COMPARABILITY ISSUES BETWEEN THE CJEE SURVEY AND THE CJEE EXTRACTS PROGRAMS In late 1980, the annual BJS Survey of Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment (CJEE Survey) was canceled for budgetary reasons. Beginning in 1980, BJS began extracting justice data from the on-going Census Bureau surveys and publishing them in the Justice Expenditure and Employment CJEE Extracts series, the only source that sums the three categories and displays them together. The U.S. Census Bureau surveys have traditionally provided limited data on the justice activities of police protection (since 1902) and corrections (since 1954), with slightly more data being collected for state governments and the largest local governments. Beginning with 1982, these surveys began collecting judicial and legal services data as a separate category, allowing the estimation of total justice expenditure and employment from the Census Bureau surveys. Adopting an alternate statistical source necessarily results in differences between the CJEE Survey and the CJEE Extracts data. These can be classified into five broad groups: -- differences in coverage -- differences in detail -- differences in sample design -- differences in survey procedures -- differences in operational definitions. These differences are described below. DIFFERENCES IN COVERAGE Federal government: For the CJEE Extracts series, only limited data are available on the justice activities of the federal government -- major totals for police protection, judicial and legal services, and corrections from the Budget of the United States Government and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. For 1971-79, the CJEE Survey collected federal data through a mail canvass that allowed the inclusion of some agencies' data not available separately through the source documents used for the CJEE Extracts series. State governments: For state governments, CJEE Extracts data are not available on the activities of universities, including campus police ($142 million in expenditure and 13,000 employees in 1978) and university-based medical examiners and legal aid clinics. No justice data are reported on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, last published in the 1978 CJEE Survey report. Local governments: Justice expenditure and employment data were available from the 1971-79 annual CJEE surveys for considerably more individual local jurisdictions than from the CJEE Extracts series, or from the periodic 1985, 1988, and 1990 CJEE surveys. By 1979, data were published for 349 large counties and 415 large cities. The CJEE Extracts products present data for only 68 large county governments and 49 large city governments. Data for about 800 local jurisdictions are available at www.census.gov/govs/estimate on the raw data files. DIFFERENCES IN DETAIL The CJEE surveys collected data separately for courts, prosecution and legal services, and public defense that are combined in a single category of judicial and legal services in the CJEE Extracts series. The CJEE surveys further separated court data into varying subfunctional categories depending on the type and size of government. No court subfunctional data are available in the CJEE Extracts series. The CJEE Survey subfunctions of courts are-- State governments: Appellate courts Courts of last resort Intermediate appellate courts Courts of general jurisdiction Courts of limited jurisdiction Miscellaneous Large county governments: Courts of general jurisdiction Courts of limited jurisdiction Miscellaneous. The CJEE Survey program also presented more subfunctional detail for corrections. In the CJEE Extracts, the only subfunctional detail is for state government correctional expenditure for institutions versus all other corrections. The CJEE Survey corrections subfunctions are-- State governments: Institutions for-- Men Women Juveniles Other/combined Corrections administration Probation and parole Miscellaneous Large county governments: Institutions for Juveniles Other/combined Probation and parole Miscellaneous Large city governments: Institutions Probation and parole Miscellaneous. The CJEE Survey program included a residual other category not available in the CJEE Extracts series. This category includes expenditure and employment data that are not elsewhere classified, that cut across more than one category, or that were not allocable to separate categories, such as operating state criminal justice planning agencies and crime commissions. Much of the data included in this category reflected block grants from the federal government. In the 1990 CJEE survey, this category accounted for 1.3% of total justice expenditure and less than 0.5% of employment and payroll. In the CJEE Extracts series, activities included in the CJEE Survey other category are classified under one of the three major categories wherever possible. The CJEE survey publications display expenditure categories more detailed than those in the CJEE Extracts products: -- Capital outlays are subdivided into equipment, construction, and purchase of land and existing structures in the CJEE Survey. These breakdowns are not available from the CJEE Extracts except for construction outlays for correctional activities of state and large local governments, and equipment and purchase of land and existing structures are combined in an other category. -- Intergovernmental expenditures are divided into payments to state and local governments in the CJEE Survey, which are combined in this publication. DIFFERENCES IN SAMPLE DESIGN Unlike the CJEE Survey, the sample used to produce the CJEE Extracts estimates of justice expenditure and employment data was not designed specifically to provide data on any particular function(s). The CJEE survey samples were larger than those used in the CJEE Extracts program. Approximately 12,000 general purpose local governments comprised the CJEE Survey samples, while the regular sample used for the Census Bureau's 1992 government finance and employment surveys had about 10,000 counties, cities, and townships. Subsequent sample cuts reduced the sample size further in the 1990s. DIFFERENCES IN SURVEY PROCEDURES No field visits to state and local governments were made specifically for the CJEE Extracts. In the CJEE surveys, specially trained field representatives visited every state government, the largest counties, and the largest municipalities to compile justice data from the governments' own records. No separate mail canvass forms were used for the CJEE Extracts. Each CJEE Survey had its own complement of questionnaires. The Census Bureau's regular surveys expend less effort to allocate data than the CJEE Survey. The CJEE Survey often relied