< PreviousDavid Kreitzer General Manager 2855 Country Drive, Suite 100 Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 383.1213 Website: https://abkiosk.com/ Kim Godfrey Lovett Executive Director 350 Granite Street, Suite 1203 Braintree, MA 02184 National Curriculum and Training Institute Gary Bushkin, President 319 East McDowell Road, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1534 Phone: (602) 252.3100 https://www.ncti.org Northpointe Chris Kamin, General Manager Equivant Phone:(608) 416-4302 RemoteCOM Robert Rosenbusch, President/CEO 2251 Double Creek Dr. Suite 404 Round Rock, TX 78664 Phone: (866)776-0731 https:www.remotecom.net SCRAM +LifeSafer Jed Rosenberg, Senior Marketing Manager Scram Systems 1241 West Mineral Avenue Littleton, CO 80120 Phone: (720) 261-6576 https://www.scramsystems.com/ Securus Technologies Katie Desir, Marketing Manager Securus Monitoring Solutions 5353 W Sam Houston Parkway N, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77041 Phone: 773.658.0028 https://securusmonitoring.com/ Shadowtrack Robert L. Magaletta Shadowtrack Technologies, Inc. ONE LAKEWAY 3900 North Causeway Boulevard Suite 1200, Metairie, LA 70002 Office: 985-867-3771 https://www.shadowtrack.com Smart Start, Inc. Michelle H. Whitaker Conference and Promotions Coordinator 500 East Dallas Road,Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (919) 604.2513 https://www.smartstartinc.com Track Group Matthew Swando, VP of Sales and Marketing 1215 North Lakeview Court Romeoville, IL 60446 Phone: (877) 260.2010 https://www.trackgrp.com TRACKtech Ben Williams, Vice President - Business Development 6295 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 834-7519 https://tracktechllc.com/ Tyler Technologies Larry Stanton Director of Sales - Courts & Justice 5101 Tennyson Parkway Plano, TX 75024 Phone: (904) 654.3741 https://www.tylertech.com Vant4ge Sean Hosman National Sales Leader – Public Sector Vant4ge P .O. Box 802, Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone: (877) 744-1360 https://vant4ge.com/ associate members PROVIDING SOLUTIONS IN CORRECTIONS USING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGYFROM OUTSIDER TO INSIDER: An academic’s experience in developing successful and sustainable researcher-practitioner partnerships Vecteezy.com By Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk, Ph.D.TRANSLATING RESEARCH Abstract Collaborations between researchers and practitioners are an essential means of improving policy and practice in the criminal justice system. Although there are barriers that both researchers and practitioners encounter when working together, the benefits of collaborative partnerships outweigh the costs—particularly when the partnerships lead to positive system change and improve our communities and the lives of justice- impacted individuals. For those interested in developing collaborative and mutually beneficial researcher- practitioner partnerships, it can appear to be a daunting task. In this article, I discuss strategies for identifying collaborators and building partnerships for those new to the world of collaborating with the other side. I also provide strategies for sustaining successful researcher- practitioner partnerships, which include engaging in action research, writing for stakeholders and different audiences, and helping organizations translate research findings into practice. These strategies additionally served as talking points for practitioners engaged in collaborations with academics as they collectively develop evaluation plans. Introduction Collaborations between academic researchers and boots-on-the-ground practitioners are important, and at times necessary, means of improving policy and practice in criminal justice. Funding agencies, including the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice, often require independent evaluations of newly implemented programs and interventions, and such requirements, out of necessity result in researchers and practitioners working together (Lane et al., 2004). Many universities also encourage their faculty to partner with the community at large. For example, Florida Atlantic University (the university at which I am employed) “embodies a culture of strategic and collaborative community engagement [emphasis added] that results in mutual benefit to the institution and the diverse internal and external communities [emphasis added] that it serves” (Florida Atlantic University, 2022). Partnerships can also emerge out of a mutual desire to address a social issue (Rudes et al., 2014) Whether seeking to collaborate due to funding requirements, to benefit your organization, or for personal interests, there are numerous benefits to researchers and practitioners engaging in collaborative partnerships. These include, but are not limited to, validating practices, identifying promising programs, improving crime prevention strategies, examining intervention cost-effectiveness, and providing legitimacy to both institutions (Backes, 2009). Additionally, collaborations remove researchers from the Ivory Tower, expose them to the operations and inner workings of agencies and organizations, and increase the practicality and utility of their research (Backes, 2009; Drawbridge et al., 2018; Rudes et al., 2014). Practitioners, on the other hand, gain an increased appreciation for research, can incorporate evidence-based practices into their operations, and can better serve their community and clients (Drawbridge et al., 2018). Despite the benefits, researchers and practitioners come to the table with different—yet complementary— perspectives, skills, priorities, and goals (Bales et al., 2014; Lane et al., 2004), which results in complex relationships. There may also be longstanding distrust between universities and governmental