Download:
pdf |
pdfAttachment A: Local Jail Reporting Program Feasibility Study Final Report
About This Report
The following report provides the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with the findings and
recommendations from the Local Jails Reporting Program (LJRP) feasibility study. The project
is funded as part of the BJS Statistical Support Program (SSP), awarded to Abt Associates as a
cooperative agreement in 2019 (award number 2019-85-CX-K002). The SSP serves to support
BJS with a broad range of statistical and methodological research to further BJS’s mission to
“collect, analyze, publish, and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of
crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government.” BJS utilizes the SSP to
focus on three overarching objectives: filling gaps in current BJS collections, restoring
discontinued collections, and addressing emerging criminal justice issues.
The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the issues and challenges involved in
developing an individual-level, inmate administrative record collection from local jails across the
country. The results of this study will be used to determine if it will be feasible for BJS to pursue
a future pilot study to collect data from a limited number of jails in the coming years. The goal of
the pilot study is to better understand the appropriate design and other challenges that would be
encountered if BJS determines it is feasible and necessary to pursue a national collection.
The following report provides an introduction to the call for a feasibility study, the methodology,
a snapshot of participating jails, the findings from the study, and a discussion of
recommendations for next steps.
Authors
Seri Irazola, Ph.D., conducted and authored the feasibility study; Dr. Irazola is a Principal
Associate for Abt Associates. The SSP Project Director, Tom Rich, provided ongoing technical
support throughout the project; Mr. Rich is also a Principal Associate for Abt Associates. The
report was reviewed by the Project Quality Assurance (PQA) representative, Walter Campbell,
Ph.D., a Senior Associate for Abt Associates. Dr. Irazola conducted all interviews, and she was
supported in the interviews by: Katherine Armstrong, Meg Chapman, Tom Rich, and Elyse
Yarmosky.
BJS staff also provided ongoing technical support and conducted all outreach activities.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌ii
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
2.
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Sample Design .............................................................................................. 3
Schedule ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Snapshot of Jails ........................................................................................... 4
3.
Findings ............................................................................................................... 9
Tracked Detainees and Timestamps .............................................................. 9
System-Tracked Characteristics .................................................................. 10
Transfer and Administration of Data ........................................................... 11
Length of Time to Extract Data for One Year. ............................................ 14
Length of Time to Extract Data on All Confined Detainees for One
Point in Time. .................................................................................. 15
4.
Discussion .......................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Challenges to Overcome ............................................................................. 17
4.2 Themes from Transitioning Systems ........................................................... 18
4.3 Recommendations....................................................................................... 18
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A.
OMB Package
Attachment B.
Instrument
Attachment C.
Sample MOU
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌iii
1.
Introduction 1
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the primary statistical agency of the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ). BJS collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates information on
crime, criminal detainees, crime victims, and criminal justice operations. As part of the
corrections agenda, BJS currently obtains data on the local jail population through establishment
censuses and surveys, specifically the Census of Jails 2 and Annual Survey of Jails, 3 and personal
interview surveys, specifically the Survey of Local Jail Inmates (SILJ) 4 and the National Inmate
Survey. 5
In 2020, BJS directed Abt Associates (Abt) to conduct a feasibility study to explore the
collection of individual-level data based on jails’ administrative records: Local Jails Reporting
Program (LJRP). The LJRP Feasibility Study was contracted using the Statistical Support
Program (SSP) – a cooperative agreement awarded to Abt Associates in 2019 to support BJS
with specific statistical tasks. LJRP is modeled after BJS’s National Corrections Reporting
Program (NCRP), 6 which collects prisoner-level administrative records from state departments
of corrections. A jail administrative record collection would have several significant advantages
over BJS’s current jail collection vehicles. First, it would allow BJS to obtain data that are
difficult to aggregate and therefore impractical to collect through jail establishment surveys, such
as information on bail, offense/charge, and detailed detainee demographic and case
characteristics. Second, it would allow BJS to collect data on the detained pretrial population, a
group that Congress asked BJS to focus on in recent appropriations bill (below), but is difficult
to sample through detainee self-report surveys due to short stays in jail. Third, it could provide
individual identifiers to link jail detainees to other administrative records, such as the NCRP or
records of arrest and prosecution (i.e., RAP sheets), for conducting recidivism studies among jail
detainees.
In the spring of 2020, BJS was tasked with collecting information specifically on the pretrial jail
population by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
The Committee directs the Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect information analyzing
the population of individuals detained pretrial in local jails, State and Federal facilities,
and private facilities under contract to Federal, State, and local authorities and report
back to the Committee within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act. The report
should include the number of individuals detained pretrial; the median duration of the
This section is largely based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) package submitted by BJS for the
feasibility study. See Attachment A for the submitted OMB package.
2
OMB Control # 1121-0100.
3
OMB Control # 1121-0094.
4
OMB Control # 1121-0098.
5
OMB control # 1121-0311.
6
OMB Control # 1121-0065.
1
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌1
pretrial detention period; the number of individuals detained pretrial who were offered
financial release or not offered financial release; and the number of individuals who
were offered financial release but remained detained because they could not pay the
amount required. All data should be disaggregated by demographic and the level of the
offense charged.
The feasibility study was key to understanding how BJS can fulfill the Congressional reporting
requirement on the pretrial population, including information on disposition on a criminal record,
duration of the pretrial detention period, bail amount, charge types or codes, etc.
The feasibility study is an extension of prior BJS’s efforts at exploring a jail administrative
record collection. In 2017, as part of the SILJ redesign, BJS conducted a small pre-test, the
SJAR, to determine whether BJS could obtain individual-level jail administrative records on
detainees sampled for the SILJ survey. The goal was to potentially allow BJS to reduce total
respondent burden and interview length, by obtaining the data more efficiently from jails if the
detainee records were already part of the administrative records maintained by the jails. During
the SJAR pre-test, BJS selected 40 local jails of various sizes to assess whether specific data
elements were collected through their detainee management systems, and whether and how the
facilities could provide data for the specific elements to BJS. Only 25 jails responded to the
survey, and the percentage of jails that could provide individual-level administrative data to BJS
ranged from 93% for individual demographic and current commitment characteristics, to 64%
for sentencing information. Ultimately, BJS did not field the full SJAR due to the low response
rate to the pre-test and a lack of resources to sample more jails.
Unlike the SJAR pre-test, which aimed to collect specific data elements to supplement the selfreport data BJS is planning to collect through the SILJ in 2022, LJRP is broader in scope and the
goals are different. This project will explore the feasibility of developing an individual-level jail
administrative record collection in the long term, which if feasible, could eventually become a
core BJS jail collection.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌2
2.
Methodology
To conduct the feasibility study, BJS conducted outreach out to selected jails to solicit
participation; once participation was obtained, BJS asked Abt to conduct telephone interviews
with a jail representative selected by the jail administrator. Interviews were guided by a semistructured interview drafted in partnership with BJS and Abt, and approved by BJS (see
Attachment B for the interview instrument).
2.1
Sample Design
The design employed a convenience sample to select jail respondents from the approximately
3,000 jail facilities in the United States, which were enumerated in BJS’s 2019 Census of Jails.
The goal was to recruit 20-25 jails that varied in average daily detainee population (e.g., 1-49
detainees, 50-249, 250-999, and 1000+), geographic diversity (state and region), and community
size (rural and urban). To account for nonresponse, fifty jails were contacted to yield up to 25
completed interviews.
Fourteen jurisdictions were recruited to participate in the Feasibility Study, with a mix of urban
(64.3%) and rural (35.7%) jurisdictions. Nearly half (6, or 42.9%) were located in the West; four
sites (28.6%) were located in the South, three sites (21.4%) were located in the Northeast, and
one site (7.1%) was located in the Midwest. The mid-year population (based on BJS’s 2019
Census of Jails) ranged from
detainees to
, with an average of 1,354 detainees. Annual
admissions for the interviewed jails ranged from
detainees to
, with an average of
17,137 annual admissions. The total bed-count for the participating jails in 2019 ranged from
to
, with an average of 2,000 beds.
Schedule
In mid-October 2020, BJS submitted the clearance package to OMB, and in early November,
BJS notified Abt that OMB approval had been granted. BJS then emailed the selected jails an
invitation letter with a list of FAQs intended to provide: (a) further information on BJS and Abt;
(b) topic areas of questions that will be asked during the interview; (c) how the information
provided will be used by BJS; and (d) the confidentiality and security provisions that govern
information collected by BJS. After the invitation letter was sent, BJS followed up with the jail
administrators by email or phone as needed to encourage participation in the study. Once a jail
agreed to participate, BJS connected the jail’s contact person with Abt to schedule the interview.
Interviews with transcribed notes began in November and continued through December. Data
was entered, coded, and analyzed in January, and the draft report was submitted to BJS in midJanuary. Exhibit 1 depicts this schedule.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌3
System-Tracked Characteristics
The purpose of Section II of the interview instrument is to capture the different data components
of interest to BJS within each of the jurisdictions jail management system (JMS). 7 Each data
point collected is reported below.
Exhibit 17.
System-Tracked Characteristics
Variable
Yes (%)
Full name
Date of birth
Race & ethnicity
Citizenship*
Education*
Occupation*
Fingerprint-backed ID
FBI number
Full SSN*
Partial SSN*
Criminal history
Initial arrest date
Arrest charge(s)
Court docket number
Arraignment date
Filed charges
No (%)
Other/Unknown (%)
14 (100%)
14 (100%)
14 (100%)
7 (50%)
10 (71.4%)
12 (85.7%)
11 (78.6%)
10 (71.4%)
13 (92.9%)
13 (92.9%)
6 (42.9%)
11 (78.6%)
12 (85.7%)
12 (85.7%)
12 (85.7%)
13 (92.9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
5 (35.7%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
1 (7.1%)
2 (14.3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (21.4%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
1 (7.1%)
1 (7.1%)
6 (42.9%)
1 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
2 (24.3%)
0 (0%)
1 (7.1%)
Yes (%)
12 (85.7%)
12 (87.7%)
12 (87.7%)
12 (87.7%)
10 (71.4%)
6 (42.9%)
10 (71.4%)
14 (100%)
11 (78.6%)
11 (78.6%)
No (%)
1 (7.1%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
3 (21.4%)
5 (35.7%)
3 (21.4%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
Other/Unknown (%)
1 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (7.1%)
2 (14.3%)
1 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
1 (7.1%)
1 (7.1%)
For PRETRIAL detainees only
Variable
Timestamp of admissions
Whether bail was ordered?
Bail payment amount
Released on bail/bond?
Released on pretrial?
Whether/when detainee had provocation
Adjudication charges
Holding-agency’s name
Holding-agency detainee start-date
Holding-agency detainee release
7
Across the sites, the JMS’s had different labels, such as detainee management systems (OMSs) or other variations
including detainee information systems (IMSs). For consistency across this report, we refer to all detainee
management systems as “JMS.”
* Some or all of reported data is self-reported and therefore not considered reliable.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌10
For SENTENCED detainees only
Variable
Sentence length
Charges
Fines imposed as part of sentence
Date of admission following sentencing
Whether detainee released temp-release
Date/timestamp of release
Type of release
Date re-admissions following conditional
release
Yes (%)
13 (92.9%)
13 (92.9%)
5 (35.7%)
10 (71.4%)
10 (71.4%)
11 (78.6%)
13 (92.9%)
12 (85.7%)
No (%)
1 (7.1%)
1 (7.1%)
7 (35.7%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
1 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
Other/Unknown (%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
2 (14.3%)
1 (7.1%)
0 (0%)
Transfer and Administration of Data
To successfully share data with BJS, Section III of the instrument asked questions related to the
mechanisms that would be used to implement a data-sharing agreement (DSA), memorandum of
understanding (MOU), or data-use agreement (DUA), as well as the challenges to implementing
a partnership, and potential challenges and remedies. The following sub-section outlines the
findings.
MOU, DSA, and/or DUA
Just over half of the fourteen sites (8) reportedly had an existing MOU for some current or
former partner or agency, while three (3) had never entered into any formal data-sharing
agreement, and the remaining three (3) were unsure if they’d ever entered into any formal
agreement to share data. It was clear the sites had nuanced differences in their use and execution
of MOUs. Specific examples include:
One site had a DSA in use with other counties within the state, but that instrument would
not apply to other Federal agencies including BJS.
One site used an MOU for permanent data transfers; however they do not share data
outside of law enforcement.
At least four sites have “standard language” or “existing templates,” however they would
want the receiving agency (BJS) to present their own template to request data.
More than five sites also reported a desire for a standardized data sharing agreement to
securely share data.
At least two sites have existing data agreements to facilitate grants issued from DOJ with
universities and research organizations, and therefore would be glad to use those
instruments.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌11
One site participated with DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to jointly draft an
MOU (please see Attachment C for a sample MOU).
Only one site (with the average daily population under 70 detainees) reported that such a
data agreement would be difficult or impossible to do because the “formality of signing
something would freak out many in the county.”
Legality of Providing Data
Three questions were asked pertaining to whether BJS may have any major legal challenges to
providing individual-level data from the fourteen sites to BJS: (1) Could BJS legally access data
with no personally identifying information (PII)? (2) Could BJS legally access data with PII?
And (3) Could BJS legally access data with unique PII? PII and unique PII were specifically
distinguished from each other to determine whether it was possible to obtain data beyond name
and data of birth (traditional PII) to include sensitive data on fingerprint-backed identifiers and
social security numbers (unique PII).
Data without PII. Nearly all sites – thirteen of fourteen (92.9%) – reported there would be no
known legal challenge to providing BJS with data on detainees without PII. The remaining site
was unsure whether or not they could legally provide this data to BJS.
Data with PII. Just over half of the sites – eight of fourteen (64.3%) – reported that they could
legally provide BJS data with PII. One site reported they could not legally provide BJS with PIIdata, and five sites (35.7%) were unsure if they could provide BJS with data with PII.
Data with Unique PII. Only five (35.7%) of the sites reported that they could legally provide
BJS with data that included unique PII. Two sites (14.3%) reported that they could not legally
provide BJS with data that included PII, and half of the sites (50%) were unsure.
Remarks on Legality of Accessing Data. Many of the sites interviewed provided clarification
on their “unknown” answers. Nearly all of the sites that answered “unknown” for providing data
with PII and data with unique PII reported that they had to consult with their legal counsel to
understand what could be provided. These same sites indicated that they had not shared data
with external agencies in the past, and certain data elements (e.g., arrest data that were not
included in their databases, etc.) may be harder to legally share than other data elements. Most
importantly, these sites stated that with a strong MOU, they believed they would be able to
share both data with PII and unique PII.
Technical Challenges to Providing Data
To understand technical challenges, we asked whether or not the sites could identify or anticipate
any major challenges to providing the data to BJS. Nearly half (6 sites, 42.9%) reported that they
did not foresee any major technical challenges. Half of sites (50%) reported they would have
major technical challenges, and one site (7.1%) reported they were unsure.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌12
Themes from Technical Challenges. The technical challenges that were identified centered on
four key themes:
(1) How the data would be provided and/or accessed: some sites expressed trepidation
regarding whether BJS would expect a “data dump” or whether BJS would want to access their
data directly. Both had challenges that may need to be overcome; for example, if the former, the
site was concerned how the data dump would be provided (i.e., zip-drive, CD, and/or how it was
secured when being transferred).8 Whereas the latter had to do with outsiders wanting access to
their internal system and data, and the reservation they had with how that would be done and
how data would be protected.
(2) The size and what data would be provided: a key theme among almost all sites that
expressed they would have major technical challenges was around how many variables (volume)
would be included, how often they would be asked to pull the data (frequency), and how difficult
it may be to produce code to answer questions they do not already report on.
(3) The burden on resources: several sites expressed concern regarding the small size of their
staff, a lack of staff to pull the data, and the lack of resources to provide data. At least two sites
indicated that because they used a 3rd party vendor, they would have to pay the vendor to pull the
data, and that would be an added cost that was not accounted for in their budget.
(4) Hard to access/provide data: at least two sites stated that their system was “older,”
“difficult,” and even had “paper files that would need to be entered into a system.” One rural site
expressed that they did not have broadband, so internet would be a challenge if BJS expected
them to email the data.
Management Challenges to Providing Data
To understand technical challenges, we asked whether or not the sites could identify or anticipate
any major management challenges to providing the data to BJS. Eleven sites (78.6%) reported
that they did not foresee any major management challenges. Only three sites (21.4%) reported
they would have major management challenges, and no sites reported they were unsure
Themes from Management Challenges. The management challenges that were identified
centered on staffing and resources. One site expressed concern in getting “buy-in” from
overburdened staff. Another site discussed the issue of oversight; because they had a large jail
population they had a lot of data coming in and out of their JMS, and therefore needed
manpower. The third site expressed that staffing was a concern and “the request would need to
be filled during down-time,” which meant it may be de-prioritized.
8
Abt Associates has a private file transfer site that is used to securely protect data. Should BJS choose to move
forward on the LJRP, this information would be provided in a DUA-template to assuage any concerns from
participating jails.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌13
Reducing Challenges to Providing Data
To understand how to reduce challenges, we asked whether BJS may be able to provide
assistance to reduce any identified legal, technical, and/or management issues. Only two sites
(14.3%) said they would require nothing from BJS to reduce any stated challenges; one other site
(7.1%) reported they were unsure. Nearly all (11 sites 78.6%) reported that BJS could assist in
reducing the challenges.
Themes from Reducing Challenges. To reduce challenges with the assistance of BJS, the key
themes that were identified centered on resources. Over half of the sites that identified BJS
could assist in reducing challenges stated that funding would be critical – either to provide the
staff to easily extract the data, and/or to provide funding for their vendor to modify their JMS to
provide the capability to provide the data. Other necessary resources may include: BJS providing
their DUA template to jails that clearly states the purpose of why BJS wants the data and how it
would be used; ensuring they had a BJS point of contact who was “responsive and patient;” and
BJS providing “a clear set of requirements from BJS.” One site that had not provided data
outside their jurisdiction before and had expressed concerns with “what the feds would do with
their data” had two specific asks: “We’d need a letter from Barr [Attorney General at time of
interview] that grants indemnification that says if something happened to the data, we wouldn’t
be held responsible. And we’d want to know what’s in it for us.”
Length of Time to Extract Data for One Year.
To gauge the length of time to extract data for all detainees for the period of one year,
respondents were asked: How long would it take you to create an individual-level data extract
that contains your jail’s booking records for a period of one year? You may use 100 fields per
record for estimating purpose.
Nearly 80% of sites answered they would be able to provide the data under one month. However,
it is critical to understand that many sites expressed that the front-end development would be the
time-consuming part (e.g., writing the code to pull the reports), and that once their code had been
generated, it would be under a week to pull the extraction; these instances are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Answers by timeframe are below.
Under one week: 8 sites (57.1%)
“A couple days, mostly for formatting. We could export into Excel or Google Sheets to
create a flat-file. It’d be very easy if we don’t have anyone accessing our network – we have
a CSV extraction tool we can use.”
“Approximately a week.”
“A couple hours to a couple of days.”
“Depends on the variables. We could provide at least 25 fields now that we have already
programmed.”*
“Fairly quickly unless we have to pull from multiple apps and other data sources.”*
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌14
“I could run a report now. It depends on the number of records in a year booked – I can do
about 1,000 records at a time. It wouldn’t take more than a week, especially since we are
booking less detainees since Covid.”*
“No longer than a day.”
“To generate reports, it takes about a day; more if we don’t have the direct field you request.”
Two weeks to one month: 3 sites (21.4%)
“Probably two to three weeks.”
“Probably two to three weeks. With our current system, it depends on how we structure the
dataset. Within a booking, you can have ‘immediate releases 9’ that get messy and hard to
identify. If you don’t need the immediate releases, it could take two weeks. If BJS wants to
include the immediate releases, I haven’t been able to do this reliably. All our data is entered
manually and transcribed from paper documents, so that becomes an issue too. Our jail is
extremely sensitive to releasing large amounts of data in fear of being sued.”*
“Unsure, but I think 30-days.”*
Up to six-months: 3 sites (21.4%)
“80 to 120 hours over a six-month period.”
“This is a long-term task that would require pulling in others to extract information. If the
field search was very basic, it could be done in-house and could take approximately twoweeks. It may require the County’s Information Services Division (ISD) to write code, and
that could take an additional two to four weeks. Once that code is written, it’d be easy to
dump the information as needed.”*
“Up to six-months.”
Length of Time to Extract Data on All Confined Detainees for One Point in Time.
To gauge the length of time to extract data for a single point in time, respondents were asked:
How long would it take you to create a data extract that contains individual-level data on all
confined detainees at a specific time and day? You may use 100 fields per record for estimating
purpose.
Nearly 80% of sites answered this task would be much easier than the first scenario. Like the last
scenario, the sites expressed that the front-end development would be the time-consuming part
(e.g., writing the code to pull the reports), and that once their code had been generated, it would
be under a week to pull the extraction; these instances are denoted with an asterisk (*). Answers
by timeframe are below.
Within a day: 8 sites (57.1%)
9
Interview respondent was referring to “temporary” releases, which would not necessarily be a hindrance to the
LJRP collection.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌15
Two days to one week: 2 sites (14.2%)
One week to one month: 2 sites (14.2%)
Other: 2 sites (21.4%)
“The issues isn’t the data and time – it’s in generating the first reports. Once we have all the
fields identified, one date or one time doesn’t matter. But it does depend on which data fields
are requested.”*
“Like before: this is a long-term task that could be done in-house and could take about two to
four weeks. Once that code is written, it’d be easy to dump the information as needed.”*
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌16
4.
Discussion
The overall enthusiasm for collecting administrative data from jails was high; it was clear that
nearly all interviewees and sites wanted to figure out how to overcome their challenges in order
to participate in such a collection. This was especially true in the larger jails that were
interviewed. Nearly all understood the importance of the data to their own jail management and
how their jail would use the data, which was driving their desire to participate. However, there
were clear issues that stood out to hinder the process of participating in the LJRP data collection,
which can easily be overcome with assistance and guidance. Aside from the challenges that sites
would need to overcome, there were several key themes that arose from the seven sites (50%)
that anticipated changing their system or vendor in the next few years. These issues, along with
recommendations for next steps, are discussed below.
4.1
Challenges to Overcome
Upon analyzing the data, several key themes of challenges were made apparent. First and
foremost – nearly all sites expressed concern with the front-end setup of the data. These sites
acknowledged that they had the ability to provide data, however before that could happen, they
needed to modify or add code to be able to produce the data as-asked. Sites expressing this
concern said that once the code is written and the report has been produced, subsequent data
requests could be promptly pulled and provided to BJS. In some sites, the concern was around
resources to write the code – whether it be staffing or funding. It is important to note that no
routine data collections exist without a startup effort and/or cost to participating sites. Once those
costs are met and the jail system is prepared to accommodate future data requests, the succeeding
burden is typically minimal.
Secondly, and similar to the first challenge, issues arose with whether the jail management
system was in-house or outsourced with an external vendor. When asked questions about
technical challenges, those sites with in-house systems had more confidence that they would be
able to provide the data or build in additional data elements as needed to support a BJS data
collection effort. However, those with external vendors expressed concern that they were limited
in what could be added or changed; the external systems were either too cost-prohibitive to
modify, or too rigid. This scenario is similar to BJS’s collection for the NCRP, whereby a small
number of Department of Corrections (DOCs) had to be paid to produce the NCRP files.
Thirdly, the smaller and more rural jurisdictions that were interviewed were more likely to have
challenges with their management system’s infrastructure. For example, these sites had issues
such as having paper-files rather than electronic files, limited broadband and internet, and were
ill-equipped and/or understaffed to produce the data. That said, the larger sites indicated there
would be minimal infrastructure challenges.
The fourth theme that arose was on the management of the jail and its relationship with the
function of law enforcement. Jails with sheriffs that also had a law enforcement role tended to
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌17
have arrest data and other relevant data elements related to the individual – such as criminal
history, SSN, and other information that would be in an arrest record. With sites that had jails
and sheriffs for confinement purposes only, the police departments tended to have the detainee’s
information and that information was held in a separate database that would need extra
permissions to obtain. (Note: jails still had data on detainee name, date of birth, and typically
SSN.) To obtain data from these separated entities would take coordination with both the jail and
the police, which may prove to be difficult. Moreover, the quality and accuracy of the data may
depend on who, where, and when the data is entered. Having multiple datasets that do not “talk
to each other” may prove to be an ongoing challenge.
To a lesser extent, challenges related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) were discussed. For
example, several sites discussed general challenges with the accuracy of data due to the
significant fluctuation in their population due to COVID-19, and the thought that the population
may not “stabilize” for a long period of time. COVID-19 also had an impact on staffing in at
least one jail, which caused challenges around the manpower for the jail to provide the data. And
finally, one site expressed concern with providing the data to any entity – but especially the
Federal government – due to distrust of how the data would be used. While this is not a direct
challenge, it may be a theme that arises as more jails are approached to participate in the LJRP.
4.2
Themes from Transitioning Systems
As stated previously, half of the sites interviewed were either in the process of transitioning their
JMS (2 sites), or anticipating a change in the next few years (5 sites). Contributing factors to
whether the site intended to change their system ranged; these factors included transitioning to a
cloud-based storage system; selecting a more user-friendly system; finding a more robust system
that had large data storage and functionality for reporting; and creating a system that had the
ability to “speak to” other databases of interest – such as police- and court-data. The sites that
were in the midst of transition or planning to transition expressed interest in assisting BJS –
whether it be by piloting the effort or obtaining the data elements BJS is interested in collecting
and ensuring they are included in their new system.
4.3
Recommendations
To move forward, we have provided three key recommendations that BJS may want to consider
as next steps, prior to further exploring the feasibility of a national data collection in local jails.
