Researcher · Winston-Salem, NC
I'm a mixed-methods researcher with 15+ years of experience turning qualitative and quantitative evidence into decisions. I study how people move through complex systems and where those systems break down. My work translates findings into clear direction for the teams and stakeholders who act on them. Although my subject-matter expertise is in criminal justice, my methods and approach travel across any high-stakes, human-centered domain.
About
I'm a researcher with over 15 years of experience in mixed-methods research, evaluation, and project leadership. My work centers on understanding how people make decisions and navigate complex systems, then translating what I learn into evidence that improves policy, practice, and design. I pair rigorous qualitative methods, in-depth interviewing, focus groups, and thematic analysis, with quantitative approaches including survey research, program evaluation, and quasi-experimental designs.
My subject-matter expertise is in criminal justice, where I've studied mass incarceration, reentry, restrictive housing, diversion programs, and probation reform. Across every project, my focus is the same: listen closely to the people inside a system, connect their experience to the data, collaborate across teams and stakeholders, and turn findings into decisions that hold up.
I have held positions at RTI International, the Vera Institute of Justice, the Fortune Society, and Rutgers University's School of Criminal Justice, where I have led and contributed to projects funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, among others.
In the classroom, I design discussion-based, applied courses that help students connect data, theory, and lived experience — fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and analytical depth.
My work examines crime, criminal justice reform, and the collateral consequences of incarceration — using mixed methods to inform evidence-based policy and practice.
Publications
Peer-reviewed journal articles
Books & book chapters
Technical reports
A Systematic Review of Bureau of Justice Assistance FY14 to FY18 Second Chance Act Evaluations
Selected case studies showing how I move from ambiguity to clarity: research on how people navigate high-stakes systems, and how findings changed real decisions.
Case study 01
Qualitative research on carceral experiences during COVID-19
When COVID-19 hit U.S. correctional facilities in 2020, administrators implemented rapid lockdowns to contain the virus. No one had systematically asked the people living inside those systems what was actually happening to them, or whether the design of the response was working. This research filled that gap.
I co-led a study of 53 semi-structured interviews with individuals recently released from state prisons, county jails, and halfway houses. Our team developed the interview guide collaboratively, piloting and iterating before full deployment, and analyzed the data using a constant comparative approach in NVivo, with interrater reliability testing across one-third of the sample.
(1) The lockdown design created solitary-like conditions for the entire general population, exceeding what is legally permitted even in disciplinary solitary confinement, lasting months rather than days. (2) Communication infrastructure collapsed under load: the 15-minute out-of-cell window forced impossible choices between showering and calling family. (3) Trust eroded rapidly, producing the opposite of the intended outcome: participants hid symptoms to avoid quarantine, undermining containment.
Findings were presented to the New Jersey Sentencing and Disposition Commission and at national conferences, contributing to an evidence base used to push for humane quarantine protocols distinguishing medical isolation from punitive confinement.
Case study 02
Stakeholder research on Georgia's probation reform system
Georgia has the largest probation population in the U.S. Senate Bill 105 created pathways to early probation termination after 3 years, projected to save $34M annually. The people actually running the system, probation officers, supervisors, and judges, had not yet been asked how implementation was going. I co-led qualitative research to understand the gap between legislative intent and operational reality.
Working with RTI International and the Georgia Department of Community Supervision, our team designed semi-structured interview guides for three user groups and ran focus groups across four circuits, selected using administrative data on petition approval rates and backlog levels.
(1) The workflow created new burdens that offset intended efficiency gains. (2) A contact failure silently blocked eligible people: once individuals moved to unsupervised probation, officers lost the ability to reach them, so hearing notices went undelivered and petitions were denied for "failure to appear." (3) Judges restored discretion through workarounds, denying petitions for legally unsupported reasons and rewriting future sentences to preserve control.
Findings were presented to the Georgia Department of Corrections and state policymakers, informing recommendations to streamline the petition workflow and align judicial practice with legislative intent.
I'm happy to discuss research, potential collaborations, or questions about my work. The best way to reach me is by email.
Get in touch