Strengthening the National Institute of Justice

Committee on Assessing the Research Program of the National Institute of Justice

Charles F. Wellford, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Editors

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Assessing the Research Program of the National Institute of Justice Charles F. Wellford, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Editors Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri- ate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. 2007-IJ-CX-0001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Justice. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-15635-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-15635-1 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap. edu. Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2010). Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Committee on Assessing the Research Program of the National Institute of Justice, C.F. Wellford, B.M. Chemers, and J.A. Schuck, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en- gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti- tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun- cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON ASSESSINg THE RESEARCH PROgRAM OF THE NATIONAL INSTITuTE OF JuSTICE CHARLES F. WELLFORD (Chair), Department of Criminology, University of Maryland GEORGE F. SENSABAUGH, JR. (Vice Chair), School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley CHARLES E. ANDERSON, JR., Engineering Dynamics Department, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD, Department of Sociology, University of Washington JOEL S. ENGEL, JSE Consulting, Armonk, New York JOHN L. HAGAN, Department of Sociology, Northwestern University ADELE V. HARRELL, Independent Consultant, Washington, DC DAVID D. JENSEN, Knowledge Discovery Library, University of Massachusetts, Amherst TRACEY L. MEARES, Yale Law School EDWIN MEESE III, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC DANIEL S. NAGIN, H.J. Heinz School of Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University ALEX R. PIQUERO, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University CHARLES H. RAMSEY, Philadelphia Police Department MARY ANN SAAR, Independent Consultant, Baltimore JAY A. SIEGEL, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis CAROL H. WEISS, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University BETTY M. CHEMERS, Study Director CAROL PETRIE, Director, Committee on Law and Justice JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Research Associate JACQUELINE R. SOVDE, Program Associate 

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JuSTICE JAMES Q. WILSON (Chair), University of California, Los Angeles PHILIP J. COOK (Vice Chair), Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc., Chicago ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD, Department of Sociology, University of Washington GARY LaFREE, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis GLENN C. LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern University TRACEY L. MEARES, Yale Law School TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University RUTH D. PETERSON, Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Department of Sociology, Harvard University JEREMY TRAVIS, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York DAVID WEISBURD, Department of Administration of Justice, Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy, George Mason University PAUL K. WORMELI, IJIS Institute, Ashburn, Virginia JANE L. ROSS, Acting Director BETTY M. CHEMERS, Senior Program Officer LINDA DEPUGH, Administratie Assistant i

OCR for page R1
Preface E xperience strongly suggests that few people or organizations seek public assessments of their performance. This is especially true for government agencies, for which the consequences of such reviews can be painful and seldom seem to result in agency enhancements. It was therefore both surprising and exciting when the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct an assessment of its operations, research, and impact. Although NIJ was prompted to seek this review by the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process and the results of some assessments by the Government Accountability Office, the agency’s genuine interest in having a comprehensive and objective assessment impressed me as well as the other members of the committee. Having worked at NIJ for a year following completion of my graduate work and in a number of differ- ent capacities over the years since then, I knew how important the decision of the NIJ leadership to seek this review was to the committee’s ability to conduct the assessment. While the committee received admirable cooperation from NIJ and other components of the U.S. Department of Justice, the reader will see that our assessment was at times limited by the absence of basic data describing NIJ’s work and accomplishments. Time and again, information that any effective agency would be expected to maintain as part of its review of its operations was difficult to access or not available. We detail these prob- lems in the report and call for changes in management and record-keeping that, if implemented, will mean that future assessments will not face this problem. ii

