evaluation of fostering network scottish care …...evaluation of fostering network scottish care...

Evaluation of Fostering Network Scottish Care Leavers

Mentoring Projects

Final Report

Evaluation of Fostering Network Scottish Care Leavers Mentoring

Projects

Final Report

Andrew Kendrick

Lynne Hunter

Mel Cadman

Glasgow School of Social Work

Universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow

August 2005

For more information about our work in Scotland contact us at:The Fostering Network, 2nd floor, 227 Ingram Street, Glasgow G1 1DAt 0141 204 1400www.thefostering.net

Registered Charity No: 280852

3Evaluation of Fostering Network Scottish Care Leavers Mentoring Project

1 Introduction 4

2 The Research 11

3 The Mentoring Projects 14

4 The Mentoring Process 19

5 Implications and Conclusions 34

References 39

4 Evaluation of Fostering Network Scottish Care Leavers Mentoring Project

Care LeaversLooked after children and young peopleare some of the most vulnerable in oursociety. For Scotland’s Childrenhighlighted the ‘continuing failure ofmany local authorities as ‘corporateparents’ to provide these young peoplewith the care and education they areentitled to by law’ (Scottish Executive,2001, p. 10). One of the major issuesfacing looked after young people is theprocess of transition from care toindependence. It is a time when theyhave ‘a right to expect the sort of helpthat loving parents would provide fortheir children, help to reach their fullpotential, and the same chance to makemistakes secure in the knowledge thatthere is a safety net of support’(Jamieson, 2002, p. 2).

However, over a number of years,research has highlighted the pooroutcomes for children leaving care.Longitudinal studies which havefollowed up children and young peoplein care as part of national cohort studiespresent the stark contrast in lifeoutcomes between those who haveexperienced care and those who havenot. Cheung and Heath (1994) comparethese two groups at age 33. Only one-fifth of those who had been in care hadachieved O levels compared to one-thirdof those who had not; only half as manyhad achieved A levels. Only one in ahundred of those who had been in careachieved a university degree comparedto one on ten of those who had not. Two-fifths of those who had been in care hadno formal qualifications compared toone in seven (Cheung and Heath, 1994).This lack of qualifications converted into

lack of success in the job market withthree times as many being unemployed(10.8 % compared to 3.6 %) and largerproportions having manual jobs asopposed to professional or non-manualjobs.

Recent research in Scotland confirmsthe bleak picture which has previouslybeen painted in terms of the outcomesof care leavers (Action on AftercareConsortium, 1996; Biehal, Clayden,Stein and Wade, 1995; Stein, 1997). Asurvey of care leavers identified that:the majority of care leavers had pooreducation outcomes with only 39%having one or more standard grades;over half were unemployed; many of theyoung people had experienced mobilityand homelessness (Dixon and Stein,2002; 2003).

Baldwin, Coles and Mitchell (1997)acknowledge the ‘reality of deprivation,disadvantage and disenfranchisement’but argue that ‘behind these gloomystatistics lie complex biographies ofyoung people leaving care’ (Baldwin etal, 1997, p. 91). This has perhaps beenmost dramatically represented in theresearch by Jackson and Martin on ‘highachievers’ from the care system(Jackson and Martin, 1998; Martin andJackson, 2002). Of the 38 ‘highachievers’, only one was unemployed,none were in custody, three-quarterswere in rented private accommodationor their own home and only one washomeless (Jackson and Martin, 1998, p.576). This contrasts markedly with thecomparison group in the study and withthe figures on outcomes for care leaversoutlined above. The factors identified asprotective and most strongly associated

1 Introduction


with later educational success relatedto: stability and continuity; carers whovalued education and engagement witheducation; developing out-of-schoolinterests and hobbies; and meeting asignificant adult who offered consistentsupport and encouragement and actedas a mentor and possibly role model.

Young people tend to leave care earlyand their transition to independencetends to be compressed. Dixon and Stein(2002) also highlighted that:

Young people are unlikely to manage in adversity without a network of formal and informal support. However, research evidence suggests that many are unable to rely on consistent support from their families… and that formal sources of support have a tendency to fall away in the period after legal discharge. (Dixonand Stein, 2002, p. 2)

They therefore recommend that

In developing strategies for improving education, employment and training, consideration will need to be given to the provision of formal or informal personal support. (Dixon and Stein, 2002, p. 141)

Mentoring young peopleOver recent years there has been anincrease in the number of mentoringinitiatives which link young people tovolunteer mentors. A recent survey ofbefriending and mentoring in Scotlandidentified 277 projects of which nearlythree-quarters (200) included work withdisadvantaged children and youngpeople up to the age of 25 (Befriending

Network Scotland, 2005, p. 10). TheBefriending Network suggested that itwas important to clarify differencesbetween different types of projects andsuggested a model based on the natureof the objectives of the supportiverelationship, and on the importancegiven to achieving those objectivesthrough the relationship.

The Befriending / Mentoring Spectrum

(Befriending Network Scotland, 2005, p.52)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Mentoring

Befriending

Types 1 and 2 are classified asBefriending where the role of thevolunteer is to provide informal socialsupport and form a trustingrelationship over time. In Type 2 theremay be additional stated objectivessuch as increasing involvement incommunity activities but the success ofthe relationship is not dependent onthese being achieved. Types 3 and 4 areclassified as Befriending/Mentoring. InType 3, the role of the volunteer is toprovide informal social support andthrough this supportive relationship togo on to achieve stated objectives whichare reviewed over time. In Type 4, therole of the volunteer is to developobjectives over time and initially, therole is to develop a relationship in orderto establish a level of trust on whichobjective setting can be based. Types 5and 6 are classified as Mentoring. InType 5, the role of the volunteer is towork with the client to meet objectiveswhich are agreed at the start of therelationship.


These are achieved through thedevelopment of a trusting relationshipbut retains a focus on the objectives.Type 6 involves the volunteer workingwith the client solely on agreedobjectives which are clearly stated at thestart. Meetings focus primarily onmeeting objectives and any socialrelationship is incidental (BefriendingNetwork Scotland, 2005, pp 52-53). Onthe basis of this typology, it was foundthat Befriending/Mentoring Projects (61%) and Mentoring Projects (54 %) weremore likely to work with young peoplethan Companionship/BefriendingProjects (39 %); highlighting the focuson objective setting with this age group(Befriending Network Scotland, 2005, p. 21).

While this typology provides a usefulframework for a distinction betweenbefriending and mentoring, Hall (2003)highlights the issue of definition inrelation to mentoring and states that:

The terminology surrounding mentors, mentoring and mentees is bewilderingly various, vague andsometimes misleading… (Hall, 2003, p. 3)

… in many ways it is ill-defined andit occupies contested territory somewhere between those who would see it as all warm and comforting and those who regard itas an ill-disguised attempt to maintain existing power relations by shifting attention away from social inequalities to the alleged inadequacies of individuals (Hall, 2003, p.5)

Pawson lists the ways in which theactivities going on under the name ofmentoring have been described byresearchers:

… helping, coaching, tutoring, counseling, sponsoring, role modeling, befriending, bonding, trusting, mutual learning, directionsetting, progress chasing, sharing experience, providing respite, sharing a laugh, widening horizons, building resilience, showing ropes, informal apprenticeships, providing openings, kindness of strangers, sitting by Nellie, treats for bad boys and girls, the Caligula phenomenon, power play, tours of middle class life, etc. etc. (Pawson,2004a)

Hall describes a number of typologiesand classifications of mentoring anddraws out from these four dimensionswhich he characterizes as follows:

1. the origin of the mentoring relationship- to what extent is it a ‘naturally occurring’ relationship or one that has been artificially promoted?

2. the purpose of the mentoring – to what extent is it instrumental (akinto inducting the apprentice into a craft or profession) or expressive (guiding the naïve and undevelopedyouth into responsible adulthood)?...

3. the nature of the mentoring relationship – is it a one-to-one relationship or one-to-a- group?

4. the site of the mentoring – to what extent is it ‘site-based’ (for example, tied to a school or


college) or ‘community-based’ (situated in the young person’s family, community or wider social sphere).

(Hall, 2003, pp. 8-9)

Pawson suggest three core concepts asthe framework of a model of mentoring;concepts that ‘are used over and againin the literature as ways of describingdifferences in the mentor/menteerelationship and as explanations of whysome partnerships seem to flourishbetter than others’ (Pawson, 2004a). The three concepts are:

i) Status differences (the respective social standing of the partners)

ii) Reference group position (the social identity of mentor and protégé)

iii) Mentoring mechanism (the interpersonal strategy that affects change)

(Pawson, 2004a)

What works in mentoringIn the United States, mentoringschemes have a long history and theBig Brothers/Big Sisters of America nowinvolves over 500 local agencies(DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper,2002). The evaluation of Big BrothersBig Sisters (Tierney, Grossman, &Resch, 2000) involved a randomisedcontrol trial of 959 children and youngpeople, half of whom were allocated tothe mentoring initiative and half wereplaced on a waiting list until the end ofthe 18 month follow-up. The researchfound that: substantially fewer of the

mentored young people had startedusing illegal drugs at the end of thestudy period; fewer had started usingalcohol; academic behaviour, attitudesand performance were better; thequality of relationships with parents orguardians was better; the quality ofrelationships with peers was better.There were no overall impacts on self-worth, self-confidence or socialacceptance, however, and no systematicdifferences in participation in social andcultural activities (Tierney et al., 2000).The factors associated witheffectiveness of the programme were: ahigh level of contact; mentorrelationship defined as a friend and nota teacher or preacher; a supportive,holistic developmental approach;volunteer screening; mentor training;matching procedures; and intensivesupervision and support of each matchinvolving frequent contact with parent,volunteer and young person (Tierney etal., 2000). These findings are importantgiven that the Befriending Networksurvey found that ‘all projects believethat the supportive relationships thatthey initiate achieve outcomes relatingto increases in confidence, self-esteemand a reduction in isolation for youngpeople’ (Befriending Network Scotland,2005, p. 4).

DuBois et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analytic review of 55 independentstudies or reports of mentoringprogrammes and concluded that the‘findings of this investigation providesupport for the effectiveness of youthmentoring programmes’ (DuBois et al.,2002). The study found that statisticalresults were ‘consistent with a positiveeffect of mentoring programs on all fivetypes of outcomes examined (i.e.,emotional/psychological, problem/high-


risk behavior, social competence,academic/educational, andcareer/employment), although only to amarginal extent foremotional/psychological adjustment’(DuBois et al., 2002). The authorscaution, however, that ‘it may be mostappropriate to expect the typical youthparticipating in a mentoring program toreceive benefits that are quite modest interms of absolute magnitude’ (DuBois etal., 2002). They suggest that this findingis ‘seemingly inconsistent with thewidespread and largely unquestionedsupport that mentoring initiatives haveenjoyed in recent years’ (DuBois et al.,2002). The DuBois et al. (2002) reviewalso found support for the view thatmentoring programmes offer thegreatest potential benefit to youth whoare vulnerable or at-risk.

Grossman and Rhodes (2002)hypothesized that the effects ofmentoring relationships will intensifyover time and that relatively shortmatches will actually be disruptive toyouth. The study made use oflongitudinal data from the evaluation ofBig Brothers Big Sisters programmesand all mentored youth werecategorized on the basis of the length oftheir mentoring relationships.

Youth who were in matches that terminated within the first 3 months suffered significant declines in their global self-worth and their perceived scholastic competence. On the other hand, youth who were in matches that lasted more than 12 months reported significant increases in their self-worth, perceived social acceptance, perceived scholastic competence, parental relationship

quality, school value, and decreases in both drug and alcoholuse (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002)

The research also found that mentorrelationships were more likely to beshorter if: adolescents were olderrather than younger; adolescents hadexperienced emotional, sexual orphysical abuse; volunteer mentors hadhigher rather than lower incomes;volunteers were married and aged 26 – 30 (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002)

Hall summarized his review of ‘whatworks’ in mentoring:

The US literature has identified a number of key features which helpto make mentoring schemes successful. These include: monitoring of program implementation; screening of prospective mentors; matching of mentors and youth on relevant criteria; both pre-match and on-going training; supervision; support for mentors; structured activities for mentors and youth; parental support and involvement; frequency of contact and length of relationship.

The UK literature reminds us that mentoring needs to be properly integrated into its organizational context and establish appropriate links with other services and opportunities. (Hall, 2003, p. 20)

Clayden and Stein (2002) state thatmentoring for young people in the UK isbecoming increasingly popular inpolicies to tackle disadvantage, socialexclusion and enhance citizenship, but


has been under-researched. Theycarried out a review of the Prince’s Trustand Camelot Foundation’s Leaving CareInitiative. Two-thirds of the young peoplewho had a personal goal said that theirmentor had helped them to achieve it.Young people considered that mentorsprovided support on an emotional andpractical level (Clayden & Stein, 2002).In Scotland, the Matches MentoringProject for care leavers was funded bythe Prince’s Trust. The evaluation of theproject highlighted some of thedifficulties in engaging with this groupof young people. Over the life of theproject, 39 young people had beenreferred; 14 had been matched with amentor but only 2 matches wereongoing at the time of the evaluation(Ridley, 2003, p. 16). The projectrecruited 61 volunteer mentors butthere was a high drop out rate. Thestudy found that ‘while young peoplefound it difficult to describe in concreteterms what difference having a mentorhad made to them’ (Ridley, 2003, p. 25),overall they were helped in a range ofareas and there were clearly positiveachievements, though not for all theyoung people (Ridley, 2003, p. 27).

The findings show that mentors were helping young people most with independent living skills and personal and inter-personal skills such as developing self confidenceand, to a lesser extent, goal setting(Ridley, 2003, p. 31)

The evaluation of Mentoring Plus alsoidentified positive outcomes for theyoung people who participated (Shiner,Young, Newburn and Groben, 2004a).The evaluation followed up young peopleinvolved in 10 Mentoring Plus projects

over 18 months and compared outcomesto those of a comparison group. The report concluded:

The research challenges the old – admittedly mistaken – adage that ‘nothing works’. It shows that positive interventions can be made that help to bring about fairly substantial changes in the lives of even the most highly disaffected young people. Mentoring Plus… recruited and engaged actively witha large number of young people who were at considerable risk of social exclusion…. Most importantly, perhaps, it was also reasonably successful in encouraging these young people to(re)engage with education and work. And the related benefits of the programme, in terms of social inclusion, may be both significant and far-reaching. (Shiner et al., 2004a, p. 71)

However, this research found thatmentoring had differential levels ofimpact on different aspects of the youngpeople’s lives.

Thus, in terms of change, it was in relation to social inclusion that the movement was most marked, rather than in relation to offending or drug/alcohol use. (Shiner et al., 2004a, p. 71)

While mentoring projects have beenshown to be effective, the complexitiesof the mentoring relationship have alsobeen highlighted.

It is clear that planned mentoring is not a ‘magic bullet’ that is capable of solving all the problems


facing young people and those charged with working with them. Structural constraints continue to exert a powerful influence on the trajectories of such vulnerable young people: the influence of poverty; early childhood difficultiesand inequalities in health impactedstrongly on the lives of young people… The development of a mentoring relationship, however, may enhance the capacity to reflect on these issues and to be better able to negotiate services and support in certain circumstances (Philip, Shucksmith and King, 2004, p. 49)

Scottish Care Leavers Mentoring ProjectIn the context, then, of the increasingknowledge about the effectiveness ofmentoring with young people, theScottish Care Leavers Mentoring Projectwas funded by the Scottish Executiveand a number of trusts and grantmaking bodies. Its remit was to supportthe establishment of six mentoringprojects for young people leaving care,in partnership with local authoritydepartments and local agencies. Each project would recruit volunteermentors from the local community,provide training and match mentors witha young person. Within the mentoringrelationship, each care leaver would beencouraged to identify realistic butchallenging personal goals and theirmentor would provide support andguidance to enable them to achievethese. It was envisaged that the

mentoring relationship would initiallylast for an average of 9 – 12 monthswith regular meetings over this period.

It was planned that the projects wouldbe established in a staggered way overthe three years of funding. In fact, onlyfive of the six projects achieved ‘take-off’ during the funding cycle. Two of theprojects had been fully operational forless than a year at the point ScottishExecutive funding ended in April 2005.The established projects are locatedboth in voluntary agencies and in localauthorities, and those in localauthorities are supported by differentdepartments. The complexorganizational contexts of the projectshave impacted to different degrees onthe successful implementation of theprojects’ aims and objectives.

Support from the Scottish Executive wasmade available on the basis ofdeveloping schemes with cleardifferences around geographical spreadand responsibilities, financing modelsand arrangements, and organizationalcontext, and it was hoped thatevaluation would be able to contrast andcompare outcomes across projects. The timescale of establishment of thefive projects, and the limited resourcesof the evaluation means that it was notpossible to track the outcomes of largenumbers of mentoring relationships. On the other hand, some of the keydifferences in setting and model ofoperation help demonstrate a degree ofconsistency in the factors which seem tobe linked to positive results and thoseless so.


The research could not provide a fullevaluation of all the mentoring projects.Initially, it was decided to undertakemore detailed research in the first twoprojects to be set up and to carry out asmall number of interviews in theremaining four projects to providecontextual information. The researchalso relied on the projects’ ownmonitoring and evaluation records forinformation. As one of the projectsidentified for more detailed researchencountered delays in establishingmentoring relationships, the researchon the project was more limited thananticipated. In addition, as will be seen,one project was not set up. Theevaluation, therefore, focuses in detailon the first project to be establishedwith contextual information on theremaining four projects. The aims ofthe research were set out to provide aprocess and outcome evaluation,focusing on:

• development of policies and procedures for the projects;

• recruitment, selection, training andsupport of volunteer mentors;

• referral and selection of young people and matching with volunteer mentors

• support of the mentoring relationship and young people

• outcomes for young people

• outcomes for mentors

• liaison and inter-agency relationships.

Complementary research methods havebeen used and consist of four mainmethods:

• documentary analysis

• face-to-face and telephone semi-structured interviews

• group interviews

• attendance at meetings and events

The research began in June 2003 andcontinued until May 2005.

Data collection to the present hasinvolved:

Glenshire:

• collection of documents and records relating to 15 mentors, 14 mentees and 14 mentor – mentee relationships;

• attendance at Advisory Group meetings and mentor support meetings

• 3 interviews with the Glenshire mentoring co-ordinator: one focusing on general issues, one interview focusing on progress of each of the mentor-mentee relationships from the first recruitment round, and one final interview reflecting on the development of the project

• exit interviews with three Glenshirementors who left the project;

• one group interview with four Glenshire mentors;

2 The Research


• four telephone interviews with members of the Glenshire project Advisory Group;

• one final interview with the Glenshire manager providing an overview of the project.

