View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

brought to you by

CORE

provided by Digital Education Resource Archive

National
Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring
Schemes 2001 to 2004

Authors: Ian St James-Roberts, Ginny Greenlaw, Antonia Simon and Jane Hurry of theThomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London© Youth Justice Board for England and Wales 2005
www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk

Youth Justice Board for England and WalesContents

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

5

Acknowledgements

7

Executive summary

8Part 1 Background to the evaluation

14

1.1 Youth offending and the Youth Justice Board

14

1.2 Mentor projects as an intervention designed toreduce offending

14

1.3 Competency-focused versus non-directive mentoring

15

1.4 The aims and parts of the evaluation and this report

15

Part 2 Development and implementation of the main
Database Study

19

Part 3 Findings from the main Database Study25

3.1 Data processing and treatment of missing data

25

3.2 An overview of the mentor projects

25

3.3 Project policies for mentor programmes

29

3.4 Project staff numbers and turnover30

3.5 Project staff and steering group meetings

31

3.6 Project recruitment of volunteers

31

3.7 Descriptive Information about mentors

33

3.8 Project training and supervision of mentors

35

3.9 Descriptive Information about the referred young people

36

3.10 Descriptive information on the mentees

37

3.11 Mentees’ dependents

38

3.12 Mentees’ current educational, training or
employment status38

3.13 Mentees’ truanting and exclusion from school39

3.14 Mentees’ literacy, numeracy, and special
educational needs

40

3.15 Mentees’ educational qualifications

41

3.16 Mentees’ Special Status41

3.17 Mentees’ dependence on alcohol or drugs

41

3.18 Mentees’ offending history

42

3.19 Matching mentors with mentees

44

3.20 Delivery of mentor programmes

45

3.21 Programme delivery number and length48

3.22 Number of meetings between mentor and mentee

51

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 20042

3.23 Programme outcomes

52

3.24 Re-entering education and entering/re-entering training

52

3.25 Improvements in Literacy

53

3.26 Improvements in numeracy

55

3.27 Other Improvements in School, Education or Training

56

3.28 Qualifications and employment

57

3.29 Accommodation and family relationships

60

3.30 Community involvement62

3.31 Use of alcohol and drugs

63

3.32 Changes in offending65

3.33 Other improvements recorded in the textboxes

66

3.34 Identifying the most effective projects

67

3.35 Results of the regression analyses

68

3.36 Summary of the Database Study findings

72Part 4 The Depth Study

76

4.1 Depth Study aims and methods

76

4.2 Selection of the Depth Study mentor projects

77

4.3 Selection of the Depth Study comparison group

77

4.4 Baseline and follow-up interviews with the mentored andcomparison youths

78

4.5 Depth Study findings

79

4.6 Attrition between baseline and follow-up assessments in thetwo groups

79

4.7 Demographic comparability of the mentored andcomparison groups80

4.8 Changes in education, employment and training

81

4.9 Truancy

82

4.10 Changes in literacy and numeracy – BSA test findings

82

4.11 Changes in community involvement83

4.12 Use of drugs

84

4.13 Alcohol use

86

4.14 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire measuresof behaviour

87

4.15 Changes in offending

88

4.16 Changes in attitudes to crime91

4.17 Mentees’ views of mentoring

92

4.18 Summary of the Depth Study findings

94Part 5: The reconviction/reoffending study97

5.1 Aims and methods

97

5.2 Results

99

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 20043

5.3 Offending rates over time100

5.4 Rates of Offending during the baseline andfollow-up periods

102

5.5 Number and severity of offences in the baseline andfollow-up periods

103

5.6 Summary of the reconviction study findings

105Part 6 The costs of mentor programmes and projects

106

6.1 Aims and methods

106

6.2 Results

107Part 7 Discussion and recommendations

110

7.1 Lessons and recommendations for futureintervention projects

113

7.2 Lessons and recommendations for futureevaluation studies

116

Appendix A Details of the logistic regression analyses

117

Appendix B: Criteria for project selection in the Depth Study

129

Appendix C: A comparison of young people interviewed andnot interviewed at follow-up in the Depth Study

131

Appendix D: Crime categories

135

Appendix E: The Reconviction Study

137

Appendix F: Project thumbnails

138

References

187

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

4

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

MentorA person trained by a mentor project to deliver a mentoring programme.
Mentor project
The organisation set up to administer the delivery of mentoring programmes.
Young person
A youth between ten and 17 years of age.
MenteeThe young person who receives the mentor programme.
Mentor programme
The relationship, goals and activities over time between a mentor and mentee.
BSA
Basic Skills Agency
BME
Black and Minority Ethnic
ISSP
Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
LN
Literacy and Numeracy
PRU
Pupil Referral Unit
SDQ
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

5

TCRU
Thomas Coram Research Unit
YIP
Youth Inclusion Programme
YJB
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
YOS
Youth offending service
YOT
Youth offending team

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

6

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the members of the Thomas Coram Research Unit who have assistedus, including: Diana Parkinson, who helped us to collect and process database
information and to recruit and assess the Comparison group; Jill Reynolds, Donna
Joseph, Peter Storey, Amanda Jane Beacall and Claudia Flores-Moreno who assistedwith interviewing; Charlie Owen, for statistical advice; Jethro Perkins for assistance inprocessing the database information; John Gray and Catherine Aicken for help with
data-cleaning and textbox analysis; Tamara Boake and Penny Mellor for administrative
support; Emilce Rees for scrutinising project policies; Charlie Malyon for successful
pursuit of the SDQ data; Kristyna Brotanek, Jane Bullen, Nicoletta Cavriani, Shulamit
Chevern, Ziad Daoud and Eleni Stamou for help with data-coding. At the YJB, Helen
Powell and her colleagues Catherine Knowles and Victoria Mitton have always
responded to our queries and have provided excellent support. Amanda Howells andPaul Levy have been our main contacts at Crime Concern, and they and their network of
consultants have played a major part in enabling the evaluation through their work withthe mentor projects. Maya Devi Powar and Georgina Ford at the Reconviction Analysis
Section of the Research, Development and Statistics Section of the Home Officecollaborated with us in the Reconviction Study. Lastly, the mentor project staff,
mentors, and young people are warmly thanked for the time and effort they havecontributed to the evaluation.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

7

Executive summary

Between 2001 and 2004, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB)
supported 80 community mentor projects distributed across England and Wales.
The projects set out to deliver mentor programmes to young people who had
offended or were at risk of doing so. This report evaluates the projects’
effectiveness and costs in achieving their aims.



Mentor programmes involve a trusting relationship in which a more experienced
person helps, and provides a role model, for someone who is less experienced.
Building on this relationship, the mentor programmes evaluated here were‘competency focused’. That is, they set out to teach basic literacy, numeracy, social,
or life skills, in the hope that such skills would help the young people to interact
better with their social and physical environments, and so improve their prospects.



The mentor projects targeted groups of young people who had offended, or were at
risk of offending, and who were believed to be likely to benefit from mentor
programmes of this type. The groups were: Black minority ethnic (BME), or ‘hardto-reach’ young people (targeted by BME mentor projects) and young people withliteracy and numeracy (LN) needs (targeted by LN mentor projects).

The evaluation as a whole included four studies with different methods,
designed to overlap in order to minimize the methodological limitations of eachapproach. The studies were: (1) The Database Study, which used a standard
computer database to collect the mentor projects’ records about the delivery andoutcome of their mentor programmes; (2) The Depth Study, which obtained direct,
formal and interview assessments of a sample of mentored young people, and of amatched non-mentored comparison group, at baseline and outcome points; (3) The
Reconviction Study, which employed Home Office Police National Computer
records to measure rates and severity of offending and reoffending in mentored andcomparison young people; (4) The Costs Study, which assessed whether the mentor
projects provided good value for money.

The mentor projects were successful in recruiting over 3000 community volunteers
and training many of them to be mentors. Most mentors were women, but BME
projects included more male mentors (42%) than LN projects (28%). Most LN
project mentors were White (93%) and most BME project mentors were from Blackand minority ethnicity backgrounds (65%).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 20048The projects recruited and matched nearly 3,000 young people with the mentors.
The average mentee was 14 years old and 79% were male. In BME projects, 74%
of mentees had a BME background, while 90% of mentees in LN projects wereWhite. As intended, the majority (69%) of the young people had a history ofoffending, while 58% were referred to the projects by youth offending teams. Of
those mentees with a known educational history, 36% had truanted in the last threemonths, 44% had been excluded in the last year, 48% had special educational needs
and 24% had Statements of special educational needs. These rates are probably
under-estimates because projects did not always have this information. The rates
differed between the types of projects, with 76% LN mentees having special
educational needs compared with 24% of BME mentees.

The projects delivered large numbers of mentor programmes which were associatedwith some of the primary changes in the young people targeted by the scheme:At the date set for the final evaluation, September 2004, 70% of 2,956
programmes set up by the projects had been delivered, and 8% were still in theprocess of being delivered. On average, each programme included eight
meetings between mentor and mentee.

About half the programmes terminated earlier than initially planned but, in spiteof this, many of them were reported to produce gains. Overall, a third of young
people entered or re-entered education or training. Programmes which lasted
over ten months, and included an average of 15 meetings, were considered mostsuccessful: 45% of mentees in such programmes were reported to enter/re-enter
education or training.

The projects identified other gains, including improvements in the young
people’s attendance and behaviour at school, increases in literacy and numeracy(particularly in LN projects) and improvements in accommodation and family
relationships (particularly in BME projects). Increased involvement incommunity activities such as sports, clubs, social groups and voluntaryorganisations at school or in the community was reported for 50% of BME
mentees overall (and 73% in programmes ≥ ten months) compared to 33%(46%) of LN mentees; 92% of mentees on community orders completed themduring their programme.

Mentoring did not change drug or alcohol use, but problems in these areas were
not common, presumably because of the age group of the mentees, whose
average age was 14 years old.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

9This YJB scheme included a large number of mentor projects with considerable
diversity between them in the length and form of their mentor programmes. Many
projects employed the conventional model of mentoring, involving one-to-one
meetings between a mentor and young person in a community setting once per
week. However, some mentors and mentees met daily, some projects delivered
mentoring on the project premises and a few brought mentors and mentees together
as a group. In some cases, the mentor delivered basic literacy and numeracy skills
and some mentors gained qualifications in such skills; in other cases mentors were
supported by tutors, or projects included separate learning and business mentors.
The length of mentor programmes was designed to vary widely, from three months
to a year. This diversity allowed us to assess the features of mentor projects whichwere associated with the delivery and outcome gains the projects reported.

In regression and other statistical analyses, mentor projects based in YOTs, which
supervised a high number of mentors, had a steering group that met, and delivered
programmes which lasted for ten months or more and/or included a high number of
mentor/mentee meetings, were associated with the most reported gains. Menteecharacteristics, including young age and the lack of a history of offending, also
predicted successful outcomes. Overall, female mentors achieved more successful
outcomes than male mentors with both male and female mentees; female mentors
matched with female mentees were especially successful. It is sometimes claimed
that male mentors are needed for male mentees, but we found no evidence that thisparticular matching achieved a high rate of mentee improvements. Mentors withBlack or minority ethnic backgrounds were more successful than White mentors in
improving the family relationships of mentees with Black or minority ethnic
backgrounds. White mentors were more likely to improve the literacy of Black andminority ethnicity, as well as White, mentees.



Our smaller scale Depth Study involved direct interviews and formal assessmentsof the mentored young people, compared to similar young people who did notreceive mentor programmes. This study provided evidence in support of the
projects’ success in reintegrating the targeted young people into education andtraining and in increasing their community involvement. However, we were unable
to confirm the reported gains in mentee literacy and numeracy or behaviour using
formal assessments, suggesting that many of the improvements were in small, but
important, competencies, such as the ability to read forms, write a curriculum vitae,
or use a computer programme. It is unclear whether these competencies,
unsupported, would be enough to produce substantial and lasting changes in thementored young people.



The combined Depth and Database Study findings provide heartening evidence thatthe mentor projects in this scheme were successful in some respects and,particularly, in reintegrating the targeted young people into education, training andthe community. However, the critical question concerns their relative effectiveness,and cost. In particular, because mentors are community volunteers who do notreceive a salary, the potential advantage of mentoring lies in good value for money.
Considered in this light, the findings are less positive.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

10



Many young people referred to the projects declined to participate or failed toengage with their mentors, while many volunteers failed to become mentors. As
a result, mentor programmes were successfully delivered to just 2,045 of 4,828
young people referred to the projects, with 244 more programmes still being
delivered at our evaluation point. The various factors responsible for this
attrition are documented in the findings and suggest ways in which participation
rates could be improved. However, the reluctance of young offenders to take partin mentor or other community intervention programmes is now amply
documented, raising questions about their appropriateness as a stand-aloneintervention and highlighting issues about service value and cost.



The failure to find evidence of improvements in behaviour, literacy andnumeracy using formal assessments in our Depth Study raises doubts as towhether the project-identified improvements are substantial enough to make asignificant, lasting difference to the mentored young people over the longer
term. Bearing in mind that an average mentor programme contained eight
meetings – perhaps 20 hours of contact overall – it would be surprising if theresult did immunise these young people permanently against the manydifficulties they face.

The main aim of this YJB scheme was to reduce offending. Our ability tomeasure whether it has done so has been limited by methodological factors,
including constraints in Home Office Police National Computer offending data.
There is a need for a longer-term follow-up using the HOPNC data, to overcome
these methodological constraints and assess any carry-forward effects of thementees’ improved educational, training and community involvement on
offending rates. In the absence of this longer term data, the findings available
here do not provide convincing evidence that mentor programmes produce a
reduction in offending during the first year after the start of a programme.

The anticipated chief advantage of mentor programmes – low cost – has notbeen realized. Mentor programmes proved to be more expensive thanalternatives which produce similar benefits, such as the YJB education training
and employment (ETE) schemes evaluated during a previous initiative.
Examples of cost-effective delivery, which approach the ETE scheme figure of£2,300, per young person were found and it proved possible to identify thefeatures of projects which led to low costs. The most important was location in a
YOT premises and, presumably, all the advantages of shared accommodation,
infrastructure and administrative expertise that involves. This underscores thedifficulties many other mentor projects had in communicating with YOTs,
schools and other statutory organisations, probably because of understandable
concerns about confidentiality as well as professional boundaries and thepressure under which modern statutory services work. At best, community
programmes utilizing volunteers face substantial administrative obstacles.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200411Pending any more positive findings from a longer term follow-up, the evidence
available here does not support a more widespread roll-out of mentor programmes
as a means of preventing or tackling youth crime. Instead, the findings havegenerated recommendations about some key features of mentoring which need to
be preserved and combined with features of other interventions. These
recommendations, which are developed more fully in the final discussion of thisreport, include the following:basing programmes on assessment of young peoples’ abilities and needs
Almost half the participants in the Depth Study met criteria for clinical levels ofhyperactivity, while more than half had emotional and behavioural difficulties ofclinical seriousness. As the Audit Commission has recognised, problems withlearning, psychological disability and family support are endemic in this groupof young people, while ignoring them is very expensive for society. Meetingthese needs requires integrated expert services, where healthcare staff work
alongside social, community, education and youth justice services. Because of
the confidential and specialised nature of the information involved, these
services need to be professionally run.

taking account of young people’s views of their needs
The single most important barrier to programme delivery is the unwillingness ofthe target groups of young people to participate, raising the question of how toincrease the appeal of future schemes to them. Authorities are understandably
anxious to avoid the implication that offending is being rewarded, but failing totake account of the wishes of young adults society has chosen not to take into
custody is just as short-sighted. Schemes which are built upon the goals ofyoung people and that reward progress are likely to increase the rate of take-up
and delivery. By the same token, mentor or other programmes in whichboundaries are unclear and non-compliance easy are unlikely to prove effective.



delivering programmes at a pre-adolescent age
The findings here showed benefits where interventions were delivered
to younger age groups and to those at risk of offending, rather than tooffenders. This is in keeping with the evidence more generally that teenagers are
influenced more by peers and less by parents and adults, compared with childrenof pre-adolescent age.



co-ordination of services over age
It is well established that the young people assessed here face multiple risks,with long-term problems usually reflecting an accumulation of risks over time.
Short, one-off programmes are unlikely to be sufficient to reverse the impact ofsuch risks. Instead, supports need to be provided early when possible, but to be
maintained and adapted across development until young people can function
autonomously. Statutory barriers which, for instance, confine YJB work to thoseover ten years of age hamper this goal. As well as being ‘joined-up’
horizontally, services need to be co-ordinated vertically over age. Recent
legislation, including the provision of Children’s Trusts, provides a step towards
such services.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

12





combining the trust- and competency-building features of mentoring withother skills within a new profession
This proposal is based on the profession of the ‘social pedagogue’ which hasdeveloped in several European countries to combine the provision of care andeducation (with a small ‘e’). Further particulars are given in the Discussion of
our report.
The findings have also produced some lessons and recommendations for futureevaluation studies. In particular, four strategies adopted in the present evaluation
have proved helpful in obtaining data of a relatively high quality, while one
obstacle requires more attention in future.



One advantage of this evaluation lay in its centralisation, rather than the use ofmultiple regional evaluators, and the implementation of evaluation at the
projects’ outset, rather than adding it on after projects were under way.



The use of a standard, user-friendly computer database to help projects keep
their administrative records and provide basic information for evaluation
purposes worked well.

The support and strong guidance given to the projects by Crime Concern and the
YJB was of major importance.



The use of overlapping studies with different methodologies was effective inproviding complementary information which lessened the methodologicalweaknesses of each approach.

In view of the cost of schemes such as the one examined here, it is in funders’best interest to ensure that projects employ administrative staff to keep project
records, and to earmark budgeting for these posts.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

13

Part 1 Background to the evaluation

1.1 Youth offending and the Youth Justice Board
A great deal has been learned about youth crime and the factors in the lives ofyoung people which increase the likelihood of criminal offending. Two conclusions
from this work are widely accepted and form the basis of the work to be reported here.
First, scientific studies and public opinion are united in the view that youth crime is aserious, prevalent and costly burden for many contemporary societies (Audit
Commission, 2004; Hayward and Sharp, 2005; Wood, 2004). Second, a variety of ‘risk
factors’ measurable in the pre-teen years predict which young people will go on to aserious, long-term, criminal career (Farrington, 1996; Loeber, 1990). As well as early
offending itself, these risk factors include social influences such as inadequate parentchild relationships, and the young people’s psychological vulnerabilities such asdifficulties with attention, learning, literacy, numeracy, and self-control (Graham and
Bowling, 1995; Youth Justice Board, 2001). It follows that, if it is possible to intervene
to resolve these risk factors at an early stage, the benefits for the young people, and forsociety, could be substantial.
The YJB is a statutory body, established under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, todevelop and co-ordinate services which prevent youth offending. It has introduced avariety of interventions. Some are designed to improve how the Criminal Justice Systemdeals with young offenders. Others target the factors in children and their families thatare believed to give rise to offending. For example, interventions which target parenting
and children’s learning and social-cognitive skills are listed in the YJB website(www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk). The use of mentor projects as a means of preventing
offending and reoffending was first trialled by the YJB in the period 1999–2001 (Tarling
et al, 2002). Building on this work, the present study involves an evaluation of some 80
different mentor projects, distributed across England and Wales.
1.2 Mentor projects as an intervention designed to reduce offending
The word ‘mentor’ comes from the Greek poet Homer’s heroic tale, the Odyssey(Homer, 800BC). Ulysses appointed Mentor to be tutor-adviser to his son and guardianof his estates while he was fighting the Trojan Wars. The recent research literature
contains many definitions of mentoring. None is generally accepted, but most have incommon the idea of a trusting relationship that involves a more experienced person
helping, and providing a role model for, someone who is less experienced. Mentoring
can occur informally throughout a society, but the interest here is in formal mentor
programmes, which are set up deliberately with a specific purpose in mind.
The last few years have seen an explosion of interest in such programmes and, as aresult, mentor project websites, support networks and resource collections, have grown
up in North America, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK). In theUK, the government-supported National Mentoring Network (www.nmn.org.uk) acts asa central source of information and materials.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200414

Although mentoring has blossomed, most mentor schemes target groups such asteachers, nurses, or students in the general community. The use of mentors to supportand redirect the development of young people who have committed criminal offences,or are likely to do so, raises special, and substantial, challenges. Among these areproblems in contacting the young people and involving them in the mentor programme,
difficulties in recruiting suitable volunteers willing and able to be mentors, and thedearth of evidence about the most effective strategies that mentors should adopt.
1.3 Competency-focused versus non-directive mentoring
The basic aim of befriending a young person is common to mentor projects and, formany, is an end in itself. For example, the well known Big Brothers and Big Sisters
mentor organization in North America trains community volunteers to befriend young
people who are at risk of social exclusion, but does not attempt to teach skills orcompetencies to the young people involved (McGill, 1999). In contrast, in the UK, theDalston Youth Project includes elements which target both befriending and basic
literacy and numeracy skills (Shiner et al, 2004). Likewise, the CHANCE UK scheme
champions ‘solution-focused’ mentoring which builds on a trusting relationship toteach life skills to socially excluded children and young people (St James-Roberts andSingh, 2001).
The distinction between non-directive and competency-focused mentor programmes isof central importance here, since many of the 84 mentor projects evaluated set out toteach basic literacy, numeracy, social or life skills, in the hope that such skills will help
young people to interact better with their social and physical environments, and so
improve their prospects.
1.4 The aims and parts of the evaluation and this report
In 2001, the YJB invited community and statutory organisations distributed acrossEngland and Wales to set up projects which would provide mentors for young people
involved in, or at risk of, criminal offending. Following a selection process, 84 mentor
projects were awarded funding. The projects were designed to target two groups ofyoung people who were considered particularly ‘at risk’ of offending and likely tobenefit from a mentoring programme: those with LN needs, and those from BME or
hard-to-reach backgrounds. As a result, the mentor projects divided into two maintypes: LN projects (53 in total) and BME projects (29 in total), with 2 dual (both
LN and BME) projects. The main goals for the mentor projects, listed in YJB
specifications, were to:increase the number of volunteers in the local communityensure the participation of young people in community intervention projectsensure that young people entered or re-entered ETE (BME projects particularly)

improve the young people’s literacy and numeracy skills (LN projects particularly)

reduce rates of criminal offending among young people.

The YJB appointed Crime Concern, a national charity with expertise in running crime
reduction schemes, to support the projects in their day-to-day work.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

15

In November 2001, researchers at the Thomas Coram Research Unit were selected tocarry out the national evaluation of the 84 mentor projects. The main goals of theevaluation set out in the YJB specifications were to:monitor and support the mentor projects in keeping administrative records andimplementing their programmes. This included providing information and feedback
that would help them to achieve their aims

evaluate the projects’ effectiveness in implementing and delivering the mentoring
programmesevaluate the effectiveness of the mentoring programmes in achieving the planned
outcome changes in the young peopleevaluate the programmes’ effectiveness in reducing criminal offending andconvictionprovide evidence about the cost-effectiveness of the mentor projects.

Where evaluations involve large amounts of data from multiple projects, they have to,for practical reasons, depend on the projects to collect part of the basic informationneeded for the evaluation. In principle, this relationship can be symbiotic, since much of
the information needed by the evaluators is also needed by the projects foradministrative purposes. In practice, both our own and others’ experience has taught usthat projects are reluctant record keepers. Their focus is on delivering their intervention
and helping the young people with whom they are engaged, so that keeping detailed
records is a lower priority. The danger for an evaluation such as this one was to end up
with 84 different, incomplete data sets, making accumulation of evidence acrossprojects impossible.
To cope with this, at our first, November 2001, meeting with the projects, we offered toprovide them with standard forms which would help them to keep their administrative
records and provide much of the information needed for the evaluation. We proposedthat the forms would be computer-based, user-friendly and as brief as possible, anddiscussed with them whether this would be workable. Apart from data protection issues,
the only problem to emerge was that six projects already had databases because their
mentor work was being added to an existing scheme. We asked for these databases to besent to us and agreed to make our own as compatible with them as possible. We agreed
to accept paper or other records where necessary.
The adoption of this approach has contributed to the evaluation’s success in collecting
data, so that we will document it in Part 2: Development and implementation of themain Database Study. The findings from the Database Study are in Part 3.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200416

Although database methods allow routine data to be collected in a more or less uniform
way, they are inherently limited in sensitivity, accuracy and objectivity. For instance,
projects may ask mentors whether they see improvements in a young person after
mentoring, and it is important to know whether this is the case. However, providing an
index of the extent of the improvement, and excluding the possibility of subjective bias,
requires objective measures to be obtained at the baseline (before the mentor
programme is delivered) and at the follow-up point, and for the two to be compared. A
related issue is that the difference between measures at baseline and follow-up points
can assess change, but not exclude the possibility that the changes would have occurredanyway, in the absence of the intervention programme. To exclude this requires anotherwise matched group of young people, who do not receive the intervention
programme, to be assessed at baseline and follow-up points in the same way as thegroup who do receive the programme.
To address these issues, we included the Depth Study, described in Part 4,
which involves measures both of mentees and of a comparable, non-mentoredgroup of young people at baseline and follow-up stages, collected directly by theevaluation team.
The projects’ primary, long-term goal is to reduce youth crime. Measurement of theireffectiveness in doing so involves methodological challenges, since it is widely
accepted that no one measure of youth offending is sufficient. The main source ofoffending data for both the Database and Depth studies is the self-reports of the young
people taking part. This information may be more sensitive than police records, since it
includes offending not detected by the police. However, self-report data tend to inflate
rates of offending, since they often include minor offences, such as vandalism or failingto pay fares. These are also influenced by the subjectivity of young people’s reports. A
commonly used alternative is reconviction data – that is, measures based on police
records of offending and reoffending (Home Office 2004). These indices recognise only
detected crimes, and are subject to variations between police forces and changes overtime in how offending is targeted and recorded. However, the existence of a national
database of offending data collected by the Home Office makes this a convenient,uniform and robust way of measuring offending, so that it is widely used for thispurpose. Accordingly, the Reconviction Study part of this evaluation, included in Part 5of this report, uses Police National Computer records to examine rates of offending andreoffending in the mentored and comparison young people.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

17

The basic question underlying the evaluation of an intervention like mentoring is ‘does
it work?’ Although this remains the guiding issue, it was clear from the outset that thisquestion was both too broad and unlikely to receive a categorical answer. One obvious
consideration is that young people participating in mentor projects receive a variety ofother interventions, making it difficult to distinguish the effects of mentoring from otherinfluences. Our Depth Study goes some way towards tackling this, but is not a complete
solution, so that we will revisit this and other constraints on our conclusions as wereport each study’s findings. Another consideration is that mentoring is not the only
strategy for tackling youth offending currently being tried out; rather, it is one ofseveral, none of which is problem-free. For example, programmes that target parenting
can be effective, but many parents will not participate or drop out, while sociallyalienated young people often lack the close ties with parents needed for parent-focusedinterventions to be effective (Spencer, 2003). Equally, previous studies havedocumented how hard it is to involve socially alienated young people in intervention
programmes, and how diverse and multiply disadvantaged this group is (Hurry andMoriarty, 2003; Shiner et al, 2004). For example, high rates of mental health problems,
educational and social skill deficiency, accommodation problems, and drug and alcoholabuse are common among young offenders (Shiner et al, 2004; Youth Justice Board,2001). To be effective, programmes need to be tailored to suit such individual
circumstances and needs. Rather than being a universal ‘one size fits all’ panacea
which works in every case, mentoring was more likely to help some young people someof the time.
It follows that the primary goal in this evaluation is to understand what about mentoringis most promising, with which groups, and in which circumstances. The large number of
mentor projects included in this YJB scheme has given rise to an extraordinary variety
of different types of mentor programme, allowing us to ask questions about the featuresof the most effective programmes – and to assess when and why they appear to be
successful – in order to provide guidance for the future. Since, too, a major appeal of
mentor programmes lies in the fact that they are usually delivered by volunteers – andso are potentially low in cost – they do not need to work all of the time. The metric bywhich success is judged is not effectiveness, but cost-effectiveness, since a lesseffective, but cheaper, intervention can be more cost-effective. The decisive test iswhether mentor projects give better value than other options.
To address this, Part 6 provides data about the costs and relative value of the mentor
programmes and projects, compared to alternatives.
In summary, rather than the question of what works, the question of what formsof mentoring are most promising, with whom, and at what cost, has guided thisevaluation and the way in which we have analysed the data it has generated. Part 7 of
the report attempts to synthesize the findings across the four studies used in theevaluation and to make recommendations about future interventions and the methods
used to evaluate them.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

18

Part 2 Development and implementation of the main
Database Study

The main purposes of the database were to:allow standardised information to be collected for the evaluation

provide projects with a comprehensive central information storage systemassist projects in gathering key information over a long period of time

provide guidelines for the information required

help improve data qualityminimise paperwork to and from projects.

The database needed to be user-friendly, and to allow rapid data input and access. It had
to contain relevant fields for all the projects to find it useful, yet include the fields forthe evaluation study. Microsoft Access was selected as the database management
system, as it is widely available, relatively easy to configure, and allows a sophisticateddatabase to be developed with a professional-looking front end.
At the beginning of the evaluation study and before database design, a list of theinformation needed for the evaluation study was developed and discussed with the
projects. Taking account of this and the research literature, the database was divided into
four separate forms, as set out in Table 2.1.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

19

Table 2.1: The structure of the database
Main sections

Forms and sub-forms include

The Project

Project details i.e. name of project, contact details
Project team members
Team meetings
Steering group members
Steering group meetings

Mentors

Mentor background and demographic characteristics
Career history
Recruitment
Training
Supervision
Resting period (mentor between mentees)
Left project i.e. date left and reason

Referred Youths

Referral details i.e. reason, by whom
Mentee background and demographic characteristics
Employment details
Schooling details
Offending history
Other details i.e. special needs identified

Mentor/mentee
programme

Matching of mentor and mentee
The programme aims and objectives
Record of meetings and activities
Record of assessments
The end of mentoring, including changes to the mentee during
the mentoring programme

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

20

Figure 2.1: Screen print out of the Referred Youth form

Figure 2.1 shows an example section from the Referred Youth form. Drop-down tables
were used wherever possible, enabling the user to select predetermined responses
quickly and producing standardised data for the evaluation that would be easy to code
and analyse.1 Space was provided in every main section for users to make comments orprovide qualitative data.
The first version of the database was presented to the projects and Crime Concern at aconference in June 2002. As requested by the projects, their queries and solutions weretabulated and sent to them, together with screenshots of the database and the original listof information needed for the evaluation. Where possible, the design of the database
was improved incorporating the projects’ feedback. If the projects’ suggestions could
not be incorporated into the database, they were given the reason.

1

The categories used for the drop-downs were chosen using established sources, such as the 2001
census, and through consultation with the projects. For example, the ethnicity categories were taken fromthe census.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

21

In August 2002, a second draft of the database was provided in two versions (Microsoft
Access 97 and 2000) and placed on an internet web page for trialling and further
feedback.2 A short, user-friendly manual was written and the database was password
protected. Projects were supplied with consent forms to gain informed consent from theyoung people involved for inclusion of their particulars in the database. The projects
and young people were assured that all personal information would be kept confidential,
in keeping with the Data Protection Act. After further feedback and revision, thedatabase was made available for use. Substantial amounts of time were allocated topromoting and supporting its use via presentations, phone calls, emails, reports andavailability to deal with problems and queries.
In May 2003, we embarked on a trial run to obtain completed databases from the
projects, to confirm how many were using it and to encourage others to do so prior to
the preliminary data collection, due in September 2003.3 This exercise proved to beinvaluable for several reasons.



Projects that had not begun to use the database were stimulated to use it.

Projects became used to compressing and sending the database as anemail attachment.



We examined each database and liaised with the projects to improve data quality.



We were able to complete a log of the projects’ progress in sending their databases,
to note problems encountered, queries raised, and non-response.



It allowed us to trial procedures for data collection.

In July 2003, we sent the projects an email explaining how the databases should be sent
to us within the first two weeks of September. Some projects were short-staffed andfound it difficult to find enough time to keep records. We asked Crime Concern forsupport in obtaining the databases and for reports about any projects unable to provide
electronic or paper data. We provided Crime Concern with regular updates and severalof their consultants helped projects to enter project data. At our request, the YJB wrote
to the projects to remind them to send the evaluators the data needed, in any format, or
their funding would be withdrawn.

2

Projects that did not have Internet access were sent the database on CD ROM by post.

3

For a more detailed account of this part of the evaluation and the resulting Interim Report, please contact
the authors.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200422

At this stage, three of the original 84 projects had failed to become established, giving
81 projects in total. It took six weeks to obtain 99% receipt of the interim data sets fromthe 81 projects. In January 2004, the interim findings were reported to Crime Concern
and the projects at a one-day conference. Project difficulties, such as in recruiting andretaining mentors or mentees, in networking, and in keeping records, were discussed
and advice was provided. The projects were guided in how to access and summarise thedatabase information for their own purposes and workshops on requested topics, such as
extension of funding, were run. Each project was sent an individualised report of its
findings and areas of weakness were highlighted and discussed by telephone and e-mail.
The projects were reminded in 2003 that a final database collection would take place in
September 2004. A few were scheduled to finish their work before September and ineach case their database was collected beforehand. As in 2003, projects were sent
reminders, encouraging them to fill in the various sections and explaining how to send
the database to us. Telephone and email support was provided throughout this period.
Once the databases were received they were checked and projects were contacted if
important information was missing, which they were asked to supply. Each database
was then extensively cleaned (e.g. removing duplicate files, transferring data fromtextboxes to drop-down check boxes where appropriate). Nearly all the projects were
contacted at least once to clarify or add missing data.
A high degree of responsive contact with the projects was needed to carry out
the evaluation in this way, but it has produced a higher return rate and quality ofdata than has proved possible in other previous large-scale evaluation studies.
This exceptional response probably reflects several factors, but five wereparticularly important:because the evaluation began at the same time as the projects, we were able toinvolve them in its use from the outset, rather than having to add on data collection
after they had established their forms and procedures. This was less true in the few
cases where projects were building on existing schemes, emphasising that
evaluations need to be introduced before projects are under way



the database was user-friendly and useful to the projects

the trial runs, database promotion and support of its use

Crime Concern’s supportthe letter from the YJB to the projects.

Despite everyone’s efforts, some projects struggled to get their data to us and several
could not enter all their data into the database. Even though it was not mandatory, 90%of projects used the evaluation database and their separate records were merged into one
large database. A further 6% of the projects submitted other databases and 1% submitted
paper records (see Table 2.2). These other data collection systems were adapted andentered into our merged database. Two other projects closed early in 2004, in one casedue to project staff illness. In these cases, we used their September 2003 data.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

23

Table 2.2: Projects submitting data in 2004
Number and % of projects submitting data:

No.

%

Submitted our database in 2004

72

90

Using another database

5

6

Using paper records

1

1Didn’t submit data

2

3

Total

80

100

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

24

Part 3 Findings from the main Database Study

3.1 Data processing and treatment of missing data
All the projects shared the goal of delivering mentor programmes to children or
young people who had offended, or were at risk of offending. There were three main
project types:BME projects

young people with literacy and numeracy difficulties (LN projects)both of the above (dual-bid [DB] projects).

At the outset, there were two DB, 29 BME and 53 LN projects. Because of the small
number of DB projects, we have combined their findings with those of the BME
projects for most purposes. The exception is analyses of the literacy and numeracy data,
where the DB and LN project findings are combined, because targeting LN skills wascommon to both these project types.
Throughout this report, we draw a distinction between ‘missing’ and ‘unknown’
information. For many measures, missing data rates are low (≤ 5%), allowing us to be
confident in interpreting the findings. For some measures, such as those concerned withliteracy or truancy, the projects had difficulty in collecting information because schools
were reluctant to provide it, and recorded these data as ‘unknown’. Other data, such as
the dates when mentor programmes started and ended, which we used to calculate thelength of mentor programmes, were sometimes missing from the database simply
because projects overlooked them. No doubt the dearth of project administrative staff
with this as a responsibility, and the high rate of staff turnover (see section 3.4: ‘Project
staff numbers and turnover’, below), contributed to this. This, in turn, partly reflects
funding constraints, since the projects were urged to employ staff for this purpose.
In reporting the results, we have presented rates of both missing and unknown data. For
each measure of interest (e.g. school attendance), we have then reported both the rates
of attendance for the mentees as a whole and the rates if only cases that have known
data are used to calculate the rates. For most purposes, the figures calculated using
known data are probably more representative, but interpretative care will be needed
where the percentage of unknown or missing data is high.
3.2 An overview of the mentor projects
The BME and DB projects tended to be located in the south of England, with a clusterof 12 in London and the surrounding areas, while more LN projects were located in the
midlands and north: eight in the midlands, ten in the North-West and seven in the
North-East. Three LN projects were in Wales and six in Yorkshire. Of the projects, 32%
were based in YOT premises. Half (40) were part of large charities such as NACRO
while others were ‘stand alone’ organisations linked to smaller networks.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200425

Although the majority of projects targeted young people aged ten to 17, someconcentrated on specific ages within or close to this range, for instance 14 to 17
for the ‘Catalyst’ project, nine to16 for ‘Bedfordshire Mentors and Peers’, and ten to 18
for the ‘Salford Mentoring Scheme’. Some focused on specific groups: for instance,
both the ‘Mentoring Plus: Irish Travellers Project’ and ‘First Steps Mentoring: Surrey
Traveller Community Project’ targeted the traveller community, and ‘SHAATHI’ theBangladeshi community.
The length of mentoring was planned to vary considerably between (and within)projects, with programmes designed to range from three to 12 months or more.
Most (70%) were intended to last between six months and one year, about 15%, fourmonths or under, and about 15% were meant to respond to individual need and had noplanned length.
Mentoring was also delivered in a variety of ways. Most (89%) programmes involved
one-to-one work, whereby an adult mentor met with the mentee once a week for a few
hours. Typically, they went out into the community to talk and carry out recreational
activities designed to build their relationship, involve them in the community and tobuild competencies which would help the mentee to develop new ways of engaging
with his or her environment. However, ten projects delivered mentoring mainly or partly
on the project premises and a small number delivered mentoring in a group setting only.
The type of mentor also varied considerably. For instance, 15 projects had recruited
between them 25 ‘older person’ mentors. Fourteen projects had ‘peer mentors’ (where
mentor and mentee are of similar ages), seven having more than 50% of peer mentors. A
few projects provided multiple mentors per youth. The ‘Catalyst’ mentoring projectused a tripartite mentoring model, where two adults mentored the young people: abusiness and a student mentor. Some LN projects such as ‘ReStart’ in Cardiff had
separate tutors who delivered numeracy and literacy to the young people; for others it
was the mentor who provided this.
Table 3.1 provides ‘thumbnail’ sketches for three projects chosen to illustrate further thediversity between the projects. Similar thumbnail sketches for each of the mentor
projects are given in Appendix F.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

26

Table 3.1 ‘Thumbnail sketches’ for three different mentor projects from the YJB
schemeProject 1 is based in the North West of England. It targets young people from BME or
hard-to-reach communities, initially targeting young people over the age of 15. It is anindependent organization with formal links with the local YOT, as well strong links withthe local Volunteer Bureau, schools and social services. Mentors are given one full dayof mentoring awareness training, together with the opportunity to do an Open College
Network qualification in mentoring. Some mentors take a basic course which explores
how to deliver basic literacy and numeracy skills, while some complete City and Guilds
Initial Certificate in Teaching Basic Skills (Literacy) 9282. Mentor training is provided
both in-house, by the project, and through links with local colleges and community
agencies. The generic mentor training is run in partnership with the Probation Service.
Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for a 6-to-12 month
period in a community setting. Mentoring also targets social skills, life skills and‘advocacy’, which aims to put the young person in touch with community services.
Programmes designed to improve mentees’ literacy and numeracy skills aredelivered by a tutor and by some mentors who have completed the 9282 qualification.
Young people can spend up to two half-days per week on literacy and numeracy
programmes, according to need. The majority of young people attend mentoring on a
voluntary basis but in about 10% of cases, YOT case managers have made mentoring
part of a court order.
Project’s own description of its difficulties and successes: ‘Problems arose due to thediversity of the young people – some had no interest in education and we had to work
really hard with them and with their parents. However, on the positive side, we’ve hadsome young people who’ve re-engaged into school, and some who have completed
work experience, college courses and gone into employment. And we’re bombarded
with referrals – we could never offer enough spaces to keep up with demand.’