BJS to Issue Formal Data Request. The first recommendation that is based on the telephone
interviews is that BJS should issue formal data requests to a subset of the interviewed sites. This
would enable BJS to determine: (1) the level of effort required to obtain and process the data,
and (2) demonstrate value of the effort. The first point is critical for determining the feasibility of
a national collection, while the second is important to get more jails to participate. As part of this
request, BJS should also contact two to three of the 3rd party vendors who maintain control of the
sites’ data to determine the level of effort and the cost associated with making changes to the
variables collected and/or code needed to produce reports that meet the needs of the LJRP.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌18
Conduct Scan of Practice. It was clear that the sites had varying policies guiding their practices,
varying statutes by jurisdiction, and different data elements that were required by a higher entity
(typically to the state). A scan of practice or environmental scan would provide a snapshot at the
range of these practices in the local jails to understand what they collect, for who, and why (i.e.,
how the data is used). For example – one site interviewed shared that “we should get the data
from the state because of the Data Transparency Act across the state.” The Act requires all jails
to report up to the state on standardized data, thus streamlining the collection for BJS. A scan of
practice would also identify core measures that could be easily collected by local jails (e.g.,
variables that are already collected), and ensure that the variables have the same definitions. In
addition, the scan of practice should contain site visits so that the data systems and reporting
tools are as-reported. It will also further reveal the local jails that are changing or transferring
their management systems, so that they are more user-friendly to provide BJS with ongoing data.
Reducing Burden on Local Jails. As stated previously, the jails in the study were enthusiastic
about participating in the collection, however several faced impediments that BJS can help to
address. First, BJS may want to consider providing funding (or asking their sister agency the
Bureau of Justice Assistance to provide funding) to assist jails in the first collection. The frontend work seemed to be the largest obstacle for the sites, and funding was identified by nearly all
participants as a way BJS could reduce burden. The funding could assist in additional manpower
to write and/or change code to ensure the data that is being reported to BJS is what BJS wants.
The funding may also provide local jails with external vendors the ability to make the changes
without taking money from the jurisdictions’ budgets.
Another way to reduce burdens for the local jails is to create a standardized and comprehensive
MOU/DUA for each jail to utilize. Most jails either had no MOUs or had “pieces” based on other
MOUs for different projects. And because many sites were concerned their legal counsel would
be a challenge, providing a template that has adequately addressed how the data will be used, the
protections on the data, and why the collection is important, would be helpful to reduce burden.
BJS may also want to consider implementing something similar to their probation and parole
efforts, which have both short- and long-forms; for those facilities that are overly burdened, the
short form would be sufficient and focus only on the “core measures” that would be identified in
a scan of practice.
The jails want to participate in the LJRP. Overall, if BJS can assist with better understanding the
lay-of-the-land, and reducing burden on the jails to increase participation, both BJS and the jails
would be better equipped to ensure a high response rate for a successful collection. We
recommend BJS build on the feasibility study with formal data requests to be issued to the
participating sites, so as to further understand the challenges and solutions.
Abt Associates
LJRP Feasibility Study: Final Report
March 10, 2021 ▌19
Attachment B: Invitation email
Dear [NAME OF SHERIFF/ADMINISTRATOR]:
I am writing to request your agency’s participation in the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot
Study, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). BJS is piloting the LJRP, a collection of
individual-level administrative data (e.g., booking records), with some of the largest jails in the country.
As part of the pilot study, we would like to interview you or member(s) of your jail team familiar with
your jail management system and data sharing process. The interview will take about one hour and cover
the following topics:
How your agency tracks the movements of inmates
What data elements are available in your jail management system (including inmate characteristics
and status, admission and release timestamps and reasons, charges and sentences, bail and bond,
and case disposition)
What administrative process your agency has in place for data sharing
What challenges you anticipate in sharing data with BJS.
The results of the interviews will be used to inform the design of the LJRP only and will not be published
or released outside BJS. By law, BJS employees and its data collection agents may only use your
agency’s information for statistical or research purposes and must protect the confidentiality of
information identifiable to a private person (34 U.S.C. § 10231). BJS is not permitted to publicly release
your agency’s responses in a way that could reasonably identify a specific person.
The University of Michigan is BJS’s data collection agent for this effort. Please let the team know by
email (um-bjs-ljrp@umich.edu) whether you will be able to participate and, if so, the appropriate contact
information. Our data collection team will follow up to schedule the appointment. Participation in the
study is voluntary.
If you have any comments or questions about the LJRP, please feel free to contact Zhen Zeng, BJS LJRP
Project Manager, at Zhen.Zeng@usdoj.gov or (202)-598-9955.
BJS appreciates your generous cooperation and partnership in supporting this important effort.
Sincerely,
Dr. Alexis R. Piquero
Director
Attachment C: Nonresponse follow‐up
Dear <>,
Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) sent you an email inviting you to participate in
the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot Study. I am following up today on that
request.
BJS is piloting the LJRP, a collection of individual-level administrative data (e.g., booking
records), with some of the largest jails in the country. As part the pilot study, we would like to
interview you or member(s) of your office to learn about your jail management system and data
sharing process. The phone interview will take about one hour. Data collected for the pilot study
will be kept confidential and will not be published or released outside BJS.
The University of Michigan is BJS’s data collection agent for this effort. Please let the team
know by email (um-bjs-ljrp@umich.edu) whether you will be able to participate and, if so, the
appropriate contact information. Our data collection team will follow up to schedule the
appointment.
Answers to frequently asked questions are attached to this email. If you have any comments or
questions about the LJRP, please contact me at Zhen.Zeng@usdoj.gov or (202) 598-9955.
BJS appreciates your generous cooperation and partnership in supporting this important effort.
Sincerely,
Zhen Zeng
LJRP Project Manager
1
Email attachment: FAQ
Local Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)?
A component of the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice, BJS is the
United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics. The mission of BJS is to collect,
analyze, publish, and disseminate information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime,
and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. BJS also provides financial and
technical support to state, local, and tribal governments to improve both their statistical
capabilities and the quality and utility of their criminal history records.
What is the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP)?
BJS hopes to develop the Local Jail Reporting Program, a national data collection of individuallevel jail administrative data, in the coming years. The LJRP will draw on booking records from
jail management systems. It will supplement other BJS jail collections and provide a main source
for individual-level data on jail populations; admissions and releases; and charges and sentences.
What is the University of Michigan’s role in the LJRP Pilot Study?
BJS has contracted the University of Michigan (UM) to act as the data collection agent for the
LJRP Pilot Study. UM will be responsible for conducting interviews with jail representatives;
and collecting and processing administrative record data. UM was selected for this project
because of their expertise in collecting and processing secure criminal justice administrative
data.
Is participation in the study voluntary?
Yes, participation in the study is voluntary. You may decline to answer any and all questions, or
stop the interview, at any time. However, we ask for your participation in this study because your
response is valuable for BJS to understand how jails keep records on inmates, what information
is recorded, and the capability of jails to share this information, so that BJS can make an
informed decision on how to proceed with a pilot collection of individual-level administrative
data.
What questions will be asked during the interview?
During the phone or video interview, we will ask questions in the following areas:
1. Your jail’s data management system, including system vendor, software product name, types
of inmates tracked, and types of inmate movements tracked (e.g., movements into and out of
jail and internal movements).
2
2. The availability of specific data elements in your system, including inmate demographic
characteristics; information on charges, sentences, and bail; circumstances of admission and
release; and unique personal identifiers such as Social Security Number (SSN), FBI number,
and state ID number.
3. Your jail’s capability and expected burden in sharing individual-level records with BJS, as
well as technical, legal, and confidentiality issues involved in sharing your administrative
records.
The interview will be conducted by an experienced interviewer from UM, BJS’s data collection
agent. The interviewer will take notes during the interview but will not record the conversation.
How does BJS keep data secure?
BJS is bound by federal law (Title 34 U.S.C. § 10231), which provides that “No officer or
employee of the Federal Government, and no recipient of assistance under the provisions of this
chapter shall use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under this chapter by
any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose
for which it was obtained in accordance with this chapter. Such information and copies thereof
shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing
such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other
judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.”
BJS has numerous confidentiality and security protections governing the data collected by BJS
and its data collection agents. BJS and its data collection agents are required to follow the BJS
Data Protection Guidelines, which summarizes the federal statutes, regulations, and data security
procedures governing BJS and its data collection agents in more detail. These guidelines ensure
the confidentiality of all data, including PII.
3
Non‐response call script
Local Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study Sample Call Script for Nonresponse Calls
Hello, this is <> calling from the University of Michigan regarding the Local
Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study. I am following up on an email that we sent to <>. May I speak with <> or <>?
