Introductory comments
This study was conceived and designed following the findings from studies 1 and 2. It became evident across the first two studies that while peer-support appeared to provide many benefits for participants, there were wider structural properties that required explicit exploration. Being a peer-supporter in prison seems to provide a chance for prisoners to create more positive and constructive environments for themselves. They are able to continually enact prosocial attitudes and behaviours through their roles and energise narrative shifts underpinned by redemption scripts (ultimately ‘feeling cleaner’).
These personal agency-centric inputs were invaluable for peer-supporters, but there were some allusions to broader environmental and institutional factors influencing peer-support in prisons. These related to how other prisoners and staff view peer-support, and how the type and regime of a prison
192
can affect how peer-support programs run. To be able to comment fully on the potential utility of peer-support in prison, there was a need to understand these factors further.
As such, this chapter explores the attitudes that prisoners have regarding the status of peer-support in prisons, its shortcomings, and the wider problems with rehabilitation ideals and how these interact with peer-support are unpacked. It also explores participants’ views of rehabilitation generally, and where peer-support fits with their understandings of what it is to be rehabilitated. This analysis is interweaved with literature related to the wider organisational, institutional, social, and political issues facing the rehabilitation of offenders. As such, the analysis in this chapter discusses issues relating to the importance of prisoners owning their own rehabilitation (Blagden, Perrin, Smith, Gleeson, & Gillies, 2017), the importance of prisoners not feeling disenfranchised from the creation and maintenance of their environment (Dhami, 2005; Juliani, 1981), and the implications more generally of prisoners being included in the academic and policy discourse surrounding imprisonment and rehabilitation (Dhami, 2005; Erez, 1987).
It is hoped that by the end of this chapter, which presents the final research study in this thesis, peer-support programs in prisons will have been evaluated both from a personal agency point of view (i.e. what it means to prisoners), and a structural point of view. This chapter is primarily concerned with the latter; how the structural properties and implications associated with peer-support interact with those who experience it, and what this can mean for the utility of peer-support in the broad context of offender rehabilitation. Utility in this regard ultimately hinges on prison governors, practitioners, and policy makers considering the recommendations of the experts – those serving time and undergoing the interventions and programs that others think are best for them. This final study seeks to offer such insights.
Participants
In this study, a subset of participants from both HMP Lowdham Grange in study 1 and HMP Whatton in study 2 took part in follow-up interviews approximately 8 weeks after initial interview. This subset
193
was selected through a convenience sampling strategy which aimed to capture the range and diversity of the participants in terms of demographic characteristics, peer-support role, and offence type. The reason for not including participants from HMP Brixton and HMP The Mount in this subset was due to feasibility and access issues which meant that participants from these sites could not be re-contacted.
Therefore, the final sample size for this study was 15, which is considered more than satisfactory in terms of the method of analysis used on the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As with studies 1 and 2, data collection was facilitated by the Safer Custody departments within both sites. Naturally, all participants fell under the same inclusion criteria (possess 6 months or more experience, be active in their peer-support roles, and have served a total of two years in prison). The peer-support roles had not changed between the interview time points, and all participants held the same roles and statuses as they did at initial interview. Again, no benefits were offered in exchange for participation, which was purely voluntary. Demographic information is presented in table 8.
Table 8: Study 3 participant information
Pseudonym Role* Prison** Age Offence details Sentence (years)
Time served (years, months)
1 Jeremy L LG 58 Drugs 28 5, 9
2 Oliver ST/B LG 37 Customs & excise 11 4, 10
3 Mickey ST/B LG 45 Attempted Murder 13 5, 6
4 Imran ST LG 35 Drugs 15 4
5 Nikita ER LG 40 Kidnap 11 3
6 Jackson B LG 34 Murder 17 8, 9
7 Sanjay PAL LG 50 Drugs 25 7
8 Joaquim ER LG 35 Attempted murder 8 5
194
9 Nova B LG 47
Murder
18 3, 6
10 Jamie ST W 64 Sexual activity with
a child
IPP 7, 6
11 Ash I W 32 Sexual assault on a
female under age 13
IPP 2, 6
12 Stewart I W 59 Rape 15
(extended) 6, 6
13 Charlie I W 56 Murder Life (99) 27, 6
14 Drew I W 33 Rape 10 5, 6
15 Gary L W 42 Murder Life (99) 23
*L = Listener; ST = Shannon Trust Mentor; B = Buddy; ER = Equality Representative; PAL = Prison Advice Line Operator; I = Insider
**LG = HMP Lowdham Grange; W = HMP Whatton
Data collection
Semi-structured interviews, recorded using a password protected Dictaphone and later transcribed, were once again used for data collection. The interview schedule took the following format:
• Redefinition process and introductory questions – an explanation by the researcher by way of recapping and closing on the purpose of the previous interview was provided, and an introduction to the purpose of the follow-up was given. Introductory questions then focused on participants’ thoughts about key terms such as ‘peer-support’, ‘rehabilitation’, and
‘imprisonment’.
