Post on 15-Aug-2020
Evaluation of the Mentoring
for Excluded Groups and
Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
Sarah Foster and Lydia Finnegan
August 2014
This project has been funded with support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013). For more information see http://ec.europa.eu/progress
The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
2
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3
Review purpose ............................................................................................... 3
What is mentoring? .......................................................................................... 3
Furthering the evidence .................................................................................... 4
2 Understanding the target groups............................................................... 6
3 The effectiveness and outcomes of mentoring .......................................... 8
Findings from the MOMIE evidence review ......................................................... 8
The latest findings on the effectiveness and outcomes of mentoring ................... 9
4 Important factors and conditions for effective mentoring ...................... 12
Characteristics of mentees .............................................................................. 12
Characteristics of mentors .............................................................................. 12
Mentor and mentee matching ......................................................................... 13
Support, training and supervision for mentors .................................................. 14
Goal setting ................................................................................................... 14
Mentoring duration and intensity ..................................................................... 15
Mentoring relationship .................................................................................... 16
The structure of mentoring programmes ......................................................... 17
Integration of mentoring with other support .................................................... 17
5 Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 19
Recommendations for mentoring .................................................................... 19
References ...................................................................................................... 21
Appendix – Research Protocol ........................................................................ 24
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
3
1 Introduction
1.1 This paper represents a review of existing evidence on the effectiveness of
mentoring in terms of promoting social inclusion of vulnerable groups. It has
been produced to support the EU-funded PROGRESS1 project Mentoring for
Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN).
1.2 MEGAN is a mentoring project with an evaluation component, financed by
the European Social Fund’s Progress funding stream. The MEGAN project
team’s interest area is that of supporting disadvantaged groups, including
Roma young people (Hungary), people living in social and economic
disadvantage, depending on State Benefits/Minimum Income (Portugal) and
offenders on probation, including migrant offenders (UK). MEGAN will deliver
mentoring to participants in each country for at least six months and
measure what impact this has on the mentees’ lives in a number of key
areas2. MEGAN is hoping to build on its predecessor project, Models of
Mentoring for Inclusion and Employment (MOMIE).
Review purpose
1.3 The purpose of this review is to build on the evidence gathered for the
MOMIE project (Finnegan et al, 2010) which identified critical success factors
for mentoring programmes.
What is mentoring?
1.4 Before proceeding with the review, it is worth clarifying how mentoring has
been defined. This review, like the 2010 review completed for the MOMIE
project, has adopted Tolan et al’s (2008) definition, which described
mentoring as having the following four characteristics:
Interaction between two individuals over an extended period of time.
1 Programme for Employment and Solidarity 2007 - 2013, DG Employment, Social Affairs
and Inclusion (http://ec.europa.eu/progress)
2 The MEGAN project is measuring changes in work education and training, recidivism, drug
and alcohol use, money management, relationships, mental well being, collaborating with others, planning.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
4
Inequality of experience, knowledge, or power between the mentor
and mentee (recipient), with the mentor possessing the greater share.
The mentee is in a position to imitate and benefit from the knowledge,
skill, ability, or experience of the mentor.
The absence of the role inequality that typifies other helping
relationships and is marked by professional training, certification, or
predetermined status differences such as parent-child or teacher-
student relationships.
Furthering the evidence
1.5 The literature has not moved a long way between MOMIE being started in
spring 2010 and MEGAN, which began in autumn 2012. This is partly due to
this being a short time frame. Commitment, understanding and buy-in is
needed to facilitate robust evaluation. The other reason for the relatively
slow build up of evidence is due to the definitional difficulties and multiple
variables. We are often unable to compare mentoring programmes as we
are not usually comparing like with like. Attribution of outcomes is
problematic; it is difficult to assign a value to how much mentoring may
have helped a person in a particular area when a mentee might be accessing
other interventions alongside mentoring (e.g. DuBois et al, 2002; Jolliffe and
Farrington, 2007). This also applies to the use of a control group, as in the
case of MEGAN, where it is difficult to control or establish what external help
the control group might be receiving which could have an effect on the
results.
