BJS Response to Passback

Attachment A_passback revised_8-14-2015.doc

Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016

BJS Response to Passback

OMB: 1121-0152

Document [doc]

Download: doc | pdf

2016 SPI OMB Package

Attachment A

Table of Contents

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute Page 2

Attachment A2 – CAPI Screenshots Page 8

Attachment A3 – Title 42 USC 3789g Page 10

Attachment A4 – Interview Consent CAPI Testing Form Page 13

Attachment A5 – Interview Consent National Study Form Page 16

Attachment A6 – CAPI Testing Initial Contact Commissioner Letter Page 19

Attachment A7 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions Sampled Facilities Page 21

Attachment A8 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions No Sampled Facilities Page 23

Attachment A9 – Sampled Facility Letter Page 24

Attachment A10 – FAQ Facility Page 26

Attachment A11 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC and BOP Page 27

Attachment A12 – BJS Thank You Letter Facility Page 28

Attachment A13 – RTI Thank You Letter Facility Page 29

Attachment A14 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC Facility CAPI Testing Page 30

Attachment A15 – ASCA Letter Page 31

Attachment A16 – SPI Flyer Page 32

Attachment A17 – SPI Introduction Letter Page 34

Attachment A18 – Agenda Training National Study Page 35

Attachment A19 – SPI Pilot Study Report Page 37

DERIVATION

Title I

THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

(Public Law 90-351)

42 U.S.C. ' 3711, et seq.

AN ACT to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other purposes.

As Amended By

THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970

(Public Law 91-644)

THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973

(Public Law 93-83)

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974

(Public Law 93-415)

THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS= BENEFITS ACT OF 1976

(Public Law 94-430)

THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1976

(Public Law 94-503)

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979

(Public Law 96-157)

THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1984

(Public Law 98-473)

STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1986

(Public Law 99-570-Subtitle K)

THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988

TITLE VI, SUBTITLE C - STATE AND LOCAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS

(Public Law 100-690)

THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990

(Public Law 101-647)

BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT

(Public Law 103-159)

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

(Public Law 103-322)

NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED

(Public Law 103-209)

and

CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998

(Public Law 105-251)

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

CHAPTER 46 - SUBCHAPTER III

[TITLE I - PART C]

42 USC ' 3731 [Sec. 301.] Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter [part] to provide for and encourage the collection and analysis of statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system and to support the development of information and statistical systems at the Federal, State, and local levels to improve the efforts of these levels of government to measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system. The Bureau shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities responsible for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter [part], the Bureau shall give primary emphasis to the problems of State and local justice systems.

42 USC ' 3732 [Sec. 302.] Bureau of Justice Statistics

(a) Establishment. There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this subchapter [part] as ABureau@).

(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions. The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall have had experience in statistical programs. The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall report to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in any other employment than that of serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.

(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies, institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes related to this subchapter [part]; grants shall be made subject to continuing compliance with standards for gathering justice statistics set forth in rules and regulations promulgated by the Director;

(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes against the elderly, and civil disputes;

(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical factors related to crime, civil disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, and local justice policy and decisionmaking;

(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at the Federal, State, and local levels;

(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, and local levels;

(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of statistical information, about criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, and local levels, and about the extent, distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and at the Federal, State, and local levels;

(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States;

(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity of justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter [title];

(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State Governments in matters relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity as feasible in statistical systems of the executive and judicial branches;

(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and local governments, and the general public on justice statistics;

(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local governments with access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs under this Act;

(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics;

(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance to the States and units of local government relating to collection, analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics;

(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection, aggregation, analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the criminal justice system;

(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics (including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high technology crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other Federal agencies to improve the availability and quality of Federal justice data;

(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of information and statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and attributes of drug offenses, drug related offenses and drug dependent offenders and further provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse to maintain and update a comprehensive and timely data base on all criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to disseminate such information;

(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State and local levels with particular attention to programs and intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the overall national anti‑ drug strategy and to provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse for the gathering of data generated by Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;

(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal justice information systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis or dissemination of data and statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug dependent offenders;

(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of criminal history record information, information systems, arrest warrant, and stolen vehicle record information and information systems and support research concerning the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of other criminal justice record information;

(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other nations concerning justice statistics;

(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the development of uniform justice statistics;

(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g of this title and identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and information policies which impact on Federal and State criminal justice operations and related statistical activities; and

(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VIII [part H] of this chapter [title].

(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination. To insure that all justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner, the Director is authorized toB

(1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without reimbursement therefor, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis;

(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;

(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to carry out the purposes of this chapter [title];

(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from criminal justice records; and

(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding information systems, information policy, and data.

(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies. Federal agencies requested to furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this section shall provide such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.

(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary. In recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall consult with representatives of State and local government, including, where appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.

42 USC ' 3733 [Sec. 303.] Authority for 100 per centum grants

A grant authorized under this subchapter [part] may be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each project for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever feasible as a condition of approval of a grant under this subchapter [part] , that the recipient contribute money, facilities, or services to carry out the purposes for which the grant is sought.

42 USC ' 3735 [Sec. 304.] Use of data

Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and shall be gathered in a manner that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a particular individual other than statistical or research purposes.

42 USC ' 3789g [Sec. 812.] Confidentiality of information

(a) Research of statistical information; immunity from process; prohibition against admission as evidence or use in any proceedings. Except as provided by Federal law other than this chapter, no officer or employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of assistance under the provisions of this chapter shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this chapter by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was obtained in accordance with this chapter. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.

(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data; procedures for collection, storage, dissemination, and current status; security and privacy; availability for law enforcement, criminal justice, and other lawful purposes; automated systems: review, challenge, and correction of information. All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under this chapter shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included therein. The collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice Programs shall assure that the security and privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that information shall only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In addition, an individual who believes that criminal history information concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this chapter, shall, upon satisfactory verification of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction.

(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition against violation of privacy and constitutional rights of individuals. All criminal intelligence systems operating through support under this chapter shall collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal intelligence information in conformance with policy standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and which are written to assure that the funding and operation of these systems furthers the purpose of this chapter and to assure that such systems are not utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.

(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty. Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, shall be fined not to exceed $10,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by la

Screenshot of CAPI Instrument with OMB Estimate and Statement

Example Screen from the Survey of Prison Inmates CAPI Instrument

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2006]

[CITE: 42USC3789g]

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 46--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

SUBCHAPTER VIII--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 3789g. Confidentiality of information

(a) Research or statistical information; immunity from process;

prohibition against admission as evidence or use in any

proceedings

No officer or employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of assistance under the provisions of this chapter shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this chapter by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was obtained in accordance with this chapter. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune

from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.

(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data;

procedures for collection, storage, dissemination, and current status; security and privacy; availability for law enforcement, criminal justice, and other lawful purposes; automated systems: review, challenge, and correction of information

All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support under this chapter shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data where arrest data is included therein. The collection, storage, and dissemination of such information shall take place under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice Programs shall assure that the security and privacy of all

information is adequately provided for and that information shall only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In addition, an individual who believes that criminal history information concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this chapter, shall, upon satisfactory verification of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction.

(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition against violation of privacy and constitutional rights of individuals

All criminal intelligence systems operating through support under this chapter shall collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal intelligence information in conformance with policy standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and which are written to assure that the funding and operation of these systems furthers the purpose of this chapter and to assure that such systems are not utilized in violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals.

(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty

Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, shall be fined not to exceed $10,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.

(Pub. L. 90-351, title I, Sec. 812, formerly Sec. 818, as added Pub. L. 96-157, Sec. 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1213; renumbered Sec. 812 and amended Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 609B(f), (k), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2093, 2096; Pub. L. 109-162, title XI, Sec. 1115(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3104.)

Prior Provisions

A prior section 812 of Pub. L. 90-351 was classified to section 3789a of this title prior to repeal by section 609B(e) of Pub. L. 98-473.

Amendments

2006--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-162 substituted ``No'' for ``Except as provided by Federal law other than this chapter, no''. 1984--Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 98-473, 609B(k), substituted ``Office of Justice Programs'' for ``Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics''.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by section 609B(k) of Pub. L. 98-473 effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98-473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of Prison Inmates

Consent to Participate in Research

Introduction

The Survey of Prison Inmates is a research study being done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International. The purpose of this research is to try out the questionnaire we’ve developed for conducting the national Survey of Prison Inmates next year. The national survey will collect information on the conditions and experiences of prison inmates in the United States. Interviews will be conducted at 2 prisons for this study and you are one of about 30 inmates at this facility being asked to take part. Your participation in this project is voluntary. But you were chosen at random, or by chance, to represent many other inmates in this facility who were not selected. We cannot replace you with anyone else, so your participation is important if we are to accurately describe all inmates in this facility. After you have heard the information about the study, you can decide if you want to participate in the study.

Description of the Study

This interview will take about 55 minutes. I will ask questions about your criminal history, physical and mental health, drug and alcohol use before you were incarcerated, and any treatment you may have received. I will also ask questions about your experiences at this facility, some background questions about your family, your education and your work history. I will enter your answers directly into the laptop computer.

