Census of Jails Attachment

List of Attachments 

Attachment A. Sample survey website screenshots  
Attachment B. Data collection schedule 
Attachment  C. Pre‐notification letter 
Attachment  D1. Form CJ3: Single‐facility jail form 
Attachment  D2. Form CJ3A: Jurisdiction form for multi‐facility jails 
Attachment  D3. Form CJ3A‐Addendum: Facility form multi‐facility jails 
Attachment  E. Invitation email 
Attachment  F. Reminder email 1 
Attachment  G. Reminder email 2 
Attachment  H. Reminder letter from BJS Director 
Attachment  I. Reminder email 3 
Attachment  J. Cognitive testing report 
Attachment  K. Comments from the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology in the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (CDER)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
Attachment  L. Comments from National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pew Charitable Trusts  
Attachment  M. Comments from Pew Charitable Trusts 
Attachment  N. Public Comment on 84 FR 4539 
Attachment  O. Comments FROM Campaign for Youth Justice Re 84 FR 4593 
Attachment  P. Comments from National Disability Rights Network  
Attachment  Q. Public Comment received on Feb. 15, 2019 

Attachment A

Attachment B

Sent on Monday (first
weekday after reference date)

Advance
physical mailing
(June 8)

Sent three weeks prior to data
collection

Invitation e-mail
(July 2)

Start of rDQFU
(July 16)

Sent about 1 week before deadline.

1st reminder e-mail
(July 26)

Initial
deadline
(August 2)

Sent about 1 week after deadline.

Legend

2nd reminder e-mail
with PDF link
(August 9)

RTI activity
Physical mailing

BJS Director letter
(signature required)
(September 7)

E-mail
Hard copy mailing
(September 27)
Start non-response contacting
(October 22)

End of data collection
(November 30)

Final data delivery
(December 31)

Mailed on Friday for arrival early next
week, inline with best practices.

Mailed on Thursday for arrival early next week,
but giving some variation in arrival day from
previous mailings.

Attachment C

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

June 7, 2019
<> > <>
<>
<>
<>
<>, <> <>
Dear <> <>:
In a couple of weeks, you will receive an email invitation for you to participate in the 2019 Census of
Jails. The email will contain instructions for the survey, as well as a username and password unique to
your facility. When the email arrives, please log onto the data collection website and fill out the form
promptly.
The Census of Jails enumerates every jail facility in the United States and collects information on jail
population counts and characteristics, staffing, and programs. The data are widely used by practitioners,
policy makers, researchers, and the general public to understand the conditions and needs of local jails
across America. Your participation ensures that your agency is represented in our national statistics on
local jails.
The reference date for the 2019 Census of Jails will be June 28th, 2019. The form will ask about your
jail’s confined population on this date, including population breakdowns by sex, race, juvenile status,
conviction status, severity of offense (felony or misdemeanor), and U.S. citizenship status.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has contracted with RTI, International to conduct this data collection. If
you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail us at jailcensus@rti.org or call at 1-866-354-4992.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,

Attachment D1
Form CJ-3

OMB No. 1121‐XXXX Approval Expires XX/XX/XXXX

2019 CENSUS OF JAILS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
AND ACTING AS COLLECTION AGENT
RTI INTERNATIONAL

SINGLE-FACILITY JAIL FORM

Data Supplied By 

Name 
Official 
Address
Phone 

Title 
   City    

Street or P. O. Box           

Area Code     

           Number   

  Extension 

   State        

Fax 

Area Code     

  Zip 

        Number      

E‐mail 




General Information 
IMPORTANT Please use this form as reference and submit your data at http://jailcensus.rti.org.
User name and password are included in the census invitation email.
If you need assistance, contact RTI, International toll-free at 1-800-344-1387 or email
jailcensus@rti.org.

What types of facilities are included in this census?

Reporting instructions:

The census includes all confinement facilities administered
by a local or regional law enforcement agency, which are
intended for adults but sometimes hold juveniles.

 Please complete this CJ-3 form on information pertaining
to your entire jail jurisdiction.

 INCLUDE jails and city/county or regional correctional
centers.
 INCLUDE special jail facilities operated under the
authority of local or regional correctional authorities, such
as medical/treatment/release centers, halfway houses,
work farms, and private facilities operated under contract
to local, regional, or Federal correctional authorities.
 INCLUDE temporary holding or lockup facilities if they are
a part of your combined jail function.

 If the answer to a question is "not available" or
"unknown," write “DK” in the space provided.
 If the answer to a question is "not applicable," write "NA"
in the space provided.
 If the answer to a question is "none" or "zero, "write "0" in
the space provided.
 When exact numeric answers are not available, provide
estimates and mark X in the box beside each number that
is estimated, e.g., 1,234 .

 EXCLUDE temporary holding or lockup facilities that are
not a part of your combined function from which inmates
are usually transferred within 72 hours and not held
beyond arraignment. If your only function is as a
temporary holding or lockup facility, DO NOT complete
this form. Contact us at 1-800-344-1387 or
jailcensus@rti.org.

BURDEN STATEMENT
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden of
this collection is estimated to average 2 hours and 30 minutes per form, including reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering necessary data, and
completing and reviewing this form. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this survey, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531. Do not send your completed form to this address.

SECTION I. FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
1. For which of the following purposes do your jail facilities hold offenders?
Yes

No

a. Detention facility with authority to hold persons facing criminal charges beyond 72 hours

Ο

Ο

b. Correctional facility for persons convicted of offenses with sentences usually of a year or
less

Ο

Ο

c.

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Yes

No

a. General adult population confinement

Ο

Ο

b. Persons returned to custody (e.g., probation, parole, and bail bond violators)

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

d. Reception/diagnosis/classification

Ο

Ο

e. Confinement of juveniles

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

g. Mental health/psychiatric care

Ο

Ο

h. Alcohol treatment confinement

Ο

Ο

Correctional facility for persons convicted of felonies with sentences of more than year

d. Temporary holding or lockup facility in which arrestees are usually detained up to 72
hours, excluding holidays and weekends, pending arraignment
2. As a matter of practice, what type of inmates do your jail facilities house?
Mark only ONE choice.
Ο Males only
Ο Females only
Ο Both males and females
3. What are the functions of your jail facilities?

c.

f.

Work release/prerelease

Medical treatment/hospitalization confinement

i.

Drug treatment confinement

Ο

Ο

j.

Boot camp

Ο

Ο

k.

Protective Custody

Ο

Ο

l.

Other

Ο

Ο

Specify

Page 1

4. On June 28, 2019, what was the total capacity of your jail facilities?
a. Rated Capacity
The maximum number of beds or inmates assigned by a rating official to your jail facilities, excluding
separate temporary holding areas.

b. Design capacity
The number of inmates planners or architects intended for your jail facilities.

5. On June 28, 2019, were any of your jail facilities under a federal, state or local court

order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates they can house?
Ο Yes—go on to 6
Ο No—skip to 7
6. If Yes to 5 (under a court order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates)—
a. What was the maximum number of inmates your jail jurisdiction was allowed to
house?

b. In what year did this order or decree take effect?
If more than one, report the year for the longest in effect.

7. On June 28, 2019, were any of your jail facilities under a federal, state or local court

order or consent decree for specific conditions of confinement?
Ο Yes—go on to 8
Ο No—skip to 9
8. If Yes to 7 (under a court order or consent decree for specific conditions of

confinement), what were those specific conditions?
Yes

No

a. Crowding

Ο

Ο

b. Recreation/exercise

Ο

Ο

c.

Ο

Ο

Staffing
Page 2

d. Medical facilities or services

Ο

Ο

e. Visiting/mail/telephone policy

Ο

Ο

f.

Ο

Ο

g. Library services

Ο

Ο

h. Grievance procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

i.

Fire hazards

Ο

Ο

j.

Disciplinary procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

k.

Administrative segregation procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

l.

Religious practices

Ο

Ο

m. Search policies or practices

Ο

Ο

n. Education or training programs

Ο

Ο

o. Counseling programs

Ο

Ο

p. Inmate classification

Ο

Ο

q. Other

Ο

Ο

Food services/nutrition/cleanliness

Specify

SECTION II. SUPERVISED POPULATION AND INMATE COUNTS
9. On June 28, 2019, how many persons under the supervision of your jail jurisdiction

were—
a. CONFINED in your jail facilities?
INCLUDE—
 Inmates held for other jurisdictions
 Persons in community-based programs who RETURN to your jail facilities at night
Community-based programs include electronic monitoring, home detention, community service,
day reporting, other pretrial supervision, other alternative work programs, alcohol/drug treatment
programs, and other programs where offenders are supervised outside of jail.
 Persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities
 Persons out to court while under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities.
EXCLUDE—
Χ Persons under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities who are boarded elsewhere
Χ Inmates who are AWOL, escaped, or on long-term transfer to other jurisdictions
Χ Persons in community-based programs run by your jail who do NOT return to your jail facilities at
night.

b. Under jail supervision, but NOT CONFINED?
INCLUDE—
Page 3



Persons in community-based programs run by your jail facilities who do NOT return to your jail
facilities at night.

EXCLUDE—
Χ Persons on pretrial release who are not in a community-based program run by your jail facilities
Χ Persons under the supervision of probation, parole, or other agencies
Χ Inmates on weekend programs that allow offenders to serve their sentences of confinement only on
weekends (e.g., Friday–Sunday)
Χ Inmates participating in community-based programs who RETURN to your jail facilities at night.

c. TOTAL (Sum of items 9a and 9b)
10. On the weekend prior to June 28, 2019, did your jail facilities have a weekend

program?
Weekend programs allow offenders to serve their sentences of confinement only on weekends (e.g.,
Friday–Sunday).
Ο Yes—How many inmates participated?
Ο No
11. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—
a. Adult males (age 18 or older)
b. Adult females (age 18 or older)
c. Males age 17 or younger
d. Females age 17 or younger
e. TOTAL (Sum of items 11a through 11d should equal item 9a)
12. Of all the persons age 17 or younger CONFINED in your jail facilities on June 28,

2019 (sum of 11c and 11d), how many were tried or awaiting trial in adult court?

13. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—
a. White (not of Hispanic origin)
Page 4

b.

Black or African American (not of Hispanic origin)

c.

Hispanic or Latino

d.

American Indian or Alaska Native (not of Hispanic origin)

e.

Asian (not of Hispanic origin)

f.

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (not of Hispanic origin)

g.

Two or more races (not of Hispanic origin)

h.

Additional categories in your jail information system

Specify

i. Not known
j. TOTAL (Sum of items 13a to 13i should equal item 9a)

14. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—


INCLUDE persons adjudicated or awaiting revocation hearing.

a. Probation violators
b. Parole violators
c. TOTAL (Sum of 14a and 14b)

Questions 15, 16 and 18 ask about the offense seriousness and conviction status of inmates. For
inmates with more than one charge/offense, report the most serious charge/offense and the associated
conviction status. For probation and parole violators, report the most serious original or new
charge/offense. The most serious charge/offense is the one crime for which the person could receive
the longest jail/prison sentence. Alternatively, it can be determined by your jail system’s offense
severity code.

Page 5

15. On June 28, 2019 how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities, regardless of

conviction status, had a charge/offense type of—
a. Felony
b. Misdemeanor
c. Other
Specify

d. TOTAL (Sum of items 15a to 15c should equal item 9a)
16. Of all persons CONFINED in your jail facilities on June 28, 2019, how many were—


For persons with more than one charge/offense, report the status associated with the most serious
charge/offense.



For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.

a. Convicted
b. Unconvicted
c. TOTAL (Sum of items 16a and 16b should equal item 9a)
17. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—
a. U.S. citizens
b. Not U.S. citizens
c. Of unknown citizenship status
d. TOTAL (Sum of items 17a to 17c should equal item 9a)
18. On June 28, 2019, how many non-U.S. citizens in item 17b were—
a. Convicted
b. Unconvicted
c. Of unknown conviction status
Page 6

d. TOTAL (Sum of items 18a to 18c should equal item 17b)
19. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were held for—


Count persons with multiple holds only once with priority being federal, state, tribal, and local.



INCLUDE contractual, temporary, courtesy, or ad hoc holds for other agencies.

a. Federal authorities
(1) U.S. Marshals Service
(2) Federal Bureau of Prisons
(3) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
(4) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
X

EXCLUDE inmates being housed for tribal governments in item 19c below.

(5) Other FEDERAL authorities
Specify

b. State prison authorities
(1) For your state
(2) For other states
c. American Indian or Alaska Native tribal governments
Χ

EXCLUDE inmates being housed for the BIA in item 19a4.

d. Other local jail jurisdictions
EXCLUDE—
Χ Inmates being housed for your own jail jurisdiction (i.e., your own county/city inmates).
Χ Inmates being housed for tribal governments in item 19c.
(1) Within your state
(2) Outside your state
e. TOTAL (Sum of items 19a to 19d)

Page 7

20. a. During the 30-day period from June 1 to June 30, 2019, on what day did your jail

facilities hold the greatest number of inmates?
Peak population should be equal to or greater than the confined inmate population reported in item 9a.

June

, 2019

b. How many persons were CONFINED on that day?
21. Between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, what was the average daily population of

all jail confinement facilities operated by your jail jurisdiction?


INCLUDE inmates who participated in weekend programs that allow offenders to serve their sentences of
confinement only on weekends (e.g., Friday–Sunday).



To calculate the average daily population, add the number of persons for each day during the period July
1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, and divide the result by 365.



If daily counts are not available, estimate the average daily population by adding the number of persons
held on the same day of each month and divide the result by 12.



If average daily population cannot be calculated as directed above, then estimate the typical number of
persons held in your jail facilities each day.

a. Males
b. Females
c. TOTAL (Sum of items 21a and 21b)
22. How many persons under the supervision of your jail facilities were—
a. ADMITTED to your jail facilities between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019?
INCLUDE—
 Persons officially booked into and housed in your jail by formal legal document and by the authority of
the courts or some other official agency
 Repeat offenders booked on new charges
 Persons serving a weekend sentence coming into jail for the FIRST time only (Do not count
subsequent admissions for the same weekend sentences).
EXCLUDE—
Χ Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs, bail/bond
releases, and court appearances.
(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 22a1 and 22a2)
Page 8

b. DISCHARGED from your jail facilities between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019?
INCLUDE—
 Persons released after a period of confinement (e.g., sentence completion, bail/bond releases, other
pretrial releases, transfers to other jurisdictions, or deaths)
 Persons completing their weekend sentence leaving jail for the LAST time.
EXCLUDE—
Χ Temporary discharges (e.g., work releases, medical appointments/treatment, out to courts, furloughs,
day reporters, or transfers to other facilities within your jail jurisdiction).
(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 22b1 and 22b2)

SECTION III.

FACILITY STAFFING

23. On June 28, 2019, how many staff employed in your jail facilities were—


Count each employee only once. Classify employees with multiple functions by the function performed
most frequently.



INCLUDE payroll staff, nonpayroll staff on the payroll of other government agencies (e.g., health
department, school district, or court), and unpaid interns.

Χ

EXCLUDE staff paid through contractual agreements and community volunteers.

a. Correctional officers


INCLUDE deputies, monitors, and other custody staff who spend more than 50% of their time with the
incarcerated population.

(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 23a1 and 23a2)
b. All other staff


INCLUDE administrators, clerical and maintenance staff, educational staff, professional and technical
staff, and other staff who spend more than 50% of their time in your jail.

(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 23b1 and 23b2)
C. TOTAL (Sum of items 23a3 and 23b3)
Page 9

SECTION IV.

PROGRAMS ON OPIOID TESTING, SCREENING AND TREATMENT

The following questions are about opioids. Opioids are a class of drug that include heroin, synthetic
opioids such as fentanyl, and pain relievers available legally by prescription, such as oxycodone
(OxyContin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), codeine, and morphine.
24. As a matter of practice, do any jail confinement facilities operated by your jail

jurisdiction—


INCLUDE testing, screening, and treatment that are conducted either on or off facility grounds.
Yes

No

a. Conduct routine urinalysis tests on inmates during intake for the detection of
opioids
b. Screen inmates during intake for opioid use disorder with a questionnaire or
interview

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

c. Provide overdose education to inmates identified as having opioid use disorders

Ο

Ο

d. Initiate behavioral or psychological treatment for inmates identified as having
opioid use disorders
e. Provide medications to inmates for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms,
such as clonidine, lofexidine, methadone, or buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone).
Χ EXCLUDE non-prescription or over the counter medication.

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

g. Continue providing prescription opioids to inmates with acute or chronic pain
admitted to your jail facilities with a current prescription from a health care
professional prior to admission

Ο

Ο

h. Initiate providing opioids to inmates to relieve acute or chronic pain

Ο

Ο

f.

Provide medication-assisted treatment (MAT) to inmates for treatment of opioid use
disorder.
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) refers to the use of FDA-approved
medications, such as methadone, buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone), and
naltrexone (e.g., Vivitrol), in the treatment of substance use disorders.
If NO to 24f, SKIP to 24g.
1) Continue MAT for inmates who are admitted with a current prescription for
buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone) or naltrexone (e.g., Vivitrol) or were getting
services from a methadone clinic prior to admission
2) Initiate MAT for those identified as having opioid use disorders

i.

Provide overdose reversal medications such as naloxone (Narcan) to inmates with
opioid use disorders to take with them at the time of release from jail

Ο

Ο

j.

Link inmates with opioid use disorder to MAT in community care upon release

Ο

Ο

Page 10

If YES to 24b or 24e, go on to 25.
If NO to 24b and 24e, SKIP to 26.
25. During the 30-day period from June 1 to June 30, 2019—
a. How many persons were admitted to your jail facilities?
INCLUDE—
 Persons officially booked into and housed in your jail by formal legal document and by the authority of
the courts or some other official agency
 Repeat offenders booked on new charges
 Persons serving a weekend sentence coming into jail for the FIRST time only (Do not count
subsequent admissions for the same weekend sentences).
EXCLUDE—
Χ Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs, bail/bond
releases, and court appearances.

If NO to 24b, SKIP to 25c.
b. Of the admissions reported in item 25a, how many were screened with a
questionnaire or interview (24b) for opioid use disorder?

(1) How many screened positive for opioid use disorders?

(2) How many of those screened positive (25b1) were unique individuals (i.e., count
multiple positive results for the same individual only once)?

If NO to 24e, SKIP to 26.
c. Of the admissions reported in item 25a, how many did your jail facilities treat for
opioid withdrawal with medications (24e)?

(1) How many treated for opioid withdrawal were unique individuals (i.e., count
multiple treatments for the same individual only once)?

Page 11

If NO to 24f, END SURVEY.
26. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were receiving

medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders?


INCLUDE persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under the jurisdiction of your jail
facilities.

END OF SURVEY

Page 12

Attachment D2
Form CJ-3A

OMB No. 1121‐XXXX Approval Expires XX/XX/XXXX

2019 CENSUS OF JAILS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
AND ACTING AS COLLECTION AGENT
RTI INTERNATIONAL

JURISDICTION FORM

Data Supplied By 

Name 
Official 
Address
Phone 

Title 
  City    

Street or P. O. Box           

Area Code     

           Number   

  Extension 

   State        

Fax 

Area Code     

  Zip 

        Number      

E‐mail 




General Information 
IMPORTANT Please use this form as reference and submit your data at http://jailcensus.rti.org.
User name and password are included in the census invitation email.
If you need assistance, contact RTI, International toll-free at 1-800-344-1387 or email
jailcensus@rti.org.

What types of facilities are included in this census?

Reporting instructions:

The census includes all confinement facilities administered
by a local or regional law enforcement agency, which are
intended for adults but sometimes hold juveniles.

 Please complete this CJ-3A form on information
pertaining to your entire jail jurisdiction.

