Encountering Correctional Populations. Kathleen A. Fox
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