Opinion: Ashcroft's control

Only a handful of agencies associated with the federal government can be trusted to release information that is fact rather than spin. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, has earned a reputation for providing members of Congress with reliable, objective and nonpartisan projections on the economy. Until recently, this kind of independence was the hallmark of two agencies within the Justice Department: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the office that collects statistics on crime in the United States; and the National Institute of Justice, the entity in charge of crime-related research. But changes in the way these agencies are organized and run are threatening their ability to operate outside the push and pull of politics.

There is growing evidence that Attorney General John Ashcroft is trying to exert control in a way that could compromise the agencies' independence, and by extension, the dependability of their data and research.

Whether crime is increasing or declining has significant political implications. Yet if those numbers are subject to manipulation by the party in power, citizens may have no way to know the truth about national trends. Similarly, research into identifying the causes of criminality and the success of various schemes for controlling it could lack validity if grants are directed toward those with a political agenda.

Until October's passage of the USA Patriot Act, the directors of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice did not have to seek approval of the attorney general to distribute reports and award grants. But Ashcroft, using the urgency of Sept. 11, brought those activities under his direct control by inserting language in the Patriot Act. Now the directors of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice report to the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs, and the directors can no longer award research grants or distribute new statistical reports without prior approval by the attorney general's office. That already has caused holdups and months-long delays in releasing information that used to be directly offered to the public.

The current director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Lawrence Greenfeld, insists the new arrangement is not affecting the integrity of the data. But appearances count here, too. The Bush administration, and Ashcroft in particular, has been bent on a campaign of secrecy and control. Ashcroft has refused to give the House and Senate Judiciary Committees information on the manner in which his department is instituting new powers under the Patriot Act. He has resisted giving Congress the names of immigrants detained following Sept. 11. And the immigration courts, largely left alone by prior attorney generals, have been restructured by Ashcroft to give him more control over the judges.

The consolidation of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice under the attorney general's office fits this established and worrisome pattern. The integrity of social science depends upon the objectivity of those collecting and analyzing the information. Based on their behavior over the past year, there is no reason to think Ashcroft and his minions will keep their mitts off the work of these agencies.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright