Attachments A1-A20 with Table of Contents

2016 SPI OMB Package
Attachment A

Table of Contents
Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute

Page 2

Attachment A2 – CAPI Screenshots

Page 8

Attachment A3 – Title 42 USC 3789g

Page 10

Attachment A4 – Interview Consent CAPI Testing Form

Page 13

Attachment A5 – Interview Consent National Study Form

Page 15

Attachment A6 – IRB Approval Notice

Page 17

Attachment A7 – CAPI Testing Initial Contact Commissioner Letter

Page 18

Attachment A8 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions Sampled Facilities

Page 20

Attachment A9 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions No Sampled Facilities Page 22
Attachment A10 – Sampled Facility Letter

Page 23

Attachment A11 – FAQ Facility

Page 25

Attachment A12 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC and BOP

Page 26

Attachment A13 – BJS Thank You Letter Facility

Page 27

Attachment A14 – RTI Thank You Letter Facility

Page 28

Attachment A15 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC Facility CAPI Testing

Page 29

Attachment A16 – ASCA Letter

Page 30

Attachment A17 – SPI Flyer

Page 31

Attachment A18 – SPI Introduction Letter

Page 33

Attachment A19 – Agenda Training National Study

Page 34

Attachment A20 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Page 38

1

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
DERIVATION
Title I
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
(Public Law 90-351)
42 U.S.C. ' 3711, et seq.
AN ACT to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the
effectiveness, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all
levels of government, and for other purposes.
As Amended By
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970
(Public Law 91-644)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973
(Public Law 93-83)
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974
(Public Law 93-415)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS= BENEFITS ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-430)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-503)
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979
(Public Law 96-157)
THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1984
(Public Law 98-473)
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1986
(Public Law 99-570-Subtitle K)
THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
TITLE VI, SUBTITLE C - STATE AND LOCAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS
(Public Law 100-690)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990
(Public Law 101-647)
BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
(Public Law 103-159)
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
(Public Law 103-322)
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED
(Public Law 103-209)
and

2

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998
(Public Law 105-251)

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
CHAPTER 46 - SUBCHAPTER III
[TITLE I - PART C]
42 USC ' 3731 [Sec. 301.] Statement of purpose
It is the purpose of this subchapter [part] to provide for and encourage the collection and analysis
of statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal
justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system and to support the development of
information and statistical systems at the Federal, State, and local levels to improve the efforts of
these levels of government to measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency,
and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system. The
Bureau shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities
responsible for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out
the provisions of this subchapter [part], the Bureau shall give primary emphasis to the problems of
State and local justice systems.
42 USC ' 3732 [Sec. 302.] Bureau of Justice Statistics
(a) Establishment. There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general
authority of the Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this
subchapter [part] as ABureau@).
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions. The Bureau shall be headed by
a Director appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Director shall have had experience in statistical programs. The Director shall have final authority
for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall
report to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not
engage in any other employment than that of serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any
office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or institution with which the Bureau
makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau. The Bureau is authorized toB
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies,
institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes
related to this subchapter [part]; grants shall be made subject to continuing compliance
with standards for gathering justice statistics set forth in rules and regulations promulgated
by the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes
against the elderly, and civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social
indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime,
juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical factors related to crime, civil
disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, and local justice policy

3

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
and decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal
justice system at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates,
extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal,
State, and local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of
statistical information, about criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, and
local levels, and about the extent, distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile
delinquency, in the Nation and at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics
concerning all aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime,
including crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders, juvenile
delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States;
(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and
validity of justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter [title];
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State Governments in
matters relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as
much uniformity as feasible in statistical systems of the executive and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and local
governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local
governments with access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice
statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance
to the States and units of local government relating to collection, analysis, or
dissemination of justice statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection,
aggregation, analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the
operation of the criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics
(including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high
technology crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other
Federal agencies to improve the availability and quality of Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of
information and statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and
attributes of drug offenses, drug related offenses and drug dependent offenders and further

4

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse to maintain and update a
comprehensive and timely data base on all criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to
disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the
condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State and local levels with
particular attention to programs and intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the
overall national anti- drug strategy and to provide for the establishment of a national
clearinghouse for the gathering of data generated by Federal, State, and local criminal
justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;

(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal justice
information systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection,
analysis or dissemination of data and statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses,
or drug dependent offenders;
(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and
inclusiveness of criminal history record information, information systems, arrest warrant,
and stolen vehicle record information and information systems and support research
concerning the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of other criminal justice record
information;
(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other nations
concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the
development of uniform justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g of this
title and identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of
privacy, security and information policies which impact on Federal and State criminal
justice operations and related statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VIII [part H] of this chapter
[title].
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination. To insure that all justice statistical
collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner, the Director is
authorized toB
(1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information,
and facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with
or without reimbursement therefor, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and
instrumentalities for purposes of data collection and analysis;
(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be
required to carry out the purposes of this chapter [title];

5

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering
data from criminal justice records; and
(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding
information systems, information policy, and data.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies. Federal agencies requested to
furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this section shall provide such
information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary. In
recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall
consult with representatives of State and local government, including, where appropriate,
representatives of the judiciary.

42 USC ' 3733 [Sec. 303.] Authority for 100 per centum grants
A grant authorized under this subchapter [part] may be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of
each project for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever feasible as a
condition of approval of a grant under this subchapter [part] , that the recipient contribute money,
facilities, or services to carry out the purposes for which the grant is sought.
42 USC ' 3735 [Sec. 304.] Use of data
Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and shall be
gathered in a manner that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a
particular individual other than statistical or research purposes.
42 USC ' 3789g

[Sec. 812.] Confidentiality of information

(a) Research of statistical information; immunity from process; prohibition against admission as
evidence or use in any proceedings. Except as provided by Federal law other than this chapter, no
officer or employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of assistance under the provisions
of this chapter shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this
chapter by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the
purpose for which it was obtained in accordance with this chapter. Such information and copies
thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person
furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or
other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.
(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data; procedures for collection, storage,
dissemination, and current status; security and privacy; availability for law enforcement, criminal
justice, and other lawful purposes; automated systems: review, challenge, and correction of
information. All criminal history information collected, stored, or disseminated through support
under this chapter shall contain, to the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data
where arrest data is included therein. The collection, storage, and dissemination of such
information shall take place under procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such
information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice Programs shall assure that the security and
privacy of all information is adequately provided for and that information shall only be used for
law enforcement and criminal justice and other lawful purposes. In addition, an individual who

6

Attachment A1 – BJS Authorizing Statute
believes that criminal history information concerning him contained in an automated system is
inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this chapter, shall, upon satisfactory
verification of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for the
purpose of challenge or correction.
(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition against violation of privacy and
constitutional rights of individuals. All criminal intelligence systems operating through support
under this chapter shall collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal intelligence information in
conformance with policy standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs and
which are written to assure that the funding and operation of these systems furthers the purpose of
this chapter and to assure that such systems are not utilized in violation of the privacy and
constitutional rights of individuals.
(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty. Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of
any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, shall be fined not to exceed $10,000, in addition to
any other penalty imposed by la

7

Attachment A2 – CAPI Screenshots
Screenshot of CAPI Instrument with OMB Estimate and Statement

8

Attachment A2 – CAPI Screenshots
Example Screen from the Survey of Prison Inmates CAPI Instrument

9

Attachment A3 – Title 42 USC 3789g
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2006]
[CITE: 42USC3789g]
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 46--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
SUBCHAPTER VIII--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 3789g. Confidentiality of information
(a) Research or statistical information; immunity from process;
prohibition against admission as evidence or use in any
proceedings
No officer or employee of the Federal Government, and no
recipient of assistance under the provisions of this chapter
shall use or reveal any research or statistical information
furnished under this chapter by any person and identifiable to
any specific private person for any purpose other than the
purpose for which it was obtained in accordance with this
chapter. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune
from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the
person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or
used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial,
legislative, or administrative proceedings.
(b) Criminal history information; disposition and arrest data;
procedures for collection, storage, dissemination, and
current status; security and privacy; availability for law
enforcement, criminal justice, and other lawful purposes;
automated systems: review, challenge, and correction of
information
All criminal history information collected, stored, or
disseminated through support under this chapter shall contain, to
the maximum extent feasible, disposition as well as arrest data
where arrest data is included therein. The collection, storage,
and dissemination of such information shall take place under
procedures reasonably designed to insure that all such
information is kept current therein; the Office of Justice
Programs shall assure that the security and privacy of all
information is adequately provided for and that information shall
only be used for law enforcement and criminal justice and other
lawful purposes. In addition, an individual who believes that
10