[IF LEAVING MESSAGE ON VOICEMAIL OR WITH JAIL ADMINISTRATOR]
Hello, this is <> calling from the University of Michigan. We recently sent
you an email inviting you to participate in the Local Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study,
sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I am calling to follow up on that. As part of this
study, we are hoping to interview you or someone in your office to understand your jail
management system and data sharing process. I wanted to confirm that you received the request
and to find out if you have identified a representative for the interview.
<>
[IF CALL REACHES OR IS ROUTED TO FACILITY CONTACT OTHER THAN THE
JAIL ADMINSTRATOR]
Hello, this is <> calling from the University of Michigan. We recently sent
<> an email inviting you to participate in the Local Jail Reporting
Program Pilot Study, sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I am calling to follow up on
that. As part of this study, we are hoping to interview <> or someone
in your office to understand your jail management system and data sharing process. I wanted to
confirm that <> received the request and to find out if <>
has identified a representative for the interview.
<>
[ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY USING THE FAQ AS A GUIDE]
[IF FACILITY HAS NOT RECEIVED EMAIL]
Let me review the information we have on file for your facility.
[REVERIFY EMAIL ADDRESS AND OFFER TO RE-SEND THE INFORMATION]
[IF FACILITY IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERVIEW]
Great! Can you please let us know who will be the contact person for the interview? The contact
person can be yourself or someone else who is familiar with your jail management data system
4
and data sharing process.
Thank you. We will follow up with the contact person by email to schedule the interview. We
appreciate your participation!
[IF AGENCY REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERVIEW]
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me and for considering this request.
5
Attachment D: JMS data element checklist
Local Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study
Jail Management System Data Element Check List
Please indicate if the following data elements are included in your jail management system (JMS) and return the completed
form to um-bjs-ljrp@umich.edu. If you have comments or clarifications, you can enter them at the end of the form. Thank you!
Category
Personal identifiers and
characteristics
Data Element
In your JMS?
Last name
Yes☐ No☐
First name
Yes☐ No☐
Middle name or initial
Yes☐ No☐
Date of birth
Yes☐ No☐
Sex
Yes☐ No☐
Race
Yes☐ No☐
Hispanic origin
Yes☐ No☐
Is a U.S. citizen
Yes☐ No☐
State ID number (SID)
Yes☐ No☐
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) number
Yes☐ No☐
Full Social Security Number (SSN)
Yes☐ No☐
Arrest/booking
Name of the arresting agency
Yes☐ No☐
Arresting agency ORI
Yes☐ No☐
Date of arrest
Yes☐ No☐
Charge codes at arrest
Yes☐ No☐
Charge descriptions at arrest
Yes☐ No☐
Charge levels at arrest
Yes☐ No☐
Individual’s jail/booking number
Yes☐ No☐
Date and time of admission
Yes☐ No☐
Admission reason
Yes☐ No☐
Date and time of release
Yes☐ No☐
Release reason
Yes☐ No☐
Date and time of movements while under jail jurisdiction
Yes☐ No☐
Movement reason
Yes☐ No☐
Hold/Detainer
Is there a detainer/hold/warrant
Yes☐ No☐
Name of agency with detainer/hold/warrant
Yes☐ No☐
Admission, release, and
movements in jail
1
Category
Conviction and
sentencing status
Data Element
In your JMS?
Is the inmate detained pretrial
Yes☐ No☐
Is the inmate serving a jail sentence (usually one year or less)
Yes☐ No☐
Is the inmate serving a prison sentence in jail (usually longer than
one year)
Yes☐ No☐
Initial charges
Name of initial court
Yes☐ No☐
Criminal statute(s) for
which a defendant
appears in court. These
are the charges the
prosecutor is formally
charging a defendant
with.
Bail/bond
Initial court case/docket number
Yes☐ No☐
Initial charge codes
Yes☐ No☐
Initial charge descriptions
Yes☐ No☐
Initial charge levels
Yes☐ No☐
Arraignment date
Yes☐ No☐
Is bail/bond ordered
Yes☐ No☐
Is bail/bond posted
Yes☐ No☐
Bail/bond type
Yes☐ No☐
Bail/bond amount
Yes☐ No☐
Is inmate released on bond
Yes☐ No☐
Date of release after posting bail/bond
Yes☐ No☐
Name of final court
Yes☐ No☐
Final charge codes
Yes☐ No☐
Final charge descriptions
Yes☐ No☐
Final charge levels
Yes☐ No☐
Date of disposition
Yes☐ No☐
Disposition
Yes☐ No☐
Date of sentencing
Yes☐ No☐
Type of sentence (e.g., probation, incarceration, fines, restitution)
Yes☐ No☐
Length of sentence
Yes☐ No☐
Final charges
Criminal statute(s) for
which a defendant is
found guilty or enters a
guilty plea. These are the
charges the defendant
will be sentenced for.
Sentences
Comments
Reset
Print
2
Save
Attachment E: Interview guide
Local Jail Reporting Program Pilot Study
Interview Guide
Jail name and location:
Sheriff / Jail Administrator / Department Head:
Interviewer (1):
Interviewer (2):
Interviewee name and title (1):
Interviewee name and title (2):
Interviewee name and title (3):
Date:
Introduction and purpose of the interview
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a federal statistical agency housed in the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ), is seeking your agency’s participation in a pilot study to help inform the
planning for a new BJS program, the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP). The goal of LJRP is to
collect individual‐level administrative data from local jails to support research and public policy
decisions.
BJS awarded funds to the University of Michigan (UM) to operate as BJS’s agent for the LJRP
pilot data collection. As a first step, we are conducting interviews with 30 of the largest jails to
understand if and how they can provide individual‐level data to BJS for statistical and research
purposes. The findings of the interviews will be used to develop the LJRP collection and will not
be released to the public.
We have a series of questions about the Jail Management System (JMS) your agency uses and
about your agency’s capacity to provide data from that JMS to BJS. This interview will take
approximately 60 minutes to complete. Your agency’s participation in this interview is
completely voluntary. You may decline to answer specific questions, limit your responses, or
1
may stop the interview at any time. Your agency will not be penalized in any way if you choose
to not participate in the interview or the data collection stage of the pilot study.
We appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today! Your input will be critical to help BJS
improve its jail data collection.
General questions about the Jail Management System (JMS)
1. Vendor:
2. Product Name:
3. How many years has your agency been using this JMS?
4. How many years of individual‐level data are stored in your JMS?
5. Are you planning to switch to a different JMS in the next year or two? If yes, what is the
name of the new system (if known)?
6. Does your JMS import data from other systems, e.g., Case Management System from the
Court, Offender Management Systems from the DOC?
Yes☐ No☐
a. If yes, from what other system(s)?
b. If yes, what type of data are imported?
i. Demographic characteristics
Yes☐ No☐
ii. Arrest information
Yes☐ No☐
iii. Case/charge information
Yes☐ No☐
iv. Bail/bond information
Yes☐ No☐
v. Sentences
Yes☐ No☐
2
Data sharing with BJS
[Interviewer talking points: BJS is required by law to use the data it collects only for statistical or
research purposes and protect respondent privacy and confidentiality. To fulfill these statutory
obligations, BJS and its data collection agents employ robust physical, technical, and
administrative controls and data security procedures to protect the data collected under BJS’s
authority.
BJS is governed by many federal laws, regulations, and policies to uphold these fundamental
requirements and responsibilities, which are summarized in the BJS Data Protection Guidelines,
available on the BJS website at ‐
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/bjs_data_protection_guideli
nes.pdf .]
We would like to learn more about how your JMS tracks the movement of inmates, and their
charges and sentences, but before we start on that, I have some questions about your data
sharing process…
7. If BJS were to request individual‐level data from your jail for statistical purposes, can your
agency provide the following types of data to BJS?
a. Data that contains no personal identifiers (e.g., race, charges, data of admissions)?
Yes☐ No☐
b. Data that contains personal or unique identifiers (e.g., full name, exact DOB, SSN, FBI #)?
Yes☐ No☐
c. Are there any specific data elements or categories of data, such as inmate
characteristics, arrest and booking, charges, bail/bond, or sentences, that your agency
cannot share with BJS, either due to legal, data quality, or other reasons?
8. What administrative processes does your jail have in place for sharing data with a federal
agency like BJS? Who has to approve data sharing?
9. Do you have any preferred process or requirements for BJS to follow to request the data?
10. In your experience, about how long does it typically take to review and make
determinations about data provision requests?
3
11. Are there any major challenges you can anticipate to providing individual‐level data to BJS?
[Interviewer: Probe with “Are there any other challenges?”]