1.6 Despite the challenges in producing good quality reliable research in the field
of mentoring, a number of bodies have been set up recently to try to build
the research base, with the strategic aim of pushing for more evidenced
based policy. In the US, Portland State University set up the ‘Center for
Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research’ in 20103, which conducts research on
mentoring for youth, college students, employees and parents. Also in the
US, the University of Massachusetts set up ‘The Center for Evidence-Based
Mentoring’ in 20114. The goal of this centre is to advance both the
production and uptake of evidence-based practice in the field of youth
mentoring. Both centres are very active in evaluating mentoring
3 See http://www.pdx.edu/mentoring-research/ 4 See http://www.umbmentoring.org/
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
5
programmes and coordinating conferences where researchers in the field are
brought together to discuss findings. The centres are also active in driving
mentoring improvement through the dissemination of quality standards and
toolkits. The Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring publication
(MENTOR, 2009a) includes six evidence-based mentoring standards
addressing mentor and mentee recruitment, screening, training, matching,
monitoring and support, and closure. MENTOR have also published a toolkit
specifically focused on mentoring immigrant and refugee youth (2009b). In
the UK the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation5 provides a similar role
and draws together mentoring research and best practice.
1.7 For this review, electronic databases were searched to identify peer-
reviewed academic articles and relevant websites. As the MOMIE review
was conducted in 2010, the search was originally limited to research
published from 2010 onwards, but later widened to research published from
2005 onwards in recognition of the wider focus of this review. International
research was sought, though the searches were restricted to research
published in English. The predominance of UK, US and Australian mentoring
scheme research in this review is a reflection of where the majority of the
research has been produced and not due to the search being restricted to
these countries. Further details of the research protocol can be found in the
appendix.
5 See http://www.mandbf.org/
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
6
2 Understanding the target groups
2.1 The target groups forming the MEGAN project have remained the same as
they were for the MOMIE project; Roma young people (Hungary), offenders
on probation (UK) and people living in social and economic disadvantage,
depending on State Benefits/Minimum Income (Portugal). However, a new
group has been introduced within the offender cohort; migrant offenders on
probation in London. It is therefore important to understand the unique
issues facing migrants, including difficulties they have in adjusting to their
new environment, the discrimination they sometimes encounter and how
some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
2.2 A paper produced by NACRO (2010) highlighted that foreign national
prisoners can experience a range of issues that go beyond those affecting
the general offender population:
Mental health and welfare problems (such as isolation, separation from
family, trauma and loss, particularly if they are seeking refuge or
asylum).
A lack of access to information about their current experience.
A lack of legal and immigration advice.
Language barriers and a shortage of translation facilities.
A period of being held in bureaucratic limbo following the serving of
their sentence and prior to deportation.
Limited preparation for release and insufficient access to resettlement
programmes.
A fear of return to their home country fuelled either by persecution in
that country or by other reasons.
2.3 Certain sections of the media have blurred the boundaries between criminal
and foreign national and between offender and asylum seeker. Under the
Immigration and Asylum Act 2004, it became an offence to enter the UK
without a passport or having destroyed travel documents. There has been a
gradual criminalisation of transgressions that were previously considered
solely related to immigration.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
7
2.4 This coexists alongside continued discrimination which often goes under the
political and media radars. Exacerbated by the tough economic climate, it is
a reality in which foreign nationals are often presumed to be taking jobs:
“Racism is changing in the UK. If the crude forms of racism of industrial
capitalism were directed at the workers from the West Indies and Indian
subcontinent brought in to fill postwar labour shortages, the racism of
postindustrial capitalism is being directed at new migrants who find
themselves providing the manpower for ever more flexible labour markets,
and at ‘settled’ migrants who have been forced into the twilight worlds of
the service economy. It is a racism where the poor and poorer still are left to
fight it out over deregulated employment, as social protections are steadily
eroded.”
(Burnett, 2013)
2.5 The circumstances and needs of migrants differ greatly from one individual
to the next, dependent on their personal circumstances and their reasons for
migrating. Many immigrants settle in areas experiencing significant poverty.
Immigrant parents often work long hours to make ends meet which makes it
difficult for them to monitor their children’s progress and activities.
Immigrants experience a number of stressors, including stress related to
exclusion experienced in the host country, poverty and separation from
families (MENTOR, 2009b). Children’s acculturation tends to be more rapid
than that of their parents and this can lead to a divide between the
generations.
2.6 For Roma people, discrimination and practices such as forced settlement and
school segregation remain widespread in counties across Central and
Eastern Europe (Amnesty International, 2007). This treatment has left a
legacy of disengagement with education, suspicion and mistrust of authority
and a belief amongst many young Roma that they cannot succeed or change
their circumstances.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
8
3 The effectiveness and outcomes of
mentoring
3.1 During the past decade, mentoring has become increasingly common as a
social intervention aimed at improving the life chances of disadvantaged
people in the absence of positive role models. It is also widely used in
professional contexts as a way for senior professionals to advice junior staff
along their career path. There is evidence to suggest that mentoring can
benefit people in some contexts in different ways. However, the evidence to
support how far it can achieve hard outcomes such as gaining employment
and reducing recidivism remains inconclusive6.
3.2 It is not appropriate to ask in broad terms ‘does mentoring work?’ because
mentoring can be defined in a number of ways according to the context. It
involves a number of variables, such as the characteristics of the target
group, characteristics of the mentor, length of relationship, duration of
sessions, what characteristics the mentoring match is based on, which
activities are undertaken, the geographical and political context and whether
or not there is adequate supervision from the coordinating organisation.
Findings from the MOMIE evidence review
3.3 The MOMIE evidence review (Finnegan et al, 2010) outlined findings from a
number of studies which provided some promising evidence of the potential
for mentoring to contribute to a number of outcomes.
3.4 Positive effects shown by some of the research literature included:
Positive effects on intermediate outcomes, such as mental health,
which may in turn have a positive effect on outcomes such as
recidivism.
Improvements in mentee attitude and behaviour.
Improvements in interpersonal relationships and integration into the
community.
6 Portuguese outcomes on MOMIE and on MEGAN, reveal that there is a positive correlation between mentoring (along with other complementary interventions) and employment.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
9
Some reductions in recidivism
Some improvements in academic achievement and integration into
education and training.
3.5 However, the evidence was very mixed. The positive results from studies on
mentoring were often not consistent or statistically significant (Lipsey et al,
2000, Joliffe and Farrington, 2007). Many of the studies reviewed reported
no significant impact on the outcomes noted above, including recidivism, or
on intermediate outcomes such as attitudinal improvements, or increases in
levels of numeracy or literacy.
3.6 In addition, although the literature as whole suggested mentoring can have
a positive effect on a number of outcomes, many findings had to be treated
with a significant degree of caution due to methodological limitations (Tolan
et al, 2008, DuBois et al, 2002).
The latest findings on the effectiveness and
outcomes of mentoring
3.7 A rapid evidence assessment of the intermediate outcomes of mentoring
interventions for NOMS (Taylor et al, 2013) sought to assess the effect of
mentoring on reoffending and identify intermediate outcomes from
mentoring projects. This research reviewed 23 studies in total and identified
a number of studies that had found some statistically significant impacts of
programmes involving mentoring on reoffending. Overall, the effectiveness
of mentoring on reducing reoffending was not conclusive from the evidence
available, but was instead described as “mixed/promising”.
3.8 Taylor et al (2013) also identified a number of intermediate outcomes which
some mentoring programmes have been associated with, though the level of
evidence in support of each varied. These intermediate outcomes were:
An improvement in employment outcomes.
Increased participation in other programmes and interventions
designed to reduce reoffending and encourage desistance.
Improvements in housing situations.
Improvement in health outcomes, especially reduced substance
misuse.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
10
Attitudinal, cognitive or motivational change, including positive changes
in coping and other psychological skills and improvements in attitudes
and thinking patterns.
Improvements in family and community relationships.
3.9 The findings of a meta-analysis of 73 independent evaluations of youth
mentoring programmes by DuBois et al (2011) support the effectiveness of
mentoring for improving academic, social, behavioural and emotional
outcomes. The analysis also found that mentoring has the ability to both
create positive outcomes and prevent negative outcomes. The research also
found evidence that mentoring is able to produce positive outcomes across
multiple domains simultaneously.
3.10 A literature review by KPMG (2013) concluded that mentoring can have a
positive and lasting effect on young people. The collective findings of the
literature reviewed in the report suggested that youth mentoring can provide
benefits including:
Increased social inclusion.
Improved relationships with peers and parents.
Improved health outcomes, including improved mental health and
reduced substance misuse.
Decreased youth violence.
3.11 A number of other evaluations of individual mentoring programmes also
provide support for the effectiveness of mentoring. For example, the Mosaic
mentoring programme for BME youth in the UK was felt to lead to subjective
improvements in mentees’ aspirations for the future, confidence, and
general happiness and sense of wellbeing (Bartlett, 2012). A mentoring
programme for indigenous youth in Australia was found to lead to a number
of positive outcomes in the areas of education, employment, health and pro-
social behaviours, including improved mentee resilience, aspirations and
engagement (Harwood et al, 2013). This same programme was also found
to generate $7 in benefits for every $1 in cost (KPMG, 2013). A mentoring
project for refugee women in Australia was found to increase mentees’
confidence and independence (Bond, 2010). In a Youth Initiated Mentoring
programme in the US, analysis by Schwartz et al (2012) found that
participants who were in contact with their mentors at the 38 month follow
up showed significant benefits compared to the control group on academic,
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
11
vocational and behavioural outcomes. The only outcome with no effect was
substance misuse. The results also suggested that mentors provided
valuable social and emotional support and guidance that was instrumental to
mentees improved success. In addition, a recent survey in the US (Bruce
and Bridgeland, 2014) found that young people with mentors were more
likely to report engaging in positive behaviour and believed that mentoring
helped them stay on track and make good choices.
3.12 Echoing the conclusions of the 2010 MOMIE review, both Taylor et al (2013)
and DuBois et al (2011) highlighted a number of reasons why the findings
on mentoring effectiveness and outcome need to be treated cautiously:
Gains on outcomes measures for the typical mentee in mentoring
programmes has been modest.
Mentoring evaluations do not typically look at the long-term outcomes
of programmes, or whether the immediate benefits are sustained, and
so the durability of mentoring effects remains largely unknown.
There is limited robust research evidence on the impact of mentoring
programmes with some groups, including offenders and migrants.
Many mentoring evaluations have failed to assess several key
outcomes of policy interest, including youth offending.
As mentoring can take so many forms, and indeed is often tailored to
mentees’ needs and therefore differs on an individual basis, it is
difficult to systematically capture outcomes and aggregate the
evidence.
3.13 The researchers do however conclude that there is value in continued
support for mentoring programmes, particularly when there is a desire to
promote outcomes across multiple domains.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
12
4 Important factors and conditions
for effective mentoring
4.1 The MOMIE evidence review (Finnegan et al, 2010) found that the available
literature did give a strong lead on what was needed for an effective
mentoring initiative. The MOMIE evidence review outlined a number of
important factors for an effective mentoring relationship. This section will
summarise the previous review’s findings by theme, alongside a
consideration of the latest research findings.
Characteristics of mentees
4.2 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Targeting people 'at risk' rather than people who are already
demonstrating significant personal problems.
Enthusiasm and a willingness to take part.
4.3 The meta-analysis of 73 youth mentoring programmes by DuBois et al
(2011) found that programmes have been more effective when they have
targeted youth from high-risk backgrounds.
Characteristics of mentors
4.4 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Using people who have had experience in helping roles as mentors.
Ability to model relevant behaviours.
4.5 Using mentors who have ‘been there, done that’ was identified as a success
factors in the KPMG (2013) literature review. In addition, an evaluation of a
mentoring programme for BME youth in the UK (Bartlett, 2012) found that
the longer an individual had been a mentor the better the improvements in
outcomes for the mentee.
4.6 Recruiting mentors who are considered ‘successful’ may also be helpful.
Bartlett (2012) found that having a mentor who the mentee viewed as
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
13
successful had a strong impact on the mentees’ confidence in finding a job
and achieving in life.
4.7 It is also important to ensure that there is a good fit between the
backgrounds of the mentors and the goals of the programme (DuBois et al,
2011). Ensuring that the expectations of mentors are also a match for the
programme is important for limiting mentor ‘burn-out’ or fatigue which can
cause high drop-out levels from mentoring programmes which is bad for
both mentor and mentee (Bartlett, 2012).
Mentor and mentee matching
4.8 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Matching mentors and mentees on the basis of background and
experience.
4.9 The meta-analysis by DuBois et al (2011) confirmed the important of
mentors and mentees being paired based on similarity of interests. A good
match between mentor and mentee was also found to be a success factor in
Bartlett’s (2012) evaluation of a BME youth mentoring programme.
