Evaluation Of The Reducing Reoffending Change Fund Final Report

Copyright

© Crown copyright, 2016

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.scot

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

First published by the Scottish Government, February 2016
ISBN: 978-1-78544-976-5 (web only)
ISSN: 20456964

E-book in EPUB format first published by the Scottish Government, February 2016
ISBN: 978-1-78544-983-3 (EPUB)

E-book in MOBI format first published by the Scottish Government, February 2016
ISBN: 978-1-78544-984-0 (MOBI)

Published by the Scottish Government, February 2016

Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA
PPDAS63882 (02/16)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all those who contributed to or assisted with this evaluation of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund.

Above all, the authors would like to thank the mentees who shared their experiences with us. We know that some of them overcame considerable anxiety to do so.

We would also like to thank the mentors and staff in all the PSPs who completed monitoring data (which was no small undertaking), took part in qualitative research and surveys, and co-operated with the evaluation throughout.

Finally, we would like to thank Sacha Rawlence, Kevin Fulton, Catherine Bisset and their colleagues at the Scottish Government, and the other national stakeholders, who participated in qualitative interviews and provided valuable advice and support throughout.

1. Executive Summary

Background

1.1 The Reducing Reoffending Change Fund (RRCF) is one of three change funds created by the Scottish Government in 2012 to help drive a decisive shift towards preventative spending. The RRCF has two key aims:

to provide prolific young male offenders and women offenders with substantial one-to-one support through evidence-based mentoring schemes

to promote strong, equal partnership working between third and public sector organisations.

1.2 RRCF funding was allocated to six Public Social Partnerships (PSPs) – strategic partnerships between third sector and public sector organisations – to deliver mentoring schemes for offenders. Each PSP was led by a third sector organisation, designed to give the third sector a primary role within each partnership.

1.3 The Scottish Government's Justice Analytical Services Division, on behalf of the RRCF partnership, commissioned an independent evaluation of the RRCF. This was undertaken by Ipsos MORI Scotland in collaboration with a team of academic experts led by Professor Gill McIvor. The aim of the evaluation was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which the PSP model delivers effective mentoring services that reduce the risk of reoffending and support reintegration. The specific research questions were:

Were the resources invested as planned and were they sufficient to deliver the services?

Did the mentoring and PSP activities take place as planned?

What were the barriers and enablers to delivering services?

What were the short and medium term outcomes for mentees, mentors and PSPs?

What were the barriers and enablers to achieving outcomes?

The lessons learned about mentoring and PSPs will inform the future use of these approaches.

Methodology

1.4 The mixed-method evaluation was carried out in three phases between September 2013 and November 2015. It involved the following:

analysis of monitoring data collected by each PSP, including results from surveys conducted with mentees and mentors (designed to help answer research questions 1, 2 and 4)

in-depth interviews with mentees involved in the mentoring services (research questions 2, 3, 4 and 5)

focus groups and in-depth interviews with mentors (research questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

in-depth interviews with representatives from each PSPs' lead organisation and a sample of partner organisations (research questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

an online survey with organisations involved in each PSP (research questions 2, 4 and 5)

in-depth interviews with national stakeholders (research questions 1, 2, 4 and 5)

observation of partnership meetings (research questions 2 and 4)

observation of mentor training and support sessions (research questions 2, 4 and 5).

1.5 The evaluation was structured around the programme logic model which showed the planned resources (inputs) and mentoring activities that were intended to lead to short term outcomes, medium term outcomes and, ultimately, the long term outcome of reduced reoffending. The logic model is shown at Annex F.

Findings on resources

1.6 Resources were, broadly speaking, invested as planned and were generally sufficient. However, managers in lead organisations found that the time involved in setting up the services was considerably greater than they had anticipated; some services therefore took longer than planned to become fully operational.

1.7 The findings suggest that six months should be the minimum period of engagement for most mentees and many would benefit from a longer period.

Findings on mentoring activities

1.8 Although there is no single definition of mentoring, a common feature of different approaches to mentoring in practice is that the mechanism of engagement is based on a one-to-one relationship where two people come together to form a bond. The mentee brings to the relationship a set of expectations that particular needs may be met, and the mentor brings to it a desire to meet the mentee's needs in an atmosphere of positive regard (Social Mentoring Research Group, University of Brighton, 2015).

1.9 In general, mentoring services were implemented as planned.

1.10 The timing, frequency and format of contact varied depending on the needs of the individual mentee. The approach used by mentors also varied and depended on the needs and goals of the mentee and the preferred style of the mentor.

1.11 However, the most important factor was the development of a close one-to-one relationship between the mentee and the mentor. The following qualities, skills and behaviours were key to building relationships and were consistently demonstrated by mentors: regular contact; being non-judgmental; treating the mentee as an equal; being easy-going; being a relaxing, calming influence; listening; challenging; being persistent; encouraging the mentee to set goals; encouraging mentees to think through consequences; praising and building self-esteem; sharing their own personal experiences and difficulties they have overcome; caring; respecting confidentiality; encouraging engagement with other services.

1.12 Mentees felt that mentors were different to many staff from other services because they were non-judgemental and were focused on them and on their needs and goals.

Findings on exits and attrition

1.13 The ending of the relationship could be difficult for both mentees and mentors and the extent to which mentors prepared mentees for the ending of the relationship varied. PSPs should give more guidance and advice to mentors to help them ensure that mentees are prepared for exit.

1.14 Of those who had exited the service, 44% had planned exits and 56% had unplanned exits.

1.15 Comparison with other literature suggests that the proportion of unplanned exits is not out of line with those of other mentoring services for offenders. Moreover, some of those who failed to engage or had an unplanned exit (due to problems in their lives becoming overwhelming) recognised the potential benefits and expressed a desire and willingness to engage with mentoring in the future. So, while mentoring may not work for some people the first time round, there is the possibility that they might re-engage and benefit from it in the future, when they are more ready to change or when other circumstances change.

Findings on outcomes for mentees

1.16 Mentees who engaged were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of mentoring and it was clear that some mentees had experienced very significant, transformational change. Others had experienced less significant changes but had nonetheless worked with their mentors to address some specific problems.

1.17 The outcome areas that showed most improvement were those linked with attitudes and motivations and those which were more in the direct control of the mentee. These are areas that may help in the initial stages of the change process such as increased problem solving and emotion management skills, increased motivation to engage with the mentor, increased motivation to change behaviour and increased social skills.

1.18 Areas that showed less improvement were more connected with external factors such as family, accommodation, work or education, and substance use – and often require the input of external agencies. It may require a longer period of mentoring to support engagement with these other agencies.

1.19 Length of engagement was the key factor that influenced the amount of progress made by mentees: those who engaged with the mentoring service for longer were more likely to make progress on outcomes.

Findings on outcomes for mentors

1.20 Feedback from mentors indicated that mentoring can be an immensely rewarding role. It can also be very demanding and mentors require: specific induction and training on the role; the opportunity to share experiences with other mentors; and the opportunity for clinical supervision.

Findings on PSP outcomes

1.21 There are clear advantages to the PSP model and 85% of partners would choose to be part of a PSP again.

1.22 The short term outcomes in the PSP logic model have very largely been achieved. There was evidence of increased co-production of services, increased awareness of services provided by partners and other stakeholders, increased trust among partners and, in particular, increased understanding among partners of their respective expertise and potential contribution. The intended short term outcomes of increased inclusion of the user voice and improved communication between partners have been achieved in part.

1.23 The medium term outcomes in the PSP logic model have been achieved in part. There was evidence of improved relationships among public and third sector organisations and improved coordination of services. The intended medium term outcomes of more effective and more efficient services for offenders have been achieved in part. It is too early to say whether the model leads to more sustainable services for offenders or increased involvement of a wide range of partners in service development.

1.24 However, the application of the PSP methodology was not the only means by which these outcomes could have been achieved, as they could potentially have been achieved through other funding mechanisms (such as the direct commissioning of services by public sector partners) and other models of working (such as third sector partners collaborating to deliver services outwith the PSP model).

Broader lessons on mentoring services for people who offend

1.25 The extent to which findings are generalisable to other settings will, of course, depend on a number of factors including the approach used and the target group.

1.26 Development of a close one-to-one relationship is the most important factor. The qualities, skills and behaviours listed in section 1.11 above were key and should be emphasised in other mentoring services for people who offend.

1.27 Detailed matching may not be necessary for effective delivery. Few PSPs undertook detailed matching of mentee to mentor but this did not appear to be necessary and almost all mentees felt that they were well matched.

1.28 Mentoring with people who offend will often require a level of practical support that would not be expected in mentoring with some other groups. The provision of this support helps address immediate priorities (such as housing and money) which is often essential if the mentee is to move on to tackle medium or longer term goals; it helps develop the mentee's trust in the mentor; and it provides the mentor with an opportunity to model appropriate behaviour and ways of dealing effectively with other services.

1.29 Areas most likely to show improvement. In the relatively short time-span of the RRCF mentoring relationship (generally up to five or six months at most), areas that showed most improvement are those linked with attitudes and motivations and those which are more in the direct control of the mentee. Areas that showed less improvement are more connected with external factors, such as family, accommodation, work or education, and substance use – and require the input of external agencies. This indicates that a longer period of mentoring may be needed to secure and sustain engagement with these other agencies.

1.30 Availability of other services. Mentoring can play a key role in linking mentees with other services and encouraging engagement with them. However, this is necessarily limited by the availability and the effectiveness of other services.

1.31 Length of engagement. The evaluation has suggested that many mentees would benefit from a longer period of engagement than six months. Future evaluations should therefore weigh the potential benefits of a longer period of engagement for fewer individuals versus a shorter period of engagement for more individuals.

1.32 Mentors require clear guidance and training on how to prepare mentees for exit.

Broader lessons on the PSP model

1.33 Scale and the extent to which services are 'new'. The advantages and challenges of the PSP model varied quite considerably depending on the size and the starting point. In deciding whether to use the PSP model for future initiatives, it is therefore worth considering the likely size and starting point of the potential PSPs. If they are likely to be small and developed from existing services, having a PSP model (as opposed to direct commissioning) may provide some advantages but is likely to have less of an impact. If the potential PSPs would be large and new, then the PSP model may convey more advantages in comparison with direct commissioning, but more time will be needed for development and set-up.

1.34 Sharing information and networking. The PSP model facilitates the sharing of information among partners. Where there are a number of PSPs working in the same field, having the opportunity to share information across PSPs is also valuable.

1.35 Funding criteria can limit co-production. The PSP model can increase the co-production of services by third sector and public sector partners. However, this is potentially limited by the initial funding criteria: the stricter the criteria for what type of service should be provided for whom, and how that service should be delivered, the less scope there is for co-production by partners.

1.36 Ensuring the inclusion of the user voice. There does not appear to be anything about the PSP model, in itself, which encourages the inclusion of the user voice in the design or development of services. Services therefore need to give specific thought to how this might be achieved on an ongoing, strategic basis, beyond the work each PSP undertook in the initial stages of service design.

1.37 Relationships between third sector partners. Where PSPs involve more than one third sector body, this leads to increased trust and understanding of each other's expertise. However, there was acknowledgement that the long-term benefits of this might be limited if, and when, they revert to being 'rivals' for future funding of the service.

1.38 Need for clear accountability and decision making. The lead partner needs to be empowered and prepared to make operational decisions and to take prompt action when appropriate. There may be occasions where difficult or contentious decisions require to be made outwith the PSP board meetings and, as far as possible, partners should agree in advance how these decisions will be handled.

1.39 Having a mix of both national and local PSPs in the same field is potentially problematic. The potential for geographical duplication of service provision needs to be carefully worked through. There are also implications for sustainability with both local and national PSPs feeling they are disadvantaged: the former because they fear their voice will be lost at a national funding level, and the latter because they fear that local commissioners will favour the local service.

Conclusions

1.40 There is strong evidence from this evaluation that mentoring is an effective approach which helps mentees to learn and implement constructive, non-criminal ways of addressing problems in their lives and to reduce risk factors associated with offending behaviour.

1.41 In combination with a wider system of support – and mentoring also helps engagement with other services – the evidence suggests that this will, in the long term, contribute to a reduction in reoffending. There is therefore a strong case for the continuation and expansion of mentoring services.

1.42 Whether mentoring services are best provided by PSPs (as opposed to other models of funding and delivery) is less clear. One element in the assessment of whether the PSP model has been successful is whether the services are sustained beyond the current funding period – and that will not be known until after funding expires in 2017. What is clear, however, is that the model has led public sector partners to a significantly increased appreciation of the expertise and potential contribution of the third sector.

2. Introduction

Background to the evaluation

2.1 The Reducing Reoffending Change Fund (RRCF) is one of three change funds created by the Scottish Government in 2012 to help drive a decisive shift towards preventative spending (Clark et al., 2013). Investing in prevention is crucial to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of public services and to improve outcomes for both service users and their communities. In the case of reoffending, prevention means supporting desistance and reintegration in a variety of ways, including addressing the risk factors associated with recidivism. The RRCF has two key aims:

to provide prolific young male offenders and women offenders with substantial one-to-one support through evidence-based mentoring schemes

to promote strong, equal partnership working between third and public sector organisations.

2.2 RRCF funding was originally allocated over a three year period (2012 to 2015) as follows:

In Year 1 (October 2012 to March 2013) £2 million was made available[1] to support recipients in developing full project proposals or to support the expansion or enhancement of existing mentoring interventions.

In Years 2 and 3 (April 2013 to March 2015) a total of £8 million per year was allocated to six Public Social Partnerships (PSPs)[2]. PSPs are strategic partnerships between public and third sector organisations which were formed to co-design the proposed mentoring services, and which work together to deliver the services. Each PSP is led by a third sector organisation, designed to give the third sector a primary role within each partnership. The selection of which PSPs to support was in part driven by a desire to explore different models/approaches e.g. two PSPs are national and four are (to varying degrees) local; TCA had a proven track record in mentoring; Includem and VASLan were two smaller projects with different approaches; and BAfC had extensive experience in support for young people. A summary of each project is provided at Annex H.

2.3 The RRCF Partnership[3] has been closely engaged with the six PSPs since their establishment. As a result, the partnership was aware of concerns that had been expressed by the PSPs and other stakeholders that it would not prove possible for the PSPs to develop new services to maturity, evidence their effectiveness, and secure arrangements for sustainable funding, before the planned end of the RRCF funding in March 2015. In light of this, in June 2014, the RRCF announced an extension of funding for the six PSPs for up to a maximum of two financial years, at the same levels as in 2013-15 (up to £8 million across both years). In addition to providing the PSPs with a longer period in which to evidence their impact, this approach was chosen as it would ensure the PSPs are sustained throughout the transition period associated with the redesign of community justice structures. The Scottish Government contributed £6 million to the funding extension, with The Robertson Trust providing £2 million.

2.4 The Scottish Government's Justice Analytical Services Division, on behalf of the RRCF partnership, commissioned Ipsos MORI Scotland to undertake an independent evaluation of the RRCF. Ipsos MORI worked in collaboration with a team of academic experts led by Professor Gill McIvor, who advised on the design of research materials (e.g. topic guides and questionnaires), contributed to the analysis of findings and commented on draft reports. Year 1 of the RRCF, during which the PSPs were developed, has already been evaluated (Clark et al., 2013). This current evaluation focuses on Years 2 and 3. A follow-on study will be carried out in 2017.

Aims and objectives of the evaluation

2.5 The aim of the evaluation was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which the PSP model is delivering effective mentoring services that reduce the risk of reoffending and support reintegration. The lessons learned about PSPs and mentoring will inform the future use of these approaches. The evaluation was not designed to make direct comparisons between the different PSPs (e.g. in terms of impact) because they are all working with different client groups and in different circumstances.

2.6 The evaluation addressed the following questions (as detailed in the evaluation framework (Annex G)):

How effective have the PSPs been at delivering services?

Have the mentoring activities taken place as planned?

Have the PSP activities (e.g. developing roles and structures, regular meetings, sharing of information, involvement of services users) taken place as planned/envisaged?

What have been the enablers and barriers to delivering the services?

How effective have PSPs been at achieving early outcomes?

Outcomes for mentees (short term and medium term)

Outcomes for mentors (short term and medium term)

Outcomes for PSPs (short term and medium term)

What have been the enablers and barriers to achieving the outcomes?

2.7 The evaluation also covers the overall reach of the RRFC in terms of the number of people it has engaged and how the funding has been spent.

2.8 The evaluation was not designed to assess the effectiveness of different approaches to mentoring or different mentoring activities. Although there are common behaviours shared by mentors, mentors within each PSP use a variety of approaches depending on the circumstances of the individual mentees. Indeed, one mentor may use different mentoring approaches depending on the mentee they are working with (e.g. a mentor may tend to go for walks and to the gym with one mentee, sit and talk more directly with another, and use structured learning tools and training courses with another). In order to draw a clear link between activities and outcomes, we would need to demonstrate that mentoring approaches can be grouped by a set of characteristics that would allow comparisons to be drawn between the different approaches. However, it is not possible make these groupings, even within an individual PSP, as each mentor's approach is tailored to the circumstances of the mentee.

2.9 Even if we were able to group mentoring approaches, the scope for comparison would still be limited by the fact that the different approaches would not be being used with the 'same' populations in a way that would allow us to say that one approach was more effective than another, because the mentees in each group would differ in terms of their personal characteristics and circumstances in ways that are likely to affect their progress towards achieving outcomes.

Definition of Mentoring

2.10 Although there is no single definition of mentoring, a common feature of different approaches to mentoring in practice is that the mechanism of engagement is based on a one-to-one relationship where two people come together to form a bond. The mentee brings to the relationship a set of expectations that particular needs may be met, and the mentor brings to it a desire to meet the mentee's needs in an atmosphere of positive regard (Social Mentoring Research Group, University of Brighton, 2015).

2.11 The evidence on 'what works' to reduce reoffending is clear; standalone interventions are unlikely to reduce reoffending on their own so mentoring should be seen as part of a holistic service where offenders are offered a range of interventions to meet their needs (Sapouna et al 2015). In this sense, by forming trusting and flexible relationships with offenders, a mentoring approach could contribute to reducing reoffending as part of a wider system of support.

2.12 The activities being undertaken by the PSPs have involved providing practical support to mentees (such as accompanying them to meet other services such as housing support), that fall outside some definitions of mentoring. This would reflect the PSPs' understanding that offenders may often lack the resilience or self-motivation needed to engage fully with activities or services available to them. The RRCF has an expectation that – in response to the individual's needs and circumstances – the mentor can and should be pro-active and persuasive, in order to give the mentee the best possible opportunity to benefit fully from their relationship. The extent to which the mentor will engage in additional support activities will be shaped by the mentee's needs; and by the particular role and responsibilities defined by the mentoring project for their staff. However, this would not change the fundamental point that the interaction would be voluntary, that plans would be mutually agreed, and that the mentor would not control or decide the mentee's progress towards their stated aims.

2.13 To encompass the wide range of activities undertaken, the Scottish Mentoring Network (SMN) advised that we describe the PSPs as having adopted a 'mentoring approach'. This reflects the one-to-one nature of the relationship, but is a broad enough term not to restrain staff from addressing a range of complex needs. As the mentoring approach adopted by the PSPs is broader than many other, more traditional, definitions of mentoring, care should be taken in drawing lessons from this evaluation and applying them to other mentoring approaches.

Logic Model Approach

2.14 The evaluation was carried out using a logic model approach. Logic models are simplified diagrams of a programme, policy, or intervention (in this case the RRCF), which show the logical relationships between the resources invested, the activities that took place and the intended outcomes or benefits of those activities. Logic models can be used as a tool for evaluation, to see if outcomes were achieved as defined in the model. Two logic models were developed for the evaluation: one to answer research questions in relation to the mentoring programme (i.e. "have the mentoring activities taken place as planned?" and "how effective have PSPs been at achieving early outcomes for mentees and outcomes for mentors?") and the other to answer questions relating to the PSP model (i.e. "have the PSP activities taken place as planned/envisaged?" and "how effective have PSPs been at achieving early outcomes for PSPs?").

2.15 The logic model for the mentoring programme (see Annex F) shows how the planned resources (inputs) and what the PSPs do (activities) are intended to make a difference (lead to short and medium term outcomes) which are known, from previous research, to contribute to the long term outcomes of reduced reoffending and increased integration. To aid the evaluation of the PSP model, a similar logic model was also developed for the PSP elements.

2.16 It was not possible within this evaluation to assess whether the long term aims of reducing reoffending and increasing integration have been achieved. It was not feasible to include a control group in the evaluation (i.e. we were not able to compare the results for those that received mentoring with similar group that did not receive the mentoring) so we have not been able to attribute any achievement of outcomes to the PSP mentoring service (as opposed to any other factors). The logic model approach therefore aims to assess the contribution (and not attribution) of programmes to outcomes that may take longer to materialise than the evaluation period itself. This is particularly problematic for measuring long term outcomes, such as reduced reoffending, as they are realised over a longer period of time and would, therefore, require more time to gather evidence than was possible within this evaluation.

Report Structure

2.17 The next chapter details the evaluation methodology. The report then follows the logic model structure, discussing the findings in relation to whether the resources were invested as planned and were sufficient to deliver the services, whether the PSPs delivered services and operated in the way intended (activities) and whether this led to the anticipated changes (short and medium term outcomes). In the concluding chapter, we make an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the mentoring approach and the PSP model and identify broader lessons for future services.

2.18 Case studies are included at Annex A. The case studies provide examples of how the mentoring approach works in practice. We recommend that those unfamiliar with the mentoring services provided by the PSPs should read these case studies first to gain an overview of what the mentoring approach involves. The case studies illustrate the background to the mentoring relationship, the activities carried out and the range of outcomes that have been observed.

