sample pool was such that a small percentage of “practitioner” respondents (14 percent) would have been considered researchers if it had been possible to separate them out. They were affiliated with the target practitioner organizations but work as researchers in a government agency.
Quotas for the study were set proportional to the number of researchers and practitioners provided in the sample. A quota of 500 completed interviews had been set in advance, but a light excess was due to multiple respondents completing the survey at the same time. An initial email invitation was sent on November 19, 2008, and one reminder email was sent during the course of the data collection period. Excluding 212 email addresses that bounced back as undeliverable, the overall response rate for the Internet survey is 21 percent, with nearly equal response among researchers (21 percent) and practitioners (22 percent). In order to qualify for the survey, respondents had to have some level of familiarity with NIJ. Only 13 respondents did not qualify and were terminated from continuing the survey. In addition, 73 respondents dropped out of the survey midway; had these surveys been completed, the response rate would have been 23 percent.
Data from the online interviews were captured using Kinesis interviewing software. The data were cleaned and responses to open-ended questions were coded and classified by similar responses. Cross-tabulations of the data were prepared showing replies to all questions for the entire sample as well as by multiple subgroups, including researchers, practitioners, years in field, current position, type of contact with NIJ, years of association with NIJ, field of training, respondent age, and gender. Since the cross-tabulations contain more information than can be readily assimilated, it should be regarded as the database for the study, of which this appendix is a summary.
When a question was answered by a small number of respondents (30 or less), results are not as statistically reliable as those answered by larger groups, and results should be viewed with caution or for directional purposes only.
NIJ is well known to criminal justice researchers and practitioners. Most of those interviewed (70 percent) said that they are very familiar with NIJ; only 13 of the potential respondents were dropped because they were unfamiliar with NIJ. This high level of familiarity underscores the importance of NIJ to the field and lends credibility to the survey findings.
Familiarity with NIJ was higher among researchers than practitioners: