LEARNING SKILLS COUNCIL
North East
Offender Mentoring Pilot Project
1
“I couldn’t talk to or
open up to a probation officer, due
to authority issue – I never got to
know the person, just couldn’t get
past the off-putting thought of
authority.
On the mentoring project all
people (staff & mentors) were very
friendly, helpful, non-judgemental
and approachable.”
Mentee: Pyramid Project
Report commissioned by the Learning Skills Council - North East
Produced by Jan Lobb - Pilot Project Manager
2
Contents
Page
Introduction ...................................................................................
Aims and Objectives
5
.............................................................
5
....................................................................
5
Encouraging Best Practice ..............................................................
7
Training Programme Analysis .........................................................
18
Outcomes Achieved ........................................................................
19
Numbers engaged in education/training ..........................................
20
Numbers achieving qualifications ....................................................
20
Numbers gaining employment ........................................................
20
Drop out numbers ...................................................................
21
Re-offenders ...........................................................................
21
Comments re: Participation ............................................................
22
Toolkit Evaluation ..........................................................................
23
Pilot Conclusion ..............................................................................
28
Methodology
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Required Training Elements .......................................
32
Appendix 2 – Service User Feedback – Personal Development .........
33
Appendix 3 – Service User Feedback – Mentor Contact ...................
34
Appendix 4 – Service User Feedback – Project Management ...........
35
Appendix 5 – Mentor Evaluation Form ....................................... ....
36
Appendix 6 – Project Operations Questionnaire .............................
37
Appendix 7 - Case Studies ...............................................................
41
3
“Although demanding
at times, being a
mentor is immensely
personally rewarding.”
Mentor: Odysseus Project
4
Introduction
The North East Offender Mentoring Pilot Project was commissioned in 2009 by the Learning Skills Council
(LSC) North East, to be managed by the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (MBF).
Previous discussions between the two organisations had highlighted the potential benefits of offender
mentoring, but also the numerous factors which hindered its impact. It was agreed that significant support
would be required to enable mentoring services to progress, but that this would only be possible once current
practice and issues of concern had been adequately identified.
To achieve this, for a period of 15 months MBF closely monitored and provided support to four organisations
working with offenders and those at risk of offending in the North East: Depaul UK – Baseline Project; Nacro –
Pyramid Project; Northern Learning Trust (NLT) – Sandwriter Project; Northumbria Coalition Against Crime
(NCAC) – Odysseus Mentoring Project; together working with a total of 57 service users and 53 volunteer
mentors.
Aim
The aim was to help reduce re-offending and improve the life skills and employability prospects of
offenders/those at risk of offending, by improving the quality of mentoring services delivered; facilitating
stakeholder awareness and support of these services.
Objectives
The main objectives of the project were to:
•
Encourage best practice in project delivery of offender mentoring, by identifying the various factors
that contribute to successful outcomes for service users, including evaluation of project’s training
programmes, the management and operational aspects of their services and by supporting others to
achieve the MBF Approved Provider Standard.
•
Analyse the specific mentor training programme elements required to develop appropriate
knowledge and skills for effective offender mentoring; establish a benchmark of content based on
the best practice identified across the region; work with Skills for Justice to identify National
Occupational Standards relevant to mentoring offenders.
•
Evaluate the outcomes achieved by mentors and service users in relation to employment,
qualifications and training.
•
Market test the Right Track and Tribal mentoring toolkits; evaluate their usefulness as signposting
tools and their practicality as action planning tools.
•
Propose an action plan: to assist the development and implementation of identified best practice
within other offender mentoring projects; activity required for addressing other issues identified
(funding, commissioning, partnerships, etc.)
Methodology
At the beginning of the pilot each organisation completed a Project Operations questionnaire and forwarded
a copy of their current recording/monitoring templates, to provide an overview of their usual practice.
To ensure a unified approach of recording information and reporting feedback, MBF then provided a
comprehensive set of monitoring forms, designed specifically for the pilot:
Service User Profile
Mentor Profile
Training/Employment Report
Change of Circumstance
Service User Feedback
Mentor Feedback
Training Evaluation
Monthly Report Summary
5
Toolkit Evaluation
Action Plan Progress
Case Study Template
The projects reported to MBF by forwarding the relevant documents at the end of each month; also by
attending regular working group meetings. Over the 15 months, a detailed picture was obtained of the
outcomes achieved by the mentees together with a comprehensive overview of the management and
operational aspects of the different services.
In order to develop an effective offender mentoring training course, each of the organisation’s training
programmes was analysed and a specification agreed as to the required training elements. Feedback was also
obtained from the volunteer mentors themselves, regarding the effectiveness of each organisation’s training.
Testing of the Right Track and Tribal mentoring toolkits was undertaken by each of the projects, with service
users, volunteers and staff being asked to provide feedback on their usefulness and effectiveness.
A Steering Group was formed with representation from the following organisations: LSC; Local Government
Office; Skills for Justice; Regional Offender Management Service; Health & Social Care in Criminal Justice;
HMPS; Probation Service; Job Centre Plus; Regional Development Agency.
A proportion of service users and mentors were also interviewed by the pilot project manager, to gain direct
feedback regarding their views/experience.
“The training was
fantastic, felt I was
readily and
adequately prepared
to become a mentor.”
Mentor:
Pyramid Project
“I have enjoyed the experience of being a
mentor and would recommend it to all, as
it is a very rewarding role.”
Mentor: Odysseus Project
6
Encouraging Best Practice in Project Delivery
The projects were monitored against a list of 12 indicators of best practice, as identified by MBF and
incorporated into the revised Approved Provider Standard launched in 2009 – the national benchmark for
quality provision of volunteer mentoring.
Each had previously achieved this standard and during the pilot provided support to other regional offender
mentoring projects to enable them to achieve it also. These included Teesside Probation Service Volunteer
Mentor Scheme; Sunderland Volunteer Mentoring Service; Aquila Way Mentoring Project; with one other
project still working towards the standard. Unfortunately, two other projects were unable to progress, as their
funding was discontinued.
Element 1 – The mentoring project has a clear rationale and purpose
•
The purpose, rationale and expected users of the service have been clearly defined.
•
A clear set of aims and objectives, capable of being measured to assess overall benefits to
service users and volunteers.
All 4 projects were found to have clear guidance in this area. Each provides relevant printed promotional
material (leaflets and handouts) to potential service users and mentors. The information is then discussed and
explained to them, ensuring they understand the purpose, procedures and required commitments, before
they fully engage with the project. These promotional materials are also available to funders, commissioners
and other partners, to demonstrate and clarify the project’s purpose.
Element 2 - Effective organisational and management structure in place
•
•
There is an appropriate organisational and management structure in place, with clear
roles and responsibilities assigned to project staff for the delivery of the service
There are adequate financial and staff resources available to run the project, taking into
account its nature and size.
Although each project had appropriate structures designed, with clarity of roles, the second requirement
caused significant problems for them, due to inconsistent funding. Despite projects achieving notable results
with their service users, continuation funding was often reduced, if received at all. This caused significant
disruption with services provided.
Project comments:
Baseline:
“Unfortunately during the pilot we had to say goodbye to our Mentor co-ordinator in the prisons and YOI, as due
to lack of funding he was made redundant, which means we are no longer able to offer the through the gate
service.”
Odysseus:
“I struggled with the reporting aspect of the pilot mainly due to a lack of staff, resulting from lack of funding. I
find the majority of funders want to fund the work but not the core costs to enable the work to be done.”
Mentor comment:
“There seems to be only one person who co-ordinates the mentoring. She does a great job, but when she is sick
the whole thing comes to a halt. I think another member of staff to help her would be good.”
7
Element 3 - Competence of staff is developed and maintained
•
Staff involved in running the project have the necessary experience and skills to carry out
their roles.
•
Staff have clearly defined roles and responsibilities and recognise the boundaries of their
role in relation to the service they are providing.
•
Supervision and support are provided to staff.
•
Staff receive appropriate training and development and appraisals (including an
induction) to support them in their roles.
All 4 projects were considered to employ appropriate systems.
Each has detailed written job descriptions and formal induction procedures where new staff are introduced to
the project team and all relevant organisational policies and procedures. They receive comprehensive
internal/external training, to ensure their competence for the role. This includes training relevant to the
specific client group needs.
Training is continued on a regular basis, according to needs identified during regular support and supervision
sessions, to ensure ongoing effectiveness.
The timings/format of supervision sessions varied slightly between the projects: individual supervisions being
held either monthly or quarterly, with an annual appraisal, whilst group supervision varied between being a
monthly occurrence to a single annual review. However, all staff indicated they received appropriate support
to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.
Element 4 - Clear process for identifying and referring service users
•
The expected users of the service are defined.
•
There is a clear process for the referral of service users that is consistent with the aims of
the project and takes into account their needs and suitability to the project.
•
Promotional materials are clear and accessible to potential service users and referral
organisations
Potential service users are assessed for the risks they pose to themselves and others
•
Each project clearly defined its service users within their promotional material, this being accessible to all
relevant parties.
Comprehensive risk assessments were carried out as standard practice, prior to accepting each potential
service user.
Each project also had clear referral routes which were well established. However, issues arose when trying to
develop new routes, or due to staff changes within existing referral organisations. This invariably occurred
due to a lack of understanding of the mentoring support offered, or due to both parties inadequately
communicating their requirements.
It was apparent that a significant amount of work needs to be done to ensure all parties have a greater
understanding of needs, with improved communication to facilitate referrals and how to access the service, as
identified on Project Operations Questionnaire (Appendix 6).
8
Service User profiles
Offending
History
PPO
Violence
Sexual
Drugs
Robbery, etc.
Other
Accommodation
Drugs / Substance Misuse
Employ/ Training/ Education
Finance
Life Skills
Mental / Physical Health
Relationships
F
M
F
M
F
35
7
10
4
1
0
14
Repeat
M
42
Support Required
23
26
6
21
4
9
25
25
29
15
44
18
26
25
24
50+
1
2
st
25-49
Not convicted
16-24
Nature of offence
1 Time
Age
The table above provides background data on the service users engaged on the pilot, indicating the areas of
support they required.
The outcome of their mentoring support can be seen on: Service User Feedback – Personal Development
(Appendix 2) and Service User Feedback – Mentor Contact (Appendix 3), in relation to how long they had
received support; also how much they felt their improved circumstances were due to this support.
Element 5 - Service Users are fully briefed and prepared
•
Service users are fully briefed and prepared for their involvement in the project.
•
The needs and expectations of potential service users are established.
•
People are signposted and/or referred to other services, where appropriate.
Information gained from completed Service User Feedback – Project Management forms (Appendix 4)
indicated that all projects appropriately briefed their service users.
Project staff meet with the potential service user before they are matched with a mentor, providing them with
full details about the service – discussing what commitments will be expected of them and what they can
expect to receive in return, boundaries, etc. A needs assessment and risk assessment is then completed. If the
mentee has been referred by an Offender Manager, then they also will be included in the initial meeting.
Service users are supported in completing an application form. This helps match them with the best mentor
available. Once a suitable match has been made, the project co-ordinator meets with the mentor and mentee
at the initial meeting, to identify and record appropriate goals for the mentoring sessions.
