Two of the programs in Murray and Ferguson’s report established peer support projects for drug users. This seems to be a promising practice in the Downtown Eastside and elsewhere (for example Mason, 2006). In the Downtown Eastside, Life Is Not Enough Society organizes about 200 peer shifts per week in the local harm reduction service sector, and the LifeSkills Centre is almost entirely peer-run. So it is worth paying attention to when it comes up in the literature. In the Toronto programs described by Murray and Ferguson (2003), the goals of the peer programs were:
Harm reduction workers observe that, because it is important for the peer programs to go through a process of group development, internal discussion, education, and priority setting before they become effective, the peer groups may take a long time to develop. (Murray & Ferguson, 2003: 70)
Sarah’s Response: It is important to be sensitive to the possibility that peer staff might end up being used as simply a cheap source of non-union labour. Or, peers might be relegated to menial tasks, given few opportunities to learn, grow or lead on the job. Or, that their perspectives and voices might be marginalized or silenced at staff meetings and in other communications.
Yet there is so much to be gained from engaging peer staff members. I am reminded of some literature on workplace literacy programs that engaged and trained peer tutors. Program evaluations showed that while the learners did gain from their participation, the peer tutors experienced the greatest growth. Many tutors became more actively or positively involved in their workplaces, unions or organizations, and in their communities and families. Some went on to pursue further education for themselves. (Connon Unda & Clifford, 1997: 145-161)