OMB Memo to conduct a pilot test of the Arrest-Related Deaths Program (ARD)

MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM TO: Shelly Wilkie Martinez

Official of Statistical and Science Policy

Office of Management and Budget

THROUGH: Lynn Murray

Clearance Officer

Justice Management Division

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

FROM: Michael Planty, PhD

Chief, Victimization Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

DATE: October 12, 2015

SUBJECT: BJS request for OMB Clearance to conduct a pilot test of the Arrest-Related Deaths Program (ARD) under the generic clearance agreement OMB Number 1121-0339

Introduction

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is requesting clearance to conduct a pilot test of a new methodology for collecting data through the Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program. The pilot test is part of BJS’s efforts to improve the coverage and utility of data on police use of force.

The ARD program was implemented from 2003 through 2013 as part of BJS’s Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The DCRP was developed in response to the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-247), which required state and local prisons, jails, and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to report information about in-custody deaths and deaths occurring in the process of arrest to the Department of Justice on a quarterly basis.¹ The DCRP also includes collections that measure deaths occurring in jails and state prisons (see http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=19).

The BJS designed the ARD program to be a census of all deaths that occur during the process of arrest or during an attempt to obtain custody by a state or local LEA in the United States. BJS defined the manner of arrest-related death to include law enforcement homicides, other homicides, accidents, suicides, or deaths due to natural causes. Law enforcement homicides included all deaths attributed to weapons or restraint tactics used by state or local law enforcement officers, including deaths due to officer-involved shootings; complications related to the use of conducted energy devices, such as Tasers and stun guns; accidents caused by the use of spike strips or other tire deflation devices; injuries due to the use of impact devices, such as batons and soft projectiles; complications due to the use of chemical agents such as pepper spray and tear gas; and other injuries or complications related to the use of restraint tactics.

The ARD program was the only national data collection that attempted to enumerate all arrest-related deaths in the United States, including accidental and natural deaths that occurred during the process of arrest in addition to law enforcement homicides. Because of concerns about variations in data collection methodology and coverage, BJS recently conducted an assessment of its ARD program (see http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/acardp.pdf). That assessment included a capture-recapture analysis of ARD law enforcement homicide data and the justifiable homicide incidents from the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The analysis found that the ARD program captured approximately half of the estimated number of law enforcement homicides in the United States since the program’s inception in 2003. ARD program coverage was more complete in recent years, including as much as 69% of the estimated law enforcement homicides in 2011. The ARD data collection methodology had evolved since 2003, and in 2011, many states relied on case identification through open knowledge sources and follow-up with official agency sources, including LEAs, medical examiner’s or coroner’s (ME/C) offices, state prosecutors’ offices, and other criminal justice agencies. ARD program coverage was slightly better than that found in the SHR during the period studied.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA) of 2013 (P.L. 113-242) encourages states to report information on a quarterly basis regarding the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, en route to be incarcerated, or incarcerated. Because accurate and comprehensive accounting of deaths that occur during the process of arrest is critical for LEAs to demonstrate responsiveness to the citizens and communities they serve, transparency related to law enforcement tactics and approaches, and accountability for the actions of officers, BJS has responded to the DICRA 2013 by developing new methodologies for collecting data on the arrest-related deaths covered by DICRA. BJS’s focus in collecting these data is to improve the coverage of the ARD program to capture all arrest-related deaths, as well as to understand the circumstances surrounding these deaths, including the nature of the interaction between the decedents and law enforcement and characteristics of the decedents and the officers involved. Such knowledge could inform training and policies to support safe, accountable interactions between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Request for Developmental Work