agencies and their surrounding communities (Lane et al., 2004; Rodin, 2007; Rudes et al., 2014), further complicating collaborations. Luckily, research suggests, and my personal experience also demonstrates, that it is possible to overcome these barriers and build and sustain successful and mutually beneficial researcher- practitioner partnerships that lead to positive change for the system and justice-impacted individuals. In this article, I will begin by discussing strategies for identifying collaborators and building partnerships for those new to the world of collaborating with the other side. I will then provide some strategies for sustaining successful researcher-practitioner partnerships that I have learned along the way while also drawing on the experiences of others who have published in this realm. While I am an academic writing this from the perspective of the researcher who is passionate about evaluative and community-based action research, particularly in the area of re-entry, I hope my experiences presented herein are helpful to both researchers and practitioners alike.TRANSLATING RESEARCH Building Relationships Previous research (Sullivan et al., 2013) and experiences reported by researchers (Bales et al., 2014; Rudes et al., 2014) both suggest that successful collaborations are built upon preexisting relationships. This has also proven true for me, but only after working tirelessly to establish a network of connections over the last eight years. Only some, though, have the luxury of preexisting relationships. When I arrived in South Florida—1,200 miles away from the community in which I had lived for a decade—my only connections were with my new colleagues, whom I barely knew, which meant I had to go about building relationships from scratch. For those who do not have preexisting relationships on which to build, various methods can be utilized to find collaborators, including, but not limited to, talking with colleagues who have experience partnering with practitioners (or researchers), seeking out gatekeepers who can grant access to people and organizations, and joining local task forces or coalitions (Rudes et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2013). 1 I used a mix of the above methods to establish and grow my network. Indeed, one of my colleagues proved fruitful in opening doors at the outset. He was nearing retirement and invited me to assist with evaluating a reentry initiative that a corrections agency was implementing in a nearby city. Despite the minimal funding for the evaluation, I agreed to partner on the project, as I saw the future potential of working on this project—and funding is not everything early on, as there are other tangible benefits to formulating partnerships. When he retired, I became the principal investigator for this project, my first real foray into the messy but rewarding world of researcher-practitioner partnerships. Simultaneously evaluating the above reentry initiative, I began attending public meetings of the Palm Beach County (PBC) Criminal Justice Commission and Reentry Task Force to network with local gatekeepers. I initially observed, listened, and worked to understand the county’s local politics and reentry landscape. Despite being an emerging expert in evidence-based correctional and reentry practices, I was not an expert in the realities and real-world operations of reentry in PBC: I had much to learn. Given this fact, and being aware of practitioners’ mentality toward researchers—stuck in the Ivory Tower, too theoretical, intimidating, and pretentious (Rudes et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2013)—I deliberately listened and learned without interjecting. I then introduced myself to the players and developed rapport with those I saw as gatekeepers. When asked, I offered information and evidence based on research in a transparent manner and with an understanding of the practicalities and constraints of providing reentry services in PBC. Once I established myself as a “normal human” who was “not like other academics” (the number of times I have heard statements like these continues to amaze me and further speaks to the off-putting reputation of academics) and showed that I was invested in improving reentry practices in PBC, I was invited to become an advisory member to the PBC Reentry Task Force. This ultimately led to being the independent evaluator for a Bureau of Justice Assistance Innovations in Reentry Initiative grant awarded by the PBC Department of Public Safety. As other scholars have also found (e.g., Rudes et al., 2014), my involvement over the years with the PBC Reentry Task Force as well as my collaboration with and record of conducting vital, translatable research for the PBC Department of Public Safety, laid the foundation to partner with other local criminal justice agencies and non-profit organizations. Strategies for Sustaining Successful Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships Research is complicated. Research that brings together academics and practitioners adds a dynamic that makes the process even more complex. There are practices, however, that both sides can embrace to reduce stress and anxiety and increase the likelihood of productive and fulfilling partnerships. Rudes and colleagues (2014), for example, suggest that creating formal agreements, engaging in collaborative goal setting, and being receptive to continual feedback, among other strategies, are essential components to sustaining successful researcher-practitioner partnerships. Lane and colleagues (2004) argue that the critical factors for successful partnerships lie in less tangible qualities, including compatible personalities, mutual respect, continued communication, willingness to compromise, and attending to the relationship. Because others have already highlighted and commented on these strategies (see also Drawbridge et al., 2018), I will not do the same. Instead, in this section, I will provide separate strategies that have worked in my collaborative community-based partnerships. These include engaging in action research, writing for stakeholders and other audiences, and helping organizations translate research findings into practice.TRANSLATING RESEARCH Engage in Action Research According to Stringer and Aragón (2021), action research is “an approach to investigation that uses continuing cycles of observation, reflection, and action to reveal effective solutions to issues and problems experienced by people in their everyday lives or in times of crisis” (p. 4). In other words, action research is a methodology wherein all stakeholders, including the research and non-research counterparts (e.g., agencies, practitioners, subjects, etc.), take an active role and work collectively throughout the research process. This includes identifying the problem and theorizing why it is occurring, planning and implementing a course of action (i.e., intervention), evaluating the effectiveness, and modifying the intervention based on the evaluation findings. In the case of action research, researchers do not come into an organization, identify problems, obtain administrative data (or collect data for their purposes), and write academic manuscript. Instead, action researchers investigate real-life social issues, accept insights and inquiries from practitioners, involve those impacted by the issue, provide continual and iterative feedback, and formulate effective solutions (Stringer & Aragón, 2021). Successful researcher- practitioner partnerships will only occur if there is buy- in to the research process and those closest to the problem are included when looking for a solution to the problem. Indeed, as noted by Lune and Berg (2017), “all individuals involved in the study, researchers and subjects alike, [should be] deliberate and contributing actors in the research enterprise” (p. 137). Ultimately, all players should have a stake in the game. The action research process requires researchers and practitioners to connect early and communicate often. Lane and colleagues (2004) further highlight the importance of researchers and practitioners collaborating early in the research process, especially if submitting applications for grant funds to implement an intervention and conduct an independent evaluation. Regardless of who is applying for the grant—the practitioner or the researcher—both sides should be involved from the beginning and work collaboratively to develop the program and research designs. This can help reduce the differing views that are otherwise likely to occur regarding program implementation, data collection, outcome measurement, and dissemination of findings (Lane et al., 2004). Essentially, make sure everyone is on the same page from the beginning. In addition to connecting early, the importance of continual communication between all stakeholders cannot be overstated. Research partners, for example, should be included in all planning and implementation, training and technical assistance (TTA), and policy team meetings. On the other hand, practitioners should be included and consulted throughout the entire research process, including study design, sample identification, data collection, the definition of outcomes, and reviewing and providing feedback on reports. Write for Your Audience One aspect of a successful researcher-practitioner partnership that tends to be glossed over is writing for your audience. According to Sullivan et al. (2013), “practitioners need products that are translatable and written in lay language” (p. 17). Like many other academics, while in graduate school, I was taught to write scholarly manuscripts for publication in peer- reviewed academic journals. Much less attention was paid to public policy training and teaching graduate students to write for practitioners and project stakeholders. As such, I taught myself how to write evaluation reports for and disseminate research findings to my community-based, non-academic partners. To do this, I asked my grant TTA partners to provide examples of well-written and organized evaluation reports and, in addition read many publicly available evaluation reports. I also looked at a local agency and organizational annual reports. Although not research-oriented, these agency reports allowed me to see how community-based organizations and agencies write for their organization. Moreover, I simply asked my practitioner counterparts what was most beneficial to them and what they wanted to see in a report. Through trial and error and listening to my partners, I have learned what they find helpful in reports and what is not. For example, while it is necessary to report the research methodology, analytic procedures, and statistical findings in reports, as academics, we must remember that practitioners likely do not know (and do not necessarily care) what hierarchical linear modeling, logistic regression, or area under the curve entails. Therefore, when reporting techniques and findings to non-academic partners, consider placing the scientific details in footnotes or an appendix so they do not detract the reader from the main findings. If researchers are not asking these questions about what is needed in a report, TRANSLATING RESEARCH practitioners should take the initiative to communicate to their research partners what report information is essential to their agency and stakeholders. Additionally, practitioners (and even stuffy academics) appreciate and have an easier time understanding data and information if presented using appropriate graphical representation (i.e., data visualization), such as