 INCLUDE jails and city/county or regional correctional
centers.
 INCLUDE special jail facilities operated under the
authority of local or regional correctional authorities, such
as medical/treatment/release centers, halfway houses,
work farms, and private facilities operated under contract
to local, regional, or Federal correctional authorities.
 INCLUDE temporary holding or lockup facilities if they are
a part of your combined jail function.
temporary holding or lockup facilities that are
EXCLUDE

not a part of your combined function from which inmates
are usually transferred within 72 hours and not held
beyond arraignment. If your only function is as a
temporary holding or lockup facility, DO NOT complete
this form. Contact us at 1-800-344-1387 or
jailcensus@rti.org.

 If the answer to a question is "not available" or
"unknown," write “DK” in the space provided.
 If the answer to a question is "not applicable," write "NA"
in the space provided.
 If the answer to a question is "none" or "zero, "write "0" in
the space provided.
 When exact numeric answers are not available, provide
estimates and mark X in the box beside each number that
is estimated, e.g., 1,234 .
Individual jail facility data
 Please complete a separate CJ-3A Addendum form for
each individual jail facility in your jurisdiction.

BURDEN STATEMENT
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden of
this collection is estimated to average 2 hours and 10 minutes per jurisdiction form and 20 minutes per facility form, including reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering necessary data, and completing and reviewing this form. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this survey, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531. Do not send your completed form
to this address.

SECTION I. SUPERVISED POPULATION AND INMATE COUNTS
1. On June 28, 2019, how many persons under the supervision of your jail jurisdiction

were—
a. CONFINED in your jail facilities?
INCLUDE—
 Inmates held for other jurisdictions
 Persons in community-based programs who RETURN to your jail facilities at night
Community-based programs include electronic monitoring, home detention, community service,
day reporting, other pretrial supervision, other alternative work programs, alcohol/drug treatment
programs, and other programs where offenders are supervised outside of jail.
 Persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities
 Persons out to court while under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities.
EXCLUDE—
Χ Persons under the jurisdiction of your jail facilities who are boarded elsewhere
Χ Inmates who are AWOL, escaped, or on long-term transfer to other jurisdictions
Χ Persons in community-based programs run by your jail who do NOT return to your jail facilities at
night.

b. Under jail supervision, but NOT CONFINED?
INCLUDE—
 Persons in community-based programs run by your jail facilities who do NOT return to your jail
facilities at night.
EXCLUDE—
Χ Persons on pretrial release who are not in a community-based program run by your jail facilities
Χ Persons under the supervision of probation, parole, or other agencies
Χ Inmates on weekend programs that allow offenders to serve their sentences of confinement only on
weekends (e.g., Friday–Sunday)
Χ Inmates participating in community-based programs who RETURN to your jail facilities at night.

c. TOTAL (Sum of items 1a and 1b)
2. On the weekend prior to June 28, 2019, did your jail facilities have a weekend

program?
Weekend programs allow offenders to serve their sentences of confinement only on weekends (e.g.,
Friday–Sunday).
Ο Yes—How many inmates participated?
Ο No
Page 1

3. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—
a. White (not of Hispanic origin)
b. Black or African American (not of Hispanic origin)
c. Hispanic or Latino
d. American Indian or Alaska Native (not of Hispanic origin)
e. Asian (not of Hispanic origin)
f.

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (not of Hispanic
origin)

g. Two or more races (not of Hispanic origin)
h. Additional categories in your jail information system
Specify

i.

Not known

j.

TOTAL (Sum of items 3a to 3i should equal item 1a)

4. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—


INCLUDE persons adjudicated or awaiting revocation hearing.

a. Probation violators
b. Parole violators
c. TOTAL (Sum of 4a and 4b)

Questions 5, 6 and 8 ask about the offense seriousness and conviction status of inmates. For inmates
with more than one charge/offense, report the most serious charge/offense and the associated
conviction status. For probation and parole violators, report the most serious original or new
charge/offense. The most serious charge/offense is the one crime for which the person could receive
the longest jail/prison sentence. Alternatively, it can be determined by your jail system’s offense
severity code.

Page 2

5. On June 28, 2019 how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities, regardless of

conviction status, had a charge/offense type of—
a. Felony
b. Misdemeanor
c. Other
Specify

d. TOTAL (Sum of items 5a to 5c should equal item 1a)
6. Of all persons CONFINED in your jail facilities on June 28, 2019, how many were—


For persons with more than one charge/offense, report the status associated with the most serious
charge/offense.



For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.

a. Convicted
b. Unconvicted
c. TOTAL (Sum of items 6a and 6b should equal item 1a)
7. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were—
a. U.S. citizens
b. Not U.S. citizens
c. Of unknown citizenship status
d. TOTAL (Sum of items 7a to 7c should equal item 1a)
8. On June 28, 2019, how many non-U.S. citizens in item 7b were—
a. Convicted
b. Unconvicted
c. Of unknown conviction status
Page 3

d. TOTAL (Sum of items 8a to 8c should equal item 7b)
9. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were held for—


Count persons with multiple holds only once with priority being federal, state, tribal, and local.



INCLUDE contractual, temporary, courtesy, or ad hoc holds for other agencies.

a. Federal authorities
(1) U.S. Marshals Service
(2) Federal Bureau of Prisons
(3) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
(4) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
X

EXCLUDE inmates being housed for tribal governments in item 9c below.

(5) Other FEDERAL authorities
Specify

b. State prison authorities
(1) For your state
(2) For other states
c. American Indian or Alaska Native tribal governments
Χ

EXCLUDE inmates being housed for the BIA in item 9a4.

d. Other local jail jurisdictions
EXCLUDE—
Χ Inmates being housed for your own jail jurisdiction (i.e., your own county/city inmates).
Χ Inmates being housed for tribal governments in item 9c.
(1) Within your state
(2) Outside your state
e. TOTAL (Sum of items 9a to 9d)

Page 4

10. Between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, what was the average daily population of

all jail confinement facilities operated by your jail jurisdiction?


INCLUDE inmates who participated in weekend programs that allow offenders to serve their sentences of
confinement only on weekends (e.g., Friday–Sunday).



To calculate the average daily population, add the number of persons for each day during the period July
1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, and divide the result by 365.



If daily counts are not available, estimate the average daily population by adding the number of persons
held on the same day of each month and divide the result by 12.



If average daily population cannot be calculated as directed above, then estimate the typical number of
persons held in your jail facilities each day.

a. Males
b. Females
c. TOTAL (Sum of items 10a and 10b)
11. How many persons under the supervision of your jail facilities were—
a. ADMITTED to your jail facilities between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019?
INCLUDE—
 Persons officially booked into and housed in your jail by formal legal document and by the authority of
the courts or some other official agency
 Repeat offenders booked on new charges
 Persons serving a weekend sentence coming into jail for the FIRST time only (Do not count
subsequent admissions for the same weekend sentences).
EXCLUDE—
Χ Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs, bail/bond
releases, and court appearances.
(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 11a1 and 11a2)
b. DISCHARGED from your jail facilities between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019?
INCLUDE—
 Persons released after a period of confinement (e.g., sentence completion, bail/bond releases, other
pretrial releases, transfers to other jurisdictions, or deaths)
 Persons completing their weekend sentence leaving jail for the LAST time.
EXCLUDE—
Χ Temporary discharges (e.g., work releases, medical appointments/treatment, out to courts, furloughs,
day reporters, or transfers to other facilities within your jail jurisdiction).

Page 5

(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 11b1 and 11b2)

SECTION II. FACILITY STAFFING
12. On June 28, 2019, how many staff employed in your jail facilities were—


Count each employee only once. Classify employees with multiple functions by the function performed
most frequently.



INCLUDE payroll staff, nonpayroll staff on the payroll of other government agencies (e.g., health
department, school district, or court), and unpaid interns.

Χ

EXCLUDE staff paid through contractual agreements and community volunteers.

a. Correctional officers


INCLUDE deputies, monitors, and other custody staff who spend more than 50% of their time with the
incarcerated population.

(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 12a1 and 12a2)
b. All other staff


INCLUDE administrators, clerical and maintenance staff, educational staff, professional and technical
staff, and other staff who spend more than 50% of their time in your jail.

(1) Males
(2) Females
(3) TOTAL (Sum of items 12b1 and 12b2)
C. TOTAL (Sum of items 12a3 and 12b3)

SECTION III.

PROGRAMS ON OPIOID TESTING, SCREENING AND TREATMENT

The following questions are about opioids. Opioids are a class of drug that include heroin, synthetic
opioids such as fentanyl, and pain relievers available legally by prescription, such as oxycodone
(OxyContin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), codeine, and morphine.
Page 6

13. As a matter of practice, do any jail confinement facilities operated by your jail

jurisdiction—


INCLUDE testing, screening, and treatment that are conducted either on or off facility grounds.
Yes

No

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

1) Continue MAT for inmates who are admitted with a current prescription or
were getting services from a methadone clinic prior to admission

Ο

Ο

2) Initiate or continue MAT for those identified as having opioid use disorders

Ο

Ο

g. Continue providing prescription opioids to inmates with acute or chronic pain
admitted to your jail facilities with a current prescription from a health care
professional prior to admission

Ο

Ο

h. Initiate providing opioids to inmates to relieve acute or chronic pain

Ο

Ο

a. Conduct routine urinalysis tests on inmates during intake for the detection of
opioids
b. Screen inmates during intake for opioid use disorder with a questionnaire or
interview
c. Provide overdose education to inmates identified as having opioid use disorders
d. Initiate behavioral or psychological treatment for inmates identified as having
opioid use disorders
e. Provide medications to inmates for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms,
such as clonidine, lofexidine, methadone, or buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone).
Χ EXCLUDE non-prescription or over the counter medication.
f.

Provide medication-assisted treatment (MAT) to inmates for treatment of opioid
use disorder.
Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) refers to the use of FDA-approved
medications, such as methadone, buprenorphine (e.g., Suboxone), and
naltrexone (e.g., Vivitrol), in the treatment of substance use disorders.
If NO to 13f, SKIP to 13g.

i.

Provide overdose reversal medications such as naloxone (Narcan) to inmates
with opioid use disorders to take with them at the time of release from jail

Ο

Ο

j.

Link inmates with opioid use disorder to MAT in community care upon release

Ο

Ο

If YES to 13b or 13e, go on to 14.
If NO to 13b and 13e, SKIP to 15.
14. During the 30-day period from June 1 to June 30, 2019—
a. How many persons were admitted to your jail facilities?
INCLUDE—
Page 7





Persons officially booked into and housed in your jail by formal legal document and by the authority of
the courts or some other official agency
Repeat offenders booked on new charges
Persons serving a weekend sentence coming into jail for the FIRST time only (Do not count
subsequent admissions for the same weekend sentences).

EXCLUDE—
Χ Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs, bail/bond
releases, and court appearances.

If NO to 13b, SKIP to 14c.
b. Of the admissions reported in item 14a, how many were screened with a
questionnaire or interview (13b) for opioid use disorder?

(1) How many screened positive for opioid use disorders?

(2) How many of those screened positive (14b1) were unique individuals (i.e., count
multiple positive results for the same individual only once)?

If NO to 13e, SKIP to 15.
c. Of the admissions reported in item 14a, how many did your jail facilities treat for
opioid withdrawal (13e)?

(1) How many treated for opioid withdrawal were unique individuals (i.e., count
multiple treatments for the same individual only once)?

If NO to 13f, END SURVEY.
15. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facilities were receiving

medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders?


INCLUDE persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under the jurisdiction of your jail
facilities.

Page 8

END OF SURVEY

Page 9

Attachment D3
Form CJ-3A Addendum

OMB No. 1121‐XXXX Approval Expires XX/XX/XXXX

2019 CENSUS   OF JAILS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

FACILITY FORM

AND ACTING AS COLLECTION AGENT
RTI INTERNATIONAL

Data Supplied By 

Name 
Official 
Addres
Phone 

Title 
Street or P. O. Box           

Area Code     

           Number   

   city    

  Extension 

   State        

Fax 

Area Code     

  Zip 

        Number      

E‐mail 
Complete this addendum for each jail facility in your jurisdiction that has both a separate administrator and a separate staff.

SECTION I. FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
1. For which of the following purposes [does this jail facility | do your jail facilities] hold

offenders?

a. Detention [facility | facilities] with authority to hold persons facing criminal charges
beyond 72 hours
b. Correctional [facility | facilities] for persons convicted of offenses with sentences usually
of a year or less
c. Correctional [facility | facilities] for persons convicted of felonies with sentences of more
than year
d. Temporary holding or lockup [facility | facilities] in which arrestees are usually detained
up to 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, pending arraignment

Yes

No

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

2. As a matter of practice, what type of inmates [does this jail facility | do your jail

facilities] house?
Mark only ONE choice.
Ο Males only
Ο Females only
Ο Both males and females

Page 1 

3. What are the functions of [this jail facility | your jail facilities]?
Yes

No

a. General adult population confinement

Ο

Ο

b. Persons returned to custody (e.g. probation, parole, and bail bond violators)

Ο

Ο

c.

Ο

Ο

d. Reception/diagnosis/classification

Ο

Ο

e. Confinement of juveniles

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

g. Mental health/psychiatric care

Ο

Ο

h. Alcohol treatment confinement

Ο

Ο

i.

Drug treatment confinement

Ο

Ο

j.

Boot camp

Ο

Ο

k.

Protective Custody

Ο

Ο

l.

Other

Ο

Ο

f.

Work release/prerelease

Medical treatment/hospitalization confinement

Specify 

4. On June 28, 2019, what was the total capacity of [this jail facility | your jail facilities]?
a. Rated Capacity
The maximum number of beds or inmates assigned by a rating official to [this jail facility | your jail facilities],
excluding separate temporary holding areas.

b. Design capacity
The number of inmates planners or architects intended for [this jail facility | your jail facilities].

5. On June 28, 2019, [was this jail facility | were your jail facilities] under a federal, state

or local court order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates that can be
housed?
Ο Yes—go on to 6
Ο No—skip to 7

Page 2 

6. If Yes to 5 (under a court order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates),
a. What was the maximum number of inmates [this jail facility was | your jail facilities were]
allowed to house?

b. In what year did this order or decree take effect?
If more than one, report the year for the longest decree in effect.

7. On June 28, 2019, [was this jail facility | were your jail facilities] under a federal, state

or local court order or consent decree for specific conditions of confinement?
Ο Yes—go on to 8
Ο No—skip to 9
8. If Yes to 7 (under a court order or consent decree for specific conditions of

confinement), what were those specific conditions?
Yes

No

a. Crowding

Ο

Ο

b. Recreation/exercise

Ο

Ο

c.

Ο

Ο

d. Medical facilities or services

Ο

Ο

e. Visiting/mail/telephone policy

Ο

Ο

f.

Ο

Ο

g. Library services

Ο

Ο

h. Grievance procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

i.

Fire hazards

Ο

Ο

j.

Disciplinary procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

k.

Administrative segregation procedures or policies

Ο

Ο

l.

Religious practices

Ο

Ο

m. Search policies or practices

Ο

Ο

n. Education or training programs

Ο

Ο

o. Counseling programs

Ο

Ο

Staffing

Food services/nutrition/cleanliness

Page 3 

p. Inmate classification

Ο

Ο

q. Other

Ο

Ο

Specify

SECTION II. SUPERVISED POPULATION AND INMATE COUNTS
9. On June 28, 2019, how many persons CONFINED in [this jail facility | your jail facilities]

were—
a. Adult males (age 18 or older)
b. Adult females (age 18 or older)
c. Males age 17 or younger
d. Females age 17 or younger
e. TOTAL (Sum of items 9a to 9d)
10. Of all the persons age 17 or younger CONFINED in [this jail facility | your jail facilities]

on June 28, 2019 (sum of 9c and 9d), how many were tried or awaiting trial in adult court?

11. a. During the 30-day period from June 1 to June 30, 2019, on what day did [this jail

facility | your jail facilities] hold the greatest number of inmates?
Peak population should be equal to or greater than the confined inmate population reported in item 9e.

June

b. How many persons were CONFINED on that day?

Page 4 

, 2019

Attachment E

Subject: 2019 Census of Jails | <>
Dear <> <>:
We are writing to invite you to participate in the 2019 Census of Jails (COJ). Started in 1970, the COJ is the
nation’s longest running and most comprehensive data collection focused on local jails and inmates. The COJ
collects information on jail population counts and characteristics, staffing, and programs from every jail facility in
the United States. Information from the COJ is widely used by practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and the
general public to track jail population and understand the conditions and needs of local jails across America.
Participation in the census is voluntary, but very important for our national jail statistics to be accurate. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics has contracted with RTI, International to conduct this data collection. Please submit
your data online by August 2, 2019 at:
Website:
Username:
Password:
Submit by:

https://jailcensus.rti.org
«username»
«password»
August 2, 2019

<>
<>
For most jails, it takes about 2 hours and 30 minutes to complete the census form. You can complete the form in
more than one session and you may also choose to forward this email to colleagues within your agency, if you
feel they can help you complete the survey.
For assistance with completing this survey, please contact RTI at jailcensus@rti.org or (866) 354-4992, Monday
through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM, EDT. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the BJS program
manager, Zhen Zeng, at zhen.zeng@usdoj.gov.
Thank you very much for your participation in BJS’s statistical programs.
Sincerely,

Zhen Zeng, Program Manager
Census of Jails Program
Bureau of Justice Statistics

E. Ann Carson, Acting Chief
Corrections Unit
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Census of Jails
Every 5 to 6 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the Census of Jails
(COJ) to enumerate every jail facility in the United States, tracking jail population
changes and characteristics. The COJ also collects facility information on capacity,
staffing, and programs. BJS is authorized to conduct this survey under 42 USC §
3732, and may only use data collected under its authority for research and statistical
purposes. This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB Control No: 1121-0100; Expiration Date: 03/31/2022). Additional
information about the purpose, authority, and security of this data collection can be
found at https://jailcensus.rti.org.

Attachment F

SUBJECT: RESPONSE REQUESTED: 2019 Census of Jails | <>
Dear <> <>:
We are writing to remind you of the upcoming August 2nd due date for your 2019 Census of Jails (COJ)
submission. The COJ is a nation-wide data collection focused on local jails. Your participation helps
ensure that the information Bureau of Justice Statistics collects from the census is accurate.
RTI International is the data collection agent for the 2019 COJ. Please submit your data online—
Website:
Username:
Password:
Submit by:

https://jailcensus.rti.org
«username»
«password»
August 2, 2019

For most jails, it takes about 2 hours and 30 minutes to complete the census form. You can complete the
form in more than one session and you may also choose to forward this email to colleagues within your
agency, if you feel they can help you complete the survey.
If needed, you can view the survey form and the FAQs at the website above. For assistance with
completing this survey, contact RTI at jailcensus@rti.org or (866) 354-4992, Monday through Friday, 9
AM to 5 PM, EDT.
Thank you in advance for your participation in BJS’s statistical programs.
Sincerely,

Zhen Zeng, Program Manager
Census of Jails Program
Bureau of Justice Statistics

E. Ann Carson, Acting Chief
Corrections Unit
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Census of Jails
Every 5 to 6 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the Census of
Jails (COJ) to enumerate every jail facility in the United States, tracking jail
population changes and characteristics. The COJ also collects facility
information on capacity, staffing, and programs. BJS is authorized to conduct
this survey under 42 USC § 3732, and may only use data collected under its
authority for research and statistical purposes. This data collection has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control No: 11210100; Expiration Date: 03/31/2022). Additional information about the
purpose, authority, and security of this data collection can be found at
https://jailcensus.rti.org.

