Running Head: PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

Partnership Programs: Promising Practices for Adult Offender Populations

Kyla Krueger
M.E.D. Candidate, Student Development Administration
Seattle University

Introduction
Planners involved in forecasting the need for prison space estimate that 30%-50%
of people who are currently released will be back in prison within three years (King

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, 2013). Planners expect recidivism they plan for
it. Instead, there is a clear need to invest in reentry programs aimed at reducing the
barriers that negatively impact a successful transition process.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how a partnership program could have
positive outcomes for adults in transition from jail or prison back to the community.
This paper will address key considerations and existing promising practices when
considering the use of adult offender mentorship/peer-to-peer programs in
combination with other reentry services.
Terminology
For the purposes of this paper, I will be referring to the idea of peer-topeer/mentoring programs as partnership programs. In traditional mentoring programs,
a mentor is someone who is experienced, and gives help and advice to a less experience
and often younger person (Webster, 2015). In peer-to-peer programs, a peer is a person
who belongs to the same age group or social group as someone else (Webster, 2015).
Neither term is appropriate for a program focused at adult offender populations as
mentorship could make adults feel like they were being treated like a child and the term
peer denotes a relationship free from power dynamics (Fletcher et al., 2009).
The term partner represents a person who shares or is associated with another
in some action or endeavor (Webster, 2015). Based on Yossos theory of Community
Cultural Wealth (2005), people in partnership are continually engaging with each others
cultural wealth. Community cultural wealth challenges traditional interpretations of
cultural capital. This theory shifts the lens away from a deficit view of marginalized
populations as places full of disadvantage, and instead focuses on, and learns from, the

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

array of cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed by socially marginalized

groups that often go unrecognized and unacknowledged (Yosso, 2005). A partnership
program, designed for an adult offender population, would offer space for individuals to
explore their forms of cultural wealth and model a strengths-based approach to transition
and reentry services.
Call to Action
According to the Washington State Department of Corrections (2015),
approximately 8,000 people are released from Washington State prisons each year (this
number does not include those released from county jails or federal detention centers).
Studies have shown that the first few months following release are the most challenging,
followed by a 1-3 year transitions process (Bumby, 2007; Evans, 2001; Geither, 2012; ).
People in this transition period have critical needs around housing, food security, mental
health, reemployment, education, substance abuse, family reunification, and peer support,
(Bumby, 2007; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102).
Men from the Black Prisoners Caucus at the Monroe Correctional Complex
expanded upon these reentry needs in their 2013 Reentry Report. This report stated that
individuals returning to the community need life skills such as how to budget, ride the
bus, contact emergency services, find resources, fill out a job application, write a resume,
interview for a job, and ask questions. They suggested that using a tour guide like
model to help people navigate daily living could be a beneficial addition to reentry
services during this transition process (Black Prisoners Caucus, 2013). A partnership
program could help address some of these concerns.
Juvenile Mentorship and Peer-to-Peer Programs

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

While there is an abundance of evidence to support the success of mentoring

programs with juvenile offenders, research of evidenced based best practices is lacking
for similar programs with the adult offender population (Fletcher, Sherk, & Jucovy, 2009;
Geither, 2012). There are many considerations when working with this population that
will vary from a juvenile population. Programs and agencies should understand that
simply creating a mentorship program, based on mentorship best practices, is not
sufficient.
Similarly, while successful on the inside, peer-to-peer programs will need to be
modified or recreated to serve an adult offender population post incarceration. Research
on peer support has been limited mainly to the mental health field (Schinkel, 2012) and
only a few studies have compared peer support to non-peer support services in
randomized control trials (Schinkel, 2012).
Partnership Programs: The New Narrative
In 2003, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
developed Ready4Work: An Ex-Prisoner, Community and Faith Initiative. Funded by
DOL and the Annie E. Casey and Ford foundations, Ready4Work was developed to
address the needs of populations transiting from jail and prison back to the community. In
addition to some more common reentry services (case management, job placement,
education, etc.), Ready4Work included a mentoring component. This program, based on
the belief that mentors could help ease the reentry process by providing emotional and
practical support, included one on one and group mentoring (Fletcher et al., 2009). The
program operated in 11 cities around the country and the various sites were led by faithbased organizations, nonprofits, the mayors office and for profit entities (Fletcher et al.,

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

2009). The program targeted 18 to 34 year olds who voluntarily participated in the
program. Together, the sites enrolled approximately 4,500 individuals who were
predominantly African American males (Fletcher et al., 2009). The majority had spent
more than two years in prison, and almost 25 percent had spent five or more years behind
bars (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Acknowledging that the majority of all mentoring research focused on juvenile
populations, Ready4Work designed their mentoring program to explore whether adult
mentoring could lead to similar positive outcomes. Findings from this program suggest
that adult mentoring programs may strengthen already existing comprehensive reentry
services. Participants who met with a mentor were better retained in the Ready4Work
program, were twice as likely to find jobs, were more likely to be retained in those jobs,
and were 35% less likely to recidivate than those not involved in the mentoring program
(Fletcher et al., 2009).
While the program demonstrated positive outcomes, Ready4Work acknowledges
that participants were not randomly assigned to the mentorship program. They recognize
that it is possible that ones motivation to be involved in the mentoring program could
have been the same motivation that contributed to their other positive outcomes (Fletcher
et al., 2009). While these results are not definitive, they are promising.
Another program that has had proven successful is Mentoring4Success, a program
aimed at mentoring adult offenders in Kansas. Mentoring4Success is a statewide
initiative that matches eligible offenders with mentors as part of their reentry plan
(Geither, 2012). The program is run by various organizations that work closely with the
Kansas Department of Corrections. Participants and volunteers engage in one on one and

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

group mentoring focused on soft skills and education (Geither, 2012). The program has
matched approximately 4,000 mentors and volunteers to date and is continually
improving their practices (Geither, 2012).
Lastly, Routes Out of Prison, a program based in Scotland, uses life coaches to
support the transition of those returning to the community. The Life Coaches have either
had experiences of offending or addiction or are residents in areas of high social
deprivation (Schinkel, 2012). Life Coaches regularly meet with adults pre release and
then continue the relationship in the community. Life Coaches are expected to link their
participants with services external to the program and work with their participants on
social skills related to employment (Schinkel, 2012). When assessed, most participants
referred to the value of the relationship with their Life Coach (Schinkel, 2012). The
valued qualities of Life Coaches were described as non-judgmental and accessible and
many reported taking Life Coaches advice more seriously because it was based on their
shared experience (Schinkel, 2012).
Barriers to Mentoring
As many organizations that have created partnership programs have experienced,
individuals that have been recently incarcerated can have psychological and practical
barriers that make participation in these programs difficult (Fletcher et al., 2009; (Geither,
2012;). Programs will need to take these into consideration and develop strategies that
will address these barriers.
Promising approaches from other programs include when they presented
information about a partnership program, peer-to-peer recruitment, and practical
considerations. Programs found that introducing a partnership program from the start of a

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

reentry conversation increased the likelihood that someone would become involved
(Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). Participants still incarcerated liked having someone
who they knew would be there for them post release. They were able to start planning
based on their program involvement (Fletcher et al., 2009). Other organizations utilized
participants currently involved to help with recruitment. They made presentations and
talked with others about their experiences. With an adult population, the peer-to-peer
interaction was beneficial and often deemed more trustworthy (Fletcher et al., 2009). To
address practical barriers, programs helped volunteers consider the locations of their
meeting (if it was close to public transportation), the time of day they were meeting, and
provided bus tickets (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Additional challenges to adult partnership programs include recruitment and
retention, commitment, and trust. Recruiting and retaining participants proved difficult
for many programs (Fletcher et al., 2009). Reasons included that mentoring was not a
priority, it seemed like another form of reporting, they felt like they were being treated
like a child, they felt there was no common ground with their mentor, and they worried
about confidentiality (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Lastly, creating partnership programs for adult offender populations must look
different than juvenile mentoring programs. Adults have additional time restraints that
may not allow for the frequency of meeting often experienced in juvenile mentoring.
Adults may initially be more comfortable in group settings, and recruiting volunteers to
work with this population may be more difficult than with a youth population.
Promising Practices
Pre/Post Release Format