charts, graphs, and maps. There are many useful (and free!) tools that I utilize when writing evaluation reports, including Canva, Venngage, and Piktochart. Furthermore, short executive summaries are essential to any report. It is unlikely that more than a handful of people will thoroughly read a 100-page final report. Therefore, all reports should include an executive summary that clearly and concisely summarizes the report’s key points. This is what practitioners will read. 2 Translate Findings into Practice Another often overlooked aspect of successful researcher-practitioner partnerships is the ability and willingness of researchers to work with practitioners to translate research findings into actual policy and practice. In my experience, successful partnerships are long-term and continue beyond producing a final report. I fully expect my research to lead to more than just a publication in an academic journal, and I work with practitioners to implement change based on the findings of my evaluations. While this entails many actions on my part, it also requires organizational leadership and front-line staff to be supportive of making data-driven decisions and changes to existing practice (Pesta et al., 2019). If agencies are resistant to change and unwilling to implement recommendations that stem from the research, collaborations are unlikely to be perceived as successful (Sullivan et al., 2013). When there is buy-in from those in the position to implement change, researchers must do their part to facilitate the translation of research into practice. This requires communicating and disseminating findings in multiple ways, particularly in ways that are helpful to practitioners. This can include but is not limited to, presentations to stakeholders and at practitioner- oriented conferences, as well as the creation of fact sheets, practice/policy briefs, and manuals/toolkits (Sullivan et al., 2013). Another factor, according to Pesta and colleagues (2019), is that “knowledge translation is facilitated when research is detailed and locally applicable” (p. 500). As I mentioned above, academics are primarily taught to write for academic audiences. Much of the research is inaccessible to practitioners and only found through pay-walled, jargon-laden journal articles filled with cumbersome and challenging to interpret the writing. Therefore, when translating research findings into practice, the research partner must define a course of action for practitioners to take—precise, specific, realistic, directly applicable to practice, and considers the local context (Pesta et al., 2019). This also means that research findings may not fully translate to other contexts without consideration of local norms and practices. Researchers should also consult with their practitioner counterparts when developing recommendations, as this will help ensure that recommendations are practical and align with the inner workings of the agency and intervention. Indeed, multiple practitioners I work with have informed me that they appreciate clear and concise reports that provide tangible actions to take moving forward. Conclusion Researcher-practitioner partnerships are a complex yet rewarding way to enact research- and data-driven system change. However, developing such partnerships can seem daunting when someone is new to the world of collaboration or to a community. There are multiple methods, though, that researchers and practitioners can utilize to identify collaborators—all of which worked for me when I established my network in South Florida. This included talking with colleagues who had experience partnering with practitioners, seeking out gatekeepers who could grant access to organizations, and joining the local Palm Beach County Reentry Task Force, and attending Criminal Justice Commission meetings. Once collaborators are identified, both sides must work together to ensure that the partnership is mutually beneficial and satisfying to all parties. Previous research has outlined personal characteristics practitioners and researchers find essential to successful collaborations. These include mutual respect, trust, strong interpersonal and communication skills, willingness and ability to adapt, and being open to constructive feedback, among others (Lane et al., 2004; Pesta et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2013). Beyond personal characteristics, research also suggests that written agreements, buy- in at all levels (from leadership to front-line staff), and TRANSLATING RESEARCH collaborative goal-setting and planning are important to successful collaborations (Rudes et al., 2014). This article sought to add to this dialogue by highlighting how engaging in action research, writing for your target audience, and translating research findings into practice can also facilitate successful researcher-practitioner partnerships. While this article is not exhaustive in providing ways in which partnerships can be built and sustained, I hope that both researchers and practitioners can take some of the insights provided and apply it to their colthemborative efforts. References Bales, W. D., Scaggs, S. J. A., Clark, C. L., Ensley, D., & Coltharp, P. (2014). Researcher-practitioner partnerships: A case of the development of a long-term collaborative project between a university and a criminal justice agency. Criminal Justice Studies, 27(4), 294-307. Drawbridge, D. C., Taheri, S. A., & Frost, N. A. (2018). Building and sustaining academic researcher and criminal justice practitioner partnerships: A corrections example. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 627- 640. Lane, J., Turner, S., & Flores, C. (2004). Researcher- practitioner collaboration in community corrections: Overcoming hurdles for successful partnerships. Criminal Justice Review, 29(1), 97-114. Lune, H. & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (9th ed.). Pearson. Pesta, G. B., Blomberg, T. G., Ramos, J., & Ranson, J. W. A. (2019). Translational criminology: Toward best practice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 499- 518. Rodin, J. (2007). The university and urban revival: Out of the Ivory Tower and into the streets. The University of Pennsylvania Press. Rudes, D. S., Viglione, J., Lerch, J., Porter, P., & Taxman, F. S. (2014). Build to sustain: Collaborative partnerships between university researchers and criminal justice practitioners. Criminal Justice Studies, 27(3), 249-263. Stringer, E. T. & Aragón, A. O. (2021). Action research (5th ed.). Sage. Sullivan, T. P., McPartland, T., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). Guidelines for successful researcher-practitioner partnerships in the criminal justice system: Findings from the Researcher-Practitioner Partnership Study (RPPS). National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/grants/243918.pdf Biographical note: Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Associate Director in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. Her research interests span both institutional and community corrections with an emphasis on reentry and reintegration, evidence-based practices, and program/policy evaluation. Cassandra’s research focuses on evidence-based practices and program/ policy evaluation to identify what works in corrections. Cassandra has evaluated programs and policies for a variety of agencies, including the Florida Department of Corrections, Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission, Palm Beach County Public Safety Department, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, The Lord’s Place, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Windham School District, Harris County STAR Drug Court, Harris County Veterans’ Court Program, and Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections Department.Membership Application YES! I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN APPA: REFERRED BY:___________________________ (U.S. currency) Student Membership(1 year) $25 Individual Member(1 year) $50 Individual Member(3 year) $135 Level I Agency Member(800+ staff - 1 year) $1,000 Level II Agency Member(500-799 staff - 1 year) $750 Level III Agency Member(101-499 staff - 1 year) $550 Level IV Agency Member(<100 staff - 1 year) $300 (1 year) $250 Associate Member Affiliate Member (1 year) $1,000 Corporate Member(1 year) $8,000 Educational Institution(1 year) $150 Library Subscription(1 year) $60 Lifetime Member(Lifetime) $300 (Individual must meet qualification criteria. Additional materials will be mailed to you upon receipt of this form to complete your application) CONTACT INFORMATION: First Name: Last Name: Title: Email: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Agency/Organization: Check if same address as above Agency/Org. Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Website: METHOD OF PAYMENT: Check Purchase Order Check Enclosed Government Purchase Order Enclosed; PO # _________________________________________________ For credit card payments, please call Kimberly Mills at 859.244.8204. Mail or fax application and payment to: APPA c/o The Council of State Governments 1776 Avenue of the States • Lexington, KY 40511-8482 Fax: (859) 244-8001 For further information, call (859)244-8204 or email appamembership@csg.org Individual applicants, please complete the following: Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 26 years LENGTH OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Female Male GENDER African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic Native American/ Alaska Native Other______________ RACE/ETHNICITY Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree GED High School Diploma Master’s Degree Doctorate HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION Urban (Pop. >50,000) Rural (Pop. <50,000) Both Urban and Rural GEOGRAPHIC WORK AREAS City County Federal Province State Tribal Alaskan Village Other _____________ JOB JURISDICTION Case Management/Planning Controlled Substances Criminogenic Risk/Needs Diversity Domestic Violence DUI Electronic Monitoring Evidence-Based Practice Family Justice Fines, Fees & Restitution Gangs International Interstate Compact/Commission Judicial Juvenile Justice Offender Employment Offender Mental Health Officer Safety/Wellness Parole Pretrial Probation Professional Development Public Policy Public Relations Recidivism Research/Evaluation Restorative Justice Sex Offender Management Supervision Strategies Technology Victims Issues Workplace Other: _____________ I AM INTERESTED IN: Academia Adult Correction Adult Parole Adult Probation Community Justice Juvenile Parole Juvenile Probation Judicial Non-Profit Pretrial Services Private Residential Treatment Provider APPA Advocacy Stances Awards & Spotlights Career Center Executive Summit Leadership Institute Marketing Opportunities Online Training Courses Specialized Services Training Institutes Writing for Quarterly Journal PRIMARY WORK SECTOR APPA OFFERINGS Administrator Attorney Commissioner/Director/Chief Consultant Educator Grant Coordinator Judge Line Officer Parole Board Member Private Project Director Retired Specialist Student Supervisor Trainer Transition Specialist PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY *For new Affiliate memberships a copy of the organization’s current list of board of directors and/or elected officers and written mission statement. All Affiliate applications are subject to approval by the APPA board of directors. A vote will be taken at the next regularly scheduled board meeting to approve new affiliates. AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATIONNext >