Strengthening the National Institute of Justice (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 Recommendations
7 Recommendations
Pages 211-238
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 211... ...
During the past 40 years, no other agency has contributed more to the understanding of crime and justice efforts than NIJ. This report has documented many of these accomplishments, including in the areas of crime mapping and hot spot policing, violence against women, the role of firearms and drugs in crime, drug courts, and forensic DNA analysis, as well as the success of the data archives, fellowships, and other outreach programs.
|
From page 212... ...
The appropriate level of independence is important to ensure that a research agency has the authority to set agendas through planned deliberations with the research and practitioner communities. Otherwise, its mission, decisions, and results can be influenced by nonscientific goals and objectives, and it loses credibility with these communities.
|
From page 213... ...
Furthermore, the committee received information that convinced us that having NIJ report directly to the attorney general was not likely to reduce potential political influence; that it is unlikely that a new research and statistical agency in DOJ would be established given the costs of doing so; that moving NIJ out of OJP would make linking research and action programs less likely; and that such a move would make it less likely for Congress and the administration to move funds from action agencies to NIJ as has happened in the past and is specified in the OJP current appropriations bill. The committee concluded that keeping NIJ in OJP but with increased independence and greater involvement of the research and practitioner communities has a better chance to result in an agency that can gain the trust and confidence of Congress, the administration, and the criminal justice community.
|
From page 214... ...
to bolster the crime and justice research infrastructure, (4) to enhance the scientific integrity and transparency of its operations, and (5)
|
From page 215... ...
The report warned that unless its present form was changed to an independent research agency within DOJ, with final approval authority over all awards as well as control over its administrative budget, personnel, and detailed program review, it was unlikely to become a "significant and quality-oriented research agency" (National Research Council, 1977, p.
|
From page 216... ...
governance Adisory Board While advisory boards have been used in different ways over the years at NIJ, the committee concludes that they have never functioned as a scientific advisory board should -- to set agendas, review the integrity of the research operations, and assess the accomplishments of the agency with the standards of science as the guiding principles. As described in Chapter 2, these groups were a disappointment to their respective NIJ directors.
|
From page 217... ...
Boards are usually nominated by the research agency and approved by the head of the agency that houses the research agency or a designee. They report only to the director of the research agency or if they are advisors to a subunit, to the head of that research component.
|
From page 218... ...
However, subcommittees of the proposed NIJ advisory board could be designated for more specific oversight of ORE and OST, for specific grants or contracts, or for both. In proposing an advisory board for NIJ, the committee considered 5 Available: http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/NACDA/NACDAHome.html [ac cessed March 17, 2010]
|
From page 219... ...
ii. A slate of nominees will be recommended to the attorney general by the NIJ director following consultation with institu tional groups representing important research and practitioner communities.
|
From page 220... ...
But the original legislation says little about the requirements for that position, does not set terms, and does not provide for a careful transition from one director to another. Traditionally this role has been seen as one requiring familiarity with legal institutions, crime trends, crime policy, and the criminal justice system but not experience in directing or conducting crime and BOX 7-1 Possible NIJ Advisory Board Meeting Topics • Critical research gaps relevant to NIJ's mission • Development of a cumulative research strategy • Need and realities of balancing basic and applied research • NIJ's research activities vis-à-vis the work of other federal agencies • Creation of an advisory infrastructure • easibility of expanding efforts to build research infrastructure (e.g., F graduate fellowships or the data archive)
|
From page 221... ...
An appropriate director for NIJ shall have had experience in directing crime and justice research, be recognized as a highly qualified authority in the fields of crime and justice research (including evaluation research) , and have demonstrated success in managing substantial crime and justice research efforts.
|
From page 222... ...
Reaching out to legislative and funding bodies to describe its research activities and useful findings should be part of any federal research agency's advocacy strategy. This is a change from former practice.
|
From page 223... ...
Department of Justice and Office of Justice Programs agencies, such as the bureau of Justice Assistance and the Community Oriented Policing Services office, that have a clearly defined technical assistance mission, are closely linked to state and local criminal justice agencies, and have larger financial reserves to draw on. NIJ has succeeded in developing a body of knowledge in important areas that are critical to preventing and controlling crime and improving the administration of justice.
|
From page 224... ...
