March 2004 - Ref 324
Mentoring for vulnerable young people
Mentoring has become an
important element of government strategy for supporting vulnerable
young people. Building on previous work by one of the researchers,
this qualitative study from Aberdeen University looked at the impact
of mentoring on young people in three settings: a housing project and
an education project where paid keyworkers acted as mentors and a
befriending scheme where volunteers acted as mentors. The study found:
- The friendly nature of the relationship and the 'ability to have a
laugh' with a mentor distinguished these from other kinds of
relationship.

- Mentoring within all the projects offered a form of 'professional'
friendship. This demanded delicate negotiation between young people
and mentors of the boundaries of what they would discuss, levels of
confidentiality, and the time devoted by both parties.

- Most young people found the experience a positive one, contributing
to their confidence, skills and development in a number of ways.
Mentors also expressed satisfaction, seeing it as giving them the
chance to work with rather than on young people.

- Young people particularly valued mentors who shared and were
willing to discuss similar backgrounds and experiences. They felt
these relationships differed from those they had with other
professionals and adults. A number had been inspired to become mentors
or to work with young people themselves.

- A key benefit of a good mentoring relationship was in helping young
people to come to terms with difficult family relationships.

- How the relationship ended could undermine the immediate benefits
perceived by young people and reinforce feelings of rejection. Young
people valued the opportunity to sustain an informal relationship on
an occasional basis beyond the intervention.

- The researchers conclude that mentoring cannot remedy all the ills
facing vulnerable young people but it can be a useful part of the
range of interventions. The range of mentoring approaches, however,
needs to vary to suit the requirements of individual young people.

