摘要：We explored current policies and practices on the use of incentives in research involving adult offenders under correctional supervision in prison and in the community (probation and parole) in Canada. We contacted the correctional departments of each of the Canadian provinces and territories, as well as the federal government department responsible for offenders serving sentences of two years or more. Findings indicated that two departments had formal policy whereas others had unwritten practices, some prohibiting their use and others allowing incentives on a case-by-case basis. Given the differences across jurisdictions, it would be valuable to examine how current incentive policies and practices are implemented to inform national best practices on incentives for offender-based research. IN HISTORY, OFFENDERS HAVE been used in a variety of medical and behavioral studies without a properly informed consent process, often with little choice over their participation. As a result, guidelines were developed to protect offenders and other vulnerable populations. 1,2 Today, the offender population is still considered by many to be vulnerable: within the prison environment and while under community supervision, offenders are subject to restrictions under which they may be easily coerced. In the United States, there are specific regulations for ethical considerations for research involving prisoners. 3 In Canada there is no direct parallel to these regulations. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) is the central policy governing ethical conduct in research involving human participants in Canada. 4 This document is a joint policy of the three Canadian federal research agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Its guidelines are based on three core principles and are applied to all research involving human participants: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. Prisoners are classified as a vulnerable population and thus are afforded special attention to be treated justly in research and to ensure that participation does not exacerbate their vulnerability. The TCPS (2010) defines incentives as “anything offered to participants, monetary or otherwise, for participation in research.”4(p29) This policy states that incentives can be used to encourage participation in a research project, but should not be overly attractive as to entice a research participant to take unwarranted risks. Under TCPS the term incentives is broadly focused and can include compensation for participant’s time and effort or reimbursement to offset costs associated with participation. Therefore, in keeping with the TCPS, throughout this article, the term incentive will be used broadly to include all forms of compensation or reimbursement offered for participation in research. For some offenders, incentives may have the potential to act as an undue inducement to participate in a study that could negatively affect the voluntariness of consent: “the offer of incentives in some contexts may be perceived by potential participants as a way to gain favour or improve their situation.”4(p29) For example, some may argue that offering monetary incentives to offenders who are economically disadvantaged or have a substance abuse problem may entice their participation because they are impoverished. Thus, the onus is on the researchers and on research ethics boards to determine the “appropriate” use of incentives through critical evaluation of the benefits and risks for their population of interest. Prison populations have particularly high rates of mental illness, 5,6 a factor that may affect capacity for consent and be a further consideration in the debate on use of incentives. For example, Dunn et al. 7 found that the ability of participants with mental illness and cognitive impairments to freely consent when incentives were offered was questionable. By contrast, Moser et al. 8 found that prisoners with mental health problems were as likely as healthy controls (recruited from general population through advertisements and word of mouth) with no current mental health issues or involvement in the criminal justice system to demonstrate adequate capacity for consent. They argued that “ethicists must continue to study and weigh the potential vulnerability of prisoners versus the possibility that they have become an overprotected population.”8(p8) In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy warns about overprotectionist attitudes or practices on the part of researchers and research ethics boards that might exclude some members of society from research participation. Excluding certain societal groups from research can be seen as a failure to treat these people justly and produces noninclusive research. 4 There may be controversy on the use of incentives in research involving offenders; however, study findings suggest that incentives improve recruitment rates in research with both mainstream 9 and marginalized groups such as women who have experienced violence and both men and women with a history of illicit drug use (80% of offenders are assessed with a drug problem at institutional intake). 10–12 A related concern is that discrimination can arise if offenders are treated differently than other populations who are compensated for their research participation. 13 Although people participate in research for a variety of reasons (e.g., volunteerism, the research topic, a contribution to knowledge), we live in a competitive market economy where compensation is an integral aspect of the market system. Granted, some occupations and skills demand greater compensation than others (e.g., CEOs vs short-order cooks), but it is generally accepted that people should be paid for their time and input. It could be argued that research should be no different—no matter who participates. A recent study in the United States, which surveyed 46 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, found that 44% of these correctional jurisdictions allowed incentives for offenders who participate in research. They also found that policies from state to state varied considerably. 14 The purpose of this study was to examine current practice in the use of incentives for research with adult offenders in Canada. We were specifically interested in research conducted while offenders were under correctional supervision either in the institution or under parole or probation supervision in the community. To meet our objective we documented policies and practices of Canada’s provincial, territorial, and federal agencies responsible for the administration of correctional supervision for adult offenders in prison and in the community (i.e., probation and parole). For all departments included in this article, we documented the policy or “common practice” regarding the use of incentives for all types of research among adult offenders, whether initiated and funded internally by correctional departments or conducted by research external to these departments and funded by external granting agencies such as the three agencies that jointly uphold the TCPS (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada). The study is concerned with any type of research that touches the offender population whether it is about interventions that assist with readjustment to the community after release or qualitative research about experiences of the prison environment.
