A key feature of many of the mentoring services reviewed was the use of volunteers as mentors. Volunteers have been highlighted as having the potential to provide mentoring support to women who offend in Scotland (Angiolini et al. 2012) and are increasingly being utilised by third sector organisations to provide services such as mentoring during a time when resources are limited and frequently being directed to those who pose a ‘higher risk’ to society (Brown and Ross 2010a). However there is also research that suggests a significant involvement of paid workers, even in mentoring schemes that claim to be run by volunteers (Hucklesby and Wincup 2014). Although volunteers are commonly used in the criminal justice system, there has been little research undertaken to show the impact of volunteering.
Benefits of volunteering have been reported for both the volunteer and the service user in the criminal justice system. For the volunteer these have included: learning how to accept others without judgement, (Paine et al. 2007) forming friendships and increasing knowledge (Futures Unlocked 2011), making a contribution to the community and feeling better about themselves (Morrow-Howell et al. 2009). Service users have reported increased confidence and self-esteem because volunteers challenge the negative view they hold of themselves (Jarman 2012). Volunteers are generally seen as genuine and caring by service users because they are not paid to
work in the role (Jarman 2012). There are arguably additional benefits for the wider community of volunteer mentors in addition to the potential direct cost saving. Volunteers can challenge the views of others in the community about prisoners, increase awareness and reduce stigma (Jarman 2012).
Wilczynski et al. (2003) interviewed stakeholders of mentoring projects for young people in Australia and found arguments for and against the use of volunteers. Paid mentors were preferred by some respondents because they were viewed as more accountable and committed than a volunteer mentor. A paid position also attracted a wider choice of applicants who came from a range of backgrounds. However, a number of stakeholders noted a key benefit of volunteers as a source of positive reinforcement for the young person who already had many paid workers in their life. However, in the sample of women in the present study it is likely to be problematic to focus on self-esteem and confidence at an individual level as key outcomes because circumstances such as poverty, abusive relationships and addiction are often the main problems in the lives of these women and their low self-esteem is a result of these experiences and circumstances. In addition, the multiple issues experienced by women in the criminal justice system, as described in Chapter 2, may result in an extremely challenging role for a volunteer that could lead to low morale. That is not to say that women in the criminal justice system will not benefit from having relationships with volunteers, but they may not be able to engage with a volunteer mentor while their circumstances are ‘chaotic.’
There is also the question of whether volunteers within the criminal justice system have added value if they have a history of offending, and therefore provide an example of someone who has overcome barriers and reached their goals. In this case, there are likely to be additional barriers to volunteering. Disclosure Scotland13
checks can be lengthy for volunteers with a criminal record. A report by the Institute for Volunteering Research (2004) in the UK suggested that very few organisations had taken steps to involve ‘ex-offenders’ in volunteering, although they had addressed some of the barriers for other minority groups. When the barriers were overcome and those with a criminal record did volunteer, they experienced benefits such as a reduction in social isolation, the acquisition of new skills, increased employability,
increased confidence and satisfaction of helping others. People who have offended who have received volunteer mentoring have been divided on their preference for a mentor with a similar offending history i.e. a peer mentor (Brown and Ross 2010a). In the study by Brown and Ross (2010a), some women viewed a peer mentor as necessary for best practice while others preferred to have a mentor with a dissimilar background, allowing them to separate completely from a criminal identity and lifestyle. Other barriers to volunteering in general include: a lack of knowledge about the benefits of volunteering; low confidence; fear of being judged by others within organisations; lack of knowledge of volunteering opportunities available and inability to meet costs of volunteering such as travel costs.
Literature on peer support in the mental health sector has suggested that there are numerous benefits of peer working including income, skills that aid recovery, supervision, improvements in self-esteem and a work environment where clients can be open about their past experiences without fear of being judged (Repper and Carter 2011). Clutterbuck (2012) highlights the advantages and disadvantages of mentors and mentees having similar backgrounds and experiences. Although peer mentors can empathise with the mentee they can also find it difficult to view the situation from a different viewpoint. Two people will never react to a trauma in exactly the same way, and so assumptions should not be made about how the mentee feels. A peer mentor may also still be experiencing their own issues and require support themselves. Therefore, it has been argued that only peer mentors who have overcome their own problems should be recruited as mentors (Schinkel and Whyte 2012). However, it is not clear how this ‘stability’ could or would be measured.
One project that recruited former prisoners to work as Life Coaches was the ‘Routes Out of Prison’ project based in Scotland. An evaluation by Schinkel and Whyte (2012) explored the value of this peer support through interviews with prisoners before release and post-release. Some service users reported that they valued the advice of the Life Coaches because they had an understanding that was based on their shared experiences of offending. Many service users reported signing up for the programme because they were seeking help with employment and did not state ‘peer support’ as their reason for doing so. However, for women, the element of peer support was more often reported as their reason for signing up for participation in the scheme.
There are several barriers to the implementation of peer support both in the mental health recovery sector and criminal justice settings including role definition; attitudes of staff and concerns with boundaries. A study by Mourra et al. (2014) explored experiences of peer workers in the mental health field. Peer workers who had previous histories of severe mental health problems (with or without substance abuse) were interviewed about their experiences. Self-disclosure and sharing of experiences was revealed as an important component of the relationship. However, this presented concerns about the maintenance of boundaries between peer worker and people they were supporting. Role definition was also an issue for peer workers. For instance, peer workers described situations where they were asked to collect fast food for a client, or attend meetings on their behalf when the client was not present. The relationships were similar to friendships and many continued the relationship after the official mentoring relationship had ended (Mourra et al. 2014). Peer workers reported blaming themselves and feeling anxious when their clients experienced setbacks or what they viewed as negative outcomes such as psychiatric or drug relapse. They did report increased feelings of self-worth when their client appeared to be living more independently and taking interest in activities and they felt that their experiences were worthwhile when they saw them benefiting their client.
Incorporating peer support into a system that is formalised and has monitoring requirements such as data collection can create difficulties for the peer worker and the client, as it has been argued that equal relationships are more important for peer support than a professional relationship between a service user and a worker, therefore the collection of data and recording of information about their interactions confuses the relationship and undermines the principles of the peer support (O’Hagan 2011).
Hester and Westmarland (2004) reported difficulties for one service that attempted to set up a peer support scheme for women who were involved in prostitution. The service was aimed towards women who wished to exit prostitution, and aimed to pair women with peers who had already exited prostitution. However, the service was adapted and the peer component was removed because only one volunteer came forward and there were not enough women available to be mentors who had stabilised their lives. The organisers reassessed the model and concluded that there
However, they did have group sessions where women had opportunities to connect with peers (Hester and Westmarland 2004).
Generativity is a concept which may be associated with peer mentoring and has also been linked to desistance. Maruna (2001) interviewed ‘desisters’ who had not committed crime in over a year and ‘persisters’ who were actively involved in crime and did not express a motivation to desist. By taking part in generative activities such as volunteering or caring for others, ‘desisters’ felt that they were giving something back to society and their lives had purpose and meaning. Uggen et al. (2004) reported from interviews with people who had offended that the majority of respondents planned to contribute to the community in some way. For example, public speaking about their experiences related to offending was a common goal. Some respondents felt that it was their responsibility to make up for past mistakes through doing something ‘good’ for others. Women’s traditional gender roles involve generative commitments such as caring for children and family. The use of custodial sentences for women who have dependent children may weaken desistance through separation from children. This denies women the ability to take part in a generative process. Generative acts and their association with desistance have implications for the recruitment of ex-offenders as mentors for women and would allow women who have benefitted from a mentoring relationship to ‘give something back.’