One project has an arrangement for the first meeting between the mentee and mentor to be based at
Probation Premises. This has minimised their number of fail to attend appointments - the location is central,
easy to find and the mentees know that the Offender Manger will be informed of their attendance, providing
them with additional incentive to make the effort.
Generally, signposting to other support services is done by project staff, either due to their own observation
of need, or once a requirement has been identified by the mentor and agreed by the mentee.
Project staff attend meetings with relevant services, such as college, housing associations, social workers,
etc., then feedback information as they feel appropriate to the mentors, to further assist the mentoring
sessions. However, responses gained from questioning the mentors frequently indicated that they would like
to receive more detailed information regarding the criminal justice system and how other key services linked
with the mentoring project.
9
Element 6 - There is a rigorous and robust recruitment and selection
process in place for potential mentors
•
A variety of recruitment and promotional methods are used to encourage diversity in
recruitment.
•
There is a ‘role description’ and clear criteria regarding the qualities, experience and
characteristics required from mentors consistent with the aims of the project.
•
There is a documented and standardised selection process in place to assess the
suitability of potential volunteers for the role.
•
There are appropriate screening arrangements in place for volunteers (CRB checks; ISA
registration; taking up references).
•
Feedback and/or other opportunities are offered to unsuitable candidates
The projects each use a variety of methods for recruitment and project promotion, to ensure they get a good
mix of volunteers: Internet; volunteer agencies; peer recruitment; word of mouth; leaflets in local community
centres, GP surgeries, gyms, etc.; local newspaper advertisements; attending local events and hosting
promotional stands.
All four projects have written a role description for mentors, together with formal policy/procedures for the
selection process, consisting of a comprehensive set of Volunteer interview questions, relevant to specific
needs of the client group.
Although the recruitment procedures varied between the four projects, each were found to be appropriate
and effective.
For the Odysseus project, potential volunteers complete an application form, attend an initial interview, have
CRB check, complete 30 hours training, and then attend a final interview. Interviews are always conducted by
two members of staff, plus a mentor or a young person.
For the Baseline project, everyone who would like to volunteer is invited to meet up for an informal chat and
they are sent a letter with the selection process which is to attend all of the group training, have an acceptable
CRB disclosure and provide two written references. For mentoring in the prison they also need clearance from
the prison.
The Sandwriter project provides prospective volunteers with information on the project, Person specification,
Equality and Diversity Monitoring form, Rehabilitation of Offender exempt form (declaration of offences).
These are completed before an interview with staff and before meeting the service user.
Interview questions and a score sheet are used for selection. Two references are required after short listing
and before training, which is part of the recruitment process. Enhanced CRB discloser must be received before
the volunteer is officially on the project. If they have not informed the project of convictions that appear on
the CRB form, they will not be considered for a mentoring position.
Each of the projects sensitively provides feedback immediately to potential mentors, should they prove to be
unsuitable candidates. This may be after seeing the application form, during interview or during the initial
training. Anyone unsuitable is offered role descriptions for other volunteering opportunities within the
project, whenever possible; also contact information for volunteer centres, other projects and ‘do it’ website.
10
Below is a table showing the profiles of the mentors engaged on the pilot.
Exoffender
Peer
Mentor
Age
16-24
M
F
8
19
27
25-49
M
F
16
8
24
50+
M
F
2
0
2
Employed
Student
No /
retired
FT
PT
VCS
Public
Private
FT
PT
6
12
6
5
7
14
7
2
Student
&
employ
5
8
The majority of people found out about the opportunity to volunteer as a mentor via advertising, internet,
local college/cvs, with only 11 finding out via word of mouth, therefore sufficient budget is required to
facilitate adequate advertising/promotion.
Element 7 - There are appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard the
involvement of participants in the project
•
The project applies appropriate policies and procedures to safeguard the involvement of
its mentors and service users.
•
Risk assessments are carried out on mentoring activities undertaken by participants.
•
Appropriate insurance cover is provided for all project participants.
This information is detailed in the Project Operations Questionnaire (Appendix 6).
All four projects were found to have effective systems in place.
Comprehensive risk assessments of activities were carried out by each project, with acknowledgment and
appreciation of their importance indicated by the mentors:
Mentor comment:
“I always feel safe due to the co-ordinators checking on us.”
Unfortunately however, the application of such policies was found to not always be sufficient to facilitate a
quick, smooth transition for potential service users onto the project, if the mentoring is to begin in custody
and provided by a project not based within the establishment. The delay results from significant constraints
when getting a mentor accepted by the prison service. Although the necessity for clearance is acknowledged
and accepted by the projects, they find the time scales involved to be inhibitive and detrimental to the
potential outcomes achieved by the mentoring. Not only does this impede progress for the service user, but
the subsequent lack of demonstrable outcomes when reporting to funders renders continuation / new funding
opportunities at risk.
This common issue is identified by the project comment below:
Baseline:
“The main obstacle we faced was the amount of time from training a volunteer mentor to matching them with a
young person in prison or Young Offenders Institute, due to changes in clearance documents and procedure. We
were unable to apply for prison clearance until we received a satisfactory Criminal Records Bureau Clearance then
it took ages for the prison clearance to come back. Generally, from sending a CRB application to having prison
clearance, it took approximately seven months, so it was difficult to show results.”
11
Element 8 - Mentors receive adequate preparation and training so that they can offer
effective support to service users
•
Volunteer mentors are provided with an induction and/or information and training to
equip them to carry out their roles effectively.
•
The needs and characteristics of service users are taken into account when designing
training programmes for volunteer mentors.
•
The preparation and training provided to volunteer mentors is constantly evaluated to
assess its effectiveness.
Each project employs formal induction procedures and provides appropriate, detailed induction materials to
their mentors.
Initial training provided varies between the projects, from 15 – 30 hours, with delivery varying from 3 hour
sessions spread over several weeks, to two full days. Two of the projects incorporate this initial training into
their recruitment process. Each project provides ongoing training – some delivering to a formalised timetable
(fitting with accredited training schedule), whilst others were less formal – occurring as/when needs were
identified.
Feedback gained from the LSC pilot mentors’ questionnaires (Appendix 5) indicated that each project
provided robust training in all identified required elements (Appendix 1) – except for two recurring areas for
improvement which were details of the criminal justice system, supporting agencies and how they link with
the mentoring projects.
Service User comment:
“I think the mentors should receive more training in specific issues relating to needs (housing, finances, etc) and
form better alliances with these other supporting agencies, so signposting would be more effective.”
Each project provides mentors with training evaluation forms at the end of each session, which are evaluated
frequently to determine effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
Mentor comments:
“Very good training – interesting and informative; good opportunities for peer learning and information sharing;
excellent tutoring in a relaxed and supportive environment.”
“The training is extremely valuable and delivered very well – engaging and informative.”
“The training I have received has been inspirational and very valuable.”
“The training was fantastic, felt I was readily and adequately prepared to become a mentor.”
“I feel the group would have benefitted from more training on how the criminal justice system works and what the
different agencies involved in the welfare of young people who may be at risk are.”
“The training I was provided with at the outset was invaluable to me being able to understand what was needed
of me and how to deal with situations. It was by far the best training I have had for a long time.”
12
Element 9 - There is a clear and consistent process in place for matching service users
with mentors
•
There is a clear and consistent process in place for matching service users with mentors,
which takes into account the circumstances, needs and stated preferences or service users
whilst making the best use of attributes, experience and interests of the mentor.
•
There is a procedure in place to quickly rematch service users with other mentors should
relationships turn out to be unsuitable or unsatisfactory.
All projects demonstrated effective policies in this area. This was confirmed by information received from the
completed Service User Feedback forms – Project Management (Appendix 4).
However, one service user’s comments, when interviewed by the pilot project manager, did suggest that in
practice these policies may sometimes be inadvertently overlooked:
Kevin “I would have liked more information about the mentor from project, before meeting up, so I could decide if they
sounded right for me. If I had been told the age of my first mentor, I would have told them straight away that I
wouldn’t be comfortable with that match, due to the age difference. I also think they could ask a bit more about
my preference for what kind of mentor – age, male/female, peer ex-offender, etc.”
Kevin said the first mentor was he matched to was half his age, which he felt was too young to open up to, as
he hadn’t experienced as much life as him – though Kevin did acknowledge he was a very nice person.
His second match was a mentor of the same age as him and Kevin felt it was a great match.
He is ready to complete mentoring support now and feels much more confident and happy due to mentoring
provided. Kevin said he wouldn’t hesitate to return to the project and request assistance again, if he should
ever need it in the future.
Whilst the overwhelming majority of feedback from mentees and mentors, including the comments below,
did indicate each project operated appropriate, effective practices for mentor/mentee matching, it can be
seen from the example above how important it is that projects ensure they always implement this, as for
Kevin, it could so easily have been detrimental to the potential mentoring relationship, without him giving it a
second chance.
Mentor comments:
“The process to be matched with a mentee was straight forward and support is always available.”
“I really enjoy being a mentor and I am sure it is down to the project manager’s ability to successfully match the
right mentor to mentee.”
Ex-offender Peer Mentors
One project suffered particular problems when matching a service user with a peer mentor (ex-offender), as
the referrer (probation service) initially objected strongly to the engagement of such peer mentors, despite
the relationship being successful for the service user. The project acted swiftly, providing a new match for the
service user. However, further discussions quickly resolved the referrer’s concerns and the peer mentor was
reinstated, albeit with a different service user.
Only one of the four projects worked with ex-offender peer mentors – not because of a lack of belief in their
suitability, but due to the fact they recognised the difficulties encountered when dealing with referrers who
were not happy with this arrangement. Also, one project did not work with peer mentors as they only work
with young people (aged 8-18) and felt it was not appropriate.
13
The feedback forms indicated (Appendix 4) that there was not a specific preference from service users to be
matched with an ex-offender peer mentor. However, many were not able to be, as the project did not engage
them, therefore were unaware of the benefits such a match may bring. Those few that were matched with a
peer mentor each indicated that this was both preferable and more helpful in encouraging them to achieve
their goals. The issue for projects seemed not to be in the recruitment and management of ex-offenders as
peer mentors, but the resistance of acceptance they experienced from prison and probation service staff,
funders and commissioners.
Element 10 - There is on-going supervision and support provided for mentors to help
them develop in their role
•
Mentors receive regular supervision and support throughout the duration of their
mentoring relationships
•
Additional training and development opportunities are provided in response to the needs
of the service and development needs of the mentors
Each project was found to have formal supervision procedures in place, utilising detailed forms for recording
and monitoring progress/development needs. The frequency/format of supervision varies slightly between
the projects, with the timing of individual supervision sessions occurring either every 4 or 8 weeks. One
project operates a monthly peer support meeting for their mentors, together with bi-monthly progress review
meetings for mentor and mentee together.
The Pyramid project offers further training opportunities to the mentors as and when they arise.
Baseline mentors are regularly invited to additional training delivered by external organisations. Mentors also
have access to Depaul Uk core training and other training that may be relevant to their role and to help them
to support their mentee.
Within a year, Sandwriter’s mentors complete Child protection, Basic Skills awareness, Drug Awareness and
Basic First Aid. This is a requirement for them to successfully complete the accredited Mentoring for young
people Training.
During supervision, the Odysseus project asks if the mentor has any additional training needs. If so, they will
either arrange this on an individual basis or open it up to all the volunteers, e.g. Asylum Seeker Awareness.
