The core conditions of peer mentoring
| Published date | 01 April 2018 |
| Author | Gillian Buck |
| Date | 01 April 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895817699659 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817699659
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2018, Vol. 18(2) 190 –206
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817699659
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
The core conditions of
peer mentoring
Gillian Buck
University of Chester, UK
Abstract
Peer mentoring is an increasing feature of UK criminal justice, yet very little is known about the
micro dynamics of this practice. Drawing upon an ethnographic study, this article identifies a
number of ‘core conditions’ underpinning the practice, including caring, listening and encouraging
small steps. Mentors and mentees highlight these conditions as antidotes to what they often
perceive as disconnected, unhearing and technocratic criminal justice practices. Peer mentoring
is claimed to release suffering, to unburden the self of grief and to explore new directions, given
that mentors ‘genuinely care’ and are tolerant of slip-ups. Respondents offer valuable insight
into the experience of being intervened upon and advocate for manageable shifts, which could
meaningfully improve services for a range of vulnerable and stigmatized populations. However,
the article also introduces tensions, including the expectation of emotional toil for little financial
reward and the context of an increasingly results-driven criminal justice system.
Keywords
Care, desistance, emotional toil, goal-setting, listening, peer mentoring
Introduction
In 2012 the UK government unveiled plans to transform rehabilitation by opening up the
‘market to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers’ (MoJ, 2013: 6). Peer mentoring
formed a central element of this vision, as the then justice minister outlined plans for every
prisoner to be met upon release by a mentor ‘to help them get their lives back together’,
more specifically, to make ‘good use of the old lags in stopping the new ones’ (Grayling,
2012). Peer mentoring schemes are now an increasing feature of the penal landscape.
Indeed, it is estimated that peer mentors constitute as many as 92 per cent of offender
Corresponding author:
Gillian Buck, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, Department of Social Work, University of Chester,
Warrington, WA2 0DB, UK.
Email: gbuck@chester.ac.uk
699659CRJ0010.1177/1748895817699659Criminology & Criminal JusticeBuck
research-article2017
Article
Buck 191
mentors in parts of England (Willoughby et al., 2013: 7). Despite this growth, little research
has been done in the field; that which has been done is largely functional, aiming to evi-
dence reduced reoffending rates (Frontier Economics, 2009; Social Innovation Partnership,
2012). This approach is often necessary, given that the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda
introduces plans to ‘only pay providers in full for real reductions in reoffending’ (MoJ,
2013). As a consequence, however, very little is known about the micro-dynamics of these
relationships, or indeed how they actually work to effect change. This article begins to
address this empirical gap, offering insight into peer mentoring relationships as described
by those engaged in the work. This contribution is significant, not only because mentoring
theory is underdeveloped (Bozeman and Feeney, 2007: 735), but also because it affords
those involved some authority over their own experiences, something which is often denied
to people with convictions (Ballinger, 2011).
The article contends that the three ‘core conditions’ of peer mentoring are caring,
listening and setting manageable goals. These principles were not always integral to
mentoring training, yet were recurrently claimed, in diverse field settings, to have spe-
cific benefits for people attempting to desist from crime. The article highlights why these
conditions are important, with a particular focus on the need to heal suffering, it con-
cludes by discussing the claimed therapeutic benefits of this practice and the tensions
they create within punitive and consciously neoliberal justice contexts.
Fieldwork and Methods
The study employed a rigorous qualitative design, guided by an interpretivist philoso-
phy (Bachman and Schutt, 2014), in order to consider the ways in which mentoring is
meaningful to participants. The research comprised semi-structured interviews with
peer mentors (N = 18), mentees (N = 20), mentoring coordinators (N = 4) and probation
staff (N = 2). Observations of mentoring practices were also undertaken. Participants,
whose names have been changed, were drawn from mentoring settings in the north of
England. These included a probation-based project; a care leavers’ service; a women’s
employment project; and a young women’s service. A ‘purposive sampling method’
(Denscombe, 2014: 41) was adopted in that projects were only contacted if delivering
peer mentoring in a criminal justice context. The selection of interview respondents
was also ‘purposive’ given coordinators were asked to approach five mentors and five
mentees from each project. This allowed access to experiences of both sides of the
relationship, however, it also relied on intermediaries as ‘gatekeepers’ (Denscombe,
2014: 219). The sampling method was therefore enhanced using ‘snowball sampling’
(Rubin and Babbie, 2010: 149), which locates members of the target population that
respondents happen to know.
Data were analysed using thematic analysis (King and Horrocks, 2010: 153), which
involves ‘descriptive’ coding of transcripts, interpretation and the construction of
‘overarching’ themes. Analysis was enhanced using Gilligan’s ‘voice method’
(Kiegelmann, 2009), which involves the researcher tracking their own responses to
what is being said, so that objectivity ‘becomes a matter not of avoiding relationship
but paying attention to relationship’ (Kiegelmann, 2009: 12). It was through this struc-
tured process of noticing that the theme of suffering (discussed below) came to light.
To continue reading
Request your trial