U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice

Research Report

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Criminal Justice Research Under

the Crime Act—1995 to 1996
Criminal Justice Research Under

the Crime Act—1995 to 1996

September 13, 1997
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

John C. Dwyer

Acting Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis

Director, National Institute of Justice

Justice Information Center

World Wide Web Site

http://www.ncjrs.org

Report compiled by Judy Reardon, Writer-Editor, National Institute of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and

Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 166142
iii

Message From the Director of the

National Institute of Justice

Crime is predominantly a local phenomenon, and

in our system of government the administration of

justice and the instrumentalities of crime prevention and control are also largely local in character.

Although the Federal role in crime control and

criminal justice has grown in size and scope over

the past several decades, local systems of justice

remain the first line of engagement.

Yet there are occasions when the Federal Government, responding to needs expressed locally, steps

in to provide support beyond its traditional role in

law enforcement. The first such commitment was

made more than a generation ago, when the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of

1968 was enacted in response to the high crime

levels of the 1960s. It was followed in 1986 and

1988 by major Federal legislation targeted at

illicit drug use and violent crime. Most recently,

the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994 (the Crime Act) was enacted in

response to concern over the continuing high rates

of violent crime.

The 1994 Crime Act is the most ambitious of

these Federal efforts. Over the 6-year life of the

Act, Congress authorized the expenditure of $30.2

billion to support local criminal justice. In the first

3 years, $11.1 billion has been appropriated. But

Federal support under the Crime Act is more than

fiscal relief for overburdened local governments;

it reflects the determination of the President and

Congress to support distinct policy innovations.

Not only are funds made available to hire 100,000

police officers over the life of the Act, but support

is also provided to accelerate the adoption of

community policing throughout the country. Not

only are there funds for prison construction to

house violent offenders, but the States are encouraged to adopt truth-in-sentencing measures to

ensure more determinate punishment. The Violence Against Women title of the Act fosters a

collaborative response among criminal justice

agencies to reduce domestic violence and to

promote the arrest of batterers. By supporting

drug courts and in-prison drug treatment, the Act

promotes new ways to address substance abuse.

By definition, these innovations mean changes in

practice and policy; accordingly, they represent

opportunities to learn about what works and what

doesn’t to control and prevent crime and improve

the administration of justice. For that reason, we

view enactment of this historic legislation as a

unique moment in the development of knowledge

about crime and justice. The Crime Act has

created, in essence, a network of national laboratories to incubate the innovations that ultimately

will serve as a foundation for building the next

century’s policies and thinking about crime.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been

assigned responsibility for much of the research

and evaluation to be conducted under the Crime

Act. The Institute’s research agenda has been

developed in close collaboration with the offices

established in the Justice Department to administer the programmatic parts of the Act. With the

support of our congressional appropriators, we

have agreed to transfer funds from each of the

Crime Act’s funding streams to support NIJ

research. As a result, the Nation’s investment in

building knowledge through rigorous, empirically

based research has increased substantially. We are

indebted to our colleagues in these offices for

their insights about the research needs and opportunities presented by the Crime Act and for their

support in this historic collaboration.
iv

As this report of criminal justice research and

evaluation in the first 2 years of the 1994 Crime

Act reveals, a good deal has been accomplished.

The Institute has met and continues to meet the

statutory obligation to produce reports on a

number of issues (among them an agenda for

further research on violence against women); has

launched comprehensive, national evaluations of

the Act’s major programs; and has well under way

an extensive program of research to measure the

effectiveness with which various jurisdictions

nationwide are “thinking outside the box” to

reduce and prevent crime. These NIJ-sponsored

studies are intended to help find out, for example,

whether juvenile gun violence can be curbed by

intensive focus on truants and curfew violators,

how effectively gun markets can be tracked with

computers, with what effect the police are able to

cooperate with social service agencies to stem

elder abuse, what makes for success in a boot

camp designed for drug-involved teenaged offenders, what are the consequences of a State’s noparole policy, how changes in sentencing laws

affect a probation office, in what ways stalking

affects its victims, and whether provision of drug

treatment within the context of judicial supervision can make a difference.

Given the nature of social science research, not to

speak of the complexity of the issues tackled,

amassing the knowledge that can help answer

these and other questions is a time-intensive

process. That is why this report is an interim

product, submitted 3 years into the life of the

Crime Act. For the Institute the opportunities

offered by the Act have brought a fresh infusion of

energy and a recommitment to its founding

mission. This renewed resolve has sharpened our

focus on the important question: As the States,

local jurisdictions, and communities chart and

steer their new courses, how can the Federal

Government be most effective in helping ensure

that they and others after them meet the challenges posed by the Crime Act? It is our hope that

the lessons learned during the life of the Act

establish a strong foundation for the next generation of innovations in the prevention of crime and

the administration of justice.

Jeremy Travis
v

Contents

Message From the Director of the National Institute of Justice....................................................... iii

Chapter 1. Research Under the Crime Act ......................................................................................... 1

The Scope of the Crime Act ............................................................................................................ 1

The Role of Research ...................................................................................................................... 2

Developing the Research Agenda.................................................................................................... 3

Goals of the Research and Evaluation Program .............................................................................. 4

The Numbers ................................................................................................................................... 4

A New Impetus for Research........................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2. Policing ................................................................................................................................ 7

NIJ’s Record of Policing Research.................................................................................................. 7

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda .................................................................................. 7

Policing Research Now Under Way ................................................................................................ 8

Related Policing Research ............................................................................................................. 10

Law Enforcement Family Support ................................................................................................ 10

Police Use of Force........................................................................................................................ 11

The Issue of Police Integrity.......................................................................................................... 12

Higher Education Assistance for Police Officers .......................................................................... 12

Helping Police Track Crime: NIJ’s Crime Mapping Research Center ......................................... 13

Science and Technology To Aid Policing ..................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3. Sentencing and Corrections............................................................................................. 17

NIJ’s Record of Research in Sentencing and Corrections............................................................. 17

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda ................................................................................ 19

Sentencing and Corrections Research Now Under Way ............................................................... 20
vi

Assessing Treatment for Drug-Involved Prisoners ....................................................................... 21

Chapter 4. Violence Against Women ................................................................................................. 23

NIJ’s Record of Research on Violence Against Women .............................................................. 23

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda ................................................................................ 23

Research Now Under Way on Violence Against Women............................................................. 25

National-Level Evaluations ........................................................................................................... 25

Meeting the Need for Information ................................................................................................. 27

Chapter 5. Drug Courts ...................................................................................................................... 29

NIJ’s Record of Research in Substance Abuse by Offenders ....................................................... 29

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda ................................................................................ 31

Plans for Research on Drug Courts ............................................................................................... 31

Chapter 6. Science and Technology ................................................................................................... 33

NIJ’s Record of Research and Development for Law Enforcement Technology ......................... 33

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda ................................................................................ 34

Research Now Under Way ............................................................................................................ 34

Improving DNA Forensics Laboratories ....................................................................................... 37

Chapter 7. Other NIJ Crime Act Research....................................................................................... 39

Assessing the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants ................................................................... 39

Determining the Effects of the Assault Weapons Ban .................................................................. 39

Appendix A. Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for

Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation ............................................................................... 41

Appendix B. Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda:

Strategic Planning ....................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix C. Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice

Under the Crime Act 1995–1996 ................................................................................................ 69
1

The 1994 Crime Act is by now familiar to most

Americans, who know it means that more police

officers are being hired and trained, more money is

available to build prisons for violent offenders,

legal responses to violence against women are

being strengthened, and an array of programs has

been established to help States and local governments increase their ability to control and prevent

crime. These and the other provisions of the Act

hold the promise of helping communities throughout the country to be better places to live because

they will be safer places to live.

Less familiar than these provisions is a program of

research that has been initiated to learn what

impact the Crime Act programs are having

throughout the country and the lessons that can be

learned for future innovation in criminal justice.

This document reports on the activities of the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in conducting

research and evaluation under the Crime Act. NIJ,

the research and development agency of the U. S.

Department of Justice (DOJ), is charged with

research on and evaluation of major Federal anticrime initiatives. (See “The Mission of the National Institute of Justice” on the next page.) The

agenda of Crime Act research and evaluation has

been and continues to be developed in association

with the Department of Justice offices that administer the Crime Act programs; NIJ also drew

heavily on the expertise and experience of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in

criminal justice and allied fields from throughout

the country. Nearly 3 years into the Crime Act’s

implementation, NIJ felt it opportune to report on

the research and evaluation sponsored thus far.

The Scope of the Crime Act

Representing an investment of more than $30

billion over 6 years, the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 19941

 is the largest

Federal anti-crime legislation in the Nation’s

history. A major impetus for the Act was the

concern of the President and Congress over the

unacceptable level of crime, particularly violent

crime, and the need for a heightened Federal

response. Some of the best known components of

the Act are its criminal provisions: the ban on

assault weapons, tougher sentencing through

expansion of the death penalty and creation of a

Federal “three-strikes” law, establishment of

Federal penalties for crossing State lines to engage

in domestic violence, and new Federal enforcement powers to deal with criminal aliens.

Federal assistance for innovation. The Crime Act

also makes assistance available to States and local

jurisdictions to strengthen their role as the primary

governmental units responsible for crime control.

New resources are available for a wide range of

innovations: implementing community policing,

devising new approaches to reducing violence

against women, expanding prison capacity for the

most serious offenders and providing for alternative

means of incarceration, and monitoring and treating

drug offenders through the agency of the courts.

The centerpiece and one of the chief areas of

innovation is in policing. The first part of the

Crime Act represents a Federal commitment to

support and encourage community policing, whose

principles will guide the work of the 100,000

additional police officers being hired under the

Act. Those principles promote interaction of the

police with the community and the reorientation of

law enforcement’s emphasis from reacting to

crime to preventing it. Under the Act, funds are

also available for the development and application

of advances in science and technology to improve

community policing operations. And as amended

in 1996, the Act also makes additional funding

available to develop technology for criminal

justice agencies.

Chapter 1. Research Under the Crime Act
2

Other programs in the Crime Act also reveal the

priorities of the President and Congress as they

reflect citizens’ concerns. The Violence Against

Women Act (VAWA) funds State initiatives to

bring together police, prosecutors, and victim

service providers to combat violent crime against

women. The drug courts title of the Act funds a

creative approach to offenders’ substance abuse

that integrates judicial supervision, treatment, and

sanctions to encourage (and coerce) compliance

with court orders. Boot camps, designed to free up

prison space for the confinement of serious,

The Mission of the National Institute of Justice

violent offenders, receive support as an alternative

to traditional incarceration, particularly for young,

nonviolent offenders.

The Role of Research

DOJ recognized the importance of conducting

research and evaluation related to the Crime Act

programs it administers. Some provisions of the

Act include language mandating specific research

and evaluation efforts. In other areas, DOJ, with

the approval of the congressional appropriators,

determined that the offices created to administer

Established by Congress as the major Federal

agency for criminal justice research, the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) is authorized to:

■ Conduct and sponsor basic and applied

research in the causes and prevention of crime.

■ Sponsor evaluations of major Federal anticrime initiatives.

■ Support research and demonstrations to

develop new approaches, techniques,

systems, and equipment to improve law

enforcement and the administration of justice.

■ Make recommendations to Federal, State, and

local governments on crime-related issues.

■ Sponsor conferences and workshops for

criminal justice policymakers and

professionals.

■ Collect and disseminate domestic and

international criminal justice information

obtained by the Institute or other Federal

agencies.

Since its establishment by Congress in 1968, NIJ has

been contributing to the understanding of crime,

criminal behavior, and the operations of the criminal

justice system, with a view to informing public

policy and practice. Early NIJ research emphasized

the operations of law enforcement, but that focus

expanded to all components of the criminal justice

system: prosecution, the courts, and corrections. A

major area of research has been evaluative studies

that assess the effectiveness of criminal justice

operations and innovative programs to reduce crime.

Studies of criminal behavior have included

investigation of “criminal careers” and the link

between drugs and crime. An example is a long-term

study now under way to explore factors determining

antisocial, prosocial, and criminal behavior. NIJ’s

development and dissemination office brings

emerging issues to the attention of the field and

synthesizes the research that has been conducted in

these areas. This office also seeks out local programs

that show promise for adoption or adaption elsewhere

and highlights them for interested practitioners. A

recent example is a report on innovative methods

used in several jurisdictions to prevent intimidation of

witnesses in drug- and gang-related crime cases. The

Institute’s science and technology office supports the

development of tools for use by the police, in

corrections, and in the courts. In the field of forensics,

DNA testing has been a special area of emphasis.

The findings of NIJ-sponsored research—basic,

evaluative, and applied—are disseminated in a

variety of formats, through more traditional means

(such as publication of hardcopy documents) and

electronically. The National Criminal Justice

Reference Service, created and managed by NIJ, is

an international clearinghouse of information that

carries out most of the dissemination and

fulfillment tasks and houses a large data base used

to respond to questions about criminal justice and

juvenile justice matters.
3

the programs of the Act should set aside 1 to 5

percent of their funding for evaluative research to

be conducted by NIJ. (See Appendix A, Statutory

Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal

Justice Research and Evaluation.)

The Crime Act has created innovative programs to

help States and local jurisdictions control crime.

NIJ believes that research linked to innovation is

especially useful to criminal justice policymakers

and practitioners. It provides the opportunity to

learn by doing—to build knowledge about crime

and crime control by studying new crime control

and prevention initiatives in operation in the field.

Evaluation of Crime Act innovations will help

ensure the accountability necessitated by this

major investment of taxpayer funds. Measuring the

success of specific programs offers the chance to

make midcourse corrections to improve their

effectiveness, sunsetting programs that do not work,

and institutionalizing the ones that do work. The

knowledge built through this process is essential to

intelligent design of the next set of innovations.

Moreover, learning the impact of the Crime Act will

aid in understanding the potential of the Federal

Government to promote change at the local level.

Other types of research conducted under the Crime

Act will furnish information that can bring to light

new areas where intervention—whether through

enforcement or other means of crime control and

prevention—may be effective. By helping to

define the types of intervention strategies that can

modify and control behavior, research can help

build new or better programs.

The partnership of program and research.

Responsibility for many, though not all, of the

programs established under the Crime Act was

assigned to DOJ. New offices were established to

help make sure the Department-administered

funding was delivered to the field as quickly as

possible. Categorized by program area, these

Crime Act offices are:

■ The Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS).

■ The Violence Against Women Office.

■ The Violence Against Women Grants Office.

■ The Corrections Program Office.

■ The Drug Courts Program Office.2

As their names indicate, these offices administer

the programs that promote community policing;

the control and prevention of violence against

women; new directions in sentencing and corrections, including boot camps; and provision of

court-based supervision and services for drug

offenders. Each program office has allocated up to

5 percent of its funds to support evaluative studies

of the new programs by NIJ.

Developing the Research Agenda

NIJ has worked and continues to work closely with

the Crime Act offices to determine how best to

learn from the innovations they are supporting in

the field. In developing the Crime Act research

agenda in partnership with these offices, NIJ

followed its traditional practice of drawing on the

expertise of the research community to help

identify the most relevant research questions. NIJ

also consulted with practitioners in law enforcement and other areas of the criminal justice system

to gain insight into ways to implement research

inquiries in the world of criminal justice practice.

A series of strategy sessions focusing on the

Institute’s major responsibilities under the Crime

Act were sponsored by NIJ as one means to obtain

input. These sessions consisted of wide-ranging

discussions, during which specific research objectives were defined following presentations by

researchers and practitioners prominent in their

respective fields. (See Appendix B, Developing the

Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.)

These discussions were an invaluable part of NIJ’s

subsequent development and dissemination of

requests for proposals to conduct research.
4

Selecting research projects. In selecting research

projects to fund under the Act, NIJ followed its

tested competitive procedures for funding research

proposed by the criminal justice research community. The procedures are designed to ensure that

the proposed projects are sound in study method

and design and likely to generate findings relevant

to public policy, that the investigators are qualified,

and that proposed expenditures are reasonable.

Review procedures require applicants to demonstrate to an independent panel of peer reviewers

(both researchers and practitioners) that the proposed project meets these criteria. The results of

the independent peer reviews are reviewed by NIJ

staff, who then submit their recommendations to

the NIJ Director. After consulting with the staff,

the Director makes a final decision. In selecting

projects to be funded under the Crime Act, the

Crime Act offices were involved in staff-level

assessments of the proposals after peer review.

Goals of the Research and Evaluation

Program

Under the Crime Act, NIJ is supporting three types

of projects:

■ National-level evaluations of the major

components of the Act.

■ Evaluations of local implementations of

Crime Act programs.

■ Research based on partnerships between

practitioners and researchers.

National evaluations. Consistent with the mandate

of its founding legislation,3

 NIJ felt it appropriate

to sponsor national evaluations of each of the

major Crime Act initiatives: policing, violence

against women, sentencing and corrections (including boot camps and residential substance abuse

treatment in corrections), and drug courts. That

involves asking such questions as “What is the

impact of placing 100,000 additional police officers on the streets?” “How is society’s approach to

domestic violence changing by virtue of enactment

of the Violence Against Women Act?” “How are

the States reacting to the Federal legislation that

offers funds for prison construction if they adopt

‘truth in sentencing’ laws?” “How do local courts

react to the Federal funds available for drug courts?”

Local implementation. Research related to

specific projects established at the State and local

levels with Crime Act funding is also being conducted in the above program areas, with the aim of

understanding the impact of the Act locally. The

development and evaluation of innovative technologies for use in law enforcement and corrections is also being sponsored under the Act and the

Act as amended in 1996.

Practitioner-researcher partnerships. To establish

the basis for ongoing collaboration between researchers and practitioners, NIJ is sponsoring a

program of locally initiated research partnerships.

Under the policing and corrections titles of the Act,

these partnerships will tap local research expertise

and apply it for the benefit of the criminal justice

field. (Partnerships will also be established under

VAWA in 1997.) The hope is that the collaboration

will continue beyond the life of the specific projects,

as practitioners and researchers both develop an

understanding of how they can collaborate to

improve criminal justice practice and policy.

The Numbers

In the first 2 years of the Crime Act, the Institute

awarded a total of 275 grants in the areas identified

above. (For a complete list, see Appendix C,

Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice

Under the Crime Act, 1995–1996.) Those grants

were awarded following selection from among

1,346 proposals, whose dollar value totaled approximately $442 million.

NIJ expenditures for research and evaluation linked

to Crime Act initiatives amounted to more than $68

million in the 2-year period. (For a breakdown of

costs by program area, see “Crime Act Research

Expenditures, 1995–1996: National Institute of

Justice” on opposite page.)
5

1995 Number of Dollar Number of

Proposals Amount of Grants

Received Proposals Awarded

(in millions)

Policing 244 $57.0 54

Violence

Against Women 61 $9.3 6

Boot Camps 44 $6.7 5

Corrections 


(Boot Camps)


$1.2 million

Violence 


Against 


Women


$1.0 million

Policing


$14.6 million

1995 Expenditures

LLEBG Evaluation


$0.8 million

DNA 


Research


$9.0 million*

Residential 


Substance 


Abuse 


Treatment


$0.95 million

Technology 


for 


Community 


Policing


$6.0 million

Crime Act Amendment,


1996, for Law 


Enforcement Technology


$20 million

Law 


Enforcement 


Family 


Support


$1.0 million

Sentencing


and


Corrections


$4.2 million

Violence 


Against 


Women


$2.25 million

Policing


$14.5 million

1996 Expenditures

1996 Dollar Amount Number

Number of of Proposals of Grants

Proposals Received (in millions) Awarded

Policing 154 $29.0 51

Violence Against Women 47 $7.1 8

Sentencing and Corrections 76 $14.4 17

Law Enforcement Family Support 58 $6.0 9

Crime Act Amendment, 1996,

for Law Enforcement Technology 467 $234.0 60

Technology for Community Policing 120 $47.2 18

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 24 $2.9 8

DNA Research 47 $28.4 38

LLEBG Evaluation 4 ** 1

**Not applicable, as award amount was preset.

Crime Act spending constituted 57 percent of total NIJ

spending in Fiscal Year 1996.

*Of this total, $1 million represents Crime Act funds and $8

million represents funds transferred from the Federal Bureau

of Investigation.

Crime Act Research Expenditures, 1995–1996

National Institute of Justice

Crime Act spending constituted 28 percent of total NIJ

spending in Fiscal Year 1995.

Total NIJ Crime Act Spending, 1995–1996: $75.5 million
6

A New Impetus for Research

The Crime Act has prompted NIJ to take new

directions in research. One has been creation of the

partnerships, noted above, between researchers and

criminal justice agencies. The Act also prompted

NIJ to revisit and update some of the studies it

sponsored in the past, such as those on policecitizen encounters in the field and measures of rates

of criminal offending. They are being replicated so

that research and public policy development can

benefit, as they have in the past, from improving

knowledge by new investments in basic research.

