An Evaluation of United States Department of Corrections’ Research Policies

Jesse Martinez-Kratz, MPH1; David Manning2; Alysse Wurcel, MD, MS3

1Schoolof Medicine, Tufts University
2Schoolof Arts and Sciences, Tufts University
3Department of Geographic Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Tufts Medical Center

Background/Objective: Results Results Cont.

The aim of the study is to assess if United States
Recruitment of Consent of Incarcerated Stipends/Payment of Stipends/Payment of External IRB

We verified the scoring checklist’s validity by conducting a pilot STATE

Alabama
Recruitment of Staff Incarcerated Peoples Consent of Staff Peoples Staff Incarcerated Peoples Requirements

Departments of Corrections (DOC) provide

Alaska

assessment on five randomly selected states. This was expanded in Arizona

Arkansas
California
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes

transparent and accessible information on initiating iterative cycles to ten, and then twenty randomly selected states. Upon
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

prison-based research, and how readily available

Florida No No No No No No No

confirmation of validity, the scoring metric was carried out for all fifty Georgia
Hawaii
Yes Yes No No No No No

this information in comparison between states.

Idaho No No No No No No No

State DOCs. Any uncertainty about scoring decisions (i.e. whether or not a Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No

Initiating research with incarcerated populations is criteria is met, partially met, or unmet) was settled through discussion
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

often complicated, and the processes and with another reviewer. The DOC evaluation found that only 12 States have
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

regulations for conducting carceral research vary

Michigan No Yes No Yes No No No

available phone numbers, and only 25 states have available emails to Minnesota
Mississippi
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

significantly by state. Restrictions are often left up to

Missouri No No Yes No Yes No No

contact, though many of each were inactive. Eleven states have seven Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

the interpretation of legal teams and prisoner

T a b le 1

indicators of high research guidance, while 19 states have websites

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico

administrators. This, paired with researchers’ fear of without any research guidance at all.
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

perpetuating past harm, has led to hesitance to

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Oklahoma
Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

research the experiences of incarcerated individuals, Rhode Island

South Carolina
South Dakota
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

especially evaluations of healthcare that Tennessee

Texas
Utah
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

incarcerated populations receive. This obfuscates Vermont

Virginia
Washington
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

examinations into health disparities that impact both

West Virginia No No No No No No No
Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wyoming

incarcerated persons and people who have lived Figure 1 (Left)—A choropleth map displaying the variability in policy indicators from State DOC websites, ranging

experience of incarceration. Therefore, we decided it from No DOC website to No DOC webpage to All Seven Policies on DOC Website. Generated with mapchart.net.

was critical to evaluate each U.S. DOCs’ research Table 1 (Left)—A table summarizing frequencies of policy inclusions, contact information, and the presence or
absence of other administrative items.

website for accessibility and heterogeneity between Table 2 (Above)—A detailed look at the absence or presence of seven policy items of interest on DOC websites for

states. each state.

Methods Conclusion
N=50
States with Web Page 48 (No Hawaii or Alaska)

We consulted key stakeholders to develop a series

States with Research Web Page
If no research webpage, research resources found through google search in first 25 results
33
11 (including Fl + NY)
We evaluated each U.S. DOC for accessibility and
of quality indicators for a scoring metric. We further No research web page or easily found info from google search 5 (Alabama + Louisiana) heterogeneity between states. The overall goal is to
developed this through literature review, and
Research Policies
Availability of Policies
N=33
provide a roadmap for future researchers on
Research Policies Downloadable but not listed on Website 26

indicators for the check list included: (1) existence

Research Policies/Procedures Directly Available on Website without Download
Reference to research policies but not linked to website/required separate search
7
1
potential obstacles and avenues working with
of an internet website discussion the DOC research
No reference to policies or procedures
Content of Policies (both direct and downloadable)
7
N=26 DOCs. Our evaluation found high heterogeneity
Recruitment of Staff 22

review process, (2) Phone number and email contact

Consent of Staff
Payment of Staff
24
14
between State DOC policies and guidance, without
listed on the website for questions, (3) Ability to get
Recruitment of People who are Incarcerated
Consent of People who are Incarcerated
23
24 clear demarcation along political attitudes. A
Payment of People who are Incarcerated 18

a phone call/email back from asking for more

External IRB requirements
Administrative/Operational Items
20
N=33 choropleth map was generated to display the
Research Review Committee 18 (12 mentioned, 6 unmentioned)

information, (4) Existence of a publicly available Contact Email available 25

spatial distribution of our evaluation, and the
DOC research review process, and (5) identification
Working Email
Email Replies Within 1 Week
24
19 frequency of quality indicators was represented
Contact Phone available 12

of an IRB overseeing research. Working Phone

Phone Replies Within 3 Weeks
11
6
graphically.