Evaluation reveals successes and limitations of mentoring for disaffected young people

These are among the main findings from the most extensive and rigorous evaluation of mentoring programmes conducted to date in Britain. Focusing on ‘Mentoring Plus’ programmes, run in ten English locations by the crime prevention charity Crime Concern, it concludes that they helped a significant number of vulnerable and high risk young people to take up education, training and work opportunities.

However, there was no evidence, at the time young people completed the programmes, that mentoring had an impact on crime and drug and alcohol use, family relationships or self-esteem – areas less targeted by the intervention. This prompts the researchers’ call for service planners to take a more realistic view of what a mentoring programme can reasonably be expected to deliver.

Mentoring Plus programmes combine one-to-one support provided by a volunteer mentor recruited from the local community with a programme of education, training and social activities. Each wave of the programme runs for 10 to 12 months, starting with a residential weekend.

The research team, from the Mannheim Centre for Criminology at the London School of Economics, followed the progress of more than 370 young people aged 12 to 19 who were recruited to the programme. Most had experienced substantial disruption in their education and family lives and involvement in crime and drug misuse was much higher than for the general youth population.

The researchers found that:

• More than half the young people recruited (57 per cent) went on to engage with the programme on a regular basis. The programmes were especially successful at engaging young people at high risk of social exclusion, including young black African/Caribbean people.
• Although the vast majority of young participants considered the programme helpful, most mentoring relationships did not progress beyond a cycle of social meetings and activities. When the mentoring relationship did progress further, and focused on solving particular problems, it was often because a particular crisis such as homelessness, family breakdown or violent behaviour had occurred.
• The proportion of participants engaged in education, training and work increased between the start and end of the mentoring programme from 49 to 63 per cent. This compared with no change among a similar ‘high risk’ group of young people who had been referred to the programme but did not take part. Most participants indicated that both the mentors and the education and training component had helped them to make positive changes.
• Although levels of offending fell markedly among participants in the mentoring programme, there was a similar decline in criminal activities among the comparison group of non-participants. This suggested that the improvement among participants was not necessarily achieved by the mentoring programmes. The evidence in relation to family relationships, substance use and self-esteem was also unclear.
• Carefully and faithfully implemented programmes among the ten that were studied achieved the greatest impact in terms of encouraging young people into education and work. 

Michael Shiner, Senior Research Officer and co-author of the report, said: “Although mentoring has become very popular as a response to youth problems there has been little evidence from studies in Britain concerning its effectiveness. In our view, the achievements of Mentoring Plus programmes are impressive given the inherent difficulties of working with disaffected young people and other factors such as insecure funding.

“But successful mentoring programmes need a clearer rationale as well as better long-term funding. Mentoring Plus had its greatest impact in the areas of education, training and work that related most closely to its structured activities. By contrast, although reduced offending was a general aim, it was not a specific goal of the activities. This highlights the need for a stronger understanding of how mentoring is expected to achieve its aims and more realistic expectations. ”