The state corrections industry in the United States expended $39 billion in 2003 (Hughes, 2006), an amount that exceeded the gross domestic product (GDP) of nearly two-thirds of all countries. Furthermore, over the past 20 years, corrections budgets have grown at an annual rate that far exceeds the growth in GDP of even the fastest growing countries. They are also, as a consequence of this rapid growth, consuming an ever growing share of state government expenditures (Hughes, 2006). Not surprising, some states, such as New Jersey, are looking for ways to control these costs while not appearing soft on crime. The vexing question facing many state legislatures is: How to reduce corrections costs without compromising public safety? Here is where the corrections industry (and state legislatures) might consider taking a page from the private sector management guide that encourages the use of empirical evidence to generate efficiencies. Principles of scientific management suggest that, without changing incarceration rates (preserving the tough on crime stance), the rate of growth in prison budgets could be reduced if prison administrations used evidence to adapt their practices in managing and releasing inmates. The challenge with this approach to cost saving becomes one of developing an evidence base and then using it to change practice.

Optimizing how activities are done within an organization is referred to as best practice. The notion of best practice is hardly new. Indeed, this principle was first developed in 1911 by Frederick Taylor in a monograph entitled Principles of Scientific Management. In laying out the principles of scientific management, Taylor identified the scientific study of tasks as the process by which best practice (‘the one best way’) would be identified (Kanigel, 1997). A scientific process of study, culminating in evidence, was expected, at least in theory, to stimulate the natural evolution of efficiency within organizations as the best way replaces conventional (an inferior) practice.

For scientific management principles to be practiced within the correctional industry, the gates of prison must be open to scientific inquiry. While this is a necessary condition, other conditions must also be present to stimulate evidence production and change. This paper explores how corrections-academic partnerships, through communities of practice, can facilitate the growth of the evidence base and what conditions foster and hinder these partnerships. A case study approach is used to explore these issues, drawing on the five-year collaboration experience between an academic research center and a department of corrections. The paper concludes with recommendations for getting to successful and efficient practices within organizations through research generated within communities of practice.

Corrections-Academic Partnerships as a Community of Practice

Much has been written about the benefits derived from collaboration within and across organizations (Drucker, Kanter, & Graham, 2004; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; Poyago-Theotoky, 1997; Weber, 1957). More recently, however, emphasis has been on organizing collaboration efforts into communities of practice (CoP). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), communities of practice bring together people (organizations) for the purpose of exchanging information about their related experiences (practice) in an effort to learn and enhance their capacities. More specifically, those with lesser experience and expertise learn from those who are more experienced and expert in their areas of interest, while those who are more experienced learn about the needs, problems, and variation within their field from those with less experience. It is through the social trade of information that people with common concerns yet affiliated with different organizations build their capacity to act and innovate (i.e., develop best practices) within their spheres of influence.

Central to these communities is the notion of practice. Practice refers to how a process or activity is done or approached that can be shared among people engaged in or concerned about the process or activity. A community is formed when people (e.g., practitioners, policy makers, researchers, consumers) involved “in the execution of real work” come together to learn from each other through a social process of creating, sharing, organizing, revising, and using knowledge to enhance practice. The members of these communities have the potential to become change agents; they use the knowledge gained through the practice community to problem solve, generate and diffuse ideas, share and learn about best practices, and learn about research evidence and new innovations. The goal of these communities is to advance a specific knowledge base and to diffuse it, effectively and efficiently, through a social (knowledge) network. The ability of communities of practice to enhance organizational performance has driven their rapid diffusion and strong presence in the private sector. Businesses—top 500 firms as well as smaller firms—use CoP as a venue for building and diffusing information within and across companies (Hildreth & Kimble, 2004; Day, Schoemaker, & Gunther, 2000).

Over the past five years, the Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research (referred to henceforth as the Center) and the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) have developed a local community of practice to facilitate the creation, adaptation, and diffusion of knowledge in the area of practice related to how people with mental illness in contact with the CJ system are engaged, treated, and affected by their interactions with CJ system. A local CoP relies primarily on face-to-face communication and is most appropriate in situations where people are co-located in geographic areas. Local CoPs are less useful in situations where people are geographically dispersed across large areas. Virtual communities of practice are increasingly relying on electronic communication venues such as e-mail, on-line discussions, and web-based technologies for information sharing. Indeed, the reliance of “virtual venues” has stimulated the development of software that supports web-based communities of practice, which provides opportunities for local CoPs to collaborate virtually and, as such, shrinking geographical distance and expanding opportunities to learn.

