Читать книгу Encountering Correctional Populations - Kathleen A. Fox - Страница 10

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 exposure is a tough issue for researchers 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, figuring out how to get permission 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 that your requests usually result in time, work, and paperwork for staff.

•After the conclusion of the project, provide agencies with a report summarizing the findings from your research, and take into account their comments before sharing the results or report with a wider audience. This agreement may also be included in a memorandum of understanding that is agreed upon during the initial stages of the research (e.g., the approval process). It is often possible to reword statements to convey the same message but in a way that is less offensive to people working in the system. For example, one might say, “guidelines for how to manage clients were unclear” rather than “their leader was a terrible manager who gave no guidance to her staff.” Instead of altering what is said or infringing upon researcher’s freedom of speech, this advice is about considering how the message is conveyed to avoid unnecessarily damaging research relationships.

•In publications, acknowledge and thank the agencies and their staff for their participation (unless they prefer not to be identified).

•Send physical or electronic copies of final publications to relevant people in the agency as well as any other relevant leaders and line staff, especially when multiple agencies are involved in the research project or in service delivery. It may be most efficient to have a designated person in the administration who you keep updated on the status of the study and as someone who can help with issues as they arise.

HOW TO ASK FOR PERMISSION TO ACCESS CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS

Sometimes research requests must be made electronically through an agency’s website and other times it will be necessary to call agencies to request access. We highly recommend calling on the phone instead of, or in addition to, e-mailing because e-mails can easily be ignored or unreturned for prolonged periods of time. One useful approach is to send an e-mail first indicating that the researcher will follow up with a phone call in a few days, and then make sure to call within the noted time period. Depending upon the number of facilities from which a researcher will be requesting access, it may be necessary to repeat one’s request to conduct research multiple times. For example, given the large number of people with whom we spoke within each jail in our quest to gain access to each location, we found it helpful to have a script prepared (either memorized or read) to briefly introduce ourselves and the purpose of our request. See box 1 for the general verbiage we used when calling jails to request access to conduct research.

Having a typed template or bullet points of what to say helps, because it ensures the caller will not forget anything pertinent. In addition, if there are multiple people making calls, it ensures that they are at least generally saying the same things. Once connected to the correct person, it is useful to have a longer description of the study (e.g., based on points identified in the informed consent) to help initiate a conversation that can lead to a face-to-face meeting. Sometimes the appropriate contact person may ask researchers to e-mail information first for their perusal before the meeting. In this case, we recommend that researchers summarize their project in a single page for this initial contact because practitioners are often too busy to read the entire proposal. When meeting with gatekeepers, it is important to explain your background, your partnerships with other practitioners, and the products from these partnerships (e.g., bring one-page summaries and copies of technical reports you have prepared). Also in this meeting with gatekeepers, explain your project goals and ask about any goals of the practitioners (Garcia 2016).

TYPICAL STEPS NEEDED TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO ACCESS CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS

The correctional agency’s website or the appropriate person author­­ized to approve the research should provide instruction on next steps. Many correctional agencies require that researchers submit a number of documents when requesting access, such as:

•A written description of the project on university letterhead and/or a detailed proposal regarding specific information about the research purpose, goals, design, etc.

•Data collection instruments and informed consent forms

•University IRB approval, if this has already been obtained

When one of us was a doctoral student, a jail requested a recommendation letter from our faculty advisor, so there was evidence that someone at the university was supervising the project. Other agencies, like the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, may require a copy of the researcher’s driver’s license and curriculum vitae (see https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/faq/faq_external_research.html).

Many correctional agencies require that researchers and research assistants who will enter the facility be given and pass a criminal background check. In our experiences, the background check approval was usually obtained within two to three weeks, although one facility (a jail) took more than three months to get the results and allow us to begin the study. That is, researchers will need to plan for background check waiting periods in their projected study timelines (e.g., for dissertation or grant proposals) and discuss these requirements with agencies of interest up front. Although most facilities we worked with granted approval for the research without requiring a meeting with administrators, we believe it can be very helpful to schedule a meeting prior to data collection (or at least a conference call) to discuss logistics (see chapter 5 for a comprehensive list of questions to discuss with correctional staff prior to data collection). In addition to background checks, some facilities may also require health-related tests, such as tuberculosis testing (e.g., required by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) or flu shots (e.g., required in our current work with the Department of State Hospitals).

WHEN TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER RESEARCH TASKS

Gaining access to correctional populations can take a lot of time, especially if the research participants are minors and under correctional control. If relationships with correctional agencies are not already established prior to the study of interest, we recommend contacting the agencies at the time of idea and instrument creation to discuss the possibility of working with them, as well as discuss any topics the gatekeepers might like you to research for them. In our experience, writing good instruments is not only time consuming but very critical to obtaining methodologically sound results. Researchers may not want to spend time writing and finalizing instruments if the relevant agencies are not interested in participating and the instruments, therefore, may go unused. Yet, agencies are often more invested and willing to help if researchers are also measuring information they need or want.

Original data collection often requires the balancing of a variety of tasks, and the complexity increases when multiple agencies will be accessed. We recommend creating the instrumentation (e.g., survey or interview questions) and informed consent during the same time period that one is calling the facilities to obtain permission to access (steps 1 and 2 in figure 1). If the instrument is nearly complete when seeking agency or facility approval, then items that the practitioners request (if any) can easily be added before applying for university IRB approval. In many of our research projects, we added data collection items to our instruments that were of particular interest to our practitioner partners, even if the information was not specifically relevant to the main aim of the study. In some cases, we have adapted forms to collect additional data if new programming components were implemented after the study had commenced. For example, in our South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP), after the program had been running for a while, one staff member took a particular interest in developing job skills in the program’s juvenile clients. Consequently, we updated the contact form with a code for job skills. Although we did not have data on job skills training for all youth in the program, we presumably had it for those who received it once it was implemented. Yet, agency interest will vary. For example, in our Florida jail study, we invited administrators to include survey items, but none took us up on this offer. Of course, even if administrators’ questions are added to surveys or interviews, only aggregate results can be provided 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 before we were able to remind the youths of the reasons for the study and tell them ourselves about the voluntary nature of their participation (i.e., give them our own informed consent). In this particular situation, we asked the supervisor to ask the officer to approach it differently, but we were unable to change the situation. Consequently, we were able to complete very few interviews with youths on his particular caseload, which meant we had a lot of missing interview data from this group. The bottom line, though, is that this probation officer saw our study as a hassle (because his clients were in the control group and not receiving services) and did not buy-in to the value of the research. He remained hard to convince, although we did work to gain buy-in from the other probation officers in charge of the control group in general.

One way to increase staff buy-in is to listen to and address their concerns. This can be challenging because researchers often do the negotiating with higher-level administrators or heads of agencies, but must work directly with the line staff. Avoiding power struggles even within agencies can be delicate. As one example of how we worked with line staff in the SOCP study, we listened to staff express concern that they would have to complete additional forms that we created for data collection (e.g., contact forms indicating how often they contacted the youths as well as why and where) when they were already overwhelmed with work. While we continued to have the staff for the SOCP complete these forms to document staff contact with youth (see appendices B and C), we created an actual stamp with wooden handle and stamp pad for the control probation officers that allowed them to enter the data in their chronological notes in the youths’ files, and the research team then coded the information into contact sheets for data entry (see figure 2). The managers of their units also agreed to allow this information to serve as their records for the typical files, unless other relevant information needed to be added to it. That is, we made it as easy as we could to get the data from staff without imposing too much on their time or daily activities.

Figure 2. Contact stamp for staff with client caseloads in the control (routine probation) group in SOCP. Source: Authors

Gaining buy-in from peripheral agencies or staff (e.g., people who manage clients in the control group or who provide only a few services, such as contracted educational or drug services) may be tough in many projects. We recommend having initial meetings with the group to describe the importance of the study in detail and answer questions, but also maintaining regular, ongoing conversations with relevant staff to ensure all is still going well, monitor their “compliance,” quell any concerns, and so on. If there are not researchers on site, we recommend scheduling regular site visits to ensure research staff can monitor daily activities. It also helps at the outset to (1) agree to measure information that would help them or their own agency and (2) to give them regular feedback on the results. One group that often can understand the research value are agency leaders, because they can be convinced that data results can be useful for selling the program or garnering more resources. Sometimes, especially in paramilitary organizations like many corrections agencies, it is helpful to get buy-in from leaders so they can encourage compliance with the research among their staff. In more than one instance, we had to talk to managers to request they “help” get their staff to collect agreed-upon data, complete forms, follow the study protocol, and so forth.

