Presentation on theme: "Does mentoring work? What the evidence tells us 25th June 2013."— Presentation transcript:
Does mentoring work? What the evidence tells us 25th June 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.
Why mentoring? – The existing evidence 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’.
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