This clearance request is for a pilot test of the revised ARD methodology with approximately 900 LEAs and about 800 medical examiners, requiring about 843 burden-hours. BJS plans to conduct developmental work for the ARD program under the BJS generic clearance agreement (OMB Number 1121-0339) to examine the efficiency and accuracy of multiple approaches to identify arrest-related deaths. The methodology to be tested is a two-step process. First, BJS will review open-knowledge sources to identify potential arrest-related deaths on a weekly basis. Knowledge is considered “open” if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it. Open-knowledge sources to identify arrest-related deaths, widely available via the Internet, include media outlets, blogs, social media posts, official agency releases, and other Web-based sources. Second, BJS will conduct surveys with official agency sources to confirm the deaths identified through open-source review, to collect official incident records, and to determine whether there were additional arrest-related deaths that were not captured through open-source review. The purpose of the official agency surveys is to identify the error associated with the intersection between deaths identified through open sources and those identified only through official agency records. The agency surveys are modified versions of the reporting forms used for the ARD collection from 2003 through 2013. The methodology and surveys to be tested under this clearance have undergone feasibility testing, as discussed later in the memo.

The proposed development work will culminate in recommendations for whether and how BJS could support a statistical collection to identify all arrest-related deaths occurring under the jurisdiction of state and local LEAs in the United States, as well as characteristics of the decedents and the circumstances surrounding the deaths. Recommendations for future implementation of the ARD Program will include

• a clear statement on the exact parameters of the open-source search process to determine which types of cases should be included or excluded—a definition that addresses temporal, geographic coverage, and specific case factors;

• consideration of issues related to how inclusive the search results are, as well as exclusionary factors that should be used to avoid false positives;

• a strategy that captures the challenges and benefits associated with open-source review approaches;

• articulation of a plan that will describe the completeness and efficiency of the searches and identify the criteria that will be used to evaluate and substantiate the efficacy of the process; and

• specific recommendations for an ongoing method of identifying arrest-related deaths in the United States from open sources and collecting information about decedents and the circumstances surrounding those deaths from LEAs.

Design of the Survey

Agency-level data collection will be designed to minimize respondent burden, verify arrest-related deaths, and provide additional information about the decedent and the circumstances surrounding the incident. In particular, official agency respondents will be asked to

• confirm all case identifying data, including decedent name, decedent date of death, and name of LEA with jurisdiction over the decedent at the time of death for cases identified through open-source review;

• identify any arrest-related deaths occurring from June 1 through August 31, 2015, that were not identified through the open-source reviews; and

• provide information about the decedent and factors precipitating law enforcement involvement with decedent for all identified arrest-related deaths.

There are six data collection forms, administered primarily through an online, Web-based submission process. These forms are differentiated by respondent type (the CJ-11 series is for LEA respondents and the CJ-12 series is for ME/C respondents), whether a potential arrest-related death was identified through open-source review, and to collect information about the incidents surrounding identified arrest-related deaths. The forms were designed with input from previous data collection forms implemented through the ARD Program from 2011 through 2013, priorities identified by federal and local policymakers and stakeholders, and feasibility testing conducted with agencies having jurisdiction over potential arrest-related deaths that occurred before June 2015. The form titles were aligned with naming conventions from the previous ARD program and other BJS collections wherever appropriate. The ARD program pilot data collection forms include the following:

• Form CJ-11: Arrest-Related Deaths Quarterly Summary to be distributed to all LEAs with a potential arrest-related death identified through open-source review. This summary form requests that LEA respondents confirm deaths identified through open-source review, correct decedent name and date of death as appropriate, and identify any other arrest-related deaths that were not found through open-source review.

• Form CJ-11s: Arrest-Related Deaths Quarterly Summary (sampled agencies) to be distributed to a sample of LEAs without a potential arrest-related death identified through open-source review. This summary form requests that LEA respondents identify any arrest-related deaths occurring from June 1 through August 31, 2015 that were not found through open-source review.

• Form CJ-11A: Arrest-Related Death Incident Report to be distributed to all LEAs with an arrest-related death from June 1 through August 31, 2015, identified either by open-source review or by the agency on the Form CJ-11. This incident report form requests that LEA respondents provide characteristics of the decedent and the circumstances surrounding the death.

