U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

A National Symposium

on Violent Offenders:

Summary and Resources
National Institute of Corrections

Morris L. Thigpen, Director

NIC “What Works” Interdivisional Committee

Nancy E. Shomaker, Academy Division

Symposium Coordinator

Jim T. Barbee, Jails Division

David D. Dillingham, Community Corrections Division

John E. Moore, Prisons Division

A National Symposium

on Violent Offenders:

Summary and Resources

by

Barbara Krauth
February 1996

This project was supported by the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view

or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
iii

Contents

Foreword......................................................................................................................................................... iv

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

Keynote Address: Current Trends in Violence .............................................................................................. 3

Donald Evans, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services,

Toronto, Canada......................................................................................................................... 3

The News: Overview of Treatment Effectiveness........................................................................................... 6

Dr. Donald Andrews, Professor, Psychology Department, Carleton University,

Ottawa, Canada .......................................................................................................................... 6

U.S. Department of Justice Panel.................................................................................................................. 12

Joan Hurley, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention................................................... 12

Dr. Edwin Zedlewski, National Institute of Justice.......................................................................... 15

Dr. Robert A. Kirchner, Bureau of Justice Assistance ..................................................................... 18

Dr. Curt Toler, Federal Bureau of Prisons ...................................................................................... 21

Nancy Shomaker, National Institute of Corrections......................................................................... 23

Medical/Treatment Panel.............................................................................................................................. 25

Mark Long, Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control...................................... 25

Dr. Donald Williams, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Michigan State University.................... 30

Dr. Mary Knipmeyer, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration .......................... 32

Dr. David J. Drummond, Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals................................................ 36

Dr. William D. Davidson, Staff Psychiatrist, DC (District of Columbia)

Department of Corrections........................................................................................................ 39

Victim-Witness Panel .................................................................................................................................... 42

Mary Anne Castellano, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Denver................................................................... 42

Susan Laurence, U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime....................................... 45

Professional Associations............................................................................................................................... 48

James Gondles, American Correctional Association ........................................................................ 48

A.N. Moser, Jr., National Sheriffs’ Association............................................................................... 50

Ann Crowe, American Probation & Parole Association................................................................... 52

Peter Kinziger, International Community Corrections Association .................................................. 57
iv

Foreword

This document summarizes the presentations given by participants in the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

"Symposium on Violent Offenders: What Works," which took place in Longmont, Colorado, on May 15-18,

1995. The symposium was the first project of an Interdivisional Committee representing NIC's Academy,

Community Corrections, Prisons, and Jails Divisions, and the NIC Information Center. 

This document provides a sense of the variety of projects nationwide that are addressing the serious problem of

violent offenders in society. It provides a starting point for identifying potential collaborative efforts among

agencies, and it opens communications among participants who may not often have the opportunity to learn of

each other's programs. 

The presentations of panel participants are organized along similar lines. First, a background of the agency or

association is provided, followed by a description of current projects or recent research findings. A discussion of

future plans for addressing the issue of violent offenders follows, along with some recommendations for possible

collaboration with other groups. 

Finally, documents displayed at the symposium by participating agencies and associations are listed. All

resources are available directly from the agency or association or, unless otherwise noted, in limited quantities

from the NIC Information Center (1-800-877-1461). Contact information is provided for each participant, so

that additional questions may be addressed directly to the person who provided the initial information.

NIC's Interdivisional Committee is pleased with the outcome of this first joint effort. Comments on this

publication are welcome and may be addressed to Nancy Shomaker, NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite

A, Longmont, CO 80501; 1-800-995-6429, x120.

Morris L. Thigpen, Director

National Institute of Corrections

February 1996
1

Introduction

The Symposium on Violent Offenders, held in Longmont, Colorado, on May 15-18, 1995, was sponsored by

NIC's What Works Interdivisional Committee. The symposium brought together experts from a variety of

disciplines to share information on projects and programs that have proven effective in addressing violent

offenders.

Overview of the Symposium

The symposium offered its participants an unusual opportunity to gain a truly interdisciplinary perspective on

violent offenders. Symposium participants represented a variety of disciplines and types of agencies. They

summarized research on causes of violence and on treatment, described current agency and professional

association initiatives addressing violent offenders, and highlighted the perspective of victims. The following

agencies and associations were represented at this meeting.

Criminal Justice--U.S. Department of Justice

t Bureau of Justice Assistance

t National Institute of Justice

t Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

t Federal Bureau of Prisons, Psychology Services

t National Institute of Corrections

Medicine/Treatment

t Washington, D.C., Department of Corrections Psychiatric Services

t Centers for Disease Control, Division of Violence Prevention

t Michigan State University, Department of Psychiatry

t Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals

t Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration

Victims' Services
2

t Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice

t U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver
3

Professional Associations

t American Correctional Association (ACA)

t American Probation & Parole Association (APPA)

t International Community Corrections Association (ICCA)

t National Sheriffs' Association (NSA)

Potential Outcomes of the Symposium

Symposium speakers pointed to significant research findings and projects with potential relevance for corrections

policy development. The common approach to dealing with violent offenders in this country has been to pour

resources into incapacitating them through incarceration. However, participants provided a variety of valuable

perspectives that could lead to a reconsideration of incarceration as the only appropriate solution. Among the

points made by speakers from the variety of disciplines represented at this meeting were the following:

t Powerful research results suggest that what works with violent offenders, as with high- and

medium-risk offenders, is the delivery of appropriate treatment services.

t Understanding the brain is critical to understanding violent behavior; as many as 75% of violent

juveniles show evidence of a brain injury.

t Victims' concerns are increasingly being recognized, and services are being provided to empower

the victims of crime.

t Federal agencies have sponsored a number of alternative projects nationwide that have

successfully addressed the prevention of violence. PAVNET Online, a cooperative project of

several agencies, provides information via the Internet on promising anti-violence programs.

t Violent behavior often co-occurs with substance abuse.

t Research by the Michigan State University Psychiatry Department found a high rate of mental

illness among prison inmates. 

t National corrections associations have developed a variety of violence-related programs,

including APPA's Offender Supervision and Victim Restitution Project.

t The public health approach emphasizes a commitment to identifying policies and programs aimed

at preventing violent behavior, injuries, and deaths.

During the symposium's three days, participants had the opportunity to share information on a wide range of

projects and their outcomes--to define the extent of the problem of violent offenders and to identify some
4

programmatic responses that actually work. The symposium was a first step in NIC's commitment to interagency

resource sharing.
5

Keynote Address: Current Trends in Violence

Donald Evans, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services,

Toronto, Canada

Let me start with a future scenario: Let's say that you want to buy a house. One way the real estate agent

identifies the selling points of various properties is in terms of the security provided both by the houses and by

the neighborhoods in which they are located. If we do not find a solution to violence in our society, this scenario

is very likely. We will sink back to a kind of "new feudalism" in which those who have money can buy security,

but others will have to live in a jungle. I hope this does not occur, but the trend is certainly in place.

Growth in Violence

This may not be the most violent period in history, but it is distinguished from previous periods by the following

characteristics:

t The severity of violence in our society. Violence in society is severe when, instead of paying a

taxi driver, two teens shoot him. Or when a shop owner is shot in full view of a video camera so

that someone can steal a pack of cigarettes. These are typical examples, and they do not even

touch on predatory crime.

t Increasing youth violence. Violence is increasing most rapidly among youth. This violence

ranges from youths' violent attacks on their parents to gang violence. It occurs at schools, in

neighborhoods, in the home--and it is no longer prevalent only among boys. 

t Increasing violence directed at the family and co-workers. The family is a major area in which

violence is growing in our society. Violence in the workplace is also increasing. Dissatisfied

workers are turning to violence to vent their anger and frustration.

In short, we are no longer secure on the street, at home, or in the workplace.

The Context for Violence

There is a real market for violence in our society. The fastest growing genre in bookstores is something called

"True Crime." Actual cases of violent crime are being made into mini-series for TV and are grist for talk shows.

 The right to bear arms has become the right to protect oneself not from predators but from the government. A

spokesperson at a recent Michigan conference--home of the Michigan Militia--said that people should fight the

government by "using the ballot box first, bullets if necessary." What kind of language is this? We are obviously

living in a culture that supports problem resolution through violent means.

The media have a heyday with violence. A Canadian trial now getting a lot of publicity involves a husband-wife

team accused of killing two young girls. The wife pleaded guilty, received a 12-year sentence, and will testify

against her husband, who is also accused of committing 38 serial rapes. Even more horrifying is that criminal
6

trials such as this are becoming tourist events. The manager of a local hotel noted that the trial, expected to last

for several months, would be good for the hotel's business.

The government's response to violence in our society has been to increase repression, incarceration, and

punitiveness throughout the system. The specific tactics have included psychiatric gatekeeping laws, which keep

offenders locked up beyond the expiration of their sentences; the Federalization of certain crimes; and increased

policing. The whole notion of policing has expanded. At one time, the police function was focused on keeping

order on the streets. As the mediating forces in society have broken down, the police function has expanded into

homes, schools, and workplaces.

What Has Not Worked

Our imprisonment policy has not worked. Prison sanctions have no effect on eliminating violence--no matter the

amount of time or the type of security. Offenders often come out of prison worse than when they went in. 

Prisons clearly have not eradicated violent behavior. They have simply displaced violent activity to another time

and place.

I am even more concerned about the current system, in which the growing tendency is to withdraw all programs-

-to turn prisons into monuments to the Social Divide. The incarcerated have no outlets, no hope, and they are in

crowded, unbearable living conditions. If prison officials keep making conditions more difficult, they will find

they are sitting on a powder keg.

What Might Work

Selective solutions based on specific types of violence might work. People are violent for many reasons. They

may become violent to get money, the violence may be related to the drug trade, or there may be psychopharmaceutical reasons. We need to make these distinctions and to develop programs to meet specific needs. 

For example:

t There has been an effort recently to make domestic violence more visible. Police departments are

trying to increase officers' awareness of the problem. There is still a long way to go, however,

because most courts still do not take domestic violence seriously. 

t Schools often approach violence simply by expelling the kids. Schools should be the first line of

defense. Toronto has a program specifically addressing violence in schools, but there is no system

for evaluating its success.

t Dealing with workplace violence involves the early identification of possible threats. Companies

should also provide reasonable grievance systems and be more humane in situations in which staff

are being cut and people are losing their jobs.

t Street violence requires private-public partnerships. We need to convince people that community

policing is not being soft on crime. It is based on people being willing to talk. Where police are
7

separated from the community, they meet a wall of silence, which makes it impossible to improve

security in neighborhoods.

t Offenders under correctional supervision need:

· Better assessment,

· Programs with therapeutic integrity,

· Programs that are responsive to criminogenic factors,

· Programs that are evaluated and the results made public, and

· A trained staff.

What else might work? One answer is a greater emphasis on appropriate intermediate sanctions. We must not

quit working to change policies, simply saying that the penal hegemony has won. There are still more offenders

under community supervision than in prisons, and we need to ask community supervision agencies to document

that they are doing a good job. Then we must work to convince both the public and policymakers that targeted

intermediate sanctions are effective.

Some caveats:

t Buyer Beware--No matter how effective a program, if the context of the community is ignored,

relapse is inevitable. We need to change reward structures. People do what they do because of

pay-offs.

t Some interventions will work, some will not, but the fear of the outcome should not keep us from

trying. We can't hesitate just because we have no firm direction. We need to build on the

knowledge we do have.

What Then Must We Do?

Corrections systems are not the only problem. Corrections holds someone for only a short time. How many

hands, hearts, homes has this person passed through before we get him? We need to launch a community effort

that involves all agencies--social services, education, law enforcement, and health. Solo efforts are grist for turf

wars, and they are not really working. Correctional associations need to be more assertive by:

t Becoming advocates;

t Forming alliances with each other, because it will take a collaborative effort to move the public;

t Building knowledge; because government funding doesn't support research or evaluation,

associations could help raise private dollars to prove what we know;
8

t Transferring knowledge to get the word out.

What Then Must We Do? i) not give up hope, ii) work together, and iii) not be discouraged. Remember that

positive micro-behaviors working together can have macro impacts.
9

The News: Overview of Treatment Effectiveness

Dr. Donald Andrews, Professor, Psychology Department, Carleton University,

Ottawa, Canada

I am going to review two large sets of literature: 1) the literature on the effects of criminal justice and

correctional interventions on criminal recidivism, and 2) the literature on what we know about prediction and

risk-needs factors. Only studies that included a control, or comparison, group are examined. Our approach at

Carleton is to look over earlier reviews, the studies that they reviewed, and to sort them into two sets. One set

goes into the official punishment group; the other set includes rehabilitative, reintegrative human service

programs, under a variety of conditions of sanctions. This approach is meta-analysis, research on research.