Additional training may also be identified via the weekly catch-ups after a meeting. Project staff may also
identify a training need for mentors.
Mentor comments:
“I enjoyed my time with the project and felt the communication between volunteers and staff was fantastic. I
never felt I was stuck or unsure of how to cope.”
"I have received a lot of support from my mentor co-ordinator and this has resulted in my effective and pro-active
role in supporting the mentee.”
“Any worries or concerns I have had I have been able to talk them through.”
14
Element 11 - The progress of relationships is regularly and routinely monitored to
determine whether they are functioning successfully
•
There is a structured and documented process in place for monitoring the progress of
individual relationships to determine whether they are functioning successfully and
achieving the goals identified for them.
•
Information about the progress and/or results of individual relationships is gathered and
recorded for evaluation purposes.
•
Monitoring information is used as an opportunity for offering further support to the
individuals involved.
•
Feedback on the quality of the service from mentors, service users and stakeholders is
obtained and acted upon during and after relationships have ended
Although all projects had in-depth knowledge of their service users, mentors and the progress of
relationships, from the outset it was clear their recording systems did not always reflect this – some being
inconsistent in approach with ad-hoc paragraphed information, rather than measurable data. Therefore, pilot
templates were provided to each project, for consistent recording of information.
One such template was the Service User Feedback form, which captured information in three sections: A –
Personal Development; B – Mentor Contact; C – Project Management (summarised in Appendix 2, 3 & 4). This
enabled it to be completed in sections at different stages during the relationship, rather than all at once,
which may have proved too onerous for many service users. It was accepted that assistance from the mentor
to complete it may be required. This is obviously not ideal, as it may affect the honesty of responses provided
by the service user. However, for the purpose of this pilot, it was noted that there was no other system
available that would provide the comprehensive feedback required, in a format manageable by service users
alone.
Project comments:
Sandwriter:
“The materials used for the Pilot have been of a very high standard. I have adopted some of the questions from
the service user mentoring feedback form used by the pilot. We now use them in our service user evaluation form.”
Baseline:
“Many of the form templates provided have been adopted and other documents we use have been improved. The
relationships have been monitored more effectively due to the new documents used. Using the documents has
also highlighted problems with getting feedback so we will now request feedback earlier than we require.”
Odysseus:
“I have incorporated some of the information requested for the pilot into my feedback sheets.”
Pyramid:
“The project had three Mentor Co-ordinators during its time with the MBF pilot. The transition was made easier
due to the paper work in place i.e. Service User and Mentor Profiles.”
15
Element 12 - The overall effectiveness of the mentoring or befriending project is
evaluated to improve its service and outcomes
•
There is an evaluation process in place that enables the project to assess the overall
effectiveness of the service and to enable an assessment of outcomes for mentors and
service users.
•
Evidence is provided to stakeholders of the project’s progress and achievements in
relation to its overall aims and objectives.
•
Appropriate action is taken to improve the delivery of the service and contribute to
continuous development and improvement.
Two of the projects had previously been independently evaluated.
Each of the four projects demonstrated an understanding and recognition of the importance to evaluate their
policies/procedures regularly, to ensure ongoing effectiveness. Informal assessment is carried out constantly
by each project, by listening to comments received on a daily basis from mentors and mentees, regarding
their experience of the project. Following regular support/supervision sessions, feedback is recorded and
monthly/bi-monthly reports produced. Project managers and co-ordinators implement the changes as/when
required action is identified.
However, although each project had systems in place intending to capture the relevant information, some
methods were more effective than others.
Three of the projects have the use of a dedicated database for monitoring, but were not necessarily capturing
information in a way that could be adequately recorded, or that was detailed enough to provide full,
appropriate analysis of their progress.
Each project provides formal reports of their progress to their funders/stakeholders on a quarterly/6 month
basis. However, it was apparent that, due to some of the weaker monitoring systems, many of the successful
outcomes for their mentors and service users may have been left unstated on reports, thereby failing to
demonstrate the true level of the project’s effectiveness.
Project comment:
Sandwriter:
“As part of the pilot we had to answer questions about our service and its operations. This required me to reflect
and analyse my project – something I haven’t had the luxury of doing for a long time.”
“Being part of the LSC Pilot Project has been very
beneficial as it helped highlight the project’s
strengths and areas for development.”
Project Manager: Sandwriter
16
“The main focus
was to find my mentee a new
hobby, also working on his
numeracy and literacy and at
the same time helping him with
anger issues (all of which were
achieved).”
Mentor: Sandwriter Project
17
Training Programme Analysis
Developing NOS and Vocational Qualification for Mentoring offenders and those at risk of
offending.
As a result of MBF research (involving over 700 scheme co-ordinators) into the demand for accredited training
for volunteers and co-ordinators, which indicated a strong level of interest, the Foundation approached Skills
for Justice (SfJ) to work in partnership to explore the possibilities of developing such training based on
National Occupational Standards.
The LSC pilot project assisted the NOS project in a number of ways.
-
Initial research undertaken for the pilot project on the training elements needed for mentors
(summarised in Appendix 1) informed the content of the first drafts of the NOS and gave a very useful
starting point on which to build on.
-
The pilot project provided a very useful network to disseminate information on the NOS project to a
wide variety of organisations.
-
Those organisations involved in the pilot project contributed to the National Occupational Standards
project by commenting and giving feedback on the content of the NOS and the qualification structure
which has helped ensure they are fit for purpose.
New NOS have been created and existing NOS from other areas have been imported to make up the
Mentoring and Befriending Suite. The suite covers these 5 areas:
-
Developing organisational strategy and practice in mentoring/ befriending
-
Developing and sustaining mentoring/befriending relationships
-
Coordinating the deployment of mentors/befrienders and safeguarding those involved
-
Working with other teams and agencies to enhance service provision
-
Managing individual and team development
These NOS have been used to develop a vocational award structure which requires a candidate to achieve 4
units: two units being mandatory with a choice of another two from an optional basket.
The qualification focuses on the second area – developing and sustaining mentoring and befriending
relationships. This area was chosen as those undertaking the front line roles, including volunteers, fall into this
section.
The NOS and qualification structure was submitted to the UKCES and has now been approved, being
available to view and download using the Skills for Justice NOS Finder –
http://www.skillsforjustice-nosfinder.com/suites.php?suite_id=40
This site also contains information on how the NOS can be used and integrated into organisational processes.
SfJ and MBF continue to work together to put an infrastructure in place to launch the qualification.
18
Outcomes achieved during the pilot project
The mentors and service users identified that the experience of providing/receiving mentoring support had
been a major catalyst to enable them to engage with training courses, gain qualifications and/or employment.
These outcomes were captured on a monthly basis using the monitoring forms provided to the four projects.
Project comments:
Pyramid:
“One individual completed our Peer Mentoring Course; has had his arrears problems addressed and is now able to
bid for properties within the Local Authorities’ choice-based letting scheme; has completed a business start-up
course, become a volunteer within a local hostel and has re-established relationships with family members.
Mentors have helped those referred with rent arrears, securing housing, finding education courses, preparing
C.V’s and applying for work, attending hospital appointments, engaging in domestic violence programmes, along
with continual support to address emotional issues and gain in confidence, raising self-esteem and aspirations for
the future and developing coping strategies to deal with any further problems as they arise.”
Odysseus:
“The client group with whom I work face numerous barriers and challenges that impact on them and therefore the
opportunities that are open to them. Their self esteem and confidence is often very low.
A relationship needs to be established first – then all of the issues and barriers need to be addressed prior to a
young person being in the position to be able to access training, education or employment. This is vital in order to
provide crucial support and to enable long term sustainable change. Even getting the young people into a routine
of meeting with the mentor on a weekly basis is a challenge in itself.”
Mentor Comment:
“During my time with the programme I have developed a lot of transferrable skills which will help me in my job
search.”
Service User comment:
“I couldn’t talk to/open up to probation officer, due to authority issue – I never got to know the person, just
couldn’t get past the off-putting thought of authority. On the mentoring project all people (staff & mentors) were
very friendly, helpful, non-judgemental and approachable.”
There was no significance in age group regarding achievements, it was an equal split.
It can be seen (Appendix 2 & 3) that the most significant improvements occur after receiving 6+ months
mentoring support; also that the majority of service users felt that the mentoring support had definitely been
an important contributing factor to these improvements.
From the following tables it can be seen that 29 out of the 57 (51%) mentees had engaged in a wide range of
education/training opportunities by the end of the mentoring process, 6 (10%) had achieved qualifications
and 9 (16%) had found employment.
The mentors themselves had also achieved outcomes whilst volunteering over the 15 month period.
Numerous related education/training courses, other than the standard mentoring training, were accessed by
a total of 62 participants, though this figure does represent some mentors attending more than one training
course. 14 (26%) gained qualifications and 15 (28%) gained employment, most being directly related to their
mentoring activities, with the mentors believing their volunteering experiences had been a significant
influence on this success.
Such impressive outcomes were made possible by staff commitment from each project.
19
Numbers engaged in education/training (other than standard mentoring)
Number
Mentors
Service
Users
Education / training details
62
29
Counselling Skills OCN L2
Youth Work L2
HFC Physiology, Law & Health
Criminal Justice Training
Hostel Awareness
Housing for Offenders
University intro course – Counselling & Children
Advice & Guidance Level 4
Asylum Seeker Awareness Training
Mental Health Awareness
Drug & Alcohol Awareness
Debt Management & Advice
Basic Skills
OCR Core Module CLAIT
L1 English, Maths, IT
L2 Maths
BTEC Skills for Work
In-Biz Business Course
Hair & Beauty Course
Catering Course
Peer mentoring
Princes Trust Volunteers
Plumbing Course
Health & Social Care
Building Course
Connexions Course
Sport Coach Award
Sports Level 1
IMI L1 Paint & Shop Car Body work
Army Prep Course – FT
Performing Arts
NE – Take the Challenge Course
College Introductory Award
Driving course
Drive Ahead Course –
driving lessons; theory test; placement on a training course
for career choices; bronze youth achievement award (if
portfolio completed); employability skills training;
participation in group volunteering challenges
Numbers achieving qualifications
Number
Mentors
Service
Users
Qualifications
14
6
BSC Forensic Psychology
OCN Level 2 Counselling
Level 3 Youth Work
Criminal Justice degree
Numeracy L2
Pre-Access Health Level 2
Literacy Level 2
Criminology Diploma
L1 Maths
Computer course L1 Unit 1
3 Key skills – Working With Others,
Problem Solving, Improving Own
Learning & Performance
Hygiene, Health & Safety
st
Heart Start 1 Aid
N&L Assessment for Army
C&G Certificate in Personal Team & Community Skills
Food
NCFE Drugs Awareness L1
A4E – First Steps Level 1 – Personal Development Skills;
Group & Teamwork; Communication skills
Numbers gaining employment
Number
Employment Details
Support worker for Newcastle Youth Service
Working with young people at M’bro football
stadium
Mentors
Service
Users
15
9
Project worker for local Resettlement Worker
for Nacro
Short listed for interview Y&C sector
PT fitness instructor & restaurant waiter
Part-time job in Youth Work
nd
2 part-time job – Youth Work
FT job/training support worker – Escape
Sessional Reparation worker for South
Tyneside YOS (x3)
Voluntary work with homeless
Peer mentor – housing advice for ex-offenders
Metrocentre cleaner
FT Shop Assistant
Bar work
Family employment – cable pulling Research
Questionnaire work
Transporting Salesman
Signed up for the Army
20
Relief Residential Child Care officer(x2)
Learning Support assistant at School
Drop out numbers = 17 Total
Length of
support
received
Achievements
st
2 months
-
contacted but lost interest
st
-
-
Did not engage
st
-
-
Did not engage
st
-
-
Did not engage, re-offended
st
1 month
-
Didn’t really engage, didn’t want to continue
st
Age
Nature
15
1 Time
16
1 Time
19
1 Time
21
1 Time
22
1 Time
Reason for drop-out
31
1 Time
1 month
-
Didn’t really engage so removed
15
Repeat
6 months
-
Missed appointments, re-offended
17
Repeat
2 months
-
Lost interest – progressed to Connexions course
20
Repeat
-
-
Did not engage
Achieved
qualifications &
supported to attend
training course
No explanation, unable to contact despite significant
effort
20
Repeat
6 months
21
Repeat
4 months
-
Unknown reason despite extensive efforts made to
contact
21
Repeat
5 months
Linked to
education/training
Unknown reason despite extensive efforts made to
contact
25
Repeat
-
-
Did not engage
42
Repeat
1 month
-
Didn’t really engage so removed
55
Repeat
2 months
-
Lost interest, contacted – offered self-referral route in
future, if wanted
20
PPO
3 months
-
Did not engage with mentor upon release
26
PPO
1 month
-
Decided he was too old for mentor – left
It was noted that the two projects which struggled with staffing issues (co-ordinator absent for majority of project lifetime /
frequent change of staff) had a significantly higher drop-out rate than the other two.