4.10 Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is a new approach to mentoring in which
the youth nominate mentors from the non-parental adults in their social
networks, for example extended family, teachers or family friends. The YIM
model is borne from evidence suggesting that natural mentoring
relationships, where the mentor is from the youth’s existing social network,
are more durable. These mentees are likely to be closer connected to the
youth’s cultural backgrounds, reflecting evidence that suggests when
mentees are given a choice they choose mentors from similar backgrounds
to themselves. Using data from a national randomized evaluation of the
National Guard Youth Challenge Programme, a USA programme for youths
who have dropped out of high school, and qualitative data from study
participants, Schwartz et al (2012) examined how YIM relationships relate to
youth outcomes. Findings showed positive outcomes for mentees in YIM
mentoring relationships. Mentees who chose mentors on their own were also
more likely to have an enduring relationship, and same race mentee-mentor
relationships were longer-lasting.
4.11 Matching by gender does not seem to be critical however. Kanchewa et al
(2014) conducted a secondary analysis of two surveys, the Department of
Education’s Student Mentoring Program and the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
14
America’s School-based Mentoring. They found that, generally, same-sex
versus cross gender mentor-mentee relationships for male mentees made
little difference to outcomes. This finding supports a number of analyses that
find neither mentor nor mentee gender, nor matching by gender
systematically relate to programme outcomes and impacts (for example,
DuBois et al, 2011).
Support, training and supervision for mentors
4.12 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Having a strong support system in place for the mentoring scheme.
4.13 An Australian pilot mentoring programme for refugee women (Bond, 2010)
identified a number of ways in which supporting and training mentors could
be developed. Having a coordinator charged with recruitment, training and
support of mentors was considered important. Also felt to be of value was
offering accredited training modules, in addition to basic training, to enable
mentor upskilling in areas appropriate to the needs of their match, for
example home English tutoring. Strengthening mentor support by providing
regular reporting and supervision opportunities and including a feedback
mechanism in the mentor exit process were also identified.
4.14 It is important to ensure that involvement in mentoring provides positive
benefits for mentors and development of personal and professional skills is
one way to provide benefits (Bartlett, 2012).
Goal setting
4.15 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Ensuring compatibility between the mentee and mentor’s goals for the
relationship.
Jointly agreeing goals.
4.16 Setting realistic and achievable goals with mentees was one of the critical
success factors identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young
Roma in the UK (Eustance, 2009). Likewise, clearly defined goals and
objectives was found to be a success factor in a BME youth mentoring
programme (Bartlett, 2012).
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
15
4.17 A balance may be needed. Karcher and Nakkula (2010) outline two
approaches to mentoring: goal directed and relational, and two relationship
styles: developmental (which includes both goal directed and relational
interactions) and instrumental (which is predominantly goal-directed). They
suggest that a pattern of mentoring interactions that either lack any
articulated goals or focus exclusively on goals and skill development can
result in quite ineffective mentoring.
4.18 The KPMG (2013) literature review found that setting too many goals can
cause the mentee to become discouraged and give up.
Mentoring duration and intensity
4.19 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Long-term mentoring relationships of a year or more
Frequent contact of once a week or more.
4.20 In Schwartz et al's (2013) research on Youth Initiated Mentoring
programmes, improved outcomes were not seen in participants where
relationships lasted under 21 months, suggesting enduring mentoring
relationships are key to developing positive outcomes.
4.21 A good quality UK study also found that mentoring for offenders is most
likely to be effective when the relationship is maintained over time rather
than consisting of just one or two sessions. Maguire et al (2010) found that
participants in a mentoring scheme in Wales who received between two and
six contacts after release were reconvicted at a significantly lower rate than
a (broadly matched) control group of those who did not maintain contact.
4.22 In the KPMG (2013) literature review, long-term mentoring relationships of
at least 12-18 months and consistent regular contact between mentor and
mentee were identified as success factors.
4.23 In Bartlett’s (2012) evaluation of a mentoring programme for BME youth,
mentoring for more hours was reported to increase mentees’ motivation,
confidence and skills.
4.24 The US youth mentoring survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) also
confirmed that the longer the mentoring relationship, the greater the value.
The survey found that youth satisfaction with mentoring doubled when
comparing mentoring relationships of more than a year to less than a year.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
16
In addition, young people with longer mentoring relationships reported
better outcomes.
