PPCS 2018 Attachments

full set of attachments.pdf

Police Public Contact Survey (PPCS)

PPCS 2018 Attachments

OMB: 1121-0260

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1121-0260 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Supporting Statement Attachments – 2018 Police Public Contact Survey
Attachment 1: Language regarding data on use of excessive force: 34 USC 12602………………………………….2
Attachment 2: BJS authorizing statute: 34 USC 10131 and 10132……………………………………………………………4
Attachment 3: Introduction letters for the NCVS collection: NCVS-572 and NCVS-573………………………….11
Attachment 4: Cognitive Testing Report………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

Page 1 of 1

34 USC 12602: Data on use of excessive force
Text contains those laws in effect on January 11, 2018
From Title 34-CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle I-Comprehensive Acts
CHAPTER 121-VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBCHAPTER VIII-STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Part B-Police Pattern or Practice
Jump To:
Source Credit
Codification

§12602. Data on use of excessive force
(a) Attorney General to collect
The Attorney General shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about the use of excessive force by
law enforcement officers.
(b) Limitation on use of data
Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not
contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.
(c) Annual summary
The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired under this section.
( Pub. L. 103–322, title XXI, §210402, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2071 .)

CODIFICATION
Section was formerly classified to section 14142 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior
to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-pr... 1/12/2018

Page 1 of 1

34 USC 10131 : Statement of purpose
Text contains those laws in effect on January 30, 2018
From Title 34-CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle I-Comprehensive Acts
CHAPTER 101-JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
SUBCHAPTER III-BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
Jump To:
Source Credit
Codification
Prior Provisions
Amendments
Effective Date

§10131. Statement of purpose
It is the purpose of this subchapter 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, the Bureau shall give
primary emphasis to the problems of State and local justice systems.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §301, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176 ; amended Pub. L.
98–473, title II, §605(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2079 .)

CODIFICATION
Section was formerly classified to section 3731 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior
to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 301 of Pub. L. 90–351, title I, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 199 ; Pub. L. 91–644,
title I, §4(1)–(4), Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1882 ; Pub. L. 93–83, §2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 199 ;
Pub. L. 94–503, title I, §§109, 128(b), Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2411 , 2424, related to purposes
and categories of grants for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, prior to the general
amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–157.

AMENDMENTS
1984-Pub. L. 98–473 struck out "(including white-collar crime and public corruption)" after
"information concerning crime" and "(including crimes against the elderly, white-collar crime,
and public corruption)" after "levels of crime".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT
Amendment by 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 10101 of this title.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10131&f=treesort&fq=true&num=3&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 1 of 7

34 USC 10132 : Bureau of Justice Statistics
Text contains those laws in effect on January 30, 2018
From Title 34-CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle I-Comprehensive Acts
CHAPTER 101-JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
SUBCHAPTER III-BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
Jump To:
Source Credit
References In Text
Codification
Prior Provisions
Amendments
Effective Date
Miscellaneous

§10132. 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 as "Bureau").
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions
The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the President. 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 be responsible for the integrity of data
and statistics and shall protect against improper or illegal use or disclosure. 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.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau
The Bureau is authorized to(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;
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, tribal, and local justice policy and decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at
the Federal, State, tribal, 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, tribal, 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, tribal, and local levels, and
about the extent, distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and at the
Federal, State, tribal, 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 and in Indian
country;
(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity of
justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter;

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 2 of 7

( ) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal Government and State and tribal
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, tribal, and local
governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State, tribal, 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,
Indian tribes, 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, tribal, 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, tribal, and local criminal justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State, tribal, 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;
(1 ) provide for improvements in the accuracy, quality, timeliness, immediate accessibility, and
integration of State and tribal criminal history and related records, support the development and
enhancement of national systems of criminal history and related records including the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, the National Incident-Based Reporting System, and the records of
the National Crime Information Center, facilitate State and tribal participation in national records and
information systems, and support statistical research for critical analysis of the improvement and utilization
of criminal history records;
(20) maintain liaison with State, tribal, 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 10231 of this title and
identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and
information policies which impact on Federal, tribal, and State criminal justice operations and related
statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VII.
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination
(1) In g eneral
To ensure that all justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated
manner, the Director is authorized to(A) 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;
(B) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(C) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to carry
out the purposes of this chapter;

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 3 of 7

(D) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from
criminal justice records;
(E) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding information
systems, information policy, and data; and
(F) confer and cooperate with Federal statistical agencies as needed to carry out the purposes of this
subchapter, including by entering into cooperative data sharing agreements in conformity with all laws
and regulations applicable to the disclosure and use of data.
(2) Consultation w ith Indian tribes
The Director, acting jointly with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (acting through the Office of
Justice Services) and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall work with Indian tribes and
tribal law enforcement agencies to establish and implement such tribal data collection systems as the
Director determines to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal ag encies
Federal agencies requested to furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(C) shall
provide such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation w ith representatives of State, tribal, and local g overnment and j udiciary
In recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall consult
with representatives of State, tribal, and local government, including, where appropriate, representatives of
the judiciary.
(g ) Reports
Not later than 1 year after July 2 , 2010, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a
report describing the data collected and analyzed under this section relating to crimes in Indian country.
(Pub. . 0 351, title I, 302, as added Pub. . 6 157, 2, Dec. 27, 1 7 , 3 Stat. 1176 ; amended Pub. .
8 473, title II, 605(b), Oct. 12, 1 84, 8 Stat. 207 ; Pub. . 100 6 0, title VI, 60 2(a), Nov. 18, 1 88,
102 Stat. 433 ; Pub. . 103 322, title
III, 330001(h)(2), Sept. 13, 1 4, 108 Stat. 213 ; Pub. . 10
162, title I, 1115(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 11 Stat. 3103 ; Pub. . 111 211, title II, 251(b), July 2 , 2010, 124
Stat. 22 7 ; Pub. . 112 166, 2(h)(1), Aug. 10, 2012, 126 Stat. 1285 .)

REFERENCES IN TEX T
This Act, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c)(11), is Pub. . 0 351, June 1 , 1 68, 82 Stat.
1 7 , known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1 68. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1 68 Act note set out under section 10101
of this title and Tables.

CODIFICATION
Section was formerly classified to section 3732 of Title 42, The Public Health and
to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

elfare, prior

PRIOR PROV ISIONS
A prior section 302 of Pub. . 0 351, title I, June 1 , 1 68, 82 Stat. 200 ; Pub. . 3 83, 2,
Aug. 6, 1 73, 87 Stat. 201 ; Pub. . 4 503, title I, 110, Oct. 15, 1 76, 0 Stat. 2412 , related
to establishment of State planning agencies to develop comprehensive State plans for grants for
law enforcement and criminal justice purposes, prior to the general amendment of this chapter
by Pub. . 6 157.

AMENDMENTS
2012-Subsec. (b). Pub. . 112 166 struck out ", by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate" before period at end of first sentence.
2010-Subsec. (c)(3) to (6). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(A), inserted "tribal," after "State,"
wherever appearing.
Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(B), inserted "and in Indian country" after "States".
Subsec. (c)( ). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(C), substituted "Federal Government and State
and tribal governments" for "Federal and State Governments".
Subsec. (c)(10), (11). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(D), inserted ", tribal," after "State".

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 4 of 7

Subsec. (c)(13). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(E), inserted ", Indian tribes," after "States".
Subsec. (c)(17). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(F), substituted "activities at the Federal, State,
tribal, and local" for "activities at the Federal, State and local" and "generated by Federal, State,
tribal, and local" for "generated by Federal, State, and local".
Subsec. (c)(18). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(G), substituted "State, tribal, and local" for
"State and local".
Subsec. (c)(1 ). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(H), inserted "and tribal" after "State" in two
places.
Subsec. (c)(20). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(I), inserted ", tribal," after "State".
Subsec. (c)(22). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(1)(J), inserted ", tribal," after "Federal".
Subsec. (d). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted
par. (1) heading, substituted "To ensure" for "To insure", redesignated former pars. (1) to (6) as
subpars. (A) to (F), respectively, of par. (1), realigned margins, and added par. (2).
Subsec. (e). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(3), substituted "subsection (d)(1)(C)" for "subsection
(d)(3)".
Subsec. (f). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(4)(B), inserted ", tribal," after "State".
Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(4)(A), which directed insertion of ", tribal," after "State" in heading,
was executed editorially but could not be executed in original because heading had been
editorially supplied.
Subsec. (g). Pub. . 111 211, 251(b)(5), added subsec. (g).
2006 -Subsec. (b). Pub. . 10 162, 1115(a)(1), inserted after third sentence "The Director
shall be responsible for the integrity of data and statistics and shall protect against improper or
illegal use or disclosure."
Subsec. (c)(1 ). Pub. . 10 162, 1115(a)(2), amended par. (1 ) generally. Prior to
amendment, par. (1 ) read as follows "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;".
Subsec. (d)(6). Pub. . 10 162, 1115(a)(3), added par. (6).
19 9 4-Subsec. (c)(1 ). Pub. . 103 322 substituted a semicolon for period at end.
19 8 8 -Subsec. (c)(16) to (23). Pub. . 100 6 0 added pars. (16) to (1 ) and redesignated
former pars. (16) to (1 ) as (20) to (23), respectively.
19 8 4-Subsec. (b). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(1), inserted provision requiring Director to report to
Attorney General through Assistant Attorney General.
Subsec. (c)(13). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(A), (C), added par. (13) and struck out former
par. (13) relating to provision of financial and technical assistance to States and units of local
government relating to collection, analysis, or dissemination of justice statistics.
Subsec. (c)(14), (15). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(C), added pars. (14) and (15). Former pars.
(14) and (15) redesignated (16) and (17), respectively.
Subsec. (c)(16). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(A), (B), redesignated par. (14) as (16) and struck
out former par. (16) relating to insuring conformance with security and privacy regulations
issued under section 10231 of this title.
Subsec. (c)(17). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated par. (15) as (17). Former par.
(17) redesignated (1 ).
Subsec. (c)(18). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(D), added par. (18).
Subsec. (c)(1 ). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(2)(B), redesignated former par. (17) as (1 ).
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(3)(A), inserted ", and to enter into agreements with
such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis".
Subsec. (d)(5). Pub. . 8 473, 605(b)(3)(B) (D), added par. (5).

EFFECTIV E DATE OF 2012 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. . 112 166 effective 60 days after Aug. 10, 2012, and applicable to
appointments made on and after that effective date, including any nomination pending in the

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 5 of 7

Senate on that date, see section 6(a) of Pub. . 112 166, set out as a note under section 113
of Title 6, Domestic Security.

EFFECTIV E DATE OF 19 8 4 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. . 8 473 effective Oct. 12, 1 84, see section 60 AA(a) of Pub. . 8
473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10101 of this title.

CONSTRUCTION OF 2010 AMENDMENT
Pub. . 111 211, title II, 251(c), July 2 , 2010, 124 Stat. 22 8 , provided that "Nothing in
this section amending this section and section 41507 of this title or any amendment made by this
section"(1) allows the grant to be made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities
that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or
"(2) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a federally
recognized Indian tribe for the purposes described in the relevant grant program."
For definition of "Indian tribe" as used in section 251(c) of Pub. . 111 211, set out above,
see section 203(a) of Pub. . 111 211, set out as a note under section 2801 of Title 25, Indians.
INCLUSION OF H ONOR V IOLENCE IN NATIONAL CRIME V ICTIMIZ ATION SURV EY
Pub. . 113 235, div. B, title II, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 21 1 , provided in part "That
beginning not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act div. B of Pub. . 113
235, Dec. 16, 2014 , as part of each National Crime Victimization Survey, the Attorney General
shall include statistics relating to honor violence".

STUDY OF CRIMES AG AINST SENIORS
Pub. . 106 534, 5, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2557 , provided that
"(a) In General.-The Attorney General shall conduct a study relating to crimes against seniors,
in order to assist in developing new strategies to prevent and otherwise reduce the incidence of
those crimes.
"(b) Issues Addressed.-The study conducted under this section shall include an analysis of"(1) the nature and type of crimes perpetrated against seniors, with special focus on"(A) the most common types of crimes that affect seniors;
"(B) the nature and extent of telemarketing, sweepstakes, and repair fraud against
seniors; and
"(C) the nature and extent of financial and material fraud targeted at seniors;
"(2) the risk factors associated with seniors who have been victimized;
"(3) the manner in which the Federal and State criminal justice systems respond to
crimes against seniors;
"(4) the feasibility of States establishing and maintaining a centralized computer database
on the incidence of crimes against seniors that will promote the uniform identification and
reporting of such crimes;
"(5) the effectiveness of damage awards in court actions and other means by which
seniors receive reimbursement and other damages after fraud has been established; and
"(6) other effective ways to prevent or reduce the occurrence of crimes against seniors."

