Provides a collection of practices, tools, and real world examples to support the development and capacity of reentry programs.
In order to support small and mid-size faith-based and community-based organizations that want to develop or grow their reentry programs, this toolkit contains a range of resources, templates, and promising practices. Topics covered include: designing an effective program structure, forming successful partnerships, recruiting clients and volunteers, crafting intensive case management, removing barriers to employment through supportive services, implementing effectual employment preparation, succeeding at job placement, mentoring adult ex-prisoners, and monitoring program success. (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff).

Major Findings & Recommendations

• " R4W sites placed 2,543 participants (57 percent) into jobs, with 63 percent of those placed retaining their job for three consecutive months after placement. On average, program costs were approximately $4,500 per participant, compared with average costs of $25,000 to $40,000 per year for re-incarceration. Data analysis on R4W prepared by P/PV shows that only 2.5 percent of R4W participants have been re-incarcerated in state institutions within 6 months of release, and 6.9 percent were re-incarcerated at the one-year post-release mark. • Though these statistics are promising, it is important to note that a random-assignment study has not been performed, so no strict control group existed for the sake of comparison. When, however, compared against the recidivism benchmark from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) re-incarceration study, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 ,” R4W recidivism rates are half the national re-incarceration rate of 5 percent at six-months and 44 percent lower than the 10.4 percent national rate of re-incarceration one-year after release. • Over 60 percent of R4W participants received mentoring as part of their services. Participants who met with a mentor at least once showed stronger outcomes than those who did not participate in mentoring in a number of ways: Mentored participants remained in the program longer than unmentored participants (10.2 months versus 7.2 months). Mentored participants were twice as likely to obtain a job. After the first encounter, an additional month of meetings between the participant and mentor increased the former’s likelihood of finding a job by 53 percent. Meeting with a mentor increased a participant’s odds of getting a job the next month by 73 percent over participants who did not take advantage of mentoring. An additional month of meetings increased a An additional month of meetings increased a participant’s odds of finding a job by another 7 percent. Those who met with a mentor were 56 percent more likely to remain employed for three months than those who did not. An additional month of meetings with a mentor increased the participant’s odds of remaining employed three months by 24 percent" (p. 2-4). (Abstractor: Author)