Mentoring relationship
4.25 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Setting clear boundaries between mentor and mentee.
Ensuring the mentor retains authority and professionalism.
4.26 The findings of Larose et al (2010) suggest that more directive behaviours
are beneficial to youth, as long as there is a balance between emotional
engagement and control. However, directive behaviours may vary according
the mentees circumstances, and the stage of the relationship. They suggest
that a directive start to the relationship may help to identify the motivations
and expectations of mentees, and possibilities and limitations to the
relationship.
4.27 In assessing four mentoring studies, Keller and Pryce (2010) found that the
most rewarding relationship for mentees, and the most successful
relationship in terms of outcomes, was where the mentor balanced youth-
focused efforts to build a relationship with adult-oriented activities to
encourage development. This ‘hybrid’ model allowed the mentor to manage
the voluntary aspect of the relationship as well as use the power imbalance
to support development. The research suggested that a relationship based
predominantly on one of these two aspects is less successful.
4.28 The literature review by KPMG (2013) found that the mentoring relationships
should involve mutual respect, genuine friendship and a non-judgemental
and non-authoritarian approach. ‘Mentors adopting an attitude of
unconditional positive regard towards mentees’ was one of the critical
success factors identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young
Roma in the UK (Eustance, 2009).
4.29 The US youth mentoring survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) found that
structured and informal mentoring relationships could provide different but
complementary benefits. Structured mentoring relationships tended to
provide more academic and employment-related support. Informal
mentoring relationships tended to support personal development.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
17
4.30 The meta-analysis of youth mentoring programmes by DuBois et al (2011)
found that one-to-one mentoring relationships and group mentoring
relationships showed comparable levels of effectiveness.
The structure of mentoring programmes
4.31 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
The presence of structured activities for mentors and mentees.
Building positive relationships through working together on activities or
joint-decision making.
4.32 Given such a wide variety of experiences possible in a mentor-mentee
relationship, Larose et al (2010) attempted to determine whether mentoring
programmes should foster a specific type of experience to develop mentees.
Whilst their research related to an academic setting through their analysis of
the MIRES (Mentoring for the Integration and Success of Science Students)
programme, the findings offer useful recommendations regarding the
structure of mentoring programmes. They advocated using structured,
meaningful activities which may vary by the needs expressed by the youth:
activities must strongly reflect the developmental needs of their clientele.
4.33 Deploying mentoring models flexibly and tailoring these to individual
mentees appears important: applying different mentoring techniques
according to individual needs was one of the critical success factors
identified in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young Roma in the UK
(Eustance, 2009).
Integration of mentoring with other support
4.34 Important success factors highlighted the 2010 MOMIE review:
Using mentoring as a component within a wider programme of support
for those at risk.
4.35 Effective multi-agency collaboration and relationship building with statutory
agencies and professionals was one of the critical success factors identified
in the Roma Mentoring Project delivered to young Roma in the UK
(Eustance, 2009).
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
18
4.36 In a meta-analysis looking at the effects of youth mentoring on mentee
outcomes, Eby et al (2008) found some evidence to suggest that mentoring
of ‘at risk’ youths has greatest effects when accompanied by other support
services. Likewise, having strong partnerships between the mentoring
programme and other services in the area was also identified as good
practice in the KPMG (2013) literature review. The US youth mentoring
survey (Bruce and Bridgeland, 2014) also provided support for the value of
integration.
4.37 From a criminal justice perspective the evidence suggests that mentoring
may be most beneficial when it begins in prison and lasts beyond release
(Clancy et al, 2006).
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
19
5 Conclusions and
recommendations
5.1 This refresh of the evidence has found that the conclusions and
recommendations made in the MOMIE Review (Finnegan et al, 2010) stand.
Challenges with the research on the effectiveness and outcomes of
mentoring remain, but the available evidence base does suggest that there
is value in continuing to support mentoring programmes for vulnerable
groups.
Recommendations for mentoring
5.2 Ensure that mentoring programmes are designed to take account of
research findings on effective mentoring programme features, including the
need to match mentors and mentees on the basis of background and
interests, the need for mentoring to last for more than 12 months and
involve regular contact, and the need to integrate mentoring with other
support.
5.3 Aim to identify and monitor a suite of intermediate outcomes alongside the
key outcome(s). For example, employment, participation in other
programmes, housing and health outcomes are valuable intermediate
outcomes for a mentoring programme with an overall aim of reducing
reoffending.
5.4 Consider soft outcomes alongside hard outcomes. Soft outcomes may be
more achievable in the short term and are an important form of success in
their own right. For example, development of soft skills, higher aspirations
and a greater sense of personal agency.
5.5 Use quality standards to ensure all structured mentoring is quality
mentoring.
5.6 Ensure that there is a positive benefit to participation in mentoring
programmes for the mentor as well as the mentee, for example, through
offering skill development opportunities.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
20
5.7 Explore innovations, including group mentoring and technology, which may
have the potential to dramatically increase the supply of mentors and close
the mentoring gap.
5.8 Facilitate more connections between mentoring research and practice and
utilise evaluation methods that will address current research gaps, such as
longitudinal studies to assess long-term outcomes from mentoring.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
21
References
Amnesty International (2007) Slovakia: Still Separate, Still Unequal. Violations of the
Rights to Education of Romani Children in Slovakia.
Bartlett, J. (2012) A model role: evaluation of mosaic mentoring programmes.
London: Demos.
Bond, S. (2010) Women on the Move: Evaluating a refugee mentoring pilot project.
Victoria, Australia: Brotherhood of St Laurence.
Bruce, M. and Bridgeland, J. (2014) The Mentoring Effect: Young People’s
Perspectives on the Outcomes and Availability of Mentoring. Boston: National
Mentoring Partnership.
Burnett, J. (2013) Britain: racial violence and the politics of hate. Race and Class,
Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 5-21.
Clancy, A., Hudson, K., Maguire, M., Peake, R., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M. and Kynch,
J. (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out: Results of the Prisoner Resettlement
Pathfinders. Bristol: Policy Press.
DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C. and Cooper H. (2002) Effectiveness of
mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. American Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 157-197.
DuBois, D.L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J.E., Silverthorn, N. and Valentine, J.C. (2011)
How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the
Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 57-91.
Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, C.S, Ng, T. and DuBois, D.L. (2008). Does mentoring
matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored
individuals. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 72, pp. 254-267.
Eustance, C. (2009) Roma Metoring Project: Evaluation Report. London: Roma
Support Group.
Finnegan, L., Whitehurst, D. and Deaton, S. (2010) Models of mentoring for
inclusion and employment: Thematic review of existing evidence on mentoring and
peer mentoring. London: MOMIE/Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
22
Harwood, V., O'Shea, S., Clapham, K., Wright, J., Kervin, L., Humphry, N., McMahon,
S., Hogan, M. and Bodkin-Andrews, G. (2013) Evaluation of the AIME Outreach
Program: Final Report. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, Australia.
Jolliffe, D. and Farrington, D.P. (2007) A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of
mentoring on re-offending: a summary. London: Home Office.
Kanchewa, S.S., Rhodes, J.E., Schwartz, S.E.O. and Olsho, L.E.W. (2014). An
Investigation of Same- versus Cross-gender Matching for Boys in Formal School-
based Mentoring Programs. Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 18, No, 1, pp. 31-
45.
Karcher, M.J. and Nakkula, M.J. (2010). Youth mentoring with a balanced focus,
shared purpose, and collaborative interactions. New Directions for Youth
Development, No. 126, pp.13-32.
Keller, T.E. and Pryce, J.M. (2010) Mutual but unequal: Mentoring as a hybrid of
familiar relationship roles. New Directions for Youth Development, No.126, pp. 33-
50.
KPMG (2013) Economic Evaluation of the Australian Indigenous Mentoring
Experience Program: Final report. Australian Government Advisory Services.
Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Brodeur, P. and Tarabulsy, G.M. (2010). The
structure of effective academic mentoring in late adolescence. New Directions for
Youth Development, No. 126, pp. 89-105.
Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B. and Cothern, L. (2000) Effective intervention for serious
juvenile offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Bulletin,
April Edition.
Maguire, M., Holloway, K., Liddle, M., Gordon, F., Gray, P., Smith, A. and Wright, S.
(2010) Evaluation of the Transitional Support Scheme (TSS): Final Report to the
Welsh Assembly Government. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
MENTOR (2009a) Elements of effective practice for mentoring: third edition. Virginia:
National Mentoring Partnership.
