Peer mentoring is better than what has gone before

Another theme from the extant literature is that peer mentoring brings something new to the field of criminal justice, not just in terms of effects, but in terms of the actors involved and the knowledges they bring. What is more, this new knowledge is claimed to offer something expressly different to the existing forms of knowledge held by trained professionals: ‘Ex-offender mentors’ personal insight into prison life makes it easier for the young people to bond with the volunteers and provides the all-important initial hook with which to engage them in the project’ (Princes Trust, 2012: 1). Peers are therefore claimed to have a credibility that ‘professional’ rehabilitation workers may not. Indeed the Glasgow-based ‘Routes out of Prison’ project uses trained ‘ex-offenders to mentor released prisoners, precisely because they have the credibility that [workers from] statutory agencies don’t often have’ (Nellis and McNeill, 2008: xi). Moreover, peers are claimed to have ‘specific knowledge about risk behaviour occurring both inside and outside the prison, and have an understanding of realistic strategies to reduce the risk’ (Devilly, Sorbello, Eccleston and Ward, 2005: 223). Peers are therefore considered to be at an advantage over Probation Officers and related professionals because they have experienced

21

first-hand many of the problems faced by their ‘clients’ and can relate to the challenges of life after prison (Boyce, Hunter and Hough, 2009: viii).

Peer mentors are not just imagined to offer something better than what has gone before because they can bond with mentees and relate to their experiences practically, however, but also because they provide ‘inspiration and hope… proof that it was possible to move on and sort your life out’ (Boyce et al., 2009: 20). Whilst this philosophy is relatively new to criminal justice practice it has been dominant in the field of recovery from substance misuse:

It is only through recovery forums and peer-led services that people in recovery can become visible. Once these people become visible recovery champions, they can help people to believe that recovery is not only possible but desirable (Kidd, 2011: 174).

Peer mentoring can therefore result in a ‘multiplier effect’ whereby benefits that accrue to individuals from their work as Peer Advisors are matched by benefits to the recipients of their advice (Boyce et al., 2009: vi). Peers are understood as ‘passing on the baton’ (Boyce et al., 2009: 29). As one respondent in Boyce et al. (2009: 30) remarked: ‘You are giving them inspiration and when they look at you some of them can think to themselves “Well if this person can do it then I can do it as well…” (Nicola)’. This theory that people will feel inspired by the visibility of others to affect their own change is a point that will be developed further in chapter three, and indeed, throughout the thesis. The point here, however, is that we can trace within the literature a belief in shared experience as an inspirational factor.

22

Peer mentoring is not only imagined to be better in terms of what it offers potential mentees, but also in terms of what it offers to mentors and the services they work within. On a very practical level, for example, the availability of peer mentoring opportunities offers a valuable opportunity to people who often find it difficult to obtain work otherwise due to having a criminal record (Clinks and MBF, 2012; Corcoran, 2012). This opportunity to gain constructive employment is doubly important given that ‘[d]esistance requires the involvement and cooperation of the offender as well as access to “opportunities”’ (Boyce et al., 2009: 27). It is also claimed that the practice brings additional benefits for rehabilitation services, given that:

Offender mentoring… gives fiscally stretched non-government organisations the capacity to leverage the services of community volunteers as a way of providing a greater range of services… they involve relatively high levels of contact time between mentors and mentees. In contrast, the contacts between professional support workers and their clients are likely to be brief and episodic (Barry, 2000) (cited in Brown and Ross, 2010: 32).

A report by two national charities in 2012 similarly described peer mentoring as:

A support which adds value and goes beyond that offered via statutory contracts as well as the mobility aspect of mentoring support as opposed to office based statutory workers who are unable to take clients anywhere (Clinks and MBF, 2012: 9).

23

These features are argued to be particularly important for women in the criminal justice system, as mentoring may facilitate the transition from prison, ‘while also offering access to a prosocial source of support, independent from the insecure networks that may be available within the social environments of women offenders’ (Rumgay, 2004: 415). Servan and Mittelmark (2012: 254), whose research focused on women in Norway, found that their respondents unanimously ‘emphasized the importance to coping well of having some close relationships providing emotional and practical social support’. In a UK context it has also been recommended:

that women have a supportive milieu or mentor to whom they can turn when they have completed any offending-related programmes, since personal support is likely to be as important as any direct input addressing offending behaviour (Gelsthorpe, Sharpe and Roberts, 2007: 8).

It is important to note however, that whilst there are pragmatic gains to be made from using volunteers to offer such emotional and social support and indeed to fill gaps in existing services, there is an equally ‘strong consensus that volunteer labour should not substitute for paid professional jobs’ (Corcoran, 2012: 20). Indeed trade unions have expressed concern in the context of health service provision ‘that volunteers might be used to replace lower grade paid staff, or to fill gaps in the event of industrial action’ (Neuburger, 2008: 18).

In addition to offering high contact levels and creating a sustainable social support network, there is some evidence that peer mentors may be better at improving compliance with existing structures and institutions. For example, mentoring schemes were found to be

24

particularly successful ‘in reintegrating the targeted young people into education, training and the community’ (Finnegan et al., 2010: 10). Similarly, ‘retention rates were higher among the peer-mentored group than the non-peer-mentored group in an exercise program for older people’ (Dorgo et al., 2009, in Finnegan et al., 2010: 10).

It is relevant to note, however, that the literature does not wholly endorse peer-led services

as an improvement on what has gone before. Rather there are also some concerns about the

practice. Some of these concerns relate to mentoring procedures, including: mismatches of mentor and mentee in terms of expectations, gender, culture or race, a reluctant or over- zealous mentor/mentee, emotional involvement, broken confidentiality, conflicting roles of manager, assessor, mentor or obstructions from/conflicts of others, and parameters/boundaries not agreed in advance (McKimm, Jollie and Hatter, 2007: 13-14). There are also concerns that:

Taken together, the mentoring theory remains underdeveloped… The work is, commendably, multidisciplinary and, thus, draws from many theoretical perspectives… [Yet] In most instances it is not easy to sort mentoring from adjacent concepts such as training, coaching, socialization, and even friendship (Bozeman and Feeney, 2007: 735).

Mentoring itself therefore lacks a well-developed theoretical base. Other concerns relate to the charged contexts in which criminal justice mentors operate. Boyce et al. (2009) for example, highlight:

25

The potential for the Peer Advisors to be subject to bullying or pressure to traffic items such as drugs or mobile phones through the system [although they acknowledge that this] was a concern about the possible opportunity rather than a worry about the number of such incidents (Boyce et al., 2009: 11).

Nonetheless this concern was also raised by Devilly et al. (2005), who argued in their review of prison based peer education schemes that ‘clarification of the many ethical issues… needs to be addressed’ (Devilly et al., 2005: 233), issues such as professional conduct, boundaries, abuse of the system and [particular to the prison setting] ‘the passing of information and or/drugs’ (Devilly et al., 2005: 233). Such concerns highlight early on how mentors with criminal convictions are frequently perceived in terms of risk.

There were also some problems highlighted in terms of volunteering specifically. The familiar problem of inconsistent capital is cited given ‘funding tends to be short-term, “pump-priming” limiting the time for projects to become established and effective’ (Boyce et al., 2009: 22). Indeed in a recent sector survey the ‘most frequently expressed challenge was related to future funding and sustainability’ (Clinks and MBF, 2012: 7). There is also the problem of ‘access to good quality volunteer managers… and the resource intensive and time consuming duties of managing mentors’ activity and supporting them’ (Clinks and MBF, 2012: 9). It is also evident that there are difficulties in relation to ‘recruitment, selection and retention with some specific problems outlined around the CRB (criminal records bureau) clearance process leading to loss of motivation for the volunteer whilst waiting’ (Clinks and MBF, 2012: 11). Finally, but not insignificantly, there are warnings that volunteering, particularly in prison settings, can take a high personal toll with harms including burnout, post-traumatic stress, injury or even death (see Corcoran, 2012: 22).

26

In summary, peer mentoring is claimed to be better than what has gone before because mentors draw upon lived experiences, which allows them to bond with, relate to and inspire mentees in a personal way. Peer mentors are also able to offer high levels of support and, therefore, fill gaps that exist in existing services. Despite these claims of virtue, however, there are also concerns about the security of the practice, the lack of a coherent mentoring theory and the personal demands upon mentors.