back to them (not individual data). Yet, it may be possible to supply aggregate data for the administrator’s particular agency if the number of participants there is large enough that the data would not identify particular individuals.
Figure 1. Recommended steps for gaining access to multiple facilities. Source: Fox, Zambrana and Lane (2011)
In many cases, once correctional agencies verbally agreed to approve the research, we requested a letter of cooperation on agency letterhead so we could include these letters with university IRB and funding applications (steps 3 and 4 in figure 1). It should be noted that sometimes it is necessary to apply for funding before or after step 4 (figure 1). We also offered to send correctional agencies a draft letter for this purpose that could be used or modified to save them time and effort, and we found that the agencies often used our exact template (see appendix A for a sample letter). This helped agency staff know what to say and improved efficiency and speed in getting these letters of cooperation. These letters are useful not only for the IRB, but also for dissertation and grant proposals to show readers that the project is well thought out and actually doable. After receiving approval from at least one agency, finalizing the instrument, and obtaining IRB approval, the last step in the access process is securing final approval from any additional agencies that one wants to study (step 5 in figure 1). However, sometimes the IRB will not approve a study without an agency giving a letter of approval, and the agency will not approve the project until it has an IRB approval. In situations like this, we have included in the agency approval letter that the agency approves contingent upon approval by the research organization.
CONVINCING STAFF MEMBERS TO BUY-IN TO THE RESEARCH
Once access to the correctional agency has been granted, the first group to gain buy-in from is staff. Often researchers will need some information from them, whether it is their case files for the participants or information about their own behaviors and attitudes. Often, in big projects like our evaluation of the SOCP, researchers must rely on staff to record data for them (typically, to complete extra forms beyond those required by the agency). There must be staff buy-in to ensure this happens. Practitioners and researchers often see research from very different perspectives, and good relationships ensure that researchers and practitioners are better able to work together toward a common goal. In fact, while conducting the SOCP evaluation, we witnessed another funded program in the state come to an almost complete impasse with their research team. At a conference, during a joint panel presentation, the tension and anger between them was palpable, and they were barely willing to speak to each other. The staff from the state agency that provided funds had to be much more hands on to help them work together to complete their longer-term research agreement. This increased the workload for people at the funding agency who were supposed to be monitoring multiple sites. Moreover, the difficulties clearly made the experience less enjoyable for all involved, pointing to the importance of preventing such problems if possible.
Given that building rapport with front-line staff members is key for them to buy-in to the research, we begin this section with specific tips that have worked for us to build and maintain rapport with correctional staff:
•Maintain open communication and ongoing discussions throughout the project, which allows researchers and staff to continually work out issues as they arise. In our projects, we regularly made efforts to ensure the relationship succeeded. As with many multiyear projects, things often changed and open and regular communication made adaptation easier. It also helped to have regular conversations at other times, when there were no issues (have dinner together, ride to meetings together, etc.), because we had broader perspectives on each other than just the daily activities of working on a research project. One of the authors had standing weekly meeting to discuss research-related issues on projects.
•Give practitioners specific information and guidance regarding what you would like from them each time you give a request. For example, it is better to say something like “Please review the survey questions to make sure the wording is appropriate and that we have included all relevant topics” instead of something like “Let me know what you think of the survey.”
•Be careful not to undermine staff by making comments or giving the perception that you are aligned too much with offenders (in an effort to gain rapport with participants). That is, try to remain and appear as neutral as possible during the research project. Make sure staff and administrators know you are there to learn from them, not judge them or take sides.
•Make clear that you will be honest in your findings, but that you are not involved in the project to get a specific result, and keep this promise. For example, if you find offenders have negative perceptions of how they are treated inside, assure them that you will report the findings fairly, maybe including perceptions of both offenders and staff. Of course, if you witness actual abuse, your IRB will determine whether researchers are mandated to report it, but this approach is very different from going into a setting with an agenda to find abuse.
•The practitioners and research team should have mutual respect for each other, for their roles, and for differing priorities and pressures, allowing for compromise and discussion about issues rather than both sides relentlessly standing their ground when opinions differ.
•Give line staff who are relied upon for continual submission of data positive reinforcement for completing research tasks (e.g., we used small tokens of appreciation such as a weekly sticker chart and candy or bags of chips for those who turned in all forms on time each month) rather than punishment for not doing it. We did not express frustration to staff when they failed to turn in forms, only continual reminders. We found that peer pressure—seeing who got stickers and candy—actually helped improve weekly submission of data forms (Lane, Turner, and Flores 2004).1
Regardless of whether staff are participants in the research, one of the most important lessons is that researchers should focus on the similarities between themselves and the staff rather than differences (e.g., especially not educational, expertise, and attitude differences, unless absolutely necessary to gain access). This helps increase comfort levels. Despite our own advanced degrees, staff members have a lot to teach us about what happens in the everyday world of the justice system. Researchers do not want to alienate staff. These staff often can grant researchers access to a wealth of data that would be off-limits without their connections. In addition, they may be more willing to collect additional data if they feel like they and the researchers are working together as a team on a project rather than having research forced on them. Of course, in some projects, researchers can collect all the data themselves. Yet, in others, without staff cooperation, much data will not exist if staff does not cooperate. Researchers cannot be with every staff member every day and must often rely upon these key people to be honest about their activities and to write them down.
Correctional staff are also critically important because they are often the gatekeepers to their client caseload. This is particularly critical in studies of juvenile correctional populations because juveniles are impressionable, given that they may be more likely than adults to look to the person managing their case for guidance on what to do. For example, in our SOCP study, we had the case manager (probation officer, mental health counselor, etc.) tell the youths that we would be contacting them to set up an interview. Case managers were supposed to just tell clients to expect to hear from our research team and the managers were not involved in recruitment specifically. However, they sometimes added their thoughts. Some of these case managers were very positive with the youths, indicating that it was no big deal or would be fun, for example. However, one probation officer regularly told his clients that we would be contacting them but then followed it with some version of “But you don’t have to do it” or “Don’t worry about it.” This happened
