Context

The researchers start by noting that the setting, structure, purpose, and formality of mentoring schemes vary significantly across the prison estate. They include formalised schemes with structured mentor/mentee relationships and clear staff oversight. These schemes tended to focus on skill development, such as reading. Less formalised schemes often have flexible and less structured operation, with mentors supporting multiple mentees. These less formalised schemes often involved supporting staff to deliver ESW services. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to peer mentoring in ESW, allowing individual sites to tailor their provision to the learners at their site.

Enablers

Some of the enablers of effective practice identified by participants in this study included:

• mentors having previous experience as a mentee or mentor in other custodial and non-custodial settings,
• approachable mentors helping to facilitate mentee recruitment and effective running of schemes,
• privileges and low-risk status enabling greater access to the prison site and recognition of the hard work of mentors.

Some of the barriers were:

• regime and restricted movement preventing access to mentoring,
• limited awareness from operational staff about the purpose of peer mentoring,
• lack of appropriate space on wings to provide support,
• recruitment issues arising from stigma and lack of awareness, and
• a lack of a ‘pipeline’ for new mentors which made some schemes unsustainable.

Enablers and barriers for mentoring

Participants identified a range of enablers and barriers associated with ESW peer mentoring.

Enblers included: 

• Previous experience as a mentee or being a mentor in other custodial and non-custodial settings can facilitate more effective schemes – Experience of mentoring in different circumstances allowed greater knowledge sharing and application.
•  Approachable mentors facilitated mentee recruitment and effective running of schemes – This was particularly true for mentees who were reluctant to join schemes.
• Flexibility in delivery – ‘Red Bands’ were able to conduct mentoring more flexibly across the prison site, which gave more prisoners access to mentoring schemes.
• Recognition of hard work – Mentees and mentors discussed how recognising achievements and contributions helps keep those involved motivated.

Barriers identified by participants included:

• Regime and restricted movement can prevent access to mentoring – Incidents on wings, lockdowns, and lack of operational staff awareness of schemes can prevent effective delivery.
• Lack of appropriate space on wings to provide support – Wings often cannot accommodate one-to-one mentoring in appropriate, ‘neutral’, and private settings, as well as settings appropriate for those with neurodiverse needs.
• Recruitment of mentees and mentors face difficulties due to stigma, awareness, and attitudes – Although there are methods of addressing these issues, they often take significant time and commitment.
• The lack of a ‘pipeline’ for new mentors makes some schemes unsustainable – Some schemes were heavily reliant on a handful of motivated individuals or those with significant training and experience. Transfer or release of these individuals would make the schemes less effective.

Operational implications

The operational implications of these research findings will be familiar to readers and could be applied to many activities within prison. Tey found:

• a lack of coordination between operational and non-operational staff.
• Lack of appropriate space on the wings to provide support.
• Non-standardised or lack of accreditation for many mentoring schemes.
• Little opportunity to share best practice between establishments.

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here