Jacob A. Edson
CRJU 5561 Capstone Course
Dr. Mary Dodge
University of Colorado Denver
This capstone paper provides an in-depth analysis of the FOCUS reentry program, located in Boulder, Colorado. The paper begins by providing relevant background information and data associated with the program. The extant literature review analyzes and compares other reentry programs located throughout the United States, including similar and dissimilar models. Of significant and practical use to FOCUS, an examination of the Life Skills Matrix, as provided by the Northpointe group and completed by FOCUS mentors, is provided. Statistical analysis related to individual Life Skills Matrix questions is provided. Northpointe survey data is analyzed and discussed to explore the effectiveness of the FOCUS program. The information contained within the statistical analysis will assist FOCUS, particularly as the program expands. Additionally, the findings provide valuable assistance to other agencies seeking to start similar programs located in other jurisdictions. The research offers a holistic assessment of FOCUS based on empirical analysis and recommendations for improvement.
Introduction
Facilitating Offenders Choosing Uplifting Solutions (FOCUS) is a secular-based, non-profit reentry mentoring program located in Boulder County, Colorado. Since its 2005 inception, FOCUS has been committed to reducing criminal offender recidivism, increasing community safety, and promoting long-term self-sufficiency through the stabilization of lives upon release from incarceration. To facilitate such goals, FOCUS has incorporated a “mentor-mentee” model of action. Working in partnership with the Boulder County Jail, trained FOCUS volunteers (“mentors”) encourage and support both pre and post-release offenders (“mentees”) to prepare for a world beyond the cycle of repeat criminal behavior. From humble beginnings, FOCUS currently oversees 20 to 30 mentoring matches at any given time, all of which are same-gendered paired after careful evaluation by FOCUS professionals.
There is little argument that community safety is better served through the reduction of repeat criminal behavior. To this end, FOCUS and other programs committed to reducing criminal recidivism recognize the overwhelming obstacles facing many offenders upon release from incarceration. While serving jail or prison sentences, offenders often suffer secondary effects beyond the mere loss of freedom. Job loss, home foreclosure, mounting financial problems, and strained family relations are all real possibilities facing individuals upon release from incarceration. Additionally, many offenders struggle with dependency problems or mental health issues, the effects of which may or may not have been addressed while incarcerated. These and countless other circumstances add up to difficult challenges in the road towards living a law-abiding life. It is not uncommon for even the most dedicated post-release offender to commit technical parole and probation violations, often resulting in further criminal sanctions and continued spiral towards a repeat cycle of incarceration. The FOCUS program strives to fill the time before and after release with guidance towards living a non-destructive and law-abiding life. FOCUS mentors initially encourage and assist offenders with the establishment of post-release basic needs, including food, shelter, employment and transportation. While social services are available, released offenders often have a difficult time knowing where to go and how to apply for such services. Mentors serve as guides during the difficult transition period. Once the groundwork has been cemented, mentees are encouraged to independently explore better job possibilities, establish long-term housing prospects, and increase educational and training opportunities to further their chosen careers. In addition to the basics of life, mentors serve to fill emotional needs of mentees, including the promotion of self-confidence, encouragement, empowerment, and belief in one’s self-worth. The end goal is to encourage the released offender to live an independent, productive and stable law-abiding life, ending reliance upon governmental social services.
FOCUS mentors and mentees participate in the program entirely on a volunteer basis. Either side can break-off the mentoring relationship at any time. Eligible mentees are non-violent offenders who are introduced to the FOCUS program while incarcerated within the Boulder County jail. Mentee acceptance into the program is on a limited basis, primarily based on availability of matching mentors. A vast majority of mentees are females, many of whom suffer from dependency or emotional issues having caused a fracture in their family relationships. Many mentees are motivated to complete the program and get their lives back on track. Mentors, on the other hand, are individuals dedicated to giving approximately a year of their lives to help mentees develop tools and find resources to avoid self-destructive choices.
Volunteer mentors receive extensive initial and ongoing training and support from experienced FOCUS staff. Acting not as a counselor or therapist, FOCUS mentors are there to assist the mentee with transition to the outside world beyond incarceration. Goals include providing emotional support, informing and assisting the mentee with available social resources, and providing feedback to encourage healthy living and behavioral choices. Mentors are directed not to offer advice or impose individual beliefs upon the mentee in any given situation; mentors must be committed to providing guidance and teaching of life skills and decision making from a nonjudgmental perspective. Mentors are requested to complete weekly electronic surveys which provide FOCUS staff members with a means of evaluating the mentor-mentee relationship. Mentors remain somewhat anonymous to the mentee; personal information of the mentor is never revealed and only first names are shared. Same gender mentor-mentee matching is practiced exclusively within the program.
Through the years, FOCUS administrators have established enough individual success-stories to internally conclude the presence of a FOCUS mentor in a released offender’s life is helpful in reducing recidivism of criminal behavior. The success of the FOCUS program has prompted other jail systems within the United States and one from South Africa to make inquiries in hopes of expanding or replicating a similar program within their jurisdictions. This exploratory evaluation of FOCUS is designed to obtain a more enhanced understanding of the success and helpfulness of the program. In short, this research provides FOCUS with an objective analysis of its program to help determine if in fact the mentor-mentee relationship is a workable and viable approach. If research and survey data indicate the FOCUS program is successful in reducing recidivism among offenders, increased funding and expansion of the program both within Boulder County and other jurisdictions may become a reality.
This project analyzes surveys and data collected by the Northpointe Institute for Public Management through “Survey Gizmo”, an online survey program. For several months prior to the preparation of this project, FOCUS mentors were asked to complete a Life Skills Matrix survey, answering questions about various aspects of the FOCUS mentor-mentee program. Such detailed questioning allows for both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the program. A total of 26 mentors completed the same Life Skills Matrix survey questionnaire. While some mentors completed the survey only once, others completed it several times as they progressed through the relationship with the mentee. Results from Life Skills Matrix surveys were analyzed, giving great insight not only into the inner-workings of the mentor-mentee relationship, but also providing results and conclusions for both positive and negative aspects of the FOCUS program. Statistical analysis is provided, along with suggestions for enhancing the FOCUS experience for both mentors and mentees. Identification of patterns, anecdotes, and insights which may contribute to the program’s success is also analyzed. A secondary weekly survey conducted via Survey Gizmo is also minimally discussed. The results and recommendations portion of this report clarify the viability and sustainability of the FOCUS reentry model, offering suggestions related to areas which may
require more development.
Literature Review
For reentry models, FOCUS is unique in that it is entirely non-profit, secular in nature, and serves a majority female clientele exclusively in Boulder County, Colorado. Despite characteristics which make it stand apart, FOCUS is not the first reentry program dedicated towards the reduction of recidivism in criminal behavior. Programs throughout the country share similarities and differences, many of which provide noticeable comparisons and contrasts from FOCUS. Unlike FOCUS, several programs throughout the country have been quantitatively and qualitatively studied. All programs previously evaluated have the overarching goal of reducing recidivism among criminal offenders upon release from incarceration.
Perhaps one of the more similar programs to FOCUS is Auglaize County (Ohio) Transition Program (ACT). Housed within the Auglaize County Correctional Center, ACT claims to be one of the first jail reentry programs in the country (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Similar to FOCUS, programs within ACT involve addressing medical and mental health issues, job placement upon release, and substance abuse treatment (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). “Case managers” act in roles similar to mentors, linking pre and post-release offenders to resources which can provide necessary assistance towards independence (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Approximately 200 inmates per year, of both genders, participate in ACT (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Miller and Miller (2010) found a strong statistical link between the ACT program and a reduction of recidivism among participants. Analyzing 12-month follow-up statistical data, Miller and Miller found only 12.3 percent of ACT participants were rearrested, compared to 82 percent for a control group (offenders of similar nature not participating within the ACT program) (2010). The study also discovered criminal history, regular participation, and program completion played a significant role on the likelihood of recidivism (Miller & Miller, 2010). Overall, those who completed the program to its conclusion were the least likely to reoffend (Miller & Miller, 2010). Unlike FOCUS, the ACT study involved participants who were overwhelmingly male (81 percent) as well as significantly minority (96 percent) for both control and non-control groups (Miller & Miller, 2010). Nonetheless, the research shows promise as a comparison for likely findings for FOCUS given the significant similarities between the two programs.
Another reentry model similar to FOCUS is the Forever Free program located at the California Institution for Women (CIW). Established as the first comprehensive prison-based substance abuse treatment program in the United States for women, the program consists of an intensive 6-month program for women still incarcerated, followed by community-based residential treatment (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Similar to ACT, CIW follows a cognitive-behavioral curriculum stressing relapse prevention (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). In 2004, researchers found significantly less Forever Free participant recidivism during parole when compared to a control group (Hall, Prendergast, Wellisch, Patten & Cao, 2004). While approximately half of Forever Free participants were rearrested or convicted post-release, the comparison control group reported close 75 percent being arrested and 71 percent being convicted (Hall, Prendergast, Wellisch, Patten & Cao, 2004). Similarly, Forever Free participants reported significantly less drug use with higher levels of employment than the control group (Hall, Prendergast, Wellisch, Patten & Cao, 2004). Overall, the Forever Free program shows promising results for reentry models.
In San Diego, California, the Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community (AMIPTC) provides reentry assistance for males struggling with substance abuse problems (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Similar to CIW, the AMIPTC program is conducted almost entirely within the prison facility, with only limited aftercare (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). The three phases (orientation, group/responsibility, and reentry) involve a formal curriculum involving teachers, guides and textbooks (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). “Life mentor” individuals, themselves having criminal records and struggling with substance abuse issues, serve as assistants (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). While AMIPTC has many significant differences from FOCUS, the successes of AMIPTC show the importance of reentry efforts. Wexler, DeLeon, Thomas, Kressel, and Peters (1999) found 24 months after release, the non-treatment control group participating in the AMIPTC program had significantly greater levels of recidivism (67 percent) when compared to individuals who completed the AMIPTC program (42 percent) (Wexler et al. 1999). Inmates who not only participated in AMIPTC while incarcerated, but also were involved in program aftercare classes, showed a low reincarceration rate of just 14 percent (Wexler et al. 1999). Additionally, researchers discovered the days between release and reincarceration for reoffenders were significantly longer for those who both participated and/or completed the AMIPTC program (Wexler et al. 1999). In a second study, Wexler, Melnick, Lowe, and Peters (1999) found similar, yet not as statistically significant, results between participants in the AMIPTC program and a control group 36 months post-release. Individuals who participated and completed the AMIPTC program were only 27 percent likely to reoffend, when compared to 46 percent of individuals who dropped out of the program making up the control group (Wexler et al., 1999). Likewise, days until reincarceration was significant, finding an average of 578 days for those who completed the AMIPTC program and participated in aftercare to reoffend, versus 295 days for the control group to reoffend (Wexler et al., 1999). Prendergast, Hall, Wexler, Melnick and Cao (2004) examined five-year post-release success in the AMIPTC program, finding 75.7 percent of participants in the AMIPTC program had at least one reincarceration, compared to 83.4 percent of the control group. Significant were the days between reincarceration, with AMIPTC participants averaging 809 days between reincarceration compared to 634 days for the control group (Prendergast et al., 2004). Overall, research supports the notion that individuals who not only initially participated in the AMIPTC program while incarcerated, but also involved themselves in the offered aftercare programs, were significantly less likely to reoffend when compared to a control group or those who participated but who did not fully complete the AMIPTC program (Prendergast et al., 2004).
The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) is an interagency public safety program focused primarily on high-risk male violent offenders (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Each month, the Boston Police Department selects 15-20 high-risk offenders for the program (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). While incarcerated, services offered by BRI include case management, social service assistance, and vocational development (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Representatives from various areas of the social services and criminal justice arenas, including social providers, faith-based organizations, prosecutors, probation and parole all inform participants of their roles and services upon release from incarceration, detailing consequences if the offender recidivates (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). After release, inmates are encouraged to continue meeting with their case manager well after returning to their lives in the outside world (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Braga, Piehl and Hureau (2009) found consistently and significantly lower failure rates for BRI participants compared to a control group, although the achievement gap lessened over time. For example, two-year post-release data found 67.6 percent of BRI participants arrested for another crime, compared to 78 percent of a control group (Braga et al., 2009). In the same two-year time period, only 20.4 percent of BRI participants were rearrested for a violent crime, when compared to 34.6 percent for a similarly situated control group (Braga et al., 2009).
In New York, the Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together (ComALERT) reentry program provides a multi-agency approach and resource assistance for such areas as substance abuse, employment, and housing for parolees transitioning back into the community (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Specific requirements for the ComALERT program include community-based supervision and need for substance abuse treatment (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Upon assessment and release, ComALERT participants work with social workers helping them comply not only with release requirements, but also by providing substance abuse treatment and community
resources (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). A second component of ComALERT provides transitional employment opportunities, transitional housing, and vocational training (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). ComALERT staff work closely with the New York Division of Parole to monitor and encourage participants throughout the program (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Jacobs and Western (2007) discovered two-year post-release ComALERT participants were less likely to be rearrested than a control group (29.3 percent to 39.2 percent, respectively). Participants were 18 percent less likely to be rearrested than the control group, with completed graduates being 39 percent less likely to be rearrested than the control group (Jacobs & Western, 2007). ComALERT attendees and graduates also were less likely to be reconvicted than the control group, with 19 percent of ComALERT graduates being reconvicted compared to 34.2 percent of those within the control group (Jacobs & Western, 2007).