Our approach to reviewing the literature is a human science approach that is truly interdisciplinary. I come from

a perspective that is focused on individual differences, on the behavior of individuals. The focus is not on

examining crime rates or how the criminal justice system operates, but on understanding individual differences in

criminal behavior.

In our work, we value internal consistency; we also value unsparing criticism and respect for evidence. We

affirm human diversity in terms of attitudes, values, competencies, and abilities of people. We know there is

great possibility for abuse in the study of individual differences, so we try to be non-pejorative in terms of

language.

We also take a basic science approach, which means we are interested in theoretical explanations. We must put

findings to the test. Does our understanding allow us to predict behavior? Can we conduct assessments that can

accurately predict low-risk or high-risk behavior? One point of empirical understanding is the ability to predict;

the more interesting aspect is the ability to influence. There are now more than 500 controlled outcome studies

on interventions designed to influence criminal behavior. If those in the criminal justice system have the ability to

predict and the ability to influence, they have something of real value--if they have the political will to make use

of it.

A Summary: Effects of Criminal Justice Interventions

Controlled outcome evaluations of the criminal justice and corrections literature point to the following

conclusions:

t Criminal sanctioning without reference to correctional treatment service does not work; it does

not reduce recidivism.

t Providing correctional treatment services that are inconsistent with the principles of risk, need,

and responsivity does not work.

t What works is the delivery of appropriate correctional treatment service. 
10

Principles of Effective Treatment: Risk, Need, Responsivity

The key to the delivery of appropriate correctional services is to assess offenders in terms of risk, need, and

responsivity.

t The risk principle says you should work with those who are at risk for reoffending in the absence

of treatment. Services should be delivered to moderate- and high-risk cases.

t The need principle targets criminogenic needs. If you want to reduce the probability of criminal

behavior, focus on the specific characteristics of people and their circumstances that are relevant

to the criminal behavior. Focus on attitudes, values, beliefs, and rationalizations supportive of

criminal behavior. Focus on antisocial associates, not anxiety. That is, focus on the things we

know are strongly linked to criminal behavior.

t The responsivity principle says you must match the style and mode of service to the learning style

and motivation of offenders by using cognitive behavioral styles and modes of services.

Outcome Literature Reviews: What We Have Learned

t One thing becomes immediately clear based on reviews of outcomes: There is not a single review

we are aware of that shows that variations in the types of punishment have anything consistent to

do with the reduction of recidivism. 

t In the other set of studies--on the delivery of human services--40% show consistent evidence of

reduced recidivism. In some reviews, up to 80% of the studies show evidence that some services

are working with some people under some conditions. For example, Mark Lipsey in 1990

reviewed 443 studies; 285 (65%) showed reduced recidivism. These results suggest that

something does work.

t Increased recidivism is the result of more process. For example, a police caution vs. regular

processing results in a 27% vs. a 41% recidivism rate.

t For all studies, the overall average effect of criminal justice and correctional interventions is .10. 

That is, there are very mild reductions of recidivism as a function of correctional interventions.

t In terms of studies of punishment and studies of treatment, however, on average there is a mild

increase in recidivism for increases in severity of penalty. On average, there is a 15% advantage

favoring the delivery of treatment.

t Behavioral vs. non-behavioral treatment--There is a 30% difference in recidivism favoring

behavioral vs. non-behavioral treatment.

Effects of Punishment
11

The average effect of punishment is increased recidivism. People respond to criminal sanctions with resentment

and anger. Very specific information coming out of the studies reviewed suggests that the punishment agenda has

had relatively small effects even in terms of increased recidivism.

t An analysis of official punishments showed that, on average, not one of the new range of

alternative punishments has been found to be associated with reduced recidivism. 

t Studies showed that programs based on deterrence theory have the most negative effects of all

programs.

t Positive treatment effects are not as strong when programs are offered in custody as when they

are offered in the community.

Behavioral Methods

Behavioral methods work through:

t Modeling. If you want to see positive behavior, demonstrate it.

t Graduated practice. Some of the skills you would like to build are complex; they require

graduated practice. 

t Role playing. This involves practicing new alternative ways of thinking, feeling, and acting in

risky situations. 

t Reinforcement. People learn through reward systems.

t Extinction. Eliminating undesirable behaviors can be accomplished by reducing rewards. 

t Resource provision. Helping to make change possible involves providing resources. 

t Concrete verbal suggestions. Giving reasons and prompting can help change behavior.

Comparisons of Criminal Sanctions, Behavioral, and Non-Behavioral Programs

We coded programs according to whether they were criminal sanctions, behavioral, and non-behavioral

programs. Some results:

t Criminal sanctions showed a 7% increase in recidivism.

t Non-behavioral treatment services showed about a 6% increase in recidivism.

t Behavioral treatment services showed a 29% reduction in recidivism.
12

Behavioral treatments included family, vocational, individual, and group counseling programs; token economy

programs; psychotherapy; and substance abuse programs. All treatment programs were categorized as

appropriate or inappropriate based on whether they follow the risk/need/responsivity principles. It is interesting

that the pattern of recidivism is the same no matter whether the studies are of adult or young offenders, male or

female offenders, minorities or non-minorities, or offenders with a history of violence or those with no history of

violence.

However, the means of treatment referral did make a difference. There was a difference in whether those treated

were self-referred, employer-referred, or criminal justice system-referred. When cases were referred by the

criminal justice system, the treatment effects were greater. There were also bigger effects when the referral

came from the criminal justice system, but treatment was provided outside the criminal justice system.

It was also clear that if the program evaluator is involved in the design and delivery of service, the average effect

of appropriate treatment is greater. The reason for this is that the program was based on a theoretical model and

implemented more carefully.

Indicators of Effective Programs

The following program characteristics are indicators of program effectiveness:

t An empirically validated theory underlying the intervention;

t Trained and clinically supervised service deliverers;

t Printed training/program manuals;

t Criminogenic factors addressed;

t Use of concrete, cognitive behavioral approaches;

t Treatment match is based on responsivity;

t Structured follow-up is built in;

t Workers are enthusiastic and engaged;

t Workers are able to handle their authority without domination/abuse;

t Workers are able to recognize antisocial thinking, feeling, and acting and are able to demonstrate

and reinforce concrete alternatives; and

t Workers are predisposed to offer concrete problem solving and to engage in skill-building.
13

Mean Correlation of Various Risk Factors and Criminal Activity

The following risk factors have been found to correlate with criminal activity at the levels indicated:

t Lower class origins .06

t Personal distress/psychopathology .08

t Personal education/vocational achievement .12

t Parental/family factors .18

t Temperament/misconduct/personality .21

t Antisocial attitudes/associates .22

Risk/Need Factors for Criminal Conduct

t The major set of risk/need factors for criminal conduct includes:

1. Antisocial/pro-criminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states;

2. Pro-criminal associates and isolation from anti-criminal others;

3. Temperamental and personality factors conducive to criminal activity including psychopathy,

weak socialization, impulsivity, restless aggressive energy, egocentrism, below average verbal

intelligence, a taste for risk, and weak problem-solving/self-regulation skills;

4. A history of antisocial behavior evident from a young age, in a variety of settings, and

involving a number and variety of different acts;

5. Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family

of origin and, in particular, low levels of affection, caring, and cohesiveness; poor parental

supervision and discipline practices; and outright neglect and abuse;

6. Low levels of personal educational, vocational, or financial achievement and, in particular,

unstable employment.

t The minor set of risk/need factors includes:

1. Lower class origins as assessed by adverse neighborhood conditions and/or parental

educational/vocational/economic achievement;

2. Personal distress, whether assessed by way of the sociological constructs of anomie, strain,

and alienation or by way of the clinical psychological constructs of low self-esteem, anxiety,

depression, work, or officially labeled mental disorder;

3. A host of biological/neuropsychological indicators that have yet to be integrated in a

convincing manner by way of either theory or the construction of practical risk/need

assessment instruments.

The Person in the Immediate Situation of Action
14

Any psychology addressing criminal behavior must locate the person in the immediate situation of action,

which can include certain temptations, facilitators, inhibitors, stressors, and opportunities. It is possible

to create a model that predicts behavior by 1) taking into account the person's attitudes, values, beliefs,

fundamental temperament, social support for the behavior, history of having engaged in that behavior

before; and 2) locating the person in the immediate situation of action. 

A consensus is emerging based on the state of the literature, the best predictors, and the underlying model

of human behavior. However, the theory of behavior behind the model may vary. Some people are

personal choice theorists who say that if you really want to understand human behavior you have to

understand that people engage in behavior that assists them with their choices. They choose to behave in

certain ways. Others assume that intentions are the basis for action; others believe in self-efficacy; still

others are behaviorists. What comes together in all these theoretical models, though, is essentially the

same vision. If you want to predict human behavior accurately, you must know the situation and you

must include the person's attitudes, values, beliefs, history, associates, and fundamental temperament.

How to Ensure that the Research Makes a Difference

The fields of law, medicine, social work, and corrections are beginning to look at some of this research,

which creates some real potential for change. What is needed to make change take place is concentrated

effort on the part of all of us, especially correctional associations, to bring our understanding to the

attention of policymakers, especially legislators, who control sanctioning policy.
15

U.S. Department of Justice Panel

Joan Hurley, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) originated under the Law

Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) in 1974. It is now one of five agencies in the

Office of Justice Programs under the Department of Justice. The Office of Justice Programs,

the only office that deals with programmatic issues, includes OJJDP, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC),

and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Juvenile Crime Rates

t Juvenile arrest rates for violent crime remained relatively constant from 1973 to 1988

but have soared in recent years. Between 1988 and 1991, arrest rates for juvenile

violent crime increased 38%. 

t Gun homicides by juveniles have nearly tripled since 1983, while homicides involving

other weapons have actually declined. These facts point to the availability of guns for

juveniles and to their lethality.

t The 20-year trend in the rate of juvenile arrests for weapons law violations closely

parallels the juvenile arrest trend for murder.

t Juveniles have disproportionately high arrests for violent crime. In every violent crime

category, 18-year-olds have the highest rate of arrest.

t Aggravated assaults make up seven of ten arrests for violent crime. Juvenile arrests for

aggravated assaults increased 100% between 1983 and 1991, while arrests for those in

their 20s were up 60%.

What We Know: OJJDP Research on Violent Crime Among Juveniles

OJJDP is sponsoring the following research projects that address violent crime:

t One study is looking at violent crime among juveniles in four locations: Washington,

DC, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and rural areas of South Carolina.

t Another project, called the "Causes and Correlates Study," is a very exciting longitudinal

study that started eight years ago in three sites--Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester,

New York--where it has examined violence prevalence rates for males. Some findings:
16

· Although most violence prevalence studies have found

male rates peaking at ages 16-17, data from this study

have shown no decline in late adolescence; prevalence

rates remain high across the 17-19 age period.
17

· In Denver, the study found a strong relationship between

gangs and violent activity. Although gangs are not always

involved in violence, the rates of violent offenses go up

when youth are actively involved in street gangs.

· At the Rochester site, the study found that exposure to

family violence is likely to lead to violence at a later age. 

There is a particularly increased risk of violence among those

abused or neglected at a young age. Surprisingly, children

who seem to be at the highest risk of violence are those who

were neglected. Children who have witnessed violence in

the home were twice as likely to commit violent offenses

themselves. Therefore, one of the most helpful things we

can do is to make that kind of violence unacceptable. As a

society, we aren't giving families the support they need;

taking welfare away is going after an extremely vulnerable

group.

· The research has shown that serious chronic violent

offenders have multiple risk factors. OJJDP is using the

work of David Hawkins to identify these risk factors. The

risk factors tend to be synergistic; the effects of multiple risk

factors interact and multiply enormously.

· The good news is about protective factors--family, school,

and peer groups--which can counteract the effect of risk

factors. For example, 80% of the youth who had five or

more risk factors--but fewer than six protective factors--were

involved in serious delinquency. On the other hand, of

juveniles with the same number of risk factors, those with

nine or more protective factors were at low risk for

delinquency.

· Juveniles are being victimized at a higher rate than are

adults.

t OJJDP has produced a sourcebook entitled "Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders." It

is an exciting document. Because a small proportion of offenders are responsible

for nearly all the serious crimes, it is important to be able to identify the

characteristics of these juveniles. It is hard to do, because a number of young

people who get involved in experimentation might look like they are headed in

the direction of violent crime, but aren't. If this project can help us learn how to
18

identify those who are likely to be chronic violent offenders, corrections agencies

can intervene early.

What Works: Delinquency Prevention

OJJDP has been working for several months on a paper called "Delinquency Prevention

Works." In collecting information from various programs around the country on what

works, our research found that the best hope is to focus on prevention--beginning as

early as possible, even prenatally. One of the most notable prevention programs ended

a few years ago, the Perry Preschool. Through a research program that followed the

children until they were at least 19, researchers proved that the preschool program

actually worked.

In addition, OJJDP is involved in:

t A National Gang Research Program to determine the nature and extent of the

gang problem in this country. 

t Safe Futures Program. OJJDP will provide $1.76 million to each of five sites for

an ersatz continuum-of-care approach. Because OJJDP doesn't have enough

money to develop a continuum of care for the entire juvenile justice system, the

agency is encouraging communities to work together to set up a continuum of

care. There will be three urban sites, one rural, and one Native American.

OJJDP Resources on Violence

t What Works: Promising Interventions in Juvenile Justice. Program Report.

October 1994.

t Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders Program Summary. June 1995.

For additional information, contact Ms. Joan Hurley, Office of Juvenile Justice &

Delinquency Prevention, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Room 742, Washington, DC 20531;

202/307-5929.
19

Dr. Edwin Zedlewski, National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the Department of Justice's primary research arm. NIJ

was started in 1968 within LEAA and became autonomous in 1979. NIJ has a staff of about 50

and a base budget of $27 million for the current fiscal year. NIJ has a relationship with most

other Federal agencies, including Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,

Education, Centers for Disease Control, Agriculture, Defense, and CIA. NIJ also works with

many private foundations, including Ford, Rockefeller, and Robert Wood Johnson. NIJ funds

research across the entire range of criminal justice. The agency's funding strategy is based on an

annual program plan that defines the areas to which NIJ intends to commit resources. 

NIJ Initiatives Related to Violence

NIJ supports research on the links among drugs, gangs, families, and juveniles. Some examples:

t Firearms violence--NIJ is supporting research on the diffusion model involving kids, guns,

and drugs. In the mid-80s, in response to the cocaine and crack cocaine epidemic,

mandatory sentences were instituted in many jurisdictions. In response, dealers began

recruiting juveniles because they would not be severely prosecuted. Because these kids

were carrying guns, others--especially in impoverished neighborhoods--began to carry

them. The escalation of the need for everyone to protect themselves is one of the models

under investigation. NIJ is also supporting studies of the prevalence of guns in and around

schools and a study on household ownership of guns.

NIJ is also funding a number of interventions related to firearms. For example, in Kansas

City, police are using aggressive interrogation about the possession of guns. The simple

act of interrogation seems to have had a profound impact in that city, and the approach is

being replicated with NIJ support in Indianapolis and Washington, DC. A firearms

supplement is also being attached to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting studies. Preliminary

results suggest that 42% of those involved with drugs are holding weapons at the time

they are dealing. The links are apparently quite strong.

t Prevention programs--NIJ is supporting a number of prevention programs, including

violence prevention programs in the schools, peer mediation programs, creative conflict

resolution in elementary schools, Children at Risk, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, and studies of

gang membership prevention and early intervention. NIJ is studying the results of all

these programs as post-mortems rather than having had theoretical models and clear

goals in the beginning. (For program descriptions, see "Current Prevention Programs,

Activities, and Reports," available from the NIC Information Center.)

t Research on family violence--Family violence is a uniquely preventable form of violence. 

NIJ has found that people serving time for domestic violence are no different from others

serving time in jail for other offenses. They commit the same number of crimes; they

have simply found another way to manifest their violence. The first controlled
20

experiments suggested that arrest was superior to either counseling programs or a

cooling-off period. Based on that research, police departments instituted arrest policies.

However, it is now not so clear that arrest is the best approach.

The Crime Bill includes encouragement for no-drop prosecution policies, which sound

very appealing, but there may be some very valid reasons not to adopt such policies. For

example, the case may involve a one-time incident, or a divorce may be under way. NIJ

is doing research on these no-drop policies and will report on results in the next few years.

t Other topics of NIJ-sponsored research include child abuse, drug testing, gangs, and

closed circuit television testimony in child assault cases. One study of children is following

various cohorts, beginning prenatally, in 50 neighborhoods to see what happens to these

children.

t At the request of Congress, NIJ will be doing a national random-sample telephone survey

on the prevalence and aftermath of child abuse.

· Cooperative projects with other Federal agencies include:

PAVNET--Partnerships Against Violence Network--Seven Federal

agencies have pooled information on promising programs, funding

resources, and general information sources. PAVNET is now on

Internet. Initial components are an online search and retrieval

system; a directory of 600 programs, 200 information and technical

assistance sources, and about 125 funding sources; networking

among more than 30 Federal clearinghouses and resource centers;

and e-mail.

· Workplace violence is being investigated with the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

NIJ Resources on Violence

t Building the Peace: The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program. NIJ Program Focus,

1994. 15 p.

t Current Prevention Programs, Activities, and Reports (draft, 1/12/95). 11 p.

t Drug Use Forecasting: 1993 Annual Report on Juvenile Arrestees/Detainees. Drugs and

Crime in America's Cities. Research in Brief, November 1994. 20 p.

t Family Violence Research Program: Project Abstracts, Oct.1, 1993-February 28, 1995.

29 p.
21

t Gang Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeeping. Research in Brief, August 1994. 11 p.

t Intricate Pathways: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1995. 

16 p.

t NIJ Research Plan, 1995-1996. 23 p.

t PAVNET Online User's Guide. Research in Action, March 1995. 43 p.

t Research on Firearms and Violence. 17 p.

t Understanding and Preventing Violence. Research in Brief, February 1994. 11 p.

t Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Later Criminal Consequences. Research in Brief,

March 1995. 8 p.

t Violence in Cornet City: A Problem-Solving Exercise. Issues and Practices, April 1995. 

38 p.

t Weapon-Related Victimization in Selected Inner-City High School Samples. NIJ Update,

January 1995. 2 p.

For additional information, contact Dr. Edwin Zedlewski, National Institute of Justice, 633

Indiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20531; 202/307-2953.
22

Dr. Robert A. Kirchner, Bureau of Justice Assistance

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides federal assistance to state and local governments

through both formula and discretionary grants, technical assistance, and evaluation. All BJAfunded projects are intended to produce information on what works.

Formula Grants

BJA has developed partnerships with states and localities and a system for documenting their

success:

t State Reporting and Evaluation Program -- To receive funds, a state must have a strategy

that encompasses its entire criminal justice system. BJA must approve the strategy before

grants are made.

t BJA requires every funded program to provide a Program Brief. BJA maintains consistent

monitoring, reporting, and evaluation requirements for each program. Once a year, states

put together a State Annual Report on the impact of their programs for that year.

t Based on these annual reports, BJA compiles information on what states are doing in

specific areas of criminal justice. For example, a BJA report on domestic and family

violence contains information on 202 programs. Program managers must agree to network

with others who are interested in what they are doing. NIJ has also completed reports on

prosecutors' programs and treatment programs.

Discretionary Grants

Based on an assessment of state evaluation programs and the work of other agencies, including

research from NIJ, BJA annually develops a discretionary plan that documents specific program

development areas. The agency funds demonstration programs and disseminates information

based on their results. BJA also produces Program Guides and Implementation Manuals, 

developed in cooperation with professional associations. BJA annually surveys program

managers, state agency people, and others to identify their interests. The results become the

basis for an annual meeting.

Research

With NIJ, BJA developed a set of national initiatives and guidelines for evaluations. Based on

national meetings sponsored by state and local jurisdictions, BJA is publishing a series of volumes

on State and Local Programs: What Works.

t Volume I of the series includes evaluations of rural issues and programs; treatment,

rehabilitation, and education; understanding and combating violence; and preventing drug

abuse and violent crime. It covers about 50 documented programs.
23

t Volume II provides information on successful collaborative programs, focusing on those

that include components outside the criminal justice system. Part 2 of this volume

emphasizes programs addressing youth, drugs, and violence. Part 3 is on innovative

court programs.

What Works: Evaluation

BJA requires certain characteristics of its supported programs, which are designed to determine

what works. For example, all programs should be self-sustained within their jurisdiction so that

they can continue over time. Programs are taught to be self-evaluating, and they must also be

open to external evaluations. The problem is that there is no money to fund evaluations in this

country; only a miniscule proportion of the evaluation that should be done actually occurs.

Criminal justice programs must also work closely with other groups outside criminal justice. 

BJA has reinforced the notion of having 56 laboratories across the states and territories. Many

are doing much better today than they were before BJA. It is important to remember that all

programs are local. Federal agencies must recognize that they don't have the solutions in

Washington; they must learn from the programs themselves.

BJA's evaluation program produces the following types of evaluation studies:

· Program Evaluations,

· Process (Implementation) Evaluations,

· Assessments and Special Analyses,

· Program Monitoring and Analysis, and

· Administrative, Technical, and Financial Reviews.

Bureau of Justice Assistance Resources

t Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs. Assessment and Evaluation

Handbook Series No. 1, January 1994. 50 p.

t Documenting the Extent and Nature of Drugs and Violent Crime: Developing JurisdictionSpecific Profiles of the Criminal Justice System. Assessment and Evaluation Handbook

Series No. 4, December 1994. 58 p.

t Domestic and Family Violence: Highlighted Programs from the State Annual Reports,

September 1994. 107 p.

t Research and Evaluation. Bureau of Justice Assistance. Fiscal Year 1995. 10 p.
24

t State and Local Conference on Violent Crime and Drug Abuse: Reinforcing Government

and Community Partnerships. (Conference Summary, December 1994, Jacksonville,

Florida), March 1995. 128 p.

t State and Local Programs: Focus on What Works. Volume I: Rural Issues and

Programs; Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Education; Understanding and Combating

Violence; and Preventing Drug Abuse and Violent Crime, 1994. 323 p.
25

t Successful Collaborative Programs: Improving the Criminal Justice System. Innovative

State and Local Programs, May 1995. 128 p.

For additional information, contact Dr. Robert Kirchner, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 633

Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20531; 202/616-3455.
26

Dr. Curt Toler, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Almost 20% of all current offenses for which Federal inmates are incarcerated are

crimes of direct and real violence, including homicide, manslaughter, robbery, rape, or

aggressive assault. An even greater percentage of inmates have past convictions for

violent offenses and for possession of weapons.

Among the sentenced Federal inmate population, there is a strong association between

drug and alcohol abuse and the likelihood of committing a violent offense. Of inmates

serving time for a violent offense, more than half reported using drugs in the month

prior to arrest or were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their current

offense. The relationship between drugs and violence is much more complex than

simply the direct correlation between drug use and violent offenses. Drug-abusing

behaviors co-exist with criminal activity, often spawn it, sometimes require it, generally

intensify it, and frequently attract it. The two are very closely linked.

Bureau of Prisons' Approaches to Managing Violence in Institutions

The Bureau of Prisons uses the following methods to control violence in its institutions:

t Personal interviews;

t Staff training;

t Security Designation System that places inmates in facilities;

t Confrontation Avoidance Program--(Of 1,873 use of force incidents, 806 were

resolved through confrontation avoidance);

t Careful monitoring of inmate gangs with known propensities for violence; and

t Aggressive management of inmates with serious mental health problems.

Treatment Efforts

t Because more than 30% of the Bureau's inmates have a diagnosable (DSM-IV)

drug problem, the Bureau has targeted the lion's share of treatment resources at

this group. The BOP's Drug Abuse Treatment Program addresses inmate drug

abuse by attempting to identify, confront, and alter inmates' attitudes, values,

and thinking patterns that lead to criminal and drug-using behavior. The

program also deals with the angry, often violent, actions that become a large

part of that lifestyle. A key feature of the treatment approach adopted by the

BOP is that a relapse prevention plan follows the inmate upon release to a
27

halfway house or community supervising authority. Treatment is provided

through community-based providers that use the same treatment approach as

the Bureau's. Regular urinalysis is an important aspect of this program.

t All inmates diagnosed with a serious drug problem are required to participate in

a one-week educational/motivational program that is available in every BOP

institution. The program is designed to motivate inmates to volunteer for the

intensive Residential Drug Treatment Programs. For those who qualify, the

incentive for participation is great; they may receive up to one year off their

current sentence upon graduating from the program.

t Residential programs--The Bureau has 33 residential programs ranging from 6 to 12

months in length, with a bed/treatment capacity of more than 3,200. Nearly 2,000

inmates are waiting to get into these residential programs, and this number

continues to grow.

t All residential programs use a standard curriculum developed by prison psychologists

who have spent their careers in this area of specialization. All individual and group

interventions and positive skill-building techniques are based on two premises:

1. The inmate is responsible for his/her behavior, and

2. The inmate can change his/her behavior.

t Other BOP programs targeted to violent offenders include:

· Anger Management Programs. These have two models:

--Cognitive behavior program, which includes "Cage Your Rage";

--Alternatives to Violence, which involves seminars derived from the Quaker

religious tradition and imparts techniques for non-violent conflict resolution.

· Values Development--teaching honesty, responsibility, tolerance, and respect.

For additional information, contact Dr. Curt Toler, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Psychology

Services, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534; 202/633-2214.
28

Nancy Shomaker, National Institute of Corrections

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides leadership and assistance to the

field of corrections. NIC is unique as a Federal agency because it provides direct

service, rather than financial assistance, as the primary means of carrying out its

mission. Its program responds directly to the needs identified by those working in state

and local corrections agencies.

The organizational structure of the Institute is one where the primary constituent

groups in adult corrections--jails, prisons, and community corrections--are represented

and served by an NIC division. All adult corrections agencies are also served by the

Academy Division and the NIC Information Center. Agencies may be eligible for

assistance for programs and services addressing violent offenders through any of the

following mechanisms:

t Direct technical assistance provides expertise to the requesting agency. 

There is no award of funds to the agency; the technical assistance is usually

provided through onsite assistance.

t Information services support all NIC programs. Through the development

and dissemination of practical materials, NIC is able to cost-effectively assist

practitioners in improving their agency operations and programs. The NIC

Information Center maintains a collection of the most current and useful

materials available in corrections and related fields, and specializes in

unpublished materials developed by state and local agencies.

t Special Emphasis Programs are available in specific areas in which NIC has

completed developmental work and has established a coordinated, multifaceted

approach to assisting agencies in successful program implementation. Activities

can include technical assistance, training, peer consultation, and information. A

Special Emphasis Program for fiscal year 1996 that specifically addresses

jurisdictions' responses to violent offenders is Public Protection Through

Offender Risk Management.

This program assists correctional administrators and policymakers in exploring

programming for high-risk offenders that contributes to public safety through

effective offender management. By studying the merits of such approaches as

punishment, surveillance, and treatment as ways of intervening with offenders

and reducing crime, it identifies program elements and strategies that have

proven effective with high-risk offenders.

As one part of the program, NIC is co-sponsoring with corrections agencies,

organizations, and associations up to ten 1- to 21⁄2-day workshops that: 1)
29

promote an understanding of the goals of corrections as part of the criminal

justice system, 2) explore the empirical basis for correctional interventions in

managing risk and promoting public safety, and 3) examine the implications of

various interventions for correctional management and programs. Typically, the

workshops are held in conjunction with national, regional, or local conferences or

meetings. NIC provides the curriculum, trainers, and all related materials for the

workshops, but does not pay expenses of those attending.

For the second part of the program, NIC provides technical assistance--including

but not limited to onsite consultation and training--to help community corrections

agencies implement the principles of risk management and effective correctional

programming. Priority is given to agencies previously represented at one of the

workshops.

t Training activities include seminars, regional training, teleconferences,

conference workshops, regional trainers' activities, and technical assistance. 

Most seminars are conducted in Longmont, Colorado, by or in coordination with

the NIC Academy Division.

Training activities scheduled for fiscal year 1996 include the following Offender

Management seminars:

· A Systems Approach to Managing Substance-Abusing Offenders

· Cognitive Approaches to Changing Offender Behavior

· Managing Women Offenders (with Technical Assistance)

· Forum on Critical Issues in Managing Women Offenders

· Prison Industries Workshop.

t Another seminar, Effective Interventions with High-Risk Offenders (with

Technical Assistance), specifically addresses managing violent offenders. The

36-hour program focuses on developing, implementing, and operating

correctional programs specific to an agency's needs that use appropriate

interventions for high-risk offenders, promote public safety, and reduce

recidivism. It reviews current research about criminal conduct and how to

effectively intervene to bring about behavioral change. Key topics include

assessment of offenders' needs and risk of recidivism, principles of effective

program design, implementation strategies, and program monitoring and

evaluation. Technical assistance will be provided to a limited number of seminar

participants to assess their agency's planning for new or revised programs for

managing high-risk offenders. 
30

Two- or three-person teams from prisons, jails, or community corrections agencies

may attend the training. More information and application procedures and forms

are contained in the NIC Schedule of Training Services for Fiscal Year 1996.

NIC Resources

t NIC Annual Program Plan, Fiscal Year 1996. July 1995.

t NIC Schedule of Training Services for Fiscal Year 1996. June 1995.

For copies, contact NIC at 1-800-995-6423 or 6429. For additional information, contact

Nancy Shomaker, NIC Academy, at 1-800-995-6429.
31

Medical/Treatment Panel

Mark Long, Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease

Control

The Division of Violence Prevention (DVP) is one of the newest centers in the Centers

for Disease Control (CDC). The Division's activities currently focus on youth violence

and violence against women.

The Public Health Model

The public health model has been used successfully in the fields of disease prevention,

environmental health, and injuries prevention. It has seen notable success in the area

of motor vehicle injury prevention, where collaboration between CDC and the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration has resulted in dramatic decreases in highway

deaths over the past two decades. Steps in the model are as follows:

1. Conduct surveillance (data collection). Surveillance involves learning about

the problem through counting cases, describing cases, setting baseline

measures to compare against trends over time. Surveillance makes it possible

to determine the effect of interventions by measuring where we are at the

beginning of a prevention effort and comparing levels with where we are

after programs have been implemented.

2. Identify risk factors. Our understanding of modifiable risk factors should

guide the development of prevention programs. For example, increased

cases of homicide have been primarily among the young. We know that a

major risk factor in such cases is unsupervised access by youth to firearms. 

If communities can reduce this access, we may save thousands of lives each

year.

3. Develop, test, and evaluate programs. Prevention programs should be

developed based on their potential impact on modifiable risk factors. These

interventions are tested and evaluated on the basis of data. For example, if

the program is designed to reduce violent behavior, you look for indicators of

violent behavior. In the small community-based programs DVP is developing,

such indicators might be suspensions from school for fighting, classroom

disruptions, or the high school drop-out rate. By comparing indicators before

and after the intervention, it is possible to objectively gauge its success or

failure.

4. Publicize successful programs. Implement the program on a wide scale, train

people to work in similar programs, and bring knowledge to the general

public.
32

The Centers for Disease Control is involved in a variety of activities that touch on

various points in this model. For example, in terms of surveillance and data collection,

CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health conducts a survey of high school

students. Results of this survey demonstrate the large numbers of youth who carry

weapons. Of the youth in this survey, 22% reported carrying some kind of weapon to

school for self-defense during the preceding 30 days. About 8% carried firearms, an

obvious risk behavior for violence.

Overview of Youth Violence Prevention Programs

t Evaluations of Specific Youth Violence Intervention Projects--These cooperative

agreements were undertaken to evaluate specific interventions that may reduce

injuries and deaths related to interpersonal violence among adolescents and

young adults. The interventions may influence one or more of the factors in the

causal chain that leads to violence. They have theoretical and empirical

foundations and are intended to produce measurable behavioral or health (i.e.,

injuries or deaths) improvements. Eleven projects have been funded. 

Interventions being evaluated include educational interventions, mentoring,

public awareness campaigns, and conflict resolution programs. The agency

has drawn from programs that exemplify strategies that are broadly

disseminated nationwide. For example, evaluations of conflict resolution

programs, a widely popular approach, have shown mixed results and may

indicate that the programs are not effective. The premise on which conflict

resolution is based is that conflict arises because the individuals involved lack

skills required to resolve disputes in a non-violent manner.

What is becoming clear, however, is that many adolescents perceive violence as

a preferable way of resolving conflict in their environments. The decision to use

violence may not arise from a lack of skill with peaceful alternatives, but from a

rational assessment of the situation and the merits of the various options

available. CDC understands that outcome evaluations indicating that some

strategies are not effective can be threatening to dedicated groups working on

the front lines, but this knowledge should stimulate our search for effective

solutions, since it guides us to broaden our horizons to discover other potentially

promising interventions.

t Community Demonstration Projects--These projects are intended to provide

information about the effectiveness of the interaction of multiple community

forces in a coordinated violence prevention program that includes multiple

interventions. The projects are designed to enable CDC to assist communities in

designing and implementing multi-faceted community youth violence prevention

programs through three- to five-year cooperative agreements.
33

The purpose of the strategy is: (a) to identify successful methods for delivering

youth violence interventions at the community level and (b) to determine if

multi-faceted community programs can reduce injuries and deaths due to

violence. Three projects were funded--in Durham, North Carolina; Houston,

Texas; and Brooklyn, New York. They involve mentoring, parental training, peer

leadership, job training, conflict resolution training, and rites of passage

programs.

Other Activities Related to Youth Violence

t Compendium of Evaluation Instruments--This document will include not only

evaluation instruments used by the projects CDC is funding, but also those used

by other programs. Programs are invited to send in their evaluations to be

published, thus increasing understanding among programs of how to evaluate

outcomes.

t A free publication called "The Prevention of Youth Violence: A Framework for

Community Action" provides a kind of menu for communities that want to

develop programs to address youth violence, describing factors that should go

into planning a program and giving examples of implemented programs whose

staff can provide valuable insights based on their experiences.

t A Study of Violent Deaths in Schools found that, against the overall background

of violence in our society, the numbers of violent deaths in schools were

relatively small. In general, schools appear to be safer than the streets.

t One program that appears to be getting very good results is the Home Health

Visitation Program. Public health nurses visit young parents and give advice and

support in raising children who would otherwise be at very high risk for a variety

of health problems. Although the program focused on the prevention of birth

defects and disabilities, it has been very effective at reducing child abuse.

Collaborative Projects

Examples of collaborative projects include:

t CDC's Family and Intimate Violence Prevention Team is working with a number

of other groups, including the National Science Foundation, the National

Academy of Science, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to learn what is needed to

develop a strong prevention agenda. They are studying risk factors, developing

definitions to improve the ability to conduct surveillance, and funding model

surveillance projects in three states.
34

t CDC and NIJ are collaborating on a national survey of domestic violence and a

study of a large health maintenance organization to determine the level of

violence against women, and are working with SAMHSA in developing training

centers for prevention program staff and health care providers.

t CDC is collaborating with several private and governmental agencies on a

national public awareness campaign aimed at changing attitudes regarding

domestic violence.

t NIJ and CDC's Division of Violence Prevention are involved in a project run by

the Emory School of Public Health to develop a multi-level intervention against

firearm injuries and violence among youth.

t OJJDP, BJA, HUD, and CDC co-funded a planning project in Chicago, "A

Partnership for Prevention." A physician from the University of Illinois at Chicago

is working closely with the mayor's office and a broad coalition of violence

prevention community-based organizations and other government agencies to

develop a comprehensive approach to violence prevention in the Windy City.

t The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and CDC are working

on a family violence prevention project among migrant farm workers.

t The Indian Health Service is collaborating with CDC in evaluating suicide and

violence prevention programs run by four Indian Health Service Centers.

t CDC has worked closely with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism (NIAAA) for seven or eight years in a study of risk factors for serious

suicide attempts, including acute intoxication and chronic alcoholism. Another

risk factor studied was "contagion," the idea that if an individual is personally

close to someone who has committed or attempted suicide, that individual is at

higher risk for attempting suicide.

The Future

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control needs to market its products and

activities better, in order to assist communities develop effective ways to reduce injuries

and deaths due to interpersonal and self-directed violence. For example, CDC hopes to

motivate policymakers and the public to recognize suicide as a serious public health

problem, albeit a preventable one.

The agency is frequently criticized for its research on firearm injuries, and foes have

tried repeatedly to eliminate its funding. So far these efforts have been unsuccessful,

mainly due to the widespread support of governmental partners at all levels (e.g.,
35

Justice, Education, and HUD), public health leaders, national advocacy groups, and

community activists.

CDC's clear strengths include:

t Evaluation. CDC is a widely respected research institution whose constituency is

generally the public health planners in state and local governments. The focus

on prevention-oriented research is unique among the nation's health agencies,

and it fills a major gap in our understanding of "what works" in reducing the toll

that violence and other serious health problems exact upon our population.

t Collaboration. CDC has a broad, well-established constituency of state and local

health agencies, and extensive connections to community-based organizations

(CBOs), upon which we have built and continue to build partnerships with many

other agencies and disciplines to integrate our efforts into coordinated responses

to violence and other serious public health issues.

t Data collection and analysis. Annual data on causes of death, hospital

discharges, and other medical care visits are available through CDC's National

Center for Health Statistics. Other CDC data sources include the Youth Risk

Behavior Surveillance System, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System, conducted through the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion. DVP scientists also collaborate with colleagues in the

Department of Justice to analyze the Uniform Crime National Crime Survey. 

Detailed analyses of these data sets greatly increase our understanding of the

extent, magnitude, historical trends, and characteristics of populations at risk for

violence.

t Knowledge dissemination and technical assistance. Articles in the Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report, CDC's newsletter, provide brief updates of emerging

health problems, outbreaks, and significant trends. CDC scientists publish

numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals targeted to large audiences of 

professionals in public health, mental health, behavioral science, and criminal

justice. The DVP publishes surveillance summaries describing trends and

characteristics of important violence-related health problems; reports on suicide,

firearm injuries, and homicide will be released in the next year. Prevention

guidelines are perhaps CDC's most important contribution to the understanding

and development of effective strategies for violence prevention. Two such

publications, "Youth Violence Prevention: A Framework for Community Action"

and "Youth Suicide Prevention Programs: A Resource Guide," are available free

through the Division of Violence Prevention at CDC. CDC is also improving its

capacity to provide information via the Internet; details can be obtained under

CDC's Home Page.
36

In December 1994, the CDC introduced an automated information line on the

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's program to reduce morbidity,

disability, mortality, and costs associated with injuries outside the workplace. 

The automated line offers the latest information available from CDC concerning

violence prevention, unintentional injuries, acute care and rehabilitation of

injured persons, disabilities prevention, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury,

assistance in injury research and interventions, and leadership and coordination

of national injury control efforts.

Callers to the automated line (404) 488-4677 may obtain information 24 hours a

day, 365 days a year via brief recordings, facsimile, and mail. Faxes usually are

received within five minutes and mailed items within ten working days.

CDC Division of Violence Prevention Resources

t 1995 Youth Violence Prevention Projects Funded in September 1993. 17 p.

t "Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence," in Health Affairs (Winter 1993). 

(Not available from the NIC Information Center.)

t The Prevention of Youth Violence: A Framework for Community Action, by Mary

Fenley, 1994. 95 p. (Not available from the NIC Information Center.)

For copies of these documents or additional information, contact: Division of Violence

Prevention (K60), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE,

Atlanta, GA 30341-3724.
37

Dr. Donald Williams, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Michigan

State University

Projects Addressing Violence

Michigan State University's Department of Psychiatry has conducted three projects

addressing violence. All the projects resulted from a consent decree in the Michigan

prison system.

t The Federal court ordered one study, which remains a benchmark study whose

methods have been used by other systems. The 1986 study found that

approximately 51% of mentally ill inmates were African-Americans; 37% were

European-Americans; there was a small proportion of Asians and Hispanics. Five

percent of mentally ill inmates were women.

t A state-funded epidemiological survey of the Michigan prison system was

completed in 1987. The survey was conducted in two waves. The first wave

studied a random sample of prisoners, using NIMH's Diagnostic Interview

Schedule. Using this schedule, a trained interviewer asks a number of specific

questions; interpreting results does not require any clinical judgment. The

second wave, which re-surveyed prisoners identified through the first wave

sample as having psychiatric symptoms, used a different instrument, the

Structured Clinical Interview and Diagnostic Schedule, to establish psychiatric

diagnosis and severity of illness. Trained clinicians, primarily African-American

psychologists and psychiatrists, conducted the second wave. Some results:

· The results indicated a high prevalence of mental illness among

prison inmates. For example, schizophrenia rates were close to

twice as high as in community samples. Inmates also had high

levels of mood disorders, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive

disorders.

· The study also found high levels of cognitive impairment among

inmates.

· Differences were identified in the prevalence of psychiatric

disorders by race, including a significantly higher prevalence of

mood disorders among the white male population than for male

African-Americans and a rate of cognitive impairment almost twice

as high for African-Americans as for whites.

· Severe mental illness was associated with higher levels of security,

but there was also a significant racial difference in this regard. 
38

White males with the most severe impairments were found mostly

in medium security classifications, while black males with the most

severe impairments were in the highest security levels.

Implications for Corrections

The study has a number of implications for corrections:

t The study validated the usefulness of epidemiological data, not only to identify

the prevalence of mental illness but also to indicate the kinds of programs prison

systems need to provide for the mentally ill.

t It also pointed to the power of good science in helping understand the issue of

violence. Because there is a higher prevalence of mental illness in prison

systems than in the general population, one way to reduce violence is to provide

for more adequate diagnosis and treatment of severely mentally ill inmates.

t Some cultural biases that occur in prison systems were identified through the

study. For example, most correctional officers in Michigan prisons are EuropeanAmericans from rural areas who have had little experience in dealing with the

primarily urban African-American inmates. The result was a great degree of

misreading and wrong assumptions about people's behavior. Signs of psychiatric

symptoms are determined by our cultural background, so blacks who were

actually mentally ill were more likely to be seen as "bad" than "mad" and thus

assigned to high security levels.

t Most prison inmates are incarcerated as a result of an involvement with drugs. 

Drug prevention in the community and follow-up are therefore very important. 

The fact that about 80% of persons diagnosed with mental illness return to

prison within two years is a clear indication of a lack of services to deal with their

problems.

Other Projects

t Michigan State Psychiatry Department faculty are serving as consultants to a

pilot program of the Detroit-Wayne County Community Mental Health Board

designed to provide a model of close case monitoring and comprehensive mental

health, substance abuse, rehabilitative, and probationary services to mentally ill

persons released from state prisons and the Wayne County jails. The goals of

the Mental Health Board and Psychiatry faculty are to develop clinical

consultation and inservice training.

t Psychiatry Department faculty are also responding to an RFP to provide inservice
39

training and treatment outcome evaluations at the Women's Inpatient Unit at the

state's prison psychiatric hospital.

t Michigan State University faculty have also had preliminary discussions with state

corrections officials about providing consulting services to the prison reception

centers and administrative segregation unit.

For additional information, contact Dr. Donald Williams, Department of Psychiatry,

Michigan State University, East Fee Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316; 517/353-3888.
40

Dr. Mary Knipmeyer, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services

Administration

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is under the

Public Health Service. Until 1992, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism (NIAAA), the Office for Substance Abuse Prevention, and the Office of

Treatment Improvement comprised the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health

Administration (ADAMHA). In 1992, the administration proposed a new arrangement

that would return NIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA to NIH. At that time, SAMHSA was created

under NIMH.

The Violence Research Branch of NIMH is doing some interesting research on violence,

especially on biomedical issues. NIDA and NIAAA also have a biomedical focus, but

they include health services research as part of their programs.

Relationship of Violence to Alcohol and Drugs

Being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs can be a precipitating factor in

violent behavior. Alcohol and other drugs are associated with 49% of homicides, 68%

of manslaughter charges, 20-35% of suicides, 62% of assaults, 52% of sexual assaults,

38% of child abuse, and approximately 50% of spousal abuse cases. Moreover,

individuals who have been victims or witnesses to violence have a greater propensity

for involvement with alcohol or other drugs. They also experience more mental health

problems.

A major priority for SAMHSA is to address violence against women. The literature

suggests that 75-80% of women who need substance abuse treatment are either

currently in battering situations or have experienced physical abuse or sexual assault at

some time in their lives. Children raised with violence in the home are at greater risk of

becoming violent themselves. Violence in the home creates a pattern and expectation

among children that violence is an appropriate reaction to stress and an effective way

to express anger.

Because violence is such a critical issue in the fields of mental health and substance

abuse, SAMHSA has established a committee of Violence Coordinators to provide

leadership on violence-related policies and to coordinate activities across the agency. A

number of activities relating to violence, substance abuse, and mental health have been

undertaken within each of SAMHSA's three Centers (Center for Mental Health Services,

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment)

and the Office of the Administrator.

SAMHSA's violence-related activities take three different approaches:
41

t Knowledge Building,

t Knowledge Dissemination, and

t Training and Technical Assistance.

Knowledge Building Activities

Several of SAMHSA'S demonstration grant programs include a focus on violence. One is

specifically targeted to the prevention of alcohol- and other drug-(AOD) related

violence. These programs include the following:

t CSAP Demonstration Grants for High-Risk Youth Populations utilize

comprehensive community-based approaches to AOD prevention targeted to

high-risk youth, including those currently or at high risk of becoming victims,

witnesses, and/or perpetrators of violent acts associated with AOD. The

component on female adolescents focuses specifically on risk factors for alcohol

and other drug use that are particular to girls and young women or that they

may experience differently than their male counterparts.

t CSAP Demonstration Grants for Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Infants

program provides comprehensive community-based programs to help women of

childbearing age avoid use of alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy.

t CSAP Community Partnership Demonstration Grants support coalitions in building

long-term prevention strategies, many of which include the prevention of

violence.

t CSAP Critical Populations Demonstration Grants program develops treatment

program enhancements geared towards adolescents ages 10-21; racial and

ethnic minorities; residents of public housing; women, their infants and children;

and rural populations. Violence prevention and anger management are

integrated into these projects.

t CSAT Residential Treatment Demonstration Grant Program for Women and

Children and Residential Treatment Services Grant Program for Pregnant and

Postpartum Women provide comprehensive treatment services for women who

are at especially high risk in settings in which they can bring their children with

them. These programs use a Comprehensive Treatment Model developed by

CSAT, which includes assessment of abuse histories, counseling for physical and

sexual abuse, safe housing, and other services. Domestic partners are included

in treatment, as appropriate.
42

t CSAT Criminal Justice Treatment Demonstration Grants support programs that

integrate anger management, violence prevention and control, and pro-social

skills into their therapeutic service continuum. Settings for these programs

include juvenile justice settings, prisons, jails, community treatment settings for

probationers/parolees, and court diversion programs.

t CSAT Target Cities program provides services to populations in metropolitan

areas. Improved treatment outcomes are defined as reduced alcohol and drug

use; increased overall physical, psychiatric, and psychological health; improved

social and family functioning; and reduced involvement with the criminal justice

system.

t CSAT AIDS Linkage Program strengthens links between the primary health care,

alcohol, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and mental health treatment systems. 

Goals include reducing AOD use, decreasing criminal involvement, assessing and

addressing

bio-psycho-social needs, and addressing the comprehensive needs of the client. 

These interventions also have an impact on violent behavior.

t CSAT Cooperative Agreements for Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery

Systems for Rural Remote and Culturally Distinct Populations include services to

adolescents, especially those involved in the child welfare system.

Knowledge Dissemination Activities

t National Women's Resource Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Other Drug Abuse and Mental Illness provides knowledge

development and dissemination, training, and technical assistance activities

relating to women's substance abuse and mental health issues across the life

cycle, including violence against women. For example, an Issue Forum in July

1995 in Washington, DC, focused on the topic of Women and Violence Across the

Life Cycle.

t National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information provides free

publications on alcohol and other drug use and related issues, such as violence,

for all age groups.

t CMHS Mental Health Forum on Physical/Sexual Abuse in the Lives of Women

with Serious Mental Illness, held in July 1994, was a critical first step in shaping a

national agenda on physical and sexual abuse in the lives of women with serious

mental illness. CMHS has convened a Technical Expert Group through the
43

National Women's Resource Center to synthesize conference findings and finalize

recommendations to CMHS.

t Violence Forum within Prevline allows users of CSAP's on-line information service

to communicate directly on issues related to AOD-related violence. The forum

promotes research, evaluation, networking, data exchange, and sharing of ideas.

t SAMHSA Contribution to Administration for Children and Families Domestic

Violence Hotline supports training for hotline staff to ensure that they are

knowledgeable about the involvement of alcohol, drugs, and mental health in

incidents of domestic violence and can make appropriate referrals to services.

t Communication Grants assist communities in developing, testing, and

implementing communication tools to build awareness and mobilize parents,

youth, and community leaders to act in the area of AOD-related violence

prevention.

Training and Technical Assistance Activities

t Community Team Training Institute on Violence Against Women as a Factor in

Lives of Women with Substance Abuse Problems and Mental Illness. SAMHSA's

Office for Women's Services, CSAP, CSAT, and CMHS have nearly completed a

training curriculum to be utilized through the National Women's Resource Center.

 The training program (Community Team Training Institute) will bring together

teams of state and local officials from a range of fields to develop strategies to

address violence against women and its relationship to substance abuse and

mental health problems among women in their communities.

t CSAP Violence Prevention Community Partnership Training helps local community

partnerships develop strategies to prevent and counteract AOD-related violence in

their communities.

t CSAP AOD-Related Violence Prevention Leadership Support Contract provides

substantive, technical, and administrative support for a series of special leadership

activities to prevent AOD-related violence (e.g., specialized work group, meetings,

and conferences on diverse topics, and the AOD-related violence prevention

community early warning network).

Current Partnerships with Other Agencies

SAMHSA has current partnerships on various violence-related activities with the Centers

for Disease Control, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Drug

Enforcement Administration, and the Health Resources Services Administration. 
44

SAMHSA is very interested in expanding its current collaborative relationships and in

developing new relationships with other Federal agencies and departments, including

the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and the Department of Labor. Some areas of interest include:

t Collaboration on information dissemination, e.g., joint sponsorship of

conferences, public education activities, expanded utilization of current

electronic/on-line information systems, and development of informational

materials.

t Collaboration on training and technical assistance activities.

t Collaboration on demonstration projects to improve the integration of services.

