Encountering Correctional Populations. Kathleen A. Fox
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,