The Delaware KEY/Crest Substance Abuse program is a corrections and community-based multistage substance abuse treatment program for drug-involved offenders, committed to reduction in recidivism upon reentry (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Prison-based treatment is the first stage within the KEY program, followed by community-based substance abuse treatment through Crest (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Three prominent studies looked at the effectiveness of the KEY/Crest program. Martin, Butzin, and Inciardi (1995) found KEY/Crest groups to be significantly more likely to be drug-free and arrest-free than KEY-only or control groups. The results show the importance of aftercare, a critical component of the rehabilitation process, programs like FOCUS provide. In a follow-up study two-year post-release, Martin, Butzin, Saum and Inciardi (1999) examined the treatment benefits among variations of the KEY/Crest design, finding modest benefits among KEY-only, Crest-only, and KEY/Crest with each other, but significant improvement of all three among the non-treatment control group. Finally, five-year post-release showed participation in the transitional treatment program more than tripled the odds of remaining drug-free (Inciardi, Martin & Butzin, 2004). Similarly, treatment participation was a significant predictor of non-arrests within the five-year period (Inciardi, et al., 2004).
The Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) is a multi-dimensional, parole-based reintegration program run by the California Department of Corrections. The program provides parolees with services that support successful reintegration back into society upon release from incarceration (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Services primarily emphasized by the PPCP program include employment, substance abuse treatment, education and housing (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Zhang, Roberts and Callahan (2006) found participants in PPCP had a recidivism rate eight percent less than program participants. Like other studies, the research supported the conclusion increased involvement in the program produces increased reduction of recidivism (Zhang et al., 2006). Where PPCP participants met more than one treatment goal, the overall recidivism rate was 47.1% lower than non-PPCP participants (Zhang et al., 2006) .
While a majority of reentry programs throughout the country received positive research support, a study of the now defunct Project Greenlight (New York) yielded negative results. Wilson, Cheryachukin, Davis, Dauphinee, Hope and Gehi (2005) found Project Greenlight participants actually had significantly more rearrests and parole violations when compared to other reentry program participants. Project Greenlight was designed to be a short, intensive intervention which could serve a greater number of offenders with reentry services at a lower tax-payer cost (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Project Greenlight consisted of an 8-week program concentrating on various issues facing reentry, including housing, employment and drug treatment (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Project Greenlight involved various cognitive-behavioral, skills-oriented, and multimodal treatment approaches (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). In the end, the short duration of Project Greenlight simply had little, if not a worsening effect, on recidivism (Wilson et al., 2005). Researchers can take away from the Wison et. al (2005) study the fact that reentry programs should be a functionality of long-term treatment and care.
Lattimore and Visher (2009) found Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) participants to have no significant difference related to recidivism when compared to a control group. SVORI was a collaborative Federal effort towards reentry through employment, education and health supportive services for adult and juvenile offenders (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). As the name suggests, SVORI targeted serious and violent offenders who were more likely to pose serious risks to the community upon release (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). SVORI was a goal-oriented program; specific outcomes or goals were required of participants upon release from prison (Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions, 2011). Unlike SVORI, the FOCUS program enrolls non-violent offenders exclusively, making a comparison with this program difficult.
Purpose of Project
This research is designed to provide FOCUS with an objective analysis of its program to determine if in fact the mentor-mentee relationship is a workable, successful program. Previous independent research was conducted by the Northpointe Institute for Public Management (Golden, Colorado). In January, 2011, questionnaire forms were created, distributed, and collected by Northpointe via an online survey data program (“Survey Gizmo”). This research encompasses a second stage of the evaluation process: review and validation of the program’s effectiveness through an analysis of the questionnaire responses. FOCUS recognizes itself as a learning organization, anticipating and embracing responsive feedback from those who participate within the program. In conjunction with the survey data analysis, FOCUS is particularly interested in a comprehensive literature review in order to compare, contrast, and evaluate its program alongside other reentry programs committed to the reduction of recidivism. Both a qualitative and quantitative analysis and narrative of the program is included in the current work. In sum, the research questions and analysis is designed to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the FOCUS program, to determine if the approach is helpful for released offenders, and to compare its workings to similar programs committed to the same efforts.
Methodology
The FOCUS reentry model is fundamentally supported by the mentor-mentee relationship. Volunteer mentors meet at various times and locations with mentee-offenders in order to bridge the gap towards life beyond the criminal justice system. To begin the review process, FOCUS hired independent research firm Northpointe Institute for Public Management to create, distribute, and collect primary survey data related to the functionality and validity of the program. In January, 2011, Northpointe began distributing surveys to FOCUS mentors via online website program Survey Gizmo. The data collection process was simple: mentors were instructed to complete the online surveys through the course of contact with their mentees, the results of which were retained internally through the Survey Gizmo program. No rigid timing or numbered structure was put in place; mentors could complete and update multiple surveys as many times as they wished. Some mentors completed only one survey. Other mentors completed several surveys as the mentee progressed through the program. All surveys contained the exact same set of 69 questions. The only real instructions were the requirement of mentors to complete at least one Life Skills Matrix survey and to complete Weekly Mentor Reports as often as necessary based upon meetings with the mentee. FOCUS staff and this researcher maintain access to the surveys for review, without the ability to change any of the answers provided by the mentors. Analysis of the data collected via Survey Gizmo consists of review of all mentor survey responses, with particular focus on specific survey results as set forth below.
Two specific types of surveys were implemented by Northpointe: the Life Skills Matrix survey and the Weekly Mentor Reports (see Appendices A and B). For purposes of this project and overall comparison of the FOCUS program, the Life Skills Matrix surveys are the most useful and comprise a wide majority of the data analyzed. While the Weekly Mentor Reports are comprised of 31 questions directly related to a recap of the weekly interactions between the mentor and mentee, the Life Skills Matrix survey consists of 69 questions which cover a wide area of topics, all of which evaluate and track the progress of the mentee through the FOCUS program. An open-ended comments section at the end allowed comments by mentors, although not quantitatively included in this research.
In order to provide the most accurate, complete view of mentees progressions though the FOCUS program, particular attention was paid towards qualitative and quantitative analysis of the last in time or most complete Life Skills Matrix surveys. Twenty-six mentor-mentee relationships were represented in the Life Skills Matrix survey questionnaires. A total of 56 complete and 3 partial Life Skills Matrix surveys were submitted. While some mentors completed several Life Skills Matrix questionnaires throughout a multiple month time span, other mentors completed only one questionnaire. On some occasions, questionnaires were only partially completed or entire sections of questions were unanswered, leading to missing data. Concern regarding duplication of answers from a single mentor-mentee relationship, leading to inaccurate or weighted data, was paramount. In order to best reflect progress through the FOCUS program, only one Life Skills Matrix survey was evaluated per mentor-mentee couple, being the last-in-time or most complete survey. Review of only one survey per relationship allows analysis of each question individually, without unfavorable and unnecessary duplication of answers per question. Likewise, review of only one survey per relationship allows the greatest insight into progress from incarceration through the last-in-time report while in the FOCUS program. In short, each question is roughly answered by each mentor only once, with some questions having less than 26 responses due to missing data. Personal interviews with FOCUS administrators revealed a vast majority of mentor-mentee relationships were females. Consequently, gender was not analyzed as an important demographic. The names of participants are confidential and the aggregation of the data helps ensure mentors and mentees are not identified.
