PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

FROM THE FIELD

MENTORING AS

A COMPONENT 

OFREENTRY
MENTORING AS

A COMPONENT

OF REENTRY

Chidi Umez

Jan De la Cruz

Maureen Richey

Katy Albis

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

FROM THE FIELD
This publication was produced by the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC), which was established in 2008 by the 

Second Chance Act (Public Law 110-199) and is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. The NRRC provides education, training, and technical assistance to state and local governments, tribal 

organizations, territories, community-based service providers, non-profit organizations, and correctional institutions 

working to improve reentry. To learn more about the NRRC, visit nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. 

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance: The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and 

prevention initiatives that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, and funding 

to America’s communities by emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field; developing collaborations and 

partnerships; promoting capacity building through planning; streamlining the administration of grants; increasing 

training and technical assistance; creating accountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately 

communicating the value of justice efforts to decision makers at every level. Visit bja.gov for more information. 

About The Council of State Governments Justice Center: The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center is 

a national nonprofit organization that serves policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels from all branches 

of government. It provides practical, nonpartisan, research-driven strategies and tools to increase public safety and 

strengthen communities. For more about the CSG Justice Center, see csgjusticecenter.org. 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2012-CZ-BX-K071 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of 

Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, members of 

The Council of State Governments, or the project’s advisory group. 

Websites and resources referenced in this publication provided useful information at the time of this writing. The authors 

do not necessarily endorse the information of the sponsoring organizations or other materials from these sources. 

The Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York, 10007

© 2017 by The Council of State Governments Justice Center

All rights reserved.

Cover and interior design by Mina Bellomy. Cover photo credits clockwise from top left: iStock.com/xavierarnau; 

iStock.com/track5; iStock.com/XiXinXing; iStock.com/kali9; iStock.com/FatCamera; iStock.com/monkeybusinessimages; 

iStock.com/g-stockstudio.

Suggested citation: Umez, Chidi, Jan De la Cruz, Maureen Richey, and Katy Albis, Mentoring as aComponent of 

Reentry: PracticalConsiderations from the Field (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2017).
Acknowledgments 5

Introduction 6

Section 1. Integrating Mentoring into an Adult Reentry Program 8

Developing and Communicating Goals for Adult Reentry Mentoring 8

Establishing Roles and Program Expectations for Mentors 9

Choosing the Appropriate Mentoring Model 9

Developing Protocols for the Mentoring Relationship 12

Section 2. Collaborating with Corrections, Probation, and Parole 16

Clarifying Roles, Responsibilities, and Expectations for Both Partners 16

Creating a Communication and Information-Sharing Plan 17

Outlining Security and Access Protocols 18

Section 3. Identifying and Addressing Reentry Needs 21

Understanding the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles 21

Using Risk and Needs Assessment Results 23

Addressing Reentry Needs 24

Section 4. Equipping Mentors to Support Reentry Goals 25

Training Mentors on the Basics of Corrections, Supervision, and Reentry 25

Training Mentors on Relationship-Building Skills and Strategies 26

Identifying and Meeting Ongoing Training and Support Needs 28

Section 5. Evaluating Mentoring Services 31

Partnering with an Independent Researcher 31

Developing Guiding Questions for an Evaluation 32

Making a Data Collection Plan 33

Analyzing Results and Reporting the Evaluation 33

Conclusion 35

Appendix A. Community-Based Organizations and Corrections Agencies: 36

Relationship-Building Questionnaire

Appendix B. Sample Logic Model 38

Glossary 40

Notes 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T

his publication could not have been developed without the support of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of 

Justice Assistance (BJA). The authors extend special thanks to BJA Associate Deputy Director Ruby Qazilbash and 

Policy Advisor Andre Bethea for their enthusiasm, guidance, and leadership throughout the course of this project. 

Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field is the result of extended 

collaboration between the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) and federal grantees, practitioners, correctional 

officials, leaders in community-based organizations, researchers in the field, and people who have been incarcerated and 

now serve as mentors to others who are returning to their communities from incarceration. The authors are particularly 

grateful to the members of this publication’s advisory group, listed below, whose input greatly informed the development of 

the document: 

• Kathryn Arnold, Executive Director, Family Pathfinders of Tarrant County, Texas

• Melanie Avery, Director of Philanthropy, Veterans on the Rise Inc.

• Jessica Beresford, Director of Operations, Father Matters

• Kathy Brazell Sévos, Reentry and Transition Services Director, Volunteers of America Oregon

• Renata Cobbs-Fletcher, President and CEO, Northern Children’s Services

• Gloria Geither, Director of Religious, Volunteer, and Mentoring Programs, Kansas Department of Corrections

• M. Muneerah Green, MS, Peer Mentor, College and Community Fellowship

• Frankie Lee Hawkins, Peer Mentor, Central City Integrated Health

• Norris Howard, Division Manager, Community Re-Entry, Central City Integrated Health

• Jay Marchand, Fatherhood and Families Director, Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota

• Melissa Nemon, PhD, CEO, Owner, and Founder, Nemon Consulting LLC

• Margie Phelps, Director of Reentry, Kansas Department of Corrections

• Arn Quakkelaar, CEO and Founder, Genesis in Milwaukee Inc.

• Maureen Schat, Mentoring Specialist, Coconino Online Probation Education Program

• Yvonne Soto, Director of Transitional and Vocational Service, Exponents Community Mentoring Program

• Peter C. Thomas, Peer Mentor, Exponents Community Mentoring Program

Special thanks go to Nicole Jarrett, Stefan LoBuglio, Ronin A. Davis, Karen Watts, and David A. D’Amora at The Council 

of State Governments Justice Center for their significant contributions throughout the development and drafting process, 

and to Michael D. Thompson and Suzanne Brown-McBride for their support of this project. The authors are also grateful to 

Anna Montoya and Ashleigh Fryer for their help producing this publication.
6

More than 600,000 people are released from America’s prisons each year1

 and there are currently more than 4 million 

people on probation and parole.2

 Adults in the criminal justice system may return from incarceration to families and 

communities that lack sufficient natural social supports and the resources to support positive reentry outcomes. While 

research has demonstrated that carefully structured, well-run mentoring programs can positively impact social, behavioral, 

and academic outcomes for at-risk young people,3

 whether adults returning to their communities after incarceration can 

also benefit from mentoring as part of a comprehensive reentry program has yet to be determined.4

 

Mentoring is often thought to provide prosocial benefits, including access to a reliable listener and association with 

someone who is outside of one’s existing social network.5

 These benefits are perhaps most evident in the practice of peer 

mentoring, which assigns program participants to mentors with similar experiences—a contrast to non-peer mentors and 

program staff, who are more likely to be viewed by participants as authority figures who lack the same firsthand experience 

of incarceration and reentry as peer mentors.6

 

The impact of mentoring for adults returning to their communities from incarceration is dependent on how well reentry 

programs structure the mentoring component of the program, which involves collaborating with correctional facilities, 

thoughtfully selecting and matching mentors and participants, and effectively concluding the mentoring relationship.7

 An 

integral part of the process also involves the understanding that mentoring should serve as a supplement to services that 

address other critical reentry needs, such as housing, health care, substance use treatment, and employment.8

 

Despite growing interest and investment in mentoring as a component of reentry, there is only a small body of research to 

support the value of adult mentoring services in reducing recidivism among criminal justice populations. The research related 

to adult reentry mentoring9

 that does exist rarely addresses participants’ criminogenic risk levels and other factors that 

are known to be important in recidivism-reduction strategies. In the absence of research, reentry programs and corrections 

agencies are looking for guidance on how mentoring and correctional evidence-based practices (EBPs) can be integrated.

To meet the existing gap in the field, this publication is intended to accomplish the following goals:

• To provide recommendations for community-based organizations that wish to integrate adult mentoring into

existing reentry programming;

• To offer guidance on building effective partnerships with correctional agencies;

• To promote peer learning by highlighting reentry programs that use promising practices in adult mentoring,

including peer mentoring; and

• To encourage increased data collection and evaluation through stronger collaboration between reentry

programs and research partners in order to determine the value of mentoring adults in reentry.

With the support of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Reentry Resource Center 

(NRRC) has worked with researchers, practitioners, correctional officials, and more than 150 organizations that have 

been awarded Second Chance Act mentoring grants. Through this work, the NRRC has identified five broad, field-based 

considerations for incorporating mentoring into reentry programming. Each section of Mentoring as a Component of 

Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field is intended to serve as a building block for reentry programs that are 

currently using or contemplating using mentors for an adult population. 

INTRODUCTION
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 7

These five broad considerations do not represent an exhaustive list or a step-by-step guide to all of the components of 

effective reentry mentoring, but rather reflect lessons learned in practice that reentry programs can apply in a variety of 

ways based on local priorities and resources. This publication also offers questions and considerations for practitioners, 

researchers, and policymakers that will likely be informed by further research in this emerging field.

When using mentoring as a component of a reentry program, practitioners should consider:

1. Integrating mentoring into the adult reentry program by establishing the roles of mentors, participants,

and case managers, recruiting suitable mentors for the program model, matching participants to the

appropriate mentors, and incorporating mentoring services into the broader reentry service-delivery model;

2. Collaborating with corrections, probation, and parole by discussing program goals and services

thoroughly with corrections partners, obtaining and understanding corrections agencies’ clearance and

background-check policies, being aware of procedures for volunteers and program staff to enter correctional

facilities, and clearly defining the responsibilities of corrections, probation, parole, and program staff during

the pre- and post-release phases of the reentry program;

3. Identifying and addressing reentry needs by understanding criminogenic risk and needs, establishing

assessment procedures, and identifying and applying approaches that will enhance participant engagement;

4. Equipping mentors to support reentry goals by training them on skills that will support case management

objectives, address participant engagement, promote prosocial attitudes and behaviors, and facilitate

relationship building; and

5. Evaluating mentoring services by using a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures to capture the

impact of mentoring services on recidivism and other reentry outcomes, and using findings to improve service

delivery, engage stakeholders and funders, and inform decisions to scale up or replicate program models.

Although the primary audience for this publication is community-based organizations that incorporate adult mentoring 

into their portfolio of reentry programming, other readers—such as correctional agencies or legislative officials—may 

use this publication to gain a better understanding of the components of adult reentry mentoring. Every jurisdiction is 

unique, and the manner in which the practices described in this publication are implemented will vary from jurisdiction to 

jurisdiction. Readers are encouraged to consider the approaches or challenges that are presented within each section of 

this publication based on the dynamics of their particular locality. 
8

I

n reentry, the purpose of a mentoring relationship is to offer support during a person’s time of transition from 

incarceration back into the community. The reentry mentoring relationship can take different forms, though, depending 

heavily on the goals of the reentry program. Mentors in an adult reentry program might provide educational or career 

guidance, emotional support, or serve as accountability partners for participants struggling with substance use.

People preparing to return to their communities from incarceration have needs and challenges that are beyond the scope 

of what mentoring alone can address, but when mentoring services are well structured and effectively integrated with 

other reentry services, mentoring relationships can be an impactful component of a reentry program. This section highlights 

considerations for community-based organizations that plan to introduce mentoring into their existing adult reentry 

programming, as well as for organizations that are re-examining an existing mentoring component.

DEVELOPING AND COMMUNICATING GOALS FOR ADULT REENTRY MENTORING

Whether mentors are expected to help participants navigate the process of obtaining permanent housing, serve as career 

coaches for participants with similar career interests, or perform other roles, the goals of an adult reentry mentoring 

component should align with the mission and goals of the broader reentry program and contribute to positive reentry 

outcomes for participants. One useful method for capturing the goals of the mentoring component of the reentry program is 

to develop a logic model, a visual representation of how the mentoring component of the program is intended to function. 

(Logic models will be discussed further in Section 5; see Appendix B for a sample logic model.) Logic models come in 

different forms but generally serve as a roadmap of mentoring activities and how they will bring about the intended 

outcomes for program participants—outcomes that should demonstrate change over time. Logic models also help align the 

efforts of administrators, staff, and reentry program partners and to provide an accessible, clear point of reference for the 

objectives of the mentoring component of the program. 

While it may not be necessary to share the logic model directly with mentors and participants, clearly communicating the 

objectives of the mentor-participant relationship, as well as the process from intake to closure of the relationship, helps 

mentors and participants understand the function of their relationship and its intended outcomes. Program staff should 

communicate these objectives during the interview process for mentors and the intake process for participants so that each 

party understands what is expected of their participation in reentry mentoring. 

In a study conducted by the University of Melbourne on the impact of peer mentoring, women enrolled in the Victorian 

Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (VACRO) mentoring program were matched with mentors 

approximately three months prior to their release from prison. The VACRO mentoring program’s goal was for mentors to 

serve as role models for women being released from prison by imparting knowledge or skills to participants based on 

their specific needs. At the end of the study, however, many of the women “regarded their mentor as a friend rather than 

a role model,”10 and were therefore less likely to seek their mentor’s advice on major decisions dealing with their future 

educational or career plans. Although this observed tendency did not change the positive impact the relationship had on 

the participants’ lives, the study did “reinforce the importance of both mentors and participants understanding what the 

stated objectives of mentoring should be”11 in a reentry program.

SECTION 1. INTEGRATING MENTORING INTO AN ADULT REENTRY PROGRAM
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 9

ESTABLISHING ROLES AND PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS FOR MENTORS

Reentry programs usually serve participants in multiple areas through several staff members whose work often overlaps 

with the support provided by mentors. For instance, depending on the program, participants may interact with case

managers or case counselors, recovery coaches, and mentor coordinators,

12 who together support participants 

during their transition from incarceration to the community. Once clear goals and objectives have been established for 

the mentoring component of the reentry program, program administrators should develop a policy that identifies the roles 

and expectations for the mentors. Setting distinct roles and expectations for mentors and other program staff can help 

participants identify the best source of information and support for their various needs, mitigate miscommunication among 

program staff, and limit the likelihood of duplicating services.

Since mentoring should only be one piece of the reentry program, a primary consideration when defining the role of 

mentors is to determine how mentors can support all other reentry services. The relationship between mentor and case 

manager, for example, should be clear. Some programs have their professional case management staff also assume the 

role of mentor, while others clearly distinguish between the roles of mentor and case manager. Some programs incorporate 

mentors into their case management planning or case management teams. The nature and extent of a mentor’s support 

will also help determine whether mentors will be volunteers or will receive some form of compensation. Programs that 

incorporate volunteer mentors generally have mentors focus primarily on building supportive, prosocial relationships with 

participants, rather than engaging in case management. 

But if the goal is to have mentoring closely integrated with case planning for participants, there may be more of a time 

commitment than volunteers are able to dedicate. Some reentry programs recruit paid mentors who operate as full-time 

staff to provide case management, assess areas of need, and make treatment recommendations for people as they exit 

jail or prison. Mentors with these responsibilities typically receive more extensive training on case management and client 

intervention strategies. Whether the roles of mentor and case manager are kept completely separate or somewhat overlap, 

it is important for mentors to understand how their work relates to and contributes to case management goals so that they 

can appreciate the broader goals of participants as well as the overall reentry program. 

Mentors should be recruited, selected, and trained based on a policy that outlines the roles and expectations for mentors 

in the program. (See Section 4 for more information on mentor training.) A number of reentry programs have reported 

that they review mentoring role definitions, responsibilities, and expectations regularly to ensure that they are clear and 

accurate, and revise position descriptions as necessary. 

CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE MENTORING MODEL

Mentors in a reentry program can interact with participants through various methods or mentoring models. Programs may 

choose the one-on-one, group, virtual/online, or natural mentoring model—or a combination of models—to facilitate the 

interaction between mentors and participants. When choosing a mentoring model, the needs of the target population—the 

specific subset of the population that a program intends to serve—must be considered in order to determine which model 

offers the best possible relationship-building opportunity for participants and mentors. (See Section 3 for more information 

on delivering services to the identified target population.) 
10

FOCUS ON PEER MENTORING

Reentry programs may wish to consider recruiting people who have been incarcerated to serve as peer mentors 

for their program participants. Even in communities where there are a multitude of reentry services available, 

peer mentoring can offer a unique type of support that is not provided by other services or traditional mentoring 

practices. Because of their shared experiences of incarceration, peer mentors and participants can reach a level of 

understanding that would not otherwise be possible with mentors who do not have that experience. Participants might 

be more apt to trust and accept direction from peers who have lived through the incarceration and reentry process.13 

People who are returning to their communities from incarceration face barriers and stigmatization in a number of 

ways, including restrictions on housing and employment due to their criminal records. As a result, this population may 

have low self esteem or doubt that they will be accepted back into society. In a situation with so many obstacles, 

participants in an adult reentry program can easily lose motivation and focus. But peer mentors often serve as proof 

that successful reentry is possible, and thereby enhance participant motivation. 

Reentry programs that seek to incorporate peer mentors should explicitly address their aim to recruit peer mentors 

in mentor outreach materials or recruitment policies. Programs with some operational history can also look to their 

previous participants to identify potential peer mentors, and program participants may be able to recommend their own 

peers to serve as mentors. While many peer mentors serve on a volunteer basis, some reentry programs offer some 

form of payment to peer mentors as a way to boost recruitment and support peer mentors’ own reentry processes.13 

One-on-One Mentoring

One-on-one mentoring, typically an “interaction between two individuals 

over an extended period of time,”14 allows the participant to “benefit 

from the knowledge, skill, ability or experience of the mentor.”15 In a 

one-on-one mentoring model, mentors may be matched with one or two 

participants with whom they meet individually. With guidance from program 

administrators or mentor coordinators, mentors and participants using 

this one-on-one model arrange times and locations to meet in person. 

The one-on-one mentoring model allows mentors and participants to 

develop relationships on a more intimate level in a private setting, which may be more conducive to gaining participants’ 

trust. One possible challenge in implementing a one-on-one mentoring model is having enough mentors to match with 

individual participants. Another possible drawback to the one-on-one mentoring model is that it limits participants’ 

exposure to insights offered by other program participants, as positive interactions with other participants can also be 

beneficial to a participant’s experience. This particular drawback can be partially mitigated by using peer mentors who 

have gone through the same or a similar program. 

In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to have a combination of different interaction methods. For example, 

programs may use group mentoring while participants are in correctional facilities, where one-on-one contact may be more 

restricted, and then transition to a one-on-one mentoring model once participants are released.

“I’ve been where 

they are. If I can do 

it, they can do it.”

– Frankie Lee Hawkins, Peer Mentor, Central 

City Integrated Health, Detroit, Michigan
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 11

Group Mentoring

In the group mentoring model, one or two mentors lead 

discussions with two or more participants at once. Group 

mentoring allows participants to share their needs, challenges, 

and successes with other participants and mentors, facilitating 

an open exchange of thoughts and ideas. Group mentoring 

discussions may be focused on reentry challenges faced by 

participants—such as obtaining employment—or centered on 

a curriculum that coaches participants in effective problem-solving and communication strategies. Despite the potential 

benefits of group mentoring, some participants may not be comfortable speaking openly in a group setting, and therefore 

may not be as engaged as they would be in a one-on-one setting. Group mentoring also does not provide an environment 

where mentors can form as close and trusting a relationship with participants as they do on an individual basis.

Virtual Mentoring

Virtual or electronic mentoring (“e-mentoring”)—“when support is provided by a mentor through computer-mediated 

technologies and communication can take place synchronously (e.g., electronic chat, instant messaging) or asynchronously 

(e.g., email, message boards)”16—is an emerging mentoring model in reentry programs. E-mentoring gives participants 

and mentors the flexibility to communicate at times that are convenient for both parties, and accommodates circumstances 

where distance prevents in-person meetings, which is especially prevalent in rural communities. Although e-mentoring 

is gaining popularity, many programs still supplement e-mentoring with other modes of interaction, including in-person 

meetings and phone calls, to balance the sense of detachment that may arise with a solely virtual interaction. Another 

potential challenge with the virtual mentoring model is miscommunication between mentors and participants, given that it 

is not possible to read body language and facial expressions through some forms of virtual communication.

Natural Mentoring

Commonly utilized with children and young adults, natural mentoring is “a supportive relationship ... that develops 

naturally in the community and is not arranged or supported by formal programs.”17 A natural mentor may be an immediate 

or extended family member, a religious or spiritual leader, or someone from the local community who—without having 

the formal title of “mentor”—has played a positive, supportive role in a participant’s life. Natural mentoring capitalizes 

on an existing relationship in the participant’s life, and participants may be less likely to view this type of mentoring as an 

imposition on their lives since the mentor is someone they would likely be interacting with regularly anyway. Participants 

play a key part in helping to identify people in their life that could serve as natural mentors. However, some participants 

may struggle to identify natural mentors because “by the time they reach prison, many have lost the trust of loved ones 

IN PRACTICE 

SOAR Career Solutions’ Community Offender Reentry Program (CORP) in Duluth, Minnesota, incorporates e-mentoring 

into their traditional post-release one-on-one and group mentoring services in order to accommodate participants. 

CORP’s Positive Attitude Development (PAD) virtual mentoring program allows participants to send emails, instant 

messages, or texts to a mentor via an online platform. Participants also have at least one phone call or one in-person 

or video conference meeting with the mentor during the 16-week post-release program. This model has allowed 

SOAR to offer support to participants who have nontraditional work schedules or who live in rural areas where public 

transportation is not easily accessible for in-person meetings.

“You have instant 

credibility ... because of 

your own experience.”

– Peter C. Thomas, Peer Mentor, Exponents Community 

Mentoring Program, New York, New York
12

IN PRACTICE 

Connecticut Appleseed’s Connecting through Literacy: Incarcerated Parents, Their Children, and Caregivers (CLICC) 

program provides mentoring services to fathers and mothers who are incarcerated in Connecticut correctional 

facilities, who have at least 1 child between the ages of 7 and 14, and who are within 6 months to 1 year of being 

released from incarceration. CLICC provides participants with pre-release one-on-one and group mentoring for 6 

months and post-release one-on-one mentoring for 6 months through a family literacy curriculum. This curriculum 

guides the incarcerated parents and their children as they read the same books and exchange ideas about them 

through letter writing during the parent’s period of incarceration. Once parents are released, they continue to use 

this curriculum to discuss the books with their children. Highly trained mentors facilitate pre- and post-release 

discussions for the parents, while each child is matched with a trained child mentor. Mentors also facilitate groupmentoring discussions for parents, caregivers, and their children during the post-release engagement period, in order 

to encourage family reunification. 

DEVELOPING PROTOCOLS FOR THE MENTORING RELATIONSHIP

Establishing protocols for participant engagement, matching, and relationship maintenance and conclusion is a critical step 

to integrating mentoring as a component of a larger reentry program. 

Beginning Mentor-Participant Engagement

Mentor engagement with participants should ideally begin before their release from incarceration and programs should 

develop a protocol for participant engagement during that time. Research shows that pre-release engagement should 

begin between three and six months prior to release in order to establish a substantive relationship and to increase the 

likelihood of participants remaining engaged with their mentors after release.21 Depending on the mentoring model chosen 

and the policies of the correctional facility, the pre-release mentor-participant interaction can take various forms, including 

in-person meetings, phone contact, letter writing, or video conferencing. Reentry programs should consult with the 

correctional facility to determine which modes of communication are permitted between mentors and participants before 

release. (See Section 2 for more information about pre-release engagement and working with corrections.) 

and ruined important personal relationships, often due to their chemical abuse and dependency.”18 It may also be difficult 

for mentors to develop a formalized relationship in this model, where both participants and mentors are not accustomed to 

having their relationship monitored by an outside entity.

When mentoring relationships in reentry do not stem from an existing “natural” relationship, reentry programs often consider 

the behavioral and cultural factors that influence how their target population forms and views supportive relationships. 