NIJ-funded programs designated by earmark or congressional mandate are at best minimally related to research and detract from its research mission. In its discussion of the OST program, the committee differentiates between what it deems appropriate for a research agency (e.g., technology development)
|
From page 225... ...
An NIJ with the autonomy and type of leadership we propose will use a strong advisory board and the many research recommendations it has already received to set both its long- and short-term agenda and priorities. The NIJ advisory board should be one component of a broader advisory infrastructure that provides for outside scientific advice and feedback for particular programs of research as well as individual large-scale grants, as appropriate to the role of a research agency.
|
From page 226... ...
Du bois Program, and enhancing the Data Archive Program. Improving research on crime and justice will require more and better trained researchers in all of the sciences on which NIJ depends, most especially criminology and other social sciences and the forensic sciences.
|
From page 227... ...
But the quality of key research agency activities, such as agenda setting and making awards, does not depend on the organizational location of a research agency or the size of its budget but on good leadership. NIJ does not have proper R&D management processes in place to ensure that good planning occurs, that all research proposals are subject to high-quality peer review, that fair and impartial funding decisions are made, that reports receive careful assessments, and that the agency is doing everything it can to ensure that its research operations are of the highest quality and in keeping with its mission.
|
From page 228... ...
There are numerous models of agenda setting employed by other federal research agencies that NIJ can turn to for guidance. The individual institutes of NIH engage in a very structured process that is well documented, involves the full participation of staff, and engages the research community through their participation as members of standing advisory committees and as experts in particular areas.
|
From page 229... ...
As part of its 2-year strategic planning process, division staff devel oped a mission statement; identified critical issues; reported on trends and related areas impacting on the problem being studied; reviewed rele vant research findings; analyzed its current portfolio; described pertinent methodological issues; developed contextual background information and information on other relevant initiatives sponsored by the broader agency; and undertook a financial analysis of funding allocations within the division. This planning process culminated with the adoption of its strategic plan that received approval by the NIAAA National Advisory Council.
|
From page 230... ...
Peer Reiew and Grant Selection Process Much has been written about peer review and the requisites of a highquality scientific peer-review system (National Research Council, 1992b, 2000; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999; U.S.
|
From page 231... ...
Having a good scientific peer review and grant selection process in place is a critical requirement for a high-quality research program. In the federal government, although peer review is used for many purposes, its primary use is to assess the scientific merit of competitive and noncompetitive proposals.
|
From page 232... ...
CSR is usually the initial point of contact for applications, and it also manages the review process for most of the grant applications from the 27 NIH institutes. For grant applications, there is a two-step review process: (1)
|
From page 233... ...
Second, NSF program officers are highly qualified researchers and academicians who see their role as encouraging good research that is responsive to NSF priorities and who work with applicants to shape them accordingly. Staff also communicate with applicants in a timely way regarding their submission and provide useful feedback that often allows unsuccessful applicants to revise pro continued
|
From page 234... ...
There seems to be a lack of clarity about what NIJ expects from its grantees regarding final reports. Like agenda setting and peer review, the report review process is not well understood by researchers, who are critical of the amount of time it takes for NIJ to release research reports or research findings publicly.
|
From page 235... ...
should be apparent to the research community and the public. In our examination of NIJ's research operations and comparison with the practices of other federal research agencies, the committee found a lack of transparency, which is reflected in the limitations of the information made available to grant applicants, grant awardees, and the public.
|
From page 236... ...
Involving the Research and Practitioner Communities Another theme throughout our deliberations on NIJ's research operations is the need to clarify the important but separate roles that the research and practitioner communities should play in the research program. These roles are reflected in the proposed composition of the NIJ advisory board, in the qualifications of the NIJ director, and in the improvements that the committee recommends regarding agenda setting and planning, peer review, and report review.
|
From page 237... ...
NIJ will not be able to conduct these kinds of assessments without better records and a willingness to provide access. Throughout this report, we note difficulties in obtaining documentation of research operations as well as other kinds of administrative information.
|
From page 238... ...
Peer review has many other purposes than proposal review. Many federal research agencies rely on individual peer reviewers or peer-review panels to set priorities, develop programs, and even conduct personnel evaluations.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.