Corrections

Policy, Practice and Research

ISSN: 2377-4657 (Print) 2377-4665 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucor20

“I Know It’s Not Saving a Life, but I Know I’m Doing

Good…”: The Peer Offender Prevention Service
(POPS) at Stony Mountain Institution, Canada

Kevin Walby & Dwayne Cole

To cite this article: Kevin Walby & Dwayne Cole (2019): “I Know It’s Not Saving a Life, but I Know
I’m Doing Good…”: The Peer Offender Prevention Service (POPS) at Stony Mountain Institution,
Canada, Corrections, DOI: 10.1080/23774657.2019.1678441

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1678441

Published online: 16 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucor20
CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1678441

“I Know It’s Not Saving a Life, but I Know I’m Doing Good…”:
The Peer Offender Prevention Service (POPS) at Stony
Mountain Institution, Canada
Kevin Walbya and Dwayne Coleb
a
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; bStony Mountain
Institution, Stony Mountain, Manitoba, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
There is a growing literature on prisoner peer support and mentoring Prison; prisoners; peer
to which this work contributes. This paper examines a form of pris- mentoring; mental health;
oner peer mentoring at Stony Mountain Institution in the province of stress; fast policy
Manitoba, Canada. The Peer Offender Prevention Service (POPS)
employs prisoners to provide support and mentorship for other
prisoners throughout the prison. Based on interviews with POPS
members and the POPS coordinator, this paper examines how the
POPS initiative works and how POPS members feel about their
experiences. We show that the work of POPS members is based on
relationships, emotions, listening, compassion, and mutual aid
among prisoners, all of which tends to be inhibited by the prison.
This paper also analyzes the barriers that POPS members encounter
and the challenges that the POPS initiative faces in the prison. In our
discussion, we invoke the idea of fast policy to caution against the
implementation of such programs in situations where sufficient
resources, continuity, mentorship, and commitment are not
established.

Introduction
There is a growing literature on prisoner peer support and mentoring. Peer support and
mentoring refers to situations that involve prisoners providing support and mutual aid to
one another. In this model, it is prisoners themselves who are doing the work of
communicating with and supporting other prisoners. Buck (2017, 2018) describes peer
support and peer mentoring as entailing self-care, care for others, and encouragement.
Devilly, Sorbello, Eccleston, and Ward (2005) reviewed this literature in 2005 and found
peer support in prison has been used for HIV/AIDS and health education, drug and
alcohol addiction, and suicide and violence prevention. Scott, Harzke, Mizwa, Pugh, and
Ross (2004) similarly reflect on HIV/AIDS peer education in Texas prisons, and argue that
this work helps to raise awareness about sexual health. Collica (2010) suggests that peer
mentoring can help to create community, and solidarity, which are valuable for prisoners
trying to survive the pains of imprisonment. They found that recidivism decreased for
prisoners involved in peer mentoring (also see Bagnall et al., 2015; South, Woodall,
Kinsella, & Bagnall, 2016). South et al. (2016) argue that an underrated element of peer

CONTACT Kevin Walby k.walby@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg, Centennial
Hall, 3rd Floor, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9, Canada
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

mentoring is the fostering of prisoner relationships, a difficult feat since many facets of
prison life inhibit relationships, trust, and communication among prisoners. Little
research has examined prisoner peer mentoring in Canadian settings.
This paper examines a form of prisoner peer mentoring developed at Stony Mountain
Institution in the province of Manitoba, Canada. Housing over 800 prisoners, Stony
Mountain is a prison operated by Correctional Service Canada (CSC). Stony Mountain
is organized into maximum, medium, and minimum security units. The Peer Offender
Prevention Service (POPS) employs prisoners to provide support and mentorship for
other prisoners throughout the prison. POPS was created at Stony Mountain in
December 2009. Since the program’s establishment, the POPS members or “guys” as
they are known by staff and other prisoners have provided Stony Mountain with crisis
support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. POPS has become a resource for Stony Mountain
staff, offering support and guidance for prisoners who are experiencing distress. All POPS
members at Stony Mountain are serving life sentences.
Drawing from interviews with the creator of the initiative, prisoners who work as POPS
members inside Stony Mountain who are all serving life sentences, and former members
who are now released, this paper examines how POPS works, and its outcomes. First, we
review literature on prison peer mentoring. Second, we provide a note on research
methods. Third, we analyze the results of interviews with POPS members. We focus on
the role of relationships in POPS work. We argue that POPS is a form of prison peer
mentoring based on relationships, emotions, listening, compassion, and mutual aid among
prisoners. Finally, we reflect on the outcomes of our research and the prospects of
implementing POPS elsewhere. It is possible that corrections agencies wish to replicate
this initiative in Canada and beyond. The initiative will not be easily replicated due to
a number of factors. We caution against what Peck and Theodore (2015) call fast policy
which refers to a policy that is hastily transferred from one site and implemented in
another jurisdiction without proper support and awareness of contextual factors.

Peer support and mentoring in prison

Prison is an environment of pain and deprivation (Maier & Ricciardelli, 2019). Support is
needed for prisoners, because mental health deteriorates. Self-harm can become frequent
as distress rises and pain and deprivation set in (Fazel, Grann, Kling, & Hawton, 2011;
Suto & Arnaut, 2010). There are many ways in which support can be provided. First, one
approach to providing support and counseling is prison-based programming. This refers
to programming that the prison itself provides. Second, visitation programs can help
prisoners feel connected to family and the outside world (Duncan & Balbar, 2008). Third,
education-based programming can help prisoners build self-esteem and skills (Duwe &
Clark, 2014). This programming is organized by outside agencies. Fourth, prison-based
animal programs such as pet therapy are a way of creating situations where empathy and
care can be reinforced (Furst, 2006; Humby & Barclay, 2018). This programming is
organized by outside agencies.
Peer support and peer mentoring are other approaches that can be used. Fletcher and
Batty (2012) differentiate between peer support and peer mentoring, the latter being more
involved and longer-term. South, Bagnall, and Woodall (2017) likewise distinguish
between peer support and peer mentoring, arguing that mentoring is enduring and
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 3

affirmative. Perrin (2017, p. 40) defines peer support in prison as “a system of social and
emotional support that rests on the core tenets of mutual reciprocity, shared problem-
solving, and empathy. Peer-supporters are defined as such when they engage in mutually-
agreed problem-solving with another person facing a relatable challenge or experience”.
When referring to lifers (persons serving life sentences) engaged in such support with the
same individuals over many years, however, the distinction between peer support and peer
mentoring is blurred. Given the fact that POPS members at Stony Mountain are serving
life sentences, we would suggest that POPS straddles the categories of peer support and
peer mentoring. There is little research on Canadian examples of prison peer mentoring.
The research that does exist examines peer mentoring in women’s prisons (Delveaux &
Blanchette, 2000; Syed & Blanchette, 2000). There is no research on peer mentoring in
men’s medium and maximum security prisons across Canada. Examining the relation-
ships that POPS creates adds to literature on prisoner peer mentoring.
The goals of peer mentoring are to provide support, and to encourage healthy social
activity in the prison. This approach is innovative insofar as, for much of the history of the
prison, most administrators have treated the mental and physical health problems of
prisoners with skepticism (McCoy, 2009). Fletcher and Batty (2012) enumerate
a number of strengths of peer mentoring. First, peer mentoring seems to work because
the support is coming from other prisoners, some of whom may have earned a great deal
of trust in the prison, rather than from guards, staff, or administrators. Second, peer
mentors in prison give advice based on experience rather than policy or rhetoric. Third,
peer mentoring allows prisoners to build confidence, and skills, so there is motivation to
participate. Fourth, peer mentoring may build trust, community and solidarity, all of
which tends to be inhibited by the prison.
Fletcher and Batty (2012) describe a number of limits to peer mentoring. First, the
number of prisoners with the skills to engage in peer mentoring practices is low since
mentors require advanced communication and empathy skills that few people inside or
outside prisons have. Second, there can be few resources for peer mentors provided by
prison administrators. Third, staff may treat peer mentoring practices as security breaches
in waiting. Fletcher and Batty (2012) advocate for more use of peer mentoring practices
but suggest there are a number of institutional challenges as well. Administrators or
guards may be skeptical. Prison administrators may appear interested in peer mentoring
practices but not provide adequate training or support resources. Finally, not all penal
sites may have the organizational structure and resources to support peer mentoring.

Research methods
Research on peer support and mentoring in Canadian prisons is sparse. Delveaux and
Blanchette (2000) and Syed and Blanchette (2000) used surveys with staff and prisoners to
assess pilot peer mentoring programs in women’s prisons. This study received ethics
approval from the University of Winnipeg and also from Correctional Service Canada.
This present study used semi-standardized interviews with the creator of the initiative and
prisoners involved in the initiative inside Stony Mountain. We used interviews because we
wanted to feature the voices and perspectives of POPS members (Bosworth, Campbell,
Demby, Ferranti, & Santos, 2005). The first author conducted 10 interviews in total.
Interviews lasted from 30 to 75 minutes. Four of the face-to-face interviews occurred on
4 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

the minimum security side of Stony Mountain. Four of the face-to-face interviews took
place on the medium security side of Stony Mountain. One of the interviews occurred
with a man who had been released and was living out of province (this was the only
telephone interview). The respondents were the only possible interviewees. One interview
was with the initiative coordinator. This is a convenience sample (Creswell & Creswell,
2018), as the respondents were the only interviewees who could have participated at this
time. The interview schedule was flexible so that if prisoners did raise unanticipated issues
related to POPS the interview could go in that direction. All interviews were audio
recorded and transcribed. The first author conducted and analyzed all interviews.
Data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Themes were
derived from the dataset and not determined in advance. This is referred to as open
coding. Some of the excerpts below have been edited for clarity of expression. Typically, in
such an exposition, the author would provide a report on the ethnicity, age, level of
education, and charges of each respondent. To protect confidentiality and anonymity, we
will not provide a full demographic sketch of each respondent. Two of the POPS members
are white, one is Asian, one is Afro-Canadian, and five are Indigenous. Almost
seventy percent of the Stony Mountain prison population is Indigenous.1

Data analysis
The context: The Rock
As the oldest operational federal prison in Canada, Stony Mountain is colloquially referred
to as Stony, or The Rock, due to its austere architecture and isolating placement on a hill
in the middle of the Canadian prairies. It is a bleak place for prisoners and for staff. There
are also several gangs at Stony, and in this sense Stony Mountain is a microcosm of the
closest large Canadian city, Winnipeg. The POPS coordinator, a former guard, now works
for Clinical Services as a Mental Health Coordinator.
The coordinator designed the POPS initiative with little awareness of peer mentoring
programs at other penal sites. He did not base POPS on any common tropes in penality
such as restorative justice or therapeutic communities. He had an acute sense of the
architecture and prisoner culture at Stony based on his previous work as a guard and his
new portfolio focused on mental health. The coordinator has the support of the warden at
the prison, who had been working at the site for several years. For the coordinator, a focus
on relationships was at the core of his vision for the initiative. There are approximately six
POPS guys working per year at Stony Mountain who are responsible for the interventions
listed below. There is no quota for the number of sessions POPS members must have per
week. The POPS members make prisoner pay for their work, which in Canada is between
$5.00 and $6.90 per day. Figure 1 shows the number of POPS interventions. An inter-
vention could include anything from a 5-minute to an hour-long consultation by a POPS
member. The figures within parentheses refer to POPS interventions in segregation. The
POPS visits with prisoners in segregation are more intense for POPS members, in terms of
pressure and duration of the visit (on the deprivation of segregation and solitary confine-
ment, see Martel, 2006; McMaster, 1999; Piché & Major, 2015).
The numbers continue to rise, because therapy or therapeutic counseling is a low
priority in the prison compared to crisis intervention and assessments. It takes a lot of
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 5

2010 – 276 (20)

2011 – 466 (85)
2012 – 1447 (400)
2013 – 1521 (359)
2014 – 3502 (755)
2015 – 3682 (749)
2016 – 4612 (1014)
2017 – 4409 (759)
2018 – 4796 (1031)
Figure 1. POPS interventions.

time for prisoners to receive therapeutic counseling from staff, if they receive it at all.
POPS fills many gaps that official Clinical Services cannot address in the prison setting.
POPS at Stony Mountain arose from a sense of desperation in seeing and managing the
distress of one particular prisoner:
It would have been 2007-ish, I was a mental health officer at Stony, as well as a guard, and it
just became really apparent when, I had no resources. I had nothing and we would have guys
chronically self-harming or trying to go to segregation. We had this one guy, his big thing was
going on ambulance rides a lot and we couldn’t stop this guy. … all the suicide cells are full so
I’m just desperate. Then I thought there’s a certain lifer I’ve known for years. I’m going to get
him to go down range and talk to him. I just had a feeling it would work magic, like boom. It
was just like yeah, he’s good. Three-minute talk. Interviewee #10, POPS coordinator

POPS members work in all parts of the prison. Even if a POPS member is in medium
security, they can travel to maximum security or to segregation to consult with fellow
prisoners. POPS members move around the prison, but there are limits, especially when it
comes to the protocol for the maximum security unit:
We sit there, there’s a cage separating us, but we sit there and we talk with them. … Even at
night time, if we go there, it’s all locked down, we still won’t go on the unit. They have to
come off and go into the interview room to speak with us, and that’s just to ensure that
nobody puts information on us. Say, someone don’t like us and they say ‘okay well this guy is
coming here, POPs is coming here, coming to the bay area and passing drugs around to this
unit from this guy, to this guy and stuff.’ It’s just to ensure that nothing like that happens.
Interviewee #6

Another part of the context is the variability in the types of calls the POPS members
receive:
Helping guys to find something to hold on to and helping them get through depression.
Helping them deal with anxiety, cause we received the suicide prevention training, mental
health, we received grief training, dealing with anxiety. So we just have all these different skills
we can put into use because there’s no two situations the same. You can’t go into intervention
thinking that, oh it’s going to be the same as last time, even if it’s the same person … So you
just gotta have an open mind and be ready too. It could be ten minutes. It could be three
hours. Interviewee #2

One POPS member compared the POPS approach to that taken by staff, with a hint about
why POPS work appears to be so effective:
6 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

When staff are gone, they’re gone. The same guy that professionals sit for half an hour
or hour counselling, trying to fix. They are the same guys we are dealing with all day, all
night, all week. Psychologists, they’re not here on weekends. Interviewee #7

Motivations for joining POPS

Peer mentoring gives mentors and the people they consult a sense of purpose and mean-
ing. Part of why some POPS members get involved or are selected by the coordinator is
because they have decided to try to move ahead with their life in a positive manner, to the
extent that is possible in prison. An additional motivation for some POPS members is
redemption (Bullock, Bunce, & McCarthy, 2019; Irwin, 2010). As the coordinator noted:
It makes them feel good. I mean they are lifers, they have taken a life. … They feel shame,
I mean they feel pain because of it. They’re not going to tell anybody, but some of these guys
do and it’s sincere and they see this as redemption on their part and that’s kind of our model,
we’ve taken a life, but now we save a life. … There’s lots of different angles to it. They find it
rewarding, they like the training. I think some of them do it because they’re getting real
community-based training, they see that has preparing them for a potential job on the street.
Interviewee #10, POPS coordinator

POPS members are lifers, and they feel that after taking a life the best way to seek
redemption is to preserve or to save a life. Given the high level of responsibility and
consideration, one possible motivation is that this work may help with a parole
application:
Being involved in the POPS program is one of the reasons I am sitting here today and talking
to you on the telephone, and not talking to you from prison. It’s certainly the case that it
made my parole. Interviewee #1

Some members end up working with POPS because they are already acting in a similar
way with prisoners in an informal manner, providing helpful guidance to peers. Another
impetus is that POPS work helps other prisoners feel a little better. POPS members may
also be motivated by a sense of accomplishment and commitment:
It takes a big responsibility to be able to do this right. For the training we take suicide
prevention training which is community-based, we take our mental health community based
program and our mental health and nutrition. They’re all community-based trainings. … we
deal with guys who are suicidal right, and guys who have mental disorders … First couple
weeks it was more just finding out if this is what I want to do here with it and if I would be
good at it and committed to it. Interviewee #6

The training entails outside community service providers coming into the prison to
deliver outside or non-CSC training to the POPS members. The coordinator had to
advocate for POPS guys to receive outside or non-CSC training. This training again
may help with a parole application. Sometimes the motivations are also part of the
narratives of desistance (LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008; Maruna, 2004) that
prisoners espouse when they choose to change their lives, challenge internalized stigma,
and seek alternative identities:
I was already in the process of changing my life and getting away from the gang, so when the
POPS thing presented itself I thought of it maybe as an opportunity. … I was going to do
a trade in the plumbing area, but then I started to notice how I was being pulled into
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 7

a different field, helping people, like getting the training in and actually making a difference.
I was helping people in their lives, and I was thinking maybe I’m destined to do something
a little different. Interviewee #8

