Developing a Leisure Time Management Program to Aid Successful Transition to Community

Abstract

One area of focus in new federal guidelines for inmate reentry skills development is the ability to use leisure time for stress relief and development of positive relationships. A model program was developed at a federal prison to teach the use of leisure time activities for coping with various stressors during the difficult transition from incarceration to community. Based on initial offering course evaluation responses, the program was revised and offered again. Feedback from the second course offering evaluation and recommendations for design of leisure time programming in other facilities are discussed.

Keywords

inmate reentry leisure time skills development model program

Introduction

In 2010, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) implemented new guidelines for transitional and reentry facilities training for offenders prior to release (Breazzano, 2008, 2009; Tercilla & Breazzano, 2010). These new guidelines focus transitional training less on learning content knowledge and more on developing specific skill sets deemed important for successful transition from prison to community (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). One skill not addressed in previous transitional training program development was the positive use of leisure time (e.g., increase in recreational activities, pursuit of hobbies, favorable peer affiliations). The new BOP guidelines indicate that facilities should develop programs focusing on improving the likelihood that the ex-offender will “engage in meaningful recreational activities and hobbies making positive and effective use of free time and facilitating stress management and favorable peer affiliations” (Breazzano, 2008, presentation slide).

It is typical for prisons and transitional facilities to purchase educational materials for much of their programming. Typically, it is quite easy to find and purchase ready-made course materials on increasing literacy levels, money management, and various job skills. However, it is less straightforward to find course materials on effective use of leisure time, especially ones that are designed for the needs of this specific population. Given the difficulty of finding a complete program for purchase, but needing to comply with the BOP’s programming standards, facilities may need to design such programs on their own. The purpose of this article is to provide a template that facilities can use to create a leisure time program, grounded in research on correctional program design and based on feedback from a program developed for a medium-security federal facility.

Models of Assessment and Program Design

There are two models of program design in correctional and transitional settings that can provide facilities guidance in developing new programs, including the one on positive use of leisure time: the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews, 2012; Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews & Dowden, 2007; Bonta & Andrews, 2007) and the Good Lives Model (GLM; Thakker & Ward, 2010; Ward, 2010; Ward & Brown, 2010; Ward & Maruna, 2007). Both of these models offer research-based suggestions for designing effective programming that reduces the likelihood of recidivism after transition to community.

The RNR model focuses heavily on correctly identifying risk factors that lead to recidivism and designing programs that reduce these risks. In addition, the model identifies criminogenic needs, which are the dynamic risk factors that are directly linked to criminal behavior. Unlike static risk factors (e.g., criminal history), dynamic risk factors (e.g., substance abuse, pro-criminal attitudes) change over time. Bonta and Andrews argue that specifically targeting dynamic risk factors in programming will lead to more effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of recidivism (see Bonta & Andrews, 2007, for an extensive review of the model). These researchers identify seven major dynamic risk/need factors as increasing the likelihood to reoffend. These seven major factors are an antisocial personality pattern, pro-criminal attitudes, the presence of social supports for crime, the lack of positive family/marital relationships, poor work/school performance, substance abuse problems, and the lack of pro-social recreational activities (Bonta & Andrews, 2007).

One tenet of this model (responsivity) asserts that the most effective programs are ones that are presented according to cognitive social learning strategies. These strategies follow two principles: the relationship principle and the structural principle. The relationship principle states that the best learning occurs when there is a good relationship between the instructor and the learner. The structural principle states that behaviors should be directed toward positive change by using modeling, reinforcement, and problem-solving activities. Taken together, the best response to (and thus, the most effective) correctional programming fosters a good relationship between the instructor and learner, and does not simply rely on lecture form in nature. The best programming will give the learner an active role in the process, with activities that engage the learner in dialogue and pro-social interactions during the learning process (Bonta & Andrews, 2007).

The GLM focuses on offender motivation levels and establishing a desire on the offender’s part to have a better overall quality of life (see Ward, 2010, for an extensive review of this model). The GLM relies on aspects of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), placing heavy emphasis on the offender helping to determine their own goals and desires for the future (Ward & Brown, 2010). This model portends that good programming should seek to have the offender work toward positive goals that will improve overall well-being in constructive and pro-social ways. Programming should include opportunities for self-reflection and be taught using more active and participatory methods, depending on the abilities of the learner (Ward & Brown, 2010).

The models differ somewhat in their approach, with one emphasizing assessment of risk factors and the other being more focused on development of positive goals and better self-awareness. Both models do offer useful guidance for the development of a program that is designed to inform this population on constructive ways to spend leisure time in a community setting. In fact, the goal of both models is to reduce recidivism and increase offender pro-social behaviors. Keeping the various risks associated with recidivism in the forefront during program development is important, as this will ensure that the program offers information on how to avoid these pitfalls. Highlighting the personal interests and goals of the offender will ensure that the program is relevant to each person in attendance. Both models stress the importance of making parts of the programming active. The sample leisure time program presented here aims to include the best aspects of both models: a course on how to spend leisure time after release that provides information about future risks for reoffending and also allows the offender to self-determine the best activities that will help them avoid these pitfalls. It is offered as a template to use in the development of a leisure time program by facilities that offer training on transition and reentry prior to release.