Attachment A3 – Title 42 USC 3789g
criminal history information concerning him contained in an
automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in
violation of this chapter, shall, upon satisfactory verification
of his identity, be entitled to review such information and to
obtain a copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction.
(c) Criminal intelligence systems and information; prohibition
against violation of privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals
All criminal intelligence systems operating through support
under this chapter shall collect, maintain, and disseminate
criminal intelligence information in conformance with policy
standards which are prescribed by the Office of Justice Programs
and which are written to assure that the funding and operation of
these systems furthers the purpose of this chapter and to assure
that such systems are not utilized in violation of the privacy
and constitutional rights of individuals.
(d) Violations; fine as additional penalty
Any person violating the provisions of this section, or of
any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, shall be fined
not to exceed $10,000, in addition to any other penalty imposed
by law.
(Pub. L. 90-351, title I, Sec. 812, formerly Sec. 818, as added
Pub. L. 96-157, Sec. 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1213; renumbered
Sec. 812 and amended Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 609B(f), (k),
Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2093, 2096; Pub. L. 109-162, title XI,
Sec. 1115(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3104.)
Prior Provisions
A prior section 812 of Pub. L. 90-351 was classified to
section 3789a of this title prior to repeal by section 609B(e) of
Pub. L. 98-473.
Amendments
2006--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109-162 substituted ``No'' for
``Except as provided by Federal law other than this chapter,
no''. 1984--Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 98-473, 609B(k),
substituted ``Office of Justice Programs'' for ``Office of
Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics''.

11

Attachment A3 – Title 42 USC 3789g
Effective Date of 1984 Amendment
Amendment by section 609B(k) of Pub. L. 98-473 effective Oct.
12, 1984, see section 609AA(a) of Pub. L. 98-473, set out as an
Effective Date note under section 3711 of this title.

12

Attachment A4 – Interview Consent CAPI Testing Form

Bureau of Justice
Statistics

Survey of Prison Inmates
Consent to Participate in Research
Introduction
The Survey of Prison Inmates is a research study being done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI
International. The purpose of this research is to try out the questionnaire we’ve developed for conducting a
national Survey of Prison Inmates later this year. The national survey will collect information on the
conditions and experiences of inmates in the United States. Interviews will be conducted at 2 prisons for
this study and you are one of about 30 inmates at this facility who have been randomly selected to
participate. Your participation in this project is voluntary. After you have heard the information about the
study, you can decide if you want to answer the questions.

Description of the Study
This interview will take about 55 minutes. I will ask questions about your criminal history, physical and
mental health, drug and alcohol use before you were incarcerated, and any treatment you may have
received. I will also ask you questions about your experiences at this facility, some background questions
about your family, your education and your work history. I will enter your answers directly into the laptop
computer. In addition to asking you questions, we will review your existing criminal records as well as any
updates that are made to these records over the next ten years. This review will allow us to conduct
additional research without taking up more of your time with questions today. It will also help identify
ways to improve the services, education, and training available to inmates in the future, including inmates
who return to the community.
[To thank you for participating in the study, we will provide you with a snack to eat before you leave this
room.]

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

Benefits
You will not receive any direct benefits for participating in this study. However, the results of the overall
study may help to improve the condition and well-being of inmates in facilities across the nation. If you do
not participate you will not lose any benefits or services that you now receive or might receive in the
future. Whether you participate or not will not affect your legal status or any decisions regarding your
release from this facility in any way.

Confidentiality
As required by law, Title 42, United States Code, Section 3789g, this study is covered by a Privacy

13

Attachment A4 – Interview Consent CAPI Testing Form
Certificate which means that we will treat everything you say during the interview and all information from
your criminal record as private. Any information that would identify you will be held strictly confidential.
It also means that nothing you tell me during the interview can be used in any legal action. Your name
will not be connected with the information you provide in this interview. We will not share any of the
information you provide with anyone at this prison or anyone who is not directly working on the project.
There is, however, an exception to our promise of confidentiality. If you tell me that you intend to
seriously harm yourself or a specific person, I may need to inform correctional staff.
Do you have any questions about taking part in this study?

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

Are you willing to participate?

□

Willing to participate in the interview.

I certify that the nature and purpose, the potential benefits, and possible risks associated with participating
in this research have been explained to the participant.

□

I have read all required informed consent text to this individual.

Person Who Obtained Consent: ______________________________________
Headway ID Number: ________________
Date: _____/_______/_________

14

Attachment A5 – Interview Consent National Study Form

Bureau of Justice
Statistics

Survey of Prison Inmates
Consent to Participate in Research
Introduction
The Survey of Prison Inmates is a research study being done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI
International. The purpose of this research is to collect information on the conditions and experiences of
prison inmates in the United States. Interviews will be conducted at 350 prisons for this study and you are
one of about 100 inmates at this facility who have been randomly selected to participate. Your participation
in this project is voluntary. After you have heard the information about the study, you can decide if you
want to answer the questions.

Description of the Study
This interview will take about 55 minutes. I will ask questions about your criminal history, physical and
mental health, drug and alcohol use before you were incarcerated, and any treatment you may have
received. I will also ask you questions about your experiences at this facility, some background questions
about your family, your education and your work history. I will enter your answers directly into the laptop
computer. In addition to asking you questions, we will review your existing criminal records as well as any
updates that are made to these records over the next ten years. This review will allow us to conduct
additional research without taking up more of your time with questions. It will also help identify ways to
improve the services, education, and training available to inmates in the future, including inmates who
return to the community.
[To thank you for participating in the study, we will provide you with a snack to eat before you leave this
room.]

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

Benefits
You will not receive any direct benefits for participating in this study. However, the results of this study
may help to improve the condition and well-being of inmates in facilities across the nation. If you do not
participate you will not lose any benefits or services that you now receive or might receive in the future.
Whether you participate or not will not affect your legal status or any decisions regarding your release from
this facility in any way.

Confidentiality
As required by law, Title 42, United States Code, Section 3789g, this study is covered by a Privacy
Certificate which means that we will treat everything you say during the interview and all information from

15

Attachment A5 – Interview Consent National Study Form
your criminal record as private. Any information that would identify you will be held strictly confidential.
It also means that nothing you tell me during the interview can be used in any legal action. Your name
will not be connected with the information you provide in this interview. We will not share any of the
information you provide with anyone at this prison or anyone who is not directly working on the project.
There is, however, an exception to our promise of confidentiality. If you tell me that you intend to
seriously harm yourself or a specific person, I may need to inform correctional staff.
Do you have any questions about taking part in this study?

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

Are you willing to participate?

□

Willing to participate in the interview.

I certify that the nature and purpose, the potential benefits, and possible risks associated with participating
in this research have been explained to the participant.

□

I have read all required informed consent text to this individual.

Person Who Obtained Consent: ______________________________________
Headway ID Number: ________________
Date: _____/_______/_________

16

Attachment A6 – IRB Approval Notice

IRB ID Number: 1362
Office of Research Protection
Institutional Review Board Notice of Approval
Federalwide Assurance No. 3331
Title of Study: Survey of Prison Inmates
RTI Project Number: 0213181 RTI Proposal Number (if no Project Number)
Project Leader: Rachel Caspar
Project Team Member Contact (if different from Project Leader):
Source of Funding for this Study: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Date Submitted to IRB: April 30. 2015 (revised)
Level of Review (check one):
Full
IRB Meeting Date: 4-22-2015
Expedited
category: None
Type of Review (check one):
Preliminary review (For DHHS grants where RTI is prime, the grant application/contract
proposal and protocol submitted to the IRB are in concordance (45 CFR 46.103(f)). Do not
involve human subjects or data until pretest or full study is approved.)
Amendment, describe:
Add study site(s):
____
Pretest/Pilot Test _________
Renewal
Full Implementation__________
Study Closure
IRB Approval of Special Conditions (check all that apply to this review):
Waiver of Signed Informed Consent/Parental Permission
Waiver of elements of Informed Consent or requirement for Informed Consent/Parental Permission
Participation of Pregnant Women (Worksheet B submitted by project team)
Participation of Prisoners (Worksheet C submitted by project team)
Participation of Prisoners in DHHS-funded studies (OHRP acknowledgement required)
Participation of Minors (Worksheet D submitted by project team)
IRB Agreement of Nonsignificant Risk Device Study Determination
HIPAA Waiver of Authorization
Please note the following requirements:
•
•
•

If unexpected problems or adverse events occur, the project team must notify the IRB
If there are changes in study procedures or protocol or any data collection materials (brochures, letters, questionnaires,
etc.) the pro1ect team must notify the IRB before they are implemented.
The project team is required to apply for continuing review as long as the study is active, which includes
participation of human subjects or possession of human data or specimens.

Expiration Date of IRB Approval : April 22, 2016
(No human subjects research can occur after this date without continuing review and approval.)

_____________________________
Signature - IRB Member or Chair

05-04-2015
Date of IRB Approval

Jamia Bachrach, JD
Name - IRB Member or Chair (print or type)
Copy sent to project leader
Entered into MIS
OHRP acknowledgement received for participation of prisoners in DHHS-funded studies on'.

17
Office of Research Protection and Ethics,,lnstitutional Review Board
3040 Cornwallis Road, ,Research Triangle Park, ,NC 27709-2194 ,
USA Telephone: 919-316-3358 Fax: 919-316-3897 orpe@rti.org

Attachment A7 – CAPI Testing Initial Contact Commissioner Letter

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

July XX, 2015

[COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME AND TITLE]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:
During July, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is planning a pretest related to one of its major survey
initiatives, the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (or SPI). Prior to fielding the national study, we want to
conduct a pretest of the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) data collection instrument to
ensure that it is programmed correctly and that inmates are properly routed though the questionnaire. To
this end, I am writing to respectfully request your approval for staff from BJS’s data collection agent, RTI
International (RTI), to conduct a pretest in [NAME OF FACILITY] in [JURISDICTION].
By way of background, since 1974, BJS has conducted six prior versions of its SPI survey, or about one
every 6 or 7 years, with the last one having been conducted in 2004. BJS uses the survey to generate
national estimates of the characteristics of the U.S. prison population, including characteristics that are
germane to corrections management such as the severity of offenses committed and criminal history;
medical, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems; behaviors in prison including both
rule infractions and participation in programs
In the summer of 2013, BJS conducted a pilot study of the SPI questionnaire. The results from the pilot
study revealed that the survey was too long. Since that time, BJS and RTI have been working to scale back
the length of the questionnaire for the national study to minimize burden on facilities and inmates. The
pretest that is planned for July 2015 is critical to ensure that the changes to the CAPI instrument to reduce
the length have been programmed accurately. The results will be used to make any necessary adjustments
to the specifications prior to fielding the national study in the fall of 2015.
The pretest would involve two tasks of the facility: 1) providing a roster of inmates from which we can
draw a random sample of about 30 inmates to interview, and 2) assistance to RTI staff in managing
logistics associated with conducting the interviews. RTI staff will need to conduct these interviews in a
private or secure area that is out of hearing range of facility staff or other inmates so as to assure the
confidentiality of the inmates. All information collected will be kept confidential and will be used only for
the purposes of refining the CAPI instrument.
We aim to minimize disruption to your facility. We expect that RTI will have about three to five trained
interviewers on site for one to three days, depending on the availability of space in the facility. RTI staff

18

Attachment A7 – CAPI Testing Initial Contact Commissioner Letter
have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys in prison facilities and their staff will follow all
institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any potential disruption to facility operations.
As I’m sure you are aware, since 2007 BJS has entered your facilities for the purpose of conducting
surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act that are known as the National Inmate Survey (NIS). I
want to let you know that neither the pretest for SPI nor the national SPI study are at all related to the aims
of the NIS and reiterate that the purpose of the SPI is to produce national estimates of characteristics of
prisoners and not facility-level estimates of sexual assault.
I would appreciate your help in conducting this pretest, and I also want to make sure you that you have
enough information in order to make an informed decision about whether you will grant my request. To
that end, if you would like to talk with my staff about the survey, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze,
BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628.
If on the other hand you have enough information about the pretest then I ask that you provide me with the
name and contact information of someone from your office or [FACILITY NAME] who can assist in
arranging the interviews.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

19

Attachment A8 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions Sample Facilities
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

August XX, 2015

[COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME AND TITLE]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:
Starting in October 2015, the Bureau of Justice Statistics will begin conducting the 2016 Survey of Prison
Inmates (SPI). I am writing to request your approval for staff from BJS’s data collection agent, RTI
International (RTI), to obtain access to [NUMBER] facilities within your system for the purpose of
conducting the study.
If you recall, last month I sent you a letter to introduce the 2016 SPI study and a flyer that provided
detailed information about this important study. BJS has conducted this survey periodically since the 1970s
among state prisoners and the 1990s among federal prisoners. BJS uses SPI to generate national estimates
of the characteristics of the prison population over a variety of topics, including those that are germane to
corrections management. As national data, the survey will provide a benchmark against which you may
compare your prison populations. When analyzed together with previous SPI surveys, these data will
permit you and other practitioners to understand how the nation’s prison population has changed and why.
Prison administrators and policymakers have found these surveys to be an invaluable data source for
addressing a wide array of criminal justice issues. BJS intends to publish a number of topical reports from
the 2016 SPI data, after which the data will be made publically available.
SPI was last conducted in 2004. Since then, it was temporarily suspended by BJS to minimize burden to
state departments of corrections (DOCs) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons given that since 2007, BJS has
entered your facilities for the purpose of conducting surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act
that are known as the National Inmate Survey (NIS). I want to let you know that the 2016 SPI is not at all
related to the goals of NIS and reiterate that the purpose of SPI is to produce national estimates of
characteristics of prisoners and not facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates.
[NUMBER] facilities in [STATE] were randomly sampled to participate in the 2016 SPI. Those facilities
include: [FACILITY NAMES]. With your permission, we would ask for two forms of assistance from the
selected facility administrators: (1) a roster of inmates from which we can draw a random sample of about
[80/115] inmates to interview; and (2) assistance to the RTI staff in managing logistics associated with
conducting the interviews. To conduct the interviews, RTI staff would need access to areas that are secure
but out of hearing range of staff or other inmates because as a federal statistical agency, BJS pledges
confidentiality to the interviewed inmates. All information that could identify individual inmates will be
held confidential and will only be used for statistical purposes, as required under Title 42, U.S.C., Sections
3735 and 3789g.

20

Attachment A8 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions Sample Facilities
We aim to minimize disruption to your facilities. We expect that RTI will have between four and six
trained interviewers on site for three to five days, depending on the availability of space in the facilities.
While this may sound like a large number, RTI staff have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys
in prison facilities and their staff will follow all institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any
potential disruption to facility operations.
We are not planning to collect data in any of your facilities for a couple months but we would like to
proceed with the research approval process, and begin scheduling data collection with the facilities.
Participation of these facilities is crucial to produce accurate statistics nationwide. Because this is a sample
survey, each facility selected represents many other prisons in the statistical analysis.
Enclosed is another copy of the SPI flyer and a letter of support of SPI from the Research and Best
Practices Committee of the Association of State Correctional Administrators. We would greatly appreciate
your help in conducting this important study, and thank you in advance for your time. An RTI
representative will contact you soon to discuss the survey and arrangements, beginning with the
establishment of a liaison from your office.

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

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

21

Attachment A9 – Announcement Letter Jurisdictions NO Sample Facilities

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

August XX, 2015
[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]

Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:
Last month, I sent you a letter introducing the upcoming Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of
Prison Inmates (SPI). We selected a random sample of state and federal correctional facilities in the United
States and not every state had facilities that were sampled to participate in the 2016 SPI. This letter is
intended to inform you that none of the facilities in [STATE/JURISDICTION] were sampled.
We appreciate your consideration and support of the 2016 SPI. If you have any questions or concerns
about the study or would simply like more information, such as a copy of the questionnaire, please feel free
to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

22

Attachment A10 – Sampled Facility Letter

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

August XX, 2015

[FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME AND TITLE]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:
With this letter I would like to confirm that you are aware that in early [INSERT MONTH], the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) and its data collection agent RTI International (RTI) plan to begin work on a study
for one of BJS’s major surveys, the Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). I have already contacted
[COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME] to obtain approval to conduct the study in [NUMBER OF
FACILITIES] state facilities in [STATE] and, as you may already be aware, your facility was randomly
selected to participate. This letter is intended to provide you with some information about SPI so you
understand the goals and what they entail.
By way of background, the 2106 SPI will be the seventh iteration of the survey conducted of state
prisoners since the 1970s and the fourth iteration of federal prisoners since the early 1990s. BJS uses the
SPI to generate national estimates of the characteristics of the prison population, including characteristics
that are germane to corrections management such as the severity of offenses committed and criminal
history; medical, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems; behaviors in prison
including both rule infractions and participation in programs.
We collect the data through in-person interviews with a sample of prison inmates and the survey is
estimated to take about 60 minutes on average. To conduct the survey, we request two forms of assistance
from you: (1) a roster of inmates from which we can draw a random sample of about [80/115] inmates to
interview; and (2) assistance to the RTI staff in managing logistics associated with conducting the
interviews. As a federal statistical agency, BJS pledges confidentiality to the interviewed inmates. To
maintain confidentiality, the best setting for RTI staff to conduct the survey would allow for interviews to
be carried out privately, without being overheard by staff or other inmates. All information that could
identify individual inmates will be held confidential and will only be used for statistical purposes, as
required under Title 42, U.S.C., Sections 3735 and 3789g.
We aim to minimize disruption to your facility. We expect that RTI will have between four and six trained
interviewers on site for three to five days, depending on the availability of space in your facility. While this
may sound like a large number, RTI staff have extensive experience in conducting BJS surveys in prison
facilities and their staff will follow all institution rules and adjust their schedules to minimize any potential

23

Attachment A10 – Sampled Facility Letter
disruption to facility operations.
SPI was last conducted in 2004. Since then, it was temporarily suspended by BJS to minimize burden to
state and federal correctional facilities given that since 2007, BJS has interviewed prison inmates for the
purpose of conducting surveys required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act that are known as the National
Inmate Survey (NIS). I want to let you know that the 2016 SPI is not at all related to the goals of NIS and
reiterate that the purpose of SPI is to produce national estimates of characteristics of prisoners and not
facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates.
Enclosed with this letter, you will find a FAQ document that provides you with more information about the
study and is intended to assist your and your staff with the data collection process. Participation of all
facilities sampled is crucial to produce accurate statistics nationwide. Because this is a sample survey, each
facility selected represents many other prisons in the statistical analysis.
We would greatly appreciate your help in conducting this important study, and thank you in advance for
your participation. An RTI representative will contact you soon to discuss the survey and arrangements.
If you have any questions about the survey, please feel free to call Monica Sheppard, RTI Logistics
Manager, at sheppardm@rti.org or (919) 541-6000.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

24

Attachment A11 – FAQ Facility
The 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI)
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) Document for Correctional Facilities and Staff
What is this all about?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is planning to conduct the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI),
the purpose of which is to generate reliable, nationally-representative estimates of the characteristics of
prisoners in the United States, track changes in the characteristics of prisoners over time, conduct studies
of prisoners on special topics, and identify policy-relevant changes in the prison population.
How will inmates be selected to participate?
SPI staff at RTI will randomly select approximately 100 inmates in the facility to participate in the
interview and then provide the facility with the name(s) of the inmate(s) we would like to interview.
Facility staff can then escort the inmate to where the interviewers are working.
What should I say to inmates who have been randomly selected to participate?
When approaching inmates who have been randomly selected to participate in the SPI, you can adhere to
the following script: “[insert inmate’s name], There is someone here who would like to invite you to
participate in an interview. The interviewer can tell you what it is about so please come with me so I
can introduce you to the interviewer.”
If the inmate requests more information, you can say: “I do not know much about the interview, but the
person conducting the interview will tell you what it is all about. If you come with me, I will introduce
you, but you do not have to come with me or participate in the survey.”
Where will the interview be conducted?
We will require somewhat private areas or rooms within the facility to conduct our interviews. Because
we will be using laptop computers to administer the interviews, it would be preferable that the interview
area or rooms be equipped with a power outlet. Several interviewers can use the same interview space as
long as the space or room is large enough to ensure some distance between interviewers.
What if an inmate cannot leave his/her cell or housing unit?
We understand that some inmates in our random sample may not be able to leave their cells or housing
units. However, it is important that we try to give all inmates an opportunity to participate in the study.
We would appreciate it if you can work with our interviewers when they are at your facility to determine
if there is a way to include all sampled inmates in the 2016 SPI.
What does the interview involve?
Participation in the interview is completely voluntary, so inmates can refuse to participate or answer any
of the questions. First, the inmate will be asked a series of questions at the beginning of the interview.
Depending on how they respond to these initial questions, they may not qualify to participate in the
study. Therefore, some inmates might be excused after only a few minutes while others will qualify for
the study and be in the interviewing area or room for about 60 minutes. Inmates will be asked about their
backgrounds, families, criminal and incarceration histories, pro-social connections, program
participation, substance use, mental health, medical problems, and reentry-related needs and plans.

25

Attachment A12 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC and BOP

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]
[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:
Thank you for your recent participation in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates
(SPI). The commitment of corrections administrators and staff across the nation in supporting this data
collection to measure and better understand the changes in the nation’s prison population and the reasons
for those changes has been remarkable, particularly in these challenging budget times.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International worked with many practitioners and researchers in
developing the instrument and protocols for the survey. We hope your staff found the process to be well
organized and efficient. Data collection will be followed by a period of data cleaning, weighting, and
analysis. We anticipate beginning to release findings from the study starting in late 2016/early 2017.
Thank you again for your assistance.. We welcome any feedback you might have about the experience.
Please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202)
305-9628. She can also be contacted for more information about future 2016 SPI reports.
Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, Ph.D.
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

26

Attachment A13 – BJS Thank You Letter Facility

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

[DATE]
[NAME OF FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:
Thank you for allowing the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to interview
inmates in your facility as part of the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI). Your facility’s help was crucial
to ensuring the success of SPI and generating national statistics of the characteristics of the U.S. prison
population.
In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO
WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] for their help with the study. [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF
WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] facilitated our work in an efficient and friendly manner. Please
convey my thanks to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] and
all the other facility staff who assisted in this effort.
Thank you again for your cooperation and assistance. We hope you found the process to be well organized
and efficient. After a period of data cleaning, weighting, and analysis, we anticipate beginning to release
findings from the study starting in late 2016/early 2017.
We welcome any feedback you would like to share about the experience. Please feel free to contact Lauren
Glaze, BJS SPI Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628 with comments or
questions.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, Ph.D.
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

27

Attachment A14 – RTI Thank You Letter Facility

INSERT DATE

[FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME AND TITLE]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR NAME]:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI), I would like to express our
gratitude for your assistance in implementing BJS’s 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) in your facility.
The success of this study was dependent on the assistance and cooperation of facility leadership and staff.
To this end, we appreciate all of the time, resources, and guidance you and [NAME OF KEY STAFF AT
FACILITY] provided to us.
Specifically, we appreciate all that you did to accommodate the team of interviewers, from our early
conversations about logistics to providing the interviewers with everything they needed during the week of
data collection. It was a pleasure working with you and [NAME OF KEY STAFF AT FACILITY].
If you would like to share your feedback on the logistics process or speak to us about how data collection
went in your facility, please feel free to contact me at (410) 833-1106 or msheppard@rti.org.
Sincerely,

Monica Sheppard
Logistics Manager
RTI International

28

Attachment A15 – BJS Thank You Letter DOC Facility CAPI Testing

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

July XX, 2015
[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY/FACILITY CONTACT]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME/FACILITY CONTACT]:
Thank you for allowing the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to conduct a
pretest of the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI)
instrument in [FACILITY NAME]. Your support was important to ensuring the CAPI survey instrument
performed as expected and properly routed inmates through the questionnaire. After we finish making the
necessary adjustments, this CAPI survey will be used nationwide to collect data from prison inmates as
part of the 2016 SPI, slated to begin in the fall of 2015.
In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO
WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] for their help with this endeavor. [INSERT NAMES OF KEY
STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY WITH RTI] facilitated our work in an efficient and friendly
manner. Please convey my thanks to [INSERT NAMES OF KEY STAFF WHO WORKED DIRECTLY
WITH RTI] and all the other facility staff who assisted in this effort.
Thank you again for your assistance. If you would like more information about this pretest or the 2016 SPI
national study, or have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI
Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

29

Attachment A16 – ASCA Letter

INSERT DATE
XXX
Dear XXX
The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) is pleased to be working with the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (RTI) to field the 2016 Survey of Prison
Inmates (SPI). SPI is scheduled to begin in October 2015 and we are pleased to be working
collaboratively with BJS and RTI to help communicate with departments of corrections (DOCs)
about the importance and value of SPI, and to encourage and facilitate DOC participation. With
DOC support, we know that SPI will produce statistics that are useful to the federal and state
governments, corrections organizations and institutions, and the research and policymaking
communities.
As has been noted by the ASCA Research and Best Practices Committee, SPI is an important
opportunity to gather critical data and information about the nation’s prison population. This will
be the seventh time BJS has conducted it since 1974. Historically, SPI has been primarily used to
produce national statistics of the prison population on a variety of topics of interest and
importance to the corrections community. For example, the severity of the offenses committed by
prisoners, the characteristics of the incidents that led to their offenses, and their criminal
histories; their medical conditions, mental health, and substance abuse and dependency problems;
their behaviors in prison including both rule infractions and participation in programs.
As they have in the past, corrections administrators, policymakers, and corrections researchers
will be able to use the SPI data and statistical products to address emerging issues in corrections
and enhance our understanding about the key characteristics of the population, changes in the
population over time, and factors related to changes to improve policy and practice. Due to the
need to conduct congressionally mandated PREA data collection activities in prisons, SPI has not
been conducted since 2004 to avoid burdening DOCs further during that time. The need for
updated data on the prison population is thus critical. ASCA looks forward to working with BJS,
RTI, and the corrections community to make the 2016 SPI a success.
BJS and RTI have worked extensively to develop study procedures that will minimize burden on
participating facilities. I would be happy to talk with anyone who has questions about the
importance of the SPI data to the corrections community. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,

Name
Chair
Research and Best Practices Committee

30

Attachment A17 – SPI Flyer

31

Attachment A17 – SPI Flyer

32

Attachment A18 – SPI Introduction Letter
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20531

July XX, 2015
[NAME OF COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY]
[STREET ADDRESS 1]
[STREET ADDRESS 2]
[CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE]
Dear [COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY NAME]:
This letter is intended to introduce the upcoming 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI) that will be
conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and our data collection, RTI International (RTI), later this
year. At this time, I simply want to make you aware of this study and that it will be occurring soon.
As background, the 2106 SPI will be the seventh iteration of the survey conducted on state prisoners since
the 1970s and the fourth iteration on federal prisoners since the early 1990s. It has been over 10 years now
since BJS last conducted the SPI survey. Historically, the SPI has been used to produce national statistics
of the prison population on a variety of topics of interest and importance to the corrections community. The
estimates provide a national benchmark with which prison systems across the nation can compare their
populations. The 2016 data will be critical to understanding: 1) the current status of the U.S. prison
population, 2) how it has changed over time, and 3) reasons for those changes. BJS intends to publish a
number of topical reports from SPI, after which the data will be made publically available. Please note that
this survey is different from BJS’s National Inmate Survey, which is mandated through the Prison Rape
Elimination Act and was designed to produce facility-level estimates of sexual victimization of inmates. By
contrast, the SPI will provide national estimates of the characteristics of prison inmates over a variety of
domains, but sexual victimization is not a topic covered in SPI.
Soon BJS will draw a random sample of facilities from all state and federal correctional facilities in the
United States to participate in the 2016 SPI. Not all [STATES/JURISDICTIONS] will have facilities
sampled to participate in this study. Next month we will contact you again to notify you of whether or not
any [FACILITIES] in your [STATE/JURISDICTION] were sampled. If so, we will request your approval
for the study and provide further details at that time.
Please find enclosed with this letter a flyer about the 2016 SPI that provides more information about this
important study, including the content covered by the questionnaire and future BJS products. If you have
any questions about the 2016 SPI or would like more information, including a copy of the questionnaire,
please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS’s SPI Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202)
305-9628.
Sincerely,

William J. Sabol, PhD
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

33

Attachment A19 – Agenda Training National Study

SPI Training Agenda
DRAFT
Day 1
8:15 – 8:30

Registration

8:30 – 8:45

Welcome and introductions

8:45 – 9:45

Overview and background of study

9:45 - 10:15

Team Code of Conduct Activity

10:15 – 10:30

BREAK

10:30 – 11:15

Overview of Data Collection (travel in through travel out)

11:15 – 11:45

Respondent’s Rights and Confidentiality

11:45 – 12:45

LUNCH

12:45 – 1:15

Safety, Working in Facilities, Attire

1:15 – 1:45

Sampling and List of Sampled Inmates

1:45 – 2:30

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

2:30 – 3:00

Consent procedures

3:00 – 3:15

BREAK

3:45 – 4:30

Fundamentals of Interviewing, Review

4:30 – 5:00

Introduction to computer, including EARF

34

Attachment A19 – Agenda Training National Study
Day 2
8:30 – 8:45

Review of previous day

8:45 – 9:15

Powering On, Passwords, Accessing a Case

9:15 – 9:45

Blaise Tutorial

9:45 – 10:30

Round Robin (45 minutes)

10:30 – 10:45

BREAK

10:45 – 12:00

Round Robin (1.25 hrs)

12:00 – 1:00

LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00

Round Robin

2:00 – 3:15

Review of event codes, entering codes in 3 locations (CMS, FI
Daily and List of Sampled Inmates)

3:15 – 3:30

BREAK

3:30 – 5:00

Using look up table and coding offenses

35

Attachment A19 – Agenda Training National Study

Day 3
8:30 – 8:45

Review of previous day

8:45 – 9:15

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

9:15 – 10:30

Paired interview #1 interview only (more experienced FI role as FI
and less experienced FI as respondent, conducting X interview
scenario)

10:30 – 10:45

BREAK

10:45 – 12:15

Paired interview #2 interview only (interviewers switch roles,
conducting X scenario)

12:15 – 1:15

LUNCH

1:15 – 2:30

Paired Interview #3

2:30 – 3:00

Paired Interview #4

3:00 – 3:15

BREAK

3:15 – 4:15

Paired Interview #4, continued

4:15 – 5:00

Dealing with Distressed Respondents

36

Attachment A19 – Agenda Training National Study
Day 4
8:30 – 9:30

OS Practice

9:30 – 10:00

Email

10:00 – 10:15

BREAK

10:15 – 10:45

Transmissions

10:45 – 12:00

Bringing it all together (Overview of entire process from travel in to
travel out)

12:00 – 1:00

LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00

Coding Review

2:00 – 2:45

ePTEs

2:45 – 3:00

BREAK

3:00 – 3:30

Expense Reports

3:30 – 4:00

Review of Facilities (Logistics Plans, if available.)

4:00 – 5:00

Bilingual training

37

Attachment 20 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

December 2013

Survey of Prison Inmates
Pilot Study
Final Report

Prepared for
Lauren Glaze
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Corrections Unit
810 7th St, NW.
Washington D.C.
20531
Prepared by
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
RTI Project Number 0212322

38

RTI Project Number
0212322

Survey of Prison Inmates
Pilot Study
Final Report

December 2013

Prepared for
Lauren Glaze
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Corrections Unit
810 7th St, NW.
Washington D.C.
20531

Prepared by
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

_________________________________
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Contents
Section

Page

1.

Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test
1.1

Project Background ........................................................................... 1

1.2

Objectives of the Pilot Study ............................................................... 1

1.3

Project Timeline ................................................................................ 2

2.

Sample Design
2.1

Selecting Facilities ............................................................................. 1

2.2

Sampling Inmates within Facilities....................................................... 1

3.

Data Collection
3.1

Data Collection Instrument ................................................................. 1

3.2

IRB Approvals ................................................................................... 2

3.3

Logistics........................................................................................... 2

3.4

Interviewer Training .......................................................................... 3

3.5

Interviewing ..................................................................................... 4

4.

Results
4.1

Overall Results.................................................................................. 1
4.1.1

Cooperation ..................................................................................... 1

4.1.2

Refusal ............................................................................................ 1

4.1.3

SSN Compliance Rate ........................................................................ 2

4.1.4

Interview Breakoffs ........................................................................... 3

4.1.5

Distressed Respondents ..................................................................... 3

4.2

Results by Facility ............................................................................. 4

4.3

Interview Length ............................................................................... 4

4.4

Respondent Debriefing Questions ........................................................ 6

4.5

Item Nonresponse/Missingness ........................................................... 7

4.6

Interviewer Debriefing Session ............................................................ 7

4.7

Project Staff Observations .................................................................. 9

iii

1

1

1

1

Attachment 20 – SPI Pilot Study Report
5.

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test
Discussion

5.1

Challenges ....................................................................................... 1

5.2

Recommendations ............................................................................. 1
5.2.1

Consent Process ............................................................................... 1

5.2.2

SSN Request .................................................................................... 2

5.2.3

Interview Length............................................................................... 2

References

R-1

Notes

N-1

Appendix
A: Pilot Study Instrument ..................................................................... A-Removed
B: Consent Forms ................................................................................ B-Removed
C: Interviewer Materials ....................................................................... C-Removed
D: Letters to Commissioners ................................................................. D-Removed

iv

1

Attachment 20 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Figures
Number
4-1.