Researchers conducting program evaluations may also need to convince correctional leaders and staff to use random assignment, which means to randomly assign offenders to experimental or control groups. Using random assignment means that subjects have an equal chance of being assigned to either group. Random assignment can occur by doing something simple, such as flipping a coin, or by using random number generators or a computer program with this capability.

Random assignment is considered the “gold standard” for evaluation research (Boruch 1997; Farrington 2003), but it can be difficult to get agencies or their staff to understand the need or to understand that random assignment is legal and ethical. That is, staff may want to use assessments or staff knowledge of client needs to determine who gets access to special programming. In our experience, for example, SOCP staff often wanted to use their personal knowledge about a youth or experience over time in the field to help determine which youths were assigned to which programming rather than rely on luck of the draw. That is, staff may be personally convinced that particular youths need a new or special program and want to bypass any procedure that would leave that assignment to chance. We have found that two points can be convincing to staff. First, random assignment is the fairest way to put youths into groups, if the program cannot serve all people who need the help it provides. It prevents favoritism and ensures all have an equal chance of being selected. Second, random assignment allows for the strongest results, meaning that agency leaders can put more faith in findings than if it were not in place. They can better sell the results, whatever they are, when asking for more funding, for example. Additionally, in some cases, if we had enough degrees of freedom, we allowed a small number of youths to be sent to the project each year (e.g., fewer than 10 percent) while bypassing the random assignment process. These youths, then, are just not to be analyzed for the study but are served by the program.

In our experiences collaborating with staff, we found that some were easier to work with than others, which we expect is typical of most correctional studies. It was important to get to know the personalities and preferences of both the facility and agency administrators and their staffs, because it helped ease the working relationship as we periodically arrived to conduct research. The key, though, was working within the constraints of the facility or agency while trying to maximize our ability to conduct rigorous research. In other words, we were very willing to compromise on details (e.g., times, dates, places to collect data, and managing other idiosyncrasies) of each facility and its staff as long as it did not jeopardize methodological rigor.

With some staff members and in some situations we could be more open about ourselves (e.g., our religious preferences or personal lives) and with others we felt we needed to be more guarded to encourage a smoother working relationship. In our Florida Faith and Community-Based Delinquency Treatment Initiative project, for example, religious beliefs were part of regular conversation among staff, because faith was such an integral part of the program. This meant we had to be especially attuned to our attitudes and how we expressed them, and we could not show judgment when they expressed religious or even political attitudes with which we disagreed.

In this faith project, we also had to be careful about how we responded to behaviors we personally thought were not appropriate. For example, in one facility, we regularly saw areas in physical disarray, such as unmade beds and clothes strewn around, youth jumping across furniture, and expired food (which together signaled to us a lack of good management), while in others important paperwork was not appropriately stored. In one facility, home addresses were listed on youths’ bedroom doors, which we thought might be a safety issue for the residents. This facility was later shut down for many problems. While we jotted issues such as these in our research notes, we did not express judgment or report these sorts of problems to their agency managers because we wanted to maintain the working relationships and understand the facilities as they were, not just as they were supposed to be. We allowed the quality assurance process within the agency more broadly to manage the agency’s rule enforcement for these issues. Of course, had we seen something abusive or illegal, we would have reported it to the appropriate authorities. If the research team sees something concerning, they should be encouraged to report it to the lead researcher or principal investigator, who may wish to call the university attorneys to inquire about the appropriate course of action (if any) for the researcher.

CONVINCING THE TARGET POPULATION TO PARTICIPATE

Once researchers have obtained agency permission to collect data and secured buy-in from the staff, the next challenge researchers face is often how to convince people to participate. The following is a list of specific tips that have worked for us to build and maintain rapport with participants:

•Make eye contact, be friendly, and treat participants with respect.

•Be careful to use nonjudgmental language, including body language (e.g., avoid crossing/folding arms across your body or making faces).

•Make it clear that you are there because you want to learn from them, that you know they have things they can teach you.

•Reassure them about the informed consent procedures regarding your research and remind them that findings will be reported in a way that does not identify them personally or get either officers or offenders in trouble, unless they threaten to hurt themselves or others.

•Create a comfortable research environment for participants (e.g., minimize distractions, ensure their privacy). Any research situations in which correctional officers appear to punish or negatively regard participants must be immediately terminated to protect participants. Then, the incident will need to be reported to the IRB as an adverse event.