Survey of Inmates in Local Jails
OMB Control Number 1121-0098
OMB Expiration Date: 09/30/2004
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR SURVEY OF INMATES IN LOCAL JAILS
JUSTIFICATION
Overview
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of the U.S. Department of Justice, requests clearance to conduct the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) under OMB Control Number 1121-0098. Since 1972, BJS has periodically administered the SILJ to a nationally representative sample of inmates held in local (city and county) jails. The last iteration of the SILJ was conducted in 2002. The SILJ is the only national source of comprehensive data on jail inmates, providing insights on the changing correctional populations, the financial and societal costs of incarceration, and alternative sanctions.
Over the past several years, BJS, in collaboration with Abt Associates (Award number 2015-R2-CX-K146 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails: Design and Testing), has redesigned the SILJ survey instrument (see Attachment 1). Activities supporting the development of the new instrument, including cognitive testing, usability testing, and an operational pilot test were approved through the OMB generic clearance agreement (OMB No. 1121-0339, see Attachment 2) for Cognitive, Pilot and Field Studies for BJS Data Collection Activities. The current request is for a 3-year clearance for the collection of the 2024-2025 SILJ data, scheduled to launch in November 2024. Through an Interagency Agreement, the U.S. Census Bureau will serve as the data collection agent for SILJ.
For the 2024-2025 SILJ, BJS has enhanced the measurement of physical and mental health characteristics and drug and alcohol use, abuse, dependence, and treatment. Inmates’ experiences with physical and mental health care in jail, fines and fees paid by inmates for jail services, and reentry programs offered by jails are important policy topics that will benefit from strong empirical information obtained directly from inmates. To address the Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals (Exec. Order No. 14075, 2022), BJS also added questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 (see Attachment 3), as amended (Title 34 § 10132) authorizes BJS to compile data on the characteristics of local jail populations. BJS is authorized to collect the SILJ data under 34 U.S.C. § 10132. BJS will protect the privacy and confidentiality of data to the fullest extent under federal law [34 U.S.C. § 10231]. BJS may only use the information it collects for statistical or research purposes, consistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10134. BJS is required to protect information identifiable to a private person from unauthorized disclosure and may not publicly release data in a way that could reasonably identify a specific private person [34 U.S.C. § 10231]. SILJ data will be maintained under the security provisions outlined in U.S. Department of Justice regulations 28 CFR §22.23. The Bureau of Justice Statistics - Data Protection Guidelines (ojp.gov) provide more detailed information on how BJS and its data collection agents will use and protect data collected under BJS’s authority.
The SILJ data collection allows BJS to fulfill its mission of collecting, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating information that will serve as a continuous and comparable national indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime in support of national, state, and local justice policy and decision making and concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at the federal, state and local levels.
Since the last administration of the SILJ in 2002, new issues and policy concerns (e.g., physical and mental health of inmates, “pay-to-stay,” where inmates are charged a fee for their jail stays and reentry programs) have emerged that merit consideration for inclusion in the survey, and since that time, BJS and Abt Associates have been conducting a wide array of research projects to enhance and update the survey instrument. Some questions and topics may have less relevance for policymakers today than at that time, or the measurement of such topics has evolved over the years. Removing items of lesser relevance allows for the addition of new items, while maintaining a survey administration time that is not overly burdensome to facilities and respondents. Additionally, updating questions in SILJ to match those in use by other federal surveys allows for comparison across populations.
The 2024 data will be collected through face-to-face personal interviews with a nationally representative sample of jail inmates using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) (see Attachment 4). The SILJ includes the administration of the questionnaire (see Attachment 1 for the paper version of the CAPI survey instrument), to a nationally representative sample of persons age 18 or older in local (county and city) jails in the United States. The targeted number to be selected for the 2024 national survey is 600 jails and 10,000 inmates. This sample will allow BJS to produce nationally representative statistics, as well as estimates for important subpopulations, such as jail inmates with alcohol and drug dependence.
Comprehensive national data on jail inmates are vital to understanding changing correctional populations and policy relevant subjects such as criminal victimization, mental health, substance abuse and treatment, and inmate reentry back into the community. The SILJ is the only national source of detailed information on the characteristics of jail inmates and covers ten domains:
1) Individual Characteristics- Includes questions on sociodemographic information, such as date of birth, race/ethnicity, marital status, inmate sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), and military service;
2) Current Offenses and Detention Status- Includes questions about the current offense and detention status, such as date most recently admitted to jail, reasons for confinement, conditional release violations, arresting offense(s), and conviction status;
3) Pretrial Release and Trial- Includes questions pertaining to trials and any information on pretrial release of the inmate, such as offense seriousness, plea status, access to legal representation, and if bail or bond is set;
4) Current Sentence- Includes questions regarding the length and type of sentence associated with a respondent’s current offense, and their most recent prior offenses;
5) Incident Characteristics- Includes questions about the incident for which inmates are currently in jail, such as relationship to victims of violent crime, injuries to victim, characteristics of drug crime, weapons use during offense, and how inmate obtained firearm(s);
6) Criminal History- Includes questions that measure the criminal histories of jail inmates, such as prior arrests, convictions, incarceration, and prior probation and parole;
7) Socioeconomic Characteristics- Includes questions that measure the socioeconomic status of jail inmates, such as education, employment, income, living arrangements prior to admission to jail, number of children, and health insurance status;
8) Alcohol and Drug Use and Treatment- Includes questions on alcohol and drug use prior to and during the offense in question, inmates’ substance use, and treatment or counseling designed to help inmates to cut down or stop alcohol or drug use;
9) Medical Conditions, Mental Health, and Disabilities- Includes questions such as history of infectious diseases and healthcare received while incarcerated, indicators of mental health problems, mental health treatment, and inmate learning and physical disabilities;
10) Jail Programs and Activities- Includes a range of questions related to jail programs and activities, such as inmate work assignments, vocational or job training, communication with facility, fees charged to inmates, and inmate rule violations.
Profile of Jail Inmates
Aggregate jail data collected through the Annual Survey of Jails from jail administrators provides annual profiles of the jail population. At midyear 2022:
Local jails held 92,900 females, accounting for 14% of the jail inmate population.