INCLUSION OF SENIORS IN NATIONAL CRIME V ICTIMIZ ATION SURV EY
Pub. . 106 534, 6, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2557 , provided that "Beginning not later than
2 years after the date of enactment of this Act Nov. 22, 2000 , as part of each National Crime
Victimization Survey, the Attorney General shall include statistics relating to"(1) crimes targeting or disproportionately affecting seniors;
"(2) crime risk factors for seniors, including the times and locations at which crimes
victimizing seniors are most likely to occur; and
"(3) specific characteristics of the victims of crimes who are seniors, including age,
gender, race or ethnicity, and socioeconomic status."

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 6 of 7

CRIME VICTIMS WITH DISABILITIES AWARENESS
Pub. L. 105–301, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2838 , as amended by Pub. L. 106–402, title IV,
§401(b)(10), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1739 , provided that:
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
"This Act may be cited as the 'Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act'.
"SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
"(a) Findings.-Congress finds that"(1) although research conducted abroad demonstrates that individuals with
developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk of becoming crime victims than
those without disabilities, there have been no significant studies on this subject conducted in
the United States;
"(2) in fact, the National Crime Victim's Survey, conducted annually by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice, does not specifically collect data relating to
crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities;
"(3) studies in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain consistently show that victims with
developmental disabilities suffer repeated victimization because so few of the crimes against
them are reported, and even when they are, there is sometimes a reluctance by police,
prosecutors, and judges to rely on the testimony of a disabled individual, making individuals
with developmental disabilities a target for criminal predators;
"(4) research in the United States needs to be done to"(A) understand the nature and extent of crimes against individuals with
developmental disabilities;
"(B) describe the manner in which the justice system responds to crimes against
individuals with developmental disabilities; and
"(C) identify programs, policies, or laws that hold promises for making the justice
system more responsive to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
"(5) the National Academy of Science Committee on Law and Justice of the National
Research Council is a premier research institution with unique experience in developing
seminal, multidisciplinary studies to establish a strong research base from which to make
public policy.
"(b) Purposes.-The purposes of this Act are"(1) to increase public awareness of the plight of victims of crime who are individuals with
developmental disabilities;
"(2) to collect data to measure the extent of the problem of crimes against individuals with
developmental disabilities; and
"(3) to develop a basis to find new strategies to address the safety and justice needs of
victims of crime who are individuals with developmental disabilities.
"SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY.
"In this Act, the term 'developmental disability' has the meaning given the term in section 102
of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 15002].
"SEC. 4. STUDY.
"(a) In General.-The Attorney General shall conduct a study to increase knowledge and
information about crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities that will be useful in
developing new strategies to reduce the incidence of crimes against those individuals.
"(b) Issues Addressed.-The study conducted under this section shall address such issues as"(1) the nature and extent of crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities;
"(2) the risk factors associated with victimization of individuals with developmental
disabilities;
"(3) the manner in which the justice system responds to crimes against individuals with
developmental disabilities; and

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

Page 7 of 7

"(4) the means by which States may establish and maintain a centralized computer
database on the incidence of crimes against individuals with disabilities within a State.
"(c) National Academy of Sciences.-In carrying out this section, the Attorney General shall
consider contracting with the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Research Council
of the National Academy of Sciences to provide research for the study conducted under this
section.
"(d) Report.-Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 27, 1998],
the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report describing the results of the study conducted under this
section.
"SEC. 5. NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM'S SURVEY.
"Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, as part of each National Crime
Victim's Survey, the Attorney General shall include statistics relating to"(1) the nature of crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and
"(2) the specific characteristics of the victims of those crimes."

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=34+usc+10132&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl...

1/31/2018

NCVS-572(L) LOS ANGELES
(12-2017)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC 20233-0001
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

A Message from the Director, U.S. Census Bureau...
Dear Resident:
Your address has been selected to participate in the National Crime Victimization Survey.
The survey collects information about the type and amount of crime committed against people
in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts this survey on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Since many crimes are never reported to the police, information from this survey is used to get a
more complete picture of crime occurring in our country. The information you provide will give a
better understanding of crime and its impact on victims. The survey results are used to develop
programs to aid crime victims and prevent crime.
The success of this survey depends on your participation. We cannot substitute
another address for yours. Your address is part of a scientifically selected sample of addresses
chosen throughout the country. Your answers represent hundreds of other households like yours.
Your participation is important even if you have not experienced any crime. By law, the Census
Bureau can only use your responses to produce statistics. No information about you or your
household can be identified from these statistics.
Answers to frequently asked questions are on the back of this letter. If you would like further
information, contact your Census Bureau Regional Office at 1–800–992–3530.
You do not need to take any action at this time. A Census Bureau representative will contact you
soon to ask your household to complete the survey.
Thank you for your participation.

census.gov

What is the National Crime Victimization Survey?
This survey collects data about experiences with crime, both reported and not reported to the
police. Periodically, the survey includes additional topics such as crime in schools, contacts with
law enforcement, and identity theft.
How was I selected for this survey?
The U.S. Census Bureau chose your address, not you personally, to participate in this survey.
We randomly selected a sample of addresses across the country to represent the entire
population. We need a response from all persons 12 or older in sampled homes to get a
complete picture of the types and amount of crime happening in the United States.
Will information I provide be confidential? Is this survey required by law?
The Census Bureau is required by law to protect your information. The Census Bureau
is not permitted to publicly release your responses in a way that could identify you or your
household. We are conducting this survey for the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Justice under the authority of law (Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section
8). The Bureau of Justice Statistics is authorized to collect this survey information by law (Title
34, U.S.C., Section 10132). Federal law protects your privacy and keeps your answers
confidential (Title 13, U.S.C., Section 9 and Title 34, U.S.C., Sections 10231 and 10134). Per
the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, your data are protected from cybersecurity
risks through screening of the systems that transmit your data. This collection has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Number: 1121-0111; Expiration Date:
08/31/2018). If this number were not displayed, we could not conduct this survey. Your voluntary
participation in this survey is important; however, you may decline to answer any or all
questions.
How are the data used?
Data from this survey provide information on many topics related to crime and victimization,
including crime in schools, trends in violent crime, costs of crime, and the response of law
enforcement to reports of victimization. Examples of reports, tables, and charts that use data
from the survey are on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ web site at www.bjs.gov.
How long will it take?
We expect the interview to take about 25 minutes. Your interview may be somewhat shorter or
longer than this depending on your circumstances. If you have any comments about this survey
or have recommendations for reducing its length, send them to the Chief, Victimization Statistics
Branch, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC 20531.
I thought that the Census Bureau only counts people every 10 years.
What is the Census Bureau doing now?
Besides the decennial census, we collect many different kinds of information through other
censuses and surveys. These surveys provide current information on such topics as housing,
crime, unemployment rates, health, business, economics and education.

NCVS-572(L) (12-2017)

NCVS-573(L) LOS ANGELES
(12-2017)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC 20233-0001
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

A Message from the Director, U.S. Census Bureau...
Dear Resident:
Several months ago, we contacted residents at your address to participate in the National
Crime Victimization Survey. The survey collects information about the type and amount of
crime committed against people in the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts this
survey on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. We need to interview the current residents of
this address, whether we talked with you before or you recently moved to this address.
Since many crimes are never reported to the police, information from this survey is used to get a
more complete picture of crime occurring in our country. The information you provide will give a
better understanding of crime and its impact on victims. The survey results are used to develop
programs to aid crime victims and prevent crime.
The success of this survey depends on your participation. We cannot substitute
another address for yours. Your address is part of a scientifically selected sample of addresses
chosen throughout the country. Your answers represent hundreds of other households like yours.
Your participation is important even if you have not experienced any crime. By law, the Census
Bureau can only use your responses to produce statistics. No information about you or your
household can be identified from these statistics.
Answers to frequently asked questions are on the back of this letter. If you would like further
information, contact your Census Bureau Regional Office at 1–800–992–3530.
You do not need to take any action at this time. A Census Bureau representative will contact you
soon to ask your household to complete the survey.
Thank you for your participation.

census.gov

NCVS-573(L) (12-2017)

COGNITIVE PRETESTING OF
THE 2018 POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY

Amber Henderson
Mandi Martinez
Jonathan Katz
Mary C. Davis

Final Report

Center for Survey Measurement
U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, D.C. 20233

Disclaimer: This report is released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion. The views expressed
are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.

Table of Contents
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................2

HISTORY OF THE POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY.....................................................................3

STUDY METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................4
4.1
EXPERT REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 4
4.2
DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Recruitment Criteria and Strategy .......................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Respondent Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 6
4.2.3 Interviewer Staffing and Training ........................................................................................... 8
4.2.4 The Cognitive Interview Protocol ............................................................................................ 8

COGNITIVE INTERVIEW FINDINGS ...............................................................................................9
5.1
SCREENER QUESTIONS (Q1A-Q1L) ..................................................................................................... 9
5.1.1 PPCS Screener Question 1a: Report a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity .................... 9
5.1.2 PPCS Screener Question 1b: Non-crime emergency .............................................................. 10
5.1.3 PPCS Screener Question 1c: Non-emergency Assistance ...................................................... 13
5.1.4 PPCS Screener Question 1d: Neighborhood Watch ............................................................... 14
5.1.5 PPCS Screener Question 1e: Traffic Accident......................................................................... 16
5.1.6 PPCS Screener Question 2: Frequency of Driving .................................................................. 16
5.1.7 PPCS Screener Question 1f: Traffic Stop - Driver ................................................................... 16
5.1.8 PPCS Screener Question 1g: Traffic Stop-Passenger ............................................................. 19
5.1.9 PPCS Screener Question 1h: Street Stop ................................................................................ 19
5.1.10
PPCS Screener Question 1i: Other Arrests ......................................................................... 21
5.1.11
PPCS Screener Question 1j: Other Police or Self-Initiated Contacts .................................. 21
5.1.12
PPCS Screener Question 1k: Self-initiated ......................................................................... 22
5.1.13
PPCS Screener Question 1l: Police initiated ...................................................................... 23
5.1.14
PPCS Screener Verification Question................................................................................. 23
5.2
MOST RECENT CONTACT ................................................................................................................. 25
5.2.1 Q3a-b. Date of Most Recent Contact .................................................................................... 25
5.2.2 Q4. Time of Day ..................................................................................................................... 26
5.2.3 Q5. Length of Contact ........................................................................................................... 26
5.2.4 Q6. Appropriate Amount of Time .......................................................................................... 27
5.3
Characteristics of Street Stop ................................................................................................ 28
5.3.1 Q10a-h. Reasons for Street Stop ........................................................................................... 28
5.3.2 Q11. Legitimate Reason for Street Stop ................................................................................ 32
5.4
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC STOP .................................................................................................. 33
5.4.1 Q12. Reasons for Traffic Stop ................................................................................................ 33
5.4.2 Q15a-k. Reasons for Traffic Stop ........................................................................................... 34
5.5
OFFICER CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 38
5.5.1 Q19. Ethnicity of Police Officer .............................................................................................. 38
5.6
OUTCOME OF STOP ........................................................................................................................ 38
5.6.1 Q28. Reason for ticket ........................................................................................................... 38
5.6.2 Q31. Search or Frisk............................................................................................................... 39
5.7
OUTCOME OF VOLUNTARY CONTACTS ............................................................................................... 39
5.7.1 Q42. Improvement of Situation After Contacting Police ....................................................... 39

5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
5.7.5

Q46. Police Behaved Properly ............................................................................................... 40
Q47. Police Behavior Motivated by Bias ............................................................................... 40
Q48. Complaint Filed ............................................................................................................. 41
Q54. Police Behaved Properly During Earlier Contacts ......................................................... 41

CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................42

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................43

iii

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings from the cognitive testing of the redesigned 2018 Police-Public
Contact Survey (PPCS), a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The
PPCS examines the types of contacts respondents have had with police in the previous 12
months, whether these contacts were self-initiated or police-initiated, the number of contacts
that occurred, the outcome of the encounter, and how respondents perceived the behaviors of
the officers involved.
After completing an expert review of the questionnaire, researchers conducted 50 cognitive
interviews over four iterative rounds of testing. The cognitive interviews were conducted with
respondents aged 18 or older who reported experiencing at least one contact with the police in
the previous 12 months. Due to findings from the previous field administration of the survey,
testing focused on the PPCS screener questions. The clarity and performance of the screener is
critical to ensure that respondents accurately report contacts in response to the appropriate
screener questions, and that they are routed down the correct survey path.
The findings from our testing indicate that respondents struggled to correctly include some of
their contacts in response to the appropriate screener question. These errors occurred more
frequently with questions about self-initiated contacts (contacts in which the respondent
contacted the police to report something). Respondents were not always able to make clear
distinctions in how they classified crimes, disturbances, suspicious activity, non-crime
emergencies, and non-emergency assistance. As a result, they reported the same incident in
response to multiple questions because they were not sure which question was a more
appropriate fit or whether a question was going to be asked that would better fit their situation.
In addition to difficulty classifying the type of contact they experienced, respondents experienced
recall issues that became apparent when responding to probing questions as part of the cognitive
interview. Respondents either forgot about some contacts they had with the police or could not
remember the actual number of contacts until discussing their experiences with the interviewer.
Due to the recurring issues experienced by respondents, introductory text was added before the
screener questions explaining that the interviewer is going to ask about multiple reasons the
respondent may have had contact with the police in the past 12 months. The introductory text
also explained that they can say yes to more than one reason, but to choose the reason that best
fits why they contacted the police on each occasion.
A verification question was added after the screener questions asking the respondent to verify
whether the various types of police contacts the respondent reported were correct. The
verification question explains that each contact should only be counted once. Once this
verification question is asked and information is corrected, respondents reporting more than one
contact are asked which contact occurred most recently to determine the appropriate path for
the survey.

While the main focus of testing was correcting the screener questions, the full questionnaire was
cognitively tested. Overall, the survey sections after the screener performed well and caused few
issues for respondents. Some additional questions, such as questions 10 (reasons for street stop)
and 15 (reasons for traffic stop) received minor revisions throughout the rounds of testing. The
findings and revisions for all other questions of interest are discussed in detail in sections 5.2
through 5.7.

2 INTRODUCTION
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a self-report survey collected each year by the
Census Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Approximately 135,000
households in the United States, totaling 225,000 persons are sampled and asked about their
experiences with criminal victimization over the past six months. The NCVS provides data on the
characteristics of crimes experienced by the respondent, the offender, and the victim's
experience with the criminal justice system after a crime occurs. Household members ages 12 or
older are eligible to respond and participants are interviewed every six months, and remain in
the sample for three years.
The Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) is a supplement to the National Crime Victimization
Survey. The PPCS examines the types of contacts respondents have had with police in the
previous 12 months, whether these contacts were self-initiated or police-initiated, the number
of contacts that occurred, the outcome of the encounter, and how respondents perceived the
behaviors of the officers involved.
The PPCS sample is nationally representative of residents in the United States who are aged 16
and older. BJS uses the data collected from this survey to calculate the population estimates of
residents who have encounters with the police, the characteristics of these residents, the use of
force by police, the residents’ perceptions of the police involved in the encounter, and the trends
over time in these estimates. In the most recent administration of the PPCS in 2015,
approximately 70,959 residents were interviewed.
At the request of BJS, the Police-Public Contact Survey was cognitively tested by the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Center for Survey Measurement (CSM). The purpose of this research was to test new
and revised questions for the 2018 PPCS supplement to the NCVS. CSM researchers conducted
four iterative rounds of cognitive testing to examine if respondents were reporting their police
contacts in response to the appropriate screener question, and if respondents were being routed
down the correct survey path based on the contact they identified as the most recent. This report
presents the findings from 50 cognitive interviews, conducted by CSM researchers between June
2017 and November 2017.

3 HISTORY OF THE POLICE-PUBLIC CONTACT SURVEY
In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed requiring the
collection of data on the “use of excessive force by law enforcement officers” and the publishing
of an annual report from the data collected (Greenfeld et al., 1997, p. iii). In 1996, the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) and BJS published the first annual report that detailed how to meet these
requirements, which called for the implementation of the PPCS supplement. Later that year, the
PPCS was administered as a pilot study and then administered every three years for each of the
following five cycles: 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011. The survey was then not administered again
until 2015, the last year it was fielded.
In 2008, police contact was measured based on a single survey question asking if the respondent
had any face-to-face contact with a police officer in the previous year followed by a survey
question asking how many face-to-face contacts had occurred. Later in the survey, a series of
questions were asked on the reason for the most recent police contact the respondent had
experienced. The possible reasons included being involved or witnessing a traffic accident, being
involved in a traffic stop, reporting a crime or some other problem to the police, getting some
sort of service or assistance from police, police were investigating a crime, being suspected of
something by police, or another reason not previously reported. Respondents were then routed
to the appropriate section that asked follow-up questions about their most recent contact.
In the 2011 PPCS, a series of screener questions was implemented to measure various contacts
one may have had with police in the previous 12 months. Therefore, the questionnaire was able
to collect data on multiple types of contacts the respondent may have had with police officers.
Police contact was also expanded to include interactions with police that were not limited to
face-to-face contacts, by including phone call and email interactions (Berzofsky, Ewing, &
DeMichele, 2017).
For the 2015 PPCS, the screener was expanded to ask respondents about the number of times
each contact occurred in addition to if any of those contacts resulted in an arrest. The inclusion
of these items about the number of contacts made it possible to calculate an incident rate in
addition to a prevalence rate. An incident rate is essential for purposes of measuring disparities
in the criminal justice system. It also provides more context that allows for a more nuanced
understanding of the frequency of contact between the police and the members of the public.
An additional major change in 2015 was the administration of use of force questions to all
respondents, regardless of the type of contact experienced during their most recent encounter
with police. The 2011 instrument did not allow for calculation of an overall estimate of the use
of force by police for all types of contact. Questions pertaining to characteristics of officers in the
police contacts were also improved for the 2015 instrument. The questions pertaining to race
and ethnicity of officers were adjusted to match questions from the NCVS on the race of the
offender.

4 STUDY METHODOLOGY
4.1 Expert Review
Before cognitive testing of the PPCS began, an expert review of the questionnaire was conducted
by CSM in the spring of 2017. During the expert review, CSM examined a revised version of the
2015 questionnaire. The revisions included adding 12 new questions and restructuring the
sections of the survey. The restructuring of the sections allowed for the removal of duplicate
questions that appeared in different survey paths. When conducting the expert review,
researchers focused on question order and the flow of the survey, as well as the wording of new
questions that BJS wanted to measure in 2018. Below is a list of the new questions that were
added and tested in the first round of cognitive testing (question numbers listed are the numbers
from the final questionnaire):
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Were you ticketed for the same thing that you were stopped for, or for something
different? (Q28)
At any point during this contact, did the police refer to you using a slur or call you a
degrading name? (Q46a)
At any point during this contact, did the police make a sexual comment to you? (Q46b)
At any point during this contact, did the police touch you in a sexual way or have any
physical contact with you that was sexual in nature? (Q46c)
Do you feel that any of the police behaviors during this contact were motivated by
prejudice or bias against you, due to your actual or perceived race or ethnicity? (Q47a)
Do you feel that any of the police behaviors during this contact were motivated by
prejudice or bias against you, due to your actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation?
(Q47b)
Do you feel that any of the police behaviors during this contact were motivated by
prejudice or bias against you, due to your actual or perceived religion? (Q47c)
Do you feel that any of the police behaviors during this contact were motivated by
prejudice or bias against you, due to your actual or perceived disability? (Q47d)
Did you file a complaint against the police? (Q48)
During any of your EARLIER contacts with police in the last 12 months, did the police
refer to you using a slur or call you a degrading name? (Q54a)
During any of your EARLIER contacts with police in the last 12 months, did the police make
a sexual comment to you? (Q54b)
During any of your EARLIER contacts with police in the last 12 months, did the police touch
you in a sexual way or have any physical contact with you that was sexual in nature?
(Q54c)

4.2 Data Collection
Five CSM researchers conducted four iterative rounds of cognitive testing between June 2017
and November 2017 that resulted in 50 completed face-to-face cognitive interviews. All
interviews were conducted in the Washington DC metropolitan area (Maryland, Virginia, and
Washington D.C.). The results in each of the first three rounds were used to inform the
questionnaire wording for the subsequent round. In Round 4, the final questionnaire was tested
to examine if all of the revised changes performed as expected. There were seven sections in the
questionnaire:
A. Contact Screen Questions
B. Most Recent Contact
C. Characteristics of Street Stop
D. Characteristics of Traffic Stop
E. Officer Characteristics
F. Outcome of Stop
G. Outcome of Voluntary Contacts
In the introduction to the Contact Screen Questions section, respondents were told that for this
interview, police refers to any law enforcement officer, and that the reference period for the
interview was the past 12 months. Twelve screener questions were administered to all
respondents on the different types of police contact a respondent could have experienced. After
the most recent contact with police was identified at the conclusion of Section A, all respondents
were asked to provide details in Section B about when and how long their most recent contact
occurred. Respondents were then routed to one of four sections (C, D, F, and G) depending on
what type of police contact the respondent experienced. Only those respondents on the survey
path for Street Stop or Traffic Stop were administered Section E and asked to discuss the
characteristics of the officer or officers who stopped them.

4.2.1 Recruitment Criteria and Strategy
Respondents from the general population who were aged 18 1 years or older were recruited with
the goal of diversity of respondents by police contact type, sex, age, race, ethnicity, household
income, and education level. To be eligible to participate, they had to have one or more of the
following types of police contacts within the past 12 months:
•
•
•
•

Pulled over for a traffic stop (while driving or as a passenger)
Stopped by police in public (while walking or standing)
Contacted the police to report a crime
Asked the police for directions

The universe for the PPCS is 16 years or older. Recruitment ads specified that we were looking for individuals
ages 16 or older, but no one under the age of 18 called to participate in the study. The youngest respondent in the
sample was 18 years old at the time of the interview.

The following recruitment methods were used: (1) a Broadcast email was sent to all Census
Bureau employees based in Census headquarters in Suitland, Maryland to share with family
members and friends who may be interested in participating and (2) a Craigslist advertisement
was posted in the Volunteering section of the Washington D.C. community area of Craigslist.
Interested respondents were administered a screener questionnaire by telephone (see
Attachment A for the screener questionnaire). Respondents were asked about any contacts they
had with the police in the past 12 months, the number of police contacts they had, what occurred
during their most recent contact with police, and a description of what happened during their
previous contacts with police. Using the responses to the screener questions, the lead researcher
attempted to identify what type of police contact the respondent may have had as the most
recent contact, to ensure the recruiting targets by type of police contact were met.
There are five survey paths a respondent can be routed to depending on the police contact:
voluntary (contacts in which the respondent contacted the police to report something), traffic
stop, street stop, traffic accident, or arrests/other involuntary. The recruitment goals varied
across the four rounds of cognitive testing since problematic paths and questions varied as a
result of the prior round of testing. For Rounds 1, the primary goal was to recruit for the different
types of police contact a respondent may have experienced. This was to ensure enough
respondents progressed through each survey path so the questions were adequately tested. In
Rounds 2 and 3, there was a focus to recruit respondents who experienced a street stop, a traffic
stop as a passenger, or a voluntary contact to make sure the revisions following Round 1
improved the performance of the survey questions.
In Round 4, the focus was to recruit respondents who had reported more than three police
contacts in the previous 12 months to see if they could accurately recall the number of contacts
and types of police contacts they experienced. Other areas of focus during Round 4 were to
examine if any of the police contacts were double reported, and to monitor the performance of
the verification question in the reporting of the police contacts.

4.2.2 Respondent Characteristics
The goal for this study was to balance the respondents based on the survey path the respondents
went through in the interview. We also tried to recruit a diverse sample of respondents based on
sex, race, ethnicity, education, age, and annual household income. Table 1 below provides
respondent characteristics by round and overall.

