Distinguishing peer from non-peer across the criminal justice sector: A taxonomy differentiating peer roles grounded in the insight of those with living experience of the peer mentor role in prison.

Amongst a variety of peer involvement and service user engagement roles, designed to realise criminal justice policy revolution and penal power re-alignment rhetoric, the peer mentor has garnered particular attention. What constitutes a peer from a non-peer remains undefined. Aggravating this uncertainty is a current lack of distinction made between different peer role profiles. We present qualitative residents-in-prison data drawn from an evaluation spanning four UK prisons. Residents-in-prison clearly distinguish their peers as those with living, rather than lived experience of custody. This is an original and important finding. We argue it is the shared synchronous living experience of criminal justice sanctions that constitutes the manifoldly transformative potential of the distinct peer mentor role. The Ministry of Justice's One HMPPS policy drive to consolidate practice indicates this uniquely dynamic definition of peer-ship status has implications beyond the custodial sector in which it is generated. Distinguishing between living and lived experience may have broader implications beyond the peer mentor role.

What is it about?

The study evaluated the peer mentor against other peer involvement role profiles available at 4 different prison in the UK. This study used qualitative data collection methods. Residents-in-prison clarified they perceive their peers as those with current living, not lived experience of custody. Findings identified that residents view peers as those who share real-time experiences of incarceration, an original finding that challenges existing definitions of peer-ship in the criminal justice sector. The study delineated distinct characteristics of peer support, mentor and peer mentor roles, providing a taxonomy based on this insight. The outcomes included a dynamic distinction between lived and living experiences as a basis for defining peer relationships. Additionally, the research suggested that these distinctions have implications for future empirical study designed to understanding custodial experiences.

Why is it important?

This study is important as it provides clarity between 'living' and 'lived' experience in the context of peer roles. By defining peers as those with current, rather than past, experience of incarceration, the research provides a landmark definition, to underpin all future work in this area, with particular implications for peer mentor work. This finding also has the potential to reshape peer involvement practice regarding aspirations to meaningfully engage with members of the custodial community. The implications extend beyond the prison system, suggesting new directions for wider service user engagement policy development alongside influencing how experiences of criminal justice sanctions are researched and understood.

Key Takeaways:

1. Distinct Peer Definition: The research identifies peers in the criminal justice system as individuals with 'living experience' of criminal justice sanction, differentiating them from those with 'lived experience'. This clarification is pivotal to inform and enhancing practice in this area.

2. Role Profile Clarification: The study highlights the need to clearly differentiate between different peer roles, such as 'peer support', 'mentor', and 'peer mentor', due to their distinct characteristics and implications for service delivery aims and outcomes.

3. Broader Implications: The distinction between living and lived experiences provides precise definitional classification for future studies of criminal justice sanction experience, impacting how the effects of criminal justice sanctions are understood and researched.