OCR for page R1
iii PREFACE A vibrant and effective federal research agency addressing issues of crime and justice continues to be vital to an improved ability to reduce crime and increase justice. The committee concluded this after a careful review of NIJ and a consideration of the role that other federal, state, and nonprofit orga- nizations can and do play in advancing knowledge about crime and justice. Nothing in this report should be construed to suggest otherwise. We expect there will be debate about some of our recommendations, but there should be no debate on whether an NIJ is important to facing the “challenge of crime in a free society.” This report is the product of collective contributions. We could not have completed our work without the assistance of the NRC staff who provided wise counsel as well as invaluable support in drafting our report, and of numerous scholars, practitioners, policy officials, and program man- gers who met with the committee and provided the information, data, and research necessary for our assessment. We are grateful for the involvement of staff from NIJ. The director, deputy directors, and division chiefs briefed the committee on their pro- grams and fielded numerous questions. These staff included David Hagy, director; Marc Caplan, chief, Operational Technologies Division; Christine Crossland, acting chief, Violence and Victimization Research Division; Thomas Feucht, executive science advisor and previous director of the Of- fice of Research and Evaluation; William Ford, acting chief, Information and Sensor Technology Division; Nancy Merritt, chief, Justice Systems Research Division; John Morgan, director, Office of Science and Technol- ogy; Winifred Reed, chief, Crime Control and Prevention Research Divi- sion; Mike Sheppo, chief, Investigative and Forensics Sciences Division; Cindy Smith, chief, International Center, Office of the Director; and Edwin Zedlewski, senior science advisor. We also recognize the NIJ staff that as- sisted the committee in assembling documents and data on the agency and clarifying information on their programs. These included Portia Graham, associate director, Office of Operations; Jolene Hernon, director, Office of Communications; Angela Moore Parmley, acting director, Office of Re- search and Evaluation; John Picarelli, social science analyst; and George Tillery, associate director, Office of Science and Technology. A special note of thanks goes to Patrick Clark, senior social science analyst, and Karen Stern, social science analyst, who served as the NIJ liaisons to the committee. We also thank the many individuals who served as presenters and discussants at our meetings and provided perspective on NIJ from the field as well as inside the Department of Justice. These included Richard Thornburgh, former U.S. Attorney General (1988-1991); Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General (1993-2001); Alfred Blumstein, J. Erik Jonsson uni- versity professor, urban systems and operations research, Carnegie Mellon

OCR for page R1
ix PREFACE University; Charles Bostian, alumni distinguished professor, electrical and computer engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University; Ronnie Earle, district attorney, Travis County, Texas; Michael J. Farrell, deputy commissioner, New York City Police Department; Jeff Frazier, global justice and public safety director, Cisco Systems, Inc.; Bruce Goldberger, professor, toxicology, University of Florida College of Medicine and ex officio trustee of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; Martin F. Horn, commis- sioner, Corrections and Probation, New York City; Gary LaFree, professor, criminology and criminal justice and director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland; John M. Pellegrino, director, Sensors and Electron Devices Di- rectorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; Richard Rosenfeld, professor, criminology and criminal justice, University of Missouri; David G. Ross, former circuit court judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Maryland; and Howard Silver, executive director, Consortium of Social Science Associations. We are particularly grateful that several former Department of Justice officials took time out of their schedules to meet with committee members. We thank former NIJ directors Sarah Hart, James K. Stewart, and Jeremy Travis for their perspectives on challenges facing NIJ as well as NIJ’s role in priority setting and dissemination, and former assistant attorneys general, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Deborah Daniels and Laurie Robinson for their perspectives, respectively, on the need for a criminal justice research institute and on transition activities of the new administration and their effect on NIJ. Laurie Robinson, at the time she briefed the committee, was director, Master of Science in Criminology Program at the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, and has since been reappointed as assistant attorney general, OJP. We also received briefings from agency directors and program division directors of several federal research agencies. We thank those individuals who provided perspective on the roles and responsibilities of a research agency: Wilson Compton, director, Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse; Rolf Dietrich, deputy director, Research Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Christopher Doyle, director, Infrastructure and Geophysical Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Naomi Goldstein, director, Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Wayne Goodman, director, Division of Adult Translational Research, National Institute of Mental Health; Patricia Gruber, director of research, Office of Naval Research; Susan Haire, project officer, Law and Science Program, National Science Foundation; Ralph Hingson, acting director, and Vivian Faden, deputy director, Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; David Lightfoot, assistant director, Social,

