Moving the National Institute of Justice Forward: July 2010 through December 2012

• Published date: 01 May 2021
• Date: 01 May 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986221999857
• Subject Matter: Essay

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986221999857

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2021, Vol. 37(2) 166 –174

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986221999857

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Essay

Moving the National Institute

of Justice Forward: July 2010

through December 2012

John H. Laub1

Abstract

Criminologists are often frustrated by the disconnect between sound empirical

research and public policy initiatives. Recently, there have been several attempts to

better connect research evidence and public policy. While these new strategies may

well bear fruit, I believe the challenge is largely an intellectual one. Ideas and research

evidence must guide public policy and practice. In this article, I present highlights from

my tenure as the Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research,

development, and evaluation agency in the Department of Justice. One of the ideas

that I emphasized at NIJ was “Translational Criminology.” I believe translational

criminology acknowledges NIJ’s unique mission to facilitate rigorous research that

is relevant to the practice and policy. I also discuss the challenges I faced in bringing

research to bear on public policy and practice. I end with a call for my colleagues in

criminology and criminal justice to become more involved in government.

Keywords

translational criminology, research evidence, public policy

Introduction

Social scientists are often frustrated by the perceived disconnect between sound

empirical research and public policy initiatives. This occurs across a number of

domains, including education, health, labor, and the focus of this article—crime and

criminal justice. Recently, there have been several attempts to better connect research

evidence and public policy. However, these attempts have focused somewhat narrowly

on improving research methodology (e.g., using more randomized controlled trials in

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

John H. Laub, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

Email: jlaub@umd.edu

999857CCJXXX10.1177/1043986221999857Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeLaub

research-article2021