Page
Number of Inmate Breakoff Cases that Started Each Module ................... 3

v

Attachment 20 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Tables
Number

Page

3-1.

Pilot Study Questionnaire Content by Section........................................ 1

3-2.

SPI Pilot Study Facility Data Collection Schedule ................................... 4

4-1.

Final Dispositions for All Sample Cases ................................................ 2

4-2.

Pilot Study Results by Facility ............................................................. 4

4-3.

Final Disposition of Sample Cases by Facility ........................................ 5

4-4.

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

4-5.

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

vi

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

1.
1.1

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Project Background

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

1.2

Objectives of the Pilot Study

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

1

Attachment 20 – SPI Pilot Study Report

1.3

Section 1 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Project Timeline

The following dates describe milestones and the duration of major tasks completed in the preparation and
fielding of the SPI Pilot Study project.
Pennsylvania DOC Approval Obtained
April 16, 2013
IRB Approval Obtained (RTI)

April 23, 2013

OMB Approval Obtained

May 13, 2013

Federal BOP Approval Obtained

June 3, 2013

Instrument Programming and Testing Completed

July, 2013

Interviewer Training Conducted

July 15–18, 2013

Data Collection Began

July 23, 2013

New York DOC Approval Obtained

August 12, 2013

Data Collection Ended

August 22, 2013

Interviewer Debriefing Conducted

August 26, 2013

2

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

2.
2.1

Section 2 — Introduction to the SPI Pilot Test

Sample Design

Selecting Facilities

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

2.2

Sampling Inmates within Facilities

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

1

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

3.
3.1

Section 4 — Results

Data Collection

Data Collection Instrument

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

Pilot Study Questionnaire Content by Section

Instrument Section

Section Description

Module 1

Demographics (DEMO)

Module 2

Criminal justice status and history; firearm acquisition and usage;
legal representation (CJ)

Module 3

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Module 4

Mental health conditions/treatment (MH)

Module 5

Physical health conditions/treatment; disabilities (PH)

Module 6

Alcohol use (AU)

Module 7

Drug use (DU)

Module 8

Drug and alcohol treatment (DAT)

Module 9

Social support from outside the facility (SS)

Module 10

Facility programs and services (P)

Module 11

Rule violations within the facility (RV)

Module 12

Interview closeout—request for inmate’s SSN, respondents and
interviewer debriefing questions (IC)

The survey instrument was designed for in-person interviewer administration using Computer Assisted Personal
Interviewing (CAPI) technology. FIs read the survey questions from the laptop computer screen and entered
the inmate’s responses directly into the computer. The pilot study data collection instrument was programmed
in the Blaise software environment. Blaise was chosen for its flexibility to handle complex question routing,
range checks, and calculations; its customizability; and its robust paradata recording capabilities, which
facilitated evaluation of the instrument’s performance. The instrument was programmed for interviewing in
English only.
The instrument was rigorously tested prior to data collection to ensure that its functionality complied with
questionnaire specifications. The Case Management System (CMS) and all systems involved in the
transmission, storage, and security of survey data also were tested prior to the start of data collection. Based on
this internal testing of the instrument by RTI staff prior to data collection, the questionnaire portion of the pilot
study interview was estimated to take approximately 80 minutes.
Weekly data collection afforded the opportunity for RTI to evaluate the instrument’s performance on an on-going
basis. FIs provided feedback relevant to improving the functionality of the instrument, which RTI used to
inform minor updates to the instrument. A total of three updates were made while the study was in the field.
These updates also afforded RTI the opportunity to check our procedures for transmitting updates to the FIs

1

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 3 — Data Collection

and ensuring that all staff received an update prior to beginning work at the next scheduled facility.

3.2

IRB Approvals

The submission to RTI’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was prepared by Ms. Rachel Caspar, RTI’s Project
Director for the pilot study. The IRB package was submitted on March 27, 2013, in advance of a meeting with
the IRB on April 8, 2013. Ms. Caspar incorporated enhancements to the consent forms and SSN request
process to meet the IRB’s requirements for gaining informed consent and protecting the rights of this
vulnerable population. Approval from RTI’s IRB was obtained on April 23, 2013.
BJS submitted requests for approval of the study to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Office of Research and
Evaluation and the Department of Corrections (DOC) IRBs in the states of New York and Pennsylvania.
Approval from the BOP was obtained on June 3, 2103. Approvals from the State DOCs were obtained on April
16, 2013, for Pennsylvania and August 12, 2013, for New York. Before providing approval, the New York
DOC required that additional text be added to the consent form to be used within the state’s facilities. These
additions included text to reiterate the fact that an inmate could refuse to participate or provide an SSN, also
prefacing that a request for an SSN would be made of inmates who participated in the interview. The other
change to the form was the inclusion of additional text under the confidentiality provision, indicating that
participants’ names would not be included in any research reports. These changes were approved by RTI’s IRB
on August 5, 2013. The New York provisions were not incorporated into the existing consent forms used in the
other facilities. Appendix B provides copies of the consent forms, which are described below:
 The version of the general consent form used in Pennsylvania and BOP facilities that
was kept by inmates who wanted a copy (Appendix B-1)


The version of the general consent form used in Pennsylvania and BOP facilities that
FIs read aloud (Appendix B-2)



The version of the consent form used in New York facilities (Appendix B-3)



A version of the New York consent form with text highlighting to indicate wording
that was added specifically for data collection in that state’s facilities (Appendix B-4).

3.3

Logistics

A Logistics Manager assigned to work with each facility in the SPI Pilot Study began logistics coordination in
May 2013, after receiving OMB approval for the pilot study. Each State DOC and the Federal BOP had a
different process in place that had to be followed before logistics planning could begin in the approved
facilities. In each facility, the logistics planning phase began with the Logistics Manager contacting the DOC or
BOP Research Liaison assigned to the pilot study. The Logistics Manager answered questions and obtained
information about background clearance requirements, facility rosters, and Facility Contacts. Once the Facility
Contacts were identified, the Logistics Manager worked with the contacts to coordinate logistics in advance of
data collection.
Both the BOP and the Pennsylvania DOC Research Liaison quickly provided the Logistics Manager with
permission to contact the Facility Contacts in each facility. Obtaining permission from the n New York DOC
involved a lengthier process, which is attributable to several factors, including the following:
 The New York commissioner left after giving approval for the pilot study; thus, RTI
needed to obtain approval from the new acting commissioner.


The New York DOC requested changes to the study consent form before providing
approval.

2

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report


Section 3 — Data Collection

The New York DOC needed time to decide whether or not they would allow survey
laptops into the facilities.

To address the time required to work through these details, RTI changed the dates for data collection in the two
New York correctional facilities to allow a few more weeks for planning. As a consequence of this change, FI
training and the start of data collection also were delayed. Once New York granted approval, the Logistics
Manager was given permission to contact each Facility Contact in New York.
After connecting with the Facility Contacts in each facility, the Logistics Manager held a planning call with each
Facility Contact to develop a Logistics Plan for their facility. This plan covered inmate information, room
availability, scheduling, mental health services for inmates, study supplies, entering the facility, and facility
contacts, policies, and requirements. Upon agreement with the Facility Contact of all details in the Logistics
Plan, the Logistics Manager emailed a final copy of the Logistics Plan to the Primary and Backup Facility
Contacts, as well as the Research Liaisons.
One week before data collection was scheduled to begin, the Logistics Manager sent an email reminder to all of
the Facility Contacts, Research Liaisons, and Roster Contacts. All of the Facility Contacts requested that RTI
send them a copy of the random inmate sample before data collection so they could prepare inmate passes and
call-out lists. These inmate samples were typically provided to the Facility Contacts 2 to 3 business days before
data collection was scheduled to begin at a facility.

3.4

Interviewer Training

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

Review of general interviewing techniques



Review of refusal avoidance techniques and answers to commonly asked questions



Handling of distressed respondents



Review of computer use and care



Review of the Case Management System (CMS)



Review of the consent process for the study



Question-by-question review of the survey instrument



Focused review of more complex procedures of the instrument and the CMS (e.g.,
generating a case, use of look-up tables for recording offenses, drug pronunciations)



Scripted practice interviews, completed by FIs individually (i.e., individual mock
interview exercises)



Paired-practice interviews, incorporating all steps of the interview process

3

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 3 — Data Collection



Review of documentation procedures for daily production, transmissions and email,
and team leader duties



Review of administrative procedures (e.g., expense reports, timesheets, travel
advances).