The protocol: group rules to keep POPS safe

The protocol (created by the coordinator) is designed to protect the security of POPS
members, other prisoners, and the integrity of the initiative. To gain the trust of guards,
POPS members subject themselves to searches at any time to demonstrate that they are
not carrying items deemed contraband. To gain the trust of other prisoners, POPS
members never share details of their conversations with guards or even other POPS
members. This is to ensure discretion, confidentiality, and trust. The coordinator screens
all POPS members and discusses the opportunity with them for weeks before agreeing to
begin training:
I’m spending lots of time with my guys, that’s the big thing. I don’t hire a guy cold. So I’ve
already done lots of screening, invested in that relationship, hours and hours of hanging out
basically talking and you know I’m doing my background checks. Interviewee #10, POPS
coordinator

Training involves community-based programs on mental health. The training is commu-

nity-based rather than CSC-based, which appeals to peer mentors and mentees alike.
Keeping all information confidential and building trust is a central part of the approach:
Keep everything confidential, don’t talk about it with other inmates, and in time, inmates see
that. … the more I dealt with these guys, the more status I got and the more people referred.
‘Oh yeah call XYZ, he’s a good listener, he’ll try and help you’. … I just have to be a good
listener, emphasize what they’re feeling, and I became good at it, and I enjoyed it. I know it’s
not saving a life, but I know I’m doing good because these guys are happy to see me, and I’m
letting them do their time easily. Just like be a friend. Interviewee #5

Once trust is established, POPS guys will receive calls from the same prisoners:
Once I had been doing it for a period of time, I started to get more requests to speak to
people … When you first get involved, you don’t get many calls and you don’t have people
asking for you. You have to develop the reputation, and yeah, you are the right guy, that it’s
OK to talk to you … each POP has to develop that trust. Interviewee #1

These informal rules for the group (the protocol) exists to protect POPS members from
being pressured or extorted, especially in particular units such as maximum security:
It’s all for our protection against anything that happens, so it works really well. No one really
goes on the unit, whatsoever, so that’s mainly their procedures, just to protect us from having
kites put in, right. Some guys keep putting in information, try and get their mediums stuff, so
it’s just to ensure none of that happens towards us. Interviewee #6

The arrangement may become more formal, especially for evenings and weekends if the
POPS coordinator authorizes a memo so that POPS members can visit a prisoner on
a regular schedule. The memo system helps POPS members meet with prisoners who are
distressed more often and without the prisoner themself initiating contact. For some of the
prisoners that POPS members visit they set a schedule, especially for evenings and
weekends:
8 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

For some guys, it’s hard times sitting in SEG and they’ve been in there for six, seven months
and longer periods. They’re known to self harm, so you just go down there. There’s a couple
people I’ve had memos with, where I see them on a constant basis. … It just gives them an
outlet to get their frustrations out, somebody to talk to who’s not going to talk to everybody
else. Then the minimum, it’s lots of free movement here. If someone wants to talk, you go sit
by the baseball diamonds or walk laps with them. Interviewee #2

However, it is important to reiterate that POPS members are not psychologists. They are
not full counselors. There are limits to what they can do and what they can achieve:
He didn’t create us this job just to be negotiators or to do the guards’ job … at the end of
the day, we don’t have handcuffs, we don’t have much, so we can’t go in the line of fire so to
speak and put ourselves at risk or at danger. Interviewee #9

Skills
Respondents report that POPS allowed them to build many new skills and use existing
skills as well. The main skills that POPS members use are communication and active
listening. POPS members listen to the troubles and concerns of other prisoners, and then
recount what they have heard back to the prisoners. The typical effect is a reduction of
stress. Some POPS members are already having these sorts of interactions in the prison
before they join. They were already acting as informal mentors before joining POPS:
Some of the skills I already had, it was just refining them, and being able to bring them out.
Then there’s other skills like recognizing schizophrenia and dealing with mental health. …
Really helped me at the same time, and helped them, because being in prison for a long time
you go through depression at times. Now that I know the symptoms, I’m able to catch myself
faster and say ‘I need a break’ … Interviewee #6

However, beyond the formal training there are a number of soft skills the POPS members
gain or extend as part of this work including active listening:
I’ve learned to be more patient with people. I used to brush off people’s troubles. I just wanted
to brush it off. … With the training, it helped open my mind to be more open to other people
right. I guess to actually listen to the person and see what’s wrong with them and not
necessarily help them fix their problem. Just sort of guide them so they can help themselves.
Interviewee #4

Active listening also entails positive affirmation and reinforcement. The coordinator made
sure to select community training rather than CSC training so that any sort of correctional
framing is absent in the way POPS members approach their work:
The training we get is not Correctional Service of Canada. It’s all community-based training,
so again our boss and the institution looks out for us … they will get us the top of the line
training so, I know myself and another individual in minimum who are the longest POPS
here … we must now have at least close to thirty community-based program certificates that
we’ve received and are certified in. Interviewee #9

As Fletcher and Batty (2012) note, peer mentoring allows prisoners to build self-esteem,
confidence, and skills, and this appears to be the case with POPS as well. The coordinator
and POPS members note that POPS workers have changed the culture of many units at
the prison. POPS appears to foster more humane social relations as well as trust.
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 9

Trust
Trust is the central component of POPS. Yet trust is difficult to create in the prison
context (Liebling & Arnold, 2012). Delveaux and Blanchette (2000) found that women
were skeptical of peer mentoring because they felt the peer mentors would share informa-
tion with staff. POPS members are well aware that trust is everything in their work:
Within prison culture if you are talking to the guard, people look at that as snitching on
people, but with the POPS, cause a lot of us have time in already and we’re well known by
people and all lifers so guys know that if we’re going to talk to guys, it’s all good. It’s not
leaving nowhere. It’s that trust there, and just with the reputations, a lot of guys know we’re
not going to steer them wrong. Interviewee #2

Prisoners are more likely to accept programming led by prisoners rather than staff. This is
because all information prisoners share with staff must be documented and could be used
against those who divulge such information at any time as part of disciplinary or legal
proceedings. With POPS, nothing is written down or distributed to staff. It takes patience
to build trust, so POPS members must be determined to do so. The fact that POPS
members are not staff and do not report information or findings to staff is crucial to
building trust:
From the guys that I’ve talked with and guys that let me know about it, or asked me about it,
they feel like it’s a good thing. It’s just better if they feel more comfortable, with talking with
POPS, because we’re inmates and we’re not staff members. We don’t log anything, we don’t
write anything down. We don’t talk about it with one another, unless they’re okay with us
talking about it with another POPS member. Then I’m okay with that, but usually I try to
keep it between the two of us. Interviewee #4

Trust also stems from the status of the POPS member as a prisoner, which is something
the POPS coordinator must consider in selecting new POPS members:
They call me because of who I am, because of my past. When they see it’s a guy like me who’s
turned over a new leaf, they feel a lot more comfortable being honest with themselves, and
being honest with me, because they know I’ve been there … I feel that by them seeing the
transition for me from where I came from, I’m hoping that will help them make their
transition. Interviewee #8

Barriers and challenges

Delveaux and Blanchette (2000) found that awareness of a peer mentoring program was
low at Nova Institution for Women, and that few women accessed the program. They
advocated greater advertising of the program. POPS members and the coordinator also
mention barriers:
More training, clear my desk so I’d have a bit more time even just for supervision. It seems
that’s all I do. But, I would actually do more. And different kind of training for the guys you
know more of a chance to grow a bit as those guys go through bonding scenarios or group
stuff and different trainings. That takes money. That’d be about it, I wouldn’t change too
much. Interviewee #10, POPS coordinator

Suicidal thoughts are familiar among prisoners (Liebling, 1999), and strategies to prevent
suicide are difficult to implement in the prison. Peer mentoring has been shown to
10 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

decrease suicides (Hall & Gabor, 2004). It is also demanding on the POPS members
emotionally to work with prisoners who are distressed. There are many times POPS
members wish they could do more or feel like they have failed in their communications:
He was always talking about what he did and why he did it, and I keep telling him the same
thing. ‘I told you what to do’, I said. ‘You don’t confront these people, you’ve got to do your
time and go and do your work. If you don’t like it go to your cell’. You know a two year little
bit, turned into fricken four years. That’s a pretty sad case, I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for
all of them, I try to do as much as I can. But then these other cases, they are good ones.
Interviewee #3

An additional barrier is the intense level of commitment required:

You have to be 100% committed. You have to know this environment, and that’s what the
coordinator brings to the group. If there was an individual in another institution that can
provide those services, they would also have to have lifers that are in our shoes that have the
integrity and are willing to stay on that path of not doing anything illegal. Especially given
our wages, a lot of guys doing a long sentence are gonna dabble in something greasy.
Whether it’s doing drugs or selling drugs, because they just have no other means of making
money. Interviewee #9

Some respondents believed that the compensation could be higher given the stress and the
challenges of the position:
You got individuals in here that are making 35 bucks every two weeks at most, and if they
have no family or support out there to send them any additional funds then they have to live
off of 35 bucks every two weeks. So that means whatever they want to get in the canteen,
whatever they’re going to get for hygiene. Interviewee #9

Relations with staff

Interviewees stated that staff members now hold positive views of POPS, and will seek
POPS to help with many situations in the prison, though this took years to develop.
Initially, many staff were suspicious. They believed the POPS members would use their
mobility to carry kites around the prison, pass messages from range to range, or carry
drugs:
When you first start POPS, they think you’re up to something but just like anything you’ve
got to build your rapport and trust with them. Cause when I first started, I was my first two
weeks, constantly getting pulled over, making me take my shoes off, patting me down, cause
they think I’m running drugs or kites around. Interviewee #2

More than one POPS member mentioned that once POPS became accepted and the
number of successful interventions became known, guards started to call POPS to make
interventions more often. Guards and administrators have also called POPS to deal with
situations where prisoners wanted to antagonize guards and were not interested in
counseling or talking with peers about tensions or emotions they are feeling:
A lot of them view it as something useful for them. Just makes their job a little bit easier.
Especially officers that work in segregation. A lot of them deal with a lot of people, I guess
going off, or blacking out, whatnot. Kicking their doors, acting up and some people have even
cut themselves and whatnot, and our job is to help de-escalate that, to try to not let it get as
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 11

far as that. So they call us, and we usually try to help the guy. Majority of the time, we are
pretty successful. Interviewee #4

The POPS members had to win over the guards in the first years of the initiative:
I think at first they were iffy, but after three years of consensual strip search, we have to earn
it. When they seen that we’re not up to anything, and I’m sure there was a few times when we
were tested. Nothing happened … all the guys [who the coordinator] picks all have the same
goal … to help people, to give back and to get out, and all the POPS guys I talk too, they all
have that drive. Interviewee #5

Yet there remain a handful of guards who may not have a positive view of POPS members
or prisoners generally, who POPS members remain wary of:
Some guards try to make fun of the situation but I don’t pay attention, kinda just go do my
thing and sit there, don’t really talk to the guards. That has been all my experiences with the
staff except maybe one or two have been very positive, and there’s maybe one or two staff out
of how many that will make a stupid comment right? Interviewee #8

Views held by other prisoners

Respondents report that other prisoners view POPS members positively, but that this
positive view takes time to develop. Talking about one’s problems and anxieties in prison
has not traditionally been part of what has been called the convict code. But POPS guys
are respected in a way that most other prisoners are not:
They know who I am. We have our pictures on the wall, and maybe with me because, I’m an
older Indigenous guy, and a lot of these are young Indigenous men, maybe they take me as
a father figure or just an older guy. … Even in the yard, we walk around and then about six
guys come walk around with them, and they all talk. Interviewee #3

