Compensation for Incarcerated Research Participants: Diverse State Policies Suggest a New Research Agenda

Abstract

Research with prisoners is essential to understanding the incarceration experience and creating interventions to mediate its effects on individual and community health. Policies on research involving incarcerated participants can influence the extent to which researchers are able or willing to conduct prison studies. We attempted to collect data on inmate compensation policies from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We found that 44% of these jurisdictions allow compensation for inmates who participate in research, with wide variations in terms of the clarity of and ease of access to policy information. Anecdotal data suggest considerable administrative discretion in the implementation of these policies. Further study is needed on how compensation policies are formulated and enacted and their effects on research with prisoners.

MORE THAN 2 MILLION PEOPLE are currently incarcerated in the United States.¹ Behavioral and social science research with prisoners is essential to understanding the incarceration experience and creating interventions and programs to mediate its effects on people's lives. Collecting data from incarcerated participants can provide public health researchers with key information on health risks inside and outside of prison and jail, including drug use, violence, mental illness, sexual behavior, HIV, hepatitis, and tuberculosis.

However, there are several challenges involved in conducting research with incarcerated participants. For instance, policies regulating inmate participation can be difficult and time consuming to navigate. Researchers must adhere to correctional facilities' safety and inmate control procedures and ensure that prisoners' confidentiality, autonomy, and right to consent to research are not violated.^2–5

Clearly, the potential for coercion is magnified when participants are incarcerated. Federal regulations on research involving human participants designate prisoners as a “vulnerable population” and require that special protections be afforded to them.^6,7 However, state and local interpretations of these regulations vary, and researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) are encouraged to consider the dynamics of the local environment and context when making decisions about research protocols involving human participants.^8,9

We used the issue of compensation for individuals who volunteer to participate in behavioral or social science research while incarcerated to explore variations in prison research guidelines and the accessibility and clarity of these policies. Individuals living in the community are often compensated for their time when they participate in research. Less is known about whether and in what instances incarcerated participants can be offered remuneration. As mentioned, state and local interpretations of federal research guidelines vary, resulting in a range of different prison research regulations across the United States. Moreover, these variations are magnified by differences in administrative implementation and researchers' access to and understanding of research policies.

METHODS

We attempted to collect data on compensation policies from every US state, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We searched each jurisdiction's Web site for regulations regarding payments for incarcerated research participants. When we were unable to locate guidelines online, we contacted state departments of corrections or research (as applicable) via e-mail and telephone.

We also contacted a small convenience sample of researchers who study prisoners in states that permit compensation to begin to ascertain the extent to which reimbursement actually occurs. We identified these researchers by searching an academic database with the term “prison” and the name of the state. The results of this search were skimmed to locate researchers who had recently published psychosocial research articles about prisoners. We e-mailed these individuals and asked them whether their participants had been compensated. If so, we followed up with questions about the protocol approval process, negotiation of the amount and manner of compensation, and payments procedures.

RESULTS

We obtained information about compensation of incarcerated research participants from 46 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Of these 48 jurisdictions, 44% (21) allow compensation for inmates who participate in research projects (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

States That Allow Compensation of Incarcerated Research Participants

State	Research Guidelines	Comments
Alabamaa	Alabama Department of Corrections, administrative regulation 02013	Administrative regulation does not discuss compensation; no strict guidelines on amount or manner of compensation.
Alaskab	State of Alaska Department of Corrections, management information and research: research activities14	“Prisoners or offenders shall not receive payment of any kind in connection with a research study without the written permission of the Commissioner. Such payments shall be consistent with the legal guidelines relating to work programs conducted by the Department.”
Arizonab	Arizona Department of Corrections, department order 20315	“Researchers may pay inmates for participating in research projects.”
Arkansasc	State of Arkansas Board of Corrections, administrative regulations: research and experimentation16	Administrative regulation does not discuss compensation; no strict guidelines for amount or manner of compensation; proposals must be evaluated by management.
Californiabc	State of California, California Code of Regulations: crime prevention and corrections17	According to regulation, researchers must provide DOC with a study proposal that includes “[a]n estimate of the inmate/parolee subjects' time needed for the project and a plan for the compensation of the inmates/parolees.” The compensation amount is set at the discretion of the warden; payment is deposited into inmates' canteen account.
Coloradoa	Colorado Department of Corrections, administrative regulation number 1400-03: research and reporting—conduct and dissemination of research and evaluation studies18	Administrative regulation does not discuss compensation; payment is deposited into inmates' canteen account.
Delawarec	State of Delaware Department of Correction, policy manual: planning, information systems, evaluation and research19	State is in the process of making policy manual available online; payment is deposited into inmates' canteen account.
Hawaiia	No written guidelines	Payment is deposited into inmates' canteen account.
Illinoisa	Illinois Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, administrative code title 20: research and evaluation20	Administrative code does not discuss compensation; compensation decisions made on a case-by-case basis.
Iowaac	State of Iowa Department of Corrections, policy and procedures: information systems/research21	“No offender will receive compensation, remuneration, or payment of any kind in connection with a research study.” Compensation may be rarely considered on a case-by-case basis (e.g., with soon-to-be-released prisoners to encourage cooperation in a research study that begins while participants are incarcerated).
Kansasc	Kansas Department of Corrections, internal management policy and procedures22	Management policy and procedures do not discuss compensation (policy found in internal document); funds are put into inmates' trust account.
Kentuckya	No written guidelines	Written policy is not available; all decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by warden; payment is deposited into inmates' canteen account.
Marylanda	No written guidelines	No restrictions are included in statute about payment to inmate research participants indicating that compensation is allowed.
Massachusettsb	Massachusetts Department of Correction, code of regulations: conduct of outside social science research23	“No inmate who is a research subject shall receive compensation, remuneration, or payment of any kind in connection with a research study without the express permission of the Superintendent of the institution. Such payments, if approved, should be consistent with the legal guidelines relating to work research and inmate work programs conducted by the Department.”
Missouric	No written guidelines	Written policy is not available; compensation decisions are made on a case-by-case basis; payment is deposited into inmates' commissary account.
Oregonc	Oregon Department of Corrections, administrative rules: research proposals24	Administrative rules do not discuss compensation.
Pennsylvaniab	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, policy statement: research activities25	“Researchers are not to provide compensation or other rewards to an inmate for his/her participation in research, unless special permission is granted by the RRC (Research Review Committee).”
Rhode Islanda	No written guidelines	Compensation decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
Vermonta	No written guidelines	There are no restrictions or regulations regarding compensation in statute of State Agency of Health and Human Services.
Wisconsina	State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, executive directive 36: research program procedures26	“The RRC [Research Review Committee] will approve research involving offenders as subjects only if it finds that … possible advantages accrued to the offender through participation in the research, when compared with the general living condition, medical care, quality of food, amenities, and opportunity for earnings in the prison, are not of such a magnitude that his or her ability to weigh the risks of the research against the value of such advantages in the environment of the prison is impaired … [m]oney put in canteen account.”
Wyominga	No written guidelines	Compensation decisions are made on a case-by-case basis; Wyoming DOC must also be compensated for research done with its inmates; money is placed in institutional trust account.

Note. DOC=department of corrections.

^aInformation collected via email.

^bInformation collected via state Web site.

^cInformation collected by telephone.

State Policies

In most of the states that allow compensation, the amount and type are negotiated with the state department of corrections (DOC) on a study-by-study basis when the research proposal is reviewed, and either cash or in-kind compensation is permitted. In 3 states (California, Kentucky, Massachusetts), permission to pay and payment amount, if applicable, are determined by the warden of the facility where the research will be conducted. State policies generally require that monetary payments for research participation be placed in the inmates' commissary account funds, which they can either spend during their incarceration or take with them when they are released. In Wyoming, researchers must compensate the DOC for research involving inmates by making a contribution to an “institutional trust account,” in addition to the option of paying the actual participants.

In 56% (27) of our study jurisdictions, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Table 2), all forms of remuneration or compensation are categorically prohibited. The federal system, however, does allow researchers to offer participants food or nonalcoholic beverages, provided they are consumed in the study setting. We were unable to obtain data on compensation policies from officials in 4 states: Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Nevada. Multiple e-mails and telephone calls to state officials went unreturned.

TABLE 2.

States and Jurisdictions That Do Not Allow Compensation of Incarcerated Research Participants

State or Jurisdiction	Research Guidelines	Comments
Connecticutb	State of Connecticut Department of Corrections, administrative directive 1.7, section 1227	“Inmate Compensation: An inmate shall not be individually compensated for participating in any research project.”
District of Columbiab	District of Columbia Department of Corrections, program statement: management controls—research activity28	“Incentives may not be offered to help persuade inmate subjects to participate. Reasonable accommodations such as nominal monetary recompense for time and effort may be offered to individuals who are no longer confined in DOC custody and who are participating in authorized research being conducted by DOC employees or contractors (for example, if study of recidivism).”
Federal Bureau of Prisonsb	Federal Bureau of Prisons, program statement number 1070.07: research29	“Incentives may not be offered to help persuade inmate subjects to participate. However, soft drinks and snacks to be consumed at the test setting may be offered.”
Floridac	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
Georgiaa	State of Georgia, Georgia code 42-1-5: use of inmate for private gain30	DOC interprets Georgia code 42-1-5(b) to prohibit payment. According to this code: “It shall be unlawful for a custodian of an inmate of a penal institution to use such inmate or allow such inmate to be used for any purpose resulting in private gain to any individual.”
Indianaa	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
Mainec	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
Michiganab	Michigan Department of Corrections, policy directive: research involving corrections facilities or offenders31	Policy directive does not specifically discuss compensation but states that “[c]oercion of any sort shall not be allowed.”
Minnesotac	Minnesota Department of Corrections, policy 102.100: research32	Research policy does not discuss compensation.
Mississippia	Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), research protocol SOP 10-0433	“MDOC staff and inmates engaged in any research activities are not entitled to gratuities or compensation of any kind.”
Montanab	State of Montana Department of Corrections, policy directive number DOC 1.6.4: offender participation in research projects34	“Offenders will not be compensated, remunerated, or paid in connection with any Department approved research projects.”
Nebraskac	Nebraska Correctional Services, administrative regulation 103.01: research35	Administrative regulation does not discuss compensation.
New Hampshirec	New Hampshire Department of Corrections, policy and procedure directive: research and external application procedures36	Policy and procedure directive does not discuss compensation.
New Jerseyb	State of New Jersey, administrative code: general research provisions37	“Inmates shall not be permitted to receive compensation of any kind for their research participation from any agency or entity conducting a research project.”
New Yorkb	State of New York Department of Correctional Services, Directive 0403: research studies and surveys38	“No employee of the Department or inmate shall receive compensation, remuneration, or payment of any kind for participation in the research study.”
North Carolinaa	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
North Dakotaa	North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, policies and procedures manual: program information and research activities39	“No inmate shall receive compensation, remuneration or payment of any kind in connection with a research study.”
Ohiob	State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, human subjects research policy 06-RES-0240	“Payment of any kind to inmates for their participation in research projects is not permitted.”
Oklahomaa	Oklahoma Department of Corrections, procedures regulating research41	Procedures document does not discuss compensation.
South Carolinab	South Carolina Department of Corrections, research conducted within the SCDC42	“Under no circumstance will inmates be monetarily reimbursed or provided any type of financial incentive for their participation in any research project.”
South Dakotac	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
Tennesseeb	State of Tennessee Department of Correction, administrative policies and procedures: research projects43	“Required components of informed consent include … [a]cknowledgment that no compensation of money or goods will be made to participants.”
Texasb	Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), administrative directive AD-02.28: agency research44	Administrative directive does not discuss compensation. According to policy (available on DOC Web site): “Neither compensation nor incentives are allowed for participating in a research project. This policy applies to both offenders and staff of TDCJ. The informed consent submitted by the Principal Investigator must include this stipulation.”45
Utahc	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.
Virginiac	Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Corrections, regulations for human subjects research46	Regulations do not discuss compensation.
Washingtonb	State of Washington Department of Corrections, policy DOC 260.050: research review and use47	“Offenders may volunteer for participation… . There will not be any reward, favor, reduction of time, or any other benefit, either written or implied, for participation in research by staff or offenders under the legal jurisdiction of the Department.”
West Virginiac	No written guidelines	Compensation not permitted.

Note. DOC=department of corrections.

^aInformation collected by email.

^bInformation collected via state Web site.

^cInformation collected via telephone.

We found considerable variation in the clarity of policies regarding compensation of incarcerated participants and in our ability to gather information on these policies. Fourteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons post their compensation policies on the Internet, making them readily accessible to the public. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's Web site is an example of an extremely user-friendly and informative site that includes not only research policies and required forms but a summary of the research that has been conducted in the state's prisons.^10,11 Eighteen of the states' Web sites list e-mail addresses for the DOC personnel able to provide information about state compensation policies. In the remaining 14 states, we obtained the information by calling state personnel. Only 4 of the 32 jurisdictions that we contacted via e-mail or telephone were able to send us a written copy of their compensation policy.

Thus, our results showed that 42% of our study jurisdictions have a publicly available written policy about paying incarcerated research participants. In some states where no written policy exists (e.g., Illinois, Kentucky), correctional personnel determine whether or not to allow compensation on a case-by-case basis. In other states where no such policy exists (e.g., Florida, Maine), correctional personnel have interpreted this lack of regulatory or legislative guidance to mean that compensation is not permitted.

Experiences of Researchers

As indicated earlier, we contacted a convenience sample of 13 researchers who had recently published sociobehavioral studies involving incarcerated participants in states that allow for compensation. Although the anecdotal information about executing compensation plans gathered in our informal conversations with these researchers is certainly not generalizable, it speaks to the gray areas and variations that exist around payment to research participants who are incarcerated. The researchers' anecdotal accounts revealed that, even within jurisdictions in which compensation is permitted, it does not always occur. Their accounts also illuminated some of the issues that arise in interpreting and implementing state policies on compensation.

One issue involves administrative discretion or misunderstanding of policies on the part of researchers. Two of the researchers we contacted reported that they did not compensate inmates because payment had been prohibited, even though policies in the states where they were conducting their studies indicate that compensation is allowed in some cases. These experiences highlight the fact that compensation is not always approved in states that allow for compensation; requests are handled administratively on a study-by-study basis, and officials may decide not to authorize compensation in some or all studies. These experiences also suggest that researchers might not fully understand state policies on compensation.

The second issue is researchers' preference not to pay participants. Four of the researchers in our sample indicated that it was their own choice not to compensate prisoners. The reasons they cited included an understanding that although compensation is allowed, pursuing the payment issue might jeopardize a researcher's relationship with the state DOC and inhibit his or her access to prisoners. Researchers also expressed the sentiment that inmate participation in research is part of a larger restorative justice process, noting their belief that cash compensation is inappropriate when research participation is considered as a way for offenders to pay off their debt to society. This issue raises questions about what it means for inmates to “pay their debt to society,” who determines how this debt should be paid, and how wages received for prison employment relate to this debt.

Finally, input from formerly incarcerated individuals may inform researchers' decisions about whether or not to compensate prisoners. In their article about research with prisoners, O'Brien and Bates¹² (who were not included in the sample of researchers we interviewed) indicated that they were advised by former inmates not to offer compensation.

We discussed the idea of an incentive to participate, but on the advice of former inmates, we realized that any incentive within the prison would be seen as providing advantages that were not available to the general population and hence were potentially coercive for that reason. We did not realize that just the fact that inmates had someone to talk to (the interviewers) could be construed as a disparity owing to the lack of the consistent availability of anyone to talk to, especially someone who might be trusted not to disclose information within the prison.^12(p215)

This explanation describes the authors' rationale for not paying participants, even though the state in which they were working allowed for such compensation. It also raises questions about the psychosocial rewards that participants accrue from taking part in research and the extent to which these rewards might be considered coercive.

According to the reports of researchers in our sample, the logistics of providing compensation to incarcerated participants can be complicated but generally run smoothly. Among the 7 researchers we surveyed who did compensate inmates, a variety of issues were raised. Although cash was the most frequent form of compensation, food was provided to participants in one case, and textbooks were donated to the prison library in another. One researcher also reported making a library donation in a state where the statute specifically prohibited any kind of “gratuity or compensation,” indicating that even in jurisdictions with this type of strict guideline, there may be some degree of flexibility allowing compensation at an institutional level.

Among the 5 researchers who provided cash, compensation amounts ranged from $5 to $50. Some, but not all, of this difference in reimbursements reflected between-study variations with respect to factors such as time or effort. In 4 of these cases, deposits were made into inmates' commissary or canteen accounts, and 2 researchers also offered the option of having a money order sent to a friend or family member in the community. One policy required that the funds be set aside for the inmates until their release. For the most part, the negotiations around these payment schemes proceeded smoothly. One researcher reported a desire to compensate participants more than the $15 per 2 hours that the state permitted. Another described complications that arose when payments reached the inmates' commissary account after they had been transferred to another facility or released.

DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH AGENDA

Our results showed that, in the United States, state policies on compensation of incarcerated research participants vary widely. This diversity reflects a system of research regulations that encourages regional and local decision-making by placing authority with local IRBs with federal oversight. Our anecdotal conversations with sociobehavioral researchers who have conducted research with incarcerated individuals suggest that states' official policies reveal only part of the story: even in instances in which compensation is permitted, it may not occur owing to administrative discretion, researchers' ethical or logistical deliberations, or misinformation about different jurisdictions' policies.

Our findings also highlight the challenges involved in gathering data on states' prison research policies. Fewer than half of the jurisdictions we assessed had a written policy on compensation. As a result of the negotiations required in both written and unwritten policies and the varying degrees of clarity and access to these regulations, researchers may be reluctant to compensate incarcerated participants or may be unaware that payment is an option.

Our data raise several research questions that could provide an enhanced understanding of the effects of participant compensation policies, and other related prison research regulations, on the research environment. First, what is the underlying rationale of state policymakers in creating these compensation policies? Are their decisions informed by their understanding of human participant protection regulations or ideas about redistributive justice (i.e., debt to society)? What other factors influence their decisions? Second, in states where compensation is permitted, what factors are weighed by correctional research departments and IRBs in making study-specific participant payment decisions? To clarify this decision-making process, case studies could be used to examine cases in which compensation to incarcerated research participants is and is not permitted. What differentiates instances in which payment is found to be reasonable from those in which it is deemed inappropriate?

Third, to what extent are prisoners being compensated for research participation? A systematic review of prison-based research published in peer-reviewed journals and interviews with study authors would provide empirical data about when and where compensation of incarcerated participants takes place. This type of analysis could also illuminate the perspectives of different investigators on the appropriateness of payment to incarcerated participants. Fourth, how do policies on prisoner compensation affect recruitment? Does the existence of compensation, or lack thereof, shape prisoners' willingness to participate in research studies?

Fifth, beyond the issue of compensation, what is the nature of researchers' experiences with state correctional research departments? Do these gatekeepers encourage or discourage prisoner research? How so? Are certain types of research more likely to be encouraged or discouraged? Sixth, does ease of accessibility to correctional research policy matter? Is there more prisoner research in states with easily accessible written policies?

Clearly, our analysis of policies regarding compensation of inmates raises more questions than it answers about both these specific policies and the operations and effects of correctional research policies in general. Understanding incarceration is central to understanding a wide range of social and health problems. Without losing sight of the specific vulnerabilities of the people who reside inside our nation's prison walls, researchers should be actively encouraged to learn from the experiences of these individuals. The ability of correctional research policies to spark or, alternatively, extinguish the interest of researchers in these topics requires further examination.