Final JRFC Supporting Statements A

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Title: Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC)

Form: CJ-15

OMB No.: 1121-0219 (current approval expires 11/30/2016)

Request: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances of the Collection

The Office of Juveniles Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is seeking clearance of the Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), a biennial data collection (form CJ-15) which is sent to facilities that hold juvenile delinquent and/or juvenile status offenders. Information collected via that JRFC include: the security procedures in the facility, the number of beds used, the health care, mental health treatment, education, and substance abuse treatment in the facility. Also collected is information about the use of isolation, escapes or runaways from the facility, and deaths in the facility. JRFC complements OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) ¹, a biennial census of youth held in the same juvenile facilities. The JRFC is collected during the even number years, while the CJRP is collected in odd years. The JRFC has been conducted eight times: 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and will be conducted in October 2016.

Since 1971, the Department of Justice has taken a strong interest in juveniles in custody, the operation of the facilities in which they are located and the services available to them while in custody. In 1971, the Department fielded the Children in Custody Census (CIC), a census of juveniles in custody (more formally: The Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities.) OJJDP took over the operations of this census in 1974 with the passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Two decades later, OJJDP conducted a broad examination and revision of its data collection efforts covering juveniles in custody. This effort included extensive consultation with experts interested in the data produced, discussions with respondents, and extensive testing of questions and methodologies. As a result of this effort in 1997, OJJDP conducted the first CJRP replacing the population component of the former the CIC data collection. Concomitantly, development of the JRFC commenced in 1996. The testing phase was completed in 1999 when the final report on the October 1998 field test was provided to OJJDP.

OJJDP is authorized and mandated to conduct this data collection under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (the JJDP Act). For purposes of this PRA request, the relevant part of the JJDP language reads as follows:

(b) Statistical Analyses.‑‑The Administrator may‑‑

(1) plan and identify the purposes and goals of all agreements carried out with funds provided under this subsection; and

(2) undertake statistical work in juvenile justice matters, for the purpose of providing for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of statistical data and information relating to juvenile delinquency and serious crimes committed by juveniles, to the juvenile justice system, to juvenile violence, and to other purposes consistent with the purposes of this title and title I.

--42 U.S.C. 5661

The JJDP Act also includes a requirement that OJJDP’s Administrator submit to Congress and the President an annual report on juveniles in custody. The specific language which describes this report follows:

(1) A detailed summary and analysis of the most recent data available regarding the number of juveniles taken into custody, the rate at which juveniles are taken into custody, and the trends demonstrated by the data required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). Such summary and analysis shall set out the information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) separately for juvenile nonoffenders, juvenile status offenders, and other juvenile offenders. Such summary and analysis shall separately address with respect to each category of juveniles specified in the preceding sentence—

(A) the types of offenses with which the juveniles are charged;

(B) the race and gender of the juveniles;

(C) the ages of the juveniles;

(D) the types of facilities used to hold the juveniles (including juveniles treated as adults for purposes of prosecution) in custody, including secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups;

(E) the number of juveniles who died while in custody and the circumstances under which they died; and

(F) the educational status of juveniles, including information relating to learning disabilities, failing performance, grade retention, and dropping out of school.

--42 U.S.C. 5617

Copies of the relevant sections of the JJDP Act are included under Attachment A of this PRA package.

2. Purpose of the Information

The data collected from the JRFC has and will continue to inform the nation’s understanding of residential facilities holding youth within the justice system. No other single data collection, national or State-level, collects the content, quality or volume of information gathered by this Census.