• plans to undertake peer-interviewing of young people could not be taken forward because of limitations on resources both within the research team and in the mentoring project itself. This does mean that there is limited feedback from the young people about the mentoring process.

Wallaceshire:

• collection of information relating tomentor-mentee relationships provided on an anonymous basis;

• attendance at Advisory Group meetings

• two interviews with the Wallaceshire mentoring co-ordinator: one focusing on general issues and, one final interview reflecting on the development of the project;

• four interviews with members of the Wallaceshire Advisory Group.

Voluntary Agency


• one interview with two mentoring co-ordinators and the senior worker discussing general issues and reflecting on the development of the project.

Bruce City and Drummondshire


• one interview with the mentoring co-ordinator discussing general issues and reflecting on the development of the project.

Scottish Fostering Network:

• regular up-date meetings were held between the research team and the Fostering Network Co-ordinator;

• three interviews were conducted with the Fostering Network Co-ordinator: one initial interview and two final interviews

Residential Weekend

• Volunteer mentors were invited to a residential weekend at the beginning of February 2005 by the Fostering Network. Members of the research team attended on both days of the weekend and took this opportunity to conduct two group interviews and distribute questionnaires to those who attended to gain their opinion and views of their experience of being amentor. All projects were represented by these volunteers and all 15 completed a questionnaire and took part in the interviews.

Case Studies

• 2 interviews involving both a mentor and a young person were


carried out by the Fostering Network Co-ordinator. Transcripts of the interviews were made available to the research team.

The research was approved by theUniversity of Strathclyde UniversityEthics Committee and informed consentwas gained from young people andmentors. Names have been changed toensure confidentiality. Quotes are eitherverbatim, as transcribed from tapedinterviews or notes taken in face-to-faceor telephone interviews.


In this section we will give an overviewof the organizational context of eachproject. A brief outline of thedevelopment and the key issues facingeach of the projects is given below inorder of the sequence in which theydeveloped. The projects were set up in avariety of ways; some were based withinlocal authorities, others were located involuntary agencies. Although thementoring was targeted at care leavers,the projects identified different specifictarget groups; in some the young peoplewere in residential care; in others theyhad moved on from care. The timescaleof the development of the projects alsovaried.

GlenshireThe first project to be established,Glenshire located mentoring in theThrough and After Care team of theSocial Work Department. At the outset adesignated manager with sufficientdelegated responsibility and executiveauthority to command the support ofboth key social work services staff aswell as control over resources wasnotably helpful in instilling andsustaining a strong sense of ownershipand commitment. Following consultationwith service providers and some youngpeople themselves, the decision wasmade to focus exclusively on youngpeople who were known to the Throughand After Care service and who hadbeen living in more or less independentaccommodation for periods usuallyexceeding 6 months. An early intentionto include young people with disabilitieswho were living at home was notfollowed up in practice.

Operational responsibility was placed onthe manager of the Through & AfterCare service who also took on the roleas project coordinator until anappointment was made. Whatever theobvious disadvantages, the ‘by-product’of this was consolidation of the agency’sunderstanding of and realisticcommitment to the mentoring scheme.Undoubtedly this played a significantpart in embedding mentoring as anintegral part of the ‘capacity-building’services made available to young careleavers in need of further, targetedsupport. This has also ensured itsdurability when external support cameto an end.

A multi-disciplinary advisory group,representing a wide range ofstakeholders, including Who Cares?Scotland, has been active from theoutset. The first meeting of the advisorygroup took place in January 2003. It hasplayed a significant role in supportingthe work and achievements of theproject and in helping put some of theinevitable difficulties it has faced incontext. It has also exerted influenceacross represented agencies. The localhousing service which is represented onthe Advisory Group has been keen toinclude referrals from the considerablenumber of young vulnerable peoplewhich it accommodates. Although thishas not been possible up to now, itremains a possibility that it will seek todevelop a similar service in the future.

In Glenshire, recruitment of mentorsbegan in March 2003 and, followinginduction training in May, 10 mentorswere recruited in June 2003. The part-time mentor co-ordinator was appointed

3 The Mentoring Projects


in July 2003. Mentees were recruited inJuly and August and matched fromSeptember through to October 2003. A second round of recruitment wasundertaken in March 2004.

WallaceshireOne of the earliest to express an initialinterest, this agency’s interest wasdriven not by Social Work but by theyouth services section of CommunityServices within the authority.Community Services offered financial,staffing and management support to theproject from the outset. This departmentviewed mentoring as a way not only ofproviding additional support and focus toa young person’s life but also ofconnecting them with at least some ofthe services they provided as anauthority. The mentoring process waslinked explicitly to the Duke ofEdinburgh Award Scheme in relation togoal-oriented activities. Similar to otheragencies, once it became clear thatsupport in principle was forthcomingfrom social work services, an advisorygroup was established and the firstmeeting of Wallaceshire Young People’sMentoring Project took place in October2003. The target group was identified asyoung people aged 15+ who are, or havebeen, looked after and accommodatedby the Council, and more specifically,young people in the council’s residentialchildren’s units.

Wallaceshire experienced a number ofdifficulties in establishing the scheme.At an early stage, personnel changes insocial work meant that communicationbetween the mentoring project andsocial work and the residential unitswas problematic. There were issues interms of residential staff ‘owning’ the

mentoring project. This was both inrelation to the involvement of socialwork and residential staff in the AdvisoryGroup and in the involvement of staffwithin the units. This meant that therewere delays in recruiting young peopleand in supporting the commitment ofthe young people to the mentoringprocess. It also meant that there wereproblems in resolving issues when theywere identified.

In Wallaceshire, recruitment of mentorsbegan in November 2003 and training inDecember 2003. Mentees began to berecruited in January 2004 and continuedthrough to September 2004.

DrummondshireUnlike any of the other agencies,Drummondshire had already committedto and was successfully running abroadly comparable scheme fordisadvantaged young people, thoughexclusively focused on young peopleinvolved with the criminal justicesystem. Exploratory meetings started inNovember 2002 and these culminated ina multi-agency Advisory Group meetingin March 2003. The principle, methodsand realities of developing anotherscheme were discussed and enthusiasti-cally supported by the variousstakeholders. Following a period ofsubstantial consultation, agreement wasreached on a target group of youngpeople – those aged 151/2 plus, in theprocess of moving from residential care,particularly residential schoolplacements, into less supported settingsin the community. To some extent thisdecision was influenced by theirknowledge that some of the youngpeople involved in the criminal justicementoring scheme might have benefited


from an earlier experience of positivecontact with a dependable adult.

Agreement, however, was not reachedon who the host agency would be andhow the service would be funded.Discussions re-started in November2003 and it was agreed that the servicewould be hosted by DrummondshireCouncil’s Youth Justice Team, alongsidethe existing mentoring service, andwould be funded by the Council. Theprevious developmental work was put togood use and the service developedextremely rapidly. As with Glenshire, thisproject is firmly embedded in the localauthority’s mainstream services but italso capitalises on the benefits of beingable to share in many of the extantprocedures for administering, recruitingand supporting mentors and mentees.The coordinator’s role extends to bothprojects but he is, unusually, availableon a full-time basis and is uniqueamongst staff in these projects in havingconsiderable related experience.

While this project had some qualmsabout the risks of engaging successfullywith such vulnerable young people,particularly in the context of workingwith traditionally institutional caresettings, the hope was that thecoordinator’s former experience as aunit manager of a children’s residentialunit should help compensate. He wasable to appreciate some of the peculiardynamics of communication within theseestablishments and, especially withinthe authority’s units, he was able tonegotiate with both managers and staffin a way which conveyed confidence inthe potential of mentoring as well ashelping them find constructive ways ofsupporting young people to followthrough on their interest. This influencedid not extend so effectively to

residential schools where a variety ofdifficulties were encountered at variouslevels, ranging from ensuringappointments made to see staff werehonoured, through to ensuring youngpeople were reminded of proposedcontacts with mentors. This was acommon problem facing coordinatorsacross all projects where mentees werebased in any care, but especiallyresidential school, setting.

Although the advisory group wasprogrammed to meet on a regular basis,in practice attendance quicklydiminished; perhaps in the light of theswift and transparent development andsuccess of the project’s work, membersno longer perceived any obvious benefitin attending. Whatever, its existence atan earlier stage had probably played aninstrumental part in helping ensure theagency fulfil its earlier commitment.

Recruitment of mentors began in April2004 with training undertaken in May –June. Recruitment of mentees tookplace between July and October 2004with first meetings happening betweenJuly and November.

CampbellshireDiscussions started in February 2003with Campbellshire Council Social WorkDepartment Throughcare and YouthJustice Teams about a joint serviceaimed at young people making thetransition out of the care system intoadulthood and more independent living,who were also involved in/at risk ofinvolvement in offending behaviour.Following a series of meetings, a multi-agency advisory group was convenedand consultation took place with youngpeople in August-September 2003.


Further advisory group meetings tookplace in November 2003 and January2004. Despite a very enthusiasticcommitment to the principle ofintroducing mentoring, changes in keypersonnel resulted in ongoing delays insetting up the project. Various sustainedefforts to resume the project were triedbut it seems clear that a lack of timeand capacity to undertake the essentialtask of planning the development wasthe instrumental factor rather than alack of interest.