About 48% of all persons held in jail were white, 35% were black, and 14% were Hispanic. American Indian or Alaska Native persons, Asian persons, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander persons, and persons of two or more races together accounted for 3% of the total jail population;
About 30% (197,000) of the jail population was convicted, either serving a sentence or awaiting sentencing on a conviction, while 70% (466,100) was unconvicted, awaiting court action on a current charge or held in jail for other reasons;
An estimated 76% (505,700) of the jail population was held for a felony offense while about 19% (122,800) were held in jail for a misdemeanor, and 5% (34,500) were held for civil infractions and unknown offenses;
In total, 15% of all jail inmates were held for federal, state, or tribal authorities, while the remaining 85% were held for local jurisdictions (i.e., county, municipal, and regional jails).
However, information collected through self-report directly from jail inmates offers a more complete picture vital to understanding changing correctional populations. The SILJ is the only national source of self-reported information on the characteristics of jail inmates, such as, but not limited to detentions status (e.g., probation, parole), bail/bond, criminal histories, family background, gun possession and use, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, medical and mental health history and treatment, inmate misconduct, vocational programs, and other services provided to inmates.
The SILJ fits into BJS’s larger portfolio of data collections on correctional populations in the United States. BJS’s Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI- OMB Control Number 1121- 0152), collects and published similar information as the SILJ. Combined, these two collections produce the most comprehensive profile of the institutional correctional population.
BJS has periodically fielded national omnibus surveys of jail inmates since 1972. The 2024 implementation of SILJ will be the seventh national study of its kind and the primary objective is to produce national estimates of the characteristics of the jail inmate population across a variety of domains. This information is critical to understanding the composition of the inmate population and the changes over time, factors related to the changes observed, including the impacts of corrections policy and practice reforms, the risk inmates pose to correctional agencies and for recidivism, and the challenges inmates face upon reintegrating into the community. SILJ data are used by all levels of government, the corrections community, and researchers to promote informed decision making.
At the request of BJS, in 2009 the National Academies’ Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) examined all BJS programs to identify important gaps and provided recommendations about prioritizing future programs and collections. One key recommendation from the panel was to expand coverage of programs to address reentry and recidivism issues more broadly and more frequently.1 The CNSTAT’s findings demonstrate the need for the types of data that the 2024 SILJ will collect and the future studies it will support. The SILJ will collect key issues identified by the CNSTAT panel specifically through a framework that focuses on the harms (e.g., severity of offense, injuries to victims, criminal history) inmates have caused to society, the potential risk they pose for recidivism (e.g., harm elements; extent of pro-social connections such as ties to family and friends, pre-jail employment; misconduct while incarcerated), and the challenges they face upon reentry (e.g., physical and behavioral health problems).
BJS uses of the SILJ
Following data collection, BJS statisticians will use SILJ data to produce a number of timely and relevant reports and products. These reports are relevant to the priorities of the Department of Justice and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), expressed needs and interests of other government agencies and the criminal justice community, and current events. In prior years, the self-report data collected through SILJ have been used by BJS to examine the jail population over a variety of domains and issues and to assess trends in the population over time. BJS has reported SILJ results in numerous statistical products on a range of topics. These topics and products include, but are not limited to−
Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002 (NCJ 201932)
Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002 (NCJ 209588)
Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (NCJ 213600)
Medical Problems of Jail Inmates (NCJ 210696)
DWI Offenders Under Correctional Supervision (NCJ 172212)
Veterans in Prison or Jail (NCJ 178888)
Drug Use, Testing and Treatment in Jails (NCJ 179999)
DWI Offenders Under Correctional Supervision (NCJ 172212)
HIV in Prisons and Jails, 1995 (NCJ 164260)
These resources are widely disseminated through the BJS website, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, the BJS JUSTSTATS listserv, which has about 45,000 members, and press releases circulated to the Associated Press and other major news sources. They also demonstrate the breadth of information collected through the SILJ, covering topics that stem from the design of the instrument and relate to each of the domains of the survey instrument.
External uses of the SILJ
U.S. Congress— The U.S. Congress has cited estimates from the 2002 SILJ to justify legislation to improve the management of offenders with mental health problems and expand mental health services and other services to prepare inmates and their families for reentry to improve outcomes, specifically through the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-414) and the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention (P.L. 110-199).
The White House— The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) cites the “costs of drug use to our society, which have vastly increased due to the opioid epidemic over the past decade, our data systems have not kept up and lack the timeliness, scope and precision required for the most impactful national response”. A key principle to identifying drug use and abuse is strengthen existing data systems, and SILJ is identified to help fill the gaps to support evidence-based drug policy. National-Drug-Control-2022Strategy.pdf (whitehouse.gov).
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division—To understand capacity and confinement conditions as they relate to civil rights.
Office of Justice Programs—SILJ addresses OJP’s key goal to advance public safety, prevent gun violence, and increase community trust. SILJ captures information addressing two strategic objectives of the goal: (1) Reduce and prevent crime through effective prevention, intervention, strategic enforcement, and reentry programs and strategies; and (2) Support rehabilitation during incarceration and facilitate reentry by transforming correctional cultures and environments to promote the well-being of those who are incarcerated, expanding access to high-quality treatment, training, education, and services, and breaking down barriers to opportunity for those with criminal records.
Other Federal Government Agencies. SILJ data are needed by a wide range of federal government agencies to inform them on a variety of key issues among the jail population.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—The HHS actively works to support and address the needs of children of incarcerated parents, and the SILJ estimate on the number of children under the age of 18 that have a parent in jail is invaluable to stating the scope of the problem. HHS is part of the interagency working group on Youth Programs (IWGYP), which is composed of representatives from 13 federal departments and 12 federal agencies that support programs and services focusing on youth. Through Youth.gov (formerly FindYouthInfo.gov), information is available for teachers, mentors, and jail staff on how to support children who have an incarcerated parent.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—CDC produces fact sheets, guidance documents and funding opportunity announcements, and maintains websites critical for public health with the help of BJS output products, data collection tools, publications, and data analysis as reference materials. The CDC relies on SILJ to better understand health and illness among inmates, treatment and service needs of the correctional populations, and differences between prevalence rates observed in the inmate and general populations.