In 1988, Congress required OJJDP to conduct a systematic study of the conditions of confinement in secure juvenile facilities. The Conditions of Confinement (CoC) study brought to light a number of important issues concerning the treatment, safety, security, and services of juveniles in such facilities. The study was released in 1991. The CoC study (1) collected and analyzed data on conditions of confinement in public and private juvenile facilities, (2) determined the extent to which conditions were consistent with those required by nationally recognized standards for juvenile confinement facilities, (3) suggested explanations for variations in conformance to standards among facilities, and (4) assisted OJJDP in formulating recommendations for improving conditions of confinement. Findings from this study highlighted the importance of understanding conditions of confinement and were used to inform the development of the JRFC. Specifically, the study authors recommended that OJJDP modify the CIC (the precursor to the JRFC) to regularly collect information from facilities including data on isolation and searching, incidence of injuries, escapes, suicidal behavior, and average duration of confinement. These elements were eventually incorporated into the JRFC.

A critical aspect in continuing the current progress is the consistent and routine monitoring of these conditions. This survey contains several elements designed to track nationally the conditions of juveniles in confinement (both secure and non-secure). It also includes questions on education, mental health, and substance abuse services. Finally, it includes questions on the number of beds in the facility, the use of isolation, injuries, recent escapes, and deaths in custody. The data from these questions provide a basic yet broad base of knowledge on facilities that hold youth.

OJJDP consults with the data providers and others in the juvenile justice and corrections field on an ongoing basis to ensure that the information being collected is relevant and useful. See items 4, 8, and 9 of the Supporting Statement for more information regarding consultation with experts and others. OJJDP also works diligently to ensure that JRFC findings are made available to practitioners in the field and the general public. See item 16 for more information about dissemination of results and availability of the data for secondary analyses.

Finally, in addition to OJJDP’s mandated reports to Congress, a number of other Federal entities rely on OJJDP’s JRFC data for use in their own reports and publications (see item 6 of the Supporting Statement for additional information about these efforts).

3. Use of automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques

OJJDP and the Census Bureau are committed to reducing the burden of data collection and costs for both respondents and collectors, as well as increase data quality, by promoting electronic data submission (see Attachment B for screenshot of the electronic form). Electronic submission allows the data providers the ability to either fill out an electronic form via the respondent web application or submit a data file created by running a program which can be written once and reused to pull data for multiple years. For the data collectors, electronic submission results in less time being spent on the editing process, hence offsetting and/or reducing costs, as well as improving data quality--since data pulled directly from the respondents’ data systems are not subject to human error created when transposing data from paper to computer. To ensure that a particular data format is accepted, the Census Bureau encourages respondents to contact them with any inquiries regarding electronic data submission.

The sensitivity and security of JRFC data continues to be maintained with the electronic data submission option because the Census Bureau’s secure servers use “HTTPS,” Hypertext Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer. This ensures the encrypted transmission of data between the respondents’ browser and the U.S. Census Bureau. In other words: instead of sending readable text over the internet, both the respondents’ and the Census Bureau’s servers encode (scramble) all text using a security key. Consequently, in the unlikely event the data are intercepted by an unauthorized party, personal data sent to the respondents’ browser or data the respondent send back are rendered difficult to decode. All browsers connecting to the Census Bureau’s secure server must use a minimum encryption key size of 128 bits.

The electronic submission option has proven to have growing popularity among respondents. Since the commencement of the electronic data submission in the 2008 JRFC, online data submission has increased to 43.5 percent (1,056 files), an increase of 23 percent in the number of online submissions compared to the prior collection, making it the most popular method of return (see Table 1). Mailed submissions have dropped to 39.7 percent. The remaining 16.8 percent of submissions were received via fax and phone during non-response follow-up.

Table 1. Distribution of Method of Response, 2014

	Frequency	Percentage
Total	2,429	100.0%
Mail	965	39.7%
Fax	58	2.4%
Phone	231	9.5%
Web	1,056	43.5%
Email	105	4.3%
Other	14	0.6%

Figure 1. Method of Response by Collection Year (Percentage)

Figure 2. Method of Response by Collection Year (Number)

4. Efforts to identify duplication

OJJDP takes numerous steps to identify all sources of information on youth involved in the juvenile justice system; however currently, no other entity routinely and systematically collects the type of data on juvenile facilities found in the JRFC and mandated by Congress. Indeed, other Federal agencies often turn to OJJDP for information on services provided by juvenile correctional facilities.

In an effort to avoid duplication and assist its sister agencies, OJJDP is currently collaborating with (or has recently assisted) the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Office of Civil Rights (OCR). (See item 6 for more information about collaboration among federal agencies.)

Specifically, OJJDP annually provides BJS with an updated roster of the juvenile residential facilities for use in their National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) part of the BJS’s National Prison Rape Statistics Program. OJJDP has participated in workshops to provide expertise and consultation on questions that may be added to the NYSC to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or redundant data collection. In addition rather than initiating their own new (potentially duplicative) collection, BJS sought, and received, OJJDP’s agreement to provide information on juvenile deaths collected from the JRFC to comply with the mandate of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (see Attachment C) which charges the United States Attorney General to collect information on the “death of any person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the process of being arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or is incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, State prison, State-run boot camp prison, boot camp prison that is contracted out by the State, any State or local contract facility, or other local or State correctional facility (including any juvenile facility).” It is anticipated that findings from the 2016 JRFC will be aggregated with BJS data on adult prisons and jails and will be included in BJS’s DICRA report.

OJJDP has also recently assisted the Department of Education (ED)’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) efforts. Currently the CRDC does not collect data from juvenile facilities, nor any information about the youth housed in these facilities. While Census confidentiality statutes as well as the “Federal Assurance of Confidentiality” sent to each facility, limits the information that OJJDP can share for non-research (i.e., civil rights enforcement) purposes, OJJDP consulted with its Office of General Counsel (OGC) and determined that we could share our roster of public juvenile facilities with OCR, which we did in 2015. OJJDP also provided OCR with pre-release, aggregate state-level data from the 2014 JRFC in April 2016.

Note also that both the BJS and ED collections have different purposes, priorities, and schedules than the JRFC. BJS’s NSYC collects data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in juvenile facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79) and is collected episodically. BJS’s Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) is collected annually and is a complete enumeration of all state operated facilities and a sample of locally-run facilities. In comparison, the JRFC focuses on a much broader spectrum of the conditions of confinement and services within facilities and is collected on a biennial basis. The Department of Education’s CRDC collection is used for “enforcement and monitoring efforts regarding equal educational opportunity.”

Finally, to ensure this information is not collected by other non-federal entities, the Census Bureau and OJJDP continue to monitor the research literature. All such reviews have indicated that JFRC-type information is not independently available through other means. While some States and localities maintain similar information, it is often incomplete and such localized information sources do not cover the entire country, which is the intent of the JRFC.

5. Impact on small businesses and small entities

Small businesses are not involved in this data collection.

6. Consequences of not conducting the data collection

If this data collection does not proceed, OJJDP will not have the capacity to respond to Congressional and Presidential reporting mandates for the Office. This includes mandates included in the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (see Attachment A) and the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act (see Attachment C). Larger, more burdensome data collections would be needed to address the issues covered in this collection; and Federal, State, and local policy makers would need to rely on anecdotes and assertion rather than solid data in developing juvenile justice policy. Without this data collection, comparable national and State level data would not be available to policymakers, practitioners, and the general public. Without these data OJJDP, Federal, State and local agencies would not have the necessary information to develop programs for youth in residential placement and monitor trends in facility conditions and services. Additionally a number of other Federal agencies that rely on JRFC data for their own reports and publications would be severely hampered.

OJJDP provides JRFC data to the Department of Health and Human Services to update an indicator for its Healthy People initiative. JRFC data are used to track measure, MHMD-7: Increase the proportion of juvenile residential facilities that screen admissions for mental health problems.

OJJDP also provides biennial JRFC data to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), to update ONDCP’s Performance Reporting System, part of their annual National Drug Control Strategy. JRFC data are used to report on Measure 4.1: Percent of residential facilities in the Juvenile Justice System offering substance abuse treatment.