Communities of practice, like the one between the Center and NJDOC, evolve through repeat social experiences. The first experience is critical to starting or stopping the process. It is for this reason that we first explore the conditions that are elemental to the onset and outcome of the first experience. At its core, getting collaboration activated requires a supportive environment, which is comprised largely of intangibles, such as compatible values and trust, but which can also be instigated or reinforced by external pressures.

Conditions prior to the first experience. A supportive internal environment for research-based CoPs requires, first and foremost, that the leadership (preferably at the highest level) within the practice organization (NJDOC) values research and the expertise of researchers. The leader of the organization, in particular, must believe that evidence resulting from an objective, systematic process is useful to the advancement of the agency’s mission. It is only then that the people within the practice organization will allocate time and effort to work with researchers (i.e., outsiders). In New Jersey, the NJDOC administration supported establishing an infrastructure to support evidence-based policy and practice. The values of the Commissioner translated into organizational mandates for rigorous empirical evidence, which motivated grant writing within the organization and discussions with researchers at the state university.

Parallel to the leadership within the practice organization, comparable valuation of the practice and expertise of practitioners is needed before researchers will be receptive to the opportunity to collaborate with practice organizations. Researchers must believe that the practice of the organization has significance in terms of its social or human consequences and that evidence related to these practices has the potential to inform practice, policy, and research communities. They must see something of (personal or social) value emanating from collaboration, which then motivates their willingness to capitalize on supportive environments within practice organizations. In the case of the Center, its mission was to study the practices and policies that influenced the welfare of people with mental illness within the criminal justice setting. Given that a majority of people inside prison have some mental health problem (James & Glaze, 2006), the prison setting is a significant laboratory for the Center’s research.

The mission and the infrastructure of the Center provided organizational legitimacy and a mechanism by which contacts could be made with various units of the NJDOC. The Center was able to signal an interest in both formal and informal ways. For example, key NJDOC officials were invited to the Center’s Open House and they were also included on the Center’s Advisory Board. Following these initial overtures, the Center Director met with the Commissioner and other key personnel (such as the Director of Planning and Policy) at NJDOC to explore partnership opportunities. These meetings provided a venue for the NJDOC and the Center to reveal their mutual interests and to stimulate discussions regarding possible collaborations.

Personal meetings between respective leaders of these organizations facilitate their willingness to trust each other. The researcher must trust that the public official values the research process and will provide access to data and allow the necessary freedom to analyze these data using the scientific process. Likewise, the public official, representing the agency, must trust that the researcher will analyze the data objectively and will present the data in ways that are sensitive to the agency’s service mandate and political position. Both parties to this relationship are taking a risk by proffering trust, but without it, the developmental process of the local CoP will not commence.

The trustworthiness of the partner can be revealed in several ways prior to direct experience. First, the reputation of the leader and the organization can be researched. Vetting, common to the political appointment process, is practiced prior to initiating research collaboration. Risk-averse researchers and practitioners use their social networks to gather information about their prospective research partners to ensure that the parties are likely to act in ways that are consistent with their respective expectations and concerns. Particularly, from the practitioners’ perspective, they are interested in the researcher’s reputation as a respected scientist (i.e., that the evidence will be rigorous enough to be useful) and as a responsible partner (i.e., that evidence is completed in a timely fashion and is responsibly, not sensationally, reported). Likewise, researchers are interested in the extent to which agencies are known for facilitating the collection and objective analysis of data, as well as the timely release of evidence. In the absence of prior experience, reputations matter. They can chill or warm fledgling partnerships between researchers and practitioners.