At some point over the next 5 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics may also combine your survey answers with data from other government agencies about your employment, income, participation in various government programs, and criminal records. This information will allow for additional research without taking up more of your time with questions. It will only be used to produce statistics that will combine your information with that of all other inmates in the study. It will also help identify ways to improve the services, education, and training available to inmates in the future, including inmates who return to the community.

Confidentiality

This study is covered by a Privacy Certificate which means that we will treat everything you say during the interview and all information about you as private and confidential. It also means that we will not share your answers with anyone at this prison or with anyone from the community such as a supervision officer or employer. Nothing you tell me during the interview can be used in any legal action. To protect your confidentiality, all information will be handled in a secure manner and your answers will always be combined with those of all other inmates in the study to produce the study results. The procedures to protect your privacy are required by law, Title 42, United States Code, Section 3789g, There is, however, an exception to our promise of confidentiality. If you tell me that you intend to seriously harm yourself or a specific person or plan to commit a future crime, I may need to inform correctional staff.

[To thank you for participating in the study, we will provide you with a snack to eat before you leave this room.]

Possible Risks or Discomforts

Some of the survey questions are personal and ask about behaviors that may be illegal. These questions may make you feel uncomfortable or upset. You can skip any questions you do not want to answer. I will not ask you questions if I think someone can overhear your answers. If you become upset for any reason, you can stop the interview.

Benefits

You will not receive any direct benefits for participating in this study. However, the results of the overall study may help to improve the condition and well-being of inmates in facilities across the nation, as well as those who reenter the community. If you do not participate you will not lose any benefits or services that you now receive or might receive in the future. Your choice to participate will have no effect on your legal status or any decisions regarding your release.

Further Questions

If you have any questions about the project, you may write to the Survey of Prison Inmates at RTI International, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194. If you have questions about your rights as a project participant, you can write to RTI's Office of Research Protection at the same address.

INTERVIEWER:

AFTER READING THE CONSENT FORM:

Do you have any questions about the study at this time? RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRAINING.

If you agree to take part, I’ll begin the interview.

IF AGREES, CODE CONSENT STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH STANDARD CONSENT FORM, AND BEGIN INTERVIEW.

IF INITIAL REFUSAL:

ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE USING STANDARD CONVERSION TECHNIQUES FROM TRAINING/EXPERIENCE. IF STANDARD TECHNIQUES ARE SUCCESSFUL, CODE CONSENT STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND BEGIN INTERVIEW. PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH STANDARD CONSENT FORM.

IF STANDARD TECHNIQUES ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, AS FINAL EFFORT TO PERSUADE, OFFER OPT-OUT OPTION.

I understand that you don’t want to take part in the study as I’ve described it. Because you represent many other inmates, it’s important to learn what we can about your experiences. And if you would be willing to participate in just part of the study, you can still help us identify ways to improve things for inmates in the future and those who return to the community.

If you agree, you can do the interview and allow us to combine your answers with just your current criminal record to save time. And I can promise that we will not review your future criminal records or get information about you from any other government agencies for additional research purposes.

If you agree to that, I can begin the interview.

IF AGREES, CODE CONSENT STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH OPT-OUT CONSENT FORM, AND BEGIN INTERVIEW.

IF REFUSES, CODE REFUSAL STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THANK INMATE (DO NOT BEGIN INTERVIEW).

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of Prison Inmates

Consent to Participate in Research

Introduction

The Survey of Prison Inmates is a research study being done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International. The purpose of this research is to collect information on the conditions and experiences of inmates in the United States. Interviews will be conducted at 350 prisons for this study and you are one of about 30,000 inmates in the nation being asked to take part. Your participation in this project is voluntary. But you were chosen at random, or by chance, to represent thousands of other inmates across the nation who were not selected. We cannot replace you with anyone else, so your participation is important if we are to accurately describe all inmates across the nation. After you have heard the information about the study, you can decide if you want to participate in the study.

Description of the Study

Confidentiality

[To thank you for participating in the study, we will provide you with a snack to eat before you leave this room.]

Possible Risks or Discomforts

Benefits

You will not receive any direct benefits for participating in this study. However, the results of this study may help to improve the condition and well-being of inmates in facilities across the nation, as well as those who reenter the community. If you do not participate, you will not lose any benefits or services that you now receive or might receive in the future. Your choice to participate will have no effect on your legal status or any decisions regarding your release.

Further Questions

INTERVIEWER:

AFTER READING THE CONSENT FORM:

Do you have any questions about the study at this time? RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRAINING.

If you agree to take part, I’ll begin the interview.

IF AGREES, CODE CONSENT STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH STANDARD CONSENT FORM, AND BEGIN INTERVIEW.

IF INITIAL REFUSAL:

IF STANDARD TECHNIQUES ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, AS FINAL EFFORT TO PERSUADE, OFFER OPT-OUT OPTION.

I understand that you don’t want to take part in the study as I’ve described it. Because you represent thousands of other inmates, it’s important to learn what we can about your experiences. And if you would be willing to participate in just part of the study, you can still help us identify ways to improve things for inmates in the future and those who return to the community.

If you agree to that, I can begin the interview.

IF AGREES, CODE CONSENT STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH OPT-OUT CONSENT FORM, AND BEGIN INTERVIEW.

IF REFUSES, CODE REFUSAL STATUS IN CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THANK INMATE (DO NOT BEGIN INTERVIEW).

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME AND TITLE]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:

During September, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is planning a pretest related to one of its major survey initiatives, the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (or SPI). Prior to fielding the national study, we want to conduct a pretest of the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) data collection instrument to ensure that it is programmed correctly and that inmates are properly routed though the questionnaire. To this end, I am writing to respectfully request your approval for staff from BJS’s data collection agent, RTI International (RTI), to conduct a pretest in [NAME OF FACILITY] in [JURISDICTION].

By way of background, and as I have described in several presentations about SPI to the Association of State Correctional Administrators Research and Best Practices Committee, BJS has conducted six prior iterations of this survey, about one every 6 or 7 years since 1974. BJS conducted the last iteration of it in 2004. The survey data are used by BJS, state corrections researchers and researchers in general to describe nationally the characteristics of the U.S. prison population, including characteristics that are germane to corrections management such as the severity of offenses committed and criminal history; medical, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems; behaviors in prison including both rule infractions and participation in programs.

If you agree to it, the pretest would require two tasks of the facility managers: 1) Provide RTI with a roster of inmates from which we can draw a random sample of about 30 inmates to participate in the 60-minute survey, and 2) provide assistance to RTI staff in managing logistics associated with conducting the interviews. RTI staff will need to conduct these interviews in a private or secure area that is out of hearing range of facility staff or other inmates so as to assure the confidentiality of the inmates. All information collected will be kept confidential and will be used only for the purposes of the pretest only.

We aim to minimize disruption to your facility. We expect that RTI will have about three to five trained interviewers on site for two to three days, depending on the availability of space in the facilities. RTI staff have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys in prison facilities and their staff will follow all institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any potential disruption to facility operations.

As I’m sure you are aware, since 2007 BJS has entered your facilities for the purpose of conducting surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act that are known as the National Inmate Survey (NIS). I want to let you know that neither the pretest for SPI nor the national SPI study are at all related to the aims of the NIS and reiterate that the purpose of the SPI is to produce national estimates of characteristics of prisoners and not facility-level estimates of sexual victimization.

I would greatly appreciate your help in conducting this pretest. I also want to make sure that you have enough information in order to make an informed decision about whether you will grant my request. To that end, if you want more information, I ask that you direct your staff to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628.

If you have enough information to make a decision about the pretest then I ask that you you’re your staff contact me or Ms. Glaze with the name and contact information of the facility managers or someone from your office who can assist in arranging the interviews. I can be reached at [email protected] or 202-514-0162

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME AND TITLE]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:

Starting in October 2015, the Bureau of Justice Statistics will begin conducting the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). I am writing to request your approval for staff from BJS’s data collection agent, RTI International (RTI), to obtain access to [NUMBER] facilities within your system for the purpose of conducting the study.

If you recall, last month I sent you a letter to introduce the 2016 SPI study and a flyer that provided detailed information about this important study. BJS has conducted this survey periodically since the 1970s among state prisoners and the 1990s among federal prisoners. BJS uses SPI to generate national estimates of the characteristics of the prison population over a variety of topics, including those that are germane to corrections management. As national data, the survey will provide a benchmark against which you may compare your prison populations. When analyzed together with previous SPI surveys, these data will permit you and other practitioners to understand how the nation’s prison population has changed and why. Prison administrators and policymakers have found these surveys to be an invaluable data source for addressing a wide array of criminal justice issues. BJS intends to publish a number of topical reports from the 2016 SPI data, after which the data will be made publically available.

SPI was last conducted in 2004. Since then, it was temporarily suspended by BJS to minimize burden to state departments of corrections (DOCs) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons given that since 2007, BJS has entered your facilities for the purpose of conducting surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act that are known as the National Inmate Survey (NIS). I want to let you know that the 2016 SPI is not at all related to the goals of NIS and reiterate that the purpose of SPI is to produce national estimates of characteristics of prisoners and not facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates.

