Project Greenlight by James A

ISSUE No.ISSUE

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

257

National Institute of Justice Journal

Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight by James A. Wilson, Ph.D.

Hate Crime in America Also inside: Al Blumstein: 40 Years Agroterrorism—Why We’re Not Ready in Criminal Justice Deaf Victims of LAPD Chief Bill Bratton Speaks Out Sexual Assault Helping Inmates Do Prison ‘Real Work’ Programs Work? Obtain Medical Benefits The 40th Anniversary of the Crime Report

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20531

Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General

Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General

David W. Hagy Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs and Acting Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at:

National Institute of Justice www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ 218257 ii 2 0 0 7

ISSUE No. 257 Director’s Message

Four decades ago, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice issued its groundbreaking recommendations on how to improve public safety in America. Interestingly, one of the recommendations in the Commission’s 1967 report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, led to the creation of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In this issue of the Journal, we celebrate the 40th anniversary of this seminal study. We consider the reflections of two researchers on how the Commission’s report has guided criminal justice research and practice over the years, and we pause to celebrate the career of Professor Alfred Blumstein, who led the Commission’s Task Force on Science and Technology. As we reflect on the past, we also take a hard look at the current state of criminal justice in this country. It is noteworthy to observe that the title of the Commission’s report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, applies as much today as it did 40 years ago. Threats to our public safety change. So, too, must our solutions and responses evolve. In this issue, we highlight some of our current challenges—prisoner reentry, hate crime, agroterrorism—and explore the new technologies, research, and evaluation that NIJ offers to meet these challenges on behalf of Americans. Our cover story, “Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional Programming,” examines the surprising and important outcomes of a prison-based reentry program, offering some crucial lessons learned as we gain greater understanding about what works and what does not work in correctional interventions. “Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues” discusses the state of hate-crime research and legislation, identifying areas for future research. In “Agroterrorism—Why We’re Not Ready: A Look at the Role of Law Enforcement,” we investigate what could happen if there was a terrorist attack on the Nation’s food supply. Whether we are seeking new tools to meet new challenges or discovering new approaches to old problems, NIJ always tries to focus on the big picture. As we work with our partners at the State and local levels, we are ever-mindful of history—history as revealed, for example, in our story on the 40th anniversary of the first-ever report to the Nation on crime. I hope you enjoy this issue of the Journal and find valuable discussions and ideas to help you serve your communities.

David W. Hagy Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs and Acting Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice

iii Building Knowledge to Meet the Challenge of Crime and Justice

National Institute of Justice

David W. Hagy Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs and Acting Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice

The NIJ Journal is published by the National Institute of Justice to announce the Institute’s policy-relevant research results and initiatives. The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in transacting the public business of the U.S. Department of Justice as required by law. 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.

Subscription information online www.nij.ncjrs.gov/subscribe/reg.asp phone 301–519–5500 800–851–3420 mail NCJRS P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000

World Wide Web address www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals

Contact NIJ National Institute of Justice 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20531, U.S.A. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/contact.htm

NIJ Journal Editorial Board Timothy M. Hagle Chief of Staff John Morgan Deputy Director for Science and Technology Thomas E. Feucht Deputy Director for Research and Evaluation Stanley Erickson Cornelia Sorensen Sigworth Jolene Hernon Cindy Smith Rhonda Jones George Tillery Lee Mockensturm Lois Tully Marilyn Moses Brenda Worthington Kristina Rose Edwin Zedlewski

Editor Nancy Ritter Contact the Editor [email protected] Production Palladian Partners, Inc. Beth Schuster, Managing Editor Stefani E. Avila, Production Editor Aaron Auyeung, Designer Maureen Berg, Designer iv 2 0 0 7

June 2007 Contents

Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential 2 Consequences of Correctional Programming by James A. Wilson, Ph.D.

Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues 8 by Michael Shively, Ph.D., and Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D.

Al Blumstein: 40 Years of Contributions to Criminal Justice 14 edited by Nancy Ritter

The 40th Anniversary of the Crime Report 20 by Thomas E. Feucht, Ph.D., and Edwin Zedlewski, Ph.D.

Study Reveals Unique Issues Faced by Deaf Victims of Sexual Assault 24 by Lauren R. Taylor with Nicole Gaskin-Laniyan, Ph.D.

LAPD Chief Bratton Speaks Out: What’s Wrong With 28 Criminal Justice Research—and How to Make It Right edited by Nancy Ritter

Factories Behind Fences: Do Prison ‘Real Work’ Programs Work? 32 by Marilyn C. Moses and Cindy J. Smith, Ph.D.

Agroterrorism—Why We’re Not Ready: A Look at the Role 36 of Law Enforcement by Glenn R. Schmitt

Helping Inmates Obtain Federal Medical Benefits Postrelease 40 by David Fialkoff

Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional Programming by James A. Wilson, Ph.D.

About the Author Dr. Wilson is an assistant professor of sociology at Fordham “We know they’re good programs—and they University in New York. don’t work,” he responded.

ot long ago, I facilitated a discussion His response is emblematic of the continuing among policymakers, criminal justice nationwide debate on rehabilitation and N professionals, and representatives correctional programs. The perceived failure from community organizations about the of prison to deter criminal behavior—as large number of incarcerated individuals, evidenced by high recidivism rates and the recidivism rate after release, and the the substantial costs associated with an effect of both on resources, especially increasing number of ex-prisoners who local jails. unsuccessfully return to the community— has renewed interest in promising rehabili- As we discussed what we know about tative approaches. Nothing has fueled this effective rehabilitative programming, one renewed interest like the recent discussions attendee could not contain his ire. He on Project Greenlight. strongly asserted that the individuals in his jails had been in program after program after Project Greenlight was a short-term, prison- program until they had been programmed based reentry demonstration program. It nearly to death, and it had not made a whit was jointly operated by the New York State of difference. Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division of Parole and I believe he took offense when I asked him administered by program developers from what evidence he had that they actually the Vera Institute of Justice. Here, I offer were good programs and that they worked. a basic overview of the program and, most

N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

importantly, discuss the somewhat contro- ■ Drug education and awareness. versial findings from an evaluation sponsored Participants were required to attend drug by the National Institute of Justice.1 education or relapse prevention classes to help them deal with addictive behaviors.

What Did Project Greenlight Offer? ■ Family counseling. When a person returns home after a long absence, Offenders tend to leave prison much as they the adjustment can be difficult for the enter: lacking practical and interpersonal entire family. A counselor worked in the skills and possessing few economic and evenings with some Project Greenlight social resources. They tend to encounter participants and their families to help significant barriers, both formal and informal, 2 them prepare for the inevitable strains when they return to the community. In an that arise when an absent family member effort to help offenders meet some of these returns home. challenges, Project Greenlight was designed as an intensive, prison-based reentry pro- ■ Practical skills training. Classes in gram to be delivered during the 8 weeks practical skills offered guidance to Project immediately preceding an inmate’s release Greenlight participants on a wide variety from prison. of tasks—some straightforward, such as how to use a subway card; some The developers of the Project Greenlight complex, such as how to open and program drew extensively from the litera- manage a bank account, access emer- ture on correctional interventions and from gency sources of food or cash, and regain anecdotal evidence about the services voting rights. The program also helped that offenders need to succeed when they participants obtain proper identification return home. The key elements of Project documents and Medicaid coverage Greenlight were: before leaving prison.

■ Cognitive-behavioral skills training. ■ Community-based networks. Project The foundation of the Project Greenlight Greenlight developed a network of program was cognitive-behavioral skills community-based organizations to training because the research indicates provide participants with social support that this type of program shows the most after they were released.

consistent results in reducing offender ■ 3 Familiarity with parole. Participants recidivism. Cognitive-behavioral pro- were introduced to parole officers and gramming is based on the theory that familiarized with the parole process if offenders commit crime due to poor to promote greater adherence to the socialization, they can be resocialized conditions of parole. toward more prosocial thinking and behavior. ■ Individualized release plan. Project Greenlight staff worked one-on-one with ■ Employment. Project Greenlight participants to develop an individualized employed a job counselor to work with release plan. At its most basic level, this program participants on how to write plan was akin to a “day planner,” remind- a résumé and improve their interview ing offenders what they planned to do skills. If inmates were perceived to be upon release and when they would do job-ready, the counselor matched them it. The plan also attempted to provide a with employment opportunities that degree of structure to the participants’ might lead to stable work upon release. postrelease activities, helping them add ■ Housing. Because homeless shelters order to what was likely to be a very generally do not provide good living disorienting time. The release plan was situations, the program worked with the given to the participants’ parole officers New York City Department of Homeless to make them aware of the goals and Services to find short- and long-term tasks established by parolees before housing for inmates who did not have their release. a place to go upon release.

N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

The Greenlight Study Recidivism Outcomes Project Greenlight participants showed In the Project Greenlight Study, 735 inmates worse outcomes for every type of were divided into three groups and followed recidivism at 6 and 12 months after for at least 1 year (some for 2 years) after release. The chart on p. 5, “Percent of release. The intervention group of 334 Participants Who Recidivated at 6 and inmates received the Project Greenlight pro- 12 Months,” shows the percentage of gramming. One comparison group (referred each group that experienced any kind to as the UPS group) comprised 113 inmates of arrest (misdemeanor or felony), felony who were released directly from prisons in arrest only, and parole revocation. It is upstate New York without any pre-release especially noteworthy—because it is services. The second comparison group statistically significant—that the overall comprised 278 inmates who participated arrest rate for the Project Greenlight in the transitional services program (TSP) group was 10 percent higher than that already in existence at the facility (in the for the TSP group at 12 months post- same prison as the Greenlight participants). release (34 percent versus 24 percent). Also statistically significant is the 12 Project Greenlight was designed to empha- percent more parole revocations experi- size specific services that would improve enced by the Project Greenlight group certain interim quality-of-life outcomes than the UPS group at 12 months post- and, as a result, would affect subsequent release (25 percent versus 13 percent). criminal behavior. The developers believed, for example, that helping parolees (who Several findings of the evaluation were would otherwise end up in a homeless at odds with program expectations. Most shelter) find stable housing would reduce notably, Project Greenlight participants’ criminal behavior. The program also had a postrelease outcomes were significantly job counselor to help participants develop worse than those of the TSP and UPS their interview skills and connect with groups. The evaluation found that the potential employers, with the goal of Project Greenlight program had no effect on better employment, gained more quickly, the interim outcomes that it was designed for a longer duration. to address—including housing, employment, and parole—and that Project Greenlight Interim Quality-of-Life Outcomes participants fared significantly worse than the two control groups in rearrest and parole Data from evaluation surveys of participants revocation rates at the 1-year mark. In addi- and parole officers indicated: tion, although Project Greenlight participants ■ Employment, family relationships, displayed greater knowledge of parole condi- and use of homeless shelter. There tions, showed more positive attitudes toward were no differences between the Project parole, received more service referrals, and Greenlight group and the control groups. reported greater contact with service providers after release, none of these translated ■ Parole knowledge and adherence. into better outcomes. Although Project Greenlight participants demonstrated significantly more familiarity with parole conditions and were more Why Did Project Greenlight positive about parole, there was no differ- Participants Do Worse? ence in adherence to parole conditions between the Project Greenlight group Project Greenlight had been viewed posi- and the control groups. tively by many people: program developers and staff, participants, corrections officials, ■ Service referrals and contacts. Project policymakers, and community advocates. Greenlight participants received more Why, therefore, were the results so service referrals and reported more different from the perceptions? Why did contacts with community services the Project Greenlight intervention fail after release. to reduce recidivism? Indeed, why did N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Percent of Participants Who Recidivated at 6 and 12 Months Recidivism Outcome Project Greenlight TSP UPS (344 inmates) (278 inmates) (113 inmates) All arrests 6 months 17.2 13.0 14.4 12 months 34.1* 24.2* 26.8 Felony arrests 6 months 8.3 6.6 7.2 12 months 18.0 13.0 12.0 Parole revocations 6 months 9.8 9.4 7.4 12 months 25.1* 21.0 13.2* * Difference in the indicated pairs (by row) is statistically significant at p < .05.

participants show substantially worse There are reasons to suspect, however, outcomes than both of the control groups? that program implementation, including program design, might have resulted in Although selection bias is always a potential the negative outcomes. concern—did more crime-prone individuals end up in the Project Greenlight group First, the standard cognitive-behavioral than in the control groups?—the strength program that, in the past, has produced of the evaluation (both design and method- robust results in reducing offender recidi- ology) suggests that selection bias was vism was radically restructured in the not responsible for the negative outcomes. Project Greenlight program. The recom- A more likely explanation is that something mended class size for cognitive-skills associated with the program or its implemen- training is 10 to 13 participants; the Project tation contributed to the negative findings. Greenlight class size was 26. Given that There are several potential explanations.4 many incarcerated people have limited interpersonal skills and education and are likely to Obviously, Project Greenlight’s curricula be impulsive, a small class size is considered had the potential to yield positive outcomes. crucial in helping them maintain attention It also had the potential to result in no dif- and helping instructors deliver material. ference among the three groups, but it is difficult to imagine that the program’s The cognitive-behavior model upon which practical-skills or cognitive-behavioral train- Project Greenlight was based typically ing, for example, were somehow inherently delivers services twice weekly for 4–6 criminogenic. The same curricula have been months. The Project Greenlight program used extensively elsewhere, under a variety compressed the delivery of services, of conditions with a diversity of populations, however, into daily classes for 8 weeks. with positive outcomes. It is therefore highly These and other changes to the standard unlikely that the program’s content was cognitive-behavior program model raise responsible for the negative results. questions about how effective Project Greenlight could have been considering It seems equally unlikely that referrals the deviations from what has long been to community organizations, housing considered the optimal program. In addition, providers, and other community services participants in the Project Greenlight would lead the Project Greenlight group to group were transferred from one prison to be rearrested at higher rates. In short, the another—and were required to participate— program curricula seem relatively innocuous suggesting the possibility that they could in their potential for creating negative have been overwhelmed and perhaps even outcomes. frustrated and angry about their participation.