Bruce CityThe idea for this project emerged frominformal discussions between a largevoluntary organisation in Scotland andFostering Network, at which it wasagreed that a meeting of suitableagencies in this area should be used totest out support. This was convened inNovember 2003. There wasoverwhelming support for the principleand as a result, it was agreed that ahousing peer education service foryoung people accommodated by BruceCity Council would host the mentoringscheme. Key local agencies involved insetting up the service included: BruceCity Council Social Work Throughcareand Residential Care Services, BruceCity Council Culture and LeisureServices and the Youth Social InclusionPartnership. Funding for an initial periodof 12 months was obtained from theLaidlaw Youth Project in April 2004.Though the agency had considerableexperience in supporting peer-basedinitiatives for relatively disadvantagedyouth, mentoring was a noveldevelopment and a part-time mentorcoordinator was recruited in July 2004.

A short period of consultation resultedin the identification of similar targetgroups to elsewhere, namelyaccommodated young people and thosebeing supported by through and aftercare services. In this case it was agreedthat only accommodated children withadvanced plans to leave formalaccommodation would be consideredeligible, with the focus being uponhelping them bridge the gap betweenhighly structured care and the relativelyunsupported options in the community.

The model for the development of thisproject has been different from manyothers, raising the spectre that thepotential difficulties which separation ofmanagement and support of the projectfrom the source of referrals might resultin confusion, lack of clarity andcommunication and an absence ofmutual accountability. In fact, thedevelopments within this project indicatethat:

• This small-scale and localised voluntary organisation, though distinctly separate from its main referring agents, has both the established reputation and confidence to engage constructively with a host of agencies, using principles of negotiation wherever possible, but also utilising some element of challenge and confrontation when this is needed.

• Although difficulties with all care providers, but especially residentialschools, have occurred they have nevertheless experienced positive relationships.


Volunteer mentors were recruited inMay 2004 and underwent training inMay-June. Young people were recruitedbetween September and November, withfirst meetings taking place fromSeptember 2004 and February 2005.

Voluntary AgencyExploratory meetings withrepresentatives of three projects startedin October 2003. The original stimulusresulted from the participation of amember of staff in Glenshire’s advisorygroup. It was agreed that the servicewould be offered predominantly to youngpeople aged 14-17 making the transitionfrom intensive involvement with theChildren’s Hearings Fast Track Initiative,with two places made available to youngpeople supported by an alternative tosecure project. This project is managedand run by two projects of a largernational voluntary agency.

While formal responsibility for managingthis project rests with a large voluntaryorganisation, the actual responsibilityfor running and coordinating the projectrests with two workers; one from theFast Track Initiative and one from thealternative to secure care project. Thisarrangement appears to worksuccessfully.

The only criteria for eligibility isinvolvement in ‘Fast Track’ Children’sHearings, i.e. all children must haveexperienced a significant history ofoffending behaviour and face the serious

prospect of removal from the communityusually on the grounds of ‘communitysafety’ as much as ‘welfare’considerations in relation to the ‘child’,or, if already accommodated, are likelyto become the subject of securemeasures. While a more specific,coherent cohort in some respects, theactual diversity of this population isremarkable with some children as youngas 10 years of age being referred andmatched successfully, as well as thosewho are in their mid-teens. While onlyvery impressionistic at this early stage,it would appear that some of thesemuch younger people – and theirfamilies and social workers – have beenvery receptive to the prospect and realityof mentoring and the development ofrelationships appears to have been verysuccessful by any measure used.

The key difficulty with the project has,perhaps surprisingly, been with theinternal decision-making processes ofthe voluntary organisation. It was theview of numerous people who witnessedthe earlier stages of its developmentthat delays in processing requests forinformation, for authorising actions andfor taking the simplest decisions wereunaccountably delayed and there wasrigidity and inflexibility in practice.

In Voluntary Agency, mentors wererecruited in May 2004, with trainingtaking place in June and July. Youngpeople were recruited between Augustand October and first meetings began totake place in September 2004.


In this chapter, we will consider theprocess of establishing the mentoringrelationships and the outcomes of therelationships by the end of the studyperiod. We will look at the recruitmentand training of mentors and mentees,the support to them through thementoring relationship, and theoutcomes and perceived benefits of thementoring relationships. It must bestressed that for a number of theprojects, mentoring relationships hadbeen established for a relatively shortperiod of time by the end of the studyperiod.

4 The Mentoring Process

RecruitmentWe saw above that recruitment, trainingand establishment of mentoringrelationships varied widely across thedifferent projects. Table 1 displays thischronologically, taking the start of therecruitment process as whenregistration packs were first issued andreceived back.

Table 1: Recruitment of participants

Project Volunteers Young people First Meeting

Glenshire (1st round) March 03 July 03 September 03

Wallaceshire October 03 January 04 April 04

Glenshire (2nd round) March 04 June 04 July 04

Drummondshire April 04 July 04 July 04

Voluntary Agency May 04 August 04 September 04

Bruce City May 04 Not known September 04


However, the timescale for setting upthe mentoring relationships was longerthan had been planned for.

from briefing workers to havingyoung people ready to be matched inactual fact probably ended up moreas almost 4 months, double theamount of time that we hadanticipated and again it looks likethat is going to be the experienceelsewhere. (Fostering Network co-ordinator)

Recruitment of volunteermentorsRecruitment of mentors took place in anumber of different ways. These were,in the main, through newspaperadvertising, the local colleges, andvolunteer centres. In general,newspaper advertising was consideredto have been the most fruitful recruitingmethod.

It was slow to begin with, then didthe advertising; would say the bestrecruiting was through adverts.(project co-ordinator)

The recruitment process followed asimilar vein across the projects with afew variations. In general, volunteerswere asked to complete an applicationform, attend an informal interview, fivetraining sessions and then a formalinterview. During this time referencesand a Disclosure Scotland check wererequested.

I went to a volunteer centre in[town], where I come from. I justwent in there and asked them aboutwhat volunteer work was available,and they put me in touch.

…what I do remember is writing onmy application form – it asked youthe question, ‘How did you find outabout this?’ – and I wrote it was anadvert in a local paper and I put inbrackets that it was a decent sizeadvert, that you could see.Sometimes the adverts are so smallthat they are a waste of time thembeing there. So it was a good clearadvert.

The recruitment process across thedifferent projects identified similarnumbers of mentors: Glenshire 1stround - 13 mentors (one left beforemeeting their matched young person,one left after meeting their match);Glenshire 2nd round – 5 mentors (oneleft); Wallaceshire – 10 mentors (onewithdrew before being formallyrecruited); Drummondshire – 11mentors (one withdrew after the formalinterview); Voluntary agency - 10mentorsrs (one was signpostedelsewhere after the training); Bruce City– 7 mentors initially and 1 more at alater date.

The recruitment process (i.e. from whenthe volunteer’s registration packs werereturned to their formal interview) tookbetween six and 10 weeks although theprocess of training also took place inthis period (Table 2).


From the point of the formal interview tothe first meeting with the young peoplewas longer and ranged from an averageof 10 to 22 weeks. This reveals thatonce the formal recruitment processwas completed volunteers had to wait aconsiderable length of time to meettheir match. While for most this stagetook either approximately the same timeor twice as long as the recruitmentprocess, in one project it took almostfour times as long. The whole process,from when volunteers registered theirinterest to meeting a young person, tookon average between 20 to 28 weeksacross the projects.

Glenshire is the only project at presentwhich has had two recruitment drivesand table 2 shows that while the waitingperiod to meeting a young persondecreased, the turnaround time for thewhole process remained the same.

The volunteers who attended theresidential weekend rated the formalrecruitment process highly, supportedby the general agreement expressed inthe group interviews that this was asmooth process. While there was,again, general agreement that that therewas a long wait to meet the young

people, most did not think the length oftime to meet their match to be aproblem (only three thought it was).Four indicated in the questionnaire thatthis wait had no impact on theirmotivation while for the remainder, theircomments varied, from it having apositive to a negative impact. Thefollowing typifies the views expressed byvolunteer mentors:

I feel I waited quite a long time afterthe training before I got matched.And I started to lose confidence inmyself and panic a wee bit abouthow am I going to remember allthis. And I accept that people tellyou that it won’t prepare you foreverything that is going to happenbut I think I prefer, would have beena bit more comfortable in myself if Ihad been matched quite soon afterthe course finished (volunteermentor)

The motivation was still there forme, but I was fed up. I wanted itdone yesterday. I have got all thistraining, I have got all thisknowledge. I am waiting to put it into practice, where’s the youngperson. (volunteer mentor)

Table 2: Turnaround time for mentors (average weeks)

Project Pack returned toformal interview

Formal interviewto 1st meeting

Pack returned to1st meeting

Glenshire(1st round)

7 (n=9) 13 (n=9) 20 (n=8)

Wallaceshire 6 (n=9) 22 (n=7) 28 (n=7)

Glenshire (2nd round) 10 (n=5) 10 (n=4) 20 (n=4)

Drummondshire 10 (n=10) 13 (n=10) 23 (n=10)

Voluntary Agency 6 (n=8) 14 (n=9) 20 (n=8)

Bruce City 8 (n=5) 20 (n=7) 28 (n=5)


The length of time it took to matchwith a young person was too long.This was quite deflating and some ofmy enthusiasm had gone. I spoke toa few of the other mentors and theyshared my feelings. Started toquestion why I was doing this andhad to think back. (volunteermentor)

I think the time is really quiteirrelevant. We were well preparedthat it wasn’t just going to be anovernight thing, oh right we have aperson for you to mentor now.(volunteer mentor)

…the longer I waited, the lessmotivated I became. (volunteermentor)

In addition, the majority (80%) indicatedthat they were kept well informedthrough this process.

Almost two thirds of volunteers werefemale and one third male. Moredetailed information was not madeavailable from all the projects. Theaverage age of mentors for whom we dohave information was 36, ranging from25 to 57 years of age. We only haveemployment status for 18 of thementors. Of these, just over one half (10)were employed; 4 were students; 3 wereunemployed and one was a houseparent.Almost three fifths of the 47 mentorswho provided this information had priorexperience of working with young people(which does not include experience andknowledge of young people that isgained from family).

Several themes emerged as mentors’motivation for volunteering. They wereasked on their application forms what

brought them to register an interest inmentoring young care leavers and whatthey hoped to get out of it. The 42 whoprovided this information indicated atleast one of 5 main themes: • that it would be satisfying or

rewarding; • to make a difference; • career/work opportunities; • they had the skills/experience to

help;• and to learn or gain experience.

For me I wanted to put somethingback, by and large. I am quite oldand really have done nothing buttake out of society to a great extent,you know. So I really wanted to goback and say… I have had a lot ofthis. (volunteer mentor) I had in my mind that I wanted,maybe more selfish than some of us,that I wanted to shift my personalperspective which I felt was tooroutine, too stuck in my age, my lifeexperience. So I wanted somethingthat I felt was a differentperspective. (volunteer mentor)I saw it as a means to an end. It wasa way to get my foot in the door andseeing what was there and gettingsome experience, a bit of training.(volunteer mentor)I have always been helping peoplethroughout my life, not in any projector anything. But I have been lookingto do something like this for awhile… I saw the mentoring advert inthe paper and I though that isexactly what I want to do, work withthem on a one-to-one voluntarybasis and I just took it from there.(volunteer mentor)


These various themes were picked up byprofessionals involved in the projects.

[The mentors] turned out to be verynice people, very committed, veryenthusiastic. Not all of them aredoing it for some kind ofemployment gain; a couple are. Butthey really are committed…(projectco-ordinator)

Recruitment of young people

The recruitment of young people wasmore specific to each project, given theparticular target group of young people,and did not formally begin until after thevolunteers were recruited; that is, theyhad completed their training and formal

interview. This accounts for the timelapse between volunteers beingrecruited and meeting their match butalso means a much shorter period oftime between the young people beingrecruited and meeting their mentor.

Table 3 gives the average length of timebetween recruitment and meeting thementor for three projects which wereable to provide this information.

It shows this to be much shorter forthem than their mentors, particularly soin Drummondshire where young peoplehad to wait on average less than amonth. This is unsurprising in light ofthe fact that when young people wererecruited the volunteer mentors werealready in place.

Table 3: Turnaround time for mentees

The recruitment process across the different projects again identified similarnumbers of young people: Glenshire 1st round - 13 mentees (one left before meeting their matched mentor,one left after meeting their match); Glenshire 2nd round – 5 mentees; Wallaceshire – 14 mentees (four young people withdrew before meeting);Drummondshire – 13 mentees (one withdrew and 2 were put on a waiting list);Voluntary agency – 9 mentees; Bruce City – 7 mentees initially and 1 more at a later date

Project No. On average(weeks) Ranging from (weeks)

Glenshire (1st round) 9 6 1 to 9

Wallaceshire 9 7 3 to 11

Glenshire (2nd round) 3 4 4 to 6

Drummondshire 10 3 1 to 5

N = 31


There was an equal genderrepresentation of young people whoparticipated in the projects. Due to thedifferent groups of young people eachproject targeted the age range differed.We have this information for all youngpeople of three projects and from thiswe can see that Glenshire targeted awider age range (16-23) thanWallaceshire and Drummondshire whotargeted a younger age group (15-18 and15-17 respectively). The partialinformation received in respect toVoluntary Agency showed that a youngerage group was involved, including twoten year olds. Over all projects, theaverage age was 16, ranging from 10 to23 years of age.

An important aspect of the recruitmentprocess concerned the relationshipbetween the project and the staff whomay be introducing the concept ofmentoring to the young people. InGlenshire, for example, there was aclear and defined relationship betweenthe Throughcare workers who would linkwith the young people and the project.This facilitated the process ofrecruitment.

[Throughcare Section] approachedthe ones that they thought would bemost likely to accept the scheme.They were asked to fill in aregistration form which asked themabout what they hoped to get out ofhaving a mentor… so it wasn’tdifficult to target young people forthem. (project co-ordinator)

Through the Throughcare project. Iwas there for some time and wastold that mentoring was availableand would I give it a shot and seehow it went…They just told me what

kind of things you would be doing –have a look at my goals. What I’d beaiming for, what time and how longyou would be looking to be doing it.(young person)

In other projects, difficulties wereencountered in the recruitment processwhich related to a lack of ‘ownership’ ofthe mentoring projects. While principallythis related to residential child care, itcould also involve other services.

With what we know aboutThroughcare and Aftercare…Intheory that was the best approach,not in practice – they changedaddress, in chaos. (projectco-ordinator)

In relation to residential care, a numberof frustrations were experienced.Requests for a ‘reference’ on youngpeople who had shown an earlierinterest in mentoring from their keyworker were often not followed up,thereby delaying the process ofbeginning any match. On a number ofoccasions where the references arrived,the overall tone was one characterisedby disapproval and negativity; oneworker described the worst referencesas being ‘libellous’ towards the youngpeople. There seemed to be littlerecognition of the potential benefit whichmight accrue from a mentoringrelationship and, in most cases, little orno understanding of the anxieties whichit might prompt in young people. In oneproject, this was described as follows:

… what was wrong was that wereally didn’t have a time, it wasreally ad hoc – one, then another,


then another, then one disappeared,then another. It was very bitty. Whatshould have come first was a bettereducation for the [residential care]staff. Because the staff didn’t reallyknow what we were about, were lessinclined to fill in the forms. It tookages, lost interest. We have toeducate, give the [residential] staff abit of knowledge about what we areabout, and then go on to recruit thementees. (project manager)

On their application form, young peoplewere asked to indicate areas (from achoice of ten) they might want a mentorto encourage or support them. Thisinformation was provided by three ofthe projects and is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4: Areas for encouragement or support

N = 41

Areas Glen (1) Glen (2) Drum Wallace Total

Hobbies and interests 9 4 11 13 37

Communicating with otherpeople 4 3 2 6 15

Making decisions 4 2 4 8 18

Feeling good about yourself 7 3 2 7 19

Setting goals for yourself thatyou can succeed in 8 4 2 7 21

Independent living skills 2 1 5 8 16

Getting on with people youcare about 2 1 2 7 12

School or College 4 1 4 8 17

Being happier where you areliving 2 1 2 4 9

Something else that hasn’tbeen mentioned 4 2 1 0 7

Total number of young people 10 4 13 14 41


It can be seen that most young peoplehave identified hobbies and interests,followed by setting goals that you cansucceed in, feeling good about yourselfand making decisions. The two youngpeople interviewed addressed a range ofreasons for becoming involved in thementoring project.

I think it was just that I didn’t havemuch confidence at that time and Iliked my own space and didn’t likemeeting new people. So everyperson I encountered that I didn’tknow, if I was out of my social circle,I felt nervous and unconfident…Anything to get out of the hostel,there is nothing worse, so that ishow it started off. (young person)

Getting out and getting morecourage to socialise more, andgetting the courage to feel goodabout myself and start doing stuff.(young person)

On the whole, professionals felt that theyoung people were also committed andclear about what they wanted frommentoring.

[The young people] have all beenvery easy to get on with and veryenthusiastic about the project. Theyknew what they were looking for,they knew who they wanted to meetwith and who they didn’t which wasvery helpful. (project co-ordinator)

Although they also warned that thiscommitment may not last.

Usually they were quite up for it tostart with. Then things change andthat’s when it breaks down… It gave

them another outlet, allowed themto see others with similar hobbies,outlook on life. Allowed them out ofthe unit, it was like an uncle, nothome, not unit staff… (project co-ordinator)

The training processVolunteer training

Training for volunteers occurred aftertheir informal interview and consisted offive sessions. This process, to evidencelearning and development in relation tokey competencies, required mentors tocomplete a personal audit at both thebeginning and end of training and tokeep a learning diary for the duration oftraining. The key areas in the personalaudit centred on theory, skills, selfawareness and practicalities, with theaddition of four questions at the end ofthe second audit. From informationfrom both personal audits of 18 of thevolunteers relating to the first three keyareas, we observed that, on the whole,understanding and confidence increasedafter training.

Volunteers were also asked to rate on ascale of one to five their satisfaction witheach training day. With 100%representing everyone giving each daythe highest rating, each project ratedthe training sessions very highly(Glenshire, 98% & 99%; VoluntaryAgency 99%; Wallaceshire 96%;Drummondshire, 92%; Bruce City, 89%)giving an overall average rating of 95%.

In light of this it is perhaps unsurprisingthat the training sessions were seen asa highlight and talked about favourablyby volunteers at the residential weekendand rated highly by the majority in thequestionnaire.


Training was really good, especiallythe last few weeks when we did thecase studies… The role plays wereinteresting, especially playing thepart of either mentor or the pupil,helped you experience it from bothsituations. Also took on board thefeedback from the training. The factthat each situation is individual andis not written in stone, the right orwrong way. It felt good that youcould adapt each situation. Everyonewas given the opportunity to makecomments and share best practices,this was very useful (volunteermentor).

