Client Compensation and Follow-up: A Comparison of Two Boston Prisoner Reentry Programs

• In Event: 178 - Regular Session. Ethics and Science

Abstract

Ethics are fundamental to mental health research. The inclusion of client incentives as an exchange for one’s time as an ethical consideration in research design has garnered controversy. While client compensation has generated differing perspectives from an ethical standpoint having to do with valuing a person’s time to being coercive, less research has examined its potential influence on program attrition rates and follow-up. The disparate impact that absence of client incentives can have on attrition rates is clear in two comparative reentry programs providing services to men and women reentering the Boston area with co-occurring disorders. Both programs share the same project timeline, scope, and implement similar instrumentation and assessments (require similar cognitive effort) but are funded by separate sources. One funding agency will not allow the program to provide client incentives of any kind while the other program is able to provide $20 gift card at follow-up. The differences in follow-up and attrition rates between the two programs are marked. The program (Program 1) providing incentives at follow-up has a 70% follow-up rate, while the program with no incentive aside from transportation passes (Program 2) yields a 14% follow-up rate. Poor follow-up rates can be detrimental to effective program evaluation and in determining the most optimal service delivery for clients, particularly an already challenging population to reach. This paper aims to be a conversation starter for the ethical consideration of not providing incentives, particularly when the clients involved are likely the most socioeconomically disadvantaged of us all.

Authors

• Lena Campagna

• Julianne Siegfriedt, University of Massachusetts Boston

• Taylor Lynn Hall, Boston University

• Stephanie W. Hartwell, University of Mass-Boston