• Form CJ-12: Arrest-Related Deaths Quarterly Summary to be distributed to all ME/Cs with jurisdiction concurrent with that of the LEAs with a potential arrest-related death identified through open-source review. This summary form requests that ME/C respondents confirm deaths identified through open-source review, correct decedent name and date of death as appropriate, and identify any other arrest-related deaths that were not found through open-source review.

• Form CJ-12s: Arrest-Related Deaths Quarterly Summary (sampled agencies) to be distributed to ME/Cs with jurisdiction concurrent with that of the sampled LEAs without a potential arrest-related death identified through open-source review. This summary form requests that ME/C respondents identify any arrest-related deaths occurring from June 1 through August 31, 2015 that were not found through open-source review.

• Form CJ-12A: Arrest-Related Death Incident Report to be distributed to all ME/Cs with an arrest-related death from June 1 through August 31, 2015, identified either by open-source review or by the agency on Form CJ-12. This incident report form requests that ME/C respondents provide characteristics of the decedent and the cause and manner of death.

In July 2015, BJS conducted the feasibility test of the ARD pilot data collection forms for state and local LEAs and for ME/C offices. Participating LEAs included local police departments (Durham, NC, and Sacramento, CA) and state coordinators responsible for collecting information from LEAs and ME/Cs in mandated reporting states (Texas and Maryland).

Using actual arrest-related death incidents, each of these respondents was asked to complete the survey instrument to help with the development of BJS’s approach to collecting nationwide data about arrest-related deaths. The instrument was sent to respondents with instructions to complete the survey just as they would if they received the survey as part of the regular sample of agencies. Testers were asked to note any aspects of the instrument that were unclear, any questions or topics that were omitted, or any answer choices or response categories that were missing and to provide any other feedback or comments via e-mail. All of the responding agencies were able to complete the survey instrument fairly easily and were able to provide BJS with valuable feedback on the questions asked and agencies’ ability to answer them.

As a result of the feasibility testing, several items on the survey were modified. Terminology was clarified on the ME/C data collection forms to conform to the classification guidelines into the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-9-10).² Response categories in some questions were modified to align with LEA or ME/C likely or reported knowledge of the circumstances surrounding arrest-related deaths. LEA feasibility testers noted that some questions may be difficult to answer, such as the number of shots fired during the interaction between law enforcement and the decedent. Testers also noted that decedent information requested from ME/Cs may not be available until approximately 6 months after the date of death. BJS will assess item nonresponse patterns for these and other items through the ARD program pilot test with the full sample.

Selection of Survey Sample

The ARD Program pilot test sample design includes four subsamples selected to survey (1) LEAs with jurisdiction in cases in which a potential arrest-related death was identified through open-source review, (2) a sample of LEAs without a potential arrest-related death identified through open-source review, and (3–4) ME/C offices with concurrent jurisdiction with these two LEA subsamples. Sixteen states have a centralized state medical examiner system, so one ME/C will be matched to all of the sampled LEAs in those states.³ The remaining 34 states and the District of Columbia have a county-based or decentralized ME/C system, where there will likely be a unique ME/C matched to each sampled LEA. Federal agencies, tribal agencies, and agencies primarily responsible for transport of inmates are out of scope for the ARD program and will be ineligible for sampling. The four ARD pilot study subsamples are described in Table 1.

Table 1. Estimated sample size
ARD program pilot subsample	Expected N
LEAs with a potential arrest-related death identified from open-source review	318
ME/Cs with concurrent jurisdiction with the LEAs in subsample 1	297
LEAs without a potential arrest-related death identified from open-source review	585
ME/Cs with concurrent jurisdiction with the LEAs in subsample 3	505
Total number of agencies contacted	1,705

Through open-source review, BJS will first identify all LEAs with a potential arrest-related death occurring from June 1 through August 31, 2015 (subsample 1). These LEAs will then be matched to ME/Cs with concurrent jurisdiction to form subsample 2.

Relying on the list of ARD Program-eligible agencies developed from the BJS 2014 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA) frame, the remaining eligible LEAs will divided into two sampling strata based on agency size to form subsample 3. Any agency with 500 or more full-time sworn officers (FTSOs) will be sampled with certainty.⁴ The remaining stratum will contain all other in-scope agencies, and these agencies will be sampled via simple random sampling (SRS) to achieve a noncertainty stratum sample size of 500 agencies. The non-certainty stratum sample size was determined by power analyses and designed to support a confidence interval ranging from +/-1pt to +/-3pts (see the shaded region in Table 2 below).

Table 2. Sample size options by assumed hit rate and confidence interval
Universe	Assumed Hit Rate	Confidence Interval Width for Proportion Estimate
		+/- 1pt	+/- 2 pts	+/- 3pts	+/- 4pts	+/- 5pts	+/- 6pts
18,500	1.00%	373	95	43	24	16	11
18,500	2.00%	724	187	84	47	31	21
18,500	3.00%	1055	276	124	70	45	32
18,500	4.00%	1367	362	163	92	59	41
18,500	5.00%	1662	446	201	114	73	51
18,500	6.00%	1940	527	238	135	87	60
18,500	7.00%	2204	605	274	156	100	70
18,500	8.00%	2453	681	309	176	113	79
18,500	9.00%	2690	755	344	195	126	87
18,500	10.00%	2914	826	377	214	138	96

Given the lack of specific general or domain-specific power requirements, the noncertainty stratum is not further stratified. Although further stratification based on the number of FTSOs might be used to ensure adequate coverage and appropriate representation of smaller agencies without identified deaths, the 2014 CSLLEA frame is often incomplete or out of date in this regard. BJS has chosen to use the CSLLEA number of FTSOs only for the classification of large agencies. These certainty (any agency with 500 or more officers) and sampled LEAs (with less than 500 officers) without an identified arrest-related death will form subsample 3, and the ME/Cs with jurisdiction concurrent with those LEAs will form subsample 4.

Data Collection Procedures

To identify respondents for the agency survey, we will review open sources and compile a list of potential arrest-related deaths occurring from June 1 through August 31, 2015. This list will be checked for duplication to develop a list of unique cases. Preliminary analyses estimate that 403 potential arrest-related deaths will be identified through open-source review. LEAs and ME/Cs with jurisdiction in these cases, as well as a sample of agencies without an identified arrest-related death, will be contacted to (1) confirm, where indicated, whether the incident meets the definition of an arrest-related death and other inclusionary criteria; (2) identify any additional arrest-related deaths that BJS did not identify during its open-source review; and (3) collect additional information about the decedent and the circumstances surrounding the incident for all identified arrest-related deaths.

As described in the Selection of Survey Sample section, the agency frame will be developed from the list of agencies identified through the open-source review, a sample of other LEAs, and ME/C offices with jurisdiction concurrent with those of the two LEA subsamples. An estimated 1,705 LEA and ME/C agencies will receive Quarterly Summary questionnaires. On the basis of preliminary analyses from the open-source review, we estimate that 453 incident reports will be completed (403 from cases identified through open-source review and 50 cases identified by the agencies).

Contact information for identified and sampled LEAs will be drawn from the agency frame used to conduct the 2014 CSLLEA. The first step in the data collection process will be to complete any missing contact information. To fill in e-mail addresses for the official agency samples, we will draw from information already found in other ongoing activities that also rely on this information, such as the National Crime Statistics Exchange, the Survey of Law Enforcement Personnel in Schools, the Law Enforcement Agency Roster task, and the Deaths in Custody Reporting Programs for Jails and Prisons (for ME/C contact information). We will construct a crosswalk between the ARD sample and the rosters that support these other projects to pull any known agency e-mail addresses into the ARD sample. We are not expecting this step to provide 100% coverage of the ARD sample, so we will use Web searches to find e-mail addresses that are still unknown. We plan to use e-mail as the primary method of communication and recruitment for the data collection, so if any agencies are still missing e-mail addresses, we will contact them via telephone to gather the needed information. In the unlikely case that these telephone contacts do not yield usable e-mail information for the agency, data collection communications will be routed via mail (instead of e-mail) using BJS letterhead for that small subset of the sample.

Before making any contact with the field, BJS will set up both a project hotline (toll-free number) and a project e-mail address. The project hotline will ring to two project staff (the data collection manager and an agency liaison [AL]). Both of these staff will be trained on the study protocol and will be prepared to answer project questions from the field. The hotline will remain open for the duration of ARD program pilot study.

BJS will first send an e-mail (or letter) to the primary point of contact (POC) in each state whose agency is responsible for collecting information about or investigating arrest-related deaths in the state. BJS has identified each of these POCs, who represent state bureaus of investigation, offices of attorneys general, criminal investigative agencies, and statistical analysis centers, among others. These letters (see Attachments G and H) will be sent approximately 1 month before data collection begins.

Three states—Maryland, California and Texas—have state legislation that mandates the reporting of arrest-related deaths and thus already have procedures and policies to collect the information requested by the ARD program pilot study. For these three states, BJS will work with the state coordinator to complete all data collection forms. This approach will reduce burden on the LEAs and ME/Cs, who already report the requested information through the state-mandated reporting.

Once the sample is complete for the other 47 states and the District of Columbia, we will mail a letter via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to the POC in each agency to inform him or her about the ARD pilot study and to notify him or her that the Web questionnaire invitation is forthcoming (see Attachment J). Unless specified by the agency, our POC will be the sheriff, chief of police, medical examiner, or coroner. Accompanying this lead letter will be the Confidentiality Assurances document (see Attachment I), which states that BJS will use the data collected under this program only for research and statistical purposes, as described in 42 USC §3735 and 3789g. Depending on whether the POC has a known e-mail address, the POC will receive one of two versions of this letter, which will inform the POC that the Web questionnaire invitation will be sent the following week. This lead letter will be sent to the state coordinators in Maryland, Texas, and California and to the estimated 1,600 responding agencies in the remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia 5 calendar days before the questionnaire invitation. ⁵

Five days later (Day 1), we will send an e-mail invitation (or, as needed, via USPS⁶) asking the POC to complete the Web questionnaires (Quarterly Summaries and Incident Reports). As with the lead letter, the POC will receive one of two versions (see Attachment K), depending on whether there is a known e-mail address for the POC. On Day 1, this communication will be sent to 1,603 respondents.

On Day 16 (i.e., the 16th calendar day of data collection), we will send a reminder e-mail/letter to any to-date nonrespondents asking them to complete the Web questionnaire as soon as possible. The POC will receive one of two versions of this reminder (see Attachment L). We estimate that this communication will be sent to 75% of the initial sample (1,202 agencies).

On Day 31, we will send our first nonresponse message via e-mail/mail to any to-date nonrespondents asking them once again to complete the Web questionnaire. This communication will address potential reasons for nonresponse. The POC will receive one of two versions (see Attachment M). We estimate that this communication will be sent to 66% of our initial sample (1,058 agencies).

On Day 46, we will send our second nonresponse message via USPS to any to-date nonrespondents because earlier e-mails may have been blocked or unread. The second message will provide information on how to complete the Web questionnaire. The POC will receive one of two versions (see Attachment N). We anticipate that this communication will be sent to 50% of our full sample (802 agencies).

On Day 61, we will begin outreach to the to-date nonrespondents via nonresponse telephone calls. In preparation for this outreach, we will train two additional ALs on the study protocol. All ALs will also be trained on the procedures for contacting nonresponding agencies and asking them to complete the Web questionnaire, most notably tracking cases, contact attempts, and administering the Web questionnaire over the telephone. We anticipate that we will contact 33% of our full sample (529 agencies). We will continue this outreach until Day 90, the final day of data collection.

