Women and Reentry: Evaluation of the St. Leonard's Ministries' Grace House Program

Second in a series. Read Part 1 and Part 3.

Introduction

More than 2.4 million people are confined in correctional facilities across the United States.^[1] Each year, more than half a million inmates are released from prison and return to their communities.^[2] The formerly incarcerated face many obstacles as they reenter the community, such as finding employment and housing, and paying outstanding fines, restitution, and other debts.^[3] Two-thirds of released prisoners are rearrested within three years for new crimes or parole violations.^[4]

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority has been evaluating St. Leonard’s Ministries programs since 2011. As part of that evaluation, Authority researchers examined administrative program data and outcomes of residents after program participation, conducted interviews with program staff and stakeholders and completed field observations to identify program components that are effective in contributing to successful resident outcomes, learn about the programs’ residents and operations, and analyze client outcomes. This report focuses on Grace House, a voluntary, residential, prisoner reentry program for women. Those accepted into the program receive housing, substance abuse treatment, psychological services, life skills mentoring, and education and vocational services.

Resident data

Applications collected between 2009 and 2012 indicated Grace House served an average of 20 residents per year. In 2012, the residents’ average age was 41 years old. Fifty percent had come from prison, 33 percent had come from jail, and the rest entered the program from a substance abuse treatment facility.

Researchers tracked outcome data on a sample of 25 women. Women sampled had an average of 26 prior arrests. In addition, 76 percent had at least one prior property conviction, 72 percent had a prior drug conviction, and 40 percent had a violent crime conviction. Most were incarcerated three times, on average.

After leaving Grace House, 36 percent were arrested for another crime, 24 percent were convicted of another crime, and 20 percent were incarcerated again (examined an average of 1.5 years after leaving the program) (Table 1).

Program operations

A researcher observed day-to-day operations and noted specific content of group therapy sessions. Staff provided individual and group therapy sessions, skills development classes, enrichment groups, and referred residents to job training programs and a high school completion program. Group topics offered included parenting, rational-emotive therapy, Survivors Anonymous, anger management, and legal advocacy. Residents saw Grace House as a welcoming, home-like setting where women can find support from staff, Adler School of Professional Psychology interns, volunteers, and former residents. While student interns with master’s degrees in psychology appear to be an asset to the program, turnover with each academic year was disruptive to the psychological individual and group therapy process.

Implications for policy and practice

During the evaluation, researchers uncovered areas for improvement and program expansion. What follows are recommendations to enhance Grace House based on the evaluation findings and supported by literature and research.

Improve resident selection process

In most cases, women found their way to the program via word-of-mouth; outreach is needed to notify incarcerated women of the opportunity to participate in the program upon release. In addition, screening instruments should be used to guide program admission. Applicant interviews and a period of conditional acceptance would help ensure the program meets the needs of the individual.

Measure risk, needs, and assets

Grace House program administrators did not measure client risk, needs, and assets. Assessing risk is important to decrease re-offending and is considered an evidence-based practice. The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model holds that proper assessment should guide supervision and treatment decisions, with supervision levels matching offender risk for reoffending (risk principle), treatment focusing on identified criminogenic needs (need principle) and interventions tailored fit the learning styles, motivation, and strengths of the offenders (responsivity principle). ^[5] Further, a resident’s assets, or advantages, can help determine likelihood of recidivism and may also help guide programming linkages.

Enhance programming

The Vera Institute of Justice recommends avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather program staff should individualize reentry service plans based on resident priorities. The study revealed all residents were assigned to the same substance abuse treatment modality “intensive outpatient” regardless of prior or current substance use, substance abuse diagnosis, treatment needs, available support system, and risk of relapse. In addition, all residents were required to attend parenting group sessions regardless whether they were parents. Services and interventions should match the residents’ unique conditions, and administrators should consider tailoring services based on participant risks, needs, and assets.

Target vocational training

Program participants can obtain training in many fields but typically found employment in temporary jobs, and jobs in food service, community and social service, education, and libraries. Reentry programs like Grace House should offer skills specific to market demands with a greater likelihood of employment by adding value above a candidate with entry-level skills.^[6]

Increase resident autonomy

Grace House observations and interviews highlighted the need for an increase in resident autonomy. Residents with a lower risk of recidivism could benefit from more privileges.^[7] Since Grace House is designed as a stepping-stone for independent living, it may be helpful to allow residents identified as lower risk more freedom to make decisions concerning their treatment and daily schedules.

Train all staff and volunteers

Four staff members reported receiving no formal training for their jobs. Staff said training was needed in conflict resolution, motivational interviewing, case management, communication, grants, fundraising, and leadership. Training and skill enhancement, particularly in evidence-based practices, are key for case managers and volunteers to be effective.

Use evidence-based case management

Staff effectiveness could be enhanced with motivational interviewing of residents. The Urban Institute’s best practices for reentry emphasize motivating residents, envisioning new roles and self-concepts, and nurturing the commitment to change. Motivational interviewing is considered an evidenced-based practice; research has shown this type of case management is better at facilitating change in clients.

The program could be further enhanced with the "Thinking for a Change" program (T4C), which helps clients take command of their own lives and think through cognitive behavioral training, social skills improvement, and problem-solving techniques. Research has shown T4C reduces recidivism for participants.

Improve communication

Interviews with staff indicated they were unsure of the goals of the program, criteria for successful completion of the program, and enforcement of policies and procedures by staff. Stronger communication is recommended for staff agreement on program goals, requirements, and rules enforcement. A resident handbook outlining program components and rules should be developed and provided to all incoming program participants. Integrity to the program rules and guidelines set forth must be maintained.

Collect data for quality improvement

Resident data was limited during the course of the evaluation. Data collection is needed on all program applicants, including that which documents program and client outcomes. Program administrators should use periodic or pre- and post-program assessments to measure changes in resident recidivism risk levels, readiness for change, and criminal thinking. Continuous quality improvement and assurance is needed in the areas of assessment, case planning, cognitive-behavioral techniques, and motivational interviewing.