The Life Skills Matrix survey questions were categorized into 14 sections: duration of mentor-mentee relationship, housing, food, identification, transportation, medical, substance use, family reunification and relationships, finances and legal, employment, education/skills, social support/personal interests/spirituality, personal goals and values, and arrest/recidivism. As noted in the questionnaires, limited response answers are usually provided, leading to simplified calculation of quantifiable results (see Appendices A and B).
There are limitations to the data which must be considered when reviewing results. The limited ability to expand upon or provide answers more closely reflective of the accurate state of affairs for the topic questioned should be considered. The sample size, while encompassing participants in the FOCUS program at the time, provides data for only 26 relationships. Analysis of the FOCUS program to other reentry model programs for success rates and validation should be considered within such sample-size limitations. Further, analysis of the FOCUS program through the mentor-completed surveys is one-dimensional; a more complete and accurate analysis of the program would involve additional survey questionnaires completed by mentees themselves. One-on-one personal interviews of both mentor and mentees would give a better overall-view of the individual successes and/or failures of mentees and the overall FOCUS relationship. Additionally, the lengths of the mentor-mentee relationships surveyed were relatively short; the longest single relationship being 45 months, with a vast majority being 10 months or less. A follow-up study in the coming years of the same relationships would provide more accurate information regarding FOCUS’ ability to curb recidivism. Nonetheless, the Northpointe surveys are valuable as a starting point in evaluation of the program and give a sizable view of the overall viability and success of the FOCUS program.
Results
The FOCUS mentor-mentee relationship is entirely volunteer-based. Offenders seeking assistance from the FOCUS program receive information while incarcerated at the Boulder County jail facility. Offenders who are accepted and enroll in FOCUS are paired with a same-gendered mentor. After some background informational questions, the first substantive area of questioning in the Life Skills Matrix relates to the duration in length of the mentor-mentee relationship. The exact length of the relationship is entered quantifiably as number of months, with survey responses ranging from one to 45 months. Length of mentor-mentee relationships were recoded into six categories: 0-5 months, 6-10 months, 11-15 months, 16-20 months, 21-25 months and 25 or more months. A vast majority (73%) of the surveyed mentor-mentee relationships was 10 months or less in duration (sees Table 1). Only 2 of the relationships surveyed were two-years or more in length. Within the open-ended comments section, some mentors indicated any early dissolution of the mentor-mentee relationship was primarily due to the mentee either finding independence or having no more need for the FOCUS program. Many relationships were in the early stages, leading to an inability to answer all questions, a point reflected in the open-ended comments by some of the mentors.
Table 1: Duration of Mentor-Mentee Relationship
| 0-5 months | 12 | (46.2%) |
| 6-10 months | 7 | (26.9%) |
| 11-15 months | 4 | (15.4%) |
| 16-20 months | 1 | (3.8%) |
| 21-25 months | 1 | (3.8%) |
| 25 or more months |
1 | (3.8%) |
Stability in housing is a major concern for any reentry program. Nine of 26 mentors reported mentees who were still incarcerated during the last in time or most complete Life Skills Matrix survey. Those who were released and involved in the program show stability in their housing situation. Of those not incarcerated, 76.4% had zero or one change in residence within the last two months of reporting. Only four of 26 mentors reported their mentees having changed residences two or more times within two months of the survey (see Table 2). Excluding incarceration numbers, mentors reported a stable living situation for half of all mentees (50%), with 66.7% reporting a same, stable or improved living environment from the past two previous months. The data fails to capture exactly how much FOCUS counseling is responsible for the level of stability within this group of mentees.
Table 2: Housing
| Mentee Current Location |
Stable Living Situation |
|||||
| Jail | 9 | (34.6%) | Yes | 17 | (68%) | |
| Work Release | 0 | (0%) | No | 4 | (16%) | |
| Day Reporting | 2 | (7.7%) | Unsure | 4 | (16%) | |
| DOC | 1 | (3.8%) | ||||
| Halfway House | 0 | (0.0%) | ||||
| Probation | 5 | (19.2%) | ||||
| Other | 9 | (34.6%) | ||||
| Changes in Residence (last 2 months) |
Stability of Residence (last 2 months) |
|||||
| Zero changes | 16 | (61.5%) | Worse | 3 | (12.5%) | |
| One change | 6 | (23.1%) | Same/Negative | 2 | (8.3%) | |
| Two or more changes |
4 | (15.4%) | Same/Stable | 16 | (66.7%) | |
| Improvement | 3 | (12.5%) |
Access to healthy food options is important in considering an overall living environment for released offenders. Three questions posed within the Life Skills Matrix evaluate food availability and diet restrictions of mentees (see Table 3). Even with nine of 26 mentees incarcerated at the time of the reviewed surveys (making their food options continuous and controlled), only one mentee was reported as not having sufficient access to or enough food. A vast majority (69%) of mentees were reported as having reliable access to either acceptable or good food. Numbers were split regarding the ability of the mentee to buy or prepare food, with a majority of mentees (63.5%) reported as sometimes or never being able to reliably plan, buy, or prepare food. When asked whether mentees were able to eat as prescribed for their unique dietary concerns, most responses indicated this was not a major concern. It should be noted some of the lack of dietary concerns may be due in part to the large proportion of mentees being incarcerated at the time of the survey.
Table 3: Food
| Sufficient Access to Food |
||
| Not enough food | 1 | (3.8%) |
| Enough food but not healthy or fresh |
2 | (7.7%) |
| Acceptable | 6 | (23.1%) |
| On-going reliable access to good food |
12 | (46.2%) |
| Able to make choices about type/quality of food |
5 | (19.2%) |
| Able to plan what to buy/prepare for food |
||
| Always | 9 | (37.5%) |
| Sometimes | 8 | (33.3%) |
| Never | 7 | (29.2%) |
| Able to eat as prescribed for health situation |
||
| Yes | 10 | (41.7%) |
| No | 2 | (8.3%) |
| Unsure | 5 | (20.8%) |
| N/A | 7 | (29.2%) |
The Life Skills Matrix Survey contained two separate sections related to employment. Table 4 represents the capability of mentees to legally work. A majority of mentees in the FOCUS program (72%) have all the proper cards and papers associated with identification. Further, a vast majority of mentees (80.8%) are prepared to work legally upon release into the community.
