Using Data to Improve Reentry Programs: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Peer Mentoring

Best practices in reentry

In the United States, there are an estimated 1.2 million people currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons, and more than 650,000 are released from prison every year. Two-thirds of them will likely be re-arrested within three years following their release.

The typical narrative about reentry goes as follows:

In the United States, we have a large prison population, virtually all these prisoners will be released, most are unprepared to integrate back into society, former inmates face increased difficulties at every turn, most will commit additional crimes and be sent back to prison or jail, and the whole process is a huge burden on budgets and society (Koschmann & Peterson, 2013, p. 189).

Therefore, we must improve our reentry efforts to break this cycle by incorporating programs that are rehabilitative in nature, rather than being concerned primarily with supervision and control.

In the fields of criminal justice and public safety in the U.S., reentry is a prevalent topic of discussion. Helping formerly incarcerated individuals reintegrate into their communities and become productive members of society is of growing interest.

What can be done to help people who are released from prison avoid re-arrest? With few job prospects, very little money, and no place to live, returnees often face the same pressures and temptations that landed them in prison in the first place.

Providing formerly incarcerated men and women with assistance finding and keeping employment, identifying transitional housing, and accessing peer mentoring have been identified as important forms of reentry support in several studies (see Kendall, Redshaw, Ward, Wayland, & Sullivan, 2018 for a systemic review of community reentry programs, for example).

Arguably, one underlying cause of recidivism is being cut off from networks and meaningful relationships that provide the necessary social capital needed for successful reintegration. It therefore makes sense to consider mentoring as a key component of reentry success.

Mentoring in reentry programs

Mentoring provides important links to coordinated services delivery and valuable resources for creating a favorable postrelease environment for successful reentry.

Networks of relationships connect people to opportunities and information they might not otherwise have access to. Unfortunately, many formerly incarcerated men and women have been cut off from these relationships, or they never had the connections to begin with, which makes it incredibly difficult to manage the complexities of postrelease life (Koschmann & Peterson, 2013).

Koschmann and Peterson evaluated one of the few established reentry mentoring programs in the U.S. in their 2013 case study. The FOCUS reentry program was created around the idea of self-empowerment, which is mainly accomplished through motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing is a counseling approach that develops motivations that facilitate individual change (Souders, 2019).

“Most commonly used to increase motivation toward behavioral change, motivational interviewing is an evidence-based approach designed to encourage clients to talk themselves into making beneficial changes in their lives” (Souders, 2019). Motivational interviewing encourages clients to think and talk about their reasons for change, ultimately increasing motivation.

Mentors in the FOCUS reentry program offer an invaluable service by providing a first point of contact on release and helping people through the initial transition. Mentors might drive people to appointments or help them manage the overwhelming amount of paperwork and responsibilities necessary to comply with the terms of their release. They might go for meals together, go hiking, go to the library, go shopping, and so on. In this program, mentors and mentees meet weekly for approximately 12 months.  

How do you measure reentry success?

If you have incorporated peer mentoring in your reentry programming, for example, how do you know it is achieving its intended results? How do you know if it was effective in meeting the needs of your clients? Are you accomplishing what you set out to accomplish? Is the program worth the resources it costs? What is the “return on investment” for this program or service?

Increasingly, reentry programs and initiatives across the country are partnering with independent evaluators to better understand the effectiveness of their recidivism reduction strategies and identify ways to use data to further refine their practices.

How to conduct a program evaluation.

An independent evaluator often follows four steps in program evaluation in partnership with the non-profit organization. Don’t worry if these steps feel overwhelming or difficult to answer. Your independent evaluator will work closely with your organization to complete these steps.

For each of the four steps, I will provide an example from the peer mentoring/reentry programming field.

One: Establish clear outcomes.

Ensure there are clear outcomes in place that support program goals. In this step, the evaluator and the organization typically review or develop a logic model, which is a visual representation of aligning program activities to the change (outcomes) you want to accomplish.

• In the example of peer mentoring in reentry, we might say a program wants to increase the number of people who can identify and achieve beneficial changes in their lives.

Two: Create data collection tools and collect data.

The second step focuses on developing the right data tools and systems to measure and report back on the outcomes determined in Step 1. At LaBarbera Learning Solutions, our evaluators help determine the most appropriate tools to collect, track, and monitor the accomplishment of identified outcomes. That might include participant surveys using established tools or ones we develop specifically for your program, and we typically add qualitative data collection through group or individual interviews.

• For a peer mentoring evaluation, we might develop a survey asking participants how useful and applicable the program has been toward achieving their personal goals, we’d measure recidivism statistics to compare treatment and control groups, and we’d conduct semi-structured interviews to understand which components of the program participants perceive as the most important and impactful.

Three: Analyze the data.

The third step is analyzing the data once it has been collected and presenting results in an easily-understood format. Data is used to determine whether program outcomes were met and the extent of change that occurred as a result of program participation.

• For a peer mentoring program evaluation, we might have qualitative interview data that, once analyzed, shows how participants experienced the program and their peer-mentor relationship. Or we might discover what participants feel are the most important skills or characteristics for a peer mentor to have. Consultants at LLS would then provide relevant quotes to demonstrate key ideas gleaned through the analysis.
• We would also perform statistical calculations on the data gathered through surveys (quantitative) that might show the percentage of participants’ degree of satisfaction with the program, whether the program provided them with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in reentry, or the extent to which the program equipped them with the self-confidence and motivation to pursue their goals, for example.

Four: Use the data to make informed decisions.

The fourth step is to discuss program evaluation results and help program leaders make informed decisions based on what the data tell us. We compile a summary report and often a slide deck presentation of the data for internal and external stakeholders. A good evaluation often leads to recommendations for improvement and program model changes for future programming.

• For example, what if in our evaluation of the peer mentor reentry program, participants told researchers that a history of incarceration and a history of overcoming trauma were the most important characteristics for a peer mentor to have? If the organization had no staff peer mentors with lived experience of incarceration, we’d recommend employing mentors with lived experience in future programming.
• As another example, what if we learned through surveys or interviews that motivational interviewing was somewhat helpful for participants, but that their experience of the process was less than stellar. We might recommend another form of counseling that would better meet the needs of program participants

You can use evaluations to determine if your programs are helping the organization fulfill its mission and understand the impact that your programs are having on those whom you serve.

In today’s era of accountability, what gets measured gets done. If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure, and you won’t have the hard data for your stakeholders that proves your program's effectiveness. LaBarbera Learning Solutions equips non-profits to celebrate their successes and inform opportunities for growth. Contact us today for more information on how LLS can help assess the impact of your organization.