N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

The relatively short nature of the program policymakers and corrections officials might not have given participants enough because of its short duration and the large time to get past any negative emotions number of individuals who could receive the and resistance generated by coerced programming. Based on the evaluation, how- participation. ever, one can seriously question whether Project Greenlight was a “hodgepodge of Although the developers of Project Green- unproven and unstandardized clinical inter- light drew elements from the literature ventions” all lumped together.7 Although on correctional interventions, there were this may seem to be a harsh characteriza- some key failures—most notably, ignoring tion, it might be an accurate portrayal of the treatment principles that form the the program that was finally implemented. foundation of effective programming. There is general agreement that interven- What Have We Learned? tions should be directed toward high-risk participants and that assessing risk and I considered beginning this article, as many needs should be a part of any intervention discussions of corrections do, with the stan- protocol. Project Greenlight staff found, dard description of the U.S. social experiment however, that the assessment tool was in mass incarceration: the consequences to too cumbersome and time-consuming our society, communities, and families of hav- to administer and therefore dropped it. ing more than 2 million people incarcerated and nearly 700,000 admitted to and released Another basic treatment principle is that from prison every year. I hope, however, that interventions should target participants’ the experience I described in the opening of specific needs. Project Greenlight was a this article demonstrates the frustration of broad-based intervention in which every- many criminal justice professionals. We do one in the group was exposed to the same not really know about many of the programs program elements. Postrelease interviews currently being used, and some real lessons indicated that some participants felt can be learned from the negative outcomes significant frustration and anger about of a program like Project Greenlight. being forced to attend drug education sessions when they had no history of First, whenever an intervention is contem- substance use. It should also be noted plated and implemented, there is always that an emerging body of evidence an implicit assumption that “good” is going suggests that the delivery of intensive to come of it. Human behavior is complex, services to low-risk individuals may be however, and we are still trying to under- 5 counterproductive. stand it in a variety of ways, from the biological to the sociological to the philosophical. In addition to program design problems, Perhaps we should also hold the assumption Project Greenlight could have been poorly that an intervention program might do harm. implemented. As a general proposition, Clearly, the implementation of every program implementation has clearly been identified should have precisely stated outcomes as one of the most significant obstacles and a way to assess those outcomes on 6 to an effective intervention. The evalua- a regular basis. tion found a correlation between Project Greenlight participants who worked with Second, the “what works” literature on specific case managers and the program’s correctional interventions discusses pro- negative outcomes. Additionally, some partic- gramming that is known to work. Often, ipants in the Greenlight group were observed these discussions focus on the programs to be disengaged and appeared uninterested. themselves without exploring why they work. The treatment principles that underlie Project Greenlight attempted to create effective programming were often ignored in a comprehensive intervention by pulling Project Greenlight. This opened the program together diverse program elements to developers to the critique that they created address the multiple needs of participants. a “kitchen sink” program8—and one with The program was clearly attractive to negative outcomes at that. N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Third, although Project Greenlight was R. Hope, K. Gehi, Smoothing the Path labeled a reentry demonstration program, From Prison to Home, final report submit- it had in fact no real reentry component. ted to the National Institute of Justice, It was prison-based, with no structured Washington, DC: 2006 (NCJ 213714), followup in the community. Given what available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ the reentry literature says about the need grants/213714.pdf. for postrelease services, it appears that an individualized release plan such as the one Notes developed for Project Greenlight participants does not provide the necessary structured 1. The JEHT Foundation contributed the followup. Some States recognize the initial funding to begin the Project Greenlight potential for structured postrelease evaluation. For more information on the JEHT assistance—for example, although still Foundation, visit www.jehtfoundation.org. untested, Connecticut’s Building Bridges 2. This literature has grown extensively. program allows parolees to work with a See Travis, J., A. Solomon, and M. Waul, case manager for up to 1 year after release.9 From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2001, Finally, it is crucial to recognize that if available at www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ Project Greenlight had not been evalu- from_prison_to_home.pdf. ated, the program would be regarded as 3. More information on cognitive-behavior an unqualified success, based solely on research is included in Andrews, D.A., the positive perceptions of those involved. I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. Bonta, P. Gendreau, Despite all the promise and positive percep- and F.T. Cullen, “Does Correctional tions, the program resulted in more harm Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and than good. Could there be a clearer example Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis,” Criminology 28 (1990): 369–404. of why program evaluations are needed? 4. Frank Porporino, codeveloper of the I can understand the frustration expressed Reasoning and Rehabilitation program— a multifaceted cognitive-behavior program by the professional I mentioned in the used throughout Canada and the United opening of this article. We might continue States to teach juvenile and adult offenders to talk about the positives of rehabilitation, cognitive skills and values—assisted me in but when practitioners and the public see clarifying some of my explanations of the the constant churning of individuals through negative findings. the criminal justice system, they see a failed 5. Lowenkamp, C.T., and E.J. Latessa, system based on programs that do not “Increasing the Effectiveness of Correctional work. If we continue to place offenders in Programming Through the Risk Principle: Identifying Offenders for Residential programs that are positively perceived but Placement,” Criminology and Public that remain untested, we might continue Policy 4 (2) (2005): 263–290. to produce outcomes similar to Project 6. Rhine, E.E., T.L. Mawhorr, and E.C. Parks, Greenlight. Without effective evaluations “Implementation: The Bane of Effective of our programs, we run the risk of program- Correctional Programs,” Criminology and ming offenders nearly to death—and it still Public Policy 5 (2) (2006): 347–358. will not make one whit of difference. 7. Marlowe, D.B., “When ‘What Works’ Never NCJ 218258 Did: Dodging the ’Scarlet M’ in Correctional Rehabilitation,” Criminology and Public For More Information Policy 5 (2) (2006): 342. ■ Wilson, J.A., and R. Davis, “Hard Realities 8. Ibid. Meet Good Intentions: An Evaluation of 9. For an overview, see the Council of State the Project Greenlight Reentry Program,” Governments Web site at www.csgeast.org/ Criminology and Public Policy 5 (2) (2006): pdfs/justicereinvest/BuildingBridges.pdf or www.csgeast.org/pdfs/justicereinvest/ 303–338. BuildingBridgesReportUpdate.pdf. ■ Brown, B., R. Campbell, J.A. Wilson, Y. Cheryachukin, R.C. Davis, J. Dauphinee,

Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues by Michael Shively, Ph.D., and Carrie F. Mulford, Ph.D.

About the Authors Dr. Shively is an associate in the Center for Crime and Drug Policy statute. Houston authorities did not charge at Abt Associates Inc. Dr. Mulford is a social science analyst at the Tuck with a hate crime because the charges National Institute of Justice. against him already carried a life sentence.5

n December 2000, in Brooklyn, New York, In many cases, hate may be seen or Mohammad Awad punched Chaim Spear perceived by the victims, their families, while yelling obscenities and anti- witnesses, and even law enforcement to Semitic remarks.1 In nearby Queens, Nicholas be the motivation for a crime, but perpetra- Minucci, a Caucasian, fractured the skull tors may not be charged with a hate crime of African American Glenn Moore with a for a variety of reasons—many of the same baseball bat and robbed him in June 2005. reasons that the debate on hate-crime laws Witnesses testified that Minucci used a continues in this country. racial slur before and during the attack.2 In October 1998, near Laramie, Wyoming, Legislators, law enforcement officials, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney prosecutors—and the American public— robbed, beat, and tied Matthew Shepard, continue to grapple with fundamental a gay man, to a fence. Five days after the questions in the hate-crime debate: attack, Shepard died from his injuries.3 In ■ How do we define—and identify— Houston, Texas, David Tuck attacked and hate crime? sexually assaulted a Hispanic teenager in April 2006. Tuck shouted “white power” ■ How prevalent are these types of crime? and racial slurs during the attack.4 ■ How do we prosecute, punish, and, ultimately, prevent hate crime? Awad and Minucci were each convicted of a hate crime. Wyoming, where Shepard ■ How do we meet the needs of hate-crime was murdered, does not have a hate-crime victims?

N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

In a study funded by the National Institute of Justice, Michael Shively, Ph.D., of Abt States With Laws for Protected Groups Associates Inc., conducted a comprehensive analysis of the literature and statutes on Protected Group No. of States hate crime to determine how Federal and Ethnicity 45 State legislation and programs are wrestling Race 45 6 with these issues. Religion 45 Gender 31 Scope of the Problem Disability 30 Sexual orientation 27 Accurate estimates of the prevalence of Age 14 hate crime remain elusive. National hate- crime data come from two primary sources: Political affiliation 7 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey All of this suggests that despite progress (NCVS). Unfortunately, the types of data in methods of data collection, the current collected by these agencies differ, which data may not be sufficient to gauge the true creates difficulties in accurately assessing scope of the problem. the prevalence of hate crime. Laws and Legislation In a study of law enforcement agencies, the FBI found that 7,163 hate-crime incidents, The Federal Government and all but one affecting 8,795 victims, were reported in State (Wyoming) have specific hate-crime 2005 to police departments that participated laws. The laws vary significantly from State in the study.7 Estimating incidents involv- to State, however, and there is no standard ing elements of hate crime during an earlier legal definition of hate crime. For example, time period—July 2000 through December although nearly all States specify race, 2003—BJS coupled results from victim religion, or ethnicity as characteristics of interviews with additional factors such protected groups, other characteristics as offender use of derogatory language are not always included. (See above chart, or hate symbols to estimate an annual “States With Laws for Protected Groups.”) average of 191,000 incidents, affecting 210,000 victims.8 Hate-crime laws may define: 1. Groups that are protected (e.g., religion, The disparity in these two estimates stems, race or ethnicity, gender, disability, and in part, from an important difference in sexual orientation). the data collected: the FBI counts only crimes that are reported to the police. For 2. A range of predicate or underlying crimes the NCVS, BJS collects information from (e.g., assault). victims, who are asked if they think hate 3. A requirement that hate or bias motivated played a role in the crime. The potential for the offense. overreporting and underreporting incidents involving elements of hate crime must also 4. Penalty enhancements. be considered. For instance, only 44 percent 5. Provisions for civil remedies. of the alleged incidents in the NCVS database were reported to the police,9 so 6. Requirements for data collection. underreporting may account for at least 7. Training requirements for law enforce- some of the disparity in these estimates ment personnel. of the prevalence of hate crime in this country. One study indicates that people Although most States allow broad may be reluctant to report for fear of categories of predicate or underlying 10 police insensitivity and abuse. offenses to be charged as a hate crime

N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Where Did the Term ‘Hate Crime’ Come From? The term “hate crime” was coined in the 1980’s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at African Americans, Asians, and Jews. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime—also called bias crime—as “a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

