Most peer support systems are built using a generic curriculum meant to work everywhere.
But departments are not generic — they have different cultures, personalities, politics, and pain points.

When a program isn’t built for your reality, it doesn’t feel relevant, and staff won’t use it.

Many programs rely on one highly motivated person to run everything.
When that person gets promoted, burns out, or leaves, the entire program collapses.
Peer support must be a system, not a personality.

If leadership and front-line staff aren’t on the same page, peer support becomes fragmented.
Mixed messaging, unclear expectations, and inconsistent support from supervisors quickly undermine trust.
Without leadership alignment, peer support never gets traction.

Programs built in offices — not in the field — often fail because they don’t match shift schedules, call volume, staffing patterns, or emergency operations.
If a program isn’t built around how your people actually work, they won’t use it.

Many programs launch with good intentions but become too complicated to manage.
Forms, procedures, rules, and processes pile up until no one can keep track.
If peer support isn’t simple, clear, and easy to implement, it won’t survive.

If you don’t understand how people in the department communicate, support each other, and cope, you’ll miss the mark.
Culture defines whether peer support feels safe, trusted, and meaningful — or awkward and ignored.
Most programs fail because they never examined culture at all.

Programs that launch with a single training and then never receive follow-up support fade quickly.
Peer teams need:

• refreshers

• accountability

• coaching

• ongoing system adjustments

• help navigating turnover

Without that, momentum disappears, and the program slowly dies out.

If peer supporters don’t know exactly what to do, who handles what, or how the process works, they hesitate — and the system falls apart.
Clear activation pathways, communication expectations, and responsibilities are essential.
Without structure, peer support becomes inconsistent and unreliable.

Peer support fails when it’s introduced before the department has built enough trust for people to use it.
If staff don’t feel safe opening up, the program goes unused.
Trust has to be intentionally built — not assumed.

If the program adds tasks without removing burdens, people pull away.
Peer teams and supervisors already carry heavy workloads.
If peer support feels like “one more thing,” it will collapse quickly.
Effective programs lighten the load — they don’t add to it.