Second, prior to direct experience, prospective partners can demonstrate good faith by sharing resources and opportunities. Sharing resources indicates a commitment to the joint venture, and also shows commitment to the process of working together. Prospective partners come to the relationship with different resource endowments. The Center research team, for example, brought a knowledge base regarding research skills and expertise, computing capabilities, grant writing skills, and funding to support analysis. The NJDOC has access to the offender populations, data about the population, grant-writing skills, clinical experience and expertise in treating and managing offenders, and funding. Prior to its initial project with the NJDOC, the Center worked with the NJDOC to write several grant applications. The Center staff provided literature reviews and designed the research components of grant applications. Also, during this time, both the Commissioner and the Center Director accepted invitations from the other to speak at high-profile forums. Each, by accepting these invitations, was revealing publicly their willingness and interest to work together, and was also signaling to their respective agencies that working together was a priority of the leadership.

Conditions outside practice agencies can encourage research even among agencies lacking internal predispositions. Political and social conditions within the state may culminate in pressures upon even risk-averse public officials to partner with researchers. For example, after the molestation and murder of Megan Kanka in 1994, New Jersey policymakers found themselves without any evidence on the prison-based sex offender treatment program at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC) that provides specific treatment and incapacitation of sexual offenders and predators. This gap in knowledge combined with the public outrage motivated legislation that required treatment and community supervision of sex offenders, as well as mandated an evaluation of the performance of the ADTC. Similarly, in response to a class action suit regarding the inadequate treatment for mental illness within the NJDOC, a settlement was negotiated whereby the NJDOC would provide appropriate treatment and reentry planning for people with mental illness inside prisons under the auspices of the NJDOC. In an effort to comply with the reentry planning part of the settlement, the NJDOC needed evidence on the need for and cost of reentry planning for people with mental illness to be released annually from prisons under the auspices of the NJDOC. Again, there was an external demand for evidence.

Furthermore, incentives emanating from the federal government also have been encouraging states to establish cross-system partnerships. For example, the Office of Justice Programs, with earmarked funding from federal legislation to expand programs focusing on persons with mental illness in the criminal justice (e.g., America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project [P.L. 106-515] and the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act), requires that applicants establish cross-system collaborations, including those with researchers, as part of their grant applications.

In summary, the motivation for public agencies to work together with researchers comes from inside the agency, as well as from outside the agency (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). Political and social conditions can push the agency towards these collaborative relationships but they may still move slowly if the internal environment of the agency is resistant to evidence-based knowledge and the independence expected of researchers.

The first direct experience. This is best thought of as the fish bowl experience, because all eyes are focused on how partners treat each other during the process and whether the findings facilitate the goals of the respective partners and are distributed responsibly to interested parties. The first direct experience for the Center and NJDOC was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for a study of the need for and cost of reentry planning for people with mental illness leaving prison. The parties to this MOA were the Center, the NJDOC, the NJ State Parole Board, and the NJ Division of Mental Health Services. Each of the parties contributed a portion of the funding for the project and practice partners provided access to data and subject populations. Also, the MOA structured the responsibilities among the different partners and stipulated the composition of a multi-agency advisory board, its oversight responsibilities, and meeting schedule.

For the partners, the MOA established a mechanism for monitoring the process of working together. During the process of research, agency staff and researchers had an opportunity to develop an internal social network, the foundation of a community of practice. The Center Director, for example, spent several days traveling with an Operations Director of the NJDOC. He introduced her to the key administrative staff at the prisons and central office. Also, when collecting data, the Center Director visited with the staff of the Information Technology Office and inquired about the data, its ability to be merged with other data sources, and how the agency typically uses its data. Having a face presence on site and at many different levels establishes layers of connections and rapport, which later facilitates the social trading of information and the formation of the social network.

These social connections can be strengthened through the process of collecting, analyzing, and presenting the data. Researchers and practitioners demonstrate, through action and word, the importance of the other partners. Effective communication was practiced as part of the MOA project. Representatives of the NJDOC communicated regularly with the researchers by email and telephone. Minutes were routinely taken at group meetings and shared with all participants. Researchers at the Center instituted the one-page memo, which was sent by email to key staff at the NJDOC (and other partners). This memo serves a variety of functions. In some cases, it functions to “update” the partners of their progress, while in other cases it “documents” a request for assistance or “alerts” the staff to a concern or problem. Through these memos, the researchers indicate whether they are on target to make their deadlines and if not, a “paper trail” exists indicating the source and history of the problem. Practiced routinely, effective communication minimizes the likelihood of any surprises—such as a late deliverable. Trust grows within the relationship, when each party learns, through repeat social interactions, that the other party can be trusted to deliver useful information efficiently and professionally and in a timely and appropriate fashion.