You just gotta walk that fence kind of right, and just realize where we are. … But for the most
part, we get a lot of respect from guys. Like sometimes I’ll be by myself walking to a range,
and I’ll be treated like a celebrity, like oh hey everyone’s happy to see you and everyone’s
shaking your hand. Interviewee #6

Some prisoners in Stony, especially those who are gang-affiliated, retain an incredible
amount of power. POPS members must be cognizant of tensions throughout the prison
and react accordingly in conjunction with the POPS coordinator. This is part of the
dilemma and set of threats that most prisoners face (Maier & Ricciardelli, 2019). However,
most prisoners value POPS and seek out POPS when they are in distress, especially when
big changes are on their horizon. Prisoners will contact POPS members more often when
they first arrive to prison and first hear of POPS but also when they are soon to be released
or switch security levels:
… there are guys I would never talk to for months, but when it’s close to their release time,
that’s when they would call me, because they feel this anxiety. They’re getting released, they
haven’t been in touch with family or anybody from the community, so they don’t know where
to go. Where to find a place to sleep, how to make money, where to look for a job, how to
restore a lost I.D, so they’re scared, worried. Interviewee #7

The mentees generally feel better after meeting with POPS guys, which increases the
likelihood that they will call for a POPS next time they are in distress.
12 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

The coordinator
Respondents report that POPS would not function well without the work of the
coordinator:
The way it is set up right now is perfect. … without [the coordinator], this program would
just fall flat on its face probably, so it’s not just on our part, it’s on his part as well. The
coordinator takes care of us and he ensures that, so if we have any problems on the unit, we
just gotta tell the coordinator. Interviewee #6

The amount of time and effort that the coordinator puts into the initiative cannot be
understated. This time and effort is something that is unusual in the prison context where
staff are often discouraged from having personal relations with prisoners. The coordinator
supports POPS members in ways that perhaps could be seen as unconventional in prison:
I could sit in the coordinator’s office and I could pour my heart out. I could tell him my
experiences. I could tell him what I saw, what I heard, what I know, and he has to understand
that it’s between us. He can’t share it with somebody … you know, the entire program is
based on confidentiality. Interviewee #8

The coordinator demonstrates a high level of stewardship and concern for the initiative
and does a lot of work to maintain the integrity of the initiative:
He always wants to make sure the person hiring is on that straight path not doing anything
illegal … someone that’s truthful and has integrity and won’t ruin it for the group, because
when one person does something wrong the whole group gets affected. Interviewee #9

Could POPS happen elsewhere?

Respondents report that POPS could happen elsewhere, but that there are many intangible
elements (trust, confidence, support, relationships) that would need to be established. The
coordinator shared concerns about the initiative being emulated and the potential for it to
increase rather than decrease harm if not done carefully:
You’d be hard-pressed to find the level of commitment that I have presented to this program,
I mean it’s a career killer. Why would anyone do it? You need long-term stability. … You
can’t have people moving in and out of this position, then you’re going to have big security
issues. CSC is driven by numbers. It’s all cookie-cutter, it’s a numbers game for the managers
and if they give it to some manager or someone else, they’re not going to care. … If there was
something in it for them and they were enthusiastic then they’re going to push for numbers.
I’ve nurtured it and watered it every day, it’s like a seed and a plant and it takes years.
Interviewee #10, POPS coordinator

POPS members compared Stony to other prisons and credited POPS with creating a more
bearable environment in most ranges and units. POPS members would not change much
about POPS, but would like to see more funding and support for the initiative:
It is working the way it is. The only thing is, what I mean by funding is to actually get it
running in other joints, like cause it would benefit places. I’ve seen it work in my own eyes.
I’ve been surprised, because I’ve dealt with a few people who just like, you think are just done
and they don’t care no more, and then after working with them for a bit, it’s like this guy
really does care. He needs someone to vent to, so it works here. And if it works here, it has to
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 13

work somewhere else. Cause there’s a lot of prisoners, and a lot of guys don’t have POPS
members to talk to. Interviewee #2

POPS members stressed that commitment to relationships is a key factor that would have
to be in place for POPS to be emulated elsewhere:
If you didn’t have that relationship with the person who’s running it, and they didn’t have
that care for you, to look after you, before anything else, it would fall apart pretty quick …
this program would not last. Interviewee #6

A major factor in the success of POPS is that the coordinator has put an incredible
amount of energy into the initiative for more than a decade. Yet it requires constant
supervision. On occasion, the coordinator is circumvented and assignments will be sent to
POPS members by multiple levels of staff. The coordinator must not only supervise POPS
members and the prisoners who POPS members are seeing. The coordinator must also
stay acutely aware of decisions that various levels of staff are making and how those
decisions affect POPS.

Discussion
There are other ways of attempting to cope with prison life such as religion (Maruna, Wilson,
& Curran, 2006; Thomas & Zaitzow, 2006), but perhaps there are few as effective as peer
support. The number of POPS interventions and the quality of interventions are high. The
interviewees report that POPS decreases stress, tension, self-harm, and suicide at Stony
Mountain, and it does so in a way that empowers a subpopulation of prisoners. Responding
to South et al. (2017) on the distinction between peer support and peer mentoring, we would
suggest POPS is a form of peer mentoring since POPS visitations can span decades.
One important issue the coordinator noted was not only his dedication (of more than
ten years) but also the commitment of the warden to POPS. Upper management of the
prison had been in the same positions for a decade or more, which provided continuity.
This allowed the initiative coordinator to “try” POPS at a time when no similar program
existed in men’s prisons in Canada. This continuity cannot be understated, since typically
in the prison setting there is horizontal and upward mobility among administrators and
health and psychology staff (Ricciardelli & Sit, 2016). Staff tend to seek out higher pay
grades. POPS would not be possible in a scenario where there is turnover with the
initiative coordinator or with administration, since such turnover does not foster trust
or dedication. It should also be noted that no staff or administrators within the prison
consider POPS to be a replacement for professional psychological services and counseling.
This caution is important because the POPS initiative should in no way be understood as
a cost saving initiative or a program to implement as part of an austerity mechanism in
corrections policy.

Limits of peer mentoring and support

Limits of such programming could include the fact that POPS itself does not explicitly
challenge the prison as a social institution or the design and organization of any particular
prison or jail (Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011; Piché, 2015; Pollack, 1993). Other critiques of
POPS could include the fact that peer mentoring is prison labor, and the pay for prison labor
14 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

is very low (Duwe & McNeeley, 2017; Shook, 2018). Some POPS members mentioned that
they are engaged in skilled labor without receiving what they feel is adequate pay.

A caution against fast policy

It is foreseeable that correctional organizations would be interested in POPS due not
only to its role in decreasing harm in prison but because of the financial dimension.
The allure of cost savings probably appeals to any prison administration, generating
a desire to emulate POPS elsewhere. We would suggest that Peck and Theodore’s
(2015) cautionary notion of fast policy, which refers to the way policies are often
quickly borrowed and emulated in other locales but with unintended consequences, is
important to bear in mind when reflecting on the successes and limits of prisoner peer
mentoring practices. Prisons vary by jurisdiction, and the personnel who work in them
do as well. Many staff move from position to position over their career, rarely staying in
one unit or position the whole time. It is never easy to replicate a program, especially in
volatile sites such as prisons. Quickly borrowing and emulating policies can lead to
regressive mutations (Peck & Theodore, 2010) that may boomerang and create more
problems than they solve. Creating a successful program in prison is difficult to do (Lee,
2017; Papp, Wooldredge, & Pompoco, 2019; Zellerer, 2003) and not easily replicated.
Emulating POPS in other prisons may contribute to harm experienced by prisoners if
trust and relationships are not at the center of the initiative and if staff are not prepared
for a lengthy, emotional commitment.
This caution about harms of hasty policy implementation cannot be understated. The
POPS coordinator must be aware of dynamics occurring in the prison with both staff and
prisoners. The POPS coordinator must stay a step ahead of shifting operational and power
dynamics at the site. The coordinator must prevent POPS members from becoming
associated with conflicts, otherwise there could be blowback for POPS members. If
a prison anywhere in the world is considering implementing something like POPS, we
cannot underscore enough how crucial it is for staff not to put POPS members in
compromising positions.

Limitations of the study

There were limits to this study. First, the sample was not random due to the small number
of POPS mentors. Second, it is possible that respondents were biased due to positive
experiences with POPS or because they still worked for POPS. Third, prisoners who were
part of POPS years ago could not be contacted for interviews. These POPS members may
have been released from prison, or they may have been asked to discontinue their work for
POPS if they violated POPS protocol (though they may remain in prison at Stony or
elsewhere). Fourth, it was not possible to compare responses to what other current or
former prisoners thought of POPS. Fifth, the first author is a white middle-class man, and
it is possible that the first author was not able to generate rapport, with the result that the
POPS members may have not shared all stories during interviews.
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 15

Conclusion
POPS is a unique form of prisoner mentoring since it allows considerable autonomy to the
prison mentors, fostering relationships and trust among prisoners. POPS fosters confi-
dence among other benefits among POPS members, and decreases tension among prison-
ers. It does this by removing staff from many of the most stressful and tense scenes in
prison, instead allowing prisoners themselves to deescalate these situations. POPS mem-
bers are seen as mentors in the prison. POPS is a way of allowing prisoners to be fully
human, to experience and communicate grief and vulnerability in a forum that feels more
genuine and sincere to them than the forums provided by correctional staff. However, we
have also cautioned against implementation of such a program where sufficient support,
experience and dedication, trust, and focus on relationships is lacking.

Note
1. We should note that there is programming available for Indigenous prisoners at Stony
Mountain that is culturally specific. POPS has no explicit focus on identity or spirituality.
Prisoners voluntarily select the POPS members who they wish to speak with.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Bagnall, A. M., South, J., Hulme, C., Woodall, J., Vinall-Collier, K., Raine, G., & Wright, N. (2015).
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support
in prisons. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 290–320. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1584-x
Bosworth, M., Campbell, D., Demby, B., Ferranti, S., & Santos, M. (2005). Doing prison research:
Views from inside. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 249–264. doi:10.1177/1077800404273410
Buck, G. (2017). ‘I wanted to feel the way they did’: Mimesis as a situational dynamic of peer
mentoring by ex-offenders. Deviant Behavior, 38(9), 1027–1041. doi:10.1080/
01639625.2016.1237829
Buck, G. (2018). The core conditions of peer mentoring. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(2),
190–206. doi:10.1177/1748895817699659
Bullock, K., Bunce, A., & McCarthy, D. (2019). Making good in unpromising places: The develop-
ment and cultivation of redemption scripts among long-term prisoners. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(3), 406–423. doi:10.1177/0306624X18800882
Collica, K. (2010). Surviving incarceration: Two prison-based peer programs build communities of
support for female offenders. Deviant Behavior, 31(4), 314–347. doi:10.1080/01639620903004812
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C., & Nagin, D. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of
ignoring science. Prison Journal, 91(3), 48–65. doi:10.1177/0032885511415224
Delveaux, K., & Blanchette, K. (2000). Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at nova
institution for women. Correctional Service Canada, Research Branch, Corporate Development.
Devilly, G. J., Sorbello, L., Eccleston, L., & Ward, T. (2005). Prison-based peer-education schemes.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(2), 219–240. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.12.001
Duncan, H., & Balbar, S. (2008). Evaluation of a visitation program at a Canadian penitentiary.
Prison Journal, 88(2), 300–327. doi:10.1177/0032885508319210
16 K. WALBY AND D. COLE

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism
and employment. Prison Journal, 94(4), 454–478. doi:10.1177/0032885514548009
Duwe, G., & McNeeley, S. (2017). The effects of prison labor on institutional misconduct, post-
prison employment, and recidivism. Corrections, 1–20. forthcoming. doi:10.1080/
23774657.2017.1416317
Fazel, S., Grann, M., Kling, B., & Hawton, K. (2011). Prison suicide in 12 countries: An ecological
study of 861 suicides during 2003–2007. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(3),
191–195. doi:10.1007/s00127-010-0184-4
Fletcher, D. R., & Batty, E. (2012). Offender peer interventions: What do we know? Centre for
regional economic and social research (pp. 1–20). Sheffield Hallam University.
Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. Prison Journal, 86(4), 407–430.
doi:10.1177/0032885506293242
Hall, B., & Gabor, P. (2004). Peer suicide prevention in a prison. Crisis, 25(1), 19–26. doi:10.1027/
0227-5910.25.1.19
Humby, L., & Barclay, E. (2018). Pawsitive solutions: An overview of prison dog programs in
Australia. Prison Journal, 98(5), 580–603. doi:10.1177/0032885518793951
Irwin, J. (2010). Lifers: Seeking redemption in prison. London: Routledge.
LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The chicken and egg of subjective and
social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5(2), 131–159.
doi:10.1177/1477370807087640
Lee, L. (2017). The impact of prison programming on recidivism. Corrections, 1–20. forthcoming.
doi:10.1080/23774657.2017.1399095
Liebling, A. (1999). Prison suicide and prisoner coping. Crime and Justice, 26, 283–359. doi:10.1086/
449299
Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2012). Social relationships between prisoners in a maximum security
prison: Violence, faith, and the declining nature of trust. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5),
413–424. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.003
Maier, K., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). The prisoner’s dilemma: How male prisoners experience and
respond to penal threat while incarcerated. Punishment & Society, 21(2), 231–250. doi:10.1177/
1462474518757091
Martel, J. (2006). To be, one has to be somewhere: Spatio-temporality in prison segregation. British
Journal of Criminology, 46(4), 587–612. doi:10.1093/bjc/azl012
Maruna, S. (2004). Desistance from crime and explanatory style: A new direction in the psychology
of reform. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(2), 184–200. doi:10.1177/
1043986204263778
Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why god is often found behind bars: Prison
conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3(2–3), 161–184.
McCoy, T. (2009). The unproductive prisoner: Labor and medicine in canadian penitentiaries,
1867–1900. Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas, 6(4), 95–112. doi:10.1215/
15476715-2009-032
McMaster, G. (1999). Hole time. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 10(1–2), 87–97.
Papp, J., Wooldredge, J., & Pompoco, A. (2019). Timing of prison programs and the odds of
returning to prison. Corrections, 1–26. forthcoming. doi:10.1080/23774657.2019.1598308
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41
(2), 169–174. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.01.002
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberal-
ism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Perrin, C. (2017). The untapped utility of peer-support programs in prisons and implications for
theory, policy, and practice (Doctoral dissertation), Nottingham Trent University.
Piché, J. (2015). Playing the ‘treasury card’ to contest prison expansion: Lessons from a public
criminology campaign. Social Justice, 41(3), 145–167.
Piché, J., & Major, K. (2015). Prisoner writing in/on solitary confinement: Contributions from the
journal of prisoners on prisons, 1988–2013. Canadian Journal of Human Rights, 4(1), 1–31.
 CORRECTIONS: POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 17

Pollack, S. (1993). Opening the window on a very dark day: A program evaluation of the peer support
team at the kingston prison for women (Doctoral dissertation), Carleton.
Ricciardelli, R., & Sit, V. (2016). Producing social (dis)order in prison: The effects of administrative
controls on prisoner-on-prisoner violence. Prison Journal, 96(2), 210–231. doi:10.1177/
0032885515618362
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
Scott, D. P., Harzke, A., Mizwa, M., Pugh, M., & Ross, M. (2004). Evaluation of an HIV peer
education program in Texas prisons. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10(2), 151–173.
doi:10.1177/107834580301000203
Shook, J. (2018). A little less conversation, a lot more action. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 27(1),
269–302.
South, J., Bagnall, A., & Woodall, J. (2017). Developing a typology for peer education and peer
support delivered by prisoners. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 23(2), 214–229. doi:10.1177/
1078345817700602
South, J., Woodall, J., Kinsella, K., & Bagnall, A. (2016). A qualitative synthesis of the positive and
negative impacts related to delivery of peer-based health interventions in prison settings. BMC
Health Services Research, 16(1), 525–533. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1753-3
Suto, I., & Arnaut, G. (2010). Suicide in prison: A qualitative study. Prison Journal, 90(3), 288–312.
doi:10.1177/0032885510373499
Syed, F., & Blanchette, K. Results of an evaluation of the peer support program at grand valley
institution for women Syed, F., & Blanchette, K. (2000). Correctional service canada, research
branch, corporate development. Canada: Ottawa.
Thomas, J., & Zaitzow, B. (2006). Conning or conversion? The role of religion in prison coping.
Prison Journal, 86(2), 242–259. doi:10.1177/0032885506287952
Zellerer, E. (2003). Culturally competent programs: The first family violence program for aboriginal
men in prison. Prison Journal, 83(2), 171–190. doi:10.1177/0032885503083002004