Johnson County jail survey hits 18% response rate; committee agrees to fund three focus groups

5851507 · July 3, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Researchers reported 707 completed responses (18%) to a county jail survey, leading the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee to forgo a second mailing, realize a $7,700 savings, and agree to use that money to fund three focus groups for deeper qualitative feedback.

Cassidy, a researcher with the Center for Social Science Innovation, told the Johnson County Board of Supervisors' Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee on July 3 that the county's jail survey has reached 707 completed responses, an 18% response rate, and recommended canceling a planned second mailing to save money.

The decision matters because the higher-than-expected response reduces survey costs and creates scope to add qualitative research. Committee members expressed support for shifting the $7,700 saved by canceling the second mailing toward conducting three focus groups to deepen understanding of the survey findings.

Cassidy said the survey was finalized May 9 and mailed May 22, with a postcard reminder about two weeks later and phone follow-up beginning June 20. She reported 707 completes across modes — about 500 by mail, 152 by web and roughly 30 longer-format completes — and said the project team will continue calling until about July 8 to close the field. "I think it indicates that this is a topic of interest to people," Cassidy said when asked whether the strong response signaled local engagement.

The research team presented two focus-group options: three groups at an estimated $8,900 or six groups at about $14,000. Each planned group would target roughly six participants, with recruitment drawing from roughly 90 survey respondents who indicated interest in follow-up discussion. Cassidy said smaller groups (about six people) allow deeper discussion and that the team would recruit one or two additional people for each group to allow for no-shows.

Committee members voiced support for using the savings for focus groups. Supervisor Robinson and several committee members said shifting saved funds to the smaller focus-group option was appropriate and more financially palatable; one committee member requested the updated cost estimates be circulated in writing. There was no formal recorded vote; the meeting transcript shows a consensus to proceed with three focus groups and for staff to provide updated cost estimates and a timeline to the board for any necessary budget adjustments.

The research team plans to deliver final proposals to the committee by Aug. 8 and to present results at the committee meeting scheduled for mid-August. Next steps identified in the meeting included circulating a written cost estimate for the selected focus-group option, finalizing recruitment materials, and, if needed, asking the Board of Supervisors to reallocate the saved mailing funds in the county budget process.