Drop-outs occurred most frequently at the beginning of the relationship, often before a match had been made, which could
indicate more dedicated activity is needed within first two months – intensive support to build relationships.
It was identified that all projects made significant attempts to contact service users, if drop-out occurred (Appendix 6 – Project
Operations questionnaire) – though often without success.
Re-offenders Total = 5
Length of
support
received
Age
Nature
Achievements
Outcome
15
Repeat
18 hrs
-
17
Repeat
2 months
-
Recalled to prison
Mentoring ended
17
Repeat
5 months
-
Was in residential care,
moved on to Probation care
th
on 18 birthday
Mentoring ended
22
Repeat
2 months
-
Recalled to prison
Mentoring ended
21
Repeat
5 months
Gained job
Recalled to prison
Mentoring will continue
Lost interest in project
The re-offending rate was relatively low for repeat offenders, being 5 out of a total of 26 (19%).
st
No 1 time / PPO offenders re-offended during their time with the project.
21
Comments re: participation
Project Managers:
Sandwriter
“Being part of the LSC Pilot Project has been very beneficial as it helped highlight the project’s strengths and
areas for development.”
Baseline
“Our mentoring projects have greatly benefited from being part of the LSC pilot project. It has given us great
opportunity to reflect on how the project operates and how we can improve practices, as well as linking in with
other organisations to support the people that we work with. We are very grateful for the opportunity to be part
of the pilot. It has been most beneficial to the mentoring service we provide to young people; a fantastic
experience and great to receive such support.”
Odysseus
“I have enjoyed being a part of the pilot and have found it to be very beneficial in a number of ways. My
knowledge & links with services & providers has developed and new links have been forged.”
Pyramid
“I have learnt a great deal over the months on this project and I will continue to use and adapt some of the forms
on the Mentoring Programme.”
Mentors:
“I have enjoyed the experience of being a mentor and would recommend it to all, as it is a very rewarding role.”
“Although demanding at times, being a mentor is immensely personally rewarding.”
“I thoroughly enjoyed all of it.”
Service Users:
“I enjoyed meeting with my mentor, she is friendly and easy to talk
to. I haven’t been in trouble with the police since meeting with her. I
now go to Sea Cadets and don’t hang about on a night. We did lots of
things ice skating, Sea cadets, café visits and the last session we
went to the cinema.”
“I felt angry all the time and was always getting kicked out of school
before I met my mentor, Colin. I’m a lot calmer and don’t lose my rag
as much now. My attitude
towards some adults has
changed. Colin and staff at the
project always spoke to me as
an adult and gave me respect.
Colin helped me plan and set
targets and personal goals.
I did an anger management
programme, school work,
played pool, group visits, ice
skating and go-carting.”
“Liz is canny and easy going and likes some of the stuff I like. She makes
me laugh.
Activities included talking, going for something to eat, we also went to a
choir and a youth project and bowling. I probably wouldn’t have done any
of this because I haven’t got any money or anyone to go with. It’s a really good project because when parents
have got other things to do and are really busy and you haven’t got any one to talk to or a friend, you can talk to
your mentor if you have any problems.”
22
Toolkit Evaluation
The Right Track and Tribal Mentoring Toolkits were provided to each project, with a proportion of service
users (13), mentors (16) and project staff (4) providing feedback. Not all of the above trialled both toolkits.
The development of the toolkits was mainly funded by the LSC.
Right Track was developed by the partnership of Durham Probation Service, NOMS North East and Prison
Service North East.
It is a paper based personal organiser, provided in a small plastic wallet, with pen. If it is to be used within
prison/YOI, the wallet, which includes a metal ring binder, is replaced with a plastic envelope. The sections
include: advice regarding the 7 Pathways, including useful contacts and space for adding notes; a guide to
Licence requirements, plus useful contacts and additional pages for adding notes; a personal planner/personal
contacts section.
Feedback indicated (see following comments table) it was considered to lack quality/robustness, particularly
in the quality of the paper. It is not designed to be a suitable recording system for projects - more of a
personal resource for the service user, yet when questioned they indicated they would not use it without the
support of their mentor. There was also concern about how long the printed information would remain
relevant, rather than out of date.
The LSC commissioned Tribal Education to develop the CD Mentoring Toolkit in 2008. To ensure data
protection and confidentiality, all the information stored is encrypted and requires a password for access. It is
designed as an interactive information and planning tool.
It had been hoped that the project staff would receive training in the use of the Tribal Toolkit, to enable them
to train their mentors in their use and provide appropriate feedback. However, after investigating, the LSC
were disappointed to report that such training from Tribal was going to be of significant cost, therefore it was
agreed the projects would attempt to determine correct use themselves. This may have impacted upon their
full understanding of its use and subsequently their feedback comments, but it was acknowledged that other
projects attempting to use this tool would face the same issues, if they were unable to afford the training.
Right Track Toolkit
Tribal Toolkit
the community
27
23
Prison/YOI
4
0
Please X all that apply
I used the
toolkit in:
Only
once
Up
to 5
More
than
5
Approximately, how many
times have you used the
toolkit?
14
6
How many service users have
you used to toolkit with?
7
4
Frequency of use
Question
Question
does not
apply to
me
Only
once
Up to
5
More
than 5
3
6
14
6
3
1
17
6
3
1
does not
apply to
me
13
Training
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did you receive support to help
you use the toolkit properly?
25
4
21
2
Feedback regarding the use of the toolkits identified that both were mostly used in the community, rather
than in the prison/YOI setting, particularly in the case of the Tribal Toolkit - due to security issues involved in
taking CD-ROMS into the prison.
Both were considered to have good points, yet also to have areas for development / improvement. The two
toolkits have a different purpose, so are not really comparable.
23
The Tribal toolkit consists of two sections – a mentoring guide and an interactive planning tool. The overall
idea of the toolkit is good, but the information in the mentoring guide is quite basic, whilst purporting to be
suitable for refresher training for experienced mentors. It is also slightly confusing, as the wording alternates
between direction towards the mentors, then the mentees.
The ‘planning together’ section consists of two main sections. The ‘M Plan’ has the following features: an
overview of the mentee; recording of a long term goal; links to the seven pathways for action (can choose
goals for just one or several). These links go to the ‘Action Plan’ where goals are recorded, together with their
individual action points, notes, a date for review and identification of the level of importance of each overall
goal for the for mentee. These pages can be printed off. The long term goal and overall goal for each pathway
- together with their level of importance (shown in a level of steps above the pathway), can be seen
collectively on the M Plan, from where they can be directly accessed to amend, update or review progress.
This page can also be printed off.
All these features are visually appealing for use by the mentor and mentee, though feedback indicated there
would be a preference to have a visual diagram of progress, rather than just notes.
Because the toolkit requires use of IT facilities, it will not always be practical for use by the mentors and
mentees together, unless they are meeting within the project premises, or the mentors have their own
laptops, which would be extremely expensive and most likely impractical for projects to supply. It downloads
itself onto the system, requiring administrator rights, so impractical for use in the community on public
resources. Although sheets can be printed off, to use without the toolkit programme, staff/mentors then have
to input the data back onto records on the programme, which is time consuming. This method also loses the
benefit of the interactive purpose it was intended for.
Unfortunately, the toolkit appears not to provide the facility to collate information for all mentees, regarding
support required/provided, progress, outcomes, etc. – a feature which would have been invaluable for
monitoring/evaluation purposes. Instead, this information would need to be captured elsewhere - input via
the viewing and subsequent recording of information from each mentees individual record stored on the
Mentoring Toolkit.
As each mentor has their own password for access to their own mentee’s records, this questions whether the
project staff would require knowledge/input of every password to access the records – something which could
inhibit their monitoring of information recorded. This would also prove to be extremely time consuming when
attempting to evaluate overall progress/ outcomes, unless pages from the toolkit were printed off regularly
and the information transferred at that point.
It can be seen from the following table that the majority of responses for ‘appearance and practical use’
favoured the Right Track toolkit over the Tribal CD, with it having significantly more ratings received for
columns 3 and 4. Tribal CD received particularly low ratings for the following two questions:
•
How practical is it for use outside of the project premises?
Although the Right Track toolkit fared well for this question, the Tribal CD was considered by the majority to
be unsuitable for use away from the projects premises, for the reasons listed above.
•
How easy is it to record multiple actions required at the same time – for each subject area?
The Right Track toolkit fared slightly better, but both were considered to need improvements in this area.
However, comments for the Tribal toolkit would seem to indicate a level of confusion in its use, with mentors
not recognising how these multiple actions could be recorded.
For ‘effectiveness’ both toolkits fared similarly, with the majority of responses being positive and generally
indicating ‘quite a lot/very’ for each question.
However, each of the four project staff asked stated that they would choose not to use the Tribal toolkit and
two said not the Right Track toolkit - in their current format, but said they would do so if the improvements
they had suggested (see following comments table) were incorporated.
This would indicate that there is still a need for the development of a comprehensive, practical
mentoring toolkit, preferably capable of providing beneficial monitoring / evaluation functions.
24
1 = not at all
3 = quite a lot
APPEARANCE
Right Track
Toolkit
2 = little bit
4 = very
1
Tribal
Toolkit
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Is the content pleasing to look at?
(graphics, appropriate wording, font size,
etc.)
6
12
11
3
4
10
6
How easy is it to recognize what the
different sections of information are?
1
10
18
1
2
12
8
4
13
12
2
4
9
8
4
10
15
3
3
13
4
How good do you think the idea of the
toolkit model is?
(using a CD / Personal Organiser)
How easy is it to understand how to use –
to move through the different sections
and record / review information?
