session of NIJ's Policing Research
Institute generated stimulating debate about the
myriad ways to measure police effectiveness.
Participants agreed on several key themes in
measurement: 

o    Communities--It is important to measure the
     impact of police at the neighborhood level; 
     to consider the effects of political, 
     cultural, and social realities of communities; 
     and to measure the larger economic and social 
     forces in the community. There is also a need 
     for communities to be involved in resolving
     crime and disorder problems. One commentator 
     noted as particularly significant ". . . the 
     development of a powerful community movement 
     . . . an alternative paradigm to the criminal 
     justice system . . . and law enforcement 
     paradigm."

o    Decline in Crime Rates--Potential explanations
     that need to be measured and regularly tracked
     include aggressive, results-oriented police
     management in some departments; maturation of
     big-city drug markets, which means less 
     violence; and coordinated efforts by police, 
     communities, and other agencies and 
     organizations in comprehensive crime prevention 
     efforts. One participant cautioned, "Police 
     action can impact crime in small localized 
     settings if there is a clear . . . focus."

o    Police and Citizens--Public expectations and 
     attitudes toward police are shaped by 
     individual encounters of citizens; satisfaction
     is highly correlated with police process, which
     should be a key outcome measure. At the same 
     time, measurement efforts should not lose 
     sight of other, fundamental outcomes, including 
     integrity, fairness, and accessibility of 
     services.

o    Data for Measuring--In addition to the FBI's
     Uniform Crime Reports, victimization surveys, 
     and the Law Enforcement Management and 
     Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) gathered 
     by BJS as aggregate measures of performance, 
     participants noted the importance of analyzing 
     other data sources such as calls for service 
     and regular citizen surveys which can be 
     carried out relatively simply. 

The two other sessions dealt with public measures 
of satisfaction with the police and internal police 
performance measures. Highlights of the sessions 
are reported in NIJ's Research in Brief series, 
and the full conference papers will be published 
in 1997. NIJ plans to support research on the 
fundamental issue of measurement, with a request 
for proposals slated for 1997.

Community Policing

Research by NIJ and others has been a potent force
in the development and implementation of community 
policing. As a result of the Crime Act, the 
proportion of NIJ research dedicated to community 
policing has increased substantially. The focus 
continued in 1996, the second year of the Act's 
implementation, with the Justice Department's 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS) setting aside funding for NIJ-sponsored 
evaluations of this approach.[3]

The research strategy continues to encompass
locally based studies, partnerships between
researchers and practitioners to study topics of
interest in a local jurisdiction, and a national
evaluation of Title I. Now under way at the Urban
Institute, the national evaluation is expected to
be finalized in early 1998, with interim reports 
issued in 1997. 

The innovation embodied in community 
policing--the expansion of policing beyond
enforcement alone--is evident in a number of
research studies launched under the Crime Act in
1996. A central aim of community policing is
strengthening the bond between the police and the
community they serve; understanding this dynamic 
is key to the success of the approach. In turn, 
only with good measurement tools can assessments 
of the police-community relationship be conducted 
with confidence. 

The need for good measurement tools motivated NIJ
to sponsor a study of the community component of
community policing in Los Angeles, in a project
that will develop tools for measuring residents'
attitudes toward and perceptions of the police.
Among the policing studies supported with Crime 
Act funds is a Boston-based study, that is 
identifying what determines citizens' involvement 
and is looking at factors in the community and at 
the individual level that motivate participation 
in community policing. Because the fatigue that
frequently accompanies police work may adversely
affect officers' relations with community 
residents, NIJ is examining how long hours affect
officers' job performance. NIJ is also taking a 
new look at the citizen complaint, the traditional
measure of police accountability to the community.
In this project, undertaken from the citizens'
perspective, researchers are exploring experiences
with the process and whether or not citizens were
satisfied with the results. 

Responding to special-needs groups in a community 
is integral to community policing. With immigrants 
a growing part of the country's population, it is 
important to understand their relationship with 
police officers, as men and women wearing police 
uniforms in the immigrants' country of origin may 
have been a force for oppression. NIJ is 
investigating the extent to which awareness of 
community policing is penetrating immigrant 
communities and is trying to understand how 
residents perceive this approach to law 
enforcement. 

The police response to emotionally disturbed 
people is the subject of an NIJ study that will 
identify best practices by examining the strengths 
and weaknesses of different approaches. Substance 
abusers are also of particular interest; a study 
of police interaction with clients of substance 
abuse treatment programs now under way aims to 
understand how to minimize the negative 
consequences of criminal justice intervention 
for clients and their families.

What actually happens on the street when 
officers are deployed in community policing? 
NIJ will document the activities that constitute
community policing in a study of Cincinnati,
exploring whether neighborhood officers are 
performing tasks commonly associated with 
community policing and doing so in a way that 
embodies the community policing philosophy. 

Because community policing calls for major shifts
from the more traditional "911-driven" approach 
to crime control, police departments need to 
adopt new strategies and tactics to accommodate 
it. Several years ago the Police Foundation 
studied the strategic and tactical changes 
occurring in policing, and NIJ is now updating 
that study. One shift is in the role of 
individual officers. Because their role is so
important in community policing, NIJ is studying
whether training produces the desired changes in
the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs officers 
bring to this approach. 

Police performance is measured in a number of 
ways. Clearance rates (that is, the percentage 
of cases in which an arrest is made, the 
arrestee charged with the commission of the 
offense, and the case turned over to the court 
for prosecutions) are a traditional measure of 
success in policing, but how they fit into the 
context of community policing calls for further 
understanding. Homicide clearance rates are being 
studied in several major cities in an attempt to 
find out how well they measure police effectiveness 
on the job. 

Building Police-Researcher Collaboration

The "locally initiated partnerships" between
researchers and police introduced in the first 
year of the Crime Act under NIJ sponsorship 
continued in 1996. These projects, which 
typically involve a local law enforcement agency 
and neighboring university or other research 
institution, include the application of New York 
City's computerized crime tracking program
(COMPSTAT) in Prince George's County, Maryland, an
area bordering Washington, D.C.; a study in Alachua
County, Florida, of sheriff's office communication
skills; a partnership in Berkeley, California, to
develop testing tools that can help police with
decision-making in domestic violence situations;
and continuation of a project begun in 1995 to
integrate evaluation and information dissemination
into the Lansing, Michigan, community policing
program. 

Law Enforcement Family Support


Title XXI of the Crime Act provides for stress
reduction, stress education, counseling, child
care, marital and adolescent support, and training
to assist in these programs for law enforcement
officers and their families. Responsibility for
establishing these services and for undertaking
related research was assigned to NIJ, which created
an advisory panel of police labor and management to
lend their expertise and then followed up on the
panel's advice by commissioning a review of similar
programs now in operation. The results were
published in an NIJ Issues and Practices report,
"Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for
Officers and Their Families."[4]

With these findings as a basis, NIJ awarded grants
to several law enforcement agencies as well as to
other groups to conduct research, test innovative
practices, or provide training to reduce stress
among police officers and their families. Grants
were awarded to jurisdictions in widely dispersed
parts of the country, with special attention to
such specific issues as policing in rural areas,
acculturation of newly hired officers, and
extension of support service to family members. 
With NIJ support, programs, services, and training
are being established or expanded in Iowa, Vermont,
Louisiana, New York, the city of Miami, and
elsewhere. For example, the Iowa project consists
of development and evaluation of a comprehensive,
model stress management program for county,
municipal, and university law enforcement officers
and their families in rural areas. In another
example, innovative stress reduction educational
training programs to meet officers' work and 
family needs are being developed and subsequently
evaluated in Dallas, Minneapolis, and Erie County,
New York. 

Exploring Ethical Issues in Policing 

Effective community policing means building from
the neighborhood up--spending time in the 
community and listening to what is important to 
the people who live there. Public trust and 
confidence in police is central to the process, 
making the question of police integrity more 
important than ever. 

To look at this issue in greater detail, NIJ, in
partnership with the COPS office, assembled law
enforcement executives, researchers,
representatives of labor groups, police officers,
representatives of civil rights groups, Federal 
law enforcement officers, ethicists, and
representatives of other professions that have
faced ethical challenges for a National Symposium
on Police Integrity.[5]

As a measure of public interest in the subject,
more than 4,000 requests for the proceedings 
of the symposium were received in the months
following its publication by NIJ and the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services. Five
research projects were subsequently awarded by 
NIJ on the subject of police integrity. 

Use of Force by Police

Public distrust of police often centers around 
when and how police use force in carrying out 
their duties. Images of police using excessive 
force raise disturbing questions about the 
integrity and fairness of law enforcement 
officers. Data on the frequency and extent of the 
use of force are limited, but one nationwide 
survey of law enforcement agencies showed that in 
1993 there were 11.3 complaints of excessive use 
of force per 100,000 population.[6] Males, who 
represented 48 percent of the general population 
studied, accounted for 73 percent of the complaints 
and 83 percent of the sustained complaints. 

To determine the extent of, and causes for,
excessive use of force and to find ways to 
respond, the 1994 Crime Act directed the 
Attorney General to "acquire data about the use 
of excessive force by law enforcement officers" 
and to "publish an annual summary of the data 
acquired . . . ."

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NIJ, and
the Institute for Law and Justice, cooperating 
in this task, have produced an initial report on
use of force.[7] The report notes that police,
researchers, and legal analysts have yet to agree
on a standard definition of what constitutes
excessive force; it summarizes what is known about
the issue from previous research studies. 

NIJ and BJS also are jointly funding the 
development of a national data base on police use
of force based on information voluntarily provided
by police departments. Under a grant project, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police will
establish a National Use of Force Database Center
to collect this information.


BJS also intends to field-test a police-public-
contact questionnaire by expanding its National
Crime Victimization Survey to include a series of
questions about the use of both appropriate and
inappropriate force during police-civilian
encounters. 

The Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction 
with Rutgers University and Arizona State 
University, received an NIJ grant to study the 
incidence and nature of the force used by and 
against Phoenix police officers during arrest 
situations.[8] A survey of officers over a 2-week
period in June 1994 yielded 1,585 adult custody
arrests for analysis or approximately 85 percent 
of the total adult custody arrests made during the
study period. An additional sample of 185 suspect
interviews were matched to the officer surveys to
obtain the suspect's perspective on the arrest
incident. After examining the full range of degrees
of force used during arrests (from police presence
to the use of deadly force), this study found that
officers and suspects used some physical force in 
about one of every five and one of every six 
arrests, respectively. The magnitude of the force 
used by officers and suspects was typically at the 
low end of the range; officers used a weapon--most 
often a flashlight--in only 2 percent of the 
arrests. The single best predictor of police use 
of force was use of force by the suspect. 

Replication of this research is now under way 
in five other cities: Dallas, Texas; St.
Petersburg, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina;
Colorado Springs, Colorado; and San Diego,
California--where both the city and county police
departments are participating.

Patterns and Correlates of Assaults on Police

NIJ has also supported research on violence 
against the police, including an indepth study 
of 52 officers who were seriously assaulted.[9]
Routine, repetitive tasks have emerged as a 
continuing threat to officer safety. Traffic 
stops, inability to communicate with the 
dispatcher or with other involved jurisdictions, 
searches, and use of handcuffs are tasks that 
should be second nature to officers but posed 
problems in the cases studied.

The study found that officers cited training as
critical to the actions they took to protect
themselves. However, while many assaulted 
officers credited repeated safety training as 
effective preparation, others noted inadequate or 
improper training that actually made them unsure 
of the proper action. Some recounted that training 
taught them what "not to do," leaving them 
uncertain about what "to do." 

Finally, while there is no definitive answer as 
to why one officer survives a life-threatening 
attack and another does not, many of the assaulted
officers in the study displayed an uncommon "will
to survive." Many officers believed this attitude 
was ingrained by concentrated training. The study 
did not identify whether this will-to-survive was 
brought to law enforcement or learned on the job.

In another study, an NIJ-funded researcher is
analyzing and comparing information on police use
of force in three police departments (Eugene and
Springfield, Oregon; Metro-Dade County, Florida).
These data will be analyzed to determine the
relationships between the degree of resistance met
by police, the levels of force used by officers to
control suspects, and the demographic characteristics 
of suspects and officers. A novel aspect of this 
study is that the use-of-force data collected by 
the Eugene and Springfield police departments were 
obtained within the broader context of determining 
the essential types and minimum levels of physical 
abilities that police officers require to perform 
their duties.[10]

Making Pursuit Driving Safer

High-speed pursuit of criminals is another issue
raising concern, particularly in densely populated
areas where other drivers or pedestrians may
unwittingly become involved with the pursuit.
Chases at high speeds have long been recognized as
a dangerous activity, and law enforcement agencies
must weigh which offenses and what conditions
warrant taking the risks associated with pursuing
fleeing suspects. According to an NIJ national
survey of police departments, police officers, not
surprisingly, are more willing to engage in a car
chase as the severity of the crime grows, and 
supervisors are more likely to approve a pursuit 
in such instances.[11]

Public opinion surveys conducted as part of the
research show that the public supports pursuit
driving to apprehend those suspected of violating
the law, but the danger inherent in high-speed
pursuits makes better police training essential.
The study made several recommendations for local
law enforcement agencies to consider: revamping
training to focus on risk evaluation as well as
realistic methods of apprehending a fleeing 
suspect--not just how but when; increasing the 
number of supervisory-level evaluations after 
pursuits, with more meaningful discipline if the 
pursuit is judged to have been inappropriate; and 
creating and maintaining data collection on 
pursuit driving to improve the quality and 
relevance of pursuit policies, many of which were 
written 20 years ago.

Controlling Police Overtime 

The Justice Department contributes approximately 
60 percent of Federal Government expenditures to 
support State and local law enforcement; other 
agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of 
Transportation and of Housing and Urban 
Development contribute lesser amounts. An
NIJ-supported evaluation of the effect of Federal
funding used for police overtime found that the
Department of Justice's expenditures on overtime
support rather than supplant local spending: for
every dollar of Federal money invested in overtime,
localities spend another $1.68.[12]

The evaluation concluded that overtime funds in 
the sites studied were usually spent on traditional
policing practices rather than programmatic
innovations. This finding led researchers to 
suggest that, while Federal expenditures may shift
enforcement priorities somewhat, they may not be
able to bring about substantial organizational
change. In addition, while the overtime payments
may have enhanced community policing in some 
departments, the evaluation revealed that the 
majority of community policing initiatives appear 
to be supported entirely by local funds. Federal 
support made a greater difference in the more 
ambitious community policing programs, such as 
problem solving, beat patrol officers, and foot 
patrols. 

Developing New Technologies for Crime Control

One of the critical roles played by NIJ is in the
creation of new tools for law enforcement and
corrections practitioners. Dramatic advances in
technology offer important benefits in controlling
crime, and NIJ is committed to bringing these
advances to criminal justice agencies. At the same
time, NIJ is integrating the perspectives of 
social scientists and technology researchers and 
developers to ensure that the effects of the
technology on the operations of the system and
behavior of its personnel are carefully assessed. 

Computerized Mapping 

The development of computerized geographic
information systems has revolutionized crime
tracking. Police no longer need to push pins into
wall maps--instead, sophisticated computer systems
can update maps comprehensively and quickly. These
new systems allow temporal as well as spatial
analysis of crime patterns, and maps can be printed
and kept as a permanent record. Crime mapping by
computer may be a powerful tool for police
departments as they work to reduce crime, whether
on the street corner, in an entire jurisdiction, 
or across jurisdictional lines. 

To advance both applied and basic research
involving the analytic mapping of crime, NIJ
established the Crime Mapping Research Center in
1996. The Center's goals include providing
spatial-statistical resources to both practitioners
and researchers, forging partnerships between
Federal agencies and the research and criminal
justice communities, and spearheading research
efforts in spatial and temporal analysis of crime.
The Center also conducts surveys of police
departments to gauge the extent to which they use
analytic mapping and provides technical support and
training to law enforcement and other criminal
justice agencies. 

During 1996, NIJ published a case study of the
integrated computerized crime mapping program of
the Chicago Police Department.[13] Called ICAM, 
short for Information Collection for Automated 
Mapping, this program is especially user friendly. 
With minimal training, Chicago police officers can
create maps of reported offenses of a particular
type in a specified area. Or, by clicking the
computer mouse several times, they can produce a
chart of the 10 most frequently reported offenses
in an area. The program also allows dispatchers to 
locate calls for service and match them with the 
nearest patrol car or other response unit. 

The ICAM system also provides important information
for beat officers working with community groups. By
reviewing ICAM maps, residents can see problems and
develop new strategies for improving neighborhoods.
Beat police can use maps to make decisions about
where to concentrate their foot patrols. Although
no research has yet been done on how effective ICAM
is as a crime-reducing tool, anecdotal information
points to its effectiveness.

Detecting Gunshots by Remote Means 

In an example of an intramural partnership, NIJ's
Office of Science and Technology and Office of
Research and Evaluation are overseeing two
evaluation programs conducted by the University of
Cincinnati to collect data on remote acoustical
gunshot detection systems being field-tested in
Dallas, Texas, and Redwood City, California.
Results from both evaluations will be published in
1997.

It is still too early to tell whether these devices
have been successful in suppressing gunshots in the
areas under study; a number of preliminary findings
are being developed. In terms of the technology
itself, it is clear that a key success factor will
be the depth and level of information these remote
systems are able to capture. Triangulation, which
provides an accurate street address for shots
fired, is critical if police are to respond quickly
to an emergency call. Another key element is the
acceptance of this technology by police officers,
which requires that local jurisdictions view these
systems as valuable additional tools in their
crime-solving repertoire.

Finally, early indications from the field are that
community support is critical for this--or any
other--system to work. Not only is community
support necessary to allocate the additional monies
required to purchase such systems, but the backing
of community leaders also leads to stronger
public-police partnerships. Thus technology can
become, in effect, a means to build stronger
communities and provide a potentially more
effective community policing tool. 

The Community's Role in Crime Control

Interventions that reach out to communities,
identify their needs, and encourage them to 
participate in crime control efforts have been a
focal point of NIJ's evaluations in recent years.
During fiscal year 1996, 16 cities participated in
a major effort to develop a comprehensive,
community-based strategy to control crime--the
Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), which is
supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. An
NIJ-sponsored evaluation of CCP is being conducted 
to determine the overall benefits from communities 
working in partnership with police departments and 
other city agencies.

Measuring the Effectiveness of Community-Wide
Approaches

Launched in 1991, Operation Weed and Seed is 
a comprehensive, coordinated approach that 
follows a two-pronged strategy of "weeding out"
violent offenders through law enforcement and
prosecution and "seeding" the neighborhood with
prevention, intervention, treatment, and
revitalization. Community policing serves as a
bridge between the two programs.[14]

Approximately $1.1 million was provided to each of
19 sites selected for an 18-month demonstration.
Each city worked from a blueprint provided by the
Department of Justice, which it customized to suit
its particular needs.

An NIJ-funded process evaluation of this
demonstration noted that grant funds were used more
often to support weeding efforts and community
policing than for seeding programs. The emphasis
was usually on drug- and gun-related crime or other
violent crimes. 

The process evaluation also suggested that groups
that did not ordinarily consult with one another--
such as prosecutors, community residents and 
leaders, police officers, and social service 
providers--have been able to coordinate their 
efforts, share resources, and solve problems
through Weed and Seed. This finding points to the
need for future programs to include key
representatives from district attorneys' offices
and the target neighborhoods as well as from
Federal law enforcement agencies.

Seeding, the most complex element of the 
program, received about 18 percent of resources,
according to the process evaluation. Thus, seeding
usually became the responsibility of city agencies.
Prevention, intervention, and treatment usually
took the form of substance abuse programs,
alternative activities for youth, health and
nutrition services, personal and family development
and education, victim assistance, and community
crime prevention. "Safe Havens," multiservice
centers with a variety of youth and adult services,
were also a major focus of prevention activities. A
2-year outcome evaluation of eight Weed and Seed
sites is now under way; findings are anticipated in
late 1997.

An evaluation of another major program to control
violent and drug-related crime, the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program, found that the program funds
have gone predominantly to multijurisdictional task
forces (MJTFs) that integrate Federal, State, and
local antidrug activities.[15] Between 1989 and 
1994, approximately 40 percent of all grants were 
for MJTFs. Generally, these MJTFs brought together
multiple agencies across multiple jurisdictions.
Although it has not been possible to comprehensively 
assess the impact of the MJTFs on the drug problem, 
the enhanced coordination has had a lasting impact 
on law enforcement agency cooperation. 

The evaluation also found that the strategic
planning required to obtain a grant has resulted in
better use of resources and that the Byrne Program
is well implemented at the State level. Federal
assistance for criminal justice remains small,
however, compared with State and local expenditures, 
and thus it is almost impossible to correlate Federal 
dollars invested directly with crime reduction. 

Physical Environment and Crime

NIJ has supported a body of research assessing
whether the physical features of a particular
environment can reduce or prevent crime. Called
crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED), this research focuses on ways to reduce
vulnerability through better design and management
of the physical environment. Building on CPTED,
newer place-specific crime prevention policies
offer a broader approach to planning.[17]

The idea that crime prevention is not a "one size
fits all" effort has been borne out by NIJ-funded
research that has revealed two principal lessons:

o Physical design modifications, management
  changes, and changes in use should be tailored 
  to specific locations and coordinated in their
  planning and implementation.

o The most effective security and crime 
  prevention efforts are those that involve a
  coalition of different players working together 
  to define the problem and then seek solutions.[18] 


Public Transportation and Crime

Evidence that crime prevention can be taken into
account during design and construction of a
physical setting has been documented in the case of
the Washington, D.C., "Metro," a public transit
system recognized as one of the safest subways in
the world.[19] Metro officials attribute their
success to a combination of three factors:
architectural design that employed crime prevention
principles, vigilant maintenance policies, and
stringent crime prevention techniques. An
NIJ-funded evaluation concluded that these efforts
have been successful in keeping crime rates low,
despite what would be expected to be a
high-victimization environment.

Parking Facilities and Crime

More violent crimes occur in parking facilities
than in any other commercial area, according 
to an NIJ study completed in 1996.[20] Because of
their vulnerability, parking facilities can benefit
greatly from CPTED strategies, including increased
lighting that meets codes established by the
Engineering Society of North America, natural
surveillance, emergency communications systems, and
closed circuit television in high-risk facilities.

Liability for Property Owners 

The fact that architects, developers, and property
owners can use better design to prevent crime has
resulted in an increase in litigation based on
premise liability. Increasingly, crime victims are
looking to owners and managers of properties for
compensation. They argue that if property owners
had used techniques of good security planning and
design, crimes would not have occurred. Courts have
tended to agree and have used the research in
deliberations to assess whether design and security
planning would have been a substantial factor in
deterring the crime.[21]

Environmental Design and Community Policing 

Crime prevention through environmental 
design that includes community policing is 
yet another part of an effective strategy. CPTED
and community policing go hand-in-hand when
planning comprehensive crime prevention 
programs. 

Research by NIJ indicates that when police are
involved in neighborhoods both on foot and working
with community groups they can reduce not only
crime but also the fear of crime.[22] Residents,
working together and with police, can improve a
neighborhood's appearance, thereby providing an
additional deterrent to crime. Finally, government
can use its building code and inspection power to
increase environmental security and discourage drug
use and other criminal activities.

Public Housing 

NIJ-supported research conducted between 
1994 and 1996 at three high-rise developments
managed by the Chicago Housing Authority
illustrated the critical importance of making
physical design and management changes to reduce
violence.[23] Although the study did not set out 
specifically to examine environmental design issues 
in the public housing community, it became clear 
that permanent improvement in the effort to control 
crime was not achieved in part because the design of 
the high-rise buildings made it easy for gang members 
to intimidate residents. Improvement in site 
management was essential to success, as was financial 
support to maintain programs and services and to 
improve social cohesion among residents.

Linking Business and Crime Control

Studies of crime and business usually focus on
crimes committed by corporations. Few studies, for
example, focus on the wide range of crime prevention 
techniques that businesses pursue or the vital role 
that small businesses play in maintaining the 
stability of marginal neighborhoods. Nor is there 
extensive research into the ways that new business 
products and services or the design of business 
environments can create or reduce crime 
opportunities. Finally, the nature of crimes 
suffered by businesses, their customers, and their 
employees is not studied enough.

A new book, "Business and Crime Prevention," 
edited by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clark, 
discusses ways in which applied criminology and 
recent research can help reduce the crime problems 
faced by business.[24] The book was a product of 
an NIJ-sponsored conference at Rutgers University 
that presented the work of an international group 
of academic criminologists, experts from the 
security industry, criminologists working in 
retailing and insurance, and private and public 
sector researchers.

These researchers have pointed to the central 
role business can play in improving public safety.
Most ordinary crime occurs on streets, in parking
lots, in stores, and in other public and private
places where business actions can supplement 
police presence. For example, manufacturers have 
begun making car radios with removable face plates, 
a good example of engineering out, or at least 
reducing, a common theft problem. In the garment 
industry, ink tags are attached to make clothing 
not worth stealing.

Business, too, can benefit from crime research. 
One of the ideas proposed at the conference was 
a "crime prevention extension service" modeled on 
the familiar agriculture model that would use 
experts in crime prevention to help businesses 
solve their crime problems while feeding knowledge 
back to scholars and researchers.

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

Focusing on Repeat Victimization

A novel approach to preventing crime was discussed
in an NIJ Research in Action last year.
"Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims"
reported on research in the United Kingdom
suggesting that a useful focal point for crime
prevention is the victim who repeatedly suffers
crime. About 4 percent of British victims surveyed
suffered approximately 44 percent of all crimes.
Another study in a major British city indicated
that 43 percent of domestic violence incidents over
a 25-month period involved about 7 percent of the
households. The British researchers concluded that
exploration of the repeat-victimization approach is
a valuable component of crime prevention 
strategy.[16] NIJ is now funding research on repeat 
residential burglary victimization in San Diego, 
Baltimore, and Dallas.

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

Endnotes

1  U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
   Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 1996
   Preliminary Annual Release, June 1997. The 
   Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) uses an index of 
   violent and property crimes to measure serious 
   crime. From 1994 to 1995, violent crimes 
   decreased by 3 percent. See also Taylor, B., 
   National Crime Victimization Survey Change in 
   Criminal Victimization, 1994-95, Washington, 
   D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
   Justice Statistics, April 1997, NCJ 162032. This 
   report suggests the drop in crime affected white 
   victims to a greater degree than blacks and 
   Hispanics.

2  Brady, T.V., "Measuring What Matters," Research 
   in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
   Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 
   1996, NCJ 162205. Additional information will be 
   available in 1997 that summarizes two subsequent 
   sessions; the complete set of commissioned papers 
   will be published in a single volume.

3  The number of grants awarded in 1996 for policing 
   research under the Crime Act was 51, versus 54 in 
   1995. Corresponding funding was $14.5 million in 
   1996, versus $14.6 million in 1995. These figures 
   do not include grants awarded for law enforcement 
   technology or family support.

4  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, December 1996, 
   NCJ 163175. 

5  Police Integrity: Public Service with Honor,
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   National Institute of Justice and Office of
   Community Oriented Policing Services, January 
   1997, NCJ 163811. The National Symposium on 
   Police Integrity, which took place July 14-16, 
   1996, brought together 200 professionals to 
   discuss the issue of police integrity.

6  Pate, A.M., and L.A. Fridell, Police Use of 
   Force: Official Reports, Citizen Complaints, 
   and Legal Consequences, Vol. I and II, 
   Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 1993.

7  McEwen, T., National Data Collection on Police
   Use of Force, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
   of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 
   1996, NCJ 160113.

8  Garner, J.; J. Buchanan; T. Schade; and J.
   Hepburn, "Understanding the Use of Force by 
   and against the Police," Research in Brief, 
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
   National Institute of Justice, November 1996, 
   NCJ 158614.

9  Pinizzotto, A.J.; E.F. Davis; and C.E. Miller
   III, "In the Line of Fire: A Study of Selected
   Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers,"
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   forthcoming. See also an analysis of trends and
   circumstances of felonious killings of law 
   enforcement officers in Fridell, L.A., and A.M. 
   Pate, "Death on Patrol: Felonious Homicides of 
   American Police Officers," (draft final report 
   in partial fulfillment of grant no. 91-IJ-CX-K025), 
   1995.

10 In this study being conducted by Geoffrey
   Alpert, officers in the three agencies were 
   asked to complete a physical abilities job task 
   analysis data collection form for one month 
   beginning in 1995. Because the focus of the 
   survey was not to obtain data on use of force 
   for departmental review purposes, some of the 
   validity problems typically associated with the 
   reporting on use of force by officers may be 
   avoided. "An Analysis of Police Use-of-Force 
   Data" is expected to be completed in 1997.

11 Alpert, G.P., "Police Pursuit: Policies and
   Training," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:
   U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 
   of Justice, May 1997, NCJ 164831. See also Alpert,
   G.P.; D. Kenney; R. Dunham; W. Smith; and M.
   Cosgrove, "Police Pursuit and the Use of Force: A
   Final Report to the National Institute of Justice,"
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   National Institute of Justice, 1996, NCJ 164833.

12 Bayley, D.H., and R.E. Worden, "Federal
   Funding of Police Overtime: A Utilization 
   Study," Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: 
   U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 
   of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 

13 Rich, T.F., "The Chicago Police Department's
   Information Collection for Automated Mapping
   (ICAM)," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
   Department of Justice, National Institute of
   Justice, July 1996, NCJ 160764.

14 Roehl, J.A.; R. Huitt; M.A. Wycoff; A. Pate;
   D. Rebovich; and K. Coyle, "National Process
   Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed," Research 
   in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
   Justice, National Institute of Justice, October
   1996, NCJ 161624.

15 Dunworth, T.; P. Haynes; and A.J. Saiger,
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula 
   Grant Program," Research in Brief, Washington, 
   D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
   Institute of Justice, June 1997, NCJ 162203. 
   Four reports of the study are available: An 
   examination of Federal records of the State 
   and local projects supported by the program 
   from fiscal years 1989 to 1994, a historical 
   review of Federal legislation that provides 
   criminal justice assistance, State and local 
   views of the program, and a general summary.
   
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula
   Grant Program, Report #1: Where the Money 
   Went--An Analysis of State Subgrant Funding 
   Decisions Under the Byrne Formula Grant 
   Program," December 1996, NCJ 163381.
      
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula
   Grant Program, Report #2: The Anti-Drug Abuse 
   Act of 1988--A Comparative Analysis of 
   Legislation," December 1996, NCJ 163382.
      
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula
   Grant Program, Report #3: A Seven-State 
   Study--An Analysis of State and Local Responses 
   to the Byrne Formula Grant Program," December 
   1996, NCJ 163383.
      
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula
   Grant Program, Report #4: A Policy Maker's
   Overview," December 1996, NCJ 163384.
      
   "National Assessment of the Byrne Formula
   Grant Program: Executive Summary," December 
   1996, NCJ 163385.

16 Pease, K., and G. Laycock, "Revictimization:
   Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims," Research in
   Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
   Justice, National Institute of Justice, November
   1996, NCJ 162951.

17 Feins, J.D.; J.C. Epstein; and R. Widom,
   "Solving Crime Problems in Residential
   Neighborhoods: Comprehensive Change 
   in Design Management and Use," Issues and
   Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
   of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 
   April 1997, NCJ 164488.

18 Ibid.

19 La Vigne, N., "Visibility and Vigilance:
   Metro's Situational Approach to Preventing 
   Subway Crime," Research in Brief, Washington, 
   D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
   Institute of Justice, forthcoming 1997. 

20 Smith, M.K., "Crime Prevention Through
   Environmental Design in Parking Facilities,"
   Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
   Department of Justice, National Institute of
   Justice, April 1996, NCJ 157310.

21 Gordon, C.L., and W. Brill, "The Expanding
   Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental
   Design in Premises Liability," Research in Brief,
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   National Institute of Justice, April 1996, NCJ
   157309.

22 Fleissner, D., and F. Heinzelman, "Crime
   Prevention Through Environmental Design and
   Community Policing," Research in Action,
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   National Institute of Justice, August 1996, NCJ
   157308.

23 Popkin, S.; V. Gwiasda; J.M. Amendolia; A.A.
   Anderson.; G. Hanson; W.A. Johnson; E. Martel; 
   L.M. Olson; and D.P. Rosenbaum, "The Hidden War: 
   The Battle to Control Crime in Chicago's Public
   Housing," (draft report in partial fulfillment of
   NIJ grants no. 93-IJ-CX-0037 and 95-IJ-CX-001),
   December 1996.

24 Felson, M., and R.V. Clark, eds., Business and
   Crime Prevention, Monsey, N.Y.: Willow Tree 
   Press, 1997. 

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

Adjudication and Corrections: Trends and Emerging 
Concepts

Perhaps no other area of criminal justice
has undergone more changes in the past decade
than the body of laws that govern sentencing. 
New State and Federal legislation has sought to
fundamentally alter sentencing outcomes for
offenders, especially violent offenders, repeat
offenders, and drug offenders. Whether called
"truth in sentencing," "three strikes and you're
out," or "sentencing guidelines," these reforms
have inspired much debate and media attention but
little systematic information and data with which
to judge their efficacy. NIJ has funded a number of
studies to learn how some of these laws are playing 
out in the States and whether they are having a 
positive impact on crime and violence.

By 1994, all 50 States and the Federal Government
had enacted one or more mandatory sentencing laws. 
When NIJ interviewed State legislators and other 
State policymakers nationwide in 1995 to find out 
the criminal justice issues they considered most 
important on their legislative agendas, mandatory 
sentencing was one of the top issues selected, as 
were other, related reforms: sentencing guidelines, 
intermediate sanctions, and the transfer of juvenile 
offenders to adult court. To provide State 
policymakers with the information they needed to 
help make informed decisions about these issues, 
NIJ reviewed and synthesized the research 
literature. The result was a series of overviews of 
the sentencing reforms sweeping through the 
States.[1]

Sentencing Guidelines

The review of sentencing guidelines revealed 
that by 1996, nine States and the Federal
Government had enacted such laws and policymakers
in eight other States were developing them to
increase sentences for violent offenders and make
sentencing more uniform. While evaluations indicate 
that voluntary guidelines do not increase 
sentencing uniformity, presumptive guidelines 
(those that strictly limit judicial discretion) 
have fostered sentencing uniformity; lessened 
racial, ethnic, and gender differences in 
sentencing decisions; and helped to reduce
penalties for property offenders and increase
penalties for violent offenders.[2]

"Three Strikes" Legislation

The purpose of "three-strikes" legislation is 
to remove serious repeat offenders from society for
long periods of time, in many cases for life. Most
States have enhanced sentencing provisions in their
laws for repeat offenders. Between 1993 and 1994,
24 States and the Federal Government enacted laws
using the three-strikes label;[3] similarly titled 
bills were introduced in a number of other States.[4] 

There is great variety among jurisdictions in how
sentencing reforms are applied. Consider, for
example, the differences between two States'
"strike" laws. In California, an individual with
two burglary convictions who is subsequently
convicted of felony theft would receive a mandatory
life sentence under California's three-strikes law.
In Washington State, an individual who committed
the identical crimes would have no strikes and
would be incarcerated for a maximum of 1 year under
that State's sentencing guidelines. The differences
between those two States' strike laws reflect the
differences in strike laws across the Nation. 

According to an NIJ-sponsored study of three
strikes laws, early evidence shows that, with the
exception of California, most of the State laws
will have minimal impact on those States' prison
systems because they were drafted to apply to only
the most violent repeat offenders. Only broadly
defined two-strikes provisions like California's
have the potential to drastically alter existing 
sentencing practices.[5] 

States vary significantly in their definitions of
"strikeable" offenses, how many strikes it takes to
be "out," and the kinds of penalties that being
"out" can trigger. States also vary widely in their
definition of the "strike zone." While violent
felonies such as murder, rape, robbery, arson,
aggravated assault, and carjacking are typically
included as strike offenses, burglary, drug-related
offenses, vehicle theft, embezzlement, and bribery
may or may not be. Twenty States require three
strikes to be out, but at least six of them--
Arkansas, California, Kansas, Pennsylvania,
Montana, and Tennessee--have enhanced sentences 
for two strikes. Finally, the word "out" has many
different meanings. In 11 States, it means a
mandatory life sentence without parole. In three
States, parole is possible after the offender
serves a significant period of incarceration.