Table 4: Identification
| Current Identification |
||
| Has no form/limitations of ID |
4 | (16%) |
| Some ID cards/papers – needs more |
3 | (12%) |
| Has all necessary ID cards/papers |
18 | (72%) |
| Mentee Prepared to Work Legally |
||
| Yes | 21 | (80.8%) |
| No | 4 | (15.4%) |
| Unsure | 1 | (3.8%) |
An important aspect of self-sufficiently is the ability to have reliable transportation to enable the mentee to successfully transit to required obligations, including employment, probation meetings, and substance abuse treatment. A majority of responding mentors indicate mentees have access to some sort of transportation (72%). The remaining seven of 25 respondents report having no access to transportation, regardless of affordability (see Table 5).
Table 5: Transportation
| Mentee Accessibility to Transportation |
||
| No access – unable to afford |
4 | (16%) |
| No access – able to afford |
3 | (12%) |
| Limited/unreliable access to transportation |
5 | (20%) |
| Ongoing, reliable access to transportation |
13 | (52%) |
Several questions within the Life Skills Matrix survey concern medical treatment issues involving mentees (see Table 6). This area of questioning is somewhat rendered moot for the nine of 26 mentors reporting their mentees incarcerated at the time of completed survey, as medical services are provided by the jail. Sixty percent of all mentees have special medical needs which require some sort of attention (see Table 6). Including the incarcerated, eighteen of 24 mentors report mentees having access to all or some needed medical services. While 19 of 25 mentors reported mentees being interested in pursing needed medical services, only 37.5% of all mentees represented they could afford all or some of such services. Excluding those incarcerated, the data suggests community-based mentees find themselves without the resources to adequately obtain proper medical services. A slight majority (56%) of mentees are confirmed to regularly attend necessary medical appointments. The final three questions within this section involve mental health treatment. Whether or not incarcerated, 68.4% of mentor respondents report mentees who receive mental health treatment, albeit not always regularly participating or attending. Interesting results were obtained related to mentee express desires toward receiving mental health treatment. Ten of 25 mentors reported mentees not interested in or not having a need to receive mental health treatment. The remaining mentors surveyed indicated their individual mentees were largely already receiving treatment, with only five reporting either being interested but not seeking or actively seeking mental health treatment.
Table 6: Medical
| Special Medical Needs |
Afford Medical Services |
|||||
| Yes | 15 | (60%) | Yes | 6 | (25%) | |
| No | 10 | (40%) | Some | 3 | (12.5%) | |
| No | 13 | (54.2%) | ||||
| Access to Medical Services |
N/A | 2 | (8.3%) | |||
| All | 6 | (25%) | ||||
| Some | 12 | (50%) | Receiving Mental Health Treatment |
|||
| None | 2 | (8.3%) | Yes | 13 | (68.4%) | |
| N/A | 4 | (16.7%) | No | 6 | (31.6%) | |
| Attends Necessary Appointments |
Regular Participation Mental Health Treatment |
|||||
| All | 14 | (56%) | Yes | 10 | (38.5%) | |
| Some | 6 | (24%) | No | 10 | (38.5%) | |
| None | 1 | (4%) | No need | 6 | (23%) | |
| N/A | 4 | (16%) | ||||
| Expressed Interest Mental Health Treatment |
||||||
| Takes Prescribed Medications as Directed |
Not interested | 6 | (24%) | |||
| All | 7 | (29.2%) | Interested, but not seeking help |
3 | (12%) | |
| Some | 1 | (4.2%) | Looking for treatment |
2 | (8%) | |
| None | 2 | (8.3%) | Receiving treatment |
10 | (40%) | |
| N/A | 14 | (58.3%) | N/A – No need | 4 | (16%) | |
| Interested Pursuing Medical Services |
||||||
| Yes | 19 | (76%) | ||||
| No | 2 | (8%) | ||||
| N/A | 4 | (16%) |
Substance abuse is often a major issue surrounding recidivism. Table 7 describes answers to questions related to substance abuse among mentees. All but six reporting mentors indicated their assigned mentee were required to abstain from alcohol. Nonetheless, 11 of 25 mentors reported mentees who used alcohol once or more within the past 2 months. Mentors reported 84 percent of mentees never used illegal drugs within the past two months of the survey. Thirty-two percent of mentees receive some sort of substance abuse treatment, with 87.5% of those regularly participating in substance abuse treatment. The research shows several mentees interested but not actively seeking substance abuse treatment or participation in a substance support group, with 14 of 24 having a positive attitude towards substance abuse.
Table 7: Substance Use
|
Required to |
|
|
Interest in |
|||
|
Yes |
17 | (65.4%) |
Not |
4 | (16%) | |
|
No |
6 | (23.1%) |
Interested |
7 | (28%) | |
|
Unsure |
3 | (11.5%) |
Looking |
2 | (8%) | |
|
Receiving |
6 | (24%) | ||||
|
Alcohol use (past |
|
N/A No |
6 | (24%) | ||
|
Never |
14 | (56%) | ||||
|
Once or |
9 | (36%) |
Attitude |
|||
|
Three or |
2 | (8%) |
Negative |
2 | (8.3%) | |
|
Neutral |
3 | (12.5%) | ||||
|
Illegal Drug Use |
|
Positive |
14 | (58.3%) | ||
|
Never |
21 | (84%) |
N/A |
5 | (20.8%) | |
|
Once or |
2 | (8%) | ||||
|
Three or |
2 | (8%) |
Interest Support Group |
|||
|
Not |
4 | (16%) | ||||
|
Receiving Abuse Treatment |
|
Interested, |
8 | (32%) | ||
|
Yes |
8 | (32%) |
Looking |
0 | (0%) | |
|
No |
12 | (48%) |
Receiving |
7 | (28%) | |
|
No need |
5 | (20%) |
N/A; No |
6 | (24%) | |
|
Regular Participation Substance Abuse |
|
|||||
|
Yes |
7 | (29.2%) | ||||
|
No |
11 | (45.8%) | ||||
|
No need |
6 | (25%) |
Support in reentry comes not only from FOCUS mentors and administrators, but also from the residential and family connections. The Northpointe Life Matrix Skills survey indicates 75% of mentees have the support of their families for treatment and re-socialization, with many having regular family contact (see Table 8). The split is about even as to whether mentees are married or in a relationship versus being single. Of those who are married or in a relationship, the split is also near even as to the satisfaction of such relationship. A majority of mentees (65.4%) have children; however no mentee was reported to be the sole provider for all their children. While many mentees are reported as not being involved in their children’s lives, within the final comments section several mentors report a number of mentees attempting reunification with family members and biological children. Open comments also relate mentee family members and children are often hesitant towards acceptance and openness, particularly towards repeat criminal-offender family members. It was seen throughout many comments the need to have stable housing, employment, and substance abuse treatment prior to
reunification.