[NUMBER] facilities in [STATE] were randomly sampled to participate in the 2016 SPI. Those facilities include: [FACILITY NAMES]. With your permission, we would ask for two forms of assistance from the selected facility administrators: (1) a roster of inmates from which we can draw a random sample of about [80/115] inmates to interview; and (2) assistance to the RTI staff in managing logistics associated with conducting the interviews. To conduct the interviews, RTI staff would need access to areas that are secure but out of hearing range of staff or other inmates because as a federal statistical agency, BJS pledges confidentiality to the interviewed inmates. All information that could identify individual inmates will be held confidential and will only be used for statistical purposes, as required under Title 42, U.S.C., Sections 3735 and 3789g.

We aim to minimize disruption to your facilities. We expect that RTI will have between four and six trained interviewers on site for three to five days, depending on the availability of space in the facilities. While this may sound like a large number, RTI staff have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys in prison facilities and their staff will follow all institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any potential disruption to facility operations.

We are not planning to collect data in any of your facilities for a couple months but we would like to proceed with the research approval process, and begin scheduling data collection with the facilities. Participation of these facilities is crucial to produce accurate statistics nationwide. Because this is a sample survey, each facility selected represents many other prisons in the statistical analysis.

Enclosed is another copy of the SPI flyer and a letter of support of SPI from the Research and Best Practices Committee of the Association of State Correctional Administrators. We would greatly appreciate your help in conducting this important study, and thank you in advance for your time. An RTI representative will contact you soon to discuss the survey and arrangements, beginning with the establishment of a liaison from your office.

If you have any questions or concerns about the survey, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or 202-305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:

Earlier this month, I sent you a letter introducing the upcoming Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). We selected a random sample of state and federal correctional facilities in the United States and not every state had facilities that were sampled to participate in the 2016 SPI. This letter is intended to inform you that none of the facilities in [STATE/JURISDICTION] were sampled.

We appreciate your consideration and support of the 2016 SPI. If you have any questions or concerns about the study or would simply like more information, such as a copy of the questionnaire, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME AND TITLE]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:

With this letter I would like to confirm that you are aware that in early [INSERT MONTH], the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and its data collection agent RTI International (RTI) plan to begin work on a study for one of BJS’s major surveys, the Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). I have already contacted [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME] to obtain approval to conduct the study in [NUMBER OF FACILITIES] state facilities in [STATE] and, as you may already be aware, your facility was randomly selected to participate. This letter is intended to provide you with some information about SPI so you understand the goals and what they entail.

By way of background, the 2106 SPI will be the seventh iteration of the survey conducted of state prisoners since the 1970s and the fourth iteration of federal prisoners since the early 1990s. BJS uses the SPI to generate national estimates of the characteristics of the prison population, including characteristics that are germane to corrections management such as the severity of offenses committed and criminal history; medical, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems; behaviors in prison including both rule infractions and participation in programs.

We collect the data through in-person interviews with a sample of prison inmates and the survey is estimated to take about 60 minutes on average. To conduct the survey, we request two forms of assistance from you: (1) a roster of inmates from which we can draw a random sample of about [80/115] inmates to interview; and (2) assistance to the RTI staff in managing logistics associated with conducting the interviews. As a federal statistical agency, BJS pledges confidentiality to the interviewed inmates. To maintain confidentiality, the best setting for RTI staff to conduct the survey would allow for interviews to be carried out privately, without being overheard by staff or other inmates. All information that could identify individual inmates will be held confidential and will only be used for statistical purposes, as required under Title 42, U.S.C., Sections 3735 and 3789g.

We aim to minimize disruption to your facility. We expect that RTI will have between four and six trained interviewers on site for three to five days, depending on the availability of space in your facility. While this may sound like a large number, RTI staff have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys in prison facilities and their staff will follow all institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any potential disruption to facility operations.

SPI was last conducted in 2004. Since then, it was temporarily suspended by BJS to minimize burden to state and federal correctional facilities given that since 2007, BJS has interviewed prison inmates for the purpose of conducting surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act that are known as the National Inmate Survey (NIS). I want to let you know that the 2016 SPI is not at all related to the goals of NIS and reiterate that the purpose of SPI is to produce national estimates of characteristics of prisoners and not facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates.

Enclosed with this letter, you will find a FAQ document that provides you with more information about the study and is intended to assist your and your staff with the data collection process. Participation of all facilities sampled is crucial to produce accurate statistics nationwide. Because this is a sample survey, each facility selected represents many other prisons in the statistical analysis.

We would greatly appreciate your help in conducting this important study, and thank you in advance for your participation. An RTI representative will contact you soon to discuss the survey and arrangements.

If you have any questions about the survey, please feel free to call Monica Sheppard, RTI Logistics Manager, at [email protected] or (919) 541-6000.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

The 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI)

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Document for Correctional Facilities and Staff

What is this all about?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is planning to conduct the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), the purpose of which is to generate reliable, nationally-representative estimates of the characteristics of prisoners in the United States, track changes in the characteristics of prisoners over time, conduct studies of prisoners on special topics, and identify policy-relevant changes in the prison population.

How will inmates be selected to participate?

SPI staff at RTI will randomly select approximately 100 inmates in the facility to participate in the interview and then provide the facility with the name(s) of the inmate(s) we would like to interview. Facility staff can then escort the inmate to where the interviewers are working.

What should I say to inmates who have been randomly selected to participate?

When approaching inmates who have been randomly selected to participate in the SPI, you can adhere to the following script: “[insert inmate’s name], there is someone here who would like to invite you to participate in an interview. The interviewer can tell you what it is about so please come with me so I can introduce you to the interviewer.”

If the inmate requests more information, you can say: “I do not know much about the interview, but the person conducting the interview will tell you what it is all about. If you come with me, I will introduce you, but you do not have to come with me or participate in the survey.”

Where will the interview be conducted?

We will require somewhat private areas or rooms within the facility to conduct our interviews. Because we will be using laptop computers to administer the interviews, it would be preferable that the interview area or rooms be equipped with a power outlet. Several interviewers can use the same interview space as long as the space or room is large enough to ensure some distance between interviewers.

What if an inmate cannot leave his/her cell or housing unit?

We understand that some inmates in our random sample may not be able to leave their cells or housing units. However, it is important that we try to give all inmates an opportunity to participate in the study. We would appreciate it if you can work with our interviewers when they are at your facility to determine if there is a way to include all sampled inmates in the 2016 SPI.

What does the interview involve?

Participation in the interview is completely voluntary, so inmates can refuse to participate or answer any of the questions. First, the inmate will be asked a series of questions at the beginning of the interview. Depending on how they respond to these initial questions, they may not qualify to participate in the study. Therefore, some inmates might be excused after only a few minutes while others will qualify for the study and be in the interviewing area or room for about 60 minutes. Inmates will be asked about their backgrounds, families, criminal and incarceration histories, pro-social connections, program participation, substance use, mental health, medical problems, and reentry-related needs and plans.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:

Thank you for your recent participation in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). The commitment of corrections administrators and staff across the nation in supporting this data collection to measure and better understand the changes in the nation’s prison population and the reasons for those changes has been remarkable, particularly in these challenging budget times.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International worked with many practitioners and researchers in developing the instrument and protocols for the survey. We hope your staff found the process to be well organized and efficient. Data collection will be followed by a period of data cleaning, weighting, and analysis. We anticipate beginning to release findings from the study starting in late 2016/early 2017.

Thank you again for your assistance. We welcome any feedback you might have about the experience. Please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628. She can also be contacted for more information about future 2016 SPI reports.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, Ph.D.

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[NAME OF FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:

Thank you for allowing the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to interview inmates in your facility as part of the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). Your facility’s help was crucial to ensuring the success of SPI and generating national statistics of the characteristics of the U.S. prison population.

In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] for their help with the study. [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] facilitated our work in an efficient and friendly manner. Please convey my thanks to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] and all the other facility staff who assisted in this effort.

Thank you again for your cooperation and assistance. We hope you found the process to be well organized and efficient. After a period of data cleaning, weighting, and analysis, we anticipate beginning to release findings from the study starting in late 2016/early 2017.

We welcome any feedback you would like to share about the experience. Please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628 with comments or questions.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, Ph.D.

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

[DATE]

[FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME AND TITLE]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:

On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI), I would like to express our gratitude for your assistance in implementing BJS’s 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) in your facility. The success of this study was dependent on the assistance and cooperation of facility leadership and staff. To this end, we appreciate all of the time, resources, and guidance you and [NAME OF KEY STAFF AT FACILITY] provided to us.

Specifically, we appreciate all that you did to accommodate the team of interviewers, from our early conversations about logistics to providing the interviewers with everything they needed during the week of data collection. It was a pleasure working with you and [NAME OF KEY STAFF AT FACILITY].

If you would like to share your feedback on the logistics process or speak to us about how data collection went in your facility, please feel free to contact me at (410) 833-1106 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Monica Sheppard

Logistics Manager

RTI International

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY/FACILITY CONTACT]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME/FACILITY CONTACT]:

Thank you for allowing the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to conduct a pretest of the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) instrument in [FACILITY NAME]. Your support was important to ensuring the CAPI survey instrument performed as expected and properly routed inmates through the questionnaire. After we finish making the necessary adjustments, this CAPI survey will be used nationwide to collect data from prison inmates as part of the 2016 SPI, slated to begin in the fall of 2015.

In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] for their help with this endeavor. [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] facilitated our work in an efficient and friendly manner. Please convey my thanks to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] and all the other facility staff who assisted in this effort.

Thank you again for your assistance. If you would like more information about this pretest or the 2016 SPI national study, or have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

[DATE]

XXX

Dear XXX

The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) is pleased to be working with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to field the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). SPI is scheduled to begin in October 2015 and we are pleased to be working collaboratively with BJS and RTI to help communicate with departments of corrections (DOCs) about the importance and value of SPI, and to encourage and facilitate DOC participation. With DOC support, we know that SPI will produce statistics that are useful to the federal and state governments, corrections organizations and institutions, and the research and policymaking communities.

As has been noted by the ASCA Research and Best Practices Committee, SPI is an important opportunity to gather critical data and information about the nation’s prison population. This will be the seventh time BJS has conducted it since 1974. Historically, SPI has been primarily used to produce national statistics of the prison population on a variety of topics of interest and importance to the corrections community. For example, the severity of the offenses committed by prisoners, the characteristics of the incidents that led to their offenses, and their criminal histories; their medical conditions, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems; their behaviors in prison including both rule infractions and participation in programs.

As they have in the past, corrections administrators, policymakers, and corrections researchers will be able to use the SPI data and statistical products to address emerging issues in corrections and enhance our understanding about the key characteristics of the population, changes in the population over time, and factors related to changes to improve policy and practice. Due to the need to conduct congressionally mandated PREA data collection activities in prisons, SPI has not been conducted since 2004 to avoid burdening DOCs further during that time. The need for updated data on the prison population is thus critical. ASCA looks forward to working with BJS, RTI, and the corrections community to make the 2016 SPI a success.

BJS and RTI have worked extensively to develop study procedures that will minimize burden on participating facilities. I would be happy to talk with anyone who has questions about the importance of the SPI data to the corrections community. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Name

Chair

Research and Best Practices Committee

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]

[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]

[STREET ADDRESS 1]

[STREET ADDRESS 2]

[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:

This letter is intended to introduce the upcoming 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) that will be conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and our data collection, RTI International (RTI), later this year. At this time, I simply want to make you aware of this study and that it will be occurring soon.

As background, the 2106 SPI will be the seventh iteration of the survey conducted on state prisoners since the 1970s and the fourth iteration on federal prisoners since the early 1990s. It has been over 10 years now since BJS last conducted the SPI survey. Historically, the SPI has been used to produce national statistics of the prison population on a variety of topics of interest and importance to the corrections community. The estimates provide a national benchmark with which prison systems across the nation can compare their populations. The 2016 data will be critical to understanding: 1) the current status of the U.S. prison population, 2) how it has changed over time, and 3) reasons for those changes. BJS intends to publish a number of topical reports from SPI, after which the data will be made publically available. Please note that this survey is different from BJS’s National Inmate Survey, which is mandated through the Prison Rape Elimination Act and was designed to produce facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates. By contrast, the SPI will provide national estimates of the characteristics of prison inmates over a variety of domains, but sexual victimization is not a topic covered in SPI.

Soon BJS will draw a random sample of facilities from all state and federal correctional facilities in the United States to participate in the 2016 SPI. Not all [STATES/JURISDICTIONS] will have facilities sampled to participate in this study. Next month we will contact you again to notify you of whether or not any [FACILITIES] in your [STATE/JURISDICTION] were sampled. If so, we will request your approval for the study and provide further details at that time.

Please find enclosed with this letter a flyer about the 2016 SPI that provides more information about this important study, including the content covered by the questionnaire and future BJS products. If you have any questions about the 2016 SPI or would like more information, including a copy of the questionnaire, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

SPI Training Agenda

Day 1

8:15 – 8:30 Registration

8:30 – 8:45 Welcome and introductions

8:45 – 9:45 Overview and background of study

9:45 - 10:15 Team Code of Conduct Activity

10:15 – 10:30 BREAK

10:30 – 11:15 Overview of Data Collection (travel in through travel out)

11:15 – 11:45 Respondent’s Rights and Confidentiality

11:45 – 12:45 LUNCH

12:45 – 1:15 Safety, Working in Facilities, Attire

1:15 – 1:45 Sampling and List of Sampled Inmates

1:45 – 2:30 Room set up and getting inmates to room: Privacy add OS working with staff in centralized and decentralized—what you say when working with staff, to prep for OS exercise later in training)

2:30 – 3:30 Consent procedures (including refusal avoidance)

3:30 – 3:45 BREAK

3:45 – 4:30 Fundamentals of Interviewing, Review

4:30 – 5:00 Introduction to computer

Day 2

8:30 – 8:45 Review of previous day

8:45 – 9:15 Powering On, Passwords, Accessing a Case

9:15 – 9:45 Blaise Tutorial

9:45 – 10:30 Round Robin

10:30 – 10:45 BREAK

10:45 – 12:00 Round Robin

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 Round Robin

2:00 – 3:15 Review of event codes, entering codes in 3 locations (CMS, FI Daily and List of Sampled Inmates)

3:15 – 3:30 BREAK

3:30 – 5:00 Using look up table and coding offenses

Day 3

8:30 – 8:45 Review of previous day

8:45 – 9:15 Tailored Review of Difficult Modules (anything tricky that needs extra training time would go here, including Break-offs, Female Rs, CJ stuff)

9:15 – 10:30 Paired interview #1 interview only (more experienced FI role as FI and less experienced FI as respondent, conducting X interview scenario)

10:30 – 10:45 BREAK

10:45 – 12:15 Paired interview #2 interview only (interviewers switch roles, conducting X scenario)

12:15 – 1:15 LUNCH

1:15 – 2:30 Paired Interview #3

2:30 – 3:00 Paired Interview #4

3:00 – 3:15 BREAK

3:15 – 4:15 Paired Interview #4, continued

4:15 – 5:00 Dealing with Distressed Respondents

Day 4

8:30 – 9:30 OS Practice

9:30 – 10:00 Email

10:00 – 10:15 BREAK

10:15 – 10:45 Transmissions

10:45 – 12:00 Bringing it all together (Overview of entire process from travel in to travel out)

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 Coding Review

2:00 – 2:45 ePTEs

2:45 – 3:00 BREAK

3:00 – 3:30 Expense Reports

3:30 – 4:00 Review of Facilities (Logistics Plans, if available.)

4:00 – 5:00 Bilingual training

December 2013

Survey of Prison Inmates

Pilot Study

Final Report

Prepared for

Lauren Glaze

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Corrections Unit

810 7th St, NW.

Washington D.C.

20531

Prepared by

RTI International

3040 E. Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 0212322

RTI Project Number

0212322

Survey of Prison Inmates

Pilot Study

Final Report

December 2013

Prepared for

Lauren Glaze

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Corrections Unit

810 7th St, NW.

Washington D.C.

20531

Prepared by

RTI International

3040 E. Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test 1

1.1 Project Background 1

1.2 Objectives of the Pilot Study 1

1.3 Project Timeline 2

2. Sample Design 1

2.1 Selecting Facilities 1

2.2 Sampling Inmates within Facilities 1

3. Data Collection 1

3.1 Data Collection Instrument 1

3.2 IRB Approvals 2

3.3 Logistics 2

3.4 Interviewer Training 3

3.5 Interviewing 4

4. Results 1

4.1 Overall Results 1

4.1.1 Cooperation 1

4.1.2 Refusal 1

4.1.3 SSN Compliance Rate 2

4.1.4 Interview Breakoffs 3

4.1.5 Distressed Respondents 3

4.2 Results by Facility 4

4.3 Interview Length 4

4.4 Respondent Debriefing Questions 6

4.5 Item Nonresponse/Missingness 7

4.6 Interviewer Debriefing Session 7

4.7 Project Staff Observations 9

5. Discussion 1

5.1 Challenges 1

5.2 Recommendations 1

5.2.1 Consent Process 1

5.2.2 SSN Request 2

5.2.3 Interview Length 2

References R-1

Notes N-1

Appendix

A: Pilot Study Instrument A-Removed

B: Consent Forms B-Removed

C: Interviewer Materials C-Removed

D: Letters to Commissioners D-Removed

Figures

Number Page

4-1. Number of Inmate Breakoff Cases that Started Each Module 3

Tables

Number Page

3-1. Pilot Study Questionnaire Content by Section 1

3-2. SPI Pilot Study Facility Data Collection Schedule 4

4-1. Final Dispositions for All Sample Cases 2

4-2. Pilot Study Results by Facility 4

4-3. Final Disposition of Sample Cases by Facility 5

4-4. Interview Length by Instrument Module (Completed Interviews) 6

4-5. Pilot Study Consent Process Duration (Estimated) by Consent Form 6

Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test
1. Project Background

As part of the overall mission, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects data and reports statistics on inmates confined in correctional facilities in the United States. One of the many data collection efforts BJS has undertaken is a survey of jail inmates that began in 1972 and has been conducted every 5 to 6 years. Inmates housed in prisons have also been interviewed periodically since 1974, and inmates in federal prisons have been surveyed periodically since 1991. These surveys provide valuable information for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners about the inmate population. A wide range of issues, such as reentry, race and class inequality, mental health, immigration, and substance abuse, have been studied as a result of the data collected from the series of surveys. The most recent Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) was conducted in 2004. The need for updated information is great and will help inform future policy decisions. As a result, the SPI will be conducted again in 2016. RTI International has worked with BJS to update the questionnaire and methodology used for the collection of these data, and the SPI Pilot Study served as a field test of the survey instrument proposed for the 2016 SPI.

Objectives of the Pilot Study

The overall purpose of the pilot study was to fully test all aspects of the redesigned survey to determine how well it performs in the correctional environment in advance of fielding the 2016 SPI. The pilot study involved implementing the sampling methods, interviewer training and materials, instrument, and data collection procedures. After the pilot study, we then evaluated the instrument to identify potential problems and discover places where efficiencies can be gained in advance of the full-scale data collection in 2016. The pilot study will provide a data-driven understanding of the instrument length in total and by section and answer the key questions of whether and how its length has implications for inmate response. The pilot study will also provide the data necessary to assess the compliance rate and operational feasibility of collecting Social Security numbers (SSNs) from inmates in order to acquire administrative data for additional analyses.

Project Timeline

The following dates describe milestones and the duration of major tasks completed in the preparation and fielding of the SPI Pilot Study project.

Pennsylvania DOC Approval Obtained April 16, 2013

IRB Approval Obtained (RTI) April 23, 2013

OMB Approval Obtained May 13, 2013

Federal BOP Approval Obtained June 3, 2013

Instrument Programming and Testing Completed July, 2013

Interviewer Training Conducted July 15–18, 2013

Data Collection Began July 23, 2013

New York DOC Approval Obtained August 12, 2013

Data Collection Ended August 22, 2013

Interviewer Debriefing Conducted August 26, 2013

Sample Design
1. Selecting Facilities

Prisons selected for the pilot study were chosen purposively to reflect variation in gender of inmates held, type (community vs. confinement), and authority (state vs. federal) to test the survey instrument in these varied environments. This selection approach is not planned for the national 2016 SPI, where a random sample of facilities will be drawn and cooperation will not be a certainty.

Sampling Inmates within Facilities

Based on discussions that took place earlier in the SPI Pilot Study contract, RTI and BJS worked together to design, develop, and agree upon a sample design. The sample design was powered to several key estimates to determine the required sample size. Based on this design, the study’s goal was to complete 64 interviews in each facility. In order to achieve this goal, an 80% response rate was assumed, leading to an initial sample size of 80 inmates. Within each participating facility, RTI took a simple random sample (SRS) of inmates. Two to four days prior to data collection, each facility provided RTI with a roster of all inmates in the facility. Based on this roster, inmates under the age of 12 and those known to be held for another authority were removed. Among the remaining inmates, RTI selected an SRS of 80 inmates. On the first day of data collection, the facility provided a confirmation roster, which RTI used to verify that sampled inmates were still in the facility and to identify ineligible inmates. This verification ensured that the frame itself was reflected in the sample and alleviated any unnecessary efforts to locate inmates who were no longer housed at the facility at the start of data collection. Using the confirmation roster, RTI identified inmates who left the facility prior to data collection and classified these individuals as ineligible. Inmates were also considered ineligible for the survey if they were mentally or physically incapable of taking the survey. Identification of mentally and physically incapable inmates were handled by the field interviewer (FI) in instances where the inmate came to the interviewing location, or in more extreme cases, was determined through facility-provided information, which was taken at face value.

Data Collection
1. Data Collection Instrument

The pilot study data collection instrument was comprised of 12 survey modules of questions, organized by content, and the presentation of closeout screens at the end of the interview. The domains covered by the survey modules included the sections described in Table 3‑1.

Table 3-1. Pilot Study Questionnaire Content by Section

Instrument Section	Section Description
Module 1	Demographics (DEMO)
Module 2	Criminal justice status and history; firearm acquisition and usage; legal representation (CJ)
Module 3	Socioeconomic status (SES)
Module 4	Mental health conditions/treatment (MH)
Module 5	Physical health conditions/treatment; disabilities (PH)
Module 6	Alcohol use (AU)
Module 7	Drug use (DU)
Module 8	Drug and alcohol treatment (DAT)
Module 9	Social support from outside the facility (SS)
Module 10	Facility programs and services (P)
Module 11	Rule violations within the facility (RV)
Module 12	Interview closeout—request for inmate’s SSN, respondents and interviewer debriefing questions (IC)

The survey instrument was designed for in-person interviewer administration using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) technology. FIs read the survey questions from the laptop computer screen and entered the inmate’s responses directly into the computer. The pilot study data collection instrument was programmed in the Blaise software environment. Blaise was chosen for its flexibility to handle complex question routing, range checks, and calculations; its customizability; and its robust paradata recording capabilities, which facilitated evaluation of the instrument’s performance. The instrument was programmed for interviewing in English only.

The instrument was rigorously tested prior to data collection to ensure that its functionality complied with questionnaire specifications. The Case Management System (CMS) and all systems involved in the transmission, storage, and security of survey data also were tested prior to the start of data collection. Based on this internal testing of the instrument by RTI staff prior to data collection, the questionnaire portion of the pilot study interview was estimated to take approximately 80 minutes.

Weekly data collection afforded the opportunity for RTI to evaluate the instrument’s performance on an on-going basis. FIs provided feedback relevant to improving the functionality of the instrument, which RTI used to inform minor updates to the instrument. A total of three updates were made while the study was in the field. These updates also afforded RTI the opportunity to check our procedures for transmitting updates to the FIs and ensuring that all staff received an update prior to beginning work at the next scheduled facility.

IRB Approvals

The submission to RTI’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was prepared by Ms. Rachel Caspar, RTI’s Project Director for the pilot study. The IRB package was submitted on March 27, 2013, in advance of a meeting with the IRB on April 8, 2013. Ms. Caspar incorporated enhancements to the consent forms and SSN request process to meet the IRB’s requirements for gaining informed consent and protecting the rights of this vulnerable population. Approval from RTI’s IRB was obtained on April 23, 2013.

BJS submitted requests for approval of the study to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Office of Research and Evaluation and the Department of Corrections (DOC) IRBs in the states of New York and Pennsylvania. Approval from the BOP was obtained on June 3, 2103. Approvals from the State DOCs were obtained on April 16, 2013, for Pennsylvania and August 12, 2013, for New York. Before providing approval, the New York DOC required that additional text be added to the consent form to be used within the state’s facilities. These additions included text to reiterate the fact that an inmate could refuse to participate or provide an SSN, also prefacing that a request for an SSN would be made of inmates who participated in the interview. The other change to the form was the inclusion of additional text under the confidentiality provision, indicating that participants’ names would not be included in any research reports. These changes were approved by RTI’s IRB on August 5, 2013. The New York provisions were not incorporated into the existing consent forms used in the other facilities. Appendix B provides copies of the consent forms, which are described below:

The version of the general consent form used in Pennsylvania and BOP facilities that was kept by inmates who wanted a copy (Appendix B‑1)
The version of the general consent form used in Pennsylvania and BOP facilities that FIs read aloud (Appendix B‑2)
The version of the consent form used in New York facilities (Appendix B‑3)
A version of the New York consent form with text highlighting to indicate wording that was added specifically for data collection in that state’s facilities (Appendix B‑4).

Logistics

A Logistics Manager assigned to work with each facility in the SPI Pilot Study began logistics coordination in May 2013, after receiving OMB approval for the pilot study. Each State DOC and the Federal BOP had a different process in place that had to be followed before logistics planning could begin in the approved facilities. In each facility, the logistics planning phase began with the Logistics Manager contacting the DOC or BOP Research Liaison assigned to the pilot study. The Logistics Manager answered questions and obtained information about background clearance requirements, facility rosters, and Facility Contacts. Once the Facility Contacts were identified, the Logistics Manager worked with the contacts to coordinate logistics in advance of data collection.

Both the BOP and the Pennsylvania DOC Research Liaison quickly provided the Logistics Manager with permission to contact the Facility Contacts in each facility. Obtaining permission from the n New York DOC involved a lengthier process, which is attributable to several factors, including the following:

The New York commissioner left after giving approval for the pilot study; thus, RTI needed to obtain approval from the new acting commissioner.
The New York DOC requested changes to the study consent form before providing approval.
The New York DOC needed time to decide whether or not they would allow survey laptops into the facilities.

To address the time required to work through these details, RTI changed the dates for data collection in the two New York correctional facilities to allow a few more weeks for planning. As a consequence of this change, FI training and the start of data collection also were delayed. Once New York granted approval, the Logistics Manager was given permission to contact each Facility Contact in New York.

After connecting with the Facility Contacts in each facility, the Logistics Manager held a planning call with each Facility Contact to develop a Logistics Plan for their facility. This plan covered inmate information, room availability, scheduling, mental health services for inmates, study supplies, entering the facility, and facility contacts, policies, and requirements. Upon agreement with the Facility Contact of all details in the Logistics Plan, the Logistics Manager emailed a final copy of the Logistics Plan to the Primary and Backup Facility Contacts, as well as the Research Liaisons.

One week before data collection was scheduled to begin, the Logistics Manager sent an email reminder to all of the Facility Contacts, Research Liaisons, and Roster Contacts. All of the Facility Contacts requested that RTI send them a copy of the random inmate sample before data collection so they could prepare inmate passes and call-out lists. These inmate samples were typically provided to the Facility Contacts 2 to 3 business days before data collection was scheduled to begin at a facility.