When NIJ looked at the effect of three-strike 
laws on the corrections systems in two States,
Washington and California, researchers found that
the impact has not been as severe as projected.
California's prison system has admitted a far
larger number of strike offenders (more than 26,000
as of December 1996) than has any other State's
system since April 1994, although those admissions
were fewer than originally projected. Planners in
Washington State expected that between 40 and 75
persons would fall under three-strikes provisions
each year. However, more than 3 years after the law
took effect, only 85 offenders have been admitted
to the State prison system under this statute. 

How the law is applied and its impact vary 
considerably across jurisdictions within a 
State. San Francisco and Alameda counties in
California, for example, have rarely applied the
law, while San Diego and Sacramento, which have
comparable populations and crime rates, have
applied the law far more actively. Los Angeles
County, the State's most populous county, is the 
most frequent user, sending nearly half of the 
State's cases to prison. In addition, the Los 
Angeles court system has seen a 25-percent 
increase in jury trials as more defendants who 
face long sentences demand a trial.[6] The 
reluctance to release strike defendants pending
trial has caused jail populations to explode, and
the increase in felons serving long sentences has 
swelled prison populations. In Los Angeles, 
two-strike cases remain pending in court 16 percent 
longer and three-strike cases 41 percent longer 
than nonstrike cases. In addition, strike cases are 
three times more likely to go to trial than 
nonstrike felonies and four times more likely to go 
to trial than the same types of cases
before the law took effect. 

Intermediate Sanctions

To help relieve the overcrowded conditions of 
many prisons, more jurisdictions are looking 
toward intermediate sanctions--neither prison nor
conventional probation--for nonviolent offenders.
Such sanctions include intensive supervision, home
confinement, community service, boot camps, and day 
fines--programs that can substitute for traditional 
incarceration.

An NIJ-funded study that reviewed evaluations 
of programs in several jurisdictions found that
some intermediate sanctions work better than
others. Offenders sentenced to home detention and
electronic monitoring appear to have lower 
recidivism rates than other offenders. Conclusions 
from boot camp research have been mixed: boot camps 
that provide intensive treatment-oriented aftercare 
show positive results compared to other alternatives, 
although it is uncertain whether the boot camp or 
the aftercare made the difference.[7] 

Intensive supervision probation and community
services have not rehabilitated or deterred 
participants from committing future crimes any
better than traditional sentencing options such as
imprisonment. (See "A Different Model of Justice"
for a discussion of one alternative to traditional
approaches.) Measuring the effectiveness of
intermediate sanctions is made difficult by
limitations in the design of programs, evaluations,
or both; constraints in the local environment; and
insufficient control over how and on what type of
offender the sanctions are imposed. In addition,
the costs of operating intermediate sanctions have
often exceeded expectations.[8]

New Directions Under the Crime Act

The Crime Act of 1994 seeks to encourage 
States to increase the certainty that violent
offenders will be incarcerated and that they will
receive longer and more determinate sentences.
Through the Act's "violent offender incarceration
and truth-in-sentencing" provisions, the States
receive Federal support to expand their capacity to
house offenders who must serve longer sentences or
be incarcerated for a greater portion of the
sentence. NIJ's role, in collaboration with the
Corrections Program Office of the Department of
Justice, is to examine the effects of the programs
the States have established under this section of
the Crime Act. 

Truth-in-Sentencing and Violent Offender 
Incarceration 

With NIJ support, the RAND Corporation is 
conducting a nationwide assessment of the 
1994 Crime Act's truth-in-sentencing and violent
offender incarceration provisions that are tied to
grants to the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
and U.S. territories. Researchers are investigating
how States interpreted the provisions and responded
to them (for example, what changes were made in
dealing with violent offenders and what legislative
action was taken); how State strategies to implement 
the program grants were accomplished (for example, 
how violent offenders were defined); and how changes 
at the State level affected county and local 
correctional policies. The evaluation also will 
include case studies of recent sentencing and 
corrections reforms in six States. 

The effects of the 1994 Crime Act's sentencing and
corrections reforms at the local level are also
being assessed. Among these projects are:

o Two evaluations of North Carolina's structured
  sentencing and community partnerships act.


o Establishment of the Florida Correctional
  Research Coalition (FCRC), a partnership between
  the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice 
  at Florida State University and the Florida 
  Department of Corrections.

o A study of the impact of truth-in-sentencing 
  reform in Massachusetts. 

o Examination of how probation and community 
  corrections have responded to the Crime Act's 
  sentencing and corrections reforms. 

o Assessment of possible gender-based consequences 
  of the sentencing reforms on confinement in 
  Massachusetts.

Boot Camps

One way the States can expand prison capacity for
violent offenders is by freeing up space through
alternatives to traditional prison for nonviolent
offenders. Boot camps, an alternative to prison for
some types of offenders, are one way to do this. As
part of its Crime Act research strategy, NIJ is
sponsoring a national evaluation of boot camps,
with several studies focused on specific topics or
at specific sites. Five studies are under way,
among them assessments of all 44 Federally funded
boot camps, 27 juvenile boot camps, and selected
facilities for adults and for juveniles. The Los
Angeles County's Drug Treatment Boot Camp Program
is being assessed to gauge its effects on drug use
and criminal behavior and to identify factors that
lead to success for participants.[9] 

Linking Researchers and Practitioners 

Crime Act-supported studies not only focus 
on local-level topics of interest but also aim 
to create an infrastructure for sustaining links
between researchers and practitioners. Grants
awarded in 1996 and based on partnerships between
researchers and officials in correctional agencies
and the courts include:

o Study of the implementation of Virginia's new
  no-parole policy.

o Development in Florida of a Statewide 
  correctional research coalition to study secure
  drug treatment programs and habitual offender laws.

o Study of the effectiveness of drug treatment
  programs offered by the Florida Department of
  Corrections in place of confinement.

o Analysis of the impact of California's
  sentencing laws on the Los Angeles County 
  sheriff's and probation departments.

o Impact of Crime Act sentencing and 
  corrections reforms in Wisconsin.
  Findings from these studies are anticipated 
  during 1997 and 1998.

Handling the Needs of Special Corrections 
Populations

NIJ also supports research on innovative methods of
controlling, rehabilitating, and meeting the needs
of special groups of inmates and individuals under 
corrections supervision. Such groups, discussed 
below, include sex offenders, juveniles, female 
offenders, drug users, inmates who lack job skills, 
and elderly prisoners.

Controlling Sex Offenders

Although sex offenders represent a growing
percentage of the prison population, studies 
have shown that few receive treatment in prison, 
and the extent of recidivism is not well 
documented.[10] Many States have responded to a 
series of highly publicized violent sex offenses 
by enacting statutes that require offenders to 
register with police agencies in the communities 
where they live. 

As of early 1996, 32 States had taken the 
additional step of enacting notification statues
that make information about sex offenders available
to the public or require that authorities
disseminate information about released offenders to
the community. Congress has enacted laws that
withhold Federal funding from States that do not
implement such laws. 

To identify the various notification approaches 
and problems as well as the effects notification 
has had on communities and offenders, NIJ conducted 
a survey of 13 criminal justice system
practitioners in eight States.[11] Results 
reveal that notification statutes are diverse: 
some mandate proactive notification, others 
merely authorize it, while still others permit 
notification only in response to community 
requests. Most practitioners recommend that States 
give local jurisdictions the flexibility to develop 
their own criteria for deciding which offenders 
should be subject to notification and which 
individuals, agencies, and institutions should be 
notified. Requiring offenders to handle their own 
notification process, they say, is problematic. 
Educating the community about the nature 
and purposes of notification is considered
essential to preventing community alarm and
vigilantism. While there is little empirical
evidence of the impact of notification on
recidivism, several respondents said they believe
it will influence offender behavior in positive
ways. 

Other NIJ research on sex offenders has shown that
the best approach to managing and containing sex
offenders under community supervision is to hold
offenders accountable for their actions by
combining internal and external controls. A 
containment approach, implemented through 
interagency and interdisciplinary teamwork,
places the highest value on public safety, victim
protection, and reparation for victims.[12] 

NIJ research suggests a variety of interventions 
to help control sex offenders. In a survey of 
732 probation and parole supervisors, more 
than 80 percent of the respondents reported that
mental health treatment is mandated for sex
offenders under their supervision. The sex
offender's intervention team can, for example,
emphasize the protection of potential victims 
by providing close supervision and by teaching 
the offender to avoid high-risk situations and
recognize and manage the thoughts and attitudes
that promote deviant sexual behavior.

Handling Juvenile Offenders in Adult Prisons

In response to increased violent crime among
juveniles, many States have enacted laws that 
allow more juveniles to be tried and punished as 
adults and open juvenile records and proceedings
to public scrutiny. Proponents of the approach
maintain that transferring youthful offenders to
adult systems may deter other youths from violent
crime. An NIJ-funded study of the trend toward
placing serious juvenile offenders in adult courts
found that juvenile detention facilities are
backlogged with juveniles awaiting transfer to
adult prisons, and that 10 States account for the 
vast majority of juveniles admitted to adult 
prisons.[13] 

Although little is known about the effects of
transfers on the juveniles' future behavior 
(in terms of overall delinquency rates or later
adult recidivism rates), transfer is a trend that 
is likely to continue and have long-term effects on
correctional facilities. Yet placing younger youths
in adult facilities raises several management
issues that need further investigation:[14]

o Housing children and youths with adults may
  increase their risk of being raped or assaulted 
  by older inmates. If kept in isolation for 
  protection, however, they may then be at 
  increased risk for suicide.

o Young people have nutritional needs and
  physical exercise requirements different from 
  those of adults, and many respond differently 
  to discipline. Staff responses based on adult 
  patterns of misconduct may be less effective in 
  managing youths.
  
When young offenders are housed with adults, 
it is impractical (and probably impossible) to
develop specialized programming that addresses
their particular needs and problems. Accordingly,
some States, such as Georgia and Colorado, are
building special units to house youths within 
adult facilities as well as providing specially 
trained staff and an enhanced range of 
programming. 

Responding to the Needs of Women Offenders

For decades, increasing numbers of women 
have been entering the criminal justice system.
Between 1980 and 1994 the arrest rate for women
increased nearly three times more than the arrest
rate for men. During the same period, the inmate
population rose dramatically--the female inmate
population increased 379 percent compared with a
200-percent increase for men.[15]

It is not clear whether these startling increases
reflect an increase in criminal behavior among
women, a reduced level of tolerance toward female
offenders, more substance abuse by women, a change
in the composition of the female population sent 
to jails and prisons, or differential treatment of 
women by judges. 

Clearly some needs of girls and women within the
criminal justice system, whether they be 
victims, offenders, or working professionals, 
are different from those of men.[16] The criminal
justice system has begun to address women offender
issues in the face of litigation and increased
public recognition of women's rights. But women
offenders still have a number of unmet needs for
programs, including those involving mental and
physical health, substance abuse, domestic abuse
counseling, and help in developing parenting
skills. 

Often mental health or substance abuse services
offered to women inmates are based on models
designed for male populations. In fact, States
generally use identical screening and
classification systems for men and women. An
NIJ-funded national study of innovative and
promising programs for female offenders found that 
the lower the number of female inmates in a State, 
the less chance that all of them are screened 
adequately to detect mental health issues. 

Teaching Inmates Job Skills 

Rehabilitation professionals know that offenders
released into the community from prison have a 
high chance of recidivism unless they are given
opportunities to become self-sustaining members of
society. 

Today, businesses in South Carolina, California,
and Connecticut are partnering with State and local
corrections agencies. Such joint ventures provide
job training for inmates, decreasing the idleness 
that often leads to disruptions and other behavior 
problems during incarceration.[17]

Companies that employ inmate labor from nearby 
prisons benefit from a readily available work 
force. They often can take advantage of financial 
incentives, such as low-cost industrial space and 
equipment purchase subsidies offered by corrections 
agencies, and can be assured of a safe work 
environment because of the presence of security 
guards and weapons detectors. 

Prisons can use private-sector jobs as motivations
for good behavior and work habits. Said Richard
Bazzle, warden of the Leath Correctional Facility
in South Carolina: "The inmate who realizes that an
initial assignment in the [prison] kitchen might
some day lead to a higher-paying job in our garment 
plant is more likely to work hard and stay out of 
trouble in order to get that better job 
tomorrow."[18] Society, too, benefits when inmates' 
earnings are used to pay State and Federal taxes to 
offset incarceration costs, help support the inmates' 
families, and compensate victims.

Nonetheless, prisons and participating 
companies still face several challenges in 
implementing successful programs, including 
high employee absenteeism and turnover, limited 
opportunities for training, and certain
logistical problems. 

Project Re-Enterprise (PRE), a Texas-based 
program administered by the Crime Prevention
Institute (CPI) and two Federal agencies (the
National Institute of Corrections and the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Correctional
Education), enlists the participation of local
business leaders to assist inmates in completing
job applications and practicing interview
techniques, where the norm is six interviews with
employers per inmate.[19]

Four years ago, PRE involved one correctional
facility and nine participating employers; by 1996,
PRE had more than 300 participating businesses and
was providing service to several facilities across
the State. Participating offenders surveyed by CPI
indicated that inmates like being exposed to
different employer interviewing styles and benefit
from employer assessments of their performance.
Some employers have been so impressed with the 
"job candidates" that they have voluntarily changed 
their policies related to hiring offenders. Frank 
Henry of Fluor Daniel, an international construction 
engineering company, has hired 18 ex-offenders. 
Said Mr. Henry, a human resources officer: "My 
opinion used to be hardline. I was a `lock `em up 
and throw away the key' guy. Now I realize that 
my attitude was just not realistic. Most of these 
folks are coming home and will become our 
neighbors." Rigorous evaluation has not been 
conducted, however, to determine the effectiveness 
of the program. 

Rethinking Adjudication and Corrections

Across the Nation, community groups are 
circulating petitions, marching, organizing block
patrols, and voicing their concerns before public
officials. Citizens are mobilizing to meet the
challenges of the "broken window syndrome" in their
neighborhoods--those quality-of-life problems that
create environments where disorder and crime often
flourish. Criminal justice agencies, recognizing
the power of residents, victims, and community
organizations, have begun to explore ways to 
make the community a full partner and more 
directly involve citizens not only in community 
policing but in prosecution, sentencing, courts, 
and corrections activities.

Community-Based Prosecution

Several cities are experimenting with new ways for
prosecutors to collaborate with the community. For
example, in Portland, Oregon, prosecutors have
developed neighborhood partnerships that can keep
the pressure on neighborhood crime problems.
Portland's experiment with community prosecution
began when a grassroots effort of business leaders
prompted the district attorney to appoint a special
prosecutor for a commercial area called the Lloyd
District. The Portland Neighborhood District
Attorney (NDA), as this prosecutor was called,
negotiated with diverse neighborhood groups,
collaborated with the police to implement a police 
sweep, supported cleanup campaigns, and used civil
remedies when appropriate. The NDA approach led to
the development of a variety of innovative
strategies, such as using information provided 
by citizens as part of the evidence needed for a
search warrant, and neighborhood campaigns 
to remove illegal transient campers from vacant
public areas such as expressway underpasses,
cemeteries, and railroad right-of-ways.[20] The 
program resulted in reductions in public
drunkenness, drug use, prostitution, visible trash,
abandoned automobiles, and illegal dumping. 

In Indianapolis, six "street-level advocates" 
from the district attorney's office work out of
four district police stations to develop a
"situational perspective" for reducing public
disorder. Using a variety of criminal and civil 
tactics, the community prosecutors bring to bear 
the legal expertise and resources of the office as 
well as the clout of the district attorney to find
innovative solutions to a neighborhood's specific
problems. They screen and prosecute cases in the
traditional mode, but they also involve themselves
in outreach to neighborhood groups, help police 
obtain and execute search warrants, mediate 
neighborhood conflicts, and teach citizens ways to 
assist authorities in solving crime problems such as
keeping logs of suspected drug activity 
in a specific location.


Community-Based Defender Services

The concept of community justice extends to 
the provision of public defender services. Defying
traditional stereotypes of the indigent-public
defender relationship, the Vera Institute of
Justice in 1990 opened a public defender agency
that provides continuity in representing criminal 
suspects who live in a Harlem neighborhood. The
Institute aggressively investigates a client's case
before arraignment and helps clients with personal
and family problems that lead to legal trouble and
collateral civil cases. The Harlem Neighborhood
Defender Service (NDS) organizes lawyers into teams
that stay informed of a client's case through a 
management information system that runs on software 
tailored especially for the NDS. 

Since it opened, NDS has represented more than
5,000 clients and has become a positive force in
Harlem. Today the staff totals 30, organized into
three teams carrying a load of 180 to 200 cases
each. A review of the program found the cost per
client is about the same as traditional public
defender services.[21]

Community Courts

Urban social problems eventually manifest
themselves in the courts. The Midtown Community
Court in New York City exemplifies the renewed
interest in adjudicating criminal cases, especially 
misdemeanors, within the community that is most 
affected by these cases. The Midtown Community 
Court includes the Times Square and Theatre 
District neighborhoods of Manhattan and embraces 
people who live, work, or shop in the area. 

An essential component of the Midtown Community
Court is its close collaboration with residents, 
local organizations, and business groups (such as 
the Times Square Business Improvement District).[22] 
These groups provide opportunities for and supervise 
community service sentences for offenders and are a 
vital link to the treatment, health, support, and 
educational services available to offenders 
and offered within the courthouse. 

An NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the Midtown
Community Court conducted by the National Center
for State Courts found that the Court used 
intermediate sanctions more frequently than
Manhattan's downtown, centralized court. 
Community service sentences, for example, were 
twice as common at the Midtown Community Court.[23] 
Changing sentencing patterns and linking defendants 
to community services had a substantial effect on 
defendant behavior, too, especially among 
prostitutes and illegal vendors who significantly 
reduced their illegal behavior. According to 
preliminary figures, arrests for neighborhood 
prostitution dropped by 63 percent over the 
Court's first 2 years and illegal vending dropped 
by 24 percent. The Midtown Community Court has cut 
arrest-to-arraignment times substantially, from an 
average of 31 hours to 18. By emphasizing immediacy 
and using technology to enhance accountability, the 
Court also has improved community service compliance 
rates. 

The evaluators concluded that the Midtown Community
Court experiment has made a dramatic contribution 
to reducing crime in the neighborhood and improving 
perceptions of the court system. The findings 
indicate that the Court is efficient and effective 
and, because of support and participation from the 
people the system is supposed to serve, has become 
an important ingredient in the improved quality 
of life in the community. 

Community Justice in Corrections

As with community policing, community- centered 
corrections techniques move away from sole
emphasis on the offender and concentrate instead 
on the situation and the community that has been 
harmed by the offender. It is the community's laws 
that have been violated, the community's life that 
has been disturbed. Thus the community must play a 
role in recovering from criminality.[24]

Examples of how two States have begun to 
move toward a community-centered corrections
program can be found in Oregon and Vermont.
Oregon's community corrections legislation 
calls for the creation of local advisory boards
with responsibility for helping set the direction
for local programming. Vermont's Reparative
Probation Board, established in 1994, is composed
of citizens who develop and oversee community-based
sentences for low-risk offenders. 

In a community-centered corrections program,
opportunities would exist to integrate offenders
into the community through contributions they can
make to the improved health of the neighborhood.
For example, residents, offenders, and neighborhood
groups might participate in meetings to discuss
crime problems in their neighborhood, analyze the
problems, and develop mechanisms for reducing
targeted crimes. Offenders might contribute by
rebuilding and renovating neighborhood housing or
partnering with elderly residents who are without
needed social services. Offenders under community
supervision also might participate in workshops for
the children and spouses of incarcerated offenders
to help them strengthen their relationships with
the incarcerated offender. All these activities
would be made possible through partnerships with
existing organizations, such as the probation and
police departments, and citizen volunteers. 

Reaching out to the community--whether through law
enforcement, courts, or corrections--means tapping
into local resources and expertise to head off 
crime problems. In all community-centered criminal 
justice activities, the key to successful citizen 
participation is the authentic desire to involve 
residents and neighborhood business and civic 
groups as full partners in policymaking and service 
delivery.

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

A Different Model of Justice 

The ancient and venerable concept of "restorative
justice" has attracted a great deal of interest in 
recent years. Inherent in the concept is the idea 
that crime victims--both individuals and the 
community--are an integral part of the justice 
process. Proponents of restorative justice propose 
that a more personal involvement of victims and 
offenders, where appropriate, needs to take place 
to bring them together for the purpose of 
negotiating a resolution. The restorative model of 
justice emphasizes crime as an offense against the
individual and the community, in contrast with the
conventional, retributive model, which centers on
the adversarial process in which guilt is 
established for a violation against the State.

Programs in accord with the restorative justice
philosophy include those involving restitution or
community service performed by the offender, 
victim impact statements, victim-offender 
mediation, family group conferencing, and citizen 
reparative boards. The number ofjurisdictions 
in the United States and elsewhere that have
adopted restorative justice as part of their
criminal justice system is growing. By one count,
almost 300 jurisdictions in this country have
adopted the practice of victim-offender mediation,
one of the oldest expressions of restorative
justice. The State of Vermont has completely
restructured its corrections program around the
concept, in an effort to make its criminal justice
system more responsive to the needs of victims and
communities and to help offenders understand the
impact of their crimes. 

In keeping with its mission of bringing emerging
and innovative ideas and practices to the attention
of the criminal justice field, NIJ has been
exploring restorative justice and its potential for
improving the criminal justice system and
benefiting the individuals and communities who are
victims of crime. Part of that study included
finding out how public policymakers, victim
advocates, and professionals in various 
components of the criminal justice system feel 
about restorative justice. In a survey 
conducted among people in these groups who are 
familiar with the concept, restorative justice 
was found to be viewed favorably by the group as 
a whole. The aspects they viewed most favorably 
were those related to increased victim and 
community involvement, the potential for greater
efficiency in the criminal justice system, and 
more active involvement by offenders. A synthesis 
of other studies suggests findings similar to those 
of the NIJ survey, including such benefits as victim 
satisfaction and faster case disposition.[1]

National attention was focused on restorative
justice in January 1996, when NIJ and the Office 
for Victims of Crime, in cooperation with the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 
sponsored a symposium that brought together 
policymakers, practitioners, victim advocates, 
representatives of community organizations, and 
researchers from the United States and elsewhere 
to explore the concept. Featured were presentations 
by representatives of jurisdictions that had 
adopted the restorative justice philosophy and 
discussions of how to measure success, what the 
potential effects of restorative justice on the 
criminal justice and juvenile justice systems might 
be, and how to advance the concept of restorative 
justice. 

NIJ will be holding a series of followup symposiums
in 1997 at sites throughout the country to explore
ways to move toward putting the concept into
practice. 

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

1 Quinn, Thomas, "Redefining and Restoring
  Justice," draft report in partial fulfillment 
  of NIJ grant no.95-IJ-CX-0016, December 1996.

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

Endnotes

1  Four overview reports were published in the
   Research in Action series: Parent, D.; T. 
   Dunworth; D. McDonald; and W. Rhodes, "Key 
   Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The 
   Impact of Sentencing Guidelines," November 
   1996, NCJ 161837; "Key Legislative Issues in 
   Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions," 
   January 1997, NCJ 161838; "Key Legislative 
   Issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory 
   Sentencing," January 1997, NCJ 161839; and 
   "Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:
   Transferring Serious Juvenile Offenders to Adult
   Courts," January 1997, NCJ 161840, Washington,
   D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
   Institute of Justice.

2  Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues in
   Criminal Justice: The Impact of Sentencing
   Guidelines."

3  Lyons, D., Three Strikes Legislation Update,
   Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State
   Legislatures, December 1995.

4  Turner, M., et al., "Three Strikes and 
   You're Out Legislation: A National Assessment,"
   Federal Probation, 59 (September 1995):16-35.

5  Clark, J.; J. Austin; and A. Henry, "Three
   Strikes and You're Out: A Review of State
   Legislation," Research in Brief, Washington, 
   D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
   Institute of Justice, September 1997, NCJ 
   165369.

6  Ibid.

7  MacKenzie, D.L., "Criminal Justice and Crime
   Prevention," in Preventing Crime: What Works, 
   What Doesn't, What's Promising, L. W. Sherman 
   et al., eds., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
   of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 
   February 1997, NCJ 165366.

8  Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues 
   in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions." 

9  Boot camp evaluations sponsored under the 
   Crime Act were funded in 1995; the grants 
   were awarded in 1996. 

10 Finn, P., "Sex Offender Community 
   Notification," Research in Action, 
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
   National Institute of Justice, February 1997, 
   NCJ 162364.

11 Ibid.

12 English, K.; S. Pullen; and L. Jones,
   "Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the 
   Community--A Containment Approach," Research 
   in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
   Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 
   1997, NCJ 163387.

13 Parent, D., et al., "Key Legislative Issues in
   Criminal Justice: Transferring Serious Juvenile
   Offenders to Adult Courts."

14 Ibid.

15 Women in Criminal Justice: A Twenty-Year 
   Update, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
   Justice Programs, 1996 draft. To enhance the 
   understanding of and response to issues related 
   to girls and women in the criminal justice 
   system, Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney 
   General, in 1994 established the OJP 
   Coordination Group on Women, which was composed 
   of representatives of five agencies including 
   NIJ. Three separate studies, on victims, 
   offenders, and working professionals, were 
   funded to follow up on the findings of a 1975 
   report produced by a special task force 
   on women. 

16 Corrothers, H.; V. Gowdy; et al., "Women
   Offenders," in the Office of Justice Program's 
   1996 draft of Women in Criminal Justice: A 
   Twenty-Year Update. Cited to National Study 
   for Innovative and Promising Programs for 
   Women Offenders, Morash, M.; T. Bynum; and 
   B.A. Koons, School of Criminal Justice, 
   Michigan State University. 

17 Sexton, G.E., "Work in American Prisons: 
   Joint Ventures with the Private Sector," 
   Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
   Department of Justice, National Institute of
   Justice, November 1995, NCJ 156215.

18 Ibid., p. 4. 

19 Moses, M., "Project Re-Enterprise: A Texas
   Program," Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: 
   U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 
   of Justice, August 1996, NCJ 161448.

20 Boland, B., "What is Community Prosecution," 
   NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):35, JL 000219. 
   See also, "How Portland Does It: Community 
   Prosecution," (final report in partial 
   fulfillment of NIJ grant no. 94-IJ-CX-0004), 
   1996, NCJ 165182.

21 Anderson, D.C., "Public Defenders in the
   Neighborhood: A Harlem Law Office Stresses
   Teamwork, Early Investigation," Program Focus,
   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
   National Institute of Justice, March 1997, NCJ 
   163061. The evaluation was funded by the Vera 
   Institute. 

22 Rottman, D., "Community Courts: Prospects and
   Limits," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):46, JL
   000219.

23 Feinblatt, J.; M. Sviridoff; and G. Berman,
   "Neighborhood Justice: Lessons from the Midtown
   Community Court," working draft paper presented 
   at the National Institute of Justice Annual 
   Research and Evaluation Conference, July 22, 
   1997.

24 Clear, T., and R. Corbett, Jr., "The Community
   Corrections of Place," draft paper presented at 
   the National Institute of Justice's Annual 
   Research and Evaluation Conference, July 22, 
   1997. See also Clear, T., "Toward a Corrections 
   of `Place': The Challenge of `Community' in 
   Corrections," NIJ Journal, 229 (August 1996):52, 
   JL 000219.

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

Science and Technology: Creating New Tools
      
Electromagnetic pulses that detect concealed 
weapons; a "smart" gun that can only be fired 
when activated by sensors that detect 
fingerprints or speech patterns; a portable 
DNA kit that tests samples from several suspects
concurrently at the crime scene and provides
results in minutes--the potential of such
technological breakthroughs is enormous. These
technologies are among the latest advances stemming
from NIJ's science and technology research program.

Building on a long history of pioneering work that
produced such innovations as the life-saving soft
body armor now routinely worn by law enforcement
officers, electronic monitoring of offenders on
probation, and improvements in drug testing, NIJ's
science and technology program has grown in both
scope and complexity in recent years. While
exploiting the power of technology to increase
safety and advance justice, NIJ research also 
looks beyond the purely technical to anticipate 
how new technologies may affect practice and 
explore how they mesh with emerging principles 
of criminal justice. Thus, NIJ technology research 
is a collaborative effort involving scientists, 
engineers, and criminal justice practitioners and 
policymakers.

Within this framework, NIJ supports several types
of research and development, including forensic
science, less-than-lethal weapons technology, and
new approaches to improved technologies that
facilitate modernization of law enforcement
operations. These efforts are augmented by a
program that fosters technology transfer
initiatives and develops performance standards for
law enforcement and corrections equipment. As in
other areas of research, the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Act) is
making it possible to support the development of 
technology for use in law enforcement, particularly 
in community policing as well as DNA forensic 
testing and laboratory improvement. These and other 
projects funded by the Crime Act are discussed in 
this chapter.

Gateway to New Technologies

To bring technological developments to users at 
the local level, Congress appropriated funds to 
NIJ for the development of a technology information
exchange network. To fulfill the mandate, NIJ
created the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system,
composed of a national center in Rockville,
Maryland, and several regional centers. This 
system provides an avenue for NIJ to learn more 
about the needs of local law enforcement and 
corrections agencies and to coordinate technology 
development projects. The centers serve as a 
gateway to relevant technology information for 
law enforcement and corrections agencies in their 
regions and provide hands-on technical assistance 
in applying technology to help solve cases.

Regional centers are located in Rome, New York;
Charleston, South Carolina; Denver, Colorado; and
El Segundo, California; each focuses on a specific
area of expertise and meets the specific needs of
agencies in the region, as determined by a local
advisory board. In 1996, the Rocky Mountain Center
(Denver) was designated as a communications
technology center, and a satellite branch of the
new NIJ Crime Mapping Center was established at the
site. The Southeast Center (Charleston) focuses on
corrections technology and the distribution of
surplus Federal property to the law enforcement
community. NIJ also supports the Border Research
and Technology Center in San Diego, California,
which focuses on developing and enhancing border
patrol research and technology.

The Office of Law Enforcement Technology
Commercialization (OLETC), located at the National
Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) in Wheeling, West
Virginia, is another part of the network. Its goal
is the development of effective means to bring
technologies to the law enforcement and corrections
marketplace. Recently, the Office unveiled the
first such technology, the RoadSpike, a portable
strip that can selectively puncture the tires of a
fleeing vehicle and induce a controlled deflation,
bringing the vehicle to a safe stop. 

Last year marked the 25th anniversary of NIJ's Law
Enforcement Standards program, designed to ensure
that equipment purchased by criminal justice
agencies meets standards of safety, reliability, 
and effectiveness. The Office of Law Enforcement 
Standards (OLES), a component of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 
develops objective performance standards for law 
enforcement and corrections equipment such as 
body armor and patrol vehicles as well as for 
DNA profiling. NLECTC then tests the commercially 
available equipment against these standards. NIJ 
publishes standards, test reports, user guides, 
and bulletins and disseminates them to the criminal
justice community (see Appendix B).


Technology Partnerships 

As part of the overall strategy to coordinate
resources, maximize benefits from developing
technologies in other areas, and target
technological research where it is most needed, 
NIJ has actively sought partnerships with other
agencies and organizations. Under a 1994 
Department of Justice (DOJ)-Department of Defense 
(DOD) agreement, NIJ and DOD are working together 
to convert advances in defense technology into new
technologies for use in civilian law enforcement
and corrections settings. A Joint Program 
Steering Group (JPSG) was established to identify
areas of common need and manage technology
development efforts to address these needs.
Congress appropriated more than $60 million over 
2 years in the Defense Department budget 
to support this partnership and the technologies
that flow from it.

These efforts have yielded a number of products,
including a prototype personnel armor system called
Concealable Body Armor, which is being developed by 
the U.S. Army's Soldier Systems Command; sniper and 
concealed weapons detection technologies; an 
operational prototype telemedicine system used in 
four Federal prison facilities; and a prototype
inter-agency crisis management system. JPSG is also
focusing efforts on countering domestic terrorism
in the areas of infrastructure security, hostage
rescue, explosives detection and remediation, and 
information technology.

In December 1995, the Technology Policy Council was
established, with DOJ and Department of Treasury
(DOT) participation, to coordinate technology
policy and development among all DOJ/DOT law
enforcement and corrections agencies. The Council,
chaired by the Deputy Attorney General, serves the
following purposes:

o To provide a forum for assessing and sharing
  information among the components and 
  facilitating useful partnerships and 
  opportunities for resource savings;

o To identify and eliminate potential 
  duplication or overlap;

o To identify technology needs and requirements
  for proposed integration into the research and
  development programs of individual agencies; 
  and


o To make recommendations to the Deputy Attorney
  General on priorities for technology development.

DNA Testing: A Powerful Tool for Justice

Typing or profiling of DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid--
has become widely accepted as a forensics
identification tool since it was first introduced
as evidence only 9 years ago. Last year, NIJ awarded
funds for the first projects in what will be a 
5-year, $40 million DNA laboratory improvement
program to enhance State and local DNA laboratory
processing capabilities by the year 2000. 
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Title XXI,
Subtitle C, Sec. 210302 of the Crime Act), provides
the funding for this research. The program is also
designed to facilitate implementation of State laws
requiring creation of DNA data bases on convicted
offenders. Funds went to 37 State and local 
governments to increase or enhance DNA testing in 
50 laboratories. The efforts will ensure that DNA 
testing is conducted according to national 
standards and that State and local data bases are 
compatible with the FBI's Combined DNA Index System. 
NIJ is also using Crime Act funds to develop a 
proficiency testing program for DNA analysis that 
will be available to public and private laboratories 
conducting DNA forensic testing. 

On the same day the DNA laboratory improvement
awards were announced, NIJ released a major report
entitled Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science
that documents 28 case studies where DNA evidence 
presented after trial led to the release of people 
convicted of violent felonies.[1] Researchers found 
cases in 14 States and the District of Columbia of 
men who had been convicted and sentenced for 
sexual offenses before DNA test results proved
their innocence.

Another report funded by NIJ, the National Research
Council's (NRC) Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, 
was also released in 1996.[2] This report resolved 
statistical issues for probabilities of DNA matches 
and recommended that whenever feasible, samples be 
divided between the prosecution and the defense 
before DNA testing so that both may have the
opportunity and material to test or retest the
specimen.

NIJ sponsored a National Conference on the Future
of DNA: Implications for the Criminal Justice
System, in Washington, D.C. This conference 
brought together more than 200 leading researchers 
and practitioners to discuss issues on the use of 
DNA, including data collection and preservation, 
analytical methods, creation of data bases, and 
the NRC report. The success of this conference 
led NIJ to make it an annual event, with the next 
conference to be held in Sacramento, California.

Within the next 3 to 5 years, law enforcement
agencies will have the tools necessary to set up
portable DNA labs at crime scenes to test multiple
samples concurrently, with virtually immediate
results and at relatively low cost. To develop the
potential of this important forensic tool, NIJ is
undertaking several initiatives. Four projects are
designed to improve the collection, handling, and
testing of DNA samples for use in homicide
investigations--two are exploring a microchip
system that will enable quick DNA testing to match
samples and include or exclude suspects from an
investigation; the other two are supporting
development of a rapid and reliable testing system
in which mass spectrometry technology is applied to
forensic DNA testing.[3]

In addition to sponsoring the annual DNA 
conference, NIJ plans to convene a group of 
scientists and practitioners to consider the future
of DNA and develop a vision of the technological
and laboratory infrastructure that will be needed
to realize the full potential of DNA testing.

Detecting Concealed Weapons 

Perhaps the most exciting development on the
technology front is the potential for nonintrusive
remote detection of weapons concealed on
individuals. NIJ is addressing this challenge
through several efforts, some of them involving
partnerships under the 1994 Crime Act and others
undertaken in collaboration with the Department of
Defense. The work is being supported by technical
expertise from the NLECTC Northeast Center in Rome,
New York.

In a collaboration with the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, research supported 
by the Crime Act is under way using sensors that
detect electromagnetic pulses at millimeter wave
lengths. Any item concealed by clothing--metallic
or nonmetallic weapons, plastic explosives, drugs--
will show up as a dark image against the lighter
background image of the body. The approach has been
successfully demonstrated, and industry is
developing the technology to facilitate use with
fixed or hand-held camera systems. 

Another approach uses extremely low doses of 
X-rays that penetrate the clothing but not the 
skin of an individual to produce a picture that 
will reveal the presence of a weapon or other
contraband. Developed under the auspices of 
the DOJ-DOD partnership, the technology was
successfully demonstrated in a California
correctional institution and will also be
demonstrated in a correctional institution in 
North Carolina in 1997. The technology is being 
improved to function while the subject is moving.

Officer Protection Technologies

When police officers are killed with their own
handguns, the tragedy always prompts the 
question: what could have been done to prevent 
this incident? The traditional emphasis has been 
on training and the use of special holsters that
make it more difficult to remove an officer's
handgun. Capitalizing on recent advances in several
commercial technologies, NIJ awarded a grant to
Sandia National Laboratories to investigate
development of a "smart" gun that could be fired
only by an authorized user. Subsequently, 14
technologies were evaluated and 5 were selected for
the construction of "smart" gun models. These
included devices involving touch memory, such as
wearing a special ring that contains a radio 
frequency tag read by the gun; carrying a remote 
control device to activate the gun; fingerprint 
scanning; and speech recognition. Officers are 
understandably cautious about making any changes 
to their firearms, and initial reactions to the 
technology have varied from skeptical to 
enthusiastic. One gun manufacturer has
initiated a prototype development program to
further apply the results of this project and 
test the feasibility of the "smart" gun. 

Examples of other technologies that have been
developed to increase law enforcement officer
safety include an enhanced concealable body armor
that can be worn more comfortably under a uniform.
The equipment, developed under the JPSG, consists
of a soft body armor system with ceramic composite
or titanium inserts over the heart and spine. The
inserts are designed to protect against rifle
bullets, while the soft component provides
protection from handguns. One vest has already been
purchased by the Secret Service for evaluation, and
the military has obtained 1,800.

In an effort to promulgate both a standard and a
testing program for protective gloves worn by law
enforcement and corrections professionals, NIJ is
sponsoring a joint project of the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards (OLES), the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
(NLECTC), and the Office of Law Enforcement
Technology Commercialization (OLETC).

Under the program, NLECTC and OLETC took steps to
learn the types of gloves typically used by police 
officers and prison guards and whether improved 
puncture- and stab-resistant materials were being 
developed. A needs assessment confirmed that 
officers' highest priorities for protective gloves 
are protection against blood-borne infectious 
diseases, resistance to punctures and tears, and 
adequate dexterity and tactile response. 

Research is under way at OLES to identify any
existing protocols that could be used or adapted 
by NIJ to measure glove performance. OLES will
leverage its relationships with the scientific 
community, industry, and its parent organization--
the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)--to develop test parameters and performance
requirements for protective gloves. Solicitations
for participation in NIJ's voluntary protective 
glove testing program will be made through Commerce 
Business Daily, JUSTNET, professional publications, 
and direct mail.

Offender Control and Processing Technologies

Another NIJ priority is to develop technologies
that make it easier for criminal justice agencies
to process and monitor convicted offenders. 

Over the past decade, NIJ has conducted several
evaluations of electronic monitoring (EM) devices,
which impose punishment and ensure public safety by
restricting movement of offenders and monitoring
their whereabouts. At the same time, electronic
monitoring helps reduce the number of offenders who
must be incarcerated and allows offenders to keep
their jobs while under correctional supervision.
First-generation devices enabled monitoring of
offenders while they were at home or leaving from
and returning to their residence. More recent
developments have made it possible for probation
and parole agents to use portable devices to track
offenders at other locations, such as treatment
programs or schools. 

New NIJ research is exploring the feasibility of
constructing "second-generation" continuous
tracking systems for monitoring offenders in an
urban environment. A project recently completed 
by the Westinghouse Corporation describes the
technical difficulties inherent in continuous
tracking approaches, the current state of
technology that could be applied, and the results
of a feasibility test of one promising approach. 
A terrestrial antenna-based system using
spread-spectrum receivers and signal
time-of-arrival circuitry was tested in a 
downtown location of one city. The initial test 
suggests that a fully developed and deployed 
system should be able to continuously detect and 
locate the presence of an offender's transmitting 
monitoring device, but further testing and 
development is necessary. 

Other technologies for continuous electronic
monitoring based on use of the Global Positioning
System in combination with a wireless 
communication system--a cellular phone, 
for example--are beginning to appear on 
the probation and parole scene. Advances in
telecommunication and global positioning hardware
and expansion of the national infrastructure of
satellites and supplemental antennas will benefit
all electronic monitoring approaches under
consideration. 

Another NIJ-funded evaluation has focused on the
Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), a
communications and data base program created to
catalog fingerprints, mug shots, supporting
evidence, and background data on an offender
arrested or processed by any of five Federal law
enforcement agencies: the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

The JABS evaluation noted the improved quality of
photographs, fingerprints, and personal data; the
elimination of duplication of offender records; and
an enhanced sharing of data between agencies, which
led to improved investigations.[4] Although some
operational difficulties were identified during the
evaluation, JABS is considered to be a success.
Practitioners have expressed high expectations that
JABS data collection and data exchange functions 
can be expanded or incorporated into a variety of 
other current and planned law enforcement 
information systems.

Technology Aids Coordination

Police departments with common jurisdictional
borders often enter into mutual aid agreements, 
but their practical implementation in times of 
need is often difficult and time consuming because 
of a lack of common communication channels and an
imprecise knowledge of patrol vehicles' locations.
To learn what benefits might be realized by
neighboring law enforcement jurisdictions if
barriers to vehicle location information were
removed, a public-private partnership was formed
between two police departments in the South Bay
area of Los Angeles.

The results of the study indicated a reduction 
in voice radio traffic, more efficient routing of
officers, more active participation by dispatch 
in police pursuits, and a reduction in response
times to priority calls.[5] Although the project 
test period was limited, numerous documented mutual 
aid incidents demonstrate the success and value of 
this technology in apprehending suspects and 
enhancing officer safety. Initial cost is the only
significant hindrance to widespread application of
this technology in mutual assistance and
cooperation agreements.

Pepper Spray Effectiveness 

Violent encounters between police officers and
individuals resisting arrest, increased civil
liability, and court-imposed limitations on the use
of deadly force have stimulated the search for safe
and effective nonlethal deterrent methods.

An NIJ-sponsored assessment of pepper spray
(oleoresin capsicum or OC) focused on the Baltimore
County Police Department during the period July
1993 to March 1994.[6] A research team from the
International Association of Chiefs of Police found
that the use of pepper spray during 194 incidents
(174 human and 20 animal) of arrest and other
confrontational encounters effectively neutralized
aggressive suspects; it also reduced the incidence
of assaults on police officers, injuries to both
officers and suspects, and use-of-force or
brutality complaints registered against the police
department. Sprayed individuals were, for the most
part, intoxicated, belligerent, and/or combative,
with most suspects physically threatening an
officer. 

Baltimore County incorporated OC training into
officer in-service firearms training and required
the carrying of OC spray for all officers whose
normal duties included making arrests or
supervising arrest situations. Findings from the
study suggest that a well-developed and
successfully implemented OC spray program can
provide a variety of operational benefits for law
enforcement agencies, including decreased assaults
on officers and a smaller number of use-of-force
complaints.

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

NLECTC Center Assists Local Investigators

On November 1, 1996, Charles Rathbun was found
guilty of brutally killing a 27-year-old woman. 
The jury said that on the basis of the physical
evidence, especially the enhanced photographs and
the analysis of the defendant's computer files, it
believed Rathbun lied during testimony.

The evidence that weighed so heavily with the
jury involved photographs the defendant, a
professional photographer, claimed he had taken of
the victim the day she was killed. Rathbun, who had
alleged that the death was accidental, maintained
that the victim had consented to being 
photographed. 

To verify his claim, investigators sought the
assistance of engineers at the western regional
office of the National Institute of Justice's
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center (NLECTC) in El Segundo, 
California. The Center's imagery experts enhanced 
the retrieved photos of a woman whose face was 
hidden. Forensic experts compared these photos 
with the autopsy photos and concluded that the 
bodies in the two sets of photos were not the same 
person. Additionally, the forensic experts said 
that the car shown in Rathbun's photos was 
not the same one in which he claimed the photos 
had been taken. The Center's engineers were also 
able to recover data from the defendant's computer,
including an address book he had deleted before
turning himself in to police. 

This evidence helped convince the jury that
Rathbun had lied on the witness stand. He was 
found guilty and sentenced to life in prison 
without the possibility of parole.

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

Information Gateway to NLECTC

The Justice Technology Information Network--
JUSTNET--is the Internet link to law enforcement
and corrections technology. It is designed to be a
"one-stop shop" for law enforcement and corrections
technology information. It links users to all the
Technology Centers, the National Institute of
Justice, other law enforcement and corrections Web
sites, manufacturer Web sites, and data about
technology. JUSTNET also offers visitors two
additional services:

o Interactive services. Visitors can converse
  with one another by posting and responding to
  comments and questions. JUSTNET provides 
  passwords for users who want access to their 
  discussions restricted. (To allow NLECTC to 
  track usage and to provide better assistance to 
  State and local law enforcement and corrections 
  agencies, users must register when they enter the 
  Interactive Services area for the first time.)

o Data and publications. Visitors can access and
  download a data base of commercially available 
  law enforcement and corrections products and
  technologies. They can also be linked to
  information provided by agencies that have used 
  the products and posted comments about them on 
  the Internet.

The JUSTNET address is: http://www.nlectc.org.
Or call 800-248-2742 for assistance. 

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

National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Centers (NLECTC)

National Center        

NLECTC--National Center
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 800-248-2742
Fax: 301-519-5149
E-mail: mcaplan@aspensys.com
Senior Project Manager:
Marc H. Caplan 


Northeast Region

NLECTC--Northeast Region
26 Electronic Parkway
Rome, NY 13441-4514
Phone: 888-338-0584
Fax: 315-330-4315
E-mail: ritzj@rl.af.mil
Director: John Ritz

Southeast Region

NLECTC--Southeast Region
7325 Peppermill Parkway
North Charleston, SC 29418
Phone: 800-292-4385
Fax: 803-207-7776
E-mail: sextont@awod.com
Director: Thomas Sexton

Rocky Mountain Region

NLECTC--Rocky Mountain Region
2050 East Iliff Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
Phone: 800-416-8086, 
or 303-871-2522 in the Denver, Colorado, area
Fax: 303-871-2500
E-mail: jkeller@du.edu
Director: James A. Keller 

Western Region

NLECTC--Western Region
P.O. Box 92957, Mail Station M1/300
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957
Phone: 310-336-2171
Fax: 310-336-2227
E-mail: pentz@aero.org
Director: Robert Pentz

Border Research and Technology Center

Border Research and Technology Center
1250 Sixth Avenue, Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-685-1491
Fax: 619-685-1484
E-mail: brtcchrista@aol.com
Director: Chris Adridge

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

International Cooperation in Technology

The Office of Science and Technology (OS&T) is
developing frameworks for cooperation and
collaboration with sister agencies in other 
nations. These organizational structures will 
encourage agencies to work together to identify 
suitable areas for information sharing,
technology transfer, or codevelopment. The
following are examples of the types of
international cooperative efforts that NIJ hopes 
to expand in the future:

o United Kingdom: Police Scientific Development 
  Branch (PSDB)--Formal Memorandum of 
  Understanding (MoU)

o Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Research
  (RCMP)--R&D liaison

o Israel: Israel National Police (INP)--Formal
  MoU in process

The PSDB, RCMP, and INP are represented on the
NIJ-funded Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Advisory Council (LECTAC), which is
composed of over 150 practitioners from all over
the United States.

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

Conferences: Sharing Ideas About Technology

NIJ-sponsored conferences promote public- and
private-sector cooperation and bring usable 
technology directly to the local law enforcement 
and corrections marketplace. The conferences allow 
law enforcement personnel from different 
jurisdictions to talk about common technology 
needs and share their experiences with various new 
technologies. At the conferences, industry
representatives exhibit new products on the market 
or in development.

o Technology Solutions for Public Safety 

  This conference explored topics such as Legal
  and Liability Issues of Technology Employment,
  Simulation Training Technologies, Investigative
  Technologies, Concealed Weapons and Contraband
  Detection, Information Technology, Training
  Technology Delivery Applications, Electronic 
  Crime Detection and Apprehension, Crime 
  Scene/Crime Lab Technologies, Location and 
  Tracking Technologies, Less-Than-Lethal 
  Technology Update, and Video Surveillance and 
  Imagery Analysis.

o National Conference on the Future of DNA: 
  Implications for the Criminal Justice System 
  
  This conference brought together more than 300
  leading researchers and practitioners to discuss
  emerging issues in DNA testing in criminal 
  justice.

o Technology and Community Policing 

  NIJ's NLECTC and the Office of Community 
  Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hosted five 
  regional conferences that focused on how 
  technology can enhance community policing 
  programs. Sessions examined law enforcement use 
  of the Internet; technology as a force 
  multiplier; communication technologies; 
  geographic information systems; concealed weapons 
  detection technologies; technology liability 
  issues; and mountain bike patrols for community 
  policing.

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

Endnotes

1 Connors, 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.

2 Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, Washington, 
  D.C.: National Research Council, 1996.

3 Travis, J., "Technology in Criminal Justice:
  Creating the Tools for Transformation," 
  address to the Academy of Criminal Justice
  Sciences, March 13, 1997.

4 Young, R., "Evaluation of JABS: The Joint
  Automated Booking Station Program," 
  (a report in partial fulfillment of NIJ grant no.
  95-IJ-CX-0040).

5 Neustadter, J.T., "Installation and
  Evaluation of an Intercity Automatic Vehicle
  Location System," (a report in partial 
  fulfillment
  of grant no. 95-IJ-CX-K010).

6 Edwards, S.M.; J. Granfield; and J. Onnen,
  "Evaluation of Pepper Spray," Research in Brief,
  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
  National Institute of Justice, February 1997, 
  NCJ 162358.

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

Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1996

This appendix reflects the grants and contracts 
awarded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 
in 1996. The first section presents awards made as 
part of NIJ's base appropriations. The second and 
third sections present awards made under the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 (the Crime Act). Awards made under the Crime 
Act accounted for more than half of all NIJ awards 
and more than half the Institute's spending for the 
year. 

Project descriptions for all awards were published 
in the following documents: "NIJ Awards in Fiscal 
Year 1996," NCJ 165701; "NIJ Awards Under the Crime 
Act: Fiscal Year 1996," NCJ 165700; "NIJ Science 
and Technology Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal 
Year 1996," NCJ 165586. These documents are 
available from the National Criminal Justice 
Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 
20849-6000; 1-800-851-3420; http://www.ncjrs.org.

For each project listed, the number is that 
of the grant, contract, or other award. The 
number is followed by the project title; name of
the institution, agency, or corporation that
received the award; name of the principal
investigator or contractor; and award amount.
Within each topic, the awards are listed
alphabetically. Awards beginning with a number 
other than 96 are supplements of previous 
years' awards. 

Awards Under the Base Appropriation

Criminal Behavior

96-IJ-CX-0065
Breaking the Cycle
University of Alabama, Birmingham
L. Foster Cook
$1,000,000

95-IJ-CX-0115 
Changing Patterns of Homicide and 
Social Policy in Three American Cities
North Carolina State University
Margaret Zahn
$39,000

96-IJ-CX-0091
COMBAT (COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax) 
Program Evaluation
Abt Associates Inc.
Dana Hunt
$250,000

95-IJ-CX-0001
Committee on the Assessment of 
Family Violence Interventions
National Academy of Sciences
Rosemary Chalk
$150,000

96-IJ-CX-0017 
Family and Community Violence: Experiences of
Adolescents
University of California, Los Angeles
Susan B. Sorenson
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0005 
Female Gang Involvement in 
the Midwest: Two-City Comparison
University of Southern California
Jody Miller
$34,000

96-IJ-CX-0027 
Firearm Acquisition, Violent Crime, 
and Juvenile Offenders
Battelle Human Affairs Research Center
Barbara Rader
$39,000

96-IJ-CX-0016 
Homicide in New York City, 1790-1990
University of California, Los Angeles
Eric Monkkonen
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0015
Patterns of Violence: An Analysis of Individual
Offenders 
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Julie Horney
$250,000

93-IJ-CX-K005
Program on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods
President and Fellows of Harvard
Felton J. Earls
$2,888,000

96-IJ-CX-0020 
Risk of Serious Injury or Death in 
Intimate Violence 
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Carolyn R. Block
$252,000

96-IJ-CX-0012 
Secondary Analyses of the Impact of 
Co-Offending in Criminal Justice Data Sets
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Elin J. Waring
$25,000

96-IJ-CX-0013
Situational Contexts of Gun Use by 
Young Males in an Inner City
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of 
New York
Jeffrey Fagan
$200,000

96-IJ-CX-C005 
Testing Hair Samples and the 
Pennsylvania Prison Project 
Psychemedics Corporation
Chris Berka
$63,000

93-IJ-CX-0012 
Violence and Threats of Violence 
Against Women in America
Center for Policy Research
Patricia Tjaden
$300,000 (grant transferred from Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention)

Drug Use Forecasting Program 

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

96-IJ-CX-A009
DUF--Cleveland Telecommunications 
Pilot Project
Cleveland State University
Sonia Alemagno
$25,000

96-IJ-CX-0026
DUF--Examination of 
Methamphetamine Use
San Diego Association of Governments
Susan Pennell
$70,000

96-IJ-CX-0031 
DUF--Identifying and Prioritizing 
Local Social Risk Factors
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
Kim English
$52,000

94-IJ-CX-C009
DUF--Laboratory Analysis of 
Urine Specimens
National Center for Forensic Science
Lionel Menard
$290,000


93-IJ-CX-C002
DUF--Statistical Analysis
Aspen Systems Corporation
Lilly Gardner
$616,000

96-IJ-CX-A025 
DUF--Atlanta
Georgia State University Institute of 
Government Administration
Kirk Elifson
$36,000

95-IJ-CX-A005
DUF--Birmingham
City of Birmingham 
Foster Cook
$33,000

95-IJ-CX-A020 
DUF--Chicago
TASC of Illinois, Inc.
Melody Heaps
$44,000

96-IJ-CX-A039
DUF--Cleveland
Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners
Bob Pace
$74,000

95-IJ-CX-A010
DUF--Denver
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
Kim English
$61,000

94-IJ-CX-A030
DUF--Fort Lauderdale
Broward County Sheriff's Office
Ron Cochran
$50,000

95-IJ-CX-A013 
DUF--Indianapolis
Marion County, Indiana, Justice Agency
Cindy Mowery
$35,000

94-IJ-CX-A013 
DUF--Manhattan
New York City Department of Mental Health, 
Mental Retardation, and Alcoholism Services
Patricia Thomas
$60,000

95-IJ-CX-A023
DUF--Miami
Metro-Dade Police Department
Dorothy Fletcher
$29,000

94-IJ-CX-A014
DUF--New Orleans
Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office
William C. Hunter
$33,000

93-IJ-CX-A023
DUF--Omaha
Office of Public Safety, Police Division
Frederick Power
$23,000

96-IJ-CX-A026 
DUF--Philadelphia
Temple University
Jack R. Greene
$49,000

94-IJ-CX-A042
DUF--Philadelphia
Philadelphia Police Department
Mitchell Yanak
$6,000

95-0J-CX-A011
DUF--Phoenix
TASC of Maricopa County
$45,000

94-IJ-CX-A019 
DUF--Portland
TASC of Oregon, Inc.
Diane Wiscarson
$45,000

94-IJ-CX-A045
DUF--St. Louis
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department
Scott H. Decker
$3,000

95-IJ-CX-A009
DUF--San Antonio
San Antonio Metropolitan Health District
Sergio Soto
$70,000

95-IJ-CX-A012 
DUF--San Diego
San Diego Association of Governments
Susan Pennell
$69,000

94-IJ-CX-A027 
DUF--San Jose
Santa Clara County Bureau of Drug Abuse 
Services 
Robert Garner
$75,000

Crime Control and Prevention

96-IJ-CX-A022 
Computer Mapping of Crime 
in Public Housing
U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development
Harold Holzman
$100,000

96-IJ-CX-0030
Gang Activity in Orange County
University of California, Irvine 
Bryan Vila
$226,000

96-IJ-CX-A029 
Geographic Information Systems Spatial Crime
Analysis Application
Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Police
Timothy Delaney
$142,000

96-IJ-CX-0010
Health Care Fraud Control in an 
Electronic Environment: Phase II
President and Fellows of Harvard
Malcolm K. Sparrow
$102,000

94-IJ-CX-0010 
Impact Evaluation of the Opportunity 
To Succeed Program
Urban Institute
Shellie Rossman
$252,000

95-DD-BX-0134 
Impact Evaluation of the Weed 
and Seed Program
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$200,000 (initial grant) plus an additional
$245,000

96-MU-MU-0008
National Study of Delinquency 
Prevention in Schools 
Gottfredson Associates, Inc.
Gary D. Gottfredson
$188,000

96-IJ-CX-0006 
Police-Researcher Partnerships: Building the
Infrastructure for Effective Program Evaluation
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Joan C. Weiss
$100,000

96-MU-MU-0019
Preventing Crime: A Critical Assessment
University of Maryland, College Park
Lawrence W. Sherman
$199,000

96-IJ-CX-0050 
Technical Assistance for the Birmingham Breaking
the Cycle Program
Fund for the City of New York
Eric Lee
$160,000

96-IJ-CX-0009 
Using Traffic Barriers To Design 
Out Crime 
California State University, Fullerton Foundation
Stuart A. Ross
$19,000

Criminal Justice System

96-IJ-CX-0019 
Dispensing Justice Locally: An Analysis of the
Impacts, Costs, and Benefits of the Midtown
Community Court
Fund for the City of New York
Michele Sviridoff
$190,000

94-IJ-CX-A051
Drug Court Intervention Project of 
the D.C. Superior Court 
District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency
John A. Carver
$2,327,000

96-IJ-CX-0001
Drug Monitoring in Criminal Justice Management
Applications 
Orleans Parish District Attorney
Tom Mieczkowski
$151,000

96-IJ-CX-0058
Effects of Procedural Justice in Spouse Assault: 
A Reanalysis of the Milwaukee Domestic Violence
Experiment
University of Maryland, College Park
Raymond Paternoster
$23,000

96-IJ-CX-0037
Evaluation of the Client Management 
Classification System
Sam Houston State University
Billy C. Covington, and Jennifer D. Frisbee--
Graduate Research Fellows
$27,000


94-IJ-CX-K011
Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Court
Intervention Program
Urban Institute
Adele Harrell
$576,530

96-IJ-CX-0022
Evaluation of a Metropolitan Area DWI Night Court
New Mexico State University
L. Thomas Winfree, Jr.
$131,000

96-IJ-CX-0029 
Family Violence: Building a Coordinated Community
Response
American Medical Association
Larry S. Goldman
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0021 
Identifying Effective Correctional 
Programs for Female Felony Offenders
Michigan State University
Timothy S. Bynum
$233,000

96-IJ-CX-0014 
Impact of Criminal and Juvenile Justice System
Policies and Practices
University of Illinois, Chicago
David E. Olson--Graduate Research Fellow
$11,000

96-IJ-CX-0035
Impact of Managerial Style on the Colombian
Distribution of Cocaine to the Wholesale Level
City University of New York, Research Foundation
Joseph R. Fuentes--Graduate Research Fellow
$16,000

96-IJ-CX-0004 
Implications for Corrections of the Community
Movement in Criminal Justice
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Todd R. Clear--NIJ Fellow
$81,000

95-IJ-CX-0034
Improving Alien Adjudication and Pretrial 
Release Procedures
Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.
Christopher E. Stone
$293,000

96-IJ-CX-0097
Indian Country Justice Initiative Evaluation Plan
Arizona State University
Carol Lujan
$150,000

92-IJ-CX-0012 
John B. Pickett Fellowship in Criminal Justice
Policy and Management
President and Fellows of Harvard
Susan Michaelson
$91,000

95-IJ-CX-0012 
Linguistic Methods for Determining Document
Authorship
Carole Elisabeth Chaski--NIJ Visiting Fellow
$68,000

96-MU-CX-0005 
Medicolegal Death Investigator Guidelines and
Training Project
Occupational Research and Assessment, Inc.
Steven C. Clark
$150,000

93-IJ-CX-0045
Probationer Compliance With Conditions 
of Supervision
University of Maryland, College Park
Doris MacKenzie
$38,000

96-IJ-CX-0083
Process and Impact Evaluation of Services 
Provided to Victims of Crime by the Cook County
State Attorney's Office
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Candice Kane
$220,000


96-IJ-CX-0007
Public Support for Corrections Rehabilitation: 
A Factorial Survey Approach 
University of Cincinnati
Brandon K. Applegate--Graduate Research Fellow
$14,000

96-IJ-CX-0036
Race and Sentencing: Effects of Case Strength 
and Seriousness
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Cassia C. Spohn
$22,000

96-IJ-CX-0008 
Restoring Accountability in Pretrial Release 
in the 1990s: An Experiment in Managing Safe 
and Effective Release 
Crime and Justice Research Institute
John S. Goldkamp
$200,000

96-IJ-CX-K005
Task Force on Community Action on 
Crime and Justice
The George Washington University
Amitai Etzioni
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0002
Teen Court Planning Grant 
Time Dollar, Inc.
Edgar S. Cahn
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0024
Texas Prison-Based Treatment Assessment
Texas Christian University
D. Dwayne Simpson
$178,000

96-DD-BX-0036
Undocumented Aliens in Federal, State, and Local
Criminal Justice Systems
Urban Institute
Rebecca Clark
$100,000

96-IJ-CX-0011 
Violations of Release Conditions and the 
Prediction of Criminal Recidivism
University of Maryland, College Park
Claire Souryal
$9,000

Law Enforcement and  Corrections Technology 
Centers

NIJ's National Law Enforcement Technology 
Center and its regional centers offer 
centralized sources of 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
research and technology.

96-IJ-CX-K001
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center-Rockville, MD
Aspen Systems Corporation
David C. Shinton
$600,000

96-IJ-CX-A010
National Law Enforcement and 
Corrections Technology Center: Southeastern 
Region-Charleston, SC
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Electronic
Systems Engineering Center
Ronald L. Polkowsky
$1,500,000

96-IJ-CX-A036
Support for the Border Research and Corrections
Technology Center
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Command, 
Control and Ocean Surveillance Center
Michael J. Gill
$120,000

95-IJ-CX-K005
Border Research and Corrections Technology 
Center: Western Region-San Diego, CA
Aerospace Corporation
Robert M. Pentz
$921,000

Technology Research and Development

96-IJ-CX-0025 
Bomb Threat Training Simulator 
University of Houston, Office of Sponsored 
Programs
Christopher Chung
$64,000

95-IJ-CX-A027
Detection and Classification of Concealed 
Weapons Using Magnetic Gradient Measurements
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory
Jonathan Nadler
$35,000

95-IJ-CX-K004
Determination of the Comparative Ballistics of
Enhanced Threat Weapons
University of Denver, Colorado Seminary
Deborah Bradford
$49,000

93-IJ-CX-0061 
Effectiveness of Helicopters in Police Pursuit
University of South Carolina
Geoffrey P. Alpert
$34,000

96-IJ-CX-0018 
Evaluation of the Department of Transportation
Regulation of Auto Parts Marking
Abt Associates Inc.
William Rhodes
$100,000

95-IJ-CX-A017 
Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization at 
the National Technology Transfer Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
Jonathan Root
$2,800,000


95-IJ-CX-K001
Law Enforcement Technology, Technology 
Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Technology, and 
Policy Assessment
SEASKATE, Inc.
E.A. Burkhalter
$373,764

95-IJ-CX-K006
Law Enforcement Technology, Technology 
Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology, 
and Policy Liability Assessment
SEASKATE, Inc.
E.A. Burkhalter
$199,938

95-IJ-CX-0031
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Centers: Governance and Technology
Delivery Processes 
Pymatuning Group, Inc.
Ruth M. Davis
$523,000

96-IJ-CX-K006 
SkyTracker Surveillance System
National Systems and Research Company
Paul Scheffer
$185,000

Forensic Sciences

95-IJ-CX-0007 
Estimation of Population Structure Parameters
North Carolina State University
Bruce S. Weir
$26,000

95-IJ-CX-0008
Isolation and Characterization of
Population-Specific Alleles
University of Pittsburgh
Mark D. Shriver
$100,000

96-IJ-CX-0023 
Validation of PCR-Based DNA Typing 
Data Bases for Forensic Use 
University of Texas, Houston
Ranajit Chakraborty
$147,000

Information Dissemination and Technical Support

92-IJ-CX-K044
Annual Review of Justice Research 
Castine Research Corporation
Michael H. Tonry
$158,000

91-IJ-CX-A009
Computer Support for Data Analysis
University of Maryland, College Park
Ira Gold
$5,000
This grant provides mainframe computer 
services to NIJ's research staff. 

95-IJ-CX-A033
Criminal Justice Research Training Program
University of Maryland, College Park
Charles Wellford
$15,000

95-IJ-CX-C005
Data Resources Program
University of Michigan
Paul J. Stemple
$312,000

95-IJ-CX-0033 
Developing an Internet Model for Cross-National
Information Sharing and Dissemination Center
Sergey S. Chapkey--NIJ Visiting Fellow
$150,000

96-IJ-CX-0003
Developing Publications and Communications
Strategies for the Policing Research Institutes
CF Productions, Inc.
Thomas V. Brady
$24,000

94-IJ-CX-C005
Development and Production of Annual Reports 
and Other Materials
Cygnus Corporation
Todd Phillips
$109,000

96-IJ-CX-A004 
DNA Data Banks and Repositories Conference in
Birmingham, Alabama
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Armed
Forces Medical Examiner
Victor W. Weedn
$2,500

94-MU-CX-C006 
National Criminal Justice Reference 
Service (NCJRS)
Aspen Systems Corporation
Richard Rosenthal
$8,139,000

96-IJ-CX-A049
Partnerships Against Violence Network (PAVNET)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
National Agricultural Library
John Gladstone
$30,000

94-MU-CX-C008
Professional Conference Series 
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
Edward F. Connors
$650,000

96-IJ-CX-K003 
Research in Action Partnership
Search Group, Inc.
Gary R. Cooper
$113,000

96-IJ-CX-K002
Research in Action Partnership: 
Disseminating Family Violence Research
American Bar Association
Susan Hillenbrand
$111,000

96-IJ-CX-K004
Research in Action Partnership: Sentencing 
Policy and Practice
National Center for State Courts
Victor E. Flango
$112,000

94-MU-CX-C007 
Research Applications Contract
Abt Associates Inc.
Joan Mullen
$545,000

96-IJ-CX-C004 
Technical Assistance and Support
CSR, Inc.
Edward J. Spurlock
$585,000

96-IJ-CX-C003 
Technical Assistance Support Services
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Joan C. Weiss
$296,000

96-IJ-CX-A013 
Technical Support to the Science and 
Technology Program
U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National
Laboratories
James R. Anderson
$152,000

96-IJ-CX-A040
Technical Support for UNOJUST 
(United Nations Online Crime and Justice
Clearinghouse)
U.S. Department of Justice
Sheila B. Gear
$20,000

Awards Under the Crime Act

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) makes programs of
assistance available to States and local
jurisdictions. The Act supports the development 
of community policing, interagency responses to
domestic violence, drug courts, and incarceration
of violent offenders.

The National Institute of Justice sponsors studies
that evaluate the effectiveness of these innovative
programs, and conducts related research. The
programs are administered within the Department of
Justice by the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, the Corrections Program Office,
the Violence Against Women Grants Office, and the
Drug Courts Program Office. Each of them allocated
funds to support NIJ research in their respective
areas: community policing, sentencing and
corrections (including boot camps), violence
against women, and drug courts.[1] 

Listed here are the specific research projects
sponsored by NIJ in 1996 in these program 
areas and in other, related areas of the 
Crime Act.[2]

Community Policing

95-IJ-CX-0069
National Evaluation of the Youth Firearm 
Violence Initiative
Abt Associates Inc.
Terence Dunworth
$300,000

96-IJ-CX-0067
Orienting Overview on Broken Windows, 
Disorder, and Decline
Temple University
Ralph B. Taylor--NIJ Fellow
$168,000

96-IJ-CX-0082
Police Response to Emotionally Disturbed 
Persons: Analyzing New Models of Police 
Interactions With the Mental Health System
Policy Research Associates
Henry J. Steadman
$211,000

96-IJ-CX-0074
Reducing Disorder, Fear, and Crime in Public 
Housing: An Evaluation of an Advanced Stage 
Drug Crime Elimination Program
Washington State University
Quint Thurman
$172,000

95-IJ-CX-0073
Supplemental Activities for the Process 
Evaluation of Title I of the 1994 Crime Act
Urban Institute
Jeffrey Roth
$360,000

Changing Roles of Police

96-IJ-CX-0045
Community Policing Strategies: First National
Survey Update
Macro International, Inc.
Billy Jones
$286,000

96-IJ-CX-0081
Investigative Function in the Community Policing
Context
Police Executive Research Forum
Mary Ann Wycoff
$406,000

Evaluation and Problemsolving

94-IJ-CX-0046
Evaluation of Chicago's Citywide Community 
Policing Program
Northwestern University
Wesley G. Skogan
$996,000

96-IJ-CX-0046
Evaluation of the Effects of Fatigue on Police
Patrol Officers and Their Relations With the
Community
Police Executive Research Forum
Dennis Jay Kenney
$285,000

94-IJ-CX-0056
Firearms and Violence: Juveniles, Illicit 
Markets, and Fear
Presidents and Fellows of Harvard
Susan Michaelson
$190,000

96-IJ-CX-0060
Impact of Community Policing Training and
Implementation on Police Personnel
Arizona State University
Robin Haarr
$94,000

Locally Initiated Research Partnerships

96-IJ-CX-0085
Ada County, Idaho, Sheriff's Office 
and Boise State University
Boise State University
John Crank
$91,000

96-IJ-CX-0087
Alachua, Florida, County Sheriff's Office 
Research Partnership With the University 
of Florida
Alachua County Sheriff's Office
Louise Grimm
$36,000

95-IJ-CX-0084
Assessing Community Police Performance in
Philadelphia
Temple University
Jack R. Greene
$184,000

96-IJ-CX-0068
Creating a Culture of Community Policing: 
An Albuquerque Police Department-University of 
New Mexico Research Partnership
University of New Mexico
Lydia Salas
$151,000

95-IJ-CX-0083
Cross-Site Research on Locally Initiated 
Collaborations
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
J. Thomas McEwen
$296,000

95-IJ-CX-0047
Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for 
Locally Initiated Police Research in Small- 
and Medium-Size Cities
LINC
Marcia R. Chaiken
$199,000

96-IJ-CX-0098
Domestic Violence Intervention Project
East Bay Community Foundation, Berkeley, 
California
Maria Theresa Viramontes
$100,000

96-IJ-CX-0088
Establishing a Research Partnership:
Forest Park, Ohio, Police Division and 
the University of Cincinnati
University of Cincinnati
Lawrence Travis
$46,000

96-IJ-CX-0072
Fast Track Program Study: Tracking Nonviolent
Juvenile Criminal Offenders
Bay City, Michigan, Police Department
Penny Phelps
$33,000

95-IJ-CX-0085
Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research
Coalition
Florida State University
Anthony Pate
$137,000

95-IJ-CX-0093
Forming a Research Partnership: 
Lansing Police Department and 
Michigan State University
City of Lansing
Timothy S. Bynum
$118,000

96-IJ-CX-0063
Impact of Charleston, West Virginia, Community
Oriented Policing
Marshall University Research Corporation
Girmay Berhie
$111,000

96-IJ-CX-0092
Indianapolis Management Accountability 
Program: A Collaboration Between the 
Indianapolis Police Department and Indiana
University
Indiana University, Bloomington
Alexander Weiss
$202,000


95-IJ-CX-0088
Locally Initiated Research on 
Community Policing
Jefferson County, West Virginia, Coalition on
Substance Abuse (FOCUS)
Diane C. McCoy
$61,000

95-IJ-CX-0076
Locally Initiated Research: Developing 
and Expanding Problemsolving Partnerships 
in Jersey City--Center for Crime Prevention 
Studies at Rutgers University
Jersey City Police Department
Frank Gajewski
$129,000

96-IJ-CX-0070
Locally Initiated Research Partnership: 
Framingham, Massachusetts, Police Department 
and Social Science

Research and Evaluation, Inc.
Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc.
Robert Apsler
$98,000

96-IJ-CX-0093
Meeting the Needs of Racine Citizens: Evaluation 
of a Community Policing Program
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Helen Rosenberg
$82,000

96-IJ-CX-0080
Partnership Against Crime: University of Maryland
and Prince George's County Police Department
University of Maryland, College Park
Lawrence W. Sherman
$78,000

96-IJ-CX-0044
Police-Academic Partnership for 
Evaluation and Research
University of Virginia
Janet Warren
$129,000

96-IJ-CX-0086
Restructuring the Role of Police Sergeants 
by Identifying the Character Traits Associated 
With Success
City of Baltimore
Joseph R. Bolesta
$195,000

95-IJ-CX-0097
Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence II: 
Testing of Lethality Scale to Predict 
Recidivism and Escalating Violence 
(grant continuation)
City of Seattle
Dan Fleissner
$120,000

Measuring the Impact of Police

96-IJ-CX-0047
Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Clearance 
of Homicides
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Joan C. Weiss
$270,000

96-IJ-CX-0042
Reducing Repeat Victimization of Residential
Burglary
Police Executive Research Forum
John Stedman
$443,000

Police and the Community

96-IJ-CX-0064
Assessing a Model of Police Community 
Collaboration
Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.
Douglas Young
$74,000

96-IJ-CX-0073
Awareness and Perceptions of Community 
Policing in Immigrant Communities
Victim Services, Inc.
Rob Davis
$244,000

96-IJ-CX-0069
Community Component of Community 
Policing in Los Angeles
University of Southern California
Cheryl Maxson
$371,000

96-IJ-CX-0071
Determinants of Citizen and 
Police Involvement in Community 
Policing
City of Boston
Luis Garcia
$172,000

96-IJ-CX-0078
Identifying Strategies To Market the 
Police in the News
Indiana University, Bloomington
Steven Chermak and Alex Weiss
$133,000

95-IJ-CX-0064
Police and the Community: National League of 
Cities Search for Excellence in Community 
Policing
National League of Cities Institute
William B. Whiteside
$249,000

96-IJ-CX-0075
Street-Level Policing in Cincinnati: 
The Content of Community and 
Traditional Policing and the Perceptions 
of Policing Audiences
University of Cincinnati
James Frank
$235,000

Police Integrity

96-IJ-CX-A056
Development of Guidelines for Using 
Psychological Test Results To Help 
Combat Corruption in Law Enforcement Organizations
Defense Personnel Security Research Center
Howard Timm
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0053
Identifying Correlates of Police Deviance: An
Empirical Study of Police Corruption and 
Brutality in New York (1975-1996)
Temple University
Jack R. Greene
$413,000

96-IJ-CX-0077
Perceptions of Police Accountability in 
Citizen Complaints
Sam Houston State University
Kenneth Adams
$300,000

Law Enforcement Family Support Program

96-FS-VX-0001
Law Enforcement Family Support
Police Research Education Project
Robert Scully
$146,000

96-FS-VX-0005
Law Enforcement Family Support 
Demonstration Project
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1
Kevin McCarthy
$180,000

96-FS-VX-0006
Law Enforcement Family Support Program
Iowa State University
Eugene Deisinger
$170,000

96-FS-VX-0008
Law Enforcement Family Support Program
Vermont Department of Public Safety
Michael Sorenson
$30,000

96-FS-VX-0002
Law Enforcement Family Support: Training Program
for Reduction of Stress Among Law Enforcement
Officers and Their Families
New York Division of Criminal Justice Services
Stephen M. Bernardi
$25,000

96-FS-VX-0004
Police Chaplaincy: An Innovative 
Law Enforcement Stress Reduction 
Delivery System
Arkansas State Police
Jim Tudor
$59,000

96-IJ-CX-0056
Stress Reduction Among Law Enforcement: 
Officers and Families Exploratory Study
City of Buffalo
R. Gil Kerlikowski
$97,000

96-FS-VX-0007
Stress Reduction Program for New York City 
Police Officers
New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association
Membership Assistance Program
William Genet
$130,000

96-FS-VX-0003
Stress Training for Officers and Partners
Miami Police Department
Gerald Darling
$47,000

Sentencing and Corrections

96-CE-VX-0012
Collaborative Development of Individual 
Discharge Planning for Incarcerated Women
University of Rhode Island
Kathryn Quina
$140,000

96-CE-VX-K001
Crime and Justice Thematic Volume 
on Prisons
Castine Research Corporation
Michael Tonry
$197,000

96-CE-VX-0008
Effect of Correctional Resources on the 
Sentencing of Male and Female Defendants 
in Minnesota
Florida International University
Lisa Stolzenberg
$37,000

96-CE-VX-0005
Evaluation of the Development and 
Implementation of Virginia's Sentencing Law
National Center for State Courts
Brian Ostrom
$114,000

96-CE-VX-0010
Evaluation of Florida's Residential 
Drug Treatment and Prison Diversion Program
Richard L. Linster
$112,000

96-CE-VX-0013
Evaluation of North Carolina's 
Structured Sentencing Law
Research Triangle Institute
James Collins
$235,000

96-CE-VX-0007
Forging a Florida Correctional 
Research Coalition
Florida State University
Gordon Waldo
$174,000

96-CE-VX-0017
HIDTA Seamless System for Drug-Involved 
Offenders: A Randomized Multicenter Evaluation
University of Maryland, College Park
Faye S. Taxman
$200,000

96-CE-VX-0011
Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing 
Reform in Massachusetts
Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice
Francis J. Carney
$50,000

96-CE-VX-0001
Local Impact of Violent Offender 
and Truth-in-Sentencing Legislation: 
How Probation and Community 
Corrections Respond
RAND Corporation
Peter Greenwood
$199,000

96-CE-VX-0018
Managing Felons in Los Angeles 
County
RAND Corporation
Joan Petersilia
$188,000

96-CE-VX-0016
Multisite Evaluation of Second Generation 
Sentencing Commissions
Abt Associates Inc.
William Rhodes
$300,000

96-CE-VX-0004
Offender Outcomes Under North Carolina 
Criminal Justice Partnership Act
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Amy Craddock
$225,000

96-CE-VX-0009
Study of Legislation and Impact of 
Two-Strikes Legislation
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
James F. Austin
$97,000

96-CE-VX-0015
The Unintended Impacts of Sentencing Reforms 
and Incarceration on Family Structure
University of Minnesota
Samuel Myers
$150,000

96-CE-VX-0006
Violent Offender Incarceration and 
Truth-in-Sentencing: National Evaluation 
of Implementation Experiences and 
Impact on Corrections
RAND Corporation
Susan Turner
$600,000

96-CE-VX-0003
The Wisconsin Idea: Evaluation 
Partnership on Sentencing and 
Corrections
Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Michael E. Smith
$102,000

Boot Camps

96-SC-VX-0005
Boot Camps and Their Impact on Confinement
Populations
Abt Associates Inc.
Dale G. Parent
$275,000

96-SC-LX-0001
Correctional Boot Camps for Juveniles: 
A Proposal for a Multisite Study
University of Maryland, College Park
Doris MacKenzie
$398,000

96-SC-VX-0003
Evaluation of Los Angeles County Juvenile Drug
Treatment Boot Camp
California State University, San Marcos
Sheldon Zhang
$179,000

96-SC-VX-0004
Evaluation of OJP FY 1995 Boot Camp 
Planning Grants
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Sandra Tunis
$73,000

96-SC-LX-0002
National Multisite Impact Evaluation of 
Private and Public Boot Camp Programs
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
James F. Austin
$268,000

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

97-RT-VX-K004
Client Motivation in Therapeutic Community
Treatment for Offenders
University of Delaware
Steven S. Martin
$62,500

97-RT-VX-K007
Evaluation of Florida Residential Substance 
Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Program
Florida State University
C. Aaron Neece
$50,000

97-RT-VX-K003
Evaluation of the Forever Free 
Substance Abuse Program
University of California--Los Angeles
Michael Prendergast
$39,000

97-RT-VX-K008
Evaluation of the Maxey Substance 
Abuse Treatment Program
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
William C. Birdsall
$49,000

97-RT-VX-K002
Evaluation of Residential Substance 
Abuse Treatment for State Prison Inmates
University of New Mexico--Albuquerque
Gary LaFree
$50,000

97-RT-VX-K001
Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse 
Treatment for State Prisoners Program
University of Wisconsin--Madison
D. Paul Moberg
$49,000

97-RT-VX-K006
National Evaluation of Residential Substance 
Abuse Treatment Programs 
National Development and Research Institutes, 
Inc.
Douglas Lipton
$500,000

97-RT-VX-K005
The Therapeutic Milieu in Treatment of Offenders: 
A Process and Outcome Evaluation in Maryland
University of Maryland
Faye Taxman
$50,000

Violence Against Women

96-WT-NX-0005
Alcohol Problems and Violence 
Against Women
University of Northern Iowa
William R. Downs
$92,000

96-WT-NX-0002
Data Collection and Communication: 
An Implementation Guide
National Center for State Courts
Susan Keilitz
$145,000

96-IJ-CX-0057
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 
Data Systems in States
Justice Research and Statistics Association
Stan Orchowsky
$138,000

96-WT-NX-0008
Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for 
Domestic Violence Offenders: A Broward 
County Experiment Florida Atlantic University
Lynette Feder
$135,000

95-WT-NX-0004
Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response 
to Domestic Violence (Supplement)
Applied Research Associates
Stan Orchowsky
$13,000 (original grant was $114,412)

96-WT-NX-0004
Factors Related to Domestic Violence 
Court Disposition in a Large Urban Area: 
The Role of Victim-Witness Reluctance
University of Cincinnati
Joanne Belknap
$119,000

96-WT-NX-0006
Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for
Reducing Violence Against Women Among Indian 
Tribes 
University of Arizona
Eileen M. Luna
$145,000

96-WT-NX-0007
Impact Evaluation of STOP Grants Law 
Enforcement and Prosecution
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.
J. Thomas McEwen
$325,000

96-WT-NX-0003
Impact Evaluation of Victim Services Programs: 
STOP Grants Funded by the Violence Against 
Women Act
American Bar Association
Barbara Smith
$200,000

95-WT-NX-0005
National Evaluation of the Violence 
Against Women Act Grants (supplement)
Urban Institute
Martha Burt
$350,000

Science and Technology Awards Under the 
Crime Act

The National Institute of Justice has pioneered
many of the advances in science and technology 
that help deter, identify, and apprehend 
offenders, and that ensure access by criminal 
justiceprofessionals to the tools and equipment 
they need to perform their jobs more efficiently. 
The Crime Act has served as a major catalyst for 
additional NIJ science and technology  
developments, especially in the area of 
community policing. 

In partnership with the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services of the Department of
Justice, NIJ has supported the development of 
"COPS technologies" with Crime Act funding that 
will aid police departments and officers in 
adopting the principles and strategies of 
community policing. DNA testing, which is 
proving its effectiveness in the adjudication 
process and which has long been a focus of NIJ 
research, is receiving added support from the 
Crime Act, with NIJ funding for improvements in 
State and local forensics laboratories. And as 
amended in 1996, the Crime Act contains 
provisions to identify, develop, and purchase 
technologies for use by State and local
law enforcement, and vests NIJ with the 
authority to provide this assistance. Each of 
the technology development and related
projects sponsored by NIJ under the Crime Act 
in 1996 in these areas is listed here. 

General Technology Support

96-LB-VX-K008
Facilitation of Domestic and International
Technology Partnerships in Counter Terrorism
Efforts
Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc.
Robert Greenberg
$298,000

96-MU-MU-0018
Field Evaluation of the System for the Effective
Control of Urban Environment Security (SECURES)
University of Cincinnati
Loraine Green Mazerolle
$150,000 (plus $50,000 NIJ base funds)

96-LB-VX-K002
NIJ Surplus Property Program
Ultimate Enterprise Limited
Michael Simpson
$150,000

96-LB-VX-A043
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Forensic 
Sciences Program
U.S. Department of Energy
Susan Heiser
$250,000

96-LB-VX-K007
Regional Gang Information System: 
Phase I
Police Executive Research Forum
Clifford Karchmer
$425,000

96-LB-VX-A038
Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance 
for the National Institute of Justice Office 
of Science and Technology
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense 
Support Office
Carl F. Kiele
$850,000

94-IJ-CX-A004
Technology Assessment Program
U.S. Department of Commerce, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology
Kathleen Higgins 
$1,500,000 (plus $1,100,000 NIJ base funds)

96-LB-VX-K004
Working With Technology in Corrections
American Correctional Association
John J. Greene
$100,000

Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology

96-MU-MU-K016
Law Enforcement Technology, Technology 
Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Technology, 
and Policy Assessment
SEASKATE, Inc.
E.A. Burkhalter
$154,000 (plus $79,000 NIJ base funds)

96-LB-VX-K006
Law Enforcement Technology, Technology 
Transfer, Less-Than-Lethal Weapons 
Technology, and Policy Liability Assessment
SEASKATE, Inc.
E.A. Burkhalter
$198,000

Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
Centers

96-MU-MU-K011
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center--Rockville, Maryland
Aspen Systems Corporation
Richard Rosenthal
$1,600,000

96-IJ-CX-A032 
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center: Northeastern Region--Rome, 
New York
U.S. Air Force, Rome Laboratory
John A. Ritz
$250,000

96-LB-VX-K005
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center: Southeastern 
Region--Charleston, South Carolina
South Carolina Research Authority
Gary Mastrandrea
$1,562,000

96-MU-MU-K012
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center: Western Region--Denver, 
Colorado 
University of Denver, Colorado Seminary
Deborah G. Bradford
$550,000

96-MU-MU-K006
National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
Technology Center: Western Region--
San Diego, California
Aerospace Corporation
Robert M. Pentz
$117,000

Community-Oriented Policing Technology*

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

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

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

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

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

Crime Analysis Extension Application
Environmental Systems Research Institute
John Perry
$522,382

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

Development of a Neighborhood 
Problem-Solving System
Abt Associates Inc.
Marianne Beauregard
$100,343

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

97-IJ-CX-K012
Internet Community Oriented Policing Tools Project
City of Davis, California, Police Department
Christian Sandvig
$167,675

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

97-IJ-CX-K003
Metropolitan Nashville Police Department's 
Palm Top Project
Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee, Police 
Department 
Lieutenant Ken Peace
$128,875

Portable Concealed Weapon Detector
Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff's Office
Yu-Wen Chang
$496,624

96-LB-VX-K008
Portable Voice-Command Translation System
Integrated Wave Technologies, Inc.
A. Robert Sabo
$493,000

96-IJ-CX-K007
Pursuit Management Task Force
Aerospace Corporation
Donald Peterson
$236,000

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

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

96-IJ-CX-A047
Vehicle Stopper Technology Evaluation Program
U.S. Department of the Army
Edward P. Scannell
$250,000

DNA Identification

96-DN-VX-0001
Development of Criteria for Model External 
DNA Proficiency
University of Illinois, Chicago
Joseph L. Peterson
$250,000

96-MU-VX-0020
Expansion of DNA Analysis Capabilities: 
Illinois State Police Forensic Sciences Command
Illinois State Police, Springfield
Susan Hart Johns
$450,000

96-DN-VX-0002
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
Maryland
Maryland Department of Public Safety
Louis C. Portis
$300,000

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program

The awards below represent part of an ongoing NIJ
effort to enhance the DNA analysis capabilities of
crime laboratories across the country. The projects
were selected under a competitive solicitation and
peer reviewed by experts in DNA testing and
laboratory operation. They include installing and
upgrading lab equipment, development of simpler and
faster methods of DNA typing, links to DNA
databases, and training in DNA analysis. Under the
second phase of the solicitation, additional awards
will be made in fiscal year 1997, bringing the 
total funding for the effort to $11.4 million.

96-IJ-CX-0043
Development of a PCR Laboratory: Minnesota
Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Terry Laber
$249,000

96-IJ-CX-0028 
Development of a Rapid, Immobilized Probe Assay 
for the Detection of mtDNA Variation
Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute
Kathleen H. Gonzalez
$193,000

96-IJ-CX-0038
DNA Forensic Laboratory Enhancements: Maryland
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Jane C. Cooke
$50,000

96-IJ-CX-0090
DNA Identification Project: Montana
Montana Department of Justice
Bill Unger
$150,000

96-IJ-CX-0051
DNA Offender Data Base Program: 
South Carolina 
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
Matthew G. Fitts
$210,000

96-IJ-CX-0052
DNA STR Evaluation Project: Indiana
Marion County, Indiana, Prosecutor
James E. Hamby
$151,000

96-IJ-CX-0059
Enhancement of Capability To 
Analyze DNA: Virginia
Virginia Department of General Services, 
Division of Forensic Science
Deanne Dabbs
$375,000

96-IJ-CX-0048
Enhancement of DNA Testing 
Capabilities: Alaska 
Alaska Department of Public Safety, 
Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory
George M. Taft
$129,000

96-IJ-CX-0032
Enhancement of DNA Testing
Capabilities: Arizona
City of Tucson
Walter Tannert
$75,000

96-IJ-CX-0079
Enhancement of DNA Typing: Georgia
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
George Harrin
$292,000

96-IJ-CX-0041
Enhancement of Serological Analysis to DNA
Technologies: Kentucky
Kentucky State Police
Lonnie Moert
$119,000

96-IJ-CX-0089
Enhancement of STR Capabilities in the New 
Jersey Forensic DNA Laboratory 
New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, 
Department of Law and Public Safety
Margaret Tarver
$126,000

96-IJ-CX-0055
Enhancement of STR Capabilities in 
the West Virginia State Police Crime 
Laboratory
West Virginia Division of Public Safety
Ted Smith
$153,000

96-IJ-CX-0066
Enhancement of the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation Forensic DNA Capabilities
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Forensic
Services Division
William Darby
$200,000

96-IJ-CX-0040
Expansion of DNA Laboratory Program: Missouri
Missouri State Highway Patrol
Lori Maloney
$375,000

96-IJ-CX-0062
Expansion of DNA Services: North Carolina
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
Mark Nelson
$206,000

96-IJ-CX-0049
Expansion of the Felon DNA Data Bank Program:
Alabama
Alabama Department of Economic and Community
Affairs
John Hicks
$375,000

96-IJ-CX-0094
Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Arizona
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Susan Narveson
$330,000

96-IJ-CX-0084
Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Texas
Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics
Service
J.R. Urbanovsky
$400,000

96-IJ-CX-0095
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
Florida
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Dale Heideman
$450,000

96-IJ-CX-0061
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: 
Kansas
Sedgwick County and Wichita Police Department
Consortium
Carrie May
$324,000

96-IJ-CX-0039
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: New
Mexico
City of Albuquerque
Ann Talbot
$290,000

96-IJ-CX-0034
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State Police
Christine Tomsey
$375,000

96-IJ-CX-0054
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
Pittsburgh
Allegheny County Department of Laboratories
Charles Winek
$151,000

96-IJ-CX-0033
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: 
South Dakota
South Dakota Office of the Attorney General
Rex Riis
$60,000

96-IJ-CX-0076
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
Vermont
Vermont Department of Public Safety
Eric Buel
$74,000

96-IJ-CX-0096
Implementation of a PCR Program for 
the Scottsdale Police Crime Lab
City of Scottsdale
Allen Garrett
$85,000

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

Appendix B: NIJ Publications in Fiscal 
Year 1996

The publications listed in this appendix were
published by NIJ during fiscal year 1996 (October
1, 1995, to September 30, 1996). 

