Mentee and mentor perceptions of a mentoring court for high-risk probationers
| Author | Caitlin J Taylor |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550520939174 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Mentee and mentor
2020, Vol. 67(3) 214–227
ª The Author(s) 2020
perceptions of a
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550520939174
mentoring court for
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
high-risk probationers
Caitlin J Taylor
La Salle University, USA
Abstract
As part of an evaluation of the only known mentoring problem-solving court for adult
moderate- and high-risk probationers in the United States, the current study investi-
gated mentors and mentees’ perceptions of the programme. Data sources included
surveys of and focus groups with mentees as well as online monthly reports from
mentors. Qualitative analysis revealed that both mentors and mentees reported pos-
itive mentoring relationships, while mentees were concerned about issues of relat-
ability and enabling. Mentees also perceived the programme to be a sanctuary from
their chaotic everyday lives and a very new experience within the justice system.
Keywords
mentoring, problem-solving court, probation, credible messengers, procedural justice
Introduction
In recent decades, the field has witnessed a rise in a variety of problem-solving courts,
including drug courts, veterans’ courts, reentry courts and mental health courts. The
only known problem-solving court to specifically focus on mentoring moderate- and
high-risk probationers recently originated in a large, urban American city. While
other research has evaluated the effectiveness of this court in reducing recidivism
(Taylor, 2019), the current study investigates mentees’ and mentors’ perceptions of
Corresponding Author:
Caitlin J Taylor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, La Salle University, 1900 W Olney Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19141, USA.
Email: taylorc@lasalle.edu
Taylor
215
the mentoring court programme. This court, known as the Mentors Empowering Now
to Overcome Recidivism (MENTOR) programme, matches probationers with mentors,
provides case management and requires participants (‘mentees’) to attend monthly
status hearings with a judge. Using surveys of and focus groups with mentees as well
as monthly reports from mentors, the study uncovers positive perceptions of the pro-
gramme as well as suggested areas for improvement. While it may be difficult to
disentangle whether the participant perceptions are specifically about this problem-
solving court or about their mentoring relationships, the findings have both implica-
tions for procedural justice in problem-solving courts generally as well as mentoring
more specifically.
Further detail on the MENTOR programme is first helpful. Eligible participants
included males and females aged 18–30 years1 with a moderate- or high-risk
probation classification2 and without a current or former firearms, violent or sex
crimes offence. The programme recruited interested participants through two main
strategies. First, the MENTOR judges with regular probationer caseloads could
invite sentenced defendants to participate in the programme. Second, programme
staff (programme director and case manager) worked with public defenders to
identify potentially interested defendants.
Interested defendants met with programme staff to learn about the programme.
Following the approval of the probation department and the District Attorney’s
(DA’s) Office, programme staff matched the participant with a mentor. In circum-
stances in which there was not a mentor immediately available or a matched
mentor–mentee pair did not work out, the programme case manager would serve as
the participant’s mentor. Participants were required to maintain a designated fre-
quency of contact with mentors – at least two contacts per week via phone or
Internet and in-person meetings that were either twice per month for at least 30
minutes each or once per month for at least 90 minutes.
Attendance at a monthly status hearing before one of two MENTOR judges was
also required. Following a standard problem-solving court model, participants were
called before the judge with other participants observing. Participants were some-
times accompanied by their mentors and were invited to discuss successes and
obstacles from that month. The judges regularly provided emotional support and
directed the participant to work with the case manager to access social services as
needed. The judge’s comments to participants were heavily influenced by a pre-
status work group meeting in which representatives from probation, the DA’s office,
the public defender’s office and a variety of community-based partners reviewed the
status of each participant.
Programme graduation was accomplished by completing 12 months in the
programme. ‘Credit’ for a given month was earned by attending the scheduled
status hearing with the judge, communicating with the case manager as needed,
meeting the required frequency of contacts with their mentor, and remaining in
good standing with their regular probation officer (attending meetings, securing or
seeking employment and following any other special conditions of supervision).
Participants were originally granted a one-year reduction in their probation sen-
tences for successful completion of the programme. To aid recruitment efforts, the
216
Probation Journal 67(3)
incentive was later altered to cutting probation sentences in half upon successful
completion.
The MENTOR programme can be viewed as an example of a traditional
problem-solving court. Based on a literature search and stakeholder focus groups,
Porter et al. (2010) uncovered that problem-solving courts generally follow three
organizing principles: (1) a problem-solving orientation that focuses on individual
rehabilitation and sometimes wider community problems, (2) collaboration
between various justice system actors as well as service providers and community
members and (3) accountability from participants, the justice system and the com-
munity. As illustrated by this programme description, the MENTOR programme
embraces these principles while adding mentoring as an additional tool to solve
participants’ challenges.
Literature review
Why perceptions of criminal justice programming matter
Documenting the participant perceptions of a programme is important for a variety
of reasons. First, if programme stakeholders are aware of the perceived strengths
and weaknesses of a programme, this information can be used to improve the
programme. Such programme improvements can have implications for the recruit-
ment, retention, and success of future programme participants. For example, if a
programme believes that the provision of emotional support is a key factor in
keeping participants in the programme, but programme participants themselves do
not perceive the programme to be sufficiently providing emotional support, then this
finding could be useful insight into high programme dropout rates.
Second, the concept of procedural justice indicates that positive participant
views of a programme should be conceptualized as a key measure of success for
criminal justice programmes because they may predict a variety of positive out-
comes. The literature on procedural justice finds that people are more likely to follow
the rules when they perceive those rules to be imposed in a fair and legitimate
manner (Bottoms and Tankebee, 2012; Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Huo, 2002). In other
words, participant perceptions of how criminal justice programmes are imple-
mented can help to predict the outcomes those programmes generate. For the
purposes of this study, if participants perceive the policies and procedures of the
MENTOR programme to be applied in a fair and just manner, they may be more
likely to follow the rules of the programme, including steering clear of new criminal
activity.
Third, considering concerns raised about net-widening in other problem-solving
courts (Gross, 2010; Spinak, 2010), an exploration of mentor and mentee per-
ceptions of the programme is particularly warranted. While the programme offers
participants a substantial reduction in the length of their probation upon successful
completion, it is possible that the additional programme requirements unin-
tentionally increase participants’ engagement in the justice system. Mentors and
Taylor
217
mentees can provide insight into whether the advantages of the programme may
outweigh the disadvantages.
Existing research on...
To continue reading
Request your trial