Table 1. Respondent Characteristics by Round
Round 1
(n=15)
Survey Path
Voluntary
3
Traffic Stop
4
Street Stop
4
Arrest
0
Accident/Other Involuntary
4
Sex
Male
6
Female
9
Race*
White
3
Black or African American
11
Asian
1
American Indian or Alaska Native
0
Blank
0
Two or More Races
0
Ethnicity
Hispanic
0
Non-Hispanic
15
Education
Less than high school
0
Completed high school
7
Some college, no degree
1
Associate's degree (AA/AS)
0
Bachelor's degree (BA/BS)
5
Post Bachelor's degree
2
Age
18-30
6
31-45
5
46-55
2
56-65
2
Over 65
0
Income
Less than $25,000
3
$25,000 to $49,999
6
$50,000 to $99,999
3
$100,000 or more
3

Round 2
(n=15)

Round 3
(n=10)

Round 4
(n=10)

Total
(n=50)

5
4
4
0
2

4
3
3
0
0

6
1
2
0
1

18
12
13
0
7

8
7

6
4

26
24

6
8
0
0
1
0

2
7
1
0
0
0

0
10
0
0
0
0

11
36
2
0
1
0

1
14

1
9

0
10

2
48

0
3
6
0
2
4

0
3
1
2
4
0

0
2
5
1
2
0

0
15
13
3
13
6

2
5
4
3
1

2
3
2
3
0

4
1
3
2
0

14
14
11
10
1

7
2
4
2

4
3
3
0

5
4
1
0

19
15
11
5

The voluntary survey path had the most respondents but this was by design. Eighteen
respondents had a police contact which resulted in them routing through the voluntary survey
path. The research goals focused on this survey path since the voluntary questions were found
to be the most problematic for respondents. The remaining respondents were routed through
the street stop (n=13), traffic stop (n=12), and accident/other involuntary paths (n=7). We were
7

not able to recruit respondents to test the arrest survey path. This could be due to privacy
concerns respondents may have had about reporting an arrest.
Recruiting for equal representation among the different demographic groups was difficult. This
was because our recruitment focused on the type of police contact a respondent experienced for
Rounds 1 to 3 and if the respondent had more than three contacts with the police in Round 4. As
a result, there was unequal balance among some of the demographic groups, specifically race,
ethnicity, and education. Sex was close to being balanced in each of the four rounds of testing.
For race, there was difficulty balancing among the groups in cognitive testing as Black or African
Americans had a large representation in three of the four rounds. Only two respondents were of
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin in cognitive testing, as recruiting for Hispanic respondents was
difficult. Across the four rounds, a large majority of respondents were those who completed high
school (n=15), completed some college but no degree (n=13), and a Bachelor’s degree (n=13).
Age diversity was achieved across the five different ranges across the four rounds except for
those who were over 65. Income was represented among the different ranges across the four
rounds except for those who were in a household of $100,000 or more, where there were only
five respondents.

4.2.3 Interviewer Staffing and Training
CSM interviewers who had previous experience in conducting cognitive interviews, including
other NCVS supplemental surveys, conducted all interviews. Prior to Round 1 of testing, all
interviewers received training on administering the Police-Public Contact Survey protocol. The
interviewing team discussed each question in the protocol and the purpose of the questions and
the probes. Each interviewer conducted a practice interview with another interviewer prior to
their first cognitive interview. Before the subsequent rounds, interviewer team met to discuss
revisions to the protocol and to ensure interviewers were prepared to conduct interviews with
the new protocol.

4.2.4 The Cognitive Interview Protocol
The protocol focused on the new and revised questions of the PPCS. For Round 1, respondents
were trained and asked to “think aloud” as they answered the survey questions. The think-aloud
technique was used so interviewers could understand the respondents’ thought process when
answering each question. The think-aloud technique was only used in Round 1 since some
respondents expressed confusion with the survey task as a result of thinking aloud.
After administering each section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked a series of
retrospective probes. Retrospective probing in cognitive interviewing is the process where
respondents complete either the full questionnaire or a section of it uninterrupted before being
asked a series of probes about the survey questions in the preceding section(s). The advantage
of retrospective probing is that the respondent can complete the series of survey questions
without any interruption. However, the disadvantage is they may have difficulty recalling their
thought process as they answered some of the survey questions since time has elapsed (Willis,
2005). Retrospective probing was used instead of concurrent probing (where respondents are

administered follow-up questions immediately after they answer a survey question) to avoid
influencing respondents’ answers for the subsequent related survey questions.
Many of the probes focused on the nature of the respondent’s contact with the police and how
respondents interpreted select survey items or particular phrases within the question wording.
These probes were designed to capture the thought process of respondents when answering the
survey questions. Interviewers noted any difficulties the respondent may have had when
answering the survey questions or probes. After administration of the PPCS questionnaire,
respondents were asked a series of debriefing items that focused on the respondent’s
experiences completing the interview, whether they had ever answered survey questions about
experience with police in the past, and if they had any type of contact with police that was not
discussed during the interview.

5 COGNITIVE INTERVIEW FINDINGS
This section of the report includes question-by-question findings of the cognitive interviews
across all four rounds of testing. The original and final wording of each screener question is
included, with a detailed explanation of why each revision was made following a round of testing
(revisions to the question wording between rounds are shown in red font).
The results of this report focus mostly on the screener questions since those are the questions
that were most problematic during pre-testing. The clarity and performance of the screener is
critical to ensure that respondents are routed down the correct survey path to receive relevant
follow-up questions about their most recent (or only) contact. The results of testing each of the
screener questions is reported even if respondents had no issues with a particular screener item.
The 12 new questions added prior to the expert review were probed on during tested, and are
reported on in sections 5.6 and 5.7. The remaining questions in other sections of the
questionnaire are not included in this report, as respondents exhibited no troubles with them,
and they did not warrant any revisions.

5.1 Screener Questions (Q1a-Q1l)
5.1.1 PPCS Screener Question 1a: Report a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity
Q1a Original : Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1a. Have you reported any kind of crime,
disturbance, or suspicious activity to the police
in the past 12 months?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1b

Rounds 1 to 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Across all four rounds of testing, 24 respondents recalled reporting a crime, disturbance, or
suspicious activity to the police in the past 12 months. Respondents did not exhibit any issues
comprehending what the question was asking during questionnaire administration. Respondents
reported contacting the police to report robberies, vandalism, people being in places where they
should not be, and domestic disturbances. However, when probed on the types of crimes,
disturbances, or suspicious activities that come to mind after hearing this survey question,
respondents said it might refer to things like reporting shootings, burglaries, and incidents of
interpersonal violence. Some respondents reported during the probing portion of the interview
that they also thought of traffic stops and traffic accidents which respondents had already been
asked about during questionnaire administration and were therefore, not in scope for this
question.
Those respondents who answered “yes” to reporting a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity
were asked to report How many times did this happen during the past 12 months? One
respondent from Round 1 felt it was challenging to give the precise number of times she reported
this type of contact because crime occurs frequently where she lives. Despite some of the
incorrect examples that respondents gave, it was evident that all understood what this question
was asking due to the contacts they actually reported in response to Q1a, so no changes were
recommended throughout all four rounds of testing.

5.1.2 PPCS Screener Question 1b: Non-crime emergency
Q1b Original: Round 1
1b. Have you reported a NON-CRIME
EMERGENCY, such as a medical emergency or a
traffic accident you were not involved in, to the
police?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1c

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1c

Q1b Revision 1: Round 2
1b. Have you reported an emergency that was NOT a
crime, such as a medical emergency or a traffic
accident you were not involved in, to the police?

Q1b Revision 2: Rounds 3 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1b. The last question asked about reporting crimes
or suspicious activity. Have you reported an
EMERGENCY that was NOT a crime to the police?
These could include medical emergencies, or a traffic
accident that you witnessed but were not involved in?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1c

Round 1 Findings
Three respondents recalled reporting a non-crime emergency in the past 12 months. One of the
three respondents reported the time their car was broken into. However, because a crime had
occurred, this incident should have been reported in response to screener Q1a (crime,
disturbance or suspicious activity) instead. When the interviewer probed this respondent to
understand why they did not include this incident for screener Q1a, the respondent stated they
were initially unable to think of all of the police contacts they had experienced since the survey
had just begun. However, when asked Q1b, they were able to recall and report this incident.
During the probing portion of the cognitive interview, interviewers asked respondents what types
of examples come to mind when hearing the question about non-crime emergencies. One
respondent said:
R01: "For me, when they say non-crime, I think about anything suspicious or a tip that I
may have for the police, non-crime related. It could be…. Anything non-crime related to
me would be traffic, needing a police report. Reporting a disturbance, like somebody too
loud."
Most respondents gave examples like reporting an accident or requesting medical assistance.
Some respondents struggled to limit their thinking to non-crime emergencies. Our
recommendation was to revise the wording to read Have you reported an emergency that
was NOT a crime, in an attempt to make it more apparent to respondents that crimes should not
be reported for Q1b.
Round 2 Findings
Respondents continued to experience issues comprehending the types of contacts this question
was asking about. Four respondents indicated they had reported emergencies that were NOT
crimes in the past 12 months. However, one of those respondents did include the time she saw
a refrigerator on a nearby parkway, which she believed to be a potential hazard to drivers. The
respondent explained during questionnaire administration that she did not feel this was an
emergency, but when she thought of places to include the incident, she felt it fit with screener
1b the best.
When we probed on what types of police contacts come to mind for this question, six
respondents gave examples such as reporting an accident or needing medical assistance which
11

were already listed in the question. It was also clear that respondents were including traffic
accidents that they themselves were involved in despite the phrase specifying accidents you were
not involved in. One respondent was confused and asked her interviewer for clarification because
she was thinking of an accident she was involved in. Another respondent (R22) replied “Someone
playing music loud. Noisy neighbors,” which are disturbances measured in screener Q1a (crime,
disturbance or suspicious activity).
It was recommended that the wording be revised to further emphasize that Q1b is not asking
about crimes, which should be reported in Q1a. The wording tested for Rounds 3 and 4 read: The
last question asked about reporting crimes or suspicious activity. Have you reported an
EMERGENCY that was NOT a crime to the police? These could include medical emergencies, or a
traffic accident that you witnessed but were not involved in.
Rounds 3 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
After revising the wording for Rounds 3 and 4, seven of 20 respondents recalled reporting
emergencies that were not crimes in the past 12 months. The revisions were intended to reduce
the number of false positives reported for this question. However, our findings from both rounds
show that some respondents may have focused on one word or phrase in the question, and
missed others. Even though the question specifies accidents they were not involved in, the
inclusion of the phrase traffic accidents may have primed respondents to recall any traffic
accident or emergency after hearing the words, making them miss the qualifier.
The seven respondents who replied “yes” recalled obtaining medical assistance for a parent or
stranger having a health emergency, witnessing a traffic accident on the highway, calling the
police on a neighbor playing very loud music, hearing someone fighting, and getting assistance
for a neighbor’s home that was on fire.
When interviewers probed respondents to think more generally about the types of contacts with
police that come to mind when they hear this question that they did not already mention, some
respondents did continue to think of their own personal experiences as context. However, they
also provided other examples such as calling 9-1-1 for a sick or injured person in need of a
paramedic, witnessing a car accident, witnessing someone break a window open, “seeing a fire”,
or a pedestrian calling the police because a car was going too fast and the driver almost hit them.
Although some respondents continued to think of the types of interactions that are being
measured under screener 1a (crime, disturbance or suspicious activity), the findings from Rounds
3 and 4 suggest that respondents do comprehend this question, even though they may try to
report a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity. Researchers were confident that potential
measurement error had been reduced as much as possible throughout testing, and that any
misclassified incidents could be put under the appropriate screener by the field interviewer.

5.1.3 PPCS Screener Question 1c: Non-emergency Assistance
Original Question 1c: Round 1
1c. In the past 12 months, have you contacted or
approached police for NON-EMERGENCY
assistance such as court orders, asking directions,
custody enforcement, or any other non-emergency
situation?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1d

Question 1c Revision 1: Rounds 2 – Round 4 and Final Recommendation
1c. In the past 12 months, have you contacted or
approached police for NON-EMERGENCY
assistance such as asking directions, custody
enforcement, court orders, or any other nonemergency situation?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1d

Round 1 Findings
Six respondents indicated they have contacted or approached police for non-emergency
assistance in the past 12 months. When probed by interviewers on the types of examples they
thought of when they heard this question, respondents often mentioned asking police for
directions and getting assistance with court matters such as custody orders.
Using the think-aloud techniques for Round 1, interviewers noticed that some respondents were
double reporting the same incident for 1b (non-crime emergencies) and 1c (non-emergency
assistance). During probing, researchers learned that two respondents also mentioned traffic
accidents and medical emergencies as examples, both are not in scope. Despite the confusion,
all respondents appeared to have a clear understanding of the difference between an emergency
and a non-emergency. They characterized emergencies as requiring “immediate assistance.”
Because asking law enforcement for directions was assumed to be the most common example
listed, a minor revision was made to reorder the list of examples from most common to least
common in hopes that respondents would most likely hear their situation listed first in the
examples.
Rounds 2 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
After reordering the examples listed in the survey question for Q1c, respondents displayed less
difficulty with the wording. In Rounds 2 through 4, twenty respondents who answered “yes” to
this question recalled asking the police for directions, obtaining information on child custody,
approaching a police officer who ticketed their vehicle for not having the holes necessary to affix
the license plate, getting assistance when locked out of their car, calling the police when an Uber
drove off with a respondent’s purse still inside the vehicle, and inquiring that an unknown vehicle
13

parked in front of their home be removed. Respondents did not struggle to describe what they
believe the difference to be between emergencies and non-emergencies.
R21: "Emergency is being robbed or seeing someone breaking someone home or someone
assaulting someone."
R24: "The immediacy of someone's safety being threatened in like a bodily harm kind of
way. Charging at someone with a knife or something. Or I'm witnessing a domestic
violence situation.”
R27: "An emergency is something probably that needs immediate attention whether it be
the police, firemen or EMT, versus something that you can just take a report and deal with
it later on.”
When respondents were asked to phrase this survey question in their own words, they suggested
the question means asking for directions, non-emergencies, “approaching for simple question or
questioning”, and “in a matter that you didn't have to deal with someone breaking the law or
needing assistance." After reviewing the overall performance of this question, and
acknowledging that respondents may vary by the types of incidents or situations that they deem
urgent so there is no single right answer, no additional recommendations were made to this
question.

5.1.4 PPCS Screener Question 1d: Neighborhood Watch
Original Question 1d: Round 1
1d. In the past 12 months, have you participated
in neighborhood watch or other anti-crime
programs WITH police?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1e on page 6

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1e on page 6

FR Note: Neighborhood watch also refers to block
watch or community watch programs.

Q1d Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1d. In the past 12 months, have you participated in an
organized neighborhood watch or other anti-crime
programs WITH police?
FR Note: Neighborhood watch also refers to block
watch or community watch programs.

Round 1 Findings
Participating in a neighborhood watch or other kind of anti-crime program with police was not
something that was very common for our respondents. During Round 1, only one respondent
(R14) answered “yes” to this question. However, this respondent’s answer was a false positive.
Due to the negative interactions this respondent had experienced with a neighbor (taking
pictures of the respondent, yelling at the respondent) and contacting the police frequently to
report his behaviors, law enforcement advised her and her other neighbors to contact them
anytime they saw suspicious activity. This respondent should not have answered “yes” based on
this scenario alone because based on her explanation, she did not participate in a formal anticrime program.
To learn more about the different terms respondents are familiar with to describe neighborhood
watch programs, interviewers probed respondents if they were also familiar with the term block
watch. Even though four of 15 respondents reported they have heard the term block watch
before, everyone stated neighborhood watch is more widely known than block watch.
Since the one respondent struggled to comprehend that this question is measuring participation
in a formal neighborhood watch program, the question was revised to explicitly ask about
participation in an organized neighborhood watch with police.
Rounds 2 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Of the nine respondents who reported that they have heard of the term block watch, eight stated
the term neighborhood watch is more often used than block watch.
Of the nine respondents who have heard the term, five said that block watch means the same
thing as neighborhood watch. Two respondents said block watch refers to a smaller area than
neighborhood watch ("Yes, it's like you're watching the block and not the whole neighborhood”).
The second respondent stated she's quite sure block watch means "probably just that one block"
and neighborhood watch means the "whole neighborhood." Two respondents were not asked if
they mean the same thing.
When asked to explain what this question is asking in their own words, respondents understood
this question to mean either being part of an organization or team that patrols the neighborhood,
or engaging in community activities or assisting police to keep the neighborhood safe without
mention of an organized effort. Because the revisions following Round 1 of testing continued to
perform well, no additional recommendations were made for this question.

5.1.5 PPCS Screener Question 1e: Traffic Accident
Original Q1e: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1e. In the past 12 months, have you been involved in a
traffic accident in which the police came to the scene?

1  Yes 2  No Skip to Q2

Rounds 1-4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Across four rounds of testing, 13 respondents reported being involved in a traffic accident in
which police came to the scene. This survey question performed very well amongst the 50
respondents recruited to participate in cognitive testing. Due to the lack of issues, no changes
were made to this question.

5.1.6 PPCS Screener Question 2: Frequency of Driving
Original Question 2: Rounds 1 – 2 and Final Recommendation
Q2. Before continuing with additional questions
about contacts you may have had with the police, I
would like to find out how often you usually drove in
the past 12 months. Did you drive…

1  Every day or almost every day?
2  A few days a week?
3  A few days a month?
4  A few times a year?
5  Never?

Rounds 1-2 Findings and Final Recommendation
Before transitioning to the survey questions that measure respondents’ experience with policeinitiated contacts, respondents were asked how frequently they have driven within the past 12
months. Every day or almost every day (23) and Never (12) were selected the most by our
respondents. No respondents selected a few times a year. During Rounds 1 and 2 of testing,
interviewers probed respondents to learn if a response option was missing that could better
describe how often they drove. All respondents replied that the response option they needed
was listed. Since this survey question performed well during Rounds 1 and 2 and no
recommendations were made, cognitive testing of this question was completed in Round 2.

5.1.7 PPCS Screener Question 1f: Traffic Stop - Driver
Original Question 1f: Rounds 1 – Round 2
Now I am going to ask you questions about any time
in the past 12 months when police initiated contact
with you.
1f. Have you been pulled over by the police while
driving a motor vehicle, NOT including any
driving violations captured by camera and
ticketed by mail?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1g on page 7

Q1f Revision 1: Round 3 (Reverted to this version for Final Recommendation)
Now I’m going to ask you about 4 types of reasons
why the police may have initiated contact with you
in the past 12 months. If the police initiated contact
with you on multiple occasions, you can say yes to
more than one reason but please choose the reason
that best fits why police initiated contact with you
on each occasion.

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1g on page 7

1f. Have you been pulled over by the police while
driving a motor vehicle, NOT including any driving
violations captured by camera and ticketed by mail?

Q1f Revision 2: Round 4
Now I’m going to ask you about 4 types of reasons
why the police may have initiated contact with you in
the past 12 months. If the police initiated contact with
you on multiple occasions, you can say yes to more
than one reason but please choose the reason that best
fits why police initiated contact with you on each
occasion.

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1g on page 7

1f. NOT including any driving violations captured by
camera and ticketed by mail, have you been pulled
over by the police while driving a motor vehicle?

Rounds 1 and 2 Findings
When asked about being pulled over by the police while driving a motor vehicle in the past 12
months, 12 of the 30 respondents in Rounds 1 and 2 answered “yes”. However, no respondents
exhibited any significant issues with the question wording.
During Round 1, when one respondent was asked the follow up question (Were you arrested
during [this contact/any of these contacts]?) for the traffic stop she reported in Q1f, she stated
that she had been arrested. However, during probing it became clear this arrest occurred during
a street stop, which is measured by the next question, Q1h (In the past 12 months, have you been
stopped by the police while standing, walking, or sitting in a public place or sitting in a parked
vehicle?), which had not been administered to the respondent yet. The cause of the misreport
appeared to be due to the unique circumstances. Though the arrest occurred during a street stop,
it was the result of a bench warrant from an unpaid traffic ticket. This caused the respondent to
associate the arrest with the initial traffic stop, and she did not know that another question was
coming about street stop. The respondent did correctly report the street stop and subsequent
arrest when they interviewer asked Q1h and the follow-ups.

Another respondent exhibited difficulty during Round 2 when she misclassified a contact that she
had with police under this question. She recalled the time she saw an officer speeding on the
highway, and pulled over to the side of the road with the intentions of letting him pass. When
the officer saw her pull over, he pulled over behind her and told her that her actions were
suspicious. The respondent initially reported this contact under Q1f, and answered no to Q1h
(street stop, see full question wording in section 5.1.9). During probing, after discussing her
experiences and answering probes about her understanding of the questions, she told the
interviewer that she initially included this incident under Q1f (traffic stop), but now felt the best
option was Q1h (street stop), and asked to change her earlier responses to reflect this.
Following Round 2, the introduction text for police-initiated contacts (questions 1f-1j) was
concurrently modified with the introduction text for respondent-initiated contacts (questions 1a1e.) These revisions were made to let the respondent know they will hear a list of contacts to
choose from, and to select the contact that best describes the interaction they had with police.
Round 3 Findings
Three respondents reported having been pulled over by the police while driving a motor vehicle.
One respondent (R31) did not comprehend the question and replied “Not driving violations? And
non-driving violations?” before answering yes or no. Due to the respondent’s uncertainty, the
interviewer then read the survey question once again to the respondent, and the respondent
replied “no”. Later during the interview, the respondent was asked about his most recent
interaction with police. The respondent recalled that his most recent interaction was when he
was pulled over for speeding. When asked why he did not report this contact under screener Q1f,
the respondent stated the wording NOT including any driving violations captured by camera and
ticketed by mail caused confusion, and thought this question was asking only about non-driving
violations such as when a person received their speeding ticket by mail and were not pulled over
in person.
After convening with NCVS researchers, the decision was made to modify the question for the
last round of testing, moving the exclusionary clause NOT including any driving violations
captured by camera and ticketed by mail to the beginning of the survey question so that
respondents could more clearly hear what not to include.
Round 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Two respondents reported having been pulled over by the police while driving a motor vehicle in
the past 12 months. One respondent who said “yes” was speeding while driving a motor vehicle.
The second respondent was pulled over by an undercover police officer who noticed she was
talking on the telephone while driving.
Most of the respondents recruited during this round understood that this question is about
people who may have been pulled over by a police car while driving a motor vehicle. Two of the
10 respondents who participated in this round of testing did not drive, and stated they could not
place themselves in this scenario, and therefore, were unable to give their interpretations of the
phrase captured by camera and ticketed by mail.
18

This version was only tested during Round 4. Therefore, the final recommendation was to use
the original wording of this survey question, moving the exclusionary clause back to the end of
the question: Have you been pulled over by the police while driving a motor vehicle, NOT including
any driving violations captured by camera and ticketed by mail?

5.1.8 PPCS Screener Question 1g: Traffic Stop-Passenger
Original Question 1g: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1g. Have you been riding in a motor vehicle that was
pulled over by police while someone else was driving?

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1h

Rounds 1-4 and Final Recommendation
Across the four rounds of testing, thirteen of 50 respondents reported riding in a motor vehicle
that was pulled over by police while someone else was driving in the past 12 months.
Respondents did not experience any difficulty with this question. During Rounds 1 and 2,
interviewers were probed on their understanding of this question. All respondents reported this
question was measuring police contacts for which they were not driving a motor vehicle, but
were passengers in a vehicle while someone else was driving. Due to the lack of comprehension
issues, this question did not require any revisions and testing was completed in Round 2.

5.1.9 PPCS Screener Question 1h: Street Stop
Original Question 1h: Round 1
1h. In the past 12 months, have you been stopped
by the police while standing, walking, or sitting
in a public place or sitting in a parked vehicle?
This could include being stopped because the
police suspected you of something, were looking
for information, were investigating a crime or
disturbance, or if they stopped you for some
other reason.

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1i

Question 1h Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1h. In the past 12 months, have you been stopped by
the police while standing, walking, or sitting in a
public place or sitting in a parked vehicle? This could
include being stopped because the police were looking
for information, were asking about a crime or
disturbance, suspected you of something, or if they
stopped you for some other reason.

1  Yes

2  No Skip to 1i

Round 1 Findings
Nine of the 15 respondents reported having been stopped by the police while standing, walking,
or sitting in a public place or parked vehicle. However, one of the nine struggled to identify the
appropriate answer to this question. During the administration of the questionnaire she replied
“yes”, but later on after hearing screener Q1j (Other than what you have already told me about,
have you contacted the police or did the police initiate contact with you for any other reason in
the past 12 months?), she changed her answer from “yes” to “no” for Q1h.
R04: "Well, it sounds like that question [1H] that I originally answered yes to, it sounds like
I fit the description - the police stopped me and wanted information, or I could be a
potential.... they knew who I was and they sought me out …But then when I got to the
other question for any other reason, I was like well, that's a better fit."
Because the above respondent thought this question was stating she fit the description and may
be a suspect, we revised the wording, listing were looking for information as the first example so
that it does not get lost due to the length of the survey question. We also recommended changing
the order of examples resulting in the following list: This could include being stopped because the
police were looking for information, were asking about a crime or disturbance, suspected you of
something, or if they stopped you for some other reason.
As previously reported above in the findings for Q1f (traffic stop), a respondent should have
included the resulting arrest from her street stop here, but did not.
Rounds 2 -4 Findings and Final Recommendation
After revising the wording, a total of 17 respondents of the 35 respondents across Rounds 2
through 4 reported being stopped by police in the past 12 months. One respondent (discussed in
Q1f above) did experience difficulty selecting the appropriate response to this question. She
initially included the incident as a traffic stop and replied “no” to this question. It was not until
the respondent was asked Check Item B2 (You just mentioned several contacts with the police.
Which of these was the most recent?) that she decided to change her answer and include her
police contact as a street stop.
Respondents were asked to interpret what this question is asking in their own words. Four
respondents suggested this question is implying that they were targeted and stopped by police
for no reason at all.
R19: “You’re approached but you’re not doing anything wrong.”
R20: “I didn’t do anything…. They have engaged me in some sort of way to make it
feel like I’m being detained.”
R24: “I kind of interpret it as like there's no reason for them to contact me. Not
because of anything I’m doing, it's just totally unfounded and borderline
harassment.”
20

R25: “Have the police racial profiled me or pulled me over for not an efficient reason."
Not all respondents believed this question was measuring the times they were being targeted by
police or the police felt they were suspicious. Seven respondents indicated this question is asking
about an array of things, such as the cops were investigating something unrelated to the
respondent and were contacting them to obtain information about a crime.
As we continued monitoring the performance of this question, it was evident that respondents
understood the meaning of this question and knew what types of incidents were applicable here.
No further revisions were recommended.

5.1.10 PPCS Screener Question 1i: Other Arrests
Original Question 1i: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1i. In the past 12 months, have you been arrested
during any contact with the police that you have not
told me about yet?

1  Yes

2  No

Rounds 1-4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Only two of 50 respondents from Rounds 1 through 4 reported being arrested during any contact
with the police in the past 12 months for something that they had not already revealed to their
interviewer. Due to the limited number of respondents who reported this type of contact with
the police, probes were administered for all four rounds of testing to ensure that respondents
did not experience any difficulty with this question. This survey question performed well among
all respondents therefore, no changes were made to this question.

5.1.11 PPCS Screener Question 1j: Other Police or Self-Initiated Contacts
Original Question 1j: Round 1
1j. Other than what you have already told me about,
have you contacted the police or did the police initiate
contact with you for any other reason in the past 12
months?

1  Yes  Skip to CHECK ITEM 1J
2  No  Skip to CHECK ITEM B

Question 1j Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1j. Other than what you have already told me about,
in the past 12 months, have you contacted the police
or did the police initiate contact with you for any
other reason?

1  Yes  Skip to CHECK ITEM 1J
2  No  Skip to CHECK ITEM B

Round 1 Findings
Six respondents indicated they had another contact with police in the past 12 months that they
had not reported in response to other screener questions. Of those six respondents, three
incorrectly answered this question. One respondent did not report the time they contacted the
police about a suspicious person which is measured by Q1a (Have you reported any kind of crime,
disturbance, or suspicious activity to the police in the past 12 months?) The other respondent did
not report the time she was pulled over while talking on the phone and driving for Q1f (Have you
been pulled over by the police while driving a motor vehicle, NOT including any driving violations
captured by camera and ticketed by mail?) The third respondent who incorrectly answered this
question recalled an incident that was out of scope because it occurred two years ago.
Two respondents could not recall during probing what incident they were thinking of that made
them reply “yes” to this question. With the implementation of think aloud and the length of the
screener, twenty minutes may have lapsed by the time they were asked to reflect back to their
answers for these questions. Researchers agreed that it may be challenging for some
respondents to recall during probing what they were thinking of at the time they were first
administered this question.
The recommendation proposed for the following round of testing was to move in the past 12
months from the end of the question towards the beginning of the question, so that respondents
remember the context of the reference period while formulating their answer.
Rounds 2-4 Findings and Final Recommendation
The revision was tested with 35 respondents, of which 11 respondents answered “yes” to this
question. Five respondents who replied “yes” double-reported their response with some
previously reported police contact. Three respondents reported something here that they had
already mentioned in Q1a which asks about reporting crimes, disturbances, or suspicious activity,
while two others reported contacts in Q1c (non-emergency assistance) and Q1h (street stops),
respectively. Despite the potential issues of respondents double-reporting contacts, no
additional changes were recommended to this question because we expect to capture and
correct these errors in the verification question that was added in Round 2 (see section 5.1.14).

5.1.12 PPCS Screener Question 1k: Self-initiated
Original Question 1k: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1k. Was this contact/Were any of these contacts
initiated by you?

1  Yes  Skip to CHECK ITEM 1K
2  No  Skip to 1l

Round 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Nine respondents replied “yes” to this question because they replied “yes” to Q1j (17
respondents answered “yes” to Q1j). All respondents were clear that this question is measuring
if the respondent is the individual who initiated contact with the police. Due to the lack of
difficulty respondents experienced with this question, no changes were recommended.
22

5.1.13 PPCS Screener Question 1l: Police initiated
Original Question 1l: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1l. Was this contact/Were any of these contacts/Were
any of the other contacts initiated by the police?

1  Yes  Skip to CHECK ITEM 1L
2  No  Skip to CHECK ITEM B

Round 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Twelve respondents replied “yes” to this question after mentioning there were other contacts
they have yet to report. Respondents did not experience any difficulty answering this question
and were very clear that this question is asking if the police were the ones to initiate contact with
them.

5.1.14 PPCS Screener Verification Question
Original Verification Question: Round 2
Vl. You mentioned the following contacts with the
police in the past 12 months, {contact 1 ____ number of
times}, {contact 2 ____ number of times}, and {contact x
____ number of times … }. Is everything that I have
correct?

[IF YES] Go to CHECK ITEM B2 BELOW.
[IF NO] Which of these is incorrect? If anything you have
recorded in your checklist is incorrect, verify with R what is
incorrect such as, the type of contact or number of times it
happened. After verifying the change, read the list again before
recording it in your checklist and reading CHECK ITEM B2.

Verification Question Revision 1: Rounds 3 – 4 and Final Recommendation
Vl. You mentioned having several contacts with the
police in the past 12 months. I am going to read you a
list of what I have recorded to make sure everything
is correct. Each contact should only be counted once.
You said you had the following contacts with the
police, {contact 1 ____ number of times}, {contact 2 ____
number of times}, and {contact x ____ number of times
… }. Is everything that I have correct?

Round 2 Findings
The verification question was added to the questionnaire in Round 2 because researchers
realized some respondents were double-reporting contacts. We needed a way to confirm they
captured the correct types of contacts, and the number of times these contacts occurred. As a
result of adding the verification question, one respondent corrected her interviewer because she
double-reported a non-crime emergency (we learned this contact occurred two years ago and
was out of scope).

A second respondent approached by police while sleeping in his car also double-reported this
single contact. He reported this contact for both Q1f (traffic stop) and Q1h (street stop). His
contact with police was more challenging for researchers to classify because an individual
sleeping in a car could lead to a ticket or a DUI if the car is running, even if the gears are in park.
It was recommended that the verification question be modified to not only confirm the
interviewer recorded the correct types of contacts, but to also confirm that each contact was
only counted once so we revised the introduction of this question to read: You mentioned having
several contacts with the police in the past 12 months. I am going to read you a list of what I have
recorded to make sure everything is correct. Each contact should only be counted once.
Rounds 3 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
The revisions made to the verification question after Round 2 helped interviewers reduce
potential survey error by confirming the number and types of contacts reported by respondents,
and identifying if any changes needed to be made. The verification question served as a catch-all
to not only capture contacts there were double-reported, but to also verify that a respondent
classified their incident under the most applicable police contact now that they had heard all
screener questions.

5.1.15 PPCS Screener Most Recent Contact Question
Original Check Item B2: Round 1
Check Item B2. You just mentioned several contacts
with the police. Which of these was the most recent?

Check Item B2 Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 4 and Final Recommendation
Check Item B2. We just talked about several contacts
with the police. Which of these was the most recent?

Round 1 Findings
None of the 15 respondents in this round experienced any comprehension issues with this
question. Three respondents struggled to recall which contact was the most recent. The first two
respondents realized during the probing portion of the interview that they forgot to mention a
contact during the screener, which also happened to be the contact that was the most recent.
The third respondent recalled during the probes for street stop that they made a cognitive error,
and this was not the most recent contact, but the time they were pulled over for a traffic stop
was. The inability to recall which contact with police was the most recent is an issue that
researchers expected some number of respondents to have. Therefore, no recommendations
were made to address this problem because they were not comprehension related.

After Round 1 testing, a verification question (discussed in the section 5.1.14) was added before
Check Item B2 to confirm that interviewers listed the correct types of contacts given by the
respondent. To supplement this addition, the wording for this question was revised slightly from
You just mentioned several contacts to We just talked about several contacts so that the
introduction of this question was not redundant.
Rounds 2 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Thirteen respondents reported having more than one contact with the police in the past 12
months and were asked to select which was most recent. The results from testing reveal that
respondents did not have any issues with the wording of this question, therefore, no further
wording changes were recommended.

5.2 Most Recent Contact
5.2.1 Q3a-b. Date of Most Recent Contact
Original Question 3a-b: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
3a. During what month and year did that contact
occur?
FR Notes:

Encourage respondent to give exact month.
Reference period: ^BEGREFMOPPCS 2016
through ^ENDREFMOPPCS 2017
3b. Did you mean [MONTH] 2016, or
[MONTH] 2017?

1  January
2  February
3  March
4  April
5  May
6  June
7  July
8  August
9  September
10  October
11  November
12  December
97  Don’t know exact month within reference period
96  Outside the reference period

Rounds 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Respondents did not exhibit any comprehension issues with this question, therefore, no
recommendations were made to revise the wording. However, four respondents did struggle to
recall the exact month their contact with police occurred. When administered this question,
respondents would reflect on what they remembered around the date the contact happened to
give context of what month it occurred. One respondent who was interviewed in August 2016
recalled the date her contact took place (June of 2016) and realized her only and most contact
was outside of the reference period we mentioned at the beginning of the survey.
R21: "Because you said between August 10th of '16 but since this incident happened in
June '16 that's before so it wouldn't apply to your survey. Am I correct?..."

5.2.2 Q4. Time of Day
Original Question 4: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
4. About what time of day did this contact occur?
[If R just says “during the day,”] Would you say it
occurred between 6am and 12 noon, or between 12
noon and 6pm?
[If R just says “at night,”] Would you say it occurred
between 6pm and 12 midnight, or between 12
midnight and 6am?

During Day
1  After 6am – 12 noon
2  After 12 noon – 6pm
3  Don’t know what time of day
At night
4
5
6

After 6pm – 12 midnight
After 12 midnight – 6am
Don’t know what time of night

OR
 Don’t know whether day or night

Rounds 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Respondents had limited cognitive issues with this question. The majority of respondents were
confident in their answers for the general time of day that their most recent contact occurred.
Similar to the previous question, during what month and year did that contact occur, respondents
thought through what they recalled about the contact, such as being late for work, paying
attention to the time because they had somewhere to be, and that it was still early in the
morning. Due to the lack of issues, no recommendations were made for this question.

5.2.3 Q5. Length of Contact
Original Question 5: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
5. About how many minutes would you say this
contact lasted?

____ number of minutes
OR
____ hours and _____ minutes

Rounds 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
All respondents gave an estimate of how long their contact lasted. Eight respondents, however,
did give ranges (7-8 minutes, 10-15 minutes). This question performed well across all rounds of
testing. Therefore, no changes were made to this question.
After testing was complete, BJS proposed coding the amount of minutes a contact lasted as
ranges to aid field interviewers when respondents were unsure of the answer. This modification
will be implemented in the 2018 administration.

5.2.4 Q6. Appropriate Amount of Time
Original Question 6: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
6. Would you say the police spent an appropriate
amount of time with you?
[If R just says “no”] Would you say the police spent
too much time or too little time with you?

1  Yes
2  No, too much time
3  No, too little time
4  Don’t know

Rounds 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Across all four rounds of testing, three respondents believed their contact with police took longer
than necessary and that officers spent too much time with them. Respondents were also probed
on what the term appropriate means to them in appropriate amount of time. They defined it as
the following:
R01: "A reasonable time. Did they take an elaborate amount of time on me? If people call
for a disturbance, and you see there's no disturbance and there's no perpetrator around,
but they spent a numerous amount of time flashing their lights in my car. Doing things
that they didn't have jurisdiction to do at the time. There were too many of them. Too
many of them asking questions and telling me to be still…
R16: "Meaning, he did his job, as far as if he's suspicious or whatever, he asked the
questions, did what he was supposed to do."
R38: "For the situation, was it adequate time, enough time, dedicated to the situation."
Since all respondents understood the meaning of this question, no revisions were suggested.

5.3 Characteristics of Street Stop
5.3.1 Q10a-h. Reasons for Street Stop
Original Question 10a-h: Round 1
10. What was the reason given for this stop?
Did the police…
10a. say they suspected you of something?

1  Yes

2  No

10b. say you matched the description of someone
they were looking for?

1  Yes

2  No

10c. seeking information about another person?

1  Yes

2  No

10d. investigating a crime?

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

------------------------------------------------------------------Were the police...

10e.

providing a service or assistance to you?

CHECK ITEM C: Was the respondent alone at the time of the stop?
 Yes  Skip to Q10h (Q7 = NO)
 No  Go to Q10f (Q7 = YES)

10f. Did someone you were with match the
description of someone the police were looking
for?
10g.Was someone you were with suspected of
something?
10h. Was there some other reason?
[If yes] What was the other reason?

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

Specify

Question 10a-h Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 3
With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 8
possible reasons that an officer may have given for
stopping you. You can say yes to more than one
reason but please choose ones that best fit the reason
or reasons the officer(s) gave you.
Did the police…
10a. say they suspected you of something?
10b. say you matched the description of someone
they were looking for?

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

------------------------------------------------------------------Were the police...
10c. seeking information about another person?
10d. investigating a crime?
10e.

providing a service or assistance to you?

CHECK ITEM C: Was the respondent alone at the time of the stop?
 Yes  Skip to Q10h (Q7 = NO)
 No  Go to Q10f (Q7 = YES)

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

Specify

Question 10a-h Revision 2: Round 4 and Final Recommendation
With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 8
possible reasons that an officer may have given for
stopping you. You can say yes to more than one
reason but please choose ones that best fit the reason
or reasons the officer(s) gave you during your most
recent contact with police.
Did the police…

1  Yes

2  No

10a. say they suspected you of something?

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

10b. say you matched the description of someone
they were looking for?
------------------------------------------------------------------Were the police...
10c. seeking information about another person?
10d. investigating a crime?
10e. providing a service or assistance to you?

CHECK ITEM C: Was the respondent alone at the time of the stop?
 Yes  Skip to Q10h (Q7 = NO)
 No  Go to Q10f (Q7 = YES)

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

1  Yes

2  No

Specify

Round 1 Findings
During Round 1 of cognitive testing, six respondents were asked to provide the reason police
gave them for why they were stopped because they replied “yes” to Q9 (Did the police give a
reason for stopping you?).

Three respondents had difficulty selecting the response option that was most applicable to their
situation. The first respondent answered “yes” to Was there some other reason because he was
stopped for making a gesture and mumbling. The second respondent was stopped for loitering,
and selected “yes” to Q10d: investigating a crime. Although loitering is against the law, she stated
that investigating a crime is a “harsh” reason to describe why they were stopped by police, and
that breaking a rule or law is a better way to describe her situation.
The third respondent provided their personal opinion about why they were stopped, and not the
reason they were given by police for the stop. The respondent believed he matched the
description for a crime that police were investigating. Due to this respondent’s cognitive error, it
was recommended that the tone of this question be more conversational to prepare the
respondent that a list of reasons will be read, and to choose the reason that is most applicable
to what they were told by police. Two sentences were added as a lead-in to the series of 8
questions: With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 8 possible reasons that an officer
may have given for stopping you. You can say yes to more than one reason but please choose
ones that best fit the reason or reasons the officer(s) gave you.
Rounds 2 and 3 Findings
In Round 2, three of the four respondents indicated in Q9 that police gave them a reason for why
they were stopped, and were therefore asked this question. Of those three respondents, all
struggled with the options provided for Q10. However, their responses to Q10a-Q10h suggest
that the revision to the intro after Round 1 improved the performance of the question.
One respondent answered “yes” to “was there some other reason?” and specified that the police
asked her what she was doing. The respondent was driving on the highway when a cop had his
lights on behind her. She pulled over to the side of the road to let the officer pass, but her actions
made the officer suspicious and he asked her what she was doing. Her difficulty was likely due to
being in the wrong survey path due to misreporting the type of police contact she had.
One respondent answered “yes” to both “was someone you were with suspected of something?”
and “was there some other reason?”, specifying that the other reason was to ask what they were
doing in the parking lot. As with the previous respondent, this respondent’s difficulty was likely
due to being in the wrong survey path.
One respondent on the street stop survey path said “yes” to 10c (seeking information) and 10d
(investigating a crime). She was approached by police in the parking lot of her apartment complex
to ask questions about a shooting that had occurred.
In round 3, two of three respondents who had street stops as their most recent contact reported
in Q9 that the police gave them a reason for why they were stopped. One respondent struggled
with limiting his thought process to his most recent contact only. As he selected reasons an officer
gave, he selected responses for an earlier contact that had occurred in the past 12 months, as
well as his most recent contact.

For the final round of testing, the recommendation was made to add text to remind the
respondent that Q10 is referring to the respondent’s most recent contact (You can say yes to
more than one reason but please choose ones that best fit the reason or reasons the officer(s)
gave you during your most recent contact with police).
Round 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
During Round 4, only two respondents were administered this survey question. However, one of
the respondents failed to answer these questions about his most recent contact. When the first
few options were read to the respondent, he did limit his thinking to only his most recent contact.
As the interviewer began to make his way through reading the list of reasons, the respondent
answered “yes” for other previous contacts with police. The interviewer reminded the
respondent that these questions are still only about his most recent contact.
Despite the cognitive difficulty that the one respondent displayed, no changes were
recommended for this question. The introduction text for this question reinforced that this
question series was about the most recent contact the respondent had with police. Also, this
respondent struggled throughout the interview to attentively listen to the words being read, as
he appeared eager to discuss some of the problems he has faced with police during their
interactions on several occasions. Researchers were confident that this question was not broken
and that this respondent may have been outlier.

5.3.2 Q11. Legitimate Reason for Street Stop
Original Question 11: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
11. Would you say the police had a legitimate reason
for stopping you?

1  Yes
2  No
3  Don’t know
All responses skip to Q14 on page 29

Rounds 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Eight of 17 respondents across all four rounds of testing said the police did have a legitimate
reason for stopping them, whereas nine respondents said that the police did not have a
legitimate reason for stopping them. When interviewers probed respondents on their
interpretation of the word “legitimate”, they suggested this word means “good enough”,
“probable cause”, “lawful”, “reasonable”, “[not] accusing you of something you had nothing to
do with,” and “They had a reason and that no matter what I felt about it, it was okay.”
Interviewers probed respondents on the types of street stops that they considered legitimate.
Stopping someone whom you know has committed a crime (and not because they fit the
description) was the most popular response. Respondents added that it is not legitimate for
police to stop someone because they “match the description”. Because respondents did not
experience any comprehension issues with this question, no revisions were needed.

5.4 Characteristics of Traffic Stop
5.4.1 Q12. Reasons for Traffic Stop
Original Question 12: Round 1
12. Was anyone else in the vehicle with you at the
time of the traffic stop? Please remember to include
babies and small children.

1  Yes  Go to Q13
2  No  Skip to Q14

Question 12 Revision 1: Rounds 2– 4 and Final Recommendation
12. Was anyone else in the vehicle with you at the
time of the traffic stop? Please remember to include
[read if passenger: the driver,] babies and small
children.

1  Yes  Go to Q13
2  No  Skip to Q14

Round 1 Findings
Four respondents were on the traffic stop survey path, and were asked to report if anyone else
was in the vehicle with them when the traffic stop occurred. One respondent who was a
passenger during the traffic stop, indicated that no one else was in the vehicle with her at the
time of the traffic stop. Because she was the passenger, she should have answered yes, counting
the driver. Interviewers believe the respondent may have thought this question was asking about
additional passengers other than the driver, whom she had already mentioned earlier during the
interview. It was recommended for the following round that a fill be added for passengers only
to ensure that drivers are being captured in this question as well. The phrase changed from Please
remember to include babies and small children to Please remember to include [read if passenger:
the driver,] babies and small children.
Rounds 2 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
The revised wording tested during Rounds 2 through 4 performed well. Six respondents reported
there were additional occupants in the car at the time of the traffic stop. No additional changes
were needed. After testing was complete, researchers recommended that question 12 only be
asked of traffic stop-drivers, and that yes be automatically programmed for those respondents
who identified a traffic stop while being a passenger as their most recent contact. Because
passengers will no longer be reminded to include the driver, babies, and small children in their
counts of people in the car at the time of the traffic stop, this clause was also added to Question
13: How many other people were in the vehicle with you at the time of the traffic stop? Please
remember to include [read if passenger: the driver,] babies and small children.

5.4.2 Q15a-k. Reasons for Traffic Stop
Original Question 15a-k: Round 1
15. What reason or reasons did the officer(s) give for
stopping the vehicle? Was it for…
a. Speeding?

1  Yes 2  No

b. Aggressive or reckless driving?

1  Yes 2  No

c. Vehicle defect like headlight or tail light out,

1  Yes 2  No

window tinting, or obstructed plates?
d. Issues with or check of driver’s license,
license plate, or vehicle registration?
e. Roadside check for drunk drivers?
f.

Seatbelt violation?

1  Yes 2  No
1  Yes 2  No
1  Yes 2  No

g. Illegal turn or improper lane change?

1  Yes 2  No

h. Stop sign or stop light violation?

1  Yes 2  No

Using a cell phone while driving, including
talking or texting?

Police conducting an investigation or
suspicious activity?

1  Yes 2  No

Some other reason?

1  Yes  2  No

[If yes] What was the other reason?

Specify _____________

Question 15a-k Revision 1: Rounds 2 – 3
With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 11
possible reasons that an officer may have given for
stopping you. You can say yes to more than one
reason but please choose ones that best fit the reason
or reasons the officer(s) gave you.
15. Were you stopped for…
a. Speeding?

1  Yes 2  No

b. Aggressive or reckless driving?

1  Yes 2  No

c. Vehicle defect like headlight or tail light out,
window tinting, or obstructed plates?

1  Yes 2  No

d. Issues with or check of driver’s license,
license plate, or vehicle registration?

1  Yes 2  No

e. Roadside check for drunk drivers?

1  Yes 2  No

Seatbelt violation?

g. Illegal turn or improper lane change?
h. Stop sign or stop light violation?
i.

Using a cell phone while driving, including
talking or texting?

1  Yes 2  No
1  Yes 2  No
1  Yes 2  No

Police conducting an investigation or
suspicious activity?

1  Yes 2  No

Some other reason?

1  Yes  2  No

[If yes] What was the other reason?

Specify _____________

Question 15a-k Revision 2: Round 4 and Final Recommendation
With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 11
possible reasons that an officer may have given for
stopping you. You can say yes to more than one
reason but please choose ones that best fit the reason
or reasons the officer(s) gave you during your most
recent contact with police.
15. Were you stopped for…
a. Speeding?

1  Yes 2  No

b. Aggressive or reckless driving?

1  Yes 2  No

c. Vehicle defect like headlight or tail light out,

1  Yes 2  No

window tinting, or obstructed plates?
d. Issues with or check of driver’s license,

1  Yes 2  No

license plate, or vehicle registration?

1  Yes 2  No

e. Roadside check for drunk drivers?
f.

Seatbelt violation?

1  Yes 2  No

g. Illegal turn or improper lane change?

1  Yes 2  No

h. Stop sign or stop light violation?

1  Yes 2  No

Using a cell phone while driving, including
talking or texting?

Police conducting an investigation or
suspicious activity?

Some other reason?
[If yes] What was the other reason?

1  Yes 2  No
1  Yes  2  No
Specify _____________

Round 1 Findings
In Round 1, four respondents were asked this question. One was unable to select an option
that fit their situation. A respondent who was pulled over for making an illegal u-turn was
unsure during the think aloud how to best answer Q15b: aggressive or reckless driving. He
asked the interviewer to skip this question so that he could hear more options before selecting
yes or no for Q15b. Ultimately, the respondent did say “yes” to 15g: illegal turn or improper
lane change. During probing, the respondent revealed that once he heard all of the different
reasons listed in the questionnaire, he knew that aggressive or reckless driving did not fit his
situation.
As we suggested with Q10, we thought respondents should know that there will be several
reasons to choose from before reading the list of reasons for their traffic stop. We

recommended adding With this next question, I’m going to read a list of 11 possible reasons
that an officer may have given for stopping you. You can say yes to more than one reason but
please choose ones that best fit the reason or reasons the officer(s) gave you.
Given the length of the list in Q15, we also suggested randomly ordering the response options
for each respondent to eliminate possible order effects. After a discussion with PPCS
stakeholders, the survey sponsors decided the randomization of response options was not
feasible to implement for the 2018 data collection.
Rounds 2 -3 Findings
Overall, the revised question 15 with added intro text appeared to work well. Across Rounds 2
and 3, only five respondents answered this question. Three appeared to correctly categorize the
reasons without errors. Two of the five respondents answered this question incorrectly. One
respondent correctly reported the reason as Police conducting an investigation or suspicious
activity, but then also said “yes” to some other reason, specifying that the officer saw the driver
“conducting a hand-to-hand.” He described that a hand-to-hand is when person A gets out of
their car to approach car B and give them something [illegal]. A second respondent selected some
other reason because they felt they were being profiled and that was the reason for their stop.
They were told by their officer that the registration was incorrect. However, the respondent
stated during the interviewer that their paperwork “matched” the registration.
A minor revision was made to the introduction text for this question to remind the respondent
that this question is still referring to their most recent contact with police. The modification to
the introduction was made concurrently with the revisions to Q10 which measures the reasons
provided by police during a street stop.
Round 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
During this round, only one respondent reported being given a reason for the nature of their
traffic stop. When the respondent was pulled over, the officer indicated he was stopping the
respondent for driving 15 miles over the speed limit. The respondent told the interviewer that
although he does not know his exact speed, he is certain he did not go over the speed limit. Due
to the lack of issues with this question in this round, and because this question was only
cognitively tested with one respondent, no additional recommendations were made.

5.5 Officer Characteristics
5.5.1 Q19. Ethnicity of Police Officer
Original Question 19: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
19. Was the police officer of Hispanic or Latino
origin?

1  Yes
2  No
3  Don’t know

Rounds 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Nine respondents reported a street stop or traffic stop as their more recent contact with police
in the past 12 months and were administered the section on Officer Characteristics. Although
respondents did not experience any difficulty comprehending what this question was asking, two
respondents did struggle to identify the ethnicity of the officer who stopped them. The first
respondent (R01) initially reported his officer was not Hispanic, but when administered the race
question, stated one officer might be Hispanic because of his last name. The other respondent
was unsure if one of the officers was Hispanic and answered, “don't know”. No recommendations
were made to this question.

5.6 Outcome of Stop
5.6.1 Q28. Reason for ticket
Q28 Original: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
28. Were you ticketed for the same thing that you
were stopped for, or for something different?

1  The same thing
2  Something different

Round 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendations
Question 28 is in section F, Outcome of Stop. Respondents who are on a police-initiated path are
first asked question 27: During this contact were you given a ticket? Please do not include any
verbal or written warnings given to you by the police. If the respondent says they were given a
ticket, they are then asked Q28 as a follow up. Six out of the 50 respondents were asked this
question over all four rounds (three in round 1, and 1 in each of rounds 2 - 4).
This was a newly added question for the 2018 questionnaire. Therefore, during rounds 1 and 2,
interviewers probed on respondent understanding of the question by asking them to tell the
interview what the question is asking in their own words. The four respondents who were asked
that probe were easily able to correctly explain what the question was asking. Since respondents
exhibited no issues understanding or answering the question, the probe was removed from the
protocol for rounds 3 and 4, and no changes to the question wording were necessary.
38

5.6.2 Q31. Search or Frisk
Original Question 31: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
31. At any time during this contact, did the police
search you, frisk you, or pat you down?

1  Yes
2  No  Skip to CHECK ITEM G BELOW
3  Don’t know  Skip to CHECK ITEM G BELOW

Rounds 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Only four of 50 respondents reported being searched, frisked, or patted down by police in the
past 12 months. Interviewers probed respondents on what the word frisk means in Q31.
Respondents described frisk as physically searching the respondent’s body and pockets, some
noting that it was the same as a “pat down”. One respondent simply stated that it is the police
term for “search”.
R01: "Frisk means… touching in a manner of intending to do harm in a manner of do my
job. So if I'm frisking you, I may be checking your pockets, but I may be pushing, putting
my hand down and pushing on your leg. Doing something extra than what I have to do."
Although the depth of how respondents described this question varied, all appeared to have
an accurate understanding of the term. Due to the lack of comprehension issues, no revisions
were made to this question.

5.7 Outcome of Voluntary Contacts
5.7.1 Q42. Improvement of Situation After Contacting Police
Original Question 42: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
42. Did the situation improve after you contacted the
police?

1  Yes
2  No
3  Don’t know

Rounds 1 – 4 Findings and Final Recommendation
Six respondents reported during questionnaire administration their situations improved after
contacting police. Respondents did not have any comprehension issues with this question.
However, during the first round of testing when one respondent was administered Q42, he asked
his interviewer what situation was this question referring to. Although the respondent had been
administered other questions in this survey path (Q40: How did you contact the police? and Q41:
Did the police respond right away to your request?), it is possible that the respondent may not
have known Q40 and Q41 were about his most recent contact with police as well. Due to the lack
of comprehension issues with this question, no changes were recommended.
39

5.7.2 Q46. Police Behaved Properly
Q46 Original: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
46. At any point during this contact, did the police...
a. Refer to you using a slur or call you a
degrading name?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

b. Make a sexual comment to you?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

c. Touch you in a sexual way or have any
physical contact with you that was sexual in
nature?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

Round 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendations
Question 46 is a follow-up question that respondents receive if they indicate that they do not
feel the police behaved properly in question 45 (Looking back on this contact, do you feel the
police behaved properly?). Fifteen of the 50 respondents were asked question 46 (three in round
1, five in round 2, five in round 3, and 2 in round 4).
This question was newly added, and had not been previously tested. To ensure the question was
easy to understand and answer, a follow-up probe was asked of respondents who answered Q46.
Respondents were asked to describe what the question is asking in their own words. Responses
to probes indicated that the questions were easy to understand, and that respondents
interpreted them correctly. The questions performed well throughout all rounds of cognitive
testing. No changes were made to the question wording.

5.7.3 Q47. Police Behavior Motivated by Bias
Q47 Original: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
47. Do you feel that any of the police behaviors during

this contact were motivated by prejudice or bias
against you, due to…
a. your actual or perceived race or ethnicity?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

b. your actual or perceived gender, sexual
orientation?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

c. your actual or perceived religion?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

your actual or perceived disability?

Round 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendations
Like Q46, Q47 is asked if respondents indicate that they feel the police did not behave properly
in response to Q45. Fifteen respondents were asked this question during the four rounds of
cognitive testing. Again, this was a newly added question, so it was probed on during cognitive
testing. Results from the cognitive testing indicated that the questions performed well, and that
respondents easily understood what the series of questions were asking. Since the questions did
not cause any difficulty for respondents or interviewers, no changes were made to the wording
during cognitive testing.

5.7.4 Q48. Complaint Filed
Q48 Original: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
1  Yes  Go to Q49
2  No  Skip to CHECK ITEM J on page 37

48. Did you file a complaint against the police?

Round 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendations
Question 48 is another follow-up question asked of respondents who reported that they feel the
police did not behave properly during their most recent contact. Fifteen respondents were asked
this question during the four rounds of cognitive testing. Of those 15 respondents, 14 said they
did not file a complaint, and one respondent said that they did file a complaint. The question did
not cause any problems for respondents or interviewers. No changes were made to the question
wording throughout testing.

5.7.5 Q54. Police Behaved Properly During Earlier Contacts
Q54 Original: Rounds 1 – 4 and Final Recommendation
54. During any of your EARLIER contacts with
police in the last 12 months, did the police…
a. Refer to you using a slur or call you a
degrading name?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

b. Make a sexual comment to you?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

c. Touch you in a sexual way or have any
physical contact with you that was sexual in
nature?

1  Yes

2  No

3  Don’t know

Round 1 - 4 Findings and Final Recommendations
Question 54 is asked of all respondents who reported more than one contact with police during
the past 12 months. Of the 50 respondents in the sample, 43 reported having more than one
contact, and thus were asked this question. Forty-two of the respondents said “no” to all three
items in Q54, and one respondent said “yes” to item a and “no” to items b and c.

This question was newly added prior to testing the 2018 supplement. The question mirrors Q46,
but asks about any of the respondents earlier contacts, rather than the most recent contact. The
same probes that were asked after Q46 were asked after respondents answered Q54. The
responses to probes made it clear that respondents did not have any trouble interpreting or
answering the questions. Since it caused no issues for interviewers or respondents throughout
testing, no changes were made to the question wording.

6 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the findings from the Police-Public Contact Survey screener indicate that respondents
struggled more to comprehend the questions about self-initiated contacts with police than they
did questions measuring contacts that police initiated. During testing, we saw overlap in how
respondents classified crimes, disturbances, suspicious activity, non-crime emergencies, and
non-emergency assistance. Although respondents had similar definitions for emergency and nonemergency, they varied on the types of situations and examples they classified as an emergency
versus a non-emergency.
During all four rounds of iterative testing, respondents who had multiple contacts with police
faced greater obstacles at not only recalling these different types of contacts, but also how
frequently these contacts occurred. To assist field interviewers during data collection, at the
conclusion of Round 1 of testing, we recommended that a new verification question be added
once all screener questions had been administered. The newly added verification question
performed well during the remaining rounds of testing, and helped interviewers record accurate
data.
The sections of the instrument following the screener gave respondents limited cognitive
difficulty. Questions 10 (reasons for street stop) and 15 (reasons for traffic stop) were both
measuring the reasons officers gave the respondent for their stop, therefore both questions were
revised simultaneously. The final revisions made the questions not only flow naturally, but
informed respondents up front that they would be read a list of numerous reasons to choose
from that law enforcement may have given. Although we were concerned that lengthening the
question stem would add burden to respondents, both questions 10 and 15 performed well after
these revisions were made.

7 REFERENCES
Berzofsky, M., Ewing, G., DeMichele, M., Langton, L., Hyland, S., and Davis. E. (2017, April 6).
Police-Public Contact Survey: Assessment and Recommendations for Producing Trend
Estimates after 2011 Questionnaire Redesign. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5905.
Greenfeld, L.A., Langan, P.A., Smith, S.K., and Kaminski R.J. (1997, November 22). Police Use of
Force: Collection of National Data. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/puof.pdf.
Police-Public Contact Survey: A Supplement to the NCVS. (2008). Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Police-Public Contact Survey: A Supplement to the NCVS. (2011). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Appendix A

2017 PPCS Recruitment Screener
1. How often did you usually drive in the past 12 months. Did you drive…
 Every day or almost every day?

 A few days a week?
 A few days a month?
 A few times a year?
 Never?

2. Have you had any contact with the police in the last 12 months? This could include times you
contacted the police, as well as times that the police initiated the contact.
Yes
No
 DK
3. [If yes] How many contacts have you had with police in the last 12 months? ______
4a. [If one contact] Can you tell me a little about the contact with the police? Write in
________________
4b. [If more than one] Starting with the most recent contact, can you tell me a little about that
contact with the police?
Write in ________________
Who initiated the contact with the police. Did…
You contact the police?
Someone else contact the police for you?
The police initiate the contact?
DK
4c. [After asking about most recent] Were any of the other contacts with police for a different
reason than the one you just told me about? Yes No
 DK
4d. [If yes]Can you tell me a little about that contact with the police?
Write in ________________
Who initiated the contact with the police. Did…
You contact the police?
Someone else contact the police for you?
The police initiate the contact?
DK

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Davis, Elizabeth
File Modified	2018-03-22
File Created	2018-03-22