Engendering a reputation as a good research partner also requires giving back what is valued and useful. First and foremost, the researcher’s final deliverable must address the issues that motivated the collaboration. In the case of the Center-NJDOC’s first collaboration, it culminated in a final report containing robust estimates of the number of people with mental illness (by risk category) released annually from NJ prisons and the cost of a multi-tiered reentry plan for them. This report, presented to the partners at a formal meeting, was submitted to the NJ Legislature for action and culminated in four peer-reviewed publications (a stated priority of the NJDOC Commissioner).

Another potential outcome of the collaboration is goodwill – the glue of local communities of practice. People are the foundation of social infrastructures. Whether people across organizations want to work together again depends on how they have been treated initially and subsequently. Here it is important to give back in ways that are meaningful to the people participating in the research-practice collaboration. The Center’s ‘give back’ strategy includes but is not limited to acknowledging those individuals (by name and task) who assisted the process; writing letters to supervisors/agency heads acknowledging the support received; and giving reports to those who helped so that they can see what they helped to produce. Every detail is important in establishing strong relationships. Every level of the partnership is important to its functioning, and each requires the face recognition of the person with the greatest professional regard, which, once established, can then be transferred by association to other members of the research (practice) team.

Repeat experiences. A positive first experience, from the perspectives of the researcher and practitioner, is a prelude to future experiences. Yet, even then, the motivation to work together must be present on both sides of the partnership, along with the professional diligence towards the process and goals of collaboration. Since their first experience, the Center and the NJDOC have collaborated on five projects: two sex offender projects, one conducted under an MOA with resource sharing between the Center and NJDOC, and one funded by the Office of Justice Programs; a quality of prison life survey, funded by the PREA legislation; and one evaluation of the Focus on the Victim program, funded by the Center. Currently the Center is fielding two newly-funded studies that involve the NJDOC; one is a seven-state study exploring reentry from the perspective of people within six months of leaving prison, and the other is a randomized, controlled trial of a critical time intervention for people with serious mental illness leaving prison. The latter project provides funding for the intervention, which provides reentry planning and supervision for 300 inmates with mental illness released from New Jersey prisons (note: this funding helps the NJDOC meet its court settlement requirement to provide reentry planning for mentally ill inmates). Through these activities, researchers and program staff have worked together writing grant applications and MOA agreements, as well as developing data sets; researchers and correctional staff have together recruited and engaged over 8,000 inmates in research; and researchers and administrative staff have developed an institutional review process within the NJDOC.

The collaboration between the Center and the NJDOC has not been without challenges. There have been instances of miscommunication, professional jealousies, and insensitive communications. Strained relations can and do arise. It would be unrealistic to think that differences of opinion will not surface during a project or over the history of a relationship. Often times these situations arise because someone’s “ox is being gored” or someone wants more or less ownership over the process or outcomes of the collaboration. In some cases, strain arises when researchers are seen as imposing inconvenience on prison correctional or administrative staff (e.g., requesting access to inmates), or when research findings indicate poor performance by particular facilities. When these situations have arisen, the leaders of organizations, Center Director and Commissioner, have met to discuss the difficulties and to problem solve around them. At different times, the situations have required a renegotiation of the relationship, the reorganization of communication channels or staff involved in the projects or collaborations, and the temporary suspension of activity to allow time for the political environment to re-equilibrate.

Corrections-Academic Partnerships and the Growth of the Evidence Base

Goals of practitioners and researchers, linked through local communities of practice, can be divided into two categories: instrumental and ideological, both of which are facilitated by the growth of the evidence base. Instrumental goals that are satisfied through evidence include requirements or mandates set by external agencies such as legislative bodies or courts, targets set within the agency to improve practice or to generate funding to support new service or training programs, and professional development objectives with the organization. Ideological goals, also tied to evidence, include the promotion of the organization’s professional mission, which is associated with the application of science to practice, and of the organization’s reputation and its leadership as innovative. These goals equally motivate practitioners and researchers, although their articulation is framed uniquely.

