CLETA Attachments

2018 CLETA All OMB Attachments 10192018.pdf

2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies

CLETA Attachments

OMB: 1121-0255

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1121-0255 can be found here:

2023-02-09 - Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

2018 CLETA OMB Attachments
Attachment 1: 2018 CLETA draft paper questionnaire
Attachment 2: 2018 CLETA web screen shots
Attachment 3: 60-day notice
Attachment 4: 30-day notice
Attachment 5: Pre-notification letter
Attachment 6: Survey invitation letter (mail)
Attachment 7: 2018 CLETA flyer
Attachment 8: IADLEST letter of support
Attachment 9: Survey invitation letter (email)
Attachment 10: First reminder (mail)
Attachment 11: Second reminder (email)
Attachment 12: Third reminder (email)
Attachment 13: Fourth reminder (mail)
Attachment 14: Telephone Data Quality Follow Up script
Attachment 15: Telephone Non Response Follow Up script
Attachment 16: Fifth reminder (mail)
Attachment 17: Fifth reminder (email)
Attachment 18: End-of-study reminder (mail)
Attachment 19: Thank you letter (mail)
Attachment 20: Cognitive Interview Report

Attachment 1: 2018 CLETA draft paper questionnaire
OMB No. 1121-0255: Approval Expires 09/30/2016

Form CJ-52

2018 CENSUS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING ACADEMIES (CLETA)
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Acting as collection agent: RTI International

Please use this form to provide information on behalf of the following academy:
<>
If the academy name printed above is incorrect, please call us at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Submit this form using one of the following four methods:
• Online: https://bjslecs.org/CLETA2018

•

E-mail: cleta@rti.org



Agency ID: <>

•

Fax: 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx (toll-free)



Password: <>

•

Mail: Use the enclosed postage-paid envelope

If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact [name] at RTI International at (XXX) XXXXXXX or cleta@rti.org. If you have general project-related questions, please contact Shelley Hyland of BJS
at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING PAPER SURVEY
Please do not leave any items blank.
• If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided. When exact
numeric answers are not available, please provide estimates.
• Use blue or black ink and print as neatly as possible.
• Use an X when marking an answer in a box.

INDICATE WHO COMPLETED THIS SURVEY
Name:
Last Name

First Name

Title:
Phone:

–

Fax:

–

Extension:

E-mail:

Burden Statement
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average two hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any
other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20531. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (34 U.S.C. § 10132), authorizes this information collection. Although this
survey is voluntary, we urgently need and appreciate your cooperation to make the results comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

GENERAL ACADEMY INFORMATION
1. Which one of the following options best
describes the entity responsible for
operating your training academy in
2018? Select only one response.
State Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST) (or equivalent state
authority)
State police/highway patrol agency
City/municipal police department
Sheriff’s office/department
County police department
Academy affiliated with a 4-year
college/university
Academy affiliated with a 2-year
college/community college
Technical school
Other (please specify):

b. Bachelor’s Degree
6. In 2018, was college credit awarded for
your academy’s BASIC training?
Yes, college credit was awarded
automatically
Yes, college credit was awarded
under certain circumstances (i.e.,
student-initiated)
No

In 2018, did your academy provide
any BASIC training?
Skip the rest of the survey
and submit it using the
instructions on the survey
cover sheet

3. In 2018, was your academy state- or
POST-certified/approved?
Yes
No

Yes
No
5. In 2018, were the following degrees
offered through your academy?
Yes
a. Associate’s Degree

2. For purposes of this survey, “Basic
Law Enforcement” (BASIC) training is
defined as the mandatory training for
newly appointed or elected law
enforcement officers as required by
federal or state statute, rule, or
regulation, depending upon the
jurisdiction of the agency hiring the
new officer.

Yes
No

4. In 2018, was your academy accredited
by the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA)?

7. In 2018, in addition to BASIC training,
did your academy offer the following
types of training? Include only trainings
conducted or provided by your academy.
Yes No
a. In-service training for active
duty, certified officers
b. Specialized training (e.g.,
SWAT, K-9, marine, etc.)
c. First-line or higher
supervisor training
d. Field training instructors
(FTO) / Police Training
Officers (PTO)
e. Lateral training for officers
hired from other agencies
f. Pre-service training
(Training prior to the
enrollment in a BASIC
training class)
g. Night class, extended
format, or modular format
h. Reserve officer course

Page 2 of 14

8. In 2018, did your academy provide BASIC training for the following positions?
Yes

a. Local police officer (city/county)
b. Sheriff's deputy (law enforcement)
c. University/college campus police officer
d. Corrections officer
e. Park ranger/officer
f. School resource officer
g. State police/highway patrol officer
h. Auxiliary officer
i. Pre-service/self-sponsored
j. Natural resources officer
k. Arson investigator or fire marshal
l. Constable
m.Transportation police officer
n. Tribal police officer
o. Marshal
9. In 2018, how many of the following types of law enforcement agencies sent recruits to
your academy’s BASIC training? Do not include self-sponsored candidates (candidates who
are not affiliated with or sponsored by an agency).
If your academy served only self-sponsored candidates, check here:

Go to Question 10
Number of
Agencies

a. Local police department (e.g., municipal, county, regional)
b. Sheriff’s office/department
c. State police/highway patrol agency
d. Special Jurisdiction
Examples: Public buildings/facilities (e.g., university, campus), Natural
resources (e.g., fish and wildlife, parks), Transportation (e.g., airports,
railroads, harbor), Criminal investigations (e.g., state/county/city
investigations, fraud), Special enforcement (e.g., alcohol, narcotics)
e. Total Number of agencies served in 2018 (Sum of rows a through d)
Page 3 of 14

10. Enter the length of your core BASIC training program as of December 31, 2018 and mark
the appropriate unit of time. Do not include any formal field training program, details outside
your core program, or any breaks from scheduled BASIC training.
Length of BASIC training:

Hours
Weeks
Months
Semesters
Other increment (please specify):

11. In 2018, was field training mandatory for recruits following completion of your academy’s
BASIC training?
Yes, it was mandatory for all recruits
Yes, it was mandatory for some recruits (field training was agency-specific)
No
12. Did your academy oversee the field training component?
Yes
No

Go to Question 14

13. Enter the length of your core field training program as of December 31, 2018 and mark the
appropriate unit of time.
Length of field training
segment in recruit
training program:

Hours
Weeks
Months
Semesters
Other increment (please specify):

14. In 2018, did your academy provide any training or orientation for the families of recruits in
BASIC training, such as preparing family members for lifestyle changes they may
encounter when the recruit begins work as a law enforcement officer?
Yes
No

Go to Question 16

15. In 2018, were recruits typically present during this training or orientation for family
members?
Yes
No
Page 4 of 14

BASIC TRAINING PERSONNEL
16. For BASIC recruit academy class(es) that ended in 2018, how many of the total number
of personnel serving as trainers or instructors worked full-time or part-time in each
category shown below? Full-time employees are those regularly scheduled for 35 hours or
more per week. Please report each trainer or instructor only once.
Number of full- Number of parttime trainers or time trainers or
instructors
instructors
a. Sworn officers employed by, or permanently assigned

to, the academy

b. On-duty sworn officers temporarily assigned to the
academy
c. Off-duty sworn officers compensated to teach
d. Retired sworn officers
e. Civilians employed by, or permanently assigned to,
the academy
f. Civilians temporarily assigned to the academy
g. Total number of trainers or instructors (Sum
of Rows a through f)
17. In 2018, what was the minimum education requirement for your academy’s full-time
trainers or instructors?
Graduate degree required
Four-year college degree required
Two-year college degree required
Some college but no degree required
High school diploma or equivalent required
Not applicable—there was no formal education requirement for our academy trainers or
instructors
18. In 2018, what was the minimum number of years of law enforcement experience
required for your academy’s full-time trainers or instructors? If there was no minimum
requirement, enter 0.
years

Page 5 of 14

19. In 2018, were the following certifications required for your academy’s full-time trainers
or instructors?
Yes
No
a. State- or POST-certification
b. Academy certification
c. Qualified subject matter expert
d. Other certification requirement (please specify):

20. In 2018, were the following used to evaluate the performance of your academy’s trainers
or instructors?
Yes
No
a. State- or POST-certification
b. Supervisory evaluations
c. Peer evaluations (i.e., evaluated by other
instructors)
d. Student feedback/evaluations
21. In 2018, did your academy provide ongoing or refresher training for your trainers or
instructors?
Yes
No

Go to Question 23

22. Were the following used to develop the content of your academy’s 2018 training
sessions for your trainers or instructors?
Yes
No
a. Job task analysis or needs analysis
b. State- or POST-commission
c. Subject matter expert
d. Law enforcement advisory board
e. Academy staff input

Page 6 of 14

ACADEMY RESOURCES
23. In 2018, which of the following resources did BASIC training recruits have access to?
If recruits did not have access to a resource, select only the box in the far-right column.
Recruits in BASIC training had
access to the resource and the
resource was…
Operated by
Operated by
your
another entity/
academy
organization

Resource
A. Educational
1.

Computer lab

Electronic tablet/iPad

Internet/on-line classes

Media lab/video production facility

Mobile data terminals

6.
7.

Resource center/library
Subscription to web- or online-based
training content (e.g., LETN, PoliceOne
Academy, In the Line of Duty)
Video conferencing classes

B. Weapons/Self-Defense
1. Defensive tactics room
2. Firearms training simulators
3. Indoor firearms range
4. Outdoor firearms range
5. Scenario training facility
C. Physical Fitness/Agility
1.
2.
3.

Fitness facilities (e.g., gym, weight room)
Obstacle course
Swimming pool

D. Driving-Related
1. Driving simulator
2. Vehicle operation range/driving track
E. Living Arrangements
1. Dormitory/residential facilities

Page 7 of 14

Recruits
in BASIC
training
did not
have
access

24. Enter your academy’s total operating budget for the fiscal year that included June 30,
2018. Exclude recruit salaries and purchases of equipment (e.g., cars, computers with a life
expectancy of five or more years). If the budget is not available, provide an estimate and check
the box.
$

If amount is estimate, check here.

25. Enter your academy’s total budget for equipment (e.g., purchase of cars, radios,
computers, etc., with a life expectancy of five years or more) for the fiscal year that
included June 30, 2018. If the budget is not available, provide an estimate and check the box.
$

If amount is estimate, check here.

BASIC ACADEMY TRAINEES
26. For the BASIC recruit academy class(es) that ended in 2018, please indicate the total
number of recruits who started BASIC training, and the total number who completed it,
by sex.
Number of recruits who Number of recruits who
STARTED training
COMPLETED training
a. Male
,
,
b. Female

c. Total for classes ending in 2018
(Sum of Rows a and b)

27. For the BASIC recruit academy class(es) that ended in 2018, please indicate the total
number of recruits who started BASIC training, and the total number who completed it,
by race and ethnicity.
Number of recruits who Number of recruits who
STARTED training
COMPLETED training
a. White, non-Hispanic

b. Black or African American, nonHispanic

c. Hispanic or Latino

d. American Indian or Alaska
Native, non-Hispanic

e. Asian, non-Hispanic

f. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander, non-Hispanic

g. Two or more races

h. Not known

Total for classes ending in 2018
(Sum of Rows a through h)

Page 8 of 14

28. For those recruits who did not complete BASIC training in the classes that ended in
2018, please provide the number of recruits by each primary reason for non-completion
by sex. Please respond to this question using only numbers; report unknowns within row ‘k’.
Count each recruit only once, even if there were multiple reasons for dismissal.
If all recruits completed BASIC training in
the classes that ended in 2018, check here:

Go to Question 29
Male

Female

a. Injury/illness

b. Failure to qualify – firearms

c. Failure to qualify – driving

d. Failure to qualify – other

e. Inability to meet physical standards

f. Academic

g. Disciplinary

h. Voluntary

j. Other reason for non-completion

k. Don’t know / no information available

Withdrawn by sponsoring agency

Total for classes ending in 2018 (Sum
of rows a through k)

29. In 2018, did your academy have a set of formal rules concerning BASIC recruit behavior
(e.g., disciplinary code, code of conduct)?
Yes
No

Go to Question 31

30. Were the following actions taken in response to violations in 2018?
Yes
No
a. Loss of privileges
b. “Extra duty” tasks (e.g., writing assignments)
c. Motivational physical training
d. Lowering of specific course grades
e. Verbal reprimand
f. Written reprimand
g. Counseling
h. Demerits
i. Probation/suspension
j. Termination/dismissal/expulsion
Page 9 of 14

BASIC CORE CURRICULUM
31. The training environment of academies can be described as using a stress model (i.e.,
military or paramilitary style), a non-stress model (i.e., academic or adult learning), or a
combination of the two models. Which of the following best describes the training
environment of your academy’s 2018 BASIC training program?
All or mostly stress model
More stress than non-stress model
Equal balance of stress and non-stress model
More non-stress than stress model
All or mostly non-stress model
32. Indicate whether your academy’s BASIC training program provided instruction on the
following topics in 2018. If yes, provide the approximate number of hours of instruction
required in your 2018 BASIC training program. We understand that these categories may
not reflect your course titles and the list is not comprehensive. Please give your best
estimates, even if a topic was integrated throughout the curriculum. If estimating, please check
the box in the far-right column for that particular topic.
If Yes, enter
If number of
number of hours hours is an
of BASIC training
estimate,
instruction
check this
2018 BASIC training subject area
Yes
No required on topic
column
A. Operations
1.

Basic first-aid/CPR

hours

Computers/information systems

hours

Emergency vehicle operations

hours

Investigations

hours

Patrol procedures/techniques

hours

Report writing

hours

Evidence processing and storage

hours

Traffic accident investigations

hours

Radar/lidar

hours

10. Intelligence gathering and analysis

hours

11. Interrogation/interviewing

hours

B. Weapons/Defensive Tactics
1.

Defensive tactics

hours

De-escalation/verbal judo

hours

Firearms skills

hours

Nonlethal weapons

hours
Page 10 of 14

32. (continued) Indicate whether your academy’s BASIC training program provided
instruction of the following topics in 2018. If yes, provide the approximate number of
hours of instruction required in your 2018 BASIC training program.

2018 BASIC training subject area

Yes

If Yes, enter
number of hours
of BASIC training
instruction
required on topic

C. Legal
1.

Criminal/constitutional law

hours

Juvenile justice law and procedures

hours

Traffic law

hours

D. Community Policing
1. Community partnership
building/collaboration

hours

Cultural diversity/human relations

hours

Mediation/conflict management

hours

4.
5.

Problem-solving approaches
Applying research methods to study
crime and disorder
Using crime mapping to analyze
community problems

hours

hours
hours

E. Self-Improvement
1.

Basic foreign language

hours

Communications

hours

Ethics and integrity

hours

Health and fitness

hours

Professionalism

hours

Stress prevention/management

hours

F. Special Topics
1.

Opioids

hours

Clandestine drug labs

hours

Crimes against children

hours

Cyber/internet crimes

hours
Page 11 of 14

If number of
hours is an
estimate,
check this
column

2018 BASIC training subject area

Yes

If Yes, enter number
If number of
of hours of BASIC
hours is an
training instruction estimate, check
required on topic
this column

F. Special Topics (continued)
5.

Emergency management

hours

Terrorism

hours

Domestic violence

hours

Elder abuse

hours

Gangs

hours

10. Hate crimes/bias crimes

hours

11. Human trafficking

hours

12. Mental illness

hours

13. Sexual assault

hours

14. Sexual harassment

hours

15. Victim response

hours

16. Response to an active shooter

hours

17. DUI/Sobriety

hours

33. In 2018, did your academy use reality-based (mock) scenarios for the following topics
during BASIC training?
Yes
No
a. Firearms
b. Self-defense
c. Non-lethal weapons
d. Threat assessment
e. Non-lethal live fire (e.g., simunitions, paintballs)
f. Verbal tactics
g. Arrest control tactics
h. Use of force continuum / Situational use of force
Page 12 of 14

34. In 2018, did your academy include the following types of weapons training in your
BASIC academy?
Yes

a. Revolver
b. Semi-automatic pistol
c. Shotgun (any type)
d. Manual rifle
e. Semi-automatic rifle (e.g., AR-15)
f. Fully-automatic rifle (e.g., M-16, AK-47, MP5)
g. Knife/edged weapon
h. Baton
i.

Flashlight

j. OC spray/foam
k. Chemical agent projectile (e.g., CS/tear gas, OC pellets)
l.

Blunt force projectile (e.g., bean bag, rubber bullets)

m. Conducted Energy Device (e.g., Taser, stun gun, Stinger)
n. Explosives
o. Other (please specify):

35. In 2018, did your academy include the following in your BASIC firearms or related
training?
Yes
No
a. Night-time or reduced light conditions
b. Firearms training simulators
c. Simulated stressful conditions
d. Training with off-duty weapons
e. Non-lethal live fire (e.g., simunitions, paintball)

Page 13 of 14

36. In 2018, did your academy include the following techniques in your BASIC
control/defensive tactics instruction for use in the field?
Yes
No
a. Weapon retention
b. Knife and edged weapon defense
c. Open hand techniques
d. Closed hand techniques
e. Takedown techniques (e.g., straight arm bar)
f. Hold or neck restraint (e.g., carotid hold)
g. Leg hobble or other restraints (not including handcuffs)
h. Full body restraints
i.

Pressure-point control

j. Verbal command presence
k. Speed cuffing
l.

Other (please specify):

37. In 2018, did your academy’s BASIC training program provide any instruction on how to
identify or respond to excessive force used by other officers?
Yes
No

Thank You!
Thank you for participating in this survey.
Please retain a copy for your records as project staff may call to clarify responses.
Please mail your completed questionnaire to the address noted below, or fax it to (xxx) xxx-xxxx.
RTI
RTIInternational
International
ATTN:
ATTN:Data
DataCapture
Capture
(PROJECT
(PROJECTNUMBER)
NUMBER)
5265
5265Capital
CapitalBlvd.
Blvd.
Raleigh,
Raleigh,NC
NC27616-2925
27616-2925

Page 14 of 14

Attachment 2: 2018 CLETA web screen shots

Attachment 3: 60-day notice
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Notices
Dated: July 12, 2018.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018–15664 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0255]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested; Reinstatement,
With Change, of a Previously
Approved Collection for Which
Approval Has Expired: 2018 Census of
Law Enforcement Training Academies
(CLETA)
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
September 21, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Anthony S. Whyde, Statistician, Law
Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Anthony.Whyde@usdoj.gov; phone:
202–307–0711).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Jul 20, 2018

Jkt 244001

information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for
which approval has expired: 2018
Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA). The 2018 CLETA
will focus on the same topics as the
2013 collection: The number and type of
law enforcement agencies served by
academies, the academies’ accreditation
status, oversight responsibilities related
to field training, reasons for recruits
failing to complete their training
program, and subject areas covered in
the training program curricula. While
there will be no content changes, BJS
will modify the format and design of
several survey items to improve
measurement and remove questions
from the 2013 survey that covered
topics that may no longer be relevant.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2018 Census of Law Enforcement
Training Academies (CLETA).
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number is CJ–52. The
applicable component within the
Department of Justice is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: This information collection is
a census of regional, state, and local law
enforcement training academies that
operated a basic training program in
2018. The 2018 survey builds upon the
previous three iterations of the CLETA
data collection referencing 2013, 2006,
and 2002. BJS plans to field the 2018
CLETA from January through August
2019. The information will provide
national statistics on staff, recruits/
trainees, curricula, facilities, and
policies of law enforcement training
academies.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: A projected 700 respondents
will take an average of 2 hours each to
complete form CJ–52, including time to
research or find information not readily

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

34881

available. In addition, an estimated 360
of the respondents will be contacted for
data quality follow-up by phone at 10
minutes per call.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 1,460
total burden hours associated with this
information collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: July 18, 2018
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2018–15723 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA).
AGENCY:

Announcement Type: New
Funding Opportunity Number: FOA
BS–2018–1
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 17.603

The U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL), Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), is making up
to $250,000 available in grant funds for
education and training programs to help
identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe
working conditions in and around
mines. The focus of these grants for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 will be training
and training materials on powered
haulage safety, examinations of working
places at metal and nonmetal mines, or
mine emergency prevention and
preparedness. Applicants for the grants
may be States and Territories (to include
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands) and private or public
nonprofit entities, to include Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska
Native entities, Indian-controlled
organizations serving Indians, and
Native Hawaiian organizations. MSHA
could award as many as 5 grants. The
amount of each individual grant will be

