Frequently Asked Questions

The 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (CJSSC) shows that about 26,950 tort, contact, and real property cases were disposed of by bench or jury trial in state courts of general jurisdiction nationwide. This amounts to a trial rate of approximately 3% for all general civil cases filed in 2005. Of the almost 27,000 trials, 68% were jury trials while in the remaining 32%, litigants waived their rights to a jury trial and had their cases heard before a judge only. See Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005.

The Prosecutors in State Courts statistical series began in 1990. The series focuses on the more than 2,300 state court prosecutors' offices in the nation that handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. Prosecutors across the nation, and individuals interested in acquiring a better understanding of state prosecutor operations extensively use the data on the number of staff, annual budget, criminal caseloads, and other office characteristics. See Prosecutors in State Courts, 2005, to read more about prosecutors in state courts in 2005.

In 2022, 85% of recruits completed basic training and 15% did not. Among the basic training outcomes measured, 5% of recruits did not complete basic training in 2022 because they voluntarily withdrew from their program, and 8% did not complete basic training for involuntary reasons (such as injury or illness, failure to qualify, or being withdrawn by their sponsoring agency). One percent did not complete for an unknown reason. Eighty-seven percent of male recruits completed basic training in 2022, compared to 81% of female recruits. 

Nonfatal firearm violence includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault victimizations in which the offender had, showed, or used a firearm.

Staffing and budget increases experienced by state court prosecutors' offices in the 1990s generally leveled off by 2001. Resources available to state court prosecutors' offices in 2005 were similar to those in 2001. In 2005 state court prosecutors' offices employed approximately 78,000 attorneys, investigators and support staff, had a median annual budget of $355,000, and closed about 250 or more felony cases.

BJS began to collect mortality data from state prisons, local jails, and local and state law enforcement agencies in 2000 in response to the Congressional enactment of the Death in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA, P.L. 106-297). Through its Mortality in Institutional Corrections (MCI) collection, BJS obtained data on deaths that occurred in the custody of local jails from 2000 to 2019 and state prisons from 2001 to 2019. Deaths that occurred in the process of arrest by law enforcement agencies were collected from 2003 to 2009, and a redesigned methodology was tested in 2015 and 2016.

Federal agencies were not included in the 2000 DICRA law, but BJS collected summary statistics on persons who died in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) through 2014. After the reauthorization of DICRA in 2013 (P.L. 113-242), which included a requirement to collect data from federal agencies, BJS began obtaining individual-level death data from the BOP, as well as from other federal agencies with law enforcement responsibilities.

The 2013 DICRA reauthorization expanded the original 2000 law to include additional enforcement and compliance requirements for local and state law enforcement agencies, jails, and prisons. As a federal statistical agency and consistent with its authorizing legislation, BJS may only use the data it collects or maintains under its authority for statistical purposes, which excludes enforcement and compliance activities. Consequently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that BJS's MCI collection did not meet the 2013 DICRA requirements. DOJ decided that it would be more appropriate for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to administer the program and collect mortality data for DOJ starting with quarter 1 (Q1) of fiscal year (FY) 2020 (October to December 2019). State departments of corrections (DOC), local jails, and law enforcement agencies will now report their death information on a quarterly basis to centralized state agencies, who will compile and submit this to BJA to comply with all applicable DICRA requirements. Federal agencies, including the BOP, will continue to report deaths that occur in their custody to BJS.

BJS created the Federal Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP) to collect the data required of federal law enforcement agencies. Federal law enforcement agencies are surveyed on an annual basis about deaths that fall under the scope of DCRA. For more information on FDCRP, please see Federal Law Enforcement Agency Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (FDCRP).

In 2021, about 59% of campus law enforcement agencies serving 4-year institutions with 1,000 or more students reported that they employed full-time sworn officers. Of these agencies, 95% authorized the use of handguns by their full-time sworn officers. A higher percentage of agencies serving public institutions (98%) than private institutions (89%) authorizing use.

