Peer Mentors as Prison Volunteers: Building Bridges Between Institutions and Communities.

One creative way that Departments of Corrections offset costs is by relying on volunteers. Prison volunteers are a heterogeneous group, who provide various programs to incarcerated populations. One unique subset of prison volunteers are peer mentors, who are individuals who have experienced criminal justice interventions and have desisted from criminal activities. These mentors provide unique guidance to individuals who are currently incarcerated or are preparing for release. The current study analyzed responses from peer mentors (N = 51) and explored their motivations and experiences. Thematic analysis was utilized to assess self-reported motivations and thoughts. Participants described internal, relational, and religious/community-based motivations for facing the barriers and challenges inherent in returning to prisons, in order to provide volunteer services. There is little known about prison volunteers and less about peer mentors. We encourage future research and policy to capitalize on the unique benefits peer mentors may provide incarcerated individuals.

Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that moderate the relationship between risk and rehabilitation outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Specific responsivity features are not directly targeted in offender rehabilitation programs but may impact a client's receptivity. We investigated if two features may explain why high-quality correctional programs do not uniformly impact all high-risk, high-needs clients. HYPOTHESES: The current study was exploratory. We hypothesized a relationship between higher static risk and poorer program outcomes and then explored if this relationship was attenuated by age and motivation. METHOD: Program providers rated the performance of incarcerated males (n = 2,417, Mean age = 33.6, SD = 9.9, Range = 18-81) who attended one of six types of programs during incarceration (for general, violent, and sexual offenders). Using risk scores calculated at prison entry, we predicted performance and official record recidivism. Preprogram motivation and age were moderators. RESULTS: Five of 24 exploratory multilevel models revealed an attenuated relationship between risk and program outcome among older offenders (percent variance explained = 17.9% within violence groups; 11.5% within living skills groups; and a 9% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high-risk attendees of family violence groups) and offenders with higher preprogram motivation (percent variance explained = 43.6% within violence groups, and a 7% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high risk attendees in living skills groups). CONCLUSIONS: Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that may deserve attention in rehabilitation practice. However, observed effects may have been weakened by underdeveloped, single-indicator measurement strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).