National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strengthening the National Institute of Justice (2010)

Chapter: Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee

« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

Appendix A
Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee

Table A-1 is a sample of materials requested by the committee that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was unable to provide or provided only in part. The committee did receive a number of documents from NIJ with useful information. However, many of these were currently in the public domain or had significant limitations (e.g., information available for only a short time period or for a partial set of program activities). This sample is presented to enable the reader to understand the limits on the committee’s analyses. Of critical importance is the fact that we were not allowed access to grant applications, peer-review documents, or the agency’s electronic grant management system. As a result of our inability to access some types of data, we were restricted in our ability to analyze and assess the quality of NIJ’s grant award process, funding decisions, and award monitoring. In addition, the limitations in the data we received curtailed our ability to examine the historical trends of NIJ’s funding sources, programs, and accomplishments.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

TABLE A-1 Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee

Data Item/Information Requested

Status

Comment

1. Budgetary Information

 

 

Annual National Institute of Justice (NIJ) spring budget call submissions.

Not available.

 

Annual Office of Justice Programs (OJP) budget submissions to Office of Management and Budget.

Not available.

 

Information NIJ provided to Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for years 20052007 on competitive and noncompetitive grants.

Partial list of items provided but not the materials themselves.

This was an attempt to obtain information already provided to OIG for its study of NIJ’s grant-making activities so that NIJ would not have to prepare budget or programmatic information in a new form.

NIJ funding history by functional area or major program, including publication and dissemination and OJP management and administrative support for years 1994-2008.

Unavailable data for ORE funds by functional area as listed on their website; breakdown of discretionary and nondiscretionary funds by functional areas not available; breakdown by such categories as research and evaluation, basic and applied also not available.

Data system for identifying and tracking evaluation grants no longer operational.

Breakdown of Office of Science and Technology (OST) and Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) budgets by research versus program support; passthrough versus appropriation to NIJ; and earmarks and other nondiscretionary spending.

OST provided a breakdown of discretionary and nondiscretionary funds available for research category but not for other functional categories, such as testing and evaluation, technical assistance, and capacity building.

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

Breakdown of grants and other financed activities that involve partnering of NIJ with other agencies.

Congressionally mandated funds were identified but not funds that had been transferred from other agencies at their discretion, e.g., funds from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention or Bureau of Justice Assistance for evaluations of their programs.

 

List of interagency agreements.

OST and ORE interagency agreements for 2008 only.

 

List of FY 2009 grants (awarded 9/30/09).

Not provided as of 12/10/2009.

 

2. Organization/Staffing

 

 

OJP-approved staffing charts of full-time equivalents (FTEs) by organizational unit, title, job series, and grade level for years 1994-2008.

Three signed OJP staffing charts obtained from NIJ date 2/14/2008, 11/21/2007, 9/28/2006.

Other years unavailable from either NIJ or OJP’s human resources department.

Actual staffing chart of FTEs by organizational unit, titles, grades, vacancies, staff names by position, and noted vacancies.

Only one staffing chart for 2/14/2008 identified names of staff and vacancies.

 

Educational level of staff, years of service, current position held.

Aggregate information on staff degrees presented by major office and grouped into 22 categories for years 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008.

Current educational levels and years of service available in aggregate form only; no information available on area of concentration for graduate work; only federal service available not service at NIJ.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

Data Item/Information Requested

Status

Comment

Staff turnover and reason for separation.

Available for period January 1, 2002, through November 2007 only.

Reason for separation not available; does not include names of staff who transferred out of NIJ but stayed in federal service.

Eligibility for retirement.

Current eligible dates available in aggregate for 2008 only.

 

FTEs vs. contract employees per year.

Not available.

Human resources department does not keep FTE information by year. Office of General Counsel (OGC) advised that all information on contract employees confidential.

Previously posted electronic staff listings from NIJ website.

Not provided.

An OGC lawyer opined that once staff left NIJ, needed to have their permission to release this information; names of contractors would need to be redacted.

3. Peer-Review Process

 

 

Peer-review reports, peer-review panel reports.

Not available.

According to NIJ, OGC indicates that no specific peer-review information can be provided to anyone other than the designated applicant without the applicant’s permission.

4. Grant Award Process

 

 

Applications submitted for the Centers of Excellence program.

Not available from NIJ.

OGC advised the committee to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

Winning proposals for the Centers of Excellence.

Not available from NIJ.

Winning proposals provided by OGC via FOIA or grantee with staff names and budget removed.

5. Management Information Systems

 

 

Description of Grant Management System infrastructure and other databases.

Not available.

Approval by OJP provided but not communicated in time to be useful.

6. Dissemination Process

 

 

Requests for research reports by practitioner organizations.

Total quantities ordered for the 30 most requested documents 1997-2007 but no breakdown as to kind of requestor.

 

7. Program Files

 

 

Grant files on Program on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.

Some random working files provided by NIJ staff. No official files stored at NIJ.

A request was made to the OJP File Archives; it was reported that the official grant files were missing.

8. Miscellaneous Information

 

 

Written documentation of Department of Justice and OJP policies that prevented the following information from being provided:

  1. grant-monitoring documents/progress reports,

  2. proposals from unsuccessful applicants,

  3. proposals from successful applicants,

  4. staffing and budgetary information on funded proposals.

Not provided.

OGC was asked to provide documentation as to why the committee was unable to have access to certain documents.

NOTE: This list does not represent the entirety of the committee’s requests, but only those documents that were not received or were incomplete.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Unavailable or Incomplete Information Requested by the Committee." National Research Council. 2010. Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12929.
×
Page 262
Next: Appendix B: Survey of Researchers and Practitioners »
Strengthening the National Institute of Justice Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $92.00 Buy Ebook | $74.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the nation's primary resource for advancing scientific research, development, and evaluation on crime and crime control and the administration of justice in the United States. Headed by a presidentially appointed director, it is one of the major units in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice. Under its authorizing legislation, NIJ awards grants and contracts to a variety of public and private organizations and individuals.

At the request of NIJ, Strengthening the National Institute of Justice assesses the operations and quality of the full range of its programs. These include social science research, science and technology research and development, capacity building, and technology assistance.

The book concludes that a federal research institute such as NIJ is vital to the nation's continuing efforts to control crime and administer justice. No other federal, state, local, or private organization can do what NIJ was created to do. Forty years ago, Congress envisioned a science agency dedicated to building knowledge to support crime prevention and control by developing a wide range of techniques for dealing with individual offenders, identifying injustices and biases in the administration of justice, and supporting more basic and operational research on crime and the criminal justice system and the involvement of the community in crime control efforts. As the embodiment of that vision, NIJ has accomplished a great deal. It has succeeded in developing a body of knowledge on such important topics as hot spots policing, violence against women, the role of firearms and drugs in crime, drug courts, and forensic DNA analysis. It has helped build the crime and justice research infrastructure. It has also widely disseminated the results of its research programs to help guide practice and policy. But its efforts have been severely hampered by a lack of independence, authority, and discretionary resources to carry out its mission.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!