DoubleTree Hotel
Rockville, Maryland
January 22 & 23, 1997

Peter Delany, D.S.W.
Deputy Chief, Services Research Branch
Division of Clinical and Services Research

Summary

Meeting Goals:

• Identify current barriers to effective research in the criminal justice system.
• Determine methods of removing existing barriers to research.
• Recommend more effective ways to implement research.

Meeting Process:

The agenda of this working meeting defined practical, methodological, and ethical issues in criminal justice research. As the discussion progressed, it became apparent that these issues were closely intertwined and difficult to categorize discretely. A background paper entitled Barriers to Studying Substance Abuse Programs in Correctional Settings, prepared and distributed prior to the meeting, guided the discussion.

Content:

Criminal justice constituencies were identified and described:

• Corrections should assure public safety and institutional security.
• Treatment should rehabilitate offenders and enhance public health.
• Funding agencies should provide funding for research and enhance public health and safety.
• Research should:
  • Determine its role as objective viewer or program advocate.
  • Establish appropriate boundaries.
  • Educate corrections and treatment staff on basic research principles.
  • Establish collaboration with correctional facilities and treatment providers.

Meeting participants identified and discussed the following research issues:

• Awareness issues, including:
  • Divergent institutional cultures
  • Entrenched bureaucracies
  • Changing correctional and social systems
  • Differing funding cycles among agencies
• Management issues, including:
  • Complicated environments in different communities
  • Institutional moves toward managed care and privatization
  • Competing rights and needs of research and corrections
  • Threats to program and research integrity

Meeting participants addressed the challenges confronting researchers at the planning and developmental stages of research. At the planning stage, the following practical suggestions were made:

• Learn the bureaucracy and philosophy of the criminal justice system being studied.
• Educate correctional personnel on research goals and establish a positive collaboration.
• Determine the role of the researcher and establish expectations and boundaries.
• Include formative or process evaluations and interim reports for use by corrections staff.

Methodological recommendations included:

• Determine the research question and appropriate design, carefully justifying the match.
• Consider using comparison rather than control groups.
• Reduce bias in sample selection.
• Address the utility of research to policy issues (of particular interest to practitioners).

Ethical considerations were addressed:

• Review OPRR regulations for protection of human subjects, particularly prisoners.
• Consider ethical use of experimental controls, use of enhanced compared to usual treatment.
• Take appropriate steps to maintain confidentiality.
• Determine ethical recruitment for waiting lists.

At the developmental stage of research, the following issues were discussed:

• Examine program integrity to determine whether the program description matches reality.
• Establish threshold criteria to ascertain whether a program is evaluable.
• Determine data integrity through educating administrators and line staff.
• Use the institution’s data sources when available; build on them when practical.
• Examine and/or pilot data sets early in the research process.

To promote ongoing collaboration, researchers need to:

• Think and speak in terms of public safety.
• Offer educational materials and technical assistance to administrative staff.
• Recommend cross-training of research, treatment, and correctional staff.

Subject tracking issues include:

• Attract, train, and retain competent field workers.
• Emphasize the safety of subjects and staff.
• Determine ethical issues surrounding possible coercion of follow-up subjects.
• Establish payment of research subjects for time spent in interviews.

Conclusion:

Meeting participants concluded that the term barriers to research was a misnomer. Challenges or perceived obstacles were deemed more appropriate descriptors. Ultimately, each of the challenges identified was viewed as an opportunity to enhance the research process in the criminal justice system.

Products and Follow-up:

The intended outcome of the meeting was a guidance paper targeted to various audiences, including researchers in correctional systems. Topics and an outline for the paper were determined prior to meeting adjournment.