Awareness of differences in communication and relationship building may contribute to stronger relationship matches and 

outcomes for participants. Men and women, for example, have different perspectives on social contact during the reentry 

process. According to a study of women and men released from prison, “women often reported that the fact of being 

supported [by a mentor] [was] evidence of trust and affirmation of their status as a person,”which the women believed was 

a central part of their successful transition back into the community. In contrast, for men, “work training during imprisonment 

and employment following release” had a greater impact on their post-release experience than social contact.19 In another 

study, researchers examined the effectiveness of electronic versus in-person mentoring and found that “females communicate 

more effectively in situations that carry a greater risk of misinterpretation than do males.”20 That is, online mentoring was 

more effective for female participants than male participants. 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 13

IN PRACTICE 

The College and Community Fellowship (CCF) reentry program in New York City focuses on ensuring access to higher 

education for women in order to promote economic self reliance and reduce recidivism. Participants enrolled in 

the mentoring component of the program are matched with peer mentors who have similar educational and career 

goals. During pre-release engagement, a mentor coordinator leads structured group mentoring sessions, where peer 

mentors begin the process of connecting participants with higher education by identifying programs and courses that 

participants may be interested in completing after they are released. Once participants are released, peer mentors—

with the guidance of a mentor coordinator—help participants find information regarding admission to vocational 

programs, GED preparation courses, colleges, and universities. Peer mentors also help participants understand how 

to access other CCF reentry services, such as housing placement assistance and family counseling, and support 

participants as they strive to achieve their educational and career goals. 

Even when great care is taken to match mentors and participants, there may be circumstances in which the match does 

not develop into a cohesive relationship or unforeseen circumstances prevent one party from participating in the program. 

When developing a mentor-matching protocol, many programs also establish a “re-matching” procedure in the event that a 

mentor-participant relationship is not working. Ideally the re-matching procedure would be as seamless as possible, so as 

not to greatly interrupt the mentoring support and services offered to the participant.

Duration and Structure of the Mentoring Relationship

After determining a protocol for pre-release engagement and mentor matching, programs should develop a post-release 

plan to connect participants to services that address the needs identified during pre-release program intake and case 

management. A key consideration for the post-release plan is the length of the mentor-participant relationship, with the 

recommended length of post-release mentor engagement being between six months and one year.22 Programs that are able 

to arrange significant access and engagement with participants during the pre-release period, however, may choose to 

engage participants for a shorter period once they are released. 

Although the mentor-participant relationship should ideally develop as naturally as possible, there should also be some 

structure in the frequency and location of mentor-participant meetings in order to maintain consistency in the relationship. 

The group mentoring model allows for the most structure in frequency and location, given that programs can designate 

a day and time for group meetings, which are usually held in the program office. With one-on-one, virtual, or natural 

mentoring, it may be more difficult to create a structured meeting schedule since these models are designed to offer more 

flexibility for both mentors and participants. Setting a specific time for meetings in these models may not be practical, 

so many programs instead choose to set a minimum number of meetings or interactions for mentors and participants 

(e.g., biweekly, eight hours a month). Most reentry programs also set guidelines about suitable and unsuitable locations 

for mentor-participant meetings, in order to convey the importance of boundaries and safety in the mentor-participant 

relationship. (See Section 4 for more on boundaries between mentors and participants.) 

Mentor Matching

Some reentry programs find it helpful to use pre-release reentry case management and program intake as an opportunity 

to identify behavioral and cultural factors that can inform mentor-participant matching. Programs using a one-on-one 

mentoring model, for example, may choose to match mentors and participants based on their age, sex, race, ethnicity, 

cultural background, career or educational goals, location, or interests and hobbies. Mentor-participant matching criteria 

should also be informed by the overall goal of the mentoring component of the reentry program and by the outcomes the 

program wishes to achieve through the mentor-participant relationship. 
14

IN PRACTICE 

Mentoring4Success (also known as The Helen Initiative) is a statewide, community-based reentry program in Kansas 

that operates in collaboration with the Kansas Department of Corrections to match participants to mentors from 6 

to 12 months before release. Participants continue to work with mentors for 6 months after release, for an average 

overall (pre- and post-release) engagement period of 1 year. During the post-release portion of the program, mentorparticipant meetings are recorded in a “snapshot,” a user-friendly form—mainly in the form of checklists—where 

mentors can show when they met with participants, how long their interactions with participants lasted, and what 

they discussed during the meeting. The snapshot also has a field for general comments so that mentors can raise any 

concerns about their participants. The program’s mentor coordinators use the snapshots to stay informed about the 

match meetings, monitor challenges the mentor may be facing, and identify any additional reentry needs that mentors 

may discuss with participants. 

Concluding the Mentoring Relationship

Concluding the formal mentor-participant relationship is a key step in the mentoring process. Once mentors and 

participants have completed the engagement period and fulfilled the criteria established for participation in the mentoring 

component of the reentry program, mentor coordinators or case managers can explain the next steps for the participant in 

closeout interviews with both the mentor and the participant. The closeout interview is also a good opportunity for program 

staff to obtain feedback from both parties on the mentoring component of the program itself and on their particular 

relationship, including any suggested improvements. The next steps for the mentor-participant relationship, after the formal 

completion, may depend on a few variables including the capacity of the reentry program and the mentors themselves, and 

whether mentors and participants wish to continue their relationship. 

Some programs encourage mentors and participants who have established a good rapport to continue meeting at their 

own convenience after the closeout of the formal mentoring relationship, primarily if a participant expresses concern that 

the relationship is ending too early in his or her post-release transition process. For cases in which a participant may need 

less support or a mentor does not have the capacity to continue meeting with a participant in person, program staff can 

recommend monthly or bimonthly phone or email check-ins between the parties to stay in touch. Mentors and participants 

can also decide how best to continue their relationship and whether they would like to continue following the contact 

standards established by the program or adapt to their own schedules. However, programs should make clear that any 

communication or interaction between a mentor and a participant after the formal relationship has concluded is solely at 

the discretion of both parties. Although some mentors and participants may choose to continue their relationship beyond 

the closeout interviews, those relationships would be outside of the structured mentoring component of the program 

and therefore not subject to any formal reporting or monitoring requirements. Program staff should, however, continue to 

monitor participants’ progress in other reentry services that are outside of the mentoring relationship.

Implementing a mentor-participant meeting structure enables programs to develop a system for recording these 

interactions as well, which helps hold both mentors and participants accountable. Programs may require mentors to record 

the location, time, date, and/or content of all forms of contact with a participant. Case managers or mentor coordinators 

can then use the meeting records to monitor mentor-participant matches. Information from these meeting records should 

be assessed in the formal evaluation of the mentoring component of the reentry program, which will be discussed in 

Section 5. 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 15

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

While local partners and training resources are often available to support the mentoring component of reentry 

programs, some national resources may also be useful.

The U.S. Department of Labor offers a resource called Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry 

Programs23 as part of its Ready4Work initiative.24 Sections VI and VII of this guide directly address the structuring of 

mentor training, supervision, and support. 

MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership is a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve “the quality and 

quantity of mentoring relationships.”25 In addition to providing numerous resources, program examples, and research, 

MENTOR supports a national network of affiliate mentoring partnerships and runs the National Mentoring Resource 

Center, a project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Although MENTOR focuses on 

youth mentoring, the organization’s website hosts various resources relevant to mentoring adults in reentry.

The Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring is a partnership between the University of Massachusetts Boston and 

MENTOR that works to “advance the production, dissemination, and uptake of evidence-based practice in ways that 

improve effectiveness of practice.”26 The Center conducts research, facilitates collaboration between researchers 

and practitioners, creates tools and trainings, and manages a chronicle that provides research discussions, program 

profiles, expert perspectives, and news related to the mentoring field. 
16

Because community-based reentry programs draw participants from the correctional population, program success often relies heavily on the quality of the relationship between community-based organizations and corrections agencies, 

including probation and parole. But bringing mentoring into correctional facilities can be difficult for community-based 

organizations without an established partnership with corrections. Entrance to correctional facilities usually requires 

thoughtful planning and adherence to strict regulations. In addition, organizational policy and culture differences may 

cause corrections agencies and community-based organizations to have different priorities for the partnership. Despite 

their differences, however, corrections agencies and community-based organizations can build a strong partnership through 

effective planning, communication, and collaboration. 

This section and the corresponding “Community-Based Organizations and Corrections Agencies: Relationship-Building 

Questionnaire” in Appendix A are designed to highlight topic areas that are important for community-based organizations 

to discuss prior to establishing a formal partnership with corrections agencies and to outline what is often required in order 

to sustain the partnership. Readers are encouraged to use the questionnaire as a tool to support integrating the material in 

this section into their reentry programs.

CLARIFYING ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND EXPECTATIONS FOR BOTH PARTNERS 

Quality partnerships between community-based organizations and corrections agencies require the definition and 

establishment of roles, responsibilities, and expectations during preliminary cross-organizational conversations. Whereas 

roles and responsibilities in most community-based organizations can be fluid, many corrections agencies tend to have less 

flexibility in their structure and procedures. In a community-based reentry program, for instance, a program administrator’s 

tasks may be broadened to include recruitment and case management of participants, but a counselor in a correctional 

facility typically interacts with the prison or jail population strictly in a counseling capacity. To maintain clarity of roles, 

promote accountability, and avoid duplicating duties, community-based organizations should identify the personnel 

responsible for each component of the reentry program, including program management, participant intake and recruitment, 

and case management, while corrections partners should identify which of their staff will facilitate the mentoring component 

of the reentry program within the correctional facility. Designating a liaison for the mentoring component of the program 

within each partner’s respective organization can help coordinate efforts and foster cross-organizational understanding. 

Many people who leave incarceration are still under correctional supervision by probation or parole officers. Corrections 

partners should therefore also outline the roles of probation and parole officers and how their responsibilities may relate 

to the role of mentoring in the reentry program. When reentry programs establish a good relationship with probation and 

parole, mentors may act as a bridge between participants and probation or parole officers by encouraging participants to 

maintain regular communication with their probation or parole officers and to fulfill the conditions of their release. 

Some questions to ask when clarifying roles, responsibilities, and expectations for implementing reentry mentoring in 

partnership with a corrections agency are: 

• How will potential participants be identified within the correctional facilities? Will corrections staff provide 

reentry program staff with a list of potential participants, or will reentry program staff be able to recruit 

participants from the entire facility population?

• Will the corrections agency conduct risk and needs assessments and provide that information to the 

community-based organization? (See Section 3 for more information on these assessments.) 

SECTION 2. COLLABORATING WITH CORRECTIONS, PROBATION, AND PAROLE
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 17

• Will corrections staff serve any case management functions for program participants, such as reentry case 

planning or post-release service recommendations? If so, how will program staff and corrections case 

management staff collaborate to support the reentry process?

• Since probation and parole officers monitor, encourage, and enforce participants’ supervisory conditions in 

the community, will they encourage participants to continue to engage in the mentoring component of the 

reentry program?

CREATING A COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION-SHARING PLAN

Many community-based organizations find it helpful to develop a cross-organizational communication plan at the beginning 

of their partnership with a corrections agency. Together, partners should agree on the methods, frequency, and content of 

cross-organizational communication regarding the mentoring component of the reentry program. The communication plan may 

involve setting weekly meetings, quarterly phone calls, or frequent email communication to ensure that partners stay apprised 

of any relevant changes within the reentry program and the corrections agency. Community-based organization staff may 

choose to invite corrections partner liaisons to their regular staff meetings, while correctional officials can invite communitybased organization liaisons to routine meetings that will help expose those staff to the culture of corrections. Each partner’s 

reentry mentoring liaison should be responsible for managing these interactions and streamlining communication.

IN PRACTICE 

Odyssey House Inc. is a community-based organization that provides peer mentoring services to men and women on 

parole who have recently left or are preparing to leave the Edgecombe Residential Treatment Facility in New York 

City, which is a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision facility. Program participants 

residing at Edgecombe are serving 45-day sentences for violating conditions of their parole. During the 45-day prerelease period, participants work with Odyssey House case managers who assist in developing reentry and service 

plans. Participants also meet regularly with a “bridge mentor”—a peer mentor with clearance to enter the facility—

who serves as an introduction to mentoring and connects them to their eventual post-release peer mentor. The postrelease mentoring relationship lasts for six months, but participants are encouraged to maintain contact with Odyssey 

House beyond that period through program alumni support groups. Along with weekly conference calls, Edgecombe 

and Odyssey House staff members meet in person approximately once a month to provide program updates and 

discuss participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement. Odyssey House has dedicated staff and office space 

at Edgecombe and has become an integral part of the Edgecombe reentry process. Participant enrollment in the peer 

mentoring program has increased and remained steady for six months, with each month seeing nearly six times more 

enrollments than there were prior to Odyssey House’s coordination with Edgecombe. 
18

IN PRACTICE 

The Volunteers of America (VOA) Oregon Community Partners Reinvestment Mentoring Program offers pre- and 

post-release reentry mentoring to young men between the ages of 18 and 25. The program has cultivated a formal 

collaborative partnership with the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s 

Office, particularly the Parole and Probation Department. VOA’s partnership with corrections includes weekly meetings 

with Multnomah County North parole and probation representatives to discuss participant progress and challenges. In 

order to facilitate cross-organizational cooperation with VOA, the Oregon DOC stationed a probation officer in the VOA 

offices, allowing program participants who have probation reporting requirements to report directly to that on-site 

officer. The Oregon DOC has also designated VOA offices as a “no-arrest zone” for participants who may have violated 

a probation requirement, in order to encourage participants to remain engaged in VOA services and to maintain the 

trust established between participants and VOA staff. The Oregon DOC has recognized that creating this partnership 

with VOA helps relieve the workload of their parole and probation department by facilitating relationships with 

mentors as allies during participants’ transition from incarceration back into the community. 

The communication plan should also establish an information-sharing policy for the partnership. Community-based 

organizations that work with the reentry population often rely on information from their corrections partners to serve 

participants. The information supplied by corrections may include health care needs, risk and needs assessment data, 

substance use or mental illness histories, release dates, and post-release supervision requirements—all of which allow 

community-based organization staff to recommend the appropriate services for each participant. Knowing information 

like a participant’s conditions of post-release supervision can help community-based organizations develop a realistic 

transition plan for the participant. One condition of probation or parole may be a curfew, for example, which would prevent 

a participant from pursuing a case manager’s recommendations for employment that extends beyond the curfew. 

Due to confidentiality concerns and the sensitive nature of participant information, corrections partners may be hesitant to 

share this information with community-based organizations unless there is a strict information-sharing policy in place. All 

corrections partners should be transparent about the kinds of information they are able to share and any legal barriers that 

may prevent them from sharing participant information. Health data, for example, are often not shared because of legal 

barriers and institutional policy constraints. 

The information-sharing policy between partners is typically outlined formally through memoranda of understanding or letters 

of agreement addressing the types of information to be shared, methods and mechanisms for sharing that information, 

where each partner will store the information, the frequency with which such information will be shared, and who will have 

access to the information. Staff responsibilities for collecting and sharing this information should also be outlined in the 

information-sharing policy as well is in the articulation of responsibilities that are established at the outset of the partnership. 

The policy should account for the method by which corrections partners will share any information that the community-based 

organization must provide in order to comply with funding requirements or meet research needs. Funding requirements may 

stipulate that the community-based organization provide participant demographic information to its funder, for example. 

OUTLINING SECURITY AND ACCESS PROTOCOLS

Often the first priority of corrections agencies is to protect the public and provide a safe environment for their staff and 

the people they supervise in correctional facilities. While community-based organizations leading reentry programs share 

this commitment to public safety, their primary priority is typically to provide services to participants that will lead to 

positive reentry outcomes. A central component of these services is pre-release engagement. Although research supports 

the practice of pre-release engagement,27 some correctional staff may express hesitation if they believe community-based 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 19

organization staff do not have the proper training to work in correctional facilities, or they may be concerned that those 

staff are at risk of becoming involved in prohibited activities while visiting participants in a correctional facility. 

In order to address these concerns and to maintain the safety of correctional staff, community-based organization staff 

mentors, and program participants, community-based organizations and their corrections partners should outline security 

and access protocols for program staff and mentors. Security and access protocols should address the logistics of prerelease engagement, including: 

• Which correctional facility/facilities the organization staff will have access to (e.g., state prison, jails, 

residential correctional facilities or halfway houses); 

• From which specific facility units, if any, the organization staff will be able to choose participants for the 

mentoring component of the program; and

• The requirements for organization staff to gain access to the facility, including the required documentation 

(e.g., government-issued identification, background check). 

Corrections partners may also require organization staff to complete orientation or training sessions for working in 

correctional facilities. These sessions may cover topics such as maintaining boundaries (physical and otherwise), security 

and evacuation procedures, appropriate attire, and prohibited items. If such training sessions are held on a regular basis, 

the corrections partner should share the training schedule with the community-based organization. 

Community-based organizations should also be transparent about what pre-release engagement entails, informing 

correctional partners of (1) the organization staff, including mentors, who are expected to have access to participants 

within the correctional facilities; (2) the type of participant engagement that would occur within the facilities (e.g., case 

planning, mentoring); (3) the intended format of the engagement, particularly mentor engagement (e.g., one-on-one or group 

mentoring); and (4) the frequency and duration of visits from organization staff and mentors (e.g., weekly one-hour visits, 

monthly two-hour visits). 

The corrections partner should share its policy regarding criminal history and access to facilities, with the communitybased organization providing any criminal history information about program staff or mentors that is required under that 

policy. In the event that an organization staff member or mentor is denied access to a facility due to his or her criminal 

history, the corrections partners should indicate whether there is an appeal process in place to question those denial-ofaccess decisions. 

“It’s lonely when you walk out of [prison] and you 

look around and you don’t see anyone that you 

know, you don’t see anything familiar to you, and 

sometimes you need someone to shine [a] light 

and give you some guidance. And this is why I’ve 

chosen to [be a peer mentor].”

– M. Muneerah Green, MS, Peer Mentor, College and Community Fellowship, New York, New York 
20

FOCUS ON PEER MENTORING

Reentry programs that recruit mentors who have a criminal record may find it challenging to facilitate pre-release 

communication between peer mentors and participants. There are often regulations pertaining to the ability of 

people with criminal histories or on probation or parole to interact with participants inside correctional facilities, 

and it is important for reentry program staff to work with corrections staff to determine how much discretion facility 

administrators have in this matter. While some departmental or facility-specific policies may be more flexible, facility 

administrators (e.g., wardens or sheriffs) may apply a higher level of scrutiny to program staff or volunteers who are 

requesting to work in their facility. Some facilities strictly prohibit people with criminal records from entering. Other 

facilities allow people with criminal records to enter facilities only after receiving appropriate training, but solely for 

community outreach purposes such as peer mentoring, rather than for visitation purposes. Programs should find out 

from their corrections partners whether such access and trainings are an option and, if so, when and how often the 

trainings take place.

In the event that a program is unable to send peer mentors into the correctional facility, there should be an alternative 

plan in place to conduct pre-release engagement with participants. Reentry programs in these circumstances often 

have mentor coordinators or case managers begin the mentoring relationship before a participant’s release, and then 

transition to engagement with a peer mentor after release.28 

Finally, many jurisdictions restrict people on probation or parole from interacting with others who have been convicted 

of certain crimes or who are under probation or parole supervision themselves. Reentry programs should be aware of 

these policies and build relationships with the local probation or parole department to determine how to accomplish 

the program’s goals while working within the existing policies. For instance, some jurisdictions will allow interactions 

with other people with conviction records as long as the supervising officer is notified and has provided approval. 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 21

People returning to the community from incarceration may have a variety of needs including education, family reunification or other relationship repair, housing, and substance use treatment. It is important for reentry program 

staff to understand the needs of the program’s target population in order to provide the necessary services and 

successfully incorporate mentoring into the reentry program. Reentry programs can use the wealth of resources available 

from the field of corrections and reentry to inform how they serve their participants through mentoring and other 

services, and to effectively work toward recidivism reduction and other positive reentry outcomes. The risk, need, and 

responsivity principles and risk and needs assessments are two primary approaches used to identify and address the 

needs of reentry program participants. As a component of a larger reentry program, mentoring can address specific needs 

that are often found in the correctional and reentry populations.

UNDERSTANDING THE RISK, NEED, AND RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLES 

The needs of the correctional and reentry populations are usually categorized into two groups: criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are individual characteristics or circumstances that are associated with criminal 

behavior or the likelihood of committing a crime,29 while non-criminogenic needs are those that are not shown to be directly 

associated with criminal behavior.30 

The principles of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) have been developed by researchers to identify and address criminogenic 

needs and help reduce recidivism (i.e., rearrest or reincarceration for new offenses or for violations of conditions of probation 

and parole). Although implementing these principles effectively may require fundamental shifts in the structure of a reentry 

program and how its mentoring component is applied to people returning to the community after incarceration, with proper 

and consistent implementation, RNR principles can help reentry programs focus their staff time and resources where they 

will have the greatest impact on meeting the needs of participants and reducing their likelihood of reoffending.

Risk Principle

The risk principle calls for prioritizing supervision and services for people who have a moderate or high risk of engaging or 

reengaging in criminal activity. “Risk”—or “criminogenic risk”—in this context refers to the likelihood that a person will 

engage in future criminal activity, not to the seriousness of a crime that person may commit in the future.31 Criminogenic 

risk is estimated by a validated risk and needs assessment tool, an evaluation that identifies both static (unchanging) and 

dynamic (changeable) risk factors in order to approximate a person’s risk of reoffending and identify his or her criminogenic 

needs. A risk and needs assessment tool is “validated” when it has gone through rigorous testing that shows it accurately 

predicts the target population’s likelihood of reoffending.32 

In the past, it appeared more practical for reentry programs to prioritize supports and services for lower-risk people, who 

are more likely to volunteer or show a willingness to participate in programs. However, there is a growing body of research 

to support the practice of prioritizing services for people—both in correctional facilities and on probation or parole in the 

community—based on their risk of reoffending rather than by their willingness to participate in programs.33 For mentoring as 

well, consideration should be given to recruiting and selecting participants who have a moderate or high risk of reoffending. 

Since participation in the mentoring component of a reentry program is often voluntary, however, garnering interest in 

mentoring from people in the moderate- to high-risk category may be a challenge. The reentry program’s corrections partners 

can play a supportive role in the recruitment and selection process, with corrections staff helping to identify people who 

meet the risk-level criteria, who may be willing to participate, and who would benefit from mentoring.

SECTION 3. IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING REENTRY NEEDS
22

Need Principle

The need principle states that there are eight core criminogenic needs (i.e., the “Central Eight”): (1) antisocial attitudes; (2) 

antisocial beliefs; (3) antisocial friends and peers; (4) antisocial personality patterns; (5) high-conflict family and intimate 

relationships; (6) substance use; (7) low levels of achievement in school and/or work; and (8) unstructured and antisocial 

leisure time.34 Research indicates that the greater the number of a person’s assessed criminogenic needs that are addressed 

through services, the greater the impact those services will have on reducing the risk of reoffending.35 Evidence also 

suggests that the number of hours of programming and services a person receives influences the effectiveness of the 

intervention. Current research indicates that high-risk people require more service and program hours than moderate- or lowrisk people, but providing too many hours of intervention to low-risk people can be burdensome, interrupting their exposure 

to prosocial activities outside of the reentry services.36 Applying the need principle also involves identifying participants’ noncriminogenic needs—such as obtaining employment, clothing, a driver’s license, or housing—and aiming to address those 

needs if there are resources available to do so. 

Responsivity Principle

The responsivity principle stipulates that service and supervision strategies should be designed to conform to individual 

motivations, learning styles, and abilities.37 There are two types of responsivity: general and specific. General responsivity 

refers to interventions or services that help address a person’s criminogenic needs like antisocial thinking or attitudes. 

Evidence suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy approaches that promote prosocial thinking, teach problem 

solving, and use more positive than negative reinforcement have been effective as general responsivity methods.38 Specific 

responsivity entails modifying services and interventions to address distinct individual needs, including personal strengths, 

personality, learning style, culture, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and behavioral health needs.39 Applying the 

responsivity principle helps ensure that services and interventions are deliberate and tailored to participants in ways that 

can motivate them to remain engaged in a mentoring relationship.

IN PRACTICE 

The New York City nonprofit organization Exponents primarily uses peer mentors to help people returning to the 

community from incarceration. Peer mentors in this program are people who were previously incarcerated, have 

completed an initial mentor training program, and receive ongoing education, training, and supervision through 

Exponents. They provide participants with education, information, and direct assistance with navigating the complex 

health and human services systems, which is often a factor in successful reentry. 

For one peer intervention at Exponents, people who identify as transgender and were previously incarcerated serve as 

mentors for the growing transgender population in Rikers Island correctional facilities and other detention facilities 

throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Exponents program staff specifically recruit transgender mentors to 

help participants address the unique challenges that transgender people face during their transition from incarceration 

back into the community, including gaining access to hormone therapy medications. Exponents has found that 

integrating these peer mentors into their reentry program has increased the level of engagement for their transgender 

population, as these peers are able to play a vital role in participants’ reentry process through understanding and 

shared experiences.
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 23

USING RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT RESULTS 

In order to implement the RNR principles, it is important for reentry programs to develop a risk and needs assessment 

protocol. Risk and needs assessments will not only estimate participants’ likelihood of reoffending and identify criminogenic 

and non-criminogenic needs, but also help inform how the reentry program addresses those needs. Risk and needs 

assessment tools are typically questionnaires that guide face-to-face interviews used to identify behaviors, attitudes, and 

needs correlated with reoffending. Responses from these interviews are then assigned an overall score that classifies 

criminogenic risk level according to the particular risk and needs assessment tool used. Risk and needs assessment tools 

usually have classifications of low, medium/moderate, and high risk.

A reentry program’s first step in establishing a risk and needs assessment protocol is to determine who will conduct the 

assessments (e.g., the program staff, corrections partner, or probation or parole agency). Risk and needs assessments 

are usually administered by corrections, probation, or parole agencies, but there are some instances where a reentry 

program may administer the assessments, either by choice or because assessment results from the corrections agency 

are not available. When establishing an assessment protocol, important considerations for reentry programs that will be 

administering the assessments include choosing a validated risk and needs assessment tool and providing the necessary 

training for staff who will conduct the assessments.

There are many different risk and needs assessment tools available for the field of corrections and reentry.40 Adult reentry 

programs that administer their own assessment should use a risk and needs assessment tool that is (a) designed to assess 

the likelihood of recidivism and/or re-offense (i.e., incarceration, new offenses, and/or violations of probation or paroles 

conditions); (b) intended for assessing adult populations (18 years of age and older); and (c) validated on the program’s 

target population.41 Although all risk and needs assessment tools are designed to assess risk of recidivism, they vary in their 

intended population (e.g., men, women, juveniles/adolescents), content, approach, length, and cost.42 Reentry programs 

are encouraged to use risk and needs assessment tools that were designed for a population similar to the one they intend 

to serve. Once a risk and needs assessment tool is chosen, staff who will use the tool should receive all necessary training 

prior to working with potential program participants. 

In jurisdictions where the corrections, probation, or parole agency already conducts a risk and needs assessment on the 

target population, it is not recommended that reentry programs purchase a risk and needs assessment tool or expend 

resources on training staff to use the tool. Rather, as recommended in Section 2, reentry programs should develop a 

relationship with the corrections, probation, or parole agency and implement an information-sharing agreement that will 

include risk and needs assessment scores for their target population. 

Program staff who work directly with participants should understand criminogenic risk and needs and how a participant’s risk 

level informs decisions about the reentry services he or she receives. Mentors should receive more general training on the 

RNR principles. (See Section 4 for more information).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

Below are several practical resources on the principles of recidivism reduction available at csgjusticecenter.org:

• An overview of the Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR) Principles43

• Risk Need Responsivity 101 webinar44

• Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results45 

Further resources on RNR include:

• Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation46

• Risk-Needs-Responsivity Simulation Tool47
24

ADDRESSING REENTRY NEEDS

Many reentry programs put a comprehensive case planning and client management system in place to address the 

criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs identified through the assessment of program participants. A designated case 

planning staff member (typically a case manager) should work with program participants to develop individualized reentry 

case plans outlining the services that correspond to their reentry needs and goals. Case plans should list realistic goals 

directly related to the participant’s needs, a timeline for achieving those goals, and the participant’s responsibilities in 

meeting those goals.48 

Risk and needs information identified by assessments should inform the type and intensity of reentry service responses 

for each participant, which may include substance use or mental health treatment, employment or educational services, or 

cognitive behavioral interventions aimed at addressing thoughts, choices, and attitudes associated with criminal behavior. 

Reentry programs that do not have the capacity to offer certain services often partner with other community service 

organizations—such as local food banks, treatment clinics, clothing donation centers, and housing placement agencies—

to fill any service gaps and provide participants with the resources necessary to accomplish their reentry goals. Such 

relationships should be formalized with written agreements to ensure that referrals between partners are properly honored. 

Reentry program staff should ensure that participants understand the role of mentors to support them as they work to 

accomplish the goals outlined in their reentry case plans. Participants are better able to manage their expectations of 

mentoring services when they are clear about the roles mentors can or will play in helping them achieve their reentry goals. 

At the same time, mentors should work with case managers to understand the reentry plans of participants with whom 

they are matched so that they can determine how best to support participants’ reentry goals. (For more information about 

training mentors to support reentry goals, see Section 4.) Given that case plans may contain sensitive information regarding 

a participant’s health, treatment, or family life, for example, it is important for case managers to receive consent from 

participants prior to sharing case plan information with mentors in order to maintain participant confidentiality. 

A number of reentry programs report success in using mentoring as a way to keep participants engaged in other crucial 

reentry services. Mentors help encourage participants to continue active involvement in other reentry services that aim 

to address participants’ criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs. Mentors, too, can be instrumental in addressing 

criminogenic needs—particularly the needs of antisocial friends and peers, and unstructured social and leisure time. 

Research has shown that people who have antisocial peers are more likely to recidivate,49 while those who have prosocial 

support are more likely to have better outcomes in their transition from incarceration to the community.50 Mentors provide 

participants with a social support that is outside of a criminal network and reinforces positive change during the reentry 

process.51 The prosocial benefits of mentoring are particularly evident in the practice of peer mentoring. By sharing their own 

stories of transition from incarceration to the community, peer mentors serve as “people that [participants] can identify with 

and are living proof that turning away from crime is possible.”52 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 25

The goals of adult reentry mentoring relationships usually differ from the goals of other types of mentoring relationships. Whereas student mentoring may seek to improve academic outcomes, or employment and career 

mentoring may measure success by gaining and sustaining employment, the primary objective of reentry mentoring 

is to support successful reentry and help reduce recidvism. Reentry mentoring may also have a specific focus on 

goals such as employment, education, and other indicators of prosocial behavior. Through effective orientation and 

training, reentry programs can ensure that mentors are appropriately qualified and equipped to support reentry 

goals. Many reentry programs provide training to mentors on the basics of corrections, supervision, and reentry, 

as well as relationship-building techniques. Programs may have seasoned staff members, correctional partners, or 

outside trainers serve as instructors for the various training topics discussed below. As with any other component 

of a reentry program, mentoring should have comprehensive, consistent, and straightforward staff support 

channels; clearly defined roles and responsibilities; and regular opportunities to share feedback, questions, and 

concerns.

TRAINING MENTORS ON THE BASICS OF CORRECTIONS, SUPERVISION, AND REENTRY 

Reentry programs around the country make sure that mentors have a basic, practical understanding of corrections, community 

supervision, and the reentry process prior to having them work with participants. Awareness of local jail or prison operations, 

the requirements of community supervision, and the barriers that people frequently face when they return to the community 

with a criminal record, for example, can help mentors be more effective in contributing to participants’ reentry goals. 

Reentry programs often provide mentors with training in the collateral consequences53 of a criminal record and issues 

that are likely to co-occur with criminal behavior, such as substance use. Mentors should be trained on how a criminal record 

can impact access to housing, employment, state benefits, education, loans, child custody, and more in order to understand 

how to support participants through these processes. Although mentors are not usually clinical service providers, they should 

also have a basic understanding of mental and behavioral health, substance use disorders,54 trauma and vicarious trauma,55

and other issues that frequently exist among people who have been involved in the criminal justice system. 

While sharing an individual participant’s risk and needs assessment results with a mentor may be inappropriate for 

confidentiality reasons, mentors can benefit from a general overview of the RNR principles, as introduced in Section 3. 

The core concepts of RNR can help mentors better understand the needs and challenges that a person might face upon 

reentering the community from incarceration, and help mentors be more aware of and attuned to the risks that might derail 

a participant’s pathway to successful reentry. And while mentors are generally not expected to be experts in every domain 

related to reentry, basic training in corrections, supervision, and reentry can help them identify any potential concerns about 

a participant’s reentry success. Mentors should also be made aware of the appropriate channels to share those concerns 

with relevant program staff who may be better equipped to intervene. 

SECTION 4. EQUIPPING MENTORS TO SUPPORT REENTRY GOALS
26

TRAINING MENTORS ON RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING SKILLS AND STRATEGIES

Mentors should also be trained on relationship-building and communication skills to cultivate an engaged and effective 

mentoring match. MENTOR—a nonprofit organization that focuses on mentoring—considers understanding motivation, 

relationship building, and effective communication “benchmark” skills in mentor training.56 This type of training allows 

mentors to elicit more honesty from participants, which can help a mentor better understand the risks and needs impacting 

successful reentry. Mentors usually receive initial training on these skills before they start working with participants, and 

then receive periodic booster training throughout their service as mentors. 

Motivation and Engagement

If mentors receive training on how and why someone might engage in risky or criminal behavior, they can potentially 

approach the mentoring match with greater empathy and awareness. Training on motivation may also allow mentors to 

better identify reentry goals and needs, as well as areas of strength, support, or opportunity in a participant’s life, and to 

understand the methodology behind many of the other therapies or services in which a participant might be engaged. 

People returning to their communities from incarceration can often become overwhelmed by post-release demands. 

Securing shelter, employment, and basic needs like food, utilities, and health care—on top of the requirements of 

community supervision like regular check-ins, meetings, drug tests, and fees—can be confusing and stressful. Given 

that reentry mentoring is often voluntary for participants, who face other competing priorities of reentry, maintaining 

engagement can be very challenging. However, because engaging participants and maintaining a mentoring relationship 

after the initial match is a key aspect of adult reentry mentoring, mentors should be trained to utilize various methods of 

communication with participants (e.g., phone call, text message, etc.).

DO MENTORS UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS 

AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MENTORING 

COMPONENT OF THE REENTRY PROGRAM? 

After completing their training, mentors should be able to answer the following questions:

• How is successful completion of the program defined?

• How often are mentors and participants expected to meet? 

• Will mentor-participant contact be in person or via phone or email?

• How long is the mentor-participant relationship expected to last? 

• What should a mentor do if a participant drops out of the program or ceases contact with the mentor?

• What happens to the mentoring relationship when a participant successfully completes the program?

• What are the reporting or record-keeping requirements for mentors? 

• Is the mentoring component of the program being evaluated? If so, what outcomes will the evaluation 

measure? (See Section 5 for more information on program evaluations.)

• What outcomes will the program monitor (e.g., recidivism, housing stability, employment, education)? 

• Whom should a mentor consult if he or she has questions or concerns?
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 27

Effective Communication Skills

Communication is crucial to the particular nature of the reentry mentoring relationship. In addition to facilitating 

the mentoring relationship, some communication techniques can also have therapeutic value for participants. Using 

communication techniques that promote alternative thinking, such as motivational interviewing, can help participants build 

problem-solving skills.57 

There are numerous evidence-based and promising practices for adult communication. Many of these practices have an 

associated cost for training, and may take hours or even days to complete. Arranging this training may be feasible if a program 

staff member or community partner is a certified trainer in an evidence-based communication technique. Alternatively, with a 

limited investment of time or money, an abbreviated or overview training can also build skills for mentors. 

Programs may choose to offer full or partial training for mentors on one or more of the following programs and 

communication techniques:

• Motivational interviewing: an evidence-based approach designed to “address ambivalence to change;”58 

• Cognitive behavioral programs: these focus on interventions that “help to identify the thought processes that 

lead to negative feelings and maladaptive behaviors and replace them with processes that lead to positive 

feelings and behaviors.”59 Examples include Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)60 and Thinking for a Change 

(T4C)61, both of which are research-based curricula focused on supporting cognitive-behavioral change for 

people in the criminal justice system;

• Active and reflective listening: a “structured form of listening and responding” where a listener hears and 

then repeats in his or her own words what the speaker has said;62 and

• Adult learning styles: the varying methods by which adults “perceive, interact with, and respond to learning 

environments.”63 

Ethics, Boundaries, and Prohibited Behavior

The skills and techniques discussed above should be practiced in conjunction with guidelines on ethics, boundaries, and 

prohibitions. Navigating the distinction between the roles of supportive friend and effective reentry mentor can be difficult, 

and the mentoring relationship may at times occupy a grey area between the two. To address this ambiguity, to encourage 

constructive mentoring relationships, and to protect mentors, participants, and the broader community-based organization, 

reentry program staff should develop guidelines on ethics and prohibited behaviors for their mentors. Mentors should be 

IN PRACTICE 

The Employment Opportunity and Training Center (EOTC) reentry program provides mentoring services to women 

exiting jail in the Scranton, Pennsylvania, area. EOTC achieves good rates of engagement and retention in the 

mentoring component of their program by thinking creatively about participants’ needs and interests. They found that 

offering basic recreational activities was effective in getting women to attend group mentoring events and come back 

regularly. Volunteers and partner organizations donated supplies and time for activities like painting, sewing, cooking, 

and music. Many of EOTC’s participants are also mothers, and the program staff quickly realized that participation 

in mentoring dropped markedly in the summer. With children out of school, child-care concerns were keeping many 

women away from mentoring. The program staff recognized and responded to this need by partnering to provide onsite child care at group mentoring events, which helped keep engagement strong throughout the summer. 
28

trained on these guidelines, and they should know how any questionable or inappropriate behavior will be addressed by the 

mentor coordinator or program administrator. 

When developing ethical standards for reentry mentoring, consider the goals of the reentry program and the roles of 

the mentors. While in some programs where mentors receive a stipend it may be appropriate for a mentor to pay for a 

participant’s coffee or meal using the stipend, in other programs this might be prohibited. Both mentors and participants 

should understand which activities are not permitted according to a program’s specific ethical and behavioral guidelines. 

IDENTIFYING AND MEETING ONGOING 

TRAINING AND SUPPORT NEEDS

Adequately equipping mentors to support reentry goals 

involves keeping their skills consistent and up-to-date 

through ongoing training and periodic assessment, 

which can highlight any training needs or knowledge 

gaps. Assessments are also useful for evaluating how 

well mentors understand and implement the training 

and orientation materials they’ve received. In addition to 

regular training, reentry programs can provide mentors with 

other ongoing supports such as check-ins with program 

management, mentor support groups, or mentor-only 

social activities. Programs can further pursue continuous 

programmatic improvement with feedback from mentors and 

participants themselves. 

Ongoing Training and Support

Assessing mentors’ knowledge and skills and soliciting their feedback about desired training on a regular basis can be 

valuable to the mentoring component of a reentry program. Although mentor orientation is a great opportunity to cover 

program basics, post-orientation skill-building training is often necessary. New mentors may leave orientation with lingering 

questions, or they may begin to forget some of the details of their training over time. Further, additional questions may arise 

for mentors over the course of their relationship with participants. As new and interesting training opportunities become 

available for staff in the reentry program, consider including mentors whenever it may be appropriate. Including mentors in 

staff training helps keep them abreast of changes and trends in the field. 

FOCUS ON PEER MENTORING

Those who are naturally inclined to serve as mentors may begin mentoring their peers formally or informally in prison 

or jail, and some peer mentors consider their time in prison or jail as a form of training for eventually serving in a 

supportive role to others who are returning to their communities after incarceration. Though the preparation that 

firsthand experience has given peer mentors is valuable and should be drawn on in the mentor-participant relationship, 

it is necessary for them to receive formal training in correctional evidence-based practices. Some programs start 

training people to be peer mentors while they are still incarcerated, equipping them with long-term skills that they 

can use after their release. But most programs train peer mentors after their release on topics such as RNR and 

motivational interviewing. Programs may offer specialized certification training programs—such as recovery support 

specialist certification—for peer mentors as well.64 

“[One of] the best 

[types of] training a 

peer mentor can have 

is the natural ability to 

relate to those who are 

incarcerated, the ability 

to have compassion.”

– Peter C. Thomas, Peer Mentor, Exponents Community 

Mentoring Program, New York, New York
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 29

Regular program staff check-ins with mentors allow staff to identify mentor development needs, design ongoing training 

and support based on those needs, and make sure that mentors are meeting basic program requirements. Check-ins also 

help program staff ensure that mentors’ questions are answered, needs are met, and any challenges or concerns are 

addressed promptly. 

Feedback from mentors also provides a firsthand perspective on program implementation and can be a valuable source of 

qualitative data on program success. Examples of qualitative data obtained through mentor feedback may include selfreported mentor engagement or satisfaction, open-ended assessments of match quality, or anecdotal reports of participant 

successes. (See Section 5 for more information on qualitative data and program evaluation.) There are many different ways to 

solicit such feedback from mentors. Programs may consider offering mentors one or more of the following feedback methods:

• Adding a feedback section to any regular recordkeeping or document reporting that is required of mentors 

• Scheduling regular in-person or telephone check-ins with mentors 

• Sending questionnaires or surveys to mentors

• Holding occasional mentor-only events

Utilizing Partner Networks and Existing Resources

Adult reentry program administrators may invite community partners to assist with mentor training, especially when a 

partner organization may have particular expertise in topics such as correctional evidence-based practices, mental and 

behavioral health, and trauma. 

Engaging the reentry program’s mentoring alumni (both mentors and participants) for ongoing mentor training and support is 

another way to leverage the experience of the program network. Program alumni can help train and support new mentors by 

sharing stories from their experience. Experienced mentors and participants in alumni networks can also offer feedback on 

training topics that they feel would have been helpful in their own experience. 

IN PRACTICE 

Family Pathfinders of Tarrant County, Texas, established a mentor support group for their reentry mentors. These 

regularly scheduled events offer mentors an opportunity to come together as a community, ask questions, share 

concerns, and request training, advice, or recommendations from program staff. Giving mentors the opportunity to meet 

with each other or share ideas and concerns helps the staff who coordinate mentoring identify trends in requests for 

training, knowledge gaps, or opportunities for growth. As Family Pathfinders of Tarrant County has reported, the support 

group also encourages open communication and helps improve satisfaction and retention among mentors. 

IN PRACTICE 

Volunteers of America of Indiana (VOAIN), whose Second Chance mentoring program serves men and women returning to 

Indianapolis and surrounding counties from jail or prison, utilizes the stories of both mentors and participants throughout 

their programming. They post video testimonials on their website and social media accounts to recruit mentors and raise 

community awareness about the program. They also have current or former mentors and participants present during new 

mentor orientations, discussing their experiences in the program and how mentoring has influenced their lives.
30

Program-Specific Training and Support

Numerous resources—including both free and for-purchase curricula and training on the topics and communication 

techniques discussed on page 27—are available to support training needs. Reentry programs should carefully consider 

their characteristics, resources, and goals when planning how to equip mentors to support participants in working toward 

their reentry goals. A program with many participants who are parents, for example, may want to train mentors on a 

parenting curriculum such as Parenting Inside Out65 or InsideOut Dad66, both evidence-based parenting curricula designed 

for incarcerated and returning parents. Community or environmental factors may also impact how a reentry program 

chooses to train and support mentors. 

A reentry program should also account for cultural factors when designing and implementing mentor training and supports. 

Consider whether training materials need to be available in languages other than English; whether scheduled trainings or 

events conflict with religious holidays or observances; and what cultural competencies should be addressed in the training to 

ensure sensitivity toward and awareness of target populations such as tribal communities, immigrant populations, military 

veterans, or people with disabilities.

IN PRACTICE 

Facing low rates of training completion by potential mentors, staff at Workforce Connections—a nonprofit 

organization that offers adult reentry mentoring in western Wisconsin—adapted the structure of their mentor 

training to fit their rural environment. Initially they required in-person training for mentors, but soon realized that 

this was a hardship for potential mentors due to the long distances many of them would have to travel to attend the 

training in person. The program identified the need to make their mentor trainings available online, and implemented 

a platform that not only enables mentor recruits to complete their training from home, but also allows them to go 

through the training at their own pace.
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 31

For an emerging practice like adult reentry mentoring, evaluations are critical for developing field-based knowledge. And on 

a smaller scale, conducting a formal evaluation is a way for adult reentry programs to assess the progress and success of the 

mentoring component of the program and to identify any areas for improvement. Reentry programs may choose to measure 

how the mentoring component of the program impacts participants’ engagement in other reentry services, or how mentoring 

influences participants’ achievement of reentry goals, for example.

Reentry programs that receive outside funding to support mentoring services are commonly required to conduct evaluations 

as a condition of funding. Program evaluations are often a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures used to capture the 

impact of mentoring on recidivism and other reentry outcomes, and findings can be used to improve service delivery, engage 

stakeholders and funders, and inform decisions to scale up or replicate program models. 

Given that program staff may not be familiar with evaluation and data collection procedures, programs may consider 

engaging an independent research partner to develop an effective evaluation process. A research partner should be an 

active participant in the reentry program team, discussing the initial program design and helping develop an evaluation plan 

that will capture the necessary data and accomplish the reentry program’s purpose in conducting the evaluation. This section 

presents some considerations for reentry program staff to explore when working with a research partner to conduct an 

evaluation of mentoring services.

PARTNERING WITH AN INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER 

Reentry programs may choose to use a researcher within their organization, or look for an external researcher through 

private organizations, research firms, colleges, or universities. In most cases, the objectives of the evaluation and the 

program’s budget will determine the type of research partner a reentry program chooses to conduct the program evaluation. 

A private organization or firm, for example, may have the resources to conduct a complex evaluation for publication that 

would increase knowledge in the field but may be too expensive for a reentry program to retain. On the other hand, a college 

or university may offer the cost-effective option of a research fellow or adjunct professor to perform an evaluation used to 

fulfill funding requirements, but may not have the capacity to conduct a lengthy evaluation that requires extensive analysis. 

If a reentry program is part of a larger community-based organization that has an internal research team to evaluate all 

services offered by the organization, it may be possible to reduce evaluation costs by using that team to evaluate the 

mentoring component of the program. Funders may require external or independent evaluators, however, to ensure that 

results are unbiased. 

A number of reentry programs recommend selecting a research partner who has relevant research experience in social 

issues, is familiar with the work of community-based organizations or nonprofits, or has knowledge of the population served 

by the reentry program. It is also ideal for the research partner to have a demonstrated commitment to confidentiality and 

competency with respect to race and culture in its research practices.

Once a research partner has been identified, it is important to develop an agreement or memorandum of understanding 

(MOU)67 that outlines the parameters of the partnership, including:

• The purpose of the evaluation; 

• The duration of the partnership;

SECTION 5. EVALUATING MENTORING SERVICES
32

• The research partner’s fees and how those fees will be paid;

• Who will own and control the data (the reentry program or the research partner) and for how long;

• How and where the data will be stored; 

• The intended use of the evaluation results (e.g., publication, grant requirements, distributing to the 

community, internal use only); and

• Who will have the right to publish the results.

In addition to the items listed above, the research partnership agreement should address the type of evaluation that will be 

conducted and any other pertinent details of the partnership; for instance, reentry programs that anticipate receiving grant 

funds may need to specify who in the partnership will be responsible for completing any reporting requirements of the grant. 

DEVELOPING GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR AN EVALUATION

The structure of an evaluation depends heavily on the evaluation purpose outlined in the agreement with the research 

partner and on the overall goals of the mentoring component of the reentry program. Therefore, the program’s logic model is 

a natural starting point when developing the structure of the evaluation. As introduced in Section 1, the logic model serves 

as a roadmap for a program to set goals, determine the intended outcomes for mentoring services, and evaluate change 

over time. Using the logic model, the reentry program and its research partner can revisit those program goals and develop 

guiding questions for the evaluation, such as: 

• How will the reentry program define success of the mentoring component over time (e.g. after one year, five 

years, etc.)?

• What are the intended outcomes of the mentoring component of the program?

• What environmental factors may influence these outcomes? (For example, does the program serve a rural or 

urban community?) 

Asking these guiding questions can help clarify the performance measures for the evaluation. Although recidivism is 

regularly examined in reentry programs, consider other measures that might speak to the effectiveness of incorporating 

mentoring as a component of reentry programming—such as engagement in case management and achievement of 

reentry goals like education and family reunification. Based on the discussion of program goals with the reentry program, 

the research partner can also provide guidance on what kind of research design and methodology would be best suited to 

evaluate the goals of the mentoring component of the program. 