With the support of Congress, the Attorney General,

the Office of Justice Programs, and the Crime Act

offices in the Justice Department, NIJ has been able

under the Crime Act to substantially increase its

capacity to conduct research related to the issues

that are most important to criminal justice. The

research and evaluation findings resulting from this

investment should maximize the lessons learned

from this unique period of innovation and reform in

the Nation’s approach to crime and justice.

Notes

1. Public Law 103–322, signed into law September

13, 1994.

2. With the exception of the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, all these offices are in the

Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

3. NIJ’s founding legislation is the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Public Law

90–351, 42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.). The statutory

language at 42 U.S.C. section 3722 (c)(3) authorizes NIJ to carry out evaluative studies under

chapter 42 of title 42 of the U.S. Code. The Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(Crime Act) is codified at chapter 136 of title 42.

Broadcasting Results

The lessons learned from Crime Act programs

operating at the local levels need to be shared with a

national audience. The National Institute of Justice

has a comprehensive program of dissemination that it

will employ to make sure State and local policymakers

and practitioners receive timely reports of research

and evaluation findings from Crime Act studies.

NIJ dissemination strategy involves multiple media—

print publications, electronic communications, video,

and conferences and workshops. Most publications

are available free of charge and can be obtained

rapidly and easily through the international

clearinghouse of criminal justice information, the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service.*

All NIJ recent publications have been published

electronically, and many can be downloaded with full

text and graphics, including charts and photographs,

via the World Wide Web. Other services include the

availability of reference information, a publications

catalog, fax on demand to order documents, and an

online newsletter of information about programs and

related activities of the Department of Justice’s Office

of Justice Programs.**

Opportunities are provided for personal contact and

exchange of information among the various criminal

justice professions and through the promotion of

dialogue between the researcher and practitioner

communities. An annual conference on criminal

justice research and evaluation hosted by NIJ

showcases new findings before representatives of the

entire community of researchers, professionals, and

practitioners.

* Mailing address: NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–

6000; telephone 800–851–3420; e-mail address: askncjrs@ncjrs.org;

World Wide Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org.

** The justice information electronic newsletter, JUSTINFO, is

distributed free of charge on the 1st and 15th of each month. To

subscribe, send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org.
7

Research and evaluation related to the policing

provisions of the Crime Act (Title I) are intended to

provide information about the impact of community policing in the States and local jurisdictions.

This is being done through studies of such issues as

the organizational changes that need to be made in

the transition to community policing, the relation of

the police to the community, and innovative strategies and tactics employed in various jurisdictions.

An example of the innovations being studied is the

policing and enforcement efforts established in

several cities to curb juvenile firearms violence.

Researchers are examining several related policing

issues covered by other provisions of the Crime

Act, including the consequences of job-related

stress for law enforcement personnel and their

families, police integrity and use of excessive force,

and measures of police performance. The development of technology for use by law enforcement,

including improved DNA testing, is also being

sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

NIJ’s Record of Policing Research

Policing has been a major focus of NIJ research

since the Institute was founded, with some of the

early work directed at developing and testing equipment and technology for use by law enforcement.

Since then a body of knowledge has been developed

documenting the performance of law enforcement

agencies, assessing their effect on crime and other

outcomes, and analyzing police behavior.

The “quiet revolution” that began to reshape

American policing in the 1980s is attributable in

part to NIJ research. For example, NIJ-sponsored

research showed that delay in responding to

citizens’ calls was due largely to the time lag

between commission of the crime and the call to

the police, not to slow police response. NIJ also

sponsored field experiments that tested the effects

of various forms of police-citizen contact in

reducing fear of crime, as well as studies of problem-oriented policing and fear of crime that revealed new ways to save resources by the exercise

of police initiative and by enlisting the community

in helping to identify solutions. These and other

early studies helped pave the way for modern

policing strategies, with a strong emphasis on

community-based policing. Much of the emphasis

of NIJ’s policing research in recent years has been

in community policing and in the problem-solving

approach to policing.

NIJ has studied community policing in several

jurisdictions, including such major cities as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Among the

research projects are studies of officers’ attitudes

toward community policing, the role of supervisors, the quality of training, the role of community

organizations, and the effectiveness of problem

solving and crime mapping in controlling streetlevel drug trafficking.

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda

The community policing provisions of the Crime

Act have given further impetus to NIJ’s policing

research and evaluation agenda. Three percent of

Title I funds were authorized by Congress for

evaluation, technical assistance, training, and

administration. From this amount, NIJ and the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS Office) of the Department of Justice (see

“The ‘COPS’ Program” on the next page) have

sponsored $27 million on policing research in the

first 2 years of the Act. A major priority is a

national evaluation of the Act’s “COPS” hiring

provisions. In other evaluations, NIJ is assessing

the lessons learned from experiences in community policing at the local level. Process evaluations,

which explore organizational changes that have

taken place and benefit the field, are laying the

groundwork for the longer-term impact evaluations.

Chapter 2. Policing
8

Specific topics for NIJ research, which became the

basis for requests for proposals, were developed

through strategic planning conducted shortly after

the Act became law. (See Appendix B, Developing

the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Researchers from academia and other

institutions were convened in a strategy session

held to identify key lines of inquiry for research

and evaluation. At this session, which was also

attended by representatives of police departments

from several jurisdictions, papers commissioned

by NIJ formed the basis of the discussions. They

covered such issues as the “community” in community policing, how to measure public safety,

retaining components of traditional policing, the

extent of community commitment, the role of the

media, mechanisms for identifying citizens’

concerns, the effect of problem solving on other

components of the criminal justice system, and

supervisory styles in community policing.

Policing Research Now Under Way

NIJ’s Crime Act research and evaluation in policing consists of:

■ A national evaluation of the policing

provisions of the Act.

■ Local research and evaluation studies.

■ Partnerships between researchers and

practitioners to study topics selected by the

local jurisdiction.

■ Related policing studies.

The “COPS” Program

The COPS provisions of the Crime Act (Title I: the

Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing

Act of 1994) make grants available to the States and

units of local government to help them hire additional

police officers. What makes these provisions

innovative is the endorsement of community policing:

The officers hired will address the causes and reduce

the fear of crime and social disorder through

problem-solving tactics and police-community

partnerships. Training and technical assistance will

accompany the transition to community policing.

The Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (the COPS Office), the agency established

to administer the program, also funded a series of

community policing programs that represent

innovations in police response to youth firearms

violence, violence against women, and gang crime.

The intent of all these initiatives is to advance

police departments beyond only reacting to crime

and toward preventing it.

Established in October 1994 within the Department

of Justice, the COPS Office is responsible for putting

the additional officers on the street and promoting

community policing strategies, working toward these

goals through a variety of initiatives, among them:

■ Grants to hire police officers.

■ COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment

Effective), which provides funds that enable

police departments to acquire new technologies

and equipment, hire civilians for administrative

tasks, and pay for officer overtime.

■ Community Policing To Combat Domestic

Violence, which provides grants to local

jurisdictions to reduce domestic violence

through community policing.

■ Training and technical assistance for agencies

receiving COPS grants.

■ Administration of the Police Corps program,

which provides assistance for higher education

to students who agree to work in a State or

local police force for at least 4 years.

To date, more than half the policing agencies in the

country have received grants. By February 1997,

grants had been awarded to hire or redeploy 54,000

police officers and sheriffs’ deputies who will serve

more than 87 percent of the American population.
9

Evaluations of the Crime Act’s COPS provisions.

A national process evaluation of programs funded

under Title I (the COPS hiring provisions of the

Act) was begun in 1995. The Urban Institute,

which is conducting the study, is addressing

progress made and problems encountered, exploring such issues as the way COPS funds are distributed, how COPS implementation is proceeding,

how it is reshaping local policing, and the longterm impacts of the programs.

Among the components of the study are an examination of the readiness of police organizations for

community policing, determined through surveys

conducted among police executives; case-studybased exploration of the organizational change that

accompanies community policing; and comparison

of jurisdictions that have received grants for

community policing with those that have not.

Interim reports will be issued in 1997, with the

report finalized early in 1998.

In addition to the national evaluation, 12 awards

were made in 1995–1996 to conduct long-term

evaluative studies of the transition to community

policing in Chicago; Tempe, Arizona; Dallas;

Madison, Wisconsin; Joliet, Illinois; and Aurora,

Illinois. Studies are also being sponsored in several

issue areas and/or specific jurisdictions.

Organizational and management issues in

community policing. Ten projects were funded in

1995–1996, including studies of:

■ Steps in the philosophical realignment

required in the move to community policing (based on studies of Seattle and six

other cities).

■ The role of police officer “buy in” in a

successful transition to community policing.

■ Problem-solving strategies used by the

police to address street-level disorder.

■ Leadership and management techniques

necessary for community policing.

■ The effect of problem-solving training on

police recruits.

■ The elements of organizational change

necessary in the transition to community

policing (based on five case studies and a

survey of police departments).

The police and the community. The 14 projects

funded include studies of:

■ The use of community policing techniques

by Indian tribal police.

■ Street-level activities of officers engaged in

community policing.

■ Police responses to emotionally disturbed

people.

■ Citizens’ attitudes toward police in the

diverse neighborhoods of Los Angeles.

■ Awareness and perceptions of community

policing in immigrant communities of

Queens, New York.

■ The role of the media and the way police

use them to publicize community policing.

■ How and why citizens cooperate with the

police.

New strategies, tactics, and programs. These

seven studies focus on innovative strategies

adopted locally, including:

■ Coordinated response of the criminal

justice system to domestic violence in

Portland, Oregon.

■ Family group conferencing, a technique

used by police to address moderately serious

juvenile crimes in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

■ Geomapping of gun markets in Pittsburgh.

■ Public housing challenges for community

policing in Philadelphia.
10

■ Joint community policing and social service

response to elder abuse in New York City.

Changing roles of the police. The two projects

funded are:

■ An examination of the role and integration

of the detective in community policing.

■ A comprehensive analysis of the current

state of community policing.

Assessing new ways to curb juvenile gun violence. The COPS Office is sponsoring programs to

help police develop innovative ways of using

community policing and enforcement to reduce

firearms violence by young people. These projects,

in 10 police departments, include such approaches

as working with local schools to identify and deter

curfew and truancy violators, motor vehicle stops

and road checks in targeted “hot spots,” and the

use of civil sanctions against gangs. In NIJ’s

evaluation, Abt Associates Inc. is assessing the

impact of these strategies, describing in detail how

the sites have implemented them, and identifying

factors contributing to their success or failure.

Linking police and researchers. Working in

partnership, police and researchers in several

jurisdictions are studying topics important to the

local jurisdiction. The aim is not only to address

the particular issue but also to help police departments apply research in operations and planning,

and to create the basis for long-term collaboration

with the research institution. The 36 projects

awarded include:

■ A national-level evaluation describing

elements of successful police-research

partnerships: how they are formed, how

they operate, what factors lead to success,

and what contribution research can make.

■ Development of useful measures of domestic violence cases in a partnership between

the Seattle Police Department and a local

consortium of university and medical

researchers.

■ Setting policing research priorities statewide in Florida, in a partnership between

the State’s police chiefs and Florida State

University.

■ Development of innovative strategies to

communicate in rural areas, in a partnership of Boise State University (Idaho) with

area sheriffs and police.

■ Development of a regional crime analysis

strategy, in a partnership using information

shared by several county police departments in the Commonwealth of Virginia

and the University of Virginia.

■ Replication in Indianapolis, Indiana, and

Prince George’s County, Maryland, of the

New York City Police Department’s

Compstat—the system for reengineering

police operations in response to computerized analysis of crime data.

Related Policing Research

Related research is being conducted on other

policing issues, including law enforcement family

support, police use of force, police integrity, and

higher education assistance for police officers.

Law Enforcement Family Support

The consequences of job-related stress for law

enforcement personnel and their families were

recognized in the Crime Act (Title XXI) through

establishment of a program of support to Federal,

State, and local law enforcement agencies. Among

other services, these include counseling, child care,

marital and adolescent support, stress-reduction

programs, stress education, and training to assist

in these programs.

Responsibility for providing program services and

for undertaking related research was assigned to

NIJ. NIJ first created an advisory panel of police

labor and management representatives to lend their

expertise. Then, using input from the panel and

other sources, NIJ commissioned a review of stress
11

reduction and employee assistance programs now

operating in law enforcement agencies. The report

of that review, a comprehensive look at a number of

law enforcement stress programs, included suggestions that can help departments address the problem.1

NIJ used the findings to develop a solicitation for

proposals to establish service or training programs

in stress reduction and for research and evaluation.

Awards totaling more than $900,000 were made in

1996 to nine law enforcement and other organizations to conduct research, test innovative practices,

or provide training to reduce stress among officers

and their families. Grants were awarded to jurisdictions in several parts of the country, with focus

on such specific issues as policing in rural areas,

acculturation of new hires, and extension of support services to family members. Examples are the

establishment of a statewide chaplain program

(Arkansas) and expansion of a local program

statewide (Louisiana).

Under this provision of the Act, NIJ is also studying stress factors affecting female and minority

law enforcement officers and their families. The

study site is a large urban police agency and

neighborhood.

Police Use of Force

The problem of police use of excessive force has

received increased public attention in the past few

years as a result of a number of highly publicized

cases. The Crime Act (Title XXI) strengthened the

Federal role in controlling conduct by government

agents that deprives people of rights, privileges, or

immunities under the Constitution, and instructed

the Attorney General to “acquire data about the use

of excessive force by law enforcement officers”

and publish an annual summary of that data. (See

Appendix A, Statutory Authority Under the Crime

Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.)

Lead responsibility was assigned to the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, which is working with NIJ to

sponsor a set of initiatives to heighten understanding

of the issue. The two agencies first explored how

to respond to the mandate of the Act. One means

was by convening a workshop, featuring participation by researchers and police officials, to discuss

data collection procedures and obstacles to acquiring the data needed. The police use of force workshop (see Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act

Research Agenda: Strategic Planning) brought out

several points that assisted in shaping the decisions

to meet the requirements of the Crime Act. One is

that no single data collection mechanism can

provide a complete picture of police use of force.

Several methods (for example, use of court records

and data on citizen complaints to the police) were

discussed and the advantages and disadvantages of

each explored.

Table 2–1. Policing Research and Evaluation

Grants

1995 1996

Number of Proposals

Submitted 244 154

Dollar Amount of

Proposals $57 million $29 million

Number of Grants

Awarded 54 51

Dollar Amount

Awarded $14.6 million $14.5 million

Table 2–2. Law Enforcement Family Support

Grants, 1996

Number of Proposals Submitted 58

Dollar Amount of Proposals $6 million

Number of Grants Awarded 9

Dollar Amount Awarded $1.0 million

Subsequently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) awarded the International Association of

Chiefs of Police (IACP) a grant, cofunded by NIJ,

for the National Police Use of Force Database

Project to collect incidence data nationwide. In the

first year, the IACP developed software that enables police agencies to record a wide range of

information such as type and level of force used,

characteristics of the officer and the suspect, and
12

outcome of complaints if one is filed. The next

step is collecting the data from police agencies in

the seven States where the project is being piloted.

Because the mechanisms for systematically acquiring data on the use of force were not yet developed

by the time of the first report required by the Act,

that report discussed what is known from previous

research and the lessons learned from them about

collecting and analyzing data.2

Among the other projects on which BJS and NIJ

have embarked are a field test by BJS of a national

household survey of the frequency with which

police-public contacts result in use of force, and

several site-specific studies sponsored by NIJ.

They include one in which the kinds of force used

and the circumstances of arrest are identified and

one on police pursuits.3

The Issue of Police Integrity

The causes of and solutions to the problem of

violations of the public trust by police are being

explored by NIJ and the COPS Office. A national

symposium on police integrity sponsored by the

two agencies in 1996 brought together more than

200 police command officers, police union representatives, researchers, legal scholars, government

officials, and representatives of the faith community.4

Perhaps the symposium’s greatest achievement

was broadening the discussion beyond a narrow

focus on the investigative techniques of corrupt

officers. It expanded to explore the need to develop

police organizations that can establish and maintain integrity and, in particular, offer positive

reinforcement to new recruits to help them retain

the ideals they held on entering the force.

One of the symposium aims was to help direct

future research in police integrity. Topics suggested included studies of entry-level screening

and hiring practices, supervisory behavior and

training, disciplinary systems and nonpunitive

approaches, the citizen complaint review process,

performance evaluation systems, “early warning”

systems, the impact of labor unions, and the

dynamics of the police subculture. Subsequently,

six awards were made in 1996 to:

■ Study the ability of preemployment psychological screening to predict police

corruption.

■ Conduct a long-term, six-city study of

citizen complaints against the police.

■ Analyze personnel records of police officers who were discharged in an attempt to

identify the correlates of misconduct.

■ Study the impact in three cities of organizational leadership and department practices

on misconduct.

■ Examine predictors of exemplary police

performance among sergeants.

■ Develop State data bases that track the

incidence of police use of force.

Higher Education Assistance for Police

Officers

There is a consensus among police executives that

higher education for officers is a priority. The

“Police Corps Act,” Title XX, Subtitle A, of the

Crime Act (see Appendix A, Statutory Authority

Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research

and Evaluation) helps reimburse officers for tuition

costs and provides scholarship assistance and

training expenses with the aim of ensuring the

infusion of a core of college-educated police

officers in local and State police agencies. A pilot

Police Corps project, administered by the COPS

Office, was established in 1996. NIJ will evaluate

the project, documenting design and implementation in each of the six States piloting it: Maryland,

North Carolina, Oregon, Nevada, Arkansas, and

South Carolina.
13

Helping Police Track Crime: NIJ’s Crime

Mapping Research Center

Crime mapping has made great strides in recent

years. Today, virtually anyone equipped with a

personal computer and a modest software budget

can analyze crime patterns easily, rather than

through the dated, labor-intensive practice of

manually inserting push pins on wall maps. Geographic information systems (GIS) have led to

advances in the criminal justice field, and research

using such techniques—including NIJ’s DMAP

(Drug Market Analysis Program)—have enabled

the police to make better deployment decisions.

With these techniques, researchers who wish to

test various hypotheses about crime can more

easily link information about crime incidents to

demographic data and location-specific environmental characteristics.

Because computerized crime mapping has been

adopted so rapidly, the analytical tools and the

skills of many practitioner users have lagged. To

hone their skills by tapping expertise to guide

mapping, NIJ established the Crime Mapping

Research Center (CMRC). The goals of the

CMRC, which is funded under the technology

assistance provisions of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act amending the Crime Act, include:

■ Establishing a fellowship program to build

an interdisciplinary knowledge base.

■ Establishing a crime mapping training

center for practitioners and researchers.

■ Collecting and archiving geocoded crime

data to make them available to researchers.

■ Creating partnerships among neighboring

law enforcement agencies to facilitate spatial

analysis across jurisdictional boundaries.

■ Promoting mapping for criminal justice

applications in addition to policing.

■ Developing user-friendly analytic software

with corporate and university partners.

NIJ’s interest in GIS predates establishment of the

CMRC, and in a number of Institute-sponsored

projects now under way researchers are using it for

these and other aims:

■ To examine the impact of New Orleans’

juvenile curfew on delinquency and violent

crimes.

■ To identify the effect of crime mapping on

preventing motor vehicle thefts.

■ To analyze violent crime and high-frequency

calls for police service in Charlotte, North

Carolina.

■ To inform policymakers of the types of

communities most likely to benefit from an

Oakland, California, Police Department

initiative that uses civil remedies for drug

and crime abatement.

■ To develop a model that will permit consistent replication of drug market analysis by

State and local law enforcement.

■ To automate the analysis of crime data and

enable police to identify patterns that

reveal career-criminal activity.

■ To examine the nature and spatial distribution of gun markets, especially the source

of guns for juveniles.

■ To evaluate how the police department of

Tempe, Arizona, changes in response to

community policing over time and spatially

in the city.

Established in 1996, with headquarters at NIJ in

Washington, D.C., and a satellite office in Denver,

the CMRC has taken several steps in the initial

stages of operation. In early 1997, as part of

strategy development, staff met with researchers

and practitioners expert in geographic analysis to

identify how to best meet the needs of the criminal

justice community and to aid in planning a symposium (scheduled for fall 1997). The CMRC
14

envisions providing technical assistance and training to law enforcement and other criminal justice

agencies, creating a Web site to disseminate

information about crime mapping, and issuing

proposals to evaluate specific crime mapping

initiatives. To aid in planning specific CMRC

initiatives, staff are conducting a survey of police

departments to gauge the extent to which they

currently use analytic mapping.

Science and Technology To Aid Policing

In technology research and development, support

was given in 1996 to assist local governments in

identifying, selecting, developing, modernizing, and

purchasing new technologies for law enforcement.

With respect to community policing in particular,

technology research and development under the

Crime Act is focusing on ways to improve interaction and partnerships of the police and the community, problem-solving approaches to crime, support

for beat officers, and better methods of crime

analysis. Funding has also been given to increase

the ability of forensics laboratories to conduct stateof-the-art DNA testing for criminal investigations.

(Details of NIJ’s science and technology initiatives

related to the Crime Act are presented in chapter 6.)

Notes

1. The findings of the review of stress-reduction and

employee assistance programs in law enforcement

were published by NIJ in its Issues and Practices

series under the title Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families by Peter Finn and Julie Esselman Tomz, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, December 1996 (NCJ 163175).

2. The report, by Tom McEwen of the Institute of

Law and Justice, is National Data Collection on

Police Use of Force, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and

National Institute of Justice, April 1996 (NCJ 160113).

3. A brief summary of one of the most recent NIJ

studies of this issue is Understanding the Use of

Force by and Against the Police, by Joel Garner et

al., Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice, November 1996 (NCJ 158614).

Tapping Research Expertise for Law Enforcement Use

The best thinking in the research community on

topics of interest to the police can be shared with

them early, before long-term studies are completed.

In collaboration with the COPS Office, NIJ organized

the Policing Research Institute as a forum where this

could be done. The forums feature meetings of

management-level police officers with researchers to

discuss issues raised in specially commissioned

papers. The inaugural session, “Measuring What

Matters,” examined such indicators of police

performance as crime, fear, disorder, and citizen

satisfaction. The exchanges among participants

challenged researchers to follow innovations in

police practice and challenged practitioners to think

critically about the impact of police work. The

subsequent two sessions dealt with public measures

of satisfaction with the police and with police

departments’ own internal performance measures.*

NIJ is sponsoring studies of the fundamental question

of measurement and will be assessing the relationship

of what the police do to the expected results. A

solicitation for proposals to conduct this research was

issued in 1997, and grants will be awarded later in

the year. These are some critical questions: What are

appropriate measures? How do we improve their

accuracy and utility? How do we demonstrate that

what the police do has an effect on crime? And how

do police agencies develop the capacity to routinely

measure their performance?

* NIJ published a summary of the first session: Measuring What Matters:

Part One–Measures of Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Research in Action,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, November 1996 (NCJ 162205). Summaries of the two subsequent

sessions are being prepared for publication, and the commissioned papers

will also be published.
15

4. The report on the symposium was published as

Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor: A

Partnership Between the National Institute of

Justice and the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

January 1997 (NCJ 163811).
17

The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-inSentencing Incentive provisions of the Crime Act

(Title II) enable the States to expand their capacity

to incarcerate violent offenders with more certainty and to impose longer and more determinate

sentences. These provisions make it possible for

them to construct and expand correctional facilities,

including boot camps for nonviolent first offenders.

Through the Corrections Program Office (CPO) of

the Department of Justice, funding has been made

available to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

for research and evaluation to examine the effects

of these provisions, including effects on public

safety. (See “The Corrections Program” on the next

page.) The aim of this research is to maximize the

lessons learned from the projects established under

the Act and feed back the findings to practitioners

and policymakers in a timely fashion to inform

subsequent years of program funding.

National evaluations of the Crime Act’s boot camp

provisions and its sentencing and corrections

provisions are being sponsored to inform

policymakers of the overall effects of these initiatives. Locally based evaluations involving partnerships of practitioners and researchers are intended

to explore topics relevant to particular jurisdictions. A range of specific topics raised by the

sentencing reforms of the Crime Act will also be

examined in NIJ-sponsored research. The effect of

the Act’s provision of substance abuse treatment

for State prisoners in custody (under Title III) will

be evaluated nationally, and assessments of selected local programs will also be conducted.

NIJ’s Record of Research in Sentencing

and Corrections

In States throughout the country there is a movement toward more determinate sentencing. NIJ

sponsored some of the research that helped motivate the changes in sentencing, more often funding

evaluations of the impacts of these changes. This

evaluative research has included studies of mandatory-minimum laws, sentencing guidelines, and the

abolition of parole boards.

The influx of offenders that is now a major challenge for corrections has led to the development of

alternatives to incarceration. NIJ has studied the

effectiveness of these types of sanctions, evaluating boot camps, intensive supervision probation

and parole, and electronic monitoring. The first

evaluation of a State boot camp program was

sponsored by NIJ in 1989; since then the Institute

has conducted a nationwide multisite evaluation

and a number of other studies. In 1996 NIJ published a major report on the various approaches to

boot camps nationwide.1

Studies of correctional facility design, construction, and financing have also been sponsored, and

in 1993 NIJ published a supplement to its directory

of corrections construction, a document containing

practical information on designing, building, and

renovating facilities. NIJ has funded studies of

prison industries and the privatization of prisons.

The growth of Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (AIDS), Human Immunodeficiency

Virus (HIV), and Tuberculosis (TB) among inmates prompted NIJ’s periodic surveys of the

incidence of these conditions in prisons and jails

and policy trends related to them. Other changes—

the increase in elderly inmates and female inmates—have been studied, with a focus on special

needs and implications for facilities management.

Research in substance abuse treatment for offenders includes evaluations of model programs for

felony offenders on probation and Federal offenders who have been released into the community,

and a study of intensive management of druginvolved arrestees.

Chapter 3. Sentencing and Corrections
18

The Corrections Program

Under Title II of the Crime Act of 1994, as

amended, funds are available to the States to build

and expand correctional facilities to incarcerate

violent offenders,* to free space for these

offenders, or to build or expand local jails. The

funds are available through the Violent Offender

and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant

Program. To qualify for Violent Offender grants

(for which half the funds are available), States must

demonstrate that violent offenders serve a

substantial portion of the sentence imposed, that

their punishment is sufficiently severe, that prison

time is appropriately related to crime, and that the

public is protected. Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive

grants (for which half the funds are available) are

awarded to States that demonstrate that violent

offenders serve at least 85 percent of the sentence

imposed. In fiscal year 1995, the language of the

congressional appropriation required that the funds

be used to plan, construct, or renovate boot camp

facilities. The program also includes a small setaside for discretionary grants to Indian tribes for

the purpose of constructing jails on tribal lands for

the incarceration of offenders subject to tribal

jurisdiction.

The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for

State Prisoners Formula Grant Program (Title III of

the Crime Act) offers funds to the States to develop

substance abuse treatment programs in State and

local correctional facilities. These programs must

meet several criteria: (1) they must be operated by

a correctional agency; (2) they must last 6 to 12

months; (3) they must focus on substance abuse

problems; (4) the inmates served must be set apart

from the general correctional population; and (5)

they must develop inmates’ cognitive, behavioral,

social, vocational, and other skills to solve their

substance abuse and related problems.

The Tuberculosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and

Treatment Program, created by Title III of the

Crime Act, provides grants to State, Indian tribal,

and local correctional authorities and public health

authorities to assist in establishing and operating

programs for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment,

and followup care of tuberculosis among inmates of

correctional institutions.

The Corrections Program Office (CPO) was

established within the Office of Justice Programs

(OJP) of the Department of Justice to administer the

corrections programs created by the Crime Act. The

CPO also engages in research and evaluation, in

conjunction with the National Institute of Justice, to

assess the impact of the expansion of correctional

capacity and sentencing reforms. In addition, the

CPO offers technical assistance related to the use of

grant funds and the development and implementation

of sentencing reforms; it also assists with data

collection and improvement of information systems

related to the confinement of violent offenders and

other sentencing and correctional matters.

The CPO promotes coordination among all bureaus

of OJP that are responsible for correctional initiatives

and works to form partnerships with other, related

Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of

Prisons and its National Institute of Corrections, and

the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the

National Institute on Drug Abuse in the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services. It seeks

partnerships with professional associations

representing State governments, adult and juvenile

corrections, and local jails.

In Fiscal Year 1995, the CPO funded 44 boot camp

projects. The following year, all 50 States, the

District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. Territories

received funding to help build and expand

correctional facilities. Of these, 25 qualified for a

Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive award. Awards to

establish Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

(RSAT) programs were made in Fiscal Year 1996 to

49 States, the District of Columbia, and the

Territories.

* These offenders are defined in the Crime Act as those who commit

“Part 1” violent crime. Part 1 crimes, which also include property

offenses, are defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and used to

compile its annual Crime Index from reports submitted by the States. Part

1 violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
19

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda

The strategy for research related to truth in sentencing and incarceration of violent offenders was

developed in association with the CPO. At a

workshop cosponsored by NIJ and the CPO,

prominent researchers presented papers that were

used to inform the process of defining research

priorities. A subsequent roundtable discussion that

featured participation by public interest group

members also helped frame the strategy. (See

Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research

Agenda: Strategic Planning.) Participants included

directors of State corrections departments; city and

State officials and administrators from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; and representatives of organizations of

elected officials.

Using the several perspectives represented in these

sessions, NIJ devised a three-tiered strategy to

address the themes that emerged from the discussions. That strategy involves sponsoring:

■ A national evaluation of the Act’s primary

sentencing initiatives: truth in sentencing

and violent offender incarceration.

■ Research and evaluation studies of public

policy questions related to the Act’s sentencing and corrections reforms. These

studies extend in scope from prosecution to

parole and are intended to improve State

and local sentencing policy and related

correctional practices.

■ Evaluation partnerships between State and

local correctional and sentencing agencies

on the one hand and research institutions

on the other. Together, the practitioners and

researchers explore topics of interest to the

specific jurisdiction. Similar to the locally

initiated partnerships NIJ designed for

policing research, the corrections partnerships are intended to build the evaluation

capability of State and local sentencing and

correctional organizations and furnish

information immediately relevant to them.

In judging the partnerships, NIJ gave

considerable weight to the quality of the

working relationship defined between the

research organization and the operational

agency. The hope is to create partnerships

that last beyond the life of the specific

project undertaken.

For boot camps, which have emerged in recent

years as a widely accepted alternative correctional

approach, NIJ strategy includes support for a

multisite assessment. Early research on boot

camps revealed they had little impact on recidivism, but since then the program approach has

evolved and with that evolution has come the need

to measure the effects of the “new generation.” The

Crime Act research strategy resulted from indepth

planning that drew on the expertise of criminal

justice researchers, professionals in corrections

and juvenile justice, and representatives of State

governments. (See Appendix B, Developing the

Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.)

The strategy involves assessing first already

existing boot camps, and then those created under

the auspices of the Crime Act.

Strategy development related to the Residential

Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners

Program was also undertaken in association with the

CPO, which administers the program. The CPO

developed an approach to providing the States with

technical assistance and training to help them

improve and expand substance abuse treatment by

exploring the state and needs of the field. Strategy

development moved on two tracks. One involved

presentation and dissemination of information on

best practices. Researchers, policymakers, and

practitioners in the field came together in a series of

“executive forums” in which they also suggested

areas of concentration for delivering the assistance

and training. The other track consisted of ongoing

workgroups and partnerships involving several

Federal agencies whose mission covers substance

abuse. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act

Research Agenda: Strategic Planning.)
20

Sentencing and Corrections Research Now

Under Way

Research and evaluation related to sentencing and

corrections follow a course similar to that for

policing:

■ A national-level evaluation of the Crime

Act’s violent offender and truth-in-sentencing provisions.

■ Evaluations of boot camps for nonviolent

first-time offenders.

■ Evaluations and research studies of specific

topics related to the sentencing and corrections provisions of the Act.

■ Research and evaluations based on partnerships of researchers and practitioners in the

field of sentencing and corrections.

■ A national evaluation and local evaluations

of the Crime Act’s provision for assistance

to the States in developing substance abuse

treatment for prisoners.

National evaluation. In this evaluation, being

conducted by the RAND Corporation in association with several public-interest organizations, the

researchers are investigating:

■ How the States interpreted and responded

to the violent offender and truth-in-sentencing provisions of the Crime Act, which

States adopted relevant legislation, what

changes from previous practice were made

to deal with violent offenders, and what

factors influenced legislative action.

■ How the States’ strategies were implemented: what decisions were made about

who is sentenced to prison; how violent

offenders were defined; how truth in

sentencing was carried out; how length of

time served, parole release policies, and

good-time and gain-time policies changed;

and what State and local characteristics

appear to be related to successful implementation.

■ How changes at the State level affected

county and local correctional policies: how

pretrial processes changed, what changes

were made by judges at the county level,

and what impact the reforms had on the

local jail system.

Local evaluations. Nine awards were made to

evaluate the effects of the sentencing and corrections

reforms. Among these studies are the following:

■ Two evaluations of North Carolina’s

structured sentencing and community

partnerships act.

■ Study of the impact of truth-in-sentencing

reform in Massachusetts.

■ Evaluation of efforts by several Maryland

counties to free up prison space for violent

offenders by managing offenders released

to the community using drug treatment and

surveillance.

■ Examination of the response of probation

and community corrections to the Crime

Act’s sentencing and corrections reforms.

■ Assessment of possible gender-based

consequences of the sentencing reforms on

confinement in Minnesota.

Boot camps: alternatives to incarceration for

nonviolent offenders. National and multisite

evaluations include:

■ A national, multisite evaluation of boot

camps for juveniles, conducted by the

University of Maryland. This study is

developing indexes to measure and compare the conditions of confinement and the

environment at 27 sites and will assess the

results for offenders.

■ A national, multisite evaluation of 10

publicly and privately operated boot camps,
21

which will emphasize whether and how

aftercare affects outcomes. In this study,

conducted by the National Council on

Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), attention

will be paid to recidivism, shifts in coping

skills, changes in socioeconomic status,

and correctional costs.

■ A study of all 44 federally funded boot

camps, conducted by Abt Associates Inc.,

to determine the extent to which these boot

camps achieve the goal of accelerating the

release of nonviolent offenders and generate bedspace to confine violent offenders.

■ A study by the NCCD of the processes the

States use to plan boot camps with funds

awarded to them by the Office of Justice

Programs. Researchers are examining

factors that lead to success in meeting

planning and implementation goals, as well

as barriers to meeting them.

A separate evaluation of Los Angeles County’s

Juvenile Drug Treatment Boot Camp, a facility for

drug-involved offenders ages 16 to 18, is also

under way. Researchers will compare the boot

camp to a more conventional facility to determine

whether drug use and postrelease criminal behavior are reduced.

Promoting links between research and practice.

To help improve the ability of States and local

jurisdictions to conduct evaluations, NIJ is promoting collaboration between researchers and practitioners in the courts and corrections at the State

and local level. The aim of this research and

evaluation is to enhance understanding of the

implementation and impact of sentencing policies

under the Crime Act, with topics selected that are

immediately relevant to the local jurisdiction. Six

grants were awarded in the following areas:

■ Study of the extent to which an intensive

discharge planning process for women

incarcerated in Rhode Island improves their

reintegration into the community.

■ Study of the implementation of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s new no-parole policy.

■ Development of a statewide correctional

research coalition in Florida to study secure

drug treatment programs and habitual

offender laws.

■ Study of the effectiveness of drug treatment

programs offered by the Florida Department

of Corrections in place of confinement.

■ Analysis of the impact of California’s

sentencing laws on Los Angeles County

sheriff’s and probation departments.

■ The impact of the Crime Act sentencing

and corrections reforms in Wisconsin.

Counting crimes. The estimate of annual crime

rates has been a topic of NIJ research, some of it

challenging conventional wisdom about the frequency of criminal activity by typical offenders and

the link between drugs and crime. Using self-report

data on individual offenders, NIJ will update estimates of these rates in inmate populations, addressing new issues and using new research methods.

Assessing Treatment for Drug-Involved

Prisoners

Through the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, funds are available to the

States to develop and implement treatment programs in State and local correctional and detention

facilities. The States are encouraged to adopt

Table 3–1. Sentencing and Corrections Research

and Evaluation Grants

1995 1996

Number of Proposals

Submitted 44 76

Dollar Amount of

Proposals $6.7 million $14.4 million

Number of Grants

Awarded 5 17

Dollar Amount

Awarded $1.2 million $4.2 million
22

comprehensive approaches to substance abuse

treatment for offenders, including relapse prevention and aftercare services.

Using funds from the CPO, NIJ awarded eight

grants to evaluate the RSAT program. Of these, the

national-level evaluation being conducted by

National Development and Research Institutes has

three components:

■ An examination of program operations,

which will gather information on such

factors as types of offenders participating,

staff, treatment modalities, and program

length, content, and duration.

■ Technical assistance to the States to enhance the utility of the data and the annual

reports they are required to submit, to help

ensure their programs can be evaluated.

■ Preliminary steps in conducting an evaluation of RSAT’s impact. These include

collecting baseline data and establishing

standards and criteria for selecting candidate programs for the subsequent impact

evaluation.

Seven programs at the State level are being evaluated, including one at a facility for women and one

at a youth facility. Some programs being evaluated

use the therapeutic community model of treatment

delivery, and some include strong aftercare components. In each case, researchers based at a local

university or other research institution will conduct

the evaluation with the appropriate State agencies

in a partnership designed to promote ongoing

researcher-practitioner collaboration. The topics

selected reflect issues important to the States.

Linking Research to Sentencing and

Corrections Practice

Corrections is in a time of flux and growth, and as

a result administrators face a number of challenges

stemming from the need to adapt to an expanding

prison population, changing demographics, and

new sentencing laws that affect corrections. To

provide these officials with information useful to

dealing with these and other issues, NIJ, in

collaboration with the Corrections Program Office,

will convene a series of “Executive Sessions on

Corrections.” A group of corrections executives,

sentencing experts, policymakers, and researchers

will meet periodically over the next few years in

seminars organized by the University of Minnesota

on the interdependence of sentencing policy and

correctional practice.

The seminars are patterned on the executive

sessions on policing sponsored by NIJ several years

ago in association with Harvard University’s

Kennedy School of Government to bring together

some of the leading thinkers in the field. They are

intended to encourage new dialogue between highlevel practitioners and scholars, with a view to

redefining and proposing solutions to substantive

policy issues. Five sessions will be held over a

period of 3 years, each based on a review of the

available research and papers commissioned from

experts in the field. The papers, which NIJ will

disseminate widely, and the collective thinking of

the participants are intended to serve as a guide to

future policy in corrections.

Table 3–2. Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

Research and Evaluation Grants, 1996

Number of Proposals Submitted 24

Dollar Amount of Proposals $2.9 million

Number of Grants Awarded 8

Dollar Amount Awarded $0.95 million

Note

1. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Eugene E. Hebert,

eds., Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction, Research Report, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1996 (NCJ 157639).
23

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, Title

IV of the Crime Act) responds to the needs of

women who are victimized by violence and to the

need for fundamental change in the way this

violence is addressed. Prominent among the

changes is Federal support to States and local

jurisdictions to improve the response of law

enforcement and prosecution as well as victim

services. Research and evaluation related to

VAWA, sponsored by the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ), seeks to identify the impact of the

justice programs and to provide a knowledge base

for examining policy and programmatic experience

and recommending improvements.

The program of VAWA research encompasses a

national-level evaluation of the Act’s overall impact

and topical evaluations of one or more programs,

covering the seven “purpose areas” of the Act .

(See “Violence Against Women Program” on the

next page.) The research also includes several

congressionally mandated studies, among them

development of a research agenda on violence

against women.

NIJ’s Record of Research on Violence

Against Women

NIJ has traditionally had a strong program of

evaluation and research on violence against

women and issues in family and intimate violence.

Early research in spouse assault primarily addressed the police response, with examination of

an experimental program in Minneapolis revealing

a decline in the probability of repeat offending

when this offense is treated as a crime and the

police make an arrest. This finding became a major

factor in a shift in police practice to favor arrest

(although NIJ-sponsored replications produced

mixed results and suggested the need for caution in

generalizing).

The current NIJ program of family violence

research encompasses studies of behavior, including partner abuse and child abuse, as well as

projects that focus on the criminal justice response—by law enforcement, prosecution, the

courts, and probation and parole. Examples of

behavioral research are studies of the developmental antecedents of partner violence, the developmental antecedents of sexual aggression, the role

of alcohol and drug abuse in domestic violence,

and an ongoing examination of the “cycle of

violence”—the increased likelihood that victims of

child abuse and neglect will engage in delinquent

or criminal behavior later in life. Studies of the

criminal justice response include a case study of

prosecutorial handling of rape, an assessment of

the current state of domestic violence prosecution,

and an examination of how the justice system

processes child abuse cases. Under joint sponsorship by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIJ, the Center for Policy

Research (a Denver-based private research organization) is conducting a national survey among

adult women to determine the extent, nature, and

consequences of various forms of violence against

women. The study includes a parallel survey of men.

NIJ has sponsored studies of initiatives to meet

victims’ needs, including mediation and civil

protection orders. A model stalking code for use

by the States was recently developed under NIJ

sponsorship, as was a guide for criminal justice

agencies in confronting domestic violence. Among

the studies recently published is one that describes

how the States are implementing their sex offender

community notification laws.1

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda

NIJ’s past and current research on domestic violence and related issues was a useful base on

Chapter 4. Violence Against Women
24

which to build the research agenda for Crime Act

initiatives. Collaboration with the Violence Against

Women Grants Office (in the Office of Justice

Programs) was also essential. Because domestic

violence is a health issue as well as a criminal

justice issue, the community of health care professionals also participated in strategy development.

The major planning session was organized by NIJ

in association with the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services. In addition to representatives

of the criminal justice research community, participants included the director of the National Center

for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC, professionals from the fields of nursing and such disciplines as sociology, representatives of victims

organizations, and officials in policing, prosecution, and the judiciary. (See Appendix B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic

Planning.)

Violence Against Women Program

The Violence Against Women Act (Title IV of the

Crime Act) combines an array of legal and practical

reforms to reducing domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. It is designed to improve the

response of police and prosecutors to these crimes

and offers a number of protections for victims.

Among these protections are a requirement that sex

offenders pay restitution to their victims,

strengthened protection orders against abusers, a

ban on firearms possession by convicted domestic

abusers, increased funding for battered women’s

shelters, and the establishment of Federal penalties

for sex crimes. Under VAWA a national domestic

violence hotline was created that promises to reach

every community in the Nation.

Grants are available to the States and units of local

government for programs in prosecution,

education, outreach, and prevention. One of these,

the law enforcement and prosecution grant

program, provides funds to develop and strengthen

law enforcement and prosecutorial strategies to

combat violent crimes against women and to

develop and strengthen victim services in cases

involving crimes against women. These STOP

(Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) grants

may be used for seven purposes:

■ Training for law enforcement officers and

prosecutors.

■ Development, training, or expansion of special

law enforcement and prosecutorial units.

■ Development and improvement of data

collection and communications systems

linking components of the criminal justice

system.

■ Development and implementation of more

effective police and prosecutorial policies

and services.

■ Creation or enhancement of victim services

programs.

■ Development of programs to address

stalking.

■ Development and enhancement of programs

to meet the needs of Indian tribes.

Grants are also available under VAWA to

implement mandatory arrest or proarrest policies in

police departments.

The grant programs are administered by the

Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO)

within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. VAWGO programs include

funding to support cooperation among law

enforcement, prosecution, victim advocates, and

others involved in investigating and prosecuting

domestic violence and child abuse in rural areas.

Among the programs VAWGO sponsors are the

STOP grants, the first step in helping the States and

localities to restructure the response of law

enforcement and prosecution to reduce violence

against women and enhance victim services.

Priority in funding is given to programs designed to

reach traditionally underserved populations,

including the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities,

women in rural areas, and migrant workers.
25

Issues explored in developing the research strategy

included the importance of coordinating approaches to domestic violence, the individual

safety planning processes that women employ, the

role of the fatality review process in determining

cause of death in domestic violence cases, the role

of advocacy in addressing these crimes, how

communities can be effectively mobilized, and

what interventions are most effective for victim and

offender. NIJ subsequently developed and disseminated requests for proposals to conduct research

and evaluation related to these and other issues.

Research Now Under Way on Violence

Against Women

The components of the research and evaluation

program include:

■ National-level and multisite evaluations of

the impact of VAWA.

■ Evaluations conducted at the State and

local levels, focusing on VAWA’s seven

“purpose areas.”

■ Research directed to improving the coordinated justice, social service, and public

health responses to spouse assault, violence

against women, and family violence (including child and elder abuse).

■ Congressionally mandated studies.

National-Level Evaluations

Chief among the awards in the first year of the

Crime Act was a grant to the Urban Institute for a

2-year study of the nationwide impact of the STOP

(Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) grants

program. Through this program, the Office of

Justice Programs’ Violence Against Women Grants

Office makes VAWA funding available to the States

for programs in policing, prosecution, victim

services, and information systems. The study is

identifying the range of activities and programs

adopted by the States under STOP, examining their

planning and implementation processes, assessing

A Catalyst for Interdisciplinary Research

With the Crime Act providing greater impetus to

recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of

violence against women, the first multiagency

consortium on the topic has been established. NIJ

joined with health research agencies—several

offices of the National Institutes of Health and

CDC—as well as the National Center on Child

Abuse and Neglect to study the causes, course,

treatment, management, and prevention of family

violence and other forms of violence against

women, and the health and legal consequences for

victims. The 10 funded projects focus on such

topics as reducing the risk for abuse of battered

women’s children, the effectiveness of protection

orders, domestic abuse among Latinos, the

emotional effects of maltreatment on children,

partner violence against Native American women,

intervention for abuse against female caregivers,

and treatment for violent adolescent males from

abusive homes.

In response to the congressionally mandated

research agenda on violence against women

developed by the National Academy of Sciences

(and cofunded by NIJ and CDC), NIJ and CDC’s

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

are working together to plan a coordinated,

interagency, interdisciplinary approach to

addressing the issues and priorities set forth in that

agenda. The proposed partnership will link the

criminal justice and public health approaches at the

Federal level, as well as reduce any duplication of

effort that might take place if the agencies acted on

their own. The collaboration would take the form

of a 5-year research strategy to understand the

extent of violence against women, why it occurs,

and how to prevent it. NIJ and the CDC have been

working to identify areas of the NAS research

agenda that each could best address. The two

agencies would serve as liaison to other interested

offices in Justice and Health and Human Services.

Funding for the first year of the program is under

consideration by Congress for Fiscal Year 1998.
26

the accomplishments of grant recipients, and

developing a strategy for documenting long-term

efforts. The first 1-year status report examined the

plans of the States for implementing the programs

they are establishing with STOP grant funding.2

For example, it summarized State intentions with

respect to funding the program’s seven “purpose

areas,” finding that victim services was the area

most likely to receive the largest proportion of

States’ funding.

Among the findings of the second-year status

report of activity in 1996 was that the STOP

planning and grants process is beginning to change

interactions among law enforcement, prosecution,

and nonprofit, nongovernmental victim service

agencies, creating an environment for increased

mutual understanding and coordinated program

development. In several of the sites visited, the

researchers found this was the first time such

extensive interactions had occurred among the

agencies.3

Under way in 1996 were studies of selected sites

and an examination of specific “purpose areas”

identified by VAWA:

■ Examination of the impact of law enforcement and prosecution under the STOP

programs at 8 to 10 sites. Training for law

enforcement officers and prosecutors,

establishment of specialized units of police

officers and prosecutors, changes in police

and prosecution policies, and programs to

address stalking are among the STOPfunded activities addressed in this study,

which is being conducted by the Institute

for Law and Justice.

■ Evaluation of the impact of the STOP

programs for reducing violence against

women in Native American communities,

conducted by the University of Arizona.

■ Study of the impact of victim service

programs under the STOP grants, conducted by the American Bar Association.

■ Evaluation of the impact of the data collection and communication systems components of the STOP grants, being conducted

by the National Center for State Courts.

The policy, operational, and technical

issues related to data integration and

coordination among law enforcement,

prosecution, courts, corrections, and victim

service providers are the focus of the study.

(Evaluations of the VAWA provisions for grants to

implement pro- and mandatory-arrest policies in

police departments in domestic violence cases will

be funded in 1997.)

More specific, topical studies are under way in the

following areas:

◆ Victims and Offenders

— Association between violence against

women and the alcohol problems of

victims.

— Evolution and patterns of stalking behavior

and its effects on victims.

— Extent and nature of sexual victimization

of college women.

◆ Criminal Justice System Response

— Factors influencing judicial and

prosecutorial decisionmaking and factors

influencing victims’ reluctance to bring

charges.

— Prosecution strategies most likely to

achieve conviction.

— Efficacy of court-mandated treatment for

batterers.

◆ Community Response

— Comparison of various models of community

coordination in response to partner violence.

— One community’s coordinated response to

domestic violence.
27

Congressionally Mandated Reports on

Violence Against Women

Crowell, Nancy A., and Ann W. Burgess, eds.,

Understanding Violence Against Women,

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,

1996. This study was sponsored by the National

Institute of Justice and the National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention and conducted

by the National Academy of Sciences.*

Zepp, James, et al., Domestic and Sexual

Violence Data Collection, Research Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice

Statistics, July 1996. Study conducted by the

Justice Research and Statistics Association. (NCJ

161405)**

The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning

Battering and Its Effects in Criminal Trials:

Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice and U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, May 1996. (NCJ

160972)**

Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Antistalking

Legislation: NIJ Report to Congress,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, April 1996. (NCJ

160943)**

Confidentiality of Domestic Violence Victims’

Addresses, Washington, D.C.: National Criminal

Justice Association, November 1995.

Unpublished report of study sponsored by the

National Institute of Justice. (NCJ 164064)

* Available from the National Academy Press at 2101 Constitution

Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20055. Phone 800–624–6242, or

order via the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/nap/bookstore.

** Available from the National Institute of Justice through the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville,

MD 20849–6000; telephone 800–851–3420; or e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Also available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/

resdocs.htm.

Meeting the Need for Information

Recognizing the need for further research and data

on violence against women, Congress, through the

Crime Act, requested:

■ Development by the National Academy of

Sciences of a research agenda on violence

against women.

■ A study of the feasibility of establishing

centralized data bases on the incidence of

domestic violence offenses.

■ A study of battered women’s syndrome—

its medical and psychological basis and the

extent to which evidence of the syndrome

has been used in criminal trials.

■ An annual study of the incidence of stalking and domestic violence and an evaluation of State antistalking efforts and legislation.

■ A study of the means by which abusive

spouses obtain information about the

addresses or locations of estranged or

former spouses.

These studies, some of which were sponsored by

NIJ and some by NIJ in association with other

Federal agencies, have been completed. (See

“Congressionally Mandated Reports on Violence

Against Women.”)

Table 4–1. Violence Against Women Research and

Evaluation Grants

1995 1996

Number of Proposals

Submitted 61 47

Dollar Amount of

Proposals $9.3 million $7.1 million

Number of Grants

Awarded 6 8

Dollar Amount

Awarded $1 million $2.25 million
28

Notes

1. Finn, Peter, Sex Offender Community Notification, Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1997 (NCJ 162364).

2. The report on progress and accomplishments of

the STOP program through December 1995, the

period covering the first year of STOP program

authorization, has been published. See Burt,

Martha, The Violence Against Women Act of 1994:

Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants To Combat

Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: The

Urban Institute, March 29, 1996. (Study funded by

NIJ grant #95–WT–NX–0005.)

3. Burt, Martha, et al., 1997 Report: Evaluation of

the STOP Formula Grants under the Violence

Against Women Act of 1994, Washington, D.C.:

The Urban Institute, March 1997. (Study funded

by NIJ grant #95–WT–NX–0005).
29

Drug courts exemplify the way the Crime Act

encourages innovative approaches to reducing

crime. They were created by local courts as a

response to the pattern of behavior that brings

substance abusers into repeated contact with the

criminal justice system. Research has shown that

substance abuse tends to increase other criminal

behavior, but it also shows that treatment can be

effective in reducing substance abuse and criminal

activity. Many communities have established these

specially designed courts, which work through

coalitions of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officials, substance abuse

treatment providers, and others. Drug courts use

the coercive power of the judiciary to control and

alter behavior through a combination of early and

continual judicial supervision, sanctions, incentives, mandatory drug testing, treatment, and

aftercare.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has issued

requests for proposals to evaluate the drug court

programs sponsored by the Act, specifically to

conduct research in implementation and process

issues and in the impact of the courts. These

studies are intended to provide information about

whether and to what extent drug courts are effective. They will generate a knowledge base that

jurisdictions nationwide can tap to create new

programs or refine existing ones.

NIJ’s Record of Research in Substance

Abuse by Offenders

NIJ has conducted research in the link between

drug use and crime and in ways to improve criminal justice handling of drug-related offending.

These research projects include early studies

confirming that reducing the level of drug use can

reduce criminality. NIJ has also sponsored studies

of ways to better detect drug abuse among offenders. In one of the earliest applications of drug

testing in the justice system, NIJ piloted demonstrations of drug testing to monitor the behavior of

people on pretrial release. Using urinalysis as the

testing technology, these programs uncovered high

drug use and high risk for recidivism.

The findings about the level of drug use by

arrestees led NIJ to establish the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program.1

 Recognized as one of the

leading indicators of illegal drug use, DUF periodically tests arrestees in major urban areas nationwide, providing data on an ongoing basis about

the drugs and crime nexus, and information useful

at the local level for making policy decisions

regarding drug abuse among offenders. DUF data

are also used by researchers as a “platform” on

which to conduct studies of substance abuse and

related issues. Among them are studies of

arrestees’ familiarity with and use of firearms and

their involvement in the crack, powder cocaine,

heroin, and methamphetamine markets.

Other studies have focused on the characteristics

of different types of drug-involved offenders,

enforcement strategies, criminal justice handling

of drug cases, community efforts to reduce demand and control drug trafficking, the problem of

drugs and crime in public housing and in prisons,

and drug prevention education. NIJ has also

supported the development of hair analysis and

other technologies as a means of detecting substance abuse.

If research has shown that substance abuse is

linked to other criminal behavior, it has also shown

that treatment can be effective in reducing substance abuse and criminal activity. Treatment for

drug-involved offenders is also a focus of NIJ

research and development. The Institute has published research documenting the efficacy of treatment in prisons and jails and is currently supporting a demonstration project and accompanying

Chapter 5. Drug Courts
30

evaluation intended to test the hypothesis that the

“cycle” of drug use and criminality can be broken.

The hypothesis suggests a systematic approach

that provides judicially monitored services and

treatment as needed, in the context of drug testing,

for all drug-using arrestees through the entire

period of criminal justice supervision starting with

arrest. NIJ is in the process of selecting researchers

to evaluate a similar program, recently begun for

Federal arrestees at several locations.

One of the pioneering programs combining testing

and treatment for offenders—the Dade County

(Miami), Florida Drug Court—was documented by

NIJ and was the subject of an evaluation cosponsored with the State Justice Institute. That study

revealed drug court “graduates” were arrested less

often than nongraduates. Graduates who were

rearrested stayed arrest free roughly three times

longer than other similar felony drug defendants

whose cases were handled outside the drug court.2

Currently, in collaboration with the Center for

Substance Abuse Treatment (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services), NIJ is evaluating the

D.C. Drug Court, an experimental program for

felony drug defendants in Washington, D.C.

Researchers are comparing the efficacy of intensive outpatient drug treatment, graduated sanctions, and case handling by the standard court

docket to find out the effect on rearrest, substance

abuse, and social functioning.

The Drug Courts Program

The Crime Act (Title V) makes funds available to

States and local jurisdictions to establish programs

that involve judicial supervision of nonviolent

offenders who have substance abuse problems and

the potential for rehabilitation. The criminal justice

system often fails to impose the sanctions and offer

the services necessary to change these offenders’

deviant behavior, and as a result, many of them

repeatedly cycle through the courts, corrections,

and probation systems. More than 100 jurisdictions

throughout the country have responded by creating

innovative programs known as “drug courts,”

specially designed court calendars or dockets that

combine judicial supervision with treatment

services, drug testing, sanctions, and incentives.

The drug courts being established (or improved)

under the Crime Act are intended to provide

continuing judicial supervision, drug testing,

treatment, and case management and aftercare. The

grass roots “movement” that gave rise to this

innovation holds the promise not only of reducing

criminal activity, including substance abuse, but

also of relieving pressure on correctional facilities

by freeing up space for more serious, felony drug

offenders, whose cases have inundated the courts.

The program is administered by the Drug Courts

Program Office, within the Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. It was

established to assist in developing and implementing

effective drug court programs, improve services in

those already in existence, and provide training

technical assistance to plan, create, and improve

them. In 1995, 52 planning grants were awarded,

implementation grants were awarded to 5 jurisdictions,

and 7 sites that currently have drug court programs

were awarded funds to improve them. In 1996, 9

implementation grants and 7 improvement grants

were awarded.

Drug courts funded under the program must meet the

following criteria:

■ Target nonviolent substance-abusing offenders.

■ Provide early, continuing, judicial supervision.

■ Involve mandatory periodic drug testing during

any period of supervised release or probation.

■ Provide substance abuse treatment for each

participant.

■ Include the possibility of prosecution,

confinement, or incarceration in cases of

noncompliance or unsatisfactory progress.

■ Provide strong aftercare services, such as

relapse prevention, health care, education,

vocational training, and job placement.
31

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda

Despite their increasing numbers, drug courts have

generated little research and evaluation. The

Attorney General was authorized under the Crime

Act to evaluate them, and NIJ began to develop a

strategy to guide the direction of these evaluations

and other future research. A first step included

calling on practitioners in the judiciary, experts in

treatment, and researchers for information relevant

to the subsequent development of a plan for research.

The Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice

Programs, also played a key role. (See Appendix

B, Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda:

Strategic Planning.) At the workshop convened by

NIJ, discussions of method emphasized the need

for innovation, particularly in qualitative measures.

As experience with drug court programs and

accompanying research grows, NIJ will supplement and perhaps even redirect the research strategy.

The strategy informed the development of a request for proposals to conduct the evaluations

authorized by the Crime Act and to provide technical assistance in evaluation design and in documenting program results. NIJ has worked and

continues to work with the Drug Courts Program

Office on a number of fronts, including coordinating the development of an electronic listserv to

facilitate communication among operating drug

courts and drug court professionals, and exchanging information about the field.

Plans for Research on Drug Courts

Although NIJ sought in the first 2 years of the

Crime Act to sponsor evaluations of the impact of

drug courts in reducing drug abuse and associated

criminality, no proposals initially submitted met

the stated needs. After consulting with the Drug

Courts Program Office, NIJ decided to make no

awards. Instead, the two agencies worked to set

research priorities and to develop criteria for

selecting courts as candidates for evaluative studies.

In 1997 NIJ is again requesting proposals to assess

the implementation and impact of drug courts. The

first request is for studies of some of the courts

that have received grants from the Drug Courts

Program Office to enhance existing programs. The

courts targeted for study are in Las Vegas, Nevada;

Portland, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; and

Pensacola, Florida. These studies will examine

such “process” issues as the operational features of

the courts and the dynamics of program development. This type of information provides the context within which to assess changes in criminal

behavior and other outcomes. The impact of the

drug courts on criminal recidivism will be measured, as will the extent of participants’ retention

in treatment and changes in their life circumstances and productivity. Through a cost-benefit

analysis of each drug court, researchers will

identify the savings to each participating organization (e.g., the court or the prosecutor’s office)

accruing from its involvement in the drug court.

A second request will solicit proposals to evaluate

courts in jurisdictions that received funds for

implementation from the Drug Courts Program

Office in Fiscal Years 1995 through 1997. The first

phase will set up the capacity for conducting

subsequent evaluations of the impact of the courts

in selected sites. The impact evaluations will be

conducted as the second phase.

Note

1. DUF was recently renamed ADAM (Arrestee

Drug Abuse Monitoring). The program’s use as a

research platform is being enhanced, and the

number of sites will increase.

2. Finn, P., and A.K. Newlyn, Miami’s “Drug

Court”: A Different Approach, Program Focus,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1993 (NCJ 142412);

Goldkamp, J.S., and D. Weiland, Assessing the

Impact of Dade County’s Felony Drug Court,

Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993

(NCJ 145302).
33

Both the Crime Act and the Act as amended in

1996 (through the Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus

Appropriations Act, Public Law 104–134) make

funds available for the development of technologies to support law enforcement at the State and

local levels. Technology research and development

for community policing was authorized in 1994 to

assist State and local law enforcement agencies in

“reorienting the emphasis of their activities from

reacting to crime to prevention of crime.” This

research and development is being sponsored by

the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The Crime

Act also provides funds (under Title XXI, the

DNA Identification Act) to support the improvement and expansion of State and local forensics

laboratories to perform DNA testing, and specifically authorizes NIJ to determine the feasibility of

performing blind external DNA testing in public

and private laboratories.

The 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act allocates to

technology development 1 percent of the funding

for law enforcement under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. The section of the law

titled “Technology Assistance” specifies that “the

Attorney General shall reserve 1 percent (of the

Crime Act funds) in each of fiscal years 1996

through 1998 of the amount authorized to be appropriated for use by NIJ in assisting local units [of

government] to identify, select, develop, modernize,

and purchase new technologies for use by law

enforcement.” That funding amounts to $12 million.