Interviewer Training

Pilot study FI training was held at RTI’s main campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, from July 15 to July 18, 2013. Prior to the start of training, trainees were required to review the SPI Pilot Study Field Interviewer (FI) Manual and to complete the accompanying home-study learning exercises. Trainers and interviewing staff met daily for 8-hour training sessions, which consisted of lectures, instructor-led group learning activities, and hands-on experience with survey laptops for practice interviews and exercises. The 4-day training provided instruction and review in the following areas:

Background of SPI and the purpose/goals of the pilot study
Review of general interviewing techniques
Review of refusal avoidance techniques and answers to commonly asked questions
Handling of distressed respondents
Review of computer use and care
Review of the Case Management System (CMS)
Review of the consent process for the study
Question-by-question review of the survey instrument
Focused review of more complex procedures of the instrument and the CMS (e.g., generating a case, use of look-up tables for recording offenses, drug pronunciations)
Scripted practice interviews, completed by FIs individually (i.e., individual mock interview exercises)
Paired-practice interviews, incorporating all steps of the interview process
Review of documentation procedures for daily production, transmissions and email, and team leader duties
Review of administrative procedures (e.g., expense reports, timesheets, travel advances).

Nine interviewing staff were hired through Headway Corporate Staffing Services, the employer of record for all field staff working on RTI projects. The interviewing staff included one Field Supervisor (FS) and eight FIs. All staff were seasoned interviewers with experience in data collection for the National Inmate Survey (NIS). One of the eight FIs acted as the On-site Supervisor and principle point of contact with facility staff during the week of data collection, while also conducting interviews when necessary. All nine individuals attended the interviewer training.

Interviewer training materials are provided in Appendix C.

Interviewing

SPI Pilot Study interviews were conducted between July 23 and August 22, 2013. The scheduled interviewing hours varied by facility and ranged in length from 5.5 to 7 hours per day. Table 3‑2 shows the predetermined start and end times, the scheduled number of interview hours and days, and the actual number of days that interviewing took place for each facility.

Table 3-2. SPI Pilot Study Facility Data Collection Schedule

Facility	Dates of Data Collection	Morning Interview Hours	Afternoon Interview Hours	Scheduled Interview Hours	Scheduled # of Days in Facility	Number of Interviewers in Facility
Cambridge Springs, PA DOC	July 23–July 25	8–10:45 AM	12:00–3:30 PM	6.25	3	8
Allenwood Low, BOP	July 29–July 31	8 AM–12 PM	12:30–3:30 PM	7	3	8
Allenwood Medium, BOP	Aug 1–Aug 2	8 AM–12 PM	12:30–3:30 PM	7	2	8
Albion, PA DOC	Aug 6–Aug 8	7:30 AM–12 PM	12:30–3:30 PM	7.25	3	7
Fishkill, NY DOC	Aug 13–Aug 15	8–11 AM	12:30–3:30 PM	6	3	8
Queensboro, NY DOC	Aug 20–Aug 22	8:30–11 AM	12:30–3:30 PM	5.5	3	8

While the team was generally granted interview access during the hours agreed upon in the Logistics Plan, the precise number of hours that interviews were actually conducted was less than the hours that had been scheduled. The team made all efforts to interview productively through the entire scheduled time; for example, if interviewing hours were scheduled to begin at 8:00 in the morning at a facility, the interviewing team would arrive with enough time to gain entry to the facility and be set up to begin interviewing as early as 8:00. However, actual interviewing hours did not always align with the predetermined times, sometimes resulting in a reduced interviewing window. On any given day, unforeseen circumstances occurred at a facility that influenced the arrival of inmates and the timely start of interviewing. For instance, a closed walkway at one facility impeded the movement of inmates, while dense morning fog at another facility prohibited the visibility necessary to move inmates from one building to another. A prisoner count needing to be repeated until the number matches the facility’s records of the number of inmates currently housed is another example of unforeseen circumstances that can delay the start of interviewing. There were also periods throughout the day when the team was unable to interview due to count times as well as the time it took to move inmates to the interview locations between interviews. While none of the facilities permitted interviewing during the counts, the BOP and Pennsylvania facilities were amenable to interviews occurring during inmate meal times, if necessary, per cooperation of the inmate.

Despite any reductions to the planned interviewing hours, the team worked through all of the sample cases at each facility; however, the team did not restart breakoff interviews (interviews that were stopped during the interview process) and no refusal conversion efforts were undertaken. Using the current instrument and procedures, the overall response from inmates would not have increased if there had been additional time within facilities using the current instrument and procedures. This provides no guarantee that a 3-day data collection period would have been sufficient with greater inmate participation, nor does it predict with certainty whether 3 days will be sufficient for the 2016 SPI. The number of days needed for data collection will be specific to individual facilities and will depend on a variety of factors, such as how many interviewers a facility can accommodate and response rate, which is likely related to instrument length. To ensure a high response during 2016 SPI data collection, plans will need to be established for extending data collection in facilities where not all cases can be worked in 3 days.

Interviews began with a formal consent process, during which the FI explained the purposes, possible risks, benefits, and confidentiality provisions associated with the survey request. The FI read the consent form aloud to the inmate and documented the inmate’s consent after answering any questions the inmate had regarding the pilot study. Inmates were informed that they could keep a copy of the consent form if they desired.

All pilot study interviews were completed in English; however, a Spanish version of the instrument is planned for the 2016 SPI. While juvenile inmates as young as 12 years old were eligible respondents, no juveniles were sampled for or interviewed during pilot study data collection. Although RTI had a plan for offering a small incentive to respondents (cookies), none of the selected pilot facilities allowed us to provide the incentive; therefore, we do not know with certainty what impact the incentive might have on response for the 2016 SPI. We do know that when the same small incentive was offered during the NIS¹, a 6.8% difference in response was evident between facilities that permitted the incentive and those that did not.

FIs transmitted their completed cases daily during the data collection period. The transmission process uploaded completed cases to the RTI server and automated any updates to the FI’s laptop, including new case assignments and any programming updates to the instrument during data collection. The CMS employed for the pilot study was modeled after the system used for the NIS. Although sufficient for purposes of the pilot study, the CMS will be enhanced for the 2016 SPI to provide greater capability and ease of use.

Results

The following subsections provide results overall and by facility. Cooperation and refusal rates are calculated according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Standard Definitions.

Overall Results

While the sampling strategy for the pilot study assumed an overall response of 80% to produce a total of 384 completed interviews (64 per facility), the overall response achieved during the pilot study was considerably lower, yielding only 176 completes (i.e., cases where the inmate made it all the way to the last screen of the survey instrument). An additional 58 partial interviews were conducted where the interview broke off before reaching the end of the instrument. This lower-than-expected number of completed interviews is largely attributable to the challenges described in the Section 5 of this report.

Cooperation

Altogether, the pilot study achieved a cooperation rate of 54.3% (COOP4, AAPOR, 2011). However, this calculation takes into account all types of refusals (i.e., refusals initiated by both the facility and individual inmates). Considering just those inmates who actually met face-to-face with an interviewer, 59% agreed to participate following explanation of the consent process. Not all of these cases became complete interviews however, as this amount includes the 58 partial interviews that broke off at various points in the instrument.

Refusal

The overall refusal rate for the pilot study was 42% (REF3, AAPOR, 2011). A total of 174 inmates refused to participate, either by not coming to the interviewing location (13) or by declining the study once they met with the interviewer (161). Motives for refusal varied across inmates, but prominent reasons expressed by inmates related to the estimated length of the interview, concerns over the confidentiality of their answers, there being no direct individual benefit to the inmate for participation, and the shame some inmates felt regarding what he/she had done to become incarcerated. Still others indicated that they did not want participate at the expense (i.e., loss of pay) of doing their job in the facility. The refusal of another 23 inmates was initiated either because the inmate was too violent (5) or for various other reasons (18).

The final disposition codes for all sample cases are provided in Table 4‑1, below.

Table 4-1. Final Dispositions for All Sample Cases

Disposition	Frequency	Percent
Inmate left facility before data collection began	8	1.7%
Inmate left facility after data collection began	15	3.1%
Unavailable—inmate off grounds	1	0.2%
Facility refusal—violent inmate	5	1.0%
Facility refused inmate’s participation—other	18	3.8%
Inmate refused to come to interviewing room	13	2.7%
Inmate talked to FI and refused to participate	161	33.5%
Mentally incompetent inmate	3	0.6%
Language barrier	20	4.2%
Breakoff—underage	2	0.4%
Breakoff—facility initiated	42	8.8%
Breakoff—inmate initiated	16	3.3%
Completed interview	176	36.7%
Case not worked	0	0.0%
Total	480	100.0%

SSN Compliance Rate

At the end of the interview, inmates were asked to provide their SSNs in order to obtain information on their use of programs or benefits provided by the Social Security Administration. Requesting the SSN at the end of the interview was important so as to not affect cooperation to participate in the survey per the survey request. Only inmates who completed the full set of survey questions received the request for an SSN. The language for the SSN request was modeled after other data collection efforts that have included similar requests, such as the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) and the National Health Interview Survey.

