U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

High School Youths, Weapons, and

Violence: A National Survey

October 1998

This Research in Brief examines the extent to which a national sample of male

high school sophomores and juniors was

involved in, or otherwise affected by,

firearm-related activity. Data were gathered by means of a survey mailed to high

school students. It sought information on

their firearm- and crime-related activities

for the 12 months prior to the survey as

well as social, demographic, and personal

information for each respondent. (The

survey contents and goals are described

more fully in “The Tulane University

National Youth Study, see page 4.”)

Despite what is likely a partial “good

boy” bias in the sample (see Methodology), the present study is the first to pose

reasonably indepth questions to youths

from a broad range of social and geographic environments about exposure

to weapons.

Methodology

A random sample of 132 sites was drawn

from a national listing of high schools in

the United States.2 Of these, 53 (40 percent) consented to participate in the

project. The participating schools were

compared with nonparticipating schools

across numerous variables (e.g., region,

by Joseph F. Sheley and James D. Wright

Recent shootings by students of peers

and teachers in school settings, where

such events were markedly unexpected,

have provoked fear and outrage in

America. For many, the “youth-gun

problem” seems to be spreading beyond

inner cities to suburbs and small towns

and from “bad boy” cultures (i.e., those

characterized by relatively high poverty,

crime, unemployment, and school dropout rates) to “good boy” cultures (characterized by fewer such social ills). Yet,

generalizable and systematic knowledge

about gun-related violence among youths

is relatively scarce. Most national studies

to date have asked only the broadest

questions about weapon-related behavior.

Studies using more select samples have

provided more information but, in turn,

have been hampered by questions of

generalizability. The most detailed studies available,1

 for example, are based

on samples of the most serious confined

offenders and recently arrested youths

(hardly populations from which to generalize) and students from inner-city

schools previously identified as having

gun-related problems (rendering questionable the extent to which the results

pertain to other students, whether from

the suburbs or inner cities).

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: The

firearms experience of the average

youth based on results from an NIJfunded 1996 survey of male 10th

and 11th graders from 53 high

schools nationwide.

Key issues: Previous studies have

yielded very little knowledge about

firearm-related behavior applicable

to the “average” youth, either because the study focused on select

populations, or because it asked

only the most general of weaponrelated questions.

Key findings:

● The number of respondents

carrying or in possession of a gun

was relatively low compared with

previous studies: 29 percent possessed at least one firearm, and 6

percent had carried a gun outside

the home.

● Gun possession levels were highest for firearms more suited to

hunting and sporting uses: 2 in 10

for regular rifles and shotguns, 1 in

10 for revolvers, 1 in 25 for automatic or semiautomatic handguns,

and only 1 in 50 for sawed-off

shotguns.

● Recreational gun use, more common in rural and smaller communities, was related to gun-carrying

and possession levels of every type

of firearm.

● Gun carrying and possession

were more prevalent in smaller

communities. However, once the

recreational gun use variable was

held constant, gun possession

among respondents declined; no

effect was seen on gun-carrying

levels.
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

● Arrest history.

● Involvement in theft, burglary, armed

robbery, and assault with a gun or knife.

● Drug use or sales.

● Gang membership.

● Ownership of regular rifles, automatic

or semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and

sawed-off shotguns, and revolvers.

Thus, while a “good boy” bias seems

apparent in the sample, it is not so

radical as to render the sample free of

delinquency and related problems.

Indeed, this sample likely more closely

approximates the population of average

American teenagers than have the select

samples of most prior studies that examined youths and their exposure to

firearms.

Respondent characteristics

Respondents in the present study tended

to be between 16 and 18 years of age (97

percent), white (70 percent), and living

with both parents (61 percent), in

single-family homes (81 percent), distributed evenly across the commonly

recognized regions of the country. The

respondents’ adult head of the household was likely to have at least a high

school education (81 percent) and to receive no government assistance (86 percent). The majority of respondents (90

percent) lived in towns and cities with

fewer than 100,000 residents; 1 in 10

respondents lived in a town with 2,500

or fewer residents. The average respondent attended public school (87 percent); most schools enrolled between

1,000 and 2,500 students (53 percent).