Most campus law enforcement agencies performed security functions such as monitoring central alarms and surveillance cameras, along with building lockup and access control. The majority of agencies also provided safety escort services and dispatched calls for service. In most agencies, campus law enforcement is also responsible for traffic direction and control, parking enforcement, and traffic accident investigation.

This is a question the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) frequently receives and unfortunately cannot completely answer. BJS publishes reports in the Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties series every two to three years, providing the number of persons charged with a felony in a sample of the nation’s 75 most populous counties. In 2009, about 56,000 defendants were charged with a felony in those counties. See Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009.

In 2022, about 49.2 million persons age 16 or older had one or more contacts with police during the prior 12 months. An estimated 20.3 million experienced contact initiated by police, approximately 29.7 million initiated contact with police, and 6.7 million reported police contact as the result of a traffic accident. About 12.4 million persons reported being pulled over as the driver in a traffic stop, compared to about 15.6 million persons reporting a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity to police. See Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2022.

In 2022, persons ages 18 to 24 were more likely than persons in other age groups to experience any contact with police (25%). White residents (20%) experienced a higher rate of contact with police than black (16%), Hispanic (16%) or Asian (12%) residents in 2022.

A higher percentage of males (8%) than females (7%) experienced police-initiated contact in 2022.

White persons (20%) were more likely than black (16%), Hispanic (16%), or Asian (12%) persons to experience police contact.

White persons (8%) were more likely than black (7%), Hispanic (7%), or Asian persons (4%) to experience police-initiated contact.

White persons (13%) were more likely than black (9%), Hispanic (9%), or Asian persons (7%) to initiate contact with police.

Among all age groups measured, persons ages 18 to 24 were most likely to experience police-initiated contact (17%) or contact as the result of a traffic accident (5%).

During 2022, an estimated 49.2 million U.S. residents age 16 or older, or 19% of the population, had one or more contacts with police. This includes contacts initiated by the police, contacts initiated by residents, and traffic accidents. See Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2022.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) 2003 survey, state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel, employing 59% of officers nationwide, received nearly 27,000 citizen complaints about police use of force during 2002. About 8% of these force complaints were sustained; that is, there was sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action against the officer or officers. See Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Law Enforcement and Management Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) 2003 survey, local police departments operated about 243,000 cars, or 52 cars per 100 officers. Sheriffs’ offices operated 118,000 cars, or 66 per 100 officers; and the 49 primary state law enforcement agencies operated 49,000 cars, or 85 per 100 officers.

In 2005 estimated $6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages was awarded to plaintiffs who won in civil trials. The median amount awarded to plaintiff winners in all trial cases was $28,000. Contract trials garnered higher median awards ($35,000), compared to tort trials ($24,000). About 10% of plaintiffs who won in general civil trials were awarded over $250,000 in total damages while about 4% were awarded $1 million or more.

The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program produces annual national- and state-level data on the number of prisoners in state and federal prison facilities living with HIV. Findings are released in the HIV in Prisons and Jails series.

The NCVS measures violent and property crime experienced by victims in the United States. This includes—

• violent crimes of rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated or simple assault
• personal theft
• property crimes of burglary/trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

Routine supplements address identity theft, financial fraud, stalking, school crime, and contacts between the police and the public.

Applicants are limited to senior-level social science researchers and/or statisticians in the fields of statistics, survey methodology, mathematics, criminology, demography, economics, behavioral science, and other related fields. Applicants should have an established research record in their field and considerable expertise in their area of proposed research. Applicants must be willing to commit a substantial portion of their time (typically 6 to 18 months) to undertake analyses of existing BJS data and produce a report that both summarizes their analyses and meets BJS publication and data quality standards.

Fellowship applications are awarded based on the qualifications of the applicant and the intrinsic value of the proposed research. When evaluating proposed research, BJS typically uses the following criteria to weigh project cost against anticipated output:

• relevance of the research to the criminal justice field (research should address significant substantive issues facing the criminal justice system)
• methodological validity of the proposed plan
• rationale for analysis of BJS data (or BJS data in combination with other relevant local, state, or national data)
• degree of interest that BJS or BJS data users might have in the topic
• value relative to other ongoing research (the possibility of exploiting, expanding, or enhancing the value of other studies)
• validity of the application’s problem statement and whether the proposal is reasonable, understandable, and consistent with the current solicitation.

For more information about the selection process and specific requirements for applications, please review the annual solicitations on the BJS website. Interested applicants are encouraged to contact BJS prior to applying to discuss their research concepts.

Current projects include—

• researching issues related to the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) screening process and development of a modular crime incident report
• addressing repeat victimization measured by the NCVS
• developing weighting and record-linking methods to improve the use of National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) data for statistical purposes.

Past projects include—

• comparing crime and justice in England and the United States
• developing graphical and geographical methods for analyzing criminal justice data
• investigating how different police departments classify assaults and homicides for statistical purposes
• describing differences in punishment cross-nationally with special emphasis on the use of incarceration
• creating easy-to-use, incident-based police datasets for analysis of diverse topics related to crime.

The total award for a BJS visiting fellowship ranges from about $50,000 to $200,000, depending on the project requirements. Indirect costs may be allowable. BJS may award one or more BJS visiting fellows under a solicitation. All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law.

Fellowship appointments typically range from 6 to 18 months, but may extend beyond 18 months, depending on project requirements. Appointment terms are flexible and can be full-time, part-time, or split into multiple terms. Applicants should specify approximate dates for proposed projects.

No, there is flexibility regarding work and travel arrangements. BJS visiting fellows may, at their discretion, work on-site at BJS for the duration of their project or make occasional visits to accommodate their schedules. Travel expenses may be allowed to make site visits with other BJS or OJP staff, to attend conferences and meetings (both local and outside of the Washington Metropolitan Area), and to participate in training. While in Washington, fellows have the benefit of access to BJS staff and an office space as well as the bureau's rich array of datasets and software. Further, some BJS datasets can only be accessed on site.

Possible projects are identified in the solicitation for the fiscal year of the fellowship. In addition, applicants may want to contact BJS staff before submitting a proposal to identify a mutually agreeable project and discuss how to best focus their work to meet BJS research needs. Although not required, this early collaboration is very helpful in ensuring that the proposed project effectively addresses the complexities often encountered in BJS data. Please note, such a consultation does not guarantee, in any way, that an application will be chosen. Applicants who want to know if their area of expertise might contribute to the work at BJS should email [email protected].

Budgets submitted for fellowships may include—

• salary
• benefits, such as life, health, and disability insurance; state workers’ compensation; retirement plan; FICA; and a public transportation stipend that does not exceed $125.00 monthly (based on actual expenses)
• travel to make site visits with other BJS or OJP staff, to attend conferences and meetings (both local and outside of the Washington Metropolitan Area), and to participate in training, including per diem expenses within the limitation of federal regulations
• indirect costs, if the applicant has an indirect rate approval with the federal government.

Budgets may not include—

• computer hardware or software (these are provided while at BJS)
• books or other reference materials
• fees for dissemination of research
• per diem expenses for meals and incidentals when traveling to Washington, DC.

In addition, fellows have access to resources at BJS, including technical support and library facilities, in-house databases and computer facilities, a laptop computer or stationary workstation, and statistical software. Limited funds are available to accommodate specialized needs for software and hardware. Salaries are commensurate with qualifications and experience. Benefits, travel, and relocation support are negotiable.

BJS Visiting Fellows Program is announced in a solicitation made available on the Funding page.  The solicitation contains more information about the application deadline, where to send your application, specific application requirements, and the selection process.

If you are interested in the program or have additional questions, send an email to [email protected]. In the subject of the email specify, BJS Visiting Fellows Program.

(Affiliation at time of fellowship)

Megan Kurlychek, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Criminal Justice
University at Albany, SUNY
Project: Assessing the immediate and longer-term outcomes of juveniles processed and sentenced in adult courts

Professor Janet L. Lauritsen
Associate Professor
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice 
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Project: Examining the methodological history of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Professor David P. Farrington
Lecturer in Criminology at Cambridge University
Former President of the British Society of Criminology
President-elect of the American Society of Criminology
Project: Comparison of crime and justice in England and the U.S.

Professor Michael D. Maltz
Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois
Editor of Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Project: Development of graphical and geographical methods for analyzing criminal justice data

Professor James A. Fox
Dean of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University
Project: Investigating how different police departments classify assaults and homicides for statistical purposes

Professor James P. Lynch
Associate Professor
Department of Justice, Law and Society
American University
Project: Describing differences in punishment cross-nationally with special emphasis on the use of incarceration

Professor Roland J. Chilton
Department of Sociology
University of Massachusetts
Project: Create easy-to-use incident-based police datasets for analysis of diverse topics related to crime

KiDeuk Kim
Senior Research Associate
Justice Policy Center
The Urban Institute
Project: Examining methods to measure the recidivism of youthful offenders

Christopher Wildeman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
College of Human Ecology
Cornell University
Project: Reviewing variations in the incarceration-mortality relationship by state and institution type

Heather Warnken, J.D., LL.M.
Legal Policy Associate
Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy
U.C. Berkeley School of Law
Project: Improving the use, dissemination, and translation of statistical data and social science findings for the crime victim assistance field

The number and percentage of unique persons who are victims of violent crime (prevalence of violent crime) and the number and percentage of unique households that are victims of property crime (prevalence of property crime) can be found using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). See the Criminal Victimization series for prevalence rates by year. See A New Measure of Prevalence for the National Crime Victimization Survey for more information on the measurement of prevalence using the NCVS.

Organizations eligible to participate in the IPA Mobility Program include—

• state and local governments
• domestic colleges and universities that are accredited
• Indian tribal governments
• federally funded research and development centers
• other eligible organizations

Under the revised IPA Mobility Program regulations (5 CFR part 334), OJP is responsible for certifying the eligibility of “other organizations” for participation in the IPA Mobility Program.

Other eligible organizations include national, regional, state-wide, area-wide, or metropolitan organizations, with a representing member from—

• state or local governments
• associations of state or local public officials
• nonprofit organizations that, as one of their principal functions, provide services, such as professional advisory, research, educational, and developmental to governments or universities concerned with public management
• federally funded research and development centers.

An employee of a nonfederal organization must be employed by that organization in a career position for at least 90 days before entering into an IPA agreement. The Department of Justice requires that participants be U.S. citizens. Individuals excluded from participating include—

• federal, state, or local government employees serving under noncareer, excepted service, noncompetitive, time-limited, temporary, or term appointments
• elected federal, state, or local government officials
• members of the uniformed military services and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• students employed in research, graduate or teaching assistant positions, or similar temporary positions.

Interagency Personnel Agreement (IPA) participants are selected by the BJS director or a designee and are based on the employee’s qualifications and interests, BJS needs, and the mutual benefits to BJS and the organization employing the candidate.  IPA projects should focus on improving one or more of BJS’s statistical programs.  BJS’s statistical programs and data collections are described on the BJS website at https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collections. 

Recent BJS efforts to improve its statistical infrastructure have focused on survey design, the use of administrative records for statistical purposes, data quality assessments, and record linkage.  There is a wide range of opportunities for an IPA within these general areas.  For example, the survey design area includes sampling for continuous administration of establishment surveys and alternative sample designs for the National Crime Victimization Survey that address within-place explicit stratification to increase the number of victims who respond to the survey.

BJS is interested in developing survey instruments for new topical areas and aligning BJS’s surveys with other national survey instruments to facilitate comparisons. Within the area of using administrative records, BJS and the federal statistical system have interests in developing an administrative records analogue to the total survey error model for sample surveys. 

