Frequently Asked Questions

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.

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.

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.

BJS has one current visiting fellow:

• Heather Warnken, J.D., LL.M., a visiting fellow working across BJS and the Office for Victims of Crime

Brief Biography and Project Description

Heather Warnken, J.D., LL.M.
Heather Warnken is a visiting fellow working across BJS and the Office for Victims of Crime in the first-ever fellowship designed to improve the use, dissemination, and translation of statistical data and social science findings for the crime victim assistance field. Prior to coming to BJS, she has served since 2011 as a legal policy associate at the Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at U.C. Berkeley School of Law. While at the Warren Institute, she led multidisciplinary projects using research and collaborative partnerships to bridge the gap between research, policy, and practice, including two statewide needs assessments on how to improve access to services and compensation for underserved victims of crime. She also worked with the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department to develop policies and procedures to improve outcomes for youth. She served as law clerk to the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Court of Appeals of Maryland, has provided pro bono direct legal services in domestic violence and child welfare-related matters, and was a 2015 Women's Foundation of California Criminal Justice Fellow. She holds an LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, a J.D. from Suffolk University Law School, and a B.A. from Johns Hopkins University.

(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

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., establishes the following categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm — any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n) who:

-- has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
-- is a fugitive from justice;
-- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
-- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
-- is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions);
-- has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
-- having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
-- is subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements;
-- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; or
-- is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
 

The NICS Improvement Act was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings.  The NICS Improvement Act seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds.  Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

The NICS is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).  A NICS check includes a check of three databases maintained by the FBI, including the:

• Interstate Identification Index (III), a database of criminal history record information,
• National Crime Information Center (NCIC) which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and arrest warrants, and
• NICS Index which includes the information contributed by federal and state agencies identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms who are not included in the III or NCIC, such as persons with a prohibiting mental health history or who are illegal or unlawful aliens.

If a NICS check identifies a person as falling within a prohibited category, the FBI advises the FFL that the transfer is "denied." Individuals can appeal denials and seek the correction of the information in the FBI databases by either applying to the FBI or the federal or state agency that contributed the information to the FBI.

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-180 ("NICS Improvement Act"), was signed into law by the President on January 8, 2008.  The NICS Improvement Act amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady Act") (Pub. L. 103-159), under which the Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).  The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact the NICS before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person for information on whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under state or federal law.

The NICS Improvement Act grant programs do not supplant NCHIP. Rather, the NICS Improvement Act grants are to be made in a manner "consistent with" and "in accordance with" NCHIP. The major difference from NCHIP is that the NICS Improvement Act grants may only be used for specified purposes related to achieving the completeness goals for the records directly related to NICS checks. In addition, the NICS Improvement Act authorizes a separate grant program for funding that is dedicated to be used by state courts systems, where most of the disposition information missing from the national repositories originates.

For further information on any of these topics, please email the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, U.S. Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is available to answer questions about whether existing state laws meet the standards for state relief from disability programs contemplated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. ATF is also available to provide technical assistance to states seeking to establish such programs under the Act. State questions and requests for assistance can be directed to ATF at [email protected] See also State Relief from Disabilities Program Criteria and Federal Relief From Disabilities Program Criteria.

For fiscal year 2009, $10 million has been appropriated. There are two conditions that each state must satisfy before being eligible to receive grants:

-- First, a state must provide to the Attorney General a "reasonable estimate," based on a methodology established by the Attorney General, of records subject to the Act's completeness requirements; and

-- Second, a state must certify, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the state has implemented a program permitting persons who have been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution to obtain relief from the firearms disabilities imposed by law as a result of such adjudication or commitment. This relief must be granted, in accordance with principles of due process, by a state court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The relief must be based on a finding that the circumstances of the disability and the person's record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

Before the enactment of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act, a person's adjudication as a mental defective or commitment to a mental institution was effectively a lifetime prohibition. Concerns were expressed to Congress about the permanence of this prohibitor and the life-long effect it would have on persons whose mental health adjudication or commitment records would be provided to the NICS under the Act's provisions. To address these concerns, the Act included not only provisions to require or promote the sharing of information about this disability for use by the NICS, but also provisions that require or authorize the establishment of federal and state programs that allow individuals to seek relief from the federal mental health firearms disability.

The NICS Improvement Act seeks to improve the information available to the NICS, so that the system can more accurately identify prohibited persons, by: 

-- Enhancing the Brady Act requirement that federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the NICS; and
-- Providing incentives to states to submit complete information to the Attorney General on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms through:
-- Authorizing new grant programs for state executive and judicial branch agencies to improve information sharing with NICS; and
-- Providing for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program penalties for states that do not comply with the Act's record completeness goals.