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM

23JYN1

Attachment 4: 30-day notice
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Rachel Morgan, Statistician, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
rachel.morgan@usdoj.gov; telephone:
202–616–1707).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a currently approved
collection.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2019 School Crime Supplement to the
National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS).
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number for the questionnaire
is SCS–1. The applicable component
within the Department of Justice is the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office
of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: The survey will be
administered to persons ages 12 to 18 in
NCVS sampled households in the
United States from January through June
2019. The SCS collects, analyzes,
publishes, and disseminates statistics on
the students’ victimization, perceptions
of school environment, and safety at
school.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 18, 2018

Jkt 247001

(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An estimate of the total
number of respondents is 8,567 persons
ages 12 to 18. Of the 8,567 SCS
respondents, 86% or 7,402 are expected
to complete the long SCS interview
(entire SCS questionnaire) which will
take an estimated 16 minutes (0.27
hours) to complete. The remaining 14%
or 1,165 SCS respondents are expected
to complete the short interview (i.e. will
be screened out for not being in school),
which will take an estimated 2.5
minutes (0.04 hours) to complete.
Respondents will be asked to respond to
this survey only once during the six
month period. The burden estimates are
based on data from the prior
administration of the SCS.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 2,046
annual burden hours associated with
this collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N street NE, 3E.405B,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: October 16, 2018
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2018–22804 Filed 10–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–0255]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested;
Reinstatement, With Change, of a
Previously Approved Collection: 2018
Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA)
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Office of Justice Programs, Department
of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

53109

was previously published in the Federal
Register on Monday, July 23, 2018,
allowing a 60-day comment period.
Following publication of the 60-day
notice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
received one communication containing
general comments on the importance of
the collection.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
November 19, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Anthony S. Whyde, Statistician, Law
Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Anthony.Whyde@usdoj.gov; phone:
202–307–0711).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved collection for
which approval has expired.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2018 Census of Law Enforcement
Training Academies (CLETA).
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the

E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM

19OCN1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

53110

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2018 / Notices

Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number is CJ–52. The
applicable component within the
Department of Justice that is sponsoring
this collection is the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: This information collection is
a census of regional, state, and local law
enforcement training academies that
operated a basic training program in
2018. The 2018 survey builds upon the
previous three iterations of the CLETA
data collection referencing 2013, 2006,
and 2002. BJS plans to field the 2018
CLETA from January through August
2019. The information will provide
national statistics on staff, recruits/
trainees, curricula, facilities, and
policies of law enforcement training
academies.
Abstract: The 2018 CLETA will focus
on the same topics as the 2013
collection: the number and type of law
enforcement agencies served by
academies, the academies’ accreditation
status, oversight responsibilities related
to field training, reasons for recruits
failing to complete their training
program, and subject areas covered in
the training program curricula. While
there will be no content changes, BJS
will modify the format and design of
several survey items to improve
measurement and remove questions
from the 2013 survey that covered
topics that may no longer be relevant.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: A projected 950 respondents
will take an average of 2 hours each to
complete form CJ–52, including time to
research or find information not readily
available. In addition, an estimated 570
of the respondents will be contacted for
data quality follow-up by phone at 10
minutes per call.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 1,995
total burden hours associated with this
information collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: October 16, 2018.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2018–22803 Filed 10–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:25 Oct 18, 2018

Jkt 247001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB Number 1121–NEW]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection;
eComments Requested; New
Collection: Survey of State Attorneys
General Offices (SSAGO): Human
Trafficking
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Office of Justice Programs, Department
of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:

Department of Justice (DOJ),
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, will be submitting the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed
information collection was previously
published in the Federal Register on
August 6, 2018, allowing for a 60 day
comment period. Six comments from
the public were received during this
period and are thoroughly addressed in
the supporting statement for this
collection. Briefly, three comments
stated support for the survey and three
comments requested more information
but did not provide any follow-up
comments.

SUMMARY:

Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for an additional 30
day until November 19, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Suzanne M. Strong, Statistician, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Suzanne.M.Strong@usdoj.gov;
telephone: 202–616–3666). Written
comments and/or suggestions can also
be sent to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention
Department of Justice Desk Officer,
Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_
submissions@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
DATES:

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
New collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Survey of State Attorneys General
Offices (SSAGO)—Human Trafficking.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number for the questionnaire
is SSAGO–2. The applicable component
within the Department of Justice is the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the Office
of Justice Programs.
Affected public who will be asked or
required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Respondents will be state
attorneys general or deputy attorneys
within the state and territory attorneys
general offices who work on human
trafficking matters. The SSAGO:HT will
be conducted for a three (3) month
period. The survey collects data on the
staffing of state attorneys general offices,
including the total number of deputy
attorneys general and access to support
staff. The survey also collects
information on the types and numbers
of human trafficking matters referred to
the state attorneys general offices, the
sources of the referrals of human
trafficking matters, the estimates of
labor and sex trafficking cases, the types
of victims in labor and sex trafficking
cases, the types of offenders of labor and
sex trafficking cases, the manner in
which criminal and civil human
trafficking cases were closed in court,
and state attorneys general offices’
participation in state and federal human
trafficking task forces. BJS plans to
publish this information in reports and
reference it when responding to queries
from the U.S. Congress, Executive Office

E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM

19OCN1

Attachment 5: Pre-notification letter

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«Agency Name»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
I am pleased to announce that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has begun preparations for the 2018
Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). CLETA is an important part of BJS’s Law
Enforcement Core Statistics program, which coordinates several law enforcement agency surveys
conducted by BJS. BJS has been administering CLETA since 2002 and periodically gathered information
on the content of basic training curricula for new law enforcement recruits. By comparing survey data
over time, CLETA is able to show how the nature of law enforcement training has changed.
In the next few weeks, BJS will invite <> to participate in the 2018 CLETA;
specifically, your academy will be asked to complete an online survey focusing on the types of training
offered, the types of agencies and positions for which basic training is provided, academy resources, and
other topics related to the training you provide.
I appreciate that you receive a number of data requests throughout the year and I thank you for your
support for CLETA. If you have questions about CLETA, please contact the data collection team via
phone or e-mail at 800-845-7883 or cleta@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact the Bureau of Justice Statistics Program Manager Shelley Hyland at 202-6161706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey H. Anderson, Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 6: Survey invitation letter (mail)

«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA). Since 2002, CLETA has periodically gathered information on the content
of basic training curricula for new law enforcement recruits. Your response to the 2018 CLETA
is critical to the Bureau of Justice Statistics effort to produce national estimates of personnel,
resources, curricula, trainees, policies, and practices of the academies that train all state and local
law enforcement officers.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS]. You may
start and stop as needed. Your training academy-specific information is:
User name:
Password:

«WebUsername»
«PIN»

Please complete this questionnaire online by [DATE].
The questionnaire takes approximately 2 hours to complete including time to research or find
information you may not have readily available. You may download a copy of the survey from
the website to assist you in gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your
training academy who can assist you in providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your training academy or update your contact
information (including email address), go to [WEB ADDRESS] using the user name and
password shown above and follow the instruction provided on the website. If you have questions
about CLETA, please contact the CLETA data collection team via phone or e-mail at [ RTI
NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection,
please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.

BJS uses the data collected in CLETA only for research and statistical purposes, as described in
Title 34, USC §10134. RTI International, the CLETA data collection agent, is required to adhere
to BJS Data Protection Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes, regulations, and
other authorities that govern all BJS data and data collected and maintained under BJS’s
authority. The Guidelines may be found at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your agency’s participation in CLETA. We appreciate your time and
effort.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: CLETA Flyer, IADLEST Endorsement Letter

Case ID: «caseid»

Attachment 7: 2018 CLETA flyer

2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA)

Although completing basic academy training is an
important step in a law enforcement officer’s career,
the features of these programs can vary significantly
across the United States. Through the Census of
Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA), the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is able to describe the
characteristics of basic academy training for new recruits
for all local and state law enforcement academies in the
United States.
The CLETA has been administered approximately
every 5 years since 2002. The next CLETA will begin
administration in winter 2019. BJS will send the
CLETA survey to approximately 700 local and state law
enforcement training academies. Data will be used to
produce national estimates describing the basic training
curricula, characteristics of trained recruits, and instructor
qualifications of these academies.

Conducted by:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
RTI International

2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies Survey Content
• Types of training offered by the academy
• Types of agencies and positions for
which basic training is provided
• Characteristics of the training personnel
(e.g., sworn status, law enforcement
experience, education)
• Academy resources (e.g., funding
sources, equipment)
• Number of recruits starting and
completing programs and number/
reasons for not completing

In addition to providing a snapshot of the current state
of basic law enforcement training, BJS will be able to
compare the results of the 2018 CLETA with data from
prior years to determine how training has changed
over time. Results from the 2018 CLETA will be made
available in 2020 to law enforcement personnel,
researchers, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to
facilitate nationwide discussions on law enforcement
training.

2018 CLETA Survey Schedule
Winter–Spring 2019
• BJS will send a letter inviting law enforcement
training academy directors to participate in
CLETA

• Academy directors can designate a point of
contact to complete the survey

• RTI will provide directors and points of contact

CLETA is part of the Law Enforcement Core Statistics
(LECS) program, a coordinated program of law
enforcement agency surveys conducted by BJS. Also
included in the LECS is the Census of State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, the Law Enforcement
Agency Management and Administrative Statistics
(LEMAS) Core Survey, and a new series of supplemental
LEMAS questionnaires on specialized topics such
as body-worn cameras. BJS is working with RTI
International and the Police Executive Research Forum
to administer LECS surveys, including the 2018 CLETA.

with access to the survey website to allow
review of survey items and submission of data

• Training academies will send their data to RTI
either online or using a paper questionnaire

Summer–Fall 2019
• Data quality assessments
• Results will be processed and analyzed

Spring 2020
• BJS will publish a report on the findings

For more information about CLETA, visit bjslecs.org/CLETA2018.
For additional information on the LECS suite of BJS data collection efforts, visit bjslecs.org.
You may also contact:
Travis Taniguchi, PhD
Research Criminologist
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
taniguchi@rti.org
919-248-8501

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
CLETA Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov
202-616-1706

Attachment 9: IADLEST Support Letter

International Association of Directors of
Law Enforcement Standards and Training
Headquarters: 1330 N. Manship Place Meridian, Idaho 83642
Washington DC:
1775 “I” Street NW, Suite 1150, Washington, D.C. 20006
Main: (208) 288-5491
D.C. (202) 457-7771 Fax (800) 783-6438

www.iadlest.org
DAN ZIVKOVICH
President
Massachusetts Municipal Training
Committee
6 Adams Street
Randolph, MA 02368-3428
(781) 437-0301 Fax: (781) 963-0235
daniel.r.zivkovich@mass.gov
KIM VICKERS
First Vice President
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
6330 East Hwy 290
Austin, TX 78723
(512) 936-7712
Kim.vickers@tcole.texas.gov

June 11, 2018
Director Academy Address 1
Address 2
City State Zip
Dear Director:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), working with RTI International (RTI), is
fielding the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA).
This survey is sent to all of the approximately 700 law enforcement training
academies in the United States and the BJS team is hoping that you will participate
in this important project.

