Former DOJ scientists advocate for justice-focused crime research as federal funding faces cuts

As research budgets tighten across federal agencies, two former Department of Justice scientists are making the case for a transformative approach to crime prevention—one that prioritizes social justice alongside public safety.

In a new article, the authors review the activities of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) during the Biden Administration to emphasize how research can better serve communities most affected by crime. Their work emphasizes the critical need for research that incorporates the perspectives of those who experience the justice system firsthand – both practitioners and community residents.

“In our work, we discuss NIJ’s efforts to use innovative methods to understand more thoroughly the needs and perceptions of individuals affected by crime,” explains Nancy La Vigne, dean of Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice and former NIJ director. “We also highlight the importance of reaching practitioners in ways that promote the implementation of evidence, and we argue for a collaborative approach to crime prevention that serves justice.”

Traditional crime research has focused on testing theories about criminal behavior and evaluating prevention strategies. But the authors argue this approach misses a crucial opportunity. Research on crime prevention that actively pursues social justice can prevent harm before it occurs while reducing the flow of people—disproportionately people of color—into a system that often perpetuates cycles of criminal justice involvement rather than breaking them.

During their tenures at NIJ, the researchers championed what they call “inclusive research”—directly engaging the people closest to crime and justice issues rather than studying them from a distance. This meant investing in new methods to capture how community members actually view crime, safety, and justice in their neighborhoods.

This approach requires confronting an uncomfortable truth: traditional research methods often carry racial and other biases embedded in the data and methodologies researchers use. The authors argue that generating truly useful evidence means acknowledging these biases and ensuring findings reach the practitioners who can transform them into policy and practice.

The NIJ put these principles into action through several initiatives. For example, the Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science Scholars Program equips officers with tools and knowledge to conduct their own research and translate findings into actionable strategies within their departments. This pivots practitioners from passive consumers of research to active participants in producing knowledge alongside researchers and community members.

“Focusing on high-risk people and places is an effective and efficient use of scarce public resources. By expanding our focus to include ethics and equity, we can increase the legitimacy, sustainability, and impact of public safety efforts. When community members and frontline practitioners are actively involved in diagnosing problems and co-developing solutions, interventions are more likely to address local realities, earn community trust and practitioner buy-in, and produce lasting change,” says Tamara D. Herold, associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada and former senior advisor at the NIJ, who coauthored the article.

Their message comes at a pivotal moment when federal research investments face scrutiny and potential cuts. The authors argue that now, more than ever, crime prevention research must demonstrate its value not just in reducing crime, but promoting justice.