Government Accountability Office (GAO)—GAO relied on SILJ data for at least two reports. GAO Report 08-678 addresses young adults with serious mental illness and cites the finding that 70% of jail inmates 24 years or younger had a mental health problem. In this report, mental illness is connected with an increased likelihood of criminal justice contact. A 2011 GAO report (GAO-11-863) on foster care children with incarcerated parents cites SILJ throughout, including as the data source for figure 4, which displays the estimates of incarcerated mothers and incarcerated fathers who reported living arrangements for their minor children. This report calls for more collaboration between agencies to promote familial ties between foster care children and their incarcerated parents.
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)—NBER published a working paper in 2011 on the effectiveness of drug treatment programs to reduce the incarceration of drug offenders. SILJ estimates are used to frame policy implications and show that very few inmates entering jail would have been eligible for a diversion program through state courts because they were on parole or probation at the time of their latest arrest.
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)—NIC’s mission is to advance public safety by shaping and enhancing correctional policies and practices through leadership, learning, and innovation. They are the only federal agency with a legislative mandate (Public Law 93-41.5) to provide specialized services to corrections from a national perspective. The NIC Jails Division's services includes training, networks, technical assistance, and information resources, such as documents and multimedia material, which often cite SILJ statistics on inmates with mental health problem. Other NIC topics such as misuse of prescription medications, healthcare coverage and reentry are also addressed in the SILJ.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) —SAMHSA is another frequent user of the SILJ data. For instance, SAMSHA in its Justification of Estimates Appropriations Committees, cites SILJ data on the prevalence of inmates with mental or substance use disorder and those having both a substance abuse and mental health problem. SAMHSA FY 2024 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
American Jail Association (AJA)—AJA has reproduced BJS jail data in full or in part on several occasions through their weekly electronic newsletter, the “AJA Alert”, and their “American Jails” magazine.
Facility Administrators—The jail administrators use SILJ data to compare their facilities, their inmates, and their special circumstances with those from jails all across the United States.
Researchers and Academics—The SILJ helps inform professionals working across unique disciplines, including criminal justice, medical and mental health, substance abuse and treatment, and social services focusing on inmate reentry. The SILJ file has been heavily utilized in external publications and by institutes that have downloaded the dataset. The file is available at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/4359/utilization. Academic and other federal researchers have used BJS’s SILJ data in a variety of studies, for example:
Fritz, K. C. (2023). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders by demographics in jail populations. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 0306624X231170124.
Ramsey, Rheannon Gail, "Incarceration and Suicide: Do the Risk Factors Differ for Civilians and Veterans?" (2021). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 5715. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.7588.
Mateja Vuk & Dalibor Doležal (2020). Idleness and Inmate Misconduct: A New Perspective on Time Use and Behavior in Local Jails, Deviant Behavior, 41:11, 1347-1369, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1614141.
Ellison, Jared, Steiner, Benjamin (2018). Assessing racial and ethnic differences in the consequences of police use of force. Policing and Race in America: Economic, Political, and Social Dynamics. New York, NY: Lexington Book.
Ellison, Jared M., Steiner, Benjamin, Wright, Emily (2016). Examining the Sources of Violent Victimization Among Jail Inmates. American Society of Criminology. New Orleans, LA.
Cook, P. J., Parker, S. T., & Pollack, H. A. (2015). Sources of guns to dangerous people: What we learn by asking them. Preventive medicine, 79, 28-36.
Ewert, S., Sykes, B. L., & Pettit, B. (2014). The degree of disadvantage: Incarceration and inequality in education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 24-43.
Ainsworth, Stephanie A., Taxman, Faye S. (2013). Creating simulation parameter inputs with existing data sources: Estimating offender risks, needs, and recidivism. Simulation Strategies to Reduce Recidivism: Risk Need Responsibility (RNR) Modeling for the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Hashimoto, E. J. (2013). The Problem with Misdemeanor Representation. Washington and Lee Law Review. 70, (2), 1019-1047.
Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2013). Assessing the contribution of the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill to growth in the US incarceration rate. The Journal of Legal Studies, 42(1), 187-222.
Bouchery, E. E., Harwood, H. J., Sacks, J. J., Simon, C. J., & Brewer, R. D. (2011). Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the US, 2006. American journal of preventive medicine, 41(5), 516-524.
Binswanger, Ingrid A., Joseph O. Merrill, Patrick M. Krueger, Mary C. White, Robert E. Booth, and Joann G. Elmore. "Gender differences in chronic medical, psychiatric, and substance-dependence disorders among jail inmates." American journal of public health 100, no. 3 (2010): 476-482.
Sung, H. E., Mellow, J., & Mahoney, A. M. (2010). Jail inmates with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems: Correlates and service needs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(2), 126-145.
Greenberg, G. A., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2008). Jail incarceration, homelessness, and mental health: A national study. Psychiatric services, 59(2), 170-177.
Advocacy Groups—Use the data to advocate for correctional/sentencing reform, identify vulnerable populations, and measuring disparities among the jail population.
Media—The media have become increasingly familiar with the jail data and the public regularly sees news articles and press releases containing SILJ data.
Respondents to the SILJ are inmates held in local jails. The Census Bureau collects the data using in-person interviews. The SILJ uses computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to reduce burden and cost, improve data quality, and streamline data processing.
The SILJ does not duplicate any other effort in the field. There is no other omnibus survey that can be used to generate national statistics using inmates responses across a range of characteristics. Although BJS’s National Inmates Survey (NIS-Jails; OMB Control No. 1121-0376) also conducts personal interviews of jail inmates, the central focus is on incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). The NIS does not include detailed socioeconomic indicators, beyond education, such as pre-jail employment, amount of income and sources, and health insurance. It does not address inmates’ current offense, criminal history, or sentences of inmates in as much detail as the SILJ questionnaire will, and there are no questions to understand the incident characteristics and harms caused to their victims. It also does not include questions designed to understand family structure and background of inmates, firearm use during a crime or obtainment, pro-social connections, pre-jail living arrangements, program participation, parenting and minor children.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Of the 3,116 local jails in the United States included in the 2019 Census of Jails (COJ), about one-third (1,060) holding 20,114 persons had an average daily population of fewer than 50 inmates and would qualify as small entities. These small jails and their inmate population are the least likely to be selected to participate in the survey. For SILJ, 24 out of the 1,060 smallest jails and 329 out of their 20,114 inmate population will be sampled. Accordingly, a smaller number of interviews are required at these facilities. In another effort to minimize burden when conducting interviews, BJS will work with jail staff in advance of the jail visit, making sure the inmate listing includes any information about inmate availability that will make retrieval of inmates more efficient, and clarifying any restrictions on Census Bureau interviewers to reduce lost time. See Part B, Section 1.2 for more information on the SILJ sample design.