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

27

Project 2 is a numeracy and literacy-focused project based in the South East of
England. It is part of a larger charity and has formal links with the YOT and strong
working links with the County Council, Under-19 Substance Misuse Team, Youth
Development Service, Education Action Zone, Neighbourhood Renewal Team,
Community Safety Team, Connexions Service and the police. The project provides its
mentors with two weeks of training in-house. They target people between the age of 14
and 17.
Mentoring programmes: Mentoring is carried out on a one-to-one basis but in a groupsetting, so that the young people sit round one large table with individual mentors. The
mentee attends the project four afternoons a week for the duration of the programme,
which varies in length according to the needs and preferences of the young person.
Most mentoring activities are held on the project premises, but there are also external
activities, such as working on a farm for a day. Numeracy and literacy programmes aredelivered by the mentor for at least ten hours per week. Mentoring also targets life andsocial skills, and includes advocacy work. Approximately 30% of the young people takepart in mentoring as part of their court order.
Project’s own description of difficulties and successes: ‘Initially, getting people toacknowledge that our young people were out of education was a real difficulty.
However, we’ve had some real successes, for example, we’re organizing an award
ceremony because we have a young man who had gone through quite an ordeal but
ended up sitting a Higher Diploma in Music Technology and Sound Engineering. Various
young people have returned to college or school – even though they were complete
non-attendees beforehand. We’ve had many young people sit City and Guilds exams
with a high pass rate. We have been successful in reducing reoffending. We are also awell-known project in the community and feedback to a steering group representing lotsof agencies.’

Project 3 is a numeracy and literacy-focused mentor project based in Wales. It is part ofa Safer Cities charity. Mentors are given a two-day training course, run in-house by the
mentor project. The project works closely with a local school in a deprived area of thecity, so that 11 to 13-year-olds who are at risk of offending are referred to the project by
their Head of Year.
Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet for 12 weeks in a community
setting. Mentoring is issue-based, including social and life skills, as well as literacy andnumeracy abilities. The project always sends mentees on external courses, which
involve three full days of outdoor activities designed to enhance team building. A tutordelivers the numeracy/literacy so that once a week, the young people spend 2 hours intutoring then 2 hours with their mentor. The young people attend mentoring on a
voluntary basis but are encouraged by their school.
The project’s own description of difficulties and successes: ‘the only real difficulty has
been with funding! The project has been really successful and the school is very
supportive. The project has definitely led to a reduction in non-attendance and to
improvements in behaviour.’To some extent, the variety of intervention approaches adopted by the projects might besaid to challenge the definition of what a mentor project is, a point we will return tolater. Although this diversity makes evaluation difficult, its advantage lies in allowing
alternative models to be compared in order to identify the features which make someprojects particularly successful.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200428

To summarise the sheer amount of work carried out by the projects, Table 3.2 provides
figures for the numbers of volunteers and young people recruited by the projects as awhole, as well as by each of the main project types (BME; DB; LN). These figures
represent the 80 projects which succeeded in providing data for mentor programmes.
The figures need to be interpreted with care, since they overlook variations in how longprojects took to set up, as well as differences in how long they recruited for. Because
YJB funding for most projects was winding down in September 2004, some projects
with long-lasting mentor programmes would have stopped recruiting some time
beforehand, while others had obtained additional funding from other sources and were
continuing to recruit. Taken as a broad guide, the figures indicate that the 80 projects
recruited approximately 4,800 young people and 3,400 community volunteers during anactive lifespan of about 30 months.
These figures provide clear evidence that the mentor scheme was successful inmeeting the first of the YJB aims, that is, to increase the number of volunteers in thelocal community.
Table 3.2: Total number of volunteers and young people recruited by the
mentor projects
BME and DB Projects

LN Projects

Overall total

1,657

1,747

3,404

Average number per
project

40

33

37

Total number ofreferred young
people

2,113

2,715

4,828

Average number per
project

51

56

54

Total number of
recruited volunteers

3.3 Project policies for mentor programmes
Projects need to be able to articulate their policies, since this is an indication thatthese have been thought through. Following an earlier consultation, in September 2003
we asked the projects to send us written copies of their policies, guidelines andrationales regarding each of the areas included in Table 3.3. This exercise was also
designed to encourage projects to articulate and compile policy documents where they
did not already exist.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200429

We received a 97% response rate, such that 78 out of 80 projects provided evidence of
their policies. The submissions varied from targeted documents that addressed each of
the policy areas, to large, general-purpose documents, some of which did not havediscernible policies in target areas. A member of the evaluation team assessed each of
the policy documents for whether it contained a discernible policy in each policy area.
This process was necessarily rather subjective, but provided a sufficient basis forfeeding back queries to projects and for broad summative purposes. Table 3.3 lists
the findings.
Table 3.3: Response to questions about project policies, guidelines and rationales

Policy question

How long your mentoring cycle lasts and why?

% Provided
policy%Providedrationale
for thispolicy

95

88

96

92

99

97

98

60

How often mentors should meet with the mentees?

90

90

Mentor roles: what mentors should and should not do?

95

94

99

96

92

92

54

63

How often meetings/other contact should take place
between project and mentors and why?
Mentor recruitment, vetting, training, monitoring andsupport?
Do mentors gain formal accreditation/qualifications?

Guidelines, strategies or policies on how mentors should
help the youths to achieve the intended outcomes?
Mentee selection criteria and how target youth are to be
recruited?
How mentoring is to end: graduation or similar occasion?

As the table indicates, the vast majority of projects had clear policies in most areas. The
relatively low proportion with articulated policies about how mentoring was to bebrought to an end was a cause of concern, since previous studies have concluded thatyoung people may feel let down and demoralized where mentoring ends without aperiod of preparation. A clear ‘graduation’ or similar occasion to signify that the mentee
has moved on can help to prevent this. This was drawn to the attention of the projects
concerned, as was the need to consider whether mentors should gain a formal
accreditation or qualification as a result of their work with the project. However, someprojects remained ambivalent about this, since their mentors’ wishes and resources
would affect the ability to implement this policy.
3.4 Project staff numbers and turnover
We obtained two main assessments of project staff numbers: a ‘spot check’ and ameasure of staff turnover throughout the life of the project. The census date for the spot
check was September 2003, to avoid the reduced staffing which occurred as someprojects approached the end of their funding in 2004.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200430

Three projects failed to supply any data about their staffing. In total (excluding
mentors), the 77 projects employed 203 staff in September 2003 (113 DB+BME; 90
LN). Most (61) projects had at least one full-time member of staff, but 13 employed
only part-time staff (six did not provide this information). The individual projects variedin staff numbers from one to 17 staff, but most had one to 4, and 19 had just one
member of staff.
The staffing structure, too, varied considerably between projects. Almost all had aproject co-ordinator, manager or equivalent, who in small projects doubled up as amentor support worker, administrator, or both. Larger projects distinguished between
these roles, while 17 listed separate co-ordinators or teachers for the literacy andnumeracy aspects of their work. This figure may be an underestimate, since job titles
were not always clear, while literacy and numeracy tutoring was carried out by partnerorganisations in some cases. Just 22 projects listed a full or part-time administrator as aseparate member of staff.
The importance of staff turnover stems from the communication and knowledge gaps
which arise if turnover is high. We were aware that rates were high, since our contacts
with the projects often encountered new staff who lacked basic knowledge about theevaluation, the YJB specifications for the projects, and the networks of people withwhom they were supposed to work.
In practice, the projects employed a total of 345 staff, with 43% leaving at some point
up to September 2004. Short-term funding produces high staff turnover, which, in turn,hampers the project in achieving its objectives. As a consequence, the results of ourevaluation are likely to under-represent the effectiveness which the projects could
achieve under stable financial and organisational conditions.
3.5 Project staff and steering group meetings
Of the 80 projects, 54 did not report any staff meetings while, on average, project staff
met six times (ranging from zero to 121 times). Staff in LN projects met on average
three times, while staff in BME/DB projects met more often: 13 times on average. Thisdifference is statistically significant (p<0.05), but the reasons for it are unclear. Formal
meetings may be less needed when staff are few, while the 19 projects run by a single
member of staff could not have meetings.
The majority, 65, of the projects had Steering Groups, but 15 had never met, giving
30 projects without functioning Steering Groups. The other 50 projects met an averageof five times (ranging from one to 18 times) each. Figures for LN and BME projects
were similar.
3.6 Project recruitment of volunteers
This section includes all volunteer ‘applicant-mentors’ listed in the database, whether or
not they were accepted and trained as mentors. The projects chose from a list (Table 3.4)of possible sources of volunteers, or added alternative sources.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

31

The majority of the volunteers were recruited via some ‘other’ source (25%), the local
newspaper (24%), or friends (17%). Of the ‘other’ sources, ‘other organizations/links’4
was the most frequently cited (35% of ‘other’ replies), followed by ‘through the project’(13% of other replies), and ‘other misc.’ (12% of the other replies, including fliers, radio
and television advertisements). YOTs and the probation service/referral practitioner
were also mentioned (8%) as sources, as were local universities/colleges (9%).
Table 3.4: Recruitment of volunteers
How volunteer was recruited

Frequency

Percentage

Other

780

25

Local newspaper

747

24

Via friend

537

17

Volunteer bureau

444

14

Displays/leaflets

374

12

Presentation

146

5

National newspaper

88

3Local radio

13

<1

Total

3,129

100

Don’t know

147

Missing278

Overall total

3,404

There are interesting variations between the types of mentoring project (Table 3.5) inthe methods used to recruit mentors.

4

Such as: Millennium Volunteers, AA volunteer, Anti Bullying Alliance, Association of Chief Police
Officers, CSV (volunteering and training organisation), Oldham Bangladeshi Youth Association,
Glodwick Bangladeshi Youth Assoc., another mentoring project, Asylum Welcome, AXIS, Better
Together, Bristol Race Equality Council, Connexions, Just Do It website, Parenting Plus, WFCP,
Werneth Project.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

32

Table 3.5: Method of volunteer recruitment by type of project
Method of mentor recruitment

Frequency
within
BME/DBprojects% within
BME/DB
Projects

Frequency
within LN
projects%
withinLN
projects

Other

413

27

367

23

Local newspaper

252

17

495

31

Via Friend

321

21

216

13

Volunteer Bureau

163

11

281

17

Displays and leaflets

175

12

199

12

Presentation

116

8

30

2

National newspaper

65

4

23

1

Local radio

8

1

5

<1

Total

1,513

100

1,616

100

Don’t know

40

107

Missing

104

24

The LN projects reported using local newspapers, volunteer bureaus and displays andleaflets more often than BME/DB projects, who reported using friends and national
newspapers more often than LN projects. These differences are statistically significant(<0.05) but the reason for them is uncertain.
3.7 Descriptive Information about mentors
As would be expected, not all volunteers to projects became mentors. Of the 3,404
volunteers, 2,820 were accepted and 584 (17%) rejected by the projects as unsuitable.
All projects were implementing government guidelines for vetting, so that volunteers
were rejected for failing to meet the vetting criteria, or because references or otherinformation indicated some doubt as to their suitability to become mentors. It is clearlynecessary to be cautious in selecting volunteer mentors for children and young people.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

33

Just 1,744 of the 2,820 suitable volunteers (62%) were matched with at least one
mentee. This represents a high rate of volunteer attrition and is a source of concern,
since many potential mentors failed to be used by projects. A high volunteer attrition
rate was also reported in Tarling, Davison and Clarke’s (2004) evaluation of mentor
recruitment. The projects here cited three main reasons for this loss. First, it reflected
withdrawal by volunteers either during training, once the task became clearer, or
because of delays in completing training or matching them with young people. Second,
it was sometimes difficult to obtain a suitable match between mentor and mentee; thiswas a particular problem for geographically diffuse projects, since it could be
impossible to locate a mentor who lived anywhere near a potential mentee. In othercases, as indicated below, a potential match between mentor and young person was
made, but the young person declined to take part in mentoring. Third, some projects
simply attracted far more volunteers than they could train and supervise as mentors.
From the projects’ point of view, it may be more economic to lose would-be mentors at
this early stage than after a volunteer has been trained and a programme with a mentee
has been set up. However, many young people also failed to be matched with a mentor.
The findings point to the need to improve volunteer participation in future schemes.
The 1,744 mentors had a mean age of 33 years and 1,125 (65%) were women and 616(35%) men. Similar proportions have been reported in previous evaluations of mentor
schemes (St James-Roberts and Singh, 2001; Tarling et al, 2004). Most (58%) mentors
were White British; 19% were Black or Black British and 10% were Asian or Asian
British. Between them, the mentors spoke 14 different first languages, with 88% having
English as their first language.
Table 3.6 shows the mentors’ gender and ethnicity according to the main mentor project
categories (BME/DB; LN). The unequal ethnicity distribution indicates success inrecruiting mentors who match the ethnic background of targeted mentees. It isnoteworthy that BME/DB projects recruited a higher proportion of male mentors than
LN projects. We will examine issues about mentor: mentee matching on gender andethnicity later in this report.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

34

Table 3.6: Mentor gender and ethnicity by type of project
Frequency
within
BME/DBprojects% within
BME/DB
Projects

Frequency
within LN
projects% within
LN
projects

Gender:Female

961

58

1,255

72

Male

692

42

489

28

Total

1,653

100

1,744

100

Missing

4Ethnicity:
White

543

35

1,487

93

Mixed

112

7

22

1

Asian or Asian British

318

20

43

3

Black or Black British

577

37

47

3

Chinese or other ethnic group

73

1

5

<1

Total

1,573

100

1,604

100

Don’t know

43

116

Missing

41

27

3

Most mentors were adults (83%), but specialist groups included ‘peer-mentors’ (8%)‘ex-offender mentors’ (3%), ‘older person’ mentors (2%), traveller mentors (2%) andasylum mentors (2%). Most (64%) mentors were in full- or part-time employment or
self-employed, while 10% were students or in training schemes.
Cross-tabulations were run to examine whether mentors differed from volunteers who
did not become mentors in gender or ethnicity; no differences were found.
3.8 Project training and supervision of mentors
Over half of the mentors (55%) were classified as ‘mentor training fully completed’. Of
the others, 32% were classified as ‘mentor completed initial training’, 8% as ‘mentor inprocess of ongoing or specialist training’, 1% as ‘mentor awaiting training’ and 3% as‘mentor already trained’.
Of projects, 50% provided formal supervision of mentors, involving regular planned
meetings or other contacts, while 50% did not. The projects’ database comments suggestthat many of the latter provided ‘responsive’ supervision; that is, they responded whencontacted by mentors, but did not have preset, proactive, supervision arrangements inplace, often because of resource limitations. Where resources are limited, projects may
focus their supervision on mentors who need it most.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

35

These figures are a source of concern, since the available evidence suggests thatmentors benefit from guidance and regular supervision by projects (St James-Roberts
and Singh, 2001). However, like other overall figures, they also highlight the variation
between projects. Just two projects were supervising all mentors, but 26 supervised
more than 50% of their mentors, and 20 projects supervised none. These differences willallow us to assess the importance of supervision for successful delivery of mentor
programmes later in this report.
3.9 Descriptive Information about the referred young people
Figures in this section are for all the young people referred to the projects, whether or
not they were accepted and became mentees.
In all, 4,828 young people were referred to the projects. The projects were asked torecord which organisations had referred the young people to them and whether thereferral had been accepted or not. As shown in Table 3.7, more than half (58%) of the
youths were referred by YOTs.
Table 3.7: Referring organisation
Referring organisation

Frequency

Percentage

YOT

2,619

58

School957

21

Others366

8social services

312

7

Pupil Referral Unit

84

2

Parent/other family member

66

2

Self Referral65

1Police371Prison Service

13<1

Drug Agency

7

<1

4,526

100

Total
Don’t know

27

Missing275

This pattern varied according to which type of mentoring project the Referred Youthwas from. In particular, LN projects had a greater proportion of their youths referred by
YOTs (67%), compared with BME/DB projects (46%). Referred Youths within
BME/DB projects were more likely than those from LN projects to have been referredby social services departments (13% compared with 2%; Х2 p<0.001).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200436

Of the 4,828 young people referred to the mentor projects, 667 (14%) were recorded by
the projects as ‘referral not accepted’. The textbox explanations for this identified
several reasons, including the unsuitability of the young person (for example, due tomental health problems requiring specialist attention) and reasons such as the mentee
moving house, receiving a custodial sentence or being accepted into employment.
However, in approximately two-thirds of cases, it was the mentee who did not accept
the referral, either by declining at interview to accept a mentor or by failing to turn up atall. It is to be expected that some referrals would not be accepted, since projects have a
responsibility to protect their mentors and staff against young people who are violent orotherwise dangerous, while some young people will need specialist help that mentors
cannot supply. It is also well known that many socially alienated young people refuse toparticipate in mentor or other intervention programmes (Shiner et al, 2004; Tarling et al,2004). However, because this means that interventions do not reach those considered inneed of them, it remains a shortcoming for most current intervention schemes, including
mentoring, for socially alienated young people.
Of the remaining 4,161 young people, 2,956 were assigned to a mentor. Although therecruitment of nearly 3,000 mentees represents a considerable achievement, thesefigures also show that the projects were unsuccessful in assigning mentors for a large
number of referred young people (1,205, 29% of the referred cases). The projects’
textbox comments indicate that many of these cases were due to higher numbers beingreferred than they could cope with, pointing to resource limitations. As noted above,projects serving wide-spread geographic areas found it difficult to find mentors who
lived near mentees. Some cases were probably due to young people whom projects
could not contact. In any case, the loss of a further 1,200 potential mentees at this stage
is a further reason for concern.
3.10 Descriptive information on the mentees
Altogether, 2,956 referred young people were assigned to a mentor and became
mentees. The somewhat higher number of mentees than mentors reflects cases where amentor had more than one mentee.
On average, projects included 37 mentees each (with a range from three to 217). Of thementees, 39% were in BME/DB projects, and 61% in LN projects. Of the 2,956
mentees, 79% were male and 21% female. In both BME/DB and LN projects, the‘average’ mentee was 14-years-old, and over half (55%) of mentees were between 13
and 15 years old, with 27% being 16 or older. This is in keeping with recent evidence
that rates of offending now peak in 14-year-olds (MORI, 2004). Most young people
included in the mentor projects evaluated by Tarling, Davison and Clarke (2004) weremale and between 13 and 16 years of age.
Table 3.8 summarises the mentees’ ethnic background within each of the two main
project types and gives overall numbers.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

37

Table 3.8: The mentees’ ethnic backgrounds% BME/DB

% LN

Total
number of
cases

White

26

90

1,919

Mixed

21

4

314

Asian or Asian British

20

1

246

Black or Black British

26

2

332

Chinese or other ethnic group

3

1

48

Don’t know/missing
Total

4

3

97

100

101

2,956

Ethnicity

As the tabled figures show, the projects were successful in recruiting the different target
ethnicity groups. Most (90%) mentees in the LN projects were White, whereas just 26%
of BME project mentees were White. BME mentees consisted predominantly of young
people with a Black, Asian or mixed ethnicity background. Smaller, specialist, groups
comprised 31 traveller community mentees, 34 asylum seeker mentees, and 166
mentees with a parent who was an ex-offender. This successful recruitment of young
people from BME communities is in keeping with YJB aims and is an importantachievement, since 85% of mentees in the earlier YJB mentor scheme were White(Tarling et al, 2004). Between them, the mentees spoke 15 different first languages, withEnglish being the first language in 87% of cases. There were no notable variations ingender between the types of mentoring project.
3.11 Mentees’ dependents
Projects were asked to supply information about any dependents the mentees had andwhere these dependents were living. For the majority of mentees (86%), there were
no dependents. Of the remainder, data were missing for 3%, projects did not knowwhether 8% of mentees had dependents, stated not applicable in 1% of cases, and 2% of
mentees (49) had dependent children: 37 were living with the mentee and 12 not livingwith the mentee.
3.12 Mentees’ current educational, training or employment status
At the point of referral, 67% of mentees with data were considered by the projects to be‘at school’, although truanting and exclusion rates were substantial (see below). Of theremainder, 10% were unemployed, 7% were students or on a training scheme, 4% were
employed (full-time, part-time or as casual/temporary workers) and less than 1% werelooking after a family or were sick/incapacitated. For 6% of mentees, the project did notknow their education/employment/training status.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

38

Table 3.9: Education, training or employment status of mentee
Employment status

Frequency

Percentage

At school

1,953

67

Unemployed

302

10

Student/On training scheme

215

7

Don’t know

163

6

Other

163

6

Employed part-time

43

2

Employed full-time

20

1

Employed as casual worker
Looking after Family or
sick/Incapacitated

28

1

17

<1

Total

2,904

100

Missing
Total

52
2,956

Of the mentees classified as being at school, 74% were in mainstream education, 9% in
a special school, 9% in a pupil referral unit, 5% in some other form of education(including home tuition) and 1% were in further education. For 2% of these cases,
projects did not know what form of education the mentees were in, and, for 1%, the data
were missing.
3.13 Mentees’ truanting and exclusion from school
The projects were asked to record the number of days the mentees had truanted (or had
unauthorised absences) from school over the past three months, and the number of days
the mentees had been excluded in the past year. The projects reported that they had
struggled to obtain this information, due largely to schools’ unwillingness to provide
access to it. Information on truanting is collected directly from the young people in our
Depth Study (Part 4).
As Table 3.10 shows, 298 (10%) of the mentees, as a whole, were known to havetruanted at least once, or had at least one day’s unauthorised absence, during theprevious three months. In total, 435 (15%) of mentees had been excluded from school atleast once in the last year. These rates are almost certainly under-estimates, for thereasons given above. The average number of days these mentees truanted during theprevious term was 24 (ranging from one to 60 days), and the average number of times
they were excluded in the past year was twice (ranging from one to 29 times).
The large amounts of unknown or missing information make it difficult to estimate thetrue rates of mentee truanting and exclusion. Taking only cases with applicable data,
298 of 819 (36%) mentees had truanted in the last three months, and 435 of 994 (44%)
mentees had been temporarily or permanently excluded in the last year.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

39

Table 3.10: Number of mentees truanted and excluded from school

Number of mentees truanted/had
unauthorised absences over past
three months
Number of mentees did not truant/absentNot applicableN

Minimum
No.

Maximum
No.

Mean
No.

Std.
Deviation

298

1

60

24.18

23.439

1

29

2.24

2.487

521
180

Don’t know

743

Missing

1,214

Number of mentees excluded inpast year*
Number mentees not excluded

435
559

Not applicable156

Don’t know

689

Missing

1,117* temporarily or permanently

3.14 Mentees’ literacy, numeracy, and Special educational needs
Of the 2,956 mentees, literacy status was not known for 746 (25%) of cases and was
missing for a further 6%. However, 50% of the 2956 mentees were considered byprojects to have literacy needs. For 819 (28%) of mentees, their numeracy status was
unknown and was missing for a further 6%, but 45% overall, were judged to havenumeracy needs.
These figures become even more striking when they are calculated only for cases whereneeds are known. Of the 2,044 mentees where literacy status data were available, 1,472(72%) had literacy needs and only 28% did not. For numeracy, 1,326 of 1,957 (68%)
mentees with a known status had numeracy needs, while 32% did not.
As would be expected, these rates differed between BME and LN/DB projects, with
81% of LN/DB mentees having literacy needs, compared with 19% of mentees in BME
projects. Similarly, 82% of LN/DB project mentees had numeracy needs, compared with
18% of BME project mentees.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

40

In England and Wales, as a whole, statutory Statements for Special Educational
Needs, representing cases with the most severe difficulties, are given to about 3% ofchildren (Audit Commission, 2002). Other school children may have Special
educational needs identified, but have not reached the stage of having a Statement. The
projects did not know whether or not 32% of mentees had Special educational needs,
while 7% were missing data. Of the 1,827 cases with applicable data, 24% (436) ofmentees had Statements for Special Educational Needs. The projects did not knowwhether or not 29% of mentees had Special educational needs identified, while 6% were
missing data. Of the 1,933 cases with applicable data, 924 (48%) had an identified
Special Educational Need. As would be expected, these rates differed between the typesof projects, with 76% LN/DB mentees having special needs identified compared with
only 24% of BME mentees.
3.15 Mentees’ educational qualifications
Most (72%) mentees were less than 16 years old and so would not be expected to havegained GCSE or other educational qualifications. Of the 790 mentees aged 16 and over,data were missing for 3% and were not known for 32% of cases. Forty-seven percent of
the 790 mentees had no qualifications, 10% had at least one GCSE, 4% had nonspecified qualifications, 2% had one or more City and Guilds qualifications and 2% had
one or more NVQ.
3.16 Mentees’ Special Status
Only 231 mentees had a special group classification. Of these, 13% were classified astravellers, 15% as asylum seekers and 72% as relatives of ex-offenders.
Fifteen projects included at least one mentee from a traveller background. As intended,these were included mainly in projects targeting this group, so that five projects had
more than 5% of their mentees classified as travellers. Fourteen projects included atleast one mentee classified as an asylum seeker. Thirty-eight projects included at least
one mentee classified as a relative of an ex-offender.
3.17 Mentees’ dependence on alcohol or drugs
The database asked projects to identify cases where mentees engaged in excessive useor dependence on alcohol or drugs. The projects did not know whether 1,101 (37%) ofmentees had excessive use or dependence on alcohol, while a further 5% were missing
data. The projects did not know whether 1,086 (37%) of mentees had excessive use ordependence on drugs, while 5% were missing data. Of the overall 2,956 cases, 303(10%) of mentees had excessive use or dependence on alcohol, and 424 (14%) on drugs.
Of the cases with applicable data, 303 of 1,694 (18%) mentees had excessive use ordependence on alcohol and 424 of 1721 (25%) on drugs.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

41

3.18 Mentees’ offending history
Like the educational information in the database, data on the mentees’ offending show arelatively high rate of cases where projects did not have adequate information. Access tothis information was less of an issue where projects worked directly with YOTs, but inother cases the only source available to the projects was the mentee. Asset forms, which
YOTs use to record information about young people’s histories, were available for just
27% of mentees. We will report data directly collected from young people in our Depth
Study (Part 4), while our Reconviction Study (Part 5) includes Police National
Computer data on offending and conviction rates among mentees and a comparisongroup of young people.
Following recent changes in youth justice legislation, more than half of young offenders
are now dealt with using pre-court disposals, such as Reprimands and Final Warnings(Home Office, 2005); www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/youthjusticeboard/thesystem) In
keeping with these developments, we have included figures for such pre-court disposals,
as well as convicted cases with court orders, in measuring offending.
Projects were asked to record each mentee’s most recent pre-court disposal or court
order. As Table 3.11 shows, projects did not know this for 660 mentees, while data were
missing for a further 100. This was not applicable for 678 of the mentees, overall,because they did not have such an order. Excluding cases where this was unknown or
missing, Table 3.11 indicates that at least 1,518 of the 2,196 (69%) young people withapplicable data had a known history of offending. For those with a known disposal ororder, the largest proportion (37%) were under a Referral Order, followed
by a Supervision Order (21%), a Final Warning (17%) and a Detention and Training
Order (6%).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

42

Table 3.11: Mentees’ most recent pre-court disposal or court order
Mentee’s most recent pre-court or court order

Frequency

Percentage

Referral Order

556

37

Supervision Order

318

21

Final Warning

261

17

Detention and Training Order90

6

Action Plan Order

60

4

Reprimand

42

3

Reparation Order

32

2

Community Rehabilitation Order

25

2

Community Punishment Order

121Anti-Social Behaviour Order

111

Curfew Order

8

1

Attendance Centre Order

6<1

Combination Order

6<1

Conditional Discharge

6

<1

Fine

5

<1

Section 91 custody

4<1Child curfew

3<1

Parenting Order3<1

Section 90 custody1<1

Absolute Discharge

1<1

Other order

68

5

Total

1,518

100

Not applicable (no disposal or order)

678

Don’t know

660

Missing

100

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

43

Table 3.12: Most recent main offence
Most recent main offence

Frequency

Percentage

Other theft and handling stolen goods

321

20

Other offences

316

19

Violence against person

274

17

Criminal damage

209

13

Vehicle theft (of and from)

163

10

Burglary

144

9Robbery

98

6

Sexual offences

46

3

Drug Offences

45

3

Fraud and forgery

6

<1

Total

1,622

100

Don’t know

711

Not applicable (no reported offence)

501

Missing122

The categories used to identify offence types are based on those employed in the youth
lifestyles survey of youth crime ( Graham and Bowling, 1995). As shown in Table 3.12,
projects did not know what the most recent offence was for 711 of the mentees, overall,while data were missing for 122. The 501 ‘not applicable’ cases were mentees who did
not have a recent offence. The largest proportions of offending mentees had committed
the offence of: ‘other theft and handling of stolen goods’ (20%); ‘other offences’ (19%,including breaching of orders, anti-social behaviour, driving offences and possession ofa weapon); ‘violence against a person’ (17%); ‘criminal damage’ (13%), ‘vehicle theft’(10%); burglary (9%) and robbery (6%).
Information on age at first caution was provided for 1,139 (39%) of the overall mentees;
the mean age was 13.4 years, ranging from six to 18 years. The average total number of
Cautions, Reprimands and Final Warnings among 772 cases with data was 2.1, ranging
from one to 40. Data on number of convictions were provided for 796 mentees, whoaveraged 3.7 convictions (ranging from one to 85).
3.19 Matching mentors with mentees
The matching of a mentor with a mentee is a key step in setting up a mentoring
programme. As well as establishing the number of such matches, we asked about
the way in which the matching was carried out, since it is widely believed thatsimilarities of gender, age, ethnicity and religion may influence the success of thementor-mentee relationship.
Of the 2,956 matches made, the number per project varied greatly, from three to 217
matches per project. The average number was 37 per project.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200444

Of mentors, 67% were matched with only one mentee and 33% were matched with two
or more mentees. Of mentees, 89% were matched with only one mentor and 11% werematched with two or more mentors.
In 82% (2,421) of cases, the project had made the choice about which mentors would bematched with which mentee. In 4% of cases, the mentee chose the mentor, and in 3% ofcases, the mentor chose the mentee. In a further 3% of cases, some other person had
made the choice about the matching. In 3% of the cases, the projects stated they did notknow who made the choice about matching. In 5% of cases, no information was given
about who performed the matches. There were no substantial differences between themain project types in who carried out the matching.
The projects were asked to select the characteristics on which they had matched eachmentor and mentee. As shown in Table 3.13 below, matches were often based on gender(35%), a shared special interest (25%) or some other compatibility (49%, including
living nearby). No specific matching occurred in 15% of cases, so that this question was
inapplicable. Individual matching on the basis of ethnicity or religion was rare but, asshown above, LN and BME projects recruited mentors and mentees selectively, so thatmany cases would be matched by virtue of this strategy. Below, we will examine
whether cases matched on ethnicity or gender fared better in their mentor programmes
than cases where these were not matched.
Table 3.13: Characteristics on which mentees and mentors matched
Characteristics on which mentors and mentees
matchedFrequency

Percentage

Gender683

35

Ethnicity278

14Religion

47

2

Language85

4Special interests

478

25

Special group165

9

Other characteristic

955

49

Total matched on any characteristic*

1,938

Don’t know213

Not matched on any particular characteristic806*mentees could be matched on more than one characteristic

3.20 Delivery of mentor programmes
Successful delivery of mentor programmes is the projects’ primary purpose andprovides a key measure of their effectiveness in reaching the young people they
sought to help.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200445

All the projects had explicit overall goals and policies for mentoring, with somewhat
different purposes for BME and LN projects (Section 1.4). From an evaluator’s point ofview, the best way of translating these overall aims into goals for individual
programmes would be to have a target length for each programme (allowing us to judge
whether this was achieved), together with formal assessments of the targeted outcomes.
The proposal to have standard measures of programme outcomes was discussed withthe projects in our first meeting with them and on subsequent occasions. Visiting expert
speakers introduced various formal assessments, including computer-administered testsof basic literacy and numeracy designed for young offenders and similar groups. Some
projects did plan to employ formal assessments and we provided back-up support in
identifying suitable measures, both of literacy and numeracy and of social-behaviouraland psychological outcomes, such as self-esteem. Some projects implemented theseformal assessments successfully, while they are also employed in our Depth Study(Part 4). However, a substantial number of projects considered that any formal
assessments would repel the vulnerable young people they wished to attract, so that they
were strongly opposed to using them. Many projects, too, objected to the idea thatmentor programmes should have a predetermined length. They were more comfortable
about setting a target for their programmes as a whole and almost all did so (Section
3.3). However, at the individual level, they considered that programmes should adapt to
the needs of the mentee, lengthening where this was judged to be needed, or ending
early where goals were met.
An alternative way of conceptualising the delivery of a mentor programme is in terms ofa series of stages, beginning at the point at which a mentor and mentee are matched. In aproportion of cases, the relationship may never get off the ground, because one or both
fail to take part in meetings, or because incompatibilities become apparent at the outset.
In such cases, a new relationship may be set up by the project, or this may prove
impossible to achieve. Where a relationship does get past this first hurdle, it may
continue until its goal is achieved, or may end earlier than anticipated – in some cases
because the mentee (or mentor) withdrew or the mentee was taken into custody, or inother cases because of an external influence, such as the relocation of a mentee’s family
to a different area. In yet other cases, the programme may end earlier than anticipated,because a successful outcome, such as re-entering education or employment, has beenachieved. Other programmes may continue for the anticipated length of time and either
achieve, or fail to achieve, the planned outcome.
Employing this ‘stage model’ of mentoring, the progress of each mentor programme canbe represented as a flowchart, with a start-date, targets, assessments of progress at eachstage, and an end-date. Our database included drop-down menus to allow eachprogramme to be characterised in this way. Targets and the actions planned to achieve
them could be recorded and changes or improvements selected from menus, or others
written in. Unexpected stresses or misfortunes which might have hampered mentoring
could be identified in the same way.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

46

In practice, this approach to classification worked well in the vast majority of cases,
allowing us to make separate assessments of each programme’s length, whether or not
this was the planned length, of the programme’s outcomes, and of the relationships
between these indices. However, a minority of programmes were more difficult tocategorize. The projects considered that some were affected by multiple concurrent or
cumulative influences, so that it was difficult to judge why a programme ended or to be
sure whether an outcome had been achieved. Instead, projects used the databasetextboxes to describe the progress and achievements of each mentee and programme,
sometimes in considerable depth. Table 3.14, based on edited textbox accounts,
illustrates the accounts and the complex histories of some mentoring cases.
Table 3.14: Case reports of mentees’ history during their programmes

Mentee ‘W’
W started off well at school but soon found there were problems with bullying and hisanger management. The school worked hard to address the bullying issues and W andhis mentor worked around the anger management issues. At the start of the year, he
was very withdrawn but prone to outbursts of violence. In talking with the school
recently, they have nothing but praise for W and the dramatic improvement they haveseen in both his work and his personality. W has become a lot more rounded, more
responsible and will try to work things out for himself rather than asking for help all thetime. W has learnt to trust adults more and knows the people he can rely on for support
in any given situation. The school has said that W is one of their star pupils this year andhas a very bright future in front of him.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

47

Mentee ‘K’
While headway had been made between K and her mentor and the early part of theirrelationship showed an improvement in her school attendance and the mentor project
managed to get K involved with the school counsellor for her bereavement issues, acombination of K’s developmental state and her changes in domestic circumstances
have meant that, at the end of the programme, K has not been engaging with the mentor
project or any other support provision. No contact was kept with her mentor after about
the eight-month stage of the relationship.
K has had problems with her living arrangements (natural father, step-mother andsiblings). These have changed dramatically and worsened over time. K had been put
into care by the local authority but repeatedly absconded from interim foster care andchose to stay with ‘friends’ which the local authority has been unhappy with. K is nolonger a looked-after child, as social services felt that they were unable to engage withher. There are currently no support mechanisms in place for K at all.
However, during K’s time with her mentor, she did spend a lot of time looking at the
Indian culture (her late mother came from India). K also developed an interest in fashion,
which involved her mentor accompanying K to fashion photo shoots (with the consent of
parents and local authority).
K has also been attending a cookery course at the regional college and is reported to be
happy. However, there are still concerns about her overly sexualised behaviour,risk-taking and long-term stability.

To interpret these qualitative data, we examined all the database textboxes to identify
cases where information was recorded beyond that given in the drop-down menu boxes.
Using a written coding frame, each textbox account was coded to assign it to one of thecategories included in Tables 3.18 to 3.31 or to an ‘other’ category. Qualitative
information about the nature of each programme’s outcomes, and whether the
programme was judged by the project to be successful or unsuccessful in each target
area, was coded at the same time. To examine the reliability of the coding procedure,
200 textboxes, selected at random, were coded independently by a second researcher.
The rate of agreement was 98%, confirming that the coding was reliable.
3.21 Programme delivery number and length
The vast majority (89%) of the 2,956 programmes involved a single mentor and mentee,
but 200 programmes (7%) involved one mentee with two or more mentors in succession(‘successive-mentoring’), and 118 (4%) of the programmes involved one mentee with
two or more mentors at the same time (‘multiple-mentoring’).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

48

Inspection of the records for successive and multiple-mentored programmes made clearthat these followed a different course. Multiple-mentor programmes clustered in a small
number of projects, with 68 of the 118 instances in just two projects which had policies
advocating multiple mentoring, confirming that these cases were planned. In contrast,
successive-mentoring programmes were distributed across projects, typically wheremost programmes involved a single mentor and mentee, indicating that most cases were
due to the failure of a first programme to prove effective, so that projects assigned asecond or subsequent mentor. This is not necessarily a bad thing, insofar as it leads to a
positive outcome, but is likely to be more costly than a single mentor programme. To
simplify the process of evaluation, both multiple and successive mentor programmes are
considered as single programmes in Sections 3.24 to 3.33, but distinguished using
regression analyses in Section 3.35.
Table 3.15 divides the 2,956 programmes up into six categories of delivery and length
Table 3.15: Number of programmes delivered per programme length (total no. ofprogrammes = 2,956)
Not delivered:
Delivered: Delivered: Delivered: Delivered:
Delivered:
Ongoing: 244
Didn’t engage: 365
Missing data: 302

lengthunknown

length < 2monthslength 2–5
monthslength5–10 months

length>10 months

Total: 911

364

406

579

392

304

(31%)

(12%)

(14%)

(20%)

(13%)

(10%)

Of programmes, 8% were recorded as ongoing in September 2004, preventing any
analysis of their length or outcomes. In 12% of cases, the programme had been set up
but the mentor and mentee did not engage. In a further 10%, the programme records
contained no dates or any other information, suggesting that these were either recent andongoing, or had failed to progress. The remaining 2,045 programmes (69% of those setup) either included records of two or more meetings between mentor and mentee, or
textbox evidence of several meetings and programme delivery. On average, BME/DB
projects delivered 32 one-to-one mentor programmes, four sequential programmes andone multiple mentoring programme, while LN projects delivered 33, two, and two suchprogrammes, respectively. Data on the number of meetings was available for 1,295(63%) of the programmes; on average mentors and mentees in BME/DB programmes
met eight times and LN programmes nine times.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

49

Because several projects planned to run programmes lasting three months, we have set
cut-offs at two and five months in the expectation that most of these ‘three month’
programmes will fall within that category. Our assumption, to be tested, is that mostprogrammes lasting less than two months had failed to become fully established and sowere unlikely to have positive outcomes. Most projects intended that mentor
programmes would last 6 to 12 months, but in practice relatively few lasted longer thanten months. Since longer programmes are regarded in the literature as more likely to be
successful, we have separated out programmes lasting more than ten months. The
remaining category in Table 3.15, ‘length unknown’, reflects the fact that projects
sometimes failed to fill in programme dates, while reporting substantial information
about delivery and outcomes. Although we cannot know how long these programmes
lasted, it is possible to examine their outcomes. Using this classificatory scheme, 70%of 2,956 programmes set up by the projects had been delivered, and 8% were in theprocess of being delivered, at the summative evaluation point.
The mean age of mentees in each programme length category was 14 years for both
BME/DB and LN projects. The distribution of male and female mentees was similar
across the different programme lengths. The projects were asked to record whether eachprogramme was completed early, or lasted for the full length of time planned. Thesefindings are summarised in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16: Percentage of programmes completed fully, or terminated earlier thanplanned, in each category of program length (total no. programmes = 2,045)
Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2-5monthsProgramme
length 5-10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsProgramme fullycompleted

107
(29%)

138
(34%)

241
(42%)

188
(48%)

196
(64%)

Programme
terminated early

141
(39%)

233
(57%)

296
(51% )

158
(40%)

84
(28%)

Programme
Other

21
(6%)

11
(3%)

18
(3%)

23
(6%)

14
(5%)

Don’t know

91
(25%)

22
(5%)

19
(3%)

13
(3%)

6
(2%)

Missing

4
(1%)

2
(<1%)

5
(1%)

10
(2%)

4
(1%)

Total No.

364

406

579

392

304

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200450

As previously mentioned, not all projects were comfortable with this way of describing
mentor programmes, since programmes could have successful outcomes even if they
did end earlier than expected, or could be terminated early because of a successful
outcome. This probably accounts for some of the ‘other’ and ‘don’t know’ responses inthe table and is the reason why we report programme outcomes separately below.
Overall, Table 3.16 shows that programmes were about as likely to be terminated early(average 43% overall) as to be completed fully as planned. The most important findingis that short programmes were more likely to be terminated early than completed
fully, indicating that many programmes were short for this reason, rather than bydesign. In contrast, programmes lasting more than five months, and particularly thoselasting over ten months, were more likely to be completed fully. Comparison of
BME/DB and LN projects showed a similar pattern of findings. As with all otherindices, individual projects varied greatly with, at one extreme, one project having nocompleted programmes at all and, at the other extreme, one project having 169
completed programmes.
3.22 Number of meetings between mentor and mentee
In view of the above findings, longer programmes would be expected to have moremeetings. These analyses were not possible in the 750 (37%) programmes with missing
information, but in the remaining 63% of programmes this was the case (Table 3.17).
Table 3.17: Average number of mentor meetings per programme length category for eachproject type (total no. of programmes = 1,295)
Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length ≥10months

BME/DB projectprogrammes

6.5

4.97

5.01

7.75

12.30

LN projectprogrammes

7.6

3.68

7.21

12.96

17.33

Overall

7.27

3.89

6.83

11.50

14.86

As the table shows, LN projects have more meetings in most length categories.
However, in both project types the number of meetings increases as a function ofprogramme length.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

51

3.23 Programme outcomes
The database allowed projects to identify whether a programme had positive
outcomes in each of the target areas listed in Tables 3.18 to 3.31. In some areas, such as
re-entering education, programmes could have a positive outcome, or not; in others,
such as changes in accommodation, outcomes could be positive, neutral (no change) or
negative (worse). The nature of the changes to the mentee was described in associatedtextboxes. These reports are more or less subjective judgements by the projects but,because of the difficulties involved in employing formal measures, judgements of thiskind are part of most assessment schemes, including the Asset system used by YOTs
(Baker et al, 2003). Where possible, we will distinguish between formal and informal
measures below and our Depth Study (Part 4) includes formal assessments.
For the 2,045 mentees with data about programme outcome, Tables 3.18 to 3.31 report
the findings for each of the target areas of interest separately for each programme
length. Throughout, an important consideration is whether or not this particular outcome
was targeted by a programme. For example, re-entry into education would not beapplicable where a mentee was already in school, while improving problems withalcohol or drug use would not be a target where these were not problematic at theoutset. The ‘Not Applicable’ figures allow this to be estimated in each case.
3.24 Re-entering education and entering/re-entering training
Table 3.18: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
re-entering education or entering/re-entering training during or following their mentor
programme (total no. programmes = 2,045)
Entered/ reentered education
or training

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

92
(25%)

123
(30%)

184
(32%)

146
(37%)

138
(45%)

No

63
(17%)

80
(20%)

99
(17%)

57
(14%)

32
(10%)

Don’t know

74
(20%)

60
(15%)

78
(13%)

47
(12%)

22
7%

Not
applicable

53
(15%)

94
(23%)

140
(24%)

93
(24%)

75
(25%)

Missing

82
(22%)

49
(12%)

78
(13%)

49
(12%)

37
(12%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

52

Since re-entry into school or other forms of education is a more or less factual matter
which requires minimal subjective interpretation, the findings in Table 3.18 areespecially noteworthy. Of the 2,045 young people who received mentor programmes,
683 (33%) re-entered education during or following their programme. The rates weresimilar for BME/DB and LN projects. The 455 (22%) ‘Not applicable’ cases werealready in education or past school leaving age. Because projects did not know in 14%
of cases and data were missing in 14% of cases, these figures may be under- or overestimates. However, the rates of unknown and missing data were approximately equaland do not vary systematically across programme length. In contrast, it is striking that
where rates of educational re-entry are known, they increase more or lessproportionately with programme length, with 45% of mentees receiving programmes
lasting ten months or longer re-entering education. That is, 138 of 170 (81%)
programmes lasting longer than ten months which assessed education re-entry andprovided data were successful in this goal. These figures do not indicate how manyremained in education, but findings for literacy and numeracy improvement are
given below.
3.25 Improvements in Literacy
Table 3.19: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with literacy improvements during or following their mentor programme (total
no. programmes = 2,045)
Literacy
improvements

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

87
(24%)

120
(30%)

190
(33%)

149
(38%)

165
(54%)

No

35
(10%)

64
(16%)

68
(12%)

52
(13%)

16
(5%)

Don’t know

107
(29%)

100
(25%)

144
(25%)

88
(22%)

38
(12%)

Not
applicable

49
(13%)

74
(18%)

98
(17%)

54
(14%)

50
(16%)

Missing

86
(24%)

48
(12%)

79
(14%)

49
(12%)

35
(11%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

53

The findings for literacy mirror those for educational re-entry, in that longer
programmes were associated with the greatest gains. Overall, 54% of mentees inprogrammes lasting longer than ten months made improvements, with 165 of 181 (90%)
of mentees in such programmes and data available improving in literacy. This pattern
was discernible in both BME and LN/DB projects but, in keeping with YJB targets,rates of literacy improvement among LN mentees (43% overall and 73% in projects
lasting more than ten months) were twice those among BME mentees (21% overall,
33% in programmes lasting more than ten months).
The database textbox data gave some idea of the nature and degree of the
improvements. As might be expected, they varied greatly, from modest but importantabilities such as acquiring the ability to read forms and write a letter or curriculum vitae,
to gaining formal educational and vocational qualifications. In 283 cases, the projects
recorded that a formal literacy test had been used in assessing mentees. A variety ofassessments was used, including NFER reading tests, Basic Skills Agency Tests andseveral others. The variability in the tests prevents a direct, quantitative summary of thefindings. Of the 283 cases, data were missing or not known in 67 and not applicable in
19, giving 197 (70%) with applicable data. Among these cases, the findings mirror theoverall results. Longer programmes were most successful, such that 39 of 40 mentees
participating in programmes lasting more than ten months, and 37 of 46 mentees inprogrammes lasting 3 to 5 months, improved in literacy. In contrast, only ten of
24 programmes lasting less than two months, and 45 of 70 programmes lasting 2 to 5
months, were successful. The differences in improvement between programme lengths
were highly statistically significant (Х2 p<0.001). These findings do not indicate howmuch progress was made and require careful interpretation. However, they support theconclusion that literacy improvements were made by the majority of mentees withapplicable data who participated in longer programmes.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

54

3.26 Improvements in numeracy
Table 3.20: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with numeracy improvements during or following their mentor programme (total no.
programmes = 2,045)
Numeracy
improvements

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

79
(22%)

103
(25%)

158
(27%)

138
(35%)

150
(49%)

No

38
(10%)

74
(18%)

79
(14%)

47
(12%)

19
(6%)

Don’t know

108
(30%)

110
(27%)

148
(26%)

90
(23%)

43
(14%)

Not
applicable

50
(14%)

71
(18%)

108
(19%)

66
(17%)

55
(18%)

Missing

89
(24%)

48
(12%)

86
(15%)

51
(13%)

37
(12%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

The proportion of mentees improving in numeracy was a little lower than for literacy,
but the overall finding is the same. Mentees on the longest programmes made mostimprovements, with 49% of mentees on programmes lasting longer than ten months,
and 91% of mentees in such programmes with available data, making progress innumeracy abilities. In keeping with YJB targets, rates of numeracy improvement among
LN mentees (37% overall and 66% in projects lasting more than ten months) were twice
those among BME mentees (19% overall, 31% in programmes lasting more than ten
months). The gains made vary from improvements in ability to use money andunderstand bills to the acquisition of formal qualifications. Formal numeracy
assessments were available for 178 mentees. As with the literacy results, theoverwhelming majority of mentees who participated in long programmes (32 of 37 inprogrammes lasting over ten months, 31 of 40 in 5-to-10 month programmes) improvedin numeracy, while short programmes were much less effective (just 11 of 23 inprogrammes <2 months, and 31 of 61 in 2-to-5 month programmes, improving). These
differences in improvement between programme length are highly statisticallysignificant (Х2 p<0.001).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

55

3.27 Other Improvements in School, Education or Training
Table 3.21: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with other improvements in school, education or training during or following their mentor
programme (total no. programmes = 2,045)
Other
improvements in
education/
training

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

92
(25%)

128
(32%)

202
(35%)

183
(47%)

181
(59%)

No

63
(17%)

64
(16%)

78
(13%)

40
(10%)

28
(9%)

Don’t know

93
(25%)

102
(25%)

151
(26%)

68
(17%)

29
(10%)

Not
applicable

31
(8%)

64
(16%)

63
(11%)

49
(12%)

35
(12%)

Missing

85
(23%)

48
(12%)

85
(15%)

52
(13%)

31
(10%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

This category includes improved attendance, reduced anti-social incidents and bullying,
better control of temper and behaviour, improved educational progress and applications
made for places on courses. Here, too, mentees in long programmes made the mostimprovements, with this area showing high improvement rates. Overall, 59% of
mentees in programmes lasting longer than ten months made such improvements, while
181 of 209 programmes (87%) with assessment data available showed improvements inthis area. The most common improvements were in attendance and applications forplaces in further education or training courses. Rates of improvement among mentees
from BME and LN projects were similar (LN: 39% overall and 60% in projects lasting
more than ten months; BME/DB: 41% overall, 59% in programmes lasting more thanten months).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

56

3.28 Qualifications and employment
Table 3.22: For each programme length category, number and percentage ofmentees gaining qualifications during or following their mentor programme (total
no. programmes = 2,045)
Improvements inqualifications or
employment

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

33
(9%)

12
(3%)

48
(8%)

48
(12%)

79
(26%)

No

89
(24%)

101
(25%)

131
(23%)

88
(22%)

54
(18%)

Don’t know

90
(25%)

83
(20%)

116
(20%)

65
(17%)

23
(8%)

Not
applicable

68
(19%)

161
(40%)

196
(34%)

139
(36%)

101
(33%)

Missing

84
(23%)

49
(12%)

88
(15%)

52
(13%)

47
(15%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Table 3.22 shows the database figures for gaining qualifications or employment. As
would be expected given the age-group of the mentees, the numbers gaining
qualifications are much lower than those re-entering education (Table 3.18), while the
not applicable rate (32% overall) is higher. The qualifications include certificates incomputing, health and safety certificates, and diplomas following courses in healtheducation or anger management. Disregarding programmes of unknown length, thesefindings too show an increased rate of positive outcomes with increasing programme
length. The findings for BME and LN projects were similar.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200457

Table 3.23: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with changes in employment during or following their mentor programme (total
no. programmes = 2,045)
Changes in
employment

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsPositive change

24
(7%)

34
(8%)

75
(13%)

64
(16%)

42
(14%)

No change

32
(9%)

24
(6%)

28
(5%)

24
(6%)

20
(7%)

Negative change

1
(<1%)

6
(1%)

1
(<1%)

4
(1%)

1
(<1%)

Don’t know

73
(20%)

50
(12%)

74
(13%)

32
(8%)

21
(7%)

Not
applicable

138
(38%)

243
(60%)

312
(54%)

213
(54%)

168
(55%)

Missing

96
(26%)

49
(12%)

89
(15%)

55
(14%)

52
(17%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

For employment, projects could identify negative changes, no change, or positive
improvements. Changes in employment were inapplicable for the majority of mentees,
as would be expected in view of their age. The rates of improvement are much lower
than for measures of education, with only 12% of mentees overall showing gains, while
7% of mentees overall did not improve, or worsened in employment. Programmes
lasting more than two months tended to have greater success, but there was little further
gain beyond two months. The findings were similar across BME and LN projects.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

58

Table 3.24: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with other improvements to employment during or following their mentor programme(total no. programmes = 2,045)
Other
improvements toemployment

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

67
(18%)

88
(22%)

79
(14%)

84
(21%)

73
(24%)

No

21
(6%)

29
(7%)

44
(8%)

25
(6%)

18
(6%)

Don’t know

81
(22%)

81
(20%)

118
(20%)

57
(14%)

25
(8%)

Not
applicable

78
(21%)

153
(38%)

240
(41%)

159
(41%)

136
(45%)

Missing

117
(32%)

55
(13%)

98
(17%)

67
(17%)

52
(17%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Projects recorded changes such as promotions and favourable reports under thisheading. As with employment, changes of this kind were not applicable for manymentees. Rates of improvement – 19% overall – were higher than for employment, butmuch lower than achieved for educational targets. There is little evidence that longer
programmes produced superior rates of improvement. However, BME/DB projects
achieved higher rates of improvement (29% overall) than LN projects (14% overall).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

59

3.29 Accommodation and family relationships
Table 3.25: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with changes in accommodation during or following their mentor programme (total no.
programmes = 2,045)
Changes inaccommodation

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsPositive change

57
(16%)

36
(9%)

83
(14%)

92
(23%)

69
(22%)

No change

26
(7%)

36
(9%)

52
(9%)

57
(14%)

38
(12%)

Negative change

17
(5%)

24
(6%)

33
(6%)

26
(7%)

18
(6%)

Don’t know

73
(20%)

113
(28%)

125
(22%)

41
(11%)

63
(21%)

Not
applicable

108
(30%)

141
(35%)

195
(34%)

133
(34%)

76
(25%)

Missing

83
(23%)

56
(14%)

91
(16%)

43
(11%)

40
(13%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Changes in accommodation included moving back into the family home or into
accommodation arranged by local authorities or voluntary organisations. This was statedto be ‘non-applicable’ in about a third of cases, indicating that they were notexperiencing accommodation difficulties. The findings for improvement were different
in between LN and BME/DB projects. Among LN mentees, although some
improvements were made, approximately equal numbers of mentees with applicabledata did not show improvements or reported experiencing worse accommodation, sothat gains overall were minimal. In contrast, more BME/DB mentees improved thanmaintained or worsened in accommodation in every programme length category, andrates of positive improvement were consistently higher among BME/DB than LN
mentees, perhaps because BME/ DB projects gave priority for accommodation issues.
For instance, 24% of BME/DB mentees overall improved in accommodation, comparedwith 12% of LN mentees.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

60

Table 3.26: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with changes in family relationships during or following their mentor programme (total
no. programmes = 2,045)
Changes in family
relationships

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsPositive change

119
(33%)

85
(21%)

147
(25%)

150
(38%)

144
(47%)

No change

26
(7%)

32
(8%)

53
(9%)

48
(12%)

36
(12%)

Negative change

18
(5%)

27
(7%)

48
(8%)

31
(8%)

19
(6%)

Don’t know

76
(21%)

135
(33%)

144
(25%)

50
(13%)

36
(12%)

Not
applicable

49
(13%)

77
(19%)

102
(18%)

67
(17%)

40
(13%)

Missing

76
(21%)

50
(12%)

85
(15%)

46
(12%)

29
(9%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Improvements in family relationships included increased contact, reduced conflict, andenhanced interaction with parents and relatives. Projects recorded negative, as well as
positive and no-changes. Compared with changes in employment or accommodation,
this area was reported to be applicable more often, reflecting the generic importance offamily relationships for mentees of this age. Although improvements were not universal,
and worsened relationships were reported for 7% of mentees, family relationships
improved more often than remained the same or got worse. As with the findings foreducation, rates of improvement were greater with increasing programme length, with
47% of mentees in programmes lasting longer than ten months showing improvements.
These patterns were similar among BME/DB and LN projects, but rates of improvementin family relationships were higher among BME/LN mentees than LN mentees in every
programme length perhaps because BME/DB projects targeted these issues. Overall,
41% of BME/DB mentees (and 51% in programmes >10 months) reported improvementin family relationships, compared with 26% (and 44% in programmes >10 months),
respectively, among LN mentees.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

61

3.30 Community involvement
Table 3.27: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with new community activities during or following their mentor programme (total no.
programmes = 2,045)
New community
activities

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

120
(33%)

102
(25%)

206
(36%)

194
(50%)

179
(59%)

No

52
(14%)

76
(19%)

86
(15%)

62
(16%)

30
(10%)

Don’t know

108
(30%)

153
(38%)

199
(34%)

85
(22%)

54
(18%)

Not
applicable

9
(2%)

23
(6%)

26
(4%)

14
(4%)

12
(4%)

Missing

75
(21%)

52
(13%)

62
(11%)

37
(9%)

29
(9%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

Examples of new community activity included taking up team sports such as football,and participating in clubs, social groups and voluntary organisations at school or in thecommunity. Since this area is a key target for this YJB scheme and involvements should
be possible for all mentees, the low rate of ‘Not applicable’ (4% overall) is appropriate.
Rates of increase in community activities were high, with 59% of mentees in longprogrammes showing improvement and rates increasing as a function of programme
length. Rates of new community activities were consistently higher among BME/DB
than LN mentees. For instance, 50% of BME/DB mentees overall (and 73% inprogrammes > ten months) showed increased community involvement, compared to33% (and 46% in programmes >10 months) of LN mentees.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

62

3.31 Use of alcohol and drugs
Table 3.28: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with changes in alcohol problems during their mentor programme (total no. programmes= 2,045)
Changes inalcohol problems

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsPositive change

14
(4%)

18
(4%)

21
(4%)

19
(5%)

28
(9%)

No change

19
(5%)

25
(6%)

15
(3%)

16
(4%)

3
(1%)

Negative change

5
(1%)

2
(<1%)

6
(1%)

7
(2%)

8
(3%)

Don’t know

113
(31%)

127
(31%)

167
(29%)

95
(24%)

86
(28%)

Not
Applicable

124
(34%)

176
(43%)

273
(47%)

199
(51%)

127
(42%)

Missing

89
(24%)

58
(14%)

97
(17%)

56
(14%)

52
(17%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

The rates of alcohol problems reported in Section 3.17 were low (10% to 18 %) so that
it was to be expected that few programmes would focus on such issues. The relatively
high rate of ‘Not applicable’ in Table 3.28 is consistent with this. So far as alcohol use
by mentees was a problem, the mentor programmes as a whole had little impact inimproving this: the numbers ‘improved’ in each programme length are more or lessequalled by cases with ‘no change’ or ‘worsened’ alcohol use. It is possible that
programmes lasting for more than ten months were more effective than shorter
programmes, but numbers are too small for confidence in this. In any case, themeasured impact of mentoring in this area was small, with no difference between
BME/DB and LN projects.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

63

Table 3.29: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
with changes in drug use during their mentor programme (total no. programmes = 2,045)
Changes indrug use

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
monthsPositive change

16
(4%)

25
(6%)

29
(5%)

32
(8%)

31
(10%)

No change

21
(6%)

31
(8%)

26
(4%)

16
(4%)

13
(4%)

Negative change

11
(3%)

15
(4%)

5
(1%)

23
(6%)

15
(5%)

Don’t know

109
(30%)

133
(33%)

189
(33%)

89
(23%)

82
(27%)

Not
Applicable

120
(33%)

144
(36%)

237
(41%)

176
(45%)

114
(38%)

Missing

87
(24%)

58
(14%)

93
(16%)

56
(14%)

49
(16%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

As with alcohol, the rates of mentee drug problems reported in Section 3.17 wererelatively low (14% to 25%), so that these were not likely to be a focus for mostprogrammes. Insofar as drug use was a problem, the mentor programmes had little
impact in improving this. The numbers ‘improved’ in each programme length are moreor less equalled by cases with ‘no change’ or ‘worsened’ drug use, with similar findingsfor BME/DB and LN projects.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

64

3.32 Changes in offending
Table 3.30: For each programme length, category, number and percentage of mentees
who completed community orders during their mentor programme (total no. programmes= 2,045)
Completedcommunity orders

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

67
(18%)

88
(22%)

173
(30%)

129
(33%)

73
(24%)

No

3
(1%)

17
(4%)

14
(2%)

5
(1%)

9
(3%)

Don’t know

23
(6%)

40
(10%)

43
(7%)

32
(8%)

17
(6%)

Not
Applicable

88
(24%)

137
(34%)

167
(29%)

121
(31%)

103
(34%)

Missing

183
(50%)

124
(30%)

182
(31%)

105
(27%)

102
(34%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

This category did not apply to about a third of mentees, either because they were not oncommunity orders or, in 103 cases, because the orders were still being completed. The
rate of missing data in Table 3.30 is higher than in other areas, probably because
projects did not know this information and failed to record that in the database; as
noted in Section 3.18, some projects were poorly informed about the mentees’
offending. It follows that these figures for completion of community orders need to beinterpreted with particular care. Their implication is that approximately 20% to 30% of
mentees completed community orders satisfactorily during their programmes, while afurther 5% were in the process of completing them. Of 578 mentees with data
confirming that they should have completed community orders, 530 (92%) had
completed and only 8% of such mentees failed to do so. The findings for BME/DB and
LN projects were similar.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

65

Table 3.31: For each programme length category, number and percentage of mentees
arrested or charged during their mentor programme (total no. programmes = 2,045)
Arrested or
charged

Programme
lengthunknown

Programme
length < 2monthsProgramme
length 2–5
monthsProgramme
length 5–10
monthsProgramme
length >10
months

Yes

42
(12%)

123
(9%)

63
(11%)

73
(19%)

58
(19%)

No

159
(44%)

223
(55%)

341
(59%)

223
(57%)

161
(53%)

Don’t know

67
(18%)

75
(18%)

82
(14%)

41
(10%)

46
(15%)

Not
Applicable

23
(6%)

22
(5%)

18
(3%)

19
(5%)

16
(5%)

Missing

73
(20%)

48
(12%)

75
(13%)

36
(9%)

23
(7%)

Total

364

406

579

392

304

The missing data rate averaged 10%, while projects did not know in 15% of cases, on
average, whether a mentee was arrested or charged. The mean rate of arrest or charge inTable 3.31 of 13%, is uninformative, since account needs to be taken of programme
length. The rate was highest on programmes lasting five months or longer, probably
because longer programmes allow more time for criminal activity. The rate forprogrammes lasting longer than ten months is 19%. However, the true rate is probably
estimated more accurately when calculated in relation to cases where the arrest history
was known. Using the proportion of cases with applicable data, the rate is 26% (58 of
219 cases) for projects lasting longer than ten months. Since the mean length ofprogrammes in this category is 13 months, this is arguably the most accurate figure,since it allows enough time for offence rate to be measured reliably. The findings for
BME/DB and LN projects are similar.
Since 69% of mentees had a record of offending when they began their mentor
programmes, an estimated offending rate of 26% over a 13-month period is lower thanmight be expected, but offending data are difficult to interpret because of the need totake account of an array of mediating factors. We will return to this issue in thediscussion of this study and following examination of the Depth Study andReconviction Study data.
3.33 Other improvements recorded in the textboxes
In addition to the targeted areas examined above, the projects provided textbox
accounts of improvements in other areas. The most frequent reference was toimprovements in confidence, and 10% of mentees were specifically reported tohave improved in self-esteem during their mentor programme. Other improvements
reported in over 5% of mentees were in temper and anger management and in planningfor future education.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

66

3.34 Identifying the most effective projects
The figures provided so far relate to the projects overall, or to LN and BME projecttypes overall, rather than examining the database findings separately for individual
projects. The overall figures have the advantage of large numbers and provide usefuldescriptive information but, in view of the diversity of projects included in the YJB
scheme, can be criticised for attempting to average ‘apples’ with ‘pears’. As noted in
Section 1.4, a core goal of this evaluation is to understand what sorts of mentor
programmes appear most promising, with whom, and at what cost.
In his meta-analysis of 400 intervention studies Lipsey (1995) concluded that project
integrity, as well as a clear focus on the development of participants’ skills andcompetencies, were key features of successful crime reduction schemes. To pursue thisissue here, we constructed a set of predictor variables which might index project
integrity, as well as other properties of projects, programmes and mentors or mentees
which might predict how successful programmes were. Similarly, we constructed a setof measures of programme delivery and outcome. We then used logistic regression
analysis to examine the relationships in between predictors and measures of programmedelivery and outcome. In the process of these analyses, tables were generated which
described each project as high or low on each predictor variable and delivery/outcome
measure, allowing outstanding projects to be identified.
Table 3.32 lists the delivery and outcome measures examined. Each gives a measure ofa project’s success in delivering mentor programmes, or in achieving each outcome,compared to the projects as a whole. Table A1 in Appendix A gives further details of
how the measures were defined.
Table 3.32: Measures of successful programme delivery or outcomes

Proportion of programmes that were delivered as intended, versus terminated early.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Re-entry into education or training’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Improved literacy’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Improved numeracy’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Other school improvements’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Improved family relationships’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Improved community involvement’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Completing community orders’.
Proportion of programmes resulting in ‘Young person being arrested or charged during
the programme’.

Table 3.33 lists the indices of project integrity and other predictor variables. The criteria
for inclusion in this list were that (a) each predictor seemed, for theoretical or empiricalreasons, potentially likely to predict the successful delivery or outcome of mentor
programmes; (b) the variation between projects in the predictor index was sufficient toallow it to be used in the analyses. Some other possible indices, such as whether
mentors received training, were rejected because virtually all the projects met thiscriterion, while others, such as project staff meetings, had to be rejected because they
could not be applied to all projects (some had just one member of staff).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

67

Items 1 to 4, 8 and 11 in Table 3.33 were calculated at the project level. For thesevariables, the projects were divided around the overall mean value for the projects as awhole to distinguish projects which were high versus low on each index of project
integrity. Items 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, which were calculated at the mentee level, identify
characteristics of mentees (such as age) or features of their programmes (such as
number of meetings) which might influence programme delivery or outcome. Table A2
in Appendix A gives further details of how the indices were defined.
Table 3.33: Predictor variables entered in logistic regression models for eachdelivery/outcome measure

1. Project formulated clear policies in at least 8 of the 9 areas.
2. Project Steering Group met at least once.
3. Project Supervised at least 50% of mentors.
4. Project delivered programmes to criterion number of BME or LN mentees.
5. Length of programme and number of Mentee: Mentor meetings.
6. Mentee age.
7. Number of mentees per project with any previous offences.
8. Project is YOT-based or not.
9. LN Project reached target group.
10. BME Project reached target group.
11. Number of programmes per project classified as one-to-one, multiple mentoring,and sequential mentoring.
12. Whether or not Mentee and Mentor were matched on gender.
13. Whether or not Mentee and Mentor were matched on ethnicity.
14. Geographic area (using YJB categories – see Table A2, Appendix 1 forparticulars).
3.35 Results of the regression analyses
The relationships between the delivery/outcome and predictor measures were exploredin a series of logistic regression models, where each model consisted of one
delivery/outcome measure and one of the predictor variables listed in Table 3.33 (eachpredictor was entered separately in turn). The findings are summarised below. Appendix
A includes odds ratios, confidence intervals and significance level figures.
1. Project formulated clear policies in eight or more of the nine areas. This did notpredict any of the outcomes.
2. Project Steering Group met at least once. These projects were significantly more
likely to have an average or above average proportion of mentees involved in newcommunity activities.
3. Projects supervised at least 50% of its mentors. These projects were significantly
more likely to have an average or above proportion of mentees involved in newcommunity activities.
4. Project delivered programmes to at least 34% of BME mentees (BME projects) or
50% LN mentees (LN/DB) projects). This did not predict any of the outcomes.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

68

5. Length of programme and number of mentee: mentor meetings. In analyses reported
earlier, longer programmes were found to predict more successful outcomes, but
programme length and meeting number were related. The aim here was todisentangle these indices as far as possible, since short intensive programmes with ahigh number of meetings might prove successful. The analysis first compared
programmes with less than the average number of meetings with programmes withan average or above number as predictors of programme delivery and outcome.
Next, the interaction between programme length and number of meetings was
examined in relation to these outcomes. Programme delivery and outcome werepredicted in the following ways:

re-entering education
The number of programme meetings did not predict this. However, mentees inprogrammes lasting 2-5, 5-10 or >10 months were significantly more likely to
re-enter education than mentees in programmes that lasted <2 months.



literacy improvements
Mentees in programmes containing ≥8 mentee/mentor meetings weresignificantly more likely to have literacy improvements. Mentees in programmes
lasting >10 months were significantly more likely to have literacy improvements
than those in programmes <2 months.

numeracy improvements
Mentees in programmes containing ≥8 mentee/mentor meetings weresignificantly more likely to have numeracy improvements. Mentees inprogrammes lasting 5 to 10 or >10 months were significantly more likely thanmentees in programmes <2months to have numeracy improvements.

other school improvements
Mentees in programmes with ≥8 meetings were significantly more likely to haveother school improvements. Compared to mentees in programmes lasting <2months, mentees in programmes >10 months were significantly more likely tohave other school improvements.

family relationships
Mentees in programmes containing ≥8 meetings were significantly more
likely to have improvements in family relationships. Compared tomentees in programmes lasting <2 months, mentees in programmes lasting
5 to 10 or >10 months were significantly more likely to have improvements infamily relationships.

community involvement
Mentees in programmes with ≥8 meetings were significantly more likely to takeup new community activities. Compared to mentees in programmes lasting <2months, mentees in programmes lasting 2 to 5, 5 to 10 or >10 months weresignificantly more likely to take up new community activities.

completion of community orders
Only the number of meetings predicted this: mentees in programmes with ≥8
meetings were significantly more likely to complete community orders.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200469



arrested while on the programme
Number of meetings did not predict this. However, compared to mentees inprogrammes lasting <2 months, mentees in programmes lasting 5 to 10 or >10
months were significantly more likely to be arrested or charged while on the
programme. Longer programmes allow more opportunity for this.

A number of models were run to test if the interaction between number of meetings andprogramme length predicted these improvements. In all models, the interaction was
non-significant, indicating that both programme length and number of meetings
predicted improved mentee outcomes independently.
6. mentee age
Compared to older mentees, younger mentees were significantly more successful on
several indices:

programme delivered (16 to 18-year-olds more likely to have programmeterminated early than 10 to 12-year-olds).



re-entering education or training (both 10 to 12 and 13 to 15-year-old mentees
more likely than 16 to 18-year-olds).



Literacy improvements (both 10 to 12 and 13 to 15-year-old mentees more likely
to have improvements than 16 to 18-year-olds).



Numeracy improvements (both 10 to 12 and 13 to 15-year-old mentees more
likely to have improvements than 16 to 18 year old mentees.)Community activities (both 10 to 12 and 13 to 15 year old mentees more likely
to become involved in new community activities than mentees aged 16 to 18).



Mentees aged 16 to 18 more likely to be arrested while on the mentoring
programme than those aged 10 to 12.

7. mentees with previous offences
Mentees with no history of offending did significantly better than those with an
offending history on several indices:

re-entering education



literacy improvements



numeracy improvementsother school improvements

improved family relationships

community involvementarrested or charged (offenders more likely to be arrested or charged).

8. projects YOT-based, or not
Projects based in YOT premises, or with formal links to YOTs, were significantly
more successful than other projects on several measures of mentee improvement:

numeracy improvements

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200470

other school improvements

improved family relationships

completing community orders.

9. LN project reached target groupLiteracy improvements: projects which recruited an average or above proportionof mentees with literacy or numeracy needs were significantly more likely tohave literacy improvements.

Completing community orders: projects which recruited an average or above
proportion of mentees with literacy or numeracy needs were significantly more
likely to complete community orders.

10. BME Project reached target group
Whether or not BME projects recruited above average proportions of BME mentees
did not predict successful programme delivery or outcome.
11. Number of programmes per project classified as one-to-one, multiple orsequential mentoring
These forms were significantly more or less successful as follows:Multiple mentoring was more likely to achieve successful programme delivery.

Mentees on one-to-one programmes were more likely to enter/re-enter education
or training than mentees on multiple mentoring programmes.

Mentees on one-to-one programmes were more likely to have improvements infamily relationships than mentees on multiple mentoring programmes.

Mentees on one-to-one programmes were more likely to take up new community
activities than mentees on multiple mentoring programmes.

Mentees on one-to-one programmes were less likely to complete community
orders than those on sequential mentoring or multiple mentoring programmes.

Mentees on multiple mentoring programmes were more likely to be arrested or
charged than mentees on one-to-one programmes.

12. whether or not mentor and mentee were matched on genderProgrammes were significantly more likely to terminate early if female
mentors were matched with male mentees, or if male mentors were matchedwith female mentees.

Female mentees were significantly more likely than male mentees to re-enter
education if matched with a female mentor.

Female mentees were significantly more likely than male mentees to have otherschool improvements if matched with a female mentor.

Female mentees were significantly more likely than male mentees to have
improvements in family relationships if matched with a female mentor.

Female mentees were significantly more likely than male mentees to have newcommunity activities if matched with male mentors.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200471

Both male and female mentees were significantly more likely to have literacy
improvements if matched with a female than a male mentor.

Female mentees were significantly more likely to be arrested while on the
programme if matched with a male mentor. However, only a small number offemale mentees were matched with male mentors.

13. whether or not mentor and mentee were matched on ethnicity


If mentors were White, rather than of a minority origin, they were significantly
more likely to have mentees (regardless of the mentee ethnicity) who had
literacy improvements.



If mentors were of minority ethnic origin, they were significantly more likely tohave mentees (regardless of the mentee ethnicity) who had improvements infamily relationships.



If mentors were of minority ethnic origin, they were significantly more
likely to have mentees (regardless of the mentee ethnicity) who completedcommunity orders.

14. Geographic area (using YJB categories)
This did not predict any of the outcomes.
3.36 Summary of the Database Study findings

Although this study is not immune to data loss, particularly regarding information
which was not accessible to the projects, the use of a standard database has kept
most missing information rates low and allowed data of adequate quality to beaggregated and compared across projects.



Of 84 projects set up under this scheme, 80 were successfully established andproduced data for the evaluation. Between them, the 80 projects recruited
approximately 4,800 young people and 3,400 community volunteers during anactive lifespan of about 30 months. These figures are evidence that the mentor
scheme was highly successful in meeting the YJB aim of increasing the number ofvolunteers in the local community.



Almost all the projects had clear policies about the aims of mentoring programmes.
However, they varied greatly in size and organisation, staff turnover was highand some had difficulty in maintaining effective networking with schools, YOTs
and other organisations. These administrative difficulties are partly attributable tothe projects’ non-statutory status, while the short-term funding of this scheme may
have added to their instability. One result is that the evaluation findings probably
under-represent the projects’ potential effectiveness under stable financial andorganisational conditions. In spite of these handicaps, some projects managed
outstandingly well.

All the projects aimed to deliver mentor programmes to children or young people
who had offended, or were at risk of offending. There were three main types:


projects that targeted Black and minority ethnic groups (BME projects)

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200472



projects that targeted young people with literacy and numeracy difficulties(LN projects)

projects that targeted both of the above (DB projects)BME projects focused more on reintegrating young people into education,
training and employment, as well as community involvement, while LN projects
sought more to improve literacy and numeracy skills.

The projects’ focus on developing social and learning skills which enable young people
to interact more effectively with their social environments is in some degree a departurefrom the traditional mentoring goal of befriending a young person. As well as this‘competency’ focus, the projects also differed from the traditional view of mentoring inother ways. Many delivered mentoring conventionally, such that a more experienced
mentor spent a few hours in one-to-one contact with a younger mentee in a community
setting about once a week. However, some mentors and mentees met daily, someprojects delivered mentoring on the project premises and a small number broughtmentors and mentees together as a group. In some cases, the mentor delivered basic
literacy and numeracy skills and some mentors gained qualifications in such skills; inother cases mentors were supported by tutors, or projects included separate learning andbusiness mentors. The length of mentor programmes was designed to vary widely, fromabout three months to a year. Some projects targeted special groups, such as travellers,
asylum seekers or children of ex-offenders, while others recruited special groups as
mentors. This diversity has allowed us to assess the features of mentor projects which
are associated with effective delivery and outcomes of mentor programmes.


The projects were successful in recruiting young people with thetargeted characteristics. Of mentees, 50% were referred by YOTs and others byschools, pupil referral units, social services and other statutory and voluntaryagencies. Of mentees, 69% had a history of offending. Almost half the mentees
with a known history had been temporarily or permanently excluded from schoolin the last year. Most mentees in LN projects were White, the vast majority werereported as having literacy and numeracy difficulties and many had Special
educational needs. In contrast, most mentees in BME projects were of black,
Asian or mixed ethnicity, or came from minority groups, such as asylum
seekers, traveller communities, or children of ex-offenders. In keeping withthese mentee characteristics, 65% of mentors in BME projects were black,
Asian, mixed-ethnicity, or from other minority ethnic groups; while 42% of
mentors were male. In LN projects, 93% of mentors were White and 28%
were male.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

73

In common with other community intervention projects targeting these groups ofyoung people, a high rate of dropout of volunteers and young people occurred,
so that just 2,045 mentor programmes had been delivered, with a further 244
ongoing, at the evaluation date. This is a substantial achievement, but the loss ofaround a third of potential mentors and half the potential mentees is a source forconcern. In about two-thirds of cases, the initial failure to set up mentoring wasdue to young people’s unwillingness to engage, while about half the mentor
programmes ended earlier than planned, albeit with improvements made in manycases. These findings emphasise, as other have done, how difficult young
offenders are to engage in community intervention schemes. By the same token,
they highlight the success of some projects in delivering long programmes andproducing improvements in the planned areas.

The 2,045 delivered programmes included eight meetings per programme, on
average. The programmes led to reported improvements in mentees’ integration
and reintegration into education and training, improved literacy and numeracy(particularly among LN mentees), improved school behaviour, increased
participation in community activities (particularly among BME mentees) and
improved family relationships (particularly among BME mentees). Many of the
improvements were small, but important developments, such as gaining theability to read forms or complete a curriculum vitae, but some projects reported
improvements based on formal tests. Offending rates in programmes lasting ten
months or longer, which provided the most reliable information, were reported to
be 26%. Because 69% of mentees had offended before their mentor programme,
this is a low offending rate.



Although overall figures are important, a primary aim throughout thiselement of the evaluation has been to understand the properties of successful
mentor projects and programmes. For this purpose, indices of project integrity
and of mentor and mentee characteristics were included in regression and otheranalyses designed to assess their relationship with measures of successfulprogramme delivery and improved outcomes. Projects based in YOTs, which
supervised a high number of mentors, had a steering group that met, anddelivered programmes which lasted for ten months or more and/or included ahigh number of mentor/mentee meetings, produced the most successful
outcomes. Mentee characteristics, including young age and the lack of a historyof offending, also predicted successful outcomes. Overall, female mentors
produced more successful outcomes than male mentors with both male andfemale mentees; female mentors matched with female mentees were especiallysuccessful. It is sometimes claimed that male mentors are needed for malementees, but we did not find that this particular gender matching produced ahigh rate of mentee improvements. Mentors with BME backgrounds weremore successful than White mentors in improving the family relationships ofmentees with Black or minority ethnic backgrounds. However, White mentors
were more likely to improve the literacy of Black and minority ethnicity, as wellas White, mentees.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

74



These findings need to be considered in the light of the methodologicallimitations of a study of this kind. One obvious proviso is that most projectassessments were based at least partly on subjective judgements, so that it is notpossible to be certain how substantial or lasting the improvements were. A
second consideration is that the lack of a comparison group of non-mentoredcases means that we do not know whether the same findings would haveoccurred without mentoring. A third, related caveat is that a quarter of LN
mentees and a third of BME mentees were reported by projects to have received
interventions such as anger management and health promotion programmes,
alongside their mentoring. Some of these programmes were managed by the
mentor projects and others delivered by YOTs or other affiliated organisations.
To the extent that mentees were enrolled and supported in these programmes bymentor projects, they could be considered as a part of ‘competency-focused’
mentoring and duly credited, but this could also be said to inflate theachievements of mentoring per se. Since this raises broader questions about thescope of mentor projects, we will return to it in the final discussion, but it should
be taken into account when interpreting the database findings.

A fourth consideration is that the methods used by this sort of study do not allow us todistinguish the effects of programmes from the effects of mentee motivation. For
example, an obvious criticism of the finding that mentees did better in long programmes
is that this is due to the high motivation of particular mentees, which led them to persist,
rather than due to such programmes. Although this point cannot be dismissed without
randomised trials, it can be countered to some extent by arguing that motivation alone
would probably prove ineffectual in the absence of a suitable programme. However, themore important point of these caveats and provisos is that the findings of this study
cannot stand alone, but need to be considered together with the findings from the otherstudies included in this evaluation, which to some extent compensate for the limitationsof this study.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

75

Part 4 The Depth Study

4.1 Depth Study aims and methods
For this study, the evaluation set out to select 12 projects (six LN and six BME), toprovide a smaller-scale, but more objective and detailed, assessment of mentor
programme outcomes. The number of projects was designed to provide a sufficientnumber of cases for statistical analysis, but to be manageable within the overall
evaluation workload. In order to consider whether any changes to the mentees might
have occurred without their mentor programme, the Depth Study aimed to assess in an
equivalent way a matched, comparison group, of young people who had not had amentor. The methods and procedures used for the Depth Study are listed in Table 4.1.
With a few exceptions, each of these measures was collected at baseline (before
mentoring, or at a similar date for the matched group) and follow-up (after mentoring,or after an equivalent period of time for the comparison group young people), allowing
an evaluation of the extent of any improvement.
As with the Database Study, the Depth Study involved close liaison with mentor
projects, as well as with the organisations providing the comparison cases. As well as
written information, frequent telephone and e-mail contact were used to discuss ourprocedures, set up referrals and chase up missing information. Because this study
involved direct local assessment of mentees and young people by the evaluators, wemade regular visits to the mentor projects and other organisations involved, allowing
personal contact with their staff.
Table 4.1: Depth Study instruments and measures
Data collection instrument

What the instrument measures

Interviews with young
peopleAdministered by the researchers to collect information about
demographic background, schooling, employment, offences,alcohol and drug use, social exclusion and attitudes.

Crime-Pics II(Frude et al, 1994)

A standard questionnaire included as part of the interview. It
provides reliable and valid measures of attitudes to offending,anticipation of reoffending, victim hurt denial, and perception ofcrime as worthwhile.

The Strengths andDifficulties Questionnaire(SDQ) (Goodman, 1997)

A brief questionnaire providing standardised measures of ayoung person’s conduct problems, emotional symptoms,
hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, pro-social
behaviour, and overall difficulties. It was completed by aprofessional with close contact with the young person, such as ateacher, YOT caseworker, EWO or social services staff (notmentors or mentor project staff).

Basic Skills Agency (BSA)
Initial Assessment of
Numeracy and Literacy(Basic Skills Agency,
2002)

A standardised test administered to provide evidence of any
improvements in literacy or numeracy. The BSA tests wereadministered to LN mentees by project staff, and to comparisongroup young people by the researchers.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200476

4.2 Selection of the Depth Study mentor projects
To ensure fairness, criteria for selecting the 12 projects (six LN and six BME) for
inclusion in the Depth Study were drawn up beforehand, independent of the projects(see Appendix B). In essence, the criteria were designed to achieve a broad spread
across project types and geographic areas, while choosing projects which were up andrunning, and so likely to have enough mentoring programmes for the purposes of theDepth Study.
We planned to assess ten to 15 young people in each of these projects, at both thebaseline (within a month of the start of the mentor programme), and again at the end of
mentoring (within a month of the end of the mentoring programme). To ensure that thegroups were representative, consecutive cases were selected wherever possible, chosen
at baseline before mentoring took place. We anticipated that at least ten of the 12
projects would each provide data for ten young people, giving a sample ofapproximately 100 baseline and follow-up assessments. The incentive of a WH Smith
voucher was offered to each young person for taking part. After the procedure was
explained, the young person signed a consent form to participate in the study.
4.3 Selection of the Depth Study comparison group
To recruit the comparison group young people, letters were sent in November 2003 with
YJB assistance to:

16 YOTs

19 pupil referral/behaviour support units

7 voluntary organisations working with young people

7 schools.

These letters explained the purpose of the evaluation study and sought the assistance ofthe organisations in identifying young people who met our selection criteria and who
might be willing to be assessed. The selection criteria were designed to recruit young
people who matched those involved in Depth Study mentor programmes, as follows:

aged between 10–17

history of offending, or at risk of offending (i.e. school truanting or exclusion,
literacy or numeracy difficulties)

may be receiving other interventions, but should not be mentored.

We planned to include 100 young people in the comparison group, and invited up to 20
referrals from any one YOT, pupil referral unit, or other source. The incentive of a WH
Smith voucher was offered to each young person for taking part. After the procedure
was explained, the young person signed a consent form to participate in the study.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

77

4.4 Baseline and follow-up interviews with the mentored andcomparison youths
Apart from the interview, the instruments used in this study are in widespread use instudies of youth offending, social inclusion and mentoring, so that references for further
information are given in presenting the findings. The interview was developed for thisstudy, based on measures used in other studies of offenders and intervention projects(Flood-Page et al, 2000; Shiner et al, 2004). It was semi-structured and took around35 minutes to administer at baseline. It included questions on the following:

ethnicity, age and gendercurrent employment/schooling

truancy

offences committed

attitude to crime (Crime-Pics II questionnaire)alcohol and drug usesocial exclusionother interventions in which they were involved

whether it was their choice to be mentored or not (mentored youths only)young person’s perception of mentoring (mentored youths only)areas where they would like help from the mentoring programme (mentored
youths only).

The follow-up interview took approximately 45 minutes to administer and included
questions asked in the baseline interview (to enable baseline and follow-up
comparisons). The following questions were added for the mentored young people only:

whether mentoring was part of a court ordermentor meetings and activities



likes and dislikes about mentor and activities

the young person’s perception of mentoringareas where they received help from the mentoring programme

how mentoring ended



the young person’s perception of whether mentoring has had an impact on his or
her future.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

78

4.5 Depth Study findings
4.6 Attrition between baseline and follow-up assessments in the twogroupsThe 12 mentor projects (six LN, six BME) referred 137 young people for the
Depth Study. All were assessed at baseline, involving 11 people per project on
average, with a range from 2–20. All the interviews took place within a month after thementee and mentor were matched. In 18 cases, they had met, but their relationship had
just started.
We asked projects to inform us within one month either side of a relationship ending
and regularly contacted projects to monitor this. We did not seek to reassess mentees
who did not meet with their mentors, but kept figures for the frequency of suchcases (Table 4.2). Attrition between baseline and follow-up assessments of mentees was
54% overall, ranging from 21% to 100% across the projects (see Appendix C). As aresult, just 63 of the 137 (46%) mentees assessed at baseline were also interviewed atfollow-up. As shown in Table 4.2, of those who were not interviewed at follow-up, 61%
did not engage, stopped attending the programme early, or had received a custodial
sentence or court order. The projects were unable to contact 24% of the young people
for a follow-up interview and a further 12% had moved out of the area.
Table 4.2: Attrition reasons and figures for the mentored group
Reason why young person was notinterviewed at follow-up

No. of young people
not interviewed atfollow-up% of young
people notinterviewed atfollow-up% range
betweenprojects

Stopped attending or did not engage

39

53

0–69

Unable to contact for interview

18

24

0–100

Moved area

9

12

0–22

Received custodial sentence/order

6

8

0–29

Refused interview

2

3

0–7

Total

74

100

For the comparison group, 13 organisations referred a total of 105 young people for thisstudy and, on average, eight per organisation (range 2–28) were interviewed at baseline.
Attrition in interviews carried out at follow-up was 48%, overall (slightly lower thanwith the mentored group); attrition range between organisations was 0% to 100% (seeAppendix C). Consequently, 105 young people in the comparison group wereinterviewed at baseline and 55 (52%) of these were interviewed at follow-up. Of those
who were not interviewed at follow-up, we were unable to contact 48%, theorganisation had lost contact with 34% of cases, five young people (10%) did not arrive
for the interview and four did not wish to participate.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

79

The interval between the baseline and outcome assessments was determined by thelength of the mentor programme. As in the Database Study, this varied between two andten months or more. Comparison group young people were pair-matched with a mentee
on age and gender and interviewed after an equivalent interval. In practice, the mean
length of time between baseline and outcome interviews for the mentored group waseight months (standard deviation five months), while the mean interval for thecomparison group was six months (standard deviation four months). This difference
reflects the lag in notification and arrangements for assessment when mentored young
people completed their programme, so that the follow-up was sometimes delayed forsome time afterwards. In contrast, we had more direct contact with comparison groupcases. The shorter interval might disadvantage the comparison group in some respects,
but be to their advantage on other indices such as reoffending, while the variation withineach group is substantial.
4.7 Demographic comparability of the mentored and comparison groups
For the purposes of this report, we will provide the baseline data for the young people ineach group who were interviewed both at baseline and follow-up. Comparisons between
those who were and were not interviewed at follow-up (for both groups) can be found in
Appendix C.
As shown in Table 4.3, 71% of the assessed mentored group were male and 12% werefrom minority ethnic groups. Their age at baseline ranged from ten to 19 years, and 35%
were 12 and under, 35% between 13 to 15, and 30% aged 16 and over; 30% had heardof the project through their school, 27% from the YOT and 11% from friends. A similar
proportion in the assessed comparison group were male (76%), but a higher proportion(21%) were from minority ethnic groups. The age range of the comparison group young
people was 11 to 17. The comparison group included rather more individuals aged 13 to
15, and lower numbers aged 12 and under, and 16 and over.
Table 4.3: Baseline demographic features of comparison and mentored groups
Variable

GenderEthnicity*Age
categories
at baseline

Categories

Comparison group (%)

Mentored group (%)

No. of cases% cases

No. cases% cases

Male

42

76

45

71

Female

13

24

18

29

White

42

79

53

88

BME

11

21

7

12

12 and
under

14

26

22

35

13 to 15

35

64

22

35

16 and over

6

11

19

30

Age range

11–17 yrs old

10–19 yrs old*ethnicity uncertain in five cases

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

80

4.8 Changes in education, employment and training
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the number and percentage of mentored and comparison group
young people in education, employment or training at baseline and follow-up
measurement points.
Table 4.4: Mentored group: Numbers in education, employment or training
Baseline

Education, employment or training

Follow-up

No.

% casesNo.

% cases

In education, employment or training

40

64

46

73

Not in education, employment or training

23

37

17

27

Total %

101

100

Table 4.5: Comparison Group: Numbers in education, employment or training
Baseline

Education, employment or training

Follow-up

No.

% cases

No.

%
cases

In education, employment or training

51

93

44

80

Not in education, employment or training

4

7

11

20

Total %

100

100

Almost all the comparison group young people (93%) were in education, employment
or training at baseline, compared to 64% in the mentored group, indicating that thegroups were inadequately matched on this variable at the outset. However, between thebaseline and follow-up periods, the numbers not in education, employment or training
increased from 7% to 20% in the comparison group, but decreased from 37% to 27% in
the mentored group. Statistical analysis, using analysis of covariance to control for thegroup difference at baseline, showed that this apparent difference between the groups
was not statistically significant for the sample sizes available. However, these results
support the Database Study finding that mentoring helps to reintegrate the target groupof young people into education, employment and training. In contrast, the number ofcomparison group young people not in education, training or employment tended toincrease with age.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

81

4.9 Truancy
Table 4.6: Truancy figures for the mentored and comparison group

No. who truanted for at least a whole
day in last 12 weeks
No. with unauthorised absence fromparticular lessons

Mentoredbaseline No.

Mentoredfollow-up
No.

Comparison
baselineNo.

Comparison
follow-up
No.

9

5

12

9

11

6

16

16

Although numbers are again small, these findings are consistent with the Database
Study in showing reduced unauthorised absence in the mentored group, compared to thecomparison group young people.
4.10 Changes in literacy and numeracy – BSA test findings
The Basic Skills Agency (BSA) Initial Assessment has established validity in measuringa young person’s literacy and numeracy level, and is relatively easy to administer. It
provides two parallel versions of each assessment, so that version one can beadministered at baseline and version two at follow-up without repeating items,
permitting any improvements in the young people’s level of literacy and numeracy to beshown. As the assessment was developed to align with the National Standards for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy, we amended it to map each question onto the national
curriculum and created variations of each version to cater for young people of different
ages, as follows:
1. 10 to 11 year-olds who were in year five or six
2. 11 to 14 year-olds who were in year seven, eight or nine
3. 14 to 17 year-olds who were in year 10 upwards.
We sought to collect BSA data only from mentees in LN projects and an equivalent
number of comparison group cases. The assessments of mentees were carried out by the
mentor projects, following BSA instructions, while evaluators administered theassessments of the comparison group young people. Because the BSA assessments are
standardised, paper and pencil tests, administrator effects should be minimal.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200482

Table 4.7: Mean (standard deviation) BSA literacy and numeracy scores for mentored andcomparison group young people at baseline and follow-up assessment points
Mentored Group(n = 29)

Comparison Group(n = 28)

Baseline literacy score75.61 (20.75)

64.09 (26.04)

Follow-up literacy score80.15 (20.04)

68.50 (21.69)

Baseline numeracy score64.94 (20.45)

59.85 (17.19)

Follow-up numeracy score66.15 (19.67)

62.06 (17.09)

Table 4.7 summarises the BSA findings. The scores report percentages of items
answered correctly. It is noteworthy that the scores for the mentored young people werehigher at both baseline and follow-up. Since the mentees were at the start of theirprogrammes at baseline assessment, this difference probably reflects inadequate
matching of mentored and comparison cases on literacy and numeracy. However, theamount of improvement in each group, approximately four percentage points forliteracy and two points for numeracy, was modest and almost identical, indicating thatmentoring did not produce substantial literacy or numeracy improvements. Analysis ofcovariance, which adjusts for group differences at baseline in comparing follow-up
scores, confirmed this finding: there was no significant difference in score change
between the groups.
4.11 Changes in community involvement
Table 4.8: Community activities young person took part in during the last month
Have you…
MenteeFollow-up

MenteeBaseline

Comparison
Baseline

Comparison
Follow-up

No.

% casesNo.

% casesNo.

% cases

No.

%
cases

Done community
work

3

5

9

15

7

13

6

11

Played sports

44

70

36

58

35

64

31

56

Watched live sport

10

16

17

27

21

38

20

36

23

37

25

40

24

44

17

31

49

77

54

87

49

89

48

87

31

49

25

40

31

56

29

53

25

40

19

30

32

58

27

49

Been to a dance ornightclub/disco
Eaten a meal at arestaurant
Been to the cinema,
theatre or a concert
Been to a youth
organization

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can do more than one activity

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

83

Table 4.8 shows the number and percentage of young people who had taken part incommunity activities of various types in the last month at baseline and follow-up points.
Comparison group young people became less socially involved in all eight types ofactivity with age. In contrast, the mentored youths took an increased part in four of theeight social activities, with increases of 10% or more in community work, being aspectator at sports, and eating out in a restaurant. In keeping with the findings from the
Database Study, these findings indicate that mentoring is associated with modest
improvements in community involvement, while the findings here show that young
people without mentoring become more socially isolated with age.
4.12 Use of drugs
The interview asked about the use of a list of drugs, as shown in Table 4.9 below. To
give some idea of the accuracy of the reports, a fake drug, called ‘semeron’ was added
to the list. No young person reported taking it. At the baseline interview, 44% of
mentored and 69% of the comparison group claimed not to have taken any drugs in thelast three months. Cannabis had been taken by 43% of mentored and 29% ofcomparison young people. Ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamines and amyl nitrite had beentaken by a handful of young people in each group, with other drugs taken by a few.
More mentees than comparison group young people reported using the drugs, indicatingthat they were inadequately matched on this variable at baseline.
Table 4.9: Numbers in each group taking drugs at baseline
MentoredGroup(n = 63)

ComparisonGroup(n = 55)

Taken drug“in last 3 months”

Taken drug“in last 3 months”

Type of drugNo.

% casesNo.

% cases

Amphetamines

3

5

2

4

Cannabis

27

43

16

29

Cocaine

5

8

1

2

Crack

2

3

0

0

Ecstasy

7

11

3

5

Heroin1200LSD or acid

1

2

0

0

Magic mushrooms

2

3

0

0

Methadone/physeptone

0

0

0

0

Tranquilizers not prescribed by a doctor

1

2

1

2

Amyl nitrite (poppers)

5

8

3

5

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

4

28

44

38

69

Glues, solvents, gas or aerosols
Any other illegal drugs*

Not taken any drugs in last 3 months*Other includes “base”, ketamine.
Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can take more than one drug
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

84

The young people in each group were reinterviewed about drug use during the last threemonths at the follow-up interview. As Table 4.10 shows, 51% of mentored and 72% ofcomparison group young people reported no use of drugs during this period. Cannabis
was again used most often and rather more mentees than comparison group young
people took most drugs. In keeping with the Database Study, these findings provide noevidence that mentoring had any impact in reducing drug use.
Table 4.10: Drug use in the last three months in each group at the follow-up assessment
MentoredGroup(n = 63)

ComparisonGroup(n = 55)

Taken drug“in last 3 months”

Taken drug“in last 3 months”

Type of drugNo.

% cases

No.

%
cases

Amphetamines

7

11

3

5

Cannabis

30

48

15

27

Cocaine

3

5

1

2

Crack

1

2

0

0

Ecstasy

3

5

2

4

Heroin0000LSD or acid

1

2

0

0

Magic mushrooms

2

3

0

0

Methadone/Physeptone

0

0

1

2

Tranquilizers not prescribed by adoctor0000Amyl nitrate (poppers)

3

5

0

0

Glues, solvents, gas or aerosols

0

0

0

0

Any other illegal drugs*

0

0

0

0

Not taken any drugs

32

51

40

72

*Other includes “base”, ketamine.
Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can take more than one drug

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

85

4.13 Alcohol use
Table 4.11: How often do you drink alcohol?
Menteefollow-up(n=63)

Mentee baseline(n=63)How often:

Never/special
occasionsLess than once a
week
Once or twice a
week
Most days

Comparison
baseline(n–55)

Comparison
follow-up(n–55)

No.

% cases

No.

%
cases

No.

% casesNo.

% cases

32

51

31

50

37

67

30

55

11

18

13

21

7

13

16

29

14

22

14

22

9

16

8

15

6

10

5

8

2

4

1

2

101

101

100

101

As Table 4.11 shows, about 70% of mentees and 80% of comparison group young
people reported drinking alcohol less than once each week. Of mentees, 32% and 20%of comparison group young people drank alcohol each week at baseline; at follow-up,
the respective figures were 30% and 17%, showing little change in either group. Table
4.12 summarises the findings for “drunkenness”.
Table 4.12: How often have you been drunk in the last 3 months?
How often:

Most days
Once or twice aweek
1–3 times amonthLess than oncea monthHave been
drunk, but notin last 3
monthsNever been
drunk
Total %

MenteeBaseline(n=63)

MenteeFollow-up(n=63)

Comparison
Baseline(n=55)

Comparison
Follow-up(n=55)

No.

% casesNo.

% casesNo.

% casesNo.

% cases

4

6

3

5

2

4

1

2

6

10

10

16

5

9

5

9

8

13

7

11

8

15

6

11

10

16

5

8

5

9

12

22

9

14

15

24

9

16

5

9

26

41

23

37

26

47

26

47

100

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

101

100

100

86

Of mentees, 16% reported having been drunk at least once per week at baseline, 21% atfollow-up. The equivalent comparison group rates were 13% and 11%. The findings are
consistent with those from the Database Study in showing that alcohol abuse is not acommon problem among mentees of this age and is not affected by mentoring. The
findings here show that this is also true among similar non-mentored young people ofthis age.
4.14 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire measures of behaviour
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, Goodman, 1997) is a brief,(25-item) standardised questionnaire designed to screen for emotional and behaviouralproblems. It measures a young person’s emotional symptoms, conduct problems,
peer-relationship problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and pro-social behaviour. It hasestablished reliability and validity, and has been used extensively in clinical and social
science research in the UK and other countries. The SDQ website (www.sdqinfo.com)
contains further information, including normative figures and clinical cut-off scores foryoung people in the UK.
We asked the projects to introduce us to a professional with close contact with eachinterviewed young person, such as an education welfare officer, teacher, or YOT
caseworker, who would be willing to fill out the SDQ. This person could not be thementor, project staff, young person or the young person’s parents. We asked thisinformant to complete the SDQ and provided reminders, as needed, on up to threeoccasions. Separate SDQs were filled in at baseline and follow-up measurement points,
either by the same professional or by a suitable alternative identified by the project if
the original person was no longer available at the follow-up point.
Table 4.13 shows the mean and standard deviation scores for each group at baseline andat follow-up. As the sample size figures indicate, in spite of reminders, we weresuccessful in obtaining baseline and follow-up SDQs for only 36 mentored and 51
comparison group cases at both measurement points.
Table 4.13: Mean (standard deviation) SDQ scores at baseline and follow-up
measurement points for mentored and comparison group young people
Mentored Group(n = 36)Comparison Group(n = 51)

Baseline

Follow-up

Baseline

Follow-up

Pro-social behaviour

4.81 (2.58)

5.28 (2.87)

4.72 (2.43)

4.63 (2.73)

Hyperactivity

6.23 (3.12)

5.39 (3.11)

5.74 (2.99)

5.92 (2.78)

Emotional symptoms

3.08 (2.68)

2.55 (2.25)

3.84 (3.16)

3.08 (3.12)

Conduct problems

3.86 (2.65)

3.64 (2.39)

4.02 (2.22)

3.98 (2.48)

Peer problems

2.29 (1.25)

2.03 (1.44)

2.23 (1.83)

2.18 (2.00)

Total difficulties

16.11 (7.05)

14.44 (6.32)

16.80 (7.74)

16.12 (7.35)

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200487

For the pro-social scale, a higher score is positive, while for all others it offers anindication of problems. It is noteworthy that all the mean scores of the mentored group
improved marginally at the follow-up point, while the total mean difficulties scoreappears somewhat lower. Comparison group scores do not show this pattern as clearly.
However, analysis of variance confirmed that there was no significant difference
between the groups in baseline or follow-up scores, with neither group showing clear
evidence of change. The analysis of covariance group comparison at follow-up allowing
for baseline scores produced an F value of 1.08, with 1df giving a p = 0.302 for the totaldifficulties score, which does not approach statistical significance. While it is possiblethat a larger sample might show a significant difference, these findings allow no
confidence that this would be the case.
In sum, these findings produce no evidence of any substantial effect of mentoring onthese young people’s emotional or behavioural difficulties.
Because SDQ figures are available for normative and clinical samples, together withassociated clinical-level cut-off scores, it is possible to calculate how many of the young
people in the Depth Study have problems of clinical seriousness. Over half (53%) have
SDQ total difficultness scores at or above the clinical cut-off, while 44% meet thecriterion for hyperactivity. These findings provide further evidence of the severe
psychological vulnerabilities that characterise these young people.
4.15 Changes in offending
Using a standard list based on the Youth Lifestyles Survey of youth crime (Flood-Page etal, 2000; Graham and Bowling, 1995), the young people were asked which of 24
offences they had committed in their lives, and in the last three months. Appendix D
contains the list, including the array of minor offences included in ‘other’ offending.
Table 4.14: Offending history at baseline in the two groups
Mentoredgroup(n = 63)

Comparison
group(n = 55)

Committed offence ‘ever’Committed offence ‘ever’No.

% casesNo.

% cases

Violence against person

52

83

42

76

Criminal damage

42

67

29

53

Other theft, and handling stolen
goods

41

65

35

64

Vehicle theft (of and from)

23

37

11

20

Drug offences

12

19

9

16

Burglary

12

19

7

13

Fraud and forgery

3

5

3

5

Other

35

56

29

53

Not reported any offence

5

8

8

14

Offence

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can commit more than one type of offence

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200488

At baseline, 87% of the mentored group, and 93% of comparison young people,
reported they had committed at least one of the offences in their lives (even if they were
not caught) and 77% and 53%, respectively, had offended in the last three months. The
most common offence in both groups was ‘violence against a person’; the second mostcommon was ‘criminal damage’, such as ‘damaging or destroying a phone box,
windows or car, or setting fire to a building, car or garage’.
Tables 4.15 and 4.16 show the number of offences the young people in each groupreported having committed during the last three months at the baseline and follow-up
assessment points, as well as the percentage change. The negative figures indicate areduction between rates at baseline and follow-up assessment points.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200489

Table 4.15: Number of mentees who reported having committed offences in the last threemonths at baseline and follow-up assessment points (total n = 63)
Offence committed in last threemonthsBaseline
No.

Follow-up
No.

% Change

Violence against person

34

30

-6

Criminal damage

24

16

- 13

Other theft, and handling stolen
goods

21

16

-8

Vehicle theft (of and from)

6

4

-3

Drug offences

7

3

-6

Burglary21-2

Fraud and forgery

2

1

-2

Other
No offending

23
18

17
23

- 10
+8

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can commit more than one type of offence

Table 4.16: Number of comparison group young people who reported having
committed offences in the last three months at baseline and follow-up assessment
points (total n = 55)
Offence committed in last threemonthsBaseline
No.

Follow-up
No.

% Change

Violence against the person

24

21

-5

Criminal damage

17

13

-7

Other theft, and handling stolen
goods
Vehicle theft (of and from)

19

16

-5

7

4

-5

Drug offences

4

3

-2

Burglary

4

0-7

Fraud and forgery

1

1

0

Other

20

15

-9

No offending

26

22

-7

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can commit more than one type of offence

The findings show a similar profile of offending in the two groups, with mentees
tending to offend more often at both baseline and follow-up assessment points. The
number committing each type of offence tended to decrease in both groups. However,whereas the number of non-offenders decreased (from 26 to 22) in the comparisongroup, the number of non-offending mentees increased (from 18 to 23) between
baseline and follow-up assessments. This difference is not statistically significant. Thisfinding also needs to be interpreted cautiously because of the small numbers involved
and self-report nature of the data, while the rate of improvement is small. However, if
repeated in larger groups and other measures of offending, it indicates that mentoring
may help to reduce by a little the reoffending over age shown by many target-group
young people.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

90

4.16 Changes in attitudes to crime
Crime-Pics II was developed by Frude, Honess and McGuire (1994) in consultation
with probation services to provide a convenient and standardised means of measuring
attitudes to offending. It is suitable for use in measuring changes in attitudes. Its main
component is a 20-item questionnaire that assesses four dimensions:

general attitude to offending (a low score indicates the belief that offending is not
an acceptable way of life)

anticipation of reoffending (a low score indicates a resolve not to offend again)

victim-hurt denial (a low score indicates acceptance that offending has an adverse
effect on victims)

evaluation of crime as worthwhile (a low score indicates rejection of the view thatcrime has benefits which outweigh the costs).

The items are read out by the researcher and respondents choose one of fivepossible answers to each item (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree).
Details of the development of the scale and its reliability and validity are available in
the original publication, and Crime-Pics II has since been used in other studies ofoffending (Lewis, 2003; Raynor, 1998). For young people who admitted offending, we
followed the procedures and scoring instructions in the Crime-Pics II manual (Frude etal, 1994). Because the wording of a few items assumes a history of offending, we
modified the wording or omitted these items, as necessary, where interviewees claimed
not to have offended (Table 4.14 gives numbers). The scores for these cases are
examined separately.
Table 4.17 shows the mean and standard deviation raw score findings for the mentored
and comparison group young people who reported having offended.
Table 4.17: Crime-Pics II raw mean (standard deviation) scores for the two groups
Mentored groupn = 58Crime-Pics scale:Comparison groupn = 47

Baseline

Follow-up

Baseline

Follow-up

41.24(7.09)

38.85(7.11)

42.77(9.74)

41.17(9.65)

11.81(4.17)

10.72(3.72)

12.25(5.21)

12.11(4.90)

Victim-hurt denial

6.96(2.86)

7.33(2.89)

8.32(2.91)

8.03(3.65)

Evaluation of crime
as worthwhile

10.76(3.69)

10.43(3.17)

11.34(3.97)

10.32
(4.0)

General attitude
Anticipation of
reoffending

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200491

As with the SDQ findings, the data provide some indication that a larger sample might
have identified slight improvements in the mentored group, relative to the comparisongroup, in the overall ‘general attitude to crime’ measure. If so, any such difference
would be very modest. In the present data, analysis of variance produced no evidence ofsignificant group differences in any of the scales. Using analysis of covariance to allow
for any difference in baseline scores, the ‘general attitudes’ F value for groupdifferences at follow-up is 2.34, with 1DF, p = 0.129. Findings for the three other scales
are similar. The Crime-Pics II findings for the mentored and comparison group young
people who had not offended were likewise very similar to each other.
In sum, these findings produce no evidence of any substantial effect of mentoring on theyoung people’s attitudes to crime.
4.17 Mentees’ views of mentoring
As Table 4.18 shows, the mentored young people said they were on the project due tooffending, problem behaviour and educational issues. A small number reported otherreasons, including problems at home and the need for someone to talk to and to trust.
Table 4.18: Why is the young person involved with the mentoring project?
Reason for attending project% cases

Offending26

Behaviour25

Academic help & support

18

Not accessing education

15

Bored and for new activities

12

Other school issues e.g. bullied, truanting

10

For someone to talk to and trust

7

Anger

7

Excluded or at risk of exclusion

3

Don’t know

3

Problems at home

2

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can give more than one reason

Of the young people, 89% said that it was their choice to embark on
the mentoring scheme and 11% (nine young people) felt that it had not really been
their choice.
At baseline, 81% of mentees hoped that mentoring could help stop them from getting
into trouble, 76% to help them find new activities, 68% to help them through a toughtime, and 54% with maths or reading (77% within numeracy and literacy projects, 24%
in BME projects). Other common reasons were improving relationships and making
improvements in education or training. Of mentees, 33% hoped that mentoring would
help them to get into some sort of training.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

92

Table 4.19: Top ten ways in which the young people thought mentoring could help them
Mentoring could help
me to… (baseline)

Mentoring helped meto… (follow-up)% cases% cases

Get into less trouble

81

77

Find new activities

76

56

Get through a tough time

68

64

With maths or reading

54

61

With getting on with people my own
age

51

61

With finding employment (age 15+)43

13

Improve family relationships

41

46

With using a computer

38

44

Do better in school (for those inschool)38

36

With getting back into school

35

41

Percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents can give more than one reason

All the young people, except one, had finished meeting with their mentor, or knewthat this would stop within a month, when the follow-up interview was carried out.
One mentee did not know. Of mentees, 66% had met with their mentor once or twice a
week, 21% most days, 8% two to three times a month, and two young people (3%) met
less than once a month; 75% said their meetings lasted between half an hour and twohours, while 15% had meetings lasting between 2 and 3 hours. In 3% of cases, meetings
lasted longer than three hours; in 2%, they varied greatly in length, and in 5%, thementee was uncertain.
Of the mentees, 19% did not have the same mentor the whole time (excluding group
mentoring); nine individuals had two mentors, two had three mentors, and one had four
mentors. Of the young people, 37% said their mentor had failed to show up for ameeting at least once and 57% said they had missed at least one meeting. Almost all(92%) thought that they were well matched, and 92% claimed to like their mentor ‘a lot’
(5% ‘a little’). Only two mentees did not like their mentor.
At the follow-up, most (73%) thought mentoring had been ‘very useful’, 18% ‘a little
useful’, 7% ‘not sure/don’t know’, and 3% (two mentees) ‘not useful’. Most (80%)
would have liked mentoring to continue for longer because they were enjoying it or it
was helping them in some way.
I loved going out with her and stuff. I wish I could keep doing it.
He spoke to me, how he wanted to be talked back to.
We get on really well, and I can talk to her about anything.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

93

As Table 4.19 shows, 77% of the young people thought mentoring had helped them tostop getting into trouble, 64% ‘to get through a tough time’, 61% with maths andreading and 61% with relationships. Table 4.19 suggests that fewer mentees over 15
years of age now thought that mentoring would help them with employment, but the
number in this age group is too small for confidence in this finding. At the end of thefollow-up interview, we asked whether they thought mentoring had improved their
future prospects and just over half (56%) thought that this was the case.
4.18 Summary of the Depth Study findings
The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (Farrington et al, 2002; Friendship et al, 2005)
provides a means of judging the methodological strengths of different types of study.
Considered against this scale, the matched-group method used by this study is, inprinciple, scientifically robust and exceeded in rigour only by randomised controlled
trial methods. In practice, however, the high rates of attrition between baseline andfollow-up assessments that occurred in this study, and consequently diminished sample
sizes and sample matching, detract from its rigour. Attrition of this sort is common
among studies of young people who offend or are at risk of doing so (Hurry andMoriarty, 2003; Shiner et al, 2004). As a result, evaluations face the dilemma of either
using scientifically robust methods and achieving inadequate samples, or using lessrobust methods (such as those used in the Database Study) and enhancing their samples.
The high variability between projects found here – some showed zero attrition andothers up to 100% – suggests that project commitment to the study is one underlying
factor which it might be possible to improve in future.
Although the sample attrition needs to be considered in interpreting this study’s
findings, the rate was similar in mentored and comparison groups, so that it should nothave biased these in relation to each other. The analysis reported in Appendix C does
not show major differences in the characteristics of the young people who dropped outof the mentored or comparison groups, although it is not possible to be sure that thiswas the case. The attrition did result in smaller-than-planned sample sizes, and it isnoteworthy that some analyses showed differences in favour of the mentored young
people, which might be statistically significant in a larger sample. However, the overalldesign of this evaluation involves synthesising findings across different study methods,
rather than relying on one approach. This study was planned to complement the
Database Study rather than to stand alone. The findings are therefore best interpreted
alongside those from the Database and Reconviction Study.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200494

As in previous studies of mentoring (Shiner et al, 2004; St James-Roberts and Singh,
2001; Tarling et al, 2004), the mentees included here were overwhelmingly positive
about their mentors. They trusted them, formed strong relationships with them, andthought that the mentors helped them. In some areas, this support was associated withimprovements in the mentees, which was not apparent in the non-mentored comparisongroup. These positive findings were seen most clearly in measures of reintegration into
education and community involvement. As in the Database Study, mentees tended toreduce their truanting and exclusion and to increase their attendance at school andcollege and their participation in community activities. The consistency of thesefindings between the studies lends them weight. The comparison group of young people
assessed here showed increased social exclusion and reduced educational involvement
between the baseline and follow-up assessments, indicating that having a mentor helped
to prevent this decline.
Also in keeping with the database findings, drug and alcohol use problems characterised
only a minority of mentees and mentoring did not make any difference to these cases.
There are three areas where the findings here did not support those from the Database
Study, and it is noteworthy that two of these involved more formal methods ofmeasurement: namely the Basic Skills Agency (BSA) tests in the case of literacy andnumeracy, and the judgements of independent professionals in the case of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) measures of emotional and behavioural problems.
Neither of these assessments provided evidence of substantial improvements in either
the mentored or comparison group of young people, while any improvement in thementored group was matched in the comparison group. On the face of it, these findings
seem to be at odds with the Database Study finding that mentees improved substantiallyin literacy and numeracy. However, there are several possible explanations of thisinconsistency, including the possibility that the assessments used here are insensitive tothe sorts of improvements made. It may well be that most improvements in literacy andnumeracy made by mentees are of a type which are not detected effectively by theformal tests used here. For example, improvements in ability to prepare a CV, add up abill, or use a computer programme, are of this kind. If so, these are important skills foryoung people to possess if they are to lead independent social lives, but it isquestionable whether they will prove substantial enough to make a lasting difference,
particularly if they are not supported. With regard to the sorts of improvement inliteracy or numeracy measured by formal tests, the findings from this study did not
produce any evidence that young people who received mentoring improved any morethan the comparison group, who did not receive mentoring.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

95

In keeping with such doubts, this study’s findings for offending also fail to support theoffending results from the Database Study. Crime-Pics II, a standardised assessment of
attitudes to crime, provided no evidence that mentees changed their attitudes between
baseline and follow-up assessments, or that they held different views from their
non-mentored peers. The number of young people who reported committing eachtype of offence decreased modestly in both groups, but not more in the mentored
than the comparison group. The number of mentored young people who reported
not offending at all in the last three months did increase from 18 to 23 between
baseline and follow-up assessments, while the number decreased from 26 to 22 in the
non-mentored comparison group. This suggests that mentoring might have played amodest part in helping to reduce the number of young people involved in reoffending,but it applied only in a small number of cases and was not a statistically significant
finding. This issue will be revisited using the larger numbers in the Reconviction Study.
In summary, this study has supported the Database Study finding that mentor
programmes help young offenders and those at risk of offending to reintegrate into
education, training and the community. However, the inclusion of a comparison groupand the use of more rigorous methods have brought into question whether mentoring
enables the targeted groups of young people to make substantial improvements inliteracy, numeracy, behaviour and offending.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

96

Part 5: The reconviction/reoffending study

5.1 Aims and methods
Each method of measuring youth offending has particular strengths and weaknesses.
Self-report measures, used in the Depth Study in this evaluation and, for example, by
the MORI Youth Survey (MORI, 2004), can identify criminal activity not detected by
the police. However, such approaches rely on young people’s reports, which may beunreliable and expensive, depend on restricted sample sizes, and inflate the amount ofoffending, since relatively trivial acts, such as minor pilfering or vandalism, may be
included. Measures based on police records under-record actual criminal behaviour andare partly the result of decisions by criminal justice practitioners, which may vary
between localities and change over time. They have the advantage of low cost, since theinformation is already being collected for police purposes, and provide large, broadly
representative sample sizes. These advantages have led to the widespread use ofreconviction studies as a means of measuring offending. Strictly speaking, the word
‘reconviction’ denotes cases followed up after a court conviction to identify repeat
convictions and measure changes in rates – for instance, to detect whether crime
decreases following a government initiative. Because of changes in legislation, about
50% of young people detected by police as offenders are now dealt with by pre-court
charges or dispositions, such as Reprimands and Final Warnings (Home Office, 2005;
Youth Justice Board, 2005). Because these offences are included in police records andthe Home Office Police National Computer (HOPNC) system which processes thepolice data, offending and reoffending, as well as court convictions, can be used tomeasure criminal activity and this is what the Home Office now recommends (HomeOffice, 2005). The HOPNC system contains records for offenders of ten years of age
and older, since younger children are not legally responsible for crime. Since the present
study includes young people who are ten years of age, some of whom are at risk ofoffending, not all cases will be included if reoffending alone is assessed. Consequently,
we have examined offending, as well as reoffending, data.
With the collaboration of the Reconviction Analysis Section of the Home Office where
HOPNC is being developed, the aim of this study was to assess the rates of offending
and reoffending in four groups of young people:mentees included in the Database Study

young people referred to the mentor projects who were not assigned to a mentor

mentees included in the Depth Study, as well as in the Database Study

comparison group non-mentored young people included in the Depth Study.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

97

We were aware at the outset that there could be a delay between the date of offences andthe registration of these offences on the HOPNC database. Following consultation, we
expected that most cases of offending would reach the HOPNC system within threemonths, so that we collected the offending data in December 2004 in order to assess
offending up to September 2004, the point at which we collected the final database
information. In keeping with this, an internal evaluation recently undertaken by the
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO, 2003) concluded that the delay betweenarrest or summons and the arrival of information at HOPNC is no more than nine daysin 90% of offence cases.
It was also necessary to choose the period during which offending would be assessed.
Most studies report rates of offending over 12 months, since this is long enough toprovide reliable data (Home Office, 2005; MORI, 2004). For mentored cases, we
assessed offending during the 12 months before the date of matching with the mentor,(the ‘key’ date) as the “baseline” measure of offending. Offending during the 12 months
following this date provided the ‘follow-up’ measure of offending. Since the average
length of mentor programmes was five months, differences in offending in thefollow-up 12 months, relative to the baseline 12 months, would identify changes thattook place during or in the first few months following, mentoring. For non-mentoredcases, the date they were referred to the mentor projects (or when we interviewed themat baseline for comparison group cases) was set as the key date. Offending which took
place in the 12 months before the key date was included in the baseline offending
measure; offending in the 12 months after the key date provided the follow-up measure.
The critical question is whether rates of offending decrease, or increase less, inmentored cases between baseline and follow-up periods, compared with non-mentored
young people.
To collect offending data, key information on all the young people in the above groups
was sent in one EXCEL file to the Reconviction Analysis Section of the Home Office:date of birth of the young personfull name of young person (first name, surname and any others)

sex of young person.

In addition, data were also sent (where possible) on the young person’s address, and any
information the study had about offending for the young people.
As Table 5.1 shows, this file contained 4,941 cases. For analysis purposes, the mentoredcases were sub-divided into those in the Database Study only, and those who wereinterviewed as part of the Depth Study at baseline. The remaining cases comprised thenon-mentored Referred Youths, and the comparison group in the Depth Study.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

98

Table 5.1: Cases sent to the Home Office, as divided by analysis groups
Type of caseTotal number sent to Home Office

Mentored database cases

2,856

Mentored interviewed cases

137

Referred Youths

1,843

Non-mentored interviewed youths

105

Total N

4,941

The file was put through the HOPNC name-matching process to match the datawith records on the system. This process used the surname, first and second
forenames, date of birth and sex variables to make a match. There were several further
stages in the matching process before the final HOPNC file was arrived at that was
suitable for analysis (Appendix E contains further details about matching data to the
HOPNC system).
5.2 Results
The final file sent back to us by HOPNC contained data for 2,898 (59%) of the 4941
cases sent. Table 5.2 shows the proportion of cases in each of these groups, at the
final stage of the matching process, to have at least one offending record versus no
HOPNC record.
Table 5.2: Number of cases in each group with, and without, an offending record
Type of caseTotal
numbersent to HO

Number and %with offending
information

Number and %with nooffendinginformation

Mentored database cases

2,856

1,676 (59%)

1,180 (41%)

Mentored interviewed cases

137

76 (55%)61 (45%)

Referred Youths

1,843

1,111 (60%)

732 (40%)

Non-mentored interviewed cases

105

35 (33%)70 (67%)

Total N

4,941

2,898 (59%)

2,043Each group would be expected to contain cases that had a HOPNC record and cases that
did not. In theory, this difference would mean that those with a record have an offending
history (ranging from one offence to many), while those without a record are ‘at risk’ ofoffending, but are unknown to the police or have not yet been caught offending.
However, it is likely that, in an unknown number of cases, no records were returned
because the matching process failed (see Appendix E). Different spellings of names,changes of names, and variations in recording date of birth could all lead to a failure tomatch cases, even if they were present in the HOPNC database. This limitation iscommon to all studies of offending using the HOPNC and similar systems, and it needs
to be borne in mind that the HOPNC system itself is still under development. It is
assumed that the proportion of misclassified cases is the same in each group (Appendix
E has more information on data omissions).
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 200499

Based on this assumption, the figures in Table 5.2 show that the proportions of caseswith no offending information in the two largest groups – 41% of database cases and
40% of non-mentored Referred Youths – were very similar. This indicates thatmentoring did not stop young people who had not offended from doing so. Rather,about 40% of young people in both mentored and referred non-mentored groups
remained at risk of offending, but never did so. This figure is probably inflated by cases
where successful matching was not accomplished by the HOPNC system, but thisshould have occurred equally in both groups. For present purposes, the actual rate isless important than the finding that the groups did not differ in the rate of continuous
non-offending. The rate for the non-mentored interviewed youths (67%) is very high,but the small numbers in this group make this figure unreliable.
5.3 Offending rates over time

Before examining changes in offending in each group, the distribution of the overall
HOPNC offending data over time was examined as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Offending per three months in the cases identified by HOPNC
1,200

1,000

Frequency

800

600

400

200
Mean = -475
Std. Dev. = 538
N = 25,281
001-Jan-1996

01-Jan-1998

01-Jan-2000

01-Jan-2002

01-Jan-2004

The dates police believe the offence started

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

100

This graph shows the number of offences per three months for the young people with
HOPNC data, using the offence date logged by the police, which is the date it took placeor started if it lasted more than one day. The key date for most cases included in thisstudy was in 2002 or 2003, so that the steep slope at the left hand side of the graph,showing low offence rates in these young people prior to 2002 and then a sharp
increase, is to be expected. This reflects the positive relationship between age andoffending – the older young people are, the more opportunity they have had to commit
offences, while young people less than ten years of age – which some would be a year
before the key date – are not registered in the HOPNC system. However, at the otherend of the graph, there is a steep drop-off in rates of offending that is not apparently
caused by age or a true reduction of offending.
We cannot be sure what has caused this drop-off. It is possible that part of it is due to a
reduction in offending due to societal trends or initiatives by the YJB and others, but it
seems most unlikely that these would produce such a dramatic decline. Arguably themost likely explanation is that it reflects the lag between a crime occurring and thedetection of the offender by police. If so, the Association of Chief Police Officers(ACPO, 2003) may be correct in saying that the delay between police recording a crimeand its appearance in the Police National Computer is short, but this does not takeaccount of the delay between the crime and charging the felon. Since we collected the
HOPNC data in December 2004, the steep tail-off in offences after June 2004 implies
that there is a lag of about six months between offences being committed anddocumented adequately in HOPNC records at any time.
To the best of our knowledge, this lag in HOPNC data has not been acknowledged
before, whereas the need to allow for it is common to all HOPNC-based studies ofinterventions with a follow-up period of six months or less. We have examined thepossibility of mitigating its effect, by reducing the period of offending sampled in thisstudy to six months from the key date, but this did not allow offending to be measured
reliably. Consequently, the implication for present purposes is that only cases with a key
date up to June 2003 can be included in the reconviction study. A further follow-up
would allow cases with a key date beyond June 2003 to be assessed, but this is outside
the timescale of this evaluation.
Table 5.3 below shows the number of cases in each group eligible for the Reconviction
Study once this constraint is taken into account. The mentored database and referred
non-mentored group both retain substantial numbers of cases and there is no reason toassume that attrition has occurred differently in these two groups. The Depth Study
mentored group included only 26 cases, which is too few for a reliable analysis.
Comparison group cases were only recruited after a mentored case was taken into the
Depth Study, so that there were even fewer cases available in this group. Consequently,
the analysis of offending and reoffending was confined to comparing the mentored
database with the referred, but not mentored, groups of cases.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

101

Table 5.3: Number of cases in each analysis group with offence data in the year after
key date
Group

Number of cases

Mentored database cases

658

Mentored interviewed cases

26

Referred Youths

558

Total

1,242

5.4 Rates of Offending during the baseline and follow-up periods
Table 5.4: Numbers of young people in each group who offended during each
12-month period
Mentored
databasegroup(n = 658)

Referred
non-mentoredgroup(n = 558)% committing one
or more offences
in baseline year

80%

82%

% committing one
or more offencesin follow-up year

54%

55%

Table 5.4 summarises the rates of offending in each group during each 12-month
period. Both groups show a substantial decline, while the offending rates in each groupin each period are very similar: approximately 80% in the baseline and 55% in thefollow-up period.
To examine whether offending rates declined more where mentees were in long mentor
programmes, we compared the rates where programmes lasted five months or less withthose lasting more than five months, and more than ten months. The resulting groups are
smaller than is desirable: 249 mentees in the HOPNC database had programmes lasting
more than five months and just 118 mentees had programmes of ten months or longer.
In the year before mentoring, rates of offending were 79% among mentees inprogramme lasting five months or less, 82% in programmes lasting five months or
longer, and 76% where programmes lasted ten months or longer. In the year after
mentoring started the respective offending rates were 56%, 50% and 52% with nodifference between the groups either before or after mentoring started. These analyses
need to be repeated at a later date to increase sample sizes and the length of follow-up,
but they do not support the expectation that offending rates will reduce most where
mentees participate in longer mentor programmes.
In summary, rates of offending in mentored and non-mentored young people declined
during the follow-up year. For present purposes, however, the critical finding is that theoffending rates did not differ between mentored and non-mentored cases in either ofthese periods.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

102

5.5 Number and severity of offences in the baseline and follow-up periods
Analyses in this section focus on the average number of offences per young person andthe average severity of offending, allowing us to examine any changes in these indices.
In addition, the HOPNC data were analysed to provide some descriptive information
about the offences, such as age at first offence, gender and mean age of the young
people in each of the groups. Appendix E contains more information about thecomputation of the variables used for measuring offending in the HOPNC file.
The number of offences has a skewed distribution, with the majority of young people ineach group having between zero and six offences per person: 73% had between zero andsix before the key date (the mean is 3.08, and the highest number of offences was 59),
and 80% had between zero and six after the key date (the mean was 2.53 and the highest
number of offences was 57).
Table 5.5: Mean number of offences before and after key dateGroup

Mean number of offencesin the baseline year

Mean number of offencesin the follow-up year

3.02

2.41

3.15

2.70

3.08

2.53

Mentored database cases
Referred non-mentored
cases
Total

Although the figures suggest a reduction in each of the groups, the differences in mean
number of offences between the groups in the year before and after the key date are notstatistically significant or near to being so.
These results are also similar when comparing the severity of offences, as shownin table 5.6. (The severity index is based on YJB scoring methods; see Appendix Efor details)
Table 5.6: Mean severity scoring before and after key dateGroup

Mean severity scoring in
the baseline year

Mean severity scoring in
the follow-up year

Mentored database cases

4.40

4.23

Referred non-mentored cases

4.34

4.46

Total

4.37

4.34

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

103

These findings, too, show no difference between the groups. Correlation analyses were
performed on the mean number of offences and the severity of offences in the year
before and after the key date. Age of the young person at the referral stage was also
considered. As one might expect, the mean number of offences in the baseline year was
significantly related to the mean number of offences in the follow-up year (r=0.462,
P=0.001). Age was significantly related to the mean number of offences in thebaseline year, such that young people in the older age-range committed more offences(r=0.182, P=0.001). However, severity of offences in the baseline year was not
significantly related to severity of offences in the follow-up year (r=0.069, P=0.100),and age was not significantly related to the mean number of offences in the follow-up
year (r=0.023, P=0.424).
Table 5.7 also looks at changes in offending, but shows the changes depending on thenumber of offences during the baseline year. The positive and the negative changes inthe table are the most interesting. In the case of the positive change, they show the
proportion of young people who began with one or more offences in the baseline year,
and had no offences in the follow-up year. If this happened more often among mentored
than other young people, this would indicate that mentoring lowered offending.
However, the results show that the proportion of non-mentored Referred Youths with
reduced offending is similar to the proportion among mentored young people, and thedifferences between the groups are not statistically significant.
Table 5.7: Change in offending relative to the baseline rate%
Mentored
database
cases
Positive change:
Moving from a mean of 1+ offencesin the baseline year to 0 offences in
the follow-up year
No offending, no change:
Moving from a mean of 0 offencesin the baseline year to 0 offences in
the follow-up year
Offending, no change:
Having a mean of 1+ offences in thebaseline year and follow-up year
Negative change:
Moving from 0 offences in baseline
year to a mean of 1+ offences in thefollow-up year
Total %

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

35%
Referred
nonmentored
cases
34

Total
numberofyouths
432

11

10

134

44

48

570

9

8

106

100

100

1,242

104

5.6 Summary of the reconviction study findings
This study’s findings are limited by the characteristics of the HOPNC system, which
was still under development when this study was carried out. It is also important to keep
in mind that the results refer only to crimes detected and reported by the police. The
finding here that there is a lag of about six months between offences being committed
and documented adequately in HOPNC records does not raise major obstacles for many
purposes. However, studies seeking to examine changes in offending after anintervention or particular date will need to allow for it. The time constraints of thisevaluation reduced the number of cases available to us and prevented us fromexamining offending in the Depth Study cases. This limitation could be overcome by afurther analysis towards the end of 2005. Indeed, a further follow-up is desirable in any
case, since it will provide a clearer long-term account of what happens to mentored
young people after they finish their mentor programme.
As they stand, the findings examined here provide no evidence that the rate of offendingor reoffending in the target group of young people is reduced by mentoring. Nor is there
evidence of a reduction in the severity of offending. Because the rate of attrition was
similar in the compared groups of mentored and non-mentored cases, while the final
sample sizes were adequate in both of them, these conclusions appear robust.
An intriguing finding, but more difficult to interpret, is that rates of offending declined
between the baseline 12 months and follow-up 12 months in both groups examined. The
decline, such that around 80% of the target young people committed offences in thebaseline year, and 55% in the follow-up year, was substantial. Because the dates in eachcase are individual to each young person, it is not possible to identify the dates of thetwo periods precisely, but they correspond broadly to the period before and after June
2003. It is only possible to speculate, but it may be that other initiatives introduced by
the YJB, or other organisations, have contributed to this decline in offending. Equally, it
is possible that the rate in the baseline period was unrepresentatively high. Arguably,
rates of offending in the preceding 12 months are inflated in studies such as this one,since otherwise the young people would not have come to the study’s attention. For thisreason, the comparison of rates between groups probably gives a more reliable index of
the impact of an intervention than is provided by changes in the rate figures.
The decline in offending among mentored young people found in this study supports thefinding of a reduction in the Database Study. The resulting offending rates – 55% here
and 26% in the Database Study, are substantially different, presumably due to themissing information in the Database Study. In any case, the addition of a comparisongroup here makes clear that this reduction was not specific to mentored young people ordirectly attributable to mentoring. Whether mentoring made any contribution will bereconsidered in discussing the overall evaluation findings below.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

105

Part 6 The costs of mentor programmes and projects

6.1 Aims and methods
This study faced two main methodological challenges. First, many projects were
supported by other organisations as well as by YJB funding – indeed, the YJB
encouraged projects to seek matched funding. Consequently, the cost to the YJB
might under-represent the true cost of running the projects. However, we did nothave access to information about other costs, while projects linked with otherschemes could potentially produce additional benefits, which were also not known.
Consequently, we have used the amounts of money provided to projects by the YJB
to calculate project costs.
Second, formal cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses depend on quantifiablemeasures of outcomes (Dhiri et al, 1999). The overall findings so far provide little
evidence that the main targeted outcome – reduced rates of offending – has beenachieved by mentoring. There is compelling evidence that the projects did produce
gains in educational reintegration and community involvement that may have benefits in
reduced offending, but this is not known at this stage.
Although these constraints are important, the basic idea underlying cost-effectivenessanalysis is that of value for money. It is possible to provide figures for the costs of thementor projects and programmes evaluated here and these can be found below. Thesefigures can also be considered in relation to the cost of offending and of otherintervention schemes.
Because mentors are volunteers, most costs are due to the salaries of mentor project
staff and to the projects’ running costs, including the costs of premises. In interpretingthe figures, it is important to keep in mind that they include the cost of setting up thementor projects. This takes several months, during which time no programmes are being
delivered, while this counts disproportionately against projects evaluated over a
relatively short period, as is the case here.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

106

6.2 Results
The total cost of this mentor scheme to the YJB was expected to be £11.7 million. The
actual cost, that is, the amounts spent by the projects, will not be known until September
2005. For each project, two figures were available to us from YJB records: the amountawarded and which the project was expected to spend up to completion (‘AmountAwarded’), and the amount each project had actually spent up to about September 2004(‘Amount Spent 2004’). To provide as representative an estimate as possible, we haveconsidered both figures for each project. To obtain a unit cost, we have then divided
each of these figures by the number of programmes set up, and the number delivered, byeach project. A ‘set-up’ programme is one where a mentee or mentor have been matchedby the project, whereas ‘delivered’ programmes are those involving two or moremeetings between them (see section 3.21 for details). Although the main interest is indelivered programmes, setting them up involves cost, while projects with a large
number set up but not delivered are likely to be inefficient. Table 6.1 shows the average
cost of programmes within BME and LN project types using both Amount Awarded andAmount Spent 2004 as denominators.
Table 6.1: The average (standard deviation) cost per mentor programme delivered by
BME/DB and LN projects
Amountawarded *Cost per set-up
programme

Amount spent
2004**
Cost per set-up
programme

Amount awarded*
Cost perdeliveredprogramme

Amount spent
2004**
Cost perdeliveredprogramme

BME/ DB
projects£9,935(£8,440)£7,453(£6,199)£26,107(£47,272)£20,480(£39,176)

LN
projects£4,113(£3,955)£3,516(£2,693)£6,795(£12,676)£6,364(£11,961)

Overall£6,369(£6,686)£5,042(£4,767)£14,373(£32,347)£11,903(£26,919)*Based on amount of money awarded to the project by the YJB.
**Based on the amount spent by the project up to 2004.

As would be expected, the costs of programmes based on project costs up to 2004 aresomewhat less than the costs awarded to the projects by the YJB, but otherwise thefindings are not much affected by which of these denominators is used to calculate
costs. For simplicity, we will base our evaluation below on the amounts awarded, on theassumption that these figures probably represent the final costs more accurately.
As Table 6.1 shows, the average cost of setting up programmes by BME/DB projects
was more than twice that of LN projects, while the average cost of delivering BME/DB
programmes was more than three times as much: £26,107 compared with £6,795. These
differences are highly significant statistically. To account for this difference and explore
the role of other factors, analyses were run to compare projects based on YOT premises
with others, and to examine the relationships between project costs, staffing andprogramme delivery.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

107

Whether or not projects were based on YOT premises proved to be the most important
single factor and accounted for much, but not all, of the difference between BME/DB
and LN projects. Just five of the 31 BME/DB projects were YOT-based, compared with
21 of 49 LN projects. Where BME/DB projects were on YOT premises, the average costof their programmes was £9,443, compared with £29,312 when BME/DB projects were
not on YOT premises. For LN projects on YOT premises, the average programme costwas £4,941, compared with £8,237 where LN projects were not on YOT premises.
These differences are all statistically significant. YOT-based projects tended to deliver
more programmes (33.27 on average, compared with 22.26 for non-YOT projects, p =0.052), but did not deliver programmes significantly more cheaply, due, at least partly,to the huge variability in costs of non-YOT projects: the average/standard deviation costof YOT-based project programmes overall was £5,806/ £4,701, compared to £18,575/£38,785 for programmes delivered by non-YOT projects (p = 0.100).
Other factors contributed to project costs, but not to the difference between BME/DB
and LN projects. As would be expected, project costs were higher in projects with more
staff (r = 0.300, p = 0.012). More expensive projects delivered more programmes
overall (r = 0.238, p = 0.035), as well as more programmes lasting ten months or longer(r = 0.227, p = 0.043).
Six BME/DB and seven LN projects met all our criteria for successful programmedelivery and outcomes, and were examined separately to assess their costs. As with the
projects, overall, the six BME/DB projects were more expensive than the LN projects,
both in total costs and in cost per programme. For example, the average cost per
programme for these six BME/DB projects was £8,634, compared with £2,959 for the
LN projects. Three of the seven LN projects were based on YOT premises, and twoothers had formal links with YOTs, so that shared accommodation and the integration ofstaff and services may have contributed to their lower costs. Otherwise, the sevenprojects had little in common. One LN project deliberately ran programmes lasting threemonths, one programmes lasting up to six months, and five targeted 6–12 months. In
four cases, the mentor delivered literacy and numeracy tuition, while three employed atutor for this purpose. The seven LN projects were located all over England and Wales.
The Audit Commission (2004) estimates that a typical young offender costs £184,000
solely in terms of court appearances and custody, while the costs and inconvenience tothe community are in addition to this. If just one in ten young offenders could be
prevented from reoffending, the saving would be in the order of £100 million per year
(Audit Commission, 2004). Against this background, the above cost of an average LN
mentor programme of £7,000 could be a good investment, insofar as the projects are
effective with even a small minority of young offenders. However, another way toapproach this issue is to consider the cost of alternative intervention schemes. The
appeal of mentoring lies partly in the potential low cost that should result from the useof community volunteers, so that if other interventions produce equivalent benefits atlower cost, it becomes more difficult to champion mentoring. In their evaluation of YJB
education, training and employment (ETE) schemes, Hurry and Moriarty (2003) foundthat such schemes produced benefits, such as reintegration into education, very similar
to those found for mentoring here. The ETE schemes served a predominantly White
group of rather older young people and there are other differences between the projects
examined in the two evaluations, which need to be taken into account, but they do not
obviously favour the schemes evaluated by Hurry and Moriarty. In contrast, the cost per
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004108

programme of the ETE schemes they evaluated was just £2,320 per young
person, about a third of the cost of the LN mentor programmes as a whole evaluated
here. As noted above, only the most cost-effective LN projects achieved a cost in theorder of between £2,000 and £3,000 per programme. In the light of these findings, it isdifficult to maintain the view that mentor schemes are cost-effective because they
involve community volunteers. Rather than recommending mentoring as a whole, it
may be more useful to identify the aspects of mentoring which have proved to bevaluable, and to consider how these can be combined with the positive features ofalternative provisions.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

109

Part 7 Discussion and recommendations

Recent studies have confirmed how difficult it is to engage young offenders inintervention programmes (Hurry and Moriarty, 2003; Shiner et al, 2004). This applies tointerventions other than mentoring, but was an important consideration here. For thisreason, and because the 80 different mentor programmes included in this scheme varied
greatly, we have examined the resulting data in two different ways. First, we haveprovided overall summary figures, which represent the projects and the two main
sub-types (BME projects, targeting Black and minority ethnic groups; LN projects,
targeting young people with literacy and numeracy difficulties) as a whole. Second,taking account of the diversity between the projects, we have tried to identify thefeatures of the most successful projects, in order to provide examples of best practice.
Rather than being a panacea, mentoring was more likely to help some young peoplesome of the time, so that it was important to understand what appeared to work best,with which groups, in which ways, and at what cost.
The main study reported here used a standard, computer database, which enabled the
projects to keep their everyday records and provided much of the information needed
for the evaluation in a uniform way. The combination of this with the Depth Study,
which assessed a sub-group of mentored young people directly, has provided
compelling evidence that the mentor projects were successful in achieving several of
their goals. First, as intended by the YJB, a large number of volunteers were recruitedand involved in a community intervention scheme. Second, the projects recruited theirdifferent target, BME or LN, groups of young people and partnered them with mentors,
many of whom were from matching backgrounds. Third, the projects supported theirvolunteer mentors in delivering mentor programmes comprising, on average, eight
meetings between mentor and mentee. Fourth, a substantial number of the mentored
young people re-engaged in education, training, or employment, became more involvedin community activities (and, hence, less socially isolated), and improved in family
relationships. As intended, LN and BME projects differed in the extent of improvementsin specific areas, but both were successful in reintegrating their mentees into education,
training and the community. These findings provide a testimony to the hard work andcommitment of the volunteer mentors and mentor projects involved.
These overall findings were even more pronounced when the variations between
projects were allowed for. Projects based at YOTs, and which were characterised byindices of high-project integrity, such as supervising a high proportion of mentors, weremore successful in measures of mentee improvement than other projects. Similarly,
programmes that lasted ten months or longer were most successful, both in rates ofcompletion and improved outcomes. Mentee characteristics also influenced outcomes,
such that younger mentees or those at risk of offending but with no offending history
made most progress. Where mentor and mentee were not matched on gender, mentees
were less likely to complete a mentor programme. Female mentors and White (rather
than BME) mentors did best in improving mentee literacy in both sexes, while BME
mentors were more likely to have mentees who completed community orders andimproved in family relationships.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004110

As well as educational and community involvement, the mentor programmes wereintended to reduce rates of offending and reoffending among the mentored young
people. In addition to project database records, this issue was examined using
self-report data from the mentored young people and a comparison, non-mentoredgroup, and by analysing offending data provided by the Home Office Police National
Computer (HOPNC) system. The findings in this area were more inconsistent. The rates
of offending in the period before mentoring measured by the Depth and Reconviction
Studies – 87% and 81% respectively – were broadly similar to the 69% rate in the
Database Study. In contrast, the rate in the year after mentoring started – 77% in the
Depth Study using self-reports, and between 50% and 55% in the Reconviction Study
based on police records, were both much higher than the rate of 26% found in the
Database Study. Although the reason for this difference in rates after mentoring began isuncertain, a limitation of the Database Study was that offending information was
unknown or missing for 27% of mentees, while few projects had direct access to YOT
records. Most of the offending data collected by projects after mentor programmes
began were obtained from the reports of young people to their mentors or project staff.
As a result, offending might not always be accurately known, perhaps because mentees
were reluctant to report offending to mentors during their mentor programmes.
Whether or not this is the true explanation for the different rates, both the Reconviction
and Depth Studies showed that offending rates among similar, but non-mentored, young
people were essentially the same as among mentees both before and after mentoring.
Offending rates declined in both groups, rather than particularly among mentored young
people. In consequence, the evaluation studies as a whole provide no clear evidence thatmentoring produced a true reduction in offending. It needs to be kept in mind that thesefindings require a follow-up, to include larger numbers of mentored cases and identify
any carry-forward effects. With this proviso, the findings here mirror other evaluationsof mentor and community education and training schemes in finding that suchinterventions have little impact on offending (Hurry and Moriarty, 2003; Shiner et al,
2004; Tarling et al, 2004).
In view of these findings about the benefits and limitations of mentoring, can mentor
programmes be recommended as an intervention for young offenders or children who
are at risk of offending? Three main findings bear on this issue. First, many of thetargeted young people declined to participate in mentor programmes, while around 50%
of programmes in the Database Study were terminated earlier than planned and 54% of
mentees in the Depth Study could not be followed up, in most cases because ofwithdrawal from the programme. Although these problems are not specific tomentoring, the befriending nature of mentor programmes does not appear to havelessened them. Second, although mentoring has been found to produce improved
involvement in education and the community, and was reported by projects to improve
competencies such as literacy and numeracy, it is by no means clear that these
improvements are substantial enough to make a significant difference to the mentored
young people over the longer term. In particular, attempts to confirm the projects’
reports of such improvements using formal assessments in the Depth Study failed toprovide demonstrable evidence of changes in literacy, numeracy or behaviour. It seems
likely that most improvements detected by projects were modest gains in basic skills,
such as acquiring the ability to read a form, write a job application, operate a computer,or manage anger more effectively. Although these are important skills for young people

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004111

to possess if they are to lead independent social lives, it is arguable whether they will
prove sufficient to make a lasting difference, particularly if they are not supported.
Bearing in mind that an average mentor programme contained eight meetings – perhaps
20 hours of contact overall – it would be surprising if the result did ‘immunise’ theseyoung people permanently against the many difficulties they face.
The third consideration is value for money. Because mentors are community volunteers
who do not receive a salary, their potential value lies not just in effectiveness but incost-effectiveness. In practice, however, the average cost of mentor programmes overall,and particularly of programmes designed for black, minority ethnicity and hard-to-reachgroups, proved to be substantially more expensive than alternatives, such as the YJBETE schemes evaluated by Hurry and Moriarty (2003). These authors found thatETE schemes produced benefits, such as reintegration into education and basic literacy
and numeracy skills, very similar to those found for mentoring here. The costof ETE programmes, around £,2300 per young person, was much less than mostmentor programmes and close to being equalled by only a small number of the mostcost-effective LN mentor projects. Such projects were characterised by close links
with YOTs and other organisations, highlighting the importance of infrastructure
and administrative contacts with statutory organisations for project success andcost-effectiveness. In principle, all the mentor projects included in this YJB scheme hadconnections with statutory and community organisations, but in practice many projects
had great difficulty in communicating with YOTs, schools and other agencies, probably
because of understandable concerns about confidentiality as well as professionalboundaries and the pressure modern statutory services work under. That some mentor
projects overcame these barriers is heartening evidence that, at best, mentor
projects can deliver programmes at reasonable cost. However, this was the
exception rather than the rule.
Taken together, these findings raise doubts about any further deployment of mentor
projects as stand-alone interventions for young people who have offended or are at
risk of doing so. As noted above, a further follow-up using the HOPNC system iswarranted, in order to provide a larger sample and identify any carry-forward effects.
However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, mentoring is unlikely toprovide a cost-effective means of preventing or tackling youth crime. More positively,
lessons have emerged during this evaluation about the kind of services likely to beneeded to achieve this goal and about the role of mentor-like provisions within these
services. Below, we first summarise these lessons as recommendations for futureintervention projects, and then as recommendations for future evaluations ofintervention schemes.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004112

7.1 Lessons and recommendations for future intervention projects
Basing programmes on assessment of abilities and needs

This evaluation has added to others documenting the learning and psychologicaldifficulties of children and young people who offend or are at risk of doing so(Anderson et al, 2001). In the present Depth Study, almost half the participants met
criteria for clinical levels of hyperactivity, while more than half had emotional andbehavioural difficulties of clinical seriousness. As the Audit Commission (2004) has
recognised, problems with learning, psychological disability and family support areendemic in this group of young people, while ignoring them is very expensive forsociety.
It is not realistic to expect mentors, or even mentor projects, to be able to provide theassessments and resulting interventions needed by such young people. Instead, there is aneed for integrated expert services, where healthcare staff work alongside social,community, education and youth justice services. Because of the confidential andspecialised nature of much of the information involved, it is likely that these services
will need to be professionally run.
Taking account of young people’s views

The single most important barrier to programme delivery is the unwillingness of thetarget groups of young people to participate, raising the question of how to increase theappeal of the future programmes and interventions to them. Because many young
people in schemes such as this one are disaffected about formal education, it is also
perverse to think that they are likely to welcome or benefit from more of the same.
To some extent, these points identify the stumbling block: the programmes are often
designed by well-meaning adults for young people who do not see their value. In theearly stages of our evaluation, we had hoped to distinguish between young people whochose to take part and those who did so because of a court order, in the expectation thatvoluntary cases would benefit more. However, it became clear that many cases were notvoluntary in any meaningful sense of this word. Instead, with some exceptions, mentees
were coping with pressure from their schools, YOTs or other organisations by choosing
the least unpleasant option. In effect, the present youth justice system employs a set ofsticks and carrots, with schemes like mentoring providing a way of avoiding more
unpleasant penalties.
It would be naive to suggest that the solution is to ask the young people what theywant, but a step in that direction is clearly called for. Authorities are understandably
anxious to avoid the implication that offending is being rewarded, but failing to takeaccount of the wishes of young adults society has chosen not to take into custody isequally short-sighted. Just as statutory provisions for special educational needs alreadytake account of young people’s viewpoints (Audit Commission 2002), they need to be
consulted here. Schemes that are built upon the goals of young people and reward
progress are likely to increase the rate of programme take-up and delivery. By the same
token, mentor or other programmes in which boundaries are unclear andnon-compliance easy are unlikely to prove effective.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

113

Delivering programmes at a young age

One partial remedy to the problem of engaging young people in intervention
programmes, supported by findings here, is to deliver the interventions at a younger
age. By the time children grow into teenagers, they are more influenced by peers andless by parents and adults, compared with children of pre-adolescent age (Cole andCole, 1989). Since many incipient offenders can be identified during the primary-school
age period (Scott, 1998), while such children are more amenable to school and adultinfluence, the rationale for focusing on this earlier age-period is clear. For the YJB,
in particular, to focus before the age of criminal responsibility, currently set at ten yearsof age, raises legislative hurdles. Here, too, however, the way forward is for services
to work together, rather than to lose sight of the advantage of targeting a younger
age range.
Combining the valuable features of mentoring with those from other interventions

As documented here, mentoring has already evolved from its focus solely on
befriending to encompass the goal of delivering basic competencies that enable young
people to participate in society. By doing so, it has regained some of its roots, since theoriginal Mentor was a tutor, as well as adviser, to Ulysses’ son. Until recently, a second
defining feature of mentors has been that they are amateur, community volunteers.
However, this too is changing, with the development of college and even university
courses in mentoring, with associated qualifications and increasing professionalisation(Greenlaw and St James-Roberts, in press).
Given these changes, what features of mentoring distinguish it from other forms
of intervention and are worth preserving? In our view, at least, there are threedefining features.

The relationship between mentor and mentee is unequal, such that a more
knowledgeable mentor befriends and supports the development of a young person.
While unequal relationships are not specific to mentoring, the deliberate combiningof this with a caring, befriending, relationship is a characteristic feature.

Mentors represent the young person they are supporting and have no direct
statutory authority, responsibilities, or powers. At a time when social workers,
probation officers, and others involved with young offenders are increasingly taken
up with “administrative surveillance and control” (Barry, 2000), mentors are on theyoung person’s side and have his or her interests in mind.



The third defining feature, which arguably follows from the first two, is thementee’s trust in the mentor. Almost all mentor projects deliberately set out to build
a trusting relationship as the first step in the mentor programme, only introducing
other targets once this has been achieved. Given the stresses in the family
backgrounds of many young people who offend or are at risk of doing so, it is not
hard to appreciate why such a relationship should be valued. At least among thosewilling to engage, this study and others have confirmed that the target groups ofyoung people do trust their mentors.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004114

Elsewhere, we and others have argued the need for a new form of profession which
combines these mentor characteristics with other, more knowledge-based skills, such as
an understanding of legislation and statutory and local community provisions, and aknowledge of child and adolescent development (Greenlaw and St James-Roberts, inpress; Boddy et al, in press). This proposal is based on the profession of a “social
pedagogue” which manages to fulfil these requirements in several European countries(Boddy et al, in press). In effect, such a person combines the provision of care andeducation (with a small ‘e’) in a way that has so far eluded us in the UK. A briefing
paper which describes the pedagogic profession in more detail is available online (Petrie
et al, 2005). One potential disadvantage of developing such a profession could be tolose the voluntary, community contribution that mentors currently make. However, thecounter argument, supported here, is that youth crime is too important for society toleave to volunteers. More realistically, it is likely that a role for volunteers would
continue to exist, in partnership with professionally administered services.
Co-ordination of services over age

Throughout this evaluation, both projects and young people complained about the
duplication and confusion among services, so that young people were often targeted byseveral different voluntary and statutory organisations. Ironically, the dearth of services
that used to characterise this area has changed almost to an excess, with the lack ofcoherence and co-ordination between the provisions now being a major stumbling
block. As the findings here demonstrate, services need to be co-ordinatedadministratively and legally, so that information and planning can be shared. Because of
the communication barriers found between community projects and statutoryorganisations, this too implies a need for formally regulated, professional, services.
A different, but equally important point is that provisions for at-risk young people need
to be co-ordinated and to accumulate over time, rather than being delivered in single
doses. It is well established that the young people assessed here face multiple risks, withlong-term problems usually reflecting an accumulation of risks over time (Anderson etal, 2001; Hayward and Sharp, 2005). It follows that one-off programmes are unlikely tobe sufficient to reverse the impact of such risks. Instead, supports need to be provided
early wherever possible, but to be maintained and adapted across development untilyoung people are able to function autonomously. This, too, requires co-ordination
between services that have traditionally been kept separate.
Recent legislative changes in England and Wales which have resulted in the YJB,Children’s Trusts, and the prospect of joined up health, educational and social services(DOH, 2004a; DOH, 2004b; DfES, 2005b), offer a framework within which the kind ofservices and professionals called for above could operate and thrive. Equally, thecreation of child and adolescent mental health services, which bridge the divides
between psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals involved in promoting
mental health in young people, is a helpful step in the same direction (DFES, 2005a).
Whether the enticing prospect of joined-up services can be turned into reality will
become clearer over the next few years.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

115

7.2 Lessons and recommendations for future evaluation studies
In the absence of more rigorous forms of evaluation, such as randomised controlled
trials, evaluations such as this one are necessarily constrained in their ability to
distinguish causal processes and to provide confident explanations for the phenomena
observed. While we have not overcome these constraints, four strategies adopted in thepresent evaluation have proved effective in obtaining data of a relatively high quality
and increasing our confidence in the results obtained. These are as follows:

the centralisation of evaluation, rather than the use of multiple regional evaluators,
and the implementation of evaluation at the projects’ outset, rather than adding it on
after projects are under way.



the use of a standard, user-friendly database designed to help projects keep theiradministrative records and to provide basic information for evaluation purpose(database use by the projects was promoted and supported by regular contacts andtrial runs)

the use of multiple overlapping studies with different methodologies, designed toprovide complementary information and lessen the methodological weaknesses ofeach approachthe support and strong guidance given to the projects by Crime Concern andthe YJB.

In spite of the use of these strategies, data loss did occur, particularly in some projects
and in specific areas, such as information about offending and school performance.
These were minimised where projects were closely linked with YOTs or schools, adding
to the points made above about the importance of integrated services. Otherwise, thesingle most important remaining obstacle to evaluation proved to be the lack ofadministrative staff employed by projects to collect routine data. In view of the cost ofschemes such as the one examined here, it is in funders’ best interest to ensure thatbudgeting is earmarked for such administrative posts. We recommend that funding
bodies should specifically support and require their employment in the future.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

116

Appendix A Details of the logistic regression analyses

Each of the regression models contained one outcome and one predictor (except for
length of mentoring and number of mentor: mentee meetings, which were enteredsimultaneously as predictors in the same models). The predictor variables were enteredusing the block-entry method (entered simultaneously). The tables presented below
show the results for the significant models only. The first two tables (A1 and A2) show
more detailed information about the outcome and predictor variables entered into thebinary logistic regression models The third table (A3) shows the overall modelsignificance for each of the significant regression models. The remaining table (A4)shows the log odds ratios for each of the significant categories.
Table A1: Outcome measure information – all outcomes
Outcome measure

Categories

Notes

Number of programmes per
project that were delivered asintended or terminated early

1 =high (equal to or above
overall mean no. per project);
0 =low (below overall meanno.)

Projects were either
coded as having a ‘high’number of programmesdelivered as intended oras having a ‘low’ numberof programmes delivered
as intended.

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘Re-entry into
education or training’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees reentering education);
0 = ‘low’ (below average % of
mentees re-entering
education)

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘Improved
literacy’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees withimproved literacy);
0 = ‘low’ (below average % of
mentees with improved
literacy).

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘Improved
numeracy’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees withimproved numeracy);
0 =‘low’ (below average % of
mentees with improved
numeracy).

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘Other school
improvements’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees withother school improvements);
0 =‘low’ (below average % of
mentees with other school
improvements).

Using applicable data
only

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

117

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘improved family
relationships’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees withimproved family relationships);
0 =‘low’ (below average % of
mentees with improved family
relationships)

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘improved
community involvement’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees withimproved community
involvement);
0 = ‘low’ (below average % of
mentees with improved
community involvement)

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘completing
community orders’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees
completing community
orders);0 = ‘low’ (below average % of
mentees completing
community orders)

Using applicable data
only

Proportion of programmes
resulting in ‘young person
being arrested or charged
during the programme’

1 =‘high’ (average or above
overall % of mentees beingarrested or charged during the
programme);
0 =‘low’ (below average % of
mentees being arrested or
charged during the
programme)

Using applicable data
only

Table A2: Predictor variable information – all predictors
Predictor

Category notes

Project formulated clear
policies

1 = projects met the criterion (of formulating 8 ormore policies)
0 = projects failed to meet the criterion

0

Project Steering Groupmet

1= projects met the criterion (steering group met
at least once)
0 = projects failed to meet the criterion

0

Project Supervised
criterion number of
mentors

1 = projects met the criterion (projects hadsupervised at least 50% of its mentors)
0 = projects failed to meet the criterion

0Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

Reference
category inlogistic
models118

Project delivered
programmes to criterion
number of BME and LN
mentees

1= projects met the criterion (projects had tohave delivered programmes to at least 34% of
BME mentees (BME projects) or 50% LN
mentees (LN/DB projects)
0 = projects failed to meet the criterion

Length of programme andnumber of Mentee: Mentor
meetings

Length of mentoring:
1 =2-5 months
2 =5-10 months
3 =10+ months
4 = unknown length

Mentee age

0

4

Mentor meetings:
1 =high (8 or more meetings)
0 =low (7 or fewer meetings)

0

1 =10 to 12 years old
2 =13 to 15 years old
3 =16+ years old

0

Number of mentees per
project with any previous
offences
Project is YOT-based ornot

1 =any previous offences
0 = No previous offences
1 =project is based within a youth offending
team;
0 =project is based elsewhere (not in YOT)0

LN Project reached target
group

1 =LN projects had a high (average or above)
number of mentees with literacy and numeracy
problems;
0 = LN projects had a low (below average)
number of mentees with literacy and numeracy
problems

0

BME Project reachedtarget group

1 = BME projects had a high (average or above)
number of minority ethnic mentees;
0 = BME projects had a low (below average)
number of minority ethnic mentees

0

Number of programmes
per project classified as
one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential
mentoring

1 = one-to-one mentoring
2 =sequential mentoring
3 = multiple mentoring

1

Whether or not Mentee
and Mentor were matchedon gender

1 =mentee and mentor gender was the same;
0 = mentee and mentor gender was not thesame

0

Whether or not Mentee
and Mentor were matchedon ethnicity

1 =mentee and mentor ethnicity was the same;
0 = mentee and mentor ethnicity was not thesame

0Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

0119

Geographic area (using
YJB categories)

1 =East2 =East Midlands
3 =London
4 =North East
5 =North West
6 =South East
7 =South West
8 =Wales
9 =West midlands
10 =Yorkshire

3

Table A3: Goodness of fit information: significant models only
Model fit information (significant models only)
Outcome measures

Predictors

Proportion ofprogrammes per projectdelivered as intended or
terminated earlyProportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Re-entry into education
or training’







Negelkerke R
Square5Mentee age

0.007

Number of programmes per projectclassified as one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential mentoring

0.006

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.004

Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.071

Project Supervised criteria number of
mentors

0.078

Mentee age

0.044

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.013

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.011

5

Negelkerke R Square is used in logistic regression models to approximate the % variance explained inlinear regression, and is a descriptive measure of goodness of fit. The values for the Negelkerke R Square
range from zero to one. In a model where the Negelkerke R Square value is 0.1, this is considered to
explain 1% of the variance in the dependent variable.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

120

Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Improved literacy’








Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Improved numeracy’







Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Other school
improvements’







Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.138

Mentee age

0.024

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.016

LN Project reached target group

0.197

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.030

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on ethnicity

0.032

Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.180

Project Supervised criteria number of
mentors

0.007

Mentee age

0.034

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.023

Project is YOT-based or not

0.146

Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.096

Project Supervised criteria number of
mentors0.082

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.036

Project is YOT-based or not

0.159

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.013

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

121

Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Improved family
relationships’








Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Improved community
involvement’








0.089

Project Supervised criteria number of
mentors0.072

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.011

Project is YOT-based or not

0.146

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.021

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on ethnicity

0.014

Project Steering Group met

0.073

Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.101

Project Supervised criteria number of
mentors

0.104

Mentee age

0.043

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.033

Number of programmes per projectclassified as one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential mentoring

0.032

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.008



Number of Mentee: Mentor meetings

0.108



Project is YOT-based or not

LN Project reached target group

0.011

Number of programmes per projectclassified as one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential mentoring

0.039

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on ethnicity

0.025


Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Completing community
orders’Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetingsYouth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

0.164

122

Proportion ofprogrammes resulting in‘Young person beingarrested or charged
during the programme’







Length of programme and number ofMentee: Mentor meetings

0.036

Mentee age

0.031

Number of mentees per project withany previous offences

0.100

Number of programmes per projectclassified as one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential mentoring

0.006

Whether or not Mentee and Mentor
were matched on gender

0.008

Table A4: Log odds information – significant models only

Each table that follows shows the significant log odds information for each predictor.
The outcome measure is shown in the first column.
The Exp(B) column indicates the change in odds resulting from a unit change in thepredictor. For instance, in the first table below the Exp(B) of 3.37 tells us the odds of ayoung person being involved in new community activities increases by over three times
within a project where a steering group met at least once.
The C. I. column indicates the confidence interval of the odds ratio. The 95%
confidence interval has been reported. In the same example (first odds table below), thismeans there is a 95% probability the odds ratio lies between 1.05 and 10.87.
Predictor 2: Project Steering Group met at least once
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)C.I.

New community
activities

Reportedsteering
group met
at least
once (1) vs.
did not (0)

0.042

3.37

1.05–10.87

Predictor 3: Project Supervised at least 50% of mentors
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)C.I.

New community
activities

Supervised
highproportionof mentors
vs. did not

0.039

5.15

1.09–24.39

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004123

Predictor 5: Length of programme
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Re-entering
education

2–5 months
vs. under 2months

0.010

1.84

1.16 – 2.93

5–10 months
vs. under 2months

0.001

2.53

1.49 – 4.29

10+ months
vs. under 2months< 0.001

4.28

2.31 – 7.92

Literacy
improvements

10+ months
vs. under 2months< 0.001

4.14

1.99 – 8.59

Numeracy
improvements

5–10 months
vs. under 2months

0.010

2.25

1.21 – 4.16

10+ months
vs. under 2months< 0.001

5.39

2.53 – 11.48

Other school
improvements

10+ months
vs. under 2months

0.019

2.07

1.13 – 3.80

Improvement infamilyrelationships

5–10 months
vs. under 2months

0.034

1.88

1.05 – 3.35

10+ months
vs. under 2months

0.001

2.83

1.52 – 5.27

2–5 months
vs. under 2months

0.013

1.88

1.14 – 3.10

5–10 months
vs. under 2months

0.022

1.91

1.10 – 3.31

10+ months vsunder 2months< 0.001

3.86

2.05 – 7.27

Invalid/missing
dates vs under2 months

0.018

2.62

1.18 – 5.81

5–10 months
vs under 2months

0.003

2.34

1.33 – 4.14

10+ months vsunder 2months

0.009

2.480

1.25 – 4.91

Newcommunity
activities

Not arrested onprogramme

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004124

Predictor 6: Mentee age
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Programme‘delivered fully
as intended’

age group
10 to 12 vsage group
16+

0.004

1.56

1.16 – 2.11

Re-entry into
education

age group
10 to 12 vsage group16+< 0.001

3.36

2.00 – 5.64

age group
13 to 15 vsage group16+< 0.001

1.90

1.41 – 2.57

age group
10 to 12 vsage group
16+

0.001

2.42

1.47 – 4.00

age group
13 to 15 vsage group
16+

0.006

1.61

1.15 – 2.26

age group
10 to 12 vsage group16+< 0.001

3.04

1.81 – 5.10

age group
13 to 15 vsage group
16+

0.008

1.58

1.13 – 2.22

Other school
improvements

age group
10 to 12 vsage group
16+

0.018

1.78

1.10 – 2.86

New community
activities

age group
10 to 12 vsage group16+< 0.001

3.46

2.17 – 5.53

age group
13 to 15 vsage group
16+

0.045

1.38

1.01 – 1.88

age group
10 to 12 vsage group16+< 0.001

3.30

1.96 – 5.56

Literacy
improvements

Numeracy
improvements

Not arrested onprogramme

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004125

Predictor 7: Number of mentees per project with any previous offences
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Re-entering
education

Not
offended vsoffended< 0.001

2.26

1.49 – 3.42

Literacy
improvements

Not
offended vsoffended

0.009

1.86

1.17 – 2.96

Numeracy
improvements

Not
offended vsoffended

0.002

2.08

1.31 – 3.32

Other school
improvements

Not
offended vsoffended< 0.001

2.46

1.59 – 3.79

Change infamilyrelationships

Not
offended vsoffended

0.017

1.55

1.08 – 2.23

New community
activities

Not
offended vsoffended< 0.001

2.30

1.56 – 3.39

Not arrested onprogramme

Not
offended vsoffended< 0.001

8.77

4.41 – 17.24

Predictor 8: YOT-based projects or not
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Numeracy
improvements

YOT-based
vs not YOT
based

0.033

9.62

1.12–77.40

Other school
improvements

YOT-based
vs not YOT
based

0.027

10.53

1.31–84.46

Improvement infamilyrelationships

YOT-based
vs not YOT
based

0.033

9.62

1.12–77.40

Completing
communityorders

YOT-based
vs not YOT
based

0.010

7.64

1.63–35.72

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004126

Predictor 9: LN projects reached target group
OutcomePredictor
categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Literacy
improvements

Reachedyoung people
with LN needs
vs did not

0.032

7.58

1.19–47.62

Numeracy
improvements

Reachedyoung people
with LN needs
vs did not

0.181

3.30

0.57–18.87

Predictor 11: Number of programmes per project classified as one-to-one, multiple
mentoring, and sequential mentoring
OutcomePredictor
Categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Programme‘delivered fully
as intended’

Multiple
mentoringvs single

0.008

1.97

1.20–3.23

Re-entering
education

Singlementoringvs multiple

0.029

1.92

1.07–.3.43

Improvement infamilyrelationships

Singlementoringvs multiple

0.003

2.42

1.34 – 4.37

New community
activities.

Singlementoringvs multiple< 0.001

3.90

2.22–6.85

Completing
communityordersSinglementoringvssequential

0.013

3.36

1.29–8.77

Singlementoringvs multiple

0.008

3.67

1.398–9.616

Singlementoringvs multiple

0.015

1.95

1.14–3.33

Not arrested onprogramme

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004127

Predictor 12: Whether or not Mentee and Mentor were matched on gender
OutcomePredictor
Categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Programme‘delivered fully
as intended’

Female(mentees)male(mentors)
and male-female
vs male-male

0.030

1.26

1.02 – 1.55

Re-entry into
education

Female-female vsfemale-male

0.015

1.59

1.09 – 2.31

Literacy
improvements

Female-any vsmale-any

0.013

1.82

1.13 – 2.91

Any-female vsany-male

0.016

1.48

1.08 – 2.03

Other school
improvements

Female-female vsmale-female

0.021

1.63

1.08 – 2.47

Improvement infamilyrelationships

Female-female vsmale-female<0.001

1.91

1.33 – 2.74

Any-male vs anyfemale

0.003

1.56

1.16 – 2.10

New community
activities

Female-male vsmale-male

0.015

1.58

1.09 – 2.29

Not arrested onprogramme

Female-female vsmale-female

0.015

1.58

1.09 – 2.29

Predictor 13: Whether or not Mentee and Mentor were matched on ethnicity
OutcomePredictor
Categories

SignificanceExp(B)

C.I.

Literacy
improvements

White mentors
vs ethnic
minority<0.0012.40

1.52 – 3.80

Numeracy
improvements

White mentors
vs ethnic
minority

0.001

2.23

1.40 – 3.54

Improvementin family
relationships

Ethnicminority
mentor vs
White

0.002

1.81

1.23 – 2.66

Completing
communityordersEthnicminority
mentor vs
White

0.004

3.15

1.03 – 9.62

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

128

Appendix B: Criteria for project selection in the
Depth Study

Criteria were devised for selecting projects to include in the Depth Study part of theevaluation, as follows:
Essential criteriaMust be up and running and being implemented effectively.

Must have mentoring relationships under way.

Must be working with sufficient numbers of youths (>20 pa) and/orMust be innovative or particularly interesting.

Must be willing and able to collaborate with us in the data collection needed for the
Depth Study.

Must allow a geographical spread.

Other considerations affecting choice

Need to include approximately equal numbers of LN and BME schemes.



Need to include unusual schemes (e.g. travellers).



Look at long versus short mentor programmes.



Look at mentor versus other-delivered LN.

Crime Concern nomination.

The projects were regularly contacted to ascertain whether they were using theMentoring Evaluation Database and to assist them with any enquires that they may
have had. They were asked how the project was doing and to provide information about
their progress.
Once we had sufficient information on the status of the projects, they were matchedagainst our criteria (which we also included in our ‘End of Year One Report’ to the
YJB). We contacted Crime Concern and asked them to identify projects that they felt
fitted our criteria, and requested that they describe why any such projects should be
included in the Depth Study. We asked them to consider the length of mentoring (shortversus long), and who delivers literacy and numeracy (mentor versus tutor) as things wewould be interested in comparing between projects. We carefully considered all theirsuggestions, while adhering to our criteria.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

129

Because of this process, we identified 36 projects (one dual project, 15 BME and 20
LN) which were potentially suitable for inclusion in the Depth Study. We then contacted
the 36 projects via email, saying that we would like to discuss with them the possibilityof taking part in the Depth Study. We asked for the appropriate person to liaise with, anda time when it would be appropriate to telephone them to discuss this. It was anticipatedthat some would not want to take part, while, with others, it would not be feasible interms of recruitment cycles or for other reasons.
Twenty-five projects responded, and we attempted to contact the remainder, eventually
speaking to nine more. We discussed our ideas for carrying out the Depth Study withthese projects and asked them for their thoughts and ideas. They were encouraged to say
if they did not want to participate. We also reviewed with them their total number ofmatches to date, waiting lists for mentors and mentees, and planned recruitment.
With LN projects, particularly, we discussed using use the Basic Skills Agency’s Initial
Assessment (BSA) as a standardised measure to assess the young people’s level ofnumeracy and literacy at baseline and outcome. Several schemes were open to the ideaof using the BSA assessment, once they had seen it.
Twelve projects were not interested in taking part in the Depth Study (they either did not
respond to further communication, or stated that they were not interested). The main
reason given was that they already had too much to do and not enough time.
Finally, six BME and six LN projects were selected for inclusion in the Depth Study. All
the LN projects agreed to use the BSA assessments. We wrote to the remaining projects
to tell them that we would not need to include them in this part of the evaluation and toprovide reasons for this.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004130

Appendix C: A comparison of young people interviewed
and not interviewed at follow-up in the Depth Study
The tables below show the attrition between baseline and outcome in each of the
projects that provided young people for the Depth Study.
Table C1: Mentored group – percentage of young people interviewed at outcome withineach projectInterviewed at outcome

Mentor projectNo

Yes

number% withinproject

number% within project

Project A

5

36

9

64

Project B

5

56

4

44

Project C

11

73

4

27

Project D

4

36

7

64

Project E

8

89

1

11

Project F

6

86

1

14

Project G

6

60

4

40

Project H

3

21

11

79

Project I

9

45

11

55

Project J

10

77

3

23

Project K

2

100

0

0

Project L

5

39

8

62

Total

74

63

Project type

number% within type

number% within type

BME

38

59

27

42

LN

36

50

36

50

Total

74

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

63

131

Table C2: Comparison Group – Percentage of young people interviewed at outcome
within each projectInterviewed at outcome

Comparison
ProjectNo

Yes

number% withinproject

number% withinproject

Project 1

8

89

1

11

Project 2

2

29

5

71

Project 3

1

50

1

50

Project 4

2

33

4

67

Project 5

4

50

4

50

Project 6

4

50

4

50

Project 7

9

100

0

0

Project 8

2

33

4

67

Project 9

2

86

1

14

Project 10

0

0

6

100

Project 11

7

25

21

75

Project 12

0

0

2

100

Project 13

5

71

2

29

Total

50

55

Table C3: Proportions of young people reinterviewed at outcome by genderInterviewed at outcome

GenderNo
Mentored groupYes

number% withingendernumber% withingender

Male

57

56

45

44

Female

17

49

18

51

number% withingendernumber% withingender

41

49

42

51

9

40

13

60

Comparison
group
Male
FemaleA higher proportion of males than females were not reinterviewed in both the mentored
and comparison groups.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

132

Table C4: Proportions of young people reinterviewed at outcome by age
Interviewed at outcome

Age

No
Mentored groupYes

number% withinage
groupnumber% withinage
group

Up to 12

10

31

22

69

13-15

47

68

22

32

16+

17

47

19

58

number% withinage
groupnumber% withinage
group

Up to 12

4

22

14

78

13-15

36

51

35

49

16+

10

63

6

38

Comparison
group

In the mentored group, a higher proportion of young people aged 13 to 15 were notreinterviewed than young people in the other age categories; in the comparison group ahigher proportion of those aged above 16 were not reinterviewed.
Tables C5 and C6 below show how the proportions reinterviewed and not reinterviewed
broke down across ethnicity and reported recent offending:Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

133

Table C5: Proportions of young people reinterviewed at outcome by ethnicity
Interviewed at outcome

Ethnicity

No
Mentored groupYes

number% withinethnicgroup

number% withinethnic
group

White

48

48

53

53

Mixed

13

81

3

19

Asian or Asian
BritishBlack or Black
British
Other

1

33

2

67

10

83

2

17

1

100

0

0

number% withinethnicgroup

number% withinethnic
group

White

34

45

42

55

Mixed

6

43

8

57

Asian or Asian
BritishBlack or Black
British
Other

1

50

1

50

8

80

2

20

Comparison
group

0

0

Table C6: Proportions of young people reinterviewed at outcome by whether committed
recent offence
Interviewed at outcome

Committed
offence in last 3
monthsMentored group

No

Yes

number% withinoffendingtype

number% withinoffending
type

Yes

57

56

45

44

No

17

49

18

51

Number% withinoffendingtype

number% withinoffending
type

Yes

38

57

29

43

No

12

32

26

68

Comparison
group

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

134

Appendix D: Crime categories

Below is a breakdown of the various crime categories used. The “have you ever…”
questions which all the young people in the Depth Study were asked are listed in regular
text; some individual examples of spontaneously reported “other things you have done
which might have got you into trouble” are given in italics.
Vehicle theft (of and from)

taken a motorbike or car without owner’s permission?

stolen anything out of or from a car?

Other theft and handling stolen goodsstolen money from a gas or electricity meter etc?

stolen anything from any kind of shop?

stolen anything from a family or friend’s house?

snatched anything from a person, like a purse?

bought, sold or kept stolen goods?

stolen anything from anywhere else?

Burglarygone into any other house or building intending to steal anything?

Violence against personthreatened someone with a weapon or to beat them?



got into a fight in public somewhere?

beaten up on hurt anyone in your family causing them to need medical treatment?

beaten up or hurt someone not in your family causing them to need medical
treatment?

hurt someone that did not need medical treatment?



hit my brother so hard he had a black eyeassaulted a police officer



assault

Fraud and forgery

used or sold a stolen credit card, chequebook or cash etc?

Criminal damage

damaged or destroyed anything (not by accident) like phone box or windows?

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

135



written or sprayed graffiti on walls etc?



set fire to anything on purpose like a building?

Drug offencessold drugs to someone else?

smoking drugs etc.



middle man – re drugs

buying drugs

Other



been a passenger in a car taken without owner’s permission?

driven a car or other on public road without license?

driven a car or bike while drunk or over the limit?



carried a weapon?



offensive weapons in flat, butterfly knife, strange things in flat

yes – sending hate mail to important people – sending bugs through emails

bunking train without paying – once

trespassing (3 times a week)/ jumping over a fence

threw an egg at someone in the street / egged places / egging people’s windows at
Halloween

got reprimand for holding boulder with friend over a pass

had sex under age.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

136

Appendix E: The Reconviction Study

Matching data to the Home Office Police National Computer(HOPNC) system
There were several stages in the matching process before the final file for analysis wasarrived at. In total, 2,898 cases of the 4,941 cases sent to the Home Office (HO) weresuccessfully matched against information held on the HOPNC (Home Office Police
National Computer) system. This group represents 59% of total cases sent. This left
2,043 (41%) cases unmatched. Of these, the HO could not match 1, 010 cases to the
HOPNC on any of the key criteria (date of birth, full name or sex of young person), andfor the rest, they either did not match one of these criteria, or they represented caseswith no offending history.
Computing the variables for measuring offending

The number of offences is computed by aggregating the file output by the HOPNC
system (which is at the offence level – i.e. many rows are equal to many offences for thesame person) to the person level, and at the same time, counting the number of rows
(equal to offences) per person.
Offending severity was more complicated to arrive at. Although the HOPNC system hasa measure of severity for each offence in the file, it is partially ordered. This means that
it is not possible to be certain that a grade 7 offence is the most severe, or that a grade 5
is more severe than a grade 4. The YJB have their own system of measuring severity(Youth Justice Board, 2003) which is linear and ordered. It was decided that theoffences in the HOPNC system would be awarded a severity grade based on the YJB,
rather than the HO system. This was achieved by matching up the long description andthe HOCODE (a variable in the HOPNC file) which is a code for each offence, to theoffences used within the YJB severity index. This was possible for 95% of the offences,
so 5% of the data could not be analysed in terms of severity.
When the file was aggregated, severity was taken to be the offence with the highest
severity grading (of all the offences per person).
Data omissions

Some cases were omitted along the way for various reasons. Perhaps the most importantomission is the loss of the Depth Study comparison group (non-mentored) cases. All the
non-mentored interviewed cases lacked 12-months worth of offending data after the key
date. Taking six months after the key date (instead of 12) did not retain many more of
the non-mentored cases and was not favoured because it did not allow enough time tomeasure offending rates reliably. Therefore, the period for comparison of offending was
set at 12 months.
We also omitted cases because of ‘data cleanliness’ issues. For example, date of birth
was examined and some of young people were found to be too young at the baseline or
too old at the follow-up assessment to match the evaluation sample, and so were omitted
from the analysis. These omissions amounted to approximately 33 cases.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

137

Appendix F: Project thumbnails

Between September and November 2004, we carried out structured telephoneinterviews with 79 projects, interviewing the project co-ordinator wherever possible.
The purposes of the interviews were to obtain the key descriptive features of eachproject and to enable a thumbnail sketch to capture the uniqueness of each project.6
Listed below are the thumbnail sketches, including each project’s main features, theproblems the project team faced, how they were overcome, and their main successes, asreported by the project.
BIAS mentoring project 8DB/002
The BIAS Mentoring Project is both numeracy and literacy and a BME project. It isbased in the London Borough of Brent and works with Irish young people. They are astand-alone organisation and they have strong working links with other Irish
organisations e.g. Federation of Irish Societies, Action Group for Irish Youth and the
Irish Traveller Movement. They provide their mentors with three days in-house training
and bring in a specialist for child-protection training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy is delivered by mentors, but not every young
person requires numeracy and literacy assistance. Those that do, mostly get help withhomework. Mentoring includes developing social skills, life skills and, occasionally,
advocacy work. They provide assistance in getting young people onto training courses
and applying for courses. Mentoring is attended on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Young people from the travelling community were a difficult group to engage. Noneactually ended up participating despite the fact that we put in a considerate amount ofeffort. We also had some problems in recruiting/retaining staff. There have been a few
individual successes e.g. one young person who was at risk is now doing very well.
Base mentoring scheme 8DB/004
The Base Mentoring Scheme is both numeracy and literacy and a BME projectbased in Birmingham. They are part of a charity and in a partnership between statutory
services (the Youth Inclusion Programme) and a voluntary agency. They have strong
working links with local schools, YIP, YOT, and Birmingham Mentorpoint. They
provide their mentors with an induction of two sessions (three hours per session), withthe option to do an OCM-level course in mentoring. Training is provided both in-houseand out-house. Mentoring is delivered following the counselling model.

6

Once the interviews had been written up, the projects were sent a copy for verification.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

138

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The project also carries out a lot of group work and provides
activities two or three times a week. Numeracy and literacy is delivered by a tutor. In
the first cohort, they all did a programme of numeracy and literacy work andassessment, but it was too difficult to engage them in this, so the focus shifted awayfrom this. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills, citizenship, advocacy
support and residential work. Youth workers also worked with the young people.
Mentees are always sent on external courses. The young people attend mentoringon a purely voluntary basis and the project check throughout that they are still happy
to attend.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We found it difficult to engage young people in terms of doing appropriate numeracy
and literacy work with them. However, because we worked with a specialist school, we
could refer them to that centre. Our successes lay in re-engaging young people into
education and reducing offending. Of the young people, 90% have not been rearrested
or engaged by social services for anti-social behaviour.
Just Us mentoring project 8DB/005
The Just Us Mentoring Project is a BME project based in the London Borough ofWandsworth. The Wandsworth YOT and the charity Rainer established the project fromfunding provided by the YJB. The project is based within the YOT offices. They havestrong links with social services, some secondary schools and other agencies within theborough. They provide their mentors with over 30 hours of in-house training and also
provide continuous supervision once they have been matched with a young person.
Mentors are able to work towards a BTEC Level 3 accreditation, ‘Mentoring in the
Criminal Context’.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet on a weekly basis for 6–12
months in a community setting. The mentors act as positive role models, encouraging
the young person to realise their true potential while challenging negative behaviour andthoughts. If other needs, such as social skills, literacy, numeracy, or life skills wereidentified, the mentor will help if he/she can. If the issues were outside the Project’s
remit, the young person would be referred to the relevant worker within the YOT or an
outside agency. The young people always attend mentoring on a voluntary basis and it
has never been part of an order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The relationships we’ve built with partnership organisations like the YOT have reallycontributed to preventing some of the young people from offending or reoffending. We
also really value the fact that our volunteers can get an accredited qualification.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004139

Matching Chances 8me/004
Matching Chances is a BME project based in Bradford. They are part of a charity called‘Himmad’ but are affiliated to the YOT and are located on YOT premises. They havestrong working links with local schools and colleges, training agencies, and parents.
They provide their mentors with twelve hours in-house and out-house training.
Mentoring is based on the Cognitive Behaviour Model.
How mentoring is carried out

Staff mentored some young people as well as allocating mentors to them. Mentor andmentee meet weekly for 6 to12 months but some left at the end of a short-term order,
after three months. Mentor and mentee meet sometimes at project premises and also inother youth service buildings. Mentoring includes the development of social and life
skills and advocacy work. The project occasionally sent mentees on external courses
such as motor mechanics and IT. Numeracy and literacy is delivered by mentors
occasionally, and on a needs basis. Over 90% of the young people were attending
mentoring as part of their order (Referral, Supervision, Detention and Training Orders)
although some continued beyond the end of their orders.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Obtaining feedback sheets back from the mentors was difficult and we had to keepchasing them. Overall, we saw a reduction of youth offending; last year about 87%
didn’t reoffend. Some young people with long-term behaviour problems, who had beenabandoned by all other agencies, settled down and got back into training, improved theirattendance at school and improved their family relationships.
From Boyhood to Manhood Mentoring Foundation 8ME/009
The From Boyhood to Manhood Mentoring Foundation (FBMF) is a BME projectbased in the London Borough of Southwark. It is a subsidiary of the Peckham-based
community organisation SASS, which has worked with young people in Southwark forthe past 17 years. FBMF have strong working links with youth and community
organisations, Police, Army, Working Links, Government Office for London, magistrate
courts and local schools. They provide their mentors with one to two days of outhousetraining. Mentoring is provided on the Oasis Mentoring Model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring involves developing social and life skills and advocacy
work, based on the individual’s needs. The project sometimes sends mentees on externalcourses. The young people attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Our main success was with the students who went into college.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

140

Catalyst Mentoring Project for Minorities 8ME/013
The Catalyst Mentoring Project for Ethnic Minority is a BME project based in the Cityof Leicester. They are part of a company with charity status that is limited by guarantee
and have formal links with the Youth Justice Board via the YOT (financial link), and the
Leicester Racial Equality Council (management link). They also have strong working
links with the YOT, Connexions, LSC, Mentorpoint and Leicester City Council. The
project provides their mentors with ten hours of in- and out-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has two to three mentors. They meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Occasionally there have been group situations where two mentoringgroups have joined together to mentor a client. One of this programme’s distinguishingfeatures was that it created a system that allowed mentors and mentees to select eachother. This process was only helped, not instigated, by the Project Staff and in 80% ofcases the mentors and mentees were happy with whom they were paired. The Young
Offender Institution (YOI) Project enabled two mentees to be mentored by two sets ofCatalyst mentors while they were in YOI. Mentoring continued for one mentee after his
release. This particular mentoring relationship was one of the most successful, as thebond between the mentee and the mentors had been established while he was in prison.
This showed up a gap in the market where young offenders could be mentored while
they are in prison and continue to be mentored on their release. Mentoring provides
general support, particularly around school work and progress, including thedevelopment of social and life skills, anger management and advocacy work (although
the youth offending team is responsible for courses such as anger management). The
project has liaised with Endeavour Training (an outdoor pursuits training scheme) andhas put one Mentee onto their programme. The young people attend mentoring on a
voluntary basis but it is sometimes a voluntary part of a court order.
Project description of difficulties and successes

1.

Getting young people to turn up for meetings. We tried to overcome this bycontacting mentees on the day they were due to have their meetings. Sometimes
this proved successful, at other times we were unable to contact them so they did
not turn up to the meeting.

2.

Getting mentors to send in feedback sheets that can be forwarded to the YOT tokeep Case Managers in the information loop. We attempted to overcome this issue
by keeping in constant telephone and written contact with our mentors. When we
spoke or wrote to them, we would remind them of the importance of sending
feedback sheets back.

3.

Getting mentee referrals from the YOT. We succeeded in negotiating an in-house
audit that was carried out by the YOT Team Leader into why referrals were notbeing made. This turned out to be a very useful vehicle to remind Case Managers of
the importance of referring mentees to the project.

4.

Getting extra funding to continue the project (this turned out to be totally
unsuccessful which led to the project closing). Our attempts to mainstream the
project within the YOT were also unsuccessful.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

141

5.

We succeeded in establishing nearly fifty mentoring relationships over a
two-year period.

6.

Nearly thirty of these were completed.

7.

We were successful in establishing a unique system for matching two mentors to
one mentee.

8.

We succeeded in establishing a wide steering group comprising representatives
from the voluntary, statutory and public sectors.

The Voyage Scheme 8ME/022
The Voyage Scheme is part of the charity Reading Refocus. It is a BME project based in
Reading and Wokingham who has strong working links with YOTs, education, social
services, mental health services, prisons, the police and the borough council. They
provide their mentors with three days in-house training (a total of 15 hours). Mentoring
follows the Dalston Model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6 to 12 months in
a community setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by a tutor if requiredby the young person. The project sometimes sends mentees on external courses. Youngpeople attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One of our main difficulties has been staff turnover. We’ve had an overlap in staff but
not had the same person all the way through. Our success lies in the match between thementor and the mentee, if that works, it just flies.
Mentoring Plus 8ME/023
Mentoring Plus is a BME project based in Peterborough. They are part of theCambridgeshire and Peterborough YMCA and have strong working links with theChildren Social Care Team, police, community safety and other voluntary service
organisations. They provide their mentors with 26 hours in-house training. The
programme originally followed Dalston Model, but was modified according to need.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The project sets out to develop social and life skills and involves
advocacy work as appropriate. Numeracy and literacy assessments are carried out by the
project or referring agency; the project help assess their level or need and, where
necessary, refers them on or deal with this separately. The project also sends mentees on
external courses which may be for fun or academic. The young people always attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

142

Project description of their difficulties and successes

Funding has been a huge issue, especially as we have achieved great results but have so
far been unable to secure further funding. We also found the relationship with the YOTvery difficult to manage and there were areas of conflict with all the statutory sector
agencies around professional boundaries – for instance in regard to advocacy and dataexchange. On the positive side, a good proportion of our mentees have shown to havebenefited hugely from our input and there have been some notable turnarounds. Also,
the creation of the Better Together Initiative (volunteer recruitment and development)
has been very exciting for the whole of the city and a tremendous model for all of us towork towards, increasing true partnership working.
Create 8ME/024
CREATE is a BME project based in the London Borough of Croydon. The project is apartnership between Croydon Young People’s Project and Croydon Youth Development
Trust. They have strong working links with Connexions, EMAS, PRUs,
Unaccompanied Minors Project, social services and YOTs. They provide their mentors
with a six-week in-house training programme which consists of three hours per evening.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The project also carries out group work regarding peer pressure,cultural identity, anger management, and bullying. Mentors provide support withnumeracy and literacy on a needs basis. They develop young people’s social and life
skills and some advocacy work is involved. The project also takes the young people totheir own internet café and they are sent on courses as needed, such as modern
apprenticeship courses. The young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

In the first year we had lots of teething problems. We moved away from theinitial target group of refugee and asylum seekers as many services were already on
offer to these groups and also mentoring is not really part of their culture. So we moved
to hard-to-reach young people via PRUs and YOTs. We also had huge problems
recruiting male mentors. On the successful side, we have had quite a few individuals
who have not reoffended and have got themselves back into mainstream school, jobs
and apprenticeships.
Connect Mentoring Project 8ME/028
The Connect Mentoring Project is a BME project based in Westminster. They are part ofa YOT and are located in YOT premises. They have strong working links with
Education and social services. Connect provide their mentors with 90 hours initialtraining, followed by one-to-one supervision and a training evening every month.
Training is provided both in-house and out-house. Mentors can also access Westminster
staff-training programmes provided by the social and community services department.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

143

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The project also runs bi-monthly group activities. Mentoring does
not formally provide social skills, life skills, anger management or advocacy but thesecan be done on a one-to-one basis when needed. The young people attend mentoring
purely on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The main difficulty has been with funding. This terminates on 31 December 2004 at
which point the project ceases to operate. Also some volunteers have been unreliable
and their commitment questionable. Others have been brilliant and very committed. On
the positive side, we’ve got about 14 pairs still involved in mentoring. This is from theoriginal 20. Some mentors are onto their second or third match. One of the mostenjoyable aspects of the project has been activity and group outings.
Amigo’s Mentoring Scheme 8ME/029
The Amigo’s Mentoring Scheme is a BME project based in Southend. They are partof a YOT and have strong working links with social services, Connexions, Education,
Social Inclusion and Fledglings/Swans (part of DOVE project). They provide their
mentors with 20 hours in-house training. The mentoring model is based on RPS Rainerand NCB mentoring.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Support with numeracy and literacy is provided by the mentor if theneed is identified. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills. The young
people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

There were difficulties around parents not giving enough support to the mentoring,
although they like the idea, their expectations were problematic. In addition, there weredifficulties with recruitment, the CRB and funding. But there were also masses ofsuccess, for example, a football team was set up, sponsored by local solicitors. The
majority of our mentoring relationships have ended positively with over five targets met
and we’ve recruited over 100 mentors.
The Telemachus Programme 8ME/030
The Telemachus Programme is a BME project based in Enfield and Barnet. They arepart of a charity called Motivation and Personal Success Ltd and have formal links with
the YOT where they were partly based. They have strong working links with
Connexions, schools, PRUs, social services and Leaving Care Teams. They provide
their mentors with a total of 40 hours in-house training and additional on-going training.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

144

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly in a community
setting for nine months. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills, advocacy
work and the project can refer young people to other services for anger management.
Every summer and Easter they do external activities such as Go-Karting or the
Chessington World of Adventures. Mentoring is provided as a voluntary service but
about 10% of the young people are on custody licence and the referring agency may
have written the mentoring into their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The database has been a bit of a nightmare and we would have preferred to havedeveloped our own. It just needed a bit more sophistication, for example, to run reports,
do reminders and gather statistics. On the successful side, there is the fact that ourrecruitment has been really successful and referrals are just endless. We’ve had a lot ofkids go back into school that had been excluded. Meeting the needs of our borough has
also been a real success.
Right Track 8ME/031
Right Track is a project of The Children’s Society based in Bristol. It works with Blackand minority ethnic young people, aged ten to 17, who are involved in, or at risk of
becoming involved in the Criminal Justice System. The project receives referrals from a
range of sources, including parents, carers, the YOT, social services, schools, andConnexions. There is a six to eight week mentor training programme delivered in houseby the mentoring co-ordinator.
How mentoring is carried out

The project works with both paid and voluntary mentors. The paid staff are all fromBlack and minority ethnic backgrounds, to reflect the client group. They are also
allocated young people with more complex needs, due to their higher levels of skills andexperience. Volunteer mentors come from all sections of the community. Dependent onpolice checks and suitable references, they are then inducted as mentors. Following an
initial assessment of needs, a plan is devised with the young person outlining the
proposed focus for the work. There is an expectation that the mentor will meet with theyoung person once a week, for up to one year. The project aims to review their workwith young people every three months. This enables them to monitor progress, andclose pieces of work positively, when appropriate.
Right Track aims to work with all young people on a voluntary basis. If the young
person is on court order, it may be that an introductory session at Right Track is
included in the requirements of the Order, but following that initial meeting, if theyoung person decides they do not want to work with Right Track, they will not be
penalised, and will simply complete their order with the YOT. The project’s work within
the Criminal Justice System covers the whole range of Orders available to the Courts,
from ASBOs, through Referral Orders, Supervision and ISSPs.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

145

Project description of their difficulties and successes

When linking a young person to a mentor, as a project, we try to find the most suitableperson, matching interests, skills and experience. Our experience at Right Track is that
if the young person wishes to engage, the working relationship tends to be more
successful and things run smoothly. One of the main difficulties is around logistics, inthat many of the families we work with can have quite a chaotic existence, and soremembering and keeping appointments can prove tricky.
Right Track has worked with a number of volunteer mentors over the years. They haveall come from varied social, economic and cultural backgrounds. They were all
successfully linked to young people, doing a range of activities, such as bowling, thecinema, day trips out, swimming, museums, exhibitions, art activities, and developing
literacy and numeracy skills. While the focus of the work is around the Criminal Justice
System and providing alternatives to crime, we also try to adopt a holistic approach. The
mentors are clearly there as someone with whom the young person can spend ‘quality
time’, discussing whatever issues might be pertinent for them, whether they are getting
into trouble with the police or difficulties at home or school.
Shaathi 8ME/032
SHAATHI is a BME project based in Tower Hamlets and the City of London. They arepart of the ‘Brick Lane Youth Development Association’ and have strong working links
with the YOTs, and other local youth clubs and projects.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12
months in a community setting. The project operates in a culturally sensitive
manner and tries to recruit mentors who had similar problems when they wereyounger. Some of the young people are engage in literacy work, for example, writing areport on a workshop. Mentoring includes the development of social and life skills andadvocacy work. Mentoring is voluntary; however, about 20% of the young people areon Referral Orders.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Choosing the right mentors has been very difficult but now we have approximately
thirty. It has also been difficult obtaining sufficient referrals. We overcame this by
networking with schools and other agencies and getting referrals from them. In terms of
our success, a group of five are doing extremely well; another five to seven young
people are doing reasonably well. Their reoffending rate has been very minimal – out of
the 50 from last year, only two have reoffended to date.
Mentor Me 8ME/039
Mentor Me is a BME project based in Merseyside and Liverpool 8 postal district. They
were originally part of the Elimu Academy but have now merged with Novas Overtures.
They have strong working links with the YOTs, social services, police, Youth Clubs andConnexions. Mentor Me provide their mentors with 36 hours studying mentoring
followed by practical mentoring training over a further 25 weeks. Training is provided
both in-house and out-house.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

146

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months
in a community setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by mentors andafter-school staff who spend about half-hour on this per week. Mentoring includes thedevelopment of social and life skills and advocacy work. The project always sends
mentees on external courses, for example to Connexions, Disc programmes and any
activity that the young people are interested in. The young people attend mentoring on apurely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Our main difficulty was not enough funding. Our successes lay in reintegrating young
people back into mainstream school, stopping their offending behaviour and getting
them to change their way of thinking.
My Choice 8ME/040
My Choice is a BME project based in Liverpool. They are part of the ‘National Youth
Advocacy Service’ and have strong working links with YOTs, ISSP, and other voluntaryand community organisations such as the Unity Youth Club, Liverpool Law Centre, andthe Stanley House Football Club. They provide their mentors with 35 hours in-housetraining and then complete a 24-hours basic counselling certificate.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring includes the development of social life skills and the
project organises an outward bound course every year. The young people attend
mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Sometimes it was difficult getting the young people to engage. Also, coping with
gun-crime was problematic, one mentee was shot dead, another seriously injured. We
got involved with the Disarm Trust and set up a group in Liverpool. We’d like todevelop an anti-gun education programme. On the positive side, we’ve got about fivementees onto modern apprenticeships.
Mentoring Plus 8ME/045
Mentoring Plus is a BME project based in Manchester. They are part of the ‘Manchester
Council for Community Relations’ and have formal links with the YOT. They also havestrong working links with Connexions, local schools, youth centres and the Education
Project. They provide their mentors with two half days and one full day core training
and additional training one day a month over four months. Training is provided both inhouse and out-house.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

147

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring is education and employment focused. The projectalways send mentees on external courses which involved regular group excursions andresidential courses each holiday period. The young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We’re a city-wide project and work in all areas of Manchester; sometimes it’s difficult
to do group activities as young people often don’t want to meet in other areas. We also
found that young people were reluctant to maintain the relationship with mentors
without their own transport, as they wanted a door-to-door service. We thought it would
be useful for young people to have a base they could come to, for example, to use acomputer, but we are based in Mosside so young people from other areas would find it
difficult to come here. Also we were held up for a long time due to the CRB checks. We
only had one intake of recruitment per year and in hindsight, two intakes would be more
beneficial. From a management point of view, we found the residential courses work
best in small numbers of ten to fifteen young people.
On the positive side, we had a large number of referrals and good recruitment ofmentors. We were able to work with other government initiatives, for example, PAYP,MAGS and Crime and Disorder teams in other areas and other agencies. Also the factthat we have referrals from other agencies (other than YOT) shows that the service isrecognised and valued.
Back on Track Islington 8ME/046
Back on Track Islington is a BME project based in London. They are part of the charity‘PRESET’ and have strong working links with Connexions and the YOTs. They provide
their mentors with approximately nine to twelve hours training and on-going support.
The project used the Dalston model when they were setting up and are part of a the
National Mentoring Network
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring includes ESOL and basic skills classes. Of the young
people, 80% have been referred by YOTs and have to attend.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Funding has been a difficulty. Other than that, everything is running smoothly and the
young people are very motivated to participate.
Mentoring Plus Lewisham 8ME/049
Mentoring Plus Lewisham is a BME project based in the London. They are part of‘Crime Concern’ and have strong working links with YOTs, social services, youth
inclusion support panels (YISP), PRUs and other local agencies. They provide their
mentors with three days and two evenings training which is provided both in-house andout-house. Mentoring follows the Dalston Model.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

148

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring involves developing social and life skills, anger
management and advocacy work delivered through various workshops. The project does
not send mentees on external courses but will provide information on courses. This year,
some young people have been spending about three afternoons a week doing numeracy
and literacy work which is delivered by a tutor. The young people attend mentoring on apurely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The main difficulty has been non-attendance of some of the mentees, particularly
amongst the older ones who have a lot of personal issues. Main successes have been
seen in young people re-entering education, part-time employment and soft outcomesaround attitudinal changes and motivation.
Redbridge Mentoring Project 8ME/051
The Redbridge Mentoring Project is a BME project based in the London. They are partof the ‘YMCA’ and they have strong working links with YOTs, social services,
Connexions, ISSP, Empower and DAS. They provide their mentors with two full days
training followed by on-going training of three hours per month. Training is provided
both in-house and out-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring develops social and life skills and anger management.
Numeracy and literacy support is also delivered, when needed, by mentors. Fifty% of
the young people are from Black ethnic minority groups and the highest need is toimprove literacy and numeracy skills. The young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Sometimes mentors have given up half-way through, get other commitments or the
young people don’t need the support after several months or when back in school. In
order to overcome this, we would try to rematch the young people. Our biggest successhas been in engaging young people in the project.
First Steps 8ME/058
First Steps is a BME project based in Surrey. They are part of the ‘Rainer’ charity andhave formal links with the YOT. They also have strong working links with social
services, schools and a wide range of organisations. They provide their mentors with 42
hours in-house training. The project focuses on travelling children.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

149

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for anything
between one and 12 months. Mentor and mentee meet in a community setting
and work on social skills and life skills, anger management and advocacy work as
needed. The project occasionally sends mentees on external courses. Numeracy andliteracy is supported through a tutor. The young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

It was difficult to break down barriers of the wider community’s perception of
travellers and gypsies and we had to do a lot of training and awareness-raising.
However, because it was the first of its kind, it’s all been a success. Successes have beenin breaking down barriers, working with the kids, and networking. Everybody has beena success in this project.
3c’s 8ME/060
The 3c’s is a BME project based in Sandwell. It is a stand-alone organisation andhas formal links with the YOT and has strong working links with voluntary bureaus,schools and social services. They provided their mentors with one full day mentoringawareness, and some have the opportunity to do an OCN qualification in mentoring (30hours). Some volunteers completed the Basic Skills Awareness (four evenings) courseand several accomplished Training Qualification 9282. Training is provided bothin-house and out-house. The generic training programme is devised in partnership with
the Probation Service.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring includes working on social skills, life skills andadvocacy work. Young people can spend up to two and a half days per week on working
on numeracy and literacy skills. Provision is based on need and delivered by a tutor andmentors who have done the 9282 qualification. The majority of young people attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis but in about 10% of cases, case managers have madementoring part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Problems arose due to the diversity of the clients – some had no interest in education.
We had to work really hard with the youths and with their parents to get them tounderstand their responsibilities. On the positive side, we’ve had some young people
who’ve re-engaged into school, who’ve done work experience, college courses andgone into employment. We’re bombarded with referrals but could never offer enoughspaces to keep up with demand.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

150

Positive Choices 8ME/063
Positive Choices is a BME project based in Wolverhampton. They are part of Nacro andhave formal links with the Learning Skills Council. They also have strong working links
with YOTs. The project provides their mentors with eight hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly in a community
setting. Length of mentoring is based on need or related to an order. Mentoring
involves developing life skills and the focus is on reducing criminal activity. The
project sometimes sends mentees on external courses, for example, football andfirst aid. Most of the young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis. About 30%of those attending were YOT referrals and had mentoring as part of their orders(especially ISSP).
Project description of their difficulties and successes

There were problems with the YOT when we worked with outside agencies i.e. in thecompletion of paperwork. The project was established specifically to work with YOT,
but we didn’t get enough referrals from them. We tried to overcome this by doingpresentations, holding meetings and generally by trying to address the issues with the
YOT. We were successful in ensuring, in the short-term, that most of our mentees
understood the process of mentoring and that their behaviour and attitude had to bemodified in order to allow them to progress. Overall, the funding we received was
well-needed in Wolverhampton to work specifically with BME males and their families.
PRESET 8ME/065
PRESET is a BME project run with the national network of PRESET, which has six
projects in Ealing, Hackney, Islington, Newham, Westminster, and Slough, and hasdelivered projects in Lambeth and Southampton. They are a stand-alone organisationand have strong working links with YOTs, social services, PRUs and Connexions. They
provide their mentors with approximately 9-12 hours in-house training including ongoing support. Mentoring initially followed the Dalston model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills. Some young
people have needed basic skills support and English so the project has run classes.
While they are attending the classes, the volunteers give one-to-one guidance. A tutordelivers numeracy and literacy support which involves about three, half days per week.
In addition, some people get mentors outside of the classes if they have a specific need.
The project encourages their mentors to empower the young people and sometimes send
them on external courses. For example, they have recently gone on a residential course
which focused on personal development. While the majority of the young people attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis, at least 15% have mentoring as part of their order.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

151

Project description of their difficulties and successes

We try to get young people back into education but it can be difficult because ofresistance to their background, for example, exclusions. Also, a lot of young people arequite apathetic and it’s difficult to get them to attend on a regular basis. To overcome
this, we try and think of creative ways to encourage them. Our successes include quite afew of the young people who’ve done the E and M course, reaching a standard where
they could sit GCSEs.
UR SHOUT Mentoring Project 8ME/066
The UR SHOUT Mentoring Project is a BME project based in Luton. They are part of‘Crime Concern’ and the ‘Safer Luton Partnership’. They have formal links with the
YOT and have strong working links with the Youth Inclusion Programme and the Drugs
Education Unit. They provide their mentors with about 15-20 hours in-house training
over two weekends.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months
in a community setting. The project also holds regular gatherings every two months
with all mentors and mentees and is now also starting to work in schools. Mentoring
includes the development of social life skills and they send people on residential
courses for example, team-building. The young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We’ve had problems with some drop-outs on both sides. It’s been hard balancing
referrals and mentors. Our successes have been with the contact that’s been maintainedwith the young people, even after the mentoring has ended and the peer mentoring thatwe’ve started doing within the schools.
Enrichment Mentoring Project 8ME/068
The Enrichment Mentoring Project is a BME project based in the London Borough of
Merton. They are a stand-alone organisation working in partnership with the YOT. They
also have strong working links with individuals within social services and local schools.
The project provides their mentors with 15 hours in-house training. Their mentoring
programme was developed from the Dalston model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months
in a community setting. Mentoring is very much tailored to young people’s needs andcan include developing numeracy, literacy, social and life skills. Numeracy and literacy
support is delivered by the mentor with support of a tutor. The project also sometimes
sends mentees on external workshops, for example, on identity, confidence-building.
The vast majority of young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis however
if they had come via YOT, some individuals had attending mentoring as part of theircare plan.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

152

Project description of their difficulties and successes

One difficulty was maintaining mentors as they are voluntary. We tried to overcome thisby paying their expenses, providing nice food for them at events, arranging childcare if
they needed it to attend courses. Our biggest success was the preventative work we didin schools; we found this was more fruitful in working with the young people.
Oldham Mentoring Plus Project 8ME/070
Oldham Mentoring Plus is a BME project. They are a stand-alone organisation andhave formal links with Connexions and strong working links with the YOT, Drug
and Alcohol team, Adult Guidance and the Youth Service. They provide their mentors
with two days out-house training including in-service training on issues such as drugs
and alcohol.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. They also have links with a Community Centre where they areallocated a meeting room. The project focuses on social skills, life skills, empowerment
and carry out some advocacy work. They also send mentees on residential courses
focusing on empowerment and self-esteem. The young people all are on orders which
specify mentoring as a voluntary part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One of the biggest difficulties initially was the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks.
A local problem was that the YOT was going through changes and moving premises. On
the positive side, the voluntary Youth Groups we linked with are carrying on thementoring work.
Black Palm Mentoring Project 8ME/072
The Black Palm Mentoring Project is a BME project based in South Yorkshire. They area stand-alone organisation and have strong working links with Black Card and EMAS.
They provide their mentors with approximately 6–7 hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly in a community
setting. There is no time limit on the mentoring relationship. Mentoring involves
developing social skills, life skills and advocacy work. Young people are referred bytheir schools and the youth offending team.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Our main difficulties have been with funding and staff turnover. Attracting and retaining
mentors has also been a problem and we tried to overcome this by developing an hourly
rate for the mentors. On the other hand, seeing one or two kids coming out the other end
with more positive thoughts and ideas was really positive.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

153

On Track Empowerment Network Mentoring 8ME/073
On Track Empowerment Network (OTEN) is a BME project based in North andEast Northants. Formed through a partnership between the local Black community
and the YOT they have strong working links with The Alliance for Black Children(ABC), the YOT, and Children and Families Services (IPS). OTEN provides volunteer
mentors with a twenty hour core training programme with additional training andsupervision thereafter. Training is provided both in-house and through external
providers. Mentors and mentees are encouraged to regularly participate in group
activities alongside project staff.
How mentoring is carried out

Initially mentoring was set up to run traditionally with each young person being
allocated one mentor with whom they met weekly in a community setting of theirchoice. However, the project is now more flexible in its approach. Numeracy andliteracy is on hand via related on-site and/or allied projects but, is not a specific part ofthe programme. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills. The project has
also linked the young people into courses, and educational, social and recreational
activities supported by the mentor. All the young people attend mentoring on a
voluntary basis, though approximately 5% have mentoring as a voluntary part ofan order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes:

Available, appropriate and suitably committed adults are hard to find. Lack of sufficientcommitment from volunteers has been problematic in part because local capacity isquite limited due to being based in a rural area. Even those we have engaged with havelacked commitment towards the project or have been drawn away from the projectthrough a variety of other personal circumstance. We tried to overcome this by offering
regular supervision, telephone contact and mail-outs. We have had a significant numberof young people, including peers of some of the young people we worked with, who are
relating to us and expressing interest in the opportunities we are providing. Some aredeveloping confidence, social skills, better attitude and behaviour towards adults, andshowing a marked improvement. From our point of view as an organisation, we’ve beenenabled to make some headway through the project and are at a point now that we canbuild on. It’s brought us some distance travelled.
Relations with allied groups and organizations in our area have also developed and wehave involvement and on-going dialogue in a number of forums, for instance alongside
the police, Local Authorities, Residents Associations, CASPAR and Community Safety
Partnerships, and the Drug Reference Group.
We have established a weekly ‘youth session’ in a local neighbourhood venue to enable
regular and on-going contact with our target group. Future work possibly needs to betargeted towards a younger cohort and is likely to entail more group work, and supportand interventions for parents/carers. The challenge lies in identifying and securing
sufficient resources to enable a sustained level of activity and intervention over asignificant period.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

154

M-One Plus Mentoring Project 8ME/074
The M-One Plus Mentoring Project is a BME project based in Oxfordshire. They arepart of the Youth Service and have strong working links through their Steering Groupchaired by the Racial Equality Council, with representatives from Social and HealthCare, Connexions, the YOT and local schools. They provide their mentors with 25 hours
in-house training, accredited by Open College Network, level three with additional 25
hours mentoring. The programme follows the Mentoring Plus model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for about three hours
per week in a community setting. The project aims for mentoring relationships to last 12
months. The young people also attend group workshops and residential courses such as
outward bound courses. Mentoring developed social and life skills, numeracy andliteracy was provided if needed, and advocacy work. The young people attend
mentoring on a completely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

There were no particular difficulties. Recruiting enough volunteers of theright background and skills was always an issue but no more than anywhere else. We
also faced some prejudice about targeting unaccompanied child asylum-seekers. The
work with child asylum-seekers has been very successful. Also we’ve done a lot ofwork with mixed-race young people around cultural identity and that’s been an area ofreal success.
Fusion Mentoring Plus Project 8ME/080
The Fusion Mentoring Plus Project is a BME scheme based in Derby City. They are partof a YOT and are located in YOT premises. They have strong working links with
Connexions, PRUs, SOVA, the Youth Service, Derby Black Police Association and theMediaworks project. They provide their mentors with ten hours core in-house training
and on-going monthly support and development meetings. Initially, the project followed
the Newham model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet for a 12 month programmeof weekly mentoring in a community setting. The programme includes developing
social and life skills and advocacy work. The project also sends mentees on externalcourses such as drug awareness training. All the young people attend mentoring on a
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Our main difficulty was capacity – from last November we didn’t have full-timeadministration and had one numeracy and literacy support worker (as opposed to two asplanned). Our success was in the development of various projects in the community toincrease social inclusion (successful partnership work such as drama, music workshops
and film projects) and the development of community links. These all supported theindividual mentoring programmes.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004155

Baseline Mentoring Project 8LN/001
The Baseline Mentoring Project is a numeracy and literacy project based inSouthampton. They are part of a YIP and are located in YIP premises. They have strong
working links with the YOT, local schools and local youth projects. They provide their
mentors with approximately ten hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The mentor delivers numeracy and literacy according to need. For
example there is one young person who has not been to school much due to a serious
illness, and is now is using the mentoring to catch up with their school work. Whereassome of the young people need help with other things in their lives, and when theseissues have been resolved they will be in a better position to concentrate on numeracy
and literacy. Mentoring also develops social and life skills. The young people attend
mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Main problems have been where relationships have broken down and this mainly been
due to staffing difficulties. For instance, there was a three-month gap where the mentors
had no support, in addition the life circumstances of the mentors often changed, forexample, by moving area. There were also staffing problems when the project was firstset up. On the positive side, some of our matches have been absolutely fantastic andyoung people have gone to college and are doing really well, so mentoring ended
because was no longer needed.
Buddy Plus+ Project 8LN/002
The Buddy Plus+ Project is a numeracy and literacy scheme based in Derbyshire andDerby City. They are part of ‘Read On – Write Away!’, an organisation that provides
opportunities for local people in Derbyshire, especially those in disadvantaged groupsof any age, who wish to become involved in literacy projects or improve their own
literacy skills. Buddy Plus+ has strong working links with local YOTs, Connexions,
PRUs, schools and social services. They provide their mentors with three full days’
in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by the mentor, on
average, taking up about 50% of mentors’ and mentees’ time together (though thisvaries based on need). Of the young people referred by the YOTs, all are offered the
project on a voluntary basis. Of those young people on Referral Orders 35% may have it
written on the voluntary part of their contract, but this is purely voluntary.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

156

Project description of their difficulties and successes

I took-over half-way through, when it wasn’t running particularly well. The nature of
the three year funding doesn’t allow enough time for set-up and then just as you start
doing your best work, funding becomes a major crisis. In addition, because Derbyshireis such a huge county, matching volunteers to young people without them having totravel long distances was difficult. We have a very good relationship with the local
YOTs therefore many young people have, if nothing else, built up a rapport with anadult, someone they can chat to and begin to trust. In two or three cases, the YOT casemanager has said the mentor relationship is the most positive one that young person has
with an adult.
North Lincolnshire SOVA Volunteer Scheme 8LN/003
The North Lincolnshire SOVA Volunteer Scheme is a numeracy and literacy project.
They are part of SOVA and have strong working links with YOTs, Children’s Services
and the Princes Trust. They provide their mentors with a six-week in-house training
course, totalling three hours per week.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentors deliver numeracy and literacy support and time on thisvaries according to need. The project sometimes sends mentees on external courses, forexample, Learn Direct and a Forklift driving course. The young people attend mentoring
as a voluntary part their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The lack of male mentors was problematic. Also, as we are a very large county, it was
hard to match people locally – for instance, mentoring could sometimes end up
involving a 50-mile round trip for mentor and we couldn’t afford the expenses for this.
Our successes include getting kids back into school and a lot of soft outcomes, forexample, kids becoming more punctual, self-confident, writing their own CVs andletters. It was rewarding getting someone onto Learn Direct with their mentor, and thenseeing that they kept attending.
Stockport “3 R’s to Success” Mentoring Project 8LN/006
The Stockport “3 R’s to Success” Mentoring project is a numeracy and literacy scheme.
They are part of the Local Authority Education service and have strong working links
with YOTs, social services and all main agencies. They provide their mentors withapproximately seven hours in-house training and on-going training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. They spend one week focusing on numeracy and literacy within
school/PRU/project environment and one week on a one-to-one basis doing an activityof their choice. The numeracy and literacy work is done within schools, assisted by the
mentor as learning support and takes about two hours per month formally, plus informal
work as well. Mentoring also involves developing life skills. The young people attend
mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

157

Project description of their difficulties and successes

We haven’t had any real difficulties. We kept the project very small so mentors had lotsof support. It’s been a good experience.
Gloucestershire YOS Basic Skills Mentoring 8LN/007
Gloucestershire YOS (Youth Offending Service) Basic Skills Mentoring is numeracy
and literacy project set up in partnership with CSV (Community Service Volunteers).
They are part of the YOS and have formal links with the Education Welfare Service
through its secondment. As a result, they have strong working links with local schools,
community and voluntary organisations, the police and Connexions. Mentors arevolunteers supplied through CSV, and various training sessions are provided in-house as
well as sessions delivered by other agencies (e.g. child protection).
How mentoring is carried out

The service is available to any young person known to the YOS where numeracy andliteracy difficulties have been identified. Each young person has a planned mentoringtime that varies according to need. They could meet, in a community setting, for up to
three sessions a week, or more, for the duration of a court order or Final Warning
Programme. Mentoring includes the development of key, social and life skills andadvocacy work. Participation is voluntary and each mentoring relationship is matchedaccording to individual needs with additional interventions provided through the YOS.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One of the difficulties has been the mobility of mentors due to the geographical size ofthe county and lack of frequent public transport in the more rural locations. Where
English is not the mentor’s first language it has proved a challenge to engage theindividuals. Engaging the young people and finding appropriate activities will continue
to be a challenge. The successes of the service are evident in the number of young
people who successfully complete their orders and through the mentors who havechosen the YOS to gain full-time employment as officers throughout the organisation.
ACCESS Mentoring Scheme 8LN/012
ACCESS Mentoring Scheme is a numeracy and literacy project based in Wiltshire.
They are part of a youth offending team (YOT) and located within the YOT. They havestrong working links with Young People’s Support Service, Connexions, and the
ACCESS Education project. They provide mentors with two days in-house training
including voluntary training three times a year on specific topics e.g. anger
management, bullying.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

158

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly, in the community, forapproximately 6–12 months. Mentoring support is offered to young people known to the
YOT who have high risk scores on the education section of Asset (often those who havebeen excluded from school or who are otherwise out of full-time education or training).
Mentors focus on building social skills and self-esteem and supporting the numeracy
and literacy provision provided by the Young People’s Support Service and Access
Education Project. Where young people are participating in the ASDAN scheme (Award
Scheme Development and Accreditation Network), they are supported by their mentors
on identified pieces of project work. Where possible, the project also links young people
in with external courses run as part of Summer Activity Programmes (e.g. health andsafety, food hygiene, craft courses etc.). The young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis and approximately 25% mentoring as a voluntary part of their orders(e.g. Referral Orders, Supervision Orders, and ISSP).
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The original formulation of the numeracy and literacy mentoring scheme was shown by
experience to be impractical, both in terms of lack of venue, likely numbers of referrals
from the education project, and the likelihood of attracting the commitment of young
people to voluntarily attend additional ‘numeracy and literacy’ provision . It wasapparent that a large number of young people known to the YOT are missing out on
their education because of emotional and behaviour difficulties and poor social skills(which have often led to their exclusion from school). The Mentoring Scheme felt it
necessary to target these areas as a priority, since these factors limited them accessing
numeracy and literacy in the first place. The scheme found that by building trust anddeveloping a young persons relationship with their mentor, they were much more likely
to motivated about their education, and to reintegrate to appropriate provision; mentors
were thus able to specifically support and encourage young people in achieving their
Individual Education Plans and to access the literacy and numeracy provision alreadyavailable to them. There have been significant individual successes (young people
successfully entering employment/training/further education, improved attendance, drop
in offending rates etc.). Using mentors to support ASDAN work has been particularly
successful, although the extent this can be used is limited by the need for the
programme to be co-ordinated by the main educational provider (mentors do not havesufficient time with a young person to complete an award on their own and can only
supplement an existing programme). Mentors have also successfully engaged withyoung people on educational visits and specific pieces of project work outside ASDAN(e.g. mural and art and crafts work).
North Yorkshire Basic Skills Mentor Project 8LN/013
The North Yorkshire Basic Skills Mentor Project is a numeracy and literacy scheme
based in North Yorkshire, E Yorkshire and Leeds. They are part of a charity called
DISC and run the project in partnership with the YOT. They have strong working
links with the Probation Service, Job Centre Plus, NHS, prisons and drug organizations.
They provide their mentors with 20 hours training which is provided both in-houseand out-house.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

159

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months.
They dealt with hard-to-handle YOT cases and provide a lot of in-reach and out-reachservices, following the young people in and out of prison. The mentor spends around
75% of their time providing numeracy and literacy provision and in addition, they focus
on developing social skills. About 60% of those attending mentoring were doing so as
part their ISSP.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Difficulties were only encountered because of the severity of the cases. We started toenable them to gain qualifications, getting them back into school or education. Several
studied for City and Guilds. We improved their self-confidence and as a result, one or
two started thinking about college.
Literacy and Numeracy Project 8LN/015
The Literacy and Numeracy Project is based in Mid Wales. It is managed by a voluntaryorganisation, registered as a charity, and a Company limited by guarantee. The
organisation has formal links with Probation and social services and strong working
links with the YOT, the Social Inclusion Unit of the Local County Council, Schools,
PAVO and SOVA. All mentors are required to undertake four days core training which
is provided out-house by SOVA. This training is OCN accredited at Level 2.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person accepted onto the project is matched with a mentor with whom theymeet weekly for 6–12 months in a community setting. Mentors deliver on average one
to two hours per week numeracy and literacy support to their clients through a variety ofactivities, which include cookery, IT, and leisure outings. The project sometimes sends
mentees on external courses but this is very limited as it covers a vast, rural area
(approximately 2000 square miles). However, earlier this year six mentees from acrossthe county were organised as a group to partake in a Forest School project incollaboration with the local YOT and the Forest School for Mid-Wales, delivered one
day a week over seven weeks, and mentors provided transport. Young people attend
mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We would have liked to do more group work but it was incredibly difficult togather young people to a common area and time. We have tried to organise mentoringgroups at our three office sites on Wednesday evenings but travelling distance, limited
facilities and lack of space dictates that one-to-one engagement makes most efficientuse of our resources.
On the success side, we have actually had young people who’ve come into the project in
the later years of secondary education, who have been at risk of exclusion, but havegone on, with the help of their mentors, to complete school, take GCSEs and progress tocollege or into employment.

One young man completed an NVQ at Level 1 and moved on to Level 2. When hestarted working with his mentor he didn’t think he could even manage level one.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

160



Two brothers who, due to substance misuse, were excluded from school and at riskof being institutionalised because of repeated and serious offending behaviour,
successfully engaged with a mentor resulting in the younger one returning to school
and the older one embarking on a vocational Access course at the local college.



Another young man, who was out of school for two years, was persuaded by his
YOT officer to consider doing a Maths GCSE and eventually, with 5 months
mentoring, achieved GCSE in Maths and is now in employment.

Young females on the project have enjoyed similar successes.



Monitoring assessments carried out by the Project Co-ordinator show that young
people engaging with mentors on the project display continued improvement inliteracy and numeracy skills.



Responses gathered from ‘Leaver’ forms indicate that young people, who haveengaged on the project with a mentor, have all learned something, have enjoyedhaving a mentor and would have a mentor again.

The project has been well received by schools as they’ve seen pupils, who were at
the edge of exclusion, successfully engaged with mentors, and we’ve managed to
get them to re-engage, take and achieve end of school exams and move on.

It’s given young people self-respect and self-confidence and enthusiasm forlearning.

At the end of its first year the project achieved the National Mentoring Network
Approved Provider Standard.

Literacy and Numeracy Mentoring Project 8LN/019
The Literacy and Numeracy Mentoring Project is in West Berkshire District Council. It
is part of the YOT and the project co-ordinator is housed in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).
The project has strong working links with local PRUs, schools, Further Education
Colleges and a whole range of YOT linked agencies. It provides mentors with six
sessions of in-house training of 2-2.5 hours each.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for approximately 6–
12 months. The criterion for matching is necessarily based on access because the project
serves a large geographical area. However it has been possible to match appropriately
skilled mentors with suitable young people. The mentor and mentee meet wherever
appropriate, at home (if suitable), school, YOT or at PRU premises. Although they
initially targeted at 13-16 year olds, the project has accepted referrals for 10-18 year
olds and since April 2003, additional funding from the Children’s Fund enabled the
project to target 10-13 yr olds. Numeracy and/or literacy programmes are delivered bymentors for about one hour per week but this can vary e.g. more often if young person isapproaching exams or less if a mentee is employed. Mentoring can also include
developing life skills. All young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis and tenout of the 30 young people were on some sort of order when they were referred.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

161

Project description of their difficulties and successes

Problematic issues are those which affect the continuity of mentoring that result fromthe complexities of young people’s lives – e.g. life styles, disaffection, and school
exclusions. On the successful side, we’ve seen a healthy recruitment of appropriately
skilled, high calibre and committed volunteers. Project history to date has proved thatmentoring can pay a valid and influential role in youngsters’ lives, giving them a highquality learning experience. Most importantly, mentoring has given them a strong voicein directing the content and shape of mentoring programmes. Despite the project’s small
size, we’ve supported some youngsters through school exclusions; got them GCSE’sand have been able to represent them in a positive fashion to their families, schools andwithin the youth justice system.
3r’s 8LN/020
The 3r’s is a numeracy and literacy project based in the Walsall Borough. They are astand-alone organisation and have formal links with the YOT. They also have strong
working links with the Volunteer Bureaux, schools and social services. The projectprovide their mentors with one day training in mentoring awareness, then somevolunteers have the opportunity to do an OCN qualification in mentoring (30 hours).
Some mentors have also completed a course in Basic Skills Awareness (4 evenings) andsome did the City and Guilds 9282 Initial Certificate. Training is provided both in-houseand out-house; the generic mentoring training was devised in partnership with theProbation Service.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring develops social skills and involves advocacy work.
Numeracy and literacy is delivered by a tutor and by some mentors who have completed
the 9282 qualification. Young people can spend up to two half-days per week on
numeracy and literacy, though it is delivered on a needs basis. For approximately 10%of cases, the YOT have made mentoring part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Gathering information on young people’s needs was difficult through lack of linkage.
We worked with a lot of people who were on the roll at school but not actually attending
but we couldn’t get a support mechanism for them. We tried to overcome this by making
tight links with the PRU and the parents, to enable them to actively find more suitableeducational provision. This was quite a lengthy procedure. On the successful side,
we’ve had some young people who’ve re-engaged into school, obtained work
experience, completed college courses and found employment. We are bombarded withreferrals, and could never offer enough spaces to keep up with demand.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

162

S.T.E.M 8LN/021
S.T.E.M is a numeracy and literacy project based in Halton and Warrington. They arepart of a YOT and are located in YOT premises. The project has strong working links
with local schools and the education department. Initially, they provide their mentors
with about six days training with additional specialist training in specific areas e.g.
evenings on mental health, first aid, child protection. Training is provided both in-houseand out-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy is delivered by mentors. At the beginning ofa programme, very little time is spent on numeracy and literacy, though it increases overa few months to an average of once a fortnight. The mentor also develops the young
person’s social skills and life skills. Mentoring is attended on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

I feel we’re tied in too tightly to the numeracy and literacy and a few relationships broke
down because the young people didn’t want numeracy and literacy provision. In future,
I would like to look at doing a double-match partly from safety point of view. There
have been pockets of success with young people who no longer need a mentor because
reintegrated/finishing school.
Waves 8LN/022
Waves is a numeracy and literacy project based in the Weymouth and Portland areas ofDorset. They are part of the Children’s Society and have strong working links with the
YOT and local senior schools. They provide their mentors with a 13 week in-housetraining course of one hour per week including additional ad hoc training as required.
How mentoring is carried out: Each young person has one mentor with whom theymeet weekly for 6–12 months in a community setting. Numeracy and literacy isdelivered by mentors. Depending on the needs of the young people, mentoring also
includes developing social and life skills, anger management and advocacy work.
Mentoring is attended on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes: Referrals were often slow,
however, we made an effort to forge strong links with YOT which was successful. We
found that some of the young people really benefited from the numeracy and literacy
support, others had different needs that were greater. But overall it really helped build
young people’s confidence, self-esteem and social skills. We had a couple who wereyoung offenders and truants, and mentoring helped get them back on track.
MaDE (Making A Difference in Education) 8LN/028
MaDE is a numeracy and literacy project based in Lancashire and is part of Lancashire
Youth Association. They have strong working links with YOTs and the National
Probation Service.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

163

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person is matched to a community volunteer mentor with whom they meet
regularly for up to 12 months in a community setting. The mentor and young person
undertake a variety of numeracy and literacy -based activity as well as working throughthe IT based “Success-maker” package. Young people attend mentoring on a purely
voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The main problem was the lack of funding which did not reflect the size andgeographical diversity of the county. However, the project was successful in training
volunteers in paired reading and the Success-maker package, consequently increasing
skills in the community. Some young people did get support but not enough due to alack of resources
Headstart Plus 8LN/029
Headstart Plus is a numeracy and literacy project based in Torbay. They are located inand part of the YOT although from September 2003, mentoring has been delivered inschools. They have strong working links with local schools. The project used existing
volunteers and staff to provide mentoring.
How mentoring is carried out

Mentoring was delivered in groups with a maximum of six young people to a minimumof two mentors then splitting into more individual sessions. Each mentoring programme
was six weeks long. Mentoring took place in a range of different local secondary
schools, including an excluded group at a college and a local special school. Numeracy
and literacy is delivered by mentors. The first three groups focused on numeracy andliteracy but later groups focused more on behaviour issues. The mentors developedsocial skills, life skills, and carried out advocacy support when needed. The project also
referred young people on to external activity programmes. All youths attended
mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

This is a long-term sustained piece of work that needed a longer duration. It could haveachieved so much more with a longer life span and more resources. The recruitment andretention of mentors was difficult. Although some young people were reallyenthusiastic, others felt forced into it by their school. It doesn’t work for all.
On the positive side, it gave the young people the opportunity to think about their
behaviour and its consequences, and we found some on-going support for them after the
programme ended. Although numeracy and literacy was the main target, the secondary
target was to maintain the young people in school and we managed to help some people
to maintain and value school.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004164

Motorvate Mentoring and Literacy Scheme 8LN/030
Motorvate Mentoring and Literacy Scheme is a numeracy and literacy project based in
Leicester City. They are part of the charity ‘Leicestershire Community Projects Trust’and have strong working links with Student Support services, YOT and Connexions.
They provide their mentors with a full week’s initial in-house training, and subsequent
training on accreditation, child protection and other relevant issues.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The mentor spends about 75% of each session on delivering
numeracy and literacy. The project has used the Edexcel Literacy Schemes of Work andan element of life skills, anger management and social skills work forms part of thesessions. Fifty% of the young people are referred from the YOT, as part of an order, and
50% have been referred through Connexions. Links with Connexions have meant young
people have attended as part of an E2E programme.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Initially, the main difficulty was the lack of resources and materials e.g. finding acentre willing to let us use their materials and take part in their accreditation. Then, it
was getting the mentors trained up, waiting for referrals and then convincing them it
was worthwhile to attend. We have attempted to overcome this by ensuring thementoring scheme forms part of a day’s provision and numeracy and literacy support
also forms part of this programme. In terms of successes, we have seen two young
people’s construct a portfolio of work – rewarding for them and something tangible toevaluate for us.
Unique – Read and Write 8LN/031
Unique – Read and Write is a numeracy and literacy project based in Newark,
Nottinghamshire. They are a charity for young people who have difficulties
accessing mainstream education. They have strong working links with the YOT, local
secondary schools and PRUs. They provide their mentors with approximately 24 hours
in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by a tutor. The project
also ran group work which the young people attended with their mentors to help withreading and writing. The mentoring programme includes social education around crime.
About 50% of the young people are on orders (including ISSP) and about 50% areattending on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We have had no particular difficulties and a lot of successes. A lot of people came on thecourse and afterwards carried on with alternative education. Young people havecontinued into employment and entered back into mainstream education.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

165

Sand Writer Project 8LN/034
The Sand Writer Project is a numeracy and literacy project based in South Tyneside.
They are part of a YOT and are linked to the South Tyneside mentoring scheme. They
also have strong working links with Connexions, social services, a local training agency,
education services, the Newcastle Literacy Trust, South Tyneside Adult Education, andthe local Matrix team. They provide their mentors with 36 hours initial training in basic
mentoring skills then a series of self/peer assessments to determine if they will beoffered a place in scheme. This is followed by one days training in basic skills
awareness. Training is provided out-house using the National Children’s Bureau training
programme and has been adapted over the years to what the project needed.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for a maximum of six
months in a community setting. The mentors can also use a meeting room in the project
but are encouraged to go out and use the local community setting. Numeracy andliteracy support is delivered by the mentors for about one hour per week (half thesession). Mentoring also develops social and life skills which are integrated into
activities rather than specifically taught. The project only send older mentees who arelooking for placements on external courses e.g. with their mentor supporting them instarting the placement. The young people attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

There was a lack of support from the Youth Offending Service, and Crime Concern took
a long time for their support to kick in and then it was a bit ad-hoc. We had lots ofsuccesses with individuals, a lot of distance travelled. Being part of the council, we’reconstantly being asked for case-studies. One person kept a diary of his drug use, thiswas anonymised and turned into a play, which was presented to councillors todemonstrate how mentoring could work. Everybody loves us but don’t have any money
to give us!
Key Start Programme 8LN/036
The Key Start Programme is a numeracy and literacy project based in the City ofSalford. They are part of the YOT and located in YOT premises. The project has strong
working links with education partners, such as the local Further Education College.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. They hold an initial planning meeting with young person andregular reviews. Mentoring support includes developing social skills, life skills,
advocacy work and focuses on crime and it consequence and the impact on victims. The
numeracy and literacy component is mainly delivered by the mentors but in some cases
is also delivered by the Further Education College therefore young people could spend
between one to ten hours per week on this provision. The young people attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis but it does count as a statutory contact if they are on a
statutory order and maintain contact.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

166

Project description of their difficulties and successes

The project ran very smoothly and was a very valuable resource as far as YOT wasconcerned. We would like to maintain it and mainstream.
Coventry ‘Support and Learning’ 8LN/037
Coventry ‘Support and Learning’ is a numeracy and literacy project. They are part of a
YOT and are located in YOT premises. As the YOT is a multi agency service, they havestrong working links with the police, the Youth Service, voluntary agencies and ineducation. They provide their mentors with one whole day of training followed by threeor four evenings of two hours training each. This is supplemented when mentoring by
one-to-one monthly support. Training is accredited through the Open College Network
and is provided in-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months. The
mentor and mentee sometimes meet in YOT premises or the school. The mentor delivers
approximately one hour of numeracy and literacy support per week. Essentially, they
aim to look at numeracy and literacy within a wider context. Mentoring includes
developing social and life skills and advocacy work. The young people attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

When we set it up the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks were delayed by months.
We found some difficulty around how much we tell the mentors about the young
people’s offending background. We took the view that we must treat the mentors as if
they were part of the YOT so they were entitled to know their background and could
then take a decision re how to work with them. I think it’s very important that any
project has a role description and a person specification for mentors and that they arealways interviewed and reference checked. We had rigorous recruitment procedures anddid reject people. Successes were found when young people wouldn’t have anything to
do with education without their mentor; this was a first start to getting them back into
education. It was also good for young people who didn’t want to work in groups. The
support and development of the mentors was central to the project. Case managers at the
YOT were very positive about our service.
Reconnect Education Project 8LN/041
The Reconnect Education Project is a numeracy and literacy scheme based in
Nottingham City. They are part of a YOT and are located in YOT premises. The projectprovides their mentors with approximately 35 hours in-house training.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

167

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months
in a community setting. The mentor delivers numeracy and literacy for approximately
two hours per week. The more successful mentors have gone beyond the project
realms, taking up activities outside of the project. For instance, one mentor did acharity run with their mentee. Initially, the young people attended on a voluntary basis
but then funding from ISSP meant that about 50% of the young people were attending
through ISSP.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Difficulties were largely to do with the individuals themselves and their commitment
was always an issue because of their chaotic lifestyles. Obtaining consistency ofattendance was also difficult. Transport was an issue as some young people wouldn’t
attend unless they were brought to the project and therefore, we ended up paying fortaxis or ferrying them around. However, on the whole, we were very pleased with the
project. There were eight or nine individuals that obtained qualifications including ahigh number who got back into education. We raised the young people’s ability to go
back into mainstream education. I would judge about 40-50% successful outcomes. In
addition, the mentors gained skills and 30 mentors have gained valuable experience.
AXIS 8LN/042
AXIS is a numeracy and literacy project based in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. The
project is a partnership between Stoke on Trent YOT and Stoke on Trent Leaving Care
Aftercare. They have strong working links with social services and Druglink. They
provide their mentors with 16 hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months
usually in a community setting and sometimes in the project’s base. Mentoring includes
developing social and life skills, and advocacy work. Young people spend
approximately two hours in mentoring per week, and are referred to a separateorganisation, which carries out the numeracy and literacy work. The young people
attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The most difficult problem was getting the volunteers to submit contact sheets.
Overall, we’ve had some fantastic results including a major reduction in offending
behaviour, many young people have gone back into college or school, and homerelationships improved.
SHARK 8LN/044
SHARK is a numeracy and literacy project based in Peterborough. They are part of a
YOT and the organisation Better Together, and are located in YOT premises. Their
mentors complete the ‘Better Together’ training and then have 2-3 hours training at the
beginning of their mentoring with regular reviews. Training is provided in-house.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

168

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The mentor spends up to one hour delivering numeracy and literacy
support. Mentoring includes developing social and life skills. The young people attend
mentoring on a purely voluntary basis although they are referred from the YOT.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Difficulties were centred on young people’s non attendance or unreliability.
Our successes were achieved in kids getting back into education and, on the whole,
not reoffending.
WYYA Education Mentoring 8LN/045
The WYYA Education Mentoring Project is a numeracy and literacy project based in the
Wakefield District. They are a stand-alone organisation and have strong working links
with Youth Services. They provide their mentors with approximately six hours initialtraining and subsequent accreditation training of approximately ten hours. Training isprovided both in and out-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months.
Initially they met in a community setting but the project found arranging meetings at the
project was more successful. Numeracy and literacy is delivered by the mentor for twohours a week and extra is delivered within the YOT. The young people attend mentoring
as a voluntary part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Communicating with the YOTs was difficult. We had problems matching the young
people and some mentors had to wait a long time before there was someone suitable to
be matched with. Sometimes the YOT didn’t have anyone suitable to refer. Our biggest
success was the fact that we did get some of the young people’s work accredited.
Bridgend youth offending team basic skills 8LN/046
The Bridgend youth offending team Basic Skills project is a numeracy and literacy
project based in Bridgend. As part of the YOT they are located in YOT premises. They
have strong working links with many organizations through the YOT and provide their
mentors with external training through for example the Mentoring Plus Scheme run by‘The Bridge’.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person meets with their mentor weekly, in a community setting for
approximately 6–12 months though duration is dependent on the length of the court
order. The project sometimes sends their young people on external courses e.g. cookery
courses, outward bound, Duke of Edinburgh etc. Numeracy and literacy work isdelivered by the mentor for between one to two hours each week. The young people
attend mentoring on a voluntary basis but sometimes mentoring is used to fill the court’s
requirement for education.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

169

Project description of their difficulties and successes

The lay-out of the database could have been simpler. Overall, it’s been a learning curvefor the mentors and for a lot of people. We’ve also seen how others can link in.
SOVA Community Support Project 8LN/052
The SOVA Community Support Project is a numeracy and literacy project based in
Sheffield. The project ran from Jan 2002 to March 31 2004 and was both part of thecharity SOVA and part of the YOT. It was located in YOT premises and had formal
links with the Learning Skills Council. They provided their mentors with a 30 hour inhouse training course, comprising 18 hours training and 12 hours home-study.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person had one mentor with whom they met weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Mentoring included developing social skills, life skills andadvocacy work, as needed via YOT. There was a strong emphasis on Numeracy andliteracy which was delivered by mentors for two to three hours per week. The young
people attended mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We received a lot of positive feedback in terms of the progression of young people.
Numeracy and Literacy Mentoring Project 8LN/053
The Numeracy and Literacy Mentoring Project was based in Barnsley. They were partof a YOT, located in YOT premises and had strong working links with Education
Welfare Officers and other services via the YOT. They provided their mentors with the
SOVA volunteers’ core training (24 hours) plus at least one module as home-study (24hours). Training was provided in-house and accredited through the Open College
Network (developed by SOVA). The project has now come to an end as further funding
was not found.
How mentoring is carried out

Mentor and mentee met weekly for 6–12 months in a community setting. The
project also had a key worker who met with them separately and carried out initialassessments and reviews. Mentoring supported the development of social skills, life
skills and included advocacy work. The project also helped young people access other
YOT services e.g. ISSP as part of which they focus on life skills and anger
management. Numeracy and literacy provision was delivered by the key worker withmentor support, for an average about one to two hours per week. The project sometimes
sent mentees on external outdoor activity based courses (if the course was free to theproject). Mentoring was voluntary and no-one would ever be breached or taken back tocourt for not engaging.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

170

Project description of their difficulties and successes

The main difficulty has been regarding funding. On the positive side, it has some young
people that could be missed by other services. Mentoring support has gone beyond
providing numeracy and literacy. Sometimes young people aren’t at the point where
they can access numeracy and literacy; they need to focus on life skills first to get tothat stage. We have to do learning by stealth i.e. taking them out shopping and getting
them to navigate, plan, etc.
Newham Literacy and Numeracy Programme 8LN/054
The Newham Literacy and Numeracy Programme is based in the London Borough of
Newham. They are part of the charity ‘NCY Trust’ and have strong working links with
the YOT and Connexions. The project provides their mentors with sixteen hours inhouse training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. The mentor uses most of the hour’s session focusing and literacy
skills. They sometimes incorporate literacy skills in other work e.g. cooking, using thetransport system therefore mentoring also includes developing life skills. The vast
majority of young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis but a few (about 5%)
have been on orders with mentoring as part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The amount of young people who have gone onto college and gone back into education
has been very successful.
Youth Inclusion Programme 8LN/055
The numeracy and literacy project worked alongside the Youth Inclusion Programme
based in South Leeds. They are part of the charity NACRO and have formal links with
the Youth Justice Board (support the senior youth inclusion programme) and theChildren’s Fund (support their junior youth inclusion programme). They also havestrong working links with YOTs, the Youth Service, social services and local schools.
Mentoring is provided through the Award Scheme Development and Accreditation
Network (ASDAN).
How mentoring is carried out

Mentoring generally follows a twelve week programme. Each young person has one
mentor with whom they meet weekly but sometimes more frequently. They generally
meet in the project offices but sometimes do external activities i.e. go to the gym. The
project also organises some group mentoring, although with no more than 3 young
people at a time. Each session is about two hours long and includes some numeracy andliteracy which is delivered by mentors. Mentoring includes developing the young
people’s social skills and life skills. The vast majority of the young people wereattending mentoring on a voluntary basis although one young person was on an orderfrom the YOT to attend twice a week.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

171

Project description of their difficulties and successes

As funding was ending in October 2004, the project worker left as there was no sign of
new funding.
Odysseus Literacy and Numeracy Mentoring 8LN/057
The Odysseus Literacy and Numeracy Mentoring project is based in Gateshead. It ispart of the charity Northumbria Coalition Against Crime and the YOT where it islocated. They provide their mentors (in-house) with twenty-four hours training and nine
hours literacy and numeracy training. Mentoring is delivered following an informal
education model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6-9 months, basedon the young person’s needs. The first three months are used for the mentor and mentee
to get to know each other and no specific numeracy and literacy work is provided. For
the remaining six months, numeracy and literacy support is provided by the mentor indifferent ways and amounts, depending very much on the needs of the young person.
Mentors develop social and life skills, and although they do not provide anger
management work they do challenge and discuss issues. The project also refers young
people on to external courses. The young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One of the main areas of difficulty was the fact that it has been a numeracy and literacy
project and the majority of the young people don’t go to school so why would they wantto come and learn. In addition, the assessments were problematic. We were meant tohave one designed for us by INCLUDE but all we had was the Basic Skills Pack, so weused the Target Skills Assessment. This is a very good assessment but some of it wasmore suitable for adults. Another difficulty was getting the young people to realise thatthe numeracy and literacy was the only tough bit they had to do. We found it helped to
get the volunteer mentor to do the assessments with them three months into therelationship. Successes have been with the young people that have stuck it out and who
have really enjoyed themselves. Some have come back and asked for more mentoring.
We tried out a pilot project on some of the young people who were doing numeracy andliteracy and gave them a laptop and a digital camera, as part of a project on heritageand culture. They took photos of local themes, produced a calendar, and even had anart show.
Steps Forward Mentoring Project 8LN/058
The Steps Forward Mentoring Project is a generic mentoring project based in Newcastle
upon Tyne. They are part of the charity YMCA and have strong working links with the
YOT, social services Family Support Team and Community and Youth Agencies acrossthe city. They provide their volunteer mentors with sixty hours in-house training basedon the informal education model.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

172

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly. This relationship canlast for as long as two years and is directly based on the needs and interest of thementee. All meetings are carried out in a community setting. Mentors deliver numeracy
and literacy but it is hard to estimate how much time exactly is spent on addressing theliteracy and numeracy needs of young people. For those who have been referred by the
YOT, the work of the mentor can be complimented by literacy support from the YOT
literacy worker. Other young people use different avenues to access literacy support. All
work with young people is tracked and monitored in a systematic way. Mentoring is
attended purely on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

As with many voluntary sector projects, the main difficulty is finding funding. It wasalso difficult to retain the young people referred from the YOT. On some occasions thementor relationships didn’t get off the ground because the young person didn’t turn up.
However, on the whole, the project has a really good history of long-term mentormentee relationships. Also our training is excellent and accredited. Support andsupervision to mentors and mentees is one of our strong points. The project has
successfully secured funding for the next three years with increased capacity.
Breaking the Cycle 8LN/060
Breaking the Cycle is a numeracy and literacy project based in Surrey. They are part ofthe ‘Rainer’ charity and have formal links with North East Surrey College ofTechnology (NESCOT). They also have strong working links with the YOT,
Connexions, Leaving Care and Education Welfare. The project provides their mentors
with two full days training and a further two days during the mentoring programme.
They also arrange monthly two-hour meetings which involve some training as well. Alltraining is provided in-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. A tutor delivers numeracy and literacy for 2 hrs a week. The mentor
also develops the mentee’s social and life skills. The project also sometimes sends
mentees on external courses based on individual need. Young people attending
mentoring are always supposed to be attending on a voluntary basis but some of the
YOT referrals (about 15-20%) have mentoring as part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We found it hard to find work experience and college courses appropriate for the young
people. However, on the positive side, a lot of young people have moved on to being
apprentices, or are in the hospitality trade, and two have gone to college.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

173

MELTIN 8LN/061
The MELTIN project was a literacy and numeracy, skills for life project, covering thearea of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. They were part of the South Tees Youth
Offending Service and located within the (Youth Offending Service) YOS premises.
They had strong working links with Connexions, their various service partners and the
Link-Up Project (a Basic Skills Agency initiative for volunteers to signpost and support
basic skills in the community). The project provided their mentors with 26 hours inhouse mentoring training including 12 hrs Link-Up training which was delivered by
Middlesbrough adult education service.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person had a mentor with whom they met weekly for 3-12 months
depending on the length of their order, usually meeting with their mentor in acommunity setting. Delivered by the mentor, numeracy and literacy mostly related to
the young person’s interests or in some cases tasks they were given as part of theirorder. Where it worked, the mentors were spending about an hour a week with theyoung person and about half of each visit would have been referenced to literacy or
numeracy in some way. Mentoring included developing social skills, life skills and,occasional advocacy work. The project has also sent young people on external courses
e.g. Positive Activities (a Connexions programme) and some were involved in anenterprise programme with Middlesbrough football club. Mentoring was tried on one
occasion in a school setting as part of the young person’s education but it did notactually improve their willingness to attend. It was used on several occasions as
extra support to work that was going on in school. In all cases, the young person
attended mentoring as part of the case management carried out by the YOS. It was
carried out entirely on a voluntary basis although 65% of the young people were on
Referral Orders, 25% on Supervision Orders and the other 10% predominately on
Final Warnings.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

We encountered a number of areas of difficulty, such as referrals from case management
staff for orders shorter than 6 months, with an expectation to teach a young person toread and write, or to undo the years of their negative attitude to education. But one of
the biggest difficulties we found was that case management staff often didn’t have an
understanding of mentoring, basic skills and what the programme was about (inhindsight this may have been the way the project was “sold” to staff). In some cases
mentoring was used as an extra contact and whenever a mentor had visited a young
person it was logged as a YOS contact on Careworks. There was also the usual problem
of referrals being given and then meetings set up but the young person not attending
for a variety of reasons. As is often the case with so many agencies working with someof our clients they often can’t tell one agency from the other. The project tried toovercome this before matching them to a volunteer, by getting the Basic Skills Coordinator to carry out a couple of sessions with the young person to see how committed
the young person was to possible mentoring and education interventions. The Basic
Skills Co-ordinator also carried out assessments on the young person’s level of need andability.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

174

Mentoring can be extremely successful and any YOS contact should include an elementof mentoring. YOS staff should be dealing with all of our young people holistically. As
far as education goes we should be part of a more of preventative strategy. So many of
the young people we are dealing with have poor literacy and numeracy skills and their
non-attendance, attitude, their whole culture of learning is so negative that by the timethey get to 14 or 15 years of age the damage is done. It is very difficult to pull the young
person back from several years of partial or total exclusion from society. A weekly
session with a volunteer mentor sometimes has quite a small amount of education in it
as the volunteer has dealt with all the other baggage in the young person’s life. The
biggest successes that MELTIN had was with younger offenders. They were sometimes
as young as ten, just entering the Criminal Justice System and had just been given theirfirst order with the YOS. In some ways the mentor became a surrogate parent and rolemodel. MELTIN volunteers developed personally and moved on to permanent roles
working with young people (a teaching assistant, a mental health worker, a drugs
worker and two referral panel member) In many ways their interest in working withyoung people was sparked by becoming a YOS mentoring volunteer.
MELTIN was a success within the bounds of its funding as it provided support for casemanagement staff and it had benefits for the young people and their families who cameinto contact with it.
Mentoring Project 8LN/064
The Mentoring Project is a numeracy, literacy and support scheme based in Bolton.
They are part of the charity ‘Bolton Lads and Girls Club’ and have strong working links
with the Youth Service, social services and various different local authority departments.
They provide their volunteer mentors with twenty hours core in-house training followedby optional issue-based sessions throughout the programme.
How mentoring is carried out

In 1996, the project looked at the Dalston Youth Project model and evolved their own
programme where each young person has a mentor with whom they meet, in acommunity setting, for 6–12 months on a weekly basis . Mentoring involves developing
social skills, life skills and, when needed, includes advocacy work. Numeracy andliteracy is delivered by the Project Worker from between a couple of hours, to one day a
week. All the young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The types of referrals we received were hard-to-reach youngsters and didn’t really meetthe original criteria. As a consequence they were harder to engage. This was overcome
by holding regular meetings with YOT staff. The Project Worker was brilliant at
engaging with the youngsters therefore continued to work with them, but it was difficult
for the volunteer mentors. Our biggest success was seeing young people re-enter theeducation system, offending levels reducing, reducing drug and alcohol dependency,
and the fact that they continued to engage with us on a voluntary basis.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004175

Step On 8LN/065
Step On is a numeracy and literacy project and covers East Sussex. They are part of acharity called Sussex Youth Ltd. They have formal links with the youth offending teamand strong working links with Hastings Borough Council, Under 19 Substance Misuse
Team, Youth Development Service, Education Action Zone, Neighbourhood Renewal
Team, Community Safety Team, Connexions/Careers and Sussex Police. They provide
their mentors with two-weeks training (in-house) including relevant and current childprotection information.
How mentoring is carried out

They carry out mentoring on a one to one basis but in a group setting. The young people
sit round one large table with individual mentors. The mentee attends the project four
afternoons a week for the duration of the programme, which varies according to theneeds and preferences of the young person. The majority of mentoring is held at the
project though there are also external activities e.g. working on a farm for a day, which
are organized in conjunction with agencies such as Careers/Connexions, H.C.A.T.
(Hastings College of Art and Technology) or Personal Advisers from school or E.A.Z.
(Education Action Zone). Numeracy and literacy is delivered by the mentor ten hours aweek minimum. Mentoring also includes working on life and social skills, and someadvocacy work. Twenty to thirty-five percent are on orders, and of these 50% arevoluntary and non attendance is not seen as ‘breach’ of said order. But 50% havetheir attendance monitored by a supervision officer at the YOT and may well face a
return to court for re-sentencing if they miss a significant amount of days without goodreason, or it is deemed that they are not engaging as directed by the courts (found to bein ‘breach’).
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Initially, getting people to acknowledge that our young people were out of education.
We’re organizing an award ceremony because we have a number of success stories
including a young man who went through quite an ordeal and is sitting a Higher
Diploma in Music Technology and Sound Engineering. Various young people havereturned to college, and school, including absolute non-attendees. We’ve had young
people sit City and Guilds Key Skills and Basic Skills exams achieving passes in Levels
One and Two (G.C.S.E. equivalent D-G and A-C) and the majority have reduced or are
no longer offending. We have become a very, very successful and well-known project in
the community. In addition, we feedback to a Steering group representing agencies suchas Community Safety, youth offending teams, Neighbourhood Renewal, Police,
Education Welfare and Careers/Connexions.
ReStart Mentoring Project 8LN/067
The ReStart Mentoring Project numeracy and literacy project based in West Cardiff (Elyand Caerau) and are part of the ‘Safer Cardiff’ charity. They provide their mentors witha two day in-house training course.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

176

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet for 12 weeks in a community
setting. Mentoring is issue-based, and includes developing social skills and life skills.
The project always sends mentees on external courses which involves three separate fulldays of outdoor activities such as team building exercises and caving. Numeracy andliteracy is delivered by a tutor so that the young people spent 2 hours in tutoring then 2hours with their mentor. The young people attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis
but were referred by their Head of Year.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Only real difficulties were funding! It’s been really successful and schools arereally supportive. It’s definitely led to a reduction in non-attendance and improvements
in behaviour.
Mentoring for Life 8LN/070
The Mentoring for Life is a numeracy and literacy project based in Darlington andCounty Durham. They were founded by “Include” who gained the original funding thenset up independently with support provided by the YOT. They are now part of the Early
Intervention Team, Darlington Borough Council and have formal links with Community
Safety Partnerships. They provide their mentors with a basic in-house training
programme of 30 hours which is supplemented by top-ups e.g. drug awareness, sexual
health and are establishing parent mentoring training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet in a community setting.
Initially, a six-month limit was strictly adhered to but they now try to be flexible.
Numeracy and literacy is supported and encouraged by the mentor, rather than delivered
and the amount of time spent on this depends on the needs of young person and theavailability of mentors. The mentoring also develops social skills. All the young people
attend mentoring on a voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Main difficulties were funding, location, finding appropriate accommodation, and lackof staff. It’s been difficult to extend possibilities because of the funding criteria. We’ve
tried to overcome this by being very strict on spending, and as creative as possible withactivities. We’ve been successful in a number of ways.



The mentors have stayed with the project, those that have wanted to, have gone on
to gain full/part-time employment as a direct result of this experience.

Young people, where it’s been successful, have travelled miles. It’s been superb inthat respect.

Also, we’re now moving into the realms of parent mentoring. And we’re training
parents who’ve been through the route to become mentors.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

177

CSV Bedfordshire Mentors and Peers 8LN/073
TCSV Bedfordshire Mentors and Peers is a numeracy and literacy project based in
Bedfordshire. They are part of the charity CSV (Community Service Volunteers) andhave strong working links with the YOT and Educational Welfare. They provide their
mentors with three full day’s in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 3-9 months in acommunity setting. Some full-time volunteers also go into schools. Numeracy andliteracy is delivered by mentors through activities such as visiting the library andlooking at football scores and includes developing social skills, life skills and advocacy
work. The young people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis although some of theyoung people have mentoring as a voluntary part of their Referral Orders.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One of the difficulties we encountered was that some of the full-time volunteers who’ve
come from abroad have been homesick. However, on the positive side, we can see,through the fact that we’re getting more and more referrals, that people obviously thinkit’s a good service. We’ve used over 100 volunteers and matched them with around 350
young people.
Mentoring Across Northumberland 8LN/074
Mentoring Across Northumberland project is a numeracy and literacy project. They
were formed through a partnership of the Trinity Association and the local YOT. They
have strong working links with the YMCA, social services, Education and local schools.
The project provides their mentors with 20 hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

Mentoring is carried out via group work where adults and young people can develop
relationships and move on from there. When it has worked, the mentors also do one-toone work. Mentoring is based upon developing the young people’s social skills, support
and befriending. Where required or requested, mentors provided assistance with schooland homework, or they are linked the person into a literacy project. The young people
always attend mentoring on a voluntary basis. In about two or three cases, mentoring
was made part of a Referral Order prior to any referral being made. Where the project
became aware of this, the young person was encouraged to participate.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

A major difficulty has been the lack of facilities and the unwillingness of young
people to engage. The lack of skills and experience of the volunteers for working
with the young people was also problematic. We overcame this by changing to group
work where mentors can support each other and the project staff can support them.
Overall, our success has been patchy, which is the nature of working with young people.
Some have engaged really well and progressed steadily and for others it hasn’t mademuch difference.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004178

Hull Literacy and Numeracy Project 8LN/077
The Hull Literacy and Numeracy Project is based in Kingston Upon Hull. They are partof a YOT and are located in YOT premises. All mentors were previously trained
therefore no training was provided.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet, initially at the YOT centre
and later in a community setting should the mentor feel comfortable with this situation.
This can continue for as long as their order last and as long as required by the young
person. The mentor delivers numeracy and literacy for about 1 to 1.5 hrs per week.
Mentors develop social skills and will accompany the young person, if needed, to othermeetings, visits to the job centre or situations where the young person may feel in needof some extra support. The young people attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis,
this being one of the most important aspects. However they are all on court orders,
although only about 20% had mentoring as a voluntary part of their orders.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

One the main difficulties was the unwillingness of the youngsters to attend on a regularbasis. At the supervision planning meeting they often agree to literacy and numeracy
mentoring, however when the process is promoted further they sometimes fail to attend
regularly, get breached, move out of the area or, commit further offences and get neworders. Often in this process the mentoring becomes low priority and despite pursuing
the case there is sometimes a failure to resume. We attempted to overcome this byintroducing them to a mentor right at the very beginning so that the relationship builds
right from the start, trying to eliminate more meetings with new faces.
We have been successful in establishing good relationships with the young people, notnecessary solely numeracy and literacy based, but incorporating relative, life-basedskills (listening to what they want and helping them to focus on building what they haveachieved, what is possible to achieve and what they can do to help themselves) withmore of a solution focused approach. Some of these young people have elected to keep
contact with their mentor after the conclusion of their orders. The opportunity tocontinue once orders have finished has been built into our resources should both mentor
and mentee agree.
Admovere 8LN/081
Admovere is a numeracy and literacy project based in the London Borough of Kingston
upon Thames. They are part of social services and are located within the same building
as the youth offending team. The project is run in partnership with the Princes Trust, theChildren’s’ Fund and the YJB and they have strong working links with Connexions,Children and Family Services, Kingston Voluntary Action, Magic Roundabout and theYouth Service. They provide their mentors with 12 weeks of two hours in-house training
per week (theory) and ten sessions of practice i.e. about 30 hrs in total. Mentoring
follows the National Open College Network model and mentors are all accredited to
NVQ level.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

179

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy support was initially delivered by mentors
but is now delivered by a tutor for about 1 to 2 hours per week. Intense mentoring for
the YJB involved the mentor seeing the young person for up to 18 hours per week. The
programme focuses on changing their behaviour towards family members and criminal
activities, regarding home life to have an influence on their behaviour within thecommunity. Mentoring programmes also develop social and life skills and involves
advocacy work. They look at the young person’s educational or training needs with theaim of them obtaining employment. About 60% of the young people attending
mentoring on a voluntary basis often after hearing about the project through word of
mouth. About 40% are on some kind of order but mentoring is still voluntary as theethos of mentoring should always be agreed between both sides.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The main problem is the fact that the project won’t be continuing due to lack of funding.
Out of the 60% that came voluntarily, the success rate for staying out of reoffending wasabout 89%. Admovere has supported these young people in finding local support thatthey feel happy to continue with. The Princes Trust will provide a mentor to some ofthese young people. Admovere is still looking at ways in which we can support theseyoung people in more depth in partnerships with other organisations.
Mentoring project 8LN/082
The Mentoring Project is a numeracy and literacy project based in Cheshire,
Macclesfield and Crewe. They are part of the charity ‘Youth Federation’ and are locatedin YOT premises. They have strong working links with Connexions, YOT, Education
Advisers, schools and the police. They provide their mentors with four mandatory
courses per year of about seven hours each and four optional courses. Training isprovided both in-house and out-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 3-12 months in acommunity setting. The mentor delivers numeracy and literacy however, the amountvaries – form every week to every other week. Mentoring also develops social and life
skills. The project also sometimes sends mentees on external courses such as YouthFederation canoeing, climbing and arts days. Mentoring is offered to all young people
who have dealings with the YOT. The majority will be on court orders, but they can also
be referred after a Final Warning. The length of time with the project does not reflect thelength of time on the order, e.g. 6 months order, but may be with the project for 3 or 9months. Mentoring is never a compulsory part of their orders.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

General mentoring was more effective than developing specific basic skills, unless thenumeracy and literacy was requested by the young person. We also found it difficult tokeep some of the mentors within our strict boundaries. However, overall, we’ve reduced
reoffending rates. Compared to those from the YOT that didn’t take up mentoring andthose that did, ours were 13.5% less likely to have reoffended.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004180

O2B (literacy and numeracy mentoring project) 8LN/083
The O2B is a numeracy and literacy project based in the Borough of Swindon. They arepart of Swindon YOT, located within their premises and have strong working links
through the YOT. Their mentors receive 15 hours in-house training.
How mentoring is carried out

The project mentors individuals for between 6 and 12 months within the community.
Essentially, mentors support young people to address their individual needs. Each week
the mentor supports the young person to achieve self-set targets. Mentoring
approximates one hour per week and sometimes the sessions will be on numeracy andliteracy (delivered by the mentor) and sometimes they will focus on breaking down thebarriers that are preventing learning, which may include developing social skills, life
skill and advocacy. The project has funded its own term time and holiday projects(sometimes with the support of a Crimebeat grant) but does not have the means to fundexternal courses for our mentees. Mentoring is a voluntary activity, although a meetingwith the Mentor Co-ordinator can be a compulsory part of an order. After the young
person has met with their mentor for 3 or 4 sessions, they are asked to sign acommitment form.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

The project has not experienced any major difficulties as it has been well supported by
Swindon YOT and the strong team spirit that exists there. There have been manysuccesses, large and small, like the girl who achieved a level C in Maths GCSE due tothe support of her mentor (the school had predicted a D) and the lad who is now
working as an apprentice brick layer. A year ago he had been excluded from school andtried to commit suicide. There have been many smaller achievements that we havecelebrated at the time because they represented a great stride forward for the individual,such as re-engaging with education or a marked improvement with their social skills.
The term time and holiday projects have been superb vehicles for extending literacy andnumeracy skills and raising self-esteem. The project has enabled the mentees to use thecomputer programme Touch-type Read and Spell, design and make a newspaper, design
and make a sign for the YOT with a Blacksmith and video, and go on digital camera
workshops. Annual team building events also take place to celebrate our successes.
Basic Skills Mentoring Project 8LN/084
The Basic Skills Mentoring Project is a numeracy and literacy project based in the
Wigan Borough. They are part of a YOT and are located in YOT premises. They havestrong working links with training providers and provide their mentors with 30 hours inhouse training which has been adapted from Mentoring for Care Leavers from the
National Children’s Bureau. Additional training is also offered to mentors and includes
Young People’s Mental Health, Racial Awareness, Sexual Health and Drug Awareness.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

181

How mentoring is carried out

Each young person is matched to a mentor with whom they meet weekly for an averageof four to five months in either a community setting or YOT premises if they want moreprivacy. The mentors deliver numeracy and literacy support in an informal manner andthe amount of time spent on this varies as they try to balance work and leisure.
Mentoring also includes developing social and life skills and advocacy support if
requested. The project aims to get all their young people back into education, training or
employment. All the young people attend mentoring as a voluntary part of their order.
Project description of their difficulties and successes
Initially, we found young people don’t like to go straight into Basic Skills work andsometimes it can take a long time for trust to build up. Young people occasionally think
mentoring is part of their order, even though it is voluntary, therefore, when their orderis finished, they may want to end the mentoring too. However, our successes have beenin getting young people back into school or placing them with training providers.
Mentoring help with Literacy and Numeracy 8LN/085
Mentoring help with Literacy and Numeracy is based in the London Borough of
Merton. It is part of the YOT and housed on the YOT premises. The project isrepresented on a steering group for Kingston and Merton Education Business
Partnership. They provide their mentors with 30 hours induction training then two
additional days on skills for life (12 hrs). Training is provided in-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor. They meet weekly, initially for three months, andthen the action plan is reviewed and extended as appropriate. Generally, the mentors andmentees meet in the community but initial meetings generally take place at Youth
Offending Service (YOS) offices. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by the
mentor and the action plan generally revolves around numeracy and literacy. Mentoringalso includes developing social and life skills and advocacy work. The project also
supports the young people to access external programmes. Ninety-five percent of theyoung people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis; for 5% it’s included in their ISSP
timetable, although missed appointments would not result in breach proceedings.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Initially getting established was difficult as was winning the trust of referring officers.
It is sometimes still an issue but not to same extent. Some extremely positive feedback
has been received from parents and teachers. The commitment from the volunteers to
the project has been remarkable. Some had been with the project for 12 months before
they got a pairing. Induction training did explain this and set them clear aboutboundaries. Our support structure worked well, and there were no incidents withvolunteers overstretching boundaries. The mentors became more confident as theygained more experience.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

182

Mentoring Help with Numeracy and Literacy 8LN/091
Mentoring Help with Literacy and Numeracy is a project based in the Metropolitan
Borough of Wirral and run by the Wirral YOS. They have formal links with ‘Tao
Mountain’ (numeracy programme deliverers), ‘ThatReadingThing’ (literacy programmedeliverers) and have strong working links with the Education Authority and the Youth
Inclusion Programme. Most literacy coaches were volunteers recruited from thecommunity through ‘ThatReadingThing’ and a few came from the YOT Whole Life
Mentoring Project. In the last few months of the project, literacy training was offered topeople who had entered or completed the YOT mentoring project and community
volunteers were offered more extensive mentor training. Literacy training consisted of
15 hours of classroom-based learning and practice with on-going follow-up for new
tutors. Numeracy coaches were recruited directly from the community, especiallythrough existing contacts within universities, and from Whole Life mentors and‘ThatReadingThing’ volunteers. Training is provided through a number of whole-day
and half day courses with on-going support including refresher and update training
as needed.
How mentoring is carried out

ThatReadingThing is a linguistic phonics programme which was developed specificallyto meet the needs of both the young people who struggle with reading and tutors who
have no background in education. The fast paced course helps non-readers to quickly
develop new strategies for making sense of the English language and to change theirminds about reading and education in general. Delivery was limited to young people
who acknowledged a difficulty with reading and were prepared to give up time forcoaching help. Most young people met their coaches on a weekly basis at a convenient
location. During the summer months the project set up an intensive programme foryoung people not in full-time education. In terms of numeracy support, coaches use avariety of tools and techniques especially accessible to the young people. They workwith anyone having difficulty with basic numeracy tasks, especially those required aspart of everyday life such as travel, shopping and measurement. Some young people
met with coaches on a regular basis, while others especially those referred via the ISSP
programme received very specific guidance to enable them to progress in identified
areas, for example, managing benefit claims. Some YOS staff received training toenable them to recognize problems and intervene appropriately. The majority of theyoung people attend mentoring on a voluntary basis but for about 15% mentoring
support is part of ISSP programme.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

183

Project description of their difficulties and successes

Engaging young people was relatively easy but maintaining steady contact and regularmeetings was a huge challenge. This was best met by developing supportive
relationships between YOT staff, volunteers, the individuals’ family or carers and the
young person. If the project were to continue, all coaches would also have full Whole
Life Mentor training. In terms of our success, young people who have done a fullprogramme haven’t reoffended in the year following the work. In this area of informal
education, hard statistics are difficult to come by and we rely heavily on anecdotal
evidence. Particularly positive experiences have been in situations where young people
have changed their perceptions of themselves as learners. One young man brought afriend along to show him that he could now spell long words. Another had the thrill ofdiscovering that his toddler son loved to sit on his knee and read books. A young woman
with major difficulties in learning has made significant progress allowing her to move tohigher sets in her GCSE English class and another discovered that she could read after
all and spent her time with her literacy coach doing mental arithmetic to help with her
job on a market stall.
One difficulty was the knowledge of YOT staff. We addressed this by running numeracy
awareness programmes for YOT staff so they could identify appropriate young people.
East Sussex Mentoring Service 8LN/092
The East Sussex Mentoring Service is a numeracy and literacy project based in East
Sussex. They are part of the ‘Rainer’ charity and are located in YOT premises. They
have strong working links with the YOT and the Appropriate Adult Service. The projectprovides their mentors with an initial two day training programme (7 hrs per day), a
later days training and the option of another 3 days to give them a BTEC qualification.
Training is provided in-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by the mentor and time
allocated to this varies according to need, but expect them to spend at least one session amonth working on numeracy and literacy. Quite often the mentors support numeracy
and literacy by less obvious ways by trying to bring the skills into everyday life, forexample, by getting them to pay if going for a coffee or, if the young person is learning
to drive, they’ll use the Highway Code for literacy skills. Mentoring also develops
social and life skills and involves some advocacy work, but its main focus is on
behaviour skills. The project is currently working with some young people who haveAnti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in order to empower them to look at the effectof their behaviour and make behavioural change. The project sometimes sends mentees
on external courses. The young people attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis andmentoring is totally separate from any orders they may be on.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

184

Project description of their difficulties and successes

Simply meeting the need was difficult as so many young people are being referred. We
can’t train the mentors fast enough to meet this need. We found it helped to give theyoung people choices, letting them meet various mentors until they feel comfortablewith one. We saw a huge reduction in offending; fifty% of the young people on the
programme have not reoffended, and of the other fifty% more than half have only
reoffended once. With ABCs and ASBOs, we’re seeing that the young people are
becoming more aware of how their behaviour affects others.
One of the biggest successes was a young offender who stopped offending. He
saw his brother going down the same road, got him involved in the project andhe’s now doing well too.
Time Out @ M.Y.A. 8LN/093
Time Out @ M.Y.A. is a numeracy and literacy project based in Liverpool. They arepart of Merseyside Youth Association Ltd, a registered charity; and have strong working
links with UK On-line, OK UK, Liverpool Auto project, Merseyside Connexions
service, Liverpool YOT and ISSP, Liverpool Education and Lifelong Learning service,schools and other local or national government and non government bodies. They
provide their mentors with an average of four hours initial training and there is ongoingtraining for volunteers who access all the training that paid staff receive, for example inchild protection and equal opportunities. Training is provided in-house.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly in a community
setting for approximately12 to 16 weeks, and sometimes less or quite a lot longer. The
tutor delivers numeracy and literacy support according to need. The project also delivers
basic skills as a standard part of the project and young people spend about 16 hrs per
week with the project. Mentoring includes developing social, life skills and advocacy
work either directly or through referral. The project sometimes sends mentees on
external courses through referrals to other organisations. The young people attend
mentoring on a voluntary basis. At the beginning, the project was under the impressionthat the mentoring would be compulsory but as time went on, it became voluntary asotherwise it didn’t work.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

Young people didn’t want to engage with too many different people so they would
sometimes avoid contact with mentors. There was also a lack of support from the ISSP
team who often would not refer people in the spirit that it was intended and used us as
more of a babysitting service. We tried to overcome this by persuading the young people
to become more involved or trying to engage them in other ways. There were successareas for some of the young people; their involvement with offending was due to theabsence of anything better to do, for example, one young person was referred because
he had been prosecuted for keeping birds of prey without a licence and we were able tofind him a game-keeping course at college. He’s now one of their best students.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

185

The Time Out project has worked with a wide range of young people, all of whom had
issues with mainstream education, and either through exclusion or through existing on
the edges of the education system for a long time were uninspired with a system that intheir opinion had rejected them. Their attendance at this programme demonstrated adesire to find education or daytime provision that suited their own perceived needs.
Even those who decided that it was not suitable for them actually gained from theengagement process however short-lived that may have been. Those young people
who engaged fully with the project for even just a few weeks gained immeasurably
in more than just numeracy and literacy skills. Improvements in communication andsocial interaction with older adults were evident and although scientific methods
were not employed in the recording of these outcomes the changes themselves were noless welcome.
Route 53 and Route 43 8LN/094
Route 53 and Route 43 is a numeracy and literacy project based in Manchester. They arepart of ‘Crime Concern’ and have strong working links with the YOT and Manchester
College of Arts and Technology. They provide their mentors with 60 hours in-housetraining and mentoring follows the Dalston model.
How mentoring is carried out

Each young person has one mentor with whom they meet weekly for 6–12 months in acommunity setting. Numeracy and literacy support is delivered by mentors and a tutor,
for around six hours per week. Mentoring also developed social and life skills, anger
management and involved some advocacy work. The project also sends mentees on
external courses, for example, IT, catering, furniture making, art, DJ skills. Youngpeople attend mentoring on a purely voluntary basis.
Project description of their difficulties and successes

It has been difficult to recruit good staff; people who have both teaching and youth
work skills. On the positive side, some of the mentors have gone on to become paid
members of staff. In addition, some young people have got into college, have stayed
there and are progressing.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

186

References

ACPO (2003), Press Release: Police Chiefs Comment on Leaked Report About Police
National Computer, Translated ACPO Retrieved 13.06.2005, fromwww.acpo.police.uk/news/2003/q4/re_PNC.html.
Anderson, B., Beinart, S., Farrington, D., Longman, J., Sturgis, P. & Utting, D. (2001),
Youth Justice Board Research Note No. 5: Risk and Protective Factors Associated with
Youth Crime and Effective Interventions to Prevent It. London: Youth Justice Board
Audit Commission (2002), Policy Focus Paper: Statutory Assessment and Statements ofSen, London: Audit Commission.
Audit Commission (2004), Youth Justice 2004: A Review of the Reformed Youth Justice
System, London: Audit Commission.
Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C. & Merrington, S. (2003), Asset: The Evaluation of the
Validity and Reliability of the Youth Justice Board’s Assessment for Young Offenders
University of Oxford.
Barry, M. (2000), ‘The Mentor/Monitor Debate in Criminal Justice: ‘What Works’ for
Offenders?’ British Journal of Social Work. 30, (5) Oct, 575-95.
Basic Skills Agency (2002), Initial Assessment, The Basic Skills Agency.
Boddy, J., Cameron, C. & Moss, P. (Eds.) (in press), Care Work in the 21st Century:
What Future?
Cole, M. & Cole, S. R. (1989), The Development of Children, New York: Worth.
DfES (2005a), Children’s Trusts: Developing Integrated Services for Children in
England, Translated DFES University of East Anglia in association with National
Children’s
Bureau, Retrieved 13.06.2005, fromwww.dfes.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/project.
DfES (2005b), Children’s Trusts: Overview, Translated DfES Department for Educationand Skills, Retrieved 30/06/2005, from www.dfes.gov.uk/childrenstrusts/overview/.
Dhiri, S., Brand, S., Harries, R. & Price, R. (1999), Modelling and Predicting Property
Crime Trends in England and Wales. Home Office Research Study 198, London: Home
Office.
DOH (2004a), National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity
Services: Executive Summary, Translated DOH Department of Health, Department for
Education and Skills, Retrieved 13.06.2005, fromwww.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPAmpGBrowsableDocument/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4094444&chk=iko7k4

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

187

DOH (2004b), National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity
Services: The Mental Health and Psychological Well-Being of Children and Young
People, Translated DOH Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills,
Retrieved 13.06.2005, fromwww.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPAmpGBrowsableDocument/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4094607&chk=5UQS
Ex.
Farrington, D., Gottfredson, D., Sherman, L. & Welsh, B. (2002), ‘The Maryland
Scientific Methods Scale’, in Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B. & Mackenzie, D.
(eds.) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge, 13-21.
Farrington, D. P. (1996), Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Flood-Page, C., Campbell, S., Harrington, V. & Miller, J. (2000), Youth Crime: Findings
from the 1998/99 Youth Lifestyles Survey – Home Office Research Study 209, London:
Home Office – Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Friendship, C., Street, R., Cann, J. & Harper, G. (2005), ‘Introduction: The Policy
Context and Assessing the Evidence’, in Harper, G. & Chitty, C. (eds.) The Impact ofCorrections on Reoffending: A Review of ‘What Works’ (2nd Ed.). Home Office
Research Study 291, 1-16.
Frude, N., Honess, T. & McGuire, M. (1994), Crime-Pics Ii Manual. Cardiff: Michaeland Associates.
Goodman, r. (1997), ‘The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note’.
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 38, 581-586.
Graham, J. & Bowling, B. (1995), Young People and Crime, London: Home Office
Research Study 145.
Greenlaw, G. & St James-Roberts, I. (in press), ‘Mentors for Children and Young People
Who Offend, or Are at Risk of Offending: An Emerging Profession?’ in Boddy, J.,
Cameron, C. & Moss, P. (eds.) Care Work in the 21st Century: What Future?
Hayward, R. & Sharp, C. (2005), Young People, Crime and Antisocial Behaviour:
Findings from the 2003 Crime and Justice Survey, Home Office.
Home Office (2005), Juvenile Reconviction; Results from the 2003 Cohort, Home
Office.
Homer (800BC), The Odyssey, Translated Homer Retrieved 13.05.2006, fromwww.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/dyssy08a.txt.
Hurry, J. & Moriarty, V. (2003), Youth Justice Board Education, Training and
Employment Intervention Programme: Central Evaluators Final Report, London:
Institute of Education, University of London.
Lewis, I. (2003), ‘Reducing Youth Offending – the Role of Learning and Skills’, Youth
Justice Board conference. London:

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

188

Lipsey, M. (1995), ‘What Do We Learn from 400 Research Studies on the Effectivenessof Treatment with Juvenile Delinquents?’ in McGuire, J. (ed.) What Works: Reducing
Offending – Guidelines for Research and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Ltd., 63-78.
Loeber, R. (1990), ‘Development and Risk Factors of Juvenile Antisocial Behaviour andDelinquency’. Clinical Psychology Review. 10, 1-41.
McGill, D. E. (1999), ‘Mentoring as an Early Intervention Strategy: The Experience of
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’, in Bayley, R. (ed.) Transforming Children’s Lives:
The Importance of Early Intervention. London: Family Policy Studies Centre.
MORI (2004), Youth Survey 2004, London: Youth Justice Board.
Petrie, P., Boddy, J., Cameron, C., Heptinstall, E., McQuail, S., Simon, A. & Wigfall, V.
(2005), Pedagogy – a Holistic, Personal Approach to Work with Children and Young
People, across Services: European Models for Practice, Training, Education andQualification, Translated Petrie, P., Boddy, J., Cameron, C., Heptinstall, E., McQuail,S., Simon, A. & Wigfall, V. Thomas Coram Research Unit, University of London,
Retrieved 30/06/2005, from hk1.ioe.ac.uk/tcru/Ped_BRIEFING_PAPER.pdf.
Raynor, P. (1998), ‘Attitudes, Social Problems and Reconvictions in the ‘Stop’
Probation Experiment’. The Howard Journal. 37, 1, 1-15.
Scott, S. (1998), ‘Aggressive Behaviour in Childhood’. British Medical Journal. 316,
202-06.
Shiner, M., Young, T., Newburn, T. & Groben, S. (2004), Mentoring Disaffected Young
People: An Evaluation of Mentoring Plus, York: LSE & Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Spencer, N. (2003), ‘Parenting Programmes’. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 88, 99100.
St James-Roberts, I. & Singh, C. S. (2001), Can Mentors Help Primary School Children
with Behaviour Problems? Final Report of the Three Year Evaluation of Project Chance
Carried out by the Thomas Coram Research Unit between March 1997 and 2000,
London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Tarling, R., Davison, T. & Clarke, A. (2002), The Youth Justice Board Youth Mentoring
Intervention Programme: An Evaluation, Institute for Social Research, University ofSurrey.
Tarling, R., Davison, T. & Clarke, A. (2004), Mentoring Projects: The National
Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s Mentoring Projects, London: Youth Justice
Board.
Wood, M. (2004), Perceptions and Experience of Antisocial Behaviour: Findings fromthe 2003/2004 British Crime Survey, Home Office.
Youth Justice Board (2003), Youth Justice Board Counting Rules, Translated Youth
Justice Board, Retrieved 13.06.2005, from www.youth-justiceboard.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/71422AFA-9D58-4108-ACF93154EB3D91BB/0/CountingRulesAprilJune2004.pdf.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

189

Youth Justice Board (2005), Youth Justice System: Step through the Youth Justice
System, Translated Youth Justice Board, Retrieved 13.06.2005, from www.youthjustice-board.gov.uk/YouthJusticeBoard/TheSystem.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
National Evaluation of Youth
Justice Board Mentoring Schemes 2001 to 2004

190