12. What could BJS do to help make it easier to provide any or all of the requested data?
13. When we are ready to request pilot data for the LJRP, to whom or to what entity should we
address the request?
a. Name:
b. Title:
c. Phone:
d. Email:
Inmate movements and status changes
14. Are the following types of jail entry captured as new admissions in your JMS? [Interviewer:
Record explanations for Not Applicable items.]
a. Transfers from another facility within your jail jurisdiction
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
b. Repeat offenders booked on new charges
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
c. Returns from court appearance
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
d. Returns from bail/bond releases
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
e. Returns from work release
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
f. Returns from medical appointments or treatment facilities
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
g. Returns from furloughs
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
15. What admission reasons are recorded in your JMS?
16. Can you distinguish admissions booked on new charges from transfers from other facilities
within your jail jurisdiction and returns from temporary release? If so, how (e.g., through
booking ID, inmate ID, or admission reason)?
17. Can you create individual‐level data extracts containing all admissions within a specified
date range?
4
18. An inmate’s status often changes while in jail, e.g., pretrial to sentenced, pretrial to bond
release, and temporary release to pretrial (bond violation).
a. What types of status are captured in your JMS?
b. How are status changes recorded in the JMS? Are existing data overwritten or new
records created when recording status changes?
c. Are the date and time of status changes recorded in the JMS? Yes☐ No☐
19. Are the following types of exits from jail captured as releases in your JMS? [Interviewer:
Record explanations for Not Applicable items.]
a. Transfers to another facility within your jail jurisdiction
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
b. Temporary releases for a court appearance
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
c. Pre‐trial releases (e.g., posted bail/bond)
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
d. Work releases
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
e. Temporary releases for medical appointments/treatment
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
f. Furloughs
Yes☐ No☐ NA☐
20. What release reasons are recorded in your JMS?
21. Can your JMS create individual‐level data extracts containing all releases within a specified
date range?
Charges and Sentences
22. How are charge data entered into your JMS? Are they entered manually or imported from
another agency through data linkage? What about sentence data?
23. If charges are modified, such as amended or reduced, how is that recorded in your JMS?
24. Are charges categorized by type, such as violent, property, drug, and public disorder in your
JMS? If so, what are the categories?
25. Are charges categorized by level of severity, such as felony and misdemeanor? If so, what
are the categories?
26. Do you have charge data on inmates held for state DOC or federal authorities such as U.S.
Marshals and ICE?
5
27. Can you create individual‐level data extracts containing all charges associated with each
admission within a specified date range?
28. How are sentence data entered into your JMS? Are they entered manually or imported from
another agency through data linkage?
29. Do you have sentence data on inmates held for state DOC or federal authorities such as U.S.
Marshals and ICE?
30. Can you create individual‐level data extracts containing lengths of sentences for each
inmate serving time in your jail within a specified date range?
Conclusion
That is all the questions we have today. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge about
your JMS and data sharing process with us.
6
Attachment F: Pilot data request email
Dear [NAME],
Thank you again for participating in the interview for the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot Study. As we
move to the phase 2 of the study, we are reaching out to you today to request individual‐level administrative
record data from your jail.
The data you provide will be used to inform the design of the LJRP only and will not be published or released
outside BJS. By law, BJS employees and its data collection agents may only use your agency’s information for
statistical or research purposes and must protect the confidentiality of information identifiable to a private
person (34 U.S.C. § 10231). BJS is not permitted to publicly release your agency’s data in a way that could
reasonably identify a specific person.
We have attached a Data Extraction Guide to this email. Please respond to this email or call me to discuss your
participation in this pilot data collection by [Date], and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions
or concerns.
If you have any comments or questions about the LJRP, please feel free to contact me or Zhen Zeng, BJS LJRP
Project Manager, at Zhen.Zeng@usdoj.gov or (202)‐598‐9955. BJS appreciates your generous cooperation and
partnership in supporting this important effort.
Sincerely,
Diana Sutton
Criminal Justice Administrative Records System
University of Michigan
(248) 881‐4133
Attachment G - Data Extraction Guide
Month 202X
Local Jails Reporting Program Pilot Study
Electronic Data Extract Guide
Prepared by
University of Michigan
and
Bureau of Justice Statistics
OMB Control Number: ##### Expiration Date: #####
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1
1. Local Jails Reporting Program Pilot Study Overview
2
2. Data Preparation Instructions
2
2.1 Identifying Eligible Records........................................................................... 2
2.2 File Structure ............................................................................................. 2
2.3 File Format................................................................................................. 3
2.4 Supporting Documentation ........................................................................... 3
3. Data Submission Instructions
4
3.1 Will the data be secure and kept confidential? ................................................. 4
3.2 When is the submission due? ........................................................................ 5
3.3 What happens after we submit the data? ........................................................ 5
4. Whom do I contact if I have questions?
5
Appendix A: Requested Data Elements and Definitions
6
Part 1. Personal Identifiers and Characteristics ..................................................... 6
Part 2. Admissions, Releases, and Movements in Jail ............................................. 7
Part 3. Arrests, Charges, and Sentences .............................................................. 8
1
1. Local Jails Reporting Program Pilot Study Overview
The goal of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Local Jails Reporting Program
(LJRP) Pilot Study is to support the planning of the LJRP, a new data collection of
person-level jail administrative records designed to better understand the flows of
individuals into and out of local jails, the characteristics of people incarcerated in
jails, and the reasons for incarceration.
This pilot study will be completed in two phases by the University of Michigan.
During the first phase, University of Michigan conducted interviews with 30 of the
largest local jails in the U.S. to learn about their jail management systems and data
sharing procedures. The second phase involves collecting pilot data from 10 of the
jails that participated in phase one. The pilot data will be used to plan for the
implementation of LJRP on a large scale and will not be published or released
outside BJS.
2. Data Preparation Instructions
This is an individual- and case-level data collection. We are interested in personlevel information on individuals booked into local jails, including arrests that led to
bookings, admissions, releases, and movements while held in jail, detainer
information, conviction and sentencing status while held in jail, charges, bail, and
sentencing outcomes. Appendix A lists the data elements that we would like to
collect for this study. We do not expect agencies to have all requested data
elements. Please provide those data elements that are available in your system.
If you have questions about our data request, or it would be too burdensome or
technically challenging to provide the data elements, please send us an email at
um-bjs-ljrp@umich.edu. We recognize that systems vary in terms of the ability to
store, extract, and share data, and are prepared to assist you.
2.1 Identifying Eligible Records
Please include records of—
●
all individuals held in your jail on 06/30/2021, and
●
all admissions that occurred between 07/01/2021 and 06/30/2022.
For eligible records, please include available data elements listed in Appendix A.
2.2 File Structure
You may provide data in any format that is suited to your system or convenient for
you. However, we recommend organizing the requested data in a series of
2
relational tables linked by personal identifiers and jail booking numbers as follows:
●
Table 1: Person-level data and personal identifiers, such as name, date of
birth, sex, race, state ID, FBI number, and Social Security Number.
●
Table 2: Admission and release records, such as admission date, release
date, admission reason, release reason, detainer status, pretrial status, bail,
movement reason, movement date, etc. Each row can represent an
admission event, a release event, or a pair of matched admission and release
events.
●
Table 3: Arrest, charge, and sentence records, such as arresting agency,
arrest date, charge code, charge description, court name, sentence date, and
sentence length. Each row represents a charge at arrest, an initial charge an
inmate appears in court for, or a final charge an inmate is found guilty or
enters a guilty plea for.
2.3 File Format
There is no required format for the data you submit; use any format that is most
convenient for you. All file formats will be accepted. Some common file formats
include:
●
Text files (fixed width, delimited)
●
Excel or .csv files
● Data analysis software files (e.g., SAS, STATA, SPSS, or R data files)
You do not need to recode or format your data prior to submission.
2.4 Supporting Documentation
If possible, we ask that you provide supporting documentation with your
submission. Specifically, we request:
●
Data point of contact (POC) (i.e., name, organization, address, telephone,
and email address)
●
Date that the data extract is pulled
●
Parameters of data query (e.g., all individuals booked into jail between
07/01/21 through 06/30/2022)
●
Known data limitations or quality issues
○
Missing data
■
System missing (requested data element is not available in the
system)
■
Missing items (requested data element is available, but blank for
a significant number of records)
■
Missing records (complete records of some eligible cases are
missing)
3
○
●
Other common data issues include
■
Misspellings
■
Redundancy or duplication (e.g., two or more records for the
same case)
Data formatting information
○
Data dictionaries, including variable/column names, variable
description, expected variable values
○
Known discrepancies in the data fields as described in Appendix A and in
your system (e.g., Hispanic origin is a race category in your system but a
field separate from race in Appendix A)
During the data standardization process, we may contact you with questions to
ensure that all submitted data are processed correctly. Any documentation
available that defines data fields or entries within data fields may help to clarify
questions at the outset if submitted with the data extract.
3. Data Submission Instructions
Data will be transferred to BJS and University of Michigan via the Justice Enterprise
Files Sharing (JEFS) system. This system uses Box Incorporated Software as a
Service (SaaS) capability as a transport infrastructure. This will provide a method of
secure data transfer. When you are ready to submit data, we will create a login for
you and provide instructions on how to complete the secure file transfer.
If your agency prefers to transfer data in some other way, we will also accept the
submission. Common data transfer methods include:
●
Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)
●
Encrypted CD sent through the mail
●
Email with encrypted data file(s)
After transfer of data via JEFS or another method, all data will be securely managed
and stored by the University of Michigan on a secure server while the data are
being processed. Data will be stored in a computing environment designed for
criminal justice data storage and management which requires a high level of
security. The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR) hosts the
secure data server. Within ISR, the Survey Research Center’s (SRC) Computing and
Multimedia Technologies (CMT) staff manage the data server. This system was built
to meet all applicable FBI Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) standards.
3.1 Will the data be secure and kept confidential?
Consistent with its statutory obligations (34 U.S.C. § 10134), BJS only uses
information collected under its authority for statistical or research purposes.
4
Further, BJS is required by law to protect the confidentiality of all personally
identifiable information (PII) it collects or acquires in conjunction with BJS-funded
projects (34 U.S.C. § 10231), and must maintain the appropriate administrative,
physical, and technical safeguards to protect the identifiable information against
improper use or unauthorized disclosure. BJS will not use or reveal data identifiable
to a private person, except as authorized under 28 CFR § 22.21 and § 22.22. The
BJS Data Protection Guidelines summarize the federal laws, regulations, and other
authorities that govern information acquired under BJS’s authority, and are
published on the BJS website:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
As BJS’s data collection agent for the LJRP Pilot Study, University of Michigan is
required to adhere to the same requirements to protect data security and
confidentiality. We have also developed a data management plan specifically for
this project, which describes how the LJRP pilot data will be collected, handled,
processed, stored, and disposed of at the end of the project. The data management
plan will be provided to you upon request.
3.2 When is the submission due?
We ask that all participating agencies provide their data by ##/##/####. Please
reach out to us if you need additional time to submit your data.
3.3 What happens after we submit the data?
We will import the data into a standard structure, format and recode the data
fields, and conduct a series of checks to ensure that the data are processed
correctly. We may reach out to you with questions about variable values, data
labels, or missing data to understand your data.
4. Whom do I contact if I have questions?
Please reach us at um-bjs-ljrp@umich.edu for questions or support in submitting
your data.
5
Appendix A: Requested Data Elements and Case Selection
The following tables list the data elements we are requesting for the LJRP Pilot
Study. The name and description of the data field provided should help you locate a
similar data element in your jail management system.
●
We do not expect agencies to have all of the listed data elements. Please
provide corresponding data fields available in your system.
●
You do not need to recode or format your data fields. Please provide the data
in any format that is convenient for you.
●
If the data are encoded into numerical values in your system, please provide
value labels in the documentation (e.g., 1 = white, 2 = black, 3 = native
American, etc.).
●
Please provide the month, day, and year for all dates (e.g., date of birth and
date of arrest). You can provide dates in any format, as one field or multiple
fields.
●
If possible, please provide a data user manual or data dictionary.
Part 1. Personal Identifiers and Characteristics
Please include records of—
●
all individuals held in your jail on 06/30/2021, and
●
all individuals admitted between 07/01/2021 and 06/30/2022.
Data element
Definition
Last name
Last name of the inmate.
First name
First name of the inmate.
Middle name/initial
Middle name/Initial of the inmate.
Date of birth
Date of birth (month, day, and year) of the
inmate
Sex
Biological sex or sex assigned at birth.
Race
Race of the inmate.
Hispanic origin (as a field
separate from race)
Does the inmate identify as Hispanic?
U.S. citizen
Is the inmate a U.S. citizen?
State ID number (SID)
State identification number.
FBI number
Federal Bureau of Investigation number.
6
Social Security Number
Full (9-digit) social security number.
Personal ID number
Other personal identification number used in
your JMS
Part 2. Admissions, Releases, and Movements in Jail
●
●
●
Please include the admission and release records of all individuals held in
your jail on 06/30/2021 and all individuals admitted between 07/01/2021
and 06/30/2022.
For each admission or release event, please include jail booking number and
available personal identifier(s) such as state ID, name, and date of birth of
the inmate for data linkage.
If an individual was admitted into or released from your jail multiple times
between 07/01/2021 and 06/30/2022, please include records for all
admissions and releases.
Data element
Definition
Jail booking number
The unique identification number assigned to
the booking event
Date of admission
Date of jail admission (month, day, and year)
Time of admission
Time of jail admission
Admission reason
Reason for jail admission
Date of release
Date of release from jail (month, day, and year)
Time of release
Time of release from jail
Release reason
Reason for release from jail
Date of movement
Date of movement while under jail jurisdiction
(month, day, and year)
Time of movement
Time of movement while under jail jurisdiction
Movement reason
Reason for movement while under jail
jurisdiction (e.g., move to a different facility,
furlough, out to court, out for medical
treatment, etc.)
Detainer/hold/warrant
Does the inmate have a detainer/hold/warrant
on their record?
Name of agency with
If yes, what is the agency name with the
7
detainer/hold/warrant
detainer/hold/warrant
Pretrial detention
Is the inmate waiting for trial?
Serving jail sentence
Is the inmate serving a sentence of
incarceration for less than one year, commonly
known as a jail sentence?
Serving prison sentence
Is the inmate serving a sentence of
incarceration for more than one year,
commonly known as a prison sentence?
Bail ordered
Has bail been ordered by the court?
Bail type
What type of bail was ordered by the court
(cash, surety, %, ROR, etc.)?
Bail amount
What amount of bail was ordered?
Bail posted
Has bail been posted for the inmate?
Bail release
Has the individual been released based on
his/her bail being posted?
Bail release date
Date the individual was released based on
his/her bail being posted (month, day, and
year)
Part 3. Arrests, Charges, and Sentences
●
●
●
Please include arrest, charge, and sentence records of all individuals held in
your jail on 06/30/2021 and all individuals admitted between 07/01/2021
and 06/30/2022.
Please include all arrests for individuals with multiple arrests and all charges
for persons with multiple charges.
Please include jail booking number and available personal identifier(s) such
as state ID, name, and date of birth of the inmate for data linkage.
Data element
Definition
Arresting agency name
Name of the arresting agency
Arresting agency ORI
ORI of the arresting agency
Arrest ID number
The unique identification number assigned to
the arrest
8
Date of arrest
Date of arrest (month, day, and year)
Arrest charge code
Charge code (statute number) at arrest
Arrest charge description
Description of charge at arrest (e.g., robbery
armed, resist/obstruct/flee)
Charge level at arrest
Severity level of charge at arrest (e.g., felony,
misdemeanor, ordinance, etc.)
Initial court name
Name of the court where the inmate first
appeared for arraignment/bail decision
Initial court case number
Court case number associated with the initial
charge
Initial charge code
Initial charge code (statute number) the inmate
appeared in court for
Initial charge description
Description of the initial charge (e.g., robbery
armed, resist/obstruct/flee)
Initial charge level
Severity level of the initial charge (e.g., felony,
misdemeanor, traffic, ordinance)
Arraignment date
Date the inmate was arraigned on initial
charge(s) (month, day, and year)
Final court name
Name of the court where the inmate appeared
for disposition (guilty plea, jury trial, bench
trial, etc.)
Final court case number
Court case number associated with the final
charge
Final charge code
Final charge code (statute number) the inmate
was found guilty or entered a guilty plea for
Final charge description
Description of the final charge (e.g., robbery
armed, resist/obstruct/flee)
Final charge level
Severity level of the final charge (e.g., felony,
misdemeanor, traffic, ordinance)
Disposition type
Type of disposition for the final charge (pled
guilty, found guilty, acquitted, dismissed, Nolo
Contendere, mistrial, Nolle Prosequi, etc.)
Disposition date
Date the final charge was disposed of (month,
day, and year)
9
Sentence date
Date sentence was imposed for the final charge
(month, day, and year)
Sentence type
Type of sentence imposed for the final charge
Sentence length
Length of sentence imposed for the final charge
10
Attachment H: IRB approval
4/8/22, 12:00 PM
University of Michigan Mail - eResearch Notice: Amendment (Ame00122344) for (HUM00201251) has been approved by the IRB.
Jordan Papp
eResearch Notice: Amendment (Ame00122344) for (HUM00201251) has been
approved by the IRB.
1 message
eresearch@umich.edu
Reply-To: eresearch@umich.edu
To: pappj@umich.edu, mgms@umich.edu, suttondi@umich.edu
Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:24 AM
Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB-HSBS) • 2800 Plymouth Rd., Building 520, Room 1170, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800 • phone (734) 936-0933
• fax (734) 998-9171 • irbhsbs@umich.edu
To: Michael Mueller-Smith
From:
Riann
Thad
Palmieri-Smith
Polk
Cc:
Jordan
Michael
Diana
Papp
Mueller-Smith
Sutton
Subject: Amendment [ Ame00122344] Approved for [ HUM00201251]
SUBMISSION INFORMATION:
Study Title: Implementing the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot
Full Study Title (if applicable):
Study eResearch ID: HUM00201251
Amendment eResearch ID: Ame00122344
Amendment Title: HUM00201251_Amendment - Tue Mar 29 07:31:17 EDT 2022
Date of this Notification from IRB: 4/8/2022
Date of Approval for this Amendment: 4/8/2022
Review: Expedited
Current IRB Approval Period: -
Expiration Date: Approval for this expires at 11:59 p.m. on
UM Federalwide Assurance (FWA): FWA00004969 (For the current FWA expiration date, please visit
the UM HRPP Webpage)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3c5e8bfbe2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1729554261283651315%7Cmsg-f%3A1729554261283…
1/3
4/8/22, 12:00 PM
University of Michigan Mail - eResearch Notice: Amendment (Ame00122344) for (HUM00201251) has been approved by the IRB.
OHRP IRB Registration Number(s): IRB00000245
Approved Risk Level(s) as of this Amendment:
Name
HUM00201251
Risk Level
No more than minimal risk
Continuing Review Required: Yes
NOTICE OF IRB APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS:
The IRB HSBS
has reviewed and approved the amendment to the study referenced above. The IRB
determined that the proposed research continues to conform with applicable guidelines, State and federal
regulations, and the University of Michigan's Federalwide Assurance (FWA) with DOJ regulations for
human subjects protections in 28 CFR 46.111 and UM policy. You must conduct this study in accordance
with the description and information provided in the approved application and associated documents, as
amended.
APPROVAL PERIOD AND EXPIRATION:
The approval period for this study is listed above. Please note the expiration date is not changed by the
approval of this amendment. If the approval lapses, you may not conduct work on this study until
appropriate approval has been re-established, except as necessary to eliminate apparent immediate
hazards to research subjects. Should the latter occur, you must notify the IRB Office as soon as possible.
RENEWAL/TERMINATION:
The IRB has determined that annual review and renewal is required for this research. At least two months
prior to the expiration date indicated above, you should submit a continuing review application either to
renew or terminate the study. Failure to allow sufficient time for IRB review may result in a lapse of
approval that may also affect any funding associated with the study.
IMPORTANT REMINDERS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INVESTIGATORS
APPROVED STUDY DOCUMENTS:
You must use any date-stamped versions of recruitment materials and informed consent documents
available in the eResearch workspace (referenced above). Date-stamped materials are available in the
"Currently Approved Documents" section on the "Documents" tab.
FUTURE AMENDMENTS:
All proposed changes to the study (e.g., personnel, procedures, or documents), must be approved in
advance by the IRB through the amendment process, except as necessary to eliminate apparent
immediate hazards to research subjects. Should the latter occur, you must notify the IRB Office as soon as
possible.
AEs/ORIOs:
You must inform the IRB of adverse events (AEs) and other reportable information and occurrences
(ORIOs) according to your IRB’s required reporting timetable (IRBMED and IRB-HSBS/Flint/Dearborn).
UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS INVOLVING RISKS TO SUBJECTS OR OTHERS (UPIRSOs or UaPs) :
Investigators must inform the IRB promptly of any potential Unanticipated Problems (UaPs or UPIRSOs)
that come to the attention of the study team. Unanticipated Problems meet all of the following criteria:
1. Unexpected (in terms of nature, severity, frequency);
2. Related or possibly related to participation in the research; and
3. Suggests that the research places subjects or others at a greater risk of harm than was previously
known or recognized.
See U-M HRPP Operations Manual Part 12.III.B.1.a.
SUBMITTING VIA eRESEARCH:
You can access the online forms for continuing review, amendments, and AEs/ORIOs in the eResearch
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3c5e8bfbe2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1729554261283651315%7Cmsg-f%3A1729554261283…
2/3
4/8/22, 12:00 PM
University of Michigan Mail - eResearch Notice: Amendment (Ame00122344) for (HUM00201251) has been approved by the IRB.
workspace for this approved study, referenced above.
MORE INFORMATION:
You can find additional information about UM’s Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) in the
Operations Manual and other documents available at: http://research-compliance.umich.edu/human-subjects.
Riann Palmieri-Smith
Thad Polk
Co-chair, IRB HSBS
Co-chair, IRB HSBS
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3c5e8bfbe2&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1729554261283651315%7Cmsg-f%3A1729554261283…
3/3
7/28/22, 7:56 AM
Path >>
Current State
Approved
Implementing the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot
Human Subjects
Studies
My Home
Biosafety / IBC
Repositories
Help
Implementing the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot (HUM00201251)
Study Team
Edit / View
View Study
Study Team
Member
Study Team Role
Appointment
Dept
Appt Selection
Complete
Student
Friend
Account
Accepted
Role?
COI Review
Required
Edit
Rights
Printer Friendly Version
Michael
Mueller-Smith
PI
Population
Studies Center
Yes
no
No
N/A
no
yes
Create New
Jordan Papp
Study
Coordinator/Project
Manager
Population
Studies Center
Yes
no
No
Yes
no
yes
Diana Sutton
Study
Coordinator/Project
Manager
Population
Studies Center
Yes
no
No
Yes
no
yes
Adverse Event / ORIO
Amendment
Continuing Review
Termination Report
Activities
Main
Notes
Documents
Related Projects
Amendments
Continuing Reviews
AE/ORIO
Edit Study Team Members
Post Correspondence
Update NCT Number
Pre-Submission
IRB Review
Approved
Submission in Approved state
MIAP Staff Owner:
Current Approval Period:
- 4/7/2023
Current Expiration Date:
4/7/2023
Last Continuing Review (SCR) Approval Date:
Study Status:
Accrual Closed:
Last Amendment Approval Date:
4/8/2022
Original Study Approval Date:
Staff Owner:
Mary Donnelly
MCRU ID:
Cancer PRC ID:
NCT Number:
Currently Approved Risk Level(s):
Name
HUM00201251
Level Of Risk
No more than minimal risk
Currently Approved Maximum Subject Payment Tier: 0 Tier Information
View of Approved HUM Application:
https://errm.umich.edu/ERRM/sd/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[59F1AD8FC87F11EBC7812263AB56…
1/2
7/28/22, 7:56 AM
Implementing the Local Jail Reporting Program (LJRP) Pilot
Originally Approved HUM Application (HTML view): [View]
Activities and Correspondence
Activity
Author
Activity Date
Approve and Change to Approved
Donnelly, Mary
4/8/2022 11:24 AM
Amendment Completed
Donnelly, Mary
4/8/2022 11:24 AM
Posted Correspondence
Donnelly, Mary
4/6/2022 5:04 PM
Papp, Jordan
4/4/2022 11:17 AM
Hi Jordan - Just to update you, the amendment is with the reviewer.
Mary
Posted Correspondence
I apologize, I am not sure what happened. I think it should be submitted now. Can you confirm please?
Posted Correspondence
Donnelly, Mary
4/4/2022 10:37 AM
Papp, Jordan
4/4/2022 8:11 AM
Hi Jordan -
The amendment hasn't been submitted yet.
Thanks,
Mary
Posted Correspondence
Hi Mary,
I was just checking back to see how things are going with the amendment. I would like to follow up with an anticipated timeline of review s
contact at the Bureau of Justice Statistics is aware of how things are progressing. So i… read more
Amendment Opened
Papp, Jordan
3/29/2022 7:32 AM
Posted Correspondence
Donnelly, Mary
3/28/2022 2:43 PM
Hi Jordan - The reviewer and I have been looking over the applicable regulations and can't seem to find a way to make a not-regulated de
When we reviewed this and gave it an initial determination of not-regulated, it was because the work … read more
Posted Correspondence
Papp, Jordan
3/25/2022 5:14 PM
Donnelly, Mary
3/25/2022 5:06 PM
That sounds like a good plan, Mary. Thank you for your work on this!
I will wait to hear back from you before I follow up with BJS.
Posted Correspondence
Hi Jordan -
First of all, my mistake on the letter - I should have removed the reference to 45 CFR 46 (rookie mistake) but it just didn't register with this
regulated determination. I've redone the letter and attached it here - hopefully tha… read more
Mueller-Smith Not-Regulated DOJ ref.pdf
40 items
page
1
of 4
https://errm.umich.edu/ERRM/sd/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[59F1AD8FC87F11EBC7812263AB56…
2/2
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2022-10-31 |
| File Created | 2022-10-27 |