After nearly four decades of growth, the number of people held in U.S. prisons has begun to decline. In an era of decarceration, social scientists need to understand prisoner reentry experiences. Longitudinal studies are one strategy to accomplish this goal. Yet, the retention of a formerly incarcerated population across waves of interviews is challenging due to their transient lifestyles and limited support systems, which may be further complicated by gang involvement. This article details the longitudinal follow-up procedures used in the LoneStar Project—a multiwave study of 802 males first interviewed in prison and reinterviewed twice in the year postrelease—to build rapport, complete interviews, and minimize attrition. We then evaluate the effectiveness of our procedures on important outcomes including interview yields, appointments, and incoming calls. Results indicate that any outgoing contact with respondents via appointment reminders and other reciprocal modes of contact lead to greater project engagement and a greater likelihood of interview completion. We conclude with relevant takeaways for researchers seeking to maximize survey participation with hard-to-reach populations.
AlperMarielDuroseMatthew R.MarkmanJoshua. 2018. 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-year Follow-up Period (2005-2014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2.
AnseelFrederikLievensFilipSchollaertEvelineChoragwickaBeata. 2010. “Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers.” Journal of Business and Psychology25(3):335–49.
3.
ArnoldTom. 2014. “Longitudinal Studies of Criminal Behavior: What We Have Learned about Collecting Data on the Life Course.” The DLC Criminologist2(2):9–23.
4.
BeckerKirstenBerrySandra H.OrrNatePerlmanJudy. 2014. “Finding the Hard to Reach and Keeping Them Engaged in Research.” Pp. 619–41 in Hard-to-survey Populations, edited by TourangeauR.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P.WolterK. M.BatesN.. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BinswangerIngrid A.SternMarc F.DeyoRichard A.HeagertyPatrick J.CheadleAllenElmoreJoann G.KoepsellThomas D.. 2007. “Release from Prison—A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates.” The New England Journal of Medicine356(2):157–65.
6.
BlumsteinAlfredCohenJacquelineFarringtonDavid P.. 1988. “Criminal Career Research: Its Value for Criminology.” Criminology26(1):1–35.
7.
BolanosFranklinHerbeckDianeChristouDaynaLovingerKatherinePhamAuroraRaihanAdnanRodriguezLuzSheaffPatriciaBrechtMary-Lynn. 2012. “Using Facebook to Maximize Follow-up Response Rates in a Longitudinal Study of Adults Who Use Methamphetamine.” Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment6:1–11.
8.
BootsmillerBonnie J.RibislKurt M.MowbrayCarol T.DavidsonWilliam S.WaltonMaureen A.HermanSandra E.. 1998. “Methods of Ensuring High Follow-up Rates: Lessons from a Longitudinal Study of Dual Diagnosed Participants.” Substance Use & Misuse33(13):2665–85.
9.
BoysAnnabelMarsdenJohnStillwellGarryHatchingsKevinGriffithsPaulFarrellMichael. 2003. “Minimizing Respondent Attrition in Longitudinal Research: Practical Implications from a Cohort Study of Adolescent Drinking.” Journal of Adolescence26(3):363–73.
10.
BurnettJohn. 2015. “Look at This: The Bus Station.” National Public Radio, April.
11.
ButlerJamesQuinnSandra C.FryerCraig S.GarzaMary A.KimKevin H.ThomasStephen B.. 2013. “Characterizing Researchers by Strategies Used for Retaining Minority Participants: Results of a National Survey.” Contemporary Clinical Trials36(1):61–67.
12.
ClausRonald E.KindlebergerLisa R.DuganMary C.. 2002. “Predictors of Attrition in a Longitudinal Study of Substance Abusers.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs34(1):69–74.
13.
CoenAnita SarangaPatrickDiane C.ShernDavid L.. 1996. “Minimizing Attrition in Longitudinal Studies of Special Populations: An Integrated Management Approach.” Evaluation and Program Planning19(4):309–19.
14.
CollinsRebecca L.EllicksonPhyllis L.HaysRon D.McCaffreyDaniel F.. 2000. “Effects of Incentive Size and Timing on Response Rates to a Follow-up Wave of a Longitudinal Mailed Survey.” Evaluation Review24(4):347–63.
15.
CopesHeithHochstetlerAndyBrownAnastasia. 2013. “Inmates’ Perceptions of the Benefits and Harm of Prison Interviews.” Field Methods25(2):182–96.
16.
CotterRobert B.BurkeJeffrey D.LoeberRolfNavratilJudith L.. 2002. “Innovative Retention Methods in Longitudinal Research: A Case Study of the Developmental Trends Study.” Journal of Child and Family Studies11(4):485–98.
17.
CotterRobert B.BurkeJeffrey D.Stouthamer-LoeberMagdaLoeberRolf. 2005. “Contacting Participants for Follow-up: How Much Effort Is Required to Retain Participants in Longitudinal Studies?” Evaluation and Program Planning28(1):15–21.
18.
CrisantiAnnette S.CaseBrian F.IsaksonBrian L.SteadmanHenry J.. 2014. “Understanding Study Attrition in the Evaluation of Jail Diversion Programs for Persons with Serious Mental Illness or Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior41(6):772–90.
19.
CurtisRic. 2010. “Getting Good Data from People That Do Bad Things: Effective Methods and Techniques for Conduting Research with Hard-to-reach and Hidden Populations.” Pp. 141–58 in Offenders on Offending: Learning about Crime from Criminals, edited by BernascoW.. London, England: Willan.
20.
DillmanDon A.2000. Mail and Internet Survey: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
EdensJohn F.EpsteinMonicaStilesPaul G.PoythressNorman G.. 2011. “Voluntary Consent in Correctional Settings: Do Offenders Feel Coerced to Participate in Research?” Behavioral Sciences & the Law29(6):771–95.
22.
EidsonJillian L.RomanCaterina G.CahillMeagan. 2016. “Successes and Challenges in Recruiting and Retaining Gang Members in Longitudinal Research: Lessons Learned from a Multisite Social Network Study.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice15(4):396–418.
23.
EppersonMatthew W.Pettus-DavisCarrieGrierAnnieSawhLeon. 2018. “Promote Smart Decarceration.” Pp. 181–203 in Grand Challenges for Social Work and Society, edited by FongR.LubbenJ.BarthR. P.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
Fatherhood Research & Practice Network. 2016. Using Cellphone Technologies in Fatherhood Programs and Research. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Policy Research.
25.
FongRobert S.BuentelloSalvador. 1991. “The Detection of Prison Gang Development: An Empirical Assessment.” Federal Probation55(1):66–69.
26.
FoxKathleen A.LaneJodiTurnerSusan F.. 2018. Encountering Correctional Populations: A Practical Guide for Researchers. Oakland: University of California Press.
27.
GeorgeShebaDuranNelidaNorrisKeith. 2014. “A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators to Minority Research Participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.” American Journal of Public Health104(2):16–31.
28.
GilmoreDevinKupermincGabriel P.. 2014. “Testing a Model of Participant Retention in Longitudinal Substance Abuse Research.” American Journal of Evaluation35(4):467–84.
29.
GottfredsonMichael R.HirschiTravis. 1987. “The Methodological Adequacy of Longitudinal Research on Crime.” Criminology25(3):581–614.
30.
GrapeAnnetteRheeHyekyunWicksMonaTumiel-BerhalterLaureneSloandElizabeth. 2018. “Recruitment and Retention Strategies for an Urban Adolescent Study: Lessons Learned from a Multi-center Study of Community-based Asthma Self-management Intervention for Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescence65:123–32.
31.
GraziottiAnn L.HammondJaneMessingerDaniel S.BannCarla M.Miller-LoncarCynthiaTwomeyJean E.BursiCharlotteWoldtEuniceNelsonJay AnnFleischmannDebraAlexanderBarbara. 2012. “Maintaining Participation and Momentum in Longitudinal Research Involving High-risk Families.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship44(2):120–26.
HobdenKarenForneyJason CurtisDurhamKathleen WyszackiToroPaul. 2011. “Limiting Attrition in Longitudinal Research on Homeless Adolescents: What Works Best?” Journal of Community Psychology39(4):443–51.
