Project Overview
The purpose of the study was to learn more about the perspectives of criminal justice stakeholders and graduates in prostitution diversion programs over a decade after its implementation and as a follow up to an ethnographic study conducted from 2011-2014, the data of which is also housed in the QDR database. The objective is to identify lessons learned and to develop knowledge about the evolution in graduates and other stakeholders' thinking about prostitution diversion programs and their continued efficacy and ethical legitimacy within an evolving social and legal context. This longitudinal qualitative study consists of semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 24 professional stakeholders and 3 graduates from two prostitution diversion programs. Interviews were conducted virtually via zoom for approximately 45-90 minutes, recorded, and transcribed. Content analysis involved open-coding and consensus by two coders.
Data and Data Collection Overview
This qualitative study included a sample of 27, comprised of 24 professional stakeholders and 3 former participants (two who successfully graduated and one who did not) from Project Dawn Court and two professional stakeholders from Baltimore’s Specialized Prostitution Diversion Program (formerly the Specialization Prostitution Diversion program). In order to yield a relatively comprehensive variety of perspectives from different time periods, we identified participants from the initial study through publicly available information and snowball sampling to connect with any current or former program stakeholders and program graduates. We contacted respondents via email to determine if they are interested in and willing to participate in the study and, in the case of snowball sampling, followed up in the manner indicated by anyone who agreed to allow the person who referred them to us.
We conducted confidential virtual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide, largely tailoring the interviews to the individual respondents. Interviews conducted using the Zoom platform lasted between 45-90 minutes. All but two interviews were recorded, one due to researcher error the other at the request of the respondent. The research team reviewed and corrected all of the automated transcriptions. We requested permission to follow up for purposes of clarification or with follow up questions, which we did as needed. Two of the interviews included multiple participants at the suggestion of the respondents; all other interviews were of individuals. The PI conducted all but one of the interviews which was conducted by research team member and doctoral graduate research assistant Nancy Franke. Some were conducted only by the PI, others included Nancy Franke and, on several occasions, post-doctoral fellow Inbar Cohen, who also asked questions, generally toward the end of the interview.
We used open, selective, and axial coding, reaching consensus on coding and later, emerging themes by at least two coders in order to analyze the data. Data were analyzed to build and generate both descriptive analysis (Sandelowski, 2000) and build theory (Charmaz, 2006), rather than beginning with a specific testable hypothesis (Padgett, 2008). We also used a constant comparative method of data analysis to allow us to revise the interview guide, as needed and to test our emerging conceptual frameworks to be examined in interviews with subsequent participants. We used NVIVO qualitative data software to code, analyze, and store the data.
In order to protect confidentiality and maximize respondents’ comfort level in sharing candidly, we refer to respondents by their chosen pseudonym; those who had participated in the prior study are referred to by their original pseudonyms. We also did not share with others who consented or declined to participate, even when potential respondents were referred through snowball sampling. We told respondents from the outset that they could review their transcript for confirmation or if they wished to amend or delete anything. Two respondents requested deletion of small portions of their transcript, and another respondent offered a correction. Participation in all cases was voluntary; we reminded respondents of this from the outset and explained that this also related to any question that they chose not to answer and that could discontinue the interview at any time for any reason (or no reason). We also asked respondents to select a private and confidential location for the interview. Diversion program participants received a $25 electronic gift certificate to a vendor of their choice as compensation for their time and effort; legal system and affiliate professional stakeholders received no compensation for participating.
Upon agreement to participate in the study, we shared a copy of a letter of explanation which contained all the elements of consent so that respondents could review it prior to the interview. Before the interview commenced, the interviewer asked the participant if they had any questions about the letter of explanation or the study and asked for verbal consent prior to beginning the interview.
The University of Maryland Baltimore Institutional Review Board determined the study, HP-00091255, to be exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b).
Shared Data Organization
The transcripts or notes from the 25 interviews are published in this curation. The documentation files included in this data project are the consent forms and interview guides for Program Graduates and Professional Stakeholders, a master list of the interviews, the recruitment script, this data narrative, and an administrative README file. |
