March 26, 2023
This guide outlines best practices for protecting the autonomy, privacy, and rights of incarcerated individuals, including using ethics review boards and involving incarcerated individuals as co-researchers in data collection.
Jobs for the Future strives to use equitable and inclusive language in all of our published content. Sometimes we share materials like these prepared by other organizations whose language choices differ from our own. In those cases, we use their terms to preserve accuracy. See our Language Matters Guide to learn more about the terms we use when we’re writing about education and employment programs for people with records of arrests, conviction, or incarceration.
Data collection and analysis can be used to better understand the outcomes, successes, and challenges of education programs, including postsecondary education programs in prisons. Research has many potential benefits; however, marginalized populations, such as people who are incarcerated, have historically been vulnerable to exploitation in research. This brief highlights resources on best practices for researchers to protect the autonomy, privacy, and rights of individuals who are incarcerated, such as community-level ethics review boards and involving incarcerated individuals as co-researchers in the data collection process. The resources cover federal guidelines and protections, ethical data collection frameworks and methodologies, and reentry data collection.[1]
Guidelines for Conducting Meaningful Research in Jails
A brief article describing high-level guidelines for successfully proposing and conducting jail-based research. The author includes succinct suggestions for protecting the safety and security of people who are incarcerated, establishing relationships with relevant stakeholders, and designing methodologically sound studies. Some of the guidelines are also applicable to prison-based research.
Source: Reena Chakraborty, National Institute of Justice, November 2019
Prisoner Involvement in Research
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections guidance on federal regulations describing the protections for people who are incarcerated and involved as subjects in prison-related research. This guidance was last revised in 2004 and applies to research conducted or supported by HHS.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections, 2003
Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections webpage answering frequently asked questions about research involving people who are incarcerated. The webpage describes institutional review board (IRB) procedures for reviewing prison-based research proposals before data collection to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections
An academic book chapter describing the research principles of justice and respect for persons within the context of research on people who are incarcerated. The chapter provides a detailed history of the development of ethical research frameworks, including the Nuremburg Code and Belmont Report. The chapter highlights distributive justice as a practice for distributing the benefits and risks of the research equally to improve the welfare of people who are incarcerated.
An academic article reviewing the ethical complexities that researchers encounter when conducting qualitative research with people who are incarcerated. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of participant recruitment and data collection processes of 126 qualitative research studies conducted from 2005 to 2017 with people who are incarcerated. The article discusses ethical challenges associated with coercion risk, recruitment, access, privacy, and confidentiality and suggests strategies to mitigate these challenges.
Source: Penelope Abbott, Michelle DiGiacomo, Parker Magin, and Wendy Hu, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, October 2018
Case study providing guidance on engaging community members in research projects to reestablish trust with those who have historically been harmed in research and data collection. Using research on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan as an example, the article suggests establishing community ethics review boards led by community members to evaluate the ethics of any proposed data collection in addition to an IRB. This practice could be considered for research with people who are incarcerated to build trust between researchers and members of the community.
Source: Kent D. Key, AMA Journal of Ethics, October 2017
A journal article describing trauma-informed practices for conducting qualitative research with participants who are incarcerated. The author focuses on her experiences interviewing women who are incarcerated and techniques for understanding one’s own emotional reactions to their stories. The article discusses the importance of listening to the stories of incarcerated people, confronting personal prejudices and attitudes, and engaging in proactive self-care.
Source: Sibulelo Qhogwana, Emotion, Space and Society, February 2022
An article reviewing the history of data collection in prisons and describing how the data collected by federal and state prison systems have shaped our understanding of individuals who are incarcerated and can perpetuate bias. In contrast, community-sourced data collection, including data collected by individuals impacted by the system, can deepen our understanding of the causes and consequences of the prison system and the role of structural factors.
Source: Kaneesha R. Johnson, Harvard Data Science Review, July 2021
A resource brief advocating for the use of participatory research methods when conducting research related to prisons. The authors describe best practices for participatory research that are rooted in power sharing, empowered participation, and action. In participatory methods, researchers build relationships with participants who assume the role of “co-researchers”, researchers share knowledge of the research methodology and ethics, and both researchers and coresearchers are empowered to take actions that facilitate change. The brief also offers examples of research in prisons that use participatory methods.
Source: Lauren Farrell, Bethany Young, Janeen Buck Willison, & Michelle Fine, Prison Research and Innovation Initiative, April 2021
A resource brief discussing practices for collecting primary data on formerly incarcerated individuals who received reentry services. The authors suggest methods for designing reentry program evaluations, including data collection strategies and instruments. The appendix includes a compendium of survey items for primary data collection with formerly incarcerated individuals.
Source: Christine Lindquist and Sam Scaggs, RTI International and Center for Court Innovation, for the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2022
A resource brief describing how to collect personally identifiable information (PII) in reentry program operations and evaluation research. PII may be vital to reentry research, particularly for Second Chance Act grantees who are required to report recidivism performance metrics. The authors accessibly describe the legal and ethical requirements for collecting PII, including release of information agreements, informed consent, and human subjects research review procedures. They also offer suggestions for the secure storage and transmission of PII in a research context.
Source: Sam Scaggs and Christine Lindquist, RTI International and Center for Court Innovation, for the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2022
A thorough report highlighting the insights of people who have experienced incarceration in developing and implementing new measures of reentry success beyond recidivism rates. The report describes how a focus on using recidivism rates to measure reentry success ignores the structural issues that shape lives after release. It considers how progress in other domains such as education, health, family, and employment is important to the success of returning citizens. The report is available online as a free PDF.
Source: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022
A resource brief that explores the limitations of using recidivism rates as a measure of reentry program success and alternative measures that better capture the multiplicity of the aims of prison and jail reentry programs. The author suggests that researchers use outcome measures that are aligned with the specific aims and activities of a reentry program or service. For example, if a program is geared toward housing stability, researchers should measure housing status, housing type, and/or number and frequency of episodes of being unhoused. The brief also provides examples of three projects that are using multiple measures of participant well-being and stability.
Source: Janeen Buck Willison, RTI International and Center for Justice for Court Innovation, for the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, March 2023
Resources listed here provide guidance on conducting research in correctional facilities, but not all use preferred person-first language in discussing the correctional system (see https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/04/12/what-words-we-use-and-avoid-when-covering-people-and-incarceration).
How to Catalyze EdTech Deployments for People Who Are Incarcerated The following recommendations are steps that six sets of stakeholders—corrections leaders, postsecondary leaders, employers, solutions providers and technologists, investors, and policymakers—can take to catalyze the…
Vehicles for Change City: Halethorpe, Maryland Year Founded: 1999 (Vehicles for Change); 2016 (Vehicles for Change-VR) Website: https://www.vehiclesforchange.org/ Segment: Learning Content Provider Measures of Success Virtual reality training program reduces training time by 60%…