Overall Goals for Course Development

The authors’ leisure time course was developed for an all-male, medium-security federal facility in western Pennsylvania. The main goal was to develop a program that would offer helpful information in a way that would be well received. This goal may seem odd to many researchers; however, practitioners will agree that a large part of successful programming in prisons and transitional facilities is the “buy in” of the people in the program. This aspect is in line with the recommendations of the GLM: Unless the material is presented in a way that is engaging to participants and contains information they feel is specifically useful to them, the program risks being considered just one more “mandated program,” and buy in may be small (Ward & Brown, 2010).

Another goal of the program proposed here was to disseminate information that would be useful and relevant for offenders transitioning back into their community relatively soon (for an overview of programming designed to encourage positive use of leisure time while still inside the prison setting, see Frey & Delaney, 1996). For the program to be most effective, the content provided must still be current at the time of the offenders’ release. Although it is true that almost anyone can benefit from this type of a program, it was our choice (in agreement with the correctional education department at the facility) to focus on the offenders being released within 6 months from the date they took the course. By limiting participants to those being released within 6 months, we were more certain that most materials presented would still be accurate at the time of release. Thus, registration for our course was open to all inmates meeting the release date criterion, and participants self-selected based on interest in the course topic.

It was also felt that the program would be most effective if material presented was somewhat specific to the community of release for each participant. Therefore, prior to the class session, instructors prepared course materials specifically related to each registered participant’s community of release, as well as information common to any release city. Gathering materials for each participant prior to the course (rather than providing this information to the participants at some point after the course session) was in keeping with the relationship principle of the RNR model (i.e., indicating the instructors had prepared information specific to each participant in this class session, laying a foundation for a good relationship), and the aspect of the GLM focusing on offenders helping to determine their own goals (i.e., it is easier to develop goals when a person knows the specific options available to them in their area).

A pilot course was offered, and at the end of this pilot instructional session, feedback was gathered from the participants. Changes were made based on various recommended changes, and the programming was offered again. The element of seeking program participant feedback is common and expected in college classrooms, yet was completely unexpected by the prison setting participants. Recent research has documented the value of input from the actual attendees of correctional education courses (Miller, Tillyer, & Miller, 2012). In agreement with these authors, we rate this element as key to developing a quality and well-received program. The participants in any instructional class know what they find useful, what is perceived as missing, and where information is lacking. In fact, the participant feedback in the pilot course resulted in course content that was changed greatly. In addition, asking for feedback was another method for developing a sense of participant self-determination about their programming, in line with the tenets of the GLM. The instructional experiences of twice offering the course and incorporating feedback from the participants, as well as utilizing information from the two models of best practices in program design, resulted in our recommendations for how a program on positive uses of leisure time may be developed at other correctional and community-based facilities.

Considerations Important in Developing Specific Course Content

Based on our understanding of the two course design models, three considerations were kept in the forefront of the design process of specific course content. First, the program should be designed to address the particular needs/risk factors of this population, and thus should reflect knowledge of the particular stressors affecting this population. Second, the program should include a list of activities that are socially inclusive. Both of the models of best practices in correctional program design presented here place substantial emphasis on replacing pro-criminal thoughts and behaviors with pro-social ones (e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Ward, 2010). As mentioned earlier, Bonta and Andrews (2007) include the lack of “pro-social recreational activities” as one of the seven major dynamic risk/need factors that influence the likelihood to reoffend. Finally, in keeping with a major component of the GLM, the course session should allow for self-expression and self-determination on the offender’s part and not be presented entirely in lecture format (Ward & Brown, 2010). Each element is elaborated next.

First, it is important to be keenly aware of risk factors and stressors associated with this particular population. For example, statistics indicate that fewer than half of all prisoners released from correctional institutions had a job 1 year after release (e.g., Winterfield, Lattimore, Steffey, Susan, & Christine, 2006). This creates financial strain not only for the ex-offender but also for any family members helping with the transition (Chakrapani, 1996; Keefe, 1984; Liker, 1981). The fact that more than half of the ex-offenders experience a long period of unemployment upon release also suggests that this population will have much more unoccupied time than typical community members and hardly any disposable income to use on leisure activities. Thus, it is important to propose leisure activities that highlight the great number of recreational activities for individuals as well as families that cost little or no money, and to avoid compiling activities that will be financially beyond reach.

Unfortunately, many offenders transitioning to the community will still be struggling with substance abuse and addiction tendencies. This is one of the seven major dynamic risk/need factors to reoffending identified by Bonta and Andrews (2007). It is important for recovery to continue after incarceration and that information on addiction management is included in a leisure time program. Much of “recovery from addiction” literature deals with relapse prevention and typically involves cognitive-behavioral strategies to replace old habits with new ones (e.g., DiClemente, Holmgren, & Rounsaville, 2011; DiClemente, Schlundt, & Gemmell, 2004; Kelly & White, 2011). There are entire programs already in place both in prison and in the community that emphasize recovery management. Therefore, the goal for the leisure time program proposed here is to not duplicate those efforts; rather, the goal is to provide information on how to find community meeting places so the ex-offender can continue the recovery he or she may have begun during his or her incarceration. If the communities of release for the participants in the program are known, it is very helpful to include handouts specifying community meeting places. Because meeting times may change from the time of the course to the time of release, providing websites that will have up-to-date information is the key.

The literature on breaking habits underscores a key component of successful behavior change—developing new behaviors to replace the old undesirable behaviors (Adriaanse, Gollwitzer, De Ridder, de Wit, & Kroese, 2011; Scherer, 2006; Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska, 2009). This aspect is critical for ex-offenders with addiction problems (Best, Ghufran, Day, Ray, & Loaring, 2008). The literature cited above also notes that many people attempting to break a habit have difficulty self-identifying replacement activities for previous long-term behaviors. Thus, providing the ex-offender with a readily available list of low-cost, positive behavioral choices on which to draw during this stressful transition time is essential. In addition, it will be most helpful if these activity choices can be provided in a form that the offender can take with them upon release.

As the lack of pro-social recreational activities is a major risk factor for reoffending, a consideration in compiling course materials is the offender’s fractured relationships with friends and family members. Therefore, it may be preferable for the offender to seek entirely new friendships and affiliations when choosing recreational activities. However, it is also important to include a discussion of activities that provide opportunities for the offender to reconnect with his or her family. Both the RNR and the GLM place emphasis on working toward good family/marital relationships as part of rehabilitation (e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Ward, 2010; Ward & Brown, 2010). Open discussion of these types of activities and encouraging their inclusion on the offenders’ personal list of choices for leisure activities should be paramount.

An extension of the baseline criteria of including pro-social and low-cost activities is to include activities that require participants to be physically active, as well as activities that provide an avenue for artistic expression or educational advancement. Research shows that there are specific emotional and health benefits to using physical activity for stress relief (e.g., Edenfield & Blumenthal, 2011; Hug, Hansmann, Monn, Krütli, & Seeland, 2008; Summanen, 2006). This specific population also suffers from many health issues due to a lack of good health care both prior and during their incarceration (Ross, Liebling, & Tait, 2011; Stern, Greifinger, & Mellow, 2010). Including activities that are physical in nature can provide a low-cost way to improve overall health as well as relieve stress.

There is research documenting that activities involving artistic expression or ones increasing a person’s education have positive effects on emotional health and well-being (e.g., Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995; Trenberth, 2005; Trenberth & Dewe, 2005, 2006). Many prison facilities offer educational programming to improve literacy and/or artistic expression (Johnson, 2007; Milliken, 2008; Warfield, 2010; Welch, 1990). A list of low-cost activities that include creative expression and educational advancement will allow the offender to build on any prison-based activities in which he or she may have engaged. A list of creative and educational activities will also most likely suggest activities that the ex-offender never considered before. In this realm, it is very helpful to give examples of endeavors that have varying degrees of hands-on participation. For example, an interest in artistic painting does not need to require an initial costly purchase of painting supplies. It may simply involve going to free or low-cost art exhibits in the community to learn about artistic techniques and styles.

Finally, the course material should allow for some participant self-determination. The program presented here included participant worksheets to complete with personal preferences for activities to pursue upon release. The course session allowed as well for group discussion and the addition of new activities that individuals might suggest during the course session. Programming is most effective when the offender helps determine their own goals and desires for the future (Ward & Brown, 2010).

In summary, it is our recommendation that leisure time management course content should concentrate on the risk factors for reoffending and should include many different types of offender-choice activities, the majority of which should be pro-social in nature (as opposed to solitary pursuits). Finally, the information has the greatest chance of being useful if it is “up-to-date,” specific to the community of release for the offender, and in a form that can be taken with the offender upon release.

Pilot Program

Participants

Seventeen males (M_age = 26.5 years, age range = 20-37 years) from a medium-security federal prison facility participated in the pilot program, which was offered in November 2011. All men eligible for recreational programming with 6 months or less until community release were allowed to sign-up for the course. Initial sign-up was capped by the facility at 20 participants. On the day of the program, 17 participants came to the session and 16 participants gave consent for their responses to be used as part of a research project.

Procedure—Orientation to the course

The course was taught in one 150-min session by the researchers. The length of the session was determined by the regular prison schedule for evening educational coursework. At the start of the course, participants entered the room and were given an overview of the course content. Participants were told that this course would help them manage their free time during transition. They were told that many people transitioning out of prison experience challenges and stress, and the purpose of the course would be to provide them with information on activities available in their community that were fairly low cost and that might help to reintegrate them with their community. Participants were informed that even if they obtained a full-time job right away, they would still have some free time. The course was designed to provide them with choices on how to spend that time in constructive ways.

Consent form

After this brief orientation, the nature of the course as a new one and part of a research project creating courses to ease transition from prison to the community was explained. Consent for using participant end-of-course responses on the course evaluation usage was requested. Each participant was given a consent form to complete that contained course instructor backgrounds as well as a written version of the information about the project’s goals. Each consent form had a cover sheet, and participants completed the form while shielding their answers from others in the room. Participants were informed that the choices of consent to participate would never be shared with anyone at the prison facility, and the course instructors would not know which men agreed to participate until several days later. If a participant chose to fill out a course evaluation, but did not want those responses to be used in the research study, their feedback would be used to improve the course in the future; their responses would not be included in the research study. In addition, they were under no obligation to fill out the course evaluation, and there would be no penalty for not completing one. (In keeping with this promise, everyone who completed the course was given a certificate of completion prior to the dissemination of the course evaluation.)

Procedure—Presentation of course content

The program was comprised of four sections, and material was organized around a fictional bus trip. The four sections were represented as stops on a bus route, with each bus stop containing activities and resources available for little or no money typically available in every large metropolitan area as well as many small communities. The program was designed in this manner to make use of a well-known memory strategy called the method of loci, in which items to be remembered are organized into an imaginary trip, with each place on the trip containing things to be remembered (e.g., Massen, Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, Krings, & Hilbig, 2009; Moè & De Beni, 2005). Organizing activities around bus stops theoretically made the activities being proposed more memorable and thus much more likely to be recalled at a later time. The specific “bus stops” included in the pilot were the public library, addiction management, faith-based organizations (FBOs), and activities for evenings and weekends. Clearly other “bus stops” of relevance to a particular facility or class member interest can be substituted or added to the list.

For each session, each ready-made participant packet had instructor materials as well as worksheets specific to each session. As the community of release for each enrollee had been determined, available community of release activities were gathered and integrated into the general course materials for each individual. In this manner, an offender-specific activities handout packet of his or her city of release (with his or her name imprinted) was provided, which also had general activities available in almost any city.

The course orientation emphasized the program’s goal of providing participants information on activities in their community that were fairly low cost and aiming at reintegration. It was stressed that, even with obtaining a full-time job soon upon leaving prison, individuals successful at reentry are more likely to also have activities for spending free time in constructive ways.

Noting the critical element of feedback from course evaluation, the specific questions utilized in this pilot are in Tables 2 and 3. Drawing on facility-specific feedback should add insight to the needs of that particular population, altering and customizing the course content as needed. Importantly, this component adds the key element of course participant self-determination.

Specific course components

In this section, details are provided on the specific pilot course components, as well as comments on the rationale for activities for each bus stop. For a complete list of bus stop activities, please refer to Table 1. As many in the group were to be released into large metropolitan areas (e.g., Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore), they were well acquainted with using a bus line.

Table 1.

Opportunities Located at Fictional Bus Stops.

Public library	Addiction management	Faith-based organizations (FBOs)	Evenings and weekends	Family time
Books	12-Step	Bible studies	City festivals	Read books
	Program meetings
CDs	Mentoring	Worship	Free concerts	Watch sports on TV
DVDs	Social gatherings	Picnics	Go to gym	Watch DVDs
Lectures	Lectures	Sports leagues	Exhibits	Go to the park
Internet	Conferences*	Fellowship	Sports leagues	School functions*
Concerts	Retreats*		Bike rides*	Go to the library*
			HikingBowlingSnow shoeing*	Little leaguesSwimmingSnow sleddingBuild projects

Note. Family time became a new bus stop in the revised course. Items with asterisk were discussed only in the revised course and were added based on feedback from the pilot course.

Public library

The public library was chosen as the first stop because the public library is a major source of low-cost services and activities. Modern public libraries now have expanded offerings that include DVDs, musical CDs, and Internet access. Libraries in major metropolitan areas also host lectures, concerts, theatrical plays, and other community activities. Depending on the length of prison sentence, ex-offenders can be well served by the range of library services currently available in most urban libraries. Typical services available include assistance in computer usage and Internet searching, local bus schedules, church service times, job and apartment searches, and meeting times and locations for 12-step groups. All of this information can be found by using the public library computer. Furthermore, most public library computers have protective filters, making them safe places to access the Internet in compliance with many parole restrictions. The majority of public libraries in major cities provide free library cards, with others typically providing them at a nominal cost.

Addiction management

Addiction management was the second stop on the imaginary bus trip. Addiction treatment begun in prison and continued throughout community transition reduces relapse and recidivism much more than if the offender only completes a prison-based treatment program (e.g., Hiller, Knight, & Saum, 2006; Hiller, Knight, & Simpson, 2006; Lash, Timko, Curran, McKay, & Burden, 2011). Even for offenders not convicted of a drug charge, a recent list of meeting times and locations for 12-step programs can serve as a reference in the initial weeks of transition for those individuals who nonetheless struggle with substance abuse. Of note, providing participants with a list of multiple meeting places and times is also critical, as 12-step groups frequently differ in their composition, even within the same city. So, an ex-offender who feels he does not comfortably fit into one group may well fit into another group within the same city. In any case, the main thing is to find a group to attend regularly, as lack of substance abuse management is a major risk factor for reoffending (Andrews, 2012; Bonta & Andrews, 2007)

There are several aspects to include in discussions of addiction management. A list of meeting times and locations is helpful but is often not sufficient. People who have only begun recovery in prison may not know how to find transportation to meetings. Providing course participants with a list of bus schedules and routes and/or other means of public transportation specific to their community of release may thus be particularly valuable. Getting a list of phone numbers from people in attendance at the first meeting will also provide a source of emotional support for the ex-offenders during difficult periods.

Prison inmates who have begun a 12-step program for the first time may not understand the importance of finding and committing to a specific home group, as the home group is the one meeting the individual makes a strong commitment to attend. The consistency of attendance by regular group members adds an element of social inclusion to help overcome one source of social isolation as the individual transition back into the community. Also, this commitment to a home group will add a sense of accountability to the individual’s recovery. Typically, an individual’s sponsor is a member of this same home group, and has made a commitment to help the individual during his or her recovery.

FBOs

The imaginary bus ride’s third stop was a FBO, or faith-based organization. U.S. FBOs receive funding for transitional programming, and many community services help bridge the gap resulting from government cuts in funding for these services. While many participants may have no interest in learning about religion or faith, they need to know that these organizations provide many needed services. In the course, the focus was on one element of many FBOs—separate non-profit centers that reach out to various community members. Examples include Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, YMCA/YWCA, and Goodwill Ministries. Many of these organizations offer, for example, housing subsidies, a food pantry, homeless shelters, and low-cost clothing. FBOs can provide moral guidance, as well as a welcoming environment for an ex-offender transitioning from prison. Again, the course highlighted FBOs as excellent sources of pro-social recreational activities, providing as well sources of social acceptance and spiritual growth, regardless of denomination or religious affiliation.

Evenings and weekends

The last stop on the imaginary bus trip was a location where activities are typically offered on evenings and weekends. Conforming to the course goal, the activities proposed here were low cost in nature. Three additional criteria for these activities were that they were (a) family friendly, (b) regularly occurring, and/or (c) seasonal—such as community or regional festivals. Most of the activities included in this section met at least two of the above criteria. For example, Buffalo, NY, offers an entire summer free concert series that encourages the attendance of children and does not allow alcohol. Many communities have festivals of this nature that feature various ethnic foods, music, craft displays, and dancing. Most of these are low cost or free to enter, making them excellent activity choices as a reentry pastime. Other activities proposed for this “stop” were city sports leagues, specialty clubs (e.g., photography club, gardening club, woodworking club), and college and university events. As many individuals in transition may live with their children, or at least have visitation rights, evening and weekend family-friendly events were an important component of the course.

Action plan

The final worksheets in the packet were designed for each participant to develop a plan of action based on the material presented in the course. Both the RNR and the GLM, as well as research in cognitive-behavioral therapy, affirm that having a specific plan of action turns vague intentions into something more likely to be completed (e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Egan, 2010; Ward, 2010). At the end of the presentation covering all of the bus stops, participants were asked to create a future plan of action by selecting two activities that they would like to pursue at each bus stop. They were asked to indicate these choices on the action plan worksheet, including the likelihood (on a scale of 1-10) that they would pursue these activities within 6 months of release.

Results of Course Evaluations—Pilot

Results of the pilot course responses on the course evaluation are presented in Tables 2 and 3. In general, the class was well received, with all respondents indicating that they “probably would” or “definitely would” recommend the course to a friend. Eight of the participants in the pilot course agreed that they learned more than they expected from the course. Thirteen of the participants rated the course “good” or “very good,” and no one rated the course “poor” or “very poor.” In general, the course offered at least some new information to the majority of participants.

Table 2.

Course Evaluation Ratings by Course Session.