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

3.5

Interviewing

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

Facility

SPI Pilot Study Facility Data Collection Schedule
Dates of Data
Collection

Morning
Interview
Hours

Afternoon
Interview
Hours

Scheduled
Interview
Hours

Scheduled
Number of
# of Days Interviewers
in Facility
in Facility

Cambridge
Springs, PA DOC

July 23–July 25

8–10:45 AM

12:00–3:30 PM

6.25

3

8

Allenwood Low,
BOP

July 29–July 31

8 AM–12 PM

12:30–3:30 PM

7

3

8

Allenwood
Medium, BOP

Aug 1–Aug 2

8 AM–12 PM

12:30–3:30 PM

7

2

8

Albion, PA DOC

Aug 6–Aug 8

7:30 AM–12 PM

12:30–3:30 PM

7.25

3

7

Fishkill, NY DOC

Aug 13–Aug 15

8–11 AM

12:30–3:30 PM

6

3

8

Queensboro, NY
DOC

Aug 20–Aug 22

8:30–11 AM

12:30–3:30 PM

5.5

3

8

While the team was generally granted interview access during the hours agreed upon in the Logistics Plan, the
precise number of hours that interviews were actually conducted was less than the hours that had been
scheduled. The team made all efforts to interview productively through the entire scheduled time; for example,
if interviewing hours were scheduled to begin at 8:00 in the morning at a facility, the interviewing team would
arrive with enough time to gain entry to the facility and be set up to begin interviewing as early as 8:00.
However, actual interviewing hours did not always align with the predetermined times, sometimes resulting in
a reduced interviewing window. On any given day, unforeseen circumstances occurred at a facility that
influenced the arrival of inmates and the timely start of interviewing. For instance, a closed walkway at one
facility impeded the movement of inmates, while dense morning fog at another facility prohibited the visibility
necessary to move inmates from one building to another. A prisoner count needing to be repeated until the
number matches the facility’s records of the number of inmates currently housed is another example of
unforeseen circumstances that can delay the start of interviewing. There were also periods throughout the day

4

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 3 — Data Collection

when the team was unable to interview due to count times as well as the time it took to move inmates to the
interview locations between interviews. While none of the facilities permitted interviewing during the counts,
the BOP and Pennsylvania facilities were amenable to interviews occurring during inmate meal times, if
necessary, per cooperation of the inmate.
Despite any reductions to the planned interviewing hours, the team worked through all of the sample cases at
each facility; however, the team did not restart breakoff interviews (interviews that were stopped during the
interview process) and no refusal conversion efforts were undertaken. Using the current instrument and
procedures, the overall response from inmates would not have increased if there had been additional time
within facilities using the current instrument and procedures. This provides no guarantee that a 3-day data
collection period would have been sufficient with greater inmate participation, nor does it predict with certainty
whether 3 days will be sufficient for the 2016 SPI. The number of days needed for data collection will be
specific to individual facilities and will depend on a variety of factors, such as how many interviewers a facility
can accommodate and response rate, which is likely related to instrument length. To ensure a high response
during 2016 SPI data collection, plans will need to be established for extending data collection in facilities
where not all cases can be worked in 3 days.
Interviews began with a formal consent process, during which the FI explained the purposes, possible risks,
benefits, and confidentiality provisions associated with the survey request. The FI read the consent form aloud
to the inmate and documented the inmate’s consent after answering any questions the inmate had regarding the
pilot study. Inmates were informed that they could keep a copy of the consent form if they desired.
All pilot study interviews were completed in English; however, a Spanish version of the instrument is planned for
the 2016 SPI. While juvenile inmates as young as 12 years old were eligible respondents, no juveniles were
sampled for or interviewed during pilot study data collection. Although RTI had a plan for offering a small
incentive to respondents (cookies), none of the selected pilot facilities allowed us to provide the incentive;
therefore, we do not know with certainty what impact the incentive might have on response for the 2016 SPI.
We do know that when the same small incentive was offered during the NIS1, a 6.8% difference in response
was evident between facilities that permitted the incentive and those that did not.
FIs transmitted their completed cases daily during the data collection period. The transmission process uploaded
completed cases to the RTI server and automated any updates to the FI’s laptop, including new case
assignments and any programming updates to the instrument during data collection. The CMS employed for
the pilot study was modeled after the system used for the NIS. Although sufficient for purposes of the pilot
study, the CMS will be enhanced for the 2016 SPI to provide greater capability and ease of use.

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

5

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 4 — Results

4.

Results

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

4.1

Overall Results

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

4.1.1

Cooperation

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

4.1.2

Refusal

The overall refusal rate for the pilot study was 42% (REF3, AAPOR, 2011). A total of 174 inmates refused to
participate, either by not coming to the interviewing location (13) or by declining the study once they met with
the interviewer (161). Motives for refusal varied across inmates, but prominent reasons expressed by inmates
related to the estimated length of the interview, concerns over the confidentiality of their answers, there being
no direct individual benefit to the inmate for participation, and the shame some inmates felt regarding what
he/she had done to become incarcerated. Still others indicated that they did not want participate at the expense
(i.e., loss of pay) of doing their job in the facility. The refusal of another 23 inmates was initiated either
because the inmate was too violent (5) or for various other reasons (18).
The final disposition codes for all sample cases are provided in Table 4-1, below.

1

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report
Table 4-1.

Section 4 — Results

Final Dispositions for All Sample Cases
Disposition

Inmate left facility before data collection began

Frequency

Percent

8

1.7%

15

3.1%

Unavailable—inmate off grounds

1

0.2%

Facility refusal—violent inmate

5

1.0%

Facility refused inmate’s participation—other

18

3.8%

Inmate refused to come to interviewing room

13

2.7%

Inmate talked to FI and refused to participate

161

33.5%

Inmate left facility after data collection began

Mentally incompetent inmate
Language barrier
Breakoff—underage
Breakoff—facility initiated
Breakoff—inmate initiated
Completed interview
Case not worked
Total

4.1.3

3

0.6%

20

4.2%

2

0.4%

42

8.8%

16

3.3%

176

36.7%

0

0.0%

480

100.0%

SSN Compliance Rate

At the end of the interview, inmates were asked to provide their SSNs in order to obtain information on their use
of programs or benefits provided by the Social Security Administration. Requesting the SSN at the end of the
interview was important so as to not affect cooperation to participate in the survey per the survey request. Only
inmates who completed the full set of survey questions received the request for an SSN. The language for the
SSN request was modeled after other data collection efforts that have included similar requests, such as the
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) and the National Health Interview Survey.
Altogether 61.9% of prisoners who made it to the end of the questionnaire and were asked to provide their SSN,
(109/176) agreed to do so. Of those inmates who agreed to provide a SSN (109), 95% (104) were able to
provide one. Therefore the request for SSNs achieved an overall success rate of 59%, where 104 of the 176
inmates who received the request first agreed to and then actually provided an SSN. While only 11% (19/176)
of inmates directly declined the SSN request, an additional 27% (48/176) reported not having an SSN. The
proportion of those 48 cases who truly did not have a SSN is unknown. Some cases may be an implicit refusal,
where the inmate indicated they did not have a SSN as a way of refusing to provide one, while some may be
prisoners who are unaware of having one, and still others could be prisoners who really do not have a SSN
(e.g., that are not a legal resident). Excluding those who do not actually have a SSN or those who may have
been unaware of having a SSN from the denominator in the calculation of the SSN compliance rate would
increase this rate, yet still produce the same total number of SSNs collected in the interview.
The sensitivity to providing highly identifiable information is now greater than when SVORI was fielded, which
likely accounts for a portion of the greater SSN compliance rate seen in that data collection effort when

2

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 4 — Results

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

4.1.4

Interview Breakoffs

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

4.1.5

Number of Inmate Breakoff Cases that Started Each Module

Distressed Respondents

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

3

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 4 — Results

of the interview. As noted in Section 3.4, interviewers were trained in procedures for handling these situations.
In addition, the consent form explicitly stated that if an inmate became upset, he/she could ask the interviewer
for instructions for contacting a mental health counselor at the prison. Both the distressed respondent protocol
and the text in the consent form were modeled after procedures developed and refined over the three rounds of
data collection for the NIS. The questionnaire content for the SPI Pilot Study is less sensitive than that of the
NIS, as the NIS includes detailed questions on sexual victimization.
There were no instances of respondents becoming distressed during the interview and no inmate requests for
mental health counseling. In fact, interviewers and observers both reported that inmates indicated that the
content of the interview was fairly routine, similar in many ways to questions asked during intake interviews,
meetings with social workers, or discussions with parole boards.
As a result of these findings, we have initiated discussions with RTI’s IRB to find out whether the consent form
can be shortened by removing some text describing access to mental health counseling, as these references may
be unnecessary (see further discussion of this in Section 5.2, below). We will, however, maintain the distressed
respondent protocol for the 2016 SPI so that FIs are aware of the protocol and prepared to handle this situation
should it occur.

4.2

Results by Facility

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

Pilot Study Results by Facility

Facility

Cooperation Rate

Refusal Rate

SSN Success Rate

Allenwood, Low

44.6%

51.3%

46.4%

Allenwood, Med

41.1%

53.8%

65.0%

76.9%

22.8%

69.8%

Albion

61.8%

37.1%

69.0%

Fishkill

58.1%

39.7%

42.9%

Queensborob

39.7%

47.3%

38.1%

Cambridge

Springsa

a

Women’s correctional facility

b

Community correctional facility

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

4.3

Interview Length

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

4

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report
Table 4-3.

Section 4 — Results

Final Disposition of Sample Cases by Facility
Number by Facility

Outcome Code

Allenwood
Medium

Cambridge
Springs

Albion

Fishkill

Queensboro

Inmate left facility before
data collection

—

1

1

2

—

5

Inmate left facility after data
collection began

—

—

—

1

1

12

Unavailable—inmate off
grounds

—

—

1

—

—

—

Facility refusal—violent
inmate

—

4

—

1

—

—

Facility refused for inmate—
other

2

6

1

1

8

—

Inmate refused to come to
interviewing room

1

—

—

10

—

2

Inmate talked to FI and
refused to participate

38

33

17

17

23

33

Mentally incompetent
inmate

—

—

—

—

2

1

6

6

—

1

3

4

—

1

—

—

—

1

Breakoff by facility

3

6

11

17

4

1

Breakoff by inmate

2

3

6

1

4

—

Completed Interview

28

20

43

29

35

21

Case not worked

—

—

—

—

—

—

80

80

80

80

80

80

Language barrier
Breakoff—underagea

Total
a

Allenwood
Low

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

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

5

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report
Table 4-4.

Interview Length by Instrument Module (Completed Interviews)
Mean
Length
(Minutes)

Maximum
Length
(Minutes)

Minimum
Length
(Minutes)

2.2

7.5

1.1

Module 2—Criminal Justice

20.4

38.8

7.3

Module 3—SES

13.8

29.0

6.4

Module 4—Mental Health

9.8

22.5

3.4

Module 5—Physical Health

6.0

15.6

3.1

Module 6—Alcohol Use

3.7

8.5

0.1

Module 7—Drug Use

7.0

18.7

0.3

Module 8—Drug and Alcohol Treatment

1.6

7.8

0.0

Module 9—Social Support

3.4

13.2

0.1

Module 10—Programs

6.4

16.8

1.6

Module 11—Rule Violations

2.4

10.9

0.3

Module 12—SSN Consent/Close-out items/
debriefing items

3.2

12.1

0.7

82.6

147.8

51.4

Instrument Module
Module 1—Demographics

Totala
a

Section 4 — Results

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

Table 4-5.

Pilot Study Consent Process Duration (Estimated) by Consent Form
Consent Form

Estimated Consent Process Duration

General Consent Form

5.0 minutes

NY State Form (not juvenile)

5.2 minutes

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

4.4

Respondent Debriefing Questions

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

6

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

4.5

Section 4 — Results

Item Nonresponse/Missingness

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

4.6

Interviewer Debriefing Session

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

Consent form wording and mechanics



Reasons for inmates’ refusals and successful techniques utilized for refusal avoidance



Suggested improvements to the CMS



Interview content, mechanics, and confusing questions



The process of obtaining inmates’ SSNs



Paperwork, supervisor tasks, and training



Any other observations and suggestions for improving efficiency.

The key observations and suggestions by interviewing staff for improving response and operational efficiency are

7

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 4 — Results

described by theme below.
Handling the Flow of Inmates
 Staff suggested that the study consider utilizing an evening interviewing session to
interview those inmates who are unavailable during typical daytime hours.


Staff mentioned that updating the callout process where possible to call out
exclusively by housing unit may increase the efficiency of getting inmates to the data
collection locations. Although rosters are sent by housing unit, we cannot control
whether a facility will call out by housing unit.



As some inmates wanted to return to complete the interview after having to leave
(for count, lunch, etc.), staff suggested that the study consider allowing the restart of
breakoff interviews

Managing the Consent Process
 The consent forms took several minutes to read and participation may increase if
forms were shorter and more compelling to the inmate.


The consent form used in New York State facilities (the NY IRB required some
changes) seemed to increase inmates’ concerns over privacy so strengthening the
statement about protection of confidentiality and simplifying its language, where
possible, may enhance cooperation.

Gaining Cooperation
 The instrument length was a key factor in an inmate’s decision to participate in the
SPI Pilot Study, as many inmates refused when they heard that the interview would
take 80 minutes.


Interviewers experienced some success in gaining cooperation by asking the inmate
to simply start the interview, keeping in mind that they could stop at any point.

Requesting Social Security Numbers
 While the interviewers were surprised at the number of inmates who agreed to
provide an SSN, there were common themes expressed by inmates who refused,
including concerns about identity theft, wanting to know who looked at the data, and
not trusting that it would not get back to the facility. Some inmates suggested that
the project just look up the SSN (assuming that it was information that the facility
could provide), which speaks to the need to consider alternatives to obtain SSNs and
whether it is necessary to make this request directly of the inmate. (See further
discussion of this in Section 5.2 below.)
Using the Case Management System
 Overall, FIs felt that the CMS was functional for the needs of the study, and they
were comfortable using it. They offered a suggestion to streamline the process of
generating a case during 2016 SPI to expedite the start of an interview, if possible.
Questionnaire Feedback
 FIs reiterated that the length of the instrument was a factor in gaining a completed
interview.

8

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Section 4 — Results



FIs suggested enhancing the training for determining which offense is most serious
when the interviewer must make this decision.



FIs found that respondents were sometimes confused by being asked about dates
associated with arrest, conviction, and incarceration in prison and suggested making
these questions clearer.



FIs felt the on-screen instructions (i.e., interviewer notes that provided additional
information to the interviewer regarding how to code a response) were useful and
may benefit from additional questions where they were not available.

4.7

Project Staff Observations

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

9

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

References

5.
5.1

Discussion

Challenges

The two most prominent challenges that had a direct impact on response to the pilot study and the number of
completed cases were the consent process and the interview length. Reading through the consent form with the
inmate was a lengthy process (average of nearly 5 minutes) It was reported by FIs that the form used for New
York State facilities increased inmates’ concerns over privacy and may have deterred cooperation in those
facilities.
The interview length was the most serious challenge to gaining response. Many inmates refused to participate in
the study after hearing how long the interview was expected to take (80 minutes). The study results
demonstrate the impact of interview length on inmate-initiated breakoffs and noncompliance with the request
to participate, as well as facility-initiated breakoffs due to scheduling parameters within the facility. Many
inmates were unable to finish the interview due to counts and other scheduling considerations that required
them to be elsewhere in the facility. The high rate of breakoff interviews, 12.1% of the total sample, would
likely be reduced by shortening the interview. As a comparison example, the NIS—Year 3 took approximately
35 minutes to complete and had a breakoff rate of just 0.76% (0.7% facility-initiated breakoffs, and 0.06%
inmate-initiated breakoffs).3
The instrument length had implications both for the amount of time an interview took as well as the amount of
time inmates would wait to begin an interview when brought to the interviewing location because interviews
ahead of theirs had to be completed. The calculated average interview length of 83 minutes was in excess of
what may work well in a prison environment, where inmates have limited free time and the facility has limited
flexibility with regard to how much time it can allow inmates to be in the interviewing location.
The other notable challenge was gaining inmates’ cooperation with the request for SSNs. Although only 11
percent of inmates directly refused to provide a SSN, another 27% indicated they either did not know their
SSSSN or did not have one. The SSN compliance rate for the pilot study was therefore considerably less than
what was achieved during SVORI data collection.

5.2
5.2.1

Recommendations
Consent Process

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

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

1

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report
5.2.2

Section 5 — Discussion

SSN Request

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

5.2.3

Interview Length

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

2

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

References

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

R-1

Attachment 21 – SPI Pilot Study Report

Notes

NOTES

(1) The cooperation rate was calculated according to AAPOR COOP4.
(I + P)
COOP4 =
(I + P) + R
(2) The refusal rate was calculated according to AAPOR REF3.
R
REF3 =
(I+ P) + (R + NC + O)
COOP= Cooperation rate
REF = Refusal rate
I = Complete interview
P = Partial interview
R = Refusal and break-off
NC = Non-contact
O = Other

D-1