Table 8: Family Reunification and Relationships
|
Family Supportive |
|
|
Satisfied with |
|||
|
Yes |
18 | (75%) |
Yes |
6 | (25%) | |
|
No |
4 | (16.7%) |
No |
6 | (25%) | |
|
Unsure |
2 | (8.3%) |
Unsure |
3 | (12.5%) | |
|
N/A |
9 | (37.5%) | ||||
|
Mentor – Regular |
|
|||||
|
No |
9 | (36%) |
Children |
|||
|
Monthly |
4 | (16%) |
Yes |
17 | (65.4%) | |
|
Weekly |
6 | (24%) |
No |
9 | (34.6%) | |
|
Daily |
6 | (24%) |
|
Unsure |
0 | (0%) |
|
Unhealthy/Abusive |
|
Sole Provider |
||||
|
Yes |
11 | (44%) |
Yes |
0 | (0%) | |
|
No |
10 | (40%) |
Some, |
3 | (11.5%) | |
|
Unsure |
4 | (16%) |
No |
12 | (46.2%) | |
|
N/A |
11 | (42.3%) | ||||
|
Regular Contact |
|
|||||
|
No |
15 | (71.4%) |
Involved in |
|||
|
Monthly |
4 | (19%) |
Yes |
7 | (25%) | |
|
Weekly |
2 | (9.5%) |
No |
7 | (25%) | |
|
Daily |
0 | (0%) |
Unsure |
2 | (7.1%) | |
|
N/A |
12 | (42.9%) | ||||
|
Family Members – |
|
|||||
|
Yes |
7 | (28%) |
Copes Stress |
|||
|
No |
10 | (40%) |
Yes |
7 | (29.2%) | |
|
Unsure |
8 | (32%) |
No |
1 | (4.2%) | |
|
Unsure |
6 | (25%) | ||||
|
Regular Contact – |
|
N/A |
10 | (41.6%) | ||
|
No |
18 | (85.7%) | ||||
|
Monthly |
2 | (9.5%) |
Seeking Support |
|||
|
Weekly |
1 | (4.8%) |
Yes |
3 | (12.5%) | |
|
Daily |
0 | (0%) |
No |
7 | (29.2%) | |
|
Unsure |
1 | (4.2%) | ||||
|
Married or in |
|
No need |
13 | (54.1%) | ||
|
Yes |
12 | (50%) | ||||
|
No |
10 | (41.7%) | ||||
|
Unsure |
2 | (8.3%) |
Survey responses related to financial situations were also examined (see Table 9). Many mentors were unsure of their mentee’s ability and capability of handling finances and paying bills in a timely fashion. While 15 of 25 mentors reported mentees who have significant debts, 11 of 25 mentors report mentees as having a plan to pay down such debut in some sort of fashion. Overall, response to these questions garnered the “unsure” responses within the entire survey.
Table 9: Finances and Legal
|
Significant Debts |
Trouble Paying |
|||||
|
Yes |
15 | (75%) |
Yes |
7 | (29.2%) | |
|
No |
5 | (25%) |
No |
6 | (25%) | |
|
Unsure |
5 | (25%) |
Unsure |
11 | (45.8%) | |
|
Plan to Pay Debts |
Able to Save |
|||||
|
Yes |
11 | (44%) |
Yes |
4 | (16.7%) | |
|
No |
7 | (28%) |
No |
9 | (37.5%) | |
|
N/A |
7 | (28%) |
Unsure |
11 | (45.8%) | |
|
Conflict with |
||||||
|
Yes |
12 | (48%) | ||||
|
No |
2 | (8%) | ||||
|
Unsure |
11 | (44%) |
Financially and spiritually rewarding employment is an important aspect in reentry additionally evaluated by Northpointe. Excluding incarcerated mentees, a little more than half (56%) of mentees were reported as being employed (see Table 10). Excluding incarcerated mentees, half of employed mentees were reported as having a stable job with an overwhelming (82%) reported as having no job changes since the last review. Half of all non-incarcerated mentees were reported as being satisfied with their job, with few taking aggressive steps to finding another job. Some of this may have to do with the present economy; securing well-paying jobs are more difficult at the time of survey than in years past.
Table 10: Employment
|
Currently |
Satisfied with |
|||||
|
Yes |
9 | (36%) |
Yes |
6 | (26.1%) | |
|
No |
16 | (64%) |
No |
7 | (30.4%) | |
|
N/A |
10 | (43.5%) | ||||
|
Stable Job |
||||||
|
Yes |
6 | (28.6%) |
Steps to Find Job |
|||
|
No |
2 | (9.5%) |
Yes |
1 | (4.3%) | |
|
Unsure |
3 | (14.3%) |
No |
5 | (21.7%) | |
|
N/A |
10 | (47.6%) |
Some |
3 | (13%) | |
|
N/A |
14 | (61%) | ||||
|
Job Changes |
||||||
|
0 |
18 | (81.8%) | ||||
|
1 |
4 | (18.2%) | ||||
|
2 or |
0 | (0%) |
Close to 62% of responding mentors reported mentees who have skills allowing them to find jobs which pay above the current minimum wage. While many mentees are reported as having plans for additional education, clearly some believe they do not require such additional training or already have basic skills which can lead to a good paying job outside confinement (see Table 11).
Table 11: Education/Skills
|
Skills Above |
||
|
Yes |
16 | (61.5%) |
|
No |
6 | (23.1%) |
|
Unsure |
4 | (15.4%) |
|
Future |
||
|
No |
3 | (12%) |
|
Education/skill |
9 | (36%) |
|
Education/skill |
3 | (12%) |
|
Education/skill |
2 | (8%) |
|
N/A (Current |
8 | (32%) |
A majority of mentees (68%) were reported as having many or some pro-social friends. Seventy-seven percents of mentees were reported as having limited to no communications with friends who may suffer from substance abuse problems or engage in anti-social (criminal) behavior. Noting FOCUS is a secular reentry program (a rarity for reentry models), survey results show a slight edge towards mentees not participating within a spiritual community, although it should be noted the number of mentors who were unsure of such participation makes this question not entirely helpful in such overall assessment.
Table 12: Social Support/Personal Interests/Spirituality
|
Pro-Social |
||
|
Many |
3 | (12%) |
|
Some |
14 | (56%) |
|
None |
8 | (32%) |
|
Participation |
||
|
Yes |
8 | (32%) |
|
No |
12 | (48%) |
|
Unsure |
6 | (20%) |
|
Communication |
||
|
Yes |
6 | (23.1%) |
|
No |
11 | (42.3%) |
|
Unsure |
9 | (34.6%) |
Perhaps the most useful question within the Life Matrix Survey relates to whether the mentee recognizes the need for lifestyle change to break away from antisocial behaviors. Close to 81% of responding mentors believe their assigned mentees do in fact recognize the need for such lifestyle change, with zero reporting a lack of such recognition (see Table 13). Survey results reveal mentees generally have positive goals and pursuits towards self-sufficiency; open-ended comments and survey responses by mentors confirm some mentees reaching some important milestones along the way towards crime-free independence. Forty-eight percent of mentors report mentees taking steps towards positive goals and prevention of relapse into both destructive and abusive behaviors. A full 18 of the 26 mentors surveyed believed their mentees recognize the consequences of their actions, limiting the externalization and blaming of others for their behaviors.
Table 13: Personal Goals and Values
|
Recognition |
Steps Towards |
|||||
|
Yes |
21 | (81%) |
Yes |
11 | (45.8%) | |
|
No |
0 | (0%) |
No |
5 | (20.8%) | |
|
Unsure |
5 | (19%) |
Unsure |
5 | (20.8%) | |
|
N/A (No |
3 | (12.5%) | ||||
|
Positive Goals |
||||||
|
Yes |
18 | (69.2%) |
Taken Steps to |
|||
|
No |
1 | (3.8%) |
Yes |
13 | (50%) | |
|
Unsure |
7 | (27%) |
No |
7 | (27%) | |
|
Unsure |
6 | (23%) | ||||
|
Pursuit of |
||||||
|
Yes |
17 | (65.4%) |
Recognition |
|||
|
No |
5 | (19.2%) |
Yes |
18 | (69.2%) | |
|
Unsure |
4 | (15.4%) |
No |
3 | (11.5%) | |
|
Unsure |
5 | (19.2%) | ||||
|
Reached Some |
||||||
|
Yes |
15 | (62.5%) | ||||
|
No |
5 | (20.8%) | ||||
|
Unsure |
4 | (16.7%) |
The final section of the Life Skills Matrix survey involves data associated with new arrests and recidivism of criminal offenses by the mentees. Close to 92% of mentors reported no new violations among their mentees while participating in FOCUS since the last review. It should be noted, however, with nine of 26 initial mentees reported as being incarcerated at the time of the survey, opportunities for new law violations are diminished significantly. Within a final section entitled “Support of Mentee”, a long list of individualized activities was provided to enable the mentor to report types of interaction which had occurred between them and the mentees within the past two months (see Table 14). The highest reported support offered to mentees was the ability to speak in depth about serious issues involved within their lives. Other highly related interactions included personal-level communication, including meeting for meals, the giving of gifts, or being present for various hearings or appointments. The final question within the Life Skills Matrix involved whether the mentee believed their life and chances for success have improved since last review (answered by the mentor, but from the mentee’s perspective). A large portion of mentors (33.3%) were undecided about this question, with only 47.6% answering in the positive.
Table 14: Arrest/Recidivism
|
Arrested/New (since last |
||
|
No |
22 | (91.7%) |
|
Technical |
1 | (4.1%) |
|
New |
1 | (4.1%) |
|
Support of Mentee |
||
|
Spoke in |
19 | |
|
Recreated |
1 | |
|
Met for |
15 | |
|
Attended |
2 | |
|
Helped |
6 | |
|
Helped |
6 | |
|
Provided |
9 | |
|
Crisis |
2 | |
|
Met |
5 | |
|
Gave |
10 | |
|
Celebrated |
6 | |
|
Worked |
5 | |
|
Resources |
2 | |
|
Used |
5 | |
|
Attended |
3 | |
|
Attended |
8 | |
|
Cultural |
0 | |
|
Other |
3 | |
|
Life Improved |
||
|
Yes |
10 | (47.6%) |
|
No |
4 | (19%) |
|
Undecided |
7 | (33.4%) |
Discussion and Conclusion
While not the only reentry model in the country dedicated towards the reduction of recidivism among criminal offenders, FOCUS is certainly unique in its approach and positive in its results. Serving primarily (although not exclusively) female clients, FOCUS is entirely secular in nature and serves only Boulder County, Colorado. Expansion beyond this one county would lead to a larger, more diverse pool of mentors and mentees in which to fully evaluate the program. Other programs looking to start similar reentry programs may find numerous aspects of the FOCUS program helpful. As the literature review suggests, reentry models throughout the country show promise in the reduction of recidivism. While not following all aspects of other reentry programs, FOCUS shares some characteristics of many of other reentry models. With adequate funding, FOCUS may be wise to consider integrating curriculum-based teachings into their program, similar to programs such as CIW. In the end, FOCUS must continue to coordinate and develop their program to suit the needs of their clients, given obvious budgetary and capacity restrictions.
Analysis of the Life
Skills Matrix questionnaire responses supports a conclusion that the FOCUS program is having a positive impact on mentees lives. As noted, a wide majority of mentor-mentee relationships analyzed were short in duration. Many mentees were incarcerated at the time of surveying, leading several mentors to comment the inapplicability of several of the survey’s questions towards their mentees. As the research shows, a majority of non-incarcerated mentees have stable housing while participating in the FOCUS program. This is an important step post-release; if a mentee does not have stable housing, the risk of reincarceration due to technical or other probation and parole violations may increase. The housing questions do not specifically inquire how FOCUS mentoring has factored into the stabilization of housing post-release, which is one area which may be considered for future follow-up. Non-incarcerated mentees overwhelmingly have access to food. The ability of mentees to plan or prepare meals is nonetheless concerning. As informed through personal interviews with FOCUS staff, many mentees lack basic life skills to be successful in a world outside of incarceration. With 63.5% of mentees reporting sometimes or never being able to reliability plan, purchase or prepare food, this is an area of life-skills development which FOCUS must continue to advance. Teaching mentees not only how to budget and shop for food, but also how to prepare healthy meal options should encourage mentees to make this an independent practice of their own.
Aside from shelter and food, employment is also a critical basic-needs area of the FOCUS program. The research supports the notion that a majority of mentees have the proper aperwork and skills required to obtain gainful employment post-release. FOCUS mentors can assist those who do not have all such paperwork and skills by continuing to encouragement of employment documentation collection and job searching techniques. Despite the fact several mentees conclude they have the skills necessary to find productive employment, additional education and training should nonetheless be continually offered by FOCUS mentors in order to encourage positive steps towards financial and personal advancement. Interviews with FOCUS staff reviled a plateau effect related towards employment and social services; at a certain income level, individuals’ lose access to valuable social services, making it financially wise to avoid higher-paying jobs. Thisis a concerning area, one which FOCUS is well aware of and addresses with mentors through training. Access to transportation does not appear to be a significant hindrance according to the data, although it should be noted the cities of Boulder and Longmont themselves have relatively adequate public transportation alternatives for those lacking personal transportation[1]. Questions relating to financial and debt management were essentially not significant, as many mentors indicated they were unsure of the abilities of their mentees to manage money. Basic financial planning is an area which needs to be continually encouraged by mentors, as the road towards self-independence is tied with independent financial living and non-reliance upon governmental services.
The research does show a concerning area in the need for medical services. While a large number of mentees require or are interested in pursuing medical services, the ability to afford such services continues to be an obstacle. FOCUS staff is well aware of this concern an addresses it through continually providing informational access regarding low-cost and social service options for health care. Inquiry into mental health and substance abuse treatment provided interesting results. A number of mentees indicating they would be interested in obtaining such treatment, yet few actually were reported taking volunteered steps towards seeking or entering such programs. Again, FOCUS plays a major role in bridging the gap between the mentee and these services by providing information and support of such treatment options. Specifically helpful for the success of the mentee were research results indicating the lack of continued alcohol or drug use while involved with the FOCUS program. While individual questions did not explore the role of FOCUS in such sobriety choices, the numbers are nonetheless positive when considering the recidivism when combined with substance abuse problems.
Perhaps the greatest area of emphasis within the survey should be placed on the personal goals and values section (Table 13). These are the questions which address the heart of the problem of relapse and recidivism; the recognition of a need in lifestyle change and pursuits towards changing oneself to be a law-abiding member of society, free from the cycle of criminal behavior. Given that FOCUS is entirely a volunteer program, it is no surprise participating mentees overwhelmingly acknowledge a need for personal lifestyle change and have positive goals towards self-sufficiency. While the numbers are encouraging, even more promising is the high level in which mentees are reported as having pursued and achieved positive goals while in the FOCUS program. Likewise, mentees also were reported to have taken steps towards achieving positive goals and preventing relapse of offending. Unlike some of the other questions contained within the Life Matrix Survey, these questions and responses can specifically be related to the FOCUS involvement, given the narrowly tailored wording and goal-specific direction of the program. Similarly promising are the responses that 18 of 26 mentors surveyed believed their mentees recognize the consequences of their actions, limiting the externalization and blaming of others for their behaviors. All of these first steps towards decreasing recidivism are reflective within the FOCUS program. Lastly, the research revealing 22 of 24 responding mentors reported no new arrests or offenses is very encouraging news for the viability of the FOCUS program, even when taking into consideration up to 9 of such mentees were incarcerated at the time of the survey.
The final questions of the Life Skills Matrix questionnaire involve not only a tabulation of various activities between mentors and mentees, but also a concluding question regarding the mentee’s outlook on whether their life has changed since the FOCUS program (answered by the mentor). The varied responses to listed activities show the flexibility of the FOCUS mentor-mentee relationship. No single situation encompasses all FOCUS relationships. It is important to allow mentors to continue to have such flexibility in crafting the appropriate and effective means of communication and support for the individual mentee. No two mentors responded the same to the varying activities, a statement to the fact that individuality is important in such relationship. Perhaps most interesting is the seven “undecided” responses to the question whether the mentee believed their life and chances for success have improved since last review (answered by the mentor, but from the mentee’s perspective). Given the majority of mentor-mentee relationships were short in duration (under 10 months), and several mentees had yet to be released from incarceration, it can reasonably be assumed some mentors simply felt as if they had not had enough time to make a decision as to chances of successful improvement. A lengthier study might provide a better insight into this particular inquiry.
The purpose of this research is to look closely at survey data provided by mentors through the Life Skills Matrix questionnaire. The Weekly Progress Survey was not used by this researcher as a basis for long-term conclusions as to the viability of the FOCUS program (see Appendix B). While helpful to FOCUS for weekly review, individual questions from the Weekly Survey did little to shed light onto long-term reduction in recidivism and extended period analysis requested from FOCUS for this research. This researcher included a copy of the Weekly Survey in Appendix B as a comparison to the Life Skills Matrix questionnaire (Appendix A).
From the outset, limitations must be recognized. FOCUS is a very small program, particularly when compared to other reentry models operating throughout the country. The relatively small sample size (26 mentor-mentee relationships) would need to be expanded in order to obtain a more reflective overall picture of the program. Similarly, direct questionnaires completed by mentees would address the one-dimensional aspect of the mentor-only survey. Expansion beyond Boulder County would require updated survey results to reflect a widening of clientele beyond one populated area. FOCUS would be advised to conduct additional survey research for the same mentor-mentee relationships represented in this report in the coming years to further track recidivism and overall progress of mentees through the program. Increase and decrease in participation rates may also be tracked over a longer period of time. Future surveys might consider excluding mentees who are incarcerated. Finally, FOCUS may consider a more detailed survey concerning those who completed the program, analyzing recidivism and independent self-sufficiency well after the mentor-mentee relationship has ended. Any combination of these suggestions will provide an even greater opportunity for FOCUS to expand their already successful program into the coming years.
References
Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009). Controlling Violent Offenders Released to the Community: An Evaluation of the Boston Reentry Initiative. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 46(4), 411–36.
Hall, E. A., Prendergast, M. L., Wellisch, J., Patten, M, & Cao, Y. (2004). Treating Drug-Abusing Women Prisoners: An Outcome Evaluation of the Forever Free Program. The Prison Journal 84(1), 81–105.
Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004). Five-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment of Drug-Involved Offenders After Release From Prison. Crime & Delinquency 50(1), 88–107.
Jacobs, E., & Western, B. (2007). Report on the Evaluation of the ComALERT Prisoner Reentry Program. Albany, N.Y.: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Retrieved from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/western/pdfs/report_1009071.pdf
Lattimore, P. K. & Visher, C.A. (2009). The Multistate Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: RTI International. Retrieved from http://svori.rti.org/documents/reports/SVORI_Summary_Synthesis_FINAL.pdf
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1995). Assessment of a Multistage Therapeutic Community for Drug-Involved Offenders. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 27(1), 109–16.
Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community
Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: From Prison to Work Release to Aftercare. The Prison Journal 79(3), 294–320.
FOCUS OFFENDER REENTRY MENTORING
Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Community In-Reach Through Jail Reentry: Findings From a Quasi-Experimental Design. Justice Quarterly 27(6), 893–910.
Office of Justice Programs: Crime Solutions (2011). Retrieved from http://www.crimesolutions.gov/TopicDetails.aspx?ID=36
Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E. A., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., & Cao, Y. (2003). Amity Prison-Based Therapeutic Community: 5-Year Outcomes. The Prison Journal 84(1), 36–60.
Wexler, H. K., De Leon, G., Thomas, G., Kressel, D., & Peters, J. (1999). The Amity Prison TC Evaluation:
Reincarceration Outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26(2), 147–67.
Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-Year Reincarceration Outcomes for Amity
In-Prison Therapeutic Community and Aftercare in California. The Prison Journal 79(3), 321–36.
Wilson, J. A., Cheryachukin, Y., Davis, R. C., Dauphinee, J., Hope, R., & Gehi, K. (2005). Smoothing the Path From Prison to Home: An Evaluation of the Project Greenlight Transitional Services Demonstration Program. New York, N.Y.: Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/downloadfile=2991/Greenlight%2520Technical%2520Report%2520FINAL.pdf
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, E. R., & Callanan, V. J. (2006). Preventing Parolees From Returning to Prison
Through Community-Based Reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 551-71.
[1] It should be noted, while Boulder County has public
transportation, not all areas of the region have access. Thus, many FOCUS mentees may find themselves
securing employment several miles from the nearest public transportation route.