NIJ’s Record of Research and Development

for Law Enforcement Technology

NIJ has pioneered many of the advances in science

and technology that help deter, identify, and

apprehend offenders and that ensure access by

criminal justice professionals to the tools and

equipment they need to perform their jobs more

efficiently. For example, the development of

effective body armor, under NIJ sponsorship, has

been credited with saving the lives of hundreds of

police officers. The Institute’s work in testing

products and setting voluntary industry performance standards for criminal justice equipment

has helped criminal justice professionals make

informed decisions about equipment purchases.

Although much of NIJ’s early technology development was directed to the needs of law enforcement, it has since expanded to include corrections,

courts, and the entire criminal justice system. By

charter under the founding legislation, the focus of

this work is in support of State and local needs.

Over the past few years, NIJ’s science and technology program has grown significantly. NIJ is

developing a range of technologies that will have

direct relevance to law enforcement, such as

devices that will stop fleeing vehicles or that offer

a broader range of alternatives to conventional useof-force methods for arresting a resisting suspect.

Other technology development areas include:

■ Officer protection and safety.

■ Noninvasive drug testing.

■ Electronic monitoring of personnel and

vehicle movements.

■ Information technology and data base

integration.

■ Crime mapping.

■ Judicial processing, court proceedings, and

corrections monitoring.

■ Situational awareness and crime prevention

applications and technologies.

■ Simulation and modeling technology for

training and operations.

Chapter 6. Science and Technology
34

■ Concealed weapons and contraband detection, and explosives detection.

■ Telemedicine for corrections.

Establishment of the National Law Enforcement

and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)

system,1

 with its four regional centers and a Border

Research and Technology Center, has made NIJ

developments in technology more accessible to the

field.

In the forensic sciences, NIJ has contributed to the

development of DNA testing technologies and

DNA testing performance standards, the implementation and expansion of DNA data bases, and

the certification of forensic science personnel.

Forensic research has also included the development of a portable device for lifting fingerprints

and better reagents for making them visible,

entomological analysis for identifying time of

death, and tools to speed the identification of

cyanide and carbon monoxide in poisoning cases.

Projects currently under way include the development of model death investigation procedures,

creation of a data base of linguistic methods to

enhance the ability to identify authors of documents, and investigation of means to determine

guilt or innocence by analyzing gunshot residue.

In partnership with the Department of Defense

(DOD), NIJ is sharing, transferring, and developing technologies that apply to both law enforcement and military operations. Chief among these

technologies are less-than-lethal weapons, explosive detections, voice identification, information

systems, and telemedicine. In collaboration with

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), NIJ and DOD have been

developing noninvasive technologies for detecting

weapons concealed under clothing.

Developing the Crime Act Research

Agenda

In developing the research agenda in support of

technology for community policing under the

Crime Act, NIJ worked with the COPS Office and

the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Advisory Council. Early in 1996, NIJ and COPS

convened a conference at Harvard’s Kennedy

School of Government to examine the role of

technology in community policing. This strategy

session would provide NIJ with information

relevant to the preparation of a solicitation for

proposals to develop community oriented policing

technologies and would help in selecting recipients

of the $4 million in funding.

An indepth strategy was also developed by NIJ to

guide implementation of the 1-percent technology

assistance funding provision under the Local Law

Enforcement Block Grants Program. Addressing

near-term, midterm, and long-term technology

needs, this strategy enlisted the other NIJ offices—

the Office of Research and Evaluation and the

Office of Development and Dissemination—to

work with the Office of Science and Technology to

carry out the research, development, testing, and

evaluation mandates of that provision.

NIJ’s strategy for DNA improvement was developed in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI). The FBI provided additional

funding and part-time personnel in 1996 to help

NIJ begin the first year of the 5-year, $40 million

DNA laboratory improvement program. The FBI

also collaborated with NIJ in developing and

distributing solicitations for proposals for DNA

laboratory improvements and assisted in reviewing

the proposals submitted.

Research Now Under Way

Technology to support community policing. To

promote the development of new and innovative

technologies in support of community oriented

policing, NIJ made 15 awards, using $4 million of

the $6 million provided by the COPS Office.

Because the intent of Congress was to advance

technology beyond the current state of the art,

funding was not available to purchase products

now on the market. The technologies are being

developed by industry and national laboratories in
35

partnership with law enforcement agencies. The

goal is to increase information flow and redeployment and effect other changes that enhance community policing. The categories considered for

awards were:

■ Technologies that improve partnership and

communication between the police and the

community.

■ Problem-solving technology approaches to

reducing crime and fear.

■ Technology to support beat officers.

■ Crime analysis and response.

■ Organizational change and creative solutions to community policing problems.

Among the projects funded were:

■ Demonstrations of concealed weapons

detection systems.

■ Community and law enforcement agency

computer networking.

■ Real-time data base access and input by

patrol officers.

■ Crime analysis software tools.

Of the $6 million in COPS funding, $1.5 million

was used to develop:

■ Portable voice command translation technology.

■ Electronic monitoring technology to reduce

domestic violence.

■ Examination of the feasibility of remote

vehicle disabling technology.

The remaining $0.5 million was used by NIJ to

provide the policing community with information

about how technology can enhance community

policing. This took the form of a series of conferences held in 1996 in five regions of the country.

Conference panels featured noted law enforcement

professionals who shared innovative approaches to

using technology for strengthening partnerships

with the community and for developing problemsolving strategies to reduce crime. Individual panel

sessions were held on global positioning systems,

concealed weapons detection, the criminal use of

technology, and liability issues related to technology. Several relevant technologies were demonstrated by industry.2

Table 6–1. Grants for Technology To Support

Community Policing, 1996

Number of Proposals Submitted 120

Dollar Amount of Proposals $47.2 million

Number of Grants Awarded 18

Dollar Amount Awarded $6.0 million

One-percent set-aside for local law enforcement

technology. NIJ is using the 1-percent set-aside for

local law enforcement technology (amounting to

$20 million in Fiscal Year 1996) to develop a

multifaceted initiative. The core funding of this

new initiative supports the development of selected

technologies intended to advance law enforcement

capabilities. The projects were chosen from the

proposals submitted in response to NIJ’s solicitation and were competitively selected. The remaining funds are being used to sponsor promising

technology projects from proposals previously

submitted and approved, to provide follow-on

funding of critical technologies already under

development, to test and evaluate existing technologies, and to provide direct technical assistance. NIJ is also funding studies that will examine

the technology acquisition process from the perspective of local law enforcement agencies, large

and small, that apply these advances.

Grant purposes. The grants awarded by NIJ with

the 1996 congressional appropriation for law

enforcement technology will be made to:

■ Improve the variety of technology options

available to law enforcement, the courts,

and corrections on a day-to-day basis.
36

■ Increase the ability of police to solve

problems innovatively.

■ Develop technologies that may serve as

workforce multipliers and free up agency

resources to permit their fullest use.

■ Promote the flow and use of information

within and outside an agency.

■ Improve the responsiveness of the agencies

in enhancing the quality of life of the

communities they serve.

A solicitation for proposals to develop, implement,

and evaluate technology for law enforcement,

courts, and corrections, which was issued by NIJ

and used $10 million in funding, covered the

following categories:

■ General technology “purpose areas.” These

technologies address solutions to identified

current needs of law enforcement, courts,

and corrections. They encompass less-thanlethal weapons, officer protection and

safety, situational awareness and crime

prevention, forensic sciences (including

DNA testing), and simulation and modeling

technology for training and operational use.

■ Special technology development and

demonstration projects. These high-priority

areas, identified for accelerated, near-term

realization, include information technology

and data base integration assessment and

adoption; concealed weapons detection;

vehicle-stopping technology; noninvasive

drug testing; crime mapping; electronic

monitoring; and improved judicial processing, court proceedings, and corrections

monitoring.

■ Behavioral and organizational impacts of

technological advances. Projects include

early identification and overcoming of

barriers to technology adoption and modernization, adoption processes for existing

technologies not currently in use, development of ways to identify new technologies

that respond to emerging social and demographic needs, and ways to increase the

capacity of criminal justice to use technology innovatively.

■ Creative technology solutions. Projects

address the development of innovative

technologies to benefit law enforcement,

courts, and corrections not included in the

first three categories.

Thus far, more than 30 projects have been approved or awards made in all 4 of the above categories. Specific project areas include concealed

weapons detection, information technologies,

forensics, crime mapping technologies, surveillance and monitoring, “smart gun” development

and demonstration, and studies of the behavioral

and organizational impact of technology research.

Other technology development activities. Part of

the remaining technology development appropriation was used by NIJ for a number of other purposes, among them:

■ Making NIJ’s technology center system,

comprising the National Law Enforcement

and Corrections Technology Center

(NLECTC), the regional centers, and the

Border Research and Technology Center

more accessible and responsive to State

and local users.

■ Enhancing the development of law enforcement standards by the NIJ-funded Office

of Law Enforcement Standards, within the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

■ Supporting NIJ’s new Crime Mapping

Research Center. (Details are presented in

chapter 2.)

■ Maintaining and upgrading the home page

of NIJ’s online resource for technology

information, the Justice Information Network (JUSTNET).
37

■ Providing planning and program development support for less-than-lethal technology assessment and surplus property

distribution and facilitating domestic and

international partnerships in areas related

to technology.

■ Providing general test support and health

hazard assessments of concepts, technologies, and products for law enforcement

agencies.

■ Conducting a law enforcement technology

needs assessment.

Forensics research. In response to the solicitation,

NIJ received 45 applications requesting more than

$19 million for forensic science. Of these, 10 were

selected to receive approximately $3 million in

funding. Projects funded covered a wide range of

topics, including development of a fluorescence

imaging capability for crime scene investigation; a

computer program of entomological evidence for

determining time of death; a microchip, fully

integrated DNA testing system; rapid DNA typing

using laser dispersion mass spectrometry; microchip capability to perform DNA extraction and

purification of biological samples; and technologies

for identifying various trace evidence samples.

The future of DNA and its implications for criminal justice were the topic of a conference held by

NIJ to bring together members of the forensic

science community who are familiar with the

current demands being made on public and private

forensic DNA laboratories. Participants at the

conference, held in June 1996, also included

representatives of law enforcement, prosecution,

the defense bar, and the judiciary. They discussed

technologies now emerging that could rapidly and

cost-effectively improve DNA testing to meet

current needs.

Joining with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

NIJ awarded a grant to a group of medicolegal

professionals to develop recommended guidelines

for death investigations and for training death

investigators. A National Medicolegal Review

Panel was also formed, comprising representatives

of the National Association of Medical Examiners,

International Association of Coroners and Medical

Examiners, American Medical Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National

Sheriffs’ Association, American Academy of

Forensic Sciences, College of American Pathology,

and the National Mayors Association and National

Governors Association. A report of panel findings

and recommendations will be published.

Improving DNA Forensics Laboratories

The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Title XXI,

Subtitle C of the Crime Act) makes Federal funds

Table 6–2. Grants Receiving Funds From the

1-Percent Set-Aside for Technology, 1996

Number of Proposals

Submitted (approximate) 467

Dollar Amount of Proposals $234 million

Number of Grants Awarded

(approximate) 60

Dollar Amount Awarded $20 million

available to improve the quality and availability of

DNA analysis for law enforcement identification

purposes. The aim is to increase the capabilities of

State and local forensic laboratories to conduct

state-of-the-art DNA testing to support investigation and prosecution of violent crime. In collaboration with the FBI, NIJ developed and issued in

September 1995 a solicitation for proposals for

these laboratory improvement projects. Of the

$8.75 million in funding available, $8 million was

provided by the FBI from its funds for the Combined DNA Identification System (CODIS). From

the 46 applications received, 37 grants totaling

$8.75 million were made to States or units of local

government.

The Act also requires that NIJ develop a proficiency testing program for DNA analysis that will

be available to public and private laboratories
38

conducting forensic DNA testing. NIJ awarded a

$250,000 grant to the University of Illinois to

investigate the feasibility and practicality of this

type of testing.

Note

1. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections

Technology Center (NLECTC), a program of the

National Institute of Justice, assists in identifying

technology and research needs, identifies and

evaluates available technologies, facilitates partnerships among private and public organizations to

develop new technologies, demonstrates these

technologies, and helps find new ways to leverage

limited law enforcement resources and funding.

NLECTC also conducts commercialization and

standards-setting activities.

2. See Technology for Community Policing:

Conference Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

and Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, 1997. NCJ 163601.
39

Assessing the Local Law Enforcement

Block Grants

To help further reduce crime and improve public

safety, Congress amended the Crime Act in 1996

to make funds available for block grants to State

and local governments (through the Omnibus

Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act,

Public Law 104–134). The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, administered by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) within the

Office of Justice Programs, makes these funds

available for the following purposes:

■ Hiring, training, and employing additional

law enforcement officers and support staff.

■ Enhancing security measures in and around

schools or other areas at special risk for crime.

■ Establishing or supporting drug courts.

■ Enhancing the adjudication of cases involving violent offenders.

■ Establishing multijurisdictional task forces

on crime, particularly in rural areas.

■ Establishing cooperative crime prevention

programs.

■ Defraying the cost of indemnification

insurance for law enforcement officers.

Local jurisdictions are the primary recipients. As

of midyear 1996, BJA had distributed grants to

3,000 of them and to all 50 States, territories, and

the District of Columbia.

Using funds from BJA, NIJ will sponsor a national

evaluation of program activities conducted with

grants made in 1996 to States and local governments. The evaluation will consist of:

■ Analysis of the utilization of funds by units

of local and State governments.

■ Analysis of decisionmaking models used

by jurisdictions to allocate funds.

■ Development of methods to define and

identify innovations, implementation of a

“scanning” process to identify the innovations, and a process evaluation of a selected

number of them.

■ Assessment of BJA’s allocation and distribution processes for the program.

The award to conduct the evaluation, in the

amount of $750,000, was made to the COSMOS

Corporation.

Determining the Effects of the Assault

Weapons Ban

One of the best known provisions of the Crime Act

is its prohibition against the manufacture, transfer,

or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.

Several categories of military-style weapons, assault

weapons with specific combat features, and “copycat” models are covered, as are large-capacity

ammunition-feeding devices.

The ban is a tool to deter the proliferation of

combat-style firearms that are designed to kill as

many people as quickly as possible. While these

weapons constitute only 1 percent of privately

owned firearms in this country, they account for 8

percent of the firearms traced to crime—a disproportionately high number, which has been rising in

recent years. Moreover, every year these weapons

kill police officers. Since the effective date of the

Crime Act, this provision (Title XI) has begun to

generate criminal prosecutions.

Chapter 7. Other NIJ Crime Act Research
40

NIJ awarded the Urban Institute a $149,643 grant

to conduct the statutorily mandated study of the

effects of the ban, including its impact on drug

trafficking and violent crime. (See Appendix A,

Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for

Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.) One

measure of the effects were requests made by law

enforcement agencies to the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) for traces of guns

associated with crime. Using that measure, the

researchers found:

■ Criminal use of assault weapons fell 20

percent between 1994 and 1995. This

figure is 8 percent more than the nationwide decrease in gun murders and 9 percent more than the overall decrease in trace

requests made of BATF in the same period.

■ Nationwide decreases in trace requests

related to violent and drug crimes were at

least as great as decreases in criminal use

of guns overall (although those categories

contained small numbers).

■ The best estimate of the short-term effect on

gun murders is that the ban caused a 6.7

percent reduction in 1995. However, with

only 1 year of data, the statistical possibility

that there was no effect cannot be ruled out.

The congressionally mandated schedule for the

study limited the findings to short-term effects,

which are not necessarily a reliable guide to effects

taking place over the long term.1

Note

1. Roth, Jeffrey A., and Christopher S. Koper, Impact

Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational

Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994: Final Report,

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, February 19,

1997 (final report submitted to the National Institute

of Justice, grant #95–IJ–CX–0111).
41

Appendix A

Statutory Authority Under the Crime Act for Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct Research and/or Evaluations Authority To Fund Research and/or Evaluations Chapter of This Report Policing Title I: Public Safety and Policing (Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994) Section 1701 of the Omnibus Act1 authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to States, local units of government, etc., to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety. Amended § 1705 (b) authorizes the Attorney General to conduct evaluations of selected recipients at either a local or national level. Section 10001 (a) provides that for funds available in any fiscal year, up to 3 percent may be used for evaluations carried out or commis- sioned by the Attorney General in furtherance of this part.

2

Sentencing and

Corrections

Title II: Prisons, Subtitle A—ViolentOffender Incarceration and Truth-inSentencing Incentive GrantsGrants can be made to the States toconstruct, develop, expand, modify,operate, or improve correctionalfacilities, including boot campfacilities and other alternativecorrectional facilities that can freeconventional prison space for theconfinement of violent offenders, . . .and to implement truth-in-sentencinglaws for sentencing violent offenders.

Section 20108 (b)(3) of the FiscalYear 1996 Appropriations Actallocates funds for research andevaluation including “assessment ofthe effect on public safety and othereffects of the expansion of correctional capacity and sentencingreforms implemented pursuant tothis subtitle.”

Section 20108 (b)(3) of the FY 96Appropriations limits the funds foradministrative costs includingresearch and evaluation to 3 percentof the funds that remain availableafter carrying out §§ 20109, 20110,and 20111.

3

1 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3796, et seq., as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 13701, et seq.

Residential

Substance

Abuse

Treatment

Title III: Crime PreventionSubtitle U: Residential SubstanceAbuse Treatment for State PrisonersSection 1901 of the Omnibus Actauthorizes the Attorney General tomake grants to States, etc., todevelop and implement residentialsubstance abuse treatmentprograms within State correctionalfacilities, as well as within localcorrectional and detention facilities inwhich inmates are incarcerated for aperiod of time sufficient to permitsubstance abuse treatment.

(See Title/Section and Purposes) Necessary Expense Doctrine—

Concurrent with the authority ofthe Attorney General to carry outthese evaluations is the authorityto fund such efforts for thispurpose.

3
42

Violence

Against Women

Title IV: Violence Against Women(Violence Against Women Act of1994)Subtitle A, Safe Streets for Women,Chapter 2: Law Enforcement andProsecution Grants to ReduceViolent Crimes Against WomenSection 2001 of the Omnibus Actauthorizes the Attorney General toaward grants for the purposes ofdeveloping and strengtheningeffective law enforcement andprosecution strategies to combatviolent crimes against women and todevelop and strengthen victimservices in cases involving violentcrimes against women.

Amended § 2004 (b) requires theAttorney General to submit toCongress a report that includes anevaluation of the effectiveness ofprograms funded under this part.

Necessary Expense Doctrine2—

Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseevaluations is the authority to fundsuch efforts for this purpose.

4

Subtitle B, Safe Homes for WomenAct of 1994, Chapter 9Provides for a national domesticviolence hotline and punishment forpeople who travel across State linesto commit violence against a spouseor intimate partner or in violation of aprotection order; encourages arrestpolicies in cases of domesticviolence; provides grants for batteredwomen’s shelters; provides funds foreducating young people aboutdomestic violence; provides supportfor establishing community programsto intervene in and prevent domesticviolence; and mandates a number ofreports related to domestic andpartner violence.

Section 40291 (a) of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General toenter into a contract to develop aresearch agenda to increase theunderstanding and control ofviolence against women, includingrape and domestic violence.Section 40292 of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General tostudy and report to the States andCongress on how the States maycreate centralized data bases on theincidence of sexual and domesticviolence offenses within a State.

Section 40291 (b) of the Crime Actprovides that funds for the contractshall be made available from thesums appropriated for the conduct ofresearch by NIJ.Section 40292 (d) of the Crime Actauthorizes $200,000 for the study.FY 96 Appropriations provided$200,000.

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

2 The “necessary expense doctrine” allows an agency reasonable discretion to decide how to carry out certain objectives of its appropriation. 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a). Generally stated, this rule

provides “that where an appropriation is made for a particular object, by implication it confers authority to incur expenses which are necessary or proper or incident to the proper execution ofthe object . . .” 6 Comp. Gen. 619 (1927). Expenditures may be justified under the necessary expense doctrine if they pass three tests developed throughout a series of Comptroller Generalopinions. Appropriations Law at 4–16; see 63 Comp. Gen. 422, 427–28 (1984). These three tests are (1) The expenditure must bear a logical relationship to the appropriation sought to be

charged; (2) the expenditure must not be prohibited by law; and (3) the expenditure must not otherwise be provided from some other appropriation or statutory funding scheme.
43

Violence

Against Women

(continued)

Subtitle E: Violence Against WomenAct ImprovementsContains provisions for pretrialdetention in sex offense cases;increased penalties for sex offensesagainst young victims; payment oftesting costs for sexually transmitteddiseases; and enforcement ofrestitution orders through suspensionof Federal benefits. Mandates anumber of studies related to certainaspects of domestic violence.

