COMPARABILITY ISSUES BETWEEN THE CJEE SURVEY AND THE CJEE
EXTRACTS PROGRAMS

In late 1980 the annual 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, which is the
only source that sums the three categories and displays them
together.

The 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 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, 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.
Whereas, by 1979 data were published for 349 large counties and
415 large cities (and available on magnetic tapes for all
counties regardless of size and for all cities over 10,000
population), the CJEE Extracts products present data for only 68
large county governments and 49 large city governments. Data for
about 800 local jurisdictions is available 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 the State
and large local governments, and there "equipment" and "purchase
of land and existing structures" are combined in an "other"
category.
-- Intergovernmental expenditures are divided into payments to
State governments and to local governments in the CJEE Survey,
which are combined in this publication.

DIFFERENCES IN SAMPLE DESIGN

Unlike 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 offices
which often have police, judicial, and corrections functions) or
between in-scope and out-of-scope activities (for example,
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 CJEE Survey.  The regular
surveys focus more on the governmental function than on the
agency involved.  For instance, expenditure may be classified by
function (for example, general control) rather than by agency
(for example, 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
(for example, 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 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
this country's governments.  In contrast, 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 CJEE Survey's.

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, and conversely,
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.

As seen in the text that follows, 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 (for example,
whether court clerical operations are handled by the court itself
or a county clerk's office)
-- the assignment of responsibility for nonjustice activities
(for example, whether driver licensing is assigned to a police or
motor vehicle department)
-- State and local laws (for example, whether regular or special
police have authority to make arrests on park property)
-- the detail available in financial records (for example,
whether court probation expenditures are listed separately)
-- the fiscal structure of a State (for example, 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 (for example, 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 (+), a 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 probably are 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 (bailiffs and so
forth) 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.  Again, 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.32  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.