Empirical evidence has the potential to expand the organization’s knowledge base, enhancing its ability to improve practice with small changes and to strategically plan for future improvements that require larger changes. The quality (measured in terms of credibility and generalizability) of evidence matters. In some cases, the organization conducts its own internal research and uses the self-generated evidence to inform its practices and policies. This type of evidence, however, often carries the presumption of bias because it is self-generated. The presumptive lack of objectivity lowers its external credibility. One of the principle benefits of having research conducted independently by an outside group (i.e., academic researchers) is it reduces the appearance of bias and increases the credibility insiders and outsiders attach to the evidence. This is particularly important when the organization is using the evidence to satisfy legislative requirements and court mandates and to apply for external funding (instrumental goals).

Along with credibility, the quality of the evidence also depends on its generalizability to other practice settings or circumstances. Evidence that is unique to a particular setting (e.g., prison or program within a prison) or particular group of people (e.g., voluntary or involuntary inmates), while useful to informing that particular practice as characterized by its setting or sample, does not generally apply to practices in other settings or with other samples. Here the design of the study is critically important. Research and analytical designs need to be sensitive to issues that affect generalizability, including selection bias, attrition bias, program/intervention fidelity, staffing structure and attrition, outcome measurement, data quality, and statistical analysis. Partnering with academic researchers offers practitioners immediate access to rigorous research methods and (expensive) statistical software and computing capabilities for storing and manipulating data.

Partnering with practitioners benefits researchers as well. The criminal justice system, in particular, is one of the largest publicly—funded sectors of the economy (rivaling education and public welfare) (Hughes, 2006). It has the potential for huge cost savings if practice is managed by high-quality evidence that is grounded in rigorous scientific methods. For researchers, the criminal justice system is an ideal research laboratory with hundreds of practices and millions of subjects that are located within and across states, counties, and localities. The natural variation alone is an advantage and a scientific challenge. Also, the criminal justice system holds large repositories of criminal and medical history, as well as personal data on millions of subjects, data systems that are potentially linkable for analytical purposes. For example, the Center and NJDOC collaborated on a five-year recidivism study of sex offenders released from NJ prisons. This study required the linking of data maintained by the NJ Department of Corrections, the Attorney General’s Office, the NJ Sheriff’s Department, and other national and state criminal justice data bases. While Center researchers were able to design the data collection instrument, they were not allowed access to identified data (according to regulations for human subject protections). As a requirement, the Center researchers trained NJDOC employees to abstract and record the data using the data collection instrument. Center researchers met weekly with NJDOC employees extracting the data to review progress and problems. Working together, the Center and NJDOC employees constructed a deidentified data set that researchers then analyzed to estimate and predict the 5-year recidivism rates of all sex offenders released from NJ prisons.

The growth of the evidence base for practitioners and researchers is facilitated when corrections-academic partnerships, through communities of practice, bring together the criminal justice laboratory and data repositories of practice organizations and the expert research skills and objectivity of academic researchers. The evidence then helps members of the community of practice achieve their instrumental and ideological goals.

Instrumental Goals and the Evidence Base. Evidence expands the knowledge base of the organization and, hence, its ability to use rigorous scientific evidence to justify and advocate for extant programs or funding for new programs, as well as to inform internal or external change in programming and/or funding. This is particularly important for publicly-funded organizations that compete politically and legislatively for scarce public dollars and that have entrenched (risk-averse) bureaucracies. For example, the NJDOC used the evidence from the five-year sex offender recidivism study to justify the continued funding of the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC), the NJDOC’s stylized program for chronic sex offenders, to the NJ Legislature (which mandated the study). The evidence was also used to advocate for and guide internal changes within the ADTC to improve its performance. Similarly, the Center used the evidence from the MOA reentry study as preliminary evidence in its grant application to the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH). The application proposed a randomized controlled trial of a novel reentry program for inmates with severe mental illness. The Center received funding to conduct a five-year research study, based on an experimental design of an innovative reentry program, and the NJDOC indirectly received treatment dollars for reentry planning for inmates with severe mental illness (the population protected under a court-monitored settlement agreement).

A major instrumental goal of researchers is publishing research in peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, publishing in these journals is instrumental to the researcher’s professional development. Having research published in peer-reviewed journals indicates that the study findings and the researcher producing the findings have met the customary standards of research science. It signals that the findings are credible and, within limits, generalizable. Growth in evidence that is published, especially in highly-rated peer-reviewed journals, expands the researcher’s ability to secure external funding for future research (and produce future evidence) and the practitioner’s ability to advocate more rigorously for change.