Section 40506 of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General toprovide for a national baseline studyto examine the scope of the problemof campus sexual assaults and theeffectiveness of institutional andlegal policies in addressing suchcrimes and protecting victims.Section 40507 (a) of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General totransmit to Congress a report on themedical and psychological basis of“battered women’s syndrome” andthe extent to which evidence of thesyndrome has been considered incriminal trials.Section 40508 (a) of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General tostudy and report to Congress on themeans by which abusive spousesmay obtain information concerningthe addresses or locations ofestranged or former spouses.Section 40509 of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General tostudy and report to Congress on theproblems of recordkeeping ofcriminal complaints involvingdomestic abuse.

Section 40506 (e) of the Crime Actauthorizes $200,000 in FY 96 tocarry out the study. FY 97 Appropriations provided $200,000.

4

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out thesestudies is the authority to fund suchefforts for such purpose.Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out thesestudies is the authority to fund suchefforts for such purpose.Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out thesestudies is the authority to fund suchefforts for such purpose.
44

Violence

Against Women

(continued)

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

Subtitle F: National Stalker andDomestic Violence ReductionSection 40602 authorizes theAttorney General to provide grants toimprove processes for entering dataregarding stalking and domesticviolence into local, State, andnational crime information databases.

Section 40606 of the Crime Actauthorizes the Attorney General toconduct evaluations of the programsthat receive funding under this part,in addition to any evaluationrequirements the Attorney Generalmay prescribe for grantees.Section 40610 of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General tosubmit to Congress a report thatprovides information concerning theincidence of stalking and domesticviolence and evaluates theeffectiveness of State antistalkingefforts and legislation.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

 4

Drug Courts Title V: Drug Courts

Provides programs that involvejudicial supervision of nonviolentoffenders who have substance abuseproblems; the programs also involvethe integrated administration of othersanctions and services, includingdrug testing, treatment, supervisedrelease, and offender managementand aftercare.3

Section 2209 (b) of the Omnibus Actauthorizes the Attorney General tocarry out evaluations of programsthat receive support under this partas well as prescribe evaluationrequirements for grantees.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

5

3 Section 21001 (b)(1)(A) of the FY 96 Appropriations repealed the Drug Courts provisions. But § 20112 (b)(1)(B)(ii) of the FY 96 Appropriations provided that funds remaining available

under the Drug Courts program “shall be used in accordance with part V (Drug Courts) of such Act as if such Act was in effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act.”FY 97 Appropriations also appropriated funds to the Drug Courts program. This means that although the Drug Courts authority has been repealed, Drug Courts is still a viable, fundedprogram until funds appropriated for it are expended and not renewed.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.
45

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

Assault

Weapons Ban

Title XI: Firearms. Subtitle A—Assault WeaponsSections 110102 and 110103 restrictthe manufacture, transfer, andpossession of certain semiautomaticassault weapons and ban largecapacity ammunition-feedingdevices.

Section 110104 of the Crime Actrequires the Attorney General toinvestigate and study the effect ofassault weapons, particularly theimpact, if any, on violent and drugtrafficking crime. The AttorneyGeneral is required to report herfindings to Congress.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

 7

Law

Enforcement

Family Support

Title XII: State and Local LawEnforcement, Subtitle B—LawEnforcement Family Support(Purposes: See Authority.)

Section 2301 of the Omnibus Actrequires the Attorney General,among other things, to (1) study theeffects of stress on law enforcementpersonnel and family well-being anddisseminate the findings of suchstudies to Federal, State, and locallaw enforcement agencies, relatedorganizations, and other interestedparties; (2) identify and evaluatemodel programs that provide supportservices to law enforcementpersonnel and families; and (3)determine issues to be researchedby the Department of Justice and bygrant recipients.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose. Section 2306provides up to 10 percent of funds tobe awarded as discretionaryresearch grants to study issues ofimportance in the law enforcementfield as determined by the AttorneyGeneral.

2

Police Corps Title XX: Police Corps and Law

Enforcement Officers Training andEducation: Subtitle A—Police CorpsThe Police Corps Act seeks toaddress violent crime by increasingthe number of police with advancededucation and training on communitypatrol and by providing educationalassistance to law enforcementpersonnel and to students whopossess a sincere interest in publicservice in the form of law enforcement.

Section 200113 requires the Directorof the Office of Police Corps and LawEnforcement Education4 to submit to

the Attorney General, Congress, andthe President a report that includes adescription of the progress of theprogram and recommendations forchanges in the program. Inherent inthe requirement to make recommendations is the necessity to evaluatethe program. Thus, the necessaryexpense doctrine provides therequisite authority for the Director toconduct such evaluations.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

2

4 § 200104 establishes within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, an Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education.
46

DNA Forensic

Testing

Title XXI: State and Local LawEnforcement, Subtitle C—DNAIdentification(Purposes: See Authority.)

Section 2401 of the Omnibus Actauthorizes the Attorney General toaward discretionary grants to Statesfor the purposes of developing orimproving the capability to analyzeDNA in a forensic laboratory.Section 21303 (c) of the Crime Actrequires the Director of NIJ to certifyto Congress that it has contracted ormade a grant for the development ofa blind external proficiency testingprogram for DNA analyses to beavailable to public and privatelaboratories. In the alternative, NIJmay certify to Congress that a blindexternal proficiency testing programfor DNA analyses is already availableto public and private laboratoriesperforming forensic DNA analyses orthat it is not feasible to have blindexternal testing for DNA forensicanalyses. Inherent in theserequirements is the necessity toevaluate the effectiveness of existingblind external proficiency testingprograms as well as any programsdeveloped through NIJ contract orgrant in order to determine theproper certification to be made toCongress.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

6

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

Section 21303 (c) provides $250,000from the funds available under part Xof Title I of the Omnibus Act to carryout this title.
47

Topic Title/Section and Purposes Authority To Conduct

Research and/or Evaluations

Authority To Fund Research

and/or Evaluations

Chapter

of ThisReport

Police Use

of Force

Title XXI: State and Local LawEnforcement, Subtitle D—PolicePattern or PracticeMakes it unlawful for any governmentauthority or agent to engage inconduct by law enforcement officersthat deprives people of rights,privileges, or immunities secured bythe Constitution.

Section 210402 of the Crime Actauthorizes the Attorney General toacquire data about the use ofexcessive force by law enforcementofficers.

Necessary Expense Doctrine—Concurrent with the authority of theAttorney General to carry out theseactivities is the authority to fund suchefforts for this purpose.

2

Local Law

Enforcement

Block Grants

Fiscal Year 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104–134(H.R. 728)5Provides units of State and localgovernments with funds to supportprojects to reduce crime and improvepublic safety.

Section 103 of H.R. 728 providesthe Director of the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, Department of Justice,the authority to conduct evaluationsof projects developed with fundsunder this title. Also, § 107 of H.R.728 applies the administrativeprovisions of Part H to theOmnibus Act.

Section 102 (b) of H.R. 728 providesup to 3 percent of the amountauthorized to be appropriated to theAttorney General under § 102 (a) forstudying the overall effectivenessand efficiency of this title andassuring compliance with theprovisions of this title, and foradministrative costs to carry out thepurposes of this title.

 7

5 H.R. 728 is not an enacted law. Authority for provisions cited to it is found in the FY 96 Appropriations, which funded various measures of H.R. 728.
49

Contents

Strategic Planning for Research on Community Policing ............................................................... 51

Strategic Planning for COPS Technology ....................................................................................... 53

Strategic Planning for Data Collection on Police Use of Force ...................................................... 55

Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections .................................................... 57

Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections

(Public Interest Group Roundtable)................................................................................................. 59

Strategic Planning for Research on Residential Substance Abuse Treatment ................................. 61

Strategic Planning for Research on Boot Camps............................................................................. 63

Strategic Planning for Research on Violence Against Women ........................................................ 65

Strategic Planning for Research on Drug Courts............................................................................. 67

Appendix B

Developing the Crime Act Research Agenda: Strategic Planning
51

Strategic Planning for Research on Community Policing

Developing a Police Research and Evaluation Agenda

Washington, D.C., December 14, 1994

Commissioned Papers Presented

Goldstein, Herman, “Concepts for Building a Policing Research and Evaluation Agenda.”

Moore, Mark H., “Developing a 5-Year Police Research and Evaluation Plan.”

Sherman, Lawrence W., “Community Policing Research and Evaluation.”

Skolnick, Jerome H. “Basic Research on Policing.”

Smith, Michael, “‘National Evaluation’ of the Crime Act: The Responsible Thing To Do?”

Participants

Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D.

Department of Criminal Justice

University of South Carolina

David H. Bayley, Ph.D.

School of Criminal Justice

State University of New York at Albany

William A. Geller, J.D.

Associate Director and

Director, Midwest Office

Police Executive Research Forum

Herman Goldstein, M.G.A.

School of Law

University of Wisconsin

Jack R. Greene, Ph.D.

Department of Criminal Justice

Temple University

Donna L. Hansen

Chief of Police

Fort Myers (Florida) Police Department

Clarence Harmon, Jr.

Chief of Police

St. Louis Police Department

Frank X. Hartmann

Executive Director and Senior Research Fellow

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

George L. Kelling, Ph.D.

Department of Criminal Justice

Northeastern University

Stephen D. Mastrofski, Ph.D.

Department of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

Mark H. Moore, Ph.D.

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph.D.

President

Crime Control Institute

Wesley G. Skogan, Ph.D.

Department of Political Science and Urban Affairs

Northwestern University

Jerome K. Skolnick, Ph.D.

Center for the Study of Law and Society

University of California

Michael E. Smith

President

Vera Institute

Darrell W. Stephens

Chief of Police

St. Petersburg Police Department

John R. Schmidt

Associate Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice
53

Strategic Planning for COPS Technology

Technology Pathways to Community Policing

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 30, 1996

Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS), U.S. Department of Justice

Sessions

“The Trajectory of Community Policing: The Future 5 Years Out.”

“The Problems of Community Policing: Constraints on Development.”

“The Technology Revolution and Its Implications for Government and Policing.”

“Bringing the Paths Together: Technology Opportunities To Advance Community Policing.”

“The Federal Opportunity: Making the Valuable Investment.”

Participants

Carl Baker

Deputy Secretary for Public Safety

Commonwealth of Virginia

Joseph Brann

Director

Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

John Cohen

Director

Judicial and Criminal Justice Markets

AT&T

Edward Connors

President

Institute for Law and Justice

George Crawley

Assistant City Manager

City of Norfolk, Virginia

Sergeant John Daley

Youth Services

Dorchester (Massachusetts) Police Department

Edward Flynn

Chief of Police

Chelsea, Massachusetts

Kimberly Glenn

Director

Information Systems Division

San Diego Police Department

Francis X. Hartmann

Executive Director

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

George R. Havens

Deputy Director

U.S. Marshals Service

U.S. Department of Justice

Arnold M. Howitt

Executive Director

Taubman Center for State and Local Government

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

David Kennedy

Research Fellow

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Professor Mark A.R. Kleiman

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Harlin McEwen

Deputy Assistant Director

Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Jerry Mechling

Director

Program in Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in

 the Public Sector

Harvard University

Rick Neimiller

Product Line Manager

National Law Enforcement and Corrections

 Technology Center

Jerry Sanders

Chief of Police

San Diego, California
54

Larry J. Singer

Executive Director

Government Solutions

Texas Instruments

Professor Malcolm Sparrow

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Christopher Stone

Director

Vera Institute of Justice

Patrick Sullivan, Jr.

Sheriff

Arapahoe County (Colorado) Police Department

Zachary Tumin

Research Affiliate

Program in Strategic Computing and

 Telecommunications in the Public Sector

Harvard University

James Wise

Senior Technical Consultant

Burkhalter Associates, Inc.

William Zeiner

Technical Director

Criminal Justice Information Systems Division

MITRE Corporation
55

Strategic Planning for Data Collection on Police Use of Force

Police Use of Force Workshop

Washington, D.C., May 1995

Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Participants

William A. Geller

Associate Director

Police Executive Research Forum

Jack Greene

Professor

Department of Criminal Justice

Temple University

Edwin E. Hamilton

Research Analyst

Police Foundation

Ira Harris

Executive Director

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement

 Executives

William Johnson

General Counsel

National Association of Police Organizations

William Matthews

Deputy Director—Administration

Police Foundation

Dennis E. Nowicki

Chief of Police

Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police

 Department

Antony M. Pate

Assistant Professor

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Florida State University

James W. Powers

Chief of Police

Fredericksburg (Virginia) Police Department

Elsie L. Scott

Deputy Commissioner of Training

Police Academy

New York City Police Department

Michael E. Smith

President

Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.

Hector Soto

Executive Director

New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board

Ronald Sylve

Lieutenant

Seattle Police Department

Yoshio Akiyama

Uniform Crime Reporting Program

Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Department of Justice

Geoffrey P. Alpert, Ph.D.

School of Criminal Justice

University of South Carolina

Tom Arnold

Deputy Director

Metro-Dade (Miami) Police Department

Ronald Banks

Assistant Chief

Los Angeles Police Department

John L. Buchanan

Captain

Phoenix Police Department

Jan M. Chaiken

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Bennie Clark

Chief of Police

Dallas Police Department

Jay Cochran, Jr.

Executive Director

Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police

Dora Falls

Lieutenant

Dallas Police Department

John R. Firman

Director of Research

International Association of Chiefs of Police

Lorie Fridell

Assistant Professor

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Florida State University

James J. Fyfe

Professor

Department of Criminal Justice

Temple University

Joel Garner, Ph.D.

School of Criminal Justice

Rutgers University
56

Peggy Triplett

Chief Executive Officer

Triplett Associates

Public Administration Service

Larry Vardell

Chief of Police

Williamsburg Police Department
57

Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections

Sentencing and Corrections Workshop

Washington, D.C., February 14–15, 1996

Sponsors: National Institute of Justice and Corrections Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice

Commissioned Papers Presented

Clear, Todd R., “The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration.”

Dickey, Walter J., “Managing Change in Correctional Institutions.”

Greenwood, Peter, “Measuring Sentencing Impacts Using Extant Data.”

Jacobson, Michael P., “Managing Correctional Change in Community Corrections.”

MacKenzie, Doris Layton, “Measuring Sentencing Outcomes Through Experiments.”

Tonry, Michael, “Sentencing and Corrections Research.”

Participants

Stephen Amos

Deputy Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

James Austin

Executive Vice President

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Robert E. Coleville

District Attorney

5th Judicial District

Pittsburgh

Walter J. Dickey

School of Law

University of Wisconsin

Tony Fabelo

Executive Director

Criminal Justice Policy Council

John Feinblatt, Director

Midtown Community Court (Manhattan)

Jon Felde

General Counsel

National Conference of State Legislatures

Gerry Gaes, Chief

Office of Research

Federal Bureau of Prisons

John Goerdt

Senior Researcher

National Center for State Courts

Peter W. Greenwood, Director

Criminal Justice Program

The RAND Corporation

Norman Helber

Chief Probation Officer

Maricopa County (Phoenix) Adult Probation

Michael Jacobson

Acting Commissioner

New York Department of Corrections

Susan Katzenelson, Director

Policy Analysis Department

U.S. Sentencing Commission

John J. Larivee

Executive Director

Crime and Justice Foundation

President

International Community Corrections Association

Joseph Lehman, Commissioner

Maine Department of Corrections

Robin Lubitz, Chairman

National Association of Sentencing Commissions

Executive Director

North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice

University of Maryland

Larry Meachum, Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Phyllis D. Modley

Correctional Program Specialist

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice

Merry A. Morash, Director

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

Phyllis J. Newton

Staff Director

U.S. Sentencing Commission
58

Chase Rivland, Secretary

Washington State Department of Corrections

Dora Schriro, Director

Missouri Department of Corrections

Michael E. Smith

School of Law

University of Wisconsin

Michael Tonry

School of Law

University of Minnesota

Reginald Wilkinson, Director

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
59

Strategic Planning for Research on Sentencing and Corrections

Public Interest Group Roundtable Discussion on Sentencing Policy and Its Impact

Washington, D.C., April 17, 1996

Participants

Sharon Anderson

Policy Manager

National League of Cities

Patrick Avalos

City Councilman

Pueblo, Colorado

Eric Brenner

Director of Executive Management

Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors

Devon Brown, Director

Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of

 Corrections

Hon. Neil Brown

Oregon State Senate

Anthony W. Crowell

Municipal Law and Policy Analyst

International City/County Management Association

Robert L. Doss, Jr., Director

Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts

Lisa Doyle Moran

Assistant Director for Legal Affairs

National Criminal Justice Association

Jon R. Felde

General Counsel and Senior Committee Director

National Conference of State Legislatures

Russell E. Hamill

Senior Assistant Chief Administrative Officer

Office of the County Executive

Montgomery County (Maryland)

Gwen A. Holden

Executive Vice President

National Criminal Justice Association

Nolan E. Jones, Ph.D.

Group Director

Human Resources Group

National Governors’ Association

Zee B. Lamb, Chairman

Board of Commissioners

Pasquotank County, North Carolina

Patrick M. Meacham

Senior Staff Associate

National Criminal Justice Association

Larry Meachum, Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Heidi Munger

Senior Staff Associate

National Association of State Budget Officers

Patrick Murphy, Director

Policy Board

U.S. Conference of Mayors

Donald Murray

Associate Legislative Director

National Association of Counties

Edward O’Connell

Senior Counsel

National Center for State Courts

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Hon. Jeffrey Rosinek

Judge

11th Judicial Circuit

Dade County (Florida)

Todd Shapiro

Senior Policy Analyst for Criminal Justice Programs

Council of State Governments

Daniel T. Vindigni

Assistant Town Manager

Enfield, Connecticut

Ferris Wharton

Chief Prosecutor

Delaware Department of Justice

William R. Woodward, Director

Division of Criminal Justice

Colorado Department of Public Safety
61

Strategic Planning for Research on Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

NIJ developed its strategy for research in conjunction with the Corrections Program Office (Office of

Justice Programs), which administers the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for the State Prisoners

Formula Grant Program.

Executive Forums Sponsored by the Corrections Program Office

Topic Presenters

Review of National Strategy Fred Garcia

Deputy Director

Office of Demand Reduction

Executive Office of the President

Review of Current CSAT (Center for Substance Stephen Shapiro

Abuse Treatment) Efforts and Experiences Criminal Justice Systems Branch

Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Nicholas Demos

Chief

Criminal Justice Systems Branch

Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Research: Overview of the Literature on Douglas Lipton

Residential Treatment for Incarcerated Offenders Senior Research Fellow

National Development Research Institutes

Practitioners’ View: Treatment for Incarcerated Gary Field

Offenders Administrator

Oregon Department of Corrections

Stakeholders’ Perspective William Woodward

President

National Criminal Justice Association

Research: Promising Approaches to Residential James Inciardi

Treatment Director

Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies

University of Delaware
63

Strategic Planning for Research on Boot Camps

Strategic Planning Meeting on Boot Camps

Washington, D.C., January 13, 1995

Paper Presented

Castellano, Thomas C., Ph.D., “An Action Research Agenda and Strategy for Correctional Boot Camps.”

Participants

Thomas Albrecht, Director

Corrections Branch

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

David W. Aziz

New York State Department of Correctional

 Services

Marlene D. Beckman

Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Jean Bottcher

Research Specialist

California Youth Authority

Elizabeth S. Cass

Management Review Specialist

Bureau of Data and Research

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Thomas C. Castellano, Ph.D.

Visiting Fellow

National Institute of Justice

Cheryl L. Clark, Director

Shock Incarceration

New York State Department of Correctional Services

Ernest L. Cowles, Director

Center for Legal Studies

Sangamon State University

Roberta C. Cronin

Principal Research Scientist

American Institutes for Research

Michael DeGasperin

Probation Assistant Division Director

Twin Pines Ranch Boot Camp

Robert A. Gangi

Executive Director

Correctional Association of New York

Thomas J. Herzog

Assistant to the Director of Operations

New York State Division of Parole

Arnold J. Hopkins

Social Science Program Specialist

Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice

James B. Howell, Director

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and

 Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

Robert J. Jones

Research Scientist

Planning and Research Unit

Illinois Department of Corrections

Carole Knapel

Capitola, California

Katherine A. Lewis

Research Associate

Criminal Justice Associates

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D.

Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology

University of Maryland

James W. Marquart

Criminal Justice Center

Sam Houston State University

Larry R. Meachum

Former Commissioner of Corrections

State of Connecticut

Merry A. Morash

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

Dale G. Parent, Associate

Abt Associates Inc.

George E. Sexton, President

Criminal Justice Associates

Michael D. Shively

Deputy Director of Research

Massachusetts Department of Corrections

Larry Solomon

Deputy Director

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice

William K. Wilkey

Chief of International Programs

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice
65

Strategic Planning for Research on Violence Against Women

Violence Against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop

Washington, D.C., March 31, 1995

Sponsors: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, in cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Commissioned Papers Presented

Edleson, Jeffrey L., “Mothers and Children: Understanding the Links Between Woman Battering and Child Abuse.”

Ford, David A., “Responses to the Victim: Research Directions for Improving Responses.”

Ghez, Marissa, “Communications and Public Education: Effective Tools To Promote a Cultural Change on Domestic Violence.”

Goldolf, Edward W., “Batterer Intervention: What We Know and Need to Know.”

Hart, Barbara J., “Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic Violence.”

Participants

Susan Blumenthal

Department Assistant Secretary for Health

Office of Women’s Health

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Bonnie Campbell

Director

Violence Against Women Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D., R.N.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing

Peter Edelman

Counselor to the Secretary

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Jeffrey Edleson, Ph.D.

School of Social Work

University of Minnesota

Director, Evaluation and Research

Domestic Abuse Project, Minneapolis

Donna Edwards

President, Board of Directors

D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence

David Ford, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Indiana University

Lucy Friedman, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Victim Services Agency

Donna Garske

Executive Director

Transforming Communities

Marissa E. Ghez, M.A.

Communications Director

Family Violence Prevention Fund

Edward Gondolf, Ed.D.

Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Clarence Harmon

Chief of Police

St. Louis Police Department

Adele Harrell, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

The Urban Institute

Barbara Hart

Associate Director

Battered Women’s Justice Project

Francis X. Hartmann

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management

Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Hon. Robert Keating

Judge

Supreme Court, Second Judicial District

New York

Professor Patricia King

Georgetown University Law School

Ethel Klein, Ph.D., President

EDK Associates

Ralph Martin, II

District Attorney

Suffolk County (Boston), Massachusetts

Ada Pecos Melton

Indian Desk

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice
66

Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P.

Director

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Kathy Schwartz

Administrator

Violence Against Women Grants Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Evan Stark, Ph.D., Director

Domestic Violence Training Project

Murray Straus, Ph.D.

Family Research Laboratory

University of New Hampshire

Deborah Tucker

Executive Director

Texas Council on Family Violence
67

Strategic Planning for Research on Drug Courts

NIJ Drug Court Strategic Planning Workshop

Washington, D.C., March 22, 1995

Commissioned Papers Presented

Anglin, Douglas, “Evaluation of Coerced Treatment.”

Goldkamp, John, “Overall Evaluation Issues for Drug Courts.”

Judge, Michael, “Public Defenders’ Evaluation Needs.”

McCaskill, Claire, “Prosecutors’ Evaluation Needs.”

Swartz, James, “Treatment Practitioners’ Evaluation Needs.”

Participants

Steve Belenko

Senior Research Fellow

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

Belinda Biscoe, Ph.D.

Eagle Ridge Institute

Edward Brekke

The Administratively Unified Courts

 of Los Angeles

John Carver

Washington, D.C., Pretrial Services

John Feinblatt

Midtown Manhattan Community Court

John Goldkamp, President

Crime and Justice Research Institute

Adele Harrell

The Urban Institute

Hon. Harl Hass

Judge

Circuit Court of Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon)

Douglas McDonald

Abt Associates Inc.

Michael Judge

Public Defender’s Office

Los Angeles

Douglas Lipton, Ph.D.

National Development and Research Institutes

Robert May

Executive Director

National Consortium of TASC Programs

Janice Munsterman

State Justice Institute

Timothy Murray

Acting Director

Drug Courts Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Pease

Residential and Outpatient Treatment Manager

Arapahoe House (Colorado)

Hon. Lee Satterfield

Judge

Washington, D.C., Superior Court

James Swartz

TASC [Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime], Inc.

Hon. Henry Weber

Judge

Jefferson District Court (Louisville, Kentucky)
69

1995 Awards1

Community Policing

95–IJ–CX–0042

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Family Group

Conferencing Project

Community Service Foundation, Inc.

Theodore Wachtel

$246,551

95–IJ–CX–0092

Citizen Involvement in Community Policing

Institute for Social Analysis

Royer F. Cook

$233,508

95–IJ–CX–0079

Collaboration Between Abt Associates and the Hartford

Police Department

Abt Associates Inc.

Joan Mullen

$124,790

95–IJ–CX–0074

Community Policing Activities: Ohio Task Analysis

Project

University of Cincinnati—Office of Sponsored

 Programs

Lawrence F. Travis

$33,779

95–IJ–CX–0071

Community Policing at the Street Level

Michigan State University

Stephen D. Mastrofski

$1,969,701

95–IJ–CX–0067

Consent To Search and Seize

University of Missouri—St. Louis

Scott H. Decker

$326,554

95–IJ–CX–0085

Development of the Florida Law Enforcement Research

Coalition (FLERC)

Florida State University (FSU)

Robert M. Johnson

$112,589

95–IJ–CX–0055

Educating the Public About Police: The Lima Public

Service Announcement Project

University of Cincinnati—Office of Sponsored

 Programs

Mitchell Chamlin

$44,518

95–IJ–CX–0052

Enhancing Dissemination of Technological Innovation

Indiana University—Bloomington

Alexander Weiss

$47,212

95–IJ–CX–0041

Evaluating Community Policing in Public Housing

Temple University

Jack R. Greene

$351,491

95–IJ–CX–0090

Evaluation of Community Policing in Tempe, Arizona

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.

J. Thomas McEwen

$249,098

Appendix C

 Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice Under the Crime Act 1995–1996

1. A list of the Crime Act awards made by NIJ in 1995, with descriptions of the projects, is appended to NIJ’s annual report for

that year: Research on Crime and Justice: National Institute of Justice Year in Review, 1995 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1996, NCJ order #162042). A list of the Crime Act awards made by

NIJ in 1996, with descriptions, is in the publication NIJ Awards Under the Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ order #165700). A list of Crime Act awards in

science and technology made in 1996, with descriptions, is in the publication NIJ Science and Technology Awards Under the

Crime Act: Fiscal Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ

order #165586). A list of NIJ awards other than those made under the Crime Act is in the publication NIJ Awards in Fiscal

Year 1996 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1997, NCJ order #165701).
70

95–IJ–CX–0068

An Evaluation of Community Policing in Two MediumSized Cities

University of Illinois—Chicago

Dennis P. Rosenbaum

$675,554

95–IJ–CX–0070

An Evaluation of the Dallas Police Department’s

Interactive Community Policing Program

University of Texas—Arlington

Charles H. Mindel

$254,671

95–IJ–CX–0078

Everyday Perceptions of Disorder, Self-Protection

Against Crime, and Community Policing

Regents of the University of California—Los

 Angeles

Jack Katz

$246,765

95–IJ–CX–0091

Examining the Transformation to Community Policing:

Organizational Development Characteristics and Issues

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.

Edward F. Connors

$263,764

95–IJ–CX–0101

Facilitating Organizational Change: Shaping

Philosophies Through Individual and Organizational

Evaluations

University of South Carolina

Geoffrey P. Alpert

$199,975

95–IJ–CX–0050

Fighting Disorder Within the Law

American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities

Roger L. Conner

$152,647

95–IJ–CX–0065

Integrating Community Policing Into the San Diego

Regional Law Enforcement Training Center Curriculum

San Diego Police Department

Donna Warlick

$249,130

95–IJ–CX–0061

Joint Police and Social Services Response to Abused

Elders

Victim Services

Robert Davis

$270,340

95–IJ–CX–0059

Organizational Change and Leadership:

Conditions and Strategies for Creating a

Culture of Community Policing

President and Fellows of Harvard

Mark Moore

$296,978

95–IJ–CX–0056

Partners for Prevention? Obstacles to Police-Community

Cooperation in Problem Solving

Northwestern University

Wesley G. Skogan

$338,429

95–IJ–CX–0075

Policing Local Illicit Gun Markets

Carnegie Mellon University

Jacqueline Cohen

$220,416

95–IJ–CX–0086

Policing on American Indian Reservations

President and Fellows of Harvard

Francis Hartmann

$335,252

95–IJ–CX–0073

Process Evaluation of Title I of the Violent Crime Control

Act of 1994

The Urban Institute

Jeffrey A. Roth

$2,449,416

95-IJ-CX-0111

Process Evaluation of Title XI of the Violent Crime

Control Act of 1994

The Urban Institute

Jeffrey A. Roth

$149,643

95–IJ–CX–0064

Scanning for Innovation

National League of Cities Institute

Renee Winsky

$273,451

95–IJ–CX–0044

Stage Model of Community Policing

Seattle Police Department

Dan W. Fleissner

$100,291
71

95–IJ–CX–0097

Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence: Assessment,

Review, and Recommendation

Seattle Police Department

Dan W. Fleissner

$108,972

95–IJ–CX–0087

The Two-Stage Model of Change: Madison Police

Department

Police Executive Research Forum

Mary Ann Wycoff

$391,464

95–IJ–CX–0082

Using Technology To Enhance Police Problem Solving

Board of Trustees of University of Illinois—Champaign

John Gardiner

$196,392

Locally Initiated Research Partnerships

95–IJ–CX–0081

Building Effective Strategies for Community Policing

State University of New York—Sponsored

 Programs Administration

Raymond Hunt

$110,008

95–IJ–CX–0046

Collaboration Between the Oakland Police Department

and the University of California

Regents of the University of California—Berkeley

Jerome Skolnick

$188,622

95–IJ–CX–0049

Community Policing in El Centro, California:

Strengthening Police-Citizen Cooperation in a

Bilingual, Multicultural Community

City of El Centro

Harold D. Carter

$42,119

95–IJ–CX–0045

Council Grove, Kansas State University Law

Enforcement Team Project

Kansas State University

Kay K. Cogley

$30,000

95–IJ–CX–0077

Criminologists and Crime Control for the Indianapolis

Police Department

City of Indianapolis

Donald Christ

$75,281

95–IJ–CX–0083

Cross-Site Research on Locally Initiated

Collaboration

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.

J. Thomas McEwen

$233,918

95–IJ–CX–0047

Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for Locally

Initiated Police Research in Small and Medium-Sized

Cities

LINC

Marcia R. Chaiken

$199,721

95–IJ–CX–0053

DI-LEARN: Downstate Illinois Law Enforcement

Research Network (Phase I)

Southern Illinois University

James Garofolo

$72,857

95–IJ–CX–0057

Establishing a Research Partnership Between the Omaha

Police Department and the University of Nebraska at

Omaha

University of Nebraska—Omaha

Vincent Webb

$132,564

95–IJ–CX–0051

Evaluation of Community Policing Project

Hagerstown Department of Police

Dale J. Jones

$42,180

95–IJ–CX–0085

Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition

Florida State University

Antony Pate

$137,000

95–IJ–CX–0093

Forming a Research Partnership: Lansing Police

Department and Michigan State University

City of Lansing

Richard Cook

$49,992
72

95–IJ–CX–0060

Implementing Community Policing in Los Angeles: A

Partnership Between the LAPD, UCLA, and USC

Training Research Corporation

Edward Smith

$223,180

95–IJ–CX–0080

Increasing the Effectiveness of Rural Police Departments

Alfred University

William Hall

$18,840

95–IJ–CX–0062

A Joint Research Partnership for Community-Oriented

Policing

St. Louis University

James F. Gilsinan

$146,616

95–IJ–CX–0076

Locally Initiated Research: Developing and Expanding

Problem-Solving Partnerships in Jersey City

Jersey City Police Department

Frank Gajewski

$129,000

95–IJ–CX–0103

Measuring and Analyzing Crime Patterns and Trends

With the Geographic Information System (GIS)

John Jay College of Criminal Justice—Research Foundation

of the City University of New York

 (CUNY)

John Mollenkopf

$174,787

95–IJ–CX–0072

A Partnership for Research in Community Policing

Strategies in a Rural County and Four Small Cities

University of South Alabama

Robert Galbraith

$52,760

95–IJ–CX–0006

Police Researcher-Partnership: Building the

Infrastructure for Effective Program Evaluation

Justice Research and Statistics Association

Kellie Dressler

$99,542

95–IJ–CX–0043

Policing Evaluation Through Academic Research: Creating

a Special Policing Analysis Network

City of Colorado Springs

Teresa Schultz

$48,723

95-IJ-CX-0063

A Proposal To Integrate Objective Performance

Evaluation Into Community Policing

City of Boston

James T. Jordan

$127,474

95–IJ–CX–0048

A Research Partnership Between the Lexington Division of

Police and Eastern Kentucky University

Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government

Larry Gaines

$67,700

95–IJ–CX–0084

Temple University-Philadelphia Police Department

Collaboration

Temple University

Jack R. Greene

$50,688

95–IJ–CX–0097

Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence:

Assessment, Review, and Recommendations

City of Seattle

Dan Fleissner

$120,000

Sentencing and Corrections: Boot Camps2

96–SC–VX–0005

Boot Camps and Their Impact on Confinement

Populations

Abt Associates Inc.

Dale G. Parent

$275,000

96–SC–LX–0001

Correctional Boot Camps for Juveniles:

A Proposal for a Multisite Study

University of Maryland

Doris MacKenzie

$398,000

96–SC–VX–0003

Evaluation of Los Angeles County Juvenile Drug

Treatment Boot Camp

California State University, San Marcos

Sheldon Zhang

$179,000

96–SC–VX–0004

Evaluation of OJP FY 95 Boot Camp Planning Grants

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Sandra Tunis

$73,000

2. These awards used funds from 1995 but were awarded in 1996.
73

96–SC–LX–0002

National Multisite Impact Evaluation of Private and

Public Boot Camp Programs

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

James F. Austin

$268,000

Violence Against Women

95–IJ–CX–0054

Beyond Arrest: The Portland, Oregon,

Experiment

Portland State University

Annette Jolin

$199,994

95–WT–NX–0004

Evaluation of a Coordinated Response to

Domestic Violence

Applied Research Associates

Stan Orchowsky

$114,412

95–WT–NX–0002

An Exploration of the Experience and Needs of Former

Intimate Stalking Victims

West Chester University

Mary P. Brewster

$74,940

95–WT–NX–0001

Extent and Nature of Sexual Victimization of College

Women

University of Cincinnati

Bonnie Fisher

$224,719

95–IJ–R025

Family Violence and the Courts: Exploring Expert

Testimony on Battered Women

The Women Judges’ Fund for Justice

Esther Ochsman

$18,791

95–WT–NX–0006

Models of Community Coordination in

Response to Partner Violence

State University of New York—Albany, Research

 Foundation

Alissa Worden

$104,289

95–WT–NX–0005

National Evaluation of the Violence Against Women Act

Grants

The Urban Institute

Martha Burt

$346,003

95–IJ–CX–0006

Panel on Research on Violence Against Women

National Academy of Sciences

Elaine Smialek

$298,742

95–WT–NX–0003

Prosecution Strategies in Domestic Violence

University of Iowa

Carolyn Hartley

$99,080

95–IJ–CX–0009

Public Access to Information Concerning the

Whereabouts of Abuse Victims

National Criminal Justice Association

Gwen A. Holden

$50,000

1996 Awards

Community Policing

95–IJ–CX–0069

National Evaluation of the Youth Firearm Violence

Initiative

Abt Associates Inc.

Marianne Beauregard

$300,000

96–IJ–CX–0067

Orienting Overview on Broken Windows, Disorder, and

Decline

Temple University

Ralph B. Taylor, NIJ Fellow

$168,000

96–IJ–CX–0082

Police Response to Emotionally Disturbed Persons:

Analyzing New Models of Police Interactions With the

Mental Health System

Policy Research Associates

Henry J. Steadman

$211,000
74

96–IJ–CX–0074

Reducing Disorder, Fear, and Crime in Public Housing:

An Evaluation of an Advanced Stage Drug Crime

Elimination Program

Washington State University

Quint Thurman

$172,000

95–IJ–CX–0073

Supplemental Activities for the Process Evaluation of

Title I of the 1994 Crime Act

Urban Institute

Alexandra Ferguson

$360,000

Changing Roles of Police

96–IJ–CX–0045

Community Policing Strategies: First National Survey

Update

Macro International, Inc.

Sampson O. Annan

$286,000

96–IJ–CX–0081

Investigative Function in the Community

Policing Context

Police Executive Research Forum

Mary Ann Wycoff

$406,000

Evaluation and Problem Solving

94–IJ–CX–0046

Evaluation of Chicago’s Citywide Community Policing

Program

Northwestern University

Wesley G. Skogan

$996,000

96–IJ–CX–0046

Evaluation of the Effects of Fatigue on Police Patrol

Officers and Their Relations With the Community

Police Executive Research Forum

Dennis Jay Kenney

$285,000

94–IJ–CX–0056

Firearms and Violence: Juveniles, Illicit

Markets, and Fear

Presidents and Fellows of Harvard

Susan Michaelson

$190,000

96–IJ–CX–0060

Impact of Community Policing Training and

Implementation on Police Personnel

Arizona State University

Robin Haarr

$94,000

Locally Initiated Research Partnerships

96–IJ–CX–0085

Ada County Sheriff’s Office and Boise State University

Boise State University

John Crank

$91,000

96–IJ–CX–0087

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office Research Partnership

With the University of Florida

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office

Louise Grimm

$36,000

95–IJ–CX–0084

Assessing Community Police Performance in

Philadelphia

Temple University

Jack R. Greene

$184,000

96–IJ–CX–0068

Creating a Culture of Community Policing: An

Albuquerque Police Department-University of New

Mexico Research Partnership

University of New Mexico

Lydia Salas

$151,000

95–IJ–CX–0083

Cross-Site Research on Locally Initiated

Collaborations

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.

J. Thomas McEwen

$296,000

95–IJ–CX–0047

Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for Locally

Initiated Police Research in Small- and Medium-Size

Cities

LINC

Marcia R. Chaiken

$199,000
75

96–IJ–CX–0098

Domestic Violence Intervention Project

East Bay Community Foundation

Maria Theresa Viramontes

$100,000

96–IJ–CX–0088

Establishing a Research Partnership: Forest Park, Ohio,

Police Division and the University of Cincinnati

University of Cincinnati

Lawrence Travis

$46,000

96–IJ–CX–0072

Fast Track Program Study: Tracking Nonviolent Juvenile

Criminal Offenders

Bay City Police Department

Penny Phelps

$33,000

95–IJ–CX–0085

Forging a Florida Law Enforcement Research Coalition

Florida State University

Antony Pate

$137,000

95–IJ–CX–0093

Forming a Research Partnership: Lansing Police

Department and Michigan State University

City of Lansing

Timothy S. Bynum

$118,000

96–IJ–CX–0063

Impact of Charleston, West Virginia, Community

Oriented Policing

Marshall University Research Corporation

Girmay Berhie

$111,000

96–IJ–CX–0092

Indianapolis Management Accountability Program:

A Collaboration Between the Indianapolis Police

Department and Indiana University

Indiana University, Bloomington

Alexander Weiss

$202,000

95–IJ–CX–0088

Locally Initiated Research on Community Policing

Jefferson County, West Virginia, Coalition on

 Substance Abuse (FOCUS)

Diane C. McCoy

$61,000

95–IJ–CX–0076

Locally Initiated Research: Developing and Expanding

Problem-Solving Partnerships in Jersey City

Jersey City Police Department

Frank Gajewski

$129,000

96–IJ–CX–0070

Locally Initiated Research Partnership: Framingham,

Massachusetts, Police Department and Social Science

Research and

Evaluation, Inc.

Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc.

Robert Apsler

$98,000

96–IJ–CX–0093

Meeting the Needs of Racine Citizens: Evaluation of a

Community Policing Program

University of Wisconsin, Parkside

Helen Rosenberg

$82,000

96–IJ–CX–0080

Partnership Against Crime: University of Maryland and

Prince George’s County Police Department

University of Maryland

Lawrence W. Sherman

$78,000

96–IJ–CX–0044

Police-Academic Partnership for Evaluation and

Research

University of Virginia, Office of Sponsored Programs

Janet Warren

$129,000

96–IJ–CX–0086

Restructuring the Role of Police Sergeants by Identifying

the Character Traits Associated With Success

City of Baltimore

Joseph R. Bolesta

$195,000

95–IJ–CX–0097

Targeting Cycles of Domestic Violence II: Testing of

Lethality Scale To Predict Recidivism and Escalating

Violence (grant continuation)

City of Seattle

Dan Fleissner

$120,000
76

Measuring the Impact of Police

96–IJ–CX–0047

Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Clearance of

Homicides

Justice Research and Statistics Association

Joan C. Weiss

$270,000

96–IJ–CX–0042

Reducing Repeat Victimization of Residential Burglary

Police Executive Research Forum

John Stedman

$443,000

Police and the Community

96–IJ–CX–0064

Assessing a Model of Police Community

Collaboration

Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.

Douglas Young

$74,000

96–IJ–CX–0073

Awareness and Perceptions of Community Policing in

Immigrant Communities

Victim Services, Inc.

Rob Davis

$244,000

96–IJ–CX–0069

Community Component of Community Policing in Los

Angeles

University of Southern California

Cheryl Maxson

$371,000

96–IJ–CX–0071

Determinants of Citizen and Police Involvement in

Community Policing

City of Boston

Luis Garcia

$172,000

96–IJ–CX–0078

Identifying Strategies To Market the Police in the News

Indiana University, Bloomington

Steven Chermak and Alex Weiss

$133,000

95–IJ–CX–0064

Police and the Community: National League of Cities

Search for Excellence in Community Policing

National League of Cities Institute

William B. Whiteside

$249,000

96–IJ–CX–0075

Street-Level Policing in Cincinnati: The Content of

Community and Traditional Policing and the Perceptions

of Policing Audiences

University of Cincinnati

James Frank

$235,000

Police Integrity

96–IJ–CX–A056

Development of Guidelines for Using Psychological Test

Results To Help Combat Corruption in Law Enforcement

Organization

Defense Personnel Security Research Center

Howard Timm

$50,000

96–IJ–CX–0053

Identifying Correlates of Police Deviance: An Empirical

Study of Police Corruption and Brutality in New York

(1975–1996)

Temple University

Jack R. Greene

$413,000

96–IJ–CX–0077

Perceptions of Police Accountability in Citizen Complaints

Sam Houston State University

Kenneth Adams

$300,000

Law Enforcement Family Support Program

96–FS–VX–0001

Law Enforcement Family Support

Police Research Education Project

Robert Scully

$146,000

96–FS–VX–0005

Law Enforcement Family Support Demonstration Project

Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1

Kevin McCarthy

$180,000
77

96–FS–VX–0006

Law Enforcement Family Support Program

Iowa State University

Eugene Deisinger

$170,000

96–FS–VX–0008

Law Enforcement Family Support Program

Vermont Department of Public Safety

Michael Sorenson

$30,000

96–FS–VX–0002

Law Enforcement Family Support: Training Program for

Reduction of Stress Among Law Enforcement Officers

and Their Families

New York Division of Criminal Justice Services

Stephen M. Bernardi

$25,000

96–FS–VX–0004

Police Chaplaincy: An Innovative Law Enforcement

Stress Reduction Delivery System

Arkansas State Police

Jim Tudor

$59,000

96–IJ–CX–0056

Stress Reduction Among Law Enforcement Officers and

Families Exploratory Study

City of Buffalo

R. Gil Kerlikowski

$97,000

96–FS–VX–0007

Stress Reduction Program for New York City Police

Officers

New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent

 Association Membership Assistance Program

William Genet

$130,000

96–FS–VX–0003

Stress Training for Officers and Partners

Miami Police Department

Gerald Darling

$47,000

Sentencing and Corrections

96–CE–VX–0012

Collaborative Development of Individual

Discharge Planning for Incarcerated Women

University of Rhode Island

Kathryn Quina

$140,000

96–CE–VX–K001

Crime and Justice: Thematic Volume on Prisons

Castine Research Corporation

Michael Tonry

$197,000

96–CE–VX–0008

Effect of Correctional Resources on the

Sentencing of Male and Female Defendants in Minnesota

Florida International University

Lisa Stolzenberg

$37,000

96–CE–VX–0005

Evaluation of the Development and Implementation of

Virginia’s Sentencing Law

National Center for State Courts

Brian Ostrom

$114,000

96–CE–VX–0010

Evaluation of Florida’s Residential Drug

Treatment and Prison Diversion Program

Richard L. Linster

$112,000

96–CE–VX–0013

Evaluation of North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing

Law

Research Triangle Institute

John W. Rintoul

96–CE–VX–0007

Forging a Florida Correctional Research

Coalition

Florida State University

Gordon Waldo

$174,000

96–CE–VX–0017

HIDTA Seamless System for Drug-Involved Offenders: A

Randomized Multicenter Evaluation

University of Maryland

Faye S. Taxman

$200,000

96–CE–VX–0011

Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing Reform in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice

Francis J. Carney

$50,000
78

96–CE–VX–0001

Local Impact of Violent Offender and Truth-inSentencing Legislation: How Probation and Community

Corrections Respond

RAND Corporation

Peter Greenwood

$199,000

96–CE–VX–0018

Managing Felons in Los Angeles County

RAND Corporation

Joan Petersilia

$188,000

96–CE–VX–0016

Multisite Evaluation of Second Generation Sentencing

Commissions

Abt Associates Inc.

Marianne Beauregard

$300,000

96–CE–VX–0004

Offender Outcomes Under North Carolina Criminal

Justice Partnership Act

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

Amy Craddock

$225,000

96–CE–VX–0009

Study of Legislation and Impact of Two-Strikes

Legislation

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

James F. Austin

$97,000

96–CE–VX–0015

The Unintended Impacts of Sentencing Reforms and

Incarceration on Family Structure

University of Minnesota

Samuel Myers

$150,000

96–CE–VX–0006

Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing:

National Evaluation of Implementation Experiences and

Impact on Corrections

RAND Corporation

Susan Turner

$600,000

96–CE–VX–0003

The Wisconsin Idea: Evaluation Partnership on Sentencing and Corrections

Wisconsin Department of Corrections

Michael E. Smith

$102,000

Boot Camps

See 1995 awards list.

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

97–RT–VX–K004

Client Motivation in Therapeutic Community Treatment

for Offenders

University of Delaware

Steven S. Martin

$62,500

97–RT–VX–K007

Evaluation of Florida Residential Substance Abuse

Treatment for State Prisoners Program

Florida State University

C. Aaron Neece

$49, 998

97–RT–VX–K003

An Evaluation of the Forever Free Substance Abuse

Program

University of California at Los Angeles

Michael Prendergast

$39,292

97–RT–VX–K008

Evaluation of the Maxey Substance Abuse Treatment

Program

University of Michigan

William C. Birdsall

$49,022

97–RT–VX–K002

Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for

State Prison Inmates

University of New Mexico

Gary LaFree

$50,000

97–RT–VX–K001

Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for

State Prisoners Program

University of Wisconsin

D. Paul Moberg

$49,285

97–RT–VX–K006

National Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse

Treatment for State Prisoners Program

National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.

Douglas Lipton

$449,960
79

97–RT–VX–K005

The Therapeutic Milieu in Treatment of

Offenders: A Process and Outcome Evaluation in

Maryland

University of Maryland

Faye Taxman

$50,000

Violence Against Women

96–WT–NX–0005

Alcohol Problems and Violence Against Women

University of Northern Iowa

William R. Downs

$92,000

96–WT–NX–0002

Data Collection and Communication: An Implementation

Guide

National Center for State Courts

Susan Keilitz

$145,000

96–IJ–CX–0057

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Data Systems in

States

Justice Research and Statistics Association

Stan Orchowsky

$138,000

96–WT–NX–0008

Efficacy of Court-Mandated Counseling for Domestic

Violence Offenders: A Broward County Experiment

Florida Atlantic University

Lynette Feder

$135,000

95–WT–NX–0004

Evaluation of a Coordinated Community

Response to Domestic Violence (supplement)

Applied Research Associates

Stan Orchowsky

$13,000 (Original grant was $114,412.)

96–WT–NX–0004

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Disposition

in a Large Urban Area: The Role of Victim-Witness

Reluctance

University of Cincinnati

Joanne Belknap

$119,000

96–WT–NX–0006

Impact Evaluation of STOP Grant Programs for

Reducing Violence Against Women Among Indian Tribes

University of Arizona

Eileen M. Luna

$145,000

96–WT–NX–0007

Impact Evaluation of STOP Grants Law

Enforcement and Prosecution

Institute for Law and Justice, Inc.

J. Thomas McEwen

$325,000

96–WT–NX–0003

Impact Evaluation of Victim Services

Programs: STOP Grants Funded by the

Violence Against Women Act

American Bar Association

Barbara Smith

$200,000

95–WT–NX–0005

National Evaluation of the Violence Against Women Act

Grants

Urban Institute

Martha Burt

$350,000

Science and Technology

Facilitation of Domestic and International Technology

Partnerships in Counter Terrorism Efforts

Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc.

Robert Greenberg

$298,000

96–LB–VX–K002

NIJ Surplus Property Program

Ultimate Enterprise Limited

Michael Simpson

$150,000

96–LB–VX–K007

Regional Gang Information System: Phase I

Police Executive Research Forum

Clifford Karchmer

$425,000

96–LB–VX–A038

Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance for the

National Institute of Justice Office of Science and

Technology

U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Support Office

Carl F. Kiele

$850,000

94–IJ–CX–A004

Technology Assessment Program

U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute

 of Standards and Technology

Kathleen Higgins

$1,500,000 (plus $1,100,000 base funds)
80

96–LB–VX–K004

Working With Technology in Corrections

American Correctional Association

John J. Greene

$100,000

Less-Than-Lethal Weapons Technology

96–MU–MU–K016

Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, LessThan-Lethal Technology, and Policy Assessment

SEASKATE, Inc.

E.A. Burkhalter

$154,000 (plus $79,000 base funds)

96–LB–VX–K006

Law Enforcement Technology, Technology Transfer, LessThan-Lethal Weapons Technology, and Policy Liability

Assessment

SEASKATE, Inc.

E.A. Burkhalter

$198,000

National Law Enforcement and Corrections

Technology Centers

96–MU–MU–K011

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center—Rockville, Maryland

Aspen Systems Corporation

Richard Rosenthal

$1,600,000 (plus $100,000 base funds)

96–IJ–CX–A032

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center: Northeastern Region—Rome, N.Y.

U.S. Air Force, Rome Laboratory

John A. Ritz

$250,000

96–LB–VX–K005

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center: Southeastern Region—Charleston, South

Carolina

South Carolina Research Authority

Gary Mastrandrea

$1,562,000

96–MU–MU–K012

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center: Western Region—Denver, Colorado

University of Denver, Colorado Seminary

Deborah G. Bradford

$550,000 (plus $202,000 base funds)

96–MU–MU–K006

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Center: Western Region—San Diego, California

Aerospace Corporation

Robert M. Pentz

$117,000 (plus $598,000 base funds)

“COPS” Technology3

97–IJ–CX–K005

APD Intranet/Briefing Stations

City of Arlington (Texas) Police Department

Larry Barclay

$183,375

97–IJ–CX–K006

Affordable Crime Mapping and Information-Sharing

Technology for Community Police Officers

City of New Orleans Police Department

Lieutenant Michael Pfeiffer

$203,328

97–IJ–CX–K011

Algorithmic Image Matching: Police Technology

Research and Development Project

Santa Ana Police Department

Captain Paul M. Walters

$250,041

97–IJ–CX–K007

Artificial Neural Network System for Classification of

Offenders in Murder and Rape Cases

Battelle Memorial Institute

Jennifer Miles

$310,000

97–IJ–CX–K009

Automation of Local Police Functions

New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services

Jim Shea

$409,035

Crime Analysis Extension Application

Environmental Systems Research Institute

John Perry

$522,382

97–IJ–CX–K013

Demonstration of a Concealed Weapons Detection

System Using Electromagnetic Resonances

Akela, Inc.

Alan Hunt

$442,229

3. Grants without identifying numbers will be assigned them after final processing. Numbers prefixed with “97” indicate grants

awarded in 1997 with 1996 funding.
81

Development of a Neighborhood Problem-Solving System

Abt Associates Inc.

Marianne Beauregard

$100,343

97–IJ–CX–K004

FALCON (Future Alert and Contact Network)

City of Charlotte Police Department

Maureen Brown

$234,980

97–IJ–CX–K012

Internet Community Oriented Policing Tools Project

City of Davis (California) Police Department

Christian Sandvig

$167,675

97–IJ–CX–K002

Largo (Florida) Police Department Wireless Internet

Project

Largo Police Department

Sergeant Brian McKeon

$56,150

97–IJ–CX–K003

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department’s Palm Top

Project

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department

Lieutenant Ken Peace

$128,875

Portable Concealed Weapon Detector

Chang Industries, Inc.

Yu-Wen Chang

$496,624

96–LB–VX–K008

Portable Voice-Command Translation System

Integrated Wave Technologies, Inc.

A. Robert Sabo

$493,000

96–IJ–CX–K007

Pursuit Management Task Force

Aerospace Corporation

Donald Peterson

$236,000

97–IJ–CX–K010

Seamless Mobile Law Enforcement Computer Network

Virginia Department of State Police

Captain John Furlough

$348,362

97–IJ–CX–K008

Software Development for Intelligence Gathering

Monroe County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office

Deputy Terry Armstrong

$187,900

96–IJ–CX–A047

Vehicle Stopper Technology Evaluation Program

U.S. Department of the Army

Edward P. Scannell

$250,000

DNA Identification

96–DN–VX–0001

Development of Criteria for Model External DNA

Proficiency

University of Illinois, Chicago

Joseph L. Peterson

$250,000

96–MU–VX–0020

Expansion of DNA Analysis Capabilities: Illinois State

Police Forensic Sciences Command

Illinois State Police, Springfield

Susan Hart Johns

$450,000

96–DN–VX–0002

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Maryland

Maryland Department of Public Safety

Louis C. Portis

$300,000

96–LB–VX–A043

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Forensic Sciences

Program

U.S. Department of Energy

Susan Heiser

$250,000

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program

96–IJ–CX–0043

Development of a PCR Laboratory: Minnesota

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Terry Laber

$249,000
82

96–IJ–CX–0028

Development of a Rapid, Immobilized Probe Assay for

the Detection of mtDNA Variation

Children’s Hospital, Oakland Research Institute

Kathleen H. Gonzalez

$193,000

96–IJ–CX–0038

DNA Forensic Laboratory Enhancements

Anne Arundel County

Jane C. Cooke

$50,000

96–IJ–CX–0090

DNA Identification Project: Montana

Montana Department of Justice

Bill Unger

$150,000

96–IJ–CX–0051

DNA Offender Data Base Program: South Carolina

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Matthew G. Fitts

$210,000

96–IJ–CX–0052

DNA STR Evaluation Project: Indiana

Marion County, Indiana, Prosecutor

James E. Hamby

$151,000

96–IJ–CX–0059

Enhancement of Capability To Analyze DNA: Virginia

Virginia Department of General Services, Division

 of Forensic Science

Deanne Dabbs

$375,000

96–IJ–CX–0048

Enhancement of DNA Testing Capabilities: Alaska

Alaska Department of Public Safety, Scientific

 Crime Detection Laboratory

George M. Taft

$129,000

96–IJ–CX–0032

Enhancement of DNA Testing Capabilities: Arizona

City of Tucson

Walter Tannert

$75,000

96–IJ–CX–0079

Enhancement of DNA Typing: Georgia

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

George Harrin

$292,000

96–IJ–CX–0041

Enhancement of Serological Analysis to DNA

Technologies: Kentucky

Kentucky State Police

Lonnie Moert

$119,000

96–IJ–CX–0089

Enhancement of STR Capabilities in the New Jersey

Forensic DNA Laboratory

New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice,

 Department of Law and Public Safety

Margaret Tarver

$126,000

96–IJ–CX–0055

Enhancement of STR Capabilities in the West Virginia

State Police Crime Laboratory

West Virginia Division of Public Safety

Ted Smith

$153,000

96–IJ–CX–0066

Enhancement of the Tennessee Bureau of

Investigation Forensic DNA Capabilities

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Forensic

 Services Division

William Darby

$200,000

96–IJ–CX–0040

Expansion of DNA Laboratory Program: Missouri

Missouri State Highway Patrol

Lori Maloney

$375,000

96–IJ–CX–0062

Expansion of DNA Services: North Carolina

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

Mark Nelson

$206,000

96–IJ–CX–0049

Expansion of the Felon DNA Data Bank

Program: Alabama

Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs

John Hicks

$375,000

96–IJ–CX–0094

Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Arizona

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Susan Narveson

$330,000
83

96–IJ–CX–0084

Forensic DNA Enhancement Project: Texas

Texas Department of Public Safety, Narcotics

 Service

J.R. Urbanovsky

$400,000

96–IJ–CX–0095

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Florida

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Dale Heideman

$450,000

96–IJ–CX–0061

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Kansas

Sedgwick County and Wichita Police Department

 Consortium

Carrie May

$324,000

96–IJ–CX–0039

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: New Mexico

City of Albuquerque

Ann Talbot

$290,000

96–IJ–CX–0034

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State Police

Christine Tomsey

$375,000

96–IJ–CX–0054

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Pittsburgh

Allegheny County Department of Laboratories

Charles Winek

$151,000

96–IJ–CX–0033

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: South Dakota

South Dakota Office of the Attorney General

Rex Riis

$60,000

96–IJ–CX–0076

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program: Vermont

Vermont Department of Public Safety

Eric Buel

$74,000

96–IJ–CX–0096

Implementation of a PCR Program for the Scottsdale

Police Crime Lab

City of Scottsdale

Allen Garrett

$85,000

Crime Act Amendment, 1996—

Law Enforcement Technology Support

Forensic Sciences

Application of Static Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry

to Trace Evidence

INEL

$230,000

Ballistics and Matching Using 3-D Images of Bullets and

Cartridge Cases

Intelligence Automation, Inc.

$249,708

A Chip–Based Genetic Detector for Rapid Identification

of Individuals

Nanogen, Inc.

$509,919

97–LB–VX–0001

Estimation of the Postmortem Interval From

Entomological Evidence

University of Florida

$32,819

Fluorescence Imaging Tools for Law

Enforcement

Sandia National Laboratories

$393,700

Implementation and Evaluation for Collection and

Analysis of Explosives Trace Chemical Evidence

Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge)

$200,699
84

Improved Analysis of DNA Short Tandem Repeats for

Human Identification Mass

Spectrometry

Gene Trace Systems, Inc.

$307,664

Microchip DNA Fingerprinting Devices

Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge)

$401,330

Rapid DNA Typing by Laser Description Mass

Spectroscopy

Lockheed Martin Energy Research (Oak Ridge)

$328,654

Tactical Robotics—Antiterrorism/Archival Crime Scene

Evaluation (TRACE)

FBI Laboratory

$275,000

Science and Technology in Law Enforcement

The Analytical Utility of GIS for Policing: Moving

Beyond the Descriptive

Southern Illinois University

$200,078

Body Cavity Screening System

Quantum Magnetics

$325,000

Concept Development for a Personal Alarm Monitor

Telephonics Corporation

$450,000

COPLINK Data Base Integration and Access for Law

Enforcement Intranet

City of Tucson Police Department

$595,000

97–LB–VX–K007

Development and Implementation of a Data Base Image

Matching Software Engine

Visionics

$399,462

97–LB–VX–K004

Demonstration of Orthophotographic

Representation and Analysis

University of Maryland

$144,701

Deployment and Evaluation of Low-Cost, Uncooled

Thermal Imagers To Enhance Law Enforcement Operations

Texas Instruments, Inc.

$250,000

95–IJ–CX–A027

Detecting and Classifying Concealed Weapons for

Enhanced Courthouse Security Using Magnetic Gradient

Measurement Techniques

U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations

 Office

(Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies)

$236,137

Development of a Computerized Data Base of FirearmDelivered Less-Than-Lethal Munitions

ProTac International

(amount to be determined)

Development of a Law Enforcement Baton with a

Projectable Restraining Net

L.R.F. & Associates

$250,000

97–LB–VX–K008

Handheld Remote Concealed Weapons Detector

JAYCOR

$396,322

Innovative Crime Mapping Techniques and Spatial

Analysis

City University of New York

$249,930

Passive Millimeter-Wave Camera for

Concealed Weapons Detection

Thermo Trex Corporation

$400,000

Police and Sheriff’s Department Assessment

CTC

$299,559

97–LB–VX–K006

Smart Gun Development and Prototype

Colt’s Manufacturing

$502,488

97–LB–VX–K005

Who Gets What in Policing? A National Assessment of Police

Chief Experiences in the Budgetary Area

Police Executive Research Forum

$296,243
85

Other

Development of a Community Access System

Abt Associates Inc.

$474,546

96–MU–MU–0018

Field Evaluation of the System for the Effective Control

of Urban Environment Security

(SECURES)

University of Cincinnati

Loraine Green Mazerolle

$150,000 (plus $50,000 base funds)

Polygraph for Sex Offenders

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

$108,509

97–IJ–CX–0022

Public Acceptance of Various Concealed

Weapons Detection Technologies

Johns Hopkins University

$266,945
For more information on the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the NCJRS Justice Information Center World Wide Web site.

To access the World Wide Web site, go to http://www.ncjrs.org

Other Department of Justice publications noted in this report can be ordered from NCJRS. Most are available free of charge and most

can be downloaded from the Justice Information Center Web site.

If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.
BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300