(Is the purpose of each section clear?)
PRACTICAL
USE
How practical is it for use outside of the
project premises?
(Any difficulties accessing equipment
required, gaining acceptance from
authorities, etc?)
1
6
9
13
15
5
2
1
How practical is the amount of room
provided for adding your own notes?
7
7
9
6
4
7
9
3
How easy is it to record multiple actions
required at the same time – for each
subject area?
3
13
10
3
10
9
3
1
Would you be happy to take responsibility
for keeping the toolkit safe in your
possession?
6
3
8
12
How often do you think you would make
use of the toolkit on your own, without the
help of your mentor?
12
10
3
4
25
1 = not at all
3 = quite a lot
2 = little
4 = very
Right Track Toolkit
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
8
13
7
2
6
13
2
How well does it provide a picture of the full
action plan, at a glance?
2
17
9
1
1
7
13
2
How well do you think it shows progress?
5
13
9
2
9
6
5
3
How important (motivating) do you think it is to
be able to see the full action plan / progress at a
glance?
2
8
9
10
3
2
9
9
How much did using it motivate you to continue
with the action plan?
9
6
12
2
9
5
6
3
6
9
8
2
6
4
1
Is it helpful as a planning tool?
(for setting goals and actions)
How much did you like using the toolkit –
compared to other usual project recording
methods?
I have no
preference
(action planning / reviewing progress?)
I have no
preference
6
10
Please rate the different parts of the toolkit, according to how helpful you thought they were:
1 = not at all 2 = a little
3 = quite a bit 4 = very
5 = I didn’t use this
Right Track Toolkit
1
2
3
Tribal Toolkit
4
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
7
6
3
How to be a
mentor
4
4
8
4
3
Case studies
6
4
5
5
3
Regional contacts
4
3
7
5
4
My notepad
3
4
7
5
4
3
5
7
5
3
1
6
8
6
2
2
6
8
5
1
3
9
9
2
5
Pathway info:
Pathway info:
Housing
Training, skills /
jobs
Life skills
Drugs & alcohol
Children & family
Health
Money
As opposite
2
6
8
9
Mentoring Guide
E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
E
N
E
S
S
Tribal Toolkit
4
Resources (fact
2
4
9
4
10
Useful Contacts
1
4
13
7
4
Personal Contacts
2
5
11
4
7
Personal Planner
3
4
9
7
6
sheets, discussion
points)
M Plan (picture of
Planning
Together
Licence Guidance
overall plan)
Action Plan
(individual actions
agreed)
Take a tour
(guide for use)
The questions below are for project staff only to complete:
Right Track
Toolkit
If you only used one toolkit, ignore the column of questions relating to the other
Yes
No
1
Would you be interested in using the toolkit (in current format) as an
integral part of your project’s resources / recording / monitoring systems?
2
2
2
If not – if the changes you may have suggested were made – would you be
more likely to incorporate it?
4
Tribal
Toolkit
Yes
No
4
4
When / with whom would you use this toolkit:
3
For action planning / recording,
progress reporting
Training of mentors
With service users
2
Project staff / mentors only
1
Induction
2
Refresher / ongoing
2
26
1
Comments received from completed feedback forms:
Right Track:
Can be used by mentors as signposting tool
Handy for Peer Mentor
Can be used for reference in session
Quality product, nice pen
Easy to navigate
Looks well – good idea
May use when qualified mentor
Next time – go for ‘jobs’ on orange tab, mauve tab = ‘skills’ = keep content the same
Change order of subjects – Drugs, Money = at top
More space required for personal notes (11 comments same)
Better paper & graphics, pictures (4)
Could be better shape, design (3)
Bit more advice about benefits
More information, less sections (2)
Airway/breathing/recovery page
Not all sections relevant to mentee
Sexually transmitted diseases page
Best used by the mentee, rather than the mentor
Requires good literacy skills
Toolkit not applicable for mentoring
I don’t think people would use it
Plastic envelope no good – everything falls apart
I didn’t find book all that much good. We read it once and never went back to it.
I gave it to my mentor when I got it (ages ago) and we haven’t used it since
Problem getting the mentee to see the use of the personal planner
Some actual points of contact within Life Skills would be helpful
Should be more apt for young people aged 10-17, rather than older offenders
Tribal:
I liked it, it was very helpful
Useful motivational tool for mentors
Contained lots more info, contacts, etc., than the RT toolkit. The plan is very accessible. However,
required access to computer is restrictive – but appealing to young people.
Only allows one goal plan/action – needs to cover more for different issues (3 comments same)
Access would be better via website rather than using laptops (3)
Can’t see progress (2)
Would rather use pen & paper – programme doesn’t give full picture – get this via talking /
knowledge which can be hand written = waste of time
Difficult to use in the community – due to laptop requirement
Make better use of graphics sound & space
Regional contacts doesn’t cover Middlesbrough
More local and young people specific regional contacts needed
Should be able to see progression pictures, other people’s views
Get rid of the laptop version – I didn’t like it at all
Colours need to match reviews – 1 month blue, 3 month green, etc.
I found this difficult/confusing to use – kept going to wrong section
Requires good literacy skills
Project comments:
“The group meetings helped provide support especially when market testing Right Track Toolkit and Tribal
Toolkit. All projects experienced similar difficulties with this task”.
“The Tribal toolkit is a great concept but if the funds are not there to pay for these laptops, then it is pointless”.
27
Pilot Conclusion
When undertaking the pilot, MBF was extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to closely monitor the
work and experience of such dedicated projects. This undoubtedly provided a wealth of valuable information
and a true insight into the many common issues faced by mentoring projects – no matter how established
they may be and regardless of their size.
Each project operated different policies regarding the length of time the mentoring support was available for,
with some having it limited to a number of weeks or sessions, whilst others offered open-ended support,
depending on needs identified. However, all projects appeared to achieve numerous beneficial outcomes for
their service users, thereby suggesting there is not one definitive method which could be considered the
preferred, more appropriate and productive approach.
In many instances, particularly with the younger service users, it was the activities undertaken that captured
their commitment to the project – not just the benefit of someone to talk to, though this was undoubtedly
important to them. This indicates a sufficient budget is required to facilitate such important activities.
Although projects within large national organisations may tend to have a more adequate staffing structure,
they do not necessarily appear to achieve more successful outcomes – due to the extreme dedication of staff
from the small independent projects – working extensive hours to meet delivery demands. However, when
reporting to stakeholders, careful consideration should be given as to how this factor may be included,
otherwise there is a danger that this activity portrays to funders that the project already has a successful
structure in place and therefore does not need to employ more staff.
Whilst appropriate strategies, aims and objectives may be determined by projects and incorporated into their
policies, this is not sufficient to ensure ongoing success. Continuous monitoring, frequent staff/mentor
meetings and refresher training should be an integral part of procedures.
To put adequate systems in place (staffing/policies/training/promotion, etc.) requires a fully supportive
budget – not minimal or restrictive, rendering the service potentially ineffective. However, funders invariably
cannot support an application to provide more funding without the back-up of clear, informative reports.
Projects may employ efficient policies/procedures, with highly competent staff, but if project outcomes are
not adequately recorded and evaluated, then this affects not only funding provision, but project development
and growth. Reports are not just for the benefit of funders and commissioners, but for potential partners,
referral organisations, etc.; also effective monitoring and evaluation to ensure the project can adequately
assess its impact and any requirements for improvement, capacity building, etc. Each project acknowledged
the importance of using appropriate recording / monitoring forms, as provided to them by MBF, for the
purpose of the pilot.
Although the two smaller projects could have considered each other to be competition for funding/referrals,
they decided to take a more positive approach. They joined forces to share work, resources, contacts etc. By
utilising each other’s strengths, they provided a broader, more holistic service. Both projects reported that
this was a very beneficial experience for them – something they intended to continue to develop. Adoption of
this collaborative approach would undoubtedly prove highly productive for other projects, also.
It can be seen from the appendix tables and comments within the report, that the service not only benefits
mentees, but for the volunteer mentors it creates opportunities to gain valuable experience and a wide range
of knowledge/skills – assisting them to gain qualifications/employment.
Funders/partners/referrers need reassurance they are supporting/working with a good project. As they do not
necessarily have extensive knowledge of mentoring services, with some perhaps considering working with
mentoring projects for the first time, MBF would suggest that, to adequately assess essential requirements
28
for safe, effective practice, they should refer to the Approved Provider Standard (APS) as a benchmark for
guidance that appropriate systems are in place.
Information within the tables demonstrates that offender mentoring is effective. This is supported by
feedback from the service users, regarding the benefits it provided for them. However, offender mentoring is
seen to be most effective when it is provided as part of a network of support – linked to other key supporting
organisations, rather than attempting to provide a stand-alone service.
Feedback from the projects highlighted the difficulties encountered when trying to provide a ‘through the
gate’ service – something which is acknowledged as providing more effective mentoring support for
resettlement, whenever authorised by prison/YOI establishments. However, it was felt these institutions
demonstrated a common lack of understanding and confidence, regarding the benefits and safe practice of
the projects service - resulting in a major inhibiting factor for the provision of such mentoring.
Whilst appropriate operational policies/procedures and safe practices are of paramount importance to an
effective service, it is apparent that this alone will not facilitate significant, desirable outcomes. A substantial
amount of work needs to be done, with effective liaison, to bridge the general gap of knowledge and
understanding of requirements between projects and funders, commissioners and other key services - to
forge multi-agency partnerships, culminating in integrated interventions and intensive support, conducive to
quantitative/qualitative successful outcomes for all concerned.
The idea of a ‘One Stop Shop’, where access to required support is via the management of one organisation,
may, in principle, prove highly beneficial to the development of a truly collaborative service – avoiding
duplication of mentoring provision and facilitating a resource for referrals, advice/information. However, it
would be extremely difficult for one organisation alone to manage it appropriately and efficiently. To be truly
successful, it would be essential for it to be overseen by an organisation with comprehensive knowledge of
mentoring support delivered to best practice, with input from those experienced in the other key services.
The action plan for MBF, resulting from the pilot, is to endeavour to address the issues identified above – to
determine appropriate methods of developing productive partnerships and following them through to
fruition.
“We are very grateful for the opportunity to be part of the
pilot. It has been most beneficial to the mentoring
service we provide to young people; a fantastic
experience and great to receive such support.”
Project Manager: Baseline
29
“I enjoyed my time with the
project and felt the
communication between
volunteers and staff was
fantastic. I never felt I was
stuck or unsure of how to
cope.”
Mentor: Pyramid Project
30
Appendices
31
Appendix 1
Required Training Elements - overview
♦ Information on the background, purpose and operation of the organisation/project
♦ Guidance on the nature of the mentoring relationship, including:
Defining mentoring
The mentoring cycle
Ground rules
Interpersonal behaviour and communication skills
♦ Information on the operation of the project’s relevant policies and procedures
♦
Volunteer procedure
Equality & Diversity
Confidentiality policy
Child protection / vulnerable adult policy
Health and Safety policy
Record keeping
Data protection policy
Working with partner agencies
Information on how volunteers are supported by the project
Supervision
Ongoing training
Networking opportunities
♦ Needs and characteristics of the service users
♦
Personal development - stages
Challenges & opportunities
Transition
Impact of offending on society/impact society attitudes & perceptions has on
offenders lives
Education/training/employment
Health
Family & relationships
Accommodation
Finances
Criminal Justice system
Legislative framework
Sentencing and custodial process
Services/support available in/post custody
Role of Key agencies
Gvt initiatives, targets
Sources of assistance
32
Appendix 2
Service User Feedback = Personal Development
A total of 41 Service User Feedback forms were received – not all questions were answered.
1= not at all 2 = not much
3 = quite a bit
4 = a lot
Level of
improvement due
to mentoring
support
Improved
circumstances achieved
Level of support
required
None
Achieved
1
2
3
4
<6
months
6+
months
<6
months
6+
months
Self-confidence
7
11
10
13
3
6
5
Work
17
6
8
10
2
5
22
1
6
11
6
10
Accommodation
1
2
3
4
20
11
9
14
3
15
3
9
11
4
3
15
1
5
13
8
3
8
2
5
3
6
5
5
11
1
5
3
12
4
9
24
2
14
21
1
5
8
1
6
4
General health
19
Money
20
6
6
7
Feeling happier
about future
5
8
13
18
New friends
26
4
4
3
New hobbies
25
4
8
4
3
3
14
2
9
7
Self-presentation
31
2
2
6
2
4
6
2
3
5
Education
15
2
10
14
1
6
17
2
9
13
Written
communication
skills
22
3
7
8
1
6
10
2
7
9
Spoken
communication
skills
17
3
12
9
1
7
15
1
12
11
Relationships
14
5
7
15
2
6
5
14
7
7
13
Anger control
23
7
4
7
1
3
4
10
4
6
8
Reducing
offending
behaviour
13
7
11
10
2
5
5
17
7
9
11
Reducing
drug/alcohol
use
19
6
7
9
5
3
3
14
7
7
10
2
2
33
1
Appendix 3
How would
you describe
your
commitment
to the
project:
How often did
you usually
meet with
your mentor?
Ok, but
still could
have
done
better
Pretty
good
most
of the
time
Excellent
Could
have
tried a lot
harder
6
During each
stage of
mentoring
relationship -->
Beginning
Middle
End
More than once a
week
11
5
2
Once a week
23
23
12
Up to 1 hour
13
Once a fortnight
1
10
5
Between 1-2 hrs
21
Less often
5
8
½ a day or longer
1
More often
1
Yes
39
Attendance
Punctuality
Was this the
right amount
for your
needs?
No
Self
Who chose
the activities?
Service User Feedback = Mentor Contact
5
2
Both
23
11
Liked
Yes
Disliked
No
preference
13
Less often
Longer meetings
Shorter meetings
4
No
14
– gave
my best
effort all
the time
On average, how long did each
meeting last?
(please tick all boxes that
apply)
8
Mentor
8
10
If not, please state how
you would have
preferred to meet:
1
Did you
do any
group
activity
?
10
33
If group
activities
were not
done –
would
you have
liked to
do any?
Yes
1
No
25
No
Preference
3
Please rate
the following
statements
from 1 – 4,
according to
how true they
are for you:
My
mentor
helped
me to
plan
realistic
useful
goals
The
activities
we did
were
helpful
My
mentor’s
support
encouraged
me to try
more to
achieve my
goals
My
mentor’s
support
increased
my
self-belief
that I
could
achieve
my goals
My
mentor’s
support
helped
me to
avoid /
reduce
reoffending
I feel I got
/
am
getting
what I
need from
the
mentorin
g
support
I would be
happy to
request
the
support of
a mentor
again if I
felt I
needed it.
Having a
mentor
has made
me feel
more
happy and
confident
about
securing a
positive
future
1 = definitely
24
16
16
20
15
28
33
21
2 = mostly
10
15
16
12
10
11
5
9
3 = a little bit
7
6
8
8
7
2
2
10
4 = not at all
0
2
1
1
8
0
1
1
34
Appendix 4
Service User Feedback = Project Management
Very happy – information was very
helpful
30
Why did you join the
project?
Ok, but would have liked to be told
a bit more
7
Told to
Wanted to
Still didn’t really know what to
expect
1
7
34
Yes
No
Were you asked what sort of mentor you would like?
Male / Female / Peer (ex-offender) / Age
27
14
Did you have a preference for the type of mentor you would like?
7
19
Were you happy with the mentor you were matched to?
40
1
Were you asked by the project staff if you were happy with your
mentor?
40
1
If not happy, were you matched to a more suitable mentor?
1
0
3
Did you feel confident that if you had any problems you knew who
to talk to?
40
1
4
Were you linked to other supporting agencies?
(e.g. housing, health, education)
31
10
1
2
How did you feel
about your
introduction to the
project – were you
given enough
information about
what to expect,
etc?
35
Appendix 5
a
Mentor Evaluation Form
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
Strongly
agree
Agree
36
17
29
21
33
19
25
25
3
7
27
12
7
12
23
13
4
The background and
purpose of the project
Disagree
The operation, policies and
procedures of the project
b
Time input requirements;
Recording procedures;
Supervision; Confidentiality;
Child protection/vulnerable
adults; Data protection; Lone
working/personal safety;
Complaints policy
2
The role of a mentor
1
I received
adequate
information
/ training on
these issues
to enable
me to be an
effective
mentor
c
The mentoring relationship
(beginning, continuing,
reviewing, planning, celebrating
achievement, ending);
expectations and anxieties;
communication skills;
boundaries/limitations of the role
Needs and characteristics of
the service users
d
Education; employment; health
(drugs/alcohol misuse, etc.)
family; behaviour; transition;
accommodation, finances.
Criminal Justice system
e
legislative framework, sentencing
and custodial process
Role of Key agencies
f
Gvt initiatives, services/support
available in/post custody
2
The level of supervision and support I receive is
appropriate to my needs
30
22
1
3
If I identify an issue, it is dealt with
quickly/appropriately by project staff
34
17
1
4
I have enjoyed my experience of being a mentor.
39
10
4
36
Strongly
disagree
Appendix 6
Project Operations Questionnaire
Service user / mentor drop-out
• What procedures does your project follow to determine why drop-out occurs?
Phone call or in person, then post out an Evaluation questionnaire; exit review with person;
try to contact other services linked to; YOI/prison = interview – recorded on LINK system.
• How does your project incorporate this feedback into future actions?
The feedback and comments are used as part of our annual report and action plan; reviews
are carried out throughout the relationship where action plans etc are reviewed.
Monitoring forms
• Are your project records relating to mentoring sessions/ supervision / development shared with other key
services (e.g. probation) and if so – how/when?
Yes - given monthly contact information on all mentoring relationships.
Meetings take place on a regular basis with referral workers & other professional involved, when possible &
appropriate; referral workers are kept up to date via telephone on a regular basis.
If referred by Probation – yes, but not in-depth due to confidentiality – eg. share housing info/aims, etc.
Sometimes shared at internal prison wing reviews – with permission of young person; community = no, unless
specifically asked & only with permission of young person
• Do these services, in turn, communicate relevant information to your project, regarding their work with the
service user?
Yes.
All different, but we try to encourage others to keep us up to date with relevant info.
Yes – if referred through Probation = 3 way meeting with Offender Manager & mentee, before matching. Also gain
risk analysis info.
Occasionally from Probation. Regularly from prison staff. Community = occasionally.
• Are Offender Managers invited to service users’ reviews – vice-versa for your project?
No, but we attend relevant review meetings where appropriate.
The whole essence and basis of the mentoring is that it is a separate relationship from other professionals and
professional bodies, which is why it works. It is therefore crucial to maintain this element and neutrality.
I have been invited to attend meetings between Probation and other agencies involved with mentee; also one Parole
Board meeting.
YOI/Prison = no, not the moment, but I would have access to attend any reviews; Community = no – may attend if
requested with consent of young person.
37
Disclosure
• What procedures does your project follow, regarding disclosure?
(How do you determine what constitutes an offence = if it is/is not appropriate to report this?)
We encourage mentors to report any disclosure to the Project Co-ordinator or supervisor. They then decide if this
information needs to be reported to an outside agency. The service user is always informed by project co-ordinator
before information is shared or passed on to other agencies (YOS, Social services, police).
We have a set child protection policy & disclosure policy. ALL mentee & mentors are aware of CONFIDENTIALITY. If
they are aware of a Child Protection Issue or if they are at risk themselves or a risk to anyone else, or if they have
committed a crime & they disclose information regarding this, the information will have to be passed on.
In training & initial meetings we cover confidentiality & boundaries. The guidance is for the mentor to inform myself
and I will decide upon the appropriate course of action. All mentees are reminded during the mentoring relationship
about the confidentiality clause and that if they do say something which is unlawful or of harm to themselves or to
others, then this information will be passed on.
We follow organisations Code of Conduct, making sure clients are aware of confidentiality policy. We keep all
information about clients confidential, unless:
•
It is in their interest and under their control/agreement to pass information on, for example, to gain access to
other services or accommodation
•
We believe someone is at risk of serious harm or have a legal obligation to pass information on. When this is
the case we will always speak to the client first if we can make contact with them.
• Who sets the guidance?
Our organisation (x2)
Child Protection Officer of the organisation
Youth Offending Service , local Authority, Local Safe Guarding Board
• What effects do you believe your Disclosure policies have on the mentoring relationship?
I believe some service users may not be fully open and honest with their mentors because they know information may
be shared.
None - if a disclosure does happen and the correct procedures are followed and all parties are aware of the
implications. The policy is reinforced in the work that is carried out with the mentee prior to getting matched and at
each review. If a disclosure is made the project workers ensure the matter is handled with extreme sensitivity and
care, to try and keep the relationship established.
Part of support and supervision is for the mentor to off-load onto myself and then I will decide what to do with the
information. If the mentee is informed of the policy and reminded about this regularly then it should not be an issue.
The mentor needs to inform myself and I will decide if this information needs to be shared with others and in regards
to risk if the mentor is still safe to work with that individual. The mentors safety and wellbeing is paramount.
Positive – everyone knows where they stand and keep the relationship professional.
Issue of Public Protection
•
Does your project receive the full background of each service user’s offending history?
We try & gain as much information as possible prior to taking a referral, but the information we receive differs
between organisation to organisation and worker to worker.
If referred from agency, Prison/Probation = yes. We have a protocol in place with the probation service – only referring
low tier risk service users. If self-referral from the community then we try to gain as much information we can through
contacting other agencies involved. We also hold regular risk analysis meetings involving the project manager and
community team, where we go over the risk factors and decide on an agreed level of risk.
Yes (x 2)
• Are mentors fully informed to the same level as the project’s awareness, regarding service users’
background / offending history?
The information we receive regarding background is passed on to the mentors, where appropriate.
They are given a brief outline as appropriate, but not detailed information.
No (x 2)
38
• Are mentors fully informed to the same level as the project’s awareness, regarding service users’
Background / offending history?
No (x 2)
They are given a brief outline as appropriate, but not detailed information.
The information we receive regarding background is passed on to the mentors, where appropriate.
• If not – why not?
We don’t want our mentors to prejudge their mentees (x2). Some mentee may not want their mentors to know their
offending history.
We only share information that the mentor needs to know - usually related to health and safety or child protection,
curfews, electronic tags, any areas, shops premises they are banned from.
Normally I give a mentor a snapshot of a mentees history. I believe that a big part of the mentoring relationship is for
the mentee to eventually disclose to their mentor when their relationship is at that stage.
With regards to peer mentors it is up to them if they want to disclose any previous convictions to the mentee, as and
when the time occurs.
Not particularly appropriate.
Peer Mentors
• What is the required length of time elapsed beyond offending, before a service user can be trained/accepted
as Peer Mentor for your project?
Two Years
All cases are individual and it completely depends on the offence/offences committed and how many offences. We do
not accept anyone with an offence that would stop them working with young people or vulnerable adults.
We don’t have a required amount of time. It is up to the co-ordinator to use their skills to decide whether an individual
is suitable to become a mentor. We have a peer mentor who is on life license.
YOI/Prison = N/A; Community = No specific length of time
• What barriers/difficulties, if any, have your project experienced when working with Peer Mentors?
Some peer mentors have very low self confidence and do not recognise their skills and potential - often requiring a
higher level of support and supervision to help them feel comfortable and confident in their role.
None the majority of the time, but a couple have been unreliable as their life style has still been quite chaotic.
We have come across problems with an Offender Manager and higher management not wanting a particular peer
mentor to mentor, but this was due to a change in management and officer. Once I had met with them and explained
about the service, what mentors did and how good this individual was at being a peer mentor and how effective peer
mentors are, they were very enthusiastic about peer mentoring. Need to be careful who peer mentors are linked with
- make sure that they have not associated before.
None
• If your project chooses not to engage Peer Mentors, what are the reasons for this?
We are not funded for peer mentoring
YOI/Prison = would not be allowed to come back into the prison as Peer mentors.
Services Provided
• Do your project services include planned leisure activities for the service user?
Yes
Yes, depends on needs/wants of young person.
All relationships are based around the needs of the individual.
No we don’t due to funds, but if we have any spare funds then we will and have.
(Examples include: swimming, gym, bowling, cinema, cooking, visiting local attractions).
• If so, who funds these activities?
Activities are budgeted as part of the mentoring provision (x 3) – supported by main funder.
The mentors/mentees have a budget of £20 per 4 meetings so it is up to them what they spend the money on when they
meet. If costs are more than the budget or are for leisure activities outside the relationship the mentee has to fund these
them self. The project will try & see if there is funding available elsewhere, eg. YOT & social services.
39
Other Relevant Information
Please add any further comments/suggestions regarding issues you consider to require more
development work, e.g:
•
improved engagement with other offender management services, to improve project outcomes
•
funding issues
•
Effective practice
•
Service development
•
Quality assurance
•
other resources
•
Monitoring and evaluation
The relationships really benefit if a good working relationship is established between the referral worker & us, where
relevant information is shared. This can differ not only from organisation to organisation, but also between workers
within the originations.
Funding is always a crucial issue as most funders seem reluctant to fund existing projects. Again, most do not
understand the cost implication with working on a one to one basis & therefore think the work is costly, although it
creates long term sustainable change instead of short term numbers-through-the-door projects!
Mentoring has been a difficult concept to get across to Probation and this has been due to a number of reasons.
Offender Managers already have a lot of paper work to fill in, so a referral form is just another form to fill in. Also, it
can be difficult due to management change. We did have a lot of referrals coming from the local approved premises,
but gaining risk information was proving difficult. The referrals were coming through key workers, so my line manager
and a staff member of the probation service have recently implemented a protocol which is being sent out for
offender managers to use.
I have also found recently that service users referred by probation have not been attending their initial meeting with
me. This can be very time consuming - a lot of effort goes into it. If you just reported on mentees who get linked then
at times it would look like your service was not doing very much.
The amount of time it can sometimes take before a mentee and mentor meet for the first time may be a reason for
drop-out. It takes a lot of time and effort to get a mentee started with a mentor, as you need to organise initial
appointments with them which sometimes means co-ordinating diaries with the offender managers, get the relevant
information and do the risk analysis, then link the mentee with a suitable mentor and organise a meeting between the
two. It is a necessary process in regards to minimising the risk for the mentor, but it is also a factor for mentees
dropping out.
Funding is an issue. We could organise a lot more training for mentors and mentees if the funds were available. We
could also organise activities and days out if we had the funds. Also funds for electronic equipment would be very
useful. The Tribal toolkit is a great concept but if the funds are not there to pay for these laptops then it is pointless.
Also a number of mobiles for mentors whose mentees have left the area would be good for them to stay in touch.
Recently one mentee has had to leave the area and I have stayed in touch with them, but for them to be able to talk to
their mentor on a weekly basis would be very beneficial, as they really need the support to continue.
40
Appendix 7
Case Studies
Case Study 1 - Lucy
Lucy was referred to the project by a voluntary drugs and alcohol organisation in January 2009, aged 18 years. It was
evident from the start Lucy has had a tragic life and faced multiple barriers.
Lucy had been excluded from school at the age of 14 years and had an ASBO for 16 months. With an extremely long
and extensive criminal recorded as a prolific offender, with offences ranging from assault to carrying a fire arm and
knives, she had already spent time in prison on two separate occasions.
The project manager was cautious regarding the referral at first, due to the nature and severity of the violent
offences, but agreed to work with Lucy to asses her suitability and to give background information on the project.
After several preparation meetings Lucy was matched with her mentor in March 2009. The relationship is going
extremely well and she has very rarely cancelled an appointment with either her mentor or the project manager. Both
the mentor and project worker have supported Lucy with appointments, such as attending court and college open
days etc., and supported her regarding numerous issues, including: housing, benefits, anger management, self
confidence and raising self esteem.
When Lucy was first matched she was attending a course as a stipulation of the job centre, but felt she was not
getting anywhere regarding this. They eventually let her go, as they could not get her a placement due to her
offences.
The project manager and mentor worked extremely hard to support Lucy in raising her self esteem and confidence
and she expressed a desire to work in the leisure industry. After a great deal of persistence, visiting and phone calls
etc., Lucy gained a place on a Sport Level 1 course at Newcastle College. She started in September 2009 and loves it.
This achievement is beyond belief for her, as she never thought it was possible. Her journey alone takes over 90
minutes. She gets the 7.30am bus which shows her dedication and determination to get her life on track.
Back in July 2009 the project manager was supporting Lucy at an appointment when she stated “Life is crap, I can’t
do anything or go anywhere, what’s the point in living”. I think you would agree as she now does - her future is
certainly looking much brighter.
Statement from Lucy’s Tutor
“I have been really pleased with Lucy’s attendance, progress and effort to date. She has been putting a lot of effort into
her written and practical work. She has genuine problems with transport not getting her to college for 9.00am and
always arrives “red faced” from rushing the long walk down to the Campus. She has always been most polite and cooperative. She gets on well with other students and staff alike.”
Northumbria Coalition Against Crime - Odysseus Mentoring Project
41
Case Study 2 – Anna
Anna was referred to the mentoring project at the age of 15. Anna could not relate well to adults or peers and could
not cope with being challenged in any shape or form. This resulted in her being excluded from school and then from
college and she left both with no qualifications. She had become known to the Youth Offending Team and was often
getting into scrapes with the police.
Project Manager’s account:
After several preparation meetings with the OMP project worker, Anna was matched with her first mentor, Steph,
who found the relationship quite challenging, but she built a good relationship with Anna and they worked on a
number of issues.
The relationship lasted the full 12 months and the benefits to Anna were immense. With the support of the OMP
worker and her mentor, Anna completed a City & Guilds Profile of Achievement Award. She was thrilled to gain this
award, as it was the first thing she had ever achieved and completed.
OMP was aware there was an apparent need to continue to support Anna after she had completed her mentoring
relationship, so the workers supported her.
Anna went on to attend a Painting and Decorating training course but was still experiencing difficulties regarding
reacting with the other young people and communicating appropriately with them. The scheme wanted to place her
on a painting and decorating apprenticeship placement, but was reluctant to do so because of some of the behaviour
she displayed when communicating with other peers.
We decided it was appropriate to match Anna up with another mentor (Jill) for a 6 month period. Anna thrived again
from this relationship, which has now ended and she is still doing fantastically well.
The difference in Anna, from her initially being referred, to present date, is phenomenal. She was interviewed about
OMP and its impact, on BBC Radio Newcastle and did extremely well. She also did a talk with her mentor on its
impact, at a Regional Mentoring and Befriending conference in front of over 100 people, where again she was
brilliant. Anna was thrilled she had achieved this, as a year prior to this she struggled to give you eye contact when
you spoke to her.
Anna was nominated for an award for ‘Most improved Apprentice of the year’ in 2009 and we are thrilled that she
won this award.
She is extremely appreciative for all the support OMP and her mentors have given her.
We are all thrilled with Anna’s progress and the journey she has made and we are extremely proud of her.
A huge well done to Anna - we all believe she can continue to go from strength to strength.
Northumbria Coalition Against Crime - Odysseus Mentoring Project
42
Case Study 3 - Jack
Jack (aged 15) faced difficulty dealing with his violence/aggression, truancy/exclusion from school. Mat had poor
anger management skills and was recommended a male mentor. He posed no risk to staff.
Mentor comments:
“My aim was to ensure Mat attended school without any exclusions.
I set out to listen, engage and advise Mat that he must realise the next year at school will have a massive bearing on his
life. I focused on trying to get Jack to realise he has a great future if he ignores the negative influences in his life. We held
discussions about keeping calm when provoked. I also tried to encourage Jack to pursue his passion for cars whilst
reaffirming that he should stick in at school in order to achieve his goals.
He successfully completed an anger management programme with the project and started using strategies to keep calm
when provoked.
He improved school attendance and was less aggressive towards teaching staff. Built self esteem motivated him to
attend and empowered him to set goals and use strategies to reduce stress and avoid getting angry.”
Service User comments:
“I felt angry all the time and was always getting kicked out of school before I met my mentor, Colin. I’m a lot calmer and
don’t lose my rag as much now. I hope to go to college in September to become a mechanic.”
“My attitude towards some adults has changed. Colin and staff at the project always spoke to me as an adult and gave
me respect. Colin helped me plan and set targets and personal goals. I did an anger management programme, school
work, played pool, group visits Ice skating and go-carting.”
Case Study 4 - Sharon
Sharon’s issues were substance misuse, poor parental control/boundaries. She appeared to be rebelling against her
parents and was consuming alcohol to excess. It was identified that she needed a positive female role model. The
main focus for the mentor was to be someone that Sharon could confide in and to try and work on her attitude
surrounding past crimes she had committed; also her alcohol consumption.
Mentor comments:
“My mentee had a lot of issues in her life so an additional aim was to be a consistent and trustworthy mentor that she
could look up to. Rock climbing proved to be an activity which she really enjoyed and preferred doing that than hanging
around the streets.”
Service User comments:
“It kept me off the streets and made me realise that I could do more things in my spare time than I thought. We did rock
climbing, bike rides and going out for lunch.
I have changed school and don’t drink as much. I have started going rock climbing with my mates.”
She was able to discuss issues she had with her biological mother and the impact it had on her and her adopted
mother. This has helped her take some control of how visits are managed.
Her attendance at school has improved and she has not re-offended during her time with the project. She also now
attends young people’s drug and alcohol service.