COLLECTING DATA ON RACE AND ETHNICITY 

Among the types of information reentry programs and their research partners should consider collecting and evaluating 

are data on the racial and ethnic composition of the participants served by the mentoring component of the program. 

Racial and ethnic demographic information may be used to assess whether a program’s target population is racially 

and ethnically representative of the larger correctional community from which it is drawn (e.g., the probation, jail, or 

prison population), or whether there are any racial or ethnic disparities in service delivery and program completion. With 

the goal of preventing or reducing such disparities, reentry programs may use this information on race and ethnicity to 

evaluate or reevaluate recruitment practices, how well the program engages and retains racial and ethnic minorities, 

and how much the program contributes to positive reentry outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 33

MAKING A DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Reentry program staff and their research partner should establish the types of information that need to be collected in 

order to determine whether the program has accomplished its projected outcomes and goals. A data collection plan may 

require the reentry program to collect both quantitative data (the who, what, where, and how many) and qualitative data 

(stories, artwork, interviews, focus groups, and other information that is not measurable in numbers). For instance, if one of 

the goals of the program is to determine whether mentoring can improve employment outcomes for participants enrolled 

in the mentoring component of the program, the research partner may recommend collecting data such as the number of 

mock interviews conducted, the number of submitted résumés or job applications that resulted in a job interview, or the 

number of participants who obtained full-time employment while engaged with their mentors. These are examples of 

quantitative data that reentry programs can collect through attendance records, surveys, or demographic information from 

the participants. The research partner may also recommend collecting qualitative data such as participant anecdotes about 

how having a mentor influenced the process of preparing for a job interview. Reentry programs can conduct focus groups or 

interviews with participants to collect this information. Including both quantitative and qualitative data points in the data 

collection plan may allow programs to have a more robust evaluation analysis. 

A data collection plan should also ensure that the confidentiality and privacy of the participants enrolled in the program 

are protected. Prior to beginning data collection, program staff should consult with the research partner to determine 

whether participant authorization or permission is necessary. Participants should be informed of the research component 

of the program in which they are enrolling and the research partner should also provide guidance on how program staff can 

message the evaluation to participants. In general, participants should understand the nature of any information collected 

regarding their activities, where and how these data will be stored, and how the reentry program will eventually use 

the data. At the same time, reentry program staff should assure participants that information about them will be shared 

anonymously unless a participant gives consent to do otherwise. 

The data collection plan and the agreement with the research partner should establish where the data will be stored (e.g., 

in online storage platforms or spreadsheets), who will control the data, whether the party who is not in control of storage 

will have access to the data, and who will maintain ownership of the data when the partnership has concluded. The 

reentry program and research partner should also discuss the method by which the program will share the data with the 

research partner, and whether program staff will be expected to perform quality control measures—like combing data for 

errors, confidential information, and duplicates—before sending to the research partner. Program staff should encourage 

their research partner to be as detailed as possible in outlining the requirements of the data collection plan, so that the 

researcher can effectively carry out the evaluation. Establishing a comprehensive data collection plan helps promote 

consistency in data collection, which leads to more accurate and useful evaluation results.

ANALYZING RESULTS AND REPORTING THE EVALUATION

Once the evaluation is complete, the reentry program and the research partner should examine the results and develop a 

strategic plan for sharing the information with its intended audience, based on their initial goals for reporting the results. As 

funding tends to be an important factor in sustaining community-based reentry programs, one goal may be to use evaluation 

results to engage potential funders and stakeholders for support. 

Evaluation results may also be used to improve service delivery to participants in the mentoring component of the reentry 

program. If the evaluation yields unfavorable results, program management may use this information to change the course of 

their program by redesigning a particular service or fixing a specific problem that was highlighted by the evaluation results.
34

Reentry programs sometimes use positive evaluation results to help build partnerships with other organizations or increase 

community support for the program. Programs may create reports to share with community partners, prepare stories about 

evaluation results to publish in local or state media outlets, or present the results through social media or community education to raise awareness of adult reentry mentoring. 

A research partner that is embedded in the reentry program team can help program administrators understand what the 

evaluation results say about their program, assist in crafting the language to explain the evaluation analysis, and make 

recommendations for methods of sharing the results. Ultimately, if the evaluation is conducted properly, the results can 

be of great value to the mentoring component of the program and its participants, and contribute to the field of adult 

mentoring in reentry. 

IN PRACTICE 

The Connection Inc. (TCI) Reentry Assisted Community Housing Second Chance Mentoring program (REACH-M) provides 

peer mentoring, counseling, and housing for adult males released from Connecticut jails and prisons. In an effort to 

promote continual evaluative data collection for program sustainability and improvement, TCI developed The Connection 

Institute for Innovative Practice, an in-house research program that partners with local universities. TCI formed a 

partnership with a research scientist at Yale University specifically for REACH-M, in order to monitor the program’s 

implementation process, to conduct monthly data checks of fidelity to the intended program model, and to ensure that 

the program-intake process involves collecting suitable baseline data (demographics, criminal history, etc.) and utilizes 

evidence-based assessments. The research scientist was also instrumental in developing participant surveys to collect 

information in line with the program’s evaluation goals, including the role of mentoring in recovery, the usefulness of 

mentoring as a reentry service, and the perceived quality of the mentor-participant relationship over time. As part of the 

partnership agreement, TCI and its research partner hold monthly meetings to discuss ongoing data analysis, preliminary 

results, and to share information for funding reporting requirements. 
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 35

I

n recent years, there has been increased national attention paidto reentry, with federal, state, and community leaders 

working to build an infrastructure of services and support for people returning to their communities from incarceration. As 

part of a reentry program, mentoring can provide additional support for the reentry population. 

In providing technical assistance to reentry programs who have received Second Chance Act adult mentoring grants, 

The National Reentry Resource Center has established relationships with reentry programs that are pioneers in effective 

and innovative adult reentry mentoring practices, and has acquired practical knowledge about operating a mentoring 

component of an adult reentry program. The five broad considerations presented in this publication can serve as a starting 

point for community-based organizations that wish to incorporate adult mentoring into existing reentry services. However, 

the field of adult mentoring in reentry continues to lack extensive resources and data that show:

• How reentry mentors can increase responsivity and motivation for service and treatment engagement;

• How reentry mentoring can promote the development of prosocial thinking, attitudes, and peers;

• How reentry mentoring can improve parenting, family engagement, and healthy relationship building; and

• How reentry program staff can effectively work with corrections to increase buy-in for incorporating peer 

mentoring into reentry and community supervision.

In addition to highlighting existing methods for incorporating mentoring as a component of a reentry program, this 

publication is meant to promote the use of correctional evidence-based practices in adult reentry mentoring; support 

collaborations between community-based organizations and corrections, probation, and parole; and encourage more 

research and data collection in this emerging field.

CONCLUSION
36

The success of the mentoring component of a community-based adult reentry program often relies heavily on the quality 

of the relationship between the program’s parent organization and its corrections partners, including probation and parole. 

This questionnaire is designed to highlight topic areas that are important for community-based organizations to discuss 

with their potential corrections partner(s) prior to formalizing a partnership. Community-based organizations can use the 

questions in each category below to confirm the details of their own reentry program and its mentoring component, guide 

the partnership formation process, and gather information about corrections partners. Community-based organizations may 

review this questionnaire at different points in the partnership with corrections to adjust policies as necessary. 

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND EXPECTATIONS: 

1. Who are the single points of contact—or liaisons—for the mentoring component of your reentry program and 

corrections, including probation and parole?

2. Who are the key personnel responsible for the mentoring component of your reentry program? What are their 

specific roles and responsibilities?

3. Which corrections staff will oversee the facilitation of reentry mentor pre-release engagement within the 

designated correctional facility (or facilities)? What are their specific roles and responsibilities?

4. How will your organization maintain regular communication with corrections? How frequently will such 

communication occur?

5. What will corrections’ role be in identifying potential participants for the mentoring component of your 

reentry program?

6. How will conflict between your organization and corrections be managed if or when it arises? 

INFORMATION SHARING:

1. List the following key components of your reentry program’s mentoring plan to share with corrections partners: 

a. Target population: 

b. Participant recruitment strategy:

c. Expected days and times of visits to the correctional facility: 

d. Mentoring model (one-on-one or group, peers or non-peers): 

2. What information about reentry mentoring participants will the corrections partners share with your reentry 

program on an ongoing basis? Identify any legal or ethical concerns with respect to information sharing.

3. What are the best methods for sharing information between your reentry program and corrections? 

a. Is a formal release of information agreement needed? If so, who from each party needs to sign the 

agreement and in what circumstances does it apply?

b. What are the confidentiality policies of both your organization and the potential corrections partner(s)? 

APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND CORRECTIONS AGENCIES: 

RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING QUESTIONNAIRE
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 37

4. How does corrections make release decisions? How will release, probation, and parole decisions be 

communicated between corrections and your organization? 

5. What kinds of data will your organization track about the mentoring component of the reentry program?

a. How will your reentry program measure success of the mentoring component? 

b. Will you share performance measurement information with corrections partners? If so, when and 

how will you share these data?

SECURITY AND ACCESS:

1. What are the policies regarding visitor access (e.g., background checks, use of visitor rooms, restricted units) 

for each correctional facility that will be involved with the mentoring component of the reentry program?

2. What training or orientation is mandatory for access to each facility? What training is recommended? List the 

names and contact information (if available) for corrections staff who will be in charge of administering these 

trainings.

3. What is the corrections agency’s policy for appealing denial-of-access decisions?

4. Which staff members (in both your organization and corrections) will coordinate reentry mentoring personnel 

access to correctional facilities?
38

A logic model demonstrates the causal relationships between goals, activities, and results. It is a useful tool to visualize 

the purpose and scope of proposed activities, including the resources needed and expected outcomes. By completing 

the logic model, you should develop a map of your reentry program’s goals for mentoring, as well as the partners and 

strategies that will be leveraged to achieve those goals. Here are brief descriptions of the row headings in the sample logic 

model below: 

• Project Goals: Each column should reflect a specific goal for the mentoring component of the reentry program.

• Activities: Enter one or more discrete activities that will help achieve each goal. Activities should be concise 

and specific. 

• Activity Type (Training, QA, Policy, Procedure, Service Provision, Technology): Place an “X” in 

the relevant subcolumn(s) to indicate the nature of each activity as training, quality assurance (QA), policy, 

procedure, direct service provision, or implementation of new technology. Activities can span multiple types. 

• Resources: List existing resources (e.g., staff, contracts, technology) that will be used to accomplish each 

activity.

• Process Measures: Note how you will measure the progress of each activity, including completion. 

• Short-Term Outcomes: Indicate short-term (i.e., 3–12 months) and quantifiable measures that each activity 

is expected to yield, such as changes in knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors of the people targeted by or 

involved in each activity (e.g., mentors, participants, corrections partners, evaluators). 

• Long-Term Outcomes: Indicate long-term (i.e., a year to several years) and quantifiable measures that each 

activity is expected to yield, such as changes in recidivism and organizational structure and procedure. Longterm outcomes should build on short-term outcomes. 

• Sustainability: Describe how the program will maintain these goals/activities after the implementation period.

APPENDIX B. SAMPLE LOGIC MODEL
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 39

Project Goal (Example) Train mentors in correctional evidencebased practices.

Activities Implement “Thinking for a Change” curriculum in 

mentor training.

Activity 

Type

Resources 

Staff: mentor coordinator; external trainers; 

corrections partners

Publications: mentor training manual (if applicable); 

Mentoring as a Component of Reentry

Process Measures

Number of trainings conducted; number of mentors 

trained

Short-Term Outcomes

All mentors complete “Thinking for a Change” 

training (within six months).

Long-Term Outcomes

All mentor training materials cover the “Thinking 

for a Change” curriculum (within two years).

Mentors’ closeout surveys show that 50 percent 

or more express comprehensive understanding 

of principles in the “Thinking for a Change” 

curriculum and how to use those principles to 

support participants (within two years).

Sustainability

Have monthly mandatory trainings to update 

mentors on correctional evidence-based practices.