Attachment G

SUBJECT: RESPONSE REQUESTED: 2019 Census of Jails | <>
Dear <> <>:
We would like to thank you for your past support for Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) statistical
programs and remind you that the Census of Jails (COJ) 2019 collection is overdue. BJS needs your
prompt response to publish accurate and timely statistics on local jails and inmates. Please submit your
data as soon as possible online—
Website:
Username:
Password:
Submit by:

https://jailcensus.rti.org
«username»
«password»
ASAP

If needed, you can view the survey form and the FAQs at the website above. For assistance with
completing the survey, please contact our data collection team at jailcensus@rti.org or (866) 354-4992,
Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM, EDT.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,

Zhen Zeng, Program Manager
Census of Jails Program
Bureau of Justice Statistics

E. Ann Carson, Acting Chief
Corrections Unit
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Census of Jails
Every 5 to 6 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the Census of
Jails (COJ) to enumerate every jail facility in the United States, tracking jail
population changes and characteristics. The COJ also collects facility
information on capacity, staffing, and programs. BJS is authorized to conduct
this survey under 42 USC § 3732, and may only use data collected under its
authority for research and statistical purposes. This data collection has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control No: 11210100; Expiration Date: 03/31/2022). Additional information about the
purpose, authority, and security of this data collection can be found at
https://jailcensus.rti.org.

Attachment H

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

September 7, 2019
<> > <>
<>
<>
<>
<>, <> <>
Dear <> <>:
I am writing to ask for your assistance in completing the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2019 Census of
Jails (COJ). We would greatly appreciate if you would submit your 2019 form by September 30, 2019.
Your data, combined with data from other local jails, allows BJS to publish on national trends in jail
populations. BJS is committed to disseminating accurate and timely statistics to inform the practices and
policies of jails nationwide.
You may submit your data online—
Website:
Username:
Password:

https://jailcensus.rti.org
«username»
«password»

If you prefer, you may download the 2019 COJ form from the website above, fill it out, and fax or mail it back
to us.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact our hotline at (866) 354-4992 Monday through
Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM, EDT, or email jailcensus@rti.org. RTI International is BJS’s data collection agent for
the COJ.
BJS is authorized to conduct the COJ under 34 U.S.C. § 10132, and may only use data collected under its
authority for research and statistical purposes. This data collection has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB Control No: 1121-0100; Expiration Date: 03/31/2022).
Thank you very much for your participation and continued support for BJS’s statistical programs.
Sincerely,

Director

Attachment I

SUBJECT: RESPONSE REQUESTED: 2019 Census of Jails | <>
Dear <> <>:
Our records show that you have not completed the 2019 Census of Jails. We are writing to let you know
that we are closing this data collection on December 7, 2019. Please submit your form as soon as
possible at—
Website:
Username:
Password:
Submit by:

https://jailcensus.rti.org
«username»
«password»
ASAP

If you have difficulty completing the survey by December 7, please contact us at (866) 354-4992 Monday
through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM, EDT, or email jailcensus@rti.org.
Thank you again for your participation. We look forward to receiving your form soon.
Sincerely,

Zhen Zeng, Program Manager
Census of Jails Program
Bureau of Justice Statistics

E. Ann Carson, Acting Chief
Corrections Unit
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Census of Jails
Every 5 to 6 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the Census of
Jails (COJ) to enumerate every jail facility in the United States, tracking jail
population changes and characteristics. The COJ also collects facility
information on capacity, staffing, and programs. BJS is authorized to conduct
this survey under 42 USC § 3732, and may only use data collected under its
authority for research and statistical purposes. This data collection has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control No: 11210100; Expiration Date: 03/31/2022). Additional information about the
purpose, authority, and security of this data collection can be found at
https://jailcensus.rti.org.

Attachment J

January 9, 2019

Annual Survey of Jails/Census of
Jails

Round 1 and 2 Cognitive Testing Findings and
Recommendations
Final Report
Prepared for
Zhen Zeng
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Prepared by
Amanda Smith
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

I.

February 4, 2019

Page 2

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Since 2009, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International have periodically revised
forms for a variety of data collections efforts (e.g., the Annual Survey of Jails and the Census of
Jails). The purpose of this task is to cognitively test newly-developed items (See Attachment B
for new form items) that are being considered for future jail data collections to assess how well
they work (i.e., are understood and are capturing intended data) when administered to a sample
of the survey’s target population. Participant feedback on the feasibility and burden of providing
the requested data is also collected. This report provides –
•
•
•

•
II.

An overview of the sampling and recruitment procedures, as well as a table detailing
response by strata.
A description of the methodology used to conduct interviews.
A condensed summary of findings from Round 1 of cognitive testing (See Appendix A for
the full Round 1 Memorandum), followed by Round 2 findings and final
recommendations for each item.
A summary of global findings (i.e., general feedback that applies to the form as a whole),
to include a discussion of survey timing and burden.
SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT

Sampling Procedures
To ensure representation of distinct types of jails in the cognitive test RTI, in collaboration with
BJS, identified several categories of facilities that we believed would have different perspectives
and experiences responding to the form. Specifically, the following strata were identified and
used to sample jails for cognitive testing –
•
•
•

Size: Small jails (ADP of fewer than 200 inmates), medium jails (ADP between 200 and
999 inmates), and large jails (ADP of 1,000 or more inmates).
Overdose death rate (DR): Low (DR < 15.9) vs. high (DR >= 16.0) overdose death rate
county.
Past response and data quality pattern: High item response rate (reported 50% or more)
and low item response rate (reported less than 50%) on the 2013 Census of Jails.

In total we sampled 177 jails across the strata noted above, resulting in 16 completed interviews
in Round 1 and 17 completed interviews in Round 2 1. Exhibit 1 provides a breakdown of
completed interviews by sample strata for Round 1, Round 2, and Round 1 and 2 combined.

1 The sample size was increased in Round 2 to account for the possibility of increasing the number of interviews to 25.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Exhibit 1. Completed Interviews by Strata
Round 1
Reported 50% or more
Size
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
Large: ADP > 1000
2
3
Medium: ADP 200-999
0
1
Small: ADP < 200
2
1
Total
4
5
Round 2
Reported 50% or more
Size
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
Large: ADP > 1000
3
1
Medium: ADP 200-999
4
3
Small: ADP < 200
1
1
Total
8
5
Round 1 and Round 2 Combined
Reported 50% or more
Size
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
Large: ADP > 1000
5
4
Medium: ADP 200-999
4
4
Small: ADP < 200
3
2
Total
12
10

Page 3

Reported less than 50%
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
1
1
3
2
0
0
4
3

Total
7
6
3
16

Reported less than 50%
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
1

Total
5
9
3
17

Reported less than 50%
DR < 15.9 DR >= 16.0
2
1
4
3
1
0
7
4

Total
12
15
6
33

In addition to the strata above, jails that provide medication assisted treatment (MAT) were also
of particular interest when testing the newly developed opioid items (questions 7-9). In total we
completed interviews with 10 jails that operate MAT programs (5 in Round 1 and 5 in Round 2).
Recruitment
Selected jails were first contacted by BJS via a lead email that explained the purpose of the test
and provided contact information for RTI. RTI followed up five days later with a reminder email
to jails that had not responded to the initial request. We made a final contact attempt by phone
three days after the RTI follow-up email.
For each agency that agreed to participate, we scheduled a telephone interview between the
primary point of contact (POC) or their designee and one of three experienced RTI survey
methodologists. After the interview was scheduled, we followed up with a confirmation email
that (1) explained the interview would last approximately 60 minutes, (2) provided login

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 4

credentials for the survey website, and (3) requested they complete the questionnaire by a certain
date before the interview. (See Appendix D for communication materials used at each contact).
We recruited and conducted sixteen interviews between August 21 and September 27 during
Round 1 and seventeen interviews between November 28 and December 27 during Round 2. In
total, thirty-three interviews were conducted throughout the duration of testing in 2018.
III.

METHODOLOGY

During the interviews, we asked participants a series of open-ended questions that probed their
interpretation and reaction to each item on the form. Interviewers followed an interview guide
(Appendix C) that included an introductory script that was read verbatim to ensure that
participants had a consistent understanding of the cognitive interview process. The guide also
contained a list of “scripted probes” that interviewers used during the cognitive interview. Some
probes were required; other probes were conditional and were used depending on responses
received. When necessary, interviewers asked unscripted “spontaneous probes” (e.g., Could you
tell me more about that?) to clarify answers or inquire more deeply about issues as they were
raised by participants. Interviewers also probed to learn whether and how the data were recorded
in information management systems and whether the data were difficult to retrieve in the
requested formats. That is, we assessed the participants general understanding of what the
question was asking, and the level of burden and their ability to respond to questions (i.e.,
retrieve and provide data).
After all interviews were completed, interviewers compiled all notes and analyzed participant
feedback in conjunction with survey responses (e.g., was a complete response provided) to
identify issues and suggest possible areas for improvement to questionnaire items. The following
section provides a summary of those findings and suggested recommendations to form items.
IV.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, POCs reported using their agency’s information management systems or secondary
record systems that data submitters maintained (e.g., spreadsheets, booking ledgers) to respond
to questions. However, it is noted that in both rounds of testing many jails noted they either did
not collect the requested data and/or had difficulty accessing and providing data in the requested
format for several of the items.
For each item we present a condensed summary of Round 1 findings and form changes for
reference (See Appendix A for the full Round 1 Memorandum), Round 2 findings, including any
difficulties participants had when responding to items (e.g., interpreting item wording, following
instructions etc.) and concerns or challenges with gathering and providing data, and final
recommendations for each item.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 5

ITEM 1 (CONFINED POPULATION) 2
ROUND 1
Findings: Participants stated this question was clear and did not have any issues providing
responses.
Recommendations/Changes Made: None
ROUND 2
Findings: Mirroring the findings from Round 1, participants stated this question was clear and
did not have any issues providing responses.
Recommendations: None.
ITEM 2 (CONFINED POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX)
ROUND 1
Findings: Overall, participants understood this question, but they reported some difficulty
providing the requested counts broken out by age group.
•

Nine participants could only provide totals and juvenile counts (where applicable) by sex
and followed the instructions to respond to 2a and 2g. Jail management systems were not
able break out inmate population by age as requested, so they were unable to readily
access this information.

•

Seven participants were able to report counts by age and sex without issue.

Recommendations/Changes Made: None
ROUND 2
Findings: Similar to Round 1, the majority of participants did not appear to have difficulties
interpreting the question, but some jails did have trouble providing counts.
•

Four participants provided a response to 2a but left all other items in question 2 blank.
These participants indicated they could access juvenile counts by sex but that their
reporting system could not provide counts by age group or sex for adults.
o One participant indicated during the interview that they realized after seeing the
question again that they could have provided total counts by sex (2g) but did not
do so on the survey.

2 It is noted that this item was included on the form as a point of reference for the questions that followed and was not being

tested for potential changes.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

•

•

February 4, 2019

Page 6

Four participants were only able to provide counts to 2a and 2g. These participants
indicated there was no straightforward way to break confined population into age groups
as requested. It is noted these participants followed the instruction to provide counts for
2a and 2g without issue.
Nine participants were able to provide the requested counts for all items without issue.

Recommendations: None. Based on the findings in Round 1 and Round 2, it appears the
majority of participants do not have trouble interpreting this question.
ITEM 3 (NON-US CITIZENS)
ROUND 1
Findings: Overall, participants understood this question, but they reported some difficulty
providing the requested counts.
•

Nine participants could not provide accurate citizenship counts or estimates because they
do not readily have access to this information in their systems and/or do not ask about
citizenship status.

•

Three participants specifically indicated they would need to review individual cases to
provide citizenship data (3b). These participants also indicated that they would be unable
to break down by convicted/unconvicted status unless they reviewed each case manually.

•

Four participants were able to respond to this question without issue.

Recommendations/Changes Made: A checkbox was included on the web form (i.e., “check box
if unknown”) to reduce confusion for participants that were unable to respond.
ROUND 2
Findings: Mirroring the findings from Round 1 (Appendix A), the majority of participants
understood the question and felt it was clear. Like Round 1, we continued to find some
participants had difficulties with providing the requested data. However, the addition of the
“unknown” checkboxes appeared to reduce confusion for participants that were unable to
provide responses. The “unknown” checkboxes also appear to have improved data quality (i.e., a
response was provided instead of leaving the item blank). However, response patterns for this
item were varied. We found –
•
•
•

Five participants provided a count for all the items. No issues were encountered with
these participants.
Four participants did not provide a response to 3a or 3b and checked the "number of nonUS citizens is unknown" box.
One participant provided "0" for 3a and 3b and checked the box for "number of non-US
citizens is unknown."

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

•
•

•
•
•

February 4, 2019

Page 7

Two participants provided a response to 3a, left 3b blank, and checked the "number of
non-US citizens is unknown" box.
Two participants provided an estimate for 3a, entered "0" to 3b and checked the estimate
box, answered "Count is unknown" to follow-up triggered by "0" response. These
participants also checked the "number of non-US citizens is unknown" box.
One participant provided estimate counts on 3a and 3b. They left 3b1-3 blank and
checked the "number of convicted/ unconvicted unknown" box.
One participant entered "0" for 3b, checked the estimate box, and indicated it was an
estimate in the follow-up triggered by the "0" response.
One participant provided a response to 3a and 3b but included US and non-US citizens in
the convicted/unconvicted counts (3b1-3). It appears this participant did not see the
instructions or follow instructions above 3b1 (i.e., "Of the non-US citizens…")

As indicated by the response patterns above, several participants had difficulties providing data
for this item. Participants provided the following feedback about the difficulties they experienced
providing data –
•

Eleven participants explained that the information was “difficult” to obtain. Many of
them explained that they either do not collect this information or they would need to look
up the information manually as their systems are not designed to run reports on
citizenship. These participants indicated that manual data abstraction would be very timeconsuming and as such left items blank.

•

Similarly, seven participants indicated the instructions for how to count convicted and
unconvicted inmates were clear, but of the breaking out counts of convicted/unconvicted
would not be possible.

•

Seven participants indicated the data they collected was based on self-reporting at the
time of intake. Two of these participants questioned the accuracy of self-reporting and
felt the data they collected on citizenship was not very accurate.

Recommendations: If BJS decides to include this item in future collections, we suggest
interpreting data with caution. Many participants either could not provide a response or were so
varied in their methods of determining and reporting citizenship that the data may not be valid
and reliable.
ITEM 4 (FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS)
ROUND 1
Findings: Overall, participants understood this question, but they reported some difficulty
providing the requested counts. The majority of the participants had challenges with the
exclusionary criteria under 4b (i.e., “Anyone born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.”)

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 8

•

Eleven participants stated they stated they did not track place of birth in their information
systems

•

Four participants provided counts for this question.

•

Three participants stated they could not to follow the exclusionary criteria “Anyone born
abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.” Two provided counts and one did not respond
to the item.

Recommendations/Changes Made: A checkbox was included on the web form (i.e., “check box
if unknown”) to reduce confusion for participants that were unable to respond.
ROUND 2
Findings: Overall participants thought the question and include/exclude criteria were clear, but
there was some difficulty providing the requested counts. Ten participants explained that the data
are not readily available, and their information system does not have an easy way to run a report
providing these data. In most cases, participants indicated they would have to go through
individual files to gather the information. Of those that provided a value in 4b, most of the
participants explained that it was too difficult to break them out by convicted or unconvicted
status.
•
•

•
•

•
•

Four participants provided a count for all items and no issues were encountered.
One participant provided a response to 4a and 4b but included US and foreign-born
inmates in counts for 4b1-3 (i.e., did not follow instructions above 4b1 "Of the foreignborn inmates...").
Five participants did not provide a response to 4a or 4b and checked the "number of
foreign-born inmates is unknown" box.
Three participants provided estimated counts for 4a and/or 4b –
o One left 4b1-3 blank and checked the "number of convicted and unconvicted
unknown" box.
o One provided an estimate count for 4a, entered "0" for 4b and checked the
estimate box, and indicated it was an estimate in the follow-up triggered by the
"0" response.
o One provided an estimate count for 4a, left 4b blank, checked "number of foreignborn inmates is unknown" box
Two participants provided counts for 4a and 4b, left 4b1-3 blank and checked the
"number of convicted and unconvicted unknown" box.
Two participants entered "0" to 4b and checked the estimate box, answered "Count is
unknown" to follow-up triggered by "0" response, and checked the "number of foreignborn inmates is unknown" box).

Recommendations: If BJS decides to include this item in future collections, we suggest
interpreting data with caution. Many participants either could not provide a response or were so

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 9

varied in their methods of determining and reporting place of birth that the data may not be valid
and reliable.

ITEM 5 (CONDITIONAL RELEASE)
ROUND 1
Findings: Overall, participants understood this question, but they reported some difficulty
providing the requested counts.
•

Six participants indicated they do not have a way to parse out counts for each category in
item 5 and did not respond to the question.

•

Five participants provided a partial response to the question. These participants were able
to provide counts for bench warrants/detainers, probation, and parole, but had challenges
responding to conditional release and/or pretrial release violation items.

•

Five participants were able to provide a full response to this item. However, two of these
participants indicated it was burdensome and difficult to provide this information.

Recommendations/Changes Made: The item was simplified to only request information
probation and parole.
ROUND 2
Findings: The participants understood the question and most of them were able to provide
responses to 5a and 5b. In some cases, participants were able to provide counts for probation
violators, but not parole violators and vice-versa. The participants that had trouble providing a
response explained that they could not look up the information for a specific day or would have
to manually review inmate records. It would not be easy for some participants to determine if it
was a probation or parole violation without checking individual records.
•
•

•

•

Thirteen participants provided a count for all items and did not have any issues.
One participant provided a response to the probation item but left the parole item blank.
They explained that the probation count was “easy” to obtain, but that they do not have
access to data on parole violations.
One participant provided "0" for probation and responded with an estimate for parole.
They indicated that it would be “easy” to determine parole as these data are included in
their daily reports, but there would be no way to determine probation violators without a
manual count.
One participant provided "0" estimate count for both items. They explained that they
were unable to provide these data as their reports would only allow them to pull the
number of violators booked on that day, not the total number in custody.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

•

February 4, 2019

Page 10

One participant could not provide counts. They indicated they would not be able to
determine if they were probation or parole and would have to review individual reports.
They left 5a and 5b blank.

Recommendations: None.
ITEM 6 (OFFENSE TYPE)
ROUND 1
Findings: Overall, participants understood this question, but they reported some difficulty
categorizing and providing the requested counts.
•

Seven participants indicated their information management systems do not break out
inmates by offense type in a manner that maps easily to the categories in the form and
they would need to manually tally counts.

•

One participant indicated they could likely provide counts by offense type, but for
probation and parole violators they would need to review each case individually to
determine their original charge.

•

Eight participants were able to provide a response to this item. However, two of these
participants indicated the process was burdensome.

Recommendations/Changes Made: The number of categories was reduced to violent offenses,
property offenses, other, and not known. A broader “public order offenses” category was added.
The instructions on how to classify inmates was expanded to include the use of the jail system’s
offense severity code to determine most serious offense.
ROUND 2
Findings: Similar to Round 1, participants understood this question, but did have some difficulty
categorizing and providing the requested counts. The participants who could not provide the
requested counts by most serious offense stated that they would need to manually review inmate
files to categorize these offenses as they do not readily have access to these data (e.g., a system
query or report they could easily obtain). About half the participants explained that they track the
offense for each inmate, but it would be difficult and time-consuming to gather this information.
•

Nine participants provided counts for all items. Of these –
o Six participants did not report having any issues. Two of these participants
provided estimate counts.
o One participant indicated that probation and parole violators only show as
probation/parole violators in the system (i.e., they do not have access to
original/new charge information). They stated they included these counts under 6e
(“All other”).