Total ours Sharon spent with mentor = 25hr 45mins over 12 sessions
Northern Learning Trust – Sandwriter Mentoring Project
43
Case Study 5 - Ben
Ben (13) presented with quite low self-esteem. He did not understand the implications of his behaviour for himself, or
others. He did not use his spare time constructively and was frustrated with his current lifestyle. He was very keen to
come on the project and make changes.
Goals set: Find a new hobby and improve numeracy and literacy.
His mentor, Peter, spent a total of hours 50 with him, over 22 sessions. Activities included: Badminton, numeracy,
literacy, pictures, pool, anger issues and going for tea.
Service user comments:
“Adults are more approachable than I thought. I can have fun without causing trouble. My mentor, Peter, taught me how
to calm down when I lose my temper and is helping me with my school work.
It was very enjoyable and got me out the house and do things I wouldn’t normally do. Thank you Peter for all you have
done and the time we spent together doing all the activities and our talks. Thank you.”
Mentor comments:
“The main focus was to find my mentee a new hobby, also working on his numeracy and literacy and at the same time
helping him with anger issues (all of which were achieved)”.
Ben increased his confidence, improved his behaviour and developed his basic skills. He improved his attendance and
behaviour at school and has not re-offended since being on the project.
Case Study 6 – Tanya
Tanya, aged 15, had experienced abuse, mental illness, under-achieving at school, and had difficulty dealing with her
violence/aggression, truancy/exclusion from school, low literacy/numeracy skills.
Goals set: not to fight; return to education; careful/awareness of alcohol; awareness of own health.
Her mentor, Julie, spent a total of 19 hours with her, over 18 sessions. Activities included: walking, talking
Service User comment:
“It’s good.”
Mentor comments:
“Mentoring helps prevent further involvement with youth offending and committing further crimes. It provides someone
there for mentee to talk to and bounce ideas back.”
It is good reflecting back on how far Tanya has come and how positive she now is in respect of herself.”
Support for Tanya involved issues concerning education, health, attending meetings, liaising with other agencies and
family, (parents).
Tanya is now attending Alternative Education and has not re-offended since being on the project.
Northern Learning Trust – Sandwriter Mentoring Project
44
Case Study 7 - Sophie
Sophie was referred by probation service and is an extremely vulnerable adult. She needed immediate help with
housing as she been a victim of domestic abuse; her injunction had ended and she was worried that her ex-partner
would visit. He was violent and abusive and kept her prisoner at one time for 2 days where he tried to inject her with
drugs.
Sophie was extremely depressed. She has six children - all in care because social services said she failed to protect
them from her abusive partner. This left Sharon feeling isolated to the point she felt she couldn’t go out on her own.
She was linked with a peer mentor, Gemma, who has helped her to: attend appointments where she had previously
failed to attend, i.e. solicitors, housing; address debt payments – fix manageable payments; attend Job Centre Plus.
Gemma is also providing emotional support with the issue’s surrounding Sophie’s children.
As a peer mentor, Gemma was able to empathise with Sophie’s difficulties and support her emotionally, helping to
build her self-confidence and self-esteem.
Service User comments:
“Since receiving support from the mentor programme it has helped me to gain confidence when speaking to people and
without feeling paranoid and self conscious, I think my mentor Gemma is great. She has helped me emotionally by
listening to me when I needed to sound off and also she has supported me with my debt management and bidding for
properties.”
Mentor comments:
“I have found mentoring a positive experience as it enables me to help a person in need. I hope to see a positive outcome
with my mentee which will be very rewarding. Encouraging someone to try and turn their life around and
providing support to them, gives a sense of satisfaction.”
Case Study 8 - Kelly
Kelly started the mentoring programme in November ‘09 and needed support with finances, parenting, short
courses, alcohol issues and emotional issues.
A three-way meeting was set up with mentor Adelle and probation, where extra support was requested for Kelly for
the children, education and social care for her son Joe. This required the mentor co-ordinator to attend multi-agency
Core Meetings.
Kelly opened up to Adelle over numerous mentor meetings, with regards her son’s father, debt problems and to
engage in short courses to keep Kelly busy to avoid relapsing on to drugs/alcohol.
She needs intensive support due to her unborn baby being addicted to drugs and needing to be weaned once born,
with the use of opiates.
Kelly was complying with all agencies involved and completed Level 1 in English Maths and IT.
Both Kelly and Adelle went to the library to look at short courses for Kelly to attend and raise her level of Maths to
Level 2.
Nacro – Pyramid Project
45
Case Study 9 - Lisa
Lisa was referred to the project by her Offender Manager ( Stockton Probation)
When Lisa first engaged with the project she was extremly nervous and very tearful and didn’t want to leave the
house unaccompanied. She was scared that she would do something wrong and be sent to jail. Her daughter in law
accompanied her everywhere.
She needed emotional support and she required work to build her self-confidence and esteem.
Lisa attended her first meeting with the support of the project co-ordinator.
Future meetings were arranged to take place at a cafe in the town centre were Lisa was expected to make her own
way, to help build her confidence.
Lisa wanted help with
•
Volunteer work (with animals)
•
Health Issuses
•
Employment (paid when feeling strong enough)
She attended regular weekly meetings, which helped her confidence grow.
Lisa’s daughter in law and granchildren moved out enabling Lisa more time to relax and recover from recent back
problems. Lisa saw this as a positive as she is now able to go out by herself.
Lisa has started to be pro-active and is appling for the benefits she thinks she deserves. Her attitude has changed
with regard to DLA and she has started to fight for her money.
Lisa had to appeal against the Job Centres desion to stop her ‘not fit for work allowance’. Her mentor helped her
complete the forms to appeal.
Lisa won her appeal and her allowance was backdated.
She is still attending her mentoring sessions and she is looking for paid employment.
She has been tutored in: the disclosure letter, supported application, interview techniques and how to approach the
discussion about her crime.
Her husband is now taking the company he works for to a tribunal. This has not phased isa and she seems to have
been able to use coping stratergies to stop her from slipping back into a depressive state.
She continues to look at job vacancies.
Nacro – Pyramid Project
46
Case Study 10 – George
George is 21, he is a repeat offender including: violence against others and Robbery/burglary/theft. He was referred
to Baseline mentoring project and his matching meeting was with David in 2009 in Deerbolt YOI.
Project Manager’s account:
During the meeting George expressed concerns about where he was going to live when he was released from
Deerbolt. He did say he was top of the waiting list for one housing provider, which he was really excited about. I
called them to find out more information about George’s application and was informed that although he was on the
waiting list, no bed would become available for his release; he would not definitely be guaranteed the next available
bed, however they were very keen to work with him.
During his next mentoring sessions George discussed with his mentor his disappointment and upset about
accommodation problems. It was decided and confirmed that David and I would pick George up from Deerbolt and
go to another housing provider to present as homeless and complete applications for housing.
After contacting George’s Offender Manager, Martin, we discussed housing and were told he had applied for
accommodation with six different Housing Associations and that George was on the waiting list for two of them.
Unfortunately, one of them was the one I had contacted earlier, so I updated Martin on what they had told me and
said I would keep chasing it.
At his next mentoring session we were informed that George would have a lift home from Deerbolt, but would still
like to have support at his potential site of accommodation, so it was arranged that myself and David would meet him
there.
However, George faced numerous difficulties, over several months, as we tried to secure accommodation for him,
causing him to get very upset:
•
Upon release, having to wait in the offices of the housing provider for an extremely long time, to be
seen by a housing officer, then wait to see what assistance he could have.
•
Being told he was not eligible for immediate accommodation as he was not classed as a vulnerable
adult. I queried this as he had just come from Deerbolt and had no where to stay; he has a history of
alcohol and drug abuse and had suffered from depression due to the bereavement of his mother,
but he still received no support.
•
Being told by another association that he would not be accepted as he had caused trouble there a
few years previously.
•
Being informed an available bed would be for a female only.
David and I met George at North Shields Probation and met Martin, his Offender Manager, who was very supportive
of George.
David and I continued to search for accommodation for George, supported him at the local Job Centre and when
completing an application for a crisis loan – taking him to Probation to pick up his ID and then to the post office to get
his money. We then left George to temporarily stay at his friends and agreed that he would meet David the following
week at Baseline.
Over the next week David could not contact George and neither could I, so I rang Martin and was informed George
was on remand for being involved in a fight and that it was really essential that he found housing.
After being on remand I spoke to George, who was temporarily staying with his Dad in Lancashire and assured him
we were doing everything we could to find him accommodation. George was eventually accommodated in a project
in Wallsend.
He is no longer dependant on the support of Baseline, but I recently saw him at the local Job Centre. He has not reoffended and is settled into his supported accommodation in Wallsend.
Depaul Uk - Baseline Project
47
Case Study 11 - Jason
Jason is 18 and a first time offender for criminal damage. He was living with his father and brother after his mother
died the previous year. Jason was very lonely and bored and struggling to cope with bereavement, as well as finding
it difficult to get help and information, so he could learn to read and write.
Jason was matched with a mentor called Andrea and together they created some goals and actions of what he would
like to achieve.
As a result of mentor meetings Jason now has access to bereavement counselling.
Andrea arranged a meeting with Jason’s college to arrange an assessment for Jason which highlighted that he has
dyslexia and global learning difficulties, for which he is now receiving support. Andrea has arranged for a learning
mentor to help him to learn to read and write, as this was not available at Jason’s college.
Another issue Jason wanted to work on was control of his own money, so Andrea helped him to open a bank account
and he now has access and control of his money, making him feel more independent.
Together, Jason and Andrea have enjoyed doing a number of activities to help him build confidence: they attended a
gallery; went to the gym; had a cookery session and completed numerous reading and phonetics activities.
Andrea has stated “The phonetics activities were really good and it was brilliant that I was sometimes corrected by
Jason, so I have learned from him.”
Both Andrea and Jason suggested that there should not be a set time limit on a mentoring relationship, as it takes
time to develop trust and also a lot of time to arrange appointments which they wanted to attend together. Andrea
found it very frustrating at first, connecting with other organisations for Jason to get the support he needs, but then
everything clicked into place - for Jason to do it alone would have been very difficult.
The relationship has had a positive impact on both Jason and his volunteer mentor Andrea:
Service User comment:
“Mentoring is really good because it helps a lot of people who need help”
Mentor comment:
“Mentoring is really good fun, good to be able to see progression and to help Lee become more independent, to make sure
he has links to other support.”
Jason has not committed any more offences and is still engaged with mentoring.
Depaul UK – Baseline Project
48
”My mentor taught
me how to calm down
when I lose my temper and is
helping me with my school work.
I can have fun without causing
trouble. It was very enjoyable and
got me out the house to do things I
wouldn’t normally do.”
Mentee: Sandwriter Project
49
About the Mentoring and
Befriending Foundation (MBF)
We’re a national charity that encourages the growth and
development of mentoring and befriending across all sectors.
We do this for and with the mentoring and befriending
community by providing specialist guidance, inspiring quality
and working to be a force for change.
Our vision is of a society where mentoring and befriending can
enable all people to reach their full potential.
Our mission is to support the expansion of quality mentoring
and befriending provision across all sectors.
Mentoring and Befriending Foundation
Suite 1, 4th Floor
Building 3
Universal Square
Devonshire Street North
Ardwick
Manchester
M12 6JH
www.mandbf.org
[email protected]
03300 882877
50