Assistance, Support and Monitoring? The Paradoxes of Mentoring Adults in the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Mentoring has recently taken centre stage as one of the primary criminal justice 'interventions' to reduce reoffending, having grown in popularity over the past fifteen years. Its rapid growth has been driven by claims of success within and outwith the criminal justice system, leading some to argue that it has been perceived as a silver bullet (Newburn and Shiner, 2005). This article challenges such claims on three fronts: first, mentoring is an ill-defined concept with weak theoretical foundations; second, the evidence base upon which claims of success are made is limited; and third, transferring mentoring into the coercive and punitive environment of the criminal justice system results in a departure from the very principles and values which are the basis of its usefulness elsewhere. The article utilises the findings from three empirical criminal justice research projects to question claims of widespread and effective mentoring activity with defendants and offenders, suggesting instead that 'interventions' described as mentoring serve as a vehicle to extend the reach of the criminal justice system. At the end of the article we suggest that desistance theory, specifically the Good Lives Model, provides a conceptual framework for taking mentoring in criminal justice forward.

Mentoring serial and high‐risk perpetrators of intimate partner violence in the community: Engagement and initiating change

“…The focus is on what needs to be in place on an on‐going basis and in the future. The mentors seem to use a strength‐based approach (Maruna and LeBel, ), which emphasises the resources that people possess, and how they can be applied to positive change (O'Connell, ) rather than focusing on addressing deficits (Hucklesby and Wincupp, ). It was still the case that the mentors reported actively challenging pro‐violence attitudes and beliefs.…”

“…In addition, its purpose is to offer indirect support e.g., encouragement or acting as a positive role model, as well as direct support e.g., helping with housing problems or applying for jobs (Jolliffe and Farrington, ); or someone to talk to and who takes an active interest, someone to offer support day‐to‐day and who helps establish an element of structure in offenders' lives (Brown and Ross, ). Mentoring at its most basic can also facilitate monitoring the movements of offenders, and as such, mentors can remind offenders of the issues and consequences of not complying and report back problematic or worrying behaviours to any multidisciplinary team member involved with particular offenders (Hucklesby and Wincupp, ). Consequently, in relation to high‐risk IPV perpetrators, this is not a typical group‐based rehabilitation programme, but an individualised holistic intervention that combines practical support and problem solving with challenging individuals about their behaviours and attitudes in relation to IPV.…”

Politicisation or Professionalisation? Exploring Divergent Aims Within UK Voluntary Sector Peer Mentoring

“…While peer mentoring may constitute a challenge to the domination of the justice space by professional ‘experts’, therefore, it remains embedded within a wider disciplinary system, which is managerial and hierarchical. Indeed, while criminal justice regimes ‘differ from place to place, just as the ground beneath us is uneven and quietly moving’ (Goodman, Page and Phelps , p.15), there are tangible barriers to delivering interventions based upon mutual trust within ‘coercive and punitive criminal justice system preoccupied with concerns about risk’ (Hucklesby and Wincup , p.379). These tensions will now be explored.…”

The Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector: Concepts and an Agenda for an Emerging Field

“…Burgeoning literature considers isolated aspects of CJVVOs, for example in: policing (Bullock and Millie ); prisons (Abrams et al . ); community sanctions (Hucklesby and Wincup ); youth justice (Goddard and Myers ; Salole ); and victim support (Svensson ; Williams ). Rather than presenting case studies in institutional silos (for example, ‘volunteers in probation’, ‘victim support’ (Gill and Mawby )), we use cross‐cutting categories to conceptualise CJVVOs .…”

“…Hucklesby and Wincup () demonstrate widespread blurring of the roles of volunteers and paid staff in mentoring, with, for example, voluntary sector mentoring meetings being designated as bail appointments to free up overstretched statutory staff, thus becoming a breachable activity that could result in arrest. Such blurring is held to disguise enhanced control behind philanthropic agendas (Hucklesby and Wincup ), although such critiques do not justify how the State and voluntary organisations (potentially) have inherently different ways of governing (Salole ).…”