..the training was really exemplary,it was the highest standard and Ithink that encouraged people(volunteer mentor).

I found the training course veryuseful, in actual fact even for usingin my home life (volunteer mentor).

The majority of these volunteers felt thatthe training was relevant to mentoring.There was a sense that everyone viewedit positively, that it was something thatthey actually looked forward to and thatit did prepare them for the practice ofmentoring.

I felt really well prepared when Iwent into it. It was extraordinary forme, the way so much that I hadlearnt on the training started to justopen up like a pack of cards,everything just came out as if theywere handing it saying this is yournext…, and actually it was quitealarming how relationships formedin the way that we had been trainedto expect it. It very much ran to theformula for me (volunteer mentor).

Professionals involved in the projectalso considered that the training hadbeen of an extremely high quality.

The training was extremely positive,the mentors got a lot out of it, Ipersonally got a lot out of it (servicemanager)

Volunteers were also required toundertake a formal interview and onceboth volunteers and young people hadcompleted the formal recruitmentprocess they were then matched andintroductory meetings were arranged.

Young people training

There was no formal trainingprogramme for the young people and yetthis, in a sense, was a crucial part of theprocess.

… a lot of young people are notcomfortable leaving their comfortzone. Getting a sense of what theyare interested in is difficult… gettingthem to talk. (project co-ordinator)

Different projects addressed it indifferent ways. For example, youngpeople were asked to attend aninduction session where the co-ordinator advised them of what thementoring relationship would involveand issues such as health and safetywere discussed. In one project, however,the formal process for young people hadto be cut because of time constraintsfrom four meetings to one.

… everything had to be rushed, sowhat I was finding was I was puttingfour steps into one. I was having todo initial meetings, inductions,


selection process and matching allin one, which I found worked. It didwork out OK because by that pointthey had already been sold the idea.It wasn’t too hard for me, justtechnically it wasn’t what had beenanticipated. (project co-ordinator)

In another project there was a sensethat preparation had not been done in aclear, planned way. Comparing it to thetraining for the mentors, an involvedprofessional stated:

… I think something had to be donefor the mentees, who had a very adhoc fun day… very last minute, quickfix fun day. Could have been donebetter, more variety, actuallyengaging them to do activities andthen introducing the mentoring.(service manager)

While the fact that the recruitment andinduction of young people would be leftto the local projects was a plannedapproach by the Fostering Network, thecomparison with the process formentors, suggests that a moreformalized programme for menteescould be considered.

The matching processIn general, mentors and mentees werematched by the co-ordinator. This wasperformed on the basis of information inregistration forms and from the co-ordinators’ knowledge of both mentorsand young people. Once matched, anintroductory meeting would take placewhich the co-ordinator would alsonormally attend, although in some

cases, again because of pressure oftime, the meeting might be facilitated byanother professional (who would havetaken part in a briefing in advance).

The recruitment process in the differentprojects, taking account of withdrawals,resulted in the following number ofmentoring relationships:

Glenshire 1st round –10 mentoring pairsGlenshire 2nd round – 5 mentoring pairs

Wallaceshire – 9 mentoring pairsDrummondshire – 10 mentoring pairsVoluntary Agency – 9 mentoring pairsBruce City – 7 mentoring pairs

We have touched upon the fact that thewait to meet their match wasconsiderably longer for volunteers thanit was for the young people. However,the questionnaire completed by theresidential weekend volunteersindicated that they did not have anyissues with the matching process. Themajority (14 out of 15) found the pre-matching interview useful and felt thatwere kept well informed through thisprocess (12 out of 15). They also felt thatthe match between themselves and theyoung person was good (14) and thatthat they received sufficient informationabout their young person (14).

Both young people and volunteers wereable to indicate the age and gender ofthe partner they would like. From theinformation gathered from the 15mentors of one project, only twospecified an age range and three agender. The majority had no preference.Of the 46 young people for whom wehave this information almost threequarters had no preference in terms ofgender. Conversely, 60 per cent of


young people did have a preference withregards to age with half of them wantinga volunteer under 25 years of age.

One mentor – mentee pair talked abouttheir first meeting:

Mentee: Yeah, it was good… we gotalong straight away, I think I wasquite shy at first

Mentor: You need a number of visitsto get to know each other a bit betterbecause you don’t know anythingabout each other from that firstmeeting. Obviously, the reliabilityand trust but after the first meetingthat was fine and you build it fromthere.

The mentoring processMentoring contract and reviewmeetings

The mentoring relationship processinitially involves negotiating a mentoringcontract. This is agreed between thementor and the young person and is tobe completed after four meetings.Ideally, therefore, this will have beencompleted within four weeks of meeting.The review meetings are held quarterlyby the co-ordinator and involve both thementor and the young person in order toreview progress and to plan ahead. Thefirst review meeting is held within threemonths of meeting and if the mentoringcontract is not complete by this time it isdone so then.

According to the data received, thistimetable has not been met in any of theprojects. This information is based fromthe date of the first meeting to the datewe received the data and forcomparative purposes we focused on the

first mentoring contract and reviewmeeting only.

In Glenshire’s first recruitment round,just under half mentoring agreementswere completed within one month ofmeeting with the remaining rangingfrom six to 47 weeks into therelationship. The majority did have areview meeting within three months ofmeeting. From information pertainingto two pairs from their secondrecruitment round this timetable hasnot been reached either. InDrummondshire, of the eight ongoingrelationships, three have had amentoring contract (seven, nine and tenweeks after first meeting), five have not(whose duration ranges from 15 to 22weeks) and none have had a reviewmeeting. None of the pairs inWallaceshire have had a mentoringagreement or review meeting. From theinformation we could gather on threeongoing pairs, they have been meetingfor, approximately, twelve, twenty andthirty five weeks. Of Bruce City’s sevenrelationships one has had a mentoringagreement (ongoing for 24 weeks) andnone a review meeting. Othermentoring relationships had beenmeeting for approximately five, six,fourteen, fifteen and seventeen weeks.In Voluntary Agency, where the length ofrelationships range from 14 to 29weeks, none have had a mentoringagreement or review meeting.

Mentors in Glenshire expressed somedissatisfaction about the process of thecontract.

The contract brought anawkwardness into it for me. It was achore is a good way to sum it up(Glenshire mentor)


We can appreciate that this may be dueto the nature of the relationships, it mayhave been some time before they hadfour meetings which in turn impacts onthe review meetings. Alternatively, therelationships may not have evolved farenough to reach these stages and thiswas picked up by involved professionals.

Goals

In line with the ethos of mentoring, theinitial mentoring contract required eachpair to specify the objectives of theirrelationship; we can only comment onthose from one of the projects. InGlenshire, two pairs did not have amentoring contract and one did not havea goal when theirs was first completed.For the remaining seven, their goalsvaried. For some this was, or included,fitness, for some a sporting activity.Others had a specific goal whether it begoing to college, building a model boator learning the highway code, whilesocialising was an objective for one.

Mentee: It feels different to what itdid in the beginning because therewere so many goals I was aiming forbut now things have changed and Ihave changed a lot. I don't reallyknow what goals I could be aimingfor now.

Mentor: Life has got in the way ofwhat goals we had set so we havejust had to change, Fiona’s life hasjust had to change… we are stilldoing the same things but probablymore supportive.

Another pair of mentor and menteedescribed their goals as follows:

Mentee: … My confidence at thattime was terrible and I couldn't getout of the house just to go and buy apint of milk or anything.

Mentor: You didn't like going out ofthe house a lot in the beginning sowe arranged to meet at your housemost of the time.

Mentee: (describing the formal‘goals contract’ part after a fewmeetings) It was basically whatachievements and goals we wantedto do for the next couple of months… all the meetings have beensuccessful.

Mentor: Your main goal at thebeginning was to do your driving…

Mentee: It was confidence buildingactually and trying to socialise andmeet out with other people and thendriving lessons

Meetings

The frequency and duration of meetingswas agreed by both volunteer and youngperson and stipulated in the mentoringagreement. The importance of meeting,to keep the momentum going, isrecognised. Based on the informationfrom four of the projects (although notin relation to all meetings) thepercentage of arranged meetings whichtook place differed. Overall, inWallaceshire 50% of arranged meetingstook place, in Bruce City 65%, inDrummondshire 75% and in Glenshire76%. From information taken from thetwo projects which had the lowest takeup, the most common reason for ameeting not taking place was the youngperson not showing up.


Support and supervision

Supervision of the relationship wasundertaken through review meetings,mentor support group meetings andcontact from the co-ordinator. Whilecontact from the co-ordinator differedacross the projects, the volunteers atthe residential weekend indicated thatthey felt well supported in both the earlystages of establishing their relationshipand during mentoring.

I knew support was available at alltimes if I needed it.

Co-ordinator could not have doneany more. Very supportive.

The phone support has been thereand has been very good. [Co-ordinator] has always been there forme. Support for everybody has beenvery good. I think it’s good that if youhave a problem that you can phonein. The supervision was good too.The first support group was verystructured but the last few changed,rather than coming into a settimetable it became more natural. Itwas good to share our experiencesduring the group. (Glenshirementor)

Support for mentees was lessstructured within the projects:

No formal process. Talk to them onand off – maybe every 2 weeks – onan informal basis. Talk to themwhenever we’re arranging meetings.(project co-ordinator)

There was an expectation that the youngpeople’s key worker or social workerwould monitor and support them.

