NSCC report

Appendix J: 
Pilot Report 

87

PIL O T RE P O R T

National Survey of Correctional
Contraband
Urban Institute and American Correctional Association (ACA)
Funded by National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
November 2017

88

AB O U T T HE U R BA N I NS T I T U TE
The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five
decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and
strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for
all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector.

AB O U T T HE A ME RIC A N C O R RE C T I ONA L AS S OC IA T I ON
The American Correctional Association provides a professional organization for all individuals and groups, both
public and private that share a common goal of improving the justice system. ACA aims to shape the future of
corrections through strong, progressive leadership that brings together various voices and forges coalitions and
partnerships to promote the concepts embodied in its Declaration of Principles.

Copyright © November 2017. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to
the Urban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko.

89

National Survey of Correctional
Contraband Pilot Report
The National Survey of Correctional Contraband (NSCC) pilot was conducted by Urban Institute and
ACA. A data manager was responsible for all data collection activities, including contacting potential
participants, mailing surveys, receiving surveys, conducting debriefing, and collecting feedback.
Correctional administrators from 9 correctional facilities, including 6 prisons and 3 jails, were invited to
participate in the pilot. A convenience sample was used based on recommendations from the American
Correctional Association (ACA) and supporters of the research project. Participants were asked to
complete and return the appropriate survey, and to participate in telephone debriefing conducted via
email.
TABLE 1

Status of Survey
Correctional Facility

Type of Facility

Status

Trumbull, OH

Prison

Completed

Grafton, OH

Prison

Completed

Tucker Unit, AR

Prison

Completed

Maximum Security Unit, AR

Prison

Completed

Limon, CO

Prison

Completed

Attica, NY

Prison

Completed, but did not complete debriefing

Marion County Jail I

Jail

Completed

Marion County Jail II

Jail

Completed

Denver County

Jail

Completed

3

90

Average time to complete survey
On average, participants completing the survey (including time needed to prepare the data and
fill out the survey questions) finished in 95 minutes, with a range of 30 to 210 minutes. Based on
respondents’ feedback, administration time for each facility is presented in Table 2. Two respondents in
Arkansas did not provide a specific time for how long it took them to complete the survey; rather, they
indicated that it was quick to fill out the survey, but took some time to retrieve the necessary data.
TABLE 2

Completion Time for Survey
Correctional Facility

Administration Time

Trumbull, OH

60 minutes

Grafton, OH

Maximum Security Unit, AR

180 minutes
Data retrieval can get time consuming, but
completing the survey didn’t take much time.
Data retrieval can get time consuming, but
completing the survey didn’t take much time.

Limon, CO

210 minutes

Attica, NY

Debriefing not completed

Marion County Jail I

30 minutes

Marion County Jail II

30 minutes

Denver County Jail

60 minutes

Tucker Unit, AR

Respondent feedback
When the completed survey was returned, the data manager contacted the participant via
email for debriefing. The goal of the debriefing was to discuss:


Whether the online survey software was easy to use



The amount of time it took to complete the survey



How difficult the questions were to answer



Whether survey instructions were clear and east to understand
Feedback from the Facility Survey participants indicated that nearly all nine found the online

survey software was easy to use. One respondents, however, noted a difficulty in accessing the online
survey due to restricted internet availability within correctional facilities. There were a few survey

4

91

items for which some facility respondents indicated it was difficult to obtain the requested information,
either because the information is not collected or because retrieval may be time-intensive. As
presented in Table 2, time taken to complete surveys varied by facility. Respondents explained that
completion time depended largely on the ease of retrieving contraband related data. Finally,
respondents agreed the survey instructions were clear and easy to understand.
In addition to their responses to our questions, some respondents provided additional specific
feedback. One of the respondents emphasized the importance of offering a paper version of the survey
because of the aforementioned internet access issue. NIJ and Urban were already planning on providing
a paper option for the survey, but had initially fielded the pilot test with only an online version of the
instrument. Once the respondent was provided with a paper version of the survey, they were able to
quickly gather the answers to questions on paper, then scan and submit their responses via email once
they were in a location with internet access.
A few respondents also indicated some confusion about the questions under section IV
(Contraband Recoveries) of the survey. In particular, they noted that contraband recoveries might be
recorded differently in their system than how they were asked to report these data in the survey. To
address this feedback, the questions in this section were revised to give respondents more flexibility on
how they reported these data. For example, respondents are now able to include any additional
information to clarify how they record/report data on contraband recoveries. Further, respondents are
invited to fill out the “total” number of recoveries in their facility and then indicate which types of
contraband were included in this number. Finally, respondents are asked to report the number of
contraband recoveries by certain types of items when data are available. In addition to these changes,
the revised survey removed two duplicative questions from section IV and added an additional
paragraph further explaining the survey’s definition of “contraband recovery.”
Another respondent suggested sending the survey well in advance of the submission date to
give facilities ample time to coordinate with people from various divisions/departments within the
facility to provide the answer (statistics/research, security, etc.). Finally, one respondent had trouble
with the online system and was kicked out of the survey before they could complete it. The issue with
the system was identified and will be fixed for the actual survey distribution.

5

92

2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
www.urban.org

93