to manage. Even though the benefits of research should outweigh the risks, practitioners may still worry about what politically might happen if they give researchers too much access. In addition, program evaluations, in particular, can have the consequence of leading to the shutdown of programs if they show them to be ineffective, and leaders are often aware of this possibility (see Lane, Turner, and Flores 2004; Nyden and Wiewel 1992; Riger 2001). Consequently, it is very important that everyone involved in the project knows that study personnel are trustworthy. Of course, researchers have no control over decision makers regarding program delivery should decisions be made based on research findings to alter or discontinue a program, but researchers can be careful to assure administrators that their goal is to be objective and that they are not there with the expressed goal of harming the program and to follow through with these promises.
Second, correctional staff members may be leery of research. Individual correctional staff, whether in facilities or in community corrections agencies, may also fear that researchers are there to “expose” wrongdoing similar to an audit of their activity or similar to the way some investigative reporters might be. They also may be understandably nervous about telling someone about what they do or allowing themselves to be observed in action for fear of judgment. Consider what it is like to have even a peer come observe your own work (for example, ponder having an observer in the classroom taking notes on your own behavior and teaching style, especially over a period of time). It is hard to be comfortable and show one’s typical self. Consequently, it is important for researchers not only to take the time to get to know the “real” people being studied, if possible, but also to consider the context of concern they experience. Two ways to manage concern, as we mention below, are to allow administrators who are in charge of approving the research and maybe even other staff members to put a few study items of interest in data collection instruments (such as surveys or interviews) and continue to assure them that answers are confidential and only aggregate data will be reported. We have found that spending time in correctional settings over time can considerably increase trust, because we are open, honest, and follow the tips we mention in this book. In addition, as people get used to having researchers around, they tend to become less guarded as long as they have productive or positive experiences.
Finally, correctional clients may also be leery of researchers, and their reasons for concern may be different than the worries that correctional workers have about the research. One of the biggest concerns of offenders, for example, is that system actors will punish them (probation or parole revoked or be arrested again, even inside facilities) if crimes unknown to the police are exposed. Remember that institutional review boards (IRBs) will not allow researchers to conduct research that could compromise participants, including make their lives more difficult under correctional control or harm their chances at parole. Simply, the risks of the research cannot outweigh the benefits for the people we study. Even so, scholars often ask offenders about their self-reported crime while on the street or their infractions inside the facility. Just being asked these questions can cause stress for the respondents and lead them to worry about the consequences of being honest on survey or interview questions, despite reading the informed consent. Even in situations where the researcher is not asking about crime, offenders may be suspicious of the researcher’s motives or of what might happen with their responses. This is understandable, because many have been in positions of being judged for their behaviors or associations before, and they have a lot to lose if their personal information is shared—specifically, they may lose their freedom, either in the future or for a longer period of time. This is one of the primary reasons for ensuring we use standard IRB protections when conducting research and are extremely careful about ensuring these safeguards. Still, building and maintaining trust with both correctional staff and populations is of utmost importance.
In fact, building rapport is arguably one of the most important aspects of doing research with correctional staff and populations (see also Fox, Zambrana, and Lane 2011; Lane, Turner, and Flores 2004; Trulson, Marquart, and Mullings 2004). Researchers usually do not gain access to—or cooperation from—correctional populations without an immense amount of rapport building. This professional courtship among researchers, administrators, offenders, and correctional practitioners starts instantly—literally in the first second of meeting, people form lasting judgments about trustworthiness, competence, likability, aggressiveness, and attractiveness (Willis and Todorov 2006). And while first impressions with correctional administrators and participants are critical, it is also the long-term qualities that make for any successful partnership.
The following outlines specific tips for gaining access to correctional populations and building rapport with gatekeepers. While the discussion below will help researchers gain access and build rapport “from scratch,” we wish to underscore the importance of seeking out help from senior colleagues—even those you do not know well—who may already have connections with the population of interest. Garcia (2016) suggests reading colleagues’ vitas and requesting to meet over lunch or coffee to ask for help getting connected to gatekeepers. Other ways to meet practitioners and build partnerships as identified by Garcia (2016) include attending practitioner conferences, writing a blurb in practitioner publications about your research and how it can assist local practitioners, and volunteering to work on a small project for free to get one’s foot in the door.
WHO GRANTS ACCESS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AMONG CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS
Gaining access to correctional populations can be one of the most challenging and time-consuming aspects of a research project. As noted earlier, sometimes correctional agencies initiate contact with researchers to partner. For example, we have had an ongoing partnership with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and had fostered relationships with this organization over many years, so the agency approached us first to create the partnership for a faith-based study. Yet, approval from the agency’s own internal IRB was still necessary. Identifying who has the authority to approve research is among the first steps. We have also had longstanding relationships with many criminal justice and correctional agencies in California, which makes the initial startup of new projects easier than it might be otherwise.
Gaining Access to Prisons and Jails
Many prison systems have clear instructions outlining the necessary procedures for researchers who wish to request access to conduct research. This information may or may not be public, however. If a researcher is interested in conducting a study at a particular facility, it may help to start by contacting the leadership there. For example, in some prisons, the warden might be the first person to contact, and this person may designate a staff member to manage study details once permission is granted. Of course, there may be a number of “screeners” to talk to before gaining access to the warden (such as administrative assistants or assistant wardens). In other facilities, the warden may be the first contact, but the leaders at the state level may have the final say as to whether researchers may conduct the study. For example, years ago, one of our graduate students attempted to interview correctional officers and inmates about their experiences with informal social control in the prison. While the warden at a particular prison of interest was willing to participate, the state-level leaders denied the request, simply indicating that the study did not meet their needs. Even if access is granted, particular correctional systems may have their own IRBs for research, meaning that researchers will need to pass the study through both their own university IRBs and the department of corrections’ IRBs.
If permission must be obtained at the state level (not at the local facility), there may be some information on websites to lead researchers in the right direction. For example, the Florida Department of Corrections website has contact information for their Bureau of Research Data and Analysis (e.g., http://www.dc.state.fl.us/orginfo/research.html). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation also has a website that focuses on their research unit and initiatives (e.g., http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/). But, neither of these sites contains much detailed information for outside researchers to consult when considering a new project. In other words,
