By Eve Tailor and Dan Jones

Numerous prisons, charities, and prison education providers deliver peer mentoring schemes relating to education, skills, and work (ESW). Where successful, these schemes are viewed as significant in the delivery of ESW and have been highly praised by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted. However, practice is inconsistent and there is limited evidence about which delivery models are most successful. The rationale for undertaking this research was to understand effective practice in ESW peer mentoring in more detail, including the functioning of these schemes. The findings from this study will be used by the HMPPS Prisoner Education Service team to inform ESW peer mentoring policy development.

Findings are based on 48 qualitative interviews with mentees, mentors and ESW staff members across 5 male prisons in England in April and May 2023.

1.2 Key Findings

A variety of mentoring schemes operate in ESW within men’s prisons. The setting, structure, purpose, and formality of schemes explored in this study vary significantly. For example, formalised schemes had structured mentor/mentee relationships and clear staff oversight. These schemes tended to focus on skill development, such as reading. Less formalised schemes often had 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.

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 to effective practice identified by participants in this study included:

• 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.

Participants identified a range of benefits and drawbacks associated with ESW peer mentoring. Benefits included improved staff-prisoner relationships and the development of soft skills such as communication and learning new skills.

Drawbacks identified by participants included mentors having to deliver mentoring during association and losing their ‘down time’, becoming demoralised by the lack of engagement, and previous poor experiences of mentoring being “off-putting” for future participation in schemes.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2024. 41p.

By Catherine Flynn and Kathryn Gor

This report presents the findings of consultations held with affected children aged between 11 and 15 years old who have a parent in prison. It highlights the lack of research and policy attention given to this disadvantaged group and seeks to contribute to a stronger evidence base for future policy decisions by sharing their experiences.

An estimated 40,000 children in Australia have a parent in prison on any given day. Despite this, only three studies have heard directly from children of prisoners in the past decade and Australia currently has no guidelines around supporting children during the time of parental arrest.

Findings

1. Children largely rely on informal family supports, but there are frequently limitations on support available.

2. Teachers have the potential to be strong supporters of children who experience parental imprisonment, but need improved knowledge and skills.

3. Adults in the justice system are largely absent from children’s view.

4. The normal activities and experiences of childhood remain important to children when they have a parent in prison.

5. Children desire respect for their privacy.

6. Children want their own needs and rights to be recognised and responded to.

Melbourne: Monash University 2024. 53p.

By Megan Denver, Ben Struhl

The project that is presented in this report aimed to conduct process, impact, and cost-effectiveness evaluations for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MA DOC) and the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) program. The project was based on three main research questions: (1) which components of the HCSO program are fully and faithfully implemented, and which aspects contain challenges for staff participants and residents? Which parts of HCSO’s model are likely contributing to any detected causal effects? (2) Does the step-down re-entry program improve reintegration preparedness and recidivism relative to the traditional re-entry pathway? And (3), is the jail step-down program cost-effective relative to housing the same people in prison? The paper describes the research design, methods, and analytical and data analysis techniques, and notes the expected applicability of the research for policymakers in different jurisdictions. Appendix A discusses things to consider when developing a step-down program, and Appendix B provides cost estimates excluding statutorily required programs.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University, 2024. 46p.

By Ryan Shanahan

This report presents the results of a rigorous evaluation of Restoring Promise, which is an initiative that creates prison housing units grounded in human dignity for young adults, ages 18 to 25, that operate with re-trained staff, trained mentors who are older adults serving long- or life-sentences, and developmentally appropriate activities, workshops, and opportunities for young adults. The evaluation reflects two studies: the first is a study of Restoring Promise in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) and the second is a study of Restoring Promise across five housing units in partnership with three corrections agencies. The first study utilizes a randomized controlled trial (RTC) to understand whether and by how much Restoring Promise reduces young adults’ incidences of violence and misconduct, comparing outcomes for two groups of young adults who applied to live on a Restoring Promise housing unit. The second study of Restoring Promise across the five housing units uses latent class analysis (LCA) to compare responses to the Restoring Promise Prison Culture Survey (PCS) from young adults incarcerated in three different corrections agencies, living across five Restoring Process housing units in Connecticut, South Carolina, and Massachusetts. The process of conducting this research provided insights into running an effective and rigorous RCT in a correctional setting. The finding that changing the prison culture led to a reduction in violence fills a gap in the field and provides evidence to support a new, replicable model for improving safety in correctional settings. Findings showed that the results of the RCT are potentially applicable to all young adults; the approach that Restoring Promise uses has several fundamental components that are consistent across locations; and young adults and staff report similarly positive experiences, regardless of location, due to prison culture changes.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 66p.