		Pilot course	Second course
Question	Rating	n = 16	n = 31
How much would you say you learned in this course?	Almost nothing	—	—
	A little bit	2	3
	Quite a Bit	8	16
	A great deal	6	12
The amount of knowledge I learned in the course was	Less than I expected	—	—
	What I expected	8	5
	More than I expected	8	26
What overall rating would you give this course?	Very poor	—	—
	Poor	—	—
	Average	3	2
	Good	4	12
	Very good	9	17
Would you recommend this course to a friend?	Definitely would not	—	—
	Probably would not	—	1
	Probably would	4	6
	Definitely would	12	24

Table 3.

Suggestion Category by Course Session.

		Pilot course	Second course
Question	Category	n = 16	n = 31
Name one thing you learned during the course that you think will help you the most with reentry	Use of library	7	16
	Many free activities	6	10
	Faith-based organizations	3	5
When this course is taught again, name one thing you think we should spend more time on, or go into great detail about	Family time	8	6
	City sports leagues	2	6
	Addiction management	2	2
	Free college speakers	—	14
	Everything	4	3
When this course is taught again, name one thing that we did not cover that you think we should include	Kid’s activities	7	2
	Outdoor exercise	6	—
	Evening time alone	3	7
	College applications	—	12
	Don’t know	—	10

In addition to the course evaluation questions that were simply ratings on a Likert-type scale, participants were asked several open-ended questions, designed to inform the authors on ways the course could be improved and what areas might have received greater detail. The results are listed in Table 3. By far, the desire to learn more about family-friendly activities, especially activities for teenaged children, was paramount. Respondents also expressed surprise at how much could be done at the public library. (It is important to note the phrasing used in the open-ended questions was to “name one thing,” rather than “can you think of anything,” when eliciting course content feedback. Previous researcher experience has shown that this phrasing produces more responses from this population.)

Modifications and Revised Course

A modified course was created, using the feedback from the pilot course. Offered in April 2012 at the same medium-security facility, the revised course had 31 male enrollees (M_age = 23.5 years, age range = 20-32 years) and followed the same general procedure as the pilot. All who participated consented to allow their responses to be included in the study.

There were three major course revisions based on feedback from the pilot course. The first was the recommendation that the course be taught over several days instead of during one long session. Respondents indicated they wanted time to consider all options presented to them before drafting an action plan. Therefore, the revised course was offered on 3 non-consecutive days of the same week, that is, in three 50-min sessions on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

The second area of revision was to create a new “bus stop” that specifically covered activities designated as Family Time (previously these activities had been under Evenings and Weekends, or sprinkled throughout other bus stops). The pilot evaluation responses showed the group had a strong desire to reconnect with their children and were interested in learning about more activities related to this specific component. An example of this modification was moving “reading books with your children” from the Public Library “bus stop” and placing it under the new Family Time “bus stop.” (These changes are indicated by asterisk in Table 1.)

The third area of revision was allocating more time to the development of a specific action plan. In the pilot, class members were asked to choose activities at each bus stop that most appealed to them, and that they intended to initiate during their transition. The worksheet for the action plan was completely revised to resemble a calendar week, with each day of the week a box divided into “Morning,” “Afternoon,” and Evening.” The instructions were to develop a sample week’s plan of action around a 20-hr fictional job, completing the remaining time with activities. For each activity entered into the calendar, the men were asked to check off the possible benefits from a provided list of benefits (e.g., make new friends, learn a new skill/hobby, stay in shape, relieve stress, or reconnect with family/children). The result was a plan of action that was much more concrete and was given as a homework assignment to be completed prior to the third course session. Working with a calendar layout made it much easier to see how much free time was available after all work and parole obligations were met. Many participants chose to do a few activities repeatedly across the week, while others filled their week without repeating any activity. The benefits and drawbacks of each strategy were discussed.

Results of Course Evaluation—Revised Course

Several course evaluation question results are presented in Table 2. As before, the class was well received, with 24 participants indicating they “definitely would” recommend the course to a friend. In addition, 26 reported that they learned more than they expected, and 29 rated the course as either “good” or “very good.” It is interesting to note that in spite of the course material added, there were still requests for more information in many areas. While there were no recommendations for procedural changes (as there had been after the pilot), there were many requests for additional “bus stop” information and a keen interest in locating presentations and activities that colleges in their communities offered for low or no cost.

Implications and Limitations

The design and content of the course met the standards of the leisure time component of the BOP’s Reentry Skill Sets (Breazzano, 2008). The specific content focused on activities that were pro-social and designed to address many of the risk factors faced by ex-offenders during transition from prison to community. The program presented here includes elements of both the RNR model and the GLM of correctional program design.

One surprising element of the project that can be inferred, although it was not measured directly, was the sincere participant interest in providing feedback through the use of course evaluations. We believe there are two components to this observation. The first is that giving course evaluations is incredibly rare in the prison setting. When encouraged to provide feedback on the course they had just completed, the men in the pilot course offered suggestions that, indeed, made the course quite different from that originally conceived by the researchers and more directly fit the expressed needs of the respondents. The second is that by the time feedback was requested from the men in the revised course, participants from the pilot course had enquired about the revised course. Learning that the researchers had, in fact, made substantial changes to the course based on their feedback, men in the pilot course encouraged the revised course group to also make suggestions. This replicated behavior found by the researchers previously in the offering of pilot and revised courses at the same facility (McKinney & Cotronea, 2011).

There are several limitations of the project. The first was the lack of discussion on how to help each offender gain insight into activities that will work best in his specific circumstances. The GLM (much more than the RNR model) places emphasis on incorporating elements of self-reflection into any correctional programming. The program as it was designed was much more in line with what is “common programming structure in prisons” in the United States. The inclusion of worksheets helped make the program a bit more interactive, but much more could be done to achieve this goal. For example, adding worksheet space to allow for personal reflection about possible barriers to completing the action plan would be useful. These responses could then be incorporated into class discussion, or questions might be added to the anonymous survey/course evaluation component of the course.

Another limitation was the lack of data indicating how aspects of the course were utilized after release. Did the material actually influence decisions upon release? How impactful was the program to the participants post release? Did the course content ease any of the stressors often encountered during transition? One way to address this issue and develop a venue for data collection would be to have the final action plan created by each participant placed into the paperwork that goes to probation/parole upon release. After a month in the community, the parole officer could ask follow-up questions, including which, if any, of the activities listed on their action plan were attempted since release and if they had any impact on reentry transitioning.

Incorporating pro-social recreational activities into the life of an ex-offender has been the focus of research for many years in Canada (e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007), Australia, and New Zealand (e.g., Ward, 2010). Research there has led to the development of two models of best practices in developing programming to increase the likelihood of successful transition from prison to community. These programming development models can be used to develop new transitional programming on a multitude of areas deemed helpful to an individual’s reentry adaptations. The course proposed here is merely one specific use of these models.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank DonaLee Breazzanno, Cheri Harrington, Jody Klein-Saffran, and Gary Ransom of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for their support throughout the development of this research. Thanks to Barbara K. Fowler and Andrea A. Zevenbergen for helpful comments on drafts of this submission.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dani McMay, PhD, is assistant professor of psychology, State University of New York at Fredonia. Her research interests include best practices in correctional education, specifically developing new programs to ease reentry and transition.

Michael Cotronea, MA, received his bachelor of arts degree in psychology at State University of New York at Fredonia in 2009 and his master’s degree in industrial/organizational psychology at West Chester University in Pennsylvania in 2011. This work was completed during a year long independent study at Fredonia.

References

Adriaanse

M. A.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

De Ridder

D. D.

de Wit

J. F.

Kroese

F. M.

(2011). Breaking habits with implementation intentions: A test of underlying processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 502-513. doi:10.1177/0146167211399102

Andrews

D. A.

(2012). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and treatment. In Dvoskin

J. A.

Skeem

J. L.

Novaco

R. W.

Douglas

K. S.

(Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 127-156). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55. doi:10.1037/a0018362

Andrews

D. A.

Dowden

(2007). The risk–need–responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 49, 439-464.

Best

D. W.

Ghufran

Day

Ray

Loaring

(2008). Breaking the habit: A retrospective analysis of desistance factors among formerly problematic heroin users. Drug & Alcohol Review, 27, 619-624. doi:10.1080/09595230802392808

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (User Report 2007-06). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.

Breazzano

(2008, July). Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate skills development. Symposium conducted at Alternative to Incarceration, Washington, DC.

Breazzano

(2009). The Federal Bureau of Prisons shifts reentry focus to a skills-based model. Corrections Today, 71, 50-57.

Chakrapani

(1996). Unemployment as a stressor: Role of socio-psychological factors. Indian Journal of Social Work, 57, 578-590.

10.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange

P. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

DiClemente

Holmgren

Rounsaville

(2011). Relapse prevention and recycling in addiction. In Johnson

B. A.

(Ed.), Addiction medicine: Science and practice (pp. 765-782). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978144190338938

12.

DiClemente

Schlundt

Gemmell

(2004). Readiness and stages of change in addiction treatment. The American Journal on Addictions, 13, 103-119.

13.

Edenfield

T. M.

Blumenthal

J. A.

(2011). Exercise and stress reduction. In Contrada

R. J.

Baum

(Eds.), The handbook of stress science: Biology, psychology, and health (pp. 301-319). New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Egan

(2010). Overview of the helping model. In Egan

(Ed.), The skilled helper (pp. 64-90). Florence, KY: Cengage/Brooks Cole.

15.

Frey

J. H.

Delaney

T. T.

(1996). Role of leisure participation in prison: A report from consumers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 23, 79-89.

16.