34.
HughesTimothyWilsonDoris James. 2004. Reentry Trends in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
35.
HunterJenniferPuenteManuel De LaSaloMatt. 2003. Comparative Ethnographic Research on Mobile Populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Research Division.
36.
JamesNathan. 2015. Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
37.
KleschinskyJohn H.BosworthLeslie B.NelsonSarah E.WalshErinn K.ShafferHoward J.. 2009. “Persistence Pays off: Follow-up Methods for Difficult-to-track Longitudinal Samples.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs70(5):751–61.
38.
LattimorePamela K.SteffeyDanielle M.. 2009. The Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI: Methodology and Analytic Approach. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
39.
Legislative Budget Board Staff. 2017. “Overview of Criminal Justice Correctional Population Projections, Recidivism Rates, and Costs per Day.” Report provided by the Legislative Budget Board, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Department of Public Safety, February 23, 2017.
40.
Martinez-EbersValerie. 1997. “Using Monetary Incentives with Hard-to-reach Populations in Panel Surveys.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research9(1):77–86.
41.
McCullerWilliam J.SussmanSteveHolidayKarenCraigSandeDentClyde W.. 2002. “Tracking Procedures for Locating High-risk Youth.” Evaluation & the Health Professions25(3):345–62.
42.
McLaughlinPatriciaWhiteNickKingKateHannRobert G.WilliamsRobert J.SchopflocherDonaldWestBeverlyFlexhaugTrevor. 2014. QLS Front-Line Retention Manual: Methods for Achieving a 94% Cohort Retention Rate in Longitudinal Research. Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
43.
MenendezEnriqueWhiteMary CastleTulskyJacqueline P.. 2001. “Locating Study Subjects: Predictors and Successful Search Strategies with Inmates Released from a U.S. County Jail.” Controlled Clinical Trials22(3):238–47.
44.
MeyersKathleenWebbAliciaFrantzJeanneRandallMary. 2003. “What Does It Take to Retain Substance-abusing Adolescents in Research Protocols? Delineation of Effort Required, Strategies Undertaken, Costs Incurred, and 6-month Post-treatment Differences by Retention Difficulty.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence69(1):73–85.
45.
MitchellMeghan M.SpoonerKalleeJunWuPyroozDavid C.DeckerScott H.. 2018. “Survey Research with Gang and Non-gang Members in Prison: Operational Lessons from the LoneStar Project.” Trends in Organized Crime1–29. doi:10.1007/s12117-018-9331-1.
46.
MorrisonTheodore C.WahlgrenDennis R.HovellMelbourne F.ZakarianJoyBurkham-KreitnerSusanRichard HofstetterC.SlymenDonald J.KeatingKristenRussosStergiosJonesJennifer A.. 1997. “Tracking and Follow-up of 16,915 Adolescents: Minimizing Attrition Bias.” Controlled Clinical Trials18(5):383–96.
47.
MouleRichard K.DeckerScott H.. 2013. “‘Hidden in Plain Sight’: Locating the Men and Women of the 1954 Boston Special Youth Program.” Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology1(2):267–91.
48.
MulveyEdward P.SchubertCarol A.PiqueroAlex R.. 2014. Pathways to Desistance—Final Technical Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
49.
MurrayGlenn F.EricksonPatricia G.. 1987. “Cross-sectional versus Longitudinal Research: An Empirical Comparison of Projected and Subsequent Criminality.” Social Science Research16(2):107–18.
50.
MuttiSeemaKennedyRyan DavidThompsonMary E.FongGeoffrey T.. 2014. “Prepaid Monetary Incentives-predictors of Taking the Money and Completing the Survey: Results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four-country Survey.” Sociological Methods & Research43(2):338–55.
51.
MychasiukR.BenziesK.. 2011. “Facebook: An Effective Tool for Participant Retention in Longitudinal Research.” Child: Care, Health & Development38(5):753–56.
52.
PassettiLora L.GodleySusan H.ScottChristy K.SiekmannMelissa. 2000. “A Low-cost Follow-up Resource: Using the World Wide Web to Maximize Client Location Efforts.” American Journal of Evaluation21(2):195–203.
53.
PickettJustin T.MetcalfeChristi FalcoBakerThomasGertzMarcBedardLaura. 2014. “Superficial Survey Choice: An Experimental Test of a Potential Method for Increasing Response Rates and Response Quality in Correctional Surveys.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology30(2):265–84.
54.
PosickChadRocqueMichael. 2018. Great Debates in Criminology. New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
PyroozDavid C.DeckerScott H.. 2019. Competing for Control: Gangs and the Social Order of Prisons. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56.
PyroozDavid C.McGloinJean MarieDeckerScott H.. 2017. “Parenthood as a Turning Point in the Life Course for Male and Female Gang Members: A Study of within-individual Changes in Gang Membership and Criminal Behavior.” Criminology55(4):869–99.
57.
PyroozDavid C.MitchellMeghan M.. 2019. “The Use of Restrictive Housing on Gang and Non-gang Affiliated Inmates in U.S. Prisons: Findings from a National Survey of Correctional Agencies.” Justice Quarterly1–27. doi:10.1080/07418825.2019.1574019.
58.
RossmanSheli B.RomanJohn K.ZweigChristin H.LindquistChristine H.RempelMichaelWillisonJaneen BuckMitchell DowneyP.FahrneyKristine. 2011. The Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview and Design, Volume 1. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
59.
SampsonRobert J.LaubJohn H.. 1997. “A Life-course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.” Pp. 146–70 in Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, edited by ThornberryT. P.. New York, NY: Routledge.
60.
SandlerJennaFeinbergEmilySilvaChristineChenNingSilversteinMichael. 2013, November5. “Predictors of Phone Call Attempts to Complete Follow-up Assessments in Longitudinal Mental Health Research.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of American Public Health Association.
61.
SenturiaYvonne D.MortimerKathleen McNiffBakerDeanGergenPeterMitchellHermanJosephChristineJames WednerH.. 1998. “Successful Techniques for Retention of Study Participants in an Inner-city Population.” Controlled Clinical Trials19(6):544–54.
62.
SugieNaomi F.2018. “Utilizing Smartphones to Study Disadvantaged and Hard-to-reach Groups.” Sociological Methods & Research47(3):458–91.
TourangeauRoger. 2014. “Defining Hard-to-survey Populations.” Pp. 3–20 in Hard-to-survey Populations, edited by TourangeauR.EdwardsB.JohnsonT. P.WolterK. M.BatesN.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
UllmanSarah E.2011. “Longitudinal Tracking Methods in a Study of Adult Women Sexual Assault Survivors.” Violence Against Women17(2):189–200.
66.
VincentKathryn B.KasperskiSarah J.CaldeiraKimberly M.Garnier-DykstraLaura M.PinchevskyGillian M.O’GradyKevin E.ArriaAmelia M.. 2012. “Maintaining Superior Follow-up Rates in a Longitudinal Study: Experiences from the College Life Study.” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches6(1):56–72.
67.
WaltonMaureen A.RamanathanChathapuram S.ReischlThomas M.. 1998. “Tracking Substance Abusers in Longitudinal Research: Understanding Follow-up Contact Difficulty.” American Journal of Community Psychology26(2):233–53.
68.
WesternBruce. 2018. Homeward: Life in the Year after Prison. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
69.
WesternBruceBragaAnthony A.HureauDavid M.SiroisCatherine. 2015. “Study Retention as Bias Reduction in a Hard-to-reach Population.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(20):5477–85.
70.
WrightJames D.AllenTupper LamptonDevineJoel A.. 1995. “Tracking Non-Traditional Populations in Longitudinal Studies.” Evaluation and Program Planning18(3):267–77.
71.
YammarinoFrancis J.SkinnerSteven J.ChildersTerry L.. 1991. “Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly55(4):613–39.
72.
YanTingCantorDavid. 2019. “Asking Survey Questions about Criminal Justice Involvement.” Public Health Reports134(Supplement 1):46–56.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