Background
Mentoring has become an important element of government strategy for
dealing with vulnerable young people. Judging the effectiveness of
such methods is hampered by a lack of understanding of some of the key
ideas involved and also by the sheer volume and range of activities
that are branded as 'mentoring'. This study built carefully on
previous work by one of the researchers that had unpacked some of the
key ideas behind the mentoring concept.
The research took place in three settings: a befriending project in
a large city, a housing project for young homeless people and an
alternative education project for young people who were excluded from
mainstream schools. Within the befriending project, volunteers were
matched one-to-one with a young person. A paid co-ordinator recruited,
trained, matched and supported these volunteers. Within the other two
projects, paid staff were employed as keyworkers and worked on both an
individual and a group basis.
The young people involved in the study were variously described as
'socially excluded', 'vulnerable' or 'disaffected'. Many had
experienced family problems and most had grown up in poverty. Within
the education and housing projects, many had been excluded from school
and this had been the reason for referral for mentoring. Within the
befriending project, family difficulties and social isolation were
more likely to lead to referral.
What characterises mentoring relationships?
Young people placed a high value on the opportunity to develop a
trusting relationship with an unrelated adult. Mentors from a similar
social background - who were prepared to share experiences of this -
often became a key figure for support, advice and the exploration of
emerging issues.
"I know a lot about Duncan ... Because I was upset one night and he
told me a lot about his past. That made me cry." [Teresa]
The friendly nature of the relationship and the 'ability to have a
laugh' with a mentor distinguished these from other kinds of
relationship. Qualities of trust, shared control, reciprocity and
shared experience underpinned successful mentoring. All of this
contributed to mentoring as a safe means of reviewing areas that were
risky to discuss elsewhere.
"Well I know Pilar is very confidential and if I don't want her to
tell my mum or anything or anybody else then I know that she won't."
[Sara]
"She put me somewhere safe and gave me the chance to sort my life
out." [Teresa]
For some participants their relationship with their mentor created
a safe space in which to tell their story and to rehearse what they
would like to do with their lives. For many this helped them to
develop ways of dealing with difficult situations and surviving in
hostile environments. Key to this process was the opportunity to
negotiate with the mentor, typically described as more likely to
happen when 'you could have a laugh' with the mentor.
"He was one of the best befrienders that I have ever had basically,
he was really funny, and somebody's personality makes a big difference
... he was never moody or pessimistic or anything like that, he was just
always great fun to be with." [Eric]
"We used to just sit there and talk about who his last youth group
person was, gradually we just talk about whatever, you know, what the
issues are, and recently he came round to play computer games at my
house and it was just like having one of my friends round." [Rory]
In some instances, the mentor was not even the person allocated by
the project but someone else within the project with whom they felt
'comfortable'. Within the befriending project, the co-ordinator often
assumed this role, partly as she was a constant figure who brokered
befriending relationships, 'picked up the pieces' when a match failed
and was available to young people. Within the housing and education
projects, familiarity with the social networks and local background
enabled mentors to be aware of what was going on with young people
outwith the project. In contrast, within the befriending project, the
opposite was the case as some befrienders had no local knowledge. This
enabled young people to have respite from their problems, to forget
about their home situation and to 'have a laugh'.
How relationships developed
Building up and sustaining mentoring relationships could be
problematic. For some young people a relationship with a befriender or
a keyworker was simply one of a number of relationships with
professionals or semi-professionals. Many had had experience with a
number of professionals over a considerable length of time and held
very negative views about these. Many described a lack of control over
such relationships, complaining of frequent changes over which they
had little say. They felt they were seen as a problem to be solved and
were unhappy about this.
In contrast, others often described the mentoring relationship as a
special one that went beyond professional limits and that was personal
to the young person and their partner. Where mentoring was successful,
the relationship had developed over time and was flexible enough to
allow both partners to take different approaches. These young people
commonly stated that the mentor did not act as if they were a 'case'
or a problem to be solved.
"She really does care about me and my welfare, you know what I mean
and what happens to us, whereas, Paul, just, well, I think he did in a
way, I think he had a lot on his plate with work and that, so ..."
[Lorna]
Both mentors and young people pointed to the need over time to
balance dependence and autonomy.
"There's nobody forced to come here so they've got that initial
power of, 'Yeah, okay, I'll buy into this'. ... But I think it shifts
back and fore with you giving them a wee bit of responsibility and
maybe they'll chuck it back in your face but you've got to try and
encourage them to become independent ... " [mentor]
Continuity of contact was important: managing this demanded careful
planning by mentors and the agency. Mentoring programmes (especially
those which are tied to employment training) often neglect the process
of ending the relationship. However, this could undermine the
immediate benefits perceived by young people and reinforce feelings of
rejection. This issue was highly significant for these young people.
"They just dropped me as soon as I went into college, and that was
it, once she is in college she will be fine. I was really close to him
and I trusted him and everything. I used to talk to him about things
but it has just changed." [Sara]
Young people also valued the opportunity to sustain an informal
relationship on an occasional basis. This suggests that keeping this
door open could be an important link for young people who are excluded
from other kinds of provision or who 'fail' on moving on from the
project.
"I wish I had still stayed with my workers ... because for a while
after it I just went all to pot and I just never did nothing." [Maria]
How mentoring links to other relationships
A key benefit of a good mentoring relationship was in helping young
people to come to terms with difficult family relationships. Mentoring
often allowed young people to explore different aspects of their
identities and provided a starting point to consider their own skills
in supporting others. Young people often attributed improved
relationships within their family to their experience of mentoring.
This led a number within the housing and education projects to express
their aim to become mentors themselves or to work with difficult young
people.
Existing peer relationships could be both supportive and negative
but young people generally viewed them as important. However, there
was little evidence of work with peer or friendship groups in any of
the projects. Making new friends was risky and problematic for many of
these young people, particularly in rural areas, because of the
difficulties of 'living down' reputations. Some described mentoring
relationships as building up confidence and skills to do this.
Interestingly, friends were also identified as fulfilling mentoring
roles in so far as they were prepared to challenge young people as
well as support them.
However, young people did not always perceive planned mentoring as
a safe way of addressing difficulties. Fears about being let down made
some young people uncertain of its value and they were guarded about
what they would disclose to mentors. This reluctance was based on
knowledge that some information would be shared with other
professionals. Some also felt that their experience of planned
mentoring had reinforced feelings of exclusion and disaffection rather
than enhancing their feelings of resilience.
"Say we had fall outs at home, I wouldn't talk to my mentor about
that. I wouldn't want that information leaking out." [Rory]
"In here everybody knows everything about you ... and that is scary
..." [Teresa]
Young people often reviewed mentoring relationships more critically
when they were leaving the projects. Some had felt very let down by
mentors who had moved on and ended the contact; others felt that they
might have benefited from the mentoring at a later date. Some young
people felt that their own behaviour had made it impossible for
mentoring to take place, noting that they were not ready to 'go half
way' and negotiate a relationship. Others felt that the mentors had
let them down by failing to negotiate over the ending or changed
nature of the relationship.
"She left, just didn't keep in contact like she said. I hate when
people say things they don't mean. And my mum is like, oh everybody
says things that they don't mean. And I am like, well, when are they
going to stop, eh? Aww, lots of people have let me down ..." [Amanda]
Mentors' perceptions
Mentors from all projects expressed satisfaction at the chance to work
with rather than on young people. Many claimed to draw on their
personal experiences and backgrounds as a guide to their work. Befrienders emphasised the social welfare aspect of helping someone
less fortunate than themselves; keyworkers were more likely to say
that they wanted to help young people avoid some of the difficulties
they themselves had experienced in growing up.
Mentors frequently viewed their role as guiding young people as to
what constitutes acceptable social behaviour. Volunteer befrienders
emphasised the social nature of their role, while paid keyworkers were
more concerned with changing behaviour.
"It has taken a long time for her to see that that wasn't normal,
that this is not how you behave when you are out and about ... so I used
to show her up rotten. Because she did it to me and I know it sounds
cruel but ... it was the only way that I could be comfortable ... to take
her down the street." [mentor]
Many talked about their role as providing a bridge between young
people and workers with more formal professional roles. Within all the
projects there was therefore some tension between managing the
behaviour of young people and helping them to reach their potential.
Project workers and volunteers were realistic about the impact of
their work on many of these problems. Nevertheless, there was some
consensus among the workers that many young people in the sample had
untapped potential and that mentoring could develop this.
"I think that some of these kids have got a lot of courage and
there's a lot more to them than they often give you reason to
believe." [mentor]
Many mentors pointed to the resilience, strengths and capacity of
vulnerable young people. Many keyworkers were suspicious and
ambivalent about the role of peer groups, feeling these could
undermine their work with individual young people.
Mentors felt that building a relationship demanded consistency,
flexibility and a mix of support and challenge from both themselves
and the young people. Setting boundaries was a delicate process;
mentors had to be sensitive to individual cases and some took a
flexible approach to project guidelines. Dilemmas in managing
one-to-one relationships were evident. In contrast to the accounts
that young people gave of the relationships as 'special', mentors were
more likely to view their role as falling within a professional
framework.
Conclusion
The researchers conclude that mentoring cannot remedy all the ills
facing vulnerable young people but it can be a useful part of the
range of interventions. However, to be effective the range of
mentoring approaches needs to suit young people's individual
circumstances. Existing typologies of mentoring and befriending do not
address the variety of styles of mentoring described by young people
in this sample. The researchers suggest that developing 'mentor rich'
environments, with a climate favourable to the development of
mentoring relationships may be critical to success.
About the project
This project was carried out by Kate Philip, Caroline King and Janet
Shucksmith of the University of Aberdeen, building on earlier work by
Kate Philip.
The qualitative study used a mix of methods, including analysis of
existing literature and documentary evidence, observation, individual
and group interviews, and case studies. Two rounds of interviews took
place with young people who were actively involved in mentoring
relationships at the first interview (18 in the first round and 15 in
the second). 14 young people who were no longer involved in the
projects were also interviewed. Interviews were held with 15 mentors,
7 parents and 10 key informants (carers, managers and stakeholders).
How to get further
information
The full report, Sharing a laugh? A
qualitative study of mentoring interventions with young people by
Kate Philip, Caroline King and Janet Shucksmith, is published by the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (ISBN 1 85935 165 4, price £13.95).
Click on the 'order report' icon in
the left margin to order online.
Click on the 'report .pdf' icon in the
left margin to download a pdf of the full report free of charge. (File
size is 0.63MB). |