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

•
•
•

February 4, 2019

Page 11

o One participant was able to provide estimated counts, but indicated they had to
review individual release orders to determine their original charge, which they felt
was “a lot they were being asked to do.”
o One participant indicated this was difficult to report because their system does not
provide the number of persons, but rather the number of charges. This participant
looked at individual records to determine their count and provided an estimate.
Four participants left all the items blank and stated they were unable to provide
responses. One of these participants also checked the estimate boxes.
One participant provided a "0" response to all items and indicated that classifying by
offense would require a lot of time
Despite knowing the offense information for all inmates, three participants placed some,
or all, of their inmates in the “Not Known” category (6f). These participants indicated it
was too burdensome to break them out in the categories requested and provided the
following feedback –
o One participant provided counts to 6a (“Violent offenses”), 6f (“Not known”),
and 6h (“Total”) only. They were able to break out 6a (“Violent offenses”) and
placed all other inmates in the "Not known" category (6f). They explained that
they track offense information but breaking it out by category and most serious
offense would be a manual process.
o One participant entered a “0” count and checked the estimate boxes for 6a-e. They
then placed all inmates in the "Not known" category (6f). They explained that
they track offense information but it would be too burdensome to break out counts
by most serious offense.
o One participant provided counts to 6f (“Not known”) and 6h (“Total”) only. They
placed all inmates in the "Not known" category (6f). They explained that it is too
difficult to break out counts by most serious offense.

For 6e (“All other”), participants explained that they included the following –
•

•
•
•

Bond forfeitures, offenses that have already been heard by the magistrate, harassment of
a public servant, offenses that have already been sentenced, and accidents involving
damage to a vehicle/misdemeanor.
Probation holds or drug code violators.
Probation and parole violators that were only listed as holds for probation/parole
violations in the system as they do not have data on the original or new charge.
One participant shared that “There are so many other [offenses] out there that are not
covered here that it is hard to say what they were. The categories are almost too broad to
capture everyone.”

Recommendations: To mitigate issues with agencies misreporting all data under the “Not
Known” category (6f), BJS may want to consider instructing participants to only respond to 6h
(“Total”) if they are unable to categorize by most serious offense.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 12

ITEM 7 (OPIOID 1)
ROUND 1
Findings: In general, participants understood this question, but they reported some issues with
interpretation and burden.
•

The majority of participants noted they had to coordinate with medical staff and/or a
contract medical provider to obtain this information, which in some cases made
responding burdensome.

•

A few participants misinterpreted the term “medication-assisted treatment” to include
providing OTC medication and as a result misreported in item 7 (i.e., responded yes to
items 7f and 7g.)

Recommendations/Changes Made: A full definition of the term “medication-assisted treatment”
was included in the question text of 7e to reduce confusion. Additionally, Round 1 form items
7f-h were revised and became subitems of 7e (i.e., 7e1-3).
ROUND 2
Findings: Similar to Round 1 findings, the majority of participants (13 out of 17) noted they
needed to coordinate with medical staff to answer all or some of the questions in item 7. As such,
some participants were unable to speak to how well the questions were understood by medical
staff, or the difficulty these staff may have had when answering. Some participants also appeared
to have limited knowledge of MAT programs and were unable to respond to some of our probes.
•

Ten participants indicated they do not provide MAT, five indicated they do provide
MAT, and two were unsure if their jail provided MAT.
o Fifteen participants indicated they do screen inmates for opioid use disorders,
with one participant responding no and one participant indicating they were
uncertain. These participants left item 7b blank.

•

The two participants that were uncertain if their jails provided MAT and were unable to
respond to any of the questions in item 7. These participants left all items blank and
provided the following feedback about why they were unable to respond –
o One participant indicated they tried to reach out to their medical division but the
staff member that oversees this information was out of the office.
o One participant indicated they work with a private company to conduct medical
assessments. This company recently took over drug screenings and the jail had
not received any data from them at the time of the interview.

•

One participant skipped 7e and 7e1-3 and could not provide an explanation as to why
these items were skipped since they coordinated with medical staff to complete the form.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 13

•

One participant provided conflicting responses. Specially, they responded “No” to item
7e and “Yes” to 7e1-3. This participant later indicated they do not provide MAT and as
such should have responded “No” to 7e1-3.

•

Thirteen participants provided a response to all items and did not appear to have trouble
responding to the items.
o Two of these participants skipped items 7e1-3 on the web but responded “No” to
7e. In each case medical staff filled out the PDF version of the form, which
includes instructions to skip these items if 7e = “No.” The participant then entered
the values provided on the web, which BJS asked to be programmed differently
from the PDF version. 3

•

Participants provided a variety of responses when asked if the item was difficult to
answer –
o Six participants reported challenges with providing a response to this item:


Three participants specifically indicated it was difficult trying to
coordinate to obtain the information when asked if it was difficult to
provide a response.



One participant indicated they did not understand the system used to pull
the information.



One participant was uncertain whether they have a MAT program and was
unsure how to respond. This participant indicated they work with a private
company and do not have access to these data.



One participant indicated it “took some time” to respond as they were just
starting their MAT program.

o Nine participants reported it was “easy” to provide a response to this question.
However, many of these participants did not respond to item 7 themselves and
may have been unable to speak to potential difficulties other staff may have
experienced.
o Two participants said they were uncertain whether the staff they coordinated with
had any difficulties responding.
•

Thirteen participants indicated they felt the definition of medication-assisted treatment
was clear. It is noted, however, that four participants indicated they were unsure of how
the medical staff interpreted the definition of MAT and were unable to answer the probe

3 The web form contains instructions to skip 7e1-3 if 7e = “No”, while the web form shows 7e1-3 regardless of response to 7e

(i.e., does not skip/hide these items).

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 14

themselves. In general, it appears the definition added in Round 2 as a result of Round 1
testing decreased some participant confusion about the meaning of MAT.
Recommendations: To avoid issues with data quality (e.g., conflicting responses), and to mirror
the PAPI version, we suggest only showing 7e subitems (i.e., 7e1-3) on the web if the participant
answers “Yes” to 7e.

ITEM 8 (OPIOID 2)
ROUND 1
Findings: In general, participants who received this question said it was clear, but they reported
some issues with interpreting the term “unique individuals,” and had challenges accessing data to
provide the requested counts.
•

The majority of participants noted they had to coordinate with medical staff and/or a
contracted medical provider to obtain this information, which in some cases made
responding burdensome.

•

Five facilities indicated they do not track screening and/or treatment information in their
systems and compiling this data would be burdensome. These participants were unable to
provide counts to 8b and/or 8c.

•

Two participants that misinterpreted the term “medication-assisted treatment” and
subsequently misreported in item 7 received this item in error and were unable to
respond.

•

Two participants were uncertain about what the term “unique individuals” meant.

Recommendations/Changes Made: The term “unique individuals” was clarified by including an
explanation – “i.e., count multiple results/treatments for the same individual only once” – within
the question. In item 8b and 8c the term “persons admitted” was changed to “new admissions
reported.”
ROUND 2
Findings: Similar to findings from Round 1 (See Appendix A) and item 7 above, 14 participants
noted they had to coordinate with medical staff or their contract medical provider to obtain this
information, which in some cases made responding burdensome. As was also the case for item 7,
some of these participants appeared to have limited knowledge of MAT programs and were
unable to respond to specific probes about how the medical staff responded.
All 17 participants received items 8a and 8b. Of these –
•

Seven participants provided a count to 8a (new admissions) and 8b (number of new
admissions screened) but were unable to respond to 8b1-2. It is noted that the number of

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 15

new admissions and new admissions screened matched in all these cases (i.e., they screen
all admissions).
o Two of these participants provided “0” counts for 8b1-2 instead of leaving the
items blank but indicated they did not know counts and/or could not access data
on the number of admissions that screened positive.
•

Four participants only provided a response to 8a and left all other items blank.

•

Five participants provided counts for all items.
o Two of these participants may not have provided accurate data as they indicated
they were uncertain by what the term “unique individuals” meant and had trouble
interpreting the difference between 8b1 and 8b2. One also reported the same
count (10) for the number of admissions screened, the number of admissions that
screened positive, and the number of admissions that were treated for opioid
withdrawal in item 8.

•

One participant provided a “0” response to all items but indicated the counts were
actually unknown. This participant indicated these would “take a while” to count and the
data may not be available.

Nine participants received item 8c. Of those –
•

Five participants did not respond to item 7e3 and—because 7e3 was blank—they
received 8c in error. Two of these participants provided a “No” response to 7e and
indicated they followed instructions on the PDF form to skip items 7e1-3.

•

One participant provided a “No” response to item 7e but answered “Yes” to item 7e3.
This participant indicated in the interview that they do not provide MAT and as such had
responded in error to item 7. Not surprisingly, they were unable to answer 8c.

•

Three participants correctly received the item (i.e., responded “Yes” to item 7e3). Of
these, only one participant was able to provide counts. One participant left the item blank
and one participant provided “0” estimate counts and indicated the medical staff did not
readily have access to these data.

In general, we observed –
•

Twelve participants had trouble interpreting the difference between 8b1 and 8b2/8c and
8c1. We received the following types of feedback when we asked participants to describe
the difference between 8b1/8c and 8b2/8c1.
o Two indicated they felt the items were asking the same thing.

o Six said the items were confusing, or that they were unsure what they meant.

o Four participants provided incorrect interpretations, stating things like “Screening
positive for opioid us vs. screening positive for multiple different substances,”

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 16

and specifically referring to 8b2, “How many screened positive, got out, then
came back and screened positive again. I would count them every time they came
back and were positive.”
o Despite the additional clarification provided to the term “unique individuals,”
these participants still had trouble interpreting the phrase. One participant
suggested using the term “duplicate admissions.”
Recommendations: As detailed above, participants had trouble providing counts of positive
screenings (8b1-2) and withdrawal treatment (8c, 8c1). In most cases, participants indicated they
did not have access to these data and/or they would be burdensome to compile. If BJS decides to
include 8b1-2, 8c, and 8c1 in future collections, we suggest interpreting data with caution. Due
to the level of difficulty reported with these items we would anticipate seeing high item
nonresponse rates or data quality issues on these questions.
We also recommend ensuring that logic on item 8 accounts for screener items (i.e., 7b and 7e3)
being skipped or left blank. We suggest skipping follow-up questions in item 8 if 7b and/or 7e3
are left blank to prevent participants from receiving questions that are not applicable, and thus
confusing. Including logic on item 7 that hides items 7e1-3 unless a “Yes” answer is provided to
7e should also help mitigate this issue (e.g., respondents that complete the PDF version of the
form and follow the skip instructions will not inadvertently receive 8c).
Finally, we suggest expanding on the current definition in items 8b2 and 8c1 to further clarify
the term “unique individuals” as follows –
•
•

8b2: (i.e., if an individual is admitted and screens positive more than once during the 31day reference period then only count one positive screening for that individual).
8c1: (i.e., if an individual is admitted and treated more than once during the 31-day
reference period then count only one treatment for that individual).

ITEM 9 (OPIOID 3)
ROUND 1
Findings: In general, participants from MAT facilities that received this question were able to
respond. One participant did note this would require a manual count.
Recommendations/Changes Made: None.
ROUND 2
Findings: In general, participants understood what item 9 was asking but did have some
difficulties responding to the item. Eight participants received this item.
•

Four participants received this item in error; three participants left item 7e blank and one
participant received the item after providing conflicting responses on item 7. Two

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 17

participants provided a “0” count because they do not provide MAT treatment, one
participant left the item blank and selected the estimate box, and one participant did not
respond to the item at all.
•

Five participants correctly received this item. Of those –
o Two participants provided a “0” count.


One participant indicated it was difficult to coordinate with medical staff.



One participant indicated they started their program after July 31, 2018 so
the “0” response provided reflected an actual count.

o Two participants did not provide a response to the item.

o One participant provided a count for this item, but it is noted that this participant
reported the same count (10) for the number of admissions screened, the number
of admissions that screened positive, and the number of admissions that were
treated for opioid withdrawal in item 8.
When asked if it was difficult to respond to this item, participants provided the following
feedback –
•

One participant indicated it was easy because they started their program after July 31,
2018

•

Three participants indicated they felt the question was difficult.
o One participant indicated they gave the form to their medical staff and the staff
were not able to provide a response. The participant was uncertain whether this
was because the information is not being collected or is difficult to access.

Recommendations: Similar to item 9, participants had trouble providing accurate counts for this
item. In most cases, participants indicated they did not have access to these data and/or they
would be burdensome to compile. If BJS decides to include item 9 in future collections, we
suggest interpreting data with caution. Due to the level of difficulty reported with these items we
would anticipate seeing high item nonresponse rates or data quality issues.
We also recommend ensuring that logic on item 9 accounts for screener items (i.e., 7e) being
skipped or left blank. We suggest skipping item 9 if 7e is left blank to prevent respondents from
receiving a question that is not applicable, and thus confusing.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS AND BURDEN ESTIMATES
Based on our observations, when participants had access to the requested data, they did not
appear to find the survey difficult to complete. With the exception of items 8b2 and 8c1 (i.e.,
“unique individuals”), the majority of participants did not have issues with question
comprehension. The primary issue observed during both Round 1 and Round 2 was participants’
ability to provide data either because it wasn’t available, or it was too burdensome to provide

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 18

(e.g., reviewing individual records). As such, we propose the following general
recommendations to help reduce respondent burden and improve data quality –
•

Several participants indicated it would be helpful to know in advance of the survey what
new data BJS would be requesting so they could prepare queries/reports and coordinate
with other staff as needed. We suggest sending a prenotice in advance of data collection
that informs agencies of the topic(s) of the new data that will be requested. This may also
help POCs that need to coordinate with other staff (e.g., medical staff) be able to respond
in timely manner.

•

We observed several occasions where “0” was entered if a response was unknown, either
because data were unavailable or too burdensome to gather. To mitigate misreporting we
suggest adding an instruction to the “General Instructions” section below the third bullet
(i.e., “if the answer is “none” or “zero” …) that instructs participants to leave items blank
if a count is unknown and an estimate cannot be provided.

Timing and Burden
To better understand the timing and burden, we asked participants how long it took them to
complete the form, including the time it took to coordinate, compile data, and enter data on the
web. Similar to Round 1, responses varied from about 20 minutes to a day or more (participants
reporting a day or more were considering the time it took for them to receive requested data from
other staff). Removing those that indicated it took a day or more (6 participants), the remaining
responses ranged from 20-25 minutes to 2-3 hours, with 2-3 hours being the most common
response.
When system timing data was reviewed, we found that the average response time was
approximately 40 minutes and ranged from 4 minutes to 3 hours. The majority of participants
also entered and exited the form multiple times. This suggests that they may have needed to
collect data before returning to the survey instrument. As indicated in the item-by-item findings
above, the majority of participants had to run queries, reports, or derive counts, as well
coordinate with staff, to provide responses to some items. As such, system timing should be
interpreted with caution and is not reflective of the total burden it takes to respond.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 19

Appendix A: Round 1 Memorandum
Date:

October 1, 2018

From:

Amanda Smith, Cognitive Testing Task Leader

To:

Zhen Zeng, Statistician

Subject: Round 1 Findings from ASJ/COJ Cognitive Testing
I.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Since 2009, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International have periodically revised
forms for a variety of data collections efforts (e.g., the Annual Survey of Jails and the Census of
Jails). The purpose of this task is to cognitively test newly-developed items that are being
considered for future jail data collections to assess how well they work (i.e., are understood and
are capturing intended data) when administered to a sample of the survey’s target population.
Respondent feedback on the feasibility and burden of providing the requested data is also
collected. This memorandum provides a summary of findings from Round 1 of cognitive testing
and provides recommendations for changes to be retested in Round 2.
II.

SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT

To ensure representation of distinct types of jails in the cognitive test RTI, in collaboration with
BJS, identified several categories of facilities that we believed would have different perspectives
and experiences responding to the form. In total we sampled 69 jails across a variety of strata,
resulting in 16 completed cognitive interviews. Exhibit 1 provides a breakdown of completed
interviews by jail size (represented by average daily population [ADP]) and medication-assisted
treatment (MAT) program status.
Exhibit 1. Round 1 Sample by Strata
Size

Total
Sampled

MAT
Completes 4

Total
Completes

Large Jails: ADP > 1000

23

5

7

Medium: ADP 200-999

22

0

6

Small: ADP < 200

24

0

3

Total

69

5

16

4 Three jails were flagged in our sample as MAT facilities. Two additional jails indicated they operated MAT programs.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 20

Selected jails were first contacted by a BJS lead email that explained the purpose of the test and
provided contact information for RTI. RTI followed up five days later with a reminder email to
jails that had not responded to the initial request. We made a final contact attempt by phone three
days after the RTI follow-up email.
For each jail that agreed to participate, we scheduled a telephone interview between the primary
point of contact (POC) or their designee and one of three experienced RTI survey
methodologists. After the interview was scheduled, we followed up with a confirmation email
that (1) explained the interview would last approximately 60 minutes, (2) provided login
credentials for the survey website, and (3) requested they complete the questionnaire before the
interview. We conducted the sixteen interviews between August 21 and September 27, 2018.
III.

METHODOLOGY

During interviews, we asked participants a series of open-ended questions that probed their
interpretation and reaction to each item on the form. Interviewers followed an interview guide
that included an introductory script that was read verbatim to ensure that participants had a
consistent understanding of the cognitive interview process. The guide also contained a list of
“scripted probes” that interviewers used during the cognitive interview. Some probes were
required; other probes were conditional and were used depending on responses received. When
necessary, interviewers asked unscripted “spontaneous probes” to inquire more deeply about
issues as they were raised by participants. Interviewers also probed to learn whether and how the
data were recorded in information management systems and whether the data were difficult to
retrieve in the requested formats. That is, we assessed burden and ability to respond to questions
(i.e., retrieve and provide data).
After interviews were completed, interviewers compiled all notes and analyzed respondent
feedback to identify issues and suggest possible areas for improvement to questionnaire items.
The following section provides a summary of findings and suggested recommendations for
retesting in Round 2 of cognitive testing.
IV.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

POCs reported using their agency’s information management systems or secondary record
systems that data submitters maintained to respond to questions. This section describes any
difficulties participants had in interpreting items and any concerns or challenges with gathering
and providing data for specific items.
ITEM 1 (CONFINED POPULATION)
FINDINGS: Participants stated this question was clear and did not have any issues providing
responses. It is noted that this item was included on the form as a point of reference for the
questions that followed and was not being tested for potential changes.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 21

RECOMMENDATIONS: None.
ITEM 2 (CONFINED POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX)
FINDINGS: Overall participants understood this question, but there was some difficulty
providing the requested counts broken out by age group.
•

Nine participants could only provide totals and juvenile counts (where applicable) by sex.
These participants indicated their jail management systems did not break out inmate
population by age as requested, so they were unable to readily access this information.
Providing these data would require participants to manually tally counts, which they
indicated would be burdensome. While it was difficult for these participants to provide
counts by age, they had no trouble interpreting the instructions and responding 2a and 2g
as instructed when they were unable to provide counts by age group.

•

Seven participants were able to report counts by age and sex without issue.

RECOMMENDATIONS: None.
ITEM 3 (NON-US CITIZENS)
FINDINGS: Overall participants understood this question, but there was some difficulty
providing the requested counts.
•

Nine participants indicated they understood what the question was asking but could not
provide accurate citizenship counts or estimates because they do not track this
information in their systems and/or stated that they do not ask about citizenship status.

•

Three participants indicated they may be able to compile citizenship data by looking at
individual intake reports but noted this would be time consuming. They also indicated
that they would be unable to break down by convicted/unconvicted status unless they
reviewed each case manually.

•

Four participants were able to respond to this question without issue.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Given the number of participants that were unable to respond to this
question accurately, we suggest including a checkbox on the web form to mirror the PAPI format
(i.e., “Check box if the number of non-U.S. citizens is unknown.” and “Check box if the numbers
of convicted and unconvicted non-U.S. citizens are unknown.”) to reduce respondent confusion.
During the interview several participants that could not provide citizenship information pointed
out the check box on the PDF version of the form and indicated they would have selected this
option if it had been available.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 22

ITEM 4 (FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS)
FINDINGS: Overall participants understood this question, but there was some difficulty
providing the requested counts. The majority of the participants had challenges with the
exclusionary criteria under 4b (i.e., “Anyone born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.”)
•

Eleven participants stated they stated they did not track place of birth in their information
systems
o Two of these participants said they could possibly get this information by
reviewing each case individually to determine place of birth, but that it would be
burdensome to compile.

•

Four participants provided counts for this question.
o Two of these participants indicated they were not able to follow the exclusionary
criteria “Anyone born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents,” but provided
counts of foreign-born inmates anyway.
o One respondent used the counts from item 3 and assumed if an inmate was not a
US citizen, they were foreign born. This respondent marked the item as an
“estimate.”

•

One respondent indicated they do record birth country and could have answered the
questions, but because they have no way of pulling parent’s place of birth, they did not
provide a response.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Given the number of participants that were unable to respond to this
question accurately, we suggest including a checkbox on the web form to mirror the PAPI format
(i.e., “Check box if the number of foreign-born inmates is unknown.” and “Check box if the
numbers of convicted and unconvicted foreign-born inmates are unknown.”) to reduce
respondent confusion. During the interview several participants that could not provide
information on foreign-born inmates pointed out the check box on the PDF version of the form
and indicated they would have selected this option if it had been available.
ITEM 5 (CONDITIONAL RELEASE)
FINDINGS: Overall participants understood this question, but there was some difficulty
providing the requested counts.
•

Six participants indicated they do not have a way to parse out counts for each category in
item 5 and did not respond to the question.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 23

o Three of these participants indicated they would may be able to obtain the
requested counts, but it would require manually looking at individual records and
categorizing them into the requested categories, which would be burdensome.
•

Five participants provided a partial response to the question. These participants were able
to provide counts for bench warrants/detainers, probation, and parole, but had challenges
responding to conditional release and/or pretrial release violation items. A few
participants also indicated there was some overlap between the categories that made it
difficult to provide counts.
o Two of these participants said they do not keep records on pretrial or conditional
release and were only able to provide bench warrants/detainers and
probation/parole.
o One participant explained that if someone is a pretrial release violator, they are
served a bench warrant and would thus be captured under the bench
warrant/detainer category. Similarly, another respondent indicated they would
have to do a record-by-record match to ensure there was no overlap in the counts
they provided.
o One participant explained they had inmates listed under an “other/miscellaneous”
category, for which they included under 5e (other conditional release). They were
also able to provide bench warrants/detainers and probation/parole.

•

Five participants were able to provide a full response to this item. However, two of these
participants indicated it was still burdensome and difficult to provide this information.

•

In general, it appears there were no issues providing counts for bench warrants/detainers
and probation and parole violators among those that could provide either a partial or full
response for this item.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider adding an option to select if the number of pretrial and
conditional release violators is unknown. BJS could also consider simplifying the question to
only request information on bench warrants/detainers, probation, and parole to reduce respondent
burden when compiling this information.
ITEM 6 (OFFENSE TYPE)
FINDINGS: Overall participants understood this question, but there was some difficulty
categorizing and providing the requested counts.
•

Seven participants indicated their information management systems do not break out
inmates by offense type in a manner that maps easily to the categories in the form. The
majority of these participants indicated they would need to tally information manually by
reviewing charge codes and sentence lengths to group inmates under the requested

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 24

categories, which would be burdensome. One participant indicated they would need to
work with the prosecutor’s office to determine which offense carries the longest sentence
as they have no way to determine sentence lengths.
•

One participant indicated they could likely provide counts by offense type, but for
probation and parole violators they would need to review each case individually to
determine their original charge.

•

Eight participants were able to provide a response to this item. However, some of these
participants still had challenges when responding.
o One participant that was able to provide responses indicated they used internal
charge severity codes which do not include sentence length. They stated they
assumed, but were uncertain, if the charge codes ranked as most severe carried the
longest sentences.
o Two participants indicated they were able to compile this information, but that it
was burdensome.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider reducing the number of categories to violent offenses,
property offenses, drug law violations, other (i.e., all other known offenses), and unknown to
reduce respondent burden when compiling this information.
ITEM 7 (OPIOID 1)
FINDINGS: In general participants understood this question, but there were some issues with
misreporting due to misinterpreting the term “medication-assisted treatment.” The majority of
participants also noted they had to coordinate with medical staff or their contract medical
provider to obtain this information, which in some cases made responding burdensome.
•

A few participants misinterpreted the term “medication-assisted treatment” and
responded yes to items 7f and 7g. Two participating jails that were not flagged as MAT
facilities indicated they provided “medication-assisted treatment” to inmates experiencing
withdrawal symptoms (i.e., answered “yes” to 7g). When probed these participants
indicated their medical staff would provide OTC medication to ease symptoms of
withdrawal, but confirmed they did not administer narcotics (e.g., methadone,
buprenorphine, naltrexone) at their facility.

•

One MAT jail participant asked if 7f meant they initiated medication-assisted treatment.
They understood 7e to mean the continuation of medication-assisted treatment but was
uncertain if 7f was meant to determine if they initiated medication-assisted treatment to
inmates newly identified as having opioid use disorder.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 25

RECOMMENDATIONS: An example of “medication-assisted treatment” is provided once when
the term is first used in 7e. In addition to 7e, consider also including the example (e.g.,
methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) in 7f and 7g.
We also suggest including a definition of the term “medicated-assisted treatment” in the
instructions of the question as follows:
•

The following questions are about opioids. Opioids are a class of drug that include
heroin, synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, and pain relievers available legally by
prescription, such as oxycodone (OxyContin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), codeine, and
morphine.
These questions also ask about your jail’s practices and policies for providing
“medication-assisted treatment.” Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) refers to the use
of FDA-approved medications, such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, in the
treatment of substance use disorders. It does not refer to providing non-prescription or
over the counter medication to treat symptoms of opioid use disorder (e.g., withdrawal).

If 7f is intended to capture MAT facilities that initiate medication-assisted treatment, we suggest
rewording the question as follows:
•

Initiate medication-assisted treatment for inmates identified as having opioid use
disorders.

To further highlight the distinction between 7e and 7f we also suggest revising 7e as follows:
•

Continue providing medication-assisted treatment (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine,
naltrexone) to inmates who are admitted with a current prescription or were getting
services from a methadone clinic prior to admission

ITEM 8 (OPIOID 2)
FINDINGS: In general participants that received this question said it was clear, but there were
some issues with misreporting and challenges providing the requested counts. The majority of
participants also noted they had to coordinate with medical staff or their contract medical
provider to obtain this information, which in some cases made responding burdensome.
•

For items 8b1 and 8b2 four facilities that responded “Yes” to 7b indicated they do not
track this information in their systems and compiling this data would require manual
tallying and/or coordination with medical staff/contract medical provider, which would
be burdensome.

•

One MAT jail participant indicated they do not have a code for withdrawal treatment and
was unable to provide counts for 8c. They were able to provide responses to 8b without
issue.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 26

•

As noted above in item 7, there were two participants that indicated “Yes” to 7g and/or 7f
but were referring to non-narcotic and/or OTC medication provided by medical staff.
That is, they do not actually provide FDA-approved MAT drugs (e.g., methadone,
buprenorphine, naltrexone) and do not have a MAT program. As would be expected,
these participants had difficulty responding to item 8c1. The recommendations provided
in item 7 should mitigate this issue.

•

Two participants that received items 8b2 where uncertain about what the term “unique
individuals” meant.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
•

Include a definition of the term “unique individuals” in the question instruction to prevent
confusion.

•

Implement changes suggested in item 7 to mitigate issues with participants erroneously
receiving this item.

ITEM 9 (OPIOID 3)
FINDINGS:
•

In general MAT facilities that received this question were able to respond. One
participant did note this would require a manual count.

RECOMMENDATIONS: None.
IV. GENERAL FEEDBACK AND BURDEN ESTIMATES
Overall participants reported the form took longer than the estimated 30 minutes to complete.
Responses ranged from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Excluding the 24-hour response, which was a
clear outlier, the average time to complete the form was 2.3 hours.
Several participants indicated it would be good to know in advance of entering the survey what
data BJS would be requesting so they could prepare queries and coordinate with other staff as
needed. We suggest including instructions that point to the reference form so that it can easily be
downloaded and shared as needed (e.g., “If you would like to review the information being
requested prior to logging into the survey, or if you need to coordinate with other staff and/or
outside agencies to gather the requested data, a PDF copy can be downloaded by clicking on the
‘Reference Form’ link at the top right of this page.”).

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Appendix B: Jail Survey Cognitive Test Form

Page 27

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 28

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 29

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 30

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 31

Appendix C: Cognitive Interview Guide – Round 1 and Round 2
BJS Jail Survey Cognitive Test Interview Guide – Round 1
Facility Name ____________________
Participant’s Name________________
Participant’s Position______________
Interviewer _____________________
Date___________________________
Start time_______________________
End time________________________
Introduction, part 1: Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER NAME] and I’m with RTI calling on
behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Thank you for your willingness to participate in
today’s discussion about BJS’s new jail survey questions. Is this still a convenient time to talk?
IF YES  continue to part 2 of the introduction
IF NO  When would be a convenient time for me to call back? __________ [THANK
RESPONDENT AND END CALL]
Introduction, part 2: Great! We are conducting this interview to improve the design of BJS’s
Census of Jails and Annual Survey of Jails, which collect inmate population data from local jails.
I will be asking you questions about any challenges you may have encountered while taking the
cognitive test survey recently. This discussion should take approximately 60 minutes. Your
participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to answer any and all questions and may
stop at any time.
We will review the form together and I will ask you questions about specific items. If you have
issues with anything I don’t specifically ask you about, please feel free to mention them too. We
want your honest opinion about what is confusing or difficult to answer. Please keep in mind that
there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. Our goal is to develop questions that are
clear and easy to answer. BJS will not publish or release individual jail responses collected from
the cognitive test.
Do you have the form you completed for [FILL FACILITY NAME]? We will reference this
form throughout the interview. [GIVE PARTCIPANT TIME TO LOCATE FORM IF THEY
DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THEM. IF NEEDED, EMAIL THE PARTICIPANT A COPY
OF THEIR FORM.]
Lastly, please note that I will be taking notes during the interview. This will ensure that we
accurately record your responses.
Do you have any questions before we begin? [ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN
BEGIN INTERVIEW]

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 32

1. CONFINED
On May 31, 2018, how many persons were CONFINED in your jail facility?
INCLUDE—
 Persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under your jurisdiction
 Persons held for other jurisdictions
 Persons in community-based programs (e.g., work release, day release, or drug/alcohol
treatment) who return to jail at night
 Persons out to court while under your jurisdiction.
EXCLUDE—
X Persons under your jurisdiction who are boarded elsewhere
X Inmates who are AWOL, escaped, or on long-term transfer to other jurisdictions
X Persons in community-based programs run by your jails (e.g., electronic monitoring, house
arrest, community service, day reporting, or work programs) who do NOT return to jail at
night.
Probes:
1. Are the inclusion/exclusion instructions for this question clear or confusing? (Please
explain)
2. Do you have difficulty applying the criteria in reporting the confined population? (Please
explain)
2. AGE
On May 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
If you cannot provide counts by age and sex, please complete 2a (age 17 or younger by sex) and
2g (total counts by sex).
a. age 17 or younger
b. between 18 and 24
c. between 25 and 34
d. between 35 and 44
e. between 45 and 54
f. 55 or older
g. Total

Male

Female

Total

Probes:
1. Is it easy or difficult to count inmates by age and sex? (Please explain)

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 33

2. Are the instructions under this question clear or confusing? (Please explain)
3. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING]: Can you explain why you are unable to provide (some
of) the requested counts?
4. [IF 2a AND 2g ARE MISSING]: Can you provide the total number of inmates by sex
and the number of juveniles by sex?
3. NON-US CITIZENS
On May 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
a. U.S. citizens?
b. Not U.S. citizens?
Of the non-U.S. citizens in item 3b, how many were—
•
For persons with more than one status, report the status associated with the most serious
offense.
•
For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.
1. Convicted
2. Unconvicted
3. TOTAL (Sum of items 3b1 and 3b2 should
equal item 3b)
Probes:
1. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of non-U.S. citizens? (Please explain)
2. Are the instructions for how to count convicted and unconvicted inmates clear or
confusing? (Please explain)
3. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING]: Can you explain why you are unable to provide (some
of) the requested counts?
[Probe IF 0 COUNT IS GIVEN FOR 3B and “The count of non-US citizens is unknown”
is selected]
4. [IF A POSITIVE COUNTS IS GIVEN FOR 3B]: Is the count of non-U.S. citizens you
provided based on the current citizenship status, or the status at time of birth?
4. FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS
On May 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
a. In the United States?
INCLUDE—

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 34

 Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern
Marianas.
 Anyone born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
b. Outside the United States?
INCLUDE—
 Anyone born in a foreign country.
EXCLUDE—
X Anyone born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Marianas.
X Anyone born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Of the foreign-born inmates in item 4b, how many were—
•
•

For persons with more than one status, report the status associated with the most serious
offense.
For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.

1. Convicted
2. Unconvicted
3. TOTAL (Sum of items 4b1 and 4b2 should
equal item 4b)
Probes:
1. Are the inclusion/exclusion instructions for clear or confusing? (Please explain)
2. Do you have difficulty applying the criteria in reporting the number of foreign-born
inmates confined in your jail facility? (Please explain)
3. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of inmates who are foreign born? (Please explain)
4. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING]: Can you explain why you are unable to provide (some
of) the requested counts?
a. [Probe IF 0 COUNT IS GIVEN FOR 4B and “The count of foreign-born inmates
is unknown” is selected]
5. CONDITIONAL RELEASE
On May 31, 2018, how many persons confined in your jail were—
a. Bench warrants/detainer
 INCLUDE failure to appear and contempt of court.
b. Other pretrial release violators

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 35

 INCLUDE persons released on bond/bail, their personal recognizance, house
arrest/electronic monitoring, and other pretrial release violations.
c. Probation violators
d. Parole violators
e. Other conditional release violators
Probes:
1. Are the categories for question 5 clear or confusing?
2. Are the inclusionary instructions for who to include in item 5a clear or confusing? 5b?
3. Are there any other examples that you feel should be added to the inclusion criteria for
5a? 5b?
4. Do you keep records on conditional release status for all of your inmates?
a. [IF NO]: How did you come up with your answers? Did you exclude those
inmates? Provide estimates?
5. [IF AGENCY USED “OTHER” CATEGORIES (b or e)]: What violations did you
include under the “other” category in 5b? 5e?
6. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of the various categories of conditional release
violators?
a. [IF DIFFICULT] Which categories? (Please explain)
6. OFFENSE TYPE
On May 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility, regardless of conviction
status, had as their most serious offense, the one crime for which the person could receive the
longest jail/prison sentence—
For probation and parole violators, please include the most serious original or new charge.
a. Violent offense
 INCLUDE homicide, rape/sexual assault, robbery, domestic violence, aggravated and simple
assault, and other violent offenses
b. Property offense
 INCLUDE larceny/theft, burglary, vandalism, fraud, motor vehicle theft, stolen property
offenses, arson, forgery and counterfeiting, and other property offenses
c. Drug law violation
 INCLUDE offenses relating to the unlawful possession, distribution, sale, use, growing, or
manufacturing of narcotic drugs

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 36

d. Driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs
e. Weapons offense
f. All other known offenses and infractions not specified in 6a to 6e.
g. Not known
h. TOTAL (Sum of items 6a to 6g should equal item 1)
Probes:
1. In your own words, can you tell me what this question is asking?
2. Are the instructions about probation and parole violators clear or confusing? (Please
explain)
3. Do you know the offense for all of your inmates?
a. [IF NO]: How did you come up with your answers? Did you use the not known
category? Exclude those inmates? Provide estimates?
4. [IF A NUMERICAL ANSWER WAS PROVIDED FOR 6f]: What types of offenses
and infractions did you include in item f (“All other known offenses and infractions not
specified in 6a to 6e.”)?
5. [IF THE AGENCY USED THE “NOT KNOWN” CATEGORY]: Can you explain
why you are unable to provide offense information for inmates included in 6g?
6. Is it easy or difficult to obtain inmates counts by the most serious offense? (Please
explain)
7. Are there any additional categories that you feel should be included in this question?
7. OPIOID 1
As a matter of policy or practice, does your jail facility –
 INCLUDE testing, screening, and treatment that are conducted either on or off facility
grounds.
a. Conduct routine urinalysis tests on inmates during intake for the detection of opioids
b. Screen inmates during intake for opioid use disorder with a questionnaire or interview
c. Provide overdose education to inmates with opioid use disorders

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 37

d. Provide behavioral or psychological treatment for inmates identified as having opioid use
disorders
e. Provide medication-assisted treatment (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone) to
inmates who are admitted with a current prescription or were getting services from a
methadone clinic prior to admission
f. Provide medication-assisted treatment for those identified as having opioid use disorders
g. Provide medication-assisted treatment for inmates identified as experiencing opioid
withdrawal
h. Provide prescription opioids to inmates with acute or chronic pain admitted to your facility
with a current prescription from a health care professional prior to admission
i. Provide opioids to inmates to relieve acute or chronic pain.
j. Provide overdose reversal medications such as naloxone (Narcan) to inmates with opioid
use disorders to take with them at the time of release from jail
k. Link inmates with opioid use disorder to medication-assisted treatment in community care
upon release
Probes:
1. Does your jail screen inmates for opioid use disorders? If so, how?
a. Do you have a medication-assisted treatment program?
2. Overall, is it easy or difficult to answer this question? Which items are difficult? (Please
explain)
3. What do you think we mean by the term “medication-assisted treatment”?
4. Do you think there is a difference between items 7e and 7f?
a. [IF YES] What do you think the difference is?
5. Do you think there is a difference between items 7h and 7i?
a. [IF YES] What do you think the difference is?
6. Do you provide medication-assisted treatment to all inmates identified with opioid use
disorders, or just select groups of inmates with disorders?
a. [IF THE LATTER] Which groups are included in treatment?
7. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer any items? Which ones? (Please
explain)
8. OPIOID 2
During the 31-day period between May 1, 2018 and May 31, 2018,
a. How many persons were new admission to your jail facility?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 38

INCLUDE—
 Persons officially booked into and housed in this facility by formal legal document and by
the authority of the courts or some other official agency
 Repeat offenders booked on new charges
 Those persons serving a weekend sentence coming into the facility for the first time
EXCLUDE—
X Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs,
bail/bond releases, and court appearances
b. Of those persons admitted in item 8a,
how many were screened with
a questionnaire or interview (7b) for opioid use disorder?
1. How many screened positive for opioid use disorders?
2. How many screened positive were unique individuals?
c. Of those persons admitted in item 8a,
how many did your jail facility treat
for opioid withdrawal (7g)?
1. How many treated for opioid withdrawal were unique individuals?
Probes:
1. In your own words, can you tell me what information we are requesting in 8a? 8b? 8c?
2. Are the include/exclude instructions for item 8a clear or confusing? (Please explain)
3. Is it easy or difficult to provide the data on opioid disorder screening? On treatment of
opioid disorders? (Please explain)
4. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer these questions?
5. Can you provide the number of unique inmates identified as having opioid use disorder
for the one-year period from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018?
6. Is it easy or difficult to provide the count of “unique individuals”?
9. OPIOID 3
On May 31, 2018, how many inmates CONFINED in your jail facility were receiving
medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders? Be sure to include persons on transfer to
treatment facilities but who remain under your jurisdiction.
Probes:
1. In your own words, can you tell me what this question is asking?
2. Is it easy or difficult to answer this question?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 39

3. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer this question?
General Questions and Wrap-up
I have a just few more questions about the survey form as a whole. As you answer these
questions, please think about all the questions that we have discussed today.
1. At the beginning of the survey, instructions are given on how to indicate the answer is an
estimate through the use of checkboxes. Did you read those instructions? Are the
instructions clear or confusing? Did you remember to use those checkboxes as you took
the survey?
2. Did you experience any difficulties while trying to access or take the survey?
3. Approximately how long did it take you to complete these questions?
Thank you very much. That was all the questions I have for you today. Do you have any
questions for me?
BJS Jail Survey Cognitive Test Interview Guide – Round 2
Facility Name ____________________
Participant’s Name________________
Participant’s Position______________
Interviewer _____________________
Date___________________________
Start time_______________________
Introduction, part 1: Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER NAME] and I’m with RTI calling on
behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). I’m calling to conduct your cognitive test on
BJS’s new jail survey questions. Is this still a convenient time to talk?
IF YES  continue to part 2 of the introduction
IF NO  When would be a convenient time for me to call back? __________ [THANK
RESPONDENT AND END CALL]
Introduction, part 2: Great! We are conducting this interview to improve the design of BJS’s
Census of Jails and Annual Survey of Jails, which collect inmate population data from local jails.
I will be asking you questions about any challenges you may have encountered while taking the
cognitive test survey recently. This discussion should take approximately 60 minutes. Your
participation is completely voluntary. You may decline to answer any and all questions and may
stop at any time.
We will review the form together and I will ask you questions about specific items. If you have
issues with anything I don’t specifically ask you about, please feel free to mention them too. We
want your honest opinion about what is confusing or difficult to answer. Please keep in mind that

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 40

there are no right or wrong answers to my questions. Our goal is to develop questions that are
clear and easy to answer. BJS will not publish or release individual jail responses collected from
the cognitive test.
Do you have the form you completed for [FILL FACILITY NAME]? We will reference this
form throughout the interview. [GIVE PARTCIPANT TIME TO LOCATE FORM IF THEY
DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THEM. IF NEEDED, EMAIL THE PARTICIPANT A COPY
OF THEIR FORM.]
Lastly, please note that I will be taking notes during the interview. This will ensure that we
accurately record your responses.
Do you have any questions before we begin? [ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN
BEGIN INTERVIEW]
4. CONFINED
On July 31, 2018, how many persons were CONFINED in your jail facility?
INCLUDE—
 Persons on transfer to treatment facilities but who remain under your jurisdiction
 Persons held for other jurisdictions
 Persons in community-based programs (e.g., work release, day release, or drug/alcohol
treatment) who return to jail at night
 Persons out to court while under your jurisdiction.
EXCLUDE—
X Persons under your jurisdiction who are boarded elsewhere
X Inmates who are AWOL, escaped, or on long-term transfer to other jurisdictions
X Persons in community-based programs run by your jails (e.g., electronic monitoring, house
arrest, community service, day reporting, or work programs) who do NOT return to jail at
night.
Probes:
3. Are the inclusion/exclusion instructions for this question clear or confusing?
a. [IF CONFUSING]: Which criteria are unclear or confusing?
4. Did you have difficulty applying the criteria in reporting the confined population?
a. [IF YES]: What difficulties did you have?
5. AGE
On July 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
If you cannot provide counts by age and sex, please complete 2a (age 17 or younger by sex) and
2g (total counts by sex).