There are a number of common issues we can address together. SAMHSA is interested

in how to address system change without losing the valuable information that has been

gained in individual topical areas. SAMHSA made awards in 1995, but this is the last

year of these types of awards. In the future, SAMHSA will change from awarding $500

million in demonstration grants to a total of $300 million, with the remainder to go to

the Block Grant Program. The Federal government will return the direct provision or

management of services to the states. The challenge will be not to lose our forward

momentum in addressing these important issues.

For additional information, contact Dr. Mary Knipmeyer, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 13-99, Rockville, MD 20857;

301/443-5184.
45

Dr. David J. Drummond, Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals

Violence in the Workplace

A 1991 survey of 166 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals found 24,000

significant incidents of violence, ranging from personal threats up to assaults with

firearms. More than 2,000 of these incidents involved the use of a deadly weapon, and

more than 8,400 involved physical assault of a person. The incidents resulted in injuries

to more than 4,000 patients and staff and more than 3,500 lost days of work during the

year.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of

Occupational Safety (NIOSH), and the VA have begun some joint projects addressing

violence in the workplace. VA has also collaborated with the American Psychiatric

Association, the American Psychological Association, and the Association for Emergency

Room Physicians and Nurses. Most significantly, the Joint Commission for the

Accreditation of Hospital Organizations, a private, nonprofit agency that accredits all

public and private health care facilities according to rigorous standards, is beginning to

look at the issue of "security." The Commission wants to know what medical centers

are doing to protect patients and staff from violence. This effort will mean that health

care systems will be accountable in terms of specific actions to prevent violence in

health care facilities. Up to now, it has been very easy for health care administrators to

ignore the problem of violence.

A Project in the VA Medical Center (VAMC)--Portland, Oregon

The first step in addressing the violence in the Portland VAMC was to identify system

problems, which included:

t No incident tracking. Although incidents were being tracked in certain divisions

of the facility, there was no coordination of efforts. The police and nursing staff

had a database but didn't share their information with other groups in the

facility. Staff had no systematic way to track or report violent incidents in a

coordinated manner.

t Lack of policies. The facility had not developed any policies on how to deal with

violent incidents. There were no signs at the entrance saying, "Weapons are not

allowed." It was important to create a culture that made it clear that violence

was unacceptable.

t No training in how to deal with violent incidents. Staff were not trained. When

something happened, chaos erupted. Some staff ran away from, and some ran

toward, the incident.
46

Therefore, three initiatives were developed:

t An incident tracking program. This formal incident reporting system attempted

to provide an easy way for staff to tell us when they were threatened or when

they witnessed a violent incident. Staff, especially health care workers, don't

want to think about violence; they have been trained to internalize any

problems. Therefore, it is difficult to find out what is really going on.

t A training program. The training used many ideas from other facilities. As health

care facilities are special settings that forbid managing violence in any way that

involves harm to a patient, it was important to train staff how to defuse anger

without injuring anyone. Staff are taught how to manage incidents verbally, if

possible, and physically only with humane methods.

t Sensible policies and procedures. These were uniform policies applicable throughout

the facility.

The Portland VA Hospital's Behavioral Emergency Committee

The Behavioral Emergency Committee is designed to increase staff confidence and

reduce stress around the issue of violence, collect data and make policy

recommendations, maintain an advisory system, and review physical design. The

committee participated in helping architects design our new hospital with an eye toward

how patients move through the system, where they come into a clinic, whether they

will be seen or heard.

After the hospital's incident reporting system was in place, the first year's data

suggested the following:

t Nurses are especially likely to suffer injuries.

t Other staff who are especially vulnerable include social workers and clerks. The

medical staff were somewhat less likely to be injured because they tend to let

other people handle such incidents. The VA now has a central policy that says it

is the responsibility of all staff to manage violent patients.

t 50% of incidents of violence happen in the emergency room.

t Inpatient psychiatry is the second most likely location for violence.

t Types of incidents--verbal threats represent the largest proportion of incidents

(29.9%). These should be taken seriously because they are sentinel events. 
47

The next most common types of incidents are conduct disturbances (27.4%). 

Physical assaults represent 15.5% of incidents.

t A relatively small number of patients are responsible for a large proportion of the

incidents. About 25% of all patients who created a disturbance were responsible

for nearly 50% of all incidents, and they were responsible for the serious

incidents.

Flagging System

A flagging system was developed to notify medical staff of patients who had been

repeatedly violent. Patients' records are flagged both on the computer and on the hard

copy record. It was possible to set limits for these patients, making clear that violence

would not be tolerated but that we were there to provide medical care.

There were 47 incidents of disruptive behavior the year before the flagging system, and

only 4 incidents after the system was established. A facility needs commitment and

training before instituting a flagging system. It is important to know how to react, not

just who is potentially dangerous. The director of the facility must also be committed

to such a system.

Department of Veterans Affairs Resources Related to Violence

t Difficult, Dangerous Drug-seeking: A Successful Program to Care for Your 3-D

Patients. 7 p.

t "Hospital Violence Reduction Among High-Risk Patients," Journal of the American

Medical Association, May 5, 1989. (Not available from the NIC Information

Center.)

t Report on Assaultive Behavior in Veterans Health Administration Facilities During

Fiscal Year 1991. Executive Summary. 1 p.

For additional information, contact Dr. David Drummond, Department of Veterans

Affairs Hospital, P.O. Box 1036, Portland, OR 97207; 503/220-8262, x4107.
48

Dr. William D. Davidson, Staff Psychiatrist, DC (District of Columbia)

Department of Corrections

Violence and Brain Injury Project

The Violence and Brain Injury Project was initially funded through the Department of

Defense, Health Affairs. Project initiatives are based on persuasive research that

indicates that an understanding of brain injuries is critical to understanding violent

behavior. Research has identified a close association between injury to the frontal lobe,

for example, and violent, impulsive behavior. Brain injuries can begin prenatally with a

mother's poor nutrition and/or substance abuse and can also be caused by child abuse

or just the trauma of growing up in a violent household. The Violence and Brain Injury

Institute has been established to develop initiatives in the area of violence prevention

along a continuum from primary prevention to treatment for violent offenders.

The Violence and Brain Injury Institute

The Violence and Brain Injury Institute (VBII) seeks to address the prevention of violent

behavior by establishing and supporting promising initiatives in the domains of health

care, education, and corrections. Primary prevention must reach the general population

as early as possible to raise awareness about factors leading to violent behavior and to

teach alternative responses. Secondary prevention focuses on individuals who are

known to be at risk for violent behavior, and treatment is for individuals who have

already committed violent acts.

VBII Initiatives Include:

t Parenting and Literacy Skills Program (PALS)--The PALS program is a primary

violence prevention program that seeks to intervene in the intergenerational

cycle of violence by teaching parenting and discipline techniques to incarcerated

parents. PALS is currently being developed at two sites with female offenders,

with a prison population at the DC Department of Corrections, and with a

population at the municipal jail in Alexandria, Virginia. Plans for future

development include adaptations for male offenders and Hispanic populations, as

well as development of a school-based PALS program. PALS consists of a series

of lesson plans that use children's literature to address parenting issues and the

Brain Building Basics workbook.

t Outreach and Information--The VMII has developed an Annotated Bibliography

of research on the relationship between violence and the brain. Topics include

biology of the brain, brain injury and violence, violence and the growing brain,

violence prevention and female offenders, and violence prevention. This
49

resource is available through the NIC Information Center. In addition, the VBII

offers a current and regularly updated list of references on relevant topics.

t HeadSmart Schools: Head Injury and Violence Prevention for Elementary

Schools--Brain injury is the number one cause of death and disability of American

youth. In 1990, firearms surpassed motor vehicles as the leading cause of brain

injury fatalities in the United States. Violence is the number one cause of head

injury for certain segments of the population. HeadSmart Schools, developed in

collaboration with educators from around the country, addresses all the major

causes of brain injury in children, including violence. HeadSmart Schools is

designed to be integrated into the regular school curriculum so that prevention is

learned over time as a basic, rather than a special one-time event. HeadSmart

Schools also seeks to educate parents about brain injury prevention and to

involve the greater community with local elementary schools in the cause of head

injury and violence prevention.

t Project Manhood: A Mentoring Program to Train Boys to be Men--Project

Manhood is a mentoring program ideally suited to assist with the separation

stresses experienced by boys when fathers are called into service. A pilot test of

the core program was conducted with 140 boys in Camden, New Jersey. When

fully implemented, the program helps churches and schools develop

comprehensive approaches and it enables them to reach a generation of boys. 

The program has multiple components that include parent training and mentor

training as well as a rites of passage program for boys. Boys undergo four

stages of development through Project Manhood, taking them from ages 7

through 21. Topics for the first stage, for ages 7-13, include authentic manhood

training, planning and problem solving, drug prevention and peer resistance,

entrepreneurial training, and counseling and case management.

t Inmates and Family Violence Study--This pilot study is being developed at the

Military Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The project identifies

inmates who are confined for assaultive offenses against family members to

determine whether there are differences between intra-familial and extra-familial

assaultive offenders. Additionally, inmates confined for intra-familial assault are

interviewed to determine their level of recognition of family system distress,

family development, and family history, especially in terms of issues related to

discipline and aggression.

Implications for Corrections

Research suggests that those in the field of corrections need to recognize that violence

is a process that has an organic component. Brain injury, whether permanent or

temporary, is a major predictor and determinant of impulsive violent behavior. In this
50

context, corrections may need to consider primary violence prevention programs to

intervene in the cycle of violence and criminal behavior perpetuated in the homes of

many offenders and to recognize that medical interventions can be used to help many

violent offenders control their explosive behavior.

Violence and Brain Injury Institute Resources

t Annotated Bibliography, Violence and Brain Injury Project. 47 p.

t "The Brain Manages Happiness and Sadness in Different Centers," New York

Times, March 28, 1995. (Not available from the NIC Information Center.)

t "In Brain's Early Growth, Timetable May Be Crucial," New York Times, August 29,

1995. (Not available from the NIC Information Center.)

t "Early Violence Leaves its Mark on the Brain," New York Times, October 3, 1995. 

(Not available from the NIC Information Center.)

t Family Violence: Intervention and Prevention. The Parenting and Literacy Skills

Programs for Prisons. Pilot Study Report, April 1995. 26 p.

t "Old Accident Points to Brain's Moral Center," Science Times, May 24, 1995. (Not

available from the NIC Information Center.)

t Violence and Brain Injury Project. Progress Report: May 1995. 18 p.

For additional information, please contact William D. Davidson, M.D., or Mary-Garrett

Bodel, Violence and Brain Injury Institute, 128 S. Royal St., Alexandria, VA 22314;

703/299-0699.
51

Victim-Witness Panel

Mary Anne Castellano, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver

U.S. Attorneys' Offices respond to victims' needs in a number of ways. The Federal

government began implementing programs for victims in 1984. Having been involved

with state-level programs prior to that time, President Reagan put together a Task

Force on Victims of Crime. After the Task Force report was completed, Congress

enacted the Victim-Witness Protection Act. The act was designed to "enhance and

protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system,

to ensure that the Federal government does all that is possible within limited resources

to assist victims and witnesses of Federal crimes without infringing on the Constitutional

rights of defendants."

The Crime Control Act of 1990 demonstrated a continuing concern for the victims of all

crimes and reflected a view that the needs and interests of victims and witnesses had

not been met by the Victim-Witness Protection Act. The provisions of the Crime Control

Act mandate that officials of the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies

engaged in the detention, investigation, or prosecution of crime make their best effort

to ensure that victims of crimes are treated with fairness and that there is respect for

victims' dignity and privacy.

Victims' Rights

In 1990, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act created, in effect, a Federal Crime

Victims' Bill of Rights, which states that a crime victim has the following rights:

t The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and

privacy.

t The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offender.

t The right to be notified of court proceedings.

t The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense,

unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially

affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial.

t The right to confer with an attorney for the government in the case.

t The right to restitution.
52

t The right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and

release of the offender.

The Act provides that officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other

departments and agencies of the U.S. engaged in the detection, investigation, or

prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are

accorded the rights described in the Act.

Each victim receives a copy of these rights, which apply in all cases in which individual

victims are adversely affected by criminal conduct or when a witness provides

information involving criminal activity. Although special attention is given to violent

crime victims, the office also serves victims of Federal crimes who have suffered

physical, financial, or emotional trauma and ensures that they receive the assistance

and protection to which they are entitled under the law.

The Process of Assisting Victims

1. An investigative agency comes into the U.S. Attorney's office with information

that a crime or suspected crime has been committed.

2. Victims and witnesses are identified. If it is a violent crime, the information

on victims is brought to the Victim-Witness Coordinator, and all efforts are

made to assist the victim and to ensure that the victim receives either

medical or psychological assistance, if needed. If possible, victims are sent to

an appropriate agency or local service.

3. As the U.S. Attorney's Office does not have the funds to pay for these

services, the Victim Compensation Director in the state is called. The state

receives Federal funds for all crime victims in the state, including Federal

crime victims.

4. The U.S. Attorney's Office is also entitled to receive Office of Victims of Crime

emergency funds for crime victims. In the case of an emergency, these

funds can be quickly tapped to provide needed services. 

5. Victims are notified of important court proceedings such as indictment, arrest,

release of the offender, trial schedules, motions hearings, and terms of

negotiations or pleas. This makes victims an integral part of the system. 

Victims must be allowed into the process or they are re-victimized.

6. Victims are assisted in developing the Victim Impact Statement, which is

presented to the court before sentencing. It gives the court information

concerning any harm, including financial, social, psychological, or physical,

suffered by the victim.

7. Victims are given information on sentencing and have the right by law to

address the court on sentencing. This is a new law, and many judges initially
53

did not like it. However, it is another part of the process of healing for the

victim.

8. Finally, a letter is sent to the Bureau of Prisons, requesting that the victim be

kept informed of all hearings, releases, escapes, death, transfer, or other

activities involving the offender. The Bureau's Victim-Witness staff is very

responsive to victims' needs.

9. The Victim-Witness Coordinator also notifies employers of victims' absences

from work that are due to attending a trial. Creditors may also be called and

given an explanation of the victim's situation.

10. Victims and witnesses also receive travel assistance to attend court

proceedings and for babysitting, if they need it.
54

U.S. Attorney's Office Resources

Victim/Witness Handbook. United States Attorney's Office. District of Colorado.

For additional information, contact Mary Anne Castellano, U.S. Attorney's Office, 1961

Stout Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO 80294; 303/844-2081.
55

Susan Laurence, U.S. Department of Justice,

Office for Victims of Crime

The Task Force on Victims of Crimes was established in 1982. The Task Force held

public forums throughout the country with victims and those who dealt with victims. 

After they completed these forums, the Task Force published a report that had 68

recommendations for the criminal justice system and allied professionals who work with

victims. This is an extraordinary document, despite having been published so long ago.

In response to the Task Force report, Congress passed the 1984 Victims of Crime Act. 

The law created the Crime Victims' Fund comprised of money collected as fines, asset

forfeitures, and special assessments from offenders convicted of Federal offenses. The

Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was also created in the Department of Justice to

administer this fund.

The Office for Victims of Crime uses no tax dollars to help victims; all funding comes

from money taken from offenders to benefit victims. The programming budget

fluctuates every year because it is contingent on the amount of money that is collected.

 The Office for Victims of Crime is small and has a unique, proactive mission: to be

advocates of crime victims. Funds are used in three ways:

t Most of the money in the Crime Victims Fund goes back to the states in the form

of formula grants for Crime Victims' Compensation Programs and Crime Victims'

Assistance Programs.

t The OVC also works with Federal agencies--with Victim-Witness Coordinators in

U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the FBI, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of

Prisons--to provide training and technical assistance to help them deal effectively

with victims. Particularly within this Federal initiative, the emphasis is on victims

on Federal lands, which includes the whole tribal culture. A prime mission in the

office has been to deal with Native Americans.

t The remainder of the funding is for discretionary programs. The OVC works with

the whole criminal justice system to help everyone deal more sensitively and

compassionately with crime victims.

Constituents of the Office for Victims of Crime

Whenever there is a violent offender, it is important to remember that there is a victim

of violent crime. OVC's constituents are everyone, including the media. The Office has

a program that focuses on clergy because victims often first go to their minister, rabbi,

or priest for help. There is also a program that works with criminal justice agencies to
56

help them understand their legal obligations to victims, including the collection of

restitution.

Workplace Violence

The Office for Victims of Crime addresses workplace violence in a variety of contexts. 

When working with criminal justice agencies, the term used is "staff victimization." 

Someone who is essentially victimized every day while on the job is seriously affected in

terms both of their personal lives and their work. OVC has been helping agencies

establish plans with their Employee Assistance Programs and with their unions to work

with victimized staff. As the OVC Program Plan makes clear, there will continue to be

an emphasis on this kind of work with other types of agencies, including hospitals, that

want to develop a positive plan for dealing with workplace violence.

Immediate Responses to Emerging Problems

OVC can help any agency that has a critical incident in which there are multiple victims

of a crime. A team can be sent within 48 hours to provide assistance in such cases. 

Several teams were sent to Oklahoma City after the bombing, for example, to work with

school children and with caregivers.

Victim-Offender Mediation

t Victim-Offender Mediation has been around for some time, but it was previously

used almost exclusively in cases involving juveniles. It is now being used in

cases involving adults. Although victim-offender mediation continues to focus on

property crimes, victims of many types of crime are increasingly asking to meet

with offenders. The process is what is important; the goal is not necessarily to

arrive at agreement. The purpose of the mediation is to establish a dialog that

enables victims to ask questions. This can be a healing process and is a

promising approach for promoting justice.

t Victim-Impact Panels allow victims to confront certain types of offenders in a

group. For example, victims of drunk drivers might confront a group of

offenders convicted of this offense. Again, these panels usually have a

humanizing effect. There are certain types of offenders on whom this has the

opposite effect, however, so such programs have to be undertaken very

carefully.

t New victims' programs are being developed in other parts of the world. New

Zealand, for example, is starting family group conferences in which the

offender's family and support structure and the victim's family and support
57

structure talk to each other. They agree on the offender's behavior as terrible

without condemning the person.

Training and Technical Assistance

The OVC provided two national training and technical assistance programs for

corrections personnel. One focused on prisons and paroling authorities, and the other

focused on community corrections. Training was provided on:

t Integrating victims into the agency's goals and mission,

t Understanding the experience of victimization,

t Restitution to victims,

t Notification about the offender's case.

Collaboration

The Office for Victims of Crime's mandate excludes certain activities:

t Prevention--Limited resources make this impossible.

t Evaluation--OVC relies on other agencies to collect evaluation data.

t Research--More research is needed on victims, but research is not part of OVC's

mission.

OVC is therefore looking for partnerships with other agencies in order to identify best

practices in dealing with victims and then to disseminate that information. In one

collaborative effort, NIJ and OVC are holding a symposium on Restorative Justice in

December. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is also providing Federal dollars to support

victim assistance.

OVC Resources

t Office for Victims of Crime FY 1995 Program Plan. 13 p.

t Fact Sheet: Immediate Responses to Emerging Problems (IREP). 2 p.

t Fact Sheet: Trainers Bureau. 2 p.
58

For additional information, contact Susan Laurence, Office for Victims of Crime, 633

Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20531; 202/616-3573.
59

Professional Associations

James Gondles, American Correctional Association

The American Correctional Association (ACA) is a broad-based professional association

with more than 20,000 members and over 70 affiliate organizations representing a

broad range of professions within corrections. The association has been active for more

than 100 years.

The American Correctional Association has been involved in a number of initiatives

related to violence, including:

t A National Task Force on Violence within ACA was formed in 1994. It recognizes

that community corrections professionals have a role to play in dealing with

violence, both in terms of public safety and in terms of working with offenders to

manage the risk they represent. The goal of the task force is to develop a

national policy on violence. In addition, the task force will highlight practical

strategies that will be of use to correctional professionals in dealing with

violence.

t The theme for the 1994 Conference in St. Louis was "Violence in Society: How

Should We Respond?" Four major sessions had themes dealing with violence,

each with supporting sessions:

· Violence on the Front Line: Helping the Helpers

· Violence: Is our External Environment Helping or Hurting?

· The Key to Understanding the Violence

· Institutional Violence: Why?

t ACA has sponsored a number of workshops around the country on topics related

to violence:

· Handling Aggressive and Manipulative Behavior

· Gangs

· Gangs, Cults, and Volatile Inmates
60

t ACA has several violence-related projects under way that are supported by

Federal grants:

· Gangs in Correctional Facilities: A National Assessment

· Gangs in Probation and Parole: A National Assessment

· Field Evaluation: Prison Setting (Less than Lethal Technology)

· New Initiatives in Correctional Technology.

Future Plans

ACA anticipates that Federal agencies will become increasingly unable to fund projects

for which ACA would have received funding in the past. Therefore, the Association is

beginning to look to foundations and funding sources outside the Federal government

to support projects dealing with violence in society. ACA is very interested in linking

with other professional associations to speak with a more unified voice on issues of

importance. It is important to speak out in a reasoned way on how to deal with

violence.

ACA Resources Related to Violence

t Cage Your Rage: An Inmate's Guide to Anger Control. (Also in Spanish). 1993.

t Cage Your Rage Video. 1993.

t Dealing with Anger: A Violence Prevention Program for African-American Youth.

(Separate videos for males and females). 1994.

t News Release: "American Correctional Association Takes Lead in Preventing and

Reducing Violence." November 1994. 10 p.

For additional information, contact John J. Greene, American Correctional Association,

4380 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706-4322; 1-800-222-5646 or 301/918-1844.
61

A. N. Moser, Jr., National Sheriffs' Association

The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) has produced publications, conducted training,

and completed national projects on a variety of topics related to violence in America.

NSA's Positions on Issues Related to Violence

The National Sheriffs' Association has taken the following anti-crime positions:

t Assault weapons. NSA supports the ban on the manufacture, sale, and

possession of certain semiautomatic guns known as assault weapons.

t Community policing. NSA supports funding to sustain the continuity of the

100,000 COPS Program and community policing. NSA believes community

policing is the future of law enforcement.

t Death penalty. NSA supports habeas corpus reform in an effort to restrict the

number of appeals and put a limit on costly and endless litigation.

t Enforcement. NSA supports additional funding for rural law enforcement to

combat violent crime and domestic abuse. NSA also believes more funds are

needed for programs related to DNA testing, a new crime laboratory,

implementation of NCIC 2000, Automatic Fingerprint Identification Systems,

photo and document scanning capabilities, and training facilities at the FBI's

Quantico headquarters.

t Juvenile and anti-gang initiatives. NSA supports funding for state and local

rehabilitation programs, including boot camps and drug court. However, NSA

strongly believes that juvenile crime is a state and local issue and should not be

federalized.

t Prisons and jails. Construction of local jails has not kept up with the increase in

crime. Although NSA supports truth in sentencing, counties and other units of

local government must receive a fair share of grant funding for regional prisons

and jails. NSA supports legislation requiring inmates to exhaust administrative

remedies before they file a civil rights action in Federal court.

Current Violence-Related Projects

t Community Policing Initiative (BJA support)

t TRIAD--The Triad Concept to Reduce Criminal Victimization of the Elderly (NIJ)
62

t Less-than-Lethal Weapons: Application/Evaluations in Jails and Patrol Situations

(NIJ)

t Evaluation of Oleoresin Capsicum and Stun Device Effectiveness in Jails (NIJ)

t Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed (Department of Transportation/National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

t Court Security and Transportation of Prisoners: A National Study (NIJ)

t Satellite Educational Television Network Designed Specifically for Jail/Prison

Inmates (BJA)

National Sheriffs' Association Resources

t National Sheriffs' Association. Organizational Information Sheet. 9 p.

t Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed. June 1994.

For additional information, contact A.N. Moser, National Sheriffs' Association, 1450 Duke

Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703/836-7827.
63

Ann Crowe, American Probation & Parole Association

The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) is a membership organization,

primarily composed of probation and parole professionals but including academicians,

individual members, agency members, and affiliate members. It is a growing, vital

organization and has an important role to play in responding to violence. APPA's two

annual training conferences have included specific sessions related to violence. APPA

also provides regional training programs, some of which are focused on intervening with

violent offenders, and publishes a quarterly magazine, Perspectives, that contains

research and practice articles for community corrections.

It is important to remember that probation and parole agencies handle most of the

offenders in this country, including some who are violent offenders. However, these

agencies often have the fewest resources in corrections. One challenge is to make our

voices heard on the issue of violence.

APPA's Initiatives Related to Violence

APPA has had several initiatives addressing violence, which involved the following

activities:

t Identifying and intervening with drug-involved offenders; 

t Helping agencies develop a prototypical intensive supervision program, which

included supervision of violent offenders;

t Training probation and parole personnel on working with victims and on

restitution;

t Offering regional training programs on intervening with violent youthful and adult

offenders, on youth gangs, and on sex offenders; and

t Looking at how probation and parole can incorporate the community into their

work.

Two projects specifically related to violence were funded in 1993-1995 by the Bureau of

Justice Assistance:

t Intervening in Family Violence--As a result of this project, APPA is now

completing a resource manual for probation and parole professionals on

intervening in family violence. 
64

t Technical Assistance--APPA provided technical assistance to community

corrections agencies. Eight of these technical assistance events were on family

violence.

Evaluation

If additional funding becomes available, APPA would like to do follow-up evaluations

with some agencies that have participated in the training and technical assistance to

determine what changes they have made and how these changes have affected

offenders and victims. APPA would also welcome the opportunity to become involved in

other research and evaluation activities in this area and to collaborate with other

groups.

The Family Violence Project

APPA's Family Violence Project was based on several assumptions. The most important

is that family violence is a crime, both against the individuals involved and against

society. It should be treated as a crime. The research makes clear that family violence

is associated with many other types of violent crime.

Work on family violence often focuses on the front end, on arresting and prosecuting

the offender, and these activities are obviously important. However, very little attention

has been paid to intervening with offenders to help them change. Until that happens,

the problem of violence will continue to be with us. We also know that family violence

is not likely to stop unless individual offenders are compelled to change. Until the power

situation is changed to make the exchange more even, offenders will continue to

engage in violent behavior.

The Family Violence Project is focused first on a concern for victim protection and

empowerment and then on supervision, accountability, and rehabilitation of the

offender. The policies developed through the project include several recommendations

for probation and parole agencies:

t Include victim contact as part of agency services.

t Assess offenders and victims to the extent possible.

t Include specialized conditions of probation and parole that are specific to family

violence events. These include no-contact orders, forfeiture of weapons,

supervised child visitation, substance abuse testing and abstinence, participation

in a batterer's intervention program, payment of family support, and victim

restitution, among others. (See attachment.)
65

APPA's Recommendations for Developing or Enhancing Domestic Violence

Intervention Programs in Community Corrections Agencies

These recommendations include the following ten principles:

1. Involve key stakeholders in planning.

2. Develop a coordinated community response.

3. Assess needs and resources to make the program meet specific local needs.

4. Include program goals of victim protection and empowerment, offender

supervision and accountability, and offender rehabilitation.

5. Assess clients and identify offenders needing the program.

6. Include program components of:

a. Victim contact;

b. Offender assessment;

c. Special conditions of probation/parole;

d. Maximum levels of supervision and enforcement of all conditions;

e. Required offense-specific long-term treatment; and

f. Assessment, monitoring, and treatment of substance abuse, if needed.

7. Other preferred program elements:

a. Specialized and smaller caseloads;

b. Pre-sentence investigation reports;

c. Victim impact statement before sentencing; and

d. Incarceration as an intervention tool, when needed.

8. Develop comprehensive written policies and procedures.

9. Provide training on domestic violence for all community corrections staff and

specialized, in-depth training for those with domestic violence offenders on

their caseloads.

10. Evaluate programs and use findings for future decisionmaking.

Potential Initiatives

t APPA and other associations are in a good position to share research information

with the field, with the people who can actually implement the ideas through

their programs. This is a vital role for correctional membership organizations. 

t Training and technical assistance need to be continued. Some large probation

and parole agencies in the country do not yet have any kind of official program

to intervene in family violence. A number of places still need assistance and

training to get such programs in place.

t Research is needed specifically on identifying and intervening with female

offenders for whom family violence is an issue or a part of their history. 
66

Additional information is also needed on male offenders. Often, when agencies

are asked how many family violence offenders they are supervising, they do not

know, nor do they know how many perpetrators of other types of crimes are also

involved in family violence. Until the issue is addressed more directly, the

problem will not be alleviated.

t Caseload size is a problem. The average probation caseload is 113 offenders,

which makes a personal relationship impossible. This speaks, obviously, to the

need for funding.

t Additional coordinated, comprehensive approaches involving the community,

state, and Federal level are needed. 

t More research should be done to determine how many corrections staff have

been victimized on the job and to identify how to intervene. We don't really

know the scope of this problem, but it is clearly serious.

Visioning Project

NIC funded an important Visioning Project that involved 2,000 members of APPA who

went through workshops and developed a Vision Statement, which says,

We see a fair, just, and safe society, where community partnerships are

restoring hope by embracing a balance of prevention, intervention, and

advocacy. We seek to create a system of community justice where a full

range of sanctions and services ensures humane, effective, and

individualized sentences for offenders and support and protection for

victims, where primary prevention initiatives are cultivated through our

leadership and guidance, where our communities are empowered to own

and participate in solutions, where results are measured and direct our

service delivery, where dignity and respect describe how each person is

treated, where staff are empowered and aided by an environment of

honesty, inclusion, and respect for differences, and where partnerships with

stakeholders lead to shared visions of an effective community justice

system.

This seems to me a vision shared by all of us. I know that, through collaborative

efforts, we can achieve it.

APPA Resources Related to Violence
67

t Intervening in Family Violence: Recommended Program Policies and Procedures

for Community Corrections Agencies. 1995. (Not available from the NIC

Information Center.)

t Perspectives: Special Issue on Incorporating Victim Services. v.18, n.3. 1994.

56 p.

For additional information, contact Ann Crowe, American Probation & Parole

Association, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578; 606/244-8198.
68

Peter Kinziger, International Community Corrections Association

APPA Attachment: Recommended Conditions of Release for Family Violence

Protective: Offenders

ß no further abuse

ß no contact with victims or their families

ß abide by all court restrictions and directives

ß submit to warrantless search and seizure

ß electronic monitoring

ß intensive supervision

ß supervised child visitation and/or public drop-off/pick-up point

ß cooperation with child/adult protective services

ß forfeiture of weapons and suspension of license

ß release of information to third parties, as appropriate

Treatment:

ß mandatory attendance, participation in, and successful completion of an offense-specific group intervention

program

ß substance abuse testing

ß substance abuse treatment

ß abstinence

ß self-help/support groups

ß release of information to third party treatment providers

Punitive:

ß incarceration

ß non-custodial loss of liberty

ß fine

ß community work service

Financial:

ß family support

ß restitution

ß attorney fees for victim

ß counseling for victims and children

ß group intervention program and substance abuse treatment program fees for offender

ß cost of urinalysis

ß fees/court assessment

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

Sources: This is based on the original work of Klein, 1994, with additional contributions by Black, 1995; Family Assault

Supervision Team, n.d.; & Hofford, 1991.
69

The International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) was formerly the

International Association of Residential & Community Alternatives (IARCA) and, prior to

that, the International Halfway House Association. Incorporated in 1964, ICCA has

both individual and agency members, which include 300 agencies operating more than

2,000 programs in North America.

People often view community corrections as intended for low-risk, low-need offenders. 

In reality, however, almost everyone who goes to prison or jail eventually returns to the

community, and many offenders are released through community corrections programs.

Good community corrections programs do work, and they can reduce the risk that

offenders will commit additional crimes.

In the future, community corrections must work more closely with prisons and jails. For

this to happen, we need better management information systems to let us know more

about corrections populations. To work effectively with corrections clients, it is

important to first know who they are. What the design and implementation literature

says is that the offender population must be broken down into small units for which

effective programs can then be designed.

ICCA's Initiatives Related to Violent Offenders

Informally, community corrections has worked with every category of violent offenders.

 Community corrections has not always worked well with them, however, because

programs have not been well designed for that population. ICCA is interested in

knowing what works. A few years ago, the Association brought a number of people

together at a research conference in Boston funded by NIC and asked them to talk

about what the research has concluded about what works with offenders.

To develop successful programs, agencies have to know about offenders--what their

needs are, what their risks are. Then they need to know how to minimize those risks. 

Essentially, community corrections is not in the corrections business, but the insurance

business--the risk-reduction business. Community corrections entities cannot eliminate

crime or offenders' behavior, but they can minimize them.

Last year, the Association's conference program focused on "What Works with Special

Populations?" Based on reviews of the literature, speakers summarized what works

with special offender populations, including those with substance abuse problems

and/or mental health disorders. ICCA has also asked specific questions about what

works with certain programs and with specific offender categories. For example, what

works with job programs? Some states have legislation requiring corrections agencies

to develop job training programs, but job training in itself does not reduce recidivism. 

Substance abuse programs alone do not change much, either. What is needed is a

comprehensive, multi-dimensional approach to working with offenders.
70

What works with sex offenders? Unfortunately, very little. It may be possible to work

effectively with some sex offenders through cognitive behavioral programs, followed by

periods of control. What is important is to break the population down into smaller

units and develop programs for very targeted populations. We also asked, "What works

with violent offenders?" As you have heard, very little research has been done on

violent offenders, except for juvenile violent offenders. One reason for this is that

agencies do not have information to enable them to identify the target population.

Future Plans

t ICCA will continue to provide research conferences and to commission

researchers for one or two papers annually on what works. The third in the

conference series will be held in Ottawa, with support from BJA. One session will

feature Don Andrews, who has developed an assessment tool that evaluates

programs, no matter what their focus. This is the first such instrument to make it

possible to compare programs in terms of like measures.

t In the future, ICCA wants to continue to look at what works, especially in the

area of domestic violence. It is important to look closely at the variety of

domestic violence programs and find out what works and why. There is also

interest in holding a research conference on female offenders in community

corrections. The topic may be expanded to "girls and women in community

corrections" because recent state legislation suggests that more girls will be

coming into the justice system, and programs that work are needed for that

population.

t The community must become part of community corrections. Policymakers,

educators, the business community, and other parts of the community need to

get together and ask, "What do we want to do in our community?" Then they

need to design sanctions that meet the needs of the local community. One

problem with model programs is that programs must be designed to fit a local

community's needs. In the days of LEAA, a jurisdiction would develop a

successful program, but other communities would fail when they tried to emulate

it. The conclusion was that the program did not work, but the problem was

really that design and implementation did not fit the local context. NIC and BJA

support activities at the grass-roots level and are promoting the idea that

programs must be designed around policy decisions and on the basis of data.

t ICCA will encourage its members to work with their local jails and will provide

information on how they might do that. Members will learn to be advocates for

risk/needs assessment tools and to build databases that identify the populations

with which they are working. ICCA also plans to provide more training on
71

developing cognitive behavioral-based programs. The literature makes it clear

that this is where energy should be concentrated.

t ICCA will continue to try to identify universities and research projects so that

programs can be evaluated by outside sources.

Partnerships

I read something by Tom Peters a few years ago that got my attention. Peters said

that organizations can increase their sphere of influence arithmetically by increasing

memberships incrementally. Or, if they choose, they can expand their sphere of

influence geometrically by having other associations adopt their agendas. Because

ICCA is a small organization, the Association does not have funding to support

programs. What ICCA funds are ideas. The hope is that other people will take these

ideas and build on them. To that end, ICCA has identified over 200 organizations that

are being encouraged to review the "what works" literature and to participate in ICCA's

conferences. The effort is to distribute ideas. Although many of these are difficult

concepts, the organizations with which ICCA is working are beginning to ask questions

about what works to create greater community safety and involvement.

ICCA hopes to collaborate with the National Sheriff's Association and is also developing

a relationship with the American Jail Association. ICCA has always worked well with

APPA and has worked to some extent with ACA. It will continue to find other

organizations to work with and will not be territorial or protective of information.

ICCA Resources on Violence

t The IARCA Journal on Community Corrections, featuring: research briefs and

keynote speeches from IARCA's "This Works! Sanctions and Services for Special

Offenders" Research Conference, February 1995. 41 p.

For additional information, contact Peter Kinziger, International Community Corrections

Association, P.O. Box 1987, LaCrosse WI, 54602; 608/785-0200.
72

National Institute of Corrections

Advisory Board

Mary Jo Bane

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families

Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice

 and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC

Norman A. Carlson

Adjunct Professor

University of Minnesota

Stillwater, Minnesota

Lynne DeLano

Vice President, Community Corrections

Pioneer Fellowship House

Seattle, Washington

Norman S. Early, Jr.

Senior Vice President

Criminal Justice Services

Lockheed Martin IMS

Denver, Colorado

Newman Flanagan

Executive Director

National District Attorneys Association

Alexandria, Virginia

Kathleen Hawk

Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Washington, DC

Eloy L. Mondragon

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Norval Morris

Professor

University of Chicago Law School

Chicago, Illinois

Barry J. Nidorf

Chief Probation Officer

Los Angeles Probation Department

Downey, California

Don Omodt

Sheriff, Retired

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.

Chairman

U.S. Parole Commission

Bethesda, Maryland

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

Washington, DC

Arthur M. Wallenstein

Director

King County Department

 of Adult Detention

Seattle, Washington

Georgina Yuen

Honolulu, Hawaii

Judge Rya W. Zobel

Director

Federal Judicial Center

Washington, DC