Project ‘Peer’

Project ‘Peer’ was the first peer mentoring project approached directly about the research. I met the probation manager, who then managed the project, at a mentoring conference in 2011 and asked if they would be interested in taking part in the research. The manager of the project allowed a pilot study to be completed and facilitated links with the two volunteer managers. Eventually Project ‘Peer’ facilitated interviews with six volunteer mentors, five mentees, two coordinators and two probation officers. I was also allowed to attend a volunteer training course as a participant observer; to observe a volunteer in a one- to-one reflective supervision session; to observe a peer-led women’s group, a peer-led recovery group; and also to observe a number of volunteer recruitment interviews. Perhaps the best way to introduce the history and aims of the project is to borrow definitions from the project’s own promotional materials:

[Project ‘Peer’] started life in 2010… This was a shared vision in which volunteers became part of the support package offered to offenders…. Our Mentors will act as experienced guides, trusted allies and advocates whilst encouraging pro-social behaviour modelled on their own (Project ‘Peer’ Flyer, 2012).

This project came into being following an informal discussion between a local Probation Service Manager and one of her previous supervisees, who was at that time attending a local training provider with a view to becoming a volunteer in some capacity. Both shared

94

a belief that people with personal experiences of the criminal justice system had something unique to offer in terms of provision; and that this perspective was often missing from Probation Services. As a result the supervisee, along with another ex-service user, worked with the probation manager to bid for grant funding from the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP). The vision for their proposed project was that it should influence and inspire:

Peer mentors have themselves successfully overcome problems with criminal behaviour, relationships, finances and lack of routine and structure. As a result they are in an ideal position to act as role models. [They help] to establish hope and the belief that recovery is both possible and desirable (Project ‘Peer’ Funding Proposal, 2011: 3).

Funding was secured for one year on the proviso that the Probation Service initially had managerial oversight. Whilst the manager who supported the application had strategic control, the project’s day to day management was the responsibility of two salaried coordinators, one of whom had a history of substance addiction and the other had a criminal history punctuated by periods of imprisonment since childhood. They were given an office within the Probation Service, which they shared with a local drug recovery charity working with probation clients. The probation manager and probation officers explained how this arrangement caused significant unease initially, given that the two new staff members potentially had access to records of people in the area where they themselves had previously been criminally active or in recovery. Both the probation manager and mentoring managers describe a difficult early ‘bedding in’ period where the new staff had to gain the trust of their colleagues and their manager had to carry the risk of

95

confidentiality breaches or ‘things going wrong’. By the time my fieldwork commenced, however, the mentors had been in post for twelve months. All of the above parties perceived that the peer mentoring service was now fully embedded and it certainly appeared that the mentoring managers were regarded as trusted colleagues by probation staff.

Project ‘Peer’ was staffed by a team of twenty five to thirty volunteer mentors, many, but not all of whom had a history of involvement in the criminal justice system. This was because of a slight shift in approach that occurred when the project started delivering work:

In the past I’ve felt that experience [of offending] would count for most, but from the last two years I’ve kind of learned that that is not necessarily the case, just being genuine and sincere is more important, but yeah a mixture of both, depending on the individual needing a mentor (Adam, mentoring coordinator).

The original intention to only recruit volunteers with personal experience of drugs or crime shifted to also include skilled volunteers from a variety of backgrounds. The project therefore encouraged applications from volunteers with criminal histories and from interested community members without previous convictions. This was because a genuine commitment to clients came to be seen as important as having shared similar experiences. Project ‘Peer’ offers a service to men and women involved with offending or drug and alcohol misuse. Mentee referrals are accepted from the Probation Service, drug and alcohol services and other local health and voluntary agencies. They also accept self-referrals. Most volunteers offer a one-to-one mentoring service to clients, whilst others offer peer support in group settings (such as the Probation Service drop-in, women’s group and

96

recovery groups). One to one mentors have monthly individual supervision with a named coordinator and have access to a monthly peer supervision group. Group volunteers are supported in their practice by fellow peer mentors and have access to monthly group supervision.

During the fieldwork phase, Project ‘Peer’ was funded (for twelve months) by the local CDRP. However they were seeking grant funding from other sources including the National Lottery, in order to operate as a community interest company (CIC) when CDRP funding ended. Project ‘Peer’s’ coordinators were also in the process of copyrighting their training documents in order to offer a peer mentoring training and consultancy package that criminal justice services in other areas would be able to buy in. They were acutely aware of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda and their need to be able to compete within a ‘market’ of criminal justice. As a result the coordinators explained that they were going to write business management roles into their bid in addition to their existing volunteer coordinator roles. Their feeling was that they would be unable to operate on a competitive basis with the informal peer led, statutory supported approach they had taken to date.