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

a. age 17 or younger
b. between 18 and 24
c. between 25 and 34
d. between 35 and 44
e. between 45 and 54
f. 55 or older
g. Total

Male

February 4, 2019
Female

Page 41

Total

Probes:
5. Are the instructions under this question clear or confusing?
a. [IF CONFUSING]: Which criteria are unclear or confusing?
6. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of inmates by age and sex?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
7. How did you determine inmate counts by age and sex? (IF NEEDED: Could you explain
the process you used to compile these data?)
8. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING]: Can you explain why you are unable to provide (some
of) the requested counts?
6. NON-US CITIZENS
On July 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
a. U.S. citizens?
b. Not U.S. citizens?
Of the non-U.S. citizens in item 3b, how many were—
•
For persons with more than one status, report the status associated with the most serious
offense.
•
For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.
1. Convicted
2. Unconvicted
3. TOTAL (Sum of items 3b1 and 3b2 should
equal item 3b)
Probes:
5. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of non-U.S. citizens?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
b. Is data on non-U.S. inmates readily available?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 42

6. Are the instructions for how to count convicted and unconvicted inmates clear or
confusing?
a. [IF CONFUSING]: What is confusing about these instructions?
7. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING OR THE UNKNOWN BOX IS SELECTED]: Can
you explain why you are unable to provide (some of) the requested counts?
8.

[IF A POSITIVE COUNTS IS GIVEN FOR 3B]: How did you determine your count
for non-U.S. citizens?
a. Is the count of non-U.S. citizens you provided based on the current citizenship
status, or the status at time of birth?

10. FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS
On July 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility were—
a. In the United States?
INCLUDE—
 Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern
Marianas.
 Anyone born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
b. Outside the United States?
INCLUDE—
 Anyone born in a foreign country.
EXCLUDE—
X Anyone born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Marianas.
X Anyone born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Of the foreign-born inmates in item 4b, how many were—
•
•

For persons with more than one status, report the status associated with the most serious
offense.
For convicted inmates, include probation and parole violators with no new sentence.

1. Convicted
2. Unconvicted
3. TOTAL (Sum of items 4b1 and 4b2 should
equal item 4b)
Probes:
5. Are the inclusion/exclusion instructions for clear or confusing?
a. [IF CONFUSING]: What is confusing about these instructions?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 43

6. Did you have difficulty applying the criteria in reporting the number of foreign-born
inmates confined in your jail facility?)
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
7. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of inmates who are foreign born?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
8. How did you determine counts for foreign born inmates? (IF NEEDED: Could you
explain the process you used to pull these data?)
a. Is data on foreign born inmates readily available?
9. [IF ANY COUNT IS MISSING OR UNKNOWN BOXES CHECKED]: Can you
explain why you are unable to provide (some of) the requested counts?
11. CONDITIONAL RELEASE
On July 31, 2018, how many persons confined in your jail were—
a. Probation violators
b. Parole violators
Probes:
7. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts of probation violators? Parole violators?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
8. How did you determine counts for probation violators? Parole violators? (IF NEEDED:
Could you explain the process you used to pull these data?)
a. Are these data readily available?
12. OFFENSE TYPE
On July 31, 2018, how many persons CONFINED in your jail facility, regardless of conviction
status, had as their most serious offense—
Classify inmates with more than one charge/offense by the most serious change/offense. The
most serious charge/offense is the one crime for which the person could receive the longest
jail/prison sentence. Alternatively, it can be determined by your jail system's offense severity
code, if available.
For probation and parole violators, please include the most serious original or new charge.
a. Violent offense
 INCLUDE homicide, rape/sexual assault, robbery, domestic violence, aggravated and simple
assault, and other violent offenses
b. Property offense

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 44

 INCLUDE larceny/theft, burglary, vandalism, fraud, motor vehicle theft, stolen property
offenses, arson, forgery and counterfeiting, and other property offenses
c. Drug law violation
 INCLUDE offenses relating to the unlawful possession, distribution, sale, use, growing, or
manufacturing of narcotic drugs
d. Public-order offenses
 INCLUDE weapons offenses, obstruction of justice, traffic, driving while intoxicated or
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, drunkenness, vagrancy, disorderly conduct,
unlawful assembly, morals, commercialized vice, escape, AWOL, flight to avoid
prosecution, immigration violations, rioting, abandonment, nonsupport, invasion of privacy,
liquor law violations, and tax evasion.
e. All other known offenses and infractions not specified in 6a to 6d.
f. Not known
g. TOTAL (Sum of items 6a to 6f should equal item 1)
Probes:
8. In your own words, can you tell me what this question is asking?
9. Did you notice the instructions for parole and probation violators?
a. [IF YES]: Were these instructions clear or confusing?
b. [IF CONFUSING]: What is confusing about these instructions?
10. Is it easy or difficult to provide counts by most serious offense?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
b. Could you explain how you determined most serious offense for inmates with
multiple charges/offenses?
11. Do you know the offense for all of your inmates?
a. [IF NO]: How did you come up with your answers? Did you use the not known
category? Exclude those inmates? Provide estimates?
12. [IF A NUMERICAL ANSWER WAS PROVIDED FOR 6e]: What types of offenses
and infractions did you include in item e (“All other known offenses and infractions not
specified in 6a to 6d.”)?
13. [IF THE AGENCY USED THE “NOT KNOWN” CATEGORY]: Can you explain
why you are unable to provide offense information for inmates included in 6g?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 45

13. OPIOID 1
As a matter of practice, does your jail facility –
 INCLUDE testing, screening, and treatment that are conducted either on or off facility
grounds.
a. Conduct routine urinalysis tests on inmates during intake for the detection of opioids
b. Screen inmates during intake for opioid use disorder with a questionnaire or interview
c. Provide overdose education to inmates identified as having opioid use disorders
d. Initiate behavioral or psychological treatment for inmates identified as having opioid use
disorders
e. Provide medication-assisted treatment for inmates. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT)
refers to the use of FDA-approved medications, such as methadone, buprenorphine, and
naltrexone, in the treatment of substance use disorders. It does not refer to providing nonprescription or over the counter medication to treat symptoms, such as withdrawal,
associated with opioid use disorders
1. Continue MAT to inmates who are admitted with a current prescription or were getting
services from a methadone clinic prior to admission
2. Initiate or continue MAT for those identified as having opioid use disorders.
3. Initiate MAT for inmates identified as experiencing opioid withdrawal
f. Continue providing prescription opioids to inmates with acute or chronic pain admitted to
your facility with a current prescription from a health care professional prior to admission
g. Initiate providing opioids to inmates to relieve acute or chronic pain.
h. Provide overdose reversal medications such as naloxone (Narcan) to inmates with opioid
use disorders to take with them at the time of release from jail
i. Link inmates with opioid use disorder to medication-assisted treatment in community care
upon release
Probes:
8. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer any items?
a. [IF SOMEONE ELSE ANSWERED ANY ITEMS]: Which items?
9. Overall, was it easy or difficult to provide answers to this question?
a. Which items were difficult?
10. Does your jail screen inmates for opioid use disorders? If so, how?
11. When answering 7e, did you read the definition of medication-assisted treatment
program?
a. Was anything about the definition unclear or confusing?
b. [IF CONFUSING]: What is confusing about the definition?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 46

12. [IF YES TO 7e] Do you provide medication-assisted treatment to all inmates identified
with opioid use disorders, or just select groups of inmates with disorders?
a. [IF THE LATTER] Which groups are included in treatment?
14. OPIOID 2
During the 31-day period between July1, 2018 and July 31, 2018,
d. How many persons were new admission to your jail facility?
INCLUDE—
 Persons officially booked into and housed in this facility by formal legal document and by
the authority of the courts or some other official agency
 Repeat offenders booked on new charges
 Those persons serving a weekend sentence coming into the facility for the first time
EXCLUDE—
X Returns from escape, work release, medical appointments/treatment facilities, furloughs,
bail/bond releases, and court appearances
e. Of the new admissions reported in item 8a, how many were screened with a questionnaire or
interview (7b) for opioid use disorder?
3. How many screened positive for opioid use disorders?
4. How many screened positive were unique individuals (i.e., count multiple positive results
the same individual only once)?
f. Of the new admissions reported in item 8a, how many did your jail facility treat for opioid
withdrawal (7e3)?
2. How many treated for opioid withdrawal were unique individuals (i.e., count multiple
treatments for the same individual only once)?

Probes:
7. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer any items?
a. [IF SOMEONE ELSE ANSWERED ANY ITEMS]: Which items?
8. Is it easy or difficult to provide the requested data on opioid disorder screening?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
9. Is it easy or difficult to provide the requested data on treatment of opioid disorders?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
10. Are the include/exclude instructions for item 8a clear or confusing?
a. [IF CONFUSING]: What is confusing about these instructions?

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 47

11. In your own words, can you tell me the difference between 8b1 and 8b2? Between 8c and
8c1?
a. How did you interpret “unique individuals”?
12. Would you be able to provide the number of unique inmates identified as having opioid
use disorder for a one-year period?
13. Is it easy or difficult to provide the count of “unique individuals”?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
15. OPIOID 3
On July 31, 2018, how many inmates CONFINED in your jail facility were receiving
medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders? Be sure to include persons on transfer to
treatment facilities but who remain under your jurisdiction.
Probes:
4. In your own words, can you tell me what this question is asking?
5. Is it easy or difficult to answer this question?
a. [IF DIFFICULT]: What makes this difficult?
6. Did you have to ask someone else in your jail to answer this question?
General Questions and Wrap-up
I have a just few more questions about the survey form as a whole. As you answer these
questions, please think about all the questions that we have discussed today.
4. At the beginning of the survey, instructions are given on how to indicate the answer is an
estimate through the use of checkboxes. Did you read those instructions? Are the
instructions clear or confusing?
a. [IF NEEDED]: Did you remember to use those checkboxes as you took the
survey?
5. Did you experience any difficulties while trying to access or take the survey?
6. Approximately how long did it take you to complete these questions? Please include the
time it took to coordinate with other staff, compile/pull data, and enter it into the form.
7. Do you have any comments that you wish to share about your experience completing the
survey?
Thank you very much. That was all the questions I have for you today. Do you have any
questions for me?
End time________________________

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 48

Appendix D: Communication and Recruitment Materials
D1. Initial introduction email (Sent from BJS)
Dear [POC name],
I am writing to invite you to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Jail
Survey Cognitive Test. BJS, in partnership with RTI International, is testing nine new
survey questions for its jail data collections. The new questions ask about the
demographic characteristics of jail inmates, offense type, and opioid testing and treatment
programs.
I understand that you recently participated in the 2018 Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ).
Thank you for taking the time to provide your agency’s data to BJS. The Jail Survey
Cognitive Test is a different study, focusing on identifying wording issues or technical
difficulties with new survey questions. The test consists of two activities. The first is to
take a short online survey with the new items. The second is to participate in a follow-up
telephone interview to discuss your responses and experience taking the survey. The
interview will take about 60 minutes and can be scheduled at a time and date that works
best for you. BJS will not release information collected from the cognitive test. The
results will only be used to identify potential issues with question wording.
Your participation is completely voluntary; however, your feedback is important and will
greatly help us improve the 2019 Census of Jails and future Annual Survey of Jails. If
you are willing to participate, please contact Elizabeth Smith at RTI by email
(esmith@rti.org) or telephone (919-541-5984). Elizabeth will set up an interview for you
and email the survey link to you. She will also follow up with you if we have not heard
from you in a few days.
For questions or concerns, please contact our task leader at RTI, Amanda Smith, at
acsmith@rti.org or 919-541-6249 or me directly at zhen.zeng@usdoj.gov or 202-5989955.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Zhen Zeng
Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Project Manager of Annual Survey of Jails and 2019 Census of Jails

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 49

D2. Recruitment follow-up email (Sent from RTI 5 days after initial lead email from BJS)
Dear [POC Name],
Recently, you received an e-mail from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) inviting you
to participate in a cognitive test of new survey questions for its jail data collections. I’m
following up today to request your participation. The feedback you provide will help
make the 2019 Census of Jails and future Annual Survey of Jails more pertinent and
easier to answer.
The cognitive test consists of two activities. The first is to take a short online survey that
contains the new items. The second is to participate in a follow-up telephone interview
with RTI staff to discuss your responses and experience taking the survey. The call will
last about one hour and can be scheduled at a time and date that works best for you.
BJS will not publish or release individual jail responses collected for the cognitive test.
The results will be used solely to identify potential issues with question wording.
If you are able to participate in this cognitive test, please contact me at esmith@rti.org or
919-541-5984 so I may send you the survey link and schedule a time/date for us to
discuss your responses. If you would like to participate, but feel you are not the best
person to complete the survey, please send me contact details for the person to contact at
your agency. If you have any questions about the cognitive test, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Smith
BJS Jail Survey Cognitive Test Team
RTI International
D3: Interview scheduling call script
Hello, I’m [Name] calling from RTI on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Thank
you for participating in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Jail Survey Cognitive Test. We’d
like to set up a time to talk to you about BJS’s new jail survey questions. The goal is to
better understand any issues with the questions so we can improve our surveys. We will
first e-mail you a survey link. After you’ve completed the survey, we will call you back
to ask questions about the difficulty of the questions and the terminology. We anticipate
the conversation will last an hour. Is there a time next week that works for you?
[If participant does not answer, leave a voicemail with the information above]

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 50

D4. Confirmation e-mail with web link for the survey and instructions for completing form
before interview (Sent from RTI no later than 1 day after scheduling interview)
Dear [Participant’s name],
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Jail Survey
Cognitive Test. We have scheduled your interview on [MM/DD/YYYY at 00:00
am/pm] with [INTERVIEWER NAME].
Please complete the survey at the website below by [INSERT DATE 2 BUSINESS
DAYS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED INTERVIEW]:
[SURVEY LINK]
BJS will not publish or release any of the information collected from this cognitive test.
The results will be used solely to identify potential issues with the new questions.
If you have any questions regarding the cognitive test or experience any technical
difficulties when completing the form or generating a report of your responses, please
contact me at esmith@rti.org or 919-541-5984.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Smith
BJS Jail Survey Cognitive Test Team
RTI International
D5. E-mail to remind respondents to fill out the cognitive test form (Sent from RTI 2 days
before appointment, if form has not been completed)
Dear [Participant’s name],
You are currently scheduled for an interview on [MM/DD/YYYY at 00:00 am/pm] for
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Jail Survey Cognitive Test, but we have not yet
received the survey form from you. The survey takes about 30 minutes to complete and
needs to be completed as soon as possible so we can discuss your experience taking the
survey at the scheduled interview.
Please complete the survey at the link below:
[SURVEY LINK]
BJS will not publish or release any of the information collected from this cognitive test.
The results will be used solely to identify potential issues with question wording.

ASJ Cognitive Testing – Full Report

February 4, 2019

Page 51

If you experience any technical difficulties on the survey website or would like to
reschedule the interview, please contact me at esmith@rti.org or 919-541-5984.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Smith
BJS Jail Survey Cognitive Test Team
RTI International
D6. Final contact attempt – Call script
Hello, my name is Lizzie Smith and I am calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
I am calling to follow up on a recent invitation you received to participate in the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) Jail Survey Cognitive Test. [IF YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH
THE POC, do you have a moment to speak with me?]
We are currently testing six new survey questions for BJS’s jail data collections and
would like to get your feedback. Your participation is completely voluntary; however,
your feedback is important to BJS and will help us improve the 2019 Census of Jails and
future Annual Survey of Jails.
The cognitive test consists of two activities – a short online survey consisting of the new
questions and a follow-up telephone interview to discuss your responses and experience
taking the survey. The call will last about 60 minutes and can be scheduled at a time and
date that works best for you. The survey and follow-up interview will help BJS identify
wording issues or technical difficulties with the new questions.
[IF YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH THE POC, Would you, or a delegate, be available to
help us test these new questions?]
[IF YOU ARE LEAVING A VM, if you are willing to participate, please contact me by
telephone (919-541-5984) to set up an interview.]

Attachment K

Comments for OMB Docket 1121-0100
(84 FR 4539)
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments
Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for
Which Approval Has Expired: 2019 Census of Jails

Contact

Todd D. Minton, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531
(email: Todd.Minton@usdoj.gov; telephone: 202-305-9630).

Comments from the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology
(OSE) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)/
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The intersection of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment and incarceration is of great interest to
FDA in addressing the current opioid crisis. In particular, FDA is interested in the utilization of
medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in correctional institutions during incarceration and just
prior to release.
We suggest that items 4 (n), (o), (p), and (q), as described in the brief abstract of the instrument
published in the FR Notice, be expanded in scope to capture greater detail, as is feasible, on
the specific MAT drug products being used in correctional facilities. Both the public health and
criminal justice literatures have called attention to limited treatment options for OUD available to
offenders in correctional settings.(1-15) Most notably, publications in the lay and academic
press have noted that opioid agonist-based treatment for withdrawal and OUD has been
virtually unavailable in jails and prisons. Generally, it would be valuable to know the number and
proportion of inmates with opioid use disorders who receive MAT, and with which drugs (i.e.,
buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone), both while incarcerated and just prior to discharge.
FDA and other agencies within HHS are also seeking to increase community access and use of
naloxone to reverse acute opioid overdose. The distribution of naloxone to offenders at the time
of release from jails and prisons has been widely discussed in light of extremely high rates of
opioid overdose observed soon after release.(16-18) These interventions have also been widely
embraced in other countries, including the UK.(19, 20) However, there are few data on the scale
of such programs in the US. We therefore also recommend collecting information on naloxone
availability and distribution within corrections facilities, and particularly distribution of naloxone at
time of release to inmates with opioid use disorder.
1.
Binswanger IA. Opioid Use Disorder and Incarceration — Hope for Ensuring the
Continuity of Treatment. N Engl J Med 2019.
2.
Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Cloud DH, Davis C, Zaller N, Delany-Brumsey A, Pope L, et al.
Addressing excess risk of overdose among recently incarcerated people in the USA: harm
reduction interventions in correctional settings. Int J Prison Health 2017;13(1):25-31.
3.
Green TC, Clarke J, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Marshall BDL, Alexander-Scott N, Boss R, et
al. Postincarceration Fatal Overdoses After Implementing Medications for Addiction Treatment
in a Statewide Correctional System. JAMA Psychiatry 2018;75(4):405-407.

4.
Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, et al. Release
from prison--a high risk of death for former inmates. N Engl J Med 2007;356(2):157-65.
5.
Bird SM, Fischbacher CM, Graham L, Fraser A. Impact of opioid substitution therapy for
Scotland's prisoners on drug-related deaths soon after prisoner release. Addiction
2015;110(10):1617-24.
6.
Csete J. Criminal Justice Barriers to Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders in the United
States: The Need for Public Health Advocacy. Am J Public Health 2019:e1-e4.
7.
Friedmann PD, Hoskinson R, Gordon M, Schwartz R, Kinlock T, Knight K, et al.
Medication-Assisted Treatment in Criminal Justice Agencies Affiliated with the Criminal JusticeDrug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Availability, Barriers, and Intentions. Substance
Abuse 2012;33(1):9-18.
8.
Fuh L, Hays H, Brown N, Shirk MB. Characterization of drug overdoses in an Ohio
incarcerated population. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2016;54(3):266-70.
9.
Marsden J, Stillwell G, Jones H, Cooper A, Eastwood B, Farrell M, et al. Does exposure
to opioid substitution treatment in prison reduce the risk of death after release? A national
prospective observational study in England. Addiction 2017;112(8):1408-1418.
10.
McDonald RD, Tofighi B, Laska E, Goldfeld K, Bonilla W, Flannery M, et al. Extendedrelease naltrexone opioid treatment at jail reentry (XOR). Contemp Clin Trials 2016;49:57-64.
11.
Moller LF, Matic S, van den Bergh BJ, Moloney K, Hayton P, Gatherer A. Acute drugrelated mortality of people recently released from prisons. Public Health 2010;124(11):637-9.
12.
Nunn A, Zaller N, Dickman S, Trimbur C, Nijhawan A, Rich JD. Methadone and
Buprenorphine Prescribing and Referral Practices in US Prison Systems: Results from a
Nationwide Survey. Drug and alcohol dependence 2009;105(1-2):83-88.
13.
Rich JD, McKenzie M, Larney S, Wong JB, Tran L, Clarke J, et al. Methadone
continuation versus forced withdrawal on incarceration in a combined US prison and jail: a
randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2015;386(9991):350-9.
14.
Taxman FS, Perdoni ML, Harrison LD. Drug treatment services for adult offenders: the
state of the state. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007;32(3):239-54.
15.
Wildeman C, Wang EA. Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the
USA. Lancet 2017;389(10077):1464-1474.
16.
Ranapurwala SI, Shanahan ME, Alexandridis AA, Proescholdbell SK, Naumann RB,
Edwards D, Jr., et al. Opioid Overdose Mortality Among Former North Carolina Inmates: 20002015. American Journal of Public Health 2018;108(9):1207-1213.
17.
Bukten A, Stavseth MR, Skurtveit S, Tverdal A, Strang J, Clausen T. High risk of
overdose death following release from prison: variations in mortality during a 15-year
observation period. Addiction 2017;112(8):1432-1439.
18.
Binswanger IA, Blatchford PJ, Mueller SR, Stern MF. Mortality after prison release:
opioid overdose and other causes of death, risk factors, and time trends from 1999 to 2009. Ann
Intern Med 2013;159(9):592-600.
19.
Bird SM, McAuley A, Perry S, Hunter C. Effectiveness of Scotland's National Naloxone
Programme for reducing opioid‐related deaths: a before (2006–10) versus after (2011–13)
comparison. Addiction 2016;111(5):883-891.
20.
Horsburgh K, McAuley A. Scotland's national naloxone program: The prison experience.
Drug Alcohol Rev 2017.

Attachment L

This letter is in response to the Bureau of Justice Statistics request for comments on the proposed
reinstatement and update of a previously approved data collection, the 2019 Census of Jails
(Census). The National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pew Charitable Trusts are
writing to express our strong support for reinstating this data collection and to provide
suggestions on ways to improve the proposed instrument.
The “Jail Inmates in 2016” publication reported that there were over 740,000 people in jail at
midyear, and over 10 million jail admissions. This represents a significant number of Americans,
and a significant expense borne primarily by counties and local government. However, these
figures are estimates based on the 2013 census. Absent more recent data from the 2019 Census’
collected facility-level information, it will be impossible to accurately assess the number of
individuals in jail by sex, race/ethnicity and adult or juvenile status, conviction and sentencing
status and offense charges of those held, average daily population, operating expenditures, and
other data. These statistics are an invaluable resource for policymakers, administrators, and those
paying for jails, the taxpayers. It is also critical information for organizations researching and
analyzing jails. We urge the Bureau of Justice Statistics to reinstate the 2019 Census.
In addition to supporting the continuation of the Census generally, we have the following
suggestions regarding changes to the proposed questionnaire.
1. Having information on the number of detained individuals by sex AND race/ethnicity
(e.g. number of white women, Hispanic men, etc.) would be valuable to
understanding the different issues facing these populations. We recommend asking
for data by both sex and race/ethnicity, instead of separate questions for each.
2. Evidence suggests that jails house many people with serious mental illness. Adding a
question on whether jails screen individuals for these conditions, and prevalence rates
if they do, would assist in understanding the scope of this issue.
3. We recommend expanding the focus of questions related to substance testing,
screening and treatment to include all substances, not just opioids. Local jails are
seeing a significant uptick in methamphetamine and cocaine use in many counties,
and including all substances use rather than just opioids will help create more
comprehensive programs to tackle the issue.
The collection of the data requested by BJS for the Census is routine for most jurisdictions. The
potential burdens accompanying responding to the survey are outweighed by the value gained
through obtaining a broader and more accurate picture of jails in the U.S. We support a renewed
investment of federal dollars towards improving the systems we rely on for safety and justice.
Thank you for your consideration.

Matthew D. Chase
CEO
National Association of Counties

Michael Williams
Senior Manager, Public Safety Performance Project
The Pew Charitable Trusts

Attachment M

April 15, 2019
Jeffrey Anderson
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Justice
819 Seventh Street NW, Room 2413
Washington, DC 20531
Re: Adding questions relating to opioid use disorder to the 2019 Census of Jails.
Dear Director Anderson:
I am writing in response to 84 FR 4539 regarding the 2019 Census of Jails.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is a non-profit research and policy organization. The Substance Use
Prevention and Treatment Initiative (SUPTI) works to advance state and federal policies that
address the toll of substance misuse, including expanded access to evidence-based treatment.
This letter addresses the addition of questions relating to opioid use disorder to the 2019 Census
of Jails.
Pew’s substance use work recognizes the disproportionate burden of substance use disorders
(SUDs) among incarcerated individuals. Nationally, from 2007-2009 (the latest nationwide data
available), 63 percent of people serving sentences in jails met the medical criteria for a SUD
pertaining to opioids or other depressants (excluding alcohol), marijuana, cocaine,
methamphetamine or other stimulants, hallucinogens, or inhalants, while only 5 percent of the
total general population age 18 or older met such criteria.i Upon release to the community,
people who were incarcerated face a high risk of overdose. For example, a New York City study
found that individuals discharged from jails were more than twice as likely to die from drugrelated causes as other city residents within the two-week period after release.ii
Providing treatment during incarceration directs resources to a population in need of services and
can prevent fatal overdose upon release. For example, after introducing all three forms of
medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for opioid use disorder (OUD)
treatment into its Department of Corrections, post-incarceration overdose deaths decreased by 61
percent in Rhode Island compared with deaths in the period prior. This was the main factor
contributing to a 12 percent reduction in overdose fatalities statewide.iii
Despite the need for treatment in correctional settings, and the ability for this treatment to save
lives, little is known about the extent to which jails offer this treatment or even routinely screen
for OUD. Accordingly, Pew encourages the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to add questions
regarding OUD to the 2019 Census of Jails Forms CJ-3 and CJ3-A. This comment letter offers

suggestions for refining the proposed data collection instrument so that this important
information can be collected.
The addition of the opioid questions acknowledges the need to better understand how the opioid
overdose epidemic affects some of the most vulnerable people in the United States – people with
criminal justice system involvement. The goal of the new opioid questions in the 2019 Census of
Jails should be to collect data on prevalence of substance use and SUD for people in jails, to
understand how people are screened and treated for SUD within the facility (including
withdrawal management), and how people reentering the community from incarceration are
connected to medical and behavioral health services post-release. The responses to the opioid
questions will provide a high-level understanding of how jails address OUD. However, the
questions require additional detail to determine the type of screening and OUD treatment
provided.
Suggested improvements to proposed data collection instrument
Overall Comments on Single Facility Jail Form Section IV and Jurisdiction Form Section III
The questions in Single-Facility Jail Form Section IV and Jurisdiction Form Section III are
limited to screening and treatment for OUD. While OUD rates have risen, so have rates for other
SUDs. For example, after declining in the mid-2000s, between 2008 and 2015, amphetaminerelated hospitalizations (which includes methamphetamine) increased from 55,000 to 206,000.iv
The prevalence of alcohol-use disorder and high-risk drinking also increased between 2001-2002
and 2012-2013.v For these reasons, Pew recommends adding questions relating to the screening
and treatment of other substance-use disorders, including alcohol, stimulants, and polysubstance
use.
Questions 24 (Single Facility Jail Form) and 13 (Jurisdiction Form)
• 24a and b (Single Facility Jail Form); 13a and b (Jurisdiction Form)
o Responses 24a, 24b, 13a, and 13b ask only about activities conducted during
intake. Because some facilities conduct health screenings and assessments after
intake, the questionnaire as currently worded will not capture these activities.
Consider asking first if routine urinalysis and screening for OUD are conducted,
and then add a follow up question to learn when these activities occur.
BJS should also consider asking about the screening and assessment tools used by
jails. This would help researchers understand the use of validated, evidence-based
screening and assessment tools in jail settings.
•

24e (Single Facility Jail Form) and 13e (Jurisdiction Form)
o The instructions to this question should make clear that medication-assisted
withdrawal is not the same as medication-assisted treatment. As written, a
respondent could interpret the instructions to mean that they should respond yes
even if opioid-agonist medications are made available only for the management of
withdrawal symptoms.

o This question should elicit separate responses for each of the three medications
for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. The three
medications are governed by varying sets of federal regulations. Asking about the
medications separately will help researchers to understand the extent to which
each medication is available.
Further, the medications vary in contraindications, interactions with drugs used to
treat other conditions, and potential side effects. Patients also differ in which
medication is most likely to lead to treatment success. Because of these factors,
the decision regarding the right medication to take for OUD should be made
jointly by the prescriber and the patientvi and jails should offer all three
medications. Asking about the medications separately will allow researchers to
track the degree to which jails are implementing this best practice.
o These questions should also distinguish between initiating and continuing
Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), FDA-approved medications for OUD
used in combination with behavioral health therapy. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that jails are likelier to continue medication for persons entering the facility
already on MAT than to initiate treatment to medication-naive patients. While
continuing MAT is important for increasing access to care, jails also represent a
setting in which people with OUD can be identified and begin treatment.vii Asking
about initiation and continuation separately will help researchers understand the
extent to which jails are serving as a site where people enter treatment.
o These questions should also ask about the populations that are eligible to receive
MAT. For example, a jail may offer MAT only to pregnant patients or exclude
people who are state responsibility, serving a sentence, or detained for
immigration services. As written, a jail could respond that they provide MAT to
incarcerated persons even if it is restricted to their pregnant patient population
only.
•

24i (Single Facility Jail Form) and 13i (Jurisdiction Form)
o Linkages to care can encompass many activities, including giving patients a list of
providers in the community, jail-based staff making appointments pre-release, and
community providers coming into the jail to develop care plans. Consider asking
about these activities separately. As written, both a jail that supplies a list of
nearby treatment options and a jail that offers robust care management could
respond as linking persons soon to be released from incarceration to care in the
community.
BJS should also consider asking about whether the jail provides a supply of
buprenorphine or oral naltrexone prior to release for the patient to take until he or
she receives ongoing care from a community provider. Providing these bridge
medications for OUD could help reduce the post-incarceration risk of overdose by
ensuring there is no lapse in OUD treatment medications before the individual is
able to receive treatment in the community.

Questions 25c (Single Facility Jail Form) and 14c (Jurisdiction Form)
These questions should define treatment for opioid withdrawal. The American Society of
Addiction Medicine recommends the use of opioid agonists or alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (e.g.,
clonidine or lofexidine) for managing withdrawal.viii Providing fluids alone is not sufficient. The
question should define clinically appropriate withdrawal management so that researchers can
understand the extent to which jails are following clinical guidelines in this area.
Questions 26 (Single Facility Jail Form) and 15 (Jurisdiction Form)
As recommended with questions 24 (Single Facility Jail Form) and 13 (Jurisdiction Form), these
questions should ask separately about the number of persons receiving buprenorphine,
methadone, and naltrexone.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions to the Census of
Jails. The new data on the identification and treatment of opioid use disorders will be invaluable
to researchers seeking to understand the extent to which people in jails can access treatment and
the adoption of best practices relating to MAT by jails. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact (REDACTED CONTACT INFORMATION).
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Connolly
Project Director, Substance Use Prevention and Treatment Initiative

Jennifer Bronson et al, “Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009,”
Bureau of Justice Statistics (June 2017), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf.
ii
Sungwoo Lim et al, “Risks of Drug-Related Death, Suicide, and Homicide During the Immediate Post-Release
Period Among People Released from New York City Jails, 2001–2005,” American Journal of Epidemiology 175,
no. 6 (2012): 519-526, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr327.
iii
Ibid.
iv
Tyler N.A. Winkelman, Lindsay K. Admon, and Latasha Jennings, “Evaluation of Amphetamine-Related
Hospitalizations and Associated Clinical Outcomes and Costs in the United States,” JAMA Network Open 1, no. 6
(2018):e183758, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3758.
v
Bridget F. Grant, et al, “Prevalence of 12-Month Alcohol Use, High-Risk Drinking, and DSM-IV Alcohol Use
Disorder in the United States, 2001-2002 to 2012-2013: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on
Alcohol and Related Conditions, JAMA Psychiatry 74, no. 9 (2017):911-923,
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2161.
vi
American Society of Addiction Medicine, “The ASAM National Practice Guideline for the Use of Medications in
the Treatment of Addiction Involving Opioid Use,” (2015), https://www.asam.org/docs/default-source/practicesupport/guidelines-and-consensus-docs/asam-national-practice-guideline-supplement.pdf.
vii
National Sheriffs Association, “Jail Based Medication-Assisted Treatment: Promising Practices, Guidelines, and
Resources for the Field (October 2018), https://www.sheriffs.org/publications/Jail-Based-MAT-PPG.pdf.
viii
American Society of Addiction Medicine, “The ASAM National Practice Guideline for the Use of Medications in
the Treatment of Addiction Involving Opioid Use.”
i

Attachment N

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Dear Todd MintonThe “quality and utility of the information to be collected can be enhanced” by BJS’s 2019 census of
jails collecting data on the number of pregnant people who are admitted to jails and the outcomes
of those pregnancies—specifically live births, stillbirths, miscarriages, terminations, and maternal
deaths.
The number of incarcerated women continues to rise. Most of these women are of childbearing age,
and some of them will be pregnant upon entry. This is not a trivial matter. What happens to those
pregnancies while women are in custody has profound consequences for the next generation. It is
essential that we know just how many pregnant women are in the correctional system and the
outcomes. This information can help jails, health care providers, lawmakers, and others understand
the demographic scope of pregnancy in corrections in order to design and improve health care
services, laws, and programs that can ensure safe and optimal results for children of incarcerated
mothers. Just as it is important to have information on deaths in custody, so is it important to know
about births in custody.
Such data collection is feasible. My team at Johns Hopkins collected 1 year of prospectively reported
de-identified pregnancy data from 22 state prison systems, federal Bureau of Prisons, and 6 jails,
including the nation’s 5 largest jails. Results were recently published in the American Journal of
Public Health, with an editorial describing the need for a broader collection. The jail data we
collected represent only 5% of the female jail population and it is skewed toward large, urban jails.
We need more representative data from a larger sample of jails. BJS is in a unique position to collect
such data from a more comprehensive sample of jails.
I urge BJS to enhance the quality and utility of its information by adding pregnancy data to its 2019
census of jails. 
Sincerely,
-Carolyn Sufrin, MD, PhD
Dept. of Gyn/Ob & Center for Medical Humanities and Social Medicine
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Dept. of Health, Behavior & Societey
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Author of Jailcare: Finding the Safety Net for Women Behind Bars
Project director of Pregnancy in Prison Statistics Project

Attachment O

April 15, 2019
Todd Minton
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Submitted via email: Todd.Minton@usdoj.gov
RE: 84 FR 4539, 2019 Census of Jails
Dear Mr. Minton,
On behalf of the Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ), we write to offer comments on the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) information collection request
regarding the 2019 Census of Jails.
CFYJ is a national organization whose mission is to end the practice of prosecuting, sentencing,
and incarcerating youth under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. The strategic
goals of CFYJ are to reduce the total number of youth prosecuted in the adult criminal justice
system and to decrease the harmful impact of trying youth in adult court. We accomplish this
through both federal and state-level advocacy by urging lawmakers to pass laws to keep youth
out of the adult criminal justice system. The Census of Jails both informs our work and assists in
assessing our success in removing youth from adult jails across the country.
The number of youth in adult jails has continued to decline in the past decade.1 This trend was
spurred by numerous states passing laws to keep youth out of the adult criminal justice system,
including raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction. There are only four states where youth
under the age of 18 are still automatically charged as adults: Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.2 Several states that have raised the age of criminal jurisdiction have only just begun
the implementation process, or will start in the near future.3 States have also taken steps to limit
the pathway to criminal court for youth, including limiting the pathways of transfer to the adult
system and restoring judicial discretion to limit the statutory exclusion of youth from juvenile
court and to limit prosecutorial discretion in directly filing a young person’s case in adult court. 4

1

ZHEN ZENG, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, JAIL INMATES
IN 2016 (Feb. 2018), available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji16.pdf.
2
In Another Big Year for “Raise the Age” Laws, One State Now Considers All Teens as Juveniles, CHRONICLE OF
SOCIAL CHANGE (June 25, 2018), https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/juvenile-justice-raisethe-age-vermont-missouri-state-legislation.
3
Meghan Holmes, Raise the Age Redirects 17-year-olds to Juvenile Justice System, THE LA. WEEKLY (Mar. 4,
2019), http://www.louisianaweekly.com/raise-the-age-redirects-17-year-olds-to-juvenile-justice-system/
4
JEREE THOMAS, CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, RAISING THE BAR: STATE TRENDS IN KEEPING YOUTH OUT OF
ADULT COURTS (2015 – 2017), available at
http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/StateTrends_Repot_FINAL.pdf.

1

In addition to new state laws limiting the detention of youth in adult jails, Congress recently
reauthorized the key piece of federal legislation that sets national standards for justice-involved
youth. The Juvenile Reform Act of 2018 reauthorized the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) and was signed into law on December 21, 2018.5 The JJDPA provides
many protections for justice-involved youth, including ensuring youth are removed from adult
jails and lock-ups. Previously, that protection only applied to youth charged as delinquent. Under
the updated law, states have within three years of enactment of the law to remove all youth,
including those certified as adults, from adult jails and lock-ups, unless a court finds it is in the
interest of justice to keep the young person in an adult facility.6 As laws that raise the age of
criminal responsibility, laws that limit the additional pathways of youth into the adult criminal
justice system, and the updates to the JJDPA are implemented, the BJS Jail Census will be
critical in monitoring the impact of these reforms.
Beyond collecting information on whether youth under 18 who are in adult jails are charged as
adults, it would be helpful to disaggregate the data of youth held in adult jails by race. Despite
the tremendous reforms in removing youth from the adult system, the racial disparities are
increasing. In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the
youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges, the highest percentage of Black youth
transferred in nearly thirty years of data collection.7 By disaggregating the data in this way,
advocates and lawmakers will be able to more effectively assess the impact of reform laws and
determine how to address racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile and criminal justice system.
Finally, we urge you to continue including the question regarding whether a facility is under a
court order or consent decree for specific conditions of confinement. Consent decrees are a key
legal instrument of federal civil rights enforcement, yet, in one of his final acts as Attorney
General, Jeff Sessions severely limited the scope of consent decrees.8 Under this new policy,
federal consent decrees will be limited in the scope of reforms they can require, there will be
restrictions as to which tools DOJ can use to monitor compliance with a decree, and federal
oversight must end much earlier than is typically needed to comply with reforms.9 Given this

5

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018, H.R. 6964, 115th Cong. (2018).
CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (JJDPA) FACT SHEET SERIES,
CORE PROTECTIONS: JAIL REMOVAL/SIGHT AND SOUND SEPARATION (Feb. 2019), available at
http://www.act4jj.org/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/Jail%20Removal%20and%20Sight%20and%20Sound%20Separation%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf.
7
Child Population by Race in the United States, KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER, THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND.,
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-byrace#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/424 (last visited Apr. 12, 2019); M. Sickmund, A.
Sladky, and W. Kang, Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2014, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/
(last visited Apr. 12, 2019).
8
Jeff Sessions, Avoid Harmful Federal Intrusion, USA TODAY (Apr. 17, 2017, 4:34 PM),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/17/jeff-sessions-avoid-harmful-federal-intrusion-editorialsdebates/100579848/.
9
Memorandum from The Attorney General on Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement
Agreements with State and Local Government Entities (Nov. 7, 2018), available at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1109681/download.
6

2

new directive from the former Attorney General, it is now imperative that DOJ report on this
data so the civil rights of children can be protected.
The critical need for strong consent decrees is evident when you look at places like New York
City. In 2015, after a two-and-a-half-year investigation into severe abuse of inmates at Rikers
Island and months of negotiation, New York City entered into a consent decree that included a
host of reforms, with a particular focus on the safety of teenage inmates.10 While abuse of teens
at Rikers was particularly rampant, perhaps the most notorious case was that of Kalief
Browder’s, who was only 16-years old when he was brought to Riker’s and accused of a crime
for which he was ultimately acquitted.11 Video footage revealed Kalief, who committed suicide
after he was released from the jail, being beaten by a group of inmates and later slammed to the
ground by a corrections official.12
The widely publicized case of Kalief Browder and the consent decree ultimately led the New
York state legislature to pass a bill that raised the age at which youth can be tried as adults in the
criminal justice system, and required youth to be removed from Rikers Island.13 In October 2018,
the 16- and 17-year-olds housed at Rikers were moved to a juvenile facility in the Bronx, where
they will now receive access to age-appropriate services and programming.14 Without the
consent decree, chances are very likely that those teens would still be housed in Rikers where, as
recent as the spring of 2017, federal monitors reported that guards continued “to use excessive
force at an ‘alarming rate.’”15
As stories of horrific jail conditions continue to invade the news,16 and given the DOJ’s new
policy with regards to consent decrees, it is imperative that BJS continue to collect this
information as part of the Jail Census. This data will help civil rights attorneys and advocates
10

Benjamin Weiser, New York City Settles Suit Over Abuses at Riskers Island, NY TIMES (June 22, 2015),
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/nyregion/new-york-city-settles-suit-over-abuses-at-rikers-island.html; Letter
from Preet Bharara, U.S. Atty. to Judge James C. Francis, IV, United States Magistrate Judge (June 22, 2015)
available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/479956/download.
11
Hope Reese, The Case for Shutting Down New York City’s Rikers Island Jail, VOX (June 7, 2018, 12:20 PM),
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/6/7/17434206/shut-down-rikers-island-jail-new-york-city-kalief-browder.
12
Jessica Glenza, Abuse of Teen Inmate at Rikers Island Caught on Surveillance Cameras, THE GUARDIAN (Apr. 25,
2015), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/rikers-island-prison-footage-guard-abused-teen-kaliefbrowder.
13
Jeree Thomas, Remembering Kalief Browder: The State of Youth In Adult Jails And Prisons Two-Years After
Kalief Browder’s Death, HUFFINGTON POST (June 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rememberingkalief-browder-the-state-of-youth-in-adult_us_59371d25e4b04ff0c4668280?section=us_black-voices.
14
Jan Ransom, Teenagers Were Moved Off Rikers for Safety. Their Brawls Came, Too, NY TIMES (Oct. 3, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/nyregion/rikers-island-teenagers-horizon.html.
15
Rikers Island Guards Still Using Excessive Force at ‘Alarming Rate,’ Report Says, CBS New York (Apr. 3, 2017,
10:48 PM), https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/03/rikers-island-guards-force/ (“The report said inmates have
been unnecessarily struck in the head while handcuffed, slammed against walls, put into chokeholds and doused
with pepper spray.”).
16
Adam Ferrise, Cuyahoga County Officials Ignored Union’s Warning of ‘Deplorable’ Conditions at Jail for Years
Prior to Inmate Deaths, THE PLAIN DEALER (Jan. 23, 2019), https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/01/cuyahogacounty-officials-ignored-unions-warning-of-deplorable-conditions-at-jail-for-years-prior-to-inmate-deaths.html
(describing reports that Cuyahoga County Jail inmates were “crammed in pods for up to 23 hours a day,” that they
were served moldy food, and forced to sleep on mats on the floor.); Emily Luxen, Former Inmate Describes Poor

3

track whether the government is holding jails accountable for their failure to protect the
constitutional rights of inmates.
We urge BJS to continue to collect this critical information and consider our request to
disaggregate by race the data on youth in adult jails. We thank you for this opportunity to
comment on this important matter. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Rachel Marshall
Federal Policy Counsel
(REDACTED CONTACT INFORMATION)

Marcy Mistrett
Chief Executive Officer
(REDACTED CONTACT INFORMATION)

Conditions in Cheatham Co. Jail, NEWS CHANNEL 5 (Mar. 29, 2019, 9:35 PM),
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/former-inmate-describes-conditions-in-cheatham-county-jail (“Cramped
quarters, fights, and lack of hygiene products are common problems in the Cheatham County Jail according to a
former inmate.”).

4

Attachment P

April 16, 2019
Todd Minton
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Submitted via email: Todd.Minton@usdoj.gov
RE: 84 FR 4539, 2019 Census of Jails
Dear Mr. Minton,
The National Disability Rights Network appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) information collection
request regarding the 2019 Census of Jails.
The National Disability Rights Network (hereinafter “NDRN”) is the non-profit
membership association of protection and advocacy (P&A) agencies that are located in
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the United States Territories. In
addition, there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium which includes
the Hopi, Navajo and San Juan Southern Paiute Nations in the Four Corners region of
the Southwest. P&A agencies are authorized under various federal statutes to provide
legal representation and related advocacy services, and to investigate abuse and
neglect of individuals with disabilities in a variety of settings. The P&A System
comprises the nation’s largest provider of legally-based advocacy services for persons
with disabilities.
The number of youth in adult jails has continued to decline in the past decade. 1 This
trend was spurred by numerous states passing laws to keep youth out of the adult
criminal justice system, including raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction. There are
only four states where youth under the age of 18 are still automatically charged as
adults: Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.2 Several states that have raised the
age of criminal jurisdiction have only just begun the implementation process, or will start
in the near future.3 States have also taken steps to limit the pathway to criminal court
1

ZHEN ZENG, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, JAIL INMATES
IN 2016 (Feb. 2018), available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji16.pdf.
2
In Another Big Year for “Raise the Age” Laws, One State Now Considers All Teens as Juveniles, CHRONICLE OF
SOCIAL CHANGE (June 25, 2018), https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/youth-services-insider/juvenile-justice-raisethe-age-vermont-missouri-state-legislation.
3
Meghan Holmes, Raise the Age Redirects 17-year-olds to Juvenile Justice System, THE LA. WEEKLY (Mar. 4,
820 FIRST STREET NE, SUITE 740  W ASHINGTON, DC 20002-4243
TEL: 202.408.9514  FAX: 202.408.9520  TTY: 202.408.9521
WEBSITE: WWW .NDRN.ORG  E-MAIL: INFO@NDRN.ORG

for youth, including limiting the pathways of transfer to the adult system and restoring
judicial discretion to limit the statutory exclusion of youth from juvenile court and to limit
prosecutorial discretion in directly filing a young person’s case in adult court. 4
In addition to new state laws limiting the detention of youth in adult jails, Congress
recently reauthorized the key piece of federal legislation that sets national standards for
justice-involved youth. The Juvenile Reform Act of 2018 reauthorized the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and was signed into law on December
21, 2018.5 The JJDPA provides many protections for justice-involved youth, including
ensuring youth are removed from adult jails and lock-ups. Previously, that protection
only applied to youth charged as delinquent. Under the updated law, states have within
three years of enactment of the new law to remove all youth, including those certified as
adults, from adult jails and lock-ups, unless a court finds it is in the interest of justice to
keep the young person in an adult facility.6 As laws that raise the age of criminal
responsibility, laws that limit the additional pathways of youth into the adult criminal
justice system, and the updates to the JJDPA are implemented, the BJS Jail Census
will be critical in monitoring the impact of these reforms.
While we agree with our colleagues on the need to disaggregate the data of youth held
in adult jails by race, we also believe it would be helpful to disaggregate the data of
youth held in adult jails by disability. People with intellectual disabilities are more likely
to be arrested, convicted, sentenced to and victimized in prison. Once in the criminal
justice system, these individuals are less likely to receive probation or parole and tend
to serve longer sentences due to an inability to understand or adapt to prison rules.7
With barely any accessible data on youths with disabilities in adult prisons, we are
unable to adequately address the unique challenges faced by the youth with disabilities
in adult court. By disaggregating the data in this way, advocates and lawmakers will be
able to more effectively assess the impact of reform laws and determine how to
address racial, ethnic, and youth with disabilities disparities in the juvenile and criminal
justice system.
Finally, we urge you to continue including the question regarding whether a facility is
under a court order or consent decree for specific conditions of confinement. Consent
decrees are a key legal instrument of federal civil rights enforcement, yet, in one of his
final acts as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions severely limited the scope of consent

2019), http://www.louisianaweekly.com/raise-the-age-redirects-17-year-olds-to-juvenile-justice-system/
4
JEREE THOMAS, CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, RAISING THE BAR: STATE TRENDS IN KEEPING YOUTH OUT OF
ADULT COURTS (2015 – 2017), available at
http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/StateTrends_Repot_FINAL.pdf.
5
The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018, H.R. 6964, 115th Cong. (2018).
6
CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (JJDPA) FACT SHEET SERIES,
CORE PROTECTIONS: JAIL REMOVAL/SIGHT AND SOUND SEPARATION (Feb. 2019), available at
http://www.act4jj.org/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/Jail%20Removal%20and%20Sight%20and%20Sound%20Separation%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf.
7 Davis, Leigh Ann. “Resources.” The Arc | People with Intellectual Disability in the Criminal Justice System: Victims &
Suspects, Aug. 2009, www.thearc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=2458.

2

decrees.8 Under this new policy, federal consent decrees will be limited in the scope of
reforms they can require, there will be restrictions as to which tools DOJ can use to
monitor compliance with a decree, and federal oversight must end much earlier than is
typically needed to comply with reforms.9 Given this new directive from the former
Attorney General, it is now imperative that DOJ report on this data so the civil rights of
children can be protected.
The critical need for strong consent decrees is evident when you look at places like
New York City. In 2015, after a two-and-a-half-year investigation into severe abuse of
inmates at Rikers Island and months of negotiation, New York City entered into a
consent decree that included a host of reforms, with a particular focus on the safety of
teenage inmates.10 While abuse of teens at Rikers was particularly rampant, perhaps
the most notorious case was that of Kalief Browder’s, who was only 16-years old when
he was brought to Riker’s and accused of a crime for which he was ultimately
acquitted.11 Video footage revealed Kalief, who committed suicide after he was
released from the jail, being beaten by a group of inmates and later slammed to the
ground by a corrections official.12
The widely publicized case of Kalief Browder and the consent decree ultimately led the
New York state legislature to pass a bill that raised the age at which youth can be tried
as adults in the criminal justice system, and required youth to be removed from Rikers
Island.13 In October 2018, the 16- and 17-year-olds housed at Rikers were moved to a
juvenile facility in the Bronx, where they will now receive access to age-appropriate
services and programming.14 Without the consent decree, chances are very likely that
those teens would still be housed in Rikers where, as recent as the spring of 2017,
federal monitors reported that guards continued “to use excessive force at an ‘alarming
rate.’”15
8

Jeff Sessions, Avoid Harmful Federal Intrusion, USA TODAY (Apr. 17, 2017, 4:34 PM),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/17/jeff-sessions-avoid-harmful-federal-intrusion-editorialsdebates/100579848/.
9
Memorandum from The Attorney General on Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement
Agreements with State and Local Government Entities (Nov. 7, 2018), available at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1109681/download.
10
Benjamin Weiser, New York City Settles Suit Over Abuses at Riskers Island, NY TIMES (June 22, 2015),
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/nyregion/new-york-city-settles-suit-over-abuses-at-rikers-island.html; Letter
from Preet Bharara, U.S. Atty. to Judge James C. Francis, IV, United States Magistrate Judge (June 22, 2015)
available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/479956/download.
11
Hope Reese, The Case for Shutting Down New York City’s Rikers Island Jail, VOX (June 7, 2018, 12:20 PM),
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2018/6/7/17434206/shut-down-rikers-island-jail-new-york-city-kalief-browder.
12
Jessica Glenza, Abuse of Teen Inmate at Rikers Island Caught on Surveillance Cameras, THE GUARDIAN (Apr. 25,
2015), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/rikers-island-prison-footage-guard-abused-teen-kaliefbrowder.
13
Jeree Thomas, Remembering Kalief Browder: The State of Youth In Adult Jails And Prisons Two-Years After
Kalief Browder’s Death, HUFFINGTON POST (June 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rememberingkalief-browder-the-state-of-youth-in-adult_us_59371d25e4b04ff0c4668280?section=us_black-voices.
14
Jan Ransom, Teenagers Were Moved Off Rikers for Safety. Their Brawls Came, Too, NY TIMES (Oct. 3, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/nyregion/rikers-island-teenagers-horizon.html.
15
Rikers Island Guards Still Using Excessive Force at ‘Alarming Rate,’ Report Says, CBS New York (Apr. 3, 2017,
10:48 PM), https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/03/rikers-island-guards-force/ (“The report said inmates have

3

As stories of horrific jail conditions continue to invade the news, 16 and given the DOJ’s
new policy with regards to consent decrees, it is imperative that BJS continue to collect
this information as part of the Jail Census. This data will help civil rights attorneys and
advocates track whether the government is holding jails accountable for their failure to
protect the constitutional rights of inmates.
We urge BJS to continue to collect this critical information and consider our request to
disaggregate by race and disability the data on youth in adult jails. If you have any
questions please contact (CONTACT INFORMATION REMOVED)
Sincerely,

Curt Decker
Executive Director

been unnecessarily struck in the head while handcuffed, slammed against walls, put into chokeholds and doused with
pepper spray.”).
16
Adam Ferrise, Cuyahoga County Officials Ignored Union’s Warning of ‘Deplorable’ Conditions at Jail for Years
Prior to Inmate Deaths, THE PLAIN DEALER (Jan. 23, 2019), https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/01/cuyahogacounty-officials-ignored-unions-warning-of-deplorable-conditions-at-jail-for-years-prior-to-inmate-deaths.html
(describing reports that Cuyahoga County Jail inmates were “crammed in pods for up to 23 hours a day,” that they
were served moldy food, and forced to sleep on mats on the floor.); Emily Luxen, Former Inmate Describes Poor
Conditions in Cheatham Co. Jail, NEWS CHANNEL 5 (Mar. 29, 2019, 9:35 PM),
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/former-inmate-describes-conditions-in-cheatham-county-jail (“Cramped
quarters, fights, and lack of hygiene products are common problems in the Cheatham County Jail according to a
former inmate.”).

4

Attachment Q

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

(REDACTED EMAIL ADDRESS)
Minton, Todd (OJP)
2019 Census of Jails/ Public Comment
Friday, February 15, 2019 4:53:38 PM

Dear Mr. Minton:
In response to public and private interests, I started a research business for the primary
purpose of protecting the American people by upholding the Constitution of the United States
and strengthening homeland security.
During the course of my research, I discovered loopholes in the system of jail census and
would like to offer my observations for consideration.
The processing of inmates seems inconsistent: an inmate can avoid classification as a
recidivist by the fairly simple useage of false identification. This provides a great disservice
and danger to the American public, especially in regards to violent repeat offenders who avoid
detection. A recent example comes to mind: a foreign born neighbor was exhibiting behaviors
consistent with those sexual offenders. By searching the NSOPW (National Sex Offender
Public Website), I was eventually able to locate this person (albeit heavily disguised and using
an alias) as a compliant offender with the DC Metropolitan Police Department. He had
circumvented the system by registering in a jurisdiction where he neither lived nor worked.
This suggested that he was intentionally avoiding detection. I then further cross referenced his
alias through the NSOPW and discovered that he was a violent offender in Cook County, IL. I
contacted the IL State Police and was told that he had been deported to Mexico in 2012. Since
he was living in my apartment complex, he had evidently re-entered the country under his
known name. Because he was a foreign national, I searched the Interpol website and
discovered that he is a Libyan national wanted by the authorities of Slovakia. I immediately
contacted the proper authorities and left the matter in their capable hands.
Within the US, inmates work the jail circuit using false identification, or register in one
jurisdiction, change their names and fail to update their records.
Perhaps most astonishing was a newspaper article I happened upon which provided the photos
and brief bios of California's death row inmates. Imagine my surprise when I recognized
many of the offenders as residents of my community in Montreat, North Carolina. I cross
referenced their names against the CDCR (California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
database and confirmed that the newspaper article was not a hoax; indeed, these were death
row inmates who had committed horrific crimes. I concluded that they must be fugitives; if
plea deals or other arrangements had been made, the CDCR database would reflect this.
Inmates may exploit the mental health circuit, escaping by circumventing the reduced security
of hospitals. To complicate matters, the names of the criminally insane are withheld from the
public under the auspices of privacy. I suspect that inmates may also absond from minimum
security facilities through habeus corpus schemes.
The concurrent serving of sentences under multiple aliases and jurisdictions not only puts the
American people in grave danger but may also be a source of fraud. Taxpayers are bilked for
the costs and legal representation of inmates not even incarcerated in their jurisdiction.
In order to streamline the census system, each offender must have one identity and one record
only. Some semblance of this information must be made available so the public may make
proactive and informed decisions and participate in public safety. In this age of globalization,
public safety can quickly become an issue of national security.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my observations.
Respectfully submitted,
(REDACTED CONTACT INFORMATION, CITY and STATE LOCATION)