Ten million dollars has been appropriated for fiscal year 2009. Additionally, the Byrne grant penalties are deferred until 2011, are discretionary from 2011 to 2017, and become mandatory in 2018.

No. Only records of court or other lawful authority findings or orders that the meet the above ATF definition, not medical records or other details underlying the findings or orders, are entered in the NICS Index. The records entered in the NICS Index include only a name and other biographic identifiers to identify a person in this category.

When information about such adjudications and commitments is provided to the NICS, the FBI can deny firearms transactions to persons with disqualifying mental health histories, both in the state where the record was created and in other states to which the individual may have subsequently moved.

The information in the NICS is subject to the Privacy Act and the privacy of the information is protected in a number of ways. The only responses provided by the NICS to a request for a NICS check is "Proceed," "Denied" or "Unresolved." In cases of a "Denied" response, neither the general prohibiting category nor information about the specific event that places an individual in that prohibited category is provided to the FFL. The individual, however, is able to request information about the reason for the denial and can appeal the denial and seek to correct incomplete or inaccurate information in the system upon which the denial is based. 

In addition, as noted above, the information identifying mental health adjudications or commitments contributed by federal and state agencies is maintained in the NICS Index. The regulations governing the NICS limits the use of the NICS Index to: (1) checks under the Brady Act by FFLs of proposed firearms transferees; (2) checks by federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearms-related or explosives-related license or permit; and (3) requests by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in connection with civil or criminal law enforcement relating to the federal Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53). Checks of the NICS Index for general law enforcement purposes are not permitted under the regulations. See 28 CFR. 25.6(j).

Finally, the NICS Improvement Act requires the Attorney General to work with state and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish regulations and protocols specifically for protecting the privacy of information in the NICS relating to mental health. The Justice Department plans to engage in the required consultations on these regulations and protocols in the near future.

Grant opportunities available through the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs are listed on the OJP website at https://ojp.gov/funding/index.htm. In addition, all federal grant opportunities – including those sponsored by the Department of Justice - are listed with Grants.gov at https://www.grants.gov/.

JUSTSTATS is an email notifying subscribers of new crime and justice statistical materials as they become available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), FBI, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). To subscribe to JUSTSTATS, enter your name and email address into the "Stay Connected" box on our site.

BJS publications are available to view online for free and are not available in hardcopy. However, black and white photocopies of many BJS publications are available to order from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) website. Visit the OJP Publications section of the NCJRS site for an alphabetical listing of BJS publications and products that can be ordered. Simply select the  icon associated with the item you are interested in receiving. The item will then be placed in your NCJRS shopping cart and you can either continue shopping or submit your order. NCJRS serves as the clearinghouse for BJS and other Office of Justice Programs bureaus and offices.

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. These data are critical to federal, state, and local policymakers in combating crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and evenhanded.

The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics is now an online resource available on the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online site. This site contains the following features:

• a navigation map and search engine
• spreadsheet versions of the tables
• an archive of material from past Sourcebooks
• updated tables as new data arrive and are available

The most recent print edition available in print is the 2003 edition. To learn more about the Sourcebook, visit Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics site.

In many instances, spreadsheets or other files have been grouped and compressed to speed downloads. These archival files are presented in .zip format, which must be expanded to view and use. Commercial and free expanders are available for most platforms. Go to Info-ZIP for free, portable, high-quality versions of the Zip and UnZip compressor-archive utilities.
 

You can subscribe to BJS' JUSTSTATS email list to get electronic notices of new crime and justice statistical materials as they become available from—

• BJS
• FBI
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Once you subscribe, you will receive an email notification from JUSTSTATS when updated or new information becomes available.

You may also be interested in subscribing the JUSTINFO, a biweekly electronic newsletter available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), BJS' clearinghouse. To view past issues of JUSTINFO or to subscribe, visit the JUSTINFO Newsletter section of the NCJRS website.

From 1987 to 2004, the percentage of trial courts requiring judges to hold a law degree increased from 87% to 88% in limited jurisdiction courts, and from 44% to 52% in general jurisdiction courts. More states established pre-bench and continuing education requirements for both limited and general jurisdiction trial judges in 2004 than in 1993, the first year such data were available. 

From 1993 to 2004, the number of states with pre-bench education requirements for general jurisdiction judges increased from 23 to 30 and for limited jurisdiction judges, from 22 to 28. There was also a 23% increase in the number of states requiring general jurisdiction judges to continue enrolling in specific training courses during their tenure, and a 19% increase in the number of states requiring the same for limited jurisdiction judges.