In July 2016 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop with the goal of bringing together industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, experts on personnel selection and testing, forensic scientists, and other researchers whose work has a nexus with workforce needs in the forensic science field with a focus on pattern evidence. Participants reviewed the current status of selection and training of forensic scientists who specialize in pattern evidence and discussed how tools used in I-O psychology to understand elements of a task and measure aptitude and performance could address challenges in the pattern evidence domain of the forensic sciences. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 The Task of Pattern Recognition 3 Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4 Other Considerations and Next Steps Appendix: Workshop Agenda and List of Participants

In the coming years, complex domestic and international environments and challenges to national security will continue. Intelligence analysts and the intelligence community will need access to the appropriate tools and developing knowledge about threats to national security in order to provide the best information to policy makers. Research and knowledge from the social and behavioral sciences (SBS) can help inform the work of intelligence analysis; however, in the past, bringing important findings from research to bear on the day-to-day work of intelligence analysis has been difficult. In order to understand how knowledge from science can be directed and applied to help the intelligence community fulfill its critical responsibilities, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will undertake a 2-year survey of the social and behavioral sciences. To launch this discussion, a summit designed to highlight cutting-edge research and identify future directions for research in a few areas of the social and behavioral sciences was held in October 2016. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the summit. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 Opening Remarks 3 Needs of the Intelligence Community 4 First Research Session: Brain and Neuroscience 5 Second Research Session: Social Interaction 6 Third Research Session: Behavioral Genetics 7 Fourth Research Session: Risk and Decision-Making 8 Summative Remarks Appendix A: Social and Behavioral Sciences for National Security: A Decadal Survey Statement of Task Appendix B: Summit Agenda and List of Participants Appendix C: Biographical Sketches of Summit Planning Committee and Presenters

Beginning in October 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine organized a set of workshops designed to gather information for the Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security. The third workshop focused on advances in social network thinking, and this publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from this workshop. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 Networks-Plus: Beyond the Individual (teams and contexts) 3 Networks-Plus: Within the Individual 4 Multilevel, High-Dimensional, Evolving, and Emerging Networks 5 Discussion Appendix A: Statement of Task for the Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Security Appendix B: Workshop Agenda Appendix C: Participants List Appendix D: Biographical Sketches of Steering Committee Members and Presenters

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.

Adolescence is a distinct, yet transient, period of development between childhood and adulthood characterized by increased experimentation and risk-taking, a tendency to discount long-term consequences, and heightened sensitivity to peers and other social influences. A key function of adolescence is developing an integrated sense of self, including individualization, separation from parents, and personal identity. Experimentation and novelty-seeking behavior, such as alcohol and drug use, unsafe sex, and reckless driving, are thought to serve a number of adaptive functions despite their risks. Research indicates that for most youth, the period of risky experimentation does not extend beyond adolescence, ceasing as identity becomes settled with maturity. Much adolescent involvement in criminal activity is part of the normal developmental process of identity formation and most adolescents will mature out of these tendencies. Evidence of significant changes in brain structure and function during adolescence strongly suggests that these cognitive tendencies characteristic of adolescents are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and with an imbalance among developing brain systems. This imbalance model implies dual systems: one involved in cognitive and behavioral control and one involved in socio-emotional processes. Accordingly adolescents lack mature capacity for self-regulations because the brain system that influences pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develops more rapidly than the brain system that supports self-control. This knowledge of adolescent development has underscored important differences between adults and adolescents with direct bearing on the design and operation of the justice system, raising doubts about the core assumptions driving the criminalization of juvenile justice policy in the late decades of the 20th century. It was in this context that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) asked the National Research Council to convene a committee to conduct a study of juvenile justice reform. The goal of Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach was to review recent advances in behavioral and neuroscience research and draw out the implications of this knowledge for juvenile justice reform, to assess the new generation of reform activities occurring in the United States, and to assess the performance of OJJDP in carrying out its statutory mission as well as its potential role in supporting scientifically based reform efforts.

Participants in this workshop were asked to explore three related questions: (1) how to create measures of undergraduate learning in STEM courses; (2) how such measures might be organized into a framework of criteria and benchmarks to assess instruction; and (3) how such a framework might be used at the institutional level to assess STEM courses and curricula to promote ongoing improvements. The following issues were highlighted: Effective science instruction identifies explicit, measurable learning objectives. Effective teaching assists students in reconciling their incomplete or erroneous preconceptions with new knowledge. Instruction that is limited to passive delivery of information requiring memorization of lecture and text contents is likely to be unsuccessful in eliciting desired learning outcomes. Models of effective instruction that promote conceptual understanding in students and the ability of the learner to apply knowledge in new situations are available. Institutions need better assessment tools for evaluating course design and effective instruction. Deans and department chairs often fail to recognize measures they have at their disposal to enhance incentives for improving education. Much is still to be learned from research into how to improve instruction in ways that enhance student learning. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes 3 Evaluating Effective Instruction 4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels 5 General Discussion 6 Epilogue References A Commissioned Papers B Reference Paper C Workshop Agenda D Workshop Participants E Biographical Sketches of Workshop Attendees