Ideological Goals and the Evidence Base. Ideological goals, while variable, center on the organization’s mission. Mission statements generally include reference to professionalism, meeting service or research goals with integrity and efficiency, and achieving the public’s trust. Here the professional reputation of the organization and its leaders is paramount and is influenced by the evidence base. Organizations that can prove their performance with evidence have greater external and internal credibility. Through their leaders, organizations demonstrate their professionalism by presenting facts and figures (rigorous evidence) to justify decisions, documenting efforts toward performance improvements through measurable accountability standards, and verifying sensitivity to efficiencies and diversity. Leaders with evidence and with a healthy respect for evidentially-based inquiry become known within their fields and states for their knowledge-based orientation. They become the ‘go to’ practitioners or researchers when knowledge is needed. Their views and leadership gain credibility, and their professional esteem grows as they use evidence and scientific inquiry to motivate collective discourse and change within the organization and field. By eschewing anecdote and tradition-based reasoning, these leaders signal their confidence in their organization’s performance by not being afraid of data or rigorous evidence. Evidence to knowledge-based leaders either indicates successful performance or areas for future improvement – both central to the organization’s mission.

Factors that Foster and Hinder

Corrections-Academic Partnerships

Like any partnership, its viability rests on the extent to which the parties of the partnership understand and respect the other’s expectations and sensitivities. Nothing chills collaboration faster or more completely than irresponsible behavior, by either partner, in the conduct or reporting of research. Failure to report problems, to honor commitments, to involve partners in the release of research findings, or to communicate responsibly and respectfully fosters distrust and ill will. Communities of practice become dysfunctional when partners cease to trust each other’s motives or behavior. Once distrust becomes the expectation, interactions between researchers and practitioners become less open, more contentious, and less productive.

Several factors have been identified within the Center and NJDOC partnership that are necessary to build productive relationships between researchers and practitioners. They include:

1. Researchers must understand the practitioner’s concern about collaborating with researchers and in research. Some practice organizations, particularly public sector agencies, have a palpable concern that research may reveal trends or results that have negative political consequences. Uncertainty regarding what the analysis might show and the attendant political consequences often chills any enthusiasm among public agencies to partner with researchers, especially in the area of criminal justice, which has a long tradition of distrusting outsiders. The Center has been able to demonstrate repeatedly that it is a trustworthy partner (particularly that researchers are not looking to sensationalize findings on the front page of the state newspaper) and that there are overwhelming compensating benefits associated with research and collaborating with researchers. Some of these benefits include obtaining external grant funding (which includes a research component developed and conducted by an academic research group and grant writing assistance), building the agency’s national reputation for progressiveness and innovation, and having a reliable partner to conduct studies mandated by the legislature or court. While there is always a possibility that a study will reveal findings that are politically sensitive, these issues can be resolved by developing a protocol in advance that covers how the findings will be released. The Center has a policy of delivering its report to the Commissioner, CEO, Chair, or lead executive of the participating agencies involved in research before releasing findings to the public or at professional meetings. When appropriate, the release of the findings is timed to coincide with a professional (peer-reviewed) publication. Again, these issues must be discussed in advance of collecting the data and are part of the practice of transparency among partners.

2. Practitioners must understand the researcher’s concerns about collaborating with a public agency. Criminal justice settings, particularly prisons, are off limits to academic researchers. Gaining access to the subjects inside these settings is no trivial feat and must be carefully negotiated with DOC administrative officials, as well as with facility administration and custody staff. Even if these entry barriers can be negotiated, there is a possibility that an unexpected event within the facility (e.g., a lock down) or administration (e.g., change in leadership) could terminate researchers’ access to inmates or limit their access to data or use of the data once collected. For non-tenured academic researchers, such changes can be professionally catastrophic, while for tenured academic researchers, it can mean a loss of years of research and external funding. It is vitally important that practitioners working with academic researchers appreciate the consequence of terminating research or hindering its publication on the researcher’s professional future. Again researchers and practitioners need to deliberate with care over the terms of the MOA or subcontract that articulate the conditions regarding access of facilities, inmates, and data, as well as the ownership and analysis of the data and publication of findings. Misunderstandings here are likely to yield future rancor.

