Mentors and Tutors: An Overview of Two Volunteer Programs in Oklahoma Corrections

by Michael Connelly

Abstract

This study profiles and analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of two Oklahoma volunteer corrections programs, one involving tutors in a literacy program and one involving mentors helping to reintegrate offenders. The findings indicate that, while support existed for each program from volunteers, offenders, and correctional personnel, both programs had problems of communication and implementation that future similar programs must consider in order to be effective.

Governments everywhere today face the problem of meeting the growing demands for public services with declining revenue bases. Local governments, of course, have faced these problems with regularity for decades, and states periodically have found themselves unable to satisfy demand for policies and tax cuts simultaneously. In the last decade the federal government has encountered the problem as well on a massive scale. The search for solutions has turned more and more in the direction of greater use of volunteers in the production and provision of government services on all levels.

Corrections has long recognized the importance of volunteers in delivering its services. Much of the corrections-volunteer interaction came through the missions of churches and other assistance organizations, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. As the pressures for services in the face of tighter budgets developed, however, corrections officials started to organize more formal programs to meet specific needs. Scheier (1974) cited 1967 as the take-off year for modern corrections-volunteer interactions, but some might set the date in August, 1959, when the municipal court in Royal Oak, Michigan, began a volunteer probation program featuring mentoring of selected offenders by counselors (Leenhouts, 1974).

Today, corrections-volunteer interaction provides programs and services ranging from repairing homes (U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1993), tutoring literacy (Tracy, 1993), and running Girl Scout Programs (Lanham, 1994; Moses, 1993) to guiding offenders from pre-release to post-release as in Georgia&'s AfterCARE program (GDOC, n.d.), mentoring (RIDOC, 1991), covering probation caseloads (Smith, 1993), and operating community service centers to facilitate offender reintegration into the community (PDOC, n.d.). In fact, Corrections Today ran an entire issue endorsing valuable, effective volunteer programs across the nation (1993). Oklahoma, as with most state systems, has had active volunteers in its prisons and other correctional programs since its inception. However, the dominant focus was not coproduction/coprovision but allowing religious and other support organizations access to offenders. That focus has shifted in recent years. According to an internal document from 1994, over the previous three years the state department of corrections had begun "a paradigm shift" to become "a dynamic force for the involvement of citizens as paraprofessionals and partners in attaining a shared vision of the way we, and the communities we serve, view corrections." The purpose of this "paradigm shift" was two-fold: (1) to foster "an increase in resources" and (2) to promote "a substantial change in the public&'s perception of their role in the correctional process" (ODOC, 1994b, n.p.). Thus, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) has made a conscious effort to enhance coproduction/coprovision of correctional services as well as to improve public understanding of its functions.

As part of its "paradigm shift," the ODOC in recent years has begun several field service programs around the state. Two separate programs have been initiated in and by District V Probation and Parole—a mentoring program in Stillwater and a literacy program which serves as an essential step toward full family services in Enid. This report details perceptions of participants in each program and areas of success and weakness to serve as lessons for improvement for those and similar programs.

METHODOLOGY

Before describing those programs, a word about methodology is necessary. We created surveys for all participants—offenders, volunteers, and ODOC personnel.

Surveys of mentors in Stillwater were mailed out based on a list provided by the program&'s progenitor, District Attorney (DA) Paul Anderson of Payne/Logan Counties, who provided a cover letter verifying the study and encouraging response. The other respondents received their surveys from ODOC personnel in Enid and Stillwater and returned them at their convenience to those officials.

Response rates were good. Of eleven mentors originally starting the program, nine responded, and eight returned surveys. Three of the five offenders in the mentoring program returned surveys, as did all three ODOC officials involved. All three volunteers in the literacy program responded, as did 24 of 28 offenders and four ODOC officials associated with the program. Also, informal, exploratory discussions were conducted with seven ODOC officials and with DA Anderson for additional information and materials. Thus, the amount and scope of data were sufficient for preliminary analysis and evaluation of those brand-new field programs and for suggestions for future study as more process and impact experience and data came available.

The Stillwater Mentoring Program

The idea of matching solid community members with selected offenders to provide assistance in reintegration into the community was certainly not new. As mentioned, one of the first modern volunteer service programs, in Michigan, was premised on the concept. Despite its long use, however, "mentoring" was still not well defined. While consensus has not been reached on its exact nature, mentoring usually was considered "a relationship in which a person with great experience, expertise, and wisdom counsels, teaches, guides, and helps another person to develop both personally and professionally" (Lawrence, 1993, p. 5). In corrections, the opportunity to bring together established citizens with appropriate offenders was perceived to provide role models and resources to allow the offender to re-enter the community successfully. That, at least, was the hope of DA Anderson when he approached the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for its help in providing selected offenders for a preliminary mentoring program. He then approached members of a civic organization and his church in Stillwater with the proposal of acting as mentors for these offenders. The prospective mentors were to be active retirees with distinguished service and success in the community. And, indeed, as Table 1 reveals, the men drawn to volunteer were an accomplished lot.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Mentor Volunteers in Stillwater*

Of the eight mentor respondents who completed all or part of the volunteer survey, all were male retirees with a mean age of 73.9 years. Those responding to the question indicated that five were married and one was single (widowed). Five answered that they were Caucasian-American and one Native American. Six said that they had children, and the mean number was 3.7 per respondent. Education levels were quite high; of the seven answering the question, all had graduated high school, two had some college or vo-tech or a bachelor&'s degree, and four had graduate degrees. Two possessed doctorates. The four respondents to the question on the nature of their volunteer activities replied that they were basically service/professional and averaged 10.25 hours per week. Thus, those volunteering as mentors were a highly active and educated group.

Offenders were not extremely forthcoming in their responses, perhaps not surprisingly. As Table 2 demonstrates, the respondents were very different from the mentors. While all three were also male, the mean age of those responding to the question was 37 years, half the mentors&' mean age. One was married, one single, one divorced; one was Native American, one Caucasian-American, and one no response; and one had children (two), one none, and one no response. One had not finished high school, two had or had completed the GED; none indicated any education beyond high school. One offender did not state the crime(s) for which he had been serving time, but was in prison for a severe consecutive 5-10-25 term; the other two respondents were in for driving under the influence (DUI) offenses, both had been sentenced to five years. The offender with the harsher term had served 11.5 years at the time of the survey; the two DUI offenders had served two years and one year, respectively.

TABLE 2

Characteristics of Offenders in Stillwater Mentor Program*

The offenders had received literacy training, tutoring other than literacy, and personal counseling; significantly, not one indicated "mentoring" as a service received, although it was a listed choice. Of the services received, personal counseling and "group therapy" were seen as most useful, although, again, the number of respondents was very small. All three agreed that volunteers were involved in delivering these services either "a great deal" (two) or "some" (one). Their reactions to the volunteers seemed, overall, positive. ". . . my impressions of them are for the best," stated one offender. Said another, "I believe they all have good intentions;" however, he continued, ". . .the minute you make a mistake, they seem to alienate you."

Nevertheless, two offenders indicated that "more volunteers of the same type are needed" while one felt that "the number and types of volunteers are just right." A further sign of positive reaction to the volunteers was the response of two offenders that, if allowed, they themselves would volunteer to provide services to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Thus, the experience of the offenders seemed to have been positive, for the most part, if not very significant.

That indifferent reaction was also found among the three ODOC personnel familiar with the Stillwater mentors and offenders. The three males were in the 26-45 age range, with a mean of 9.5 years in ODOC (n=2) and bachelor&'s degrees for each. One indicated "a great deal" of weekly contact with volunteers, one "some," and one "not much." While one agreed that "the number and types of volunteers are just right," the other two felt that "more and better volunteers are needed." Thus, the ODOC personnel seemed favorably disposed toward volunteers but had doubts about the current situation and the quality of present volunteers.