on prorating the expenditure and employment of agencies or activities among justice activities (for example, sheriff'S offices, which often have police, judicial, and corrections functions) or between in-scope and out-of-scope activities (e.g., special police forces of nonjustice agencies). In cases where the regular surveys do allocate data, the allocation factors may not be identical to those used in the CJEE Survey. The regular surveys focus more on the governmental function than on the agency involved. For instance, expenditure may be classified by function (e.g., general control) rather than by agency (e.g., district attorney, formerly classified as a general control activity). In the CJEE Surveys, Census Bureau field representatives were trained to allocate that portion of general government services (e.g., building maintenance, computer services, and communications) attributable to justice activities. In the Census Bureau's regular finance and employment surveys, these items are more likely to be aggregated into miscellaneous categories. The Census Bureau's public employment survey is conducted mainly by mail canvass, including state governments and large local governments whose finances were compiled by Census Bureau staff in both the finance and CJEE Surveys. (Some state governments provide special employment tabulations for their agencies from which the necessary data are extracted by Census Bureau staff.) Compared to individual compilation, the mail canvass approach has some limitations: -- It limits the amount of instructions that can be provided. -- Respondents are less likely to separate police protection employment between sworn and nonsworn personnel. -- Juvenile detention facilities are less likely to be recorded in the corrections sector, while court-operated probation may be left in the judicial and legal sector. Some of these problems have abated since the 1980-81 finance and employment surveys by changes in the survey instruments and review procedures. DIFFERENCES IN OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS Although the CJEE Survey definitions are based largely on those used in the Census Bureau's governmental finances and employment statistics programs, some significant differences occur in how the definitions are operationally applied in the collection and classification of data between the CJEE Survey and CJEE Extracts. In reviewing these differences, one must bear in mind the purpose of each source. The functional approach of the CJEE Survey centered on a narrow range of just a portion of the activities of the country's governments. In comparison, the Census Bureau's governmental statistics program (which produces the CJEE Extracts data) is designed to produce general purpose, global statistics on the finances (including revenue, expenditure, indebtedness, and cash and security holdings) and employment of all governments, classified along broad functional lines. As described later, this global approach is sometimes at odds with a functional scope, such as the scope of the CJEE Survey. Before listing the differences in functional categories, certain general statements can be made. First, the regular Census Bureau programs often classify the entire expenditure and employment of a criminal justice agency or activity according to its major purpose, when some of the expenditures and employment may be partially excluded in a CJEE Survey. For instance, the regular surveys may classify all of a highway patrol as police protection, from which CJEE Survey excludes expenditures and employment related to driver licensing. Second, the regular programs generally do not require that the minor portion of a noncriminal justice agency allocated to a justice sector in a CJEE Survey be separately identified, such as park rangers of a parks department or a law library connected to a larger facility. Third, in the CJEE Surveys certain activities are classified for justice purposes only when performed by a justice agency, such as child support enforcement. Classification in the regular programs may be more variable. The differences between the Census Bureau's regular programs that produce the CJEE Extracts data and the CJEE Surveys result in a net effect on the data, with some differences forcing the data in one direction being offset by those moving the data in the opposite direction. The final effect depends on such factors as-- -- the organizational structure of a government (e.g., whether court clerical operations are handled by the court itself or a county clerk's office) -- the assignment of responsibility for nonjustice activities (e.g., whether driver licensing is assigned to a police or motor vehicle department) -- state and local laws (e.g., whether regular or special police have authority to make arrests on park property) -- the detail available in financial records (e.g., whether court probation expenditures are listed separately) -- the fiscal structure of a state (e.g., whether local employees belong to a state- or locally-administered retirement system). Some of the differences were narrowed during the intense review of the state and large local government data for the CJEE Extracts. Also, the regular surveys since 1980 have reduced the differences further (e.g., by revising instructions on survey forms), but the differences would still affect trend analyses of the CJEE Extracts data. As a service to users, the effect of each definitional difference is indicated with a plus sign (+), negative sign (-), or asterisk (*). The sign indicates the general direction toward which the difference tends to push the data in CJEE Extracts: (+) means the difference generally makes the CJEE Extracts data higher than in the CJEE Survey, (-) means that it makes the data lower, and (*) indicates that either effect is likely or not applicable. For example, exclusion of special police forces in the Census Bureau's regular programs' police protection category receives a minus sign (-) because it results in the CJEE Extracts data being lower compared to the CJEE Survey definition. Police protection (+) The regular Census Bureau programs include unsworn school crossing guards, parking meter-readers, and animal wardens if employed by a police agency, whom the CJEE Survey excluded unless they possessed general arrest powers. However, the expenditure and full-time equivalent employment for these are probably not substantial. (+) The regular programs include motor vehicle inspection and driver licensing activities of police agencies, which were excluded from the CJEE Survey. The effect of this difference would depend on each government's (primarily state) division of responsibility for those activities. (+) The