Most NIJ materials are free. NIJ offers several
ways to obtain copies:

o Call the National Criminal Justice Reference
  Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420. (Outside 
  the United States, call 301-519-5500.)

o Download documents from the World Wide Web
  site at http://www.ncjrs.org

o Order Research Previews via fax-on-demand by
  calling 1-800-851-3420. 

o For many science and technology publications,
  call the national headquarters of the National 
  Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
  Center at 1-800-248-2742 or download documents 
  from the World Wide Web site at 
  http://www.nlectc.org

NIJ publishes several different types of 
publications:

o Research in Action: Overviews of specific 
  research topics and demonstration
  programs.

o Research in Brief: Summaries of recent NIJ
  research and evaluation findings.

o Research Reports: Comprehensive reports on
  NIJ-sponsored research and development projects.

o Research in Progress Videotapes: 60-minute
  lecture and 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 
  (previously called Updates).

o Issues and Practices: Reports presenting 
  program options and issues for criminal
  justice managers and administrators.

o Program Focus: Highlights of specific State 
  and local criminal justice programs.

Community Policing

Community Policing in Chicago: Year Two, Skogan,
W.G., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000105. 

Community Policing Strategies, Mastrofski, S.D.,
Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000126.

Implementation Challenges in Community Policing:
Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in 
Eight Cities, Sadd, S., Grinc, R.M, Research in 
Brief, 20 pages, NCJ 157932. 

Law Enforcement in a Time of Community Policing,
Mastrofski, S.D., et al., Research Preview, 2
pages, FS 000149.

Corrections

Coordinating Criminal and Juvenile Court
Proceedings in Child Maltreatment Cases, Whitcomb,
D., Hardin, M., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS
000157.

In New York City, a "Community Court" and a New
Legal Culture, Anderson, D.C., Program Focus, 12
pages, NCJ 158613.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:
Mandatory Sentencing, Parent, D., Dunworth, T.,
McDonald, D., Rhodes, W., Research in Action, 
6 pages, NCJ 161839.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: The
Impact of Sentencing Guidelines, Parent, D.,
Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., Rhodes, W., Research 
in Action, 6 pages, NCJ 161837.

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:
Transferring Serious Juvenile Offenders to Adult
Courts, Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D.,
Rhodes, W., Research in Action, 6 pages, NCJ
161839.

State Laws on Prosecutors' and Judges' Use of
Juvenile Records, Miller, N., Research in Brief, 
20 pages, NCJ 155506.

Courts

Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview 
of Germany's Sentencing Practices, Pfeiffer, C.,
Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000137.

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An
Implementation Evaluation of Three Demonstration
Programs, Bourque, B.B., Cronin, R.C., Pearson,
F.R., Felker, D.B., Han, M., Hill, S.M., Research
Report, 116 pages, NCJ 157316.

Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate
Sanction, MacKenzie, D.L., Hebert, E., eds.,
Research Report, 308 pages, 
NCJ 157639.

A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug
Abuse Treatment, Inciardi, J.A., Research Preview,
4 pages, FS 000145.

Evaluation of Drug Treatment in Local Corrections, 
Tunis, S., Austin, J., Morris, M., Hardyman, P., 
Bolyard, M., Research Report, 162 pages, 
NCJ 159313.

HIV/AIDS and STDs in Juvenile Facilities, Widom,
R., Hammett, T.M., Research in Brief, 12 pages, 
NCJ 155509.

Implementing Performance-Based Measures in
Community Corrections, Boone, H.N., Fulton, B.A.,
Research in Brief, 
8 pages, NCJ 158836.

An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for 
52 Boot Camp Programs, Bourque, B.B., 
Han, M., Hill, S.M., Research Report, 
142 pages, NCJ 157104. 

Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and Their 
Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, 
Moses, M.C., Program Focus, 12 pages, NCJ 156217. 

Managing Adult Sex Offenders in the Community--A
Containment Approach, English, K., Research in
Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 163387.

A National Survey of Aftercare Provisions for 
Boot Camp Graduates, Bourque, B.B., Han, M., 
Hill, S.M., Research in Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 
157664.

Project Re-Enterprise: A Texas Program, Moses,
M.C., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 161448.

Resolution of Prison Riots, Useem, B., Camp, 
C.G., Dugan, R., Research in Brief, 20 pages, 
NCJ 155283. 

Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities 1994-95,
Wilcock, K., Hammett, T.M., Widom, R., Epstein, 
J., Research in Brief, 12 pages, NCJ 157809.

Work in American Prisons: Joint Ventures with 
the Private Sector, Sexton, G.E., Program Focus, 
16 pages, NCJ 156215.

Work Release: Recidivism and Corrections Costs 
in Washington State, Turner, S., Petersilia, J.,
Research In Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 163706.

1994 Update: HIV/AIDS and STDs in Correctional
Facilities, Hammett, T.M., Widom, R., Epstein, 
J., Gross, M., Sifre, S., Enos, T., Issues and 
Practices, 88 pages, NCJ 156832. 

Crime Prevention

Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based
Community Centers, McGillis, D., Program Focus, 
16 pages, NCJ 157667.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and
Community Policing, Fleissner, D., Heinzelmann, F.,
Research in Action, 4 pages, NCJ 157308.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in
Parking Facilities, Smith, M.S., Research in Brief,
12 pages, NCJ 157310. 

Evaluation of Boys and Girls Clubs in Public
Housing, Pope, C.E., Bynum, T.S., Greene, J.R.,
Feyerherm, W.H., Research Preview, 2 pages, FS
000100.

The Expanding Role of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design in Premises Liability, Gordon,
C.L., Brill, W., Research in Brief, 8 pages, NCJ
157309.

Helping to Prevent Child Abuse and Future Criminal
Consequences: Hawaii Healthy Start, Earle, R.B.,
Program Focus, 12 pages, NCJ 156216. 

Intervening with High-Risk Youth: Preliminary
Findings from the Children-at-Risk Program,
Harrell, A., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000140.

The New Immigrant Hispanic Population: An
Integrated Approach to Preventing Delinquency and
Crime, Rodriguez, O., Research Preview, 4 pages, 
FS 000144.

Physical Environment and Crime, 
Taylor, R.B., Harrell, A.V., Research Report, 
32 pages, NCJ 157311.

Criminal Justice System

Civil Rights and Criminal Justice: Primer on 
Sexual Harassment, Rubin, P.N., Research in 
Action, 6 pages, NCJ 156663.

National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and
Seed, Roehl, J.A., Huitt, R., Wycoff, M.A., Coyle,
K., Research in Brief, 15 pages, NCJ 161624.

Criminology and Research

Adult Patterns of Criminal Behavior, 
Horney, J., Osgood, D.W., Marshall, I.H., 
Research Preview, 2 pages, FS 000146.

Delinquency in China: Study of a Birth Cohort,
Wolfgang, M., Research Preview, 4 pages, 
FS 000143.

Estimating the National Scope of Gang Crime From
Law Enforcement Data, Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A.,
Decker, S.H., Research in Brief, 6 pages, 
NCJ 161477.

Measuring What Matters: Part One-- Measures of
Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Brady, T.V., Research 
in Action, 16 pages, NCJ 162205.

Drug Testing

Hair Analysis as a Drug Detector, Mieckowski, 
T., Research in Brief, 4 pages, NCJ 156434.

Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: 
Findings From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) 
Program, Feucht, T.E., Kyle, G.M., Research in 
Brief, 8 pages, NCJ 161842.

Drugs and Crime

Case Management with Drug-Involved Arrestees,
Rhodes, W., Gross, M., Research Preview, 2 pages,
FS 000980.

COMmunity Backed Anti-drug Tax: COMBAT in Jackson
County, Missouri, Mills, G., Program Focus, 16
pages, NCJ 160937.

The Effectiveness of Treatment for 
Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision,
Lipton, D.S., Research Report, 64 pages, NCJ
157642.

Policing Drug Hot Spots, Weisburd, D., Green, L.,
Gajewski, F., Belluci, C., Research Preview, 2
pages, FS 000128. 

Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of
Arrestees: Evidence From Six Sites, Rhodes, W.,
Hyatt, R., Scheiman, P., Research in Brief, 6
pages, NCJ 157108.

Law Enforcement

Managing Innovation in Policing: 
The Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager,
Geller, W.A., Swanger, G., Research Preview, 2
pages, FS 000130.

Police Integrity: Public Service 
With Honor, National Institute of Justice and
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
96 pages, NCJ 163811. 

Understanding Use of Force By and Against the
Police, Garner, J., Buchanan, J., Schade, T.,
Hepburn, J., Research in Brief, 
12 pages, NCJ 158614.

Technology*

Autobid 2.0--The Microcomputer System for Police
Patrol Vehicle Selection, Eberhardt, S., 6 pages,
software program and instructional manual, NISTIR
5787.

The Chicago Police Department's Information
Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM) Program,
Rich, T.F., Program Focus, 16 pages, NCJ 160764.

A Comparison of the Use of Three Different 
Mounting Fixtures for Ballistic Tests of Body 
Armor, Eliason, L.K., Daniel, F.E., 24 pages, 
NIJ Report 100-91.

Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case
Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish
Innocence After Trial, Connors, E., Lundregan, T.,
Miller, N., McEwen, T., Research Report, 88 pages,
NCJ 161258.

Directory of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
Associations and Research Centers, NIST Special
Publication 480-20, 57 pages.

Hands-Off Frisking: High Tech Concealed Weapons
Detection, NLECTC Technology Beat, 5 pages.

High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the
Corner, Bulletin, 5 pages.

Improved Postmortem Detection of Carbon Monoxide
and Cyanide, Logan, B.K., Research Preview, 2
pages, FS 000142.

Justice on the Net: The National Institute of
Justice Promotes Internet Services, Lively, G.M.,
Reardon, J.A., Research in Action, 8 pages, 
NCJ 158838.

JUSTNET Brochure, 1996.

Metallic Handcuffs: Consumer Product List--5th
Edition, Consumer Product List, 2 pages.

Michigan State Police Tests 1997 
Patrol Vehicles, Bulletin, 4 pages.

Scoping Out Night Vision, Bulletin, 
8 pages.

Smokeless Powder Residue Analysis 
by Capillary Electrophoresis, Northrop, D.M.,
MacCrechan, W.A., 16 pages, NIJ Report 600-91. 

Specification for Interoperability Between
Ballistic Imaging Systems: 
Part 1--Cartridge Cases, McCabe, M.R., Field, 
B.F., Kelley, E.F., 42 pages, NISTIR 585.

Technology Solutions for Public 
Safety, Conference Report, 84 pages, 
NCJ 162532.

Victims

Childhood Victimization and Risk 
for Alcohol and Drug Arrests, Ireland, T., 
Widom, C.S., Research Preview, 2 pages, 
FS 000108.

The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: 
A New Look, Research Preview, 2 pages, 
FS 000131.

Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness
Intimidation, Finn, P., Healy, K.M., Issues 
and Practices, 152 pages, NCJ 163067.

Revictimization: Reducing the Heat 
on Hot Victims, Research in Action, 6 pages, 
NCJ 162951.

Victim and Witness Intimidation: 
New Developments and Emerging Responses, 
Healey, K.M., Research in Action, 16 pages, 
NCJ 156555.

Violence

Assessing the Exposure of Urban Youth to Violence,
O'Hogan-Selner, M.B., et al., Research Preview, 2
pages, FS 000159.

A Coordinated Approach to Reducing Family Violence:
Conference Highlights, Witwer, M.B., Crawford, C.,
Research Report, 40 pages, NCJ 155184.

The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises
and Limits, Fagan, J., Research Report, 64 pages,
NCJ 157641.

The Cycle of Violence Revisited, Widom, C.S.,
Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000136.

Domestic and Sexual Violence Data Collection: A
Report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women
Act, Justice Research and Statistics Association,
Research Report, 84 pages, NCJ 161405.

Evaluation of Family Violence Training Programs,
Newmark, L., Harrell, A., Adams, W.P., Research
Preview, 2 pages, FS 000125.

Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees,
Decker, S.H., Pennell, S., Caldwell, A., Research
in Brief, 6 pages, NCJ 163496.

Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston,
Kennedy, D.M., Research Preview, 4 pages, 
FS 000160.

Mental Illness and Violent Crime, Monahan, J.,
Research Preview, 4 pages, FS 000158.

Reducing Violent Crimes and Intentional Injuries,
Roth, J.A., Moore, M.H., Research in Action, 12
pages, NCJ 156089. 

Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Public
Health Perspective, Kellermann, A.L., Research
Preview, 4 pages, FS 000141.

The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning
Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials:
Report Responding to Section 40507 of the Violence
Against Women Act, Report to Congress, 178 pages,
NCJ 160972.

Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets,
Blumstein, A., Research Preview, 4 pages, FS
000129.

Research and Evaluation Solicitations

COMmunity-Backed Anti-Drug Tax (COMBAT)
Solicitation, 16 pages, 
SL 000140.
Drug Use Forecasting Challenge Grants: A Special
NIJ Research Solicitation, 
16 pages. 

Law Enforcement Family Support: Solicitation for
Demonstration and Training Programs for Reduction
of Stress Among Law Enforcement Officers and Their
Families, 28 pages, SL 000154.

NIJ Solicitation: Boot Camp Research and Evaluation
for Fiscal Year 1996, 28 pages, SL 000139.

NIJ Solicitation: Executive Seminar Series on
Sentencing and Corrections, 24 pages, SL 000155.
Policing Research and Evaluation: FY 1996, 12
pages, SL 000223.

Reissue for an Assessment of the HIDTA Program, 
16 pages, SL 000143.

Solicitation for Evaluation of Arrest Policies
Program under the Violence Against Women Act, 
8 pages, SL 000216.

Solicitation for Evaluation of the Residential
Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners
Program, 8 pages, 
SL 000220.

Solicitation for Forensic DNA Laboratory
Improvement Program, 38 pages, SL 000166.

Solicitation for Law Enforcement, Courts and
Corrections Technology Development, 
Implementation and Evaluation, 36 pages, 
SL 000168.

Solicitation for Policing Research and 
Evaluation: Fiscal Year 1996, 32 pages, 
SL 000148.

Solicitation for Proposals to Evaluate and 
Research Sentencing Reforms and Their Effects on 
Corrections, 32 pages, SL 000141.

Solicitation for Research and Evaluation on
Violence Against Women: Fiscal Year 1996, 28 pages,
SL 000144.

Solicitation for Technology Research and
Development Partnership Projects for Community
Policing, 24 pages, 
SL 000149.

Other

Data Resources of the National Institute of
Justice, 8th Edition, NCJ 156714.

John B. Pickett Fellowships in Criminal Justice
Policy and Management, Solicitation, 2 pages, 
SL 000199.

NIJ Journal--Communities, 56 pages, 
JL 000219.

NCJRS Catalog No. 30, 24 pages, BC 000254.

NCJRS Catalog No. 31, 24 pages, BC 000255.

NCJRS User's Guide, 38 pages, NCJ 155063.

NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year, 1995, Research in 
Brief, 16 pages, NCJ 159653.

NIJ Publications Catalog, 5th Edition, 1985-1995,
26 pages, NCJ 157688.

NIJ Research Portfolio, Research in Brief, 35
pages, NCJ 157932.

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

Appendix C: List of Partnerships

The National Institute of Justice encourages 
collaborative research efforts. During fiscal year
1996, NIJ entered into memorandums of agreement or
collaborated in other ways with the 
following agencies and private organizations.

Federal Agencies

Office of National Drug Control Policy

National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect

National Science Foundation
      Law and Social Sciences Program

U.S. Department of Defense
      Advanced Research Projects Agency

U.S. Department of Education
      Office of Educational Research and 
       Improvement

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
      Office of Public and Indian Housing

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
      National Institutes of Health
            Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences
              Research
            Office of Research on Women's Health 
            Office of Research on Minority Health
            National Institute of Mental Health 
            National Institute on Aging
            National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
             Alcoholism
            National Institute on Drug Abuse 

U.S. Department of Justice
      Bureau of Justice Assistance
      Bureau of Justice Statistics
      Corrections Program Office
      Criminal Division
      Drug Court Program Office
      Executive Office of Weed and Seed
      National Institute of Corrections
      Office of Community Oriented Policing 
       Services
      Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency          
       Prevention
      Office for Victims of Crime
      Violence Against Women Grants Office

U.S. Department of State
      Bureau of International Narcotics and 
       Law Enforcement Affairs

U.S Department of the Treasury
      Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

Foundations

Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 

Kauffman Foundation