195
• Views and attitudes regarding the broader notion of peer-support – participants were asked what they think peer-support is, how it works, and why it might be useful in the context of prison.
• The potential utility of peer-support in prison – thoughts regarding how peer-support can shape experiences of prison were explored. Additionally, participants were asked generally about what peer-support could contribute to the prison environment and to offending behaviour in general.
• The problems with peer-support – participants were asked to describe any problems they felt peer-support brought to the prison, or problems that prohibited peer-support from working as well as it could. Probing questions were used here to explore specific roles, and the attitudes that prisoners and prison staff had towards them.
• Implications and suggestions for policy and practice – views regarding things that could be changed were sought from participants here, and suggestions for how peer-support could be better integrated into the structure of prison were explored.
Interviews lasted 60 minutes on average, and as a rapport building protocol, no notes were taken during interview.
Analysis and discussion
As with study 1, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was adopted for analysis of the transcripts in this study. Following transcript coding and analysis, three super-ordinate themes comprised of several subordinate themes were identified. These themes are presented in table 9.
Table 9: Study 3 superordinate and subordinate themes
Superordinate Themes Subordinate Themes
196
Through the gate implications Vocational and transferable skill outputs Personal and social development Hope for the future
Stumbling blocks Questionable motivations
Balancing a complex role Overcoming negative attitudes Being an ‘Insider’
Incentivising peer-support Implications for policy and practice Assessing the value of ‘courses’
Standardisation Laying fertile ground Construing rehabilitation
Superordinate theme 1: Through the gate implications
This superordinate theme encompasses three subordinate themes that relate to the most important implications regarding participants’ lives beyond prison. Peer-support appeared to equip participants with a variety of skills that helped them to navigate the experience of imprisonment and also become better versions of themselves. However, there were also suggestions that peer-support could enable participants to feel better about their futures. While the testing ground for any constructive work in prison is based on the results it brings ‘on the outside’, there were reasons to be optimistic about the contributions of peer-support in terms preparing individuals for reintegration.
Vocational and transferable skill outputs
This subtheme is the first in this cluster to demonstrate some of the ways in which the participants in this study utilised their peer-support roles as such opportunities – in an educational capacity. This
197
section of analysis will demonstrate how peer-support roles may in fact be viewed as educational programs in their own right, or rather, self-elected opportunities via which prisoners can create and benefit from their own goals and targets.
At the minute it’s more of an experience thing for me for when I get out on my release, because I wanna do charity work and things like that. I’m doing a GCSE in Art, and I wanna use art and music in some kind of charity to…for younger adults, that haven’t got no direction, try and keep them off the streets and give them something to aim for and that. So that’s why I’m doing my degree as well in Criminology and Social Science, so I can put all these things together and hopefully be able to do something with it when I get released.../…I think prison, buddy, the whole scenario of it has pointed me in that direction, because without it, I wouldn’t have…well I wouldn’t, because without it, I wouldn’t have picked up a guitar, I’d have never done art, I’ve have never done the buddy course or done a degree. All of these things have helped me to envision what I want to do. Jackson (Buddy)
Jackson describes how his peer-support role intertwines many of the other aims he has developed during his time in prison, and in fact goes on to suggest that taking up the role was the catalyst that triggered the other positive influences in his prison life. There is a valuable experiential aspect to Jackson’s peer-support role as a Buddy, which enables him to practice a mentoring role alongside working towards a range of qualifications. Together, these targets form a desired future for Jackson, who can verbalise a clear vocational pathway that he intends to pursue upon leaving prison. This narrative emits a sense of ambition, focus, and hope for the future. Notably, these ambitions have a redemptive element to them, with Jackson discussing how he found direction and purpose in prison and now wishes to help others do the same. The Buddy role, for Jackson, appears to afford him the freedom to take stock of his position in prison, to set himself targets, and to reflect on what achieving those targets will means for his future on the outside. More specifically though, Jackson’s role appears
198
to represent a focal point, which keeps him engaged in his own development and from which he attaches other activities, interests, and aims. In a recent review of education in U.K. prisons, Coates (2016) asserts that every prison should strive to offer individualised training programs that address basic skills but that also encourage personal responsibility and emotional and social development. It is concluded in the review that a range of methods should be provided in terms of education in prison, and should include embedded learning, blended learning, and peer-led programs. Jackson’s extract is exemplary of this approach in practice; he is clearly taking personal responsibility for his own learning and development, and this appears to stem from his role as a Buddy. He is benefitting from his role as it is very personal to him and he has been able to develop further interests and targets from this. In contrast to this situation is what Coates (2016) has labelled a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and argued that such approaches will not achieve desired outcomes. It is argued that instead, a personalised approach can help individuals to understand who they are in a more rounded sense and help them to make sense of what and why they need to learn.
