Proposal for an Award for Correctional or Court Research and Analysis conducted
by Agency Research Practitioners
-- Proposal for consideration at the DCS meeting on November 21, 2013
Summary Concept: Each year at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, the Division of Corrections and Sentencing will provide an award to honor
research and analysis aimed at a policy impact and conducted by a government employee
for that agency. The awardee will be selected on the basis of: 1. the quality of the
research performed (re research design, conduct of the effort, analysis, and soundness of
findings), 2. the quality of the report or presentation, and 3. the significance of the topic
and the impact of the report. Work must have been prepared and submitted in the year
preceding the ASC meeting, for example, the 2014 award will go to work completed in
2013. The work must relate to institutional corrections, community corrections, or
sentencing and the agencies and policies related to those areas. Work on selection of the
award winner will take place between April and August. The winner will be notified in
early September; he or she will be invited to attend the Annual Meeting and present on
the research at a DCS special panel. The winner will be authorized $500 for housing and
travel to attend the meeting.
Need for the proposal: An increasing amount of excellent work with regard to criminal
justice policy and analysis takes place in government agencies, conducted by agency
employees. That research often has a great impact on the agency and government for
which the work is conducted, but it is frequently not noticed by the broader criminology
and criminal justice research community, which is primarily based in the academic
community and a series of strong, non-profit research organizations. Those communities
generally find their reward system favors publication in peer-reviewed articles and the
number and size of grant awards. In contrast, agency researchers are valued for helping
others to improve policy decisions—for example, safer and more efficient agency
operation, budget efficiencies, better program outcomes, reduced recidivism and other
positive community outcomes. But after working on a project or assignment, there is
little reward for taking what can be valuable findings and preparing them for journal
submission. This award category is to encourage those researchers in their activities by
bringing praise to their best work, and it is also to help bring some of that very applied
research to the notice of the broader research community.
Schedule for a year’s activity with regard to the DCS Agency Research Award:
*December – January of the next year: DCS Chair selects a committee chair and works
with that chair to staff a committee. Review committee members should have at least a
modest amount of experience with research in an agency setting.
*February- March-- The committee will advertise for submission of proposed projects to
be considered. A list of prison systems, community corrections organizations, and court
systems will be developed and notice will be sent electronically to those organizations,
encouraging those in the research area to consider what they did in the previous year and
send the best two or three pieces of work to the committee for consideration. Other
agencies that sometimes conduct work in these topic areas will be contacted and invited
to submit also. Examples might be SAC’s or Sentencing Commissions. Organizations
such as the Institutional Corrections Research Network, the Community Corrections
Research Network, APPA, JRSA, NCSC, will be encouraged to forward the notice to
agency researchers in their membership.
*April will have a deadline for submission of research to be reviewed. Electronic
submission will be preferred, but any of several formats will be acceptable—pdf, a
memo, monograph, or document, a spreadsheet, or powerpoint or slide presentation, for
example. There will be some additional paperwork required to explain the policy issue at
which the research was directed, the impact, to the degree that it is known, and the main
researcher/ author.
*April through the end of August—Nominated projects will be reviewed by the
Committee, augmented by other reviewers if needed.
*September—The committee shall forward a proposed award winner to the DCS
Executive Board with an explanation as to why it was selected. After ratification by the
DCS Executive Board, the Awardee will be contacted. It is hoped that they will still be
in position to attend the Annual Meeting and discuss their findings. (A panel time and
place will have been pre-arranged, but since the program will be complete, a specific
announcement will be available only through DCS’s inserts into the Criminologist and
the conference packet.) Two or three other high-finishers will be invited to attend and
participate in the panel, although no reimbursement can be provided.
*October- November—Practical arrangements for the panel & for award certificates will
be made.
Expected scoring: (100 points possible)
 Soundness of Research/ Analysis (up to 40 points)—design, methods, effective
analysis, scope/ innovation
 Policy Impact/ Implications (up to 40 points) – connection of findings to conclusions/
recommendations, potential influence/ actual impact, comprehensive review for future
use
Presentation (up to 20 points)—organization, clarity, conciseness, visuals, innovative.
Reviewers should not review a proposal where there might be perceived to be a conflict
of interest.
It is expected that no single agency will submit more than two pieces of research for
consideration.
End of Formal Proposal
Additional comments for consideration
1. I wish to thank very extensively Joan Weiss of the JRSA, who provided excellent
guidance on their process and offered several useful tips.
2. This is an exploratory effort. We do not have any idea how many proposals might be
submitted. This will make determining the number of reviews a very difficult task. We
could probably be certain of a fewer number of items to review by using nominations by
DCS members. However, as one of the purposes of this award is to get as many agency
researchers as possible involved in ASC, a broader search effort is put forward in the
proposal.
3. JRSA has two awards, one for broader research and one for data analysis; at this point
I did not go toward two categories. They also offer feedback on the nominated work they
receive; the feedback is reported to be highly valued. That seems too great a task to
attempt for a new award.
4. It may not be possible to determine the full impact of an analysis in the first few
months after it is completed. Projected impact can be considered, but at a lower level of
credit.
5. It may be difficult to determine who is the primary researcher on a specific submittal.
If they agree that two or more are equally responsible, I suggest that the dollar award can
be shared, but not increased.
6. Because this structure emphasizes completed work from the year before, it would be
impossible to add the specific presentation to the program. If we retain this proposed
structure, I suggest it be run by the ASC Executive Director to determine if the late
announcement is all right.