3. The researcher’s reputation matters. The reputation as a trustworthy, competent, and reliable partner has a cascading effect. Practitioners trade information within their professional networks about researchers; good reputations lead to recommendations and expanded opportunities for collaboration. In the case of the Center, we were recommended to provide testimony, to write synthetic papers for presentation at high-profile public meetings, and to participate in high-level policy discussions. The Center’s willingness and ability to make research visible and accessible to policymakers, public agencies, and non-profit organizations facilitated the dissemination of research and built the Center’s capacity to develop new partnerships (to expand the local CoP). Center researchers positively respond to all requests to speak at local community meetings, collaborative team meetings, training workshops, policy round tables, public hearings, and professional conferences. This is an important venue for diffusing research evidence and for exercising partnerships.

4. The importance of having specialized and useful information. For researchers to get to the policy or partnership table and to be invited back, they must have non-redundant expertise that is useful. The more useful and unduplicated the information, the more the researcher becomes a key participant in discussions. An example here concerns data. Management information systems are siloed within agencies, and those most knowledgeable about the data are typically not at the table when policy or practice issues are being discussed. Researchers working across these agencies can serve a brokering function in that they know where the data are. Through repeat and varied experiences with different agencies, the Center has accumulated knowledge about data available within state and local agencies and the limitations of these data. The Center has developed a cross-walk capacity in which it can navigate across the data systems and advises policymakers where data can be found to explore a particular issue. The Center also advises on what data are unavailable and how this lack limits the ability to advance a policy or practice.

5. Style of engagement matters: objectivity, inclusiveness, and respectfulness are required. Working in and with the community requires understanding that every stakeholder group matters and has critical expertise. The Center has followed a policy of inclusion in which all relevant stakeholders are involved in research and dissemination. While the Center practices inclusion, we have learned to be sensitive to the social dynamics within stakeholder groups. Mental health consumers have a respected role in mental health services research. The saying that “nothing about us, without us” has been internalized into the Center’s research practice. It is not customary to involve people released from prison or jail in criminal justice research or discourse. These individuals are not seen as “consumers,” “clients,” or “people.” The tension and normative judgments between correctional staff and the people released from or inside these institutions must be managed carefully and discretely. Center researchers are particularly sensitive to how the potential to partner with people under criminal justice supervision depends on context and the publicness of the setting. In some cases, practitioners do not want to be seen publicly with ex-offenders and vice versa. The Center follows a policy of inclusiveness and respectfulness that is mindful of contextual and political dynamics. For example, when conducting research inside the facility, Center researchers limit the time spent talking to correctional staff or the people under their supervision; looking or acting too familiar with either group compromises the researcher’s status as independent.

6. Giving back is essential. “Giving back” is important at all levels – to those who participated in the research providing information, to those who organized and supervised access, and to those who authorized access. The Center does this in many different ways. The Center Director writes letters of appreciation to supervisors and agency heads acknowledging the roles and assistance provided by people (mentioned by name), writes and distributes results back to key informants, holds public and executive briefings, organizes research discussions that benefit state and local decision making, and responds to requests for assistance. Taking without looking or giving back negatively affects the researcher’s reputation.

7. Demonstrating professional commitment to the mission of the organization and the partnership is elemental. “Being there” is critical to engendering productive relationships at all levels of the organization. This includes being invited to and attending organizational retreats to participate in strategic planning and to advocate for the role of evidence and practice in planning. Being at high-level DOC or Center retreats provides opportunities for researchers and facility administrators to meet under the encouraging auspices of their respective leadership. It also indicates a willingness to work together. This is particularly important at the facility level in which research and researchers can be seen as a security risk, a burden, or an inconvenience. Here it is important to send the right message to the facility about its concerns, which are often implicit. Having a plan for entering the facility and collecting the data, meeting with administrative and custody staff ahead of time to establish access and communication protocols, and asking for ground rules and following them are necessary prior to entering the facility. How the research is implemented also matters. Sending researcher assistants into these facilities without the lead researcher suggests, through delegation, that the activity that imposes costs on the facility is not important enough to warrant the lead researcher’s time not the right message to send to overburdened administrators and custody staff. The Center director has promulgated positive relationships with the administrators and custody staff of NJ prison facilities by being on site when data is being collected from inmates and keeping them informed of the process as it evolves. Showing commitment to the process by being there and by getting your hands dirty translates into respect and cooperation.

Conclusions and Conditions for Successful and Efficient Practices

The potential gain from corrections-academic research partnerships is significant in terms of the evidence that can be produced by them. High-quality evidence informs the process by which organizations improve their efficiency (i.e., cost saving), effectiveness (i.e., better performance goals), and reputations for public service. The rewards of successful partnerships are unbounded. Within these potential partnerships are all the active ingredients for producing high-quality evidence: natural laboratories, inmate and organizational data, years of practice experience (corrections) and technical expertise, skills, and reputations for objectivity (academe). At a minimum, the realization of this potential requires the following conditions:

Condition #1: Strong Leadership Support. Support for the corrections-academic partnership must emanate from the top down. Ideally, a clear vision statement, augmented with departmental mission, goals, and objectives should flow from the Office of the Chief Executive Officer (i.e., Governor) and be reinforced through the legislature. At a minimum, it must be sanctioned by the chief executive officer of the corrections organization and the research center.

Condition #2: Strong Memorandum of Agreement. There must be clarity in the expectations and protocols regarding the communication between researchers and practitioners and the exchange and ownership of data, knowledge, and findings. The MOA must reduce the risk and uncertainty associated with the products of research.

Condition #3: Unalloyed Professionalism. This includes demonstrating respect in practice for the (a) ethos and standards of the profession with which practitioners and researchers identify and (b) integrity of the organizational and research process, as well as honoring the trust that is inherent in the MOA.

Condition #4: Patience with the Process of Learning and Change. Learning to work together to produce scientifically rigorous evidence takes time and a willingness to be patient. Rushing research, compromising objectivity, or withholding evidence is not consistent with evidence-based practice or management. Success and efficiency requires a respect for the process of evidence-based change.

Condition #5: Networking and Reciprocity. There must be a culture and climate within the partnership and organizations that supports open, respectful communication, the sharing of social and political capital, and the practice of reciprocity. Organizations must be willing to reciprocate in action by opening doors when necessary, sharing expertise without expectation of direct payment, lending a good word, and “being there” when needed.

Much has been learned over the five-year life of the partnership between the Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research and the New Jersey Department of Corrections. It has taken the tireless commitment of a few, the forbearance of many, and leagues of goodwill. It has withstood professional strains, changes in leadership, and political and resource pressures. It is because of the conditions above that this partnership has endured and scientific evidence is now available to inform the strategy for managing sex offenders, the need for and cost of reentry planning for inmates with mental illness, and the design and funding of a randomized controlled trial of an innovative reentry program for these special needs inmates. The partnership has culminated in over a dozen peer-reviewed publications and has stimulated new practices within the NJDOC and new thinking within the literature about physical and sexual victimization inside prisons. This is the gain in knowledge from corrections and academic research partnerships and what is lost when the potential remains latent.

Nancy Wolff, Ph.D., an economist, is a professor and the director of the Program in Public Policy in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Her research focuses on the interactions between the mental health and criminal justice systems, and the public policies that influence those interactions. She currently directs an NIMH-funded Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research and a post-doctoral training program on behavioral health and criminal justice research.

Douglas Gerardi, Ph.D., former administrator of the Garden State Youth Correction Facility, is the director of the Office of Policy and Planning for the New Jersey Department of Corrections. He is a licensed clinical psychologist.

Notes

Day, G.S., Schoemaker, P.J.H., & Gunther, R.E. (2000). Wharton on managing emerging technologies. New York: Wiley.
Drucker, P.F., Kanter, R.M., & Graham, P. (1994). Mary Parker Follett, Prophet of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge networks: Innovations through communities of practice. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Hughes, K A (2006). Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 2003. NJC 212260, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
James, D.J., & Glaze, L.E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. NCJ 213600, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Kanigel, R (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York: Penguin Books.
Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work? St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Poyago-Theotoky, J.A. (1997). Competition, cooperation, research and development: The economics of research joint ventures. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Taylor, F (1919). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Weber, M. (1957). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.