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

The majority of partnership programs that currently exist begin while the
individual is still incarcerated (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). This approach often
helps reduce participant resistance to being involved and aids in the transition process
post release (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). Pre-release partnerships might take
place with already existing organizations like the Life Skills 2 Work program (though
South Seattle College) to create a new pipeline from prison back to education. Many
programs begin their partner interactions with individuals within 90 days of release
(Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). During this time, partner interaction often takes
place via letter writing, phone calls, and visitation. Forming these relationships prerelease has increased the likelihood of program involvement post release (Fletcher et al.,
2009).
Content
Many partnership programs focus on soft skills when developing curriculum or
conversation ideas for participants. Research states that this specific population often
suffers from trauma and other hardships that make resiliency training and communication
skills a necessary part of a reentry plan (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Giguere,
2012Shinkel, 2012). Similar to the Steps 2 Freedom curriculum developed by South
Seattle College, a partnership program should focus on things like self, relationships, and
work (South Seattle College, 2015). Within each of these categories, volunteers and
participants can work to address specific needs that help reduce barriers during the
transition process.
Partner Roles

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

The purpose of a partnership program is to provide an individuals in transition

from jail or prison with someone who can be a positive and supportive presence in their
life. The purpose of this person is to listen, model pro social behavior, encourage problem
solving, and offer practical support with things like goal setting, stress management, and
budgeting (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2012; Shinkel, 2012). The
volunteer partner should work to develop trust and build the relationship.
Research is inconclusive about who the volunteer should be. Many programs
recruit people who have been previously incarcerated to be the volunteer, while others
recruit community members that have never been incarcerated. There are pros and cons
to both options. Programs that recruited volunteers who had been previously incarcerated
said that the participants felt more comfortable because they felt like they were meeting
with someone who got it (Schinkel, 2012). Safety concerns could be a problem for this
matching format (Schinkel, 2012).
Programs that recruited community members with no criminal record found that
participants were often hesitant to trust them, but ultimately appreciated having someone
to model pro social behavior (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2012; Shinkel,
2012).
Partner Matching
One on one matches should always be between people of the same gender
(Fletcher et al., 2009). Programs may also want to consider matching people who share
other identities such as race, sexual orientation, cultural beliefs, etc. (Evans, 2001;
Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2012; Shinkel, 2012). These factors are important as it aids
the connection between the participant and volunteer and creates some initial perceived

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

10

common ground ((Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2012; Shinkel, 2012).
While many programs try to match people based on gender and other identities, they
recognize that sometimes other matches will be more appropriate. It is important to also
use other criteria when matching participants and volunteers such as parental status,
physical location, and availability.
Partnership Format
Something to consider when forming a partnership program is the partner
interaction format. In a one on one model, a participant (the person transitioning from jail
or prison) and volunteer are matched and participate in one on one meetings. The pair
meets consistently (once a week or once every other week) for six months to a year and
stays connected via phone or email between meetings (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009;
Shinkel, 2012). During these meetings, the pair should decide how to spend their time
(Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). The one on one model is effective because of its
potential to foster deeper, more meaningful relationships and provide stronger,
individualized support (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). While promising, programs
could face challenges with the one on one model because of the large numbers of
volunteers needed to make the program possible. Large amounts of time and energy will
be necessary to recruit, screen, train, and supervise volunteers (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Compared to a one on one model, a group model would require participants and
volunteers to meet as a group on a weekly or biweekly basis (Fletcher et al., 2009;
Geither, 2102). These sessions should last about two hours and focus on preplanned
curriculum (Fletcher et al., 2009). Groups should be separated by gender or other
identities to most effectively address each populations specific transition process

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

11

(Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). In contrast with a one on one model, group sessions
require fewer volunteers and make recruiting and training easier (Fletcher et al., 2009).
While there are advantages to group sessions, there is little research, compared to one on
one models, that demonstrates that group sessions are effective. Some participants who
have taken part in groups during their incarceration may feel more comfortable in a group
setting, while others may experience still feeling institutionalized (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Group sessions also provide space for the participant population to talk about their
transition process with others who get it (Fletcher et al., 2009).
The last, and most frequently used format is a combination of one on one and
group meetings (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, Giguere, 2012;
2012; Shinkel, 2012). In a combination model, some programs focus on group meetings
with one on one meetings in between, while others focus on one on one meetings with
occasional group meetings. This model provides more structure for the participant and
allows for planned curriculum during group meetings and organic interactions
individually (Fletcher et al., 2009).
Policies and Procedures
Before a program can start recruiting volunteers and participants, they must have
strong policies and procedures that will guide their work. Programs should identify
eligibility requirements for both participants and volunteers (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al.,
2009; Geither, 2012; Giguere, 2012Shinkel, 2012). While requirements will vary from
program to program, many programs have age requirements, time commitment
requirements, and safety requirements. Age requirements may apply to the volunteers,
participants, or both. For an adult population, many programs only recruit mentors that

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

12

are older than 24 (Evans, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2012; Shinkel, 2012). The
time requirement includes length and frequency. It is important for the volunteer to know
what the commitment will be up front so they can fully commit to their participant during
this process (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). Safety requirements for community
volunteers may include checks of criminal records and references. If using volunteers
who have been previously incarcerated, many programs define a last date at when the
volunteers have been convicted of a felony. Many programs require a last date of 5
years (Fletcher et al., 2009; Schinkel, 2012).
Developing a confidentiality plan is also a necessary component to a partnership
program (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102). Programs have a responsibility to
understand the laws and policies that govern their reporting obligations. A main reason
that adult participants are hesitant to become involved in a partnership program is their
fear that what they say will be reported back to their Community Correctional Officer or
other reporting officials (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102; Giguere, 2012). Each
program must decide their confidentiality policy based on the law and ethical reasoning.
It is important that this policy is available and clearly articulated to participants (Fletcher
et al., 2009). It is important that programs also have policies that address what the
volunteer should do should they see warning signs indicating destructive behavior or feel
unsafe (Fletcher et al., 2009; Geither, 2102; Giguere, 2012).

Limitations
While there are many promising practices for partnership program with adult
offender populations, research and evidenced based best practices is lacking. More

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

13

research on these types of programs is required and special considerations to this unique
population must be taken into account when creating these programs.

Conclusion
The formation of partnership programs is an emerging component in
reentry/transitions services. Special considerations related to adult offender populations
and program structure must be considered when forming these programs. While
conclusive research of partnership programs is still lacking, there is not research that
indicates adverse effects. Partnership programs should be seen as a supplement to already
existing reentry and transition services and appropriate organizations and agencies should
work together during their formation.

Resources
Evans, D. (2001). Volunteer program aids released offender supervision. Corrections
Today, 142-144.

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ADULT

OFFENDER POPULATIONS

14

Fletcher, R.C., Sherk, J., & Jucovy L. (2009). Mentoring former prisoners: A guide for
reentry programs. Public/Private Ventures, 1-90.
Geither, G. (2012). Mentoring for success: Mentoring adult offenders in Kansas.
Corrections Today, 28-32.
Giguere, R. (2009). Building offenders community assets through mentoring. Center for
Effective Public Policy, 1-31.
Schinkel, M., & Whyte, B. (2012). Routes out of prison using life coaches to assist
resettlement. The Howard Journal, 51(4), 359-371.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.