JAMI COOK
Second Vice President
Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement
Standards &Training
Academy
PO Box 3106
East Camden, AR 71711
(870) 574-1810
Jami.L.Cook@arkansas.gov

The information that will be produced by this survey will be very valuable not only
to BJS, but to all academy directors. From the survey results, you will be able to
learn about how other academies conduct their business. For instance, you will
learn about curriculum content, training methods, staff credentials and training,
facilities, budgets, policies and more. You will be able to assess your own
academy in relation to national norms.

BRIAN GRISHAM
Treasurer
Tennessee Law Enforcement
Training Academy
3025 Lebanon Pike
Nashville, TN 37214
(615) 741-4448
Brian.grisham@tn.gov

I write to strongly encourage you to complete the survey. The receipt of
information from each and every academy will greatly enhance the value of the
data produced by this project. We know that you and your staff have many
responsibilities and limited time, but we hope that you will provide the requested
information and contribute to this effort. Your participation will help ensure that
the 2018 CLETA is a success and that the results can be used with confidence.

STEPHANIE PEDERSON
Secretary
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Training & Standards Bureau
17 West Main Street, PO Box 7070
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 261-8641
pedersonse@doj.state.wi.us
MICHAEL N. BECAR
Executive Director, CEO
1330 N. Manship Place
Meridian, ID 83642-6444
(208) 288-5491 Fax: (800) 783-6438
ik b
@i dl t
Michael Wood
Northeast Region
New York
(518) 457-2666

michael.wood@dcjs.ny.gov

Joyce Nelson
Central Region
Michigan
(734) 677-5022

joenelson@wccnet.edu

Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this important endeavor.
Sincerely,

Dan Zivkovich, President
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training
(IADLEST)
Rebekah Taylor
South Region
Louisiana
(225) 342-1648

rebekah.taylor@lcle.la.gov

Charles Gerhart
Midwest Region
Oklahoma
405) 239-5153

Charles.Gerhart@CLEET.state.okk.us

Mike Sherlock
West Region
Nevada
(775) 687-3318

msherlock@post.state.nv.us

Gary Bullard
International Region
Washington DC
(202) 353-9516
gary.bullard2@usdoj.gov

Attachment 9: Survey invitation letter (email)ter (email)
TO: «TITLE» «ACADEMY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
SUBJECT: Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Last week, we sent you the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). This email
message requests confirmation that you successfully received your invitation. We encourage you to contact us if
you have any questions related to the data collection or did not receive the materials.
Please reply to this message to indicate that you received the 2018 CLETA invitation.
In the event you did not receive the packet, the information contained in the mailed materials is provided below.
Thank you,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies
(CLETA). Since 2002, CLETA has periodically gathered information on the content of basic training curricula
for new law enforcement recruits. Your response to the 2018 CLETA is critical to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics effort to produce national estimates of personnel, resources, curricula, trainees, policies, and practices
of the academies that train all state and local law enforcement officers.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS]. You may start and stop
as needed. Your training academy-specific information is:
User name:
Password:

«WebUsername»
«PIN»

Please complete this questionnaire online by [DATE].
The questionnaire takes approximately 2 hours to complete including time to research or find information you
may not have readily available. You may download a copy of the survey from the website to assist you in
gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your training academy who can assist you in
providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your training academy or update your contact information
(including email address), go to [WEB ADDRESS] using the user name and password shown above and follow
the instruction provided on the website. If you have questions about CLETA, please contact the CLETA data

collection team via phone or e-mail at [ RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org. If you have any general comments
about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
BJS uses the data collected in CLETA only for research and statistical purposes, as described in Title 34, USC
§10134. RTI International, the CLETA data collection agent, is required to adhere to BJS Data Protection
Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes, regulations, and other authorities that govern all BJS
data and data collected and maintained under BJS’s authority. The Guidelines may be found at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your agency’s participation in CLETA. We appreciate your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: CLETA Flyer, IADLEST Endorsement Letter

Case ID: «caseid»

Attachment 10: First reminder (mail)

«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) recently mailed you a link to a web questionnaire asking
about your law enforcement training academy for the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA). The questionnaire due date is [DUE DATE] and we hope you will be able
to respond by then. If you have already completed the questionnaire, please accept my sincere
thank you.
If you have not completed your questionnaire, please complete it as soon as possible. No other
national data collection can provide such comprehensive data on the functions, personnel, and
training at law enforcement training academies. Developing and maintaining an accurate picture
of the nation’s law enforcement training is paramount to understanding the current state of law
enforcement in the United States.
Please complete the questionnaire by using the following link: [WEB ADDRESS] and
entering the following information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, you may download and print a paper
version upon entering your questionnaire access code on the CLETA website. You may also
request a paper questionnaire by emailing RTI International at CLETA@rti.org or calling [RTI
NUMBER]. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at
202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Case ID: <>

Attachment 11: Second reminder (email)

«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2018
Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). RTI has been reaching out to
<> since January. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the
census data reflect the variety of training provided by academies of all types and sizes.
Information from your academy is needed to ensure the quality of the study.
The due date is [DUE DATE]. Please complete the CLETA questionnaire as soon as possible. I
understand that you receive a number of survey requests and I genuinely appreciate your
attention to this request.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CLETA, need to change the point of contact at your training
academy, or need to update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or
e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 12: Third reminder (email)

TO: «TITLE» «ACADEMY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
SUBJECT: Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Over the past 2 months, materials related to the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA) were sent to you by mail. This email message is to request confirmation
that we have successfully reached you and encourage you to contact us if you have any questions
related to the data collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <>.
The information contained in the letter that we mailed most recently (on <>) is
provided below.
Thank you,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2018
Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). RTI has been reaching out to
<> since January. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the
census data reflect the variety of training provided by academies of all types and sizes.
Information from your academy is needed to ensure the quality of the study.
The due date was [DUE DATE]. Please complete the CLETA questionnaire as soon as possible.
I understand that you receive a number of survey requests and I genuinely appreciate your
attention to this request.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CLETA, need to change the point of contact at your training
academy, or need to update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or
e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«caseID»

Attachment 13: Fourth reminder (mail)

«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
«TRAINING ACADEMY» has been asked to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’
(BJS) Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). CLETA data will be used by
law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and researchers to better understand and respond to
needs regarding training of law enforcement personnel. No other national data collection can
provide comprehensive data on the curricula and characteristics of training academies. Since
CLETA is a census, «TRAINING ACADEMY» cannot be replaced with another training
academy.
I recognize that you may not have received the previous correspondence or that you may not
have responded because of time constraints. I appreciate that your time is limited; however, the
reliability of the study directly depends on the participation of your training academy. The
questionnaire includes items that are relevant to all academies and your responses are essential to
our ability to provide the information needed by local law enforcement and other stakeholders.
Please complete the questionnaire by using this link [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the
following information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
Alternatively, you can submit your data by mail using the enclosed hardcopy questionnaire and
business reply envelope.
The questionnaire due date was [DUE DATE]. Please submit your questionnaire as soon as
possible. If you have questions about the CLETA survey or having difficulty accessing the
website, please contact the CLETA data collection team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER]
or CLETA@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact
me at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,

Page 2
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: CLETA questionnaire; Business reply envelope

«caseID»

Attachment 14: Telephone Data Quality Follow Up script

Sample Call Script for Data Quality Follow-up Calls
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies. I am
following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to <>. May I speak with <>?
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies. It is
important that we obtain complete data from all law enforcement training academies. I’m calling now
to confirm that we have everything recorded correctly and completely for your academy. This should
only take a few minutes of your time.

BEGIN READING QUESTION(s) THAT IS (ARE) MISSING INFORMATION OR HAVE INCONSISTENT
RESPONSES.
Thank you for your time.

Attachment 15: Telephone Non Response Follow Up script
Sample Call Script for Nonresponse Telephone Calls
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies. I am
following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to <>. May I speak with <>?
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S.
Department of Justice regarding the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies. A few
months ago, we sent you a letter and an email message inviting your agency to participate in the survey.
We did not hear back from your agency and I wanted to follow up with you to confirm that you received
the request.
Have you received our communications?
[IF YES]
[IF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY]
-

The Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) has been conducted
periodically since 2002; the last time was in 2013 and 2006 before that.
The CLETA measures changes in the content of basic training curricula for new law
enforcement recruits and shows how the nature of law enforcement training has
changed over time.
BJS will use the data collected through this survey only for research and statistical
purposes. Results – at the national level, not at the academy level – will be shared with
law enforcement agencies, policy makers, and other stakeholders.
The survey will take approximately 2 hours to complete, including gathering some of the
information and numbers you might need to compile.

[OFFER ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE]
Is there anything I can do to assist you in completing the survey? A paper version is available
if you would prefer to submit the information by mail.
[IF PROMPTING AGENCY TO COMPLETE ONLY CRITICAL ITEMS]
BJS considers the following questions to be most critical: <>. Would you be
able to provide responses to just those questions? I can record your answers now or
schedule a time to call you that would be most convenient.
[IF AGENCY SAYS THEY DO NOT INTEND TO RESPOND]
Thank you for letting us know. Would you be able to provide responses to just those
questions? I can record your answers now or schedule a time to call you that would be most
convenient. Would you be willing to share with us why you have chosen not to participate?
[IF NO]
Let me review the information we have on file for your agency. [REVIEW E-MAIL ADDRESS AND
MAILING ADDRESS.]
Ask for the POC’s preferred method of contact and offer to re-send the information.

Attachment 16: Fifth reminder (mail)

«TITLE» «ACADEMENY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (our data collection agent) launched
the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) in January and invited
<> to participate in the study. Unfortunately, we have not received
your survey.
Recognizing that your responsibilities place many demands on your time, I hope you could
spend 15 to 20 minutes speaking with one of the project staff to answer a limited set of key
questions from the survey. The RTI team will be able to ask you the questions by phone and
record the answers during the call.
You can contact the RTI team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org
to schedule a call when it would be most convenient for you. Otherwise, a member of the
team will contact you in the next few days to either schedule a time or collect the information.
If you prefer to answer questions online, you can still access the questionnaire at [WEB
ADDRESS] and enter the following information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706
or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager

Page 2
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 17: Fifth reminder (email)
TO: «TITLE» «ACADEMY HEAD/POC NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
SUBJECT: Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
A few weeks ago, a letter related to the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies
(CLETA) was sent to you by mail. We have not received a response from you, so we are sending
this message to request confirmation that we have successfully reached you and encourage you
to contact us if you have any questions related to the data collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <>.
The information contained in the mailed materials is provided below.
Thank you,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International (our data collection agent) launched
the 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) in January and invited
<> to participate in the study. Unfortunately, we have not received
your survey.
Recognizing that your responsibilities place many demands on your time, I hope you could
spend 15 to 20 minutes speaking with one of the project staff to answer a limited set of key
questions from the survey. The RTI team will be able to ask you the questions by phone and
record the answers during the call.
You can contact the RTI team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org
to schedule a call when it would be most convenient for you. Otherwise, a member of the
team will contact you in the next few days to either schedule a time or collect the information.
If you prefer to answer questions online, you can still access the questionnaire at [WEB
ADDRESS] and enter the following information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706
or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 18: End-of-study reminder (mail)

«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«TRAINING ACADEMY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few months regarding the participation of
<> in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census Law Enforcement Training
Academies (CLETA). Your responses are vital to the success of the project.
I am writing today to notify you that there are only a couple of weeks remaining to complete the questionnaire.
We must receive your response soon to ensure that the study results accurately reflect the characteristics and
activities of your training academy. The reliability of the study’s results directly depends on the participation of
all law enforcement training academies. Since CLETA is a census, <> cannot be
replaced with another training academy.
Please complete the questionnaire by using the following link: [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the
following information:
User Name: «WebUsername»
Password: «PIN»
Alternatively, if you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, we are happy to send you a hard copy
or you may download and print a paper version upon entering your questionnaire access code on the CLETA
questionnaire website.
If you have questions about CLETA or need to update your contact information (including e-mail address),
please contact the CLETA data collection team via phone or e-mail at 800-845-7883 or CLETA@rti.org. If you
have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at 202-616-1706 or
Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.

Page 2
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Case ID: <>

Attachment 19: Thank you letter (mail)

«TITLE» «NAME»
OR CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
«AGENCY»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»

Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International, I would like to thank
you for your participation in the 2018 Census Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA).
I truly appreciate your support in completing this survey. Your participation ensures that we are
a step closer to providing a complete enumeration of the nation’s law enforcement training
academies.
This letter confirms that we have received your survey and are currently processing the data.
RTI will contact you if there are any questions about the answers your agency has submitted.
We anticipate all survey responses will be collected by the end of June 2019. A copy of the
report will be available through BJS and the CLETA website in 2020.
If you have any general comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-616-1706
or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov. If you have questions about CLETA, need to change the point
of contact at your agency, or need to update your contact information (including email address),
please contact the CLETA support team at [RTI NUMBER] or CLETA@rti.org.
Sincerely,

Shelley S. Hyland, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 20: Cognitive Interview Report

July 2018

Census of Law Enforcement
Training Academies
2018 Questionnaire
Cognitive Interview Findings and
Recommendations
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Prepared by
Ashley Griggs
Christian Genesky
RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Contributors
Marianne Ayers, Tim Smith, Travis Taniguchi
RTI Project Number 0215001

Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Question-Specific Discussion ................................................................................................. 3
Cover Page .............................................................................................................................. 4
Question 1 ............................................................................................................................... 5
Question 2 ............................................................................................................................... 6
Question 3 ............................................................................................................................... 7
Question 6 ............................................................................................................................... 8
Question 8 ............................................................................................................................... 8
Question 9 ............................................................................................................................. 10
Question 10 ........................................................................................................................... 11
Question 11 ........................................................................................................................... 12
Question 16 ........................................................................................................................... 12
Question 17 ........................................................................................................................... 14
Question 18 ........................................................................................................................... 15
Question 19 ........................................................................................................................... 15
Question 24 ........................................................................................................................... 17
Question 25 ........................................................................................................................... 19
Question 26 ........................................................................................................................... 19
Question 27 ........................................................................................................................... 20
Question 28 ........................................................................................................................... 21
Question 29 ........................................................................................................................... 22
Question 32 ........................................................................................................................... 23
Question 33 ........................................................................................................................... 24
Question 34 ........................................................................................................................... 27
3. Miscellaneous Topics ............................................................................................................. 29
Burden .................................................................................................................................... 29
Data Availability .................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix A: Cognitive Interview Participants........................................................................ 30
Appendix B: Invitation Letter ..................................................................................................... 31
Appendix C: Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 32
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Protocol .............................................................................. 47
Appendix E: Questions not Discussed .................................................................................... 54
Question 4 ............................................................................................................................. 54
Question 5 ............................................................................................................................. 54
Question 7 ............................................................................................................................. 54
Question 12 ........................................................................................................................... 54
Question 13 ........................................................................................................................... 55

Question 14 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Question 15 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Question 20 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Question 21 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Question 22 ........................................................................................................................... 56
Question 23 ........................................................................................................................... 56
Question 30 ........................................................................................................................... 56
Question 31 ........................................................................................................................... 56
Question 35 ........................................................................................................................... 57
Question 36 ........................................................................................................................... 57
Question 37 ........................................................................................................................... 58
Question 38 ........................................................................................................................... 58

1. Introduction
This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from cognitive interviews of the
Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) 2018 questionnaire. The cognitive interviews
were conducted in June 2018 by two trained cognitive interviewers from RTI International (RTI). The
purpose of the cognitive interviews was to identify potential problems and improvements to the CLETA
questionnaire.
Initially, 15 academies were identified as possible cognitive interview participants. RTI selected a
purposive sample of academies that reflected the diversity of academy type, size, and operating unit of
government or organization. To best reflect the composition of the academies involved in the CLETA,
RTI selected academies operated by the following entities: municipal police, state government, special
purpose law enforcement agencies, university/colleges, and sheriff’s departments. A goal of 9 completed
cognitive interviews was set.
Before recruitment began, RTI identified 6 primary and 9 secondary academies, totaling 15
possible participants. A cognitive interview recruiter from RTI contacted each primary sample academy
over the phone to ask for their participation. After the initial outreach, additional contact attempts using
phone or email were made every three to five business days. In one case, RTI was unable to locate a
phone number for the agency head and email was used for all contact attempts. If the agency had not
responded to outreach after four attempts, RTI identified an analogous academy from the secondary
sample and repeated the recruiting protocol with the substituted agency. To increase participation at the
end of recruitment, outreach was conducted with all remaining academies in the secondary list. In
addition, Anthony Whyde, the BJS Project Manager, called and emailed nonresponding academies
approximately four weeks after RTI’s initial outreach attempt.
These efforts resulted in five participating academies, which was below the recruitment goal. BJS
and RTI decided to conclude the cognitive testing process without having reached the recruitment goal
because the later interviews failed to produce new findings and, most importantly, fielding the survey on
time was critical. We note that five academies appeared to be an effective sample size for identifying
potential problems with the questionnaire. However, participants reported a range of experiences and
interpretations on several key questions. Additionally, the small sample provides little insight into the
state-level variations we are likely to experience while fielding the full survey. As a result, our ability to
suggest potential improvements is limited, as we cannot be certain that proposed changes are likely to
benefit all respondents given the variety of operating and regulatory environments.
Table 1 presents the number of contacted and participating academies by operating agency. The
list of participating academies is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1. Recruitment Summary by Academy Type
Academy operated by…
Municipal police
State government
Special purpose law enforcement agency
University or college
Sheriff’s Department
Total

Contacted
Academies
4
2
1
5
2
15

Participating
Academies
1
1
1
2
0
5

The interviews were conducted by phone and lasted 48 minutes, on average. Once an academy
agreed to participate in an interview, RTI emailed the academy an invitation letter (Appendix B) and the
draft questionnaire (Appendix C). Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire in advance of the
interview and to scan and email it to the interviewer, if possible.
During the calls with participants, the interviewers followed a cognitive interview protocol with
scripted probes (Appendix D). The interviewers also used spontaneous probes as necessary to clarify key
concepts or issues. The findings of all the interviews were considered together to identify
recommendations for potential revisions to the questionnaire.
Findings and recommendations from the cognitive interviews are presented in this report in two
sections: (1) Question-Specific Discussion, and (2) Miscellaneous Considerations. Each section presents
the question being discussed, a discussion of findings, and recommended changes (if any).

2. Question-Specific Discussion
This section presents images of each section/question of the draft CLETA questionnaire that was
discussed in the cognitive interviews, along with a discussion of any findings and recommendations.
Questions that were neither discussed as part of the interview protocol, nor brought up by participants
during the interview, are presented in Appendix E for reference.
The first set of recommendations presented for each section/question is based on findings from
the cognitive interviews. The second set of recommendations describes other changes that RTI and/or BJS
identified independent of the cognitive interviews.

Cover Page

Findings
Participants were not specifically probed on the cover page, but they were given the opportunity
to note any feedback on sections that were skipped in the interview. No participants provided feedback on
this section.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
As discussed by BJS and RTI over email, update the name of the survey to reference 2018 rather
than 2019.

Question 1

Findings
While this question was straightforward for academies in almost all item categories, academies
that were housed in, or tied to, universities expressed confusion about which response to select. One
respondent said, "We went back and forth on this; we're kind of a hybrid program. The academy is in
charge of recruits, but there's a local community college that does part of the training. And the certificate
at the end comes from them." These academies tended to think of themselves first as academies affiliated
with police departments; affiliation with a college or university was secondary.

Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Update the language for the “4-year college/university” and “2-year college/community college”
items so that they acknowledge the college/academy dichotomy: “Academy affiliated with a 4-year
college/university” and “Academy affiliated with a 2-year college/community college,” respectively.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 2

Findings
In general, participants seemed to understand the intent of Question 2, but four of the five
participants expressed hesitation at what types of training might be considered “provided” within the
context of this question. For example, one participant mentioned that he was unsure whether to select
“Yes” or “No” on Item 2a (first-line or higher supervisor training) because a relevant class is hosted on
academy grounds but is not run by the academy. In several other cases, participants from collegeaffiliated classes were unsure whether to include classes or programs that were offered at the college but
not overseen by the academy.

Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the question to better clarify that it is meant to capture trainings offered by the
respondent’s academy: “In 2018, in addition to BASIC training, which of the following types of training
did your academy offer? Include only trainings conducted or provided by your academy.” For consistency
with similar instructions across the questionnaire, use bold font for only the first sentence.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 3

Findings
Participants did not have any issues with this question. All seemed to have a solid understanding
of what was meant by “BASIC law enforcement training.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 6

Findings
Participants did not have issues with this question. Participants understood that to offer an
associate’s or bachelor’s degree, an affiliation with a college or university was required.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 8

Findings
Overall, participants had little difficulty with this question, but one participant noted that the list
of categories in this question was not applicable to his academy: “You’re using terminology that we, by
statute, do not [use]. By statute you’re either a full-time officer or a part-time officer.” He continued to
explain that officers are licensed as full-time or part-time rather than a position-specific designation. For
example, an arson investigator is categorized simply as a full-time officer. The participant explained that
a recruit’s eventual job title (i.e., position) was distinct from their status as an officer and had no bearing
on their BASIC training. However, this participant answered “Yes” to seven of the fifteen items,
suggesting that he reported on their eventual roles (i.e. titles), despite the difficulty he experienced with
this question.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Based on the participant experience described above, it is possible that this question would cause
some confusion for respondents depending upon state statutory authority of law enforcement officers.
However, given that the respondent was able to successfully answer this question, we do not have any
recommended changes at this time. Additional interviews, with special attention paid to state variations,
would be needed to develop recommendations for remediating this challenge.
Additional Recommendations
RTI has a few other observations about this question:
•
•
•

Item C, “Campus police officer,” could be more clearly labeled as “University/college
campus police officer”
Item I, “Arson investigator,” could be made clearer by defining it as “Arson
investigator/fire marshal”.
A category for “Marshal” is omitted from the responses. We defer to BJS in determining
if this is a relevant category of law enforcement trainee.

Question 9

Findings
Most participants seemed to understand the terminology used in this question, with one
exception. When probed on what was meant by “self-sponsored candidates,” one participant indicated
that the phrase referred to officers taking part in the academy who had been hired by the participant’s
agency (rather than another agency). All other participants understood “self-sponsored” to refer to
candidates who were paying for academy training out of their own pocket, without a sponsoring agency.
One participant indicated that his numbers for this question had to be counted manually since
they were not tracked in a spreadsheet; he described this process as “difficult.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
To more explicitly explain which academy recruits should be excluded, change “Do not include
self-sponsored candidates” to “Do not include self-sponsored candidates (candidates who are not
affiliated with or sponsored by an agency).”
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 10

Findings
Participants’ reactions and responses to Question 10 demonstrated the flexibility of the question
to capture a wide variety of reporting methods. Participants commonly used the “hours,” weeks,” and
“months” check boxes to report their training length, but had no issues providing a response using this
question format. Participants reporting in hours were likely to report the hours outlined in the statemandated peace officer curriculum.
One participant, who reported in hours, expressed concern that his hours did not fully capture
time spent in the academy. He explained that recruits are in class for 720 hours, but they participate in the
academy “from Monday morning until [they] decide to let them go on Friday,” and they also participate
in scenario training outside of class during that time-frame. Participants reporting in weeks or months
reported the amount of time that had passed from the start to the end of the academy program.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
The finding that participants preferred to report in different units of time supports the current
question structure. At this time, we do not recommend any changes to this structure, but suggest that
when analyzing response data, BJS considers the lack of precision in these estimates. However,
participants appeared capable of reporting the length of training in a variety of formats. Future
development of this question should attempt to better constrain answer responses to facilitate the analytic
utility of this question. The value of this question in understanding variations in quantity of training
provided would be improved by better standardization of the temporal units.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 11

Findings
No issues were identified with Question 11. Two participants were not probed about this question
due to time constraints, and the three who were probed on it understood that “recruits” refers to academy
graduates and “field training” refers to progressively gaining more responsibility while working under the
guidance of an experienced officer.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 16

Findings
Two participants indicated confusion about the full-time/part-time distinction in Question 16.
Many academies rely on outside subject-matter experts to teach specific class content; these individuals
are not academy employees. For instance, several academies pointed out that lawyers from the
prosecutor’s office teach law-related classes but were not otherwise involved with the academy.
Considering the breadth of content covered in academies’ curriculum, this could add up to dozens of
temporary instructors teaching class for a single day or week. As such, participants had trouble tracking
instructors—particularly the many instructors that they would consider part-time. One participant
described his part-time estimate as a “wild guess.”
Another area of confusion on Question 16 was whether full-time and part-time referred to the
trainers’/instructors’ status within their affiliated agency or in their role as a trainer/instructor at the
academy. Two participants were unsure about whether to consider the officers who came to campus to
teach a specific class as part-time (because they were only teaching for part of a day or week) or full-time
(because they were full-time officers with the academy’s affiliated agency).
Participants did not express the need for an “other” category, nor did they provide a total that was
greater than the sum of the rows; together, these trends suggest the categories in Question 16 are
sufficient as provided, and that participants did not omit any trainers or instructors who might not have fit
into the existing categories. However, one participant counted each of his instructors twice: once in row
“a”, and a second time in either rows “c” or “d.”
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
To clarify that full-time versus part-time status refers to the trainer/instructor position, modify the
question to ask, “…how many of the total number of personnel serving as trainers or instructors worked
full-time or part-time in that role?”
In addition, underline the phrase “only once” in the question text and modify the column headers
to “Trainers or instructors teaching full-time at the academy” and “Trainers or instructors teaching parttime at the academy.”
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 17

Findings
In discussions about Question 17, participants consistently indicated that a formal education
requirement was not specific to the academy or an individual’s status as an academy trainer/instructor.
Academies generally relied on skilled officers as instructors, and any education requirements were related
to their status as an officer rather than their status as an instructor. One participant even pointed out that
their academy had previously required a bachelors’ degree for officers working as instructors, which was
problematic because many skilled officers did not have four-year degrees. As such, participants seemed
hesitant to select “not applicable” since these officers did not lack education but did not feel any of the
other selections applied either.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
RTI recommends editing this question to better reflect the distinction between education required
to be an officer and the education required to be a full-time instructor/trainer. The most robust approach
would be to add a screener question to determine if the academy has an education requirement that is
distinct from any more general education requirements of the agency. One possibility would be “Are there
education requirements specific to your academy’s full-time trainers or instructors?”
If BJS declines to add a screener question, modification to the question may improve
interpretability. We suggest modifying the question to read: “In 2018, what was the minimum education
requirement for your academy’s full-time trainers or instructors? Indicate only the education requirements
that are specific to academy trainers/instructors. Do not include general education requirements for sworn
officers.” For consistency with similar instructions across the questionnaire, use bold font for only the
first sentence; do not bold the two clarifying sentences.
Expand the “Not applicable” response to “Not applicable—there was no formal education
requirement specific to academy trainers or instructors.”
Additional Recommendations
We note that there is no opportunity to report varying education requirements. For example, there
would be no way for a respondent to indicate if there are different education requirements for sworn
versus civilian training staff. One option would be to create two columns and allow respondents to make
two selections: one for officers assigned to the academy, and one for civilian instructors working at the
14

academy. We note, however, that this solution would require additional testing which is severely
constrained by the project schedule.

Question 18

Findings
One participant indicated that the minimum years of experience required for trainers or
instructors varies by the subject being taught. All trainers/instructors need to be POST-certified, and those
who teach specialized subjects, such as firearms, are required to have additional POST certification.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Add an instruction at the end of the question indicating how respondents should answer if the
minimum requirement varies. For example, “If the minimum requirement varies by topic, enter the
requirement that was the least.”
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 19

Findings
Three participants said they thought that Item a, “State- or POST-certification” refers to
certification as an instructor, while one thought it refers to certification as an officer. The latter participant
still answered “Yes” to the item because his academy’s instructors must be POST-certified officers, even
though instructor-level POST certification is not mandated. The fifth participant did not share his
interpretation of the item because he felt that the designation does not apply to his academy. In this
15

instance, the academy was run by a special purpose jurisdiction and the POST-certification was an aspect
handled by the academy’s university partner.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify response options for Question 19 to include:
•
•

Item a, “State- or POST-certification as a sworn officer”
Add item for “State- or POST-certification as an instructor”

Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 24

Findings
When asked how they would define “operated by your academy,” participants generally
described this as meaning that a resource is under the academy’s direct control and command. Two
participants mentioned the distinction of whether the resource is on-site or off-site. However, one of them
said he would include resources at another site if they were not contracted with a third party, while the
other said he would exclude any resources located off-site.

One participant who noticed the instruction to mark only one response per item questioned how
he should respond to Item m, Scenario training facility, because his academy has a scenario training area
on-site but also uses an off-site building not owned by the academy for active shooter training. He
commented that the first two options are both true, but ultimately selected only one response, “operated
by your academy.”
Participants commented on the following items:
•

•
•

•

Item b, “Electronic tablet/iPad:” One participant reported that his academy has computers
that can be turned into tablets. He decided those computers did not count as tablets and
selected the third option, “Recruits in BASIC training did not have access.”
Item f, “Resource center/library:” One participant was surprised to see this listed. He
said, “I don’t know how many academies have one.”
Item g, “Subscription to a down-link information service (e.g., LETN, PoliceOne
Academy, In the Line of Duty):” One participant thought that other jurisdictions might
need clarification on this item. He suggested mentioning that “they are internet links,
because ‘down-link’ is a little confusing.”
Item r, “Vehicle operation range:” One participant was unfamiliar with this term but
selected “Operated by your academy” because he assumed it meant a driving track.

Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Modify the question to clarify that both on-site and off-site resources should be included: “In
2018, which of the following resources did BASIC training recruits have access to, whether on-site or offsite?”
Remove the instruction to mark only one response per item. Program the web survey so that the
third option (recruits did not have access) cannot be selected in combination with either of the first two
options (recruits did have access).
Modify Item g to remove the infrequently used term “down-link”. Change the response text to
read: “Subscription to web- or online-based training content (e.g., LETN, PoliceOne Academy, In the
Line of Duty).”
Modify Item r to clarify that it refers to a driving track: “Vehicle operation/driving range.”
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 25

Findings
Participants were not specifically probed on Question 25, but two participants shared relevant
comments on this question later in the interview. Both participants noted that they needed to request their
academy’s operating budget from colleagues in finance or HR.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 26

Findings
Participants were not specifically probed on Question 26, but two participants shared relevant
comments on this question later in the interview. Both participants noted that they needed to request their
academy’s equipment budget from colleagues in finance or HR. One of these participants said that it took
a while to determine his academy’s equipment budget because his academy is part of a very large agency
and the academy’s budget is part of the broader agency’s budget. Creating additional problems, the
academy does not have an equipment budget; equipment is earmarked for the academy within the
agency’s equipment budget. For these reasons, this participant found determining the equipment budget to
be both challenging and time-consuming.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
None.
Additional Recommendations
None.
19

Question 27

Findings
All participants had access to the information requested in Question 27, but one had to manually
review records for individual recruits to count males and females. He predicted that respondents might
start to breakoff around Questions 27 and 28 because many academies have a large number of recruits,
and if they do not already have the information reported electronically, it would be extremely burdensome
to gather these numbers.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Burden could be considerably reduced by not disaggregating by recruit sex. However, this
information is of analytic value and there is no obvious method to resolving this challenge without
reducing the utility of this question.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 28

Findings
One participant stated that he chooses not to track identifying factors such as race. This
participant predicted that some respondents would be offended by this question.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Despite the potential sensitivity of this question, RTI has no recommendations for changes to this
question at this time.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 29

Findings
None of the participants cited difficulty with this question. They all indicated that their academy
tracks reasons for noncompletion and they are able to provide the requested numbers.
One participant noted that recruits who are struggling academically may be given the option to
resign before being fired. In this case, the official, reported reason for noncompletion would be voluntary,
while the actual, unreported reason would be academic.
Another participant noted that their state had four assessment categories considered critical—that
is, recruits who failed any one of these four assessments were considered a “high liability” and could not
graduate from the academy. For example, one recruit failed “defensive tactics” and therefore failed the
academy program entirely. The participant was unsure where to count this recruit, and so reported him in
the “other” category.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
After the existing failure to qualify items, add a new item that reads, “Failure to qualify – other
critical requirement,” to account for academies’ varied pass/fail assessments.

Add additional instruction that indicates respondents should only count recruits once, even if
there were multiple reasons for dismissal. Alternatively, include a category for multiple reasons for
dismissal.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 32

Findings
Two participants provided their own terms when discussing this question. One referred to the
non-stress model as the “adult learning model” and another referred to the stress model as the
“paramilitary model.” Despite these differences in terminology that participants identified, only one
participant had difficulty with this question. He attributed this to two things: (1) he thought the three
middle options (slightly more stress, equal balance, and slightly more non-stress) sounded as though they
represented a 51%, 50%, and 49% mix, and (2) he said that all parts of his academy’s program have
stress, but it’s not necessarily “military style.” This participant thought that stress needed to be described
more broadly. As currently written, he said this was the most difficult question in the survey for him.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
The additional terms identified during testing can be incorporated into the first sentence of the
question: “The training environment of academics can be described as using a stress model (i.e., military
or paramilitary style), a non-stress model (i.e., academic or adult learning), or a combination of the two
models.”
Remove “slightly” from the second and fourth response options. This would provide a clearer
distinction between the spectrum of answers.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 33

Findings
Participants found this question to be especially challenging and time-consuming to answer. Part
of the difficulty was due to the volume of information being requested; participants had to pore over the
details of their curriculum to answer the question. Another challenge was that their records did not
generally map with the question. Some of the topical areas were addressed in multiple classes, and some
classes cover multiple topic areas. This made the response process cognitively challenging and
burdensome. One participant noted that he double-counted some hours because he thought they fit under
both communications and community policing items.
The use of estimate boxes varied greatly. One participant checked the estimate box for almost all
items mainly to indicate that he was unsure about the categories, rather than being unsure about the actual
number of hours. Three participants used the estimate box sparingly and as needed. One participant did
not use estimate boxes at all.
One participant noted that the hours he reported are an accurate reflection of the hours in his
academy’s curriculum, but the curriculum does not reflect training that occurs outside of the classroom.
Specifically, this participant was referring to “scenario training,” in which recruits might participate in
emergency drills or practical scenarios between classes or after hours.

Participants had varied interpretations of Item z, “Communications,” in the Self-Improvement
section. When asked to provide examples of what the item is asking about, four participants provided the
following examples: professional communications, communicating with the public, using the radio,
tactical communications, de-escalation, and cultural diversity. “Communicating with the public” was
mentioned by two of these participants, but all of the other examples were mentioned by only one
participant. The fifth participant counted under “Communications” all of his academy’s courses that touch
on any aspect of communications, including interviewing techniques, stress management, interpersonal
communications, crisis/conflict management, and debriefing.
One participant thought that Item e, “Patrol procedures/techniques” was too open-ended. Another
participant commented that he did not understand why Item y, basic foreign language, was included.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Response Z “Communications” had considerable variation in interpretation. Additional guidance
should be provided to respondents on the meaning of this response.
Removing the requirement to report hours per training topic would substantially reduce burden
but we recognize the importance of this information from an analytic perspective.
Additional Recommendations
None.

Question 34

Findings
Regarding Item h, use of force continuum, one participant commented that this term is no longer
used. He explained, “We call it situational use of force. Situational use of force requires an officer to do
an assessment and go to the appropriate option to take care of the situation. Most academies will know
27

what continuum is referring to, but I don't think it's taught anymore.” This same participant commented
that Item d, threat assessment, is part of use of force. One other participant commented on the threat
assessment item, noting that his academy might not have a scenario that is specific to threat assessment,
but “that’s definitely covered in scenarios that might be focused on other things.” That participant still
selected “yes” for Item d, Threat assessment.
Recommendations (Based on Interviews)
Change Item h to “Use of force continuum / Situational use of force”
Additional Recommendations
We note that Item e. “non-lethal live fire” does not fit in with the question format or other answer
types. “Non-lethal live fire” is a method of training, it is not the topic of training. Reality-based training
may employ non-lethal live fire, but it is not, in the most specific sense, a topic of the reality-based
training.

Leave this heading 6 here

3. Miscellaneous Topics
Burden
The cognitive interviews suggest that the survey is likely to take respondents about one to two
hours to complete. However, this estimate is based on the completion time estimates provided by only
four cognitive interview participants; the fifth said he was unable to provide an estimate.
When asked to comment on the survey’s length and time needed to answer the questions, three of
the participants described it as “reasonable,” “good,” or “no problem.” A fourth said that it would take a
long time to complete if the respondent were unable to sit down undisturbed to complete the entire survey
at once. The fifth participant (who reported the survey took him one hour to complete) had a much
different take on the length, describing it as “way too long.” It took him a lot of time to look up numbers
for staff/class breakdowns and for the hours in each of those classes. He also said that he spent “a long
time deciding how to answer about stress models.” This participant noted that Questions 35 and 36, which
ask whether certain weapons topics were covered in the academy’s training, were quick to complete.

Data Availability
Three of the five participants needed to reach out to one or more colleagues—including
administrative assistants, finance staff, and HR staff—to gather the information requested in the survey.
The main topics they needed help gathering information on were staffing and budgets.

A
Appendix A: Cognitive Interview Participants
Table 2. Cognitive Interview Participants
Academy Name
Denver Police Academy
Maine Criminal Justice Academy
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Northeast Wisconsin Technical College
Rio Hondo College

Operating Agency
Municipal Police
State Government
Special Purpose Law Enforcement Agency
University or College
University or College

State
CO
ME
FL
WI
CA

B
Appendix B: Invitation Letter
[DATE]
[NAME]
[AGENCY]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]
Dear [TITLE] [NAME],
Recently, you were asked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and its data collection agent, RTI
International (RTI), to assist with a special effort related to the Census of State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA). Conducted periodically since 1986, the CSLLEA is the only
systematic, national-level data collection providing a complete enumeration of the approximately 20,000
publicly-funded law enforcement agencies in the U.S. BJS, RTI and the Police Executive Research
Forum, are editing the instrument to ensure that the survey continues to meet this goal.
As part of this effort, we are asking a small number of law enforcement agencies to review an updated
version of the survey; a copy is enclosed for your reference. We would like to get your feedback on the
following:
• Instructions, terms, or questions that are vague or insufficiently defined;
• Answer choices that are unclear, confusing, or insufficient; and
• Answers that you would choose and how you would arrive at those responses.
As arranged previously, I will call you at [TIME] on [DAY], [DATE] to discuss your responses and
experience answering the questions. If possible, please answer the questions prior to our call—this
will allow for a more efficient discussion.
If you have any questions about this special request, please contact me at [PHONE] or [EMAIL]. If you
have any general comments about the CSLLEA, please contact Shelley Hyland, the CSLLEA Program
Manager at BJS, at 202-616-1706 or Shelley.Hyland@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
[INTERVIEWER SIGNATURE]
[INTERVIEWER NAME], [DEGREE]
[JOB TITLE]
RTI International
[EMAIL]

C
Appendix C: Questionnaire

D
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Protocol
2019 CLETA: Cognitive Interview Protocol

DATE: ___ ___ / ___ ___ / 2 0 1 8
M M
D D
START TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM

[BASIC GREETING…]

Thanks for agreeing to help us develop the questionnaire for the 2019 Census of Law Enforcement
Training Academies, or CLETA. The call will take about an hour. If this time still works for you, I’d like to
start with a short summary of the goals for today’s call and explain a bit about how I’ll conduct the
interview.
IF NO LONGER A GOOD TIME, OFFER TO RESCHEDULE
IF STILL GOOD TIME, CONTINUE
As you may know, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI are preparing to conduct the CLETA in early
2019. As we get ready for the study, we are asking academy staff like you to review the draft
questionnaire. During this call, I’ll ask questions to get your reactions to the draft– including things like
how the questions are worded, ways to clarify instructions, and the information your agency tracks that
is related to the survey questions.
Please keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. One of our main goals is
to draft questions that make sense, so if anything about the questions is confusing or unclear, you can
help by pointing this out to me. Also, if you’re not sure how you would respond to any of the questions,
please tell me that, too.
I am interested in hearing all of your feedback on the survey, but because there are a lot of topics to
discuss and we only have an hour, sometimes I might ask that we move on to the next question before
you’ve had a chance to share everything on your mind. At the end of the interview you can share any
important feedback that you didn’t have a chance to share earlier.
Do you have any questions before we begin?