Historically, SILJ has only been fielded periodically to minimize burden on the local jails and to be good stewards of taxpayer monies. Prior to 2002, the survey was fielded every five to six years since 1972. However, it has been over 20 years since BJS last conducted a national omnibus survey of inmates, mainly due to BJS focusing on NIS and due to budgetary constraints.
This iteration of SILJ is important for providing information on the jail population and continuity of data on jail inmates needed for criminal justice system planning and to make timely and informed decisions regarding corrections policy development and evaluation. Without it, BJS is unable to address the concerns cited in the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-414) and the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention (P.L. 110-199).
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentially that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentially to the extent permitted by law.
Not applicable. There is no circumstance in which a respondent would respond more than once a year and provide more data than in the questionnaire. The SILJ collection is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.
The research under this clearance is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 and 5 CFR 1320.8(d). The 60-Day Notice was published in the Federal Register, Volume 89, Number 51, on March 14, 2024 (see Attachment 5). The comment period ended on May 13, 2024. Following the publication of the 60-day notice, the following comments and requests were received (see Attachment 6 for original comments):
Comment 1: The Texas Health and Human Services Commission is concerned that SILJ excludes questions identifying factors preventing or inhibiting the provision of mental health services in jail to respondents who have engaged the mental health system prior to incarceration. They request that a follow up question to Question S9Q13d ask “the respondent to identify the primary barrier to the receipt of mental health services in jail—limited provider availability, inadequate service offering, correctional officer workforce shortages, etc. The same or a subsequent question may solicit information on the circumstances that motivated a respondent to decline mental health services, perhaps due to the stigma associated with receipt of services, the respondent’s belief that they didn’t need care, etc.”
Response: BJS acknowledges the importance of collecting data on the primary barrier to inmate receipt of mental health services. However, these barrier examples are not appropriate for inmate response due to data quality issues. Inmates are unlikely to know the extent of available services and staffing levels at a particular jail, consequently resulting in high item nonresponse rate. The requested question is best captured from jail administrators in a facility survey that collects information on jail policies and practices. Also, asking about the circumstances that motivated a respondent to decline mental health services requires testing. SILJ testing was completed in 2023; any new testing is time and cost prohibitive. Additionally, increasing the length of the survey negates BJS’s effort to reduce survey burden, which potentially jeopardize response rates and the timeliness of this collection. Therefore, BJS recommends against incorporating these items into the 2024 SILJ.
Comment 2: The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) requests BJS to add questions to section 10 pertaining to inmate plans for securing necessary health care coverage and mental health services. NAMI also requests BJS to modify section 10 to include questions related to people’s experiences with solitary confinement throughout their current period of incarceration. Currently the questionnaire asks about the “rule violation that occurred most recently.” According to the comment, "Many people, especially those who are most vulnerable within the jail system, may be placed in solitary confinement multiple times within one jail stay. Asking about their experience as a whole, including the most recent and any previous experiences, can help to provide a more holistic picture of solitary confinement and its use. It will also assist in efforts to provide mental health care alternatives to solitary confinement for people with mental health conditions.”
Response: The proposed instrument contains questions to allow for some research on health care coverage, mental health services, and solitary confinement. However, given survey length constraints, BJS cannot add new healthcare and mental health questions or expand on the rule violations section to include solitary confinement throughout their current period of incarceration. Increasing the length of the survey negates BJS’s effort to reduce survey burden, which potentially jeopardize response rates and the timeliness of this collection. Therefore, BJS recommends against incorporating these items into the 2024 SILJ.
The 30-day notice was published in the Federal Register, Volume 89, Number 99, on May 21, 2024 (see Attachment 7).
When developing the SILJ, BJS and Abt Associates consulted with various experts representing different stakeholders, local corrections administrators, and practitioners; substantive experts in various fields including physical and behavioral health, and health care. Stakeholders were given an opportunity to review the SILJ questionnaire to provide input on the topics, the constructs it measures, and the specific questions. BJS relied on the input received to prioritize the content of the questionnaire and make difficult decisions about the exclusion of particular topics/constructs to ensure the interview is of a reasonable length to maximize response and data quality and minimize burden. In 2016, BJS convened the first Annual Jail Research Network (JRN) in Aurora, CO, focusing on a technical review panel to evaluate and shape the next iteration of the SILJ. The following practitioners and experts were consulted at the JRN:
Robert Balkema, Corrections Lieutenant, Kirkland Washington Police Department
David Braaksma, Senior Research Analyst, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office
Deroda Bennett, Captain, Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (MDCR)
Will Brueggemann, Sheriff, Cass County Sheriff’s Office
Ingrid Binswanger, Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute of Health Research
Hilary Burgess, Manager of Training & Educational Programs, National Sheriffs’ Association
Brian Case, MA, Senior Project Associate, Policy Research Associates, Inc.