police protection definition in the regular surveys includes "traffic control and traffic safety, including related traffic engineering activities (but not highway planning and engineering)," which were outside the scope of the CJEE Survey. The impact of including these activities would vary among governments. (+) In the regular employment mail survey, respondents are instructed to include constables, which the CJEE Survey may have classified as judicial employees in some states. (+) The judicial employees of sheriff offices (e.g., bailiffs) were frequently reported under police protection in the regular employment survey, because the data are gathered entirely by mail survey and the general questionnaire did not explicitly state to report them elsewhere. (Beginning in 1983 the special supplement form sent to sheriff offices in certain states did ask for a more detailed breakdown.) The CJEE Survey reported them under the judicial category. (-) The regular surveys generally do not include as police those special police forces that are organizationally part of a nonjustice agency, although the counties and cities on the finance survey mail panel were instructed to include them. These were picked up in the CJEE Survey if they possessed general arrest powers. The effect of this difference would vary according to the government involved, being on the whole greater for state governments than for localities. (The regular survey forms were revised in 1984 to include these police forces.) Judicial and legal services (+) Although not strictly a difference in definitions, the regular programs' judicial data may include probation (especially juvenile) when it is an unrecognizable part of the courts in source documents used to compile the data. This applies predominantly to the mail panel. (+) The regular program's definition of judicial activities includes "register of wills and similar probate functions," which may have been partly or entirely excluded by the CJEE Survey program in some states depending on whether it was a court activity (included) or an administrative activity (excluded). (-) The regular employment and finance programs generally would not include the judicial activities of local sheriff offices in the judicial category unless the records used separated out this activity. (This applies mostly to the smaller mail panel units. Beginning in 1983 the special supplement finance form sent to sheriff offices in certain States did ask for a more detailed breakdown.) In the CJEE Survey, much effort was made to allocate the activities of sheriff offices among the police protection, corrections, and judicial categories. Corrections (-) The regular programs do not include state hospitals for the criminally insane in the corrections category unless operated by a correctional agency. In the CJEE Survey, these were covered even if part of a mental health agency. (-) The scope of correctional facilities covered in the regular programs is not as broad as in the CJEE Survey. The CJEE Survey included every public institution identified by the biennial Census of Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities. This census lists a facility if it had at least one juvenile who was a committed or detained delinquent or status offender, the balance of its population consisting of dependent, neglected, abused, emotionally disturbed, or mentally retarded juveniles. In the regular programs, some of these facilities are classified as welfare institutions. (-) Until fiscal 1982, the finance survey mail forms for municipalities and towns with less than 300,000 population did not list probation and parole under the instructions for reporting corrections expenditure. This activity comprised 14% of all municipal corrections outlays in fiscal 1979 (the last year these data were collected separately for municipalities) and probably even less a proportion of the expenditure of smaller places. (*) The regular finance survey includes all the costs of prison industries other than those goods and services purchased by the government. The CJEE Survey included only the supervision costs. Finance categories (*) The regular finance survey's functional data include employer contributions for all employee benefits except to self-administered retirement systems, which are, in effect, interfund transfers. (State and local governments contributed $22.8 billion to all such retirement plans in fiscal 1994). In the CJEE Survey series, payments for such fringe benefits as employer contributions to retirement plans and for health, hospital, disability, and life insurances were excluded. This difference probably affects the data for state governments less than local ones because states administer employee retirement systems accounting for over 85% of the total membership in such plans (which often include local employees). Thus, in both the CJEE Survey and regular finance surveys, the data for most states exclude the single largest employee benefit. On the other hand, more members of police pension funds belong to locally administered systems than to state systems. (*) In the CJEE Survey, payments by states, counties, and municipalities to school districts, special districts, and the federal government were treated as direct expenditure rather than intergovernmental expenditure. Complicating this difference is that in the regular finance program, unusual or rare financial transactions are sometimes treated as impossible codes. For instance, payments to the federal government for boarding state prisoners fall under an impossible code category and would be classified as a miscellaneous intergovernmental expenditure, not corrections. The number of such transactions in the justice field, however, is probably quite small and was investigated during the special review procedures described elsewhere. For purposes of CJEE Extracts, payments to the federal government for justice activities are included with direct current expenditures for that function (usually corrections). (*) Compilation of the entire finances of a government is sometimes at odds with a study focusing on specific functions. For example, a global compilation necessarily deducts interagency reimbursements from an expenditure to avoid duplication. To illustrate, expenses of a county counsel may be shown in fiscal reports as being the net of reimbursements from other agencies for whom the agency provides legal advice. This is also a common occurrence with state correctional agencies (and not limited to prison industries). For the state governments and large cities and counties shown individually in CJEE Extracts products, a special effort was made to add back in these interagency reimbursements.