Seven of every 10 respondents described

their grades as “mostly” Bs or Cs (73

percent). The average respondent

missed school no more than once

monthly (68 percent), had never been

expelled or suspended (67 percent), and

grades offered, size of enrollment, and

public or private status) and characteristics of the cities and towns in which they

were located (e.g., city size, racial and

ethnic population distributions, age and

gender distributions, average educational

attainment level, income characteristics,

employment distribution, percent in poverty, and crime levels). In all but one

instance (a slight difference in upper age

distribution, ultimately inconsequential),

no significant differences were apparent

between those schools that consented

to the survey and those that did not

participate.

Completed surveys were received from

734 students—45 percent of the original

sample. The inability of most schools to

conduct followup mailings of the survey

in an effort to increase response rates and

the fact that the sampling procedure was

unable to reach dropouts (who were more

likely to be delinquent) potentially produced a “good boy” bias in the sample.

To check this possibility, the same survey

was administered (with a better than

90-percent response rate) to randomly

drawn, comparative samples of male 10th

and 11th graders on site at three of the

schools in our sample. Onsite respondents differed significantly (always in the

more problematic direction) from mailedsurvey respondents in the following

areas:

● School performance.

● Shooting and beating victimizations off

school grounds.

● Use of knives to threaten others.

● Ownership of automatic or semiautomatic handguns.

● Gun carrying outside the home.

They did not differ in the following areas:

● Victimizations on school property.

● Victimizations involving knives.

Issues and Findings

continued...

● Fifty percent of the juveniles surveyed felt that they could obtain

firearms relatively easily.

● Family and friends were the

primary sources of guns (by either

giving, lending, or selling the gun).

Few juveniles had asked someone

to purchase a gun for them from

legal or illegal sources.

● Although gun-related activity

was associated with crime-, drug-,

and gang-related activity, criminal

behavior characterized only a small

number of the respondents. The

average juvenile was not seriously

involved in criminal activity.

● Theft was committed by juveniles (14 percent) more often than

were burglary (8 percent) and

armed robbery (2 percent).

● A few juveniles reported that

they carried weapons to gain respect from their peers (a form of

status enhancement). While this

was rare, the search for status enhancement increased the likelihood

of carrying weapons.

● For the majority of respondents,

the primary reason for carrying or

possessing firearms was protection,

not criminal activity or status enhancement.

● The majority of school administrators recalled incidents involving

guns on school grounds in the past

3 years, but only 2 percent considered guns a serious problem on

school grounds.

● Most schools had implemented

some violence-limiting measures.

Policy implications: To reduce

gun-related violence among

youths, policymakers need to focus

on reducing the likelihood that

youths will become involved with

firearms; that is, focus on the antecedents to firearm-related behavior.

Target audience: Law enforcement administrators, school

officials, criminal justice policy

researchers and practitioners, and

community groups that work

with youths.
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

anticipated graduating from high

school (94 percent) and immediately

enrolling in college (61 percent).

Fourteen percent of the sample

reported having committed a theft,

8 percent a burglary, and 2 percent

an armed robbery during the past 12

months. Five percent reported the use

of a “hard” drug and 3 percent the sale

of a “hard” drug.3

 Only 3 percent of

the respondents received composite

“delinquency scores” (i.e., summing

involvement in the behaviors previously noted) exceeding 2 within a

range of 0 to 15 (i.e., “never” to “many

times” for all offenses). Finally, 8 percent of the respondents reported a

gang affiliation. In sum, the average

respondent was not seriously involved

in criminal activity.