Finally, OJJDP has also recently worked with the National Center for Education Statistics using CJRP data to develop a new indicator for the joint NCES and BJS Indicators of School Crime and Safety Report. Staff at NCES are planning to continue this collaboration and include findings from the 2014 JRFC educational services module in next year’s report.

7. Special circumstances

The special circumstances listed in the instructions for OMB Form 83-I do not apply to this data collection for the following reasons:

• The census will be biennial (not quarterly or more frequently);

• The respondents will have more than 30 days to respond;

• Only one copy of the document will be requested;

• The collection does not require respondents to maintain records beyond the data collection itself;

• The collection is designed to be a census of residential juvenile facilities on the reference date and as such will produce valid and reliable results;

• OJJDP will not require reporting of statistical data that have not been approved by OMB;

• The pledge of confidentiality provided with the data collection derives directly from statute (see Attachment E, 42 U.S.C. 3789g);

• The collection does not request proprietary information.

8. Outside consultation

1. The Department of Justice announced the data collection in the Federal Register in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d). OJJDP would have responded to all questions and comments on the JRFC, however no comments were received. The 60-day and 30-day Federal Register announcements are included with this package.

2. During the development phases of this project, OJJDP consulted extensively with experts in the field. These consultants provided expert advice on the operations and population of the specific facilities. Additionally, after each collection OJJDP research staff consult with OJJDP programmatic staff as well as staff at the Census Bureau and experts at the National Center for Juvenile Justice to determine the value of the information being collected, whether any changes need to be made to the phrasing and content of questions, and the form structure. OJJDP also relies on experts in the field of juvenile corrections to advise the agency regarding needed changes, deletions or additions to the form. This information is gathered through conferences, regional meetings with State Juvenile Justice Specialists, and internal agency meetings. A list of the many individuals involved in advising OJJDP regarding the JRFC is included in Attachment F.

In 2015, OJJDP funded two efforts to improve the quality and consistency of juvenile justice system data collection and measurement practices that have the potential to inform the JRFC. The Juvenile Justice Model Data Project is working with leading national organizations across justice sectors to develop model juvenile justice data elements with definitions and coding categories, model measures and analyses, and a comprehensive strategy to disseminate and promote usage. Similarly, the Initiative to Develop Juvenile Reentry Measurement Standards is working to establish and test standards to assist jurisdictions in documenting and measuring services and outcomes in juvenile reentry. In each case, comprehensive review of the research literature will help to inform what should be measured in the area of juvenile corrections and review of state and local data practices will identify the challenges agencies face in managing and modernizing information systems to collect, analyze, and share data in effective ways. It is anticipated that future administrations of JRFC will benefit directly from new knowledge generated in the development of these initiatives and through any resulting improvements to the quality, coverage, and timeliness of locally collected data that are also reported to national data collection programs. Finally, through these two projects, OJJDP has established a strong working relationship with the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators to collaborate on improving the quality, coverage, and timeliness of the locally collected data reported to the JRFC.

3. OJJDP has also consulted with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on its administration of the JRFC. Staff from BJS have consulted on JRFC frame maintenance and attended planning meetings with OJJDP and Census Bureau staff. The two agencies have also agreed to coordinate their collection of deaths in custody information in response to the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act (Attachment C). (Detailed juvenile facility death information is collected by OJJDP via the JRFC.) OJJDP staff continue to work closely with BJS staff to share JRFC information that may pertain to BJS’s National Survey of Youth in Custody (NYSC) and provide substantive expertise on the NYSC collection. This ongoing effort allows OJJDP and BJS to leverage resources, avoid duplication, and potentially link data sets for future analyses. Most recently, senior BJS staff have reviewed this OMB PRA package for the 2016 JRFC and provided recommendations which OJJDP has responded to and incorporated into the final document.

4. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of the JRFC conducted in 2016 is included as Attachment G.

5. From 1993 through 1998, OJJDP and the Center for Survey Methods (CSMR) at the Census Bureau worked to develop and improve the JRFC questionnaire. During this time, staff at CSMR visited over 50 individual facilities asking very specific questions about the operation of the facility, the format of the questionnaire, and the facility’s ability to complete the form. Important also during the testing was the burden placed on the respondents because both OJJDP and CSMR understood fully that an overburdensome form would result in high nonresponse rates.

Since the first collection in 2000, OJJDP and the Census Bureau have developed a broad range of formal and informal relationships with the data providers. These data providers serve as a network of support for the project by providing updates on facility lists, comments on publications, information on juvenile corrections, and reviewers for questionnaire drafts. The Census Bureau has worked with several data providers to help them set up reporting systems that fit with the JRFC reporting mechanisms, thereby decreasing the burden on a number of the data providers. While pilot testing of the form for the upcoming 2016 collection has not been conducted, the collection’s high response rate in 2014 and the ongoing, annual use by other Federal agencies and the public demonstrate its ongoing value, utility, and relevance for the field.

Additionally, OJJDP has connected with data providers at the National Juvenile Courts Data Archive workshops in 2013 (Baltimore, MD); 2015 (Burlington, VT); and in June 2016 (Louisville, KY). In a significant number of states data providers for juvenile court data also provide juvenile corrections data, so the workshops are an important venue to discuss common issues and topics such as data sharing and privacy/security concerns.

9. Justification of compensation

OJJDP does not compensate respondents who participate in this data collection. Participation is voluntary.

10. Assurance of confidentiality

All information that could possibly be used to identify individuals (including entities, such as private facilities, that are legally considered individuals) will be held strictly confidential according to Title 42, United States Code Section 3789(g). A copy of this section is included with this submission as Attachment E. Regulations implementing this legislation require that OJJDP staff and contractors maintain the confidentiality of the information and specify necessary procedures for guarding this confidentiality. A copy of these regulations (28 CFR Part 22) is included at Attachment H. The cover letter that accompanies the JRFC notifies persons responsible for providing these data that their response is voluntary and the data will be held confidential. A copy of this letter, along with the necessary notification, is included in Attachment I this package, and the JRFC form is included in Attachment J.

11. Justification for sensitive questions.

OJJDP’s interests would not be served if many facilities declined participation due to particularly sensitive questions. Therefore, the Census Bureau and OJJDP have paid particular attention to the views of the respondents toward particular issues and questions. All questions deemed too inflammatory or sensitive were removed (such as questions about severe disciplinary actions) during the pretesting stage. The final tests of the questionnaire, as well as the five JRFC administrations to date, indicate that most respondents do not consider the questions too intrusive or sensitive. However, one set of questions still has a sensitive nature: the final section on deaths in the facility.

Congress mandates in the JJDP Act that OJJDP report on the number of deaths to youths in custody. Under Section 207 of the Act, Congress requires OJJDP to include in its annual report the number of juveniles who died while in custody and the circumstances under which they died. OJJDP previously asked about the annual number of deaths to youths in custody on the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, the precursor to JRFC and CJRP. Since 2000, the JRFC has been the mechanism used by OJJDP to gather this information.

In 2014, the most recent year for which there is data, facilities reported 10 deaths. While juvenile deaths in custody are rare, they are often indicative of the conditions in the facilities. In order to develop policies affecting the safety and security of persons in these facilities, it is vital to know what circumstances can potentially lead to death. For example, a substantial number of all deaths in custody arise from suicides. Knowing this fact, administrators, policy makers and staff can take appropriate action to assure that youth in danger of suicide receive appropriate treatment and attention. Similarly, if a substantial number of persons are killed by other residents, policy makers can take appropriate action to defuse any potentially dangerous situations.

