Exploring the experiences of ex-offender mentors
| Author | Laura Kavanagh,Jo Borrill |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550513502247 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Exploring the
60(4) 400–414
ª The Author(s) 2013
experiences of
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550513502247
ex-offender mentors
prb.sagepub.com
Laura Kavanagh
University of Westminster
Jo Borrill
University of Westminster
Abstract
Research suggests that mentoring may facilitate offender rehabilitation. Less is known
about the impact on mentors, especially those who are ex-offenders. This study uses in-
depth interviews with eight ex-offender mentors to explore the processes through
which such schemes can be effective. Four key categories emerged: self-satisfaction;
mutual benefit; mechanisms underlying success; and negative aspects of mentoring.
Mentoring was experienced as a rewarding and mutually beneficial career which may
reduce the social stigma of being an ex-offender. Challenges for mentors included
dealing with failure or frustration and managing risk. Findings suggest that participa-
tion in mentoring schemes should be voluntary rather than compulsory and future
schemes should consider employing ex-offenders as mentors and role models, to ben-
efit from their lived experience, despite the barriers and challenges involved.
Keywords
desistance, disadvantage, effective practice, employment, voluntary sector
Introduction
Strategies to prevent re-offending have focused primarily on interventions in early
life (Farrington et al., 2006) and cognitive-behavioural programmes for adult
Corresponding Author:
Jo Borril , University of Westminster – Psychology, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, United
Kingdom.
Email: j.borrill@westminster.ac.uk
Kavanagh and Borrill
401
offenders (Hollin and Palmer, 2006). Studying ex-offenders who desist from crime
can also provide insight into how to reduce re-offending (Kazemian, 2007). Desis-
tance has been linked to the age-crime curve (Jolin, 1985), and the interaction of
biological and environmental influences (Sutton, 1994). Data from longitudinal
studies has also suggested that employment, education and positive relationships
can be particularly significant in desisting from crime (Farrington, 1992). Commu-
nity interventions such as offender mentoring schemes try to incorporate all these
variables into their services.
Mentoring offenders is a topical area, with the current focus on replacing short
prison sentences with community sentences, and developing new strategies to work
with offenders. Research into mentoring with offenders is very limited, although
preliminary findings from non-offender populations suggest that the mentoring role
can be very fulfilling and rewarding. Ragins et al. (2000) found that the quality of
the relationship formed between mentor and mentee in a work environment was the
most significant factor in success. Philip and Hendry’s (2000) study of adults men-
toring young people (including homeless adolescents) suggested that mentors felt
that they gained a deeper understanding of their own problems and past difficulties
through mentoring others and building relationships with others from different back-
grounds and age groups. Mentoring helped them develop more advanced social
skills, leading to a feeling of being ‘exceptional adults’ who could offer social sup-
port to those in need. Mentees reported that being free to choose whether or not to
participate in mentoring helped to develop good relationships with the mentors, in
comparison with the teacherpupil relationship they had experienced at school
(Philip and Hendry, 2000).
A review carried out by Jolliffe and Farrington for the Home Office (Joliffe and
Farrington, 2007) found mentoring to be a key factor in reducing offending
behaviour in seven of the 18 studies included. However they also highlighted the
limitations of the research, including difficulties in measuring the data and limited
sample sizes. Using a method of rapid evidence assessment on the 18 studies, they
concluded that mentoring schemes result in a reduction in re-offending of 4 to 11 per
cent dependent on the method used. The programmes that were more successful
spent more time with their clients in general and mentors met with their clients at
least once a week. These more successful programmes adopted a multi-modal
approach to mentoring, supporting clients’ needs when released from prison and
helping to modify clients’ behaviours, providing employment opportunities or
encouraging them to enter education. A different type of offender mentoring is the
Samaritans’ Listening scheme, introduced into prisons in England and Wales in
2004, where offenders are offered a chance to train as a peer mentor to other offen-
ders who are experiencing emotional difficulties, especially risk of self-harm or sui-
cide (Snow, Towl and McHugh, 2000). ‘Listeners’ support offenders who are
experiencing difficulties, whilst also helping the mentor to develop new skills that
may assist them in the future (Farrant and Levenson, 2002).
The Ministry of Justice paper ‘Breaking the Negative Cycle: Effective Punishment,
Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders’ (Ministry of Justice, 2010) emphasized
the need for new approaches to reducing re-offending. An example of a new
402
Probation Journal 60(4)
intervention which has already been implemented is ‘The One’ Service run by the
charity St Giles Trust (formerly Camberwell Samaritans). At present a third of St
Giles Trust employees are ex-offenders working as mentors/peer advisers offering
support to offenders in prison, homeless people or youths involved in gangs. ‘The
One’ Project is a tailored service for offenders serving a sentence of 12 months
or less at HMP Peterborough. It was developed from the peer advice model at HMP
Wandsworth and is the first pilot scheme introduced using the Social Impact Bond,
in which private investors put money into the project and are reimbursed by the Gov-
ernment if the scheme is successful in reducing re-offending. The current research
study focuses particularly on a successful project (SOS) which has been running
at St Giles Trust for five years. The project is managed by an ex-offender and trains
and employs ex-offenders as mentors. This holistic service mentors offenders in
prison and/or after release, providing opportunities to train and obtain an NVQ,
assistance with housing needs and advice about employment. SOS has helped
almost 400 clients to date and their re-offending rate of 8 per cent (after 612
months of mentoring ) compares very positively with national re-offending rates.
The aims of the current study were therefore to explore what ex-offender mentors
felt they gained from their experiences of mentoring, what they perceived as the
positive and negative aspects of the role of mentor, and what factors they saw as
contributing to the effectiveness of the schemes in reducing re offending. The wider
purpose was to use these findings as guidance for those planning similar schemes
and considering recruiting mentors.
Method
Participants
Eight male ex-offender mentors from St Giles Trust in Camberwell, London, were
selected for interview. Participants (average age 36) had all previously served time
in prison but were now desisting from crime and had been mentoring offenders for
at least two years. Six participants were employed full-time and two were volun-
teers. The participants were recruited for the research study by the SOS project man-
ager and represented mentors from a range of projects within the organization. As
ex-offender mentors, all participants had completed the NVQ level 3 in Advice and
Guidance. Those in full-time employment had applied and been successfully inter-
viewed for the post of mentor. All ex-offender mentors received monthly supervision
from their managers.
Data collection and analysis
The interviews were semi-structured and questions were open ended to enable par-
ticipants to talk freely. Most participants were open about their personal experi-
ences of offending although one did not disclose his experience of prison until
after the interview. Interviews focused on mentoring experiences and lasted approx-
imately one hour ; they were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded
Kavanagh and Borrill
403
Table 1. Key categories and sub-categories.
Self satisfaction
Mutual benefits
Success factors
Negative aspects
Empowering
Interpersonal skills
Mentors and mentees
Demanding and risky
as ex-offenders
Emotionally rewarding Building relationships Voluntary participation Frustration when
and giving back
mentees fail
Increased self-esteem
Reinforces change
Barriers that affect
ex-offenders.
using line by line coding and interpreted...
To continue reading
Request your trial