Training

QA

Policy

Procedure

Service 

Provision

Technology

X

X

X
40

case management. A range of services provided to assist and support people in developing their skills; gaining access 

to needed medical, behavioral health, housing, employment, social, educational, and other services essential to meeting 

basic human needs; and forming linkages to and training in the use of community resources. Staff dedicated to case 

management generally provide these services.

case counselor/manager. A professional who provides assessment, counseling, service referrals and linkages, 

compliance monitoring, and employment services to participants; typically a licensed clinician or social worker.

cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A manual-driven course of structured counseling aimed toward increasing awareness 

of one’s thoughts, behaviors, and actions, as well as the consequences of each. CBT is often used to address specific problem 

areas such as anger management, moral reasoning, criminal thinking, addiction, relapse prevention, and relationships. 

collateral consequences. The legal and regulatory penalties, sanctions, and restrictions imposed upon a person 

convicted of a crime that are distinct from the direct consequences imposed as part of the court’s judgment at sentencing. 

criminogenic risk. The likelihood that a person (either formerly incarcerated and/or under supervision of a justice agency) 

will commit a crime or violate the conditions of his or her supervision. Criminogenic risk does not refer to the seriousness 

of crime that a person has committed in the past or will commit in the future.

criminogenic need. The characteristics or circumstances (such as antisocial attitudes, beliefs, thinking patterns, and 

friends) that research has shown are associated with criminal behavior, but which a person can change.

evidence-based practices (EBPs). Interventions that have been rigorously tested; have yielded consistent, 

replicable results; and have proven safe, beneficial, and effective with measurable outcomes for most people in similar 

circumstances.

logic model. Also known as a logical framework, theory of change, or program matrix, the logic model is a tool (usually 

visual or graphical) that demonstrates the causal relationships between program goals, activities, and results. 

mentor coordinator. The reentry program staff member primarily responsible for recruiting, training, and communicating 

with mentors; may also act as a liaison between mentors and case managers.

prosocial. Describes positive actions or relationships that are driven by empathy, moral values, and a sense of personal 

responsibility that may reduce a person’s chances of engaging in criminal behavior.

qualitative data. Information that cannot be measured numerically. 

quantitative data. Information that is measured numerically.

recovery coach. Provides strengths-based support for people who are in recovery from addiction or are pursuing recovery 

from alcohol, other drugs, codependency, or other addictive behaviors. 

responsivity. Involves adapting interactions and services so that they enhance a person’s ability to learn and acquire new 

attitudes and skills. 

risk and needs assessment. A comprehensive examination and evaluation of both dynamic (changeable) and static 

(historical and/or demographic) factors that approximates risk of recidivism and provides guidance on services; placements 

and supervision; and, in some cases, sentencing.

GLOSSARY
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 41

1. Renata Cobbs Fletcher, Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry Programs (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2007).

2. Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2016 (Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2016), http://

www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html.

3. Cobbs Fletcher, Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry Programs.

4. Mark Brown and Stuart Ross, “Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison,” The Australian & New 

Zealand Journal Of Criminology 43, no. 1 (2010): 31–50, doi: 10.1375/acri.43.1.31.

5. Ibid.

6. Del Roy Fletcher and Elaine Batty, Offender Peer Interventions: What Do We Know? (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University Centre for 

Regional Economic and Social Research, 2012).

7. Brown and Ross, “Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison.”

8. Cobbs Fletcher, Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry Programs.

9. Much of the practical guidance on this topic was published through the Department of Labor’s Ready4Work initiative. See Cobbs Fletcher, 

Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry Programs.

10.Brown and Ross, “Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison,” 48.

11. Ibid., 48.

12. These terms can mean different things in different programs; see glossary for definitions.

13.Frankie Lee Hawkins, Muneerah Green, and Peter C. Thomas, telephone conversation with authors, August 31, 2016.

14.Fletcher and Batty, Offender Peer Interventions: What Do We Know?

15. Ibid.

16.Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch, Shannon A. Scielzo, Charyl S. Yarbrough, and Patrick J. Rosopa, “A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Electronic 

Mentoring: Interactions with Mentor Gender,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008): 193–206.

17. Johanna K. P. Greeson, “Natural Mentor Relationships among Young Adults with Foster Care Experience: Pathways to Emerging Adulthood 

Outcomes” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2009), https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:30787bd1-e057-42a2-

bfd3-c438412585bb.

18.Grant Duwe and Byron R. Johnson, “The Effects of Prison Visits From Community Volunteers on Offender Recidivism,” The Prison Journal 96, 

no. 2 (2016): 279–303, doi: 10.1177/0032885515618468.

19.Brown and Ross, “Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison.”

20.Smith-Jentsch, Scielzo, Yarbrough, and Rosopa, “A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Electronic Mentoring: Interactions with Mentor Gender.”

21.Gloria J. Geither, “Mentoring4Success: Mentoring Adult Offenders in Kansas,” Corrections Today 74, no. 2 (2012): 28–32.

22. Ibid.

23.Cobbs Fletcher, Mentoring Ex-Prisoners: A Guide for Prisoner Reentry Programs. 

24.“Reentry Employment Opportunities,” U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, accessed 25 May 2016, https://

www.doleta.gov/REO/eta_default.cfm. 

25.“MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership,” accessed 23 May 2016, http://www.mentoring.org.

26.“Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring,” accessed 01 September 2016, http://www.umbmentoring.org.

NOTES
42

27.Duwe and Johnson, “The Effects of Prison Visits From Community Volunteers on Offender Recidivism.” 

28.Hawkins, Green, and Thomas, telephone conversation with authors.

29.“Principles of Recidivism Reduction,” The Council of State Governments Justice Center, accessed 7 June 2016, https://csgjusticecenter.org/

reentry/principles-of-recidivism-reduction/.

30.D. A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2015).‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

31.Le’Ann Duran, Martha Plotkin, Phoebe Potter, and Henry Rosen, Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism and 

Promoting Job Readiness (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/09/Final.Reentry-and-Employment.pp_.pdf.

32.Christopher Allen Ralston, “Validation of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II” (PhD diss., Iowa State University, 

2008), http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16805&context=rtd.

33.Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Edward J. Latessa, and Alexander M. Holsinger, “The Risk Principle in Action: What Have We Learned from 

13,676 Offenders and 97 Corrections Programs?” Crime and Delinquency 52, no. 1 (January 2006): 77–93, doi: 10.1177/0011128705281747; 

Marshall Clement, Matthew Schwarzfeld, and Michael Thompson, The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety: 

Addressing Recidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending (New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011), https://

csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/JR_Summit_Report_Final.pdf.

34.“Principles of Recidivism Reduction,” The Council of State Governments Justice Center.

35.Bonta and Andrews, Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation.

36.Guy Bourgon and Barbara Armstrong, “Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a ‘Real World’ Prison Setting,” Criminal Justice 

and Behavior 32, no. 1 (2005): 3–25, doi: 10.1177/0093854804270618.

37.D. A. Andrews, Craig Dowden, and Paul Gendreau, “Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Approaches to Reduced Reoffending: A 

Meta-Analytic Study of Human Service, Risk, Need, Responsivity, and Other Concerns in Justice Contexts” (unpublished manuscript, 1999).

38.Craig Dowden and D. A. Andrews, “The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analysis 

of Core Correctional Practices,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48, no. 2 (2004): 203–214, doi: 

10.1177/0306624X03257765.

39. Ibid.

40. Examples of existing risk and needs assessment tools include: Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions 

(COMPAS), Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), and Risk Management System 

(RMS). This is not an exhaustive list of all validated risk and needs assessment tools used in jurisdictions across the U.S., nor does this 

list represent an endorsement of those tools by the CSG Justice Center. For more information, see Sarah L. Desmarais and Jay P. Singh, 

Risk Assessment Instruments Validated and Implemented in Correctional Settings in the United States: An Empirical Guide (New York: 

The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Risk-AssessmentInstruments-Validated-and-Implemented-in-Correctional-Settings-in-the-United-States.pdf.

41. Ibid.

42.Sarah L. Desmarais, “Understanding Risk Assessment and Its Applications,” (presentation, Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program 

National Training and Technical Assistance Event, Washington, DC, February 28–March 1, 2013), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/04/Plenary-2-.pdf.

43.“Principles of Recidivism Reduction,” The Council of State Governments Justice Center.

44.“Risk Need Responsivity 101: A Primer for SCA and JMHCP Grant Recipients,” The Council of State Governments Justice Center, accessed 

23 May 2016, https://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/webinars/risk-need-responsivity-101-a-primer-for-sca-and-jmhcp-grant-recipients/.

45. The Council of State Governments Justice Center, Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results (New York: The Council of State Governments 

Justice Center, 2014), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ReducingRecidivism_StatesDeliverResults.pdf.

NOTES
Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field 43

46.Bonta and Andrews, Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. 

47.“Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Simulation Tool,” Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence, Criminology, Law, & Society, George Mason 

University, accessed 23 May 2016, https://www.gmuace.org/research_rnr.html.

48. Peggy B. Burke, TPC Reentry Handbook: Implementing the NIC Transition from Prison to the Community Model (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2008), https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/022669.pdf.

49.D. A. Andrews, James Bonta, and S. J. Wormith, “The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment,” Crime & Delinquency

52 (2006): 7–27, doi: 10.1177/0011128705281756.

50.Grant Duwe and Byron R. Johnson, “The Effects of Prison Visits From Community Volunteers on Offender Recidivism.” 

51. Ibid.

52.Fletcher and Batty, Offender Peer Interventions: What Do We Know?

53.For more information about collateral consequences, see Sarah B. Berson, “Beyond the Sentence—Understanding Collateral 

Consequences,” NIJ Journal 272 (2013): 25–28, http://www.nij.gov/journals/272/pages/collateral-consequences.aspx. 

54.For more information on mental health and people in the criminal justice system, see “Criminal and Juvenile Justice,” U.S. Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, accessed 23 May 2016, http://www.samhsa.gov/criminal-juvenile-justice. 

55.Vittoria Ardino, “Offending Behaviour: The Role of Trauma and PTSD,” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 3, no. 10 (2012), http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402156/. 

56.MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership, Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring: Research-Informed and Practitioner-Approved 

Best Practices for Creating and Sustaining Impactful Mentoring Relationships and Strong Program Services, 4th ed. (Boston, MA: MENTOR: 

The National Mentoring Partnership, 2015), http://www.mentoring.org/new-site/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Final_Elements_Publication_

Fourth.pdf.

57.Sune Rubak, Annelli Sandbaek, Torsten Lauritzen, and Bo Christensen, “Motivational Interviewing: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis,” 

British Journal of General Practice 55, no. 513 (2005): 305–312, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1463134/. 

58.“Practices: Motivational Interviewing,” Center for Evidence-Based Practices at Case Western Reserve University, accessed 23 May 2016, 

https://www.centerforebp.case.edu/practices/mi.

59.“What Works? General Principles, Characteristics, and Examples of Effective Programs,” Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 

accessed 29 September 2016, http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Effective%20programs.pdf.

60.For more information on Moral Reconation Therapy, see http://www.moral-reconation-therapy.com/.

61.For more information on Thinking for a Change, see “Thinking for a Change,” http://nicic.gov/t4c.

62.For an introduction to active and reflective listening, see Joanne Yates, “MIT Sloan Communication Program Teaching Note,” MIT 

OpenCourseWare, accessed 10 September 2016, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/comparative-media-studies-writing/21w-732-science-writingand-new-media-fall-2010/readings/MIT21W_732F10_listening.pdf; “Reflective Listening Helps Build Rapport,” Behavioral Health Evolution, 

Hazelden Publishing, accessed 23 May 2016, http://www.bhevolution.org/public/reflective_listening.page.

63.Frank Romanelli, Eleanora Bird, and Melody Ryan, “Learning Styles: A Review of Theory, Application, and Best Practices,” American Journal 

of Pharmaceutical Education 73, no. 1 (2009): 9, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690881/. 

64.Hawkins, Green, and Thomas, telephone conversation with authors.

65.For more information Parenting Inside Out, see http://www.parentinginsideout.org/.

66.For more information on InsideOut Dad, see http://store.fatherhood.org/insideout-dad-complete-program-kit/.

67.For a sample MOU, see https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fysb/mou_508.pdf.