During the two stages of interviews and the feasibility test undertaken to develop and test the JRFC, as well as the five administrations of the census so far, no facility has indicated any problem with reporting the death of a youth under their care. Even in cases where the death may have been preventable, the facilities have sufficient trust in the Census Bureau and OJJDP to report these instances. As with any confidential data, OJJDP takes all due precautions to assure that information of this kind which facilities consider sensitive will not be released in such a way as to disclose the particular facility involved.

12. Estimates of hour burden

The Census Bureau analyzed 2014 JRFC paradata from its online data collection system (Centurion) which show that the average time spent in the system in less than one hour (see Figure 3). However, this is unlikely to represent the entire amount of time spent gathering records. Consequently, OJJDP estimates the average time to complete the form to be two hours. While there was no pilot testing of the 2016 form, the original national field test, subsequent administrations of the JRFC, and analysis of the JRFC paradata are a sufficient source for the burden estimates. There should not be a difference in burden based upon whether the facility is a public or private facility. There may be some burden differences due to differences in facility characteristics, staffing and services provided.

The number of respondents in the facility universe decreased from 2,545 in 2012 to 2,429 in 2014. With an average burden of 2 hours, the number of estimated annual burden hours requested to complete the form is expected to be 4,858 annual hours (2 hours x 2,429 facilities= 4,858 hours). It is anticipated that approximately 10 percent or 240 facilities will provide critical item data by phone during nonresponse follow-up calls taking on average 10 minutes (10 minutes x 240 facilities= 40 hours). It is also anticipated that approximately 10 percent or 240 facilities will provide updated contact information on calls taking an average of 5 minutes (5 minutes x 240 facilities= 20 hours). The total annual burden hours requested is 4,918 hours (see Table 2).

Table 2. Estimated total burden hours for JRFC 2016

	Frequency	Time	Total Hours
Form completion	2,429	2 hours	4,858
Nonresponse (critical items)	240	10 min	40
Contact updates	240	5 min	20
Total burden hours			4,918

Figure 3. Time Spent in Online Data Collection System, 2014

13. Estimates of cost burden

The form was designed so as not to require any new systems or efforts on the part of respondents. Rather, respondents provide information that all need for their own operational functions. As such, this data collection requires no start-up costs or maintenance costs from respondents.

14. Estimate of annualized cost to the Federal Government

The following table provides an overview of the costs of implementing the 2016 JRFC. Please note that although the data collection for JRFC occurs every other year, for “off” years there are still costs incurred due to data processing and completing data collection closeout. The total combined costs including the U.S. Census Bureau, OJJDP, and a subcontract with CSR, Incorporated for FY16 is $739,405.

U.S. CENSUS DIVISION & TASKS	FY16 (budgeted)	U.S. CENSUS DIVISION & TASKS	FY17 (projected)
Economic Reimbursable Division (ERD) Project Management Duties (requirements/spec docs, monitor progress, status updates to sponsor, etc.) Mailout operations Testing of all applications (web, processing, etc.) Keying, Micro level data review and follow up Non-Response follow-up Imputation/Edit Research & Development		Economic Reimbursable Division (ERD) - JRFC Project Management Duties (requirements/spec docs) Design 2016 JRFC Instrument
	$372,789		$167,423
Information Technology (IT) Complete development/testing of processing system application Complete development/testing of system database Complete development/testing load process Maintain support processing system		Information Technology (IT) Maintain processing system Gather requirements develop and enhance 2016 processing application Develop/test 2016 database initilization process Develop/test 2016 load process
	$197,659		$138,045
Economic Statistical Methods Division (ESMD)		Economic Statistical Methods Division (ESMD) -NONE-
Prepare Data files for tables in imputations (Data QC)
Create Tables
Run Imputations
Create Final Documentation
	$75,129		$0
National Processing Center		National Processing Center Docuprint questionnaires
Mailout single questionnaires
Questionnaire check in
Questionnaire keying
Non-Response Follow up operations
Scheduled delivery of Questionnaires to Headquarters
	$61,411		$7,913
Auxiliary		Auxiliary Forms Design Training Postage Supplies
Postage	$3,500
Printing	$3,000
Supplies	$225
	$6,725		$4,750
U.S. CENSUS JRFC TOTAL	$713,713		$345,840

