is often trial and error. One must figure out how a particular system works in this regard—often by asking a lot of questions of people they contact—to determine with whom they should speak to gain the permission to proceed. It may take many phone calls, e-mails, and/or visits before the correct connection is made. It may be that obtaining permission at the state level means that access is granted to all the facilities of interest. But it may also be true that the state-level permission only allows researchers the permission to ask to do research and the details must be worked out with each particular prison.
In our experience, it is also challenging to identify the person who has the authority to approve research in jails. Jails are typically administered locally and may vary widely in organizational structure and procedures. Across fourteen jails in the state of Florida, we received approval to conduct research from captains, colonels, and/or majors. In other jails or local systems, researchers may need to request permission from people with even more administrative power, such as undersheriffs or the sheriff. Figuring out who can approve the research in each jail can be challenging and time consuming. For example, in some situations the sheriff or other top leaders may want to approve all major decisions, while in other situations these leaders may trust those in leadership positions beneath them to handle their duties more independently (see the organizational flowchart for jails in Peak 2016).
While some jails may be approached regularly for research purposes (e.g., perhaps because they are housed in the same area as a university) or may participate in research often because the sheriff values it, in other areas jail staff may not have much experience working with outside researchers. Consequently, the person who takes the researcher’s first call may be unsure to whom to refer the researcher (which can also happen in prisons and other organizations). For example, when we initially called jails to request access for our Florida study, we were sometimes transferred and referred to others many times, often from one person to another to another. Often, each successive person to whom we spoke did not know what to tell us or whom to refer us to next. This required us to be patient and persistent in our efforts, which meant starting over with jails’ main operator to request a different route (i.e., asking for another person or administrative section of the jail). In such cases, it helped to do some background research on how the jail was organized administratively beforehand. In essence, it is important for researchers to be understanding, yet tireless, in their efforts to get to the right person, as long as research access has not been denied. If access is denied, researchers typically need to attempt gaining access at another jail.
Gaining Access to Parolees and Probationers
There may be multiple ways to access parolees, probationers, and/or the staff that work with them. One way is to access them via the probation or parole agency. However, as with incarcerated populations, this approach requires researchers to be especially careful with IRB protections, since this group also is under correctional control and could potentially face repercussions through the criminal justice system if researchers are not careful.
Depending on the locale, for access to probation officers or clientele, one will first need to determine how the agencies are administered in the location of interest. For example, in some places, probation agencies are administered locally (e.g., California and New York City), and so researchers will need to contact the chief or commissioner of the local probation agency, or at least this office, to start working to obtain access. In other states (e.g., Florida), probation is like parole in that the administration is at the state level, and so access will likely need to be granted at this level before gaining entry into the different offices throughout the state. In these latter cases, there may or may not be an additional step of gaining access in each individual (e.g., regional) office, through the regional or local managers. Parole typically is a state-level function, because it involves people returning from incarceration. Consequently, as with most departments of correction and state-level probation offices, researchers likely will need to obtain access through the state agency first, before going to branch offices. Because official agencies have client databases or lists, taking this approach to access may make sampling easier. For example, one may be able to randomly sample from the population of probation or parole clients. Or, researchers may be able to stratify the sample by location or probation office, if the agency is willing to give the researcher access to the list. If the interest is in studying the officers, a similar approach may be feasible in that one may be able to randomly sample officers or stratify the sample by officer characteristics.
Sometimes, because probationers and parolees are out in the community, researchers may be able to gain access to them without going through the formal criminal justice system. For example, sometimes community-based agencies that serve probation and parole populations will allow researchers access to their clients (e.g., homeless shelters, religious organizations, or nonprofits). In this case, the researcher will need to work with the individual provider to determine the best way to get permission to study the organization’s clients. This approach to gaining access may be easier if the formal criminal justice agency is not receptive to outside researchers, but it may preclude the ability to randomly sample and possibly to generalize if the agency granting access only serves a small or particular segment of the probationer or parolee population. That is, there are tradeoffs to each approach to gaining access, and researchers should carefully weigh these issues when deciding how best to go about studying these groups.
Gaining Access to Juvenile Populations
Like adults, juveniles in the justice system may be incarcerated or supervised in the community. Consequently, many of the tips mentioned above regarding how to access adults apply to juveniles—for example, one may need to contact state- or local-level agencies to gain access, depending on the area. However, incarcerated juveniles combine two vulnerable populations for IRB review—prisoners and youth. Specifically, researchers must take even more precautions when studying youths under correctional control. Thus, there may be even more footwork required to gain access to these populations. For example, researchers must generally get both parental consent and youth assent to study youths; meaning that agency permission may not be enough to be able to contact the juvenile clients directly. In some cases, parents may be willing to bring the youth to a research setting and sign consent forms at the time of data collection. In others, researchers will need to meet with the parent to describe the study or send home detailed information and have permission slips completed before contacting the youth. However, for incarcerated youths who are considered wards of the court, there may be “substitutes” for parental permission. For example, a judge may sign an approval, or this can sometimes be done by a participant advocate (someone who is not affiliated with the study or the institution who can assess the ability of the youth; see chapter 4 for information about juvenile parental consent). The key point here is that studying juveniles often requires another layer of gaining access—contacting the agency, obtaining consent from the parent, and then obtaining assent from the juvenile.
Regardless of who researchers work with to gain access, building rapport with the top agency personnel or gatekeepers is critical for building and maintaining positive professional relationships. The following are examples of ways researchers can build rapport with agencies:
•Open (and keep open) the lines of communication.
•Meet with administrators early in the project to discuss the measured outcomes and what constitutes “positive” versus “negative” findings.
•Before finalizing the survey/interview instruments, ask lead administrators responsible for approving the research and possibly other staff if they would like to include any questions (and include them if possible).
•Ask correctional administrators or staff to review the questions for wording and content. They may have suggestions for rewording some questions to get the same information but with less offensive language, should they see some. For example, researchers may be unaware of hidden operational or political issues that could arise if certain buzzwords are used in questions.
•Make as few requests as possible given