Gun possession and carrying

As the findings in exhibits 1 and 2

indicate, levels of gun possession and

carrying among the respondents in this

study were relatively low, at least compared with levels reported by more select samples in prior studies, which

focused on males with higher delinquency rates.4

 Overall, 3 in 10 respondents (29 percent) possessed at least

one firearm (see exhibit 1), and 8 percent possessed three different types of

guns. Moving from an examination of

firearms that are more suited to hunting and sporting uses (i.e., regular

rifles and shotguns, each possessed by

about 2 in 10 respondents), we find

that fewer than 1 in 10 respondents

possessed a revolver (which could be a

recreational weapon), 1 in 25 an automatic or semiautomatic handgun (less

Exhibit 1: Firearm Possession Among High School Males, 1996

Percentage of

Respondents

Type of Firearm (N=730)

Any type of gun 29

Regular rifle 19

Automatic or semiautomatic rifle 8

Regular shotgun 18

Sawed-off shotgun 2

Revolver 7

Automatic or semiautomatic handgun 4

3 or more types of guns 8

Note: Timeframe is past 12 months. Multiple responses permitted.

Exhibit 2: Youths Carrying Firearms, 1996

Percentage of

Setting, Frequency, and Type of Firearm Respondents (N)

Carried gun outside home within past 12 months (731)

Never 94

Only now and then 4

Most or all of the time 2

Carrying vs. keeping guns in a car (for those who

 reported carrying a gun) (39)

More likely to carry gun 41

More likely to keep gun in car 59

Most common type of firearm carried (for those who

 reported carrying a gun) (30)

Regular rifle 3

Automatic or semiautomatic rifle 3

Regular shotgun 7

Sawed-off shotgun 7

Revolver 30

Automatic or semiautomatic handgun 50

likely to be a recreational weapon),

and 1 in 50 a sawed-off shotgun (very

unlikely to be a recreational weapon).

Gun-carrying behavior was rarer than

ownership or possession (see exhibit

2). Six percent of the respondents

reported carrying a gun outside the

home (including in the car) during the

past 12 months—4 percent “now and

then” and 2 percent “most” or “all”

of the time. Among gun carriers, the

majority (59 percent) more likely

did so in the car than directly on the

person (41 percent). When a gun was

carried outside the home by a respondent, it most likely was an automatic

or semiautomatic handgun (50 percent) or a revolver (30 percent).

Urban, suburban, and

rural differences

Generally, respondents in smaller

communities more frequently possessed most types of firearms. This

was especially true of rifles (including

automatic or semiautomatic rifles) and

shotguns, although not of sawed-off

shotguns. Students from schools located in rural settings were more likely

to possess revolvers, although automatic or semiautomatic handgun possession was statistically no more likely
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

to occur in smaller than in larger communities. Gun carrying also was more

likely to occur in smaller than in

larger communities.

Ease of access to firearms

The findings do little to dispel the

common perception that juveniles can

obtain firearms relatively easily. First,

50 percent of the present respondents

reported that obtaining a gun would be

“little” or “no” trouble if they desired

one; half rated the task as “a lot of

trouble” or “impossible.” Second,

those who had carried a handgun

outside the home during the past

12 months were asked where they

obtained the handgun. Forty-eight

percent had been given or loaned the

gun by a family member or friend, and

4 percent reported sneaking the gun

from home. Six percent had stolen or

traded something for the gun, while

7 percent had used other, unspecified

means of acquisition. The remaining

35 percent stated that they had bought

the gun (average price, $112), most

commonly from a family member or

friend (53 percent of purchasers).

Importantly, few respondents (5 percent) claimed to have asked someone

to purchase a gun (type not specified)

for them from either legal or illegal

sources during the past 12 months.

Recreational gun activity

Respondents were asked to indicate

the frequency (0 through 8 or more

times), during the past 12 months, with

which they had gone hunting or gone

to a range for target shooting. The

items were moderately correlated

(r=0.452; as the hunting score rose, so

also did the target-shooting score) and

were summed with combined scores

ranging from 0 to 16. Sixty-one

percent of the respondents received a

score of 0, and 17 percent received

scores of 7 through 16. As expected,

the recreational firearm score was

negatively, though only modestly,

linked to the respondent’s community

setting. As size of city or town decreased, the recreational firearm score

increased (r=-0.171); as neighborhoods were less urban in nature, the

recreational firearm score increased

(r=-0.240). Not surprisingly, the score

was related to region of the country in

which the respondent resided. Higher

scores appeared for the respondents

from the North Central, South Central,

and Mountain States; lower scores

characterized respondents from the

New England/Mid-Atlantic, South

Atlantic, and Pacific Coast States.

Recreational use of firearms among

the present sample was associated at

statistically significant levels with

possession of every type of firearm of

interest in this study and with carrying

firearms outside the home. Importantly, however, the recreational firearm score was unrelated to any of the

criminality measures (crime-, drug-,

and gang-related activity) employed

in this study, to measures of status

enhancement involving weapons (e.g.,

carrying guns to gain respect from

peers), and to indicators of high levels

of exposure to dangerous environments

(where gun carrying could be motivated by a perceived need for selfprotection).

To gain a sense of the potential for

distortion in reports of firearm-related

activity when recreational firearm users are included in research samples,

a restricted sample (N=433) was created by removing those respondents

who registered a score higher than 0

The Tulane University National Youth Study

● Educational situations and aspirations.

● Drug, criminal, and gang activities (for

the 12 months prior to the survey).

● Crime- and violence-related characteristics of family and friends.

● Social and recreational activities.

● Exposure to violence generally.

● Personal victimization history.

● Possession of and activities related to

firearms (for the 12 months prior to the

survey).

Survey details are available in High

School Youth, Weapons and Violence:

A National Survey of Weapon-Related

Concerns, a Final Report to National

Institute of Justice by Joseph F. Sheley

and James D. Wright, May 1998.

T his project asked participating

schools to facilitate the distribution of a

mailed survey to a sample of 10 percent

of their male 10th and 11th graders in the

spring of 1996. Each potential respondent

received a package with the following:

● A letter describing the study and

guaranteeing confidentiality.

● A copy of the survey (containing

primarily forced-choice items).

● A postage-paid return envelope.

● A ticket that, when completed and

returned with the survey, granted the

respondent eligibility to win 1 of 10 cash

prizes of $100 to be awarded through a

drawing.

The survey items asked respondents to

answer questions about the following:

● Demographic characteristics.

● Family living situations.
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

associated with the need for respect

from one’s peers among the present

respondents. The exceptions, however,

are important. Possession of automatic

or semiautomatic handguns and carrying a gun outside the home were

related to the need for respect among

peers. To at least some degree, then,

status enhancement was linked to

those firearm-related activities—

particularly carrying a handgun outside the home—that contribute to the

increased use of guns in problematic

situations and make the issue of

youths and weapons a serious social

problem.

Guns as protection

This study employed nine items to

indicate the presence or absence of a

dangerous social environment for the

respondent. The percentages of juveniles who answered “yes” to the these

nine items are as follows:

● Fear of violence in the neighborhood

(48 percent).

● Weapon carrying by friends

(14 percent).

● Attendance at social events where

shots were fired (13 percent).

● Firearm- (8 percent) and kniferelated (13 percent) threats against

the respondent.

● Firearm-related victimization of

friends (23 percent) or family members

(5 percent).

● Estimated reasonable likelihood

of becoming the victim of a shooting

(7 percent) or stabbing (7 percent) by

age 25.

Carrying a gun outside the home and

possession of an automatic or semiautomatic handgun were related to each

of the nine dangerous-environment

Exhibit 3: Firearm Possession for Entire Sample and for Restricted Sample

Without Recreational Gun Users

 Percentage in Possession

Entire Restricted

Sample Sample

Type of Firearm (N=730) (N=433)

Any type of gun 29 13

Regular rifle 19 8

Automatic or semiautomatic rifle 8 2

Regular shotgun 18 4

Sawed-off shotgun 2 1

Revolver 7 3

Automatic or semiautomatic handgun 4 3

3 or more types of guns 8 2

Note: Restricted sample refers to respondents with no recreational firearms orientation. Multiple

 responses permitted.

for the recreational firearm score (39

percent of the sample). The amount of

gun carrying outside the home was essentially the same among respondents

in the restricted sample as among

the entire sample but, as indicated in

exhibit 3, levels of firearm possession

for the restricted sample were considerably lower (at least 50 percent less)

than those indicated for the entire

sample. The single exception to this

pattern involved the possession level

of automatic or semiautomatic handguns, which only dropped 25 percent.