OJJDP	FY16		FY17
Research Unit Staff Time Printing (bulletins included in mailout) CSR (Subcontract)	$22,168 $1,499 $2,025		$11,084 $1,500 --
OJJDP JRFC Total	$25,692		$12,584
TOTAL (CENSUS + OJJDP)	$739,405		$358,424

15. Reasons for program changes

This application does not include any changes from the previously approved form. Consequently, there is no expected change to the level of burden on the respondent.

16. Plans for tabulation and publication

OJJDP considers publication of the JRFC information important not only for Federal agencies, but also for enhancing the work of the facilities themselves. OJJDP has developed a comprehensive system for analysis and distribution of the information collected. Under this plan, OJJDP funds a cooperative agreement to the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) for the National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Project (NJJDAP). The NJJDAP analyzes the JRFC data and produces standard fact sheets, bulletins, and reports for publication by OJJDP. (Please see Attachment K for the most 2012 JRFC Bulletin. The 2014 bulletin is in production and will be released in October 2016.). An additional way that the data are released are via OJJDP’s online Statistical Briefing Book, located at http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb. Under the NJJDAP which was re-competed in FY2016, OJJDP also plans to expand the JRFC module on the Statistical Briefing Book.

The JRFC data files are also available for use by other researchers through the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data part of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/series/00242). Recently, OJJDP has made a concerted effort to speed up the data archiving process to make the data publicly available as soon as possible. Consequently, JRFC data files are now available through 2014 and concatenated matched facility-level data files for CJRP and JRFC are scheduled to be made available by December 2016.

In an effort to promote the publication of research findings from the JRFC and increase its utility to the field, OJJDP has facilitated panels at the 2014 and 2015 American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting to educate researchers and students about OJJDP data availability. A similar session is planned for the 2016 meeting in November. For the past five years, OJJDP also partnered with NIJ and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to issue a joint solicitation: OJP Data Resources Program: Funding for Analysis of Existing Data to award grants for secondary analysis of data including the JRFC. (http://www.nij.gov/funding/Documents/solicitations/NIJ-2016-9052.pdf)

Finally, OJJDP is partnering with the Bureau of Justice Statistics in FY2017 in planning to award an OJJDP-funded, BJS fellowship for a scholar to use record-linking methods across the JRFC and other OJJDP and BJS data collections to improve the use of these data for statistical purposes. OJJDP and BJS are particularly interested in combining available data to explore changes in the nature of the needs of youth in custody and facility service availability over the last several decades.

Finally, in 2015 and 2016 OJJDP has taken steps to produce graphical displays from new data being released to take advantage of new dissemination vehicles such as the OJJDP listserv, Twitter, and other social media outlets. The new “Data Snapshot” (see Attachment L) provides a visual representation of some of the trends in 2013 CJRP data. A data snapshot for the 2014 JRFC data was published in August 2016 (see Attachment M). A series of interactive maps using CJRP and JRFC data are also currently being developed for publication on OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book.

16. Request for approval to not display OMB approval expiration date.

The present request does not request such approval. The expiration date will be displayed along with the OMB approval number.

16. Exceptions to the certification statement in Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I

No exceptions to the certification statement are requested or required.

1 CJRP collects individual level data on youth being held in residential placement resulting from contact (i.e., arrest, probation, probation revocation, etc.) with the justice system. As the complement to the JRFC, the CJRP is used to collect information on juvenile offender characteristics (age, sex, race) and state of origin. The CJRP was collected in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015.

OMB Submission Juvenile Residential Facility Census Page 22 of 26