Our final written contact with the POC will occur on Day 83 via an end-of-study message. We will send an e-mail to any to-date nonrespondents to announce the forthcoming closure of the pilot study and make a final appeal to participate (see Attachment O).

The survey interface is user friendly, which ensures more accurate responses. Because online submission is such an important response method, close attention will be paid to the formatting of the Internet survey instrument. Our instrument is also flexible so it can adapt to meet the needs of multiple device types (e.g., desktop computer and tablet), browser types (e.g., Internet Explorer and Google Chrome), and screen sizes. Other features in the instrument include the following:

• Respondents’ answers will be saved automatically, and they will have the option to leave the survey partway through and return later to finish.

• The online instrument will be programmed with data consistency checks and automatic prompts to ensure inter-item consistency and to reduce the likelihood of “don’t know” and out-of-range responses.

• When a respondent enters a response that appears to be out of range for that agency or question, a prompt will appear on the screen instructing the user to double check the response.

• Respondents will be able to print a copy of their responses for future reference.

• Upon submission, respondents will receive a message that confirms receipt of their survey.

Burden-Hours for the Survey

We estimate that the burden to conduct the ARD program pilot test in the 903 sampled LEAs and 802 ME/Cs is 842 hours (see Table 23). The sample of agencies with an identified death (318 LEAs and 296 ME/Cs) accounts for 563 hours; the sample of agencies without an identified death (690 LEAs and 610 ME/Cs) accounts for 279 hours. The burden-hour estimate is divided into two tasks: (1) review of contact materials and completion of the Quarterly Summary Form (10–24 minutes per participating agency, depending on the number of deaths identified through open-source review found on the form), and (2) completion of the Arrest-Related Death Incident Report (24–32 minutes, depending on whether the respondent is a LEA or ME/C). The burden-hour estimates are based on the feasibility testing (described in the Design of the Survey section) and the experience of the ARD team in conducting similar surveys for other studies.

Table 3. Burden Estimates
Form	Estimated minutes to complete form	Estimated number of forms completed	Burden estimate (hours)
CJ-11	20	318	106.0
CJ-11s	10	585	97.5
CJ-11A	32	453	241.6
CJ-12 (statewide ME)	24	14	5.6
CJ-12 (county ME/C)	16	282	75.2
CJ-12s	16	506	134.9
CJ-12A	24	453	181.2
Total burden estimate	—	2,611	842.0

Analyses

Statistical analyses will be conducted to inform recommendations for future ARD program data collections. These analyses will support findings related to the

• number, type (ME/C or LEA), and characteristics (e.g., size of population served) of responding agencies;

• time from pilot survey invitation to survey completion, by type of agency and number of deaths identified;

• item nonresponse;

• proportion of deaths identified through open-source review that were or were not confirmed through agency-level follow-up;

• number of deaths identified by agencies, but not found through open-source review;

• total number of arrest-related deaths identified, by identification source; and

• characteristics of arrest-related deaths, including decedent characteristics and circumstances surrounding the death.

To assess the coverage of the open-source ARD collection, BJS will use capture-recapture techniques in conjunction with two or more open-source lists that most closely align with the definition of an arrest-related death used by the ARD program (e.g., The Counted, maintained by the Guardian, and KilledByPolice.net). These lists all have national coverage and comparable target populations (although some filtering of out out-of-scope decedents may be necessary) and can be assessed for overlap to arrive at a total decedent population figure through use of either model-based estimation or a stratified Chapman estimator. Once a total population estimate is obtained, we will take the ratio of the count of unique ARD decedents and the estimated population size to obtain a coverage estimate that encompasses all open sources used in the ARD program pilot study. Given the high probability for list dependence across sources, the population estimate may contain some deflationary bias. We will make our best effort to mitigate this bias given the tools and data available, although the resulting coverage estimate can be safely interpreted as an upper bound even in the presence of list dependence bias.

Informed Consent and Data Confidentiality

The lead letter and e-mail invitations that will be sent to agencies will fully explain the purpose of ARD program pilot test and specifically the objectives of the survey. The survey is not intended to collect information on individual officers or information that would otherwise be considered sensitive in nature. As such, the activities associated with this task are not considered human subjects research. However, participants will be informed that their participation in the survey is voluntary, they may decline to answer any or all questions, and they may stop their participation at any time.

Data Security

Data security is paramount to the success of any research study. Our Web survey resides in an environment that has passed an SSAE-16 SOC 2 audit, which is a rigorous private-sector security accreditation. All survey data are encrypted in transit and at rest during data collection.

To ensure confidentiality of data and contact information collected on behalf of BJS, the following procedures will be implemented where possible:

• Only research team members will have access to the survey data for analysis. Unique user names and passwords will be created, and access to data will be restricted to research team members.

• Only research team members directly involved in analysis tasks will be allowed to download survey response data.

• Training on the protection of confidentiality will be provided to all staff as needed.

• Any staff person engaged in the collection, management, or analysis of data will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement, which will specify requisite privacy regulations. In signing the confidentiality agreement, staff indicate their willingness to comply with privacy regulations. See Attachment P.

• All electronic response data will be permanently destroyed at the conclusion of the contract.

Contact Information

Questions regarding any aspect of this project can be directed to——

Michael Planty, PhD

Chief, Victimization Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

810 7th Street, NW, Room 2250

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone: (202) 514-9746

E-mail: [email protected]

Attachments

Attachment A	Form CJ-11: Arrest-related deaths quarterly summary for law enforcement agencies with an identified death
Attachment B	Form CJ-11s: Arrest-related deaths quarterly summary for sampled law enforcement agencies without an identified death
Attachment C	Form CJ-11A: Arrest-related death incident report for law enforcement agencies
Attachment D	Form CJ-12: Arrest-related deaths quarterly summary for medical examiner/coroner’s offices with concurrent jurisdictions with law enforcement agencies with an identified death
Attachment E	Form CJ-12s: Arrest-related deaths quarterly summary for sampled medical examiner/coroner’s offices with concurrent jurisdictions with law enforcement agencies without an identified death
Attachment F	Form CJ-12A: Arrest-related death incident report for medical examiner/coroner’s offices
Attachment G	ARD program pilot study state coordinator letter for states without legislative reporting mandates
Attachment H	ARD program pilot study state coordinator letter for states with legislative reporting mandates (Texas, California, and Maryland)
Attachment I	ARD program pilot study lead letter
Attachment J	ARD program pilot study questionnaire invitation
Attachment K	ARD program pilot study questionnaire reminder
Attachment L	ARD program pilot study questionnaire first nonresponse message
Attachment M	ARD program pilot study questionnaire second nonresponse message
Attachment N	ARD program pilot study end-of-study message
Attachment O	Confidentiality agreement

1 The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA) expired in 2006, although BJS continued to maintain its DCRP data collections. The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 was passed by Congress and became law in December 2014. The 2013 DICRA requires any state receiving funds from the Department of Justice to report on a quarterly basis information regarding the death of any person who is detained, under arrest, in the process of being arrested, is en route to being incarcerated, or is incarcerated.

2 http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en

3 Approximately 16% of the potential arrest-related deaths identified from June 1 through August 31, 2015, occurred in states with a centralized state medical examiner system.

4 Preliminary estimates indicate that 159 ARD Program-eligible LEAs have 500 or more full-time sworn officers and that 74 of them will have an arrest-related death identified through open-source review. The remaining 85 agencies with 500 or more officers will be included as part of subsample 3.

5 Of the estimated 1,705 agencies to be sampled, 105 are in one of the three mandated reporting states.

6 All e-mail contacts will be sent a corresponding USPS letter version if the LEA does not have an e-mail address on file.

9