A Co-ordinator’s Perspective onMentoring RelationshipsAn interview was conducted to gain theGlenshire mentoring co-ordinator’sperspective on the mentoringrelationships in October 2004. Questionscentred on reasons behind matchingthem, the strengths, weaknesses andprogress of the relationship, benefits ofthe service to the young people and, ifthe relationship has stopped, why.

The matching of this group of mentorsand young people was undertaken by theGlenshire Throughcare Manager beforethe co-ordinator assumed her post.However, she was able to comment onthe reasons behind matching each pairand did confirm that four pairs havefinished and that two have not met forsome time (one of which she assumedhas ceased but had not hadconfirmation).

In most cases, there was more than onereason for matching mentor andmentee. The majority, though, werematched on the basis of gender(mostlythat they were the same). Almost half(4) were matched on the basis of theirpersonalities, with two being matchedbecause they shared the same interest(horse riding and model boat building).Two were matched due to particularattributes that the mentor had thatwould be of particular benefit to theyoung person. Other reasons given formatching individual pairs were: locality,interests, being of similar age, and bothhaving a previous match and werelooking for someone new. At the end ofher interview the co-ordinator did addthat:

The main reasons why the pairswere matched apart frompersonality wise was due to


paperwork so we had a mentoringform which the mentors filled outand the young person filled out theirown information sheet…

There were two factors that wereidentified as a strength in most of thementoring relationships: meetingregularly (8) and having similarpersonality traits (7). Other factorswhich were identified included gettingon well (5), communicating well (3),having a common interest (2) andsimilar interests (1).

Although the co-ordinator was able toidentify potential difficulties in eachrelationship, for two they were classedas minor ones. In the majority of cases,a particular aspect relating to the youngperson was identified as a potentialdifficulty (i.e. forgetting or not attendingmeetings, their lifestyle, losingmotivation or not being committed); fora few it was an aspect relating to thementor (i.e. changing job or illness).Both having external problems andcommitments which impeded meetingwas also identified as a possibledifficulty as was communication andhaving a gap.

For all four pairs that left the project,their relationship started out well andfor various reasons fell away. Of theremaining pairs, two were goingextremely well, two have not met forsome time (with the co-ordinatorassuming that one had ended) and onestarted really well, had a huge gap andhas since re-started. The relationship ofthe remaining pair is different. Theyoung person came from the disabilitiesteam and his condition made it difficultfor the mentor to engage with him.

The co-ordinator advised that they arealways progressing, had taken to eachother and had moved forward since theystarted. She did advise that this is moreof a befriending role, as possibly is oneother.

The co-ordinator confirmed that fourpairs had officially left the project. Fortwo this was due to similar reasons,either the momentum being broken andthere being no pattern or that thepattern was broken. The youngperson’s lack of commitment and a lackof meetings were seen to contribute tothe demise of the third and not having aset goal and outside factors dictatingthe young person’s life to the fourth.

Benefits of the mentoring service to theyoung people vary individually. Allexcept one were deemed to havebenefited from it in some way (whetherit be from their life improving, theirconfidence increasing, or the mentorbeing a good influence and support).

Across the Projects.

In April 2005, the number of ongoingmentoring relationships was as follows.Glenshire had eight mentoringrelationships ongoing, three from thefirst round and five from the second;Wallaceshire had four; Drummondshirehad eight; Bruce City had seven; andVoluntary Agency had five ongoing butwith four mentors matched, or due tobe matched with another young person.

Project staff and mentors identified arange of benefits from the mentoringrelationships.

The mentors have done really well,very rarely let the young peopledown


For the young people, even thosewho don’t have a goal, they aresticking with their mentors. They’repleased with the company, someoneoutwith social work, individual tothem.

It’s extremely complex and difficult.It was for the majority a very positiveexperience. We all have a lot tolearn about the experience ofmentoring. Comments from theyoung people and mentors is thatit’s something both get somethingfrom, a win-win situation. If thetiming isn’t right, it probably won’twork. (project Advisory Groupmember)

[The mentors] meet the youngperson’s needs and agenda, and atthe young person’s pace. It’s needsled. A lot of young people struggle,even just to socialise, and it meetsthe needs of young people… (projectAdvisory Group member)

[The mentees] They wouldn’t becoming if they’re not gettingsomething from it. No-one’s makingthem go. Initially, it’s therelationship, getting on with thementors, as it progresses it getscloser to goals (project co-ordinator)

One mentor – mentee pair described thebenefits as follows:

Mentor: Confidence wise, you aredoing a lot more stuff on your own…You take the initiative on things morewhen you have things to sort out,whereas before things got on top ofyou.

Mentee: It has made me realise thateveryone is different, and building upmy confidence has helped me a lot…If I set my mind to do something Ican. Before I met [mentor] I was tooshy but now that I have met [mentor],I have opened myself up more. I havewoken up and have more confidenceto speak up for myself.

Mentor: A lot of your lack ofconfidence comes from yourprevious problems though. Therewere certain places that shewouldn’t go because of people fromthe past. That’s not easy but if youare with someone, it is easier to goand do things. And it has given herthe confidence to go out more.

Mentee: It’s been really good, thementoring. I am going out a lot morenow and the mentoring has helpedme to get out and about. I am doingthings that I never thought I could do.


Throughout the report a number ofchallenges to effective implementationand management of these diverseschemes have been noted and some ofthe implications discussed. The keyfindings, together with some broadconclusions, are drawn out here.

Organisational Context

The ‘lead-in’ and ‘start-up’ times todevelop the projects often took longerthan was anticipated. The enthusiasm ofkey staff to participate in, and to activelydevelop, new ways of enhancing supportto young people was not alwaysmatched by their organisations’ capacityto identify funding and resources and tonegotiate roles and responsibilitieswithin tight timescales. No doubtdifferent factors contributed to this, butso too the swift pace of change inchildren and young people’s servicesgenerally during this time, as well asother pressures on staff and resources.This being said, there was alsoinnovation and creativity in identifyingresources to support the projects.

It’s an obvious that ‘ownership’ of anyproject is vital to its success but the wayin which this is perceived, is achievedand the importance accorded to each ofthe various stakeholders in anyendeavour is not quite sostraightforward. In some projects,funding, staffing and the management ofboth referrals to and support formatches rested within one agency ordepartment. It is clear that a unifiedsense of purpose, ownership andcommitment has helped overcome manyof the problems faced by the projects.

Miller (1998), in the context of schoolmentoring, highlights the importance ofthe commitment of senior management,as well as the support of the whole staff.In other projects, cross-agencycooperation was strong. In one project,ownership of the mentoring project wasmore problematic and difficulties withsocial work staff engaging at bothmanagement and individual level hasmeant that a great deal of time hasbeen taken in the building ofrelationships between departmentswithin one organisation. Hall (2003)stressed that ‘mentoring needs to beproperly integrated into itsorganisational context and establishappropriate links with other servicesand opportunities’ (Hall, 2003, p. 20)

‘Mentoring’ is an unfamiliar idea tomany young people and while many,with appropriate guidance and supportaccepted the opportunity withenthusiasm, others held negative viewsand were not helped by staff workingwith them to understand the potential.Indeed, it is clear that many carers andworkers entertained similar questionsor doubts. Together these proved to bean obstacle to the recruitment of youngpeople in some projects. The importanceof the personal support of young peopleby staff working directly with them iscrucial. Ongoing support is alsoessential in sustaining mentoringrelationships at times of crisis. Inparticular, the attitude of residentialmanagers and staff, in some cases,appeared to give the message thatmentoring had little to offer. Miller(1998) states that the recognition of thepurpose of mentoring by staff helps toreinforce its importance. The focus of

5 Implications and Conclusions


Fostering Network on developing therecruitment, training and supportsystems for mentors has perhaps beenat the expense of similar emphasis onthe young people. This assumes thatyoung people can depend on supportfrom other professionals and/or carersto help them make informed decisionsabout whether it is relevant for them; ifso, what particular use can be made ofany relationship and, perhaps mostimportant of all, help them manage thealways difficult process of embarking ona new relationship with a completestranger. Ridley (2003), in her evaluationof a mentoring project for care leavers,recommended that consideration shouldbe given to new or additional ways topromote the benefits of mentoring toyoung people leaving care (Ridley, 2003,p. 24). Pawson (2004b) also states:

Do not expect quick results from mentoring programmes for disaffected youth. They can produce good results but the process is a long and halting one, and their potential to succeed with the most antagonistic ‘hard cases’ is likely to be limited. (Pawson, 2004b, p. 4)

Target Group

While both ‘failures’ and ‘successes’ interms of mentoring relationships haveto be a matter of getting the right matchin terms of interests and personalities, aconsistent issue is that of focusingmentoring opportunities on the mostdisadvantaged children and youngpeople. The factors which seem to havemost impact on successful relationshipsare: age and ‘maturity’; care settings;and the range of difficulties which young

people are experiencing and chaoticlifestyles. Interestingly, wherementoring was focused on a cleartransition period, it seemed to offermost to young people.

