Corrections_Today_May_June_2023_Vol.85_No.3

R esearch is an essential part of the criminal practices that aim to prevent crime, reduce recidivism, decrease violence and facilitate programs that lead to successful reentry. Much of the reported research comes from quantitative data collected from federal and state correctional agencies. Data collected by these agencies is often managed by inputting prisoner data upon admission, release, sanctions during incarceration, or the completion of prison programming and then analyzed by outside researchers. Not enough research is done where the researcher works directly with the offender. Access to institutions is the hurdle many researchers face, myself included. After many attempts at local federal facilities, the basic message was the research would create too much work for their staff. Having been an educational administrator in two federal facilities and understanding the value of free programming, I deduced the word “research” caused more of a concern for those wardens than the work it would entail. In the federal system, research projects are approved through their Central Office, but ultimately, the local warden has the final say on whether research can be conducted in their facility. When free program ming was offered in conjunction with the research design, and we were still rejected, my conclusion was wardens feared the research results would reflect nega tively on their facility more than justice arena. Corrections is no exception, and practitioners working there need evidence-based

Collecting data in a correctional setting Quantitive data is the unspoken standard within correctional research, understandably so because those holding the purse strings need to see the hard numbers for making decisions about funding, resources and safety. However, what is missing from these hard numbers are the voices of the prisoners, researchers and correctional workers. In this article, my research assistant and I would like to share insights we gained from a qualitative lens while conducting our study at the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP), where the warden was open to the research and the free programming we provided as part of the research design. The name of the approved research study that cleared both our institutional and the South Dakota Department of Corrections’ Institutional Review Board (IRB) is The Impact of Promoting Family Literacy Through a Parent Child Reading Program Among Incarcerated Parents and Their Children . We approached the study using a mixed method design wherein we collected quantitative data in the form of pre and post-surveys to measure the levels of literacy motivation and parent-child relationship percep tions. Additionally, we collected qualitative data through reflective journals we asked the study participants to keep. We also used interview data collected from literacy instruction and after participants recorded themselves reading a book to their children. The first recording session

used the book The Invisible String by Patrice Karst. This book describes the connected ness we can still have with loved ones even when separated by distance. Throughout the pro gram, books were mailed to the research participants’ children each month. The children could log into a Google Classroom and listen to the recording of a book their parent selected and read to them. The program ran through the summer months to encourage more reading while the children were outside a structured learn ing environment. (Roberson) 1

the de minimus about of work it would cause correctional staff. Having retired from the federal correctional system, my experi ence with federal wardens lends to that conclusion. Worrying about the research results is unfortunate because those facili ties and their prisoners missed out on free programming that allowed fathers to connect with their children through literacy. Regardless, the data and knowl edge gained could have assisted administrators in developing programming beneficial to all stakeholders.

→

Illustration opposite page: istock/mikkelwilliam; Child on book: istock/Jorm Sangsorn; Communication fibers: istock/olaser

Corrections Today May/June 2023— 39