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, National Science Founda- tion; Richard Nakamura, deputy director, National Institute of Mental Health; Kevin Neary, deputy assistant secretary for research, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Lynn Okagaki, commissioner, National Center for Education Research, U.S. Department of Education; Georgeanne Patmios, assistant director, Division of Behavioral and Social Research, National Institute on Aging; Norka Ruiz Bravo, director, Office of Extramural Re- search, National Institutes of Health; Eric Steel, director, Program Of- fice, National Institute of Standards and Technology; and Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, director, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. In addition to these public briefings, we reviewed published literature and legislation, documents assembled by NIJ, as well as reports prepared for the committee. We were thankful to have the opportunity to review a report on the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data submitted by Kaye Marz, archive manager, and Christopher D. Maxwell, associate research scientist, from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. We are also grateful to Nicola Smith, University of Maryland, who prepared a report on NIJ’s graduate research and W.E.B. Du Bois fellowship programs and assisted the com- mittee in our citation analyses. We thank Scott McBride and Donna Kenly from Hollander Cohen & McBride Marketing Research for conducting a web-based survey of criminal justice researchers and practitioners and as- sembling and summarizing the data in a report for the committee. On behalf of the committee, staff conducted site visits to some of NIJ’s technology centers and interviewed 26 current and former NIJ staff to learn more about its processes, programs, and achievements. We are grateful to those who helped make the site visits informative including Troy Krenning, director, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Rocky Mountain; Kevin Lothridge, director, Forensic Science Center of Ex- cellence; Andy Mazzara, director, Weapons and Protective Systems Technol- ogy Center of Excellence; Raj Nanavati, director, Sensors, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies Center of Excellence; Joe Peters, director, Border Research and Technology Center; and Brian Regli, former director, Com- munications Technologies Center of Excellence. We are also thankful to the current and former NIJ staff that agreed to be interviewed. The interviews included staff from every division within the Office of Research and Evaluation, two of the three divisions within the Of- fice of Science and Technology, and every function (administration, special advisors, international crime, and communications) within the Office of the Director and as a whole covered the scope of NIJ’s operations from the 1970s to present. Each interview consisted of three parts: (1) employee history

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE and professional background; (2) questions related to grant processes and roles; and (3) questions on NIJ’s mission and impact. Since our invitation to the interviewees indicated that responses would remain anonymous and all names would be kept confidential, we do not recognize them by name here. However, we acknowledge that without their candor and insight into agency processes we would not have gained as complete an understanding of NIJ. This study and its report have also benefited from the valuable as- sistance of many NRC staff within the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Betty Chemers was the study director. As such, she organized meetings, identified sources of information and conducted analyses, and worked tirelessly with the committee to integrate their ideas, writings, and conclusions into a sound report. Julie Schuck, as research associate, assembled background documents, created databases of award histories when none was available, and assisted in drafting and editing this report. Carol Petrie, director, Committee on Law and Justice, provided perspective on NIJ’s history and helped us integrate our work with prior NRC studies. This study also benefited from the counsel and experience of Barney Cohen, Anne-Marie Mazza, and Daniel Cork, NRC staff who over- saw relevant assessments of other federal agencies and research programs. Jacqui Sovde, program associate, made sure meetings were organized and conducted in a professional manner and assisted in the editing and format- ting of this report. Several others provided administrative support as needed including Barbara Boyd, Linda DePugh, and Anthony Mann. We greatly ap- preciate the efforts undertaken by Eugenia Grohman, Christine McShane, Jane Ross, Kirsten Sampson Snyder, and Yvonne Wise to complete the review and editing processes and bring this report to fruition. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro- cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Todd R. Clear, Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration, John Jay College; Max M. Houck, Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University; Rick Kern, Office of the Director, Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission; Janet Lauritsen, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis; Michael D. Maltz, Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University; Stan Orchowsky, Office of the Research Director, Justice Research and Statistics Association, Washington,

