Evaluation Needs of Crime Control Planners, Decisionmakers, and Policymakers Are Not Being Met
GGD-77-72: Published: Jul 14, 1978. Publicly Released: Jul 14, 1978.
- Full Report:
Since 1969 the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) has awarded over $5 billion to state and local governments to reduce crime and delinquency. There have been various attempts to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of programs receiving these funds.
Evaluation activities of LEAA and the states have been inadequate to meet planning, decisionmaking, and policymaking needs of many users concerned with the intergrovenmental block grant crime control program. For example, the amount and types of evaluation work have not been adequate, the quality of evaluation work was questionable, evaluation information needs of users were not being met, resources allocated for evaluation were inadequate, organization of evaluation functions lacked direction and effective management controls, and better coordination of evaluation program efforts was needed. LEAA should place greater emphasis upon building evaluation into programs and projects before they are started at the federal, state, and local levels, and exercise greater leadership.
Matter for Congressional Consideration
Comments: Please call 202/512-6100 for additional information.
Matter: Congress should consider expanding LEAA research, development, demonstration, and evaluation role with greater involvement from state and local governments. The Attorney General should direct LEAA to provide for substantive involvement of state and local officials in formulating evaluation policies, guidelines, and requirements. Such efforts should include establishing an evaluation coordinating committee and assessing evaluation information feedback needs of states and localities periodically. The Attorney General should direct the Administrator, LEAA, to: (1) provide for the organizational placement of evaluation responsibilities minimally at the Deputy Administrator level and provide for additional resources for evaluation functions; (2) increase the priority emphasis of reasearch and development efforts; (3) develop reliable databases, evaluation measures, and assessment criteria to determine the impact of programs; (4) develop and require standardized reporting systems; (5) standardize quality control; and (6) develop and implement impact evaluation information and reporting systems. The Attorney General should also examine and consider proposing options for changes in legislation.