Hiller

M. L.

Knight

Saum

C. A.

(2006). Social functioning, treatment dropout, and recidivism of probationers mandated to a modified therapeutic community. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 738-759.

17.

Hiller

M. L.

Knight

Simpson

(2006). Recidivism following mandated residential substance abuse treatment for felony probationers. The Prison Journal, 86, 230-241.

18.

Hug

Hansmann

Monn

Krütli

Seeland

(2008). Restorative effects of physical activity in forests and indoor settings. International Journal of Fitness, 4, 25-37.

19.

Johnson

(2007). Jail wall drawings and jail art programs: Invaluable tools for corrections. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2, 66-84.

20.

Keefe

(1984). The stresses of unemployment. Social Work, 29, 264-268.

21.

Kelly

J. F.

White

W. L.

(2011). Recovery management and the future of addiction treatment and recovery in the USA. In Kelly

J. F.

White

W. L.

(Eds.), Addiction recovery management: Theory, research and practice (pp. 303-316). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

22.

Lash

S. J.

Timko

Curran

G. M.

McKay

J. R.

Burden

J. L.

(2011). Implementation of evidence-based substance use disorder continuing care interventions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 238-251. doi:10.1037/a0022608

23.

Liker

J. K.

(1981). Economic pressures on the families of released prisoners evidence from the TARP (Transitional Aid to Released Prisoners) experiment. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 16, 11-27.

24.

Massen

Vaterrodt-Plünnecke

Krings

Hilbig

B. E.

(2009). Effects of instruction on learners’ ability to generate an effective pathway in the method of loci. Memory, 17, 724-731. doi:10.1080/09658210903012442

25.

McKinney

Cotronea

M. A.

(2011). Using self-determination theory in correctional education program development. The Journal of Correctional Education, 62, 175-193.

26.

Miller

Tillyer

Miller

(2012). Recognizing the need for prisoner input in correctional research: Observations from an in-prison driving while intoxicated reduction program evaluation. The Prison Journal, 92, 274-289. doi:10.1177/0032885512439164

27.

Milliken

(2008). Intervening in the cycle of addiction, violence, and shame: A dance/movement therapy group approach in a jail addictions program. Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 3, 5-22.

28.

Moè

De Beni

(2005). Stressing the efficacy of the loci method: Oral presentation and the subject-generation of the loci pathway with expository passages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 95-106. doi:10.1002/acp.1051

29.

Ross

M. W.

Liebling

Tait

(2011). The relationships of prison climate to health service in correctional environments: Inmate health care measurement, satisfaction and access in prisons. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 262-274. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00658.x

30.

Scherer

J. J.

(2006). Break a habit. Personal Excellence, 11, 6.

31.

Stern

M. F.

Greifinger

R. B.

Mellow

(2010). Patient safety: Moving the bar in prison health care standards. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2103-2110.

32.

Summanen

(2006). Nature refreshes the mind and increases physical activity. Motion-Sport in Finland, 2006, 22-23.

33.

Tercilla

Breazzano

(2010). Maximizing inmate employment success in the BOP. Corrections Today, 72, 32-35.

34.

Thakker

Ward

(2010). Relapse prevention: A critique and proposed reconceptualisation. Behaviour Change, 27, 154-175. doi:10.1375/bech.27.3.154

35.

Tinsley

H. A.

Eldredge

B. D.

(1995). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 123-132.

36.

Trenberth

(2005). The role, nature and purpose of leisure and its contribution to individual development and well-being. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 1-6.

37.

Trenberth

Dewe

(2005). An exploration of the role of leisure in coping with work related stress using sequential tree analysis. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 101-116.

38.

Trenberth

Dewe

(2006). Understanding the experience of stressors: The use of sequential analysis for exploring the patterns between various work stressors and strain. Work & Stress, 20, 191-209.

39.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). The Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate release preparation and transitional reentry programs (Report No. 04-16). Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a0416/app15.htm

40.

Ward

(2010). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Basic assumptions, aetiological commitments, and practice implications. In McNeil

Raynor

Trotter

(Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 41-64). New York, NY: Willan.

41.

Ward

Brown

(2010). The good lives model. In Priestley

Vanstone

(Eds.), Offenders or citizens? Readings in rehabilitation (pp. 263-266). Devon, UK: Willan.

42.

Ward

Maruna

(2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Warfield

(2010). Bowing in the right direction: Hiland Mountain Correctional Center women’s string orchestra programme. International Journal of Community Music, 3, 103-110.

44.

Webb

T. L.

Sheeran

Luszczynska

(2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 507-523. doi:10.1348/014466608X370591

45.

Welch

R. R.

(1990). Arts in prison. Corrections Compendium, 15, 1-9.

46.

Winterfield

Lattimore

P. K.

Steffey

D. M.

Susan

Christine

(2006). The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring the effects on service delivery. Western Criminology Review, 7, 3-19.