Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
INTRODUCTION The National I n s t i t u t e of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ or I n s t i t u t e ) was established by Congress i n T i t l e I , Part D, of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Organizationally, i t i s one of the D i v i - sions w i t h i n the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the United States Department of Justice; i t i s therefore a part of a mission agency. A l - though i t has i t s own director, the I n s t i t u t e ' s expenditures are subject to the f i n a l approval of the LEAA Administrator. The I n s t i t u t e currently employs 58 professionals i n addition to the director. I t has three program divisions: the Office of Research Programs (ORP), which administers most of the grants and contracts, the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT), and the Office of Evalua- t i o n (OE). In f i s c a l 1975, the I n s t i t u t e ' s appropriation was $42.5 m i l l i o n . (See Appendix D for tables and figures that summarize and d e t a i l I n s t i t u t e spending.) According to i t s Congressional mandate, NILECJ i s the research and develop- ment arm of LEAA; i t i s responsible, however, not only for programs of research and development, but also for demonstration, evaluation, dissemination, and trai n i n g programs. LEAA i t s e l f funds action programs i n law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e at the state and lo c a l levels, through state block grants. The I n s t i t u t e was intended i n part to serve the needs of those action programs
2 by providing technical assistance, trai n i n g personnel, developing techniques for evaluation, and determining which kinds of action programs are e f f e c t i v e â i n LEAA-'s terms, what kinds of program work and what kinds do not. A defining characteristic of the I n s t i t u t e , therefore, i s the c o n f l i c t be- tween i t s overt research and i m p l i c i t service roles. I t has generally chosen not to support or to conduct basic research on the causes of crime i n American society, f o r example, but rather to play a part i n changing the i n s t i t u t i o n s of social control, both formal and informal, so that "they might better cope with crime and criminals. Charles Rogovin, f i r s t Administrator of LEAA, stated i n hearings before the House of Representatives: The I n s t i t u t e was created to do highly directed, p r a c t i c a l research on Important Issues i n the criminal j u s t i c e system. I t was designed to provide policy leadership and innovation to other parts of the program (U.S. Congress, House 1972a p. 466; hereinafter referred to as Monagan Hearings 1972). Since the I n s t i t u t e was intended to serve the needs of i t s parent mission agency and since i t has no independent base outside of LEAA, the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c o n f l i c t between the requirements for applied and basic research clearly exists. The p o s s i b i l i t y of a c o n f l i c t between the personnel and organizational requirements for research, on one hand, and the organizational bases for d i s - semination and evaluation tasks on the other, also exists. The history of the I n s t i t u t e shows that these are significant problems and that they, and other exacerbating conditions described i n d e t a i l i n th i s interim report, have pro- duced continuing organizational and leadership tensions. The limited purpose of t h i s report i s to describe these problems and the various ways i n which NILECJ has attempted to cope with them.