(such as assault, vandalism, and a wide ■ Are hate-crime victims more traumatized variety of misdemeanors and felonies) than other victims of the same underlying and provide for penalty enhancements, offense because they feel personally only about half the States have enacted targeted? statutes that require data collection and ■ Does hate crime increase fear in the offer victims a specific recourse for community beyond what might exist recovering damages. Statutory provisions for similar crimes that are not motivated addressing the training of law enforcement by hate? personnel to deal with hate crime exist in only 12 States. On the Federal level, a 1994 Some States have struck down hate-crime law mandates longer sentences for hate statutes as too broad or vague. Most of crime committed under Federal jurisdiction. the highest State courts that have heard These differences in laws from State to challenges on First Amendment grounds State—and on the Federal level—make it to the penalty enhancement provision of difficult to ensure consistency in the pros- hate-crime laws have upheld bias as a ecution of hate crime. rationale for harsher punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin One of the most significant issues in the hate-crime penalty enhancement, ruling that debate is the lack of national consensus that it did not suppress free speech because the hate crime should be considered a separate statute is motivated by the State’s desire class of crime. In addition, even supporters to redress a greater societal harm that is of hate-crime legislation disagree about how inflicted by bias-inspired conduct, not by the statutes should be written. Other major an attempt to suppress thoughts.11 questions in the debate include: ■ Should hate or bias motivation be Other Responses to Hate Crime considered when the underlying offense, such as assault or vandalism, is already Many jurisdictions have established hate- covered by criminal law? crime units in their police departments, ■ Do hate-crime laws punish thoughts and some regional task forces are devoted rather than actions? to investigating hate crime. Some States have increased law enforcement training ■ What are the ramifications of basing on hate crime and implemented school- additional penalties upon the thoughts and community-based prevention programs. that motivate offenders rather than on California and Massachusetts are notable the behavior itself? for including these and other strategies in ■ Is it possible to determine with legally their efforts to combat hate crime. acceptable certainty the motive behind a person’s criminal acts? Nonprofit organizations have also directed resources to prevention programs, ■ Do hate-crime laws result in more severe services to victims, and civil lawsuits punishments for crimes against certain filed on behalf of victims against hate- groups of people than for equivalent crime perpetrators. crimes committed against other groups?

10 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Although these initiatives have generated anti-hate-crime “best practices,” based Victim Reports of Hate-Crime Motivations on experience and backed by expert opinion, they have not been rigorously Motivation Percent of Incidents evaluated to determine if they are Race 55.4 successful in increasing arrest and Association* 30.7 prosecution, preventing hate crime, Ethnicity 28.7 or supporting victims. Sexual orientation 18.0 Perceived characteristic 13.7 Current Research on Hate Crime Religion 12.9 Disability 11.2 Information about the characteristics of hate-crime offenses is based primarily on Source: Harlow, C.W., Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police (2005) p.3, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf. NCVS victim reports and on police reports Note: Percentages in this exhibit add up to more than 100 filed through the National Incident-Based percent because some respondents indicated more than one Reporting System. Both indicate that bias motivation. regarding race is the most common motiva- * Association with people who have certain characteristics, for tion behind a hate crime. African Americans, example, a multiracial couple. for example, are targeted twice as often as Caucasians, according to these databases. “Victim Reports of Hate-Crime Motivations,” of these was formulated by Jack McDevitt, the chart on this page, lists the “motiva- Jack Levin, and Susan Bennett.15 Based tions” behind hate crimes as reported by on a study of 169 cases in Boston, these victims who participated in a 2000–2003 researchers identified four major categories NCVS survey. of hate-crime motivation:

A large body of research exists on preju- ■ Thrill-seeking. Offenders who are dice and bias, but it does not explain why motivated by a desire for excitement prejudice prompts people to commit a (66 percent). 12 hate crime. Only a few studies have ■ Defensive. Offenders who commit hate attempted to examine the characteristics crime to protect their turf or resources in of hate-crime offenders, and these have not a situation that they consider threatening been definitive. A North Carolina study found (25 percent). that perpetrators of hate crime were more likely than other citizens to express bigoted ■ Retaliatory. Offenders acting to avenge attitudes,13 but this conclusion comes as a perceived insult or assault (8 percent). no surprise. The North Carolina researchers ■ Mission. Offenders who are so strongly were unable to statistically distinguish hate- committed to bigotry that hate becomes crime perpetrators from other citizens their career (less than 1 percent). based solely on attitudes, thus suggesting that there are factors beyond attitude that No attempt has been made to validate cause individuals to commit hate crime. To or replicate these typologies even though date, there simply has not been sufficient they are widely used in training law enforce- research to identify the characteristics that ment officers to identify and investigate distinguish perpetrators of hate crimes from hate crime. Another study investigated people with bigoted attitudes who do not self-reported antigay aggression in the engage in such acts. San Francisco Bay area and identified four categories of offenders similar to those Another way of analyzing criminal behavior is 16 14 proposed by McDevitt. That study corrobo- through offender typologies or categories. rates, but does not scientifically validate, The most widely discussed and accepted McDevitt’s typologies.

11 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

■ Harlow, C.W., Hate Crime Reported Suggestions for the Future by Victims and Police, Special Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of The Abt Associates report identifies the Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, need for more research in the following November 2005 (NCJ 209911): 1, areas: available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ■ A method for more accurately estimating pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf. the prevalence of hate crime. Other resources include: ■ An evaluation of the impact of hate-crime ■ Bureau of Justice Assistance, Addressing legislation on deterrence, punishment, Hate Crimes: Six Initiatives That Are enforcement, training, and reporting. Enhancing the Efforts of Criminal Justice Practitioners, Washington, DC: U.S. ■ The motivations behind hate crime and the development of empirically based Department of Justice, Bureau of offender typologies. Justice Assistance, 2000. ■ Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime ■ How membership in or affiliation with in the United States 2004: Hate Crime, hate groups (or exposure to their literature) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of affects the commission of crime. Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, ■ The effect of hate crime on victims and 2005. communities. ■ D.C. Bias Crimes Task Force, Prevention ■ An evaluation of programs designed to of Bias/Hate Crimes Starts With You! prevent and respond to hate crime and Washington, DC: U.S. Attorney’s Office for to assist hate-crime victims. the District of Columbia, available at www. usdoj.gov/usao/dc/Partnerships/Files/ The American Society of Criminology has HateCrimes.pdf. supported these recommendations. Notes The Abt Associates report also recom- mends the development of a Federal central 1. Awad pled guilty to assault as a hate crime. repository of hate-crime information to help He received 5 years’ probation and was resolve inconsistencies in how hate crime required to attend an anger-management is defined and how data are collected and course. Bahrampour, T., “Metro Briefing– analyzed. The report maintains that such New York: Brooklyn: Hate-Crimes Prosecution,” New York Times [online], a repository could disseminate research June 27, 2001 (accessed January 31, 2007). findings and information on programs, and thereby lead to a better use of resources 2. A Queens, New York jury convicted Minucci in preventing and developing responses to of second-degree assault as a hate crime. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. hate crime. “Fat Nick Gets 15 Years for Bat Attack,” NCJ 218259 New York Daily News, July 17, 2006, available at www.nydailynews.com/front/ For More Information story/435818p-367135c.html (accessed February 2, 2007). This article is based on: 3. Henderson pled guilty to felony murder ■ Shively, M., Study of Literature and and kidnapping. A Laramie jury found Legislation on Hate Crime in America, McKinney guilty of two counts of felony final report submitted to the National murder. Both are serving two consecutive Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: June life sentences without the possibility of 2005 (NCJ 210300), available at www. parole. Cart, J. “Killer of Gay Student Is ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/210300.pdf. Spared Death Penalty; Courts: Matthew Shepard’s Father Says Life in Prison Shows ■ Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Washington, ‘Mercy to Someone Who Refused to Show DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Any Mercy,’” Los Angeles Times, November Bureau of Investigation, October 2006, avail- 5, 1999. able at www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html.

12 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

4. A district court in Houston sentenced Tuck for Measuring the Occurrence of Hate to life in prison for aggravated sexual assault. Violence,” American Behavioral Scientist Anti-Defamation League, “Texas White 46 (2002): 136–153. Supremacist Receives Life Sentence,” 11. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993). December 1, 2006, available at www. adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/ 12. Green, D.P., L.H. McFalls, and J.K. Smith, White_Supremacy/racistskinhead_texas_ “Hate Crime: An Emergent Research 1106.ht (accessed February 2, 2007). Agenda,” Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001): 279–504. 5. Ibid. 13. Green, D.P., R.P. Abelson, and M. Garnett, 6. Shively, M., Study of Literature and “The Distinctive Political Views of Hate- Legislation on Hate Crime in America, final Crime Perpetrators and White Supremacists,” report to the National Institute of Justice, in Cultural Divides: Understanding and Washington, DC: June 2005 (NCJ 210300), Overcoming Group Conflict, ed. D.A. Prentice, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ and D.T. Miller, New York: Russell Sage grants/210300.pdf. Foundation, 1999: 429–464. 7. Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Washington, DC: 14. Although a typology is not a formal theory, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau it provides a useful way of organizing of Investigation, October 2006, available at observations. www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/index.html. 15. McDevitt, J., J. Levin, and S. Bennett, “Hate 8. The NCVS contained interviews of 243 Crime Offenders: An Expanded Typology,” hate-crime victims. BJS then used a Journal of Social Issues 58 (2002): 303–317. statistical method to estimate that this The researchers analyzed 169 cases handled figure represents an annual, nationwide by the Community Disorders Unit of the average of approximately 210,000 hate- Boston Police Department in 1991–1992. crime victims. Harlow, C.W., Hate Crime 16. Franklin, K., “Antigay Behaviors Among Young Reported by Victims and Police, Special Adults: Prevalence, Patterns, and Motivations Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department in a Noncriminal Population,” Journal of of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Interpersonal Violence 15 (2000): 4, 339–362. November 2005 (NCJ 209911): 1, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf. 9. Ibid. 10. Nolan, J.J., and Y. Akiyama, “The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990: Developing a Method

13 Al Blumstein: 40 Years of Contributions to Criminal Justice edited by Nancy Ritter

e brings reason and practicality that produced The Challenge of Crime in to scientific discussions—and a Free Society, a 1967 report that shaped H an ability to examine evidence criminal justice agendas in this country for that is the envy of prosecutors.” years. Now, on the 40th anniversary of that landmark report, Blumstein is receiving the This is how a former director of the 2007 Stockholm Prize in Criminology, given National Institute of Justice described for significant contributions to criminological Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D. From crime research or practices that combat crime and trends to sentencing guidelines, the promote human rights. He shares this award impact of Blumstein’s work is evident with Terri E. Moffitt, Ph.D., currently at the in the criminal justice policies and practices University of London, whose social, psycho- of 21st century America. His research has logical, and biological studies of crime and covered a stunning range of criminal justice human development have had international phenomena and policy: crime measurement, impact. criminal careers, sentencing, deterrence and incapacitation, prison populations, Blumstein has been instrumental to our demographic trends, juvenile violence, understanding of violence as both a crimi- and drug-enforcement policy. Put simply, nological and a public health concern. His few in the Nation possess Blumstein’s epidemiological research, for example, understanding of the links between demonstrated how the growth of illegal violence, public health, and criminology. drug markets and the prevalence of illegal In the mid-1960’s, Blumstein was asked weapons among youth influenced violent to lead a task force on science and crime in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Here are a technology for a presidential commission few highlights of his work:

14 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

■ Carnegie Mellon University. For more youth violence, for example. Then there than 35 years, he has been the J. Erik are the hundreds of students, coworkers, Jonsson University Professor of Urban policymakers, researchers, and in-the- Systems and Operations Research and trenches law enforcement professionals the director of the National Consortium on who call him advisor and friend. To offer Violence Research at Carnegie Mellon’s H. Journal readers a flavor of the man behind John Heinz III School of Public Policy and the accomplishments, we asked a few Management. He was dean of the Heinz of these people, “How has Al Blumstein School from 1986 to 1993. enriched or influenced your life?” Here are their responses. ■ President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. He led the Commission’s Task Force on Science and Technology, l’s international recognition for working with some of the best criminal Acontributions to research on criminal justice minds in the country. Out of the justice comes as no surprise to those of Commission’s work came The Challenge us who have benefited from his of Crime in a Free Society. (See related insights over his long and productive story, “The 40th Anniversary of the career. During my service as governor Crime Report,” p. 20.) of Pennsylvania, Al served as chairman of the Commission on Crime and ■ National Consortium on Violence Delinquency. His wisdom on sensitive Research (NCOVR). Under Blumstein’s issues involving police, courts, and cor- leadership, NCOVR created a unique rections contributed greatly to a safer framework for research on violence. Pennsylvania. Al was always inquisitive, He pulled together a remarkable group respectful of the views of others, but true of scholars and policymakers to serve to his core beliefs in equal justice under on NCOVR’s advisory committee. the law—a true champion of the value ■ Awards and honors. A page of of solid research in the development of Blumstein’s résumé could be devoted sound policy. to leadership positions he has held and Dick Thornburgh awards and honors he has received. Former U.S. Attorney General Here are three: the American Society of Former Governor of Pennsylvania Criminology’s Sutherland Award (1987), Attorney, K&L Gates LLP the President’s Award from the Operations Research Society of America (1993), and the Wolfgang Award for Distinguished first met Al within weeks of my arrival Achievement in Criminology (1998). at graduate school in 1974. I poked ■ Body of written work. Blumstein has my head into his office and asked, ‘How coauthored and edited many notable much can age explain the crime rise dur- works, including The Crime Drop in ing the 1960’s?’ His response was not America (2006); Exploring Recent Trends a bunch of intimidating queries about in U.S. Homicide Rates (1998); and whether I had read this or that paper or Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-Drug considered how hard a question this was Industry (1995). He is regularly published or, even worse, how badly I framed the in journals, such as Law and Society research question. Instead, he said, ‘Don’t Review, Journal of Criminal Law and know. Why don’t we work on it?’ That’s Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice, how my career in crime began. It typi- and Criminology. fies Al’s enthusiasm for plowing ahead, unafraid, with youthful optimism and This is just a glimpse of Blumstein’s enthusiasm. résumé. Behind it, of course, are the lives Daniel S. Nagin he has touched. Countless people have Professor, Carnegie Mellon University been affected by Blumstein’s work on

15 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

systems analysis Flowchart As director of the Science and Technology Task Force (part of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice), Al Blumstein was instrumental in creating a “systems analysis” portrayal of criminal justice in

Sentencing Entry into the system Prosecution and pretrial services Adjudication and sanctions Corrections

Refusal to indict Charge dismissed Acquitted Appeal Grand jury Probation Habeas Pardon and Capital corpus clemency punishment

Revocation Arraignment Trial Convicted Sentencing Felonies Prison Unsolved Released Released Charges Charges Out of system or not without without dropped or dropped or Guilty plea (registration, arrested prosecution prosecution dismissed dismissed notification) Information Parole

Reported and Reduction of charge Intermediate observed crime sanctions Revocation Investi- Out of system gation Charges Initial Bail or Arrest filed Preliminary Charge appearance detention dismissed Acquitted hearing hearing Jail Crime

Information Arraignment Trial Convicted Sentencing Revocation Out of system

Misdemeanors Guilty plea Probation Prosecution as a Unsuccessful diversion juvenile Out of system Diversion by law enforcement, prosecutor, or court Probation or other nonresidential disposition Police Intake Waived to criminal court juvenile unit hearing Formal juvenile or youthful offender court processing Adjudication Disposition Revocation Juvenile offenders Residential placement Out of system

Nonpolice referrals Informal processing diversion After care Released or Released or Released diverted diverted Revocation Note: This chart gives a simplified view of caseflow through the criminal justice system. Procedures vary among jurisdictions. The weights of the lines are not intended to show actual size of caseloads.

n 1966, Al brought ‘systems analysis’ e’s 5’9” yet the NIJ staff referred to the President’s Commission on Hto Blumstein, the dean of crimi- Law Enforcement and Administration of nologists, as ‘Big Al.’ When he grudgingly Justice. For better or worse, he is the welcomed me to the NIJ directorship, person most responsible for the wide- he said it was a strange irony, indeed, spread use of the term ‘system of jus- when the Nation’s most important crime tice.’ I remember telling him the data research portfolio is handed over to a that were needed to put numbers to his police officer without a Ph.D. or a long list justice system flowchart simply did not of juried publications. Big Al’s sarcastic exist. Not to be deterred, Al and his staff welcome was tongue-in-cheek—he has produced a chart without numbers that an engineering background and is not a has been so useful as a teaching tool that traditional social scientist by education it has been printed in every major crimi- or training. That was 25 years ago. Al nology text since 1970. He is one of our continues to challenge policymakers and country’s most influential and productive researchers to be more serious about criminologists. understanding the causes and correlates Roland Chilton of crime in America. With a magic marker 16 Professor, University of Massachusetts N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

the United States. In 1997, the Bureau of Justice Statistics published the flowchart shown here, which is an updated version of the one that first appeared in the Commission’s 1967 report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. To download or order a copy of this chart, visit www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/justsys.htm.

Sentencing Entry into the system Prosecution and pretrial services Adjudication and sanctions Corrections

Refusal to indict Charge dismissed Acquitted Appeal Grand jury Probation Habeas Pardon and Capital corpus clemency punishment

Information Arraignment Trial Convicted Sentencing Revocation Out of system

and an overhead projector, Al can be very of luck, Al Blumstein, a Ph.D. in opera- persuasive in using data analysis to tions research, was chosen to be the demonstrate how misinformed, wrong, director of the first national-level criminal and dangerous the conventional wisdom justice Science and Technology Task about crime rates can be. Force. Al’s systemic view of the interac- James K. (Chips) Stewart tions between the courts, police, and Former Director, NIJ corrections has proven to be a seminal Senior Fellow, CNA Corporation and lasting contribution. This came about not by theoretical musing in the office, but by Al’s scientific philosophy: learning and assimilating everything he could of oday, a mathematician helping police the system . . . short of getting arrested, Tto solve crime—like in the hit TV series prosecuted, and tried. Numb3rs—seems ordinary. But in 1966, Saul I. Gass finding a scientist within the criminal Professor, University of Maryland justice system was rare. By some stroke

17 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

erving simultaneously as the U.S. t the Centers for Disease Control SAttorney for Western Pennsylvania A and Prevention (CDC), we looked to and in national posts for the U.S. Al as a member of the Research Agenda Department of Justice has required me Steering Committee for the CDC Injury to travel frequently between Pittsburgh Center, a group that has helped define and Washington, DC. An unexpected priorities for CDC research on public joy in this aerial commute has been the health and violence prevention since 1999. opportunity for ongoing, onboard collabor- I also recall—with much gratefulness— ative discussions with Al Blumstein, who Al’s wise counsel during the preparation also travels frequently between the two of the Surgeon General’s report on youth cities. Just as a window seat affords a violence in 2001. I asked for his help in view of the big picture that can never be identifying a scientist of sufficient stature gleaned from ground level, Al’s leading- (Al was too busy to take the job himself) edge scholarship has lifted criminology to serve as editor of this report, which issues to the perspective of public had a tremendous impact on U.S. public policy solutions. health research and program polices on Mary Beth Buchanan youth violence. U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania W. Rodney Hammond Acting Director, Director, Division of Violence Prevention, Office on Violence Against Women, National Center for Injury Prevention U.S. Department of Justice and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

n 1966, Al hired me as the youngest fulltime member of the Science and Technology Task Force of the President’s hen Al asked me to join the National Commission on Law Enforcement and WConsortium on Violence Research Administration of Justice. I was 23 years (NCOVR) Advisory Board, I did not realize old and had just completed my first year how important a role NCOVR would play in graduate school at MIT. In other words, in this country’s criminal justice system. I was wet behind the ears—with virtually Al has a knack of sitting at a table— no professional experience in applying sleeves rolled up and scratching at his left operations research to crime. Al was my elbow—while imparting pearls of wisdom mentor. He showed me how to think, and challenging everyone present to think how to structure problems, even how a little broader and deeper about the prob- to write. He encouraged me to continue lem. He has made me a better judge by this as a doctoral research topic—I did, challenging me to think dispassionately and it changed my career. His encourage- about very serious issues within the crim- ment, patience and support were remark- inal justice system. Without Al, neither able, given all the other responsibilities he Carnegie Mellon University nor NCOVR had at the time. would have attained the high level of Richard C. Larson respect that is now taken for granted. Director, Center for Engineering Systems Justin M. Johnson Fundamentals, Judge, Pennsylvania Superior Court Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NCJ 218260

18 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

O ffice for V ictims of C rime m s i r o r r e T International Terrorism Victim Expense Reimbursement Program (ITVERP)

As part of its mission to enhance the Nation’s legally designated representative of the victim capacity to assist crime victims and to provide may receive expense reimbursement on behalf leadership in changing attitudes, policies, and of the victim. Claimants may include: practices to promote justice and healing for all victims, the Office for Victims of Crime • Spouse of victim (OVC), part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s • Parents of victim Office of Justice Programs, has implemented • Children of victim the International Terrorism Victim Expense • Siblings of victim Reimbursement Program (ITVERP).* • Legally designated victim representative Eligible Reimbursement Expenses If eligible, victims of international terrorism may Costs Not Covered be reimbursed for expenses directly associated • Attorneys’ fees and legal expenses with that victimization. These include: • Pain and suffering

• Medical, including dental and rehabilitation • Loss of enjoyment of life or of consortium costs (up to $50,000) Deadlines • Mental health care (up to $5,000) The deadline for making a claim is 3 years from • Property loss, repair, and replacement (up to the date of the act of international terrorism. $10,000) For claims related to acts of international terror- • Funeral and burial costs (up to $25,000) ism that occurred after December 21, 1988, but before the establishment of ITVERP, the • Miscellaneous expenses, such as temporary deadline is 3 years from the effective date of lodging, local transportation, telephone costs, the program regulations (October 6, 2006). and emergency travel (up to $15,000) At the discretion of the OVC Director, this may Eligibility be extended to a date not more than 3 years from a determination that there is a reasonable • U.S. Nationals indication that an act of international terrorism occurred. • U.S. Government Officers or Employees

The law requires that the victim must have OVC works with international, Federal, tribal, suffered “direct physical or emotional injury State, local, and military victim assistance and or death as a result of an act of international criminal justice agencies and other professional terrorism occurring abroad on or after organizations to promote fundamental rights December 21, 1988, with respect to which and comprehensive services for crime victims. an investigation or prosecution was ongoing or was commenced after April 21, 1996.” In the case of a victim who is a minor, incompetent, incapacitated, or killed, a family member or Office for Victims of Crime ITVERP Resource Center *ITVERP was authorized by Congress to reimburse 810 Seventh Street, N.W. eligible direct victims of acts of international terrorism that occur outside the United States for expenses Washington, DC 20531 associated with the victimization. 1–800–363–0441 www.ovc.gov 19 The 40th Anniversary of the Crime Report by Thomas E. Feucht, Ph.D., and Edwin Zedlewski, Ph.D.

About the Authors Dr. Feucht is the deputy director for research and evaluation and he 1960’s were a tumultuous decade. Dr. Zedlewski is the associate deputy director for research and The United States faced increasing evaluation at the National Institute of Justice. T social unrest at home, as it fought a war overseas. Lyndon Johnson, who had Editor’s Note: More than four decades ago, risen to office following the assassination the President of the United States estab- of John F. Kennedy, was confronted with lished the Commission on Law Enforcement significant challenges as he began his and Administration of Justice to examine 1964 presidential campaign. Johnson public safety in the United States. An over- brought to his campaign—and ultimately arching question guided its work: What to his presidency—a vision of America that should be the role of the Federal Government would help meet those challenges. Believing in fighting crime and enhancing public safety? that the Nation could become a “Great That question remains as important today as Society,”3 he outlined his commitment to it was then. The Commission’s answers form fight poverty, improve education, and end the history, character, and mission of today’s racial inequality. National Institute of Justice and its sister bureaus in the Office of Justice Programs.1 The President’s ambitious agenda envisioned On the 40th anniversary of the Commission’s that the Federal Government would address seminal report, The Challenge of Crime in a broad spectrum of social problems. For all a Free Society,2 the Journal asked two of its breadth, however, Johnson’s plan paid little the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) most attention to the issue of crime. His failure to senior researchers to commemorate the include any new significant Federal role in leadership and vision of the President’s fighting crime was not surprising. Early in the Crime Commission and to celebrate the 1964 campaign, Johnson had declared that accomplishments of NIJ’s State and local crime was a local problem and that the criminal justice and research partners.