OCR for page R1
xi CONTENTS Appendixes A Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee 257 B Survey of Researchers and Practitioners 263 C Legislation Impacting NIJ 273 D Types of NIJ Materials Published 283 E Research Recommendations in Previous National Research Council Reports 289 F Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 303

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Boxes TAbLES 4-1 Analysis of Final Research Reports, 128 5-1 Types of NIJ Grant Products, 177 6-1 Program Performance Measures as Reported in the PART by NIJ, 190 6-2 Publication/Citation Analysis of Articles Linked to NIJ Support in Five Journals, 197 A-1 Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee, 258 D-1 Types of NIJ Materials Published, 284 FIguRES 1-1 Office of Justice Programs organizational chart, 15 1-2 Organization of the National Institute of Justice, 16 2-1 NIJ funding history, 1968-2008 (converted to constant 2008 dollars), 30 2-2 Budgets by fiscal year, OJP and COPS combined and for NIJ, 41 x

OCR for page R1
xi TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 3-1 NIJ award funding history, 1995-2008 (in constant 2008 dollars), 52 3-2 Number of awards by category, 1995-2008, 52 3-3 ORE funding history, 1994-2008 (in constant 2008 dollars), 54 3-4 OST funding history, 1994-2008 (in constant 2008 dollars), 93 4-1 ORE employees and budget (in constant 2008 dollars), 131 4-2 OST employees and budget (in constant 2008 dollars), 131 4-3 Number of ORE and OST employees for budget years 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2008 (in constant 2008 dollars), 132 5-1 Total studies submitted to NACJD by year, 154 5-2 NACJD user access by year, 156 5-3 History of OST spending by functional efforts (in constant 2008 dollars), 160 6-1 The limited assessment of NIJ, 195 bOxES 2-1 Legislative Language of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 28 2-2 List of NIJ Directors, 32 3-1 ORE and OST Research Areas, 48 3-2 Comparison of Award Topics, 1995 and 2006, 50 3-3 Policing Innovations During the 1980s and 1990s, 58 3-4 Drug Treatment Programs, 63 3-5 1401 Technology Transfer Program, 88 3-6 Creation of a National Institute of Forensic Science, 98 4-1 Technical Working Groups (TWGs), 112 5-1 The Continuum from Development of Technologies to Adoption into Practice, 159 5-2 Descriptions of NLECTC Resources, 164 5-3 NIJ Publications and Products in FY 1999, 175 6-1 Highly Cited Articles, 198 6-2 Examples of Performance Measures, 205

OCR for page R1
xii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 7-1 Possible NIJ Advisory Board Meeting Topics, 220 7-2 Planning at the Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research, 229 7-3 Peer-Review Models, 232 C-1 Mission Statements for 1973, 1996, 2002, and 2008-2009, 274

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acronyms AAG Assistant Attorney General ABA American Bar Association ACA American Correctional Association ADAM Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring system AG Attorney General AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality APM Analysis, Planning and Management ASA American Sociological Association ASC American Society of Criminology ASCLD American Society of Crime Lab Directors ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives BIS-WDS Brijot Imaging Systems–Weapons Detection System BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BPI OJP Business Process Improvement BRTC Border Research and Technology Center BRTD U.S. Border Patrol Technology Demonstrations BSR Behavioral and Social Research BTC NIJ’s Breaking the Cycle Program CAPRAD Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System CAPS Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy xix