Altogether 61.9% of prisoners who made it to the end of the questionnaire and were asked to provide their SSN, (109/176) agreed to do so. Of those inmates who agreed to provide a SSN (109), 95% (104) were able to provide one. Therefore the request for SSNs achieved an overall success rate of 59%, where 104 of the 176 inmates who received the request first agreed to and then actually provided an SSN. While only 11% (19/176) of inmates directly declined the SSN request, an additional 27% (48/176) reported not having an SSN. The proportion of those 48 cases who truly did not have a SSN is unknown. Some cases may be an implicit refusal, where the inmate indicated they did not have a SSN as a way of refusing to provide one, while some may be prisoners who are unaware of having one, and still others could be prisoners who really do not have a SSN (e.g., that are not a legal resident). Excluding those who do not actually have a SSN or those who may have been unaware of having a SSN from the denominator in the calculation of the SSN compliance rate would increase this rate, yet still produce the same total number of SSNs collected in the interview.

The sensitivity to providing highly identifiable information is now greater than when SVORI was fielded, which likely accounts for a portion of the greater SSN compliance rate seen in that data collection effort when compared to the SPI Pilot Study.² Further, SVORI participants were working directly with project staff to receive services, which may have influenced respondent motivation and further driven the SSN compliance rate for that project. Finally, since SVORI participants interacted with project staff over time, rather than on only one interviewing occasion (as was the case in the SPI pilot study) a higher level of contact and rapport could have also influenced the higher rate of SSN compliance for that project compared to the SPI pilot study. Common reasons for inmates’ noncompliance with the request for SSNs during the pilot study included concerns regarding identity theft and the confidentiality of this information.

Interview Breakoffs

There were a total of 58 cases where the interview broke off before completing the instrument (i.e., partial interviews). The earliest breakoffs occurred in Module 2 (Criminal Justice), where 9 of the 58 inmates did not complete the module, leaving only 49 to begin Module 3 (Socioeconomic Characteristics). The number of breakoff interviews that got as far as Module 4 (Mental Health) and Module 5 (Physical Health) were 44 and 34, respectively. This trend continued through the Rule Violations module, where only one breakoff case came into that section of the instrument. The declining number of breakoff cases entering each module of the instrument is shown in Figure 4‑1.

Figure 4-1. Number of Inmate Breakoff Cases that Started Each Module

Distressed Respondents

The SPI Pilot Study protocol included procedures for handling a respondent who became upset during the course of the interview. As noted in Section 3.4, interviewers were trained in procedures for handling these situations. In addition, the consent form explicitly stated that if an inmate became upset, he/she could ask the interviewer for instructions for contacting a mental health counselor at the prison. Both the distressed respondent protocol and the text in the consent form were modeled after procedures developed and refined over the three rounds of data collection for the NIS. The questionnaire content for the SPI Pilot Study is less sensitive than that of the NIS, as the NIS includes detailed questions on sexual victimization.

There were no instances of respondents becoming distressed during the interview and no inmate requests for mental health counseling. In fact, interviewers and observers both reported that inmates indicated that the content of the interview was fairly routine, similar in many ways to questions asked during intake interviews, meetings with social workers, or discussions with parole boards.

As a result of these findings, we have initiated discussions with RTI’s IRB to find out whether the consent form can be shortened by removing some text describing access to mental health counseling, as these references may be unnecessary (see further discussion of this in Section 5.2, below). We will, however, maintain the distressed respondent protocol for the 2016 SPI so that FIs are aware of the protocol and prepared to handle this situation should it occur.

Results by Facility

Cooperation and refusal rates varied by facility, as did the percent of inmates who provided an SSN when one was requested (i.e., SSN success rate). Table 4-2 presents these results by facility.

Table 4-2. Pilot Study Results by Facility

Facility	Cooperation Rate	Refusal Rate	SSN Success Rate
Allenwood, Low	44.6%	51.3%	46.4%
Allenwood, Med	41.1%	53.8%	65.0%
Cambridge Springs^a	76.9%	22.8%	69.8%
Albion	61.8%	37.1%	69.0%
Fishkill	58.1%	39.7%	42.9%
Queensboro^b	39.7%	47.3%	38.1%

^a Women’s correctional facility

^b Community correctional facility

The final disposition codes for all sample cases are provided by facility in Table 4‑3, below.

Interview Length

On average, pilot study interviews took 83 minutes to complete. The mean, maximum, and minimum completed interview durations are shown by module and in total in Table 4‑4, below.

Table 4-3. Final Disposition of Sample Cases by Facility

Outcome Code	Number by Facility
Outcome Code	Allenwood Low	Allenwood Medium	Cambridge Springs	Albion	Fishkill	Queens-boro
Inmate left facility before data collection	—	1	1	2	—	5
Inmate left facility after data collection began	—	—	—	1	1	12
Unavailable—inmate off grounds	—	—	1	—	—	—
Facility refusal—violent inmate	—	4	—	1	—	—
Facility refused for inmate—other	2	6	1	1	8	—
Inmate refused to come to interviewing room	1	—	—	10	—	2
Inmate talked to FI and refused to participate	38	33	17	17	23	33
Mentally incompetent inmate	—	—	—	—	2	1
Language barrier	6	6	—	1	3	4
Breakoff—underage^a	—	1	—	—	—	1
Breakoff by facility	3	6	11	17	4	1
Breakoff by inmate	2	3	6	1	4	—
Completed Interview	28	20	43	29	35	21
Case not worked	—	—	—	—	—	—
Total	80	80	80	80	80	80

^a Once in front of the interviewer, this inmate indicated that he was only 11 years old.

This calculation of interview duration does not include time spent using the set-up screens to initialize the instrument or time spent in the consent process. RTI estimates that the consent processes used during the pilot study took approximately 5 minutes. These estimates assume that the inmate was not a juvenile, was focused while the FI read the form aloud, and did not have any significant questions or concerns, any of which would increase the duration of the consent process. The estimated duration of the consent process by individual consent form is shown in Table 4‑5, below.

Table 4-4. Interview Length by Instrument Module (Completed Interviews)

Instrument Module	Mean Length (Minutes)	Maximum Length (Minutes)	Minimum Length (Minutes)
Module 1—Demographics	2.2	7.5	1.1
Module 2—Criminal Justice	20.4	38.8	7.3
Module 3—SES	13.8	29.0	6.4
Module 4—Mental Health	9.8	22.5	3.4
Module 5—Physical Health	6.0	15.6	3.1
Module 6—Alcohol Use	3.7	8.5	0.1
Module 7—Drug Use	7.0	18.7	0.3
Module 8—Drug and Alcohol Treatment	1.6	7.8	0.0
Module 9—Social Support	3.4	13.2	0.1
Module 10—Programs	6.4	16.8	1.6
Module 11—Rule Violations	2.4	10.9	0.3
Module 12—SSN Consent/Close-out items/ debriefing items	3.2	12.1	0.7
Total^a	82.6	147.8	51.4

^a Durations for individual modules will not sum to the total interview length(s) since module-level section timers were reset each time the interviewer entered the module. For example, backing up to the previous module would reset the timer for that module and record the amount of time the interviewer spent from that point.

Table 4-5. Pilot Study Consent Process Duration (Estimated) by Consent Form

Consent Form	Estimated Consent Process Duration
General Consent Form	5.0 minutes
NY State Form (not juvenile)	5.2 minutes

Based on the calculated completed interview lengths, the estimated durations of the setup screens and consent process, and the experiences of those who observed interviewing, the total time for a completed pilot study interview is estimated to be approximately 90 minutes, on average. This lengthy interview duration is a key challenge to study participation, as discussed in Section 5 of this report.

Respondent Debriefing Questions

At the end of the interview, inmates were asked debriefing questions about the interview’s length and their feelings about privacy during the interview. When asked about the length of the interview, most inmates (69%) responded that it was “just about the right length;” however, nearly a third (30%) indicated that it was “too long.” Most inmates (97%) indicated that they felt like they had enough privacy when answering the questions.

Item Nonresponse/Missingness

Routing and the availability of help screens in a CAPI interview instrument prevent item nonresponse/missingness that would be attributable to skipping over questions; therefore, item nonresponse/missingness discussed in this section refers to substantive missingness, measured by the proportion of “don’t know” (DK) and “refused” responses.

We examined item nonresponse within the study data to first identify survey items where the level of missingness due to DK responses was unusually high. We enumerated a list of items with higher rates of DK responses than would be expected for an interviewer-administered questionnaire. To do this, we employed a simple method of flagging questionnaire items that had a DK response rate above a threshold of 5%. We further evaluated those questions that had high item nonresponse to determine whether findings could be generalized by question type or recall task. We paid particular attention to Modules 1 through 4 because they had larger cell sizes relative to downstream instrument modules that suffered attrition due to breakoffs. Modules 2 through 4 also contain questions with more complex wording and challenging recall tasks due to changing reference periods. Some inmates did not know the exact day (CJ1b = 19% DK) when they were admitted for their current incarceration period, the month (CJ45a = 6% DK) of their upcoming release date, or the day (CJ6b = 27% DK) or month (CJ6a = 9% DK) when they were last released after serving a sentence. Additionally, some could not remember the month (CJ80a = 9% DK) when they were first admitted to prison to serve a sentence, and others did not know the month (SES22_mon = 14%DK) they last worked a job. Although very few questions had high item nonresponse measured this way, the key finding from this effort points to the difficulty some inmates have recalling the exact months and days associated with dates of events that may have occurred a long time ago (e.g., admission dates and month of the last job they worked). Due to the relatively small cell sizes, we did not cross tabulate or regress by length of incarceration to further analyze items with high nonresponse due to DK responses. As evidenced by inmates’ comfort with the interviewing situation, rates of item-level missingness due to refusals were low. High item-level refusal rates were not observed, aside from the request for inmates’ SSNs.

Interviewer Debriefing Session

At the conclusion of data collection, interviewing team members participated in a 90-minute debriefing call. Attendees included FIs (including the On-site Supervisor), the FS, the Project Director, the Data Collection Task Leader, and RTI staff who observed the interviews. The debriefing call took place on August 26, 2013. Team members received an agenda in advance and were asked to prepare feedback on the following data collection items:

Suggestions for improving RTI’s procedures for inmate flow and dealing with callout lists
Consent form wording and mechanics
Reasons for inmates’ refusals and successful techniques utilized for refusal avoidance
Suggested improvements to the CMS
Interview content, mechanics, and confusing questions
The process of obtaining inmates’ SSNs
Paperwork, supervisor tasks, and training
Any other observations and suggestions for improving efficiency.

The key observations and suggestions by interviewing staff for improving response and operational efficiency are described by theme below.

Handling the Flow of Inmates

Staff suggested that the study consider utilizing an evening interviewing session to interview those inmates who are unavailable during typical daytime hours.
Staff mentioned that updating the callout process where possible to call out exclusively by housing unit may increase the efficiency of getting inmates to the data collection locations. Although rosters are sent by housing unit, we cannot control whether a facility will call out by housing unit.
As some inmates wanted to return to complete the interview after having to leave (for count, lunch, etc.), staff suggested that the study consider allowing the restart of breakoff interviews

Managing the Consent Process

The consent forms took several minutes to read and participation may increase if forms were shorter and more compelling to the inmate.
The consent form used in New York State facilities (the NY IRB required some changes) seemed to increase inmates’ concerns over privacy so strengthening the statement about protection of confidentiality and simplifying its language, where possible, may enhance cooperation.

Gaining Cooperation

The instrument length was a key factor in an inmate’s decision to participate in the SPI Pilot Study, as many inmates refused when they heard that the interview would take 80 minutes.
Interviewers experienced some success in gaining cooperation by asking the inmate to simply start the interview, keeping in mind that they could stop at any point.

Requesting Social Security Numbers

While the interviewers were surprised at the number of inmates who agreed to provide an SSN, there were common themes expressed by inmates who refused, including concerns about identity theft, wanting to know who looked at the data, and not trusting that it would not get back to the facility. Some inmates suggested that the project just look up the SSN (assuming that it was information that the facility could provide), which speaks to the need to consider alternatives to obtain SSNs and whether it is necessary to make this request directly of the inmate. (See further discussion of this in Section 5.2 below.)

Using the Case Management System

Overall, FIs felt that the CMS was functional for the needs of the study, and they were comfortable using it. They offered a suggestion to streamline the process of generating a case during 2016 SPI to expedite the start of an interview, if possible.

Questionnaire Feedback

FIs reiterated that the length of the instrument was a factor in gaining a completed interview.
FIs suggested enhancing the training for determining which offense is most serious when the interviewer must make this decision.
FIs found that respondents were sometimes confused by being asked about dates associated with arrest, conviction, and incarceration in prison and suggested making these questions clearer.
FIs felt the on-screen instructions (i.e., interviewer notes that provided additional information to the interviewer regarding how to code a response) were useful and may benefit from additional questions where they were not available.

Project Staff Observations

RTI and BJS project staff observed interviewing at five of the six facilities. Observers noted any items related to the performance of the instrument and documented these items and other comments about the data collection effort. Observers noted that facility support was good. In each of the facilities, prison staff were assigned to work with the interviewing staff and observers and were helpful. An important finding from the observations was inconsistency in the way certain questions were being administered due to inconsistency in the way “mark all” items were programmed. An example is the item(s) on race, where the screen layout made it unclear whether the FI should read all of the options before obtaining an answer, or proceed as though each category was a separate Yes/No question. Observers also noted difficulty that some FIs encountered with the lookup table used to collect inmate’s offenses. Some FIs spent a lot of time searching the table for an offense that was an exact match to that reported by the inmate, and entering a new offense when a verbatim response was not already in the table. Additionally, observers pointed out places in the instrument where introductory text was lengthy and portions of text were redundant. RTI will provide item-specific recommendations to address these and other issues after BJS makes its decisions on the content of the DRAFT final instrument in preparation for the 2016 SPI data collection.

Discussion
1. Challenges

The two most prominent challenges that had a direct impact on response to the pilot study and the number of completed cases were the consent process and the interview length. Reading through the consent form with the inmate was a lengthy process (average of nearly 5 minutes) It was reported by FIs that the form used for New York State facilities increased inmates’ concerns over privacy and may have deterred cooperation in those facilities.

The interview length was the most serious challenge to gaining response. Many inmates refused to participate in the study after hearing how long the interview was expected to take (80 minutes). The study results demonstrate the impact of interview length on inmate-initiated breakoffs and noncompliance with the request to participate, as well as facility-initiated breakoffs due to scheduling parameters within the facility. Many inmates were unable to finish the interview due to counts and other scheduling considerations that required them to be elsewhere in the facility. The high rate of breakoff interviews, 12.1% of the total sample, would likely be reduced by shortening the interview. As a comparison example, the NIS—Year 3 took approximately 35 minutes to complete and had a breakoff rate of just 0.76% (0.7% facility-initiated breakoffs, and 0.06% inmate-initiated breakoffs).³

The instrument length had implications both for the amount of time an interview took as well as the amount of time inmates would wait to begin an interview when brought to the interviewing location because interviews ahead of theirs had to be completed. The calculated average interview length of 83 minutes was in excess of what may work well in a prison environment, where inmates have limited free time and the facility has limited flexibility with regard to how much time it can allow inmates to be in the interviewing location.

The other notable challenge was gaining inmates’ cooperation with the request for SSNs. Although only 11 percent of inmates directly refused to provide a SSN, another 27% indicated they either did not know their SSSSN or did not have one. The SSN compliance rate for the pilot study was therefore considerably less than what was achieved during SVORI data collection.

Recommendations
1. Consent Process

RTI recommends streamlining, where possible, the consent forms to expedite the process of gaining inmate consent and ameliorate, to the extent possible, the impact the process has on the overall duration of SPI interviews.

RTI staff have begun to evaluate the language of the consent form(s) and have identified text that may be unnecessary, as well as text that could be simplified or shortened so that the form is less lengthy and more understandable. These revisions, and the findings from the SPI Pilot Study that led to them, have been discussed with RTI’s Privacy Officer and have received her endorsement. While that does not assure that RTI’s IRB will accept all the revisions, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We will share these possible revisions with BJS staff and discuss whether any further revisions could be made. Ultimately, our goal is to prepare a consent form that succinctly, but comprehensively, describes the 2016 SPI.

SSN Request

RTI recommends considering the relative utility of the data made available through the use of SSNs and balancing this against the level of effort needed to acquire these data. Further, RTI recommends evaluating alternatives to asking inmates for their SSNs, such as requesting this information directly from the DOCs. Protecting this highly personally identifiable information would be a requirement, and DOCs may not be able to provide rosters with SSNs in a way that is sufficiently secure to negate risk. RTI’s IRB would be concerned about having the SSNs of all inmates from which a sample is drawn, so a second request would need to be made of the DOC or facility to provide SSNs of only those inmates who were sampled and consented to records linkage.

Interview Length

To facilitate increased response, the instrument needs to be shortened significantly to produce a questionnaire that can be fielded productively in a prison environment. To bolster response in the 2016 SPI, RTI suggests that the team work to streamline the instrument to produce average interview lengths of less than 60 minutes (including the consent process). RTI suggests an appraisal of the instrument to identify essential content that must be asked and any non-essential content that can be removed to significantly shorten the average interview duration. If streamlining to achieve average interview durations of less than 60 minutes is unfeasible, RTI recommends considering the use of matrix sampling so that not all inmates are required to complete all modules.

References

The American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (7th ed.). Deerfield, IL: AAPOR.

Notes

(1) The cooperation rate was calculated according to AAPOR COOP4.

COOP4 =

(2) The refusal rate was calculated according to AAPOR REF3.

REF3 =

COOP= Cooperation rate

REF = Refusal rate

I = Complete interview

P = Partial interview

R = Refusal and break-off

NC = Non-contact

O = Other

1 Incentive: 63.9%; No incentive: 57.1% in NIS-3

2 In the process of trying to understand why our experience with collecting SSNs differed from the SVORI experience, we also learned that the SVORI project team augmented the SSN data provided by inmates with data from facility records. This procedure was tailored to the requirements of each facility and resulted in more complete SSN data but required a much more individualized approach to collecting the data. This was feasible through the SVORI because the study was on a smaller scale compared to the national SPI study.

3 For additional comparison, the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is about 62 minutes long and has a breakoff rate of 0.05%. The NSDUH is an annual survey of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. The interview is conducted using a combination of CAPI and ACASI.

File Type	application/msword
File Title	DERIVATION
Author	hughest
Last Modified By	Smith, Timothy
File Modified	2015-08-14
File Created	2015-08-14