Wayne Dicky, Jail Administrator, Brazos County Sheriff's Office
Reena Chakraborty, PhD, Chief of Strategic Planning and Analysis, DC Department of Corrections
Steve Durham, Assistant Director, Louisville Metro Department of Corrections
Brian Coleman, Jail Administrator, Goodhue County Sheriff’s Office
Nancy Fishman, Project Director, Vera Institute of Justice
Lois Davis, PhD, Senior Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation
James Lee Foster, Sheriff, Newberry SC Sheriff's Office
Michelle DeForest, Administrative Manager, Dane County WI Sheriff's Office
Marie Garcia, PhD, Social Science Analyst, National Institute of Justice
Brent Gibson, MD, MPH, FACPM, CCHP-P, Chief Health Officer, National Commission on Correctional Healthcare
Jim Gondles, Executive Director, American Correctional Association
Brandn Green, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Terrence Jungel, Michigan Sheriffs’ Association
Kevin Hanson, Chief of Corrections, Lewis County Sheriff’s Office
Kenneth Juranek, Sergeant, Denver County Sheriff’s Department
Kenneth G. Halvorson, Mountrail County Sheriff
Bob Kasabian, Executive Director, American Jails Association
Joe Kriete, Chief Deputy, Grant County WA Sheriff's Office
Kathryn M Nowotny, PhD, University of Colorado, Department of Sociology
Charles Loeffler, Jerry Lee Assistant Professor of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania
Hugh Potter, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida
Ron Manderscheid, Executive Director, National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors
Cortez Rainey, Administrator II, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Sandra Martinson, Superintendent, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anvil Mountain Correctional Center
Henry Reyes, Deputy Chief – Assistant Jail Administrator, Bexar County Sheriff's Office
Jeff Mellow, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY
Kathy Rowings, Program Manager, Justice, National Association of Counties
Lora Smith, Major, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Department of Detention and Corrections
Laura Van de Lugt, PhD, Director of Research & Innovation, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Marc Stern, MD, MPH, Assistant Affiliate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Washington
Arthur Wallenstein, Director, Retired, Montgomery County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Paula Tokar, Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Population Management Bureau
Roderick Williams, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of Corrections
Robert L. Trestman PhD, MD, Professor of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Nursing; E.D. of Correctional Managed Health Care, UConn Health Correctional Managed Health Care
In 2019, Abt Associates on behalf of BJS, cognitively tested new and enhanced questions with nine inmates in the Middlesex Jail & House of Correction in North Billerica, MA. Based on the cognitive test, minor changes were made to the wording of some questions to emphasize the intent of the question (e.g., highlighting of certain words to ensure emphasis during administration); definitions were added to clarify the meaning of a few response options; additional response options were added based on feedback; and 23 questions were cut from the questionnaire.
After delays due to the onset and continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2023, Abt Associates conducted a pretest of the full English and Spanish survey instrument using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). The pretest helped BJS measure the average timing of the survey and to identify potential issues with question wording of the informed consent script and the survey instrument. The CAPI instrument was pretested successfully with a sample of 169 inmates in the following five local jails:
Starr County Jail, Rio Grande City, TX
El Paso County Detention Facility, Downtown Jail, El Paso, TX
Walton County Jail, Santa Rosa Beach, FL
Palm Beach County West Detention Center, West Palm Beach, FL
Hernando County Detention Center, Brooksville, FL
The average duration of the SILJ pretest was 98.6 minutes, (7.2 minutes for the consent process and 91.4 minutes for the main survey interview). The median time was 94 minutes. After this test, BJS made additional revisions to the questionnaire to reduce burden. The informed consent was also revised based on SPI consent, which was less than 3 minutes on average. In February 2024, BJS conducted internal testing and mock interviews to retest the timing of the revised instrument. The average duration of the revised SILJ is approximately 73 minutes, including the consent process.
Inmate respondents will not receive any financial incentives.
Due to widespread understaffing and anticipated general lack of jail staff engagement as experienced in the NIS study, resulting in low response rates with inmates within those facilities, BJS may provide challenge coins to facility staff in the hopes that will encourage them to cooperate with Census Bureau interviewers and be more willing to assist fully in escorting sampled inmates to the interview. BJS does not expect this to have any change to the estimated burden for this study.
BJS is authorized to conduct this survey under 34 U.S.C. § 10132. BJS will protect the privacy and confidentiality of data to the fullest extent under federal law [34 U.S.C. § 10231]. Any person who violates these provisions may be punished by a fine of up to $10,000, plus other penalties. Per the Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015, data are further protected from cybersecurity risks through screening of the systems that transmit BJS data. More information about the various authorities that govern BJS data is available in the BJS Data Protection Guidelines. https://bjs.ojp.gov/bjs-data-quality-guidelines.
Prior to beginning the interview, the interviewers will read the informed consent document to inmates to obtain their verbal consent to participate in the study (see Attachment 8). The consent form assures confidentiality to all respondents and explains that their information is protected by a Privacy Certificate, that their participation is completely voluntary, that no identifying information will be released, and that information they provide during the interview is prohibited from use in any legal action. All interviews will be conducted in a space that is configured to ensure respondent privacy and maximize confidentiality.
As data are collected using CAPI, the Census Bureau Field Representatives securely transmit the data to the headquarters servers located at the Census Bureau Computer Center in Bowie, Maryland. Because of the decentralized data collection aspect of large-scale national surveys like the SILJ, the Census Bureau relies on the employee oath (which is legally grounded in 13 U.S.C. Section 9), as well as physical security measures, to preserve the anonymity of respondents until the data are transmitted in electronic format to the Census Bureau headquarters servers. At that time, the electronic data are made available to the project staff members at the Census Bureau. These are the only staff members who have rights to check in the files and view the data. Once data is received on the headquarters server, it is securely copied to the survey processing server for data processing, cleaning and analysis. All servers used for this project reside inside the Census firewall are not linked to any outside source that would make it possible for anyone outside the Census Bureau to access the identifiable data (names) contained on the file.
Census Bureau will deliver the data file to BJS via Kiteworks, a secure electronic file transfer tool. BJS will conduct data analysis, additional processing and cleaning on BJS’s secure data drive server.
All names and personal identifiers will be removed from the data files prior to their submission to NACJD, which serves as the public repository for all BJS datasets. Moreover, any BJS report using these data will only be statistical in nature and will not identify individual subjects; products will reflect national level data.
Most questions in the proposed 2024 questionnaire are not considered sensitive for an inmate population. While some sections may be sensitive for a noninstitutionalized population, such as those about criminal history, mental health, or prior drug use, these are not considered sensitive topics for an inmate population. It is evident that some of the population has a criminal history based on the simple fact that they are confined in jail. Prior to incarceration, inmates typically know their criminal history information is available to third parties at various stages of the criminal justice process, including arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. They are also aware that facilities have this information and that some even make this information available to the public, such as on jail websites.
Additionally, inmates are screened at intake and during various stages of their incarceration, to assess their physical and mental health status and to determine if they have substance abuse problems. They are familiar with answering questions about topics of this nature, as inmates know facilities use the information for various reasons, such as to assess their risk to themselves, other inmates, and correctional staff; to determine the appropriate housing unit to place or move them to enhance their safety and the safety of other inmates and correctional staff; to determine treatment needs; and to assess programming eligibility. Unconvicted respondents are not asked about criminal conduct for which there may be pending legal action. These respondents are skipped out of Section 3 (pretrial release and trial) and several subsections of Section 5 (current offense incident characteristics).
