field experiments and research collaborations with state and local justice agencies. At UCI, she has assisted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in the development and validation of a risk assessment tool as well as evaluations of targeted parole programs. She is also involved with a number of organizations evaluating the impact of Arts in Corrections programs on correctional institutions and offenders.
HOW THIS GUIDEBOOK IS ORGANIZED
Following this introductory chapter, this book is organized into four substantive chapters. Chapter 2, “Gaining Access to and Building Rapport with Correctional Populations,” presents tips for (a) identifying who grants access to correctional populations, (b) how to ask for permission to access correctional populations, (b) typical steps needed to obtain permission, (c) when to obtain access in conjunction with other research tasks, (d) convincing staff members to buy in to the research, (e) convincing the target population to participate, and (f) improving participation rates among offenders, correctional staff, and families of juvenile clients.
The third chapter, “The Types of Correctional Data That Can Be Collected,” describes (a) existing major national data sources, (b) using existing correctional administrative data, (c) pros and cons of collecting your own data (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations), (d) program evaluation, (e) collaborating with agencies for hybrid data collection, (f) how to measure recidivism, and (g) data analysis skills needed for different types of data gathering.
The fourth chapter, “Informed Consent Process and Research Ethics,” focuses on (a) institutional review board approval for different types of data gathering, (b) how to avoid harm to client participants, correctional staff, and researchers, (c) safety of the research team inside correctional facilities, (d) balancing participant benefits with researcher safety, (e) what to do if an inmate touches you, (f) what to do if you are accidentally locked inside a dorm alone with inmates, (g) safety when researching community samples, (h) how to avoid coercion of participants, (i) how to protect participants’ identities, (j) parental consent/assent: gaining permission and maintaining access to conduct research on juvenile correctional populations, (k) deception and disclosure, (e.g., ethics of deception, incomplete disclosure as an alternative to deception, and disclosing to participants other information related to the research), (l) ethics when reporting research findings, and (m) advice for applying for approval from university and correctional institutional review boards.
The fifth chapter, “Logistics of Doing Research with Correctional Populations,” discusses general tips for conducting research with clients and staff, many of which cut across many correctional populations (probation and parole, juvenile facilities, jails, and prisons). Highlights of this chapter include: (a) preparing and training researchers to collect data from correctional populations, (b) appropriate attire for men and women, (c) questions to discuss with correctional staff prior to data collection, (d) what to do when offenders ask inappropriate questions or behave inappropriately, (e) education level and literacy of offenders, (f) accommodating offenders’ education levels, (g) research with non-English-speaking participants, (h) correctional populations with special needs, (i) piloting the data collection instruments, (j) time-consuming setbacks and the importance of researcher flexibility, (k) importance of record keeping, (l) traveling to correctional facilities and populations, (m) where to conduct the research, and (n) other things to consider (e.g., minimizing exposure to communicable diseases, using the bathroom inside a correctional facility, making small talk, reporting unprofessional behavior, researchers coping with stress, and preventing participants from becoming distressed by the research). This chapter also contains special features on example interview questions for selecting research assistants, back translation and correctional settings, and researchers’ gender, race/ethnicity, age, and sexuality.
Throughout this guidebook, we deliberately use the word participant where possible to refer to participating correctional populations (e.g., correctional staff or offenders). Where it is inappropriate to say participant, we use the word offender when speaking generally about a variety of correctional populations (e.g., inmates, probationers, parolees), particularly in chapters that pertain to all correctional populations. Other terms are used in places and chapters that focus on more specific types of correctional populations. For example, the word inmate is used when specifically discussing jail and prison inmates, juvenile is used to refer to children in juvenile facilities, and probationers and parolees are used to identify those under correctional control in the community. We realize that different groups may prefer different terminology in some cases, but we do not use these terms to imply value judgments. Rather, we use them so that the cadence of the manuscript can vary and be more interesting.
1. Depending on the state, juvenile institutions can house youths beyond the age of 18, as long as they were sentenced as juveniles. For example, the upper age over which juvenile courts can maintain jurisdiction for disposition in California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Tennessee is 24. In contrast, in seven states, 18 years of age is the upper limit. In Mississippi, the upper age is 19, and in 31 states and Washington, DC, the upper age is 20. Florida and Vermont allow juveniles to be held until 21 while Kansas puts the upper age at 22. Still a few other states allow jurisdiction to continue until the disposition is complete (Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014).
2. While many jails offer services for inmates, there are many challenges with service delivery in an institutional setting, especially one in which clients (inmates) are present for short periods of time. For example, programs and services in jails and prisons must have consistent agency and personnel support, strong evaluation designs, funding, and adequate time to execute (Tims and Leukfield 1992).
CHAPTER TWO
Gaining Access to and Building Rapport with Correctional Populations
One of the first steps in any research project designed to study the criminal justice system in the field is to gain access to the agencies, courts, institutions, and populations necessary to conduct the study. Because of the legal aspects related to the justice system, researchers generally must obtain special permissions to be able to collect data on people working in and managed by the system. For example, one cannot just walk into a criminal justice agency and observe the way one might in a public setting such as a shopping mall, restaurant, or recreation area. In addition, people who work in the system often must gain permission from their superiors before they can answer questions or allow researchers to enter their agencies and institutions to collect data. Gaining access to correctional populations, as we discuss in this chapter, takes a lot of planning and effort.
WHY ACCESS TO CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IS OFTEN CHALLENGING
It is not unusual for correctional agencies to approach researchers rather than vice versa, especially in terms of evaluation research. In recent years, this has been true because granting agencies often require an evaluation component as a requirement for funding program delivery (Lane, Turner, and Flores 2004). Many correctional agencies do not have their own internal research units and rely on outside researchers to help. However, when researchers wish to initiate the partnership, they must navigate the process of gaining access to both correctional staff and populations. Prisoners are a protected research group to study, which often makes gaining access challenging (see chapter 4). Yet, there are other reasons why gaining access to correctional populations can be challenging.
First, correctional agencies, or specifically their leadership, may be leery of research. If agencies do not “need” research conducted for them, it may be tougher to convince them to allow outsiders inside their organizations. Many agency administrators generally might have trouble allowing outside scrutiny of the daily activities in their workplace, but correctional agencies often have the added burden of worrying about the public and political ramifications if someone “exposes” something inside that is not ideal. If news agencies pick up stories about problems in correctional institutions, leaders and staff may worry that the publicity will create bigger problems for them politically, with the public, and possibly even legally. This worry about
