Mentoring for disadvantaged groups: informal approaches to employment support

w2w 9th July 2013

Why mentoring? – The existing evidence

Positive effects on intermediate outcomes, such as mental health improvements in mentee attitude and behaviour improvements in interpersonal relationships and integration

into the community some reductions in recidivism some improvements in academic achievement and integration

into education and training.

The current picture

Lots of work being done on mentoring in the USA Portland State University set up ‘Center for

Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research’ – set up 2010

University of Massachusetts set up ‘The Center for Evidenced Based Mentoring’ – Director Jean Rhodes

New meta analysis : building on previous work shows positive aspects but states we still need to build on evidence

Measuring Outcomes

Hard outcomes e.g. Job outcomes, reoffending, educational attainment

Intermediate outcomes e.g. reductions in use of drugs/alcohol, health, confidence, motivation, improvements in interpersonal relationships.

Transforming rehabilitation: how does mentoring fit?

Supervision to be extended to all offenders including those sentenced to under 12 months.

‘Through the gate resettlement service’ –continuous support from one provider from custody into the community

Opening market to new rehabilitation providers New payment incentives New national public sector probation service Combination of binary and frequency to prevent

providers ‘playing the system’.

Our research: mentoring different groups

Different social

environments

UK • Veterans ex-offenders

Portugal• unemployment benefit

customers

Hungary• Recently released prisoners • Roma young people

How can mentoring

help? Different cultures/

backgrounds

Different demographics (age, gender, ethnicity)

Evaluating distance travelled 1. Being responsible

2. Living well

3. Money management

4. Relationships

5. Use of drugs and alcohol

6. Managing emotions and mental

health

8. Offending

7. Work and training

0

5

4

3

1

2

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

Results peer vs. non peer

Results: Average progress

Programme Design: Findings from our research

Mentoring services should be fully integrated into a holistic approach to support – organisations must assess how mentoring fits with other service delivery

Mentoring should be based on the needs of the mentee. Proper assessment processes needed

Mentoring should be voluntary and targeted at those who are ready for change

Mentoring can be a cost effective measure, but needs proper resourcing

Delivery Model Fully embedding mentoring into service delivery

model Internal training and awareness training for effective

signposting and referral Assigning dedicated coordinating staff in direct

delivery Should include training and supervision plan for

mentors

Mandated vs. Voluntary Services

Our evidence suggests that mentoring is more effective for those who volunteer for the service

Consider the type of organisation delivering mentoring and the customers’ relationship with the organisation

Differences in ability to integrate and deliver mentoring services

Statutory/ Public bodies - often formal and mandated Mentoring may be an add-on rather than core

Community organisations –associated with support Mentoring may be more in line with existing

delivery

Assessment Mentoring should be based on characteristics the mentee

deems to be most relevant to them OR on the need of the mentee regardless of characteristics. This should be considered during assessment

Matching – based on characteristics (e.g. gender, race, religion or ethnicity) or shared experience (e.g. offending, health)

Duration- length of relationship, frequency of contact: depends on how quickly mentees’ need can be addressed

Structured Activities – including academic and social activities can help to give meaning and purpose to the relationship

Needs change over time – so mentor may also need to change

Costs Mentoring can be cost effective but is

not a cheap alternative to mainstream support

Upfront costs – Training – mentors require training in order to

deliver effective support (e.g. roles, responsibilities, boundaries and risks)

Ongoing costs Supervision – supervision of mentors on a

regular basis to address any issues and assess Monitoring – of mentoring relationships to

oversee and review outcomes

Key Reflections A robust approach to partnership working is

CRUCIAL Realistic / flexible approach and effective and

respectful communication Robust and meaningful information sharing

agreements Challenge is to track impact over time (Mentoring) Significant potential as low-cost high-

impact enhancement to reducing re-offending strategies