Memo

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
______________________________________________________________________________
Washington, DC 20531

To:

Joe Nye
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Through:

Melody Braswell
Department Clearance Officer
U.S. Department of Justice
Justice Management Division
Policy and Planning Staff

From:

Kaitlyn Sill, Ph.D.
Social Science Analyst
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Benjamin Adams
Senior Advisor
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Date:

April 14, 2022

Re:

Non-Substantive Change Memo / Pilot Study Update for the Fourth National
Juvenile Online Victimization Study (OMB No. 1121-0374)

This memo reports on the findings from the pilot study conducted as part of the Fourth National
Juvenile Online Victimization Study (N-JOV4). The OMB authorization for the study requested
updated information based on the results of the pilot study designed to 1) review the mail
screener and case identification process, and 2) test the case information follow-up telephone
interview.
This pilot study is intended to inform the national N-JOV4 study, which has been approved
under OMB No. 1121-0374. Thus, this document serves as an informational memo to appraise
OMB on the pilot study results.
The pilot study was conducted between December 2021-March 2022. The first component
involved the identification of eligible cases of technology-facilitated sex crimes against minors in

2018 from four Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces and 20 smaller agencies
with no ICAC affiliation, as well as 10 debriefing interviews to gather feedback about the survey
and process. The second component involved case interviews that covered each of the four main
types of crimes under study – online enticement, possession of child sexual abuse material
(CSAM), production of CSAM, and youth-produced sexual images to identify any problems with
the interview.
Mail screener
All non-ICAC agencies that responded found the mail screener easy to complete and lacking any
major problems. Some ICAC Commanders, however, found the mail screener challenging in its
current design (requesting information first about online enticement cases and then CSAM cases
separately) because their record management systems cannot easily disentangle these elements
for the target case types. They told the research team it was easier and less burdensome to simply
provide a total number and list of arrests meeting criteria for either or both crimes. Given that all
cases are aggregated prior to sampling for case interviews, the research team decided to collapse
the online enticement and CSAM screener questions into one section and ask for a total number
of cases (revised Q3 and 4 - Arrest Cases). The ICAC Commanders confirmed this made sense,
was much less burdensome, and felt they could provide the information the screener requested if
presented this way.
The research team also received feedback from non-ICAC agencies that the question about
jurisdiction over qualifying cases was not a simple yes/no answer. Many had investigative
jurisdiction but typically handed such cases over to another local agency that had more resources
and training on this topic for investigation. As a result, this screener question now includes the
following response options to reflect this nuance: no jurisdiction; jurisdiction, but they are
usually handed to a different agency; and jurisdiction, and they conduct these investigations
(revised Q1- Arrest Cases). This would be applied to the non-ICAC mail screener as all ICACs
have jurisdiction to investigate these crimes and thus do not need this question.
It was also noted by the ICAC Commanders that the identification of non-arrest youth-produced
image cases could be difficult for some agencies given that these situations are not always
captured in their computer systems. To better identify when this is the case, we have included a
third response option when asking agencies to report on these cases: 1) yes, 2) no, 3) cannot
provide this information (specify why) (revised Q1 – Youth Produced Sexual Images). Further,
we have included one open-end question asking about how these cases come to police attention
and are handled by agencies (new Q3 – Youth Produced Sexual Images). This will provide a
broader understanding of this issue, even if there were no eligible cases in the reference period.
Finally, a question was added about how the respondent searched for the requested cases (new
Q1- Additional Questions).
All non-ICAC agencies confirmed the 10-minute burden estimate as stated in the original OMB
package was accurate; ICACs confirmed the same with the planned changes noted above. No
agencies felt eligible cases would be missed based on how the questions were asked. Copies of
the revised ICAC mail screener survey and that which will be used for all non-ICAC agencies
are available.

The mode of the final outreach attempt prior to non-responder telephone calls will be changed
from an email to a short form mailing. This mailing will consist of a short form screener
comprised of four critical item questions to determine if agencies handled qualifying cases. The
inclusion of this type of mailing successfully increased response rates by more than 10% in a
prior national law enforcement study by the research team using a similar methodology (the
National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway ChildrenNISMART).
Case level telephone interview
Based on the pilot case level interviews with investigators, a few minor clarifying changes were
made to the telephone interview. First, the telephone interview was updated to be inclusive of
live streaming technology, mainly in the inclusion of additional response options to existing
questions. One item was added to the youth-produced images section to reflect whether live
streaming videos were saved and two items were added to the CSAM production section:
whether there were any live streaming videos and, if yes, whether any were saved. In the CSAM
possession section, one item was added to determine whether any of the possessed material was
sold for monetary gain to help inform the current public and policy interest in commercial sexual
exploitation. Second, to help with the identification of duplicate cases, an existing item will be
modified to ask for the suspect’s month and year of birth. This information, combined with
existing questions about the additional agencies involved in the case, will serve the same purpose
and be less intrusive to participants than the item used in prior N-JOVs which collected the last
four digits of the suspects social security number. Based on the pilot interviews, these changes
will not result in a change to the burden hours requested.
The overall conclusion from the pilot study is that the mail screener and telephone interview
performed as expected and was satisfactory to the interviewed investigators with only minor
changes needed. No substantive changes are being proposed to the survey for the national NJOV4 study.