It seems, then, that researchers surveying sample populations in high recreational gun-use areas (likely more

rural in nature) without simultaneously

collecting data on recreational gun

possession, run the risk of inflating

the estimate of nonrecreational gun

possession. The likelihood of overestimating the level of nonrecreational use

or possession of firearms in areas less

rural seems significantly lower. Indeed, once recreational gun users were

taken into account, most of the significant relationships between the respondents’ environments (e.g., residential

and school populations) and various

weapon-related behaviors and characteristics no longer held.

Illegal activity, status enhancement, and firearms

As noted previously, crime-, drug-,

and gang-related activity characterized

only a small portion of the present

sample. Nonetheless, to the extent

that a respondent was engaged in such

criminal activities, his chances of possession of automatic or semiautomatic

handguns, revolvers, and sawed-off

shotguns increased. (Criminal activity

did not enhance possession of regular

rifles, shotguns, and automatic or

semiautomatic rifles.) The likelihood

of carrying a gun outside the home

also increased for respondents engaged in such criminal activities.

Beyond the association between gunrelated activity and criminal behavior,

a perceived need for “respect” is

thought by many observers to motivate

juveniles to possess and carry firearms. However, with few exceptions,

firearm-related activities were not
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

items. Possession of a sawed-off

shotgun was linked to 6 of the 9 items,

and possession of a revolver to 5 of

the 9. Possession of regular rifles

(3 items), automatic or semiautomatic

rifles (2 items), and regular shotguns

(4 items) were less obviously linked to

the dangerous environment in which

the respondent found himself.

The perception that a fairly clear link

exists between dangerous environment

and firearm possession is supported by

the responses from juveniles who had

carried guns during the 12 months

prior to the survey. Of these respondents, 43 percent cited the perceived

need for protection as the primary reason for bearing arms (see exhibit 4).

Holding a gun for someone was the

only other commonly cited reason for

carrying a gun (35 percent). Criminal

activity and status enhancement were

relatively less important factors in the

carrying decision.

Policy implications

The findings reviewed in this Research in Brief, while not derived

from a strictly random sample of high

school males, likely come closer to

capturing the firearms experience of

the “average” American juvenile than

have many prior studies that focused

on incarcerated delinquents and innercity youths or relied on samples from

select sites. While this study may

possess a “good boy” bias, it can be

argued reasonably that, relative to the

average incarcerated delinquent, most

juveniles are “good boys.” Further,

most research indicates that the ratio

of “good” to “bad” boys rises as the

focus moves away from inner-city

populations.

The results of this study indicate the

need for policy aimed at reducing the

likelihood that youths (such as those

sampled in the present study) will

become involved in firearm possession

and carrying—rather than the more

common call for policy aimed at

confronting already well-developed

firearm-related behaviors among

youths. What was found were vastly

more students with little or no experience with weapons and violence

than those with considerable such

experience. Even considering those

respondents who subscribed to the

recreational use of weapons, the

majority of students surveyed did not

possess weapons, and the vast majority

did not carry them outside the home.

Most of the communities from which

respondents were drawn for this study

apparently had not “crossed the line”

into truly unsafe situations. Yet the

line was visible in most. Though

weapon-related violence was perpetrated by few respondents, many more

knew of and were threatened by it.

Further, to the extent that violence

was known, it was shaped by the same

variables that have influenced it in

more troubled environments: crime,

drug sales, gangs, and the perceived

need for protection in a hostile world.

Most schools have adopted the fundamental elements of persuasion against

a culture of violence—some combination of deterrence (locker searches, for

example) and violence reduction education (teaching conflict avoidance

skills, for example). (See “Violence

Control in Schools.”) However, assigning the responsibility for violence

control and prevention solely or even

primarily to the school curriculum may

be dangerous. Though communities

may gain schools that serve as safe

havens and permit education to occur,

schools are less a source of violence

than a place where disputes arising

in the neighborhood are acted upon.

To the extent that schools succeed in

pushing violence off school grounds,

it probably will be displaced into the

surrounding community. The issue for

communities, then, is how to dissuade

youths from resolving disputes through

violent means, thereby convincing

them that weapons are not necessary

for everyday living. Communities unable to achieve this goal would turn,

understandably, to the criminal justice

system for help.5

 The present findings

suggest that communities in less dire

straits should be exploring policy initiatives that identify and address the

antecedents of weapon-related activity

among their youths.

Exhibit 4: Reasons for Carrying Weapons

 Percentage of

 Gun Carriers

Reasons (N=40)

I needed protection 43

I was holding it for someone 35

I used the weapon in a crime 10

To scare someone 18

To get back at someone 18

Most of my friends carry them 10

It made me feel important 10

Other 15

Note: Multiple responses permitted.
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Notes

1. Sheley, J., and J. Wright. In the Line of Fire:

Youth, Guns, and Violence in Urban America.

New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1995; Decker,

S., and S. Pennell. Arrestees and Guns: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, 1996,

NCJ 163497.

2. The sample was drawn with sampling probabilities proportionate to the size of the 10thand 11th-grade populations enrolled in a given

school. Sampling with probabilities proportionate to the size of the relevant population was

necessary to avoid the obvious bias against

students in larger high schools.

3. “Hard” drugs refers to heroin, cocaine,

and crack.

4. Sheley, J., and J. Wright. In the Line of Fire:

Youth, Guns, and Violence in Urban America;

Decker, S., and S. Pennell. Arrestees and Guns:

Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market.

Violence Control in Schools

not related to the urban, suburban, or rural

setting of the school. Responses to the

“violence problem” among the schools were

similar and not extreme. School administrators reported the following measures to

address violence in schools:

Measures taken among the majority of

the schools

● Automatic suspensions for weapons

violations (96 percent).

● Revised disciplinary codes (81 percent).

● Conflict resolution and multicultural

programs (71 percent).

● Revised dress codes (63 percent).

● Locker searches (55 percent).

Measures taken among fewer schools

● Nonpolice monitors in hallways or on

school grounds (40 percent).

● Photo IDs for staff and students

(33 percent).

● Police on campus (27 percent) or in school

hallways (15 percent).

Of the 53 school administrators

participating in this study, 48 responded

to a survey concerning violence at their

schools. Differing pictures emerge depending upon whether we focus on

administrators’ estimates of danger on

campus or upon their recollections of

weapon-related incidents on campus. On

the one hand, only 2 percent considered

guns as at least a somewhat serious campus problem, and the perception bore no

relation to the urban, suburban, or rural

character of the school. On the other

hand, 58 percent recalled incidents involving guns on school grounds during

the past 3 years, and 45 percent reported

that at least one of their students had

been shot, on or off school grounds,

during the past 3 years. Importantly, an

administrator’s perception of drugs as a

campus problem was highly related to

his or her perception of violence as a

problem.

Most schools had instituted some form

of response to the problem of violence.

Use of violence-limiting mechanisms was

linked to perception of drugs as a problem for the school and, especially, to

school dropout rate, but it generally was

● Extra police patrols around school property (21 percent).

Measures rarely taken among schools

● Video monitoring of hallways

(10 percent).

● ID checks at school entrances

(6 percent).

● Metal detectors at entrances

(2 percent).

● Mandatory “see-through” book bags

(none).

In sum, most of the efforts to prevent violence in schools here focused on threats of

more serious disciplinary consequences for

possession of weapons and on extensions

of traditional school behavior control (e.g.,

apparel restrictions or locker searches).

Those schools that moved beyond such

measures tended to rely on external control agents, usually the police, coming onto

campus to provide security. Few schools

had adopted more extreme measures (e.g.,

metal detectors and video surveillance).

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This study was conducted by

Joseph F. Sheley, Dean of the

College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California

State University, Sacramento; and

James D. Wright, Favrot Professor

of Human Relations, Department

of Sociology, Tulane University.

This research was supported by

the National Institute of Justice,

U.S. Department of Justice,

through grant number

94–IJ–CX–0033.

NCJ 172857

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

5. Kennedy, D.,“Pulling Levers: Chronic

Offenders, High-Crime Settings, and a Theory

of Prevention,” Valparaiso University Law

Review 31 (1997): 449–84.
BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE 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