Examples of other areas of interest include—

• National Crime Victimization Survey—
  • -Small area estimation, using both sample data collected directly within states and model-based approaches
    -Interviewing juveniles and persons younger than age 12 on sensitive topics related to criminal victimization.
• Law enforcement statistics—
  • -Demonstrating the utility of incident-based crime statistics (such as the National Incident-Based Reporting System) for statistical, research, and evaluation purposes.
• Recidivism statistics—
  • -Assessing the quality of criminal history records (also known as records of arrest and prosecution, or RAP sheets) for completeness and operational and statistical uses
    -Imputation for item nonresponse
    -Research designs for comparing the recidivism outcomes for groups of offenders.
• Federal justice statistics—
  • -Assessing the quality of imputation and using the “dyad link” file in the Federal Justice Statistics Program.
• Indian country statistics—
  • -Designing and conducting surveys of criminal justice systems in Indian country with assistance from experts on Indian country issues.
• Juvenile justice statistics—
  • -Using existing BJS statistical program data to develop statistics on juvenile victims and offenders, and on contact of juveniles with adult criminal justice agencies.

Because the range of topics is potentially wide, individuals interested in considering an IPA arrangement should talk with BJS about their ideas. 

Interested applicants should discuss their ideas with BJS staff, in particular the Unit Chief responsible for a statistical program area.  Discussions can be facilitated by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “IPA” and a brief statement of interest.

BJS accepts, on an ongoing basis, ideas and concept papers for projects from potential applicants for an IPA mobility assignment. Individuals may submit concept papers to BJS at any time by emailing the documents to [email protected] with the subject line “IPA.” Papers will be routed to the appropriate BJS staff for follow-up. Concept papers should be no more than 3 pages in length and should discuss the nature of a proposed project. BJS will contact all persons who submit concept papers for IPAs. 

BJS may also solicit concept papers from individuals who have been identified as qualified for a particular project.

Applicants to the IPA Mobility Program will have to demonstrate that they have the requisite skills, capabilities, and experience to conduct a project under the IPA Mobility Program. The skill level should be commensurate with the scope, content, and focus of a project. Applicants may demonstrate skills and capabilities by submitting a resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Letters of reference may also be required, if a CV does not sufficiently demonstrate skills. 

When a potential candidate has been identified, BJS will contact the management of the candidate’s organization to confirm that an IPA mobility assignment is feasible and in the interests of the organization.

The projects performed under an IPA will focus on a specific BJS statistical program.  However, when several programs are closely related, a project may address issues common to several programs. 

The level of support is conditional on the nature of the project, skills, and expertise of the IPA. Under the IPA, BJS will provide support for salary, benefits, and travel costs associated with the project.

The duration of an IPA is variable, depending on the nature of the project. It may last up to 2 years, and an extension for an additional 2 years may be granted if the extension benefits both BJS and the IPA’s home host agency. An IPA can be full-time, part-time, or intermittent.

It is not necessary that an IPA relocated to the Washington, D.C., area. However, if an IPA is off-site, routine travel to BJS will be required to discuss the project and meet with BJS staff.  If an IPA is structured so that a person relocates to Washington, D.C., to work at BJS, BJS will not pay relocation expenses.

BJS periodically collects data on pregnancy at admission and maternal health services received since admission in its Survey of Prison Inmates and Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. BJS released a prison and jail report on this topic. BJS also publishes an annual report based on data collected from the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the First Step Act. Additionally, BJS conducted a study to assess the feasibility of collecting maternal health data at the state, federal, local, and tribal levels and released a report.

BJS does not hold copyrights on the suggested information; it may be freely distributed, copied, or reprinted. We encourage the appropriate citation: The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. If the data were acquired from a published report, please provide the report title, NCJ number, and release date. If acquired from the website, please provide the correct URL: https://bjs.ojp.gov/.

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in NCVS reports to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. A confidence interval around the estimate can be generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around an estimate is the estimate ± (the standard error X 1.96). In other words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population, 95% of the time the estimate would fall within that confidence interval. See the NCVS Methodology for an example.