In 2024, the OJP Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved an exemption (see Attachment 9) of the SILJ from the DOJ regulations at 28 CFR Part 46 (Human Subjects Protections). BJS maintains the confidentiality of SILJ data consistent with the confidentiality provisions in 34 USC 10231 and Title 13 USC 9, and data security provisions in 28 CFR Part 22.
The SILJ will collect data from a maximum of 10,000 local jails inmates in 600 facilities. BJS requests a total respondent burden of 15,602 hours for both facility staff and inmates costing $90,450, as summarized in Table 1 below. Based on a similar strategy used in the SILJ pretest to recruit and plan for the national study, the project team expects that initial study introduction and approval will take about 15 minutes and logistics planning will take about 45 minutes. The burden time for all contacts under this request is 635 hours. The goal is to onboard 600 jails. BJS expects some facilities to refuse to participate (up to 20%). Therefore, we plan to oversample the number of jails selected with the expectation that 140 jails will not participate. BJS anticipates conducting initial outreach to 740 jails and obtaining final consent with up to 600 jails – the desired sample size of the national study.
The burden estimate is based on the number of facilities and inmates sampled. therefore, this estimate represents the maximum burden hours expected for the national study.
Facility staff will be engaged in the following activities: (1) arranging for the data collection visit; (2) providing the initial and supplemental inmate roster; and (3) escorting inmates to and from interviews. Based on BJS’s experience with other inmate surveys, such as the NIS, it is estimated that it will take approximately 30 minutes for a staff member from each facility to provide a roster of inmates incarcerated in their facility and 15 minutes per inmate to escort them to and from the interviewing room. The total estimated staff burden for these activities is 2,800 hours. Expected burden placed on inmates for this data collection averages 3 minutes per respondent for the consent and 70 minutes for the face-to-face CAPI interview, for a total burden of 12,167 hours.
Table 1. 2024 SILJ Estimated Annualized Respondent Cost and Hour Burden |
||||||||
Activity |
Number of Respondents |
Frequency |
Total Annual Responses |
Time Per Response (Minutes) |
Total Annual Burden (Hours) |
Hourly Rate * |
Monetized Value of Respondent Time |
|
Facility Recruitment and Logistics |
|
|||||||
Introduction and Facility Approval |
740 |
1 |
740 |
15 |
185 |
$26.33 |
$4,870 |
|
Study Logistic Planning |
600 |
1 |
600 |
45 |
450 |
$26.33 |
$11,850 |
|
National Study |
|
|||||||
Staff time- Providing inmate roster |
600 |
1 |
600 |
30 |
300 |
$26.33 |
$7,900 |
|
Staff time- Escorting inmates |
10,000 |
1 |
10,000 |
15 |
2,500 |
$26.33 |
$65,830 |
|
Consent- Inmate recruitment |
10,000 |
1 |
10,000 |
3 |
500 |
|
$0 |
|
Interview- Participate in the SILJ |
10,000 |
1 |
10,000 |
70 |
11,667 |
|
$0 |
|
Total |
31,940 |
|
31,940 |
|
15,602 |
|
$90,450 |
|
*Mean hourly wage for 2022 Correctional Officers and Jailers Correctional Officers and Jailers. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333012.htm
There are no costs to respondents other than those associated with the time used to consent and complete the survey.
14. Provide estimates of the annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 into a single table.
The estimated total cost to the federal government for all aspects of the SILJ is $9,136,820. The data collection agent (Census Bureau) through an Interagency Agreement, develops the CAPI instrument, conducts interview training, conducts facility outreach, conducts the data collection and processing, and delivers final datafiles, documents, and other reports. BJS staff analyze the data, prepare statistical tables, and write reports based on these data.
The estimated costs to the government associated with the management, collection, processing, and publication of reports, and preparation of data tables are projected in Table 2 below. Total estimated costs were divided between data collection agent ($8,808,000) and BJS for program management, analysis, table creation, and reporting and dissemination ($328,820). Both BJS and the data collection agent costs include salary, fringe, and overhead. BJS bears all costs of the survey.
Table 2. Estimated costs for the 2024 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails Over Life of Project |
|||
BJS costs |
|
||
|
Staff salaries |
Costs |
|
|
|
GS-14 Statistician (50% for two years) |
$139,400 |
|
|
GS-13 Statistician (5% for one year X 4 Statisticians) |
$23,590 |
|
|
GS-15 Supervisory Statistician (5% for two years) |
$16,400 |
|
|
GS-13 Editor (5% for two years) |
$11,800 |
|
|
GS-15 Chief Editor (3% for two years) |
$9,840 |
|
|
Front-Office Staff (GS-15 & Directors) |
$5,000 |
|
|
Subtotal salaries |
$206,030 |
|
Fringe benefits (33% of salaries) |
$67,990 |
|
|
Subtotal: Salary & fringe |
$274,020 |
|
|
Other administrative costs of salary & fringe (20%) |
$54,800 |
|
|
Subtotal: BJS costs |
$328,820 |
|
Data collection agent cost (Census Bureau) |
|
||
Project management, CAPI instrument development, interview training, facility outreach, data collection and processing, final datafiles, documents, and other reports |
$8,808,000 |
||
Total estimated costs |
$9,136,820 |
||
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
There has been a change in the respondent burden since the 2002 SILJ study. The total facility and respondent burden increased due to an increase in the number of sampled facilities (from 475 to 600) and inmates (from 7,500 to 10,000) to ensure enhanced levels of precision in order to produce more reliable estimates, especially of small subpopulations. The change in interview burden from 60 minutes in 2002 to 70 minutes per interview is due to adding new questions and a higher frequency of inmates answering yes to gateway questions, which leads to additional detailed questions. The increase in interview length was offset by eliminating questions.
Prior to the 2023 pretest, 177 new questions were added to the survey and 79 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. To reduce the average interview length (91 minutes) measured in the pretest, BJS removed an additional 266 questions from the revised questionnaire, including 71 new questions and 195 questions from the 2002 SILJ.
Updates to the SILJ survey instrument
In 2015, BJS initiated the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails: Design and Testing project through a competitive award to Abt Associates. This projected included redesigning the survey instrument, cognitively testing new and revised questions, and pretesting the final instrument. Since the last administration of the SILJ in 2002, new issues and policy concerns have emerged that merit consideration for inclusion in the SILJ survey. In particular, inmates’ experience with physical and mental health care in jail, fines and fees paid by inmates for jail services (a general question is included in the pretest on booking fee, amount of that fee, and whether inmates were charged a fee for their stay), and reentry programs offered by jails are important policy topics that would benefit from strong empirical information obtained directly from inmates. As a result, content in several sections of the survey were significantly revised to modernize the questions.
Since the SILJ is the only nationally representative survey that gathers detailed information about the hard-to-reach jail inmate population, it is important for the survey to allow for direct comparison of content/questions to other relevant federal surveys, in particular the SPI, the companion survey of inmates in prisons, but also the NIS, Decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS), and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The ability to compare corrections and general population locates the jail inmate population within a broader context.
Finally, because the SILJ has not been administered since 2002, some questions and topics may have less relevance for policymakers today then at that time, or the measure of such topics has evolved over the years. Removing items of lesser relevance allows for the addition of new items, while maintaining a survey administration time that is not overly burdensome to facilities and respondents. Updating questions in SILJ to match those in use by other federal surveys allows for comparison across populations.
Cognitive Test
BJS conducted a small cognitive test of the SILJ with nine inmates in one jail, between September 17th and 19th, 2019. The SILJ cognitive testing involving similar SPI 2016 questions and response options was conducted as a first step, focusing on any concerns with interpretation by a jail population, as well as how new questions fit within the structure of the SILJ questionnaire. Based on the cognitive test, minor changes were made to the wording of some questions to emphasize the intent of the question (e.g., highlighting of certain words to ensure emphasis during administration); definitions were added to clarify the meaning of a few response options (e.g., furlough, split sentence); additional response options were added based on feedback; and 23 questions were cut from the questionnaire, including a number of questions collecting detailed data on fees charged by the jail.
More specifically, BJS cut 19 questions that asked detailed information on various fees (e.g., room and board, meals, clothing, medical care, phone calls, sending mail) that may be charged to inmates as part of their incarceration, as well as the amount of each fee. Inmates participating in the cognitive test responded that they were unaware of any fees, but, because of the question, were concerned they were being charged fees without their knowledge. As a result, it was determined that collecting this level of detail was not plausible at this time. BJS will ask a general question about whether inmates are aware that they are being charged fees during their stay, and will investigate whether it is more appropriate to collect detailed data on fees through BJS’s administrative data collections, e.g., Census of Jails.
BJS also cut two questions pertaining to whether inmates remember undergoing a risk or needs assessment and the timing of those assessments. Respondents had a difficult time determining the difference between a risk assessment and a needs assessment, and the timing of the two assessments. As a result, it was determined that jail administrators may be a more reliable source on whether or not risk or needs assessments are being conducted.
Lastly, two questions were cut that asked respondents to identify the number of days heroin/prescription opioids were used in the past month. It was determined by BJS that it was duplicative of an earlier question, which asks about frequency of use in the past 30 days for each type of drug.
Pretest
From April to June 2023, the pretest was conducted in five jails in Florida and Texas with a sample of 169 jail inmates to test the interview length and gain an understanding of how well the survey performed and whether questions were understood and captured the intended data. Findings informed revisions and significant cuts to the survey to reduce interview length. Offsetting a greater change in burden, BJS cut a third (or 246 questions) of the questions after pretesting the questionnaire. Questions were removed based on underutilization in internal and external data analysis and questions presenting data quality issues. The redesigned survey continues to focus on these same ten areas from 2002, but reflects the following changes:
Section One includes questions on sociodemographic information, such as date of birth, race/ethnicity, marital status, inmate sexual orientation and gender identification (SOGI), and military service. Changes were made to improve alignment between SILJ questions and the 2016 SPI, Decennial Census, and the American Community Survey (ACS), including adding questions from SPI to collect more information about respondents’ experience while in the military. In total, 11 questions were revised. Of significance, the SOGI questions were added based on the recently fielded NIS-4. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 14 new questions were added to the survey and 2 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. No changes were made to the questionnaire post pretest.
Section Two includes questions about the current offense and detention status. Changes were made to add response options to reflect the current corrections landscape. For example, since the number of American Indians and Alaska Natives held in local jails has increased significantly since 2002, a new response option “American Indian or Alaska Native tribal governments” was added to the question on inmates held for authorities other than local jails. This response option aligns with BJS’s administrative jail surveys, the Census of Jails (COJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). In total, 30 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 2 new questions were added to the survey and no questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. No changes were made to the questionnaire post pretest.
Section Three includes questions pertaining to trials and any information on pretrial release of the inmate. While the 2002 SILJ questions were retained for the latest iteration, 18 were revised to add relevant follow-up questions or expand available response options. For example, a question was added to collect reasons why respondents failed to appear for a scheduled court date. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 2 new questions were added to the survey and no questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. No changes were made to the questionnaire post pretest.
Section Four includes questions regarding the length and type of sentence associated with a respondent’s current offense, and their most recent prior offenses. Again, questions from the 2002 SILJ were retained, but 41 questions were revised to improve clarity or add response options, in several cases to mirror similar questions in the 2016 SPI, and to adjust skip patterns to reduce redundancy. For example, the wording of questions pertaining to fees, fines, and special conditions imposed at sentencing were revised to align with 2016 SPI questions. Prior to the 2023 pretest, no new questions were added to the survey and no questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. No changes were made to the questionnaire post pretest.
Section Five asks the respondent questions about the incident for which they are currently in jail. Questions were revised to mirror comparable questions in 2016 SPI, and questions were altered or added to reflect the current corrections landscape and research interests. In total, 47 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 40 new questions were added to the survey and 14 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 72 questions were removed from the proposed questionnaire, of which 24 were new items.
Section Six asks a number of questions that measure the criminal histories of jail inmates. The revised instrument reflects an effort to align language between SILJ and the 2016 SPI where appropriate, and add questions regarding financial sanctions (fees, fines, bail). In total, 19 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 12 new questions were added to the survey and 12 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 41 questions were removed from the proposed questionnaire, of which 11 were new items.
Section Seven collects information on inmate socioeconomic characteristics. Again, revisions were made to mirror question wording with the 2016 SPI in a number of cases. BJS also added a series of questions to address legal agreement to pay child support and inmate healthcare coverage. In total, 19 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 26 new questions were added to the survey and 4 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 89 questions were removed from the proposed questionnaire, of which 21 were new items.
Section Eight contains questions on alcohol and drug use prior to and during the offense in question, inmates’ substance use, and treatment or counseling designed to help inmates to cut down or stop alcohol or drug use. In addition to revising and adding several questions to align with the 2016 SPI, changes were made to remove questions that were overly specific and/or had historically low response rates in the 2002 SILJ, add questions pertaining to heroin and opioids, add questions to make SILJ comparable to NSDUH, and update questions containing diagnostic criteria for alcohol and drug use disorders to reflect DSM-V. In total, 20 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 30 new questions were added to the survey and 18 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 7 questions from the 2002 survey were removed from the proposed questionnaire.
Section Nine includes questions related to inmates’ medical conditions, mental health, and disabilities. Again, revisions were made to align with the 2016 SPI where appropriate, including the addition of the K6 screening questions from SPI to capture symptoms and impairment related to mental health disorders, and removing questions that have little analytic value (e.g., small sample size for analysis and low response rates in the 2002 SILJ). In total, 58 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 34 new questions were added to the survey and 18 questions from the 2002 survey were excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 23 questions were removed from the proposed questionnaire, of which 5 were new items.
Section Ten covers a range of items related to jail programs and activities. Changes were made to this section to reflect current jail programs and services, as well as topics like reentry and the impact of institutional fees and services which have recently entered policy discussions. In total, 36 questions were revised. Prior to the 2023 pretest, 17 new questions were added to the survey and 1 question from the 2002 survey was excluded from the 2023 pretest questionnaire. After the pretest, 34 questions were removed from the proposed questionnaire, of which 10 were new items.
Updates to the SILJ consent language
The consent language has also been revised to reflect BJS’s interest in obtaining consent to link to respondents’ Record of Arrest and Prosecutions (RAP) sheets to collect data on current and/or future criminal history. BJS also plans to link the self-report data with other federal administrative data. The goal of this effort is to supplement the survey data with detailed information on pre-incarceration employment, earnings, benefits received and eligibility, and other external factors that could contribute to our understanding of incarceration and community reentry. Through an existing interagency agreement (IAA) that was executed and funded in 2014, BJS plans to work with the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications (CARRA) at the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies (CES) to accomplish this records linkage. The SILJ data for each consenting inmate will be linked behind the U.S. Census’ secure firewall, which will then allow analysts in the CARRA group to assign a personal identification key (PIK) to each inmate and delete all personal information.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulations, and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The 2024 SILJ collection is scheduled to launch in November 2024 (see Table 3). About 4 months before the scheduled launch date, in July 2024, the project team will start scheduling site visits with the sampled jails. The data collection period will span approximately 4 months and is expected to end in February 2025. However, BJS may extend the period of collection to reach a target response rate. Data processing will take place from March 2025 to May 2025. The final data sets are scheduled to be delivered to BJS in June 2025, along with program files and data documentation.
Table 3: 2024 SILJ collection schedule
Task |
Dates |
Logistic and planning scheduling site visits |
Beginning in July 2024 |
Data collection |
November 2024–February 2025, extended as needed |
Data processing |
March 2025–June 2025 |
Data delivery to BJS |
June 2025 |
First BJS report release/data file and documentation published |
December 2025 |
From July to November 2024, BJS will seek consent from Agency Heads (i.e., Sheriff or Jail Administrator) to conduct the 2024 SILJ in their local jail(s). Logistics planning with consenting jails is also conducted during this period. The data collection (inmate interviews) is fielded from November 2024 to February 2025. Data processing is conducted from March 2025 to June 2025 and BJS expects delivery of the final dataset in June 2025.
Once the data are released by BJS through Profile of Jail Inmates, consistent with its statistical mission, BJS will make SILJ microdata available to researchers, professionals, and other users for secondary analysis purposes, subject to strong confidentiality protections and applicable federal law. BJS archives its published data at its official criminal justice data archive, currently the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, to facilitate and encourage criminal justice research. All data submitted for archiving undergo a comprehensive disclosure risk assessment to determine the appropriate level of access and protection needed to protect confidentiality. BJS and its archive operate strict controls and apply robust safeguards to mitigate potential privacy risks. BJS adheres to the Standard Application Process to accept and review applications for its restricted data [OMB Memorandum M-23-04, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/M-23-04.pdf]. More information about NACJD and its archiving practices can be found at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/NACJD/ index.html. Prior SILJ studies are widely cited in external publications. (See https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/4359/utilization.)
From 2025 to 2027, BJS plans to release a series of special reports, statistical briefs or statistical tables focusing on jail inmates such as:
substance use and treatment
mental health problems and treatment
co-occurring mental health and substance use issues
medical problems
firearms use during crime
veterans in jail
inmate access to legal representation
inmate misconduct
monetary sanctions (court costs, fees, fines, restitution, and other financial liabilities related to contact with the justice system)
characteristics of inmates’ victims.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
Not Applicable. The OMB Control Number and the expiration date will be displayed on the CAPI laptop or read during the interview describing the nature of the survey and authority to collect the information. A screenshot is included in Attachment 4.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
This collection of information does not include any exceptions to the certificate statement.
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATON EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS.
This collection contains statistical data.
List of Attachments
Attachment 1. SILJ Survey Instrument
Attachment 2. SILJ Pretest OMB No. 1121-0339
Attachment 3. Title 34 U.S.C. § 10131
Attachment 4. Sample CAPI Survey Instrument Screenshots
Attachment 5. 60-Day Notice
Attachment 6. 60-Day Comments
Attachment 7. 30-Day Notice
Attachment 8. Informed Consent
Attachment 9. OJP IRB Determination of Exemption
Attachment 10. Invitation Letter Template
Attachment 11. Informative Flyer
Attachment 12. Follow-up Email
Attachment 13. Reminder Email
Attachment 14. Final Reminder Email
Attachment 15. Nonresponse Telephone Call Script
Attachment 16. Refusal Reversal
Attachment 17. Welcome Email and Logistic Planning
Attachment 18. Non-interview Worksheet
Attachment 19. Thank You Letter
1 Groves, R. & Cork, D. (Eds.) (2009). Ensuring the Quality, Credibility, and Relevance of U.S. Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | SUPPORTING STATEMENT |
| Author | [email protected] |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2025-05-19 |