Core Areas of Measurement

To align with program aspects, success rates should be measured in these categories:

A. Housing Stability

Metrics:

Percentage of residents who transition to independent housing within 6 months or a year of program completion.
Duration of sustained housing stability post-program (tracked at 6, 12, and 24 months).

Tools:

Resident exit interviews.
Follow-up surveys or case management tracking.

________________________________________

B. Financial Literacy and Independence

Metrics:

Percentage of residents achieving financial milestones (e.g., building a savings account, reducing debt, securing a credit score of X+).
Resident employment rate at 3, 6, and 12 months post-program.
Percentage of residents consistently adhering to a structured budget during the program.

Tools:

Financial tracking worksheets completed with counselors.
Monthly self-reports or automated bank statement tracking (if feasible).
Surveys measuring confidence in financial management.

________________________________________

C. Employment and Career Development

Metrics:

Percentage of residents employed within 3, 6, and 12 months post-program.
Job retention rates (duration of employment in the same position for X months).
Percentage of residents advancing to higher-paying or skilled positions over time.

Tools:

Partner feedback from employers.
Employment verification forms and resident follow-ups.

________________________________________

D. Emotional and Mental Health

Metrics:

Improvement in self-reported mental health scores (e.g., reduced stress, increased confidence).
Participation rates in counseling or trauma-informed care sessions.
Reduction in mental health-related incidents or relapses (if substance use applies).

Tools:

Pre- and post-program mental health assessments (e.g., GAD-7 for anxiety, PHQ-9 for depression).
Session attendance logs.

________________________________________

E. Recidivism Rates

Metrics:

Percentage of residents avoiding rearrest within 6, 12, and 36 months post-program.
Average time to first re-offense compared to state averages.

Tools:

Partnerships with probation officers or access to public criminal databases.
Resident follow-ups and self-reporting (anonymized for ethical purposes).

________________________________________

F. Community Reintegration

Metrics:

Formation of positive social support networks (measured via surveys).
Resident perception of acceptance and connection to the community.

Tools:

Community outreach
Surveys or interviews with residents and community members.

________________________________________

2. Success Across Specific Program Phases

Since the Schofield Protocols are phased, each phase can have unique success measures:

Acclimation and Decompression:

Metrics: Adjustment success (percentage of residents completing this phase without violations).

Tools: Weekly staff assessments; resident self-reports.

Onboarding and Core Values:

Metrics: Participation rate in nightly readings and discussions; comprehension assessment scores.

Tools: Pre- and post-session quizzes or journals.

Financial Literacy:

Metrics: Budget adherence rate; completion rate for financial milestones (e.g., emergency fund built, savings target met).

Tools: Tracking sheets, monthly staff reviews.

________________________________________

3. Setting Benchmarks and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)

To define “success,” you’ll need realistic benchmarks:

Short-Term KPIs (During Residency):

• 90% of residents complete the "Acclimation and Decompression" phase without incidents.

• 80% build an emergency savings fund during the program.

• 75% achieve consistent employment before graduating.

Mid-Term KPIs (6-12 Months Post-Program):

• 85% maintain stable housing.

• 70% retain employment.

• 50% report improved mental health or financial literacy.

Long-Term KPIs (1-3 Years Post-Program):

• 40% reduction in recidivism compared to Delaware’s average rate.

• 60% of graduates maintain financial independence (e.g., no high-risk debt).

• Significant reduction in reliance on public resources (e.g., shelters or emergency aid).

________________________________________

4. Ethical Considerations

As a research-focused program, ethical considerations are vital:

• Privacy: Ensure anonymity in tracking criminal justice or financial data.

• Informed Consent: Residents must know how their data will be used and agree to participate.

• Transparency: Share aggregate results with residents and stakeholders to demonstrate progress.

________________________________________

Conclusion

The Schofield House Initiative represents a significant opportunity to bridge critical gaps in Delaware’s social safety net. Stakeholders are invited to collaborate, invest, and support this initiative to foster a more equitable and thriving community. Together, we can make the Schofield House a beacon of hope and transformation.

Flowchart: Navigating the Program – Success vs. Recidivism

Top Node: Common Origin

Jordan enters the program feeling uncertain about the process.