Project Staff

The support of Fostering Network wasrated highly across the projects and thetraining provided was seen as a crucialfactor in supporting mentors. Over theperiod of the pilots, the ‘standard’formula for calculating the timecommitment required to fully supportand administer the projects was felt tobe significantly under-estimated. Inmost cases, mentoring project staffwere hard pressed to manage thecompeting demands on their time andmaintaining their idealism andenthusiasm was often at the price ofextending working hours far beyond thebudgeted time available. Despite earlieragreements about the need for projectcoordinators to collate extensiveinformation on mentors, young peoplereferred, and ongoing recording ofmatches, in practice this happenedrarely as other pressures simply tomaintain a service took precedence. TheScottish Mentoring Network (2005)recommends that

A maximum of between fifteen andtwenty matches should be assignedto any one project worker/Co-ordinator. This needs to be used asa benchmark (Scottish MentoringNetwork, 2005)

The complexity of the task also needs tobe highlighted. The project co-ordinators were supervising mentorswho were involved in relationships with


young people at extremely difficultpoints in their lives. It is essential,therefore, that such staff have thenecessary skills and experience and thesupport to undertake this difficult role.

Mentoring: The Model

Two major lessons emerge for themodel of mentoring. In most cases,where relationships have endured forany period of time, it is rare that thesehave complied with any ‘purist’ notion ofmentoring, with its focus on ends andgoals defined clearly by the youngperson being established, supportedand followed through rigorously to amore or less pre-determinedconclusion. In practice, many youngpeople have found it difficult to clearlyarticulate a meaningful goal, but mosthave welcomed the interest and supportof the mentor meeting with them on aregular basis. This has been found inother research. Philip, Shucksmith andKing (2003), for example, write:

… the establishment of mentoringrelationships was not alwaysstraightforward. It took time andconsiderable effort by both partnersand progress was often uneven.Some young people valued theprocess of developing therelationship as much if not morethan the outcomes. It was evidenttoo that many relationships werefragile and easily undermined…(Philip, Shucksmith and King, 2003, p. 23)

Even where goals were established at afairly early stage, then, the changing lifecircumstances of the young people haveled to shifts and change. What was

important in both of these situationswas the unequivocal, non-judgemental,non-professional, support andfriendship which they were offered; forsome young people this was apowerfully affirmative experience ofmodelling positive ways of living andbehaving as an adult.

For some mentees this concern with the‘means’ rather than the ‘ends’ ofmentoring persisted throughout therelationship with an understandingdeveloping, sometimes in a tacit way,that this was in every way but in name, abefriending relationship. In other cases,however, while ‘befriending’ was themost apparent and immediate benefit tomentees, the relationship was able todevelop into something more akin tomentoring over time, with a developingfocus on its being deliberately used todevelop the normal range of targets andgoals.

It is often assumed that mentoringwill proceed steadily through aseries of stages, before coming tofocus on the needs of the youngpeople and on devising strategies tomitigate problems and overcomedifficulties. Such thinking over-simplifies the nature of mentoringand tends to overstate the centralityof goal-oriented, instrumentalactivities in such work. (Shiner et al2004b, p. 2)

The central question to emerge from thedevelopment of the schemes is whetherthis diversity of relationships, both atthe outset and then latterly, representsan unacceptable dilution of a corebenefit of mentoring or whether theseorganic and flexible arrangementsrepresent the development of a different


method of providing combinedadvantages. It seems that meeting theneeds of severely disadvantaged youngpeople requires a degree of flexibilityand fluidity in relationships withmentors where something closer tobefriending may be the only, or certainlyinitial, outcome. Operate the service asa ‘befriending’ service and that is all youcan expect to achieve. Operate as amentoring service, though, withflexibility built into everyone’sexpectations from the outset, and,arguably you can attain the benefits ofmentoring for some young people, atsome stage in their contact with theservice. Pawson (2004b), insummarizing his explanatory review ofmentoring relationships writes:

Do not underestimate the usefulness of volunteer or other ‘non-professional’ mentors who can do little more than befriend their mentees. While they cannot deliver higher grade functions such as direction-setting, coachingand advocacy, they help to create the essential ground conditions forfurther improvement. (Pawson, 2004b, p. 4)

Further, Scottish Mentoring Network, inputting forward a model of mentoring,states:

Agencies need to considerdeveloping a flexible model ofmentoring and befriending for thisparticular group of vulnerableyoung people to allow them toaccess a range of interventionswithin one project (ScottishMentoring Network, 2005).

‘Selling’ the idea of mentoring isanother challenge which has emergedfor each of the projects, no matter howwell integrated into services for youngpeople and no matter how wellconnected with potential mentees theproject is. The development of a shortvideo in 2004, highlighting mentoringacross Britain but particularly inGlenshire, played a useful part inhelping encourage and train mentors.

It is clear that the development andsustaining of such new projectsdesigned for the needs of disadvantagedyoung people requires adequate staffresources so that the critical level ofknowledge, contacts and networking canbe undertaken. Sufficient time is alsoneeded to support the development ofsuch projects.

Even the longest established projectshave faced some level of difficulty insustaining relationships with the mostdisadvantaged young people andinevitably all of them have had tograpple with the central questionwhether some degree of toleration ofless goal-oriented matches isacceptable to the schemes and tomentors. Arguably, while none of this isentirely novel, it was always a cardinalprinciple that each scheme develop itsown approach to creating a schemewhich represented and best reflectedthe characteristics of its area andstakeholder characteristics. WhileFostering Network has been ofenormous importance to all schemes,especially project staff and mentors, andas much transferability of learning hasbeen developed across projects aspossible, it was imperative each projectremained local and ultimately self-sustaining.


If the final number of young peopleoffered a mentoring opportunityhas been fewer than originallyhoped, many key lessons aboutdeveloping another, potentiallyvaluable source of support to someof Scotland’s most vulnerablepeople have been learned. Inparticular this pilot project hasdemonstrated some of the realitiesof reaching out successfully to themost disadvantaged group ofyoung people with experience ofcare.

I think so far, in the past year anda half, it’s been successful, whenyou see the benefits to the youngpeople. I think you need tomaintain the project for a longertime, to see the longer benefits;three or four years. (project co-ordinator)

Mentee: Obviously we wouldn’tstop seeing each other because Iwould just die. Even if I go onholiday for 2 weeks,

I am like ‘I miss Angela’. It hasbecome like a routine to seeAngela. She is sort of like a fairygodmother, that you can click yourfinger and she is there. You cantell all your problems to her, it isgreat.

Mentor: I used to go away in thebeginning and hope that he wouldbe ok. Till I would see him the nextweek, you always had that worryabout him. But now I go awayknowing that he is going to befine… Now I know that he is goingto be fine and he is going tosurvive.


References

Action on Aftercare Consortium (1996) Too much too young: The failure of socialpolicy in meeting the needs of care leavers. Ilford: Barnardo’s.

Baldwin, D., Coles, B. and Mitchell, W. (1997) The formation of an underclass ordisparate processes of social exclusion? Evidence from two groupings of ‘vulnerableyouth’, in MacDonald, R. (ed.) Youth, the ‘underclass’ and social exclusion, (pp. 83-95), London: Routledge

Befriending Network Scotland and Scottish Mentoring Network (2005) The natureand extent of befriending and mentoring in Scotland.http://www.befriending.co.uk/pdfstore/Map_of_Befriending_and_Mentoring_in_Scotland.pdf, [accessed 20 August 2005]

Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. and Wade, J. (1995) Moving on: Young people andleaving care schemes. London: HMSO.

Clayden, J., & Stein, M. (2002). Mentoring for care leavers: evaluation report. York: University of York Social Work Research and Development Unit.

Cheung, S.Y. & Heath, A. (1994) After care: the education and occupation of adultswho have been in care, Oxford Review of Education, 20(3), 361-372.

Dixon, J. & Stein, M. (2002) Still a bairn? throughcare and aftercare services inScotland, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/health/stillabairn.pdf, [accessed 20August 2005]

Dixon, J. and Stein, M. (2003) Leaving care in Scotland: The residential experience,Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 2(2), 7-17.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness ofmentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 30(2), 157 - 197.

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: predictors and effects ofduration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 30(2), 199 - 219.

Hall, J.C. (2003) Mentoring and young people: a literature review. Glasgow: GlasgowUniversity SCRE Centre.

Jackson, S. and Martin, P.Y. (1998) Surviving the care system: education andresilience, Journal of Adolescence, 21, 569-583.


Jamieson, C. (2002) Foreward. Report from the working group on the throughcareand aftercare of looked after children in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Martin, P.Y. and Jackson, S. (2002) Educational success for children in public care:advice from high achievers, Child and Family Social Work, 7, 121-130.

Pawson, R. (2004a) Mentoring relationships: an explanatory review. ESRC UK Centrefor Evidence Based Policy and Practice

Pawson, R. (2004b) Mentoring relationships: an explanatory review - summary.ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice

Philip, K., Shucksmith, J. & King, C. (2004) Sharing a laugh? a qualitative study ofmentoring interventions with young people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Ridley, J. (2003) Talking to me as if I was somebody: report of an evaluation ofMatches Mentoring Project, [unpublished]

Scottish Executive (2001) For Scotland's children: better integrated children'sservices. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Shiner, M., Young, T., Newburn, T. and Groben, S. (2004a) Mentoring disaffectedyoung people: an evaluation of Mentoring Plus, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Shiner, M., Young, T., Newburn, T. and Groben, S. (2004b) Mentoring disaffectedyoung people: an evaluation of Mentoring Plus, JRF Findings. York: JosephRowntree Foundation.

Scottish Mentoring Network (2005) This is mentoring. Glasgow: Scottish MentoringNetwork

Stein, M. (1997) What works in leaving care, Ilford: Barnardos.

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Making a difference: an impactstudy of Big Brothers Big Sisters (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

evaluation of fostering network scottish care …...evaluation of fostering network scottish care...

Documents