OCR for page R1
xx ACRONYMS CBO Congressional Budget Office CBRN Chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear CBRNE Chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear, and high-yield explosives CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CLAJ Committee on Law and Justice CLIP Crime Laboratory Improvement Program CMS Community Management Staff CNSTAT Committee on National Statistics CODIS Combined DNA Index System COE Center of Excellence COMPSTAT the name given to a strategic problem-solving process or “strategic control system” first implemented by the New York City Police Department; short for computer statistics or comparative statistics COPS Community Oriented Policing Services COSSA Consortium of Social Science Associations COTR OJP Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative COTS commercial-off-the-shelf COV Committee of Visitors CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CRISP Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects CRS Congressional Research Service CSR Center for Scientific Review DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DEA Drug Enforcement Administration DEPR Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DMA Drug Market Analysis Program DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DoD U.S. Department of Defense DoEd U.S. Department of Education DOJ U.S. Department of Justice DOL U.S. Department of Labor DPCPSI Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives DRP Data Resources Program DUF Drug Use Forecasting system EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESIP Equipment Systems Improvement Program

OCR for page R1
xxi ACRONYMS FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FOIA Freedom of Information Act GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office GIS geographic information systems GMS Grant Management System GPA Grant Progress Assessment Program GPRA Government Performance and Results Act GRF Graduate Research Fellowship GS general schedule or grade service (refers to pay level) HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development IAA Interagency Agreement IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police ICAM Information Collection for Automated Mapping project (Chicago PD) ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research IES Institute of Education Sciences IPT Integrated Product Team IRB Institutional Review Board JAG Justice Assistance Grants JD Juris Doctor JRSA Justice Research and Statistics Association JUSTNET Justice Technology Information Network LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LEAA Law Enforcement Assistance Administration LECTAC Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory Council LEEP Law Enforcement Education Program LESL Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory MAPS Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Program MD Maryland MMW millimeter wave MOA memorandum of agreement

OCR for page R1
xxii ACRONYMS MOU memorandum of understanding MPD District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department NACJD National Archive of Criminal Justice Data NAS National Academy of Sciences NCJRS National Criminal Justice Reference Service NDIS National DNA Index System NFC National Finance Center NFSIA Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act NFSTC National Forensic Sciences Technology Center NIA National Institute on Aging NIAAA National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NIBIN National Integrated Ballistic Information Network NIDA National Institute of Drug Abuse NIH National Institutes of Health NIJ National Institute of Justice NILECJ National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice NIMH National Institute of Mental Health NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NLECTC National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center NPR National Performance Review NRC National Research Council NSB National Science Board NSF National Science Foundation NYC New York City NYPD New York City Police Department OASH Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health OCFO-BD Office of the Chief Financial Officer-Budget Division OCOM Office of Communications OERI Office of Educational Research and Improvement OGC Office of the General Counsel OIG DOJ Office of the Inspector General OJARS Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJP Office of Justice Programs OLES Office of Law Enforcement Standards OLETC Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization OLP Office of Legal Policy

OCR for page R1
xxiii ACRONYMS OMB Office of Management and Budget ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy ONR Office of Naval Research ORE Office of Research and Evaluation OST Office of Science and Technology OVC Office for Victims of Crime OVW Office on Violence Against Women PAR Performance and Accountability Report PART Program Assessment Rating Tool PBMA Planning, Budget, Management and Administration Office PD police department PHDCN Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods PI principal investigator POSC Program Office Solicitation Coordinator PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act PSN Project Safe Neighborhoods RAC Regional Advisory Council R&D research and development RDT&E research, development, testing, and evaluation RFP request for proposal RSAT Residential Substance Treatment Programs SACSI Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative SAMHSA Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services SBE Directorate of Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences SES Senior Executive Service SES Social and Economic Sciences SETA Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance SME subject-matter expert SRG Scientific Review Group SSCI Social Science Citation Index S&T science and technology STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grants SVORI Serious Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative TAPAC Technology Assessment Program Advisory Council TAPIC Technology Assessment Program Information Center TATP triacetone rriperoxide

OCR for page R1
xxi ACRONYMS TSWG Technical Support Working Group TWG technical working group USAFRL U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory VAWA Violence Against Women Act