I think if somebody shows they wanna change by helping other people, that’s gotta be better than sitting on a chair and listening to someone talk about something. I mean, don’t get me wrong, that course could work as well, if you wanna hear it, but some people are doing it for the progression they’ll get from doing it, but they’re not gonna get anything from it. Jackson (Buddy)
Jackson emphasises the importance of showing change, not simply talking about it. He questions the motives of some people who do undertake such courses and that consequently, simply completing a program whilst in prison does not necessarily constitute change or development. Mann, Hanson, and Thornton (2010) have emphasised that individuals’ behaviours and interactions with others and the environments that they create for themselves could be as meaningful as the risk factors they may be associated with. Prison inmates who demonstrate consistency in positive behaviours, beliefs, and
199
attitudes can contribute to a protective environment in ways that might sit outside of a designated intervention but that are still meaningful in terms of reducing the likelihood of reoffending (Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010). As such, doing change and seeing skills develop from many varieties of activity can be significant markers of positive change. In this regard, upholding a peer-support role was important for participants.
It may also be uniquely important because of the fear and anxiety that often surrounds prison education or treatment programs. A body of research reports that the expectation, the imminence, and pressure surrounding “learning outcomes” and “targets” can elicit fear of failure and feelings of inadequacy in people who attend educational programs (Caraway et al., 2003; Sprinkle et al., 2006;
Martin, 2010). This is especially true for those who possess low levels of prior education attainment, which is typical of those residing in prisons (Guerrero, 2010) (as of November 2015, 46% of people entering the prison system possessed literacy and numeracy skills expected of children aged 11) (Braggins & Talbot, 2003). While participants did not directly allude to a fear of formal interventions in prisons, there was a general preference displayed for “doing” rather than “sitting on a chair and listening”. This doesn’t appear to be a new finding. A Prison Reform Trust guide on active citizenship in prison (Edgar, Jacobson, & Biggar, 2011) makes the point that many of the benefits derived from peer-support roles cannot be gained in other ways, especially the ‘hands-on’ and interactive nature of the work. By becoming ‘active citizens’ via peer-support volunteer roles, people in prison carry out meaningful roles that have a clear purpose. It is argued that in doing so, they become purposeful and develop practice skills that could project them into a better position ready for life after release. Having opted for this form of challenging and rewarding work themselves, peer-supporters in prison change their environment; they move away from being passive recipients of what the prison offers and become active participants in a more positive environment characterised by self-improvement.
I think being in prison and doing this job give you more confidence, in your communications.
Because in this job you talk a lot, you need to communicate…listen as well. This, you get to
200
learn. And there’s nothing wrong about learning. Certain things, you know you will not need them, certain things, you’ll try to use. And I think the job can be quite positive for this. Joaquim (Equality Rep)
For Joaquim, the focus of imprisonment has been to learn and he has developed confidence and practiced communication skills through his peer-support role. His mindset seems to be characterised by the belief that even the smallest amount of learning is likely to be useful, and he discusses how his role can be positive in equipping him with ‘certain things’ that he can then use. There was convergence across all participants’’ transcripts regarding this mindset: all participants spoke at some point about the skills they had acquired from their work and how they were able to utilise these ‘for good’. Many of these skills could be categorised as vocational in that they could feasibly compliment career ambitions and objectives. Such skills consisted of communication skills, becoming organised, or learning how to be more creative or reflective. Other skills could be defined as transferable: skills such as being a good listener, feeling confident around others, and developing patience. Peer-support roles enabled participants to develop and continually practice these broad skillsets, and this kept them focused on geared towards a more positive desired future.
Personal & social development
Whilst limited research has explored the impact peer-support roles on the experience of prison, there is a body of literature that associates program engagement and education in prison with enhanced prisoner well-being (see for e.g. Costelloe & Warner, 2008). It is claimed that such engagement not only helps prisoners to achieve the direct aims of specific learning outcomes, but also enables them to restore fundamental needs such as autonomy, meaning and purpose, hope, and personal agency (Blagden & Perrin, 2016; Blagden, Winder, & Hames, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It has been argued that this can provide a safer and more progressive environment in which prisoners can become more