(Both paths begin here.)

Path A: Success Path (Commitment and Growth)

1. Node 1: Initial Decision Point

Does Jordan choose to engage with the program’s rules and activities?

o Yes → Moves to Node 2 below.

o No → Moves to Path B, Node 1: Resistance.

2. Node 2: Engagement in Program Activities

Jordan attends required sessions (e.g., therapy, skills workshops) and participates.

o Outcome: Jordan builds trust with staff and peers and starts to feel empowered.

o Next Step → Node 3: Overcoming Conflict.

3. Node 3: Overcoming Challenges and Conflict

When a conflict arises with peers or staff, does Jordan handle it constructively?

o Yes → Jordan uses emotional regulation tools and staff support to resolve the issue.

▪ Outcome: Jordan learns from the experience and develops resilience.

o Next Step → Node 4: Meeting Benchmarks.

4. Node 4: Meeting Program Benchmarks

Jordan actively works toward and achieves program goals, such as:

o Completing therapy sessions.

o Participating in job readiness training.

o Demonstrating emotional growth and self-awareness.

o Outcome: Progress is recognized by staff, and Jordan gains confidence.

5. Node 5: Graduation and Reentry

Jordan graduates successfully and transitions back into society, achieving:

o Independent living.

o Stable employment or education enrollment.

o Positive relationships with a support system.

o Final Outcome: Jordan achieves long-term stability and personal success.

Path B: Failure Path (Resistance and Recidivism)

1. Node 1: Resistance

Does Jordan resist program rules and expectations?

o Yes → Jordan skips therapy sessions, avoids group activities, and disengages.

▪ Outcome: Staff issues warnings, but Jordan remains defiant.

2. Node 2: Conflict Escalation

When faced with conflict, does Jordan react impulsively and escalate the situation?

o Yes → Jordan lashes out at peers or staff, isolates themselves, and refuses to

communicate constructively.

▪ Outcome: Relationships with peers and staff deteriorate, causing further

isolation.

3. Node 3: Continued Defiance and Rule-Breaking

Does Jordan double down on negative behaviors (e.g., skipping curfew, sneaking out,

or breaking rules)?

o Yes → Jordan continues avoiding responsibilities and engaging in destructive habits.

▪ Outcome: Jordan fails to meet program benchmarks and loses trust with

staff.

4. Node 4: Exclusion from the Program

After repeated warnings and noncompliance, Jordan is removed from the program.

o Outcome: Jordan loses access to the program’s support and resources.

5. Node 5: Recidivism

Without the program’s guidance, Jordan falls back into old habits and faces:

o Unstable housing.

o Reconnection with negative influences.

o Legal trouble (e.g., probation violations, arrests).

o Final Outcome: Jordan becomes trapped in a cycle of recidivism.

Feedback Loop Opportunities

1. Node 1 in Path B (Resistance):

Feedback Loop: “Staff intervenes to reframe therapy or program rules as tools for

success.”

If Jordan responds positively, redirect back to Path A: Node 2 (Engagement).

2. Node 2 in Path B (Conflict Escalation):

Feedback Loop: “Jordan is given a chance to repair relationships after conflict.”

If Jordan takes responsibility, redirect to Path A: Node 3 (Overcoming Challenges).

The Conscious Compass

The Conscious Compass:

A Tool for Trauma Discovery and Emotional Intelligence Training

The Conscious Compass is an innovative diagnostic tool designed to map and identify

emotional states, providing actionable insights for trauma discovery and healing.

Structure and Purpose:

• A grid-based system maps users’ emotional tendencies along two axes:

o Fear (Surface Consciousness) ↔ Love (Subconsciousness)

o Apathy ↔ Empathy

• Four quadrants represent distinct emotional states:

o Guarded Survival (Apathy + Fear)

o Hyper-Awareness (Empathy + Fear)

o Calm Resilience (Apathy + Love)

o Open Heart (Empathy + Love)

Practical Applications:

• Residents respond to prompts designed to assess their emotional state, enabling staff

to tailor interventions.

• Provides a visual, accessible way for individuals to engage with complex emotional

dynamics.