The need for more services was consensual among the ODOC respondents. Faced with what all three indicated was at best a skeptical public needing better public education and community projects to improve the offenders&' image, according to the respondents, the offenders required programs such as literacy, job training and search, and family and substance counseling to aid their reintegration into the community and to cut recidivism. Particularly popular with two respondents was a voucher-type program to create and deliver these services.

Volunteers could play an important role in providing those necessary services, in the ODOC respondents&' views. Counseling, tutoring, transportation, and documentation were mentioned as having been useful and possible from volunteers. Any law enforcement or other professional responsibilities, however, were uniformly seen as unwise and dangerous.

Overall, the ODOC personnel, as noted, expressed favorable attitudes toward the volunteers with whom they had worked. They were impressed with "their energy, excitement, and dedication" as well as "the mere fact that they would volunteer their time." According to one respondent, "[Voluntarism] provides extra hands, feet, and voices. It assists officers in reducing the hours spent on lower risk cases." Another stated, "I feel it is a helping hand for staff, inmates, and their families."

Reservations existed, however. Two respondents criticized volunteers for their "inconsistent involvement" or "lack of commitment." One stated that "Most receive an eye-opening experience and become either frustrated or highly motivated for this as a career." Another noted that "Most have withdrawn or regressed in their efforts toward offenders." Some of this may have been due to reaction of staff. Said one ODOC respondent, "Some officers readily use the volunteers; others view them as work and refuse to work with them." That attitude may partially be the responsibility of ODOC leadership. According to another ODOC respondent, "A staff needs to be allowed work time to work with volunteers. I feel a lot of pressure to support this type of activity but no chance of time being allowed to work extra." The implication was clear that, while response to volunteers might have been positive overall, more time and effort were needed to integrate them into the operations of the department and of ODOC personnel. As one respondent concluded, "[Volunteers] work well when the volunteer has a clearly defined role or duty to perform." Apparently that had not been achieved in Stillwater at the time of this study.

The mentors confirmed that conclusion in their responses. Most of the mentors had been recruited by DA Anderson or colleagues familiar with his design for the program. Those responding to the question regarding their reasons for volunteering said that they did so out of a desire to "do some good." Among the reasons given were to "lighten the load on ODOC professionals," "to try to lower the crime rate," and "to help some parolees to make something out of their lives."

The mentors initially knew little about the Oklahoma Department of Corrections but ended with definite opinions. Most were sympathetic. "I feel they want to help resettle their clients," said one, "but have too heavy a load, and lots of them [the clients] do not want help." Stated another, "It appears that the services provided are inadequate to rehabilitate parolees. Staff do not have enough time to prepare parolees for using volunteers who serve as mentors." Echoing a ODOC respondent, however, another mentor concluded that "the local ODOC professionals are not anxious to get volunteers involved or else do not know how to go about it."

The image of offenders held by the mentors also changed with experience. When they first began, the image was stereotypical. "Very hostile," said one mentor. "I thought you could pick them out in a crowd," said another. One admitted that "My image at the beginning was of a male, in his early 20s, probably Black, probably arrested and convicted for some crime involving drugs." With interaction, though, one mentor concluded that "You could not tell any difference in a crowd."

Several mentors saw distinct advantages accruing to themselves and their communities and to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections through their involvement in the mentoring program. One mentor came away with "a feeling of contributing—of making a difference, more familiarity with the system of justice and attempts at rehabilitation" and the belief that ODOC received "relief for an overworked and understaffed complement of employees." Another expressed satisfaction regarding "the willing cooperation of ODOC employees in answering questions and making suggestions and their genuine gratitude for our help." Yet another felt the program was very worthy for everyone involved: "This program has great potential for all concerned"; however, "It will take much skill to get it properly organized and maintained."

The latter reservation hinted at much of the displeasure and negative perception of the program as operated held by several mentors. Some put it bluntly: "I did not feel I was any help" or "I did not feel we were doing any good." Some attributed the difficulties to the offenders. Said one mentor, "My first and only assignment was a 39-year-old alcoholic who has not reached absolute bottom yet and who is still proud of his addiction." (This offender was apparently the one who complained about not being allowed "a mistake.") Another mentor felt that "My experience was that parolees saw me because they felt they had to do so. I felt I had some good contacts and could help them get on track. One essentially got lost, and another was going to call me after he got through taking some exams. I think he would have called me if he really wanted to see me." This confirmed the experience of another mentor: "The two I worked with were very pleasant to work with, but I came to the conclusion that they were seeing me only because they were expected to do so." One specifically recommended that ODOC put in more time educating offenders as to the importance of what the mentors offered: "Staff should prepare parolees for seeing mentors and help them develop some expectation that folks are available to help them develop life goals, etc."

Other mentors picked up on the theme of inadequate staff participation. Some blamed the lack of ODOC training of volunteers. Said one, "My limited experience with the program leads me to believe that there are some basic factors which need to be clarified for those who volunteer." Another complained that "Major volunteers are not adequately trained to help parolees to seek a higher quality of life." Echoed another, ". . . have adequately trained staff to supervise volunteers. Volunteers need to understand their roles with the department and their parolees." Yet another spelled it out: "It appears that the parole officers have a heavy workload and little time to spend with their untrained volunteers. The role of the volunteer is unclear: Is he/she to assume the role of a parole officer? What supervision should be provided and by whom? What is the guideline for the amount of contact which the parolee and volunteer have?" In fairness to ODOC staff, however, the ODOC respondents expressed similar concerns, indicating that responsibility for this particular problem may have rested above the operational level.

A few mentors questioned the goals of the program as practiced. One complained that "It appears that the emphasis is on forcing people to stop being a criminal instead of helping them to consider different alternatives for getting fulfillment in life." Another "assumed" that the program&'s intent was "to rehabilitate offenders." If that were the case, then ODOC should help volunteers to "learn how to develop a trusting relationship with parolees that would lead to their seeking help in setting life goals and find ways of achieving them." Obviously, the act of "assuming" indicates that the mentors, for whatever reason, had not inculcated a clear sense of either the ultimate or operational goals of the program.

Finally, while the bulk of the mentors were sympathetic to the ODOC personnel involved in the program, animosity of sorts was apparent in the responses of a few. As noted, one felt that ODOC staff were "not anxious" to see the program succeed. That same respondent later asserted that he was "not interested in the professionals simply trying to impress me with the difficulty of their jobs." To the extent that perceptions of this "wall" between the mentors and ODOC personnel were shared, even if unexpressed, then the negativity would clearly have affected the impact of the program. When asked what changes they would recommend in the way ODOC selected, trained, and/or used volunteers or the way ODOC could have increased numbers and involvement of volunteers in their programs, this active and learned group of retirees had well-thought suggestions in light of their experience with the mentoring program. One recommended getting more mentors involved and "work[ing] them into the program gradually. Always start them out with cases that have promise of fulfillment and reward of success." Another proposed "a task force made up of a variety of professionals [to] review the problem and plan what can be done to get a viable program established. How can it be reorganized, what is the role of volunteers, how should volunteers be selected, trained, and used, etc.?"

Another suggested ODOC emulation "of other agencies which have had experience with volunteer workers for many years. HOSPICE organizations are a good example of this; the training programs they have and the contact and support they maintain with their volunteers is very productive and successful." Emphasized yet another mentor, "Publicity— publicity—publicity! State the need—explain the work—describe the ‘reward&' of the volunteer. Visit church groups, civic clubs, etc., and make the need for volunteers known to those most likely to volunteer." Clearly, the mentors had cared enough about the program and their involvement in it to analyze thoroughly what was necessary for its, and others&', success in the future.

The latter point was also reflected in answers to the last question of the survey. Only four respondents answered the inquiry as to their willingness to volunteer again, knowing their experience, if they "had it to do over," and two of those responses were question marks. The other two answers were "yes." Note that no respondent said "no." The reasons given basically reiterated the belief in the program&'s value, but also the belief that it was, at this point, not time well spent. The overall impression of all the surveys was the same: The mentors felt that the program&'s intentions were worthy, but, for various reasons, its potential had yet to be realized.

In summary, the offenders, ODOC personnel, and the mentors all seemed to view the Stillwater mentoring program positively in the ideal sense but with often serious reservations in practice. The reasons appeared well encapsulated in the comment of the ODOC official that volunteers "work well when the volunteer has a clearly defined role or duty to perform." Criticisms of the program basically centered on a perception that the role or duties of the mentor were not well explained or accepted prior to the program&'s inception. Offenders with their own concerns and interests and ODOC personnel with their multitude of pressures and priorities did not appear to be fertile ground for a program of mentor involvement that neither had heavily "bought into," no matter its potential value.

The Enid Community Learning Center

The link of illiteracy and poor education to crime had been well established (see, for example, TDOC, n.d.). Oklahoma was no exception. According to an Oklahoma Department of Corrections document, Oklahoma ranked fourth nationally in the proportion of its citizens considered functionally illiterate with over 1.25 million either below sixth grade level or marginally literate. The connection with crime was direct: 62 percent of Oklahoma inmates had not completed high school, 70 percent read below a twelfth grade level, and 56 percent below an eighth grade level (ODOC, n.d.). The effect? "If our youth do not exit the education system with the skills and abilities necessary to succeed in today&'s society, chances are they will too often wind up somewhere in the criminal justice system" (ODOC, n.d., p. 1). Not coincidentally, Oklahoma was number three nationally in people incarcerated per 100,000 population (Hoberock, 1994).

In 1992, District V Probation and Parole proposed a community-based literacy program "to meet the needs of the adult offender population in a community setting" (ODOC, n.d., p. 2). When state finances precluded regular funding, the district applied to the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council for a grant "to fund a community-based project to assess educational deficiencies and substance abuse needs prior to adjudication" (ODOC, n.d., p. 2). With matching funds from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the resulting grant funded a nine-station computer lab and salaries for a full-time coordinator, full-time teacher, and part-time teacher.

As part of the program, ODOC had coordinated its literacy efforts with other governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Enid Metropolitan Area Human Service Commission (the Metro Commission) and the non-profit Community Development Support Association (CDSA), resulting in the Enid Area Literacy Task Force. The expressed goal of the program was "to divert offenders from the prison system and allow them to remain in the community under supervision and be involved in substance abuse and/or education programs as a mandatory condition of probation" (ODOC, n.d., p. 2). The Literacy Task Force worked with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to offer "a community based family literacy center which will provide services to not only Oklahoma Department of Corrections clients, but the entire community of Enid" (ODOC, n.d., p. 3). The payoff for corrections would have been to "perhaps reduce the number of persons entering the state prison system by educating them at the community level" (ODOC, n.d., p. 3).

At that stage of its development, volunteers, as noted, were minimal in the learning center since most of the instruction was computer-assisted, allowing offenders to progress at their own pace toward completion of the GED or other educational goals. However, the use of volunteers, with the expected impact on crime through improvement of community life and services, was predicted to grow with the evolution of the CDSA&'s family center, of which the learning center was a part. Keeping offenders&' families together and helping them to survive and prosper were seen as key elements for reintegration of the offender upon release. In the meantime, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections was trying to learn how to develop effective community partnerships for programs "which could serve as alternatives to prison" (ODOC, n.d., p. 1). Determining the preliminary reaction of offenders and staff to such programs and the involvement of volunteers in them would presumably aid the future direction of all those family-oriented, community-centered efforts.

How did offenders respond to the learning center? To answer that question, we turned to the responses of 24 offenders who participated in its programs. Table 3 shows the basic demographic information on the responding offenders.

All 24 offenders were males, with a mean age of 28.2 years. Nine of those responding to the question concerning marital status were married, 10 single, three divorced, and two no responses. Eight were Caucasian-American, six Native American, six African-American, two Hispanic-American, and two no responses. Of the 20 responding, 14 offenders had children, with a mean per offender of 2.2.

Not surprisingly for participants in a literacy program, 18 respondents had less than a high school education; two had a high school diploma or GED, two some college or vo-tech, and one vo-tech certification. The crimes for which these participants were serving time ranged from bogus checks to arson to possession with intent to sell [drugs] to DUI to second degree burglary. The mean length of sentence for responding offenders was 5.95 years, with a range of 1.5-20 years; the length of time presently served at the time of the survey was 14.8 months, with a range of 1-72 months.

TABLE 3

Characteristics of Offenders in Enid Literacy Program*

The responding offenders and/or their families had received a wider variety of services from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections than had their counterparts in the Stillwater program. Seven had received literacy training, five tutoring other than literacy, five personal counseling, one family counseling, and two "other" programs. Literacy training and tutoring outranked the other programs as "most useful or helpful," again not surprising given the connection to the learning center. Counseling was also favorably mentioned.

On the other hand, mentoring and personal counseling were seen as least useful or helpful, although, note that no respondent indicated having received mentoring assistance. To make those services more useful or helpful, respondents primarily recommended providing more time for them, although, one suggested "having someone that is really interested in your well-being." Additional services that respondents would liked to have had included were better medical, job, and financial assistance to aid reintegration into society upon release. Regarding volunteers in the programs that they received, eight offenders responded that volunteers were involved "a great deal," seven "some," five "not much," and two "not at all."

On the whole, the volunteers were seen very favorably. Said one offender, "I have found out that here they care a lot more about you." Said another, "It is good that we have people that do not look down on us because of the problems we have." Even more important to one offender, "They will talk to you more like a human being and not an inmate." One stated, "How can people be so devoted or have the spare time to help people with no compensation, but it is caring and I have benefited a lot from it." That favorable attitude was also seen in responses indicating that six offenders believed "the number and types of volunteers are just right," seven who agreed "more volunteers of the same type are needed," one who felt "the number of volunteers is okay, but better [ones] are needed," three who said "the types of volunteers are okay, but more are needed," and only one who said "no volunteers are needed." None said fewer volunteers were needed. Furthermore, of the 19 offenders responding to the inquiry as to whether they would volunteer to provide services to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 10 (i.e., 53 percent of those responding and 42 percent of all respondents) said they would. Voluntarism was, thus, seen as useful among most offenders in the Enid literacy program, a good portent for its expansion into the family center&'s future programs.

The scope of voluntarism in the learning center, however, as noted, was limited. Because the learning programs were mainly delivered by computer software operated at the offender's learning pace, there was no great need for a large number of literacy tutors. The bulk of the volunteers in the learning center were clients of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) placed in the learning center and, more directly, the family center, to develop their own job skills. Thus, the "kind" of volunteer in Enid was significantly different from those we have seen in the mentoring program in Stillwater. Only one respondent to the volunteer survey in Enid could have been seen as providing the same "service/professional" activity.

Table 4 provides the basic characteristics of the three volunteers responding to the survey from the learning center/family center. All three were female, with the two responding to the question having a mean age of 31. One was single; two were divorced. Two were Caucasian-American; one gave no response. All three had children, with two having two and one having one. The range of education, unsurprisingly, was wide; one had less than high school, one some college or vo-tech, and one (the service/professional) a graduate degree. One classified her volunteer job as "basically clerical," one as "mostly clerical, but some service/professional," and one as "basically service/professional." The number of hours volunteered each week ranged from 8-20, with a mean of 16.

TABLE 4

Characteristics of Volunteers In Enid Literacy Program

The two DHS-placed volunteers learned about the opportunity to volunteer from the agency; the other volunteer learned from television. The first two volunteered because it offered "a good learning opportunity," the last in order "to educate some prisoners so they will be able to get better jobs." None of them had given much prior thought to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, although one admitted to being "kind of reluctant about being around inmates." After being involved with ODOC, two found it educational, although one concluded that ODOC seemed "to be very inefficient in many ways."

The image of the average offender in the minds of these three volunteers when they began was very consistent. ". . . all bad news, drug addicts and alcoholics and thieves in one way or another," said one. "Very evil and obnoxious, uncaring and cruel," said another. Another believed offenders would be "cruel, mean, uncaring individuals who are here because they committed terrible crimes." After experiencing ODOC and the offenders, though, the three uniformly changed their views. Now, said one, many offenders "are victims of our school systems. They have not learned to read. When you learn more about them, it is easier to understand their situations." Another stated that "there is good and bad in all inmates, and, with positive help, . . . some are pretty decent people." The last said that "a lot of those guys are a lot like a lot of people I know. Most of them are not cruel and unkind. They want to finish their time and go home to their families."

The three volunteers saw the major advantage to them in volunteering in the program to be their personal education and growth. The only "unpleasant" experience or surprise mentioned was the unwillingness of ODOC to provide glasses to a needy offender, leading the volunteer to conclude that the department was "uncaring." No major changes were proposed for selection, training, or usage of volunteers by the three respondents. However, one advised more publicity and another a guided tour when asked what could be done to draw more volunteers into the program.

All three said "yes" to the question as to whether they would "do it over." One asserted that the program "has been a very valuable learning experience for me. People need to understand more about criminals if we are ever going to change the situation of growing crime in our country." Another agreed that "it has been a very positive experience for me, both spiritually and mentally." The last agreed as to the value "because I have learned a lot about the way the ODOC works and met a lot of really good people." Once again, the concept of voluntarism was well received; it was delivery that raised most doubts.

We saw this as well in the responses of ODOC personnel in Enid associated with the learning center. Four officials returned the survey, one male and three females, one in the 26-35 years age range, two in the 36-45, and one in the 56-65 range. One had less than high school education, one some college or vo-tech, one vo-tech certification, and one a bachelor&'s degree. Of the three who responded to the question, all asserted "a great deal" of weekly contact with ODOC volunteers. They expressed concern over the negative public image of offenders as "lazy" and receiving too much in terms of programs. They also tended to believe that public involvement with offenders would have improved their image and that learning opportunities such as the learning center were potentially successful and "a valuable tool."

Unlike the Stillwater ODOC officials, the Enid ODOC personnel did not express much about volunteers. Part comes from the limited nature of the work of some of the volunteers. As one ODOC official noted, "The volunteers I am involved with do not work with offenders or their families." Another stated, "Many are hard-core unemployed, placed with ODOC by the welfare system to be trained. A very small number of them will finally become working, tax-paying citizens. Some like to work with us just to get away from their children for the day(s)." To one respondent, this reflected the view that "some [ODOC personnel] are threatened [by volunteers]." Another, however, felt that "the staff treats them very professionally and helps them learn what needs to be done so it can be completed properly."

The ODOC respondents believed that the volunteers benefited from their involvement with the department. "Their self-esteem seems to improve," said one, "and they leave knowing they have met a challenge." (Presumably, this statement applied to the DHS-sent volunteers and not to the "service/professional.") More generally, one respondent noted that "Volunteers used to be afraid to work for ODOC. Once they brought them here to see for themselves, they found it not to be threatening." Three respondents said "yes" to a question concerning whether there was an average number of months after which a volunteer may "burn out;" the mean number of months suggested was six. One respondent noted that winter months allowing no outdoor activities might be particularly conducive to burn-out.

Overall, the ODOC personnel supported volunteer use in departmental programs. Two said that "more volunteers of the same type are needed," and one said that "more and better volunteers are needed." What more could be done to recruit and retain such volunteers? Again, the time factor influenced one respondent: "The volunteer coordinators need to have time to recruit and retain, monitor, develop, train volunteers to build and keep a force of volunteers." Another cited a different need: "We are limited on resources to obtain volunteers. It is difficult to recruit from the public. Most of our volunteers come from DHS who need skills training." Another respondent simply seemed stumped by the question: "I really do not have an answer to this. Most volunteers seem to want to take inmates to church, etc. The few we get otherwise are from the welfare system." Thus, while support was there, we again saw the ambiguity which seemed to surround the roles and potentials of volunteers in substantial coproduction/coprovision of correctional services. That clearly must be overcome if the community is to be brought meaningfully into "community"-oriented corrections.

Overall, reactions of all participants in the learning center were generally more favorable than those involved in the Stillwater mentoring program. The familiar reservations toward volunteers were expressed by ODOC personnel who, nevertheless, retained support for their use under proper conditions. Offenders in Enid were more likely to have stated satisfaction with volunteers than their counterparts in Stillwater, probably due to their more relevant connection through the literacy program. The volunteers were far more satisfied with their participation than the mentors. They had clearer tasks and responsibilities and even benefited personally from their experience. Two distinct groups from the Enid community both indicated that the kinds of services that volunteers could provide were especially needed by the offenders in the program. Overall, if judged by output and levels of satisfaction, the volunteers in the literacy program seemed to have achieved a much higher level of success than in Stillwater.

SUMMARY

This study has described and analyzed participant perceptions of two volunteer field service programs in District V Probation and Parole District of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Despite many critical comments made in reporting survey results for the two programs, nothing in the study should be considered as questioning the wisdom of or need for greater voluntarism in corrections programs in the future. Perfection in operations is unrealistic, especially at the onset of a program mechanism. Enough support existed among all the participants, even among the mentors in the weaker Stillwater program, to justify continuing efforts in both programs and in the department&'s overall "paradigm shift" to increased use of volunteers to "reinvent" its service delivery.

Biography

Michael Connelly is a senior research analyst on the Oklahoma Truth in Sentencing Policy Advisory Commission and received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri.

REFERENCES

Bayse, D. J. (1993). Helping hands: A handbook for volunteers in prisons and jails. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

Fineman, H. (1994, November 21). Revenge of the right. Newsweek, pp. 39-41.

GDOC (n.d.). The AfterCARE network program facility implementation. Atlanta: Georgia Department of Corrections.

Hawk, K. M. (1993). Volunteers: Corrections&' unsung heroes. Corrections Today, 55(5), 72-75.

Hoberock, B. (1994, May 30). Oklahoma isn&'t lonely atop pile of crowded prison woes. Tulsa World, pp. 1, 3.

Lanham, R. A., Sr. (1994). Letter to the author. Baltimore: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Lawrence, D. W. (1993, October). Mentorship in criminal justice. Paper presented to the Ninth Annual International Corrections and Juvenile Justice Trainers Conference. Tulsa, OK.

Leenhouts, K. J. (1974). Royal Oak&'s experience with professionals and volunteers in probation. In G. J. Killinger & P. F. Cromwell, Jr. (Eds.), Corrections in the Community: Alternatives to Imprisonment. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Moses, M. C. (1993). New program at women&'s prison benefits mothers and children. Corrections Today, 55(5), 132, 134-135.

ODOC. (n.d.). Handbook for citizen involvement in corrections. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

ODOC. (1994a). Enid community learning center. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

ODOC. (1994b). Untitled document. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

PDOC. (n.d.). Volunteer manual. Camp Hill, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

RIDOC. (1991). Mentoring program: Rhode Island Department of Corrections. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections, National Information Center.

Scheier, I. H. (1974). The professional and the volunteer in probation: An emerging relationship. In G. J. Killinger, & P. F. Cromwell, Jr. (Eds.), Corrections in the Community: Alternatives to Imprisonment. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Smith, B. M. (1993). Probation department in Michigan finds volunteers make fine officers. Corrections Today, 55(5), 80-82.

TDOC. (n.d.). Project COPE: Community corrections education resource manual. Huntsville: Texas Department of Corrections.

Tracy, A. (1993). Literacy volunteers share a belief in rehabilitative effect of education. Corrections Today, 55(5), 102, 104, 106, 108-109.

U. S. Bureau of Prisons. (1993). A volunteer's guide to the bureau of prisons 1993. Lompoc, CA: Department of Justice, U. S. Penitentiary, UNICOR Print Plant.