Before we start discussing the questions, do you happen to recall approximately how much time you
spent completing the questionnaire? Please include the time you and any others at your agency spent
gathering information needed to answer the questions.
__________ HOURS
__________ MINUTES
I’m planning to discuss only some of the questions on the questionnaire, but if you have comments or
concerns about any of the questions I skip, please feel free to share them with me at any time.
P1. The first question I’d like to discuss is Question 1. This asked about the entity responsible for
operating your academy in 2018. What did you think of this question? Did you have any difficulty
with the question?
P2. How about Question 2—did you have any issues with this question? Was the meaning of the types
of training listed clear? Are there any types of training missing from the list?
P3. Question 3 asks if your academy provided any basic training in 2018. In your own words, what is
Basic Law Enforcement training?
P6. [SKIP IN LATER INTERVIEWS IF EARLIER INTERVIEWS RUN LONG] Question 6 asks about degrees
offered through your academy. In your own words, what does that mean for a degree to be offered
through your academy?
P8. The next question I’d like to discuss is Question 8.
a. Thinking about the positions that are listed in this question, do you think any of them are
confusing or unclear, or do you think they’re okay?
b. How easy or difficult was it to complete the question?
P2. Next, I’d like to talk about Question 9.
a. In your own words, what is meant by the word “recruits” as it’s used in this question?
b. In your own words, what is meant by the term “self-sponsored candidates”?
P10. Now let’s look at Question 10.
a. How did you determine your answer to this question? [IF NEEDED, PROBE ABOUT DATA
RETRIEVAL AND/OR THOUGHT PROCESS.]
b. [IF REPORTED IN HOURS, WEEKS, OR MONTHS] Does your answer reflect the actual amount
of training time—such as the time recruits spent in a classroom or with an instructor—or
does it reflect the amount of time that passed from the start of training to the end?
c. [IF UNIT OF TIME IS NOT HOURS] What process would you use to convert your answer if you
needed to report the length of your program in hours?

d. This question asks about your “core BASIC training program.” What do you think is meant by
the word “core” as it’s used in this question?
e. [IF Q9e > 1] Does your core program differ for recruits from different agencies, or is it the
same for all of them? [IF NECESSARY: Does the length of BASIC training differ across
agencies?]
f.

Did you exclude any aspects of your BASIC training program when determining its length?

P11. [SKIP IN LATER INTERVIEWS IF EARLIER INTERVIEWS RUN LONG] Let’s move on now to Question 11.
a. In your own words, what is meant by the word “recruits” as it’s used in this question? Do
you exclude any types of trainees when you think of “recruits”?
b. How about the term “field training”—how would you define it? [IF NECESSARY: PROBE TO
DETERMINE (1) WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED, AND (2) WHO THE
PARTICIPANTS ARE.]
P13. [IF P12 = YES] [SKIP IN LATER INTERVIEWS IF EARLIER INTERVIEWS RUN LONG] Those are all the
questions I have on Question 11. Let’s skip ahead to Question 13.
a. Does your academy oversee the field training component for multiple agencies?
i. [IF YES] Do field training requirements differ across agencies, or is it the same for all of
them? [IF NECESSARY: Does the length of field training differ across agencies?]
ii. [IF LENGTH DIFFERS ACROSS AGENCIES] How did you determine which length to
report?
b. This question asks about your “core” field training program, whereas the previous two
questions don’t include the term “core.” What is the difference between a “field training
program” and a “core field training program”?
P16. Now I have some questions about Question 16.
a. In your own words, what do you think this question is asking?
b. Did you have any difficulty with this question?
c. Are there any categories that you found confusing or unclear?
d. Do all your trainers or instructors fit within one of these categories? [IF NECESSARY: Can you
think of any categories that are missing?]

e. Do any of your trainers or instructors fit within more than one category? [IF YES: PROBE TO
FIND OUT IF THEY REPORTED THEM IN MULTIPLE ROWS. IF ONLY REPORTED IN ONE ROW,
HOW DID THEY DECIDE WHICH ROW?]
f.

How does your academy make the distinction between full-time and part-time trainers and
instructors?

g. When determining who to count as full-time and who to count as part-time, did you think
about their status as a trainer or instructor, or did you think about their status with respect
to all job responsibilities, not just training?
h. What types of people would you include when thinking about “trainers” and “instructors?”
[IF NECESSARY: Who would you exclude?]
i.

This question asks about “BASIC recruit academy classes.” What do you think this is referring
to? [IF NECESSARY: Does it differ from “BASIC training? How?”]

P17. Let’s move on to Question 17.
a. Are the education requirements the same for all your academy’s trainers or instructors, or
do they differ for some positions? [PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR SWORN VERSUS NON-SWORN, BRAND NEW TRAINERS VERSUS LONGTERM TRAINERS WHO HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, ETC.]
P18. I have a similar question about Question 18.
a. Are the requirements for law enforcement experience the same for all your academy’s
trainers or instructors, or do they differ for some positions? [PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THERE
ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SWORN VERSUS NON-SWORN, BRAND NEW TRAINERS
VERSUS LONG-TERM TRAINERS WHO HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, ETC.]
P19. The next question I’m wondering about is Question 19.
a. Can you describe your academy’s certification requirements for your full-time trainers or
instructors?
b. Do you think the POST-certification option is asking about POST-certification as an
instructor, an officer, or either?
c. [IF NOT DESCRIBED IN P19a] I’m wondering how people might answer this question if, for
example, instructors are required to have at least one certification from a group of
certifications. For instance, if your academy required state certification or academy
certification, but not both. Do you have any requirements like this? [IF YES, DID YOU SELECT
ALL OF THE OPTIONS? ASK ABOUT THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WHEN ANSWERING.]

d. Are the requirements for law enforcement experience the same for all your academy’s
trainers or instructors, or do they differ for some positions? [PROBE TO FIND OUT IF THERE
ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SWORN VERSUS NON-SWORN, BRAND NEW TRAINERS
VERSUS LONG-TERM TRAINERS WHO HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, ETC.]
P24. Now let’s look at Question 24.
a. This question refers to resources being operated by your academy versus those operated by
some other entity or organization. How would you define what should be counted as
“operated by your academy”? [PROBE IF NECESSARY: Would you include or exclude
resources that are located at another site? Would you include or exclude resources that
your academy has access to through a contact with a third-party, such as a privately own
fitness center or firearms range?]
b. [IF THE ACADEMY SERVES MORE THAN ONE AGENCY] Do recruits from different agencies
have access to different facilities/resources depending upon their agency?
c. Option b asks about tablets. When you answered this question, how did you handle tablets
that might be personally owned by recruits? Did you consider those when identifying your
response or not?
d. Looking at the Educational category, which is rows a-h, are any of the terms vague or
unfamiliar? Are there any that we should define in the questionnaire? [IF YES, PROBE FOR
MORE INFO.]
e. How about in the rest of this table—are there any unfamiliar terms?
f.

Are there any aspects of this question that you think could be improved? [IF YES, PROBE FOR
MORE INFO.]

P27. Thinking about Question 27, did you have any difficulty determining the numbers asked about in
this question?
P28. And how about Question 28—did you have any difficulty determining those numbers?
P29. Question 29 asks about recruits who did not complete BASIC training…
a. Would you describe how your academy tracks this information? [DETERMINE THEIR
PROCESS FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTION.]
b. Are any key reasons missing from this list?
P32. Now I’d like to talk about Question 32.

a. In your own words, how you explain the difference between a training environment with a
stress-model versus one with a non-stress model?
b. What was your thought process when deciding which answer to select? [IF NECESSARY:
PROBE TO DETERMINE WHY THEY SELECTED THE RESPONSE THEY SELECTED.]
P33. The next question I’d like to discuss is 33.
a. What is your initial reaction to this question?
b. Are there any aspects of this question that you think could be improved? [IF YES, PROBE FOR
MORE INFO.]
c. Can you walk me through the process you used to complete this question? [IF NECESSARY,
PROBE TO DETERMINE: (1) HOW THEY DETERMINED THE NUMBER OF HOURS, (2) WHAT
SOURCES THEY CONSULTED, IF ANY.]
d. Does the number of hours ever vary, for instance, based on a recruit’s sponsoring agency?
[IF YES: DETERMINE HOW THEY DECIDED WHICH NUMBER TO REPORT.]
e. How precise do you think your estimates are for the required number of hours? For
instance, do you think they’re accurate within 1 hour? Within 10 hours? What’s your sense?
f.

Does the precision of the number of hours vary from subject area to subject area? [IF YES:
Which subjects are most difficult to report? Why?]

g. Item z asks about “Communications.” Can you give me some examples of what this item
asking about?
h. How about Item rr, “Sexual harassment”? What might be included in instruction on this
topic? [PROBE TO DETERMINE IF THEY’RE THINKING OF THIS AS SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
THE WORKPLACE OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHEN INTERACTING WITH THE COMMUNITY.]
i.

Looking at the items listed in the last section, Special Topics (row ee), are there any that you
think don’t belong in this question?

P34. I’m almost finished with my questions. Let’s move on to Question 34.
a. Do you think any of the items listed in this question are confusing or unclear?
b. Are there any items that you think don’t belong in this question?
P39. Now think about the entire survey. Did you have difficulty with any aspect of the survey that we
have not already discussed?

P40. How much of the information needed to answer these questions do you have available? What did
you need to get from other people at your academy? [PROBE]
P41. How do you feel about the length and time needed to answer the questions?
P37. Your feedback on these questions has been very helpful. Before we conclude, do you have any
other feedback or suggestions to improve the questionnaire?

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide feedback. We will combine your comments with
feedback from other participants into an overall report. That report will help BJS evaluate the survey
and determine whether to make changes to the questionnaire.
Is there anything else you would like to talk about today?
Thanks again!
END TIME: ___ ___ : ___ ___ AM / PM

E
Appendix E: Questions not Discussed
The questions included in Appendix E were not discussed as part of the interview protocol and were not
brought up by participants during the interview.

Question 4

Question 5

Question 7

Question 12

Question 13

Question 14

Question 15

Question 20

Question 21

Question 22

Question 23

Question 30

Question 31

Question 35

Question 36

Question 37

Question 38

File Type	application/pdf
Author	Hyland, Shelley
File Modified	2018-10-19
File Created	2018-10-19