Evaluative Research
Forensic Technology Center of Excellence (FTCOE) FY17
Research and Evaluation on Victims of Crime
Establishing a National Institute of Justice Research Test & Evaluation Center: Continuation
Implications of Three-Dimensional Laser Scanned Images for the Criminal Justice System
Evaluation of the Supporting Male Survivors of Violence Demonstration Initiative
Research on the Effects of an Anonymous Tip Line and Multidisciplinary Response Teams in Schools across the State of Nevada
Do DOJ Intervention and Citizen Oversight Improve Police Accountability
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding for DNA Analysis, Capacity Enhancement and Other Forensic Activities
Using Technology to Work Smarter, Faster and Cheaper - Interview With Jim Bueermann
Strengthening Policing Science at the National Institute of Justice
Forensic Science Research and Evaluation Workshop - A Discussion on the Fundamentals of Research Design and an Evaluation of Available Literature
What is Research and Evaluation Evidence and How Can We Use it? - Panel at the 2010 NIJ Conference
Sex Offenders in the Community: Post-Release, Registration, Notification and Residency Restrictions - Panel at the 2010 NIJ Conference
Second Chance Act: What Have We Learned About Reentry Programs So Far? - Interview With Ron D'Amico
Solutions in Corrections: Using Evidence-based Knowledge - Interview at the 2010 NIJ Conference
An Assessment of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs in Florida's Prisons Using a Random Assignment Experimental Design
Collective Efficacy: Taking Action To Improve Neighborhoods
Kristen M. Zgoba Wins the Peter P. Lejins Research Award
Improving NIJ's Peer Review Process: The Scientific Review Panel Pilot Project
Strengthening NIJ: Mission, Science and Process
Services for IPV Victims: Encouraging Stronger Research Methods To Produce More Valid Results
How Reliable Are Latent Fingerprint Examiners?
Brian Cerchiai discusses a NIJ-supported a study conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department on the accuracy of fingerprint examiners. The study found that fingerprint examiners make extremely few errors. Even when examiners did not get an independent second opinion about their decisions, they were remarkably accurate. But when decisions were verified by an independent reviewers, examiners had a 0% false positive, or incorrect identification, rate and a 3% false negative, or missed identification, rate.
See the YouTube Terms of Service and Google Privacy Policy