MENTOR (2009b) Mentoring immigrant and refugee youth: a toolkit for program
coordinators. Virginia: National Mentoring Partnership.
NACRO (2010) Foreign national offenders, mental health and the criminal justice
system: a Nacro mental health briefing paper. London: Nacro Mental Health Unit.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
23
Schwartz, S.E.O., Rhodes, J.E., Spencer, R. and Grossman, J.B. (2013) Youth
Initiated Mentoring: Investigating a New Approach to Working with Vulnerable
Adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 155–169.
Taylor, J., Burrowes, N., Disley, E., Liddle, M., Maguire, M., Rubin, J. and Wright, S.
(2013) Intermediate outcomes of mentoring interventions: a rapid evidence
assessment. London: National Offender Management Service.
Tolan, P., Henry, D., Schoeny, M. and Bass, A. (2008) Mentoring interventions to
affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems. Oslo: The Campbell
Collaboration.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
24
Appendix – Research Protocol
Review of academic databases
We searched for peer-reviewed academic research on databases using the London
School of Economic Science Summon function, as well as wider searches on
databases of electronic journals such as the International Bibliography of the Social
Science and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. Relevant papers from the MOMIE project
were also included.
The criteria used to identify relevant research was English language studies which
investigated the impacts of mentoring on mentors and mentees, specifically in
regard to minority groups. International research was sought, though the searches
were restricted to research published in English. The predominance of UK, US and
Australian mentoring scheme research in this review is a reflection of where the
majority of the research has been produced and not due to the search being
restricted to these countries. As the MOMIE review was conducted in 2010, the
search was originally limited to research published from 2010 onwards, but later
widened to research published from 2005 onwards in recognition of the wider focus
of this review.
With such a wide scope, papers that included a literature review or systematic
review approach were initially sought to rapidly assess the current state of the peer-
reviewed literature. Where the literature review of systematic review was considered
robust, additional qualitative research was used to add to the understanding of the
impacts (particularly those that cannot be easily quantitatively measured).
The search for articles and reports began by using each first term with each second
term.
First Term Second Term
Mentor* Minority
Migrant
Social* Exclu*
Impact
Outcomes
Review
Meta*
Cost
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
25
The search did not yield a large number of relevant studies when more than one
search term was used, as the subject matter was quite specific. Whilst articles on
mentoring could be found, the target groups were varied and often included
workplace mentoring, which was irrelevant for the MEGAN context. Specific papers
regarding the impacts of mentoring on excluded or minority groups were sparse, and
mainly focused on academic contexts (for example with excluded pupils) in the USA.
Nonetheless, the identified abstracts were sifted on the basis of the following
questions:
Does the abstract address the research question(s)?
Is the paper based on a primary study examining the effectiveness of peer and
non-peer mentoring?
Does the study use transparent, appropriate and robust methods?
If the answer to these questions was ‘yes’ then the full paper was reviewed.
A review template is provided below. We used this template to record relevant
information for each of the studies identified in the review, regardless of how the
study was identified. Two reviewers reviewed articles for this literature review and
saved the templates in the same location. An evidence review list was compiled to
keep track of which articles were being reviewed by whom and a note of how
relevant an article was to make it easy to extract material from each article.
Review of grey literature
Not all relevant evidence-based literature relevant to mentoring may have been
published in academic journals or papers. We therefore searched the websites of
the following organisations:
UK Government Publications (www.gov.uk/government/publications)
Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (www.mandbf.org)
Center for Interdisciplinary Mentoring Research (www.pdx.edu/mentoring-
research)
Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring (www.umbmentoring.org)
We restricted our search of these websites to evidence-based literature and
evaluations, rather than case studies of projects which had not been evaluated.
Evaluation of the Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) European
Project: Literature Review
26
Literature Summary Template
Publication Date:
Full reference:
Author interest in
subject:
(i.e. independent
evaluator,
government dept etc)
Geographical
scope:
Published
location/ journal:
Research aims:
Research methodology: * method;
* treatment and
comparison group;
* primary or
secondary;
* quantitative or
qualitative;
* sample size and
how the sample
selected;
* response rates.
Summary of
article:
(include any country-
specific details/
factors that may limit
comparisons to UK)
Relevant Findings:
(include page
numbers for data and
quotes)
Relevant
Recommendations:
Name of reviewer: Date Reviewed: