Search results

To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), and 2006 (ICPSR 26602). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2013 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2013 census collected facility-level information on the number of confined and nonconfined inmates, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of confined inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, conviction and sentencing status, offense type, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, number of admissions and releases, program participation for nonconfined inmates, operating expenditures, and staff by occupational category.

To reduce respondent burden for the 2019 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), 2006 (ICPSR 26602), and 2013 (ICPSR 36128). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2019 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2019 census collected information on the number of confined inmates, number of persons supervised outside jail, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, number of inmates who were parole or probation violators, number of inmates by conviction status, number of inmates by felony or misdemeanor status, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, admissions and releases, number of staff employed by local jails, facility functions, and number of jails under court orders and consent decrees.

The 2019 census also included a module to collect data on the effects of the opioid epidemic on local jails and jail responses to the epidemic. Items included:

• Jail practices on opioid use disorder testing, screening, and treatment.
• Number of local jail admissions screened during June 2019.
• Number of positive screens.
• Number of admissions treated for opioid use disorder.
• Number of jail inmates treated for opioid withdrawal at midyear 2019.

The National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) is part of the BJS National Prison Rape Statistics Program to gather mandated data on the incidence of prevalence of sexual assault in juvenile facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). The Act requires a 10 percent sample of juvenile facilities to be listed by incidence of sexual assault. Data are collected directly from youth in a private setting using audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) technology with a touch-screen laptop and an audio feed to maximize inmate confidentiality and minimize literacy issues. The first year of collection includes nearly 200 juvenile facilities, with an estimated 10,000 completed interviews with youth.

The NSYC utilized two questionnaires, based on the age of the respondent. The Older Youth questionnaire was administered to youths ages 15 and older, and the Younger Youth questionnaire was administered to those 14 and younger. The survey was divided into five sections. Section A collected background information, such as details of admission to facility and demographics including education, height, weight, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and history of any forced sexual contact. Section B, Facility Perceptions and Victimization, included respondents' opinions of the facility and staff, any incidence of gang activity, and any injuries that had occurred. Section C, Sexual Activity Within Facility, captured the types of sexual contact that occurred and the circumstances of sexual contact. Section D, Description of Events with Youth, and Section E, Description of Events with Staff Member, focused on when and where the contact occurred, the race and gender of the other youths or staff members, if threats or coersion were involved, and outcomes, included whether or not the sexual contact was reported.

Other variables include debriefing questions about respondents' experiences completing the survey, interviewer observations, created variables to summarize victimization reports (due to the complicated routing in Section C), weight and stratification data, and administrative data about the facilities.

The National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) is part of the BJS National Prison Rape Statistics Program to gather mandated data on the incidence of prevalence of sexual assault in juvenile facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). The Act requires a 10 percent sample of juvenile facilities to be listed by incidence of sexual assault. Data are collected directly from youth in a private setting using audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) technology with a touch-screen laptop and an audio feed to maximize inmate confidentiality and minimize literacy issues. The NSYC-2 was administered to 8,707 youth in 326 state operated and locally or privately operated juvenile facilities within the United States.

The NSYC-2 utilized two questionnaires, based on the age of the respondent. The Older Youth questionnaire was administered to youths ages 15 and up, and the Younger Youth questionnaire was administered to those 14 and younger. The survey was divided into five sections. Section A collected background information, such as details of admission to facility and demographics including education, height, weight, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and history of any forced sexual contact. Section B, Facility Perceptions and Victimization, included respondents' opinions of the facility and staff, any incidence of gang activity, and any injuries that had occurred. Section C, Sexual Activity Within Facility, captured the types of sexual contact that occurred and the circumstances of sexual contact. Section D, Description of Event(s) with Youth, and Section E, Description of Event(s) with Staff, focused on when and where the contact occurred, the race and gender of the other youths or staff members, if threats or coercion were involved, and outcomes, including whether or not the sexual contact was reported.

Other variables include debriefing questions about respondents' experiences completing the survey, interviewer observations, created variables to summarize victimization reports (due to the complicated routing in Section C), weight and stratification data, and administrative data about the facilities.

The National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) is part of the BJS National Prison Rape Statistics Program to gather mandated data on the incidence of prevalence of sexual assault in juvenile facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). The Act requires a 10 percent sample of juvenile facilities to be listed by incidence of sexual assault. Data are collected directly from youth in a private setting using audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology with a touch-screen laptop and an audio feed to maximize inmate confidentiality and minimize literacy issues. The NSYC-3 was administered to 6,910 youth in 332 state operated and locally or privately operated juvenile facilities within the United States. Youth were randomly assigned to either a sexual victimization questionnaire (90%) or an alternative questionnaire (10%).

Sexual victimization questionnaire: Youth selected for this questionnaire received one of two versions, based on their age. The Older Youth questionnaire was administered to youths ages 15 and up, and the Younger Youth questionnaire was administered to those 14 and younger. The survey was divided into six sections. Section A collected background information, such as details of admission to facility and demographics including education, height, weight, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and history of any forced sexual contact. Section B, Facility Perceptions and Victimization, included respondents' opinions of the facility and staff, any incidence of gang activity, and any injuries that had occurred. Section C, Sexual Activity Within Facility, captured the types of sexual contact that occurred and the circumstances of sexual contact. Section D, Description of Event(s) with Youth, and Section E, Description of Event(s) with Staff, focused on when and where the contact occurred, the race and gender of the other youths or staff members, if threats or coercion were involved, and outcomes, including whether or not the sexual contact was reported. Section F collected additional information about the youth, such as disability and mental health conditions, and the facility, including living conditions and use of restrictive housing.

Alternative questionnaire: A random selection of youth were assigned to an alternative questionnaire to "mask" which questions an individual might have been asked. In addition to Sections A, B, and F from the sexual victimization questionnaire, this questionnaire included sections on facility living conditions, mental health, grievance procedures, substance use, treatment programs, living arrangements, youth education and aspirations, communication with family, and post-release plans.

A Facility Questionnaire (FQ) collected in-depth information on each sampled facility via an online questionnaire. Topics included number of facility staff by race/ethnicity, job category, age, and length of service; staff turnover/vacant positions; personnel screening; staff training; number of youth, admissions, and discharges; rated capacity (i.e., number of beds), occupancy, and crowding; youth disabilities; grievance process; special housing; and youth education on PREA.

Other variables in the datasets include debriefing questions about respondents' experiences completing the survey, interviewer observations, created variables to summarize victimization reports (due to the complex routing in Section C), weight and stratification data, and administrative data about the facilities.