20 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Federal Government did not have the power—nor should it have—to deal with it. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice His opponent, Barry Goldwater, raised the issue repeatedly during the campaign. Howard Ohmart (Corrections) Goldwater decried the Nation’s crime The Commissioners Vincent O’Leary (Corrections) problem and challenged what he character- Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Charles H. Rogovin ized as Johnson’s disregard for public safety. Chairman (Organized Crime) Genevieve Blatt Although Johnson was elected in a land- Charles D. Breitel Director of Science slide, his position on the issue of crime Kingman Brewster and Technology would soon recognize that crime really Garrett H. Byrne Alfred Blumstein was a national problem, and the Federal Thomas J. Cahill Government needed to provide new Otis Chandler Staff Members leadership to combat it. Leon Jaworski William Caldwell Thomas C. Lynch Weston R. Campbell, Jr. ‘The Blueprints to Banish Crime’ Ross L. Malone Gerald M. Caplan James B. Parsons Roland Chilton As interest in the debate grew, it became Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Joseph G.J. Connolly clear that the Nation lacked even the most William P. Rogers Virginia N. Crawford basic information about crime and crime Robert G. Storey Elizabeth Bartholet DuBois trends. It was nearly impossible to say just Julia D. Stuart Paul B. Duruz how bad crime really was because there Robert F. Wagner Robert L. Emrich were no reliable, comparable data on crime Herbert Wechsler Floyd Feeney across jurisdictions.4 A lack of operational Whitney M. Young, Jr. Victor Gioscia data on the police, courts, and other justice Luther W. Youngdahl Sheldon Krantz agencies made it impossible to measure Anthony Lapham what was being done to fight crime. The Staff John L. McCausland Executive Director Sheila Ann Mulvihill Soon after his inauguration, Johnson James Vorenberg Albert W. Overby, Jr. acknowledged the need for a Federal Nick Pappas response to crime and public safety. In Deputy Director John F. Quinn a March 1965 address to Congress—the Henry S. Ruth, Jr. Robert Rice first by a president on the issue of crime— Associate Directors Gordon D. Rowe Johnson called for legislation to create an Gene S. Muehleisen Susan Freeman Schapiro Office of Law Enforcement Assistance.5 Elmer K. Nelson, Jr. Gerald Stern He also established the President’s Lloyd E. Ohlin Keith Stubblefield Commission on Law Enforcement and Arthur Rosett Thelma C. Stevens Administration of Justice, charging the Assistant Directors Martin Timin members to draw up “the blueprints David B. Burnham G. Joseph Vining 6 that we need . . . to banish crime.” Bruce J. Terris Richardson White, Jr. Samuel G. Chapman (Police) The task—breathtaking in scope—reflected not only the “can do” attitude of Johnson’s Great Society, but also a growing confidence greeted the assignment with enthusiasm in the ability of science and technology to and energy. It created task forces and solve problems. The Nation was already committees around major crime issues, improving public health, harnessing atomic such as juvenile delinquency, policing, energy, and putting a man on the moon. courts, corrections, organized crime, and Why not unleash that same creative power drugs. It collected data and analyzed statis- to eliminate crime? tics on an unprecedented scale. It created the first crime victimization survey, the With Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach first composite picture of State correctional at the helm, the 19-member Commission populations, and the first conceptualization—

21 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

in the form of a schematic diagram—of The President’s Crime Commission thrust the criminal justice system process. (See “ordinary street crime” irreversibly into related story, “Al Blumstein: 40 Years of policy discussions and provided the frame- Contributions to Criminal Justice,” p. 14.) work for the Federal Government to take Never before had anyone examined police, new responsibility for fighting crime and prosecution, defense, the courts, and correc- enhancing public safety in neighborhoods tions in a single frame of reference. and communities across the country. No one was under the illusion that crime Only 18 months after receiving Johnson’s could easily be banished. In fact, when mandate, the Commission issued its report, Johnson accepted the Challenge of Crime The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. report in 1967, he cautioned that the war on crime would take generations to wage. The Past Informs the Future Nevertheless, the Commission, with its diligent analysis and farsighted recommen- The Commission was extraordinarily dations, laid the groundwork for a coherent prescient about technology. Its recommen- national policy to combat crime that has dations included separate radio bands for stood the test of time. police communication, automated fingerprint systems, and investments in computing Happy 40th, Commissioners. and information systems—this, at the very NCJ 218261 advent of the computer age. Notes The overarching need for research was also acknowledged: “The Commission has found 1. Since 1984, the Office of Justice Programs and discussed throughout this report many (OJP) has provided Federal leadership in needs of law enforcement and the admin- developing the Nation’s capacity to prevent istration of criminal justice. But what it has and control crime, improve the criminal found to be the greatest need is the need and juvenile justice systems, increase to know.”7 knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. OJP’s bureaus and offices are the National Institute of Justice, One of the Commission’s recommenda- the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, tions was that Congress create a new the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau office in the Justice Department devoted of Justice Statistics, the Community Capacity to assisting State and local law enforce- Development Office, the Office of Juvenile ment departments. The Law Enforcement Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Assistance Administration, and within it Office for Victims of Crime. the National Institute of Law Enforcement 2. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, and Criminal Justice—known today as the which was accompanied by nine task force Office of Justice Programs and the National reports, was 308 pages long and contained Institute of Justice, respectively—continue 202 recommendations to control crime and to deliver Federal support to what remains improve criminal justice in America. In addition to chapters dealing with the major crime a locally determined and managed justice issues, the report discussed such issues as system. These agencies demonstrate the the role of science and technology, crime unique Federal role in fighting crime— research, and the problem of drunkenness, not by usurping the rights or responsibilities and outlined a national strategy for action on of local jurisdictions, but by leveraging the individual, local, State, and Federal levels. The power of the Federal Government to add President’s Commission on Law Enforcement value to the efforts of local criminal justice and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Washington, DC: and law enforcement agencies across Government Printing Office, February 1967, the Nation. available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/42.pdf.

22 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

3. Lyndon B. Johnson first discussed his goals provided the only national crime trend data at for the Great Society in a speech at the the time of the Crime Commission. Even into University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on May the 1990’s, the UCR data contained gaps in 22, 1964 (Public Papers of the Presidents jurisdictions reporting, missing data, and likely of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, errors in reporting. 1963–64, Volume I, entry 357, pp. 704–707, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 5. This became the Law Enforcement Assistance 1965, available at www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/john- Act, which led to the establishment of the Law son/archives.hom/speeches.hom/640522.asp). Enforcement Assistance Administration, the Once elected, he initiated a set of domestic forerunner of the Office of Justice Programs, programs that focused on a variety of issues, the U.S. Department of Justice agency within including education, health care, civil rights, which the National Institute of Justice resides. and poverty. 6. Woolley, J., and G. Peters, The American 4. The Uniform Crime Reports, or UCR, had been Presidency Project, Santa Barbara, CA: collected since 1930, first by the International University of California (hosted), Gerhard Association of the Chiefs of Police, then later Peters (database), available at www. by the U.S. Department of Justice, through presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27242. the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The UCR 7. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, 273.

MAKINGTHECASEWITH TRACEEVIDENCE NIJ and the FBI Laboratory Division invite all who investigate and solve crime—trace evidence examiners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, violent crime investigators—to the Trace Evidence Symposium. Participants will attend educational workshops, listen to plenary sessions and case presentations, and learn more about the field. Trace evidence—a diverse forensic discipline—includes analysis of paint, glass, hair, fibers, particulate matter, botanicals, arson/fire debris, explosives, and impression evidence, among others. Session topics will include: • Technical workshops for experienced and new practitioners • Evidence recognition and recovery • Innovative technologies and novel approaches to trace analysis • Legal issues, including weight and admissibility • Education, standards, and accreditation

For more information, visit www.ojp.usdoj. gov/nij/events/trace-evidence-symposium/ welcome.html.

23 Study Reveals Unique Issues Faced by Deaf Victims of Sexual Assault by Lauren R. Taylor with Nicole Gaskin-Laniyan, Ph.D.

About the Authors Ms. Taylor is a freelance writer. Dr. Gaskin-Laniyan is a social Obinna noted, for example, that when deaf science analyst at the National Institute of Justice. people report sexual assault, they encounter stereotypes about being a sexual assault exual assault victims who are deaf victim and being deaf. Rape victims often face unique issues not encountered have feelings of guilt and embarrassment S by the hearing, according to a recent because of the social stigma frequently study funded by the National Institute of attached to rape. These feelings can be Justice.1 Researcher Jennifer Obinna and compounded due to the small and gener- colleagues at the Minneapolis Council on ally close-knit nature of the deaf community, Crime and Justice interviewed 51 deaf which, said the researchers, can contribute citizens, 15 service providers (both deaf to a hesitancy to report a sexual assault. and hearing), and 10 police officers in their The closeness of the deaf community can investigation of the impact of sexual assault compromise a victim’s anonymity and erode on members of the deaf community.2 In their privacy. In addition, the researchers found, final report on the project, the researchers many deaf victims of sexual assault perceive offered recommendations for improving the a lack of support within the deaf community, relationship between law enforcement and particularly if the perpetrator is also deaf. the deaf community. Consequently, deaf victims can experience a profound sense of isolation. “Deaf people face specific barriers,” said Obinna, the lead researcher on the The researchers found that another impedi- project. “It’s important to distinguish their ment to deaf victims seeking help is a lack experiences as sexual assault victims from of awareness about deafness and deaf other sexual assault victims.” culture among hearing people. Many view deafness from a medical perspective, 24 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

focusing on hearing deficits rather than viewing deaf people as members of a The closeness of the deaf community linguistic and cultural community. In fact, the researchers found that many of the deaf can compromise a victim’s anonymity and women interviewed do not view themselves as disabled, but rather as having a culture erode privacy. Many deaf victims of sexual and way of communicating not recognized by the dominant hearing culture. assault perceive a lack of support within the Recognizing Deaf Culture deaf community, particularly if the perpetrator is also deaf. Consequently, deaf victims can “Part of being in the deaf community is deaf culture,” Obinna says. “We can’t experience a profound sense of isolation. always make assumptions about how a particular culture experiences violence. Even though the experience and many of qualified interpreters on site often use the the reactions are similar, there are cultural victim’s family or friends to assist in inter- differences that service providers and law views, which can further inhibit a sexual enforcement must pay attention to. Making assault victim’s candor. decisions about who to tell—or even whether to tell—is all filtered through a cultural lens.” Improving Police Response

Many hearing people do not know how to Victims who were interviewed in the initiate a conversation with a deaf person, Minneapolis study had varied opinions which can make encounters awkward and on how helpful police could be after a sexual frustrating and can contribute to a hesi- assault. Although most said they regarded tancy among deaf sexual assault victims law enforcement as a resource, few had to reach out for help. Also, interpretations actually called the police after they were between American Sign Language (ASL) victimized. Many related frustrating and English are inherently imperfect. Finally, experiences when dealing with the police the researchers point out that victims may department, including 911 call-takers who have different communication styles: some could not operate a TTY machine and police lip-read and write; others are more comfort- officers who mislabeled a deaf person as able with ASL; still others may have minimal drunk or mentally ill or who misread body language skills, which requires communica- language as aggressive when a deaf person tion to be more visual or tactile. was simply moving closer to lip-read.

Many deaf victims may be reluctant to reach Service providers and deaf community out to agencies that serve sexual assault members agreed that law enforcement victims because most of the providers are must improve its methods for communi- hearing and do not have systems for effec- cating with the deaf community, whether tively communicating with deaf people. For they are victims, witnesses, or suspects. example, deaf sexual assault victims cannot They also suggested that police officers count on service agencies having access need training, interpreters, and more clearly to a TTY (teletypewriter), much less a staff defined agency policies. For example, member who knows how to operate it. although this research project revealed Even if a social service or law enforcement that the Minneapolis Police Department agency has an interpreter, deaf victims, like has policies for locating an interpreter, hearing victims, may be reluctant to divulge its officers know very little about how intimate details to yet another stranger. to identify if a person is deaf or how to communicate with him or her in the field. Some deaf victims of sexual assault also believe they cannot rely on interpreters to Despite these challenges, the researchers accurately represent their words and experi- regard the Minneapolis Police Department ences. Service agencies that do not have as a model for other jurisdictions when it 25 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Using the ‘PAR’ Method Jennifer Obinna and her colleagues at Minneapolis’ Council on Crime and Justice used the Participatory Action Research (PAR) method to recruit deaf participants into the study. Using PAR, the hearing-dominated team of researchers collaborated with deaf people to connect with deaf community members. The researchers reported great success in using the PAR model, attributing the success to several factors, including the participation of an advisory group with a diverse membership of law enforcement officials, hospital workers, and deaf and hearing service providers. Using the PAR model, they also recruited and trained deaf interviewers and a hearing interpreter and used a videotaped consent form and scenario-based interviews.

comes to serving the deaf community. The Although more research is needed to researchers cited the department’s “Crime help policymakers and service provid- Prevention and Safety for People Who Are ers meet the needs of deaf people—the Deaf” program as fostering communication researchers note, for example, that sexual between law enforcement and deaf citizens. abuse at residential deaf schools must be This community policing program is based addressed—the findings of this study should on the premise that the deaf community is lead to a greater understanding of how not identified by geography, but by a distinct law enforcement and other service provid- language and culture. The program covers ers can better address the needs of deaf a variety of crime and safety issues for the people who have been sexually assaulted. deaf community and for families, churches, Understanding deaf victims’ perspectives on businesses, nonprofit organizations, and sexual assault, their help-seeking patterns, State and local agencies, including a 10- and the gaps in services is vital to improving week course on ASL for police officers. the community response to sexual violence. Additional Recommendations NCJ 218262 Notes The researchers offer other suggestions for improving the relationship between 1. Obinna, J., S. Krueger, C. Osterbaan, J.M. law enforcement and the deaf community, Sadusky, and W. DeVore, Understanding including: the Needs of the Victims of Sexual Assault in the Deaf Community, final report submitted to ■ Revising police report forms to include the National Institute of Justice, Washington, a category to track interactions with DC: February 2006 (NCJ 212867), available members of the deaf community. at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 212867.pdf. ■ Developing the capability for querying 2. Editor’s Note: Within the deaf population databases to identify cases involving in this country, there is a community that deaf people. strongly identifies itself from a cultural— as opposed to a medical—perspective; this ■ Putting TTY links on police department community uses a capital “D” when refer- outreach materials and Web sites. ring to the Deaf community. Nevertheless, in an effort to minimize any sense of exclusion ■ Training dispatchers on TTY protocols among deaf citizens who do not identify as and etiquette. part of the Deaf community, this article uses “deaf” to embrace all deaf people.

26 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

President’s Advancing Justice Through DNA DNA Technology I nitiativ e

Coming Soon

Training for Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners (SAFE)

Scheduled for release in fall 2007, this online training—which will also be available on CD— will allow you to enter a virtual sexual assault forensic facility:

■ The Clinic. Conduct a complete sexual assault forensic examination—from initial encounter with the patient through preparation of the collected evidence—with SAFE experts guiding you through the challenges you may encounter along the way.

■ The Forensics Lab. Participate in interactive presentations led by national experts, ranging from the basics of forensics to DNA analysis to evidence collection and preservation.

■ The Courtroom. Learn how to prepare for court appearances, testify as an expert witness, and interact with prosecuting and defense attorneys.

Funded by the Office on Violence Against Women and the National Institute of Justice and produced by Dartmouth Medical School’s Interactive Media Laboratory, the training will be based on the U.S. Attorney General’s National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations.

Stay tuned to www.safeta.org for updates on the availability of the training.

27 LAPD Chief Bratton Speaks Out: What’s Wrong With Criminal Justice Research—and How to Make It Right edited by Nancy Ritter

Editor’s Note: Bill Bratton has never been one I’m a proponent of more intimate partner- to mince words. He has managed six police ships and collaboration between practitioners agencies in the United States, including three and academics. I’m convinced that these of the Nation’s largest. Chief Bratton currently partnerships are particularly important as we runs the Los Angeles Police Department. enter the new paradigm of the 21st century, Before that, he was commissioner of the where intelligence-led policing and the Boston Police Department, and from 1994– uncertainties of under-researched issues 1996, commissioner of the New York City like terrorism and cybercrime begin to Police Department. The National Institute of confront us. Justice invited Chief Bratton to speak at its annual conference last year. He discussed the * * * sometimes rocky relationship between criminal justice practitioners and criminal justice I understand research for research sake researchers. Here are excerpts from those and believe that it has its place; but in order remarks. to be useful to the practitioner, researchers need to understand practitioners’ needs and should consider the potential impact of or most of the last half of the 20th their study on the audience. Otherwise, we century, the relationship between police might just end up having academics writing Fpractitioners and researchers was, at to impress each other with no long-term last- best, one of agreeing to disagree on the ing effect on what is actually happening in causes of crime and the best ways to respond the field. Practitioners and researchers often to and prevent crime. At worst, we talked think in different time frames. The police past each other and didn’t connect at all.

28 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

executive has to deliver results in a much more immediate time span and is constantly ‘The sometimes enormous lag between in need of even more timely and accurate information upon which to make allocation research being conducted and its eventual decisions. Researchers oftentimes cannot meet these needs. The sometimes application is frustrating to those charged with enormous lag between research being conducted and its eventual application is delivering fairly immediate results where lives frustrating to those charged with delivering fairly immediate results where lives are are quite literally at stake.‘ quite literally at stake. Knowing what happened 2 years ago—let alone 5 or 10— is often of no value and is not included simply that the so-called causes were, in in the decisionmaking processes of most environments, strong influences and practitioners. not causes.

* * * * * *

I can remember during my time in New I believe strongly that the single most impor- York City that once we had a plan, we did tant cause of crime is human behavior, not everything everywhere all at once because social, economic, demographic, or ethno- with 38,000 cops—for the first time in my graphic factors. All of those factors may act career—I could do that. According to the as influences on crime, in some instances experts, this type of approach did not allow significant influences, but the real cause is for valid experiments or a perfect research behavior. The one thing I have learned— setting. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m sure that and now strongly advocate—is that the the thousands of people whose lives were police, properly resourced and directed, saved are grateful that we didn’t wait to can control behavior to such a degree that experiment here and there. This difference we can change behavior. My experiences in mindset contributes to what I believe in Boston and in New York and now in is part of the divide between some Los Angeles has borne this out. I have researchers and some practitioners. seen nothing in the way of hard evidence to dissuade me from this simple truth. Bratton on Crime * * * For most of the time between the 1960’s and the 1990’s, many of our most influential Many social scientists are wedded to what politicians, researchers, the media, and I believe to be the failed and never proven even some well-intentioned police leaders idea that crime is caused by the structural sought to limit the role of the police to ‘first features of a capitalist-based democratic responders’ rather than that of ‘first preven- society—especially demographics, economic ters.’ We were also told that the causes of imbalance, racism, and poverty. They crime were economic and social and that assume that true crime reduction can we could have no impact on these so-called come only as the result of economic reform, causes. Rather, we were encouraged to redistribution of wealth, and elimination of focus on response to crime and to measure poverty and racism—all worthwhile goals. our success by arrest numbers, clearance Indeed, they speak of crime as a sort of rates, and response time . . . Focusing on disease that criminals are at risk of catch- the response tended to hold police officers ing, through no culpability of their own, and less accountable. Fortunately, there were for which the police have no responsibility some researchers and police leaders, like or ability to prevent. I hold that these pro- me, who—because of our experience in ponents are very much removed from the the neighborhoods of our cities—embraced reality of the practitioners’ experiences and a different approach. We understood quite cannot possibly see what we see, up close

29 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

be specious data, faulty assumptions, or ivy ‘We need theories that are understood and tower perspectives—that the police play little or no role in the prevention of crime. embraced by law enforcement leaders like me, I’m sorry. We do. who can take the thoughts and theories * * *

of criminal justice researchers and validate We need more ideas and more research into what works, especially on how the or refine them in the petri dish of our police can make a difference—our role, our impact. So much of what has been departments and cities.’ done seems intent on disproving that we count. I also want to encourage researchers to be introspective and to think about and personal, every day. We, the police, their audience. Much of the social science helped create a huge and positive impact research that I encounter appears to be in the 1990’s. We began to achieve historic written by academics for academics. It does crime reduction and improved quality of not appear to be grounded in and validated life. Our new focus remains primarily on by solid field experience. So, as a result, it measures of effectiveness, not just activity is not viewed as credible by many police and response. leaders. Some of it appears to me and to other cops as coming from a decidedly Bratton on the Role of Police anti-police biased perspective . . . Absent clear-cut results or at least research that Quite simply, cops count. We are one of the is intelligible and useful to the field and to most essential initiators and catalysts in the practitioners like me, researchers risk being criminal justice equation. Crime may go up shut out, cut off, and ultimately reduced to or down to some degree when influenced the point of irrelevance. by many of the old so-called causes—which I prefer to describe as influences—but the * * * quickest way to impact crime is with a well- led, managed, and appropriately resourced I’m asking that more researchers begin to police force that embraces risk taking and work with us and among us in the real-world not risk adversity, and a policing structure laboratories of our departments and cities that includes accountability-focused to help us prove or disprove the beliefs and COMPSTAT management principles, practices that I, as a practitioner, and most “broken windows” quality-of-life initiatives, of my colleagues deeply believe, espouse, and problem-oriented community policing and practice. Researchers don’t need to look that is transparent and accessible to the at us and analyze us like a far-away galaxy public, the profession, the media, and through a telescope. We are right here and the research community. more researchers need to work among us rather than just observing and commenting A Challenge to Researchers about us in language that is seen as dispar- aging or dismissive. We don’t need theories I challenge criminal justice researchers that appeal to—and are understood fully to aggressively respond to increasingly by—a limited few among them. We need conflicting theories and arguments—and theories that are understood and embraced to an almost mean-spiritedness of some by law enforcement leaders like me, who criminologists, academics, and sociologists can take the thoughts and theories of crimi- who diminish, or dismiss outright, the nal justice researchers and validate or refine contributions and effectiveness of our them in the petri dish of our departments police officers and practitioners. Some and cities. seek to assert—with what to me and my NCJ 218263 fellow practitioners sometimes appear to

30 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Publications of Interest From NIJ

Digital Evidence in the Courtroom: A Guide latest information and tools. for Law Enforcement and Prosecutors The relationships among Federal, January 2007 State, and local law enforcement, and between researchers and Law enforcement may discover critical practitioners, also play a key role evidence on a suspect’s computer, such in combating and preventing as e-mails, browser history, and financial or crime. NIJ’s 2005 Annual personal information related to a crime. This Report discusses its recent Special Report offers guidelines on how to contributions—in forensics, properly collect and handle digital evidence, policing and corrections, and explains how this evidence should be victimization, and prepared and presented to a jury. It also international crime— applies these techniques in a “real world” centering on these example of a child pornography case. This two principles. This publication is available at www.ncjrs.gov/ publication is available pdffiles1/nij/211314.pdf. at www.ncjrs.gov/ Asian Transnational Organized Crime pdffiles1/nij/213267.pdf. and Its Impact on the United States Agroterrorism— January 2007 Why We’re Not This Special Report discusses a study that Ready: A Look at preliminarily assessed the impact of Asian the Role of Law transnational organized crime on the United Enforcement States and U.S. interests. The study also December 2006 determined high-priority areas for further Currently, law enforce- research and identified potential research ment, especially agencies partners and additional sources of information in rural areas, is financially in Asia. This publication is available at and strategically unprepared www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214186.pdf. to respond to an agroterrorism Investigations Involving the Internet attack. This Research for Policy and Computer Networks considers what would happen if the American cattle industry January 2007 were exposed to foot-and- Criminals use the Internet for many reasons, mouth disease, an event including trading or sharing information that would require (e.g., documents, photographs), concealing slaughtering millions their identity, and gathering information on of animals and could victims. This Special Report is a resource guide cost the United States for investigators of high-technology crimes. up to $60 billion. The It covers cases involving the Internet, e-mail, publication outlines instant messaging services, chat rooms, why law enforcement file sharing networks, bulletin and message is not ready for such boards, and the legal issues associated with an attack and offers collecting evidence. This publication is available guidance on prevention at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210798.pdf. and preparation. This publication is available NIJ 2005 Annual Report at www.ncjrs.gov/ December 2006 pdffiles1/nij/214752.pdf. In today’s world, offenders are more technologically savvy, and the law enforcement community must have access to the

31 Factories Behind Fences: Do Prison ‘Real Work’ Programs Work? By Marilyn C. Moses and Cindy J. Smith, Ph.D.

About the Authors Ms. Moses is a social science analyst at the National Institute and garments, as well as the stereotypical of Justice. Dr. Smith is the chief of NIJ’s International Center. license plates. By obtaining work experience in these industries, inmates acquire the skills hen someone is in prison, does they need to secure gainful employment having a real job with real pay upon release and avoid recidivism. W yield benefits when he or she is released? Findings from an evaluation funded Another program—the Prison Industry by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sug- Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP)— gest that this might be the case. allows inmates to work for a private employer in a “free world” occupation and earn the Offenders who worked for private companies prevailing wage. Created by Congress in while imprisoned obtained employment more 1979, PIECP encourages State and local quickly, maintained employment longer, and correctional agencies to form partnerships had lower recidivism rates than those who with private companies to give inmates real worked in traditional correctional industries work opportunities.1 Over the years, PIECP or were involved in “other-than-work” operations have included the manufacture (OTW) activities. of aluminum screens and windows for Solar Industries, Inc.; circuit boards for Joint Venture “Factories behind fences” is not a new Electronics; street sweeper brushes for idea. Traditional industries (TI)—in which United Rotary Brush Corporation; corrugated offenders are supervised by corrections boxes for PRIDE Box; gloves for Hawkeye staff and work for a modest sum—have Glove Manufacturing, Inc.; and the manufac- been a mainstay of corrections for more than ture and refurbishment of Shelby Cobra auto- 150 years. Examples of traditional industries mobiles for Shelby American Management include the manufacture of signs, furniture, Co. Other PIECP operations include alfalfa 32 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

production for Five Dot Land and Cattle Company; papaya packing for Tropical A Word of Caution: Selection Bias Hawaiian Products; potato processing for Floyd Wilcox & Sons; and boat-building Although the results of the Prison Industry Enhancement for Misty Harbor. Certification Program (PIECP) study are positive—showing better outcomes for participants in the PIECP group compared to the PIECP seeks to: traditional industries (TI) and the other-than-work (OTW) groups— they do not definitively show that the better outcomes were due ■ Generate products and services that to PIECP itself. This is because the participants in the three groups enable prisoners to make a contribution were not randomly assigned to the groups, a process that ensures to society, offset the cost of incarceration, that the differences in results are due to the program, rather than support family members, and compensate to preexisting differences among the participants. crime victims. How then were participants in this study assigned to the differ- ■ Reduce prison idleness, increase inmate ent groups? First, prisoners volunteered to participate in a work job skills, and improve the prospects for program. They were then interviewed by prospective employers in prisoners’ successful transition to the both the TI program and PIECP. Therefore, inmates who worked in community upon release. either the TI program or PIECP were “self-selected” and may have had different motivations and backgrounds than the OTW inmates, More than 70,000 inmates—an average of the third group studied, which may have led to better outcomes. 2,500 per year—have participated in PIECP This concern, known as selection bias, can be definitively ruled since the program’s inception. By the end out only by random assignment to groups that are going to be of 2005, 6,555 offenders were employed in compared. In this study, selection bias seems a larger concern the program. Although this number reflects when comparing the volunteers (that is, PIECP and TI participants) a 285 percent increase in PIECP positions in to the non-volunteers (the OTW group) than in comparing the the past decade, it represents only a small results of the two employment (PIECP and TI) groups. fraction of the total number of inmates in our Nation’s State prisons and local jails. The researchers in this study attempted to ensure that the groups were comparable by matching inmates in the three Does the Program Work? groups using a number of factors, including demographics and time served. Nevertheless, this matching may not have completely eliminated the selection bias. Therefore, the In a sense, PIECP can be thought of as results should be interpreted with caution. a grand experiment. After 28 years, the obvious question is: Does it work?

To find out, NIJ teamed with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Although the findings are not conclusive, Assistance to fund the first national evalua- they are positive. (See sidebar, “A Word tion of PIECP. Researchers at the University of Caution: Selection Bias.”) Researchers of Baltimore compared a group of post- found that, after they were released, PIECP release inmates who worked in PIECP with participants found jobs more quickly and inmates from two other groups—those held them longer than did their counterparts who worked in TI and those involved in in the TI and OTW groups. Approximately OTW activities, including idleness.2 Cindy 55 percent of PIECP workers obtained J. Smith, Ph.D., one of the authors of this employment within the first quarter after article, was part of that research team. Then release. Only 40 percent of their counter- at the University of Baltimore, Smith and parts found employment within that time. her colleagues considered two questions: Nearly 49 percent of PIECP participants ■ Does PIECP participation increase post- were employed continuously for more than release employment more than work in 1 year, whereas 40.4 percent of the offend- TI and OTW programs? ers in TI and 38.5 percent of the offenders in OTW programs were continuously employed ■ Does PIECP participation reduce recidi- for that length of time. vism more than work in TI or OTW programs?

33 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Length of Continuous Employment Postrelease

Length of Percent of Percent of Percent of Other- Employment PIECP Group Traditional Than-Work Group Industries Group 1 year+ 48.6 40.4 38.5 3 years+ 13.7 10.3 10.3

Three years out, PIECP participants per- 3 years out, however, the arrest-free rates formed better than releasees from the for all three groups declined to 60 percent TI or OTW groups. Almost 14 percent for the PIECP participants and 52 percent of PIECP releasees were employed for for offenders in the TI and OTW programs. 3 continuous years, but only 10.3 percent of the other offenders maintained constant Looking at conviction and reincarceration employment for that same period of time. rates, the researchers found that 77 percent (See chart above, “Length of Continuous of PIECP participants were conviction free Employment Postrelease.”) during the followup periods, compared to 73 percent of the OTW group. Ninety-three Examining wages earned by the participants percent of PIECP participants remained after they were released, the researchers incarceration free during the followup found that the PIECP group earned more than periods, compared to 89 percent of the the TI and OTW groups. Of all the releasees, OTW participants. however, 55 percent did not earn wages equal to a full-time job at the Federal mini- Inmate PIECP Wages mum wage. Because the data available to the researchers reported total earnings only Wages earned by PIECP participants in and not the number of hours worked, it was prison benefit taxpayers in addition to helping impossible to determine whether this was the inmates themselves. Although the pro- because the releasees were: (1) working part- gram requires a percentage of PIECP wages time, (2) working intermittently, or (3) earning to be saved to assist the inmate when he is less than the Federal minimum wage. released, the remaining wages make their way back into the national economy, either Recidivism directly or indirectly. A significant portion of the wages earned by prisoners in the pro- The researchers measured recidivism rates gram, for example, goes directly to the State for all three groups using the traditional to cover the cost of prisoner room and board. yardsticks: new arrest, conviction, and PIECP wages also provide child support and incarceration.3 The results showed that alimony to family members, as well as resti- PIECP releasees had lower rates of rearrest, tution to crime victims. (See chart on p. 35, conviction, and incarceration than offenders “Distribution of PIECP Wages.”) who were in the TI or the OTW groups. An Underutilized At the end of the first year postrelease, Rehabilitation Option? 82 percent of PIECP participants were arrest free. The average amount of time The research suggests that PIECP has been from release to first arrest for PIECP successful. Inmate PIECP wages benefit participants was approximately 993 days inmates, taxpayers, victims, families, and (slightly less than 3 years). At 1 year postre- States. PIECP participants also acquire lease, offenders in the TI and OTW groups postrelease jobs more quickly, retain these remained arrest free at approximately the jobs longer, and return to the criminal jus- same rate (77 percent and 76 percent, tice system less frequently and at a lower respectively) as PIECP participants. By rate than inmates who worked in traditional 34 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Distribution of PIECP Wages Direct Taxpayer Benefits Indirect Taxpayer Benefits Taxes paid (Federal, State, local) $48,213,823

Federal victims fund Net Pay* $34,233,344 $205,714,532

Room & board (reimbursed to the State) $101,043,422

Inmate mandatory savings† $14,401,263 Family support (child support, alimony, and other restitution) $22,223,943

Source: Data compiled (under OJP/BJA grant number 2006-DD-BX-K010) by Sahra Nadiir, program coordinator of the National Correctional Industries Association’s PIECP, based on information submitted to the Bureau of Justice Assistance by PIECP certificate holders. * An inmate’s net pay covers his living expenses, such as food and toiletries, and some health care costs, such as co-pays and prescription drugs. Typically, the money to pay for such expenses would come from taxpayers. † Under PIECP, 10 percent of a PIECP participant’s wages is set aside for the inmate’s use upon release. industries or engaged in other-than-work Industries Association, July 31, 2003, activities. These findings suggest that available at www.nationalcia.org/ PIECP is an underutilized rehabilitation researchfullrpt.pdf. option and that additional efforts to increase the number of PIECP jobs could have an Notes important impact on the Nation’s prison and jail populations. 1. With the exception of PIECP, U.S. jail and prison inmates are prohibited, under the NCJ 218264 Amhurst-Sumners Act of 1935, from producing goods for sale in open interstate For More Information commercial markets; PIECP-certified programs are exempt from the $10,000 ■ Smith, C.J., J. Bechtel, A. Patrick, R.R. limit on the sale of prisoner-made goods Smith, and L. Wilson-Gentry, Correctional to the Federal Government. Industries Preparing Inmates for Re-entry: 2. The sample size included 6,464 inmates, Recidivism and Post-release Employment, with subjects nearly equally divided among final report submitted to the National groups. The sample included offenders Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: released from 46 prisons in 5 States that June 2006 (NCJ 214608), available implemented PIECP from January 1, 1996, to at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/ June 30, 2001. The followup period began on 214608.pdf. the day the inmate was released and ranged from slightly under 2 years to 7.5 years. ■ Petersik,T., T. Nayak, and M.K. Foreman, 3. Technical violations were not considered Identifying Beneficiaries of PIE Inmate new arrests. Incomes, The National Correctional 35 Agroterrorism—Why We’re Not Ready: A Look at the Role of Law Enforcement by Glenn R. Schmitt

About the Author Mr. Schmitt is the director of the Office of Research and Data State and local law enforcement officials at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the former acting director should be asking: of the National Institute of Justice. ■ Are the farms, fields, and feedlots in my jurisdiction protected?

This article first appeared in the May/June 2006 issue of Sheriff ■ Do I have a strategy to prevent agro- magazine, a bimonthly publication of the National Sheriffs’ terrorism? Association (www.sheriffs.org). It is reprinted here with permission. ■ Do I have a partnership with ranchers, farmers, meatpackers, truckers, errorists trying to damage the U.S. veterinarians, and public health officials? economy need look no further than T the country’s heartland for “soft” ■ Is my agency prepared for agroterrorists? targets. Farms, ranches, and feedlots are open and generally unprotected. The majority Agroterrorism experts are especially of State and local law enforcement agencies concerned about the introduction of foot- are financially and strategically unprepared and-mouth disease into the food supply. to respond to agroterrorism. Twenty times more infectious than smallpox, the disease causes painful blisters on the Public health officials may seem like the tongues, hooves, and teats of cloven-hoofed logical leaders for responding to an attack animals—cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, deer— on the food supplies. However, the laws of rendering them unable to walk, give milk, many States require that agroterrorism be eat, and drink. Although people generally handled as a crime investigation, giving law cannot contract the disease, they can carry enforcement primary responsibility. the virus in their lungs up to 48 hours and

36 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

transmit it to animals. The animal-to-animal airborne transmission range is 50 miles. Agroterrorism is not meant to be an act of

With millions of farms, open fields, and violence against livestock but an attack on feedlots in the United States, the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease would the economic stability of the United States. require the mass slaughter and disposal of infected animals. An outbreak could halt the domestic and international sale of meat and meat products for years. Foot- Law Enforcement’s and-mouth disease in 2001 in the United Role Post-Attack Kingdom affected 9,000 farms and required the destruction of more than 4,000,000 How would law enforcement be expected cows. Researchers believe that a similar to respond to agroterrorism? How would outbreak in the United States would cost jurisdictional issues be overcome as local, taxpayers up to $60 billion.1 State, and Federal authorities collaborate? Research by NIJ suggests some preliminary The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) recent- best practices. ly funded research into how an agroterror- ist attack with foot-and-mouth disease in The first priority of a law enforcement Kansas would affect the State and the coun- agency would be to establish and enforce try.2 The Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the a strict quarantine around the affected area. Ford County Sheriff’s Department in Kansas, In the case of foot-and-mouth disease, the and the National Agriculture Biosecurity quarantine would cover a 6-mile radius, Center at Kansas State University conducted 113 square miles, from the point of virus the 21-month study. Findings were based introduction. Experts say that the quarantine on simulated exercises, field surveys, and would have to be enforced for at least interviews with law enforcement, livestock 30 days. producers, meat packers, truckers, feedlot managers, researchers, politicians, and ani- The second priority likely would be State- mal health officials. wide roadblocks to help contain the disease. Local law enforcement, working with the Of course, agroterrorism is not meant State highway patrol, would stop vehicles to be an act of violence against livestock at every roadblock. Vehicles that have had but an attack on the economic stability contact with livestock would be sent back of the United States. The study funded to their point of origin, and that site would by NIJ identified five groups that could have to be tested for the virus. Other pose threats to our agricultural industry: vehicles would be diverted for testing on the spot. Some semitrailers may be allowed 1. International terrorists. (Although many to detach the trailer—which would be held animal diseases have been eradicated in for testing—while the cab is decontami- this country, they flourish overseas. The nated. Passenger cars would be stopped foot-and-mouth virus is easily accessed, and the drivers interviewed to determine transported, and transmitted.) whether they have traveled through a contaminated area. If they have, the car and 2. Domestic terrorists, including anarchist the passengers would have to be decontam- or antigovernment groups. inated to minimize the risk of transmission. 3. Militant animal rights groups. Law enforcement also would be responsible 4. Economic opportunists seeking financial for primary crime-scene investigation, gain as a result of a change in market including collection of tissue from infected prices. animals and an attempt to identify suspects. 5. Disgruntled employees seeking revenge. If not established before the incident, the roles of local, State, and Federal officials

37 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 256

agroterrorism and the only way to contain The paradigm for protecting the Nation one—must be created among the local sheriff and farmers, ranchers, meatpackers, changed after 9/11, focusing attention truckers, feedlot owners, and other critical members of the food-supply chain in the on all aspects of infrastructure that jurisdiction. Meetings with local chapters of livestock associations and other industry require greater security. Preventing an groups can encourage the exchange of ideas. Also, local law enforcement must agroterrorism attack will require establish a working relationship with veterinarians and animal and plant a concerted, coordinated effort by health inspectors.

all levels of law enforcement. Ron Snyder, program director of AgTerror Emergency Responder Training, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, says, “Because law enforce- would have to be quickly agreed upon. ment officials perform critical functions All cloven-hoofed animals—domestic and in an agriculture emergency, it is vitally wild—within the affected area would have important that they become knowledgeable to be destroyed and disposed of. in all aspects of this unique type of emergency response. State and local officers Preventing an Attack are responsible for the establishment and oversight of quarantine areas to control Every level of the food chain is vulnerable: the further spread of disease and maintain farms, feedlots, chemical storage facilities, order as the response efforts unfold.” meatpacking plants, and distribution operations. Because terrorists rely on In our post-9/11 world, the sharing of a lack of preparedness, law enforcement information among law enforcement agencies should develop a plan to prevent agencies is more important than ever. agroterrorism and to minimize the results State and Federal intelligence-gathering of an attack. groups must collaborate to provide local law enforcement with the information it Special FBI Agent David Cudmore says, needs to deal with suspected terrorists. “Identifying threats of agroterrorism and When it learns of a potential threat, for stopping them before they happen are example, the FBI contacts the sheriff in obviously vital roles for law enforcement.” that area. The FBI is also in the process Cudmore, a weapons of mass destruc- of training experts—a rapid response team tion coordinator, adds, “But protecting with criminologists and epidemiologists. the Nation’s agricultural industry will However, local officials should also keep take combined efforts of the agriculture up-to-date on threats of bioterrorism. industry, government, law enforcement, The World Organization for Animal Health, and academic and scientific communities for example, coordinates information on working together to minimize both the animal diseases. (See www.oie.int.) likelihood of an attack and the severity of its impact.” Resources

Local law enforcement should gather Cudmore says, “Seeing, hearing, and intelligence, for example, by working with reporting are critical steps to gathering the livestock producers to identify vulnerable intelligence that would hopefully prevent an farms and feedlots. Partnerships—the attack. There are five countermeasures that best way to prevent an occurrence of are recommended to prevent this type

38 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

of threat to our economic infrastructure: The FBI hosts an international gathering intelligence, surveillance, rapid diagnosis of law enforcement officials, scientists, capabilities, rapid incident response, and academics, and agricultural professionals training.” to discuss intelligence sharing and agroterrorism. For more information on the The U.S. Department of Homeland Security International Symposium on Agroterrorism, maintains information on potential terrorist go to www.fbi-isa.org. threats. The FBI runs the Terrorism Threat Investigation Center, where names and The National Institute of Justice sponsored license information can be checked. Local the Terrorism Research Symposium on June law enforcement agencies have access to 12–13, 2006, which covered a wide range of both databases. The U.S. Department of research on antiterrorism. Agriculture has a number of programs that concentrate on identifying foreign animal The paradigm for protecting the Nation diseases. Nationally recognized experts changed after 9/11, focusing attention can also help local law enforcement on all aspects of infrastructure that require agencies create a prevention and response greater security. Preventing an agro- plan. Undersheriff James Lane, of the terrorism attack will require a concerted, Ford County Sheriff’s Department in coordinated effort by all levels of law Kansas, often visits local law enforce- enforcement. The National Institute of ment agencies to work with their Justice is committed to helping sheriffs and response teams. other local law enforcement first responders develop a prevention plan and a response Several colleges around the country offer plan to mitigate the impact of agroterrorism. training to improve law enforcement’s ability NCJ 218265 to respond to agroterrorism. Resources are available from the federal government— especially the U.S. Department of Justice Notes and the U.S. Department of Homeland 1. USDA, Economic Impact of a Foreign Animal Security—to help local agencies with Disease (FAD) Outbreak Across the United training. For example, Homeland Security, States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, working with Iowa’s Kirkwood Community Washington, DC: 2004. College, has developed the first accredited 2. Knowles, T., J. Lane, G. Bayens, N. Speer, course for law enforcement officers and J. Jaax, D. Carter, and A. Bannister, Defining other first responders to prepare them for Law Enforcement’s Role in Protecting agroterrorism. The course is available at American Agriculture from Agroterrorism, www.agterror.org. Kirkwood also offers final report submitted to the National Institute a “train-the-trainer” program on foreign of Justice, Washington, DC: 2005 (NCJ animal diseases. 212280), available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/grants/212280.pdf.

39 Helping Inmates Obtain Federal Medical Benefits Postrelease by David Fialkoff

About the Author Mr. Fialkoff is a senior writer/editor with the National Criminal hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, and drug-resistant Justice Reference Service. strains of viruses, thus minimizing the cost to community and corrections health care housands of ill or disabled inmates are systems. It also could reduce crime— incarcerated in Federal, State, and local and hence recidivism—by releasees who T correctional facilities across the United continue to receive the medical and mental States. The challenge of helping them obtain health treatment they need. medical treatment and services after they are released is not a new one, but a recently Federal disability benefits—Medicaid, released report looks at three programs that Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), are assisting inmates in applying for such Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI), and benefits. veterans’ compensation funds—offer one solution. Unfortunately, as many officials Helping Inmates Obtain Federal Disability know, the process of applying for Federal Benefits: Serious Medical and Mental benefits is often complex, and incarceration Illness, Incarceration, and Federal Disability makes it difficult for inmates to collect Entitlement Programs—cosponsored by the their medical information. Three programs National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the investigated in the NIJ study demonstrate, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention— however, that assisting severely ill inmates reveals that many experts believe that con- with applying for these benefits before they tinuing treatment after inmates are released leave prison may dramatically increase their results in a more successful return to society chances of receiving benefits postrelease and and could prevent the spread of tuberculosis, ease their transition back into the community.

40 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

Three Benefits Many experts believe that continuing treatment Assistance Programs after inmates are released results in a more The study looked at benefits assistance programs in three jurisdictions: successful return to society and could prevent

■ Philadelphia. The Coordinating Office for the spread of tuberculosis, hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, Drug and Alcohol Programs, part of the Philadelphia Behavioral Health System, and drug-resistant strains of viruses, thus offers services in behavioral health, case management, and job training to inmates minimizing the cost to community and through the Forensic Intensive Recovery Program. corrections health care systems. ■ New York. Through a memorandum of understanding with the New York State Division of Parole, the Social Security Administration helps inmates apply, prior process, provide complete applications to their release, for SSI and SSDI benefits. for more individuals, and establish stron- ■ Texas. The Texas Correctional Office ger working relationships with disability on Offenders with Medical or Mental decisionmakers. In Texas, for example, Impairments assists inmates who are the primary burden of gathering medical elderly, terminally ill, mentally ill or dis- and mental health documentation shifted abled, or physically or developmentally from corrections medical staff to benefits disabled. Along with other State and local eligibility specialists, resulting in medical entities, the Office funds transitional, case staff becoming more willing to assist in management, and medical support for preparing applications. these individuals. 3. Filling the gaps until benefits commence is essential. The benefits Recommendations for for many severely ill inmates do not begin immediately upon release. The Implementing Programs Texas and Philadelphia programs pay for services during the period between an Recognizing the challenges of discharge inmate’s release and the start of disability planning for severely ill inmates, the or health benefits. researchers offered six recommendations for agencies that want to implement 4. Tracking outcomes is beneficial. similar programs: Collecting outcome data on the benefits process allows staff to evaluate the 1. Partnerships keep the process alive. progress of the program and garner Whether a benefits applications process additional financial support to offset operates through a formal interagency costs. For example, the Texas program agreement (as in Texas and New York) assesses which eligibility specialists or an informal accord (as in Philadelphia), were successful in obtaining benefits inmates receive better assistance when for inmates, and then uses these assess- many agencies, organizations, and indi- ments in staff training. In contrast, viduals work together to ensure that New York does not maintain data on applications do not fall through the Social Security applications, so staff cracks and that benefits are distributed. members in that program often assumed their efforts were largely unsuccessful, 2. Dedicated staff is important. Specialized making it difficult for them to feel staff members who help offenders motivated when filing applications. access benefits can streamline the

41 N I J J o u r n al / Issue No. 257

5. Centralizing operations reduces delays Benefits Are Only One and improves communication. All three Aspect of Planning sites discovered the benefits of centralizing the medical and cash assistance Helping inmates apply for medical and cash claims processes. Philadelphia’s use of assistance is an important way to support partnerships in the medical assistance the return of severely ill inmates to the applications process reduced the number community, according to the report. The of people involved in decisionmaking researchers recommended, however, that and significantly reduced the time until such assistance should be part of a more enrollment began. extensive discharge plan that includes case 6. Assisting mentally ill offenders poses management and housing services. special challenges. Some individuals NCJ 218266 interviewed for the study suggested that disability-determination staff appeared For More Information to be more cautious when approving ■ Conly, C.H., Helping Inmates Obtain benefits for mentally ill inmates. A num- Federal Disability Benefits: Serious ber of complex situations may account Medical and Mental Illness, Incarceration for this: Offenders also may suffer from and Federal Disability Entitlement substance abuse, which can make it dif- Programs, final report submitted to the ficult to determine the primary illness; National Institute of Justice, Washington, offenders may feign mental illness to DC: Abt Associates Inc., November 2005 obtain more favorable treatment; and truly (NCJ 211989), available at www.ncjrs.gov/ mentally ill offenders may appear more pdffiles1/nij/grants/211989.pdf. stable within the structured environment of prison.

Publications in Brief

Social Science Computer Justice’s Mapping and Analysis for Public Review: Symposium on Safety Program and Data Resources, this journal issue explores the “automation of Crime Mapping geography” through software and how Ronald Wilson, ed. it enables law enforcement to better Volume 25, No. 2, Summer 2007 understand the spatial elements of crime. Crime mapping continues to help criminal justice practitioners and researchers per- Topics include the use of GIS and other form higher quality, more efficient, more spatial analysis software programs to: responsive work. Geographic information n Visualize the distribution of sex systems (GIS) and spatial data analysis offenders. techniques are well-established tools for n Study crime around substance abuse analyzing criminal behavior and its effect treatment centers. on the criminal justice system and society. n Examine the travel patterns of bank In a special issue of the Social Science robbers. Computer Review, experts discuss the n Explore local crime patterns in urban history of crime mapping and the software areas. advancements that shape the current field. Edited by Ronald Wilson, program For more information, visit http://hcl.chass. manager of the National Institute of ncsu.edu/sscore/sscore.htm.

42 The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety.

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.

Photo Sources: PunchStock, Jupiter Images, and Getty Images

43 ISSUE No.ISSUE

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs PREsorted standard National Institute of Justice postage & feeS paid Washington, DC 20531 DOJ/NIJ Official Business Permit No. G-91 Penalty for Private Use $300

257