3. Methodology

Timescale

3.1 The evaluation was carried out between September 2013 and November 2015 in three phases:

Phase one: September 2013 – March 2014 (during Year 2 of the RRCF funding period)

Phase two: July 2014 – October 2014 (during Year 3 of the funding period)

Phase three: May 2015 – November 2015 (at the start of the two year funding extension which runs until 2017)

Mixed Method Approach

3.2 A mixed-method approach was used to answer the research questions. The methods used, and the research questions they relate to, are summarised in Table 3.1 below (much more detail is provided at Annex G, the Evaluation Framework) and in the following sections of this chapter.

Table 3.1: Methodology

Logic Model area
Specific questions
Qualitative research
(interviews and/or focus groups)
Survey of partners
Analysis of monitoring data (including mentee exit surveys and mentor surveys)
Observation of mentor training/ support
Observation of PSP meetings

PSP
Mentees
Mentors
National stakeholders

RESOURCES (INPUTS)
Were resources invested as planned?
√

√

√

Were resources sufficient to deliver the services?
√

√

ACTIVITIES How effective have the PSPs been at delivering services?
Have the mentoring activities taken place as planned?
√
√
√

√
√

Have the PSP activities taken place as planned/envisaged?
√

√
√
√

√

What have been the barriers and enablers to delivering services?
√
√
√

OUTCOMES How effective have PSPs been at achieving early outcomes?
Outcomes for mentees (short and medium term)

√
√

√

Outcomes for mentors (short and medium term)

√
√

√
√

Outcomes for PSPs (short and medium term)
√

√
√

√

What have been the barriers and enablers to achieving outcomes?
√
√
√
√
√

√

Research question: Were the resources invested as planned and were they sufficient to deliver the services? (Inputs)

3.3 In order to answer the research questions relating to resources (i.e. were the resources invested as planned and were they sufficient to deliver the services?), a combination of qualitative research (see table 3.2) and analysis of monitoring data was used.

3.4 In the first and third phases, in-depth interviews[4] were carried out with representatives from each PSPs' lead organisation (the third sector organisation with responsibility for coordinating each PSP and for delivering mentoring services) and a sample of partner organisations (range of third sector and public sector partners working within each PSP, some of which also deliver mentoring services). Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone. The interviews explored how the service had been designed and developed and how resources had been used.

3.5 Also in the first and third phases, focus groups[5] were conducted with mentors from each PSP to explore how the mentoring service had been working from their perspective. These discussions provided feedback on topics such as mentors' caseloads, helping to explore the extent to which staffing resources were sufficient to deliver mentoring services as planned.

3.6 Monitoring data captured by each PSP has also been analysed to identify the scale of the mentoring service (e.g. the number of individuals mentored by each PSP). PSPs capture monitoring data using a standardised tool, designed by Justice Analytical Services in consultation with the PSPs. The tool collects basic demographic and administrative information (such as dates) and records mentees' progress against 11 key outcomes (based on the difference between the needs at the start of the intervention and needs at the exit from the intervention).

Research question: How effective have the PSPs been at delivering services? (Activities)

3.7 Methods used to assess the effectiveness of PSPs at delivering services, included: qualitative research with PSPs, mentors and mentees; an online survey of PSP partners; analysis of monitoring data and documentation; and observation of mentor support sessions.

3.8 In-depth interviews with lead and partner organisations provided feedback on how the mentoring services have been delivered and whether or not PSP activities have been delivered as planned (e.g. development of roles and structures, regular meetings, sharing of information).

3.9 In the first two phases, face-to-face in-depth interviews were carried out with mentees involved in each of the PSPs to discuss their experiences of the mentoring service, including details on the types of activities that they took part in. In the final phase of research, in-depth interviews[6] were carried out with mentees that had started the mentoring service but had left unexpectedly, and were therefore classed by PSPs as having made an "unplanned exit". These mentees were all young males and had all returned to prison since starting the mentoring service. It should be noted, therefore, that these mentees do not represent the full range of unplanned exits that may occur. Feedback from these interviews, while illustrating the experiences of these particular mentees, should not be viewed as representative of all mentees that had made unplanned exits. These disengaged mentees were identified with the help of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), who searched their records to identify individuals that were in custody and then carried out an initial discussion to establish whether or not the mentee remembered taking part in the mentoring service and to obtain their consent to take part in the interviews. Face-to-face interviews with these mentees were carried out in prison, to discuss their experiences of the mentoring service and explore the reasons for disengaging from the service. The decision to focus on mentees who were in custody (and therefore relatively easy to make contact with) and was a pragmatic one – we knew that it would be extremely difficult to make contact with disengaged mentees in the community given that their mentors had failed to make contact despite numerous attempts.

3.10 Activities were also explored through qualitative research with mentors, including focus groups in the first and third phases and individual face-to-face interviews[7] in the second phase. Interviews were deemed the most appropriate approach for the second phase, as one of the objectives was to focus on specific examples of mentoring activities that had taken place with individual mentees. In the final phase, focus groups explored the process of induction, support and training provided to mentors and to discuss outcomes for mentors.

3.11 An online survey was also carried out with organisations involved in each PSP, which included questions designed to assess whether or not PSP activities had been delivered as planned. Each lead and partner organisation was invited to nominate up to three individuals to complete the survey. The first wave of the survey was conducted in January and February 2014, and 82 responses were received from a sample of 95 individuals (a response rate of 86%). The second wave of the survey was conducted in October 2014 and 66 responses were received from a sample of 88 individuals[8] (response rate of 75%). The final wave was conducted in June 2015 and 63 responses were received from a sample of 88 individuals (response rate of 72%)[9].

3.12 Monitoring data provided by PSPs was analysed to identify details about mentoring activities, including how mentees were referred to the service, how the mentoring service ended and the extent to which signposting to other services had taken place.

3.13 Observation of mentor support sessions at one PSP and mentor training provided by the SMN was also undertaken. The training session observed did not include mentors from the PSPs but was very similar to the training which the SMN has provided to several of the PSPs. The aim of the observation was to provide the research team with a greater understanding of the issues covered by the training, and the format and nature of the course.

Research question: How effective have the PSPs been at achieving early outcomes? (Outcomes)

3.14 Each of the methods previously discussed was also used to evaluate how effective PSPs had been at achieving early outcomes.

3.15 In each phase of the research, outcomes for mentees were explored through the qualitative research with mentees and mentors, while outcomes for mentors were explored through the focus groups and interviews with mentors.

3.16 Monitoring data was also used to evaluate outcomes for mentees. Parts of the monitoring are designed to measure the difference between mentees' needs at the start of the intervention and needs at the exit from the intervention. Analysis of this data has therefore concentrated on closed cases i.e. mentees who have completed the mentoring service or are considered to have had an unplanned exit.

3.17 Results from mentee exit surveys (see Annex D for tables) have also been analysed to assess outcomes for mentees. Each PSP was asked to administer mentee exit surveys just before or just after the mentoring service ended. The survey captures mentees' views on the quality of the relationship with their mentor, the aspects of mentoring they found most and least helpful, and the changes that had occurred as a result of mentoring. Completed exit surveys were provided from 278 mentees, across all six PSPs (a response rate of 33% based on 834 planned exits). It should be borne in mind that, in almost all cases, exit surveys will be completed by those who remained engaged and had a planned exit from the service. This group is likely to be the most positive about the service.

3.18 Mentor outcomes were analysed using results from mentor surveys. The surveys capture mentors' satisfaction with the level and quality of training and support provided as well as confidence in their skills and knowledge. Surveys were completed by 123 different mentors[10], across all six PSPs. Mentors were asked to complete surveys every six months if possible; where mentors have done this, analysis is based on the latest survey completed by each mentor.

3.19 In terms of outcomes for PSPs, these were explored through interviews with lead and partner organisations, and through the online survey of partners conducted in each phase.

3.20 Observation of PSP meetings was also carried out at five of the PSPs[11] to provide insight into the working relationships between the partners, how they interacted and shared information, and how decisions are made.

3.21 In each phase, in-depth interviews[12] were also carried out with national stakeholders involved in the RRCF and explored views on how the PSPs had been progressing, including outcomes for mentees, mentors and PSPs. The stakeholders included representatives of: Community Justice Authorities (CJAs), The Robertson Trust, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), SPS, Scottish Mentoring Network, Social Work Scotland, and Ready for Business. Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or by telephone.

Technical Note

3.22 Reference is made in the report to results from monitoring data and the survey of partners. Where percentages referenced in the report from either of these sources do not sum to 100%, this is a result of rounding.

4. Findings On Resources

Key Findings

Resources were, broadly speaking, invested as planned and were generally sufficient.

However, managers in lead organisations found that the time involved in setting up the services was considerably greater than they had anticipated. One of the main factors in this was that the PSP model was a new way of working.

The findings suggest that the typical six-month service should be the minimum period for most mentees, and that many would benefit from a longer period of engagement.

4.1 The first stages of both the mentoring logic model and the PSP logic model were the resources (or inputs) that were invested. This chapter looks at whether these were invested as planned and were sufficient to deliver the services.

4.2 These resources were:

Money

Time

Staff

Policy

Clear client groups and intended outcomes

Partnerships with referral and sign-posting agencies

Development of an evidence based mentoring scheme[13].

4.3 In summary, the feedback from PSPs (lead organisations and other partners) and national stakeholders was that all types of resources were, broadly speaking, invested as planned. Detailed findings on each type of resource are discussed below, and the PSP summaries at Annex H indicate the amount of financial, time and staffing resources invested.

Money

4.4 The RRCF funding that was allocated to each PSP reflected the size of the planned service and each of the lead partners considered that it was adequate for their PSP. The money was generally spent as planned (i.e. the amount spent on staffing, transport and premises etc. was largely as each PSP anticipated).

Time

Time input from partners

4.5 In addition to the mentors' time, which is discussed under Staffing below, the main time input was the work of managers in lead organisations (in particular) and representatives of partner organisations in setting up the services, and in activities connected with mainstreaming. Given their size, geographical coverage and multiple delivery partners, more time was needed in the national PSPs.

4.6 Although they did not record the amount of time spent, managers in lead organisations indicated that the time involved (both in setting up and mainstreaming) was considerably greater than they had anticipated at the outset – notwithstanding the fact that development funding had been provided by the RRCF to each PSP in Year 1 (2012-2013). They felt that this was in large part because they had not worked in PSPs before and the model was new to everyone involved. In particular, in PSPs with more than one delivery partner, the time required to develop and implement processes across the different organisations was longer than anticipated: although all the third sector leads were experienced in service development, they were not necessarily experienced in multi-agency delivery of a service.

4.7 It also took time for the PSPs to raise awareness of their services among potential referrers and for referral pathways to become established (see section 4.22 below).

4.8 In some (possibly most) PSPs, some partners felt that there were one or two other partner agencies who did not contribute quite as much time as they had hoped (see section 11.4). However, this was not seen as a major issue and, overall, the feeling was that most partners had contributed the time required.

Duration of the mentoring relationship

4.9 Most of the services aimed to provide mentoring for around six months. It was not possible, therefore, to robustly assess the effectiveness of mentoring relationships of different durations. However, the monitoring data and feedback from mentees, mentors and other partners suggests that six months should be the minimum period of engagement for most mentees – and that many would benefit from a longer period.

Staff

4.10 The main staff resources were, of course, the mentors. The number of mentors providing the service in each PSP was largely as planned.

4.11 However, there were some issues around caseloads which indicate that the number of mentees that each mentor can reasonably be expected to mentor at one time is a little lower than was originally envisaged by some PSPs. This is largely because many mentees require more intensive support (particularly in the early stages) and more practical support than was anticipated. Target and actual caseloads vary across PSPs (and are not directly comparable because of differences in the client groups, approaches and rurality) but one PSP, for example, had started on the basis of full-time mentors having a caseload of 15 (seeing three mentees a day, five days a week).They had realised, however, that this was too much and had reduced caseloads to a maximum of 12 (with an 'ideal' of 10 or 11).

4.12 Both national PSPs aimed to match mentees with mentors from the partner organisations with the relevant specialist expertise required – but this level of matching has not always been possible as it has depended on the availability of mentors in the relevant geographic area and their caseloads. Although staff availability has meant that this aspect of the service was not delivered as intended, as discussed in section 5.16, this does not appear to have been a problem: all mentees who took part in in-depth interviews felt they were well matched and were very happy with their mentors, and in mentee exit surveys, almost all respondents (98%) felt their mentor was a good match for them.

4.13 A few mentors felt they had excessive caseloads and that their managers were not being supportive in this regard (discussed in section 10.8). One of reasons that some mentors had built up excessive caseloads was that some mentees were not exiting the service when planned and were effectively being 'kept on' by mentors in addition to their supposed 'current' caseload (discussed in section 6.9).

4.14 Based on the qualitative research with mentors and mentees, where caseloads were excessive, it appeared that the impact of this fell largely on the mentors, who worked additional hours in order to meet the needs of their mentees rather than reducing the service they provided to them.

Policy

4.15 The key policy inputs were the Scottish Government's policies of reducing reoffending, and driving a decisive shift towards preventative spend. These led to the establishment of the RRCF.

4.16 The Scottish Government is also committed to the development of an enterprising third sector and one of the aims of the RRCF was to examine alternative models that would enable the third sector to participate fully in the design and implementation of services, and provide an opportunity for successful services to enter into mainstream funding/provision.

Clear client groups and intended outcomes

4.17 The bidding process for RRCF money required the PSPs to be clear about the client groups they would be targeting and the intended outcomes of their mentoring services. The criteria for inclusion in each PSP's client group are shown in the summaries at Annex H, and the intended outcomes are shown in the Mentoring Logic Model in Annex F.

4.18 There was no evidence of any significant confusion or disagreement among partner organisations about who was eligible for each service or who should be targeted, and it may be that this clarity from the outset helped avoid these potential problems.

4.19 Similarly, PSP partners were positive about the extent to which their partnership had a clear vision and the objectives of the PSP were understood (see section 11.3) – and there was a view that the clarity about intended outcomes helped this.

Partnerships with referral and signposting agencies

4.20 All the PSPs developed links with referral agencies (who would refer potential mentees to the PSP), with agencies which could link mentees to other services and with local services. Some of these links were formal arrangements (in some cases, referrers such as Criminal Justice Social Work and the Police were members of the PSP) and others were based on more informal networks arising from mentors' work in the local area.

4.21 Regardless of whether the links were formal or informal, mentors, their managers and other partners stressed the importance of personal relationships: the better the mentors and staff from other agencies knew each other, the more effective the links. It was acknowledged that these relationships needed to be built up over time but they were facilitated by face-to-face meetings and regular phone calls.

4.22 In some cases, it took time to establish links with potential referrers and to understand what local services were available. More specifically, the national PSPs found that liaising with the eight CJAs had not proven viable in practice because systems varied by local authority within each CJA area, and the CJA representatives did not have close enough links with all the relevant people. Instead the national PSPs had to liaise directly with all 32 local authorities, which then took much more time than they had anticipated.

Development of an evidence based mentoring scheme

4.23 In their bids for funding, each PSP outlined the evidence base they had drawn upon in the development of their mentoring services. The evidence used by PSPs has included national and local level data on reoffending in Scotland (including Scottish Government data on reconviction rates) – to explain the rationale for the proposed services and the proposed target groups – and published research on the effectiveness of various approaches to reducing reoffending[14]. In addition to published evidence, lead organisations also indicated that they had designed the services based on their own experience of working with offenders and scoping exercises to identify gaps in existing provision. Two PSPs made reference to reviews and evaluations of previous projects they had delivered with similar target groups, the lessons from which they had used them to shape the current mentoring service. Another PSP had considered in detail the findings from a pilot project delivered using a similar model to their own proposed mentoring service.

4.24 Each PSP had also carried out programmes of consultation with their partners, stakeholders, and potential service users to help shape the type of service that would be delivered. Service user consultation included focus groups, workshops, and interviews with individuals using similar services.

Other resources

4.25 In addition to the resources listed in the logic model, the most significant other resources were the support and advice provided by the Robertson Trust (a funder of charitable organisations) throughout and Ready for Business (a partnership supporting the public and third sectors in Scotland) in Years 1 and 2.

4.26 The Scottish Government contracted the Robertson Trust to manage the RRCF[15]. This included administering the application process and providing support for applicants and, subsequently, providing project management support (including support with reporting and risk management) to successful applicants.

4.27 However, the Scottish Government and the PSPs reported that the Robertson Trust had contributed more than this to the development and support of the services. This included attendance at (and valuable contributions to) PSP meetings, ad hoc information sharing and provision of advice, and organising networking events. PSP partners, and lead organisations in particular, praised the quality of the advice provided and said that they found the Robertson Trust input very helpful.

4.28 In Years 1 and 2, Ready for Business provided advice and support on securing funding beyond the RRCF funding period. Although there were concerns about sustainability (discussed in sections 12.42 to 12.48), PSPs had generally found Ready for Business to be very helpful in relation to developing plans for securing funding. This aspect may be explored more fully in the 2017 report.

5. Findings On Mentoring Service Activities

Key Findings

In general, mentoring services have been implemented as planned by the PSPs.

Across all PSPs, mentoring involves direct contact between the mentor and the mentee, but the timing, frequency and format of this contact varies depending on the needs of the individual mentee.

Mentoring approaches involve a range of activities, but typically include: practical support (such as accompanying mentees to meet other services, helping with CV preparation); one-to-one meetings; group work; structured courses; and worksheets or other learning tools.

The approach used by mentors depends on the needs and goals of the mentee and the preferred style of the mentor, and this approach was considered one of its strengths.

Mentees considered mentors to be the main strength of the service as they were "genuine", "down to earth" and easy to talk to.

For those who engaged with the service while in prison, mentees and mentors felt that early engagement was one of the positive features of mentoring as it allows a relationship of trust to be developed between mentor and mentee. This relationship of trust can increase the likelihood that mentees will engage with the service on release.

The main challenge encountered in the delivery of the mentoring services (particularly for the national PSPs) was the time it took at the beginning to build relationships with new delivery partners, local authorities and prisons, which led to some operational delays in the early stages.

5.1 The evaluation has explored how the mentoring services have been implemented, how mentoring is being delivered, and to what extent the services have achieved or contributed to outcomes.

5.2 In general, mentoring services have been implemented according to the planned activities detailed in the individual logic models and funding bids.

5.3 Based on the monitoring data collected by each PSP, 3,104 mentees had been referred to the mentoring service across the six PSPs at the time the monitoring data had been completed. Of these, 2,063 had exited the service while 1,037 were still involved (the status of the remaining 4 was not clear from the data[16]). The number of mentees each PSP has worked with is summarised in Table 5.1, along with the profile of the types of mentees they work with. This is based on the monitoring data collected by each PSP[17] and made available for the final evaluation report. Where totals in each column do not sum to the grand total (3,104) this is due to missing data.

Table 5.1: Mentee numbers and profile (from inception of RRCF to June 2015)

Total number of mentees referred
Status
Gender
Age
Source of Referral

Closed
Live
Female
Male
Under 21
21
to 25
26 and over
Community
Prison

New Routes
1,505
968
537
0
1,472
130
48
0
0
1,505

Shine
997
671
325
995
0
37
5
0
384
606

Tayside Council on Alcohol
270
195
75
159
111
230
1170
102
268
2

Barnardo's Action for Children
206
136
67
0
206
58
166
737
90
110

VASLan
84
58
26
20
64
50
71
139
84
0

Includem
42
35
7
3
39
48
34
1
42
0

Total
3,104
2,063
1,037
1,177
1,892
553
1,494
979
868
2,223

5.4 Where monitoring data is referred to throughout this report, various populations of mentees are used for analysis purposes, all taken from the monitoring data. These populations and their base sizes are summarised in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Base sizes used throughout report

Mentee population | Number
All referred to mentoring service | 3,104
All who exited the service (classed as 'closed' in the monitoring data) | 2,063
All who exited the service and had more than one meeting with their mentor | 1,657
All who exited the service, had more than one meeting with their mentor, and engaged for 5 months or more[18] | 876

5.5 Some caution is required when interpreting findings from the monitoring data. Due to some data being missing from the information returned by PSPs – in certain cases not all fields have been completed for all mentees – it should be noted that analysis is based on compete data only. Further, while the tool for collecting this information is standardised across all PSPs, it is subject to mentors' individual interpretations of mentees' needs and the amount of progress they make. Findings should therefore be viewed with this in mind.

Referral and screening of mentees, including risk/needs/strengths assessment

5.6 Referral mechanisms vary across the PSPs: three services receive all of their referrals from the community and one receives all of its referrals from prison. The remaining two receive referrals from both. Across the six services, 72% of referrals were from prison, with the remainder from the community (28%) (Table B2 at Annex B). Generally, the referral process now works well, although in some cases it took time for referral pathways to be established and for potential referrers to be made aware of the service provided by PSPs.

5.7 There has been variation in the amount of information provided to the PSPs about each potential mentee. This is largely down to variations among individual referrers/referring organisations. This has not had a major impact, as mentors find out about mentees' needs when they meet, but they feel better prepared for the first meeting when they have more background information. Where there are issues, projects are working with referrers to encourage them to provide more information.

5.8 Mentees are screened for eligibility based on each PSP's criteria (which include, for example, age, risk of breach of an order, length of sentence, nature of offence and number of offences). If they are deemed eligible, a meeting with the mentor is arranged and baseline monitoring data is collected.

5.9 Mentoring services were described as "needs led" and this approach was considered by mentors and mentees as one of its strengths. In the meetings between mentor and mentees, mentors make an assessment of mentees' needs, along with areas of strength, weakness and potential risk for the mentee. While some needs are identified in early meetings, feedback from mentors indicates that this process takes time; in certain cases mentees do not open up about their needs in the beginning but their needs emerge as the relationship of trust between mentor and mentee builds. This ongoing assessment of need shapes the type of support that is provided to the mentees, including referral to specialist agencies where necessary. It also influences the format of the meetings that take place, as mentees are asked what issues they want to discuss or what activities they want to undertake. Assessment of need was described by mentors as an ongoing aspect of their relationships with mentees. This was the case for each of the PSPs.

5.10 In the early stages of the project, referrals to the national PSPs were slower than some of the partner organisations had anticipated. In part, this was due to the time taken to set up the PSP services, which were unable to receive all the referrals they hoped to until the services were fully up and running. However, in some cases, organisations that may previously have had direct referrals were now receiving referrals through the lead organisation. One organisation described the system that their PSP had developed for identifying and allocating potential mentees as "inefficient" as they have less opportunity for early engagement or "rapid response" to the service user. It was noted, however, that the speed of referrals had improved since the beginning of the service.

5.11 Some mentors have faced difficulties gaining access to mentees on release from prison. This has been a particular issue when mentees have had outstanding charges that the mentor is not aware of until the point of release. Mentors have been unable to carry out gate pick-ups in some instances, as police have been waiting for the mentee at the gate to discuss outstanding charges. This has not been a widespread issue and has not occurred for every mentor, but was highlighted as an example of one of the challenges some mentors have faced in gaining access to mentees.

5.12 Planning the mentoring service has been a challenge for the PSPs (particularly the national projects) that have expanded into new areas with new delivery partners. Building relationships in new prisons has taken more time than expected. For some partners, these logistical issues contributed to delays in the referral processes being set up and implemented.

Induction and matching of mentees

5.13 The process for inducting mentees into the mentoring service varies across PSPs and depends on the needs of the particular mentee. Generally across PSPs, there is no formal induction period for mentees. The process of introduction to the mentoring service is generally part of the one-to-one relationship between mentee and mentor; getting to know each other is the main focus in these early stages.

5.14 The way in which matching of mentors and mentees has taken place varies. In one PSP, considerable time is spent matching a mentee with a mentor on the basis of personalities and shared interests. This PSP uses volunteer mentors who tend to come with more diverse work experience than the paid staff in other PSPs. In others, there is less individual matching of this nature and the allocation of mentees is determined by the mentors' caseloads, the availability of a mentor in the relevant geographical area, and (to some extent) the expertise of the different delivery partners. Mentors have also been matched based on having previously worked with particular mentees[19].

5.15 Both national PSPs have partners that focus on particular areas of support such as mental health, relationships, and support for family members. Where specific needs are identified, the aim is to match with mentors from the partner organisations with the relevant specialist expertise required. This level of matching has not always been possible, however, because (as above) it has depended on the local availability of mentors with adequate capacity.

5.16 The limited extent of individual matching did not appear to be a problem: all mentees who took part in in-depth interviews felt they were well matched and were very happy with their mentors. In mentee exit surveys, almost all respondents (98%) felt their mentor was a good match for them. (Though, as noted in section 3.17, exit surveys are likely to be completed by those more positive about the service). Mentees who had disengaged from the service (had an "unplanned exit") and took part in interviews were also generally positive about their mentors and felt that they had been a good match for them.

Contact between mentors and mentees

5.17 For all PSPs, mentoring involves direct contact between the mentor and the mentee, but the timing, frequency and format of this contact varies depending on the needs of the mentee (and in line with the practice guidance issued by the PSPs).

5.18 In the following sections, and throughout this report, specific examples are given of approaches and techniques used by mentors in their contact with mentees. It is worth highlighting, however, that mentors share the following qualities, skills and approaches (identified by both mentees and mentors) which appear to be key to building the relationship.

Making relaxed conversation and being able to lighten the mood. This helps mentees to feel calm and at ease.

Sharing their own personal experiences and difficulties they have overcome. These include addictions, offending behaviour, divorce and doing badly at school. By sharing their personal experiences, mentors show mentees that change is possible and that they too can overcome their own difficulties.

They are non-judgmental and treat mentees as equals.

Praising mentees when they have done something positive, but also challenging them when they express negative views.

Repeating the things they say to mentees and being persistent in their approach.

Mentors frequently stated that spending time with mentees is one of the key aspects of their role, as this helps to gradually build the relationship.

Offering Confidentiality. Evidence of this has made a big impact on mentees and encouraged them to be more open with mentors.

Mentors 'look for a snippet' in the conversation that they can build on or go back to at another time to draw out the issue more fully.

5.19 For some mentees, the initial engagement with mentors begins in prison. In these cases, the relationship between mentor and mentee is established as early into the sentence as possible and they work together to develop an action plan. Some services use a prison based mentor (a mentor working for the PSP and based exclusively in the prison) initially to establish eligibility, before handing over to the community based mentor to work with the mentee prior to their release. However, in most cases, the relationship established in prison continues with the same mentor when released. As outlined further below, these consistent relationships, as well as early intervention where possible, have been identified as positive aspects of the mentoring service.

5.20 Early intervention was considered, by mentors and mentees, to be one of the positive features of mentoring for those who become engaged with the service while in prison. In these cases, it was felt that starting engagement early in the sentence allows a relationship of trust to be developed between mentor and mentee, which can increase the likelihood that mentees will engage with the service on release. Early intervention can also allow support needs to be identified and a response arranged on release. Processes for identifying, referring and accessing potential mentees have now been developed within each prison and are being improved. Two of the PSPs, however, had faced difficulties with some prisons in gaining access to some mentees before release. Reasons given for this were: short sentences of one or two months; short notice or lack of information about court dates for prisoners on remand and release dates for prisoners on Home Detention Curfews (HDCs); difficulty meeting with mentees due to the distance mentors have to travel to get to the prison; and a backlog in administration delaying referrals.

5.21 One of the most challenging aspects of the service delivery has been securing initial contact and engagement with mentees. PSPs have addressed this challenge through repeated attempts to contact mentees and persistent efforts to engage them with the service.

Regular meetings (level of contact)

5.22 All PSPs aim to provide a consistent relationship between mentor and mentee, with the same mentor working with the mentee throughout. For some smaller projects, however, teams of mentors (up to three or four) who are based in the same location work closely together. Mentees will have a lead worker, but other mentors may work with them to meet the frequency and intensity of support required.

5.23 The level of contact with mentees varies from once a week to more intensive support (particularly at the beginning) which can be four or five times a week. Mentors stressed that the format of the engagement varies to reflect the individual needs of each mentee.

Defined activities/content/goals

5.24 Mentoring approaches have included the following (please refer to the Case Studies at Annex A for illustrations of how these approaches work in practice):

Practical support: Mentors have accompanied mentees to other services: e.g. benefits, housing, social work, GP (for registration), addiction services, food bank, etc. This type of support has usually taken place immediately after release, but is ongoing in some cases. Practical support is also provided at later stages of the mentoring relationship, responding to the needs of the mentee. This can include support in preparing a CV, help with applying for courses, practising job interview techniques, and dealing with housing issues (e.g. rent arrears).

One-to-one meetings between mentor and mentee: The content of the meetings varies depending on the circumstances of the mentee, but subjects covered include relationships, personal finances, training needs, employment goals, as well as their behaviour, how they are spending their time and their views about reoffending. In some cases, the purpose of the meeting is to set goals on a particular area and to discuss progress towards these goals. Often, however, meetings have no set agenda but provide an opportunity for the mentee to talk about whatever is most important to them at that particular time. These one-to-one meetings often take the form of social outings, such as going for lunch or coffee, taking a walk, playing pool, playing football or going to the gym. This provides an opportunity for the mentor and mentee to talk in a more relaxed environment (and encourages mentees to go out more often themselves and gives them ideas about ways in which they can make more constructive use of their leisure time).

Group work: This approach is used by one of the PSPs, in addition to one-to-one meetings. Group work is used to encourage working as a team, to encourage to be more comfortable speaking to other people, and to develop their confidence. Another PSP often links mentees with groups run by the lead organisation or partner organisations.

Structured courses: The extent to which structured courses are used varies across the PSPs. One PSP has delivered and organised training courses related to specific skills or qualifications for its mentees. These have included First Aid courses, Health and Safety training, cookery courses, and the Construction Skills Certificate Scheme (CSCS). It also delivered the 'Steps Programme', an intensive 12-week programme designed to develop employment skills. Another PSP has offered all mentees the 'Better Life' programme, a series of modules on a number of themes, such as emotions, violence, relationships, addictions, living skills, training and employability. These courses, although structured, are adapted to the circumstances of each mentee.

Worksheets and other learning tools: The extent to which these are used varies depending on the mentor. This approach has included worksheets to explore their past experiences, diaries, and support plans through which mentees can rate different aspects of their lives.

5.25 Mentees will often experience a combination of these activities depending on their circumstances and the style of mentoring that best suits them. The approach used depends on the needs of the mentee and their own objectives from the mentoring service and on the preferred style of the mentor.

5.26 In the first phase of the evaluation, there were differing views on what constituted 'mentoring' and, in particular, the extent to which it should include intensive support (such as taking people to appointments and sorting out practical issues). On the one hand, there was a view that it is not the role of a mentor to provide this type of support and that if someone requires this they are not really ready for mentoring. Others argued that providing this level of support at the beginning helps develop the relationship between mentor and mentee and can be used to model behaviour and show mentees how they can deal with issues the next time that they arise: someone may not be ready for mentoring at the start, but the mentor can help them get to that stage.

5.27 Three of the smaller PSPs provide this intensive support and one does not. The first phase of the evaluation highlighted some tensions within the national PSPs because different delivery partners had different views about what was appropriate (and there were some differences between individuals in the same organisation). We suspect that, in reality, the differences were less than they appeared. For example, those who are not in favour of intensive support agree that, in certain situations it would be appropriate to go to a meeting with someone if it is used as a learning opportunity, and those who provide intensive support do appear to be encouraging increasing independence over time.

5.28 These tensions were less apparent in the second and final phases of research with mentors. In the final phase mentors stated that, over time, they had become clearer about what their role as a mentor entailed and more confident about judging when it was appropriate to provide intensive support and when to back off. This is something they felt they had learned from experience.

5.29 These different approaches are reflected within the overall definition of mentoring, as outlined in sections 2.10 to 2.13. As noted in the definition, the extent to which mentors provide additional support activities will be shaped by the mentee's needs and by the particular role and responsibilities defined by the mentoring project for their staff.

5.30 As noted in the introduction (see section 2.8), the evaluation was not designed to assess the effectiveness of different approaches to mentoring – although it is the view of the evaluation team that providing intensive support, where resource allows, is preferable because of the potential to build positive relationships and prepare mentees for mentoring. These relationships have been identified, by mentors and mentees, as one of the important features of the mentoring services, therefore activities that support these relationships can ultimately contribute to the wider support system for mentees. However, PSPs need to establish clarity across the partnerships, and mentees and referrers need to be clear about what they can expect from the service.

Signposting to/ support of other interventions

5.31 The partnership approach to delivery was viewed by mentors and managers in the partner organisations as a positive aspect of the mentoring service, particularly for national PSPs, as it involves partners with a range of specialisms working together. One lead organisation noted that the partnership has helped them access specialist support without "losing track" of the mentee through referral to an external agency. Partnership delivery was considered a "rounded" and coherent approach that ultimately benefits the mentee.

There is partnership working at last [compared with prior to the PSP]; a lot of people have talked about it in the past but it has never actually been done.

Mentor

5.32 Monitoring data received from PSPs indicates that 74% of mentees have been signposted to other interventions (based on those who had more than one meeting with their mentor). This can range from informing mentees about a particular service, to making contact with them and setting up appointments for mentees, and in some cases attending those appointments with them. Among those who had engaged with the service for a minimum of 5 months, 85% had been signposted to other interventions. The most common types of referrals that have been made were to financial assistance services, education/employment services, healthcare services, drug/alcohol services and accommodation services. In the mentee exit surveys, two thirds (66%) of mentees who said that their situation in a particular area had improved, felt that signposting to another service was one of the things that helped (see Tables D14 and D15 at Annex D).

5.33 Data has been analysed to identify the number of referrals made for those who began the mentoring service with particular needs (those having the "least desirable state" in the outcome areas of the monitoring data)[20]. As Table 5.3 shows, the areas with the highest proportion of referrals for these mentees were accommodation and drugs or alcohol (both 62%). This perhaps reflects the prioritisation of these outcomes before addressing others, and a greater need for external specialist support with these issues compared with those that are more within mentors' area of expertise, such as leisure, and work, education and training. It should be noted, however, that making a referral to another service is not the only indication that action may have been taken to address mentees needs; where appropriate mentors can work directly with mentees to address their needs.

Table 5.3: Signposting by least desirable beginning state

Outcome area and beginning state
% Referred to relevant service
Base (n=)

Accommodation:
No accommodation (homeless)
62%
235

Drugs or alcohol:
Serious alcohol/drugs use which is linked to offending and interferes with daily functioning such as wellbeing, family-life/education, employment and/or recreation
62%
175

Money:
Serious money problems and/or no apparent means of support
52%
153

Leisure
They don't do anything positive in their spare time, say they are bored and/or associate with people who are linked to offending and do not have any interests that could be built on
49%
129

Work, education or training:
They are not working or in education or training and do not want to be. They resist efforts to help them find work, etc.
30%
224

The 'Base' column includes all mentees for whom the least desirable beginning state is recorded

5.34 The extent to which signposting to external services has taken place has varied depending on the needs of the individual mentee and on whether or not the mentor can provide a particular type of support. Feedback from mentors indicates that they feel they are capable of judging when specialist support is required from other services and are comfortable knowing how to access these services. In certain areas, however, mentors have been unable to access support from external services, such as specialist counselling and psychological services, as soon as they would have liked due to long waiting lists. Typically, mentors respond to this issue by continuing to provide as much support as they can to the mentee, while making continued attempts to gain access to external services.

5.35 In relation to mentors' satisfaction with external services, housing was most commonly raised as an issue. Many mentors had faced challenges when referring mentees to housing services[21], particularly at the stage immediately following release from prison. In these cases, mentors have often met the mentee at the prison gate and taken them directly to a housing service to find accommodation. In some cases finding suitable accommodation has taken up to six hours, even if an appointment has been made in advance. In these cases the mentor has had to stay with the mentee until accommodation is found, as their experience tells them that mentees are at their most vulnerable immediately following release, and are at risk of getting into trouble and losing contact if they do not have somewhere to live. Mentors were not clear on what was causing this issue, but felt that the process could be managed more efficiently if there was earlier involvement from housing services so that suitable accommodation could be made available in time for the mentee's release. With reference to timing and delays, one mentor asked:

Why do they have to jump through so many hoops to get to homeless [services]? Why can they not have it all sorted before they get out? Everyone knows when they are being released, so why are they not walking out straight into accommodation?

Mentors' focus group

5.36 Mentors raised some further issues they had experienced with staff at other services (including social work, housing and job centres). Mentors felt that some staff from these services could be disrespectful and cynical towards mentees. For example, one mentor described a meeting with another service in which the staff member said, "she'll be back in prison in a week", while the mentee was present.

5.37 Mentors also noted a sense of confusion and, in some cases, tension between other services. For example, there have been cases where addiction services and mental health services each initially state they cannot work with a mentee until they have seen the other service first, although this has since been resolved and has not resulted in mentees being refused help.

Development of a supportive, informal relationship

5.38 A recurring theme from interviews with mentees was that the mentors themselves were the main strength of the service. Mentors were frequently described as "genuine" and "down to earth" and all mentees felt that they were easy to talk to. Mentees view their mentors differently than they do staff from other services describing the relationship as "non-judgemental" compared to their experience with other professionals (particularly social workers) who "tell you what to do".

They give you a chance, even though you've done something bad. There's not many people will give you a chance when you have just come out of jail.

Mentee

5.39 Mentees felt that having a consistent relationship with the same mentor showed that the mentor was committed to them. This has helped to develop a relationship of trust which, in turn, has encouraged the mentees to open up and engage with their mentor.

5.40 Mentors also stressed that participation in the service is voluntary and that they encourage mentees to take responsibility for their own progress.

It's like, if we were taking them to the gym, we can't lift the weights for them – we are there to 'spot' them, but they need to lift the weight.

Mentor

6. Findings On Exits And Attrition

Key Findings

Over the course of the evaluation period, 44% of the mentees who left the service had planned exits and 56% had unplanned exits.

Unplanned exits were higher among particular groups of mentees: young males (aged 25 and under) and those referred from prison rather than the community. Those who had engaged with the mentoring service for longer were more likely to have a planned exit.

Comparison with other literature suggests that the proportion of unplanned exits is not out of line with those of other mentoring services for offenders.

The main reasons for unplanned exits were: contact between mentor and mentee ceasing (either no contact ever made with the mentee since their release from prison, or loss of contact at any stage), the mentee returning to prison, and refusal of the service by the mentee.

Mentees who had unplanned exits were not critical of their mentors and did not feel that mentors could have done anything differently to keep them engaged. They attributed the ending of the relationship mainly to their own lack of commitment to the service when released from prison.

Controlled ending of the relationship

6.1 The monitoring data (provided by all PSPs in June 2015) show that 2,063 of the 3,104 mentees had exited the service. Of those for whom the data on the type of exit was available (n=1,886), 44% were planned exits and 56% were unplanned (Table A9). The types of exits made by particular groups of mentees are described in more detail below. Figures 6.1 to 6.5 are based on those who had more than one meeting with their mentor and for whom relevant data (gender, dates of birth, source of referral, length of engagement) are available.

6.2 Among males that had exited the service 52% had unplanned exits. Slightly fewer females (46%) had unplanned exits (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Type of exit by gender

Bases: All that had more than one meeting with their mentor and where types of exit are specified; Males (n=1,054); Females (n=457)

6.3 A somewhat higher proportion of younger mentees had unplanned exits compared with older mentees (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2: Type of exit by age group

Bases: All that had more than one meeting with their mentor and where both type of exit and date of birth are specified; Under 21 (n=328); 21 to 25 (n=949); 26 to 35 (n=371); 36 to 45 (n=140); 46 to 55 (n=47); 56+ (n=12)

6.4 Among those under 25, males were more likely to have had an unplanned exit than females (53% of males, 40% of females). Of those aged 25 and over, however, males and females had a similar proportion of unplanned exits (50% of males, 48% of females).

Figure 6.3: Type of exit by those under and over 25; split by gender

Bases: All that had more than one meeting with their mentor and where type of exit and date of birth are specified; Male under 25 (n=836); Female under 25 (n=100); Male 25+ (n=214); Female 25+ (n=344)

6.5 Fifty-six per cent of those referred from prison had unplanned exits, compared with 44% of those referred from the community (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4: Type of exit by source of referral

Bases: All that had more than one meeting with their mentor and where both type of exit and source of referral are specified; Prison (n=1,126); Community (n=407)

6.6 Those who engaged with the mentoring service for longer were more likely to have a planned exit (Figure 6.5). Seventy-three per cent of those who had engaged for less than 3 months had unplanned exits whereas among those who had engaged for 3 months or more, the unplanned exits rate dropped to 42%.

Figure 6.5: Type of exit by length of engagement

Bases: All that had more than one meeting with their mentor and where type of exit is specified; 10 days or less (n=39); up to one month (n=94); 1-2 months (n=146); 2-3 months (n=175); 3-4 months (n=131); 4-5 months (n=152); 5-6 months (n=99); 6-9 months (n=351); 9-10 months (n=212); more than a year (n=134)

6.7 The main reasons for unplanned exits recorded in the monitoring data were: no contact with the mentee since they were released from prison (28%); loss of contact with the mentee (15%); return to prison (11%); refusal of the service from the mentee (10%); and no further contact with the mentee after having met them post-release (9%) (Table A11). Reasons for unplanned exits are explored in section 6.14 to 6.21 on mentees who disengage.

6.8 The extent to which mentors prepare mentees in advance for the ending of the relationship varies. In some cases, mentors discuss the end point with their mentees throughout their time together and mentees are aware of how long the service will last. In other cases, mentees are unaware, or much less certain, of when the service will come to an end.

6.9 The ending of the relationship is often dictated by the length of time which mentors are allowed to spend with mentees. In the larger PSPs, where the normal expectation is that mentors work with each mentee for a 6 month period, mentors felt that this timescale was not long enough to address the needs of many mentees. This issue was considered particularly challenging when a referral had occurred close to the release date (e.g. one or two weeks before) and mentors had not had time to build up the relationship while the mentee was in prison. In cases where a mentee is not ready to exit the service at 6 months, mentors have often kept working with them beyond the 6 month period, adding to their already busy caseloads.

When they come to the end of the 6 month period, some of them have progressed well and they are living a stable lifestyle; it is easy in these cases to end the relationship. But for someone who hasn't got to the place they wanted to be, it is more difficult to end the relationship, particularly when you are still working alongside social work on long term goals and plans. In these cases, a 6 month time limit is really restrictive.

Mentor

I have actually carried on working with them, because sometimes you can't abandon them in the middle of their programme. If I did, chances are they are going to go back the way.

Mentor

6.10 It appears that a cause of the uncertainty around the ending of relationships is a lack of clarity among mentors about the circumstances in which they can continue to see a mentee for longer than the initially agreed period. Feedback from mentors suggests that they are not always clear on: who decides how the relationship ends; at what point they should decide; and what happens to their caseload if they continue working with a mentee beyond the agreed timescale. More clarification and guidance from PSPs to mentors on these areas may help them to prepare mentees better for exits.

6.11 Even in cases when the exit from the service is planned, mentees have sometimes tried to avoid the relationship ending. Mentors gave examples of some mentees not showing up to the final meeting because they did not want to acknowledge the mentoring relationship was ending. In other cases, towards the end of the relationship mentees had told mentors about new crises they were facing, which mentors felt was a way of prolonging the relationship.

6.12 In some of the smaller PSPs, several mentors referred to the "open door" approach they take with mentees and described how "the relationship never really ends". In these PSPs, mentors are typically based in one building and mentees can drop-in throughout the week. Mentees are welcome to meet with mentors and other mentees beyond the period of their own mentoring programme, and some have continued to do so even when they have moved into employment.

6.13 Mentors in two of the PSPs felt that more could be done to acknowledge the ending of the relationship, to encourage mentees to view completion of the mentoring as a positive goal. One group suggested carrying out a 'graduation-style' ceremony for mentees that are completing the service, while the other suggested providing mentees with certificates showing what they had achieved (e.g. course completed, goals achieved) with the mentoring service.

Mentees who disengage

6.14 In-depth interviews were carried out with mentees that had made an "unplanned exit". As outlined in section 3.9, participants were identified with the help of the SPS, who searched their records to identify individuals that were in custody. Following an initial screening interview carried out by SPS, face-to-face interviews with these mentees were carried out in prison. The decision to focus on mentees who were in custody (and therefore relatively easy to make contact with) was a pragmatic one – we knew that it would be extremely difficult to make contact with disengaged mentees in the community given that their mentors had failed to make contact despite numerous attempts. These mentees were all young males and had all returned to prison since starting the mentoring service. It should be noted, therefore, that these mentees do not represent the full range of unplanned exits that may occur. Feedback from these interviews, while illustrating the experiences of these particular mentees, should not be viewed as representative of all mentees that had made unplanned exits.

6.15 It is clear from interviews with disengaged mentees that maintaining contact between mentors and mentees has been challenging and that the risk of losing contact is particularly high in the period immediately following release from prison. In certain cases, contact has ceased because the mentee did not feel ready to commit to the mentoring service when released from prison or because they fell back into the offending behaviour soon after release, factors largely beyond the control of the mentor. In other cases, loss of contact has been linked to the practicalities of locating and establishing contact with a mentee who has no phone or no fixed address, or does not inform the mentor of changes to these.

6.16 Some mentees interviewed following their return to custody explained that they had disengaged by choosing not to contact their mentor after being released from prison. In these cases, although the mentees had felt positive and enthusiastic about the mentoring service while in prison, they returned to offending behaviour soon after being released and forgot, or no longer thought about, the mentoring service. For example, one mentee did not call his mentor to arrange another meeting, saying "the drugs took over" and "I got straight back into the old ways so [the mentor] didn't cross my mind". This mentee did not have a mobile phone therefore the mentor was unable to contact him directly. He did not know whether the mentor subsequently tried to visit him at home, although acknowledged that he wasn't always there so it would have been difficult for the mentor to find him. Another mentee stated that he "just wasn't ready to change" so did not have the motivation to make contact with his mentor when he was released. One mentee, who had met with his mentor a number of times post-liberation, lost contact after not providing his mentor with up-to-date contact details. This relationship had been going relatively well, with the mentor picking him up at the gate, getting him into a hostel, then helping him to arrange housing and a Community Care Grant to furnish his new home, but then the mentee changed his mobile number without informing his mentor – "it just fell by the wayside". He wasn't aware of the mentor coming to his house to visit him, so the relationship ended at that point.

6.17 Another mentee had chosen to terminate contact with his mentor because he got a job. He had met with his mentor for four months after being released and his main goal from the mentoring was help to get into employment. Once he found a job he felt that he no longer needed the mentor so stopped contacting her. He did not recall whether the mentor had made attempts to re-establish contact with him.

6.18 Two mentees had wanted to arrange a meeting with their mentor, but said that their mentor had not made contact. On liberation, one of these two declined the mentor's offer of a lift to his friend's home where he was staying. As he had no mobile phone, the mentor informed him that a letter would be sent to arrange the next meeting. However, he did not receive a letter. He returned to prison because of another offence within a month. Another mentee had been picked up from the gate by his mentor and taken to temporary hostel accommodation. Again, as he did not have his own phone he expected his mentor to contact the hostel and arrange the next meeting, but he did not hear from the mentor. This mentee had been given a contact phone number for the mentor and tried to phone her from the hostel, but was unable to reach her. Both these mentees felt that their first visit could have been arranged in advance so that they could show up even if they had lost contact with the mentor.

6.19 Findings from these interviews suggest that there is more scope for mentors to attempt to maintain engagement with mentees. The first opportunity for post-release contact is a gate pick up by the mentor, which mentors acknowledge is key to helping them address some of the mentees' immediate needs on the day of release (including finding them appropriate accommodation). When gate pick-ups are not possible, the time and location for the first meeting could be agreed with the mentee in advance. Beyond the first meeting, maintaining contact with mentee often requires a great deal of persistence from the mentor. Feedback from mentors suggests that they make significant efforts to establish contact with mentees when they are released from prison, including phone calls, letters, contact with family members and calling at mentees' houses. Interviews with disengaged mentees reinforced the importance of continuing with this level of effort and establishing clear means of contacting the mentee in the days immediately following release, as well as providing the mentee with an alternative method of contacting the mentors (e.g. phone numbers for the mentor and for their organisation).

6.20 Two mentees had exited the service due to receiving a further sentence while they were still in prison, and had not yet been liberated at the time of the fieldwork. This points to inconsistencies in the monitoring data: these mentees were included in the fieldwork as they were identified in the monitoring data as "unplanned exits" but would have been more accurately classified as "ineligible" or similar. One of these two mentees pointed out that the early meetings with his mentor had been helpful, and he was hoping to get another mentor as he entered into the final three months of his sentence.

6.21 Disengaged mentees were not critical of their mentors and generally spoke of them in positive terms. None of the mentees thought there were specific ways in which the service or the mentor could have done anything differently to keep them engaged. All of the mentees interviewed said that they felt positive about the mentoring relationship in the beginning and were open to receiving support from their mentor. They did not feel that the ending of the relationship was caused by the mentors, but attributed mainly to their own lack of commitment to continuing with the service when released from prison.

Attrition: comparisons with other services

6.22 The literature search we describe below shows that most of the research and reporting on mentoring services for offenders does not discuss attrition rates in detail. Where it does so, we find that it is difficult to make direct comparisons because in the first instance, 'attrition' and 'engagement' are measured in different ways by individual projects, and there are also differences between service delivery models and the profile of the service user groups. However, where data is available, it suggests that RRCF attrition rates (56% made unplanned exits) are not out of line with those of other mentoring services for offenders. For comparison with the findings below, it is worth noting that mentees involved in RRCF are 62% male, 38% female and have a mean age of 25 at the time of referral.

6.23 The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's Mentoring Projects in England and Wales (2004) states that, over an eighteen month period (April 2000 – September 2001), 2,049 young people were assigned to a mentor, with 75% of the mentees being male and aged between 13-16. Of these young people, 58% engaged with the mentoring programme to full term, while 42% concluded prematurely. Looking at this 42% in more detail, more than half (58%) of the mentoring relationships broke down before the sixth meeting. Three quarters of these early relationship breakdowns were 'initiated by some event directly related to the young person' and around half of these were directly attributed to 'the young person losing interest and leaving'. RRCF attrition rates are slightly higher than these figures, but the age group for the YJB projects is significantly younger which might have an impact on retention figures.

6.24 Data from the Scottish Prison Service Transitional Care Evaluation (2006) shows attrition rates to be higher than those of RRCF. The Transitional Care Initiative was a referral service rather than a mentoring service, but worked with a similar client group to that covered by some of the PSPs (short term prisoners serving less than four years, with an identified substance misuse problem). In a survey carried out with prisoners four and seven months following release, 27% of respondents said they had seen a Transitional Care worker at least once, 70% said they did not see a Transitional Care worker at all, and 2% didn't know/ remember if they had seen a Transitional Care worker. Regarding participation rates, 28% of respondents were recorded as having attended their first Transitional Care appointment on release, 15% attended a second appointment, and 8% attended a third appointment. Among those who signed up to Transitional Care while still in prison, the mean age on release was 28.4 years and 90% were male. The sample therefore had a higher proportion of males than the RRCF, which may have contributed to the higher attrition rate.

6.25 The RRCF attrition rate is similar to that reported in evaluations of two other mentoring schemes with similar programme designs; the London Probation Trust Mentoring Evaluation (Clarke et al, 2014) and the VACRO Women's Mentoring Program in Victoria, Australia (Brown and Ross, 2010). These are outlined below.

6.26 The London Probation Trust piloted a peer mentoring service for young offenders (age 18-25) and a separate mentoring scheme to reduce the risk of reoffending by women. Attrition was only measured from the point that mentees began meeting with mentors rather than from the point of referral. In the young offenders' scheme, 36% of those referred made a planned exit, compared to 44% for the RRCF. In the women's mentoring scheme, 45% of those referred made a planned exit. The limitations of comparing these studies with RRCF should be noted, as one only works with young offenders and the other only with women.

6.27 As part of the Australian VACRO scheme, mentors met offenders several times in prison to establish the mentoring relationship prior to release. From data on 90 women who were recruited between 2004 and 2006, 17% dropped out between recruitment and a first meeting and half of those remaining (42% of the total) did continue to meet their mentor after release. The women who stayed in contact with their mentor tended to be older, with a mean age of 38, in comparison to the mean age of 32 of those who did not. Three quarters of the women with pre-identified drug misuse problems and 90% of those with pre-identified alcohol misuse problems did not continue with post-release contact. Again, this scheme was for women only and is therefore not directly comparable with the RRCF.

7. Findings On Outcomes For Mentees

Key Findings

The planned resources and activities have contributed – among at least a third to half of those who engage – to the intended short and medium term outcomes which evidence suggests will, in the long term, reduce the risk of reoffending and increase integration.

Mentees were universally positive about their experience of mentoring and it is clear that some mentees have experienced very significant, transformational change. However, reported outcomes varied depending on the mentee.

The outcome areas in which mentees showed most improvement were those linked with attitudes and motivations and which were more in the direct control of the mentee, including solving everyday problems and feeling ready to work on problems.

Areas in which mentees showed less improvement were more connected with external factors, such as family, accommodation, work or education, and substance use. These factors were less within the control of mentees as they require the support of external agencies (such as housing support and addiction support).

Length of engagement was the key factor that influenced the amount of progress made by mentees – those who engaged with the mentoring service for longer were more likely to make progress on outcomes.

Those who made no progress on outcomes were more likely to be young males, referred from prison and engaged for less than 3 months – the same characteristics as those who were more likely to have an unplanned exit.

A summary of outcomes for mentees is provided at the end of this chapter.

7.1 This section presents the findings relating to outcomes for mentees i.e. the changes for mentees that the services supported by the RRCF were designed to contribute to. Reported outcomes varied depending on the mentee – and, of course, the mentees are not a homogenous group – but changes that were commonly noted by mentees are summarised in this section.

7.2 The outcomes described in this chapter correspond with each outcome shown in the logic model (see Annex F) and are both short term and medium term:

Short term outcomes – the initial changes that are expected to occur as a direct result of the mentoring activities.

Medium term outcomes – further changes that may occur among mentees after the short term outcomes have been met, and which are expected to contribute to the long-term aim of reducing reoffending.

7.3 To measure the extent to which these outcomes have been met, monitoring data collected by the PSPs has been analysed. This has been supported with in-depth interviews with mentees. The majority of mentees who took part in in-depth interviews were all engaged with the service at the time of the interview. Views of disengaged mentees have also been included based on interviews with mentees who had returned to prison.

Presentation of monitoring data

7.4 To measure outcomes, mentors provided an assessment of the mentee's position at the start of their involvement with the service and at their exit. This was done for 11 outcomes related to the RRCF logic model: readiness to work on problems; believing they can change; engaging with services; solving everyday problems; views towards offending behaviour; accommodation; money; alcohol/drug problems; family relationships; leisure activities; and work/education/training.

7.5 When completing monitoring data on outcomes, mentors chose from a list of statements that they felt best described each mentee's position. These statements ranged from the least desirable state to most desirable state (see Table 7.1).

Table 7.1: Outcome measures

Outcome area
Mentees' "state" (listed from least desirable to most desirable)

Ready to work on problems

They are not ready or willing to work on problems and they deny the need to change

They are ready to work on problems but feel overwhelmed by them and do not know how to change

They are willing to accept working with a mentor to work on problems

They recognise they have problems and are actively working on them

Believing they can change

They don't believe they can achieve goals and/ or solve problems. They can't deal with unexpected events in a positive way

They believe they can achieve goals, solve problems and deal with unexpected events in a positive way but they are not convinced they can do it.

They believe they should achieve goals, solve problems and deal with unexpected events and have shown some ability to do so.

They have demonstrated that they can achieve goals, solve problems and/or deal with unexpected events and are gaining confidence from this

Engaging with services

They are not engaging with services (to address needs) at all

They say they are keen to engage but have not

They are engaging with services but need some encouragement to do so

They engage willingly services without the need for encouragement

Solving everyday problems

They are not solving everyday problems

They are solving everyday problems with help from others

They can solve problems in daily life and deal effectively with issues as they arise

Views on offending behaviour

They consistently express views that offending is acceptable for example that offending is a justifiable means to an end; that victims are responsible; and express negative views of the law, the police, courts etc.

They express inconsistent views on whether offending is acceptable or not

They consistently express views that offending is NOT acceptable

Accommodation

No accommodation (homeless)

Current accommodation unstable or unsafe

Current accommodation provides relatively safe/stable environment but room for improvement

Has safe/stable accommodation

Money

Serious money problems and/or no apparent means of support

Regular money problems e.g. frequent issues with benefits claims/bills, money-lenders etc.

No major difficulties but needs advice or advocacy on some money issues

Pattern of effective independent management of money

Drugs and alcohol

They have serious alcohol/drugs use which is linked to offending and interferes with daily functioning such as wellbeing, family-life/education, employment and/or recreation

They use alcohol or drugs which can sometimes interfere with daily functioning such as wellbeing, family-life/education, employment and or recreation and is linked to offending

They use alcohol or drugs but are stabilised through medication or treatment

They use recreational drugs only – not linked to offending

No current issue

Family relationships

No family support or poor family relationships that impact on behaviour and or emotional state (including family that support offending behaviour) or rejects influence of prosocial family support

Some evidence of problems with some family members; or sporadically accepts/reject influence of prosocial family

Overall fairly stable relationships with family members

Has active support to desist from family and good family relationships

Leisure activities

They don't do anything positive in their spare time, say they are bored and/or associate with people who are linked to offending and do not have any interests that could be built on

They don't do anything positive in their spare time, say they are bored and/or associate with people who are linked to offending but have an interest that could be built on

They do fill their time with positive activities but could benefit from more rewarding activity

Makes constructive use of their time and finds this really rewarding

Work, education or training

They are not working or in training and do not want to be. They resist efforts to help the find work etc.

They are not working or in training but are making an effort/ and or accepting help to find work or courses

They are working or in training but would like help to find something more rewarding

They are working or in training and they find this rewarding

7.6 The analysis of the monitoring data presented in this section shows the progress made within each outcome area. Data on progress has been analysed for those mentees that have had more than one meeting with their mentor (i.e. those who engaged with the service at all). Data has also been analysed for the sub-set of mentees that engaged for five months or more, to show the relationship between length of engagement and outcomes. As most PSPs aim to work with mentees for either a minimum of six months or an average of six months, the progress of those who engaged for that length (or almost that length) of time is the best measure of whether – when the service is delivered as intended – it is achieving its intended outcomes.

7.7 Progress towards outcomes has been presented in two ways. Firstly, the proportion that "got better" (i.e. the mentee's end state was one or more categories higher than their beginning state), "stayed the same" (i.e. the mentee's beginning and end states were the same) and "got worse" (i.e. the mentee's end state was one or more categories lower than their beginning state) is shown for each outcome area. Individual charts summarise the progress in each outcome area (for those who have engaged for at least five months), like the example below:

Figure 7.1: Example: Readiness to work on problems – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

7.8 To show further detail on progress towards outcomes, data is also presented comparing mentees' "beginning states" and "end states". This data is shown for all those who have had more than one meeting with their mentor and also for the sub-set that have engaged for 5 months or more. In each chart, the most desirable state is shown at the top of the chart and the least desirable state is shown at the bottom. The chart below provides an example.

Figure 7.2: Example: Readiness to work on problems – beginning and end states

7.9 Analysis of outcomes presented in monitoring data has been combined with analysis of qualitative research with mentors and mentees. The outcomes in the monitoring data have been matched with the corresponding logic model headings. For example, under the logic model heading "increased employability skills" monitoring data recorded under the category "work, education or training" has been used; under the logic model heading "increased motivation to change behaviour", monitoring data recorded under the category "ready to work on problems" has been used. Where a logic model outcome does not have monitoring data associated with it, analysis is based on qualitative research only.

Amount of progress made on outcomes

7.10 Monitoring data has been analysed to show the number of outcomes (of the 11 outcome areas) in which mentees have made progress. Forty-three per cent of mentees made progress on at least one outcome and a third (32%) made progress in three or more different areas. Among those who engaged for 5 months or more, 54% made progress on at least one outcome and 42% made progress in three or more different areas (see Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.3: Number of outcome areas in which progress made

Bases: All (n=1,657) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor for whom progress is recorded; All who engaged for 5+ months (n=876) based on all those for whom length of engagement and progress is recorded.

7.11 Almost two thirds (65%) of females made progress on at least one area, compared with a third (34%) of males.

7.12 Older mentees made more progress than younger mentees (53% of those aged over 25 made progress on at least one area compared with 32% aged under 25). Young females made more progress than young males (59% of females under 25 made progress in at least one area compared with 33% of males in this age group).

7.13 Those referred from the community made more progress than those referred from prison (73% of community referrals made progress on at least one area, compared with 32% of prison referrals).

7.14 The characteristics of those who have made no progress are similar to those with unplanned exits (as reported in 6.2 to 6.5); they are more likely to be male, under 25 years old, referred from prison and engaged for less than 3 months. This reflects the high proportion of those with unplanned exits (79%) that made no progress in any outcome area (Figure 7.4). More detail on the extent to which progress in each outcome area has been made is provided in the analysis provided later in this section (from 7.19 onwards).

Figure 7.4: Number of outcome areas in which progress made by type of exit

Bases: All (n=1,533) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor for whom progress and type of exit is recorded; Planned (n=752) based on all planned exits for whom progress is recorded; Unplanned (n=781) based on all unplanned exits for whom progress is recorded.

7.15 Further analysis[22] has been carried out to identify whether there is any one factor among those explored above (e.g. gender, age, source of referral, length of engagement) that determines progress on outcomes. The analysis found that length of engagement was the most important factor in determining the amount of progress made on outcomes. Throughout the analysis of individual outcomes (later in this section), the impact of length of engagement is illustrated, by showing results for the sub-set that have engaged for 5 months or more.

Mentees' needs at beginning of the service

7.16 Monitoring data has also been analysed to identify the types of needs that certain groups of mentees have at the beginning of the mentoring service, to better understand the characteristics of mentees with poorer outcomes when they left the service (conclusions on this are drawn at 7.17). The beginning states recorded under each outcome area have been analysed by gender, age, and source of referral (concentrating on the least desirable state). Some notable differences have been found in relation to certain outcome areas (Table 7.2):

Females are more likely than males to begin at the least desirable state in relation to: solving everyday problems; work, education and training; leisure or constructive use of time; and family relationships. This may be as a result of females within the sample being older on average, and therefore having more longstanding and complex needs in these areas.

Males are more likely than females to begin at the least desirable state in relation to their readiness to work on problems. The same can be said for those aged under 25, reflecting the fact that most males involved in the service fit within this age group.

Those referred from prison are more likely than community referrals to begin at the least desirable state in relation to accommodation and money. This is perhaps not surprising, as interviews with mentors and mentees highlight that issues with basic needs such as accommodation and finance are a high priority for mentees when released from prison (as discussed later in this section).

Table 7.2: Proportion beginning at the least desirable state for each outcome

7.17 As noted earlier, across all outcomes areas a higher proportion of females than males made progress on at least one area, and those referred from the community made more progress than those referred from prison. As females and community referrals are more likely to have started from the least desirable state in four outcome areas, this may indicate that in certain areas these types of mentee made more progress because they were beginning from the lowest possible starting point and therefore had greater scope for improvement.

7.18 Analysis of those that started at the best (i.e. most desirable) starting state shows no clear pattern in terms of the types of mentee that are most likely to begin at this level.

Progress towards short term outcomes

Increased motivation to engage with mentors

7.19 Mentors stressed that one of the positive outcomes among those who engage with the service, is simply the fact that they have engaged and keep coming back. This was viewed as particularly positive as the service is voluntary and mentees are under no obligation to take part.

7.20 It was not uncommon for mentees to find it difficult to engage with their mentors at first but this has generally improved as the relationship has developed. A recurrent theme from mentors was that developing a relationship of trust was the most effective way of encouraging engagement. The ways in which mentors develop this relationship varied, but was generally based on spending time with the mentee and really getting to know them, being there for them in times of crisis, and being non-judgmental, straight-talking, down-to-earth and honest (see also section 5.18). Helping mentees to sort out practical issues was often something that mentees saw as a sign, early on, that the mentor was going to be helpful. Beyond the obvious, practical benefits it seemed to signify that the mentor would deliver on their promises and could therefore be trusted, and that the mentor understood their needs and cared about them as individuals. Once trust has been built, mentees have talked to their mentor about issues that they are not comfortable discussing with anyone else. One mentee described how, once he had begun to trust his mentor, he would look forward to their meetings so much that he would get up early each day to wait for his mentor to arrive.

7.21 Among those who develop action plans, mentors encourage mentees to take ownership of the plan as early as possible. One mentor gives mentees a blank assessment form after the first visit, as a way of giving the mentee control over the different areas they might want to work on. Other mentors encourage ownership of the action plan through the discussions they have with mentees at the beginning, working with them to identify goals that are specific to each individual mentee. This sense of ownership is a way of demonstrating the person-centred nature of the service and motivating the mentee to engage.

Increased motivation to change behaviour

7.22 One mentor described motivation to change behaviour as something that "steadily" increases but can take time. One of the ways mentors have encouraged this change is by explaining to mentees that their actions have consequences and emphasising that they are responsible for their own choices. Mentors often talk through different situations to encourage mentees to think about the impact of their actions (on themselves and other people).

He [mentor] made me realise that if I throw a brick through a window, there might be a baby sleeping in that room that I might hurt – I never thought about it like that before.

Mentee

7.23 Positive reinforcement is a technique frequently used by mentors to motivate mentees. By giving praise for positive choices mentees have made, they encourage them to realise that their choices can have positive outcomes.

7.24 In monitoring data available for completed cases, "ready to work on problems" was the area in which there has been most positive impact (the data on readiness to work on problems have been used to assess progress on this outcome – see 7.9). As shown in Figure 7.5, 57% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better".

Figure 7.5: Readiness to work on problems – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=532). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=909) are: 47% better, 38% the same and 15% worse.

7.25 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.6. It is notable that the proportion in the least desirable state increased (from 15% to 24% for all mentees, from 11% to 16% for those engaged for at least 5 months). While the data does not indicate a reason for the increase, it may reflect a change in motivation among these mentees over time; when they initially engage these mentees may be positive and keen to make change but that initial willingness may be lost as they encounter difficulties over time.

Figure 7.6: Readiness to work on problems – beginning and end states[23]

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=736); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=593); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=385); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=317).

Increased motivation to engage with interventions or activities

7.26 Many mentees stated that they felt more comfortable going to other services as a result of their engagement with the mentoring service. After having been to services, such as housing associations or job centres, with their mentor, mentees feel more comfortable and confident that they can do this on their own.

7.27 As well as modelling how to engage with services, mentors have also encouraged mentees to understand the importance of receiving help from services that are available to them. For example, one mentee had started seeing his GP as his mentor had helped him to understand that his GP can provide medication to address his addiction issues, which could help him to avoid offending behaviour.

7.28 Forming a close bond with their mentor, however, has not necessarily meant that a mentee is more willing to engage with other services or even other mentors from the same service. Some mentees have found it difficult to engage with other services without their mentor accompanying them. This was not common to all mentees, but reflected the experience of those mentees that had some issues with their confidence and with speaking to other people.

Increased motivation to engage with education and employment training

7.29 This outcome has been observed by mentors, but has sometimes required management of mentees' expectations, as they are not always ready to start looking for a job. Finding a job is sometimes the first thing mentees want to do, particularly younger mentees, but they can have unrealistic expectations about how quickly they will be able to find a job and how much they will be paid. In these cases, mentors work with mentees to address their basic needs first, such as housing, benefits, and addiction support, before progressing on to address education and employment goals. In other cases, the mentor and mentee recognise that education and employment training are much longer term goals that are not priorities during the period of mentoring. Some older mentees with severe and enduring mental health issues felt that employment was never going to be a realistic goal.

Increased problem solving and emotion management skills

7.30 Mentors have observed mentees applying the advice they had given them on how to remain calm and manage their anger. Many mentees have said that talking to a mentor has helped with management of emotions as the mentor has encouraged them to "take a step back" and think about things before reacting. Mentees described using practical techniques mentors have taught them, such as walking away from a situation and putting on headphones to calm themselves down. Less commonly, mentees have also worked through specific courses/resources to help manage emotions (e.g. on anger management).

My life isn't chaotic anymore. I don't get stressed like I used to and I'm not aggressive towards people anymore. It's an easier life now.

Mentee

7.31 Mentees have frequently stated that they have felt more able to deal with problems as a result of participation in the service. By having a mentor to talk to and share problems with, mentees feel that they no longer have to deal with problems on their own, and they therefore feel less stressed. Mentors have commonly encouraged mentees to resolve problems for themselves by making phone calls and seeking help from other services as necessary. Being shown how to do this by a mentor has given mentees confidence that they can resolve problems in this way.

She has shown me that there is more than one way of dealing with things. Before, if I had issues seeing my son, I would have just ended up battering people. But she has shown me that I can pick up the phone or speak to social services to sort it out instead.

Mentee

Increased social skills

7.32 This has been observed through regularly engaging with the mentee and being in social situations with them. One of the PSPs has also developed a specific programme of activities targeted at developing social skills, through which mentors have observed positive changes in the mentees. Another PSP has a mentor with specific responsibility for organising activities and they have arranged outings such as hill-walking, orienteering and fishing, to encourage mentees to socialise with each other and work as a team. Mentees also learn social skills through modelling the behaviour they observe in mentors in different social settings, such as cafes, or in meetings with other services.

7.33 Mentees have commented that they feel more comfortable speaking to other people as a result of talking with a mentor on a one-to-one basis, or with other people in a group setting. One of the PSPs organises group exercises in which all mentees are encouraged to speak, even if this is just reading something aloud from a leaflet or book, to build their confidence speaking among other people.

Increased confidence in having the skills to desist

7.34 Many mentees mentioned that they felt less likely to commit an offence in the future as a result of the mentoring service but others were less certain about this (e.g. indicating that if someone did something to their friends or family they feel they would have no choice but to offend). Several service users admitted that they had committed offences since participating in mentoring. One mentee felt it was wrong that she had only been provided with help once she had offended and suggested that she might offend in the future if it seemed the only way to obtain support.

7.35 Several mentors and mentees highlighted the link between boredom and offending, which they felt the service had helped to address. Mentees therefore felt that the structure and routine provided through mentoring meant they were less likely to offend. Similarly, mentors had encouraged mentees to make more constructive use of their leisure time, as an alternative to risky behaviour (see sections 7.82 to 7.84 on engagement with positive leisure activities).

This feels like a safe and controlled environment, somewhere to go during the day. If I wasn't coming here I would be on the street, I'd start drinking, and then I'd get into trouble.

Mentee

7.36 Mentors had observed an increase in self-confidence and self-esteem among mentees, which they felt was linked to having skills to desist in accordance with the evidence on which the services were based (see section 4.23 on Inputs, and Chapter 8 for discussion on previous research on this topic). One of the PSPs delivers a course specifically designed to raise self-confidence, which is offered to mentees at the beginning of the service. More generally, mentors use positive reinforcement to develop mentees' confidence, reminding them of their achievements and praising them for positive things they have done. Mentees frequently described how praise and encouragement from mentors has helped them to feel better about themselves and stay positive.

I always feel more strong and positive after seeing [mentor].

Mentee

7.37 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "believing they can change", 40% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.7: Believing they can change – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=489). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=805) are: 34% better, 60% the same and 6% worse.

7.38 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8: Believing they can change – beginning and end states[24]

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=642); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=484); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=344); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=274).

Development of increasingly pro-social attitudes and a non-criminal identity

7.39 Mentees that took part in interviews stated that they feel more positive about their future, which stems from a combination of all of the changes above and a better appreciation of the fact that they have real choices. For some mentees, the fact that mentors spend time with them and treat them as equals has helped them to feel more than "just a criminal."

When you leave [prison] you have this mentality that you are a bad person. When you get out, it makes such a difference to have someone to talk to that is not from your past, but that is from a more positive place in your life. [Mentor] offered to take me to lunch and it gave me goose bumps thinking that someone would want to do that with me.

Mentee

7.40 Mentors have worked with mentees to understand the consequences of their actions, which has helped mentees to change their attitude to offending. One of the PSPs has delivered the Changes Programme, an intensive one-to-one programme which helps mentees to change their mind-set and understand that there are alternatives to criminal behaviour. Mentors have also used being out in public with mentees as an opportunity to demonstrate to others that the mentee can change their behaviour (for example, by being able to walk past a particular person they knew without shouting or threatening them). One mentee had asked a mentor to take him to another service so that he could tell them how much he had changed for the better.

7.41 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "views on offending behaviour", 37% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.9). It is worth noting that a relatively high proportion of mentees (36%) started in the highest category for this outcome, so there is less scope for improvement compared to some other outcomes.

Figure 7.9: Views on offending behaviour – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=534). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=909) are: 30% better, 67% the same and 3% worse.

7.42 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.10.

Figure 7.10: Views on offending behaviour – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,556); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=834); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=846); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=493).

Progress towards medium term outcomes

Increased engagement with mentor (attendance and quality of relationship)

7.43 Mentees who took part in-depth interviews felt that their trust in the mentors had increased and that they felt more comfortable speaking with their mentors.

7.44 In most cases, the nature of the relationship between mentor and mentee has changed over time. At the early stages of the relationship, the support provided has often been focussed on addressing issues such as addiction and accommodation needs. As the relationship progresses, the support provided changes focus to areas such as constructive use of time, family relationships, qualifications and employment support. For some PSPs, the amount of time spent with mentees also changes as they progress, decreasing from intensive support, sometimes several times a week, to less frequent meetings with their mentors. This progression depends, however, on the particular needs and circumstances of each mentee.

7.45 Mentors from each of the PSPs have had mentees who have failed to attend meetings, or whom they had lost track of during the course of the mentoring service. In these cases, the response from mentors was to make repeated attempts to contact the mentee by phone, visit their home, or contact their family members. In some cases, they either persuaded the mentee to meet with them or come to their next appointment, or the mentee eventually returned of their own accord. Mentors stressed that it was important in these circumstances to remain non-judgmental and not to reproach the mentee for their behaviour. However, in other cases mentors were unable to regain contact with mentees. Mentors gave a number of examples of losing track of mentees soon after they had been placed in temporary accommodation (such as hostels and Bed and Breakfasts) soon after release from prison. This was an issue mentors felt they had little control over and were unable to address as part of their role.

Increased engagement with other interventions (attendance and completion)

7.46 Mentors and mentees both cited examples of improved engagement between mentees and other services. Mentors have encouraged mentees to open up more at meetings with other services (e.g. with social work), by suggesting the type of things they can talk about (e.g. what their child has done at school that week). This has helped to show mentees that they can engage during these meetings, rather than simply "showing up". They have also encouraged mentees to act in a more "professional" manner during these meetings (e.g. by saying "thank you for your time"), helping mentees to understand how this can change attitudes towards them.

7.47 When mentees have demonstrated issues with authority, mentors have been careful not to reinforce these views. Mentors have challenged mentees' negative assumptions about other services, such as social work, and have also challenged things that mentees have been told by their family or friends. At the same time, mentors have encouraged mentees to calmly challenge other services when appropriate, rather than accepting unfair treatment.

7.48 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "engaging with services", 51% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.11).

Figure 7.11: Engaging with services – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=532). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=903) are: 41% better, 43% the same and 16% worse.

7.49 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.12.

Figure 7.12: Engaging with services – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,553); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=809); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=845); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=475).

Increased ability to source and sustain suitable accommodation

7.50 Interviews with mentors and mentees highlighted challenges that have been faced in sourcing and sustaining suitable accommodation. Progress in this area has been dependent on the availability of, and access to, suitable accommodation for mentees, factors that mentors felt were beyond their control. As noted earlier, many mentors had faced challenges when referring mentees to housing services, particularly at the stage immediately following release from prison.

7.51 In some cases, however, mentees have felt more positive about their ability to find stable accommodation which they have attributed to the advice and support they received from their mentor. For example, one mentee had completed a housing application form, but felt he would have been unable to do this without the help of his mentor.

7.52 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "accommodation", 42% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.13).

Figure 7.13: Accommodation – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=535). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=906) are: 36% better, 56% the same and 8% worse.

7.53 In the mentee exit survey, 54% (of 264 mentees) stated that their housing situation had "got better", while 41% stated it had "stayed the same". This showed a more favourable perception by mentees than by mentors, in response to the same question.

7.54 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.14.

Figure 7.14: Accommodation – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,558); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=836); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=847); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=495).

Increased employability skills

7.55 Mentors stressed that increasing employability skills was a gradual process and that it can take several months before a mentee is in a position to apply for jobs. For others, the process may take years and for others it is never going to be a realistic goal.

7.56 Mentors give mentees basic advice on finding work, such as researching the company prior to interview and identifying training programmes and work placements. Mentors have also provided practical support to mentees by helping them to develop CVs, practicing interview techniques, accompanying them to interviews and taking them to employment open days. Some mentees have had difficulty preparing CVs as they have not had any previous work experience. In these cases, mentors have encouraged them think about more general skills they have, such as reliability, which employers may be interested in.

We ask them to talk about themselves and the things they have done, to draw out the skills that they have. Sometimes within half an hour of talking, you have [a] young person that is suddenly enthused, thinking 'maybe I can do that, maybe I'm not such an idiot.'

Mentor

7.57 Mentors have also provided advice on how to behave in the workplace, such as arriving on time or phoning if they cannot attend. Nonetheless, there have been cases of mentees losing placements or job opportunities because they have not attended appointments or shifts.

7.58 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "work, education or training", 39% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.15).

Figure 7.15: Work, education or training – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=532). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=908) are: 31% better, 64% the same and 6% worse.

7.59 In the mentee exit survey, 54% (of 267 mentees) stated that their work, education or training situation had "got better", while 45% stated it had "stayed the same". This again shows a more favourable perception on the part of the mentees.

7.60 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.16.

Figure 7.16: Work, education or training – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,541); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=832); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=843); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=492).

Increased financial capabilities

7.61 Feedback on this outcome area was mixed. Several mentees stated that money was not a major issue for them and, therefore, had not seen any change in this area. In two of the PSPs, mentors delivered courses and provided tools on budgeting and money management. Some mentees stated that this had been helpful, but others had tried using the tools and then stopped using them.

7.62 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "money", 46% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.17).

Figure 7.17: Money – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=530). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=903) are: 39% better, 57% the same and 4% worse.

7.63 In the mentee exit survey, 55% (of 267 mentees) stated that their money situation had "got better", while 44% stated it had "stayed the same". This, again, shows a more favourable perception by mentees than by mentors.

7.64 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.18.

Figure 7.18: Money – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,553); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=832); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=846); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=492).

Mentees apply problem solving and emotion management skills in everyday life

7.65 Feedback from mentees interviewed indicates progress towards this outcome. Mentees frequently stated that, since being involved in the mentoring service, they have learned how to handle meetings more effectively (e.g. with social work) and not get angry, as well as generally feeling more in control of emotions and less stressed. Similarly, several mentees reported improved relationships with family members because they had learned to control their anger and deal more effectively with situations that might have triggered conflict.

7.66 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "solving everyday problems", 52% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.19).

Figure 7.19: Solving everyday problems – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=535). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=907) are: 42% better, 53% the same and 5% worse.

7.67 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.20.

Figure 7.20: Solving everyday problems – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,553); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=833); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=845); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=493).

Substance use reduced or stopped

7.68 Some mentees indicated that they had stopped using alcohol or drugs since taking part in the mentoring service. Mentors have encouraged mentees to think about the consequences of taking alcohol and drugs, helping them to realise that substance use can impact on their behaviour and risk of offending.

7.69 Where mentees required support with addiction issues, acknowledged that they had a problem and were willing to accept help, referrals have been made to addiction support services. For some mentees, substance use had been identified as an issue in their release plan, and the mentees themselves had been concerned that they would start using drugs as soon as they were released. In some cases, mentors have taken the mentee straight to addiction services following their gate pick-up.

7.70 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "drugs and alcohol", 42% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.21).

Figure 7.21: Drugs and alcohol – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=530). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=905) are: 35% better, 57% the same and 7% worse.

7.71 Among those that completed an exit survey, mentees' perceptions were again more favourable than those recorded by mentors in the monitoring data. In the mentee exit survey, 58% (of 258 mentees) stated that their alcohol or drug problem had "got better", while 40% stated they had "stayed the same".

7.72 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.22.

Figure 7.22: Drugs and alcohol – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,559); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=833); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=848); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=491).

Reduced risky behaviour

7.73 Mentors noted that they have helped mentees to think through the consequences of their behaviour. Mentors felt that using scenarios works well, as mentees often cannot see risks for themselves but can for other people. One of the PSPs uses a programme called "A Better Life", through which mentors and mentees agree a range of steps to help avoid risky behaviour and help to reduce reoffending. To help one mentee avoid drinking to excess, these steps included: texting his mum to come and pick him up; keeping a piece of paper in his pocket that would remind him of the risks of drinking; and setting reminders on his phone saying 'you're probably drunk now, go home'.

7.74 Several mentees felt that the routine of meeting with their mentor was itself a positive development. These mentees associated a lack of routine with their offending behaviour, and they acknowledged that having a place to go and "something to do" was a means of helping them avoid risky behaviour. In many cases, mentors also worked with the mentee to identify other positive activities and plan their time constructively. Often spending time in their own area was presenting a risk of offending, therefore some mentees have been encouraged to move elsewhere. This is clearly a huge step for them.

7.75 Although mentees generally found it difficult to imagine what their life would be like in the absence of the service, some thought it likely that they would be in prison. Many were stark in their assessment of how important the mentoring service has been.

If I hadn't been coming here, I would be in the jail, 110% sure. Either that or I would be dead. I was just too far deep in what I was doing.

Mentee

If it wasn't for [my mentor] I wouldn't be sitting talking to you now. I would be sitting in jail, or worse.

Mentee

I would have kept going down the wrong roads, not knowing what to do. I was lost – now I know where I'm going and what I'm doing.

Mentee

Improved positive personal relationships

7.76 Interviews with mentees suggested that, in certain cases, their personal and family relationships had improved as a result of the mentoring service.

If it hadn't been for [mentor] I wouldn't have a house, my family wouldn't be talking to me, and I wouldn't have any contact with my son.

Mentee

7.77 The national PSPs include specialist partners with expertise in relationships and family support. Mentors from these partners have played an active role in helping mentees to improve personal relationships, including arranging and mediating meetings between partners and family members. In certain cases, mentors have used their knowledge of mental health issues to give advice to mentees on how to deal with family members who have mental health problems. More generally, mentors have provided advice to mentees on ways of improving personal relationships, such as spending days out with their family and using anger management techniques to remain calm in stressful situations.

7.78 For other mentees, however, family relationships have been a difficult issue to resolve. One mentee had made progress in every area of his mentoring programme, but was living with his parents in an unstable and unsuitable atmosphere, which his mentor felt presented risk of reoffending. In spite of efforts from the mentor to persuade him to move elsewhere, including referrals to accommodation services, the mentee has been unwilling to leave home.

7.79 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "family relationships", 39% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.23)

Figure 7.23: Family relationships – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=534). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=910) are: 32% better, 64% the same and 4% worse.

7.80 In the mentee exit survey, 57% (of 265 mentees) stated that their family relationships had "got better", while 41% stated they had "stayed the same".

7.81 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.24.

Figure 7.24: Family relationships – beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,558); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=837); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=847); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=496).

Increased engagement with positive leisure activities

7.82 Engagement between mentors and mentees has included positive leisure activities, such as going to the gym, fitness classes, going to an art gallery and going for walks. These activities have encouraged mentees to keep occupied and involved in leisure activities not linked with risky behaviour. As well as taking part in activities with mentees, mentors have also encouraged mentees to make positive, constructive use of their own leisure time out with the mentoring service.

7.83 In the monitoring data available for the outcome "leisure", 44% of those who had engaged for at least 5 months had "got better" (Figure 7.25).

Figure 7.25: Leisure – progress among those who had engaged for 5+ months

Based on all who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded (n=533). Corresponding figures among all those who had more than one meeting and for whom progress is recorded (n=906) are: 35% better, 62% the same and 3% worse.

7.84 More detail on progress in this outcome area, including beginning and end states, is shown in Figure 7.25.

Figure 7.26: Leisure- beginning and end states

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=1,557); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=837); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=847); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=497).

Increased physical and mental wellbeing

7.85 Mentors have encouraged mentees to engage in physical activities and exercise, which has helped mentees' physical and mental wellbeing. One mentor described health improvements in the mentee as an "unexpected consequence" of their engagement; having taken the mentee to the gym, the mentee had then continued exercising by himself and eating more healthily. Mentors have also organised talks on dental health and sexual health.

7.86 Mentees commonly stated that they have felt more in control of their emotions as a result of participation in the service, by having a mentor to talk to about their problems. Mentors have occasionally organised and accompanied mentees to courses on anger management and coping with stress (see 7.30). As noted above, improved self-confidence and self-esteem have been observed by mentors (see section 7.36).

Summary of outcomes for mentees

7.87 Assessing the areas in which mentoring has had the most impact is not straightforward. One way to do it is to look at the proportion who "got better" minus the proportion who "got worse" on each outcome. Table 8.3 shows the outcomes ranked on this basis.

7.88 The outcomes areas that showed most improvement are those linked with attitudes and motivations and those which are more in the direct control of the mentee. These are areas that may help in the initial stages of the change process and are linked with short term outcomes in the logic model, such as "increased problem solving and emotion management skills", "increased motivation to engage with mentors", "increased motivation to change behaviour" and "increased social skills". It may also be argued that due to the timescale of the evaluation, it would be expected that short term outcomes would be more evident than medium term or long term outcomes as, by their nature, short term outcomes are likely to be achieved earlier in the process.

7.89 Areas that showed less improvement are more connected with external factors, such as family, accommodation, work or education, and substance use – and require the support of external agencies. These areas are linked with the medium term outcomes in the logic model, such as "substance use reduced or stopped", "increased employability skills" "increased ability to source and sustain suitable accommodation".

7.90 However, direct comparisons between different outcomes should be undertaken with caution. The scope for progress on an outcome depends on where mentees were at the beginning. In relation to 'views towards offending behaviour', for example as noted in section 7.41, a relatively high proportion (36% of those who engaged for 5+ months) was already in the highest category ('they consistently express views that offending is NOT acceptable'). There is therefore less scope for improvement than 'solving everyday problems' where only 7% were in the highest category at the start.

Table 7.3: % of mentees who made progress in each area

Outcome
Net improvement
(% who "got better" minus % who "got worse")
Base
(n= )

Solving everyday problems
48%
535

Readiness to work on problems
47%
532

Money (including benefits)
42%
530

Leisure/constructive use of time
41%
533

Engaging with services
37%
532

Believing they can change
35%
489

Accommodation
35%
535

Family and relationships
34%
534

Views towards offending
34%
534

Drugs or alcohol
33%
530

Work, education or training
31%
532

Bases: All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom progress is recorded in each area.

7.91 For all outcomes, length of engagement has influenced the extent to which progress has been made. As shown in the analysis of each outcome area, those who engaged for 5+ months show more positive outcomes compared with the overall sample. Overall analysis of the monitoring has confirmed that length of engagement was the most important factor in determining the amount of progress made on outcomes.

8. Links To Previous Research And Theory

8.1 Each PSP's mentoring service was designed in response to an evidence base, including national and local level data on reoffending in Scotland (including Scottish Government data on reconviction rates) and published research on the effectiveness of various approaches to reducing reoffending. The evidence base, and other inputs to the PSPs, are discussed in chapter on Resources (Chapter 4). This section outlines how the findings on outcomes for mentees (analysed in Chapter 7) fit with wider research and theory.

8.2 Putting the findings regarding the outcomes for mentees in the context of relevant research and theory, we can see that these do indeed/ as expected tend to connect with the types of approaches and experiences that the literature expects to assist people to move away from offending behaviour. In particular, some mentees and mentors spoke about the importance of trust, and the time taken to develop working relationships, both of which seem important for assisting people to change; essentially, a person needs to be trusted before their support and advice will be utilised (McNeill, 2006). Another important aspect relates to pro-social modelling. By demonstrating and describing constructive ways of dealing with challenges, and providing positive reinforcement where the mentees deal with challenges in positive ways, the mentors are assisting mentees to learn and implement constructive, non-criminal ways of addressing problems in their lives (Trotter, 2013). Mentors' persistence – in terms of repeatedly trying to engage, rather than withdrawing after one unsuccessful attempt – may also be an important part of the process, which indicates commitment on the part of the mentor (McNeill, Batchelor, Burnett & Knox, 2005), as well as respecting the cycle of change, whereby someone is not always in a position to engage and they are likely to experience ambivalence and relapse (Prochaska & Levesque, 2002).

8.3 As these findings indicate, trust may be built slowly over time, and once mentees have made progress regarding issues in their lives, the level of support may taper off as they become more independent. In this regard, practical forms of assistance – such as accompanying people to meetings or interviews, and supporting mentees with CV preparation – not only help to address specific problems, but also demonstrate that the mentor is committed to helping the mentee, which is likely to build trust, establish an effective working relationship, and may be a step towards working on other / more substantive issues (Farrall, 2002). Another important aspect of the support that is highlighted here is its collaborative nature; working together to identify and agree on the nature of the problems that the mentees encounter, and the types of support that should be offered, are likely to increase 'buy in' as well as ensuring the support is relevant to the individual, both of which are likely to make it more effective (McNeill et al., 2005). In addition to the way that pro-social modelling may assist people to change, mentors treating mentees as equals, and reinforcing non-criminal identities may be important for desistance. In this regard, Marunaet al (2004) argue that reflecting back a person's changed nature – i.e., from an 'offender' to a 'non-offender' or 'ex-offender' – may be an important part of the change process.

8.4 The findings indicate that several of the factors that are commonly linked to offending behaviour (i.e., dynamic risk factors or 'criminogenic needs') are being addressed by these services. Indeed, the mentoring element of the logic model was designed with these risk factors and needs in mind, with reducing reoffending being the long term outcomes that stems from the preceding stages (inputs, activities, short and medium term outcomes). Specifically, the findings suggest that some work is being done to address family relationships, employment, use of leisure time, and substance abuse; empirical evidence suggests that all of these are linked to the risks of further offending and, if addressed, those risks may be reduced (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The way these services attempt to address anger management and antisocial attitudes, through pro-social modelling and cognitive behavioural type approaches, may also help to address the risks of reoffending (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The findings also suggested that mentoring could help mentees improve their self-confidence and self-esteem. Some researchers have argued that self-esteem should not be a key target for criminal justice interventions, given that the empirical evidence for its link with reoffending is low and arguably increased self-esteem may be associated with increased offending (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Dowden & Andrews, 1999); others have argued that low self-esteem may be a barrier to positive change and that helping to improve self-esteem may increase motivation to change as well as help build an effective therapeutic alliance (Ward & Stewart, 2003). If the aim is to reduce offending, then self-esteem is a legitimate target for intervention, insomuch as it helps increase motivation to change and engagement with the service, though not sufficient to reduce offending behaviour in itself; beyond this, it could also be seen as beneficial for increasing mentees' general well-being and potentially improving their integration in society more generally.

9. Findings On Recruitment, Training And Support Of Mentors

Key Findings

Over the course of the evaluation, all PSPs had been able to recruit enough mentors to meet demand and none had problems attracting high quality applicants.

Recruitment criteria varied across PSPs, but a common criterion was the ability to engage with people and relate to mentees – this was considered a key part of the mentoring role and one that cannot be taught.

Feedback on the quality of the induction process for mentors was mixed, with some feeling that induction should include a clearer explanation of the role of the mentor. The most positive aspect of mentors' induction was the informal advice and support they received from each other, more experienced, mentors.

Overall, most mentors feel supported and are confident in their skills and knowledge, but some suggested areas where additional training would be of benefit.

Mentors, particularly in the national PSPs, felt that they would benefit from more opportunities to meet each other and discuss any issues they were facing.

9.1 All the PSPs had been able to recruit enough mentors to meet demand and none identified issues with attracting high quality applicants.

9.2 Mentors are mostly paid staff but one PSP works entirely with volunteer mentors. Some projects include mentors who are ex-offenders. Of the 123 mentors that had completed mentor surveys, 17 were ex-offenders. In one of the PSPs, two mentors had been mentees with the service[25] before becoming volunteers and then paid members of staff with the service. Several mentees stated that having an ex-offender as a mentor was a positive aspect of the service, as they feel the mentor can relate to them because they have been through similar experiences. It is not possible from the data to measure what impact, if any, using these different types of mentors has had on outcomes: the numbers of mentors are too small, the characteristics of mentees they work with will differ, and we would not be able to separate the fact that the mentor was an ex-offender from other potential differences in their approach.

9.3 Recruitment criteria for mentors varied depending on the PSP, but the ability to relate to mentees was considered a key quality in mentors, by most PSPs. One PSP described how the most important quality they look for in mentors is the ability to engage with people, as this was considered a key part of the mentoring role and one that cannot be taught. Another PSP stated that they had adapted their recruitment approach based on lessons learned over time: In the early stages of the project there was a focus on recruiting ex-offenders, as it was felt that they would be able to draw on their personal experiences to relate to the mentees. Over time, though, the PSP placed less emphasis on these personal experiences and more on ensuring that mentors had the appropriate skills required for the mentoring role, particularly their ability to relate to people, as they realised it was a more important aspect of the mentoring role than offending history.

Induction of mentors

9.4 The induction process for mentors varies across the PSPs and feedback from mentors on the quality of induction has been mixed.

9.5 In most PSPs, mentors receive the standard induction that is provided to all employees in the organisation. Several mentors described this form of induction as "generic" and felt that it was not directly related to their role as a mentor. These mentors felt they would benefit from more structured induction that was specific to their mentoring role and to the types of mentees they would be working with (including, for example, training on administrative tasks such as inputting monitoring data).

9.6 Some mentors felt that induction should include a clear explanation of what mentoring is and how the role of a mentor relates to national outcomes and outcomes for communities. Mentors felt this would also help them promote their role more effectively to potential referrers and to other external stakeholders. One of the national stakeholders echoed this point and felt that clarity of role was an important part of the induction process, and one that has been missing in some cases.

9.7 In most PSPs, induction includes shadowing of other mentors, and those who had experienced shadowing were generally positive about it. Mentors in some PSPs receive externally-delivered training (e.g. from SMN and the SPS) during the induction period, which they have found useful (more detail on training is provided in the following section).

9.8 Several mentors stated that the most positive aspect of their induction was the advice and support that they received from the other mentors in the service, rather than the formal induction process that had been delivered by the organisation.

Support and ongoing training of mentors

9.9 Most mentors from each of the PSPs have accessed training, either internally or from external organisations. Of the six PSPs, three have taken part in training provided by SMN, although this has been offered to them all.

9.10 Those mentors who had completed a survey had received an average of 36 hours of training in the past 12 months (based on 123 responses). The amount of training provided ranged from 4 hours (approximately half a day) to 175 hours (approximately 5 weeks). Feedback from interviews with mentors indicates that training is provided as and when required and that mentors feel comfortable asking for it when they feel it is needed.

9.11 Feedback from mentor surveys indicates a fairly high level of satisfaction with the level and quality of training and support provided to mentors. The table below summarises the responses from the survey.

Table 9.1: Mentor Feedback on Training and Support

| Very Satisfied | Satisfied | Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Very Dissatisfied
Level of training | 48% | 43% | 6% | 3% | 0%
Quality of training | 48% | 45% | 4% | 3% | 0%
Level of support | 58% | 31% | 12% | 0% | 2%
Quality of support | 59% | 34% | 7% | 0% | 0%

Base: All mentors who completed the mentor survey (n=123)
Where percentages do not sum to 100% this is a result of rounding

9.12 Mentors were generally positive about the training provided but some have suggested areas where additional training would be of benefit. Suggested topics varied depending on the previous experience of the mentor and the profile of their mentees, but included:

how to deal with the disclosure of sexual abuse

mental health (and, in particular, dealing with depression and anxiety self-harming; and disclosure of sexual abuse)

first aid

dealing with conflict

CV preparation and job searching

motivational interviewing

domestic violence

the criminal justice system, including how the court process works

drug and alcohol awareness

One of the most common training needs identified by mentors was on legal highs, as this was becoming an increasingly common issue among people coming out of prison and mentors did not feel fully equipped to deal with this issue.

9.13 Most mentors felt that they could ask for training if they wanted it, although the extent to which these requests could be met often depended on sufficient demand from other mentors and the resources available. In certain cases, the level of demand for training had not been enough to justify the cost. Mentors suggested that training could be coordinated across all PSPs, which may yield more demand for a particular topic and provide a more efficient way of using training resources.

9.14 Mentors within each PSP had the opportunity to meet each other, share their experiences of working with mentees and ask for advice from each other. This mutual support was viewed as a valuable resource for mentors, particularly in cases where they were working with a challenging mentee or if a mentee was facing a crisis. However, mentors felt that they would benefit from more opportunities to meet each other and discuss any issues they were facing. This was particularly the case in national PSPs, whose mentors would like more meetings involving mentors across the whole partnership so that they could share learning from a wider range of perspectives.

9.15 Some mentors received regular clinical supervision (supervision from another colleague, typically a line manager, with the opportunity to discuss and reflect on their work) and they found this very beneficial, particularly because it enabled them to reflect on and discuss the impact of the work on them personally. Some of those who did not receive this said that they needed it and would welcome access to it. Although these mentors have the opportunity to share experiences with each other and with their line manager, some felt being able to talk more openly with someone from a neutral perspective would be more helpful. On the back of these suggestions, one PSP is currently exploring the potential for providing external clinical supervision to its mentors.

10. Findings On Outcomes For Mentors

Key Findings

Mentoring can be an immensely rewarding role and mentors perceived that they had benefitted from their own involvement in the service and from the training provided.

Mentors developed knowledge and skills through the training that was provided to them and were generally positive about it.

Each mentee has presented different challenges for mentors to respond to, so working with mentees has, itself, helped mentors to learn new skills and gain confidence.

Mentors generally felt that they received enough support in their roles.

Short term outcomes

Increased mentor skills, knowledge, and motivation

10.1 This outcome has been achieved. Partnership working was considered, in the main, to have provided benefits for mentors. Some of the PSPs have brought mentors from different organisations together which has allowed them to learn different ways of working and to share their expertise. These mentors have increased their knowledge of what their partner organisations offer and feel that they are offering a higher quality service for the mentees as a result.

10.2 Mentors have developed knowledge and skills through training that has been provided to them. Training has helped them to develop a range of practical skills that they can apply to their role as mentor, covering topics such as: suicide awareness; professional boundaries; sexual health; financial advice and debt management; first aid; and health and safety. As noted earlier (section 9.9), mentors from each of the PSPs have accessed training, either internally or from external organisations, and three PSPs have taken part in training provided by SMN. Mentors were generally positive about the training provided but some have suggested areas where additional training would be of benefit (as outlined in section 9.12).

10.3 Mentors often stated that they have learned new skills and gained confidence as a result of working with the mentees, as each mentee has presented different challenges. Mentors gave examples of skills and qualities they had developed including patience, understanding, flexibility, people management, and being non-judgemental.

I have learned new skills just by working with these young people, skills that I thought I already had. Every young person we work with has different issues, so I have learned how to deal with certain issues and act in certain situations.

Mentor

Working with these [mentees] has helped me grow as a person. I have gotten stronger dealing with situations of crisis, because I have had to be.

Mentor

I have become more patient. You can offer help to a boy ten times, but they might take it the eleventh time.

Mentor

10.4 Seeing positive changes in mentees has provided mentors with a feeling of pride and a sense of achievement which they find rewarding. Mentors also talked about the learning and motivation they had gained from mentees – seeing mentees overcome enormous difficulties and traumatic histories helped them realise that they too could overcome their personal problems. Further, mentors have described how they have felt inspired by the positive changes they have seen mentees achieve.

I've witnessed real transformational change that I didn't think was possible because I thought the social and societal barriers were too much. So I realise it is possible for individuals and now I think it is possible at a community level too.

Mentor

10.5 Mentors have also gained new knowledge and skills through working with each other. As noted earlier, mentors value the opportunity to meet each other and share experiences. Mentors often turn to each other for advice, particularly when they have an issue with a mentee that they are not clear how to resolve, which helps them to develop their knowledge of how to respond to particular situations.

10.6 Mentors were generally positive about the impact that mentoring had had on them:

It's the most rewarding job I've ever done.

Mentor

You feel amazing about yourself when someone has prospered.

Mentor

Mentors feel supported and confident

10.7 This outcome has, for the most part, been achieved. In the mentor surveys, 89% (of 123 respondents) were satisfied with the level of support they had received and 93% were satisfied with the quality of support they had received. Further, most mentors who participated in interviews felt that they received enough support to carry out their role, or were comfortable asking their managers for extra support and training if they needed it.

10.8 A few mentors, however, did not feel supported. These mentors felt that they had excessive caseloads, but that their manager was not doing enough to address this. They felt that this was mainly caused by management being too far removed from the delivery of the mentoring service; when they raised concerns they felt that no action was being taken. In other cases, although mentors generally felt supported, they would have liked more time and opportunity to meet other mentors and share their experiences and would like regular clinical supervision (see section 9.15).

10.9 The mentors that felt they needed further training (on topics such as those listed at 9.12) stressed that lack of training has not compromised their ability to do their job; they are confident in their abilities and always feel able to draw on each other for support.

10.10 Training from SMN has helped to build mentors' confidence, by reinforcing that their approach to mentoring was an appropriate one. This training has also helped mentors to understand the boundaries of their relationship with mentees and given them confidence to work within these boundaries.

Previously I felt I had a support worker role the whole way through; now, as a result of the mentoring training, it gave me the confidence to pull back and let people make their own decisions, and to say no to people.
Mentor

10.11 Mentors also felt that, over time, they have developed more understanding of the relationship between their role and that of other support services (such as housing, benefits, and addiction services). As their understanding of these respective roles has developed, mentors have felt more confident in their ability to act as an advocate for mentees and to know when this is required of them.

10.12 The mentor survey indicates that mentors generally felt confident in their skills and knowledge as a mentor: 62% felt "very confident" and a further 37% felt "quite confident", while only two mentors felt "not very confident".

Medium term outcomes

Increased mentor engagement with mentee (attendance and quality of relationship)

10.13 There is strong evidence from mentees and mentors that this outcome has been achieved, even in the short term. As mentors get to know mentees better and mentees open up more, mentors are better able to identify their needs and the most effective approaches to addressing these needs. Mentors also felt that the skills they have developed as mentors (e.g. listening, understanding, patience) have helped them to engage more effectively with mentees, which has in turn helped strengthen the relationship.

11. Findings On The PSP Model And Activities

Key Findings

Overall, the activities set out in the PSP elements of the logic model were undertaken as planned.

Partners felt that the PSPs had a clear vision and objectives, and their respective roles were understood.

Timescales were the main challenge. Notwithstanding the provision of development funding for Year 1, the time available for the preparation of the initial funding bids was considered, by some lead organisations, to have been too short for consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. In some cases, this contributed to delays in the commencement of service delivery.

Some PSPs comprised organisations who were already working together closely while others brought together organisations which had not worked together before. The extent to which the PSP model led to 'new' partnerships therefore varied.

Projects that created new partnerships faced more practical issues than those with existing partnerships, as it took time to develop the new relationships.

Partners shared information about services, about barriers and problems, and about user needs. There was also information sharing about best practice, although it took a little longer, because there was some initial wariness among third sector partners about sharing what they considered their 'intellectual property'.

Partners considered that being part of the wider RRCF programme, and having the opportunity to share learning among PSPs and network with other organisations, were benefits which would ultimately improve the individual services.

While there was some involvement of service users in the initial design of the services and the approach to mentoring is tailored to respond to the needs of each mentee, there is little indication that the users are involved at a more strategic level in the on-going development of the services.

11.1 The evaluation has reviewed the PSP model of service delivery in terms of how it is being used and to what extent it has been successful. Chapter 5 of this report focused on the mentoring services that are being delivered by the PSPs, while this section focuses on the PSP model itself although, inevitably, there is a degree of overlap. The PSP elements of the logic model are shown at Annex F and an overview of the lead and partner organisations involved in each PSP is provided at Annex H.

PSP Activities

Preparation of memoranda of understanding

11.2 Memoranda of understanding were prepared by each of the PSP projects at the outset. These included their purpose, scope, vision, roles and responsibilities, and funding commitments from public sector funding partners. No issues were raised in relation to the process of developing and agreeing these memoranda – though it should be noted that the caveats attached to the funding commitments were seen as problematic by third sector partners (see section 12.44).

11.3 Almost all partners who responded to the online survey[26] agreed with the statement, 'I understand the objectives of the PSP' (96% in wave 1 and 94% in waves 2 and 3). They also agreed that, 'The partnership has a clear vision' (88-92% in each wave). See Figure 11.1.

11.4 Although almost all partners agreed that they understood the objectives, there was slightly less agreement that all other partners understood them: in wave 3, 76% agreed that 'All partners understand the objectives of the PSP' while 19% neither agreed nor disagreed. Only 5% disagreed. Based on the qualitative fieldwork with partners, it would seem that the most likely explanation is that, in several (if not most) PSPs, there are one or two partners that some of the others feel are not quite as on board and committed to what the PSP is trying to achieve. In these cases, while there was a degree of disappointment that these partners had not contributed as much as they might have done, it was not seen to be a major issue.

Figure 11.1: Understanding the vision and objectives

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

Development of roles and structures

11.5 There is no single PSP 'model' of service delivery – all are structured slightly differently and, in particular, the two national PSPs differ from the four smaller local ones. National PSPs involve multiple partners providing mentoring services, while smaller PSPs have only one or two organisations involved in service delivery. There have been more logistical issues for national PSPs than the smaller ones, as national services require a greater level of coordination across multiple organisations operating in a larger area.

11.6 The extent to which new partnerships have been developed also varies across the PSPs. For some of the projects, partnerships already existed before the establishment of the PSP. However, the RRCF funding provided a means of expanding the services into new areas and formalising the partnership helped the different partners focus on their shared objectives. Others have developed new relationships with organisations they had not previously worked with. Again, those projects that created new partnerships faced more practical issues than those with existing partnerships, as it took time to develop the relationships.

11.7 There was a perception among lead organisations that some local authorities were concerned about the potential duplication of services. In these cases, PSPs needed time to work with local authorities to clarify how the mentoring service would complement existing provision. National projects had found it a challenge to communicate with 32 different local authorities before the service was set up. It therefore took time for these relationships to develop and this remains an on-going task. Although CJAs are represented on each of the PSPs, contact with individual local authorities was still necessary to build awareness of the service and the referral processes.

11.8 Timescales were the main challenge identified by PSPs. Notwithstanding the provision of development funding for Year 1, the time available for the preparation of the initial funding bids was considered, by some lead organisations, to have been too short to allow the partnerships to develop as intended. This was particularly an issue for national projects, who did not manage to consult with all local authority stakeholders during the time period given. As a result, some stakeholders were not represented on PSPs in the way that had been envisaged. These relationships were still being developed during the delivery period, which caused delays to the commencement of service delivery for these PSPs.

11.9 One national stakeholder highlighted that the delay in engaging with local authorities also contributed, in part, to a change in the role of CJAs in the PSPs. In the early stages of the bids, CJAs were not involved in all projects but, as time went on, PSPs without local authority representation felt it necessary to include CJAs in the partnership in order to help with planning for sustainability.

11.10 While partnership working was identified as one of the strengths of the PSP model, it also presented challenges. Developing a consistent approach across all partners has been difficult for some lead organisations. This has been particularly problematic when the PSP has brought together partners that would previously have delivered mentoring using different approaches. One of the lead organisations found it challenging to ensure that partners were delivering the service in a standardised way, as set out in their work plan, rather than using their own approaches to mentoring. It was felt that progress was being made towards a consistent approach to service delivery, but that this requires ongoing communication between partners. Another PSP had, initially, allowed more flexibility among delivery partners but over time had taken the view that more consistency (and therefore more detailed guidance and more centralised monitoring) was required.

11.11 Some partners felt that, initially, their role was not clearly understood by other partners in the PSP and that this impacted on the flow of referrals to them. However, this view was not widespread and the situation improved over time.

11.12 Across the PSPs, the focus of the work changed over time from initial set up of the service to on-going management/improvements and sustainability. However, there was relatively little change, over Years 2 and 3 of the funding, in terms of which organisations were involved as partners and in the role of each partner.

11.13 The online survey of partners indicated that almost all partners felt they understood their own role: 92-94% in each wave agreed that 'I understand my own role in the partnership' (see Figure 11.2).

11.14 The role of other partners was also well understood: 89% in waves 1 and 2 agreed that 'I understand the role of other partners in the PSP'. However, by wave 3, slightly fewer said they agreed (81%) and comparatively more said they neither agreed nor disagreed (16% in wave 3 compared with 8% in wave 2 and 4% in wave 1). Partners in the national PSPs were slightly less likely to agree that they understand the role of other partners. This may reflect the fact that, if there are more partners, there is more to understand about different roles. So in a larger PSP, individuals who replace a colleague and have not been involved from the beginning may take some time to understand the roles of all other partners.

11.15 There was agreement that 'Our PSP has set out clear roles and responsibilities for our partners': by wave 3, 82% agreed with this statement and there was little change over time on this point.

Figure 11.2: Understanding of PSP roles and structures

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

11.16 Compared with views on the other aspects of roles and structures discussed above, partners were a little less positive about whether the 'lead organisation had fulfilled their role in the way I had hoped'. Three-quarters (76%) agreed in wave 1, this dipped to 65% in wave 2 and increased again slightly to 71% in wave 3 (see Figure 11.3). Partners in the national PSPs were less positive and this may reflect the fact that many of them are delivery partners and therefore more likely to experience problems and tensions relating to operational aspects of the services.

Figure 11.3: Role of lead organisation

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

Holding regular meetings

11.17 Each PSP has a programme of meetings between partners, which take place at least quarterly and in some cases monthly. The level of involvement and contribution from partners at these meetings was, in the main, considered appropriate. Partners stressed the importance of these meetings and the value of 'getting everyone round the table' regularly. There is also contact between partners outside of these meetings, particularly for partners that make referrals to each other or work together on the delivery of mentoring services.

Sharing information

11.18 Across all three waves of the online survey, respondents were positive about the extent to which there was information sharing among partners (see Figure 11.4). At least three-quarters in each wave agreed or strongly agreed that partners share information about services, about barriers and problems and about user needs – and very few (12% or less) disagreed.

11.19 Among the PSPs that developed from existing partnerships/services, the point was made that partners were already sharing information effectively.

11.20 Compared with sharing information about services, about barriers and problems, and about user needs, slightly fewer respondents agreed that 'partners share information about best practice'. Nonetheless, by Wave 3, 76% agreed. (Again, few disagreed in each wave but, compared with the other statements, they were more likely to say they 'neither agreed nor disagreed'). In the qualitative research, the dominant view was that it had taken a little time but third sector partners had overcome their initial wariness about sharing intellectual property with 'competitors'. There were examples of sharing knowledge/best practice both at a management level (e.g. risk assessment procedures) and among mentors. For example, one mentor had consulted with a partner organisation to help prepare a mentee for a meeting about child protection. The mentor felt she had learned something valuable as a result.

11.21 However, wariness about sharing some types of information with 'rival' organisations still remains something of an issue. Although she described her working relationship with another delivery partner as very good, one manager in the last phase of fieldwork said, "I don't know anything new about anything – the third sector are in competition, why would you share your USP [Unique Selling Point]?"

11.22 Mentors in one of the national PSPs had suggested that they would benefit from more opportunities to meet staff from their partner organisations. They felt this would support shared learning about mentoring approaches. The PSP responded to this and an event was held (shortly before the last phase of fieldwork) which mentors had found extremely useful. (The other national PSP had held such events from an early stage and, again, mentors had found them useful).

11.23 Beyond the individual PSPs, being part of the wider RRCF programme and the opportunity to share learning among PSPs and network with other organisations was considered a benefit which would ultimately improve the individual services. Partners also talked positively about information sharing across the different PSPs, and the networking and information sharing events organised and facilitated by the Robertson Trust, in particular, were seen as good opportunities for this.

Figure 11.4: Sharing of information among partners

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

Involvement of service users

11.24 All PSPs involved service users, to some extent, in the early stages of the design of the service. This was through consultation with potential service users and users of similar services, to explore their needs and what they would like from the new service. This information was used to inform the funding bids.

11.25 One PSP had involved service users in the development of their programme called 'A Better Life' (see section 7.73).

11.26 It was stressed by delivery organisations, and by mentors, that the mentees are asked what they want to get out of the programme and what they want to do at each meeting. This was confirmed by the mentees we interviewed. This was considered a key element of the "needs led" approach to the mentoring service.

11.27 However, while there was some involvement of service users in the initial design of the services and the approach to mentoring is tailored to respond to the needs of each mentee, there was little indication that users were involved at a more strategic level in the on-going development of the services or that there were plans to address this.

11.28 There was the sense that lead organisations felt that they could, and should, do more to involve service users but a number of challenges were mentioned: many mentees not being comfortable in group settings; territorial issues meaning that drawing together mentees from different areas was problematic; and difficulties with having just one or two service users on a project board (because it is hard for them to represent the broader views of other service users).

11.29 One partner suggested that they could use mentee exit surveys to seek views on specific proposals or options to change aspects of the service (this idea emerged in the interview so he had not yet taken it forward).

12. Findings On PSP Outcomes

Key Findings

The dominant message from the qualitative interviews and the survey was that lead and partner organisations feel there are more advantages than disadvantages to being involved in a PSP – and 85% of all partners would choose to be part of a PSP again.

The short term outcomes in the PSP logic model have very largely been achieved:

there is evidence of increased co-production of services, increased awareness of services provided by partners and other stakeholders, increased trust among partners and, in particular, increased understanding among partners of their respective expertise and potential contribution

the intended short term outcomes of increased inclusion of the user voice and improved communication between partners have been achieved in part.

The medium term outcomes in the PSP logic model have been achieved in part:

there is evidence of improved relationships among public and third sector organisations and improved coordination of services

the intended medium term outcomes of more effective and more efficient services for offenders have been achieved in part

it is too early to say whether the model leads to more sustainable services for offenders or increased involvement of a wide range of partners in service development.

However, some of the outcomes do not necessarily require a PSP model and could have been achieved through other funding mechanisms (such as the direct commissioning of services by public sector partners) and other models of working (such as third sector partners collaborating to deliver services).

The smaller PSPs and those developed from existing services faced fewer challenges and being a PSP (as opposed to a directly commissioned service) made less of a difference in these cases.

12.1 This section of the report considers the extent to which the short and medium term outcomes from the PSP element of the logic model have been met.

12.2 Before that, however, it is important to note that the dominant message from the fieldwork was that lead and partner organisations feel there are more advantages than disadvantages to being involved in a PSP. This is borne out by the fact that, by wave 3 of the survey of partners, 85% agreed or strongly agreed that they would choose to be part of PSP again and only 5% disagreed (see Figure 12.1). There was a notable increase between wave 1 and wave 3 in the proportion of partners saying they would choose to be part of a PSP again. This may reflect teething problems and the initial effort involved in setting up a PSP – and in wave 1 some may have felt that it was too soon to tell (27% in that wave said they 'neither agreed nor disagreed').

Figure 12.1: Choosing to be part of a PSP again

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

Short term outcomes

Increased inclusion of user voice

12.3 This outcome has been achieved in part[27]. As discussed in Sections 11.24 – 11.29, while there was some involvement of service users in the initial design of services and the approach to mentoring is undoubtedly tailored to respond to the needs of each mentee, there is little indication that the users are involved at a more strategic level in the on-going development of the services.

Increased co-production of services

12.4 This outcome has been achieved. Overall, the qualitative findings indicate that partners viewed their level of involvement in the design of the service to be appropriate. The level of involvement was not equal across all partners as lead organisations took most responsibility, but this was generally considered an appropriate approach. Reference was made to what was perceived as quite tight timing of the bids for Year 2 and 3 funding, and the fact that some organisations were involved in multiple bids – this necessarily limited their input into some of the bids.

12.5 Findings from the first wave of the online survey are line with these qualitative findings: three-quarters (77%) of partners agreed that 'All partners were involved in developing the vision', while 10% neither agreed nor disagreed and 14% disagreed. In wave 2 and again in wave 3, the proportion agreeing dropped slightly and the proportion saying 'neither agree nor disagree' increased slightly. This may reflect the fact that newer representatives of partner organisations, who were not involved in the bidding and early development stages, have less knowledge of how the vision was developed.

Figure 12.2: Involvement in developing PSP vision

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.6 There was a view (among some national stakeholders and PSPs) that the extent to which the PSPs could work with partners to identify needs and co-design a service was limited by the RRCF criteria. These pre-determined many aspects of the service including the programme logic model (mentoring element, Annex F), that mentors should meet mentees at least once a week for 6 months and the target groups (prolific young male offenders and female offenders) – so this was not the 'pure' PSP model as it might have originally been envisaged. However, this was not necessarily seen as a major problem and others felt that requirements were quite flexible and allowed for considerable innovation in the design of the service (particularly in comparison with conventional commissioning processes and Service Level Agreements).

12.7 One partner, who was also involved in Early Years PSPs, thought that the model had worked better in the RRCF because several of the third sector organisations who came together to submit the PSP bid had already been in discussions about working together. He felt this showed that the third sector really had something to offer – in comparison with the Early Years situation where he felt the third sector was primarily included by public sector partners because that was where the funding was.

12.8 So, while the PSP model has the potential to increase co-production of services, this might be limited by the way that funding is awarded.

Increased awareness of services provided by partners and other stakeholders

12.9 This outcome has been achieved. In wave 3 of the survey of partners, 90% felt that their awareness of each other's services had increased since being involved in the PSP (41% thought it had increased 'a lot' and a further 49% thought it had increased 'a little'). (There was little change from waves 1 and 2). See Figure 12.3.

Figure 12.3: Awareness of services

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.10 In the PSPs with more than one delivery partner, mentors (in particular) talked about their increased awareness of the services provided by other delivery partners – although this made less of a difference where the agencies already worked together.

12.11 There was also evidence of the partnerships facilitating mentees' access to public sector services. For example, one local authority partner ring-fenced places on some of its courses for mentees.

12.12 Beyond the individual PSPs, the Robertson Trust events provided opportunities to increase awareness of services provided by the various third sector organisations involved and also the public sector stakeholders. For example, at one event, someone from SPS gave a presentation about the new Throughcare Support Officer role. However, this is arguably an advantage of having a network, rather than a particular benefit of the PSP model.

Increased understanding among partners of their respective expertise and potential contribution

12.13 This outcome has been achieved. By wave 3 of the survey, 87% of partners thought that understanding of each other's expertise had increased (44% thought it had increased 'a lot' and a further 43% thought it had increased 'a little'). See Figure 12.4.

Figure 12.4: Understanding of expertise

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.14 In particular, it was felt that the lead role of third sector organisations in PSPs had led to a significantly increased appreciation of their expertise and potential contribution among public sector partners. Both third and public sector partners talked about this. The fact that third sector partners were 'in the driving seat' and were perceived to hold the funding, changed the balance of power in their favour and meant that public sector partners listened to them more and took them more seriously than they might otherwise have done.

They can't instruct us what to do – it has to be a partnership.

Partner from Lead Organisation

12.15 Having more of an input and being listened to more led, in turn, to a greater appreciation by public sector partners of the skills, knowledge and expertise within the third sector organisations.

12.16 One public sector partner said he was particularly impressed with the 'width' (i.e. range) of what the third sector lead organisation was able to do and how creative they were in terms of new approaches and ways to meet different needs (e.g. peer mentoring and peer support). Another felt that his staff (criminal justice social workers) now had a much better appreciation of the skills and qualities of third sector workers.

12.17 In another PSP, greater understanding of third sector expertise had led one public sector partner to appoint two members of staff from the third sector lead organisations to roles working with young school leavers.

12.18 Improved partnership working has also been seen among the third sector partners involved in the delivery of the service. This has, again, been as a result of increased understanding of respective roles and a reduction in the level of competition between organisations for access to service users.

There have been relationships galvanised that would never normally have been, as we are literally working in partnership with people with whom we would normally have been competing.

Lead organisation

The PSP has taken me into discussions with partners I was already aware of, but have now been brought much closer to, because we have a common ground. It has provided the opportunity for further discussions between organisations.

Third sector partner

12.19 Participants in the qualitative interviews talked less about there being increased understanding of public sector partners' expertise and potential contribution – but this may well be because much more was already known about this.

Increased trust among partners

12.20 This outcome has been achieved. By wave 3 of the survey of partners, 37% said trust had increased 'a lot' as a result of the PSP and a further 38% said it had increased 'a little'. Twenty per cent said it had stayed the same. Relationships between partners were described by most participating organisations as "healthy", "open" and "honest".

Figure 12.5: Trust between partners

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.21 The extent to which the PSP model had improved trust among partners varied between the national and local PSPs. The smaller local projects did not feel it was significantly different to the way in which they normally worked. They felt, however, that the PSP model had formalised the positive relationships that already existed between the third sector and public sector and demonstrated a commitment to working together for the benefit of the service users.

12.22 Those in PSPs with more than one third sector partner talked a great deal about the increase in trust among the third sector organisations who traditionally see themselves as competitors and can consequently be wary of each other (this is also discussed in section 11.19 in relation to sharing best practice). One representative from a third sector partner said she would now consider a joint funding bid with another partner agency if the opportunity arose – something that would not have crossed her mind before. She said that the experience of working together had:

…opened my eyes to not be quite so suspicious of another agency.

Third sector delivery partner

Improved communication between partners

12.23 This outcome has been achieved in part. Views on communication between partners were generally positive, although there have been some notes of criticism. In wave 3 of the survey of partners, 60% agreed with the statement "there is clear communication between partners" while 22% neither agreed nor disagreed and 18% disagreed. Compared with the earlier waves, respondents in wave 3 were slightly more likely to say they 'neither agreed nor disagreed' than to say they agreed. This may be due to an issue in one of the PSPs, which partners did not feel had been communicated well, and which occurred shortly before the survey fieldwork.

Figure 12.6: Clear communication between partners

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.24 The logic model outcome is specifically about whether the PSP model has improved communication between partners and most feel that it has: by wave 3 of the survey, 82% of respondents thought that communication between partners had become more effective since being involved in the PSP (31% thought it was 'a lot more effective' and 50% thought it was 'a little more effective'). Sixteen per cent thought it was 'about the same' and, again, in the qualitative research, some of those involved in the smaller PSPs stressed that communication between partners had already been very good – so becoming a PSP had not made a significant difference.

Figure 12.7: Communication between partners since involvement in PSP

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

Medium term outcomes

More effective services for offenders

12.25 This outcome has been achieved in part. Sections 7.1 to 7.91 above discuss the effectiveness of mentoring for offenders. The following sections consider whether, and how, delivering mentoring through the PSP model leads to more effective services.

12.26 By wave 3 of the survey of partners, two-thirds (68%) thought that the service was more effective than it would otherwise have been (had a single agency been contracted to deliver the service),[28] while 22% neither agreed nor disagreed and 10% disagreed. There was slight increase over time in the proportions thinking the service was more effective – mainly between waves 1 and 2 of the survey (60% agreed in wave 1 and 66% agreed in wave 2). There was a similar pattern in relation to whether the service was more efficient and better co-ordinated (discussed in more detail below) and this reflects the fact that it took some time for services, particularly those that did not develop from an existing service, to develop and bed-in.

Figure 12.8: Effectiveness of the service

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.27 Reasons given for the services being more effective reflected the activities and short term outcomes in the logic model being achieved – particularly the sharing of best practice, increased awareness of other services, increased trust, increased communication, the use of others' expertise (see Chapter 11) and the improved co-ordination of services (discussed in more detail in sections 12.35 to 12.41).

12.28 For projects involving multiple delivery partners, the service was also considered to be more holistic than the fragmented approach that had existed in the past. Partnership working allowed specialist services to be provided to the mentees, without the need for signposting to an external organisation. The PSP has therefore enabled areas such as employability, families, relationships, mental health issues, etc. to be addressed within the same overall service.

You have five or six different partners all with a lot of different experience and knowledge coming together and sharing [that experience]. That can only be a strength, which in turn can only benefit those that we are supporting.

Third sector partner

12.29 Although he was not able to specify why this was, one public sector partner said he had the general sense that there was more 'rigour' behind the PSP model which helped increase its effectiveness.

12.30 Partners also felt that the PSP model enabled the expansion of the reach of the services (in terms of geography, volume and criteria for inclusion). However, it could be argued that this expansion did not require the PSP model but is about the availability of funding and – for the larger PSPs where no single agency would have the capacity to deliver the service – about third sector partnerships.

12.31 However, the main alternative view was that – while there might be some advantages to being in a PSP – it did not make a fundamental difference to the delivery, and therefore the effectiveness of the service, compared with what would have happened if existing services had been extended or (in the case of the national PSPs) if individual agencies had been commissioned to deliver services in a local area.

I don't see what difference it's made – it would have been the same if we had been funded.

Third sector delivery partner

More efficient services for offenders

12.32 This outcome has been achieved in part. By wave 3 of the survey of partners, two-thirds (67%) thought the service was more efficient than it would otherwise have been (had a single agency been contracted to deliver the service), while 22% neither agreed nor disagreed and 11% agreed. As with perceptions of effectiveness, there was an increase in the proportions agreeing between wave 1 and wave 2, and another slight increase between wave 2 and wave 3. Moreover, there was a very large decrease between wave 1 and wave 2 (from 32% to 13%) in the proportion disagreeing that the services was more efficient. Again, this is likely to be due to services taking a little while to develop, refine their processes and overcome teething problems.

Figure 12.9: Efficiency of the service

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.33 The improved communication between partners was one of the main reasons given for increased efficiency of services. For example, one lead partner felt that having the SPS as a partner had sped up and improved the referral processes within prisons. In another PSP, a Police Scotland partner said that the PSP had led to increased liaison with social work over court dates (which in turn led to a more efficient service for mentees).

12.34 However, there was another view that, in the national PSPs, the system for identification and allocation of service users was less efficient, as it removes the direct contact between some of the delivery partners and service users. Again, in some cases, the administrative/record-keeping requirements (including those around personal release plans, risk assessments and monitoring data) were criticised for being "unnecessary" and time consuming – and there was sometimes duplication between what was required for the PSP and what was required for the individual delivery partners' own systems. Not all partners, therefore, felt that the PSP had improved the service that previously existed.

Before the PSPs came into existence, we were providing a very effective service which was seamless from the prison to the community, but also we could take referrals from any organisation or individual in the community. The set-up of the PSP took so long to get established that it interrupted that seamless service [and delayed new referrals].

Partners' survey respondent

Improved coordination of services

Less duplication of services

12.35 This outcome has been achieved in part. By wave 3 of the survey of partners, 61% agreed that there was less duplication of services than there would otherwise have been (had a single agency been contracted to deliver the service). However, a notable minority (18%) disagreed and 17% said they neither agreed nor disagreed. Respondents had been somewhat more positive in wave 2, when 72% had agreed that there is less duplication of services.

Figure 12.10: Less duplication of services

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.36 Where there was an overlap between a local and a national PSP in terms of eligibility for both services, there was some evidence of both PSPs targeting the same individuals (although they were both aware of this and were attempting to put checks in place in order to avoid it). More commonly, however, participants raised the issue of other providers (outside of the RRCF) targeting the same potential mentees. The PSP model, they felt, had not adequately addressed this issue.

12.37 There was criticism of the approach taken at a national level in the provision of additional funding to support the further development of women's community justice service projects. Shortly after the RRCF awards, there was an allocation of funding for women's justice centres and for other women's projects at local authority level (aimed at provision responding to local need). There was a perception that this reflected a lack of coherence and had led to a duplication of services in some areas, and a lack of clarity about who should be providing what. Some participants felt it was unclear how the PSP model sat within this context.

How do these models [of funding] sit together? They have created silos inadvertently.

Lead organisation

Fewer gaps in service provision

12.38 This outcome has been achieved although this did not necessarily require the PSP model. By wave 3 of the survey, 71% of partners agreed that there were fewer gaps in service provision than there would otherwise have been (had a single agency been contracted to deliver the service) while 18% disagreed. (See Figure 12.11). The qualitative interviews suggest that many of those who disagreed did so because they thought a single agency would have provided equally good coverage (not that they thought there would have been fewer gaps with a single agency).

12.39 One of the main ways in which PSPs have filled gaps is by expanding existing services in terms of volume, geographical reach and the criteria for eligibility. In the national projects, lead organisations have been able to expand the remit of the mentoring service by working alongside delivery partners with a range of specialist expertise. However, as argued in section 12.30, this does not require the PSP model and could have been achieved through a different funding mechanism and third sector partnerships.

12.40 One of the public sector partners was very much in favour of community-based services which were accessible to all, rather than local authority commissioned services which were available only to those that the local authority had a statutory obligation to provide for. He felt that the PSP model was more likely to provide this (although this would, presumably, depend on the way in which a PSP transitioned to mainstream funding).

Figure 12.11: Fewer gaps in service provision

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

More effective referral routes

12.41 This outcome has been achieved. In the survey of partners, 70% agreed that referral routes were more effective than they would otherwise have been (had a single agency been contracted to deliver the service), 19% said they neither agreed nor disagreed and 11% disagreed. See Figure 12.12. Respondents were more positive in waves 2 and 3 than they were in wave 1 (when 60% agreed and 19% disagreed) and this, again, reflects the fact that – to varying degrees depending on the newness and complexity of the service – it took time to raise awareness of the services among potential referrers and to establish the referral routes (see also section 5.10).

Figure 12.12: Referral routes are more effective

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

More sustainable services for offenders

12.42 The current funding for the PSPs ends in March 2017 so it is not yet possible to evaluate whether the PSP model has led to more sustainable services for offenders. This section outlines the main issues to emerge thus far.

12.43 Figure 12.13 shows the level of confidence that partners had about whether services would be maintained beyond the current funding period and it is clear that there is a great deal of uncertainty: in wave 3, only 28% of partners agreed that they were confident that services would be maintained, 42% neither agreed nor disagreed and 30% disagreed. This represents a considerable decrease from wave 2, when 47% were confident that services would be maintained. Increasing concern about the likely scale of public sector cuts is the main factor but Figure 7.13 also shows that partners are somewhat less positive about whether the PSP has done what it can to secure funding: 52% in wave 3 thought the PSP had done what it could compared with 64% in wave 2. It may also be that the June 2014 announcement of the extension of RRCF funding for a maximum of two further years temporarily eased concerns about sustainability in wave 2 (the fieldwork for wave 2 was undertaken in October 2014).

Figure 12.13: Sustainability of PSP services

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.44 Concerns about sustainability were evident from the beginning and challenges identified by partners throughout the evaluation period included:

Changes in the criminal justice landscape[29], including the structure and role of CJAs and Community Planning Partnerships, which added to the lack of certainty about future funding for the services.

The lack of a hard and fast commitment on funding from the start – public sector partners had to caveat their commitments as being dependent on future budgets.

The sustainability of services will be based, in part, on the ability to evidence outcomes. Initially, individual projects were confident about the quality of the service they were providing, but not about their ability to provide sufficient evidence of the full range of outcomes in the timescales available. Now that there has been more time to realise and evidence outcomes (including the previous interim findings from this evaluation and individual evaluations commissioned by some PSPs), PSPs are more confident about this.

The PSP model assumes that funders (or potential funders) are partners – who might leave the PSP at the point when the service was recommissioned or the PSP would conclude and a new structure put in place. However, partners were not always clear about this and there were some concerns about how recommissioning would work in practice. Partners asked whether, if the potential funders are also part of the PSP, this would create a scenario where they are effectively funding themselves, and whether this would represent a conflict of interest. Where there are multiple partners who could become joint funders, there was confusion over whose procurement structure should be followed, or how a single procurement process would be agreed upon.

The fact that the some services sit across different local authority budgets (e.g. criminal justice social work and employability) – partners asked, 'who do we approach for funding?'

12.45 Ready for Business were involved in Years 1 and 2 of the RRCF and PSPs had generally found them to be very helpful in relation to developing plans for securing funding. However, in wave 3 there was some criticism of the national Sustainability Working Group[30] which was now in place. The criticism was from PSP lead organisations involved, and included a concern that the Group was too focussed on direct requests for funding rather than using evidence of outcomes to support the case for funding:

We should be making the case for mentoring so they think 'we have to fund this' rather than keeping asking for money.

Lead organisation

12.46 National stakeholders had noted that, during this dialogue within the Sustainability Working Group, the PSPs had been given the opportunity to bring forward ideas for how mentoring services could be developed in the future and, flowing from that, the structures that would be required to deliver those services, but had not yet done so. It was felt that the underlying issue of the third sector organisations having a vested interest in what the future services and structures might look like, and how their individual organisations might be placed under those circumstances, may be causing difficulty for them working together on this particular issue, and agreeing a shared position.

12.47 In interviews with some public sector partners, it was quite telling that they talked about the services as 'theirs' (meaning the third sector partner) and 'their' (the third sector) need for funding. For example, one partner said 'we're in the same boat [uncertainty about funding] with our projects' – indicating that he did not see the PSP as being 'our' project.

12.48 Similarly, some partners (both public sector partners and third sector delivery partners) knew very little about what was being done towards sustainability within their PSP and there was a sense that 'others [i.e. other partners] do that'.

Increased involvement of a wider range of partners in service development

12.49 It is too early to say whether this outcome has been achieved. Increased co-production of services is discussed in sections 12.4 – 12.8. This outcome is about the continued involvement of partners in the on-going development of the services. None of the PSPs have very significantly changed or developed their service since Year 1 so, at this stage, it is not possible to evaluate whether the PSP model will lead to an increased involvement of a wider range of partners if, and when, services develop.

Improved relationships among public and third sector organisations

12.50 This outcome has been achieved. There was a widespread view that the PSP model has contributed to improved partnership working between the third sector and public sector. It was noted that, in the past, it could be difficult for public sector agencies to understand the role of the third sector. The benefits of working in partnership included more awareness of the aims of each organisation and the services they provide, and a greater understanding of how the expertise of one organisation can complement the other. Even organisations that had previously had a positive relationship noted that there had been improvements. For example, one of the third sector organisations referred to instances of staff in local authorities making contact with them to work with specific individuals which they would not have done in the past.

12.51 The increased understanding among partners of their respective expertise is the short term outcome which has most obviously led to the improved relationships (discussed in sections 12.13 to 12.19). One public sector partner thought that, in a traditional procurement exercise, the contract would probably have been awarded to a private sector contractor because they would have known how to produce a more convincing tender document. However, having now seen what the third sector organisation can do, he thinks they have more expertise and produce better outcomes than private sector competitors in this area. He feels that he will have a greater awareness of things to look out for in his future commissioning decisions.

12.52 The change in the balance of power between public and third sector organisations was mentioned several times and there was a real sense in which third sector partners felt they were seen as equal partners and this was a significant change from the situation prior to the PSPs. This is borne out by responses to the survey of partners where three-quarters (73% in wave 3) agreed that 'All partners are treated equally'.

Figure 12.14 Equal treatment of partners

Bases: Wave 1 (n=82) Wave 2 (n=66) Wave 3 (n=63)

12.53 Some partners, however, felt that while relationships have improved between partners within the PSP, organisations are still competitors in other areas outside of the PSP. There is an expectation that organisations currently working in partnership will revert to being competitors for the same sources of funding. If this "splintering" of partnerships occurs, one interviewee questioned what the PSPs will have actually achieved. Another said "we have broken down the barriers but we'll be back fighting for funding".

12.54 Similarly, there was a view that the improved relationship between public and third sector partners may last only as long as the initial funding period: when public sector partners become the commissioning bodies once again, they may revert to the old 'commissioner/contractor' relationship.

12.55 One fundamental element of the PSP model is that services that have been developed (very largely) by a third sector organisation can then be re-tendered and awarded to another organisation. If this 'handing over at the end' (as it was described by one lead partner) occurs, the improved relationship between the public sector (former) partner and the third sector organisation may be tested.

13. Conclusions

Key conclusions on mentoring

Mentoring is an effective approach which helps mentees to learn and implement constructive, non-criminal ways of addressing problems in their lives and to reduce risk factors associated with offending behaviour.

The most important factor is the development of a close one-to-one relationship between the mentee and the mentor. Mentees felt that mentors were different to many staff from other services because they were non-judgemental and were focused on them and on their needs and goals.

Mentoring with people who offend will often require a level of practical support that would not be expected in mentoring with some other groups. However, providing such support helps develop trust and provides the opportunity to model appropriate behaviour and ways of dealing effectively with other services.

Mentoring can play a key role in linking mentees with other services and encouraging engagement with them – but this is necessarily limited by the availability and accessibility of other services.

Mentoring can be an immensely rewarding role. It can also be a very demanding and mentors require: specific induction and training on the role; the opportunity to share experiences with other mentors; and the opportunity for clinical supervision.

Key conclusions on the PSP model

There are clear advantages to the PSP model – and 85% of partners would choose to be part of a PSP again – but some of these outcomes could have been achieved through other funding mechanisms (such as the direct commissioning of services by public sector partners) and other models of working (such as third sector partners collaborating to deliver services outwith the PSP model).

The smaller PSPs and those developed from existing services faced fewer challenges and being a PSP (as opposed to a directly commissioned service) made less of a difference in these cases.

There does not appear to be anything about the PSP model, in itself, which encourages the inclusion of the user voice in the design or development of services.

The lead partner needs to be empowered and prepared to make operational decisions and to take prompt action when appropriate.

Having a mix of both national and local PSPs in the same field is potentially problematic.

13.1 In this concluding chapter we first sum up what the evaluation findings tell us about the effectiveness of the mentoring approach, specific areas for improvement in the RRCF PSPs' delivery of mentoring services and the broader lessons on mentoring for people who offend. We then sum up the findings on the effectiveness of the PSP model as a means of delivering the services and the broader lessons on the PSP model which might apply to other services and other policy areas.

Effectiveness of the mentoring approach

13.2 There is strong evidence from this evaluation that mentoring is an effective approach which helps mentees to learn and implement constructive, non-criminal ways of addressing problems in their lives and to reduce risk factors associated with offending behaviour. The mentoring element of the RRCF Programme Logic Model has been shown to work: the monitoring data shows that the planned resources and activities have contributed – among at least a third to half of those who engage – to short and medium term outcomes which evidence suggests will, in the long term, reduce the risk of reoffending and increase integration.

13.3 Mentees who engage are overwhelmingly positive about their experience of mentoring and it is clear that some mentees have experienced very significant, transformational change. Others have experienced less significant changes but have nonetheless worked with their mentors to address some specific problems.

13.4 While there is a relatively high level of attrition, it is not out of line with that seen in broadly similar programmes with similar populations. Moreover, some of those who failed to engage or had an unplanned exit (due to problems in their lives becoming overwhelming) recognised the potential benefits and expressed a desire and willingness to engage with mentoring in the future. So while mentoring may not work for some people the first time round, there is the possibility that they might re-engage and benefit from it in the future, when they are more ready to change or when other circumstances change.

Specific areas for improvement in PSPs' approach to delivery

13.5 The activities in the Programme Logic Model have generally been implemented as planned. Nonetheless, each individual PSP is aware of aspects of their operation and delivery which could be improved and the following two areas for improvement apply across all or most PSPs.

Preparation for the ending of the relationship

13.6 The extent to which mentors prepare mentees for the ending of the relationship varies. PSPs should give more guidance and advice to mentors to help them ensure that mentees are prepared for exit. It appears that part of the problem is a lack of clarity among mentors about the circumstances in which they can continue to see a mentee for longer than the initially agreed period. Providing more clarification and guidance on this may help mentors prepare mentees better for exit.

Support for mentors

13.7 Overall, most mentors feel supported and are confident in their skills and knowledge. However, all PSPs should ensure that:

induction is tailored specifically to the mentoring role

there are adequate systems in place to monitor the caseload of individual mentors

there is more time and there are more opportunities (both formal and informal) for mentors within each PSP to share experiences and talk to each other

regular clinical supervision is available.

Broader lessons on mentoring services for people who offend

13.8 The evaluation of the mentoring services delivered by the RRCF PSPs provides a number of broader lessons on mentoring services for people who offend. The extent to which findings are generalisable to other settings will, of course, depend on a number of factors including the approach used and the target group.

Development of a close one-to-one relationship

13.9 The most important factor is the development of a close one-to-one relationship between the mentee and the mentor. This takes time. From the mentees' perspective, the mentors themselves are the main strength of the service. Mentees felt that mentors were different to many staff from other services because, in particular, they were non-judgemental and were focused on them and on their needs and goals. The following qualities, skills and behaviours were found to be key to building relationships and so should be emphasised in other mentoring services for people who offend:

regular contact

being non-judgmental

treating the mentee as an equal

being easy-going

being a relaxing, calming influence

listening

challenging

being persistent

encouraging the mentee to set goals

encouraging mentees to think through the consequences of their actions

praising and building self-esteem

sharing their own personal experiences and difficulties they have overcome

caring

respecting confidentiality

encouraging engagement with other services.

Detailed matching may not be necessary

13.10 In practice, few PSPs undertook detailed matching of mentee to mentor (for example in terms of age, interests, specialist skills of the mentor, etc.) but this did not appear to be necessary and almost all mentees felt that they were well matched. This suggests that, in other mentoring services, detailed matching may not be necessary for effective delivery. What is necessary, however, is the recruitment and retention of mentors with the skill and qualities listed above.

Practical support

13.11 Mentoring with people who offend – in particular those recently released from prison but also many referred from the community – will often require a level of practical support that would not be expected in mentoring with some other groups. However, providing practical support which helps address immediate priorities (such as housing and money) is often essential if the mentee is to move on to tackle more medium and long term goals. Providing such support – particularly in the early stages – also helps develop the mentee's trust in the mentor and demonstrates an understanding of their needs and a commitment to addressing those needs. The distinction between practical support and mentoring is also not clear-cut: working with the mentee to address immediate problems provides the mentor with an opportunity to model appropriate behaviour and ways of dealing effectively with other services.

13.12 That said, it is important that organisations provide clear guidance to their mentors about the level of support and types of activities that particular service is able to provide. Less experienced mentors will also require guidance on when it is appropriate to provide support, when to back-off to allow the mentee to develop their skills and confidence, and when to challenge mentees who are trying to take advantage of them rather than change.

Areas most likely to show improvement

13.13 In the relatively short time-span of the RRCF mentoring relationship (generally up to five or six months at most), areas that showed most improvement are those linked with attitudes and motivations and those which are more in the direct control of the mentee. These are areas that may help in the initial stages of the change process such as increased problem solving and emotion management skills, increased motivation to engage with mentor, increased motivation to change behaviour and increased social skills. Areas that showed less improvement are more connected with external factors, such as family, accommodation, work or education, and substance use – and require the input of external agencies. The indicates that a longer period of mentoring may be needed to secure engagement with these other agencies, or to continue to support their engagement over time in order to achieve a positive outcome.

Availability of other services

13.14 Linked to the point above, it is recognised that standalone interventions are unlikely to reduce reoffending on their own and that mentoring can only contribute to reducing reoffending as part of a wider system of support (Sapouna et al 2015). Mentoring can play a key role in linking mentees with other services and encouraging engagement with them. However, this is necessarily limited by the availability and the effectiveness of other services. (For example, RRCF mentors raised concerns about access to appropriate housing and about waiting lists for mental health services).

Length of service provision

13.15 The evaluation has suggested that many mentees would benefit from a longer period of engagement than the six months provided under the RRCF, but we have not been able to robustly assess the effectiveness of different durations. Future evaluations should therefore weigh the potential benefits of a longer period of engagement for fewer individuals versus a shorter period of engagement for more individuals.

Preparation for the ending of the relationship

13.16 As described under 'specific areas for improvement' above, the ending of the relationship can be difficult for both mentees and mentors. Mentors therefore require clear guidance and training on how to prepare mentees for exit, and the circumstances in which mentoring can be extended if the mentee is not ready.

Support for mentors

13.17 Mentoring can be an immensely rewarding role. However, it can also be a very demanding and isolating role and involves work with some very challenging individuals in difficult and upsetting circumstances. In light of this, mentors require appropriate training, guidance and support (as set out in section 13.7).

Effectiveness of the PSP model as a means of service delivery

13.18 One key element in an assessment of whether the PSP model is an effective way of developing and implementing new services is whether or not the services – assuming they are deemed to be successful – are sustained beyond the planned period of funding. It will not be possible to assess this until after the current funding ends in March 2017. Nonetheless, it is now possible to evaluate other aspects.

13.19 The inputs and activities in the PSP elements of the Programme Logic Model have generally been implemented as planned, the short term outcomes have very largely been achieved and the medium term outcomes have been achieved in part. To that extent, the PSP model 'works'. However, while there are clear advantages to the PSP model – and it is telling that 85% of partners would choose to be part of a PSP again – some of these outcomes could have been achieved through other funding mechanisms (such as the direct commissioning of services by public sector partners) and other models of working (such as third sector partners collaborating to deliver services outwith the PSP model).

Assessing sustainability

13.20 Funding landscapes change continually but it is worth noting that the transition to a new model for community justice (involving the transfer of responsibilities from CJAs to CPPs), combined with the anticipation of significant cuts to public sector funding as a whole, means that the RRCF PSP model is being trialled at period of particular uncertainty. The extent to which lessons can be drawn about the potential sustainability of the PSP model in other contexts may be limited.

Broader lessons on the PSP model

Scale and the extent to which services are 'new'

13.21 The advantages and challenges of the PSP model varied quite considerably depending on the size and the starting point. The findings indicate that the smaller PSPs and those developed from existing services face fewer challenges but being a PSP (as opposed to a directly commissioned service) makes less of a difference in these cases. In deciding whether to use the PSP model for future initiatives, it is therefore worth considering the likely size and starting point of the potential PSPs. If they are likely to be small and developed from existing services, having a PSP model (as opposed to direct commissioning) may provide some advantages but is likely to have less of an impact. If the potential PSPs would be large and new, then the PSP model may convey more advantages in comparison with direct commissioning, but more time will need to be allowed for development and set-up.

Sharing information and networking

13.22 One of the benefits of the PSP model is that it facilitates the sharing of information among partners. In addition, where there are a number of PSPs working in the same field, having the opportunity to share information (particularly about best practice) across PSPs is valuable – and should be designed in to future PSP initiatives. In the RRCF, regular events organised by the Robertson Trust, which brought together national stakeholders, and managers and practitioners from the different PSPs, worked well in this regard.

Co-production of services

13.23 The PSP model can increase the co-production of services by third sector and public sector partners. However, this is potentially limited by the initial funding criteria: the stricter the criteria for what type of service should be provided for whom, and how that service should be delivered, the less scope there is for co-production by partners. Similarly, where national funding is available for local services, the stricter the criteria, the less scope there is for co-production based on local need.

Increased inclusion of the user voice

13.24 Co-production should also include service users. However, there does not appear to be anything about the PSP model, in itself, which encourages the inclusion of the user voice in the design or development of services. Services therefore need to give specific thought to how this might be achieved.

Relationships between third sector organisations

13.25 In addition to improving relationships between third sector and public sector bodies, where PSPs involve more than one third sector body, this leads to increased trust and understanding of each other's expertise. However, there was acknowledgement that the long-term benefits of this might be limited if and when they revert to being 'rivals' for future funding of the service.

Need for clear accountability and decision making

13.26 Although PSPs are premised on a partnership of equals, this does not negate the need for effective management structures with clear lines of communication and accountability. All partners should be involved in agreeing these structures and agreeing the types of decision that require consultation among them all. However, the lead partner needs to be empowered and prepared to make operational decisions and to take prompt action when appropriate.

13.27 There may be occasions where difficult or contentious decisions require to be made outwith the PSP board meetings (because of timing or because of issues involving specific partners). As far as possible, partners should agree in advance (e.g. in their Memoranda of Understanding) how these decisions will be handled. One option might be for the third sector lead to consult with one of the public sector partners (who acts as a 'deputy lead' – possibly on a rolling basis).

Mix of national and local PSPs

13.28 Having a mix of both national and local PSPs in the same field is potentially problematic. The potential for geographical duplication of service provision needs to be carefully worked through. There are also implications for sustainability with both local and national PSPs feeling they are disadvantaged: the former because they fear their voice will be lost at a national funding level, and the latter because they fear that local commissioners will favour the local service.

Closing remarks

13.29 This evaluation has shown that the mentoring services provided by RRCF PSPs help those who engage to make significant changes in their lives. In combination with a wider system of support – and mentoring also helps engagement with other services – the evidence suggests that this will, in the long term, contribute to a reduction in reoffending. There is therefore a strong case for the continuation and expansion of mentoring services.

13.30 Whether mentoring services are best provided by PSPs (as opposed to other models of funding and delivery) is less clear. One element in the assessment of whether the PSP model has been successful is whether the services are sustained beyond the current funding period – and that will not be known until 2017. What is clear, however, is that the model has led public sector partners to a significantly increased appreciation of the expertise and potential contribution of the third sector.

Annex A: Case Studies

These case studies are composite in that they combine features from different real cases, but they reflect the types of things that would happen in one case. We have changed the names and some of the details to ensure that no mentees or mentors are identifiable.

Case study 1: Chris

Background

Chris is 18. He was referred to the mentoring service three months prior to his release from prison. His mentor, Simon, visited him in prison and explained the service to him. Chris had not been involved in a mentoring programme before and was unsure what to expect, but he agreed to take part as he wanted help to stop offending when he was released. Simon and Chris met two more times in prison prior to Chris' release. During these meetings they discussed the areas that Chris wanted to work on when he was released, and together they developed an action plan.

Activities

Before he went to prison, Chris had been a heroin user and had suffered physical abuse from a family member he lived with. He did not want to return to his previous home as he felt it was unsafe, and he was concerned that he would start using drugs again when released. As these issues had been identified during their initial meetings in prison, Simon arranged support from addiction services in advance of Chris's release. Simon met Chris at the gate when he was released and took him straight to addiction services where Chris met with a substance misuse worker and arranged a schedule for follow up meetings. Chris had never had a substance misuse worker before, and had not known that this type of support was available to him.

Based on what Chris said about the severity of his addiction issues and the chaotic nature of his home life, Simon realised that Chris was extremely vulnerable and was at risk of reoffending without intensive support. Simon therefore arranged for daily meetings with Chris. They met at the office of the mentoring service, and in the initial few weeks their meetings mainly involved sitting together and talking. In the beginning, Chris found it difficult to speak with other people and found it particularly difficult to speak about his addiction issues. Simon therefore felt that Chris was not yet ready for group work with other mentees, so decided that one-to-one support was the most appropriate approach to use at first.

During these early meetings, Simon would ask Chris to talk about what he had done the night before, how he was feeling, and anything that he was concerned about. The atmosphere of the meetings was always relaxed and informal, and much of Simon's time was spent listening to Chris. Chris felt reassured by Simon's relaxed approach and although he was very quiet in the first meetings, he gradually felt comfortable speaking to Simon. He never felt that Simon was judging him, and the more time he spent with Simon, the more he felt he could trust him. In one of their early meetings, Simon told Chris that he too had committed offences in the past and had been in prison. This helped Chris to relate more to Simon, as he realised they had both been through some of the same difficulties in their lives.

Simon would pick up on positive things that Chris mentioned he had done before he went to prison, such as playing in a football team when at school, and helping his friend to paint a house. Simon praised Chris for doing these things, and told Chris that this shows he can work with other people, can be reliable and can complete tasks. Hearing this praise from Simon helped Chris to feel more positive about himself, as it helped him to realise that he had some skills and could achieve things.

Following the initial few weeks of meetings, Simon began to work on a more structured programme with Chris, using tools that his service uses with most of their mentees. The aim of the programme was to help Chris to set goals for the future. Working through the programme still involved one-to-one meetings, but their discussions became more focussed on identifying what Chris wanted to do in the future and the changes he needed to make in order to get there. Simon worked with Chris to identify specific goals, which included staying off drugs and stopping offending, and longer term goals such as gaining qualifications and finding a job. Chris printed and laminated these goals, and stuck them to his fridge as a daily reminder of what he wanted to achieve.

As Chris spent more time with Simon, he became more confident speaking with him. He got to know the other mentors working in the service and if Simon was not there, he was able to speak with them too and ask their advice if he needed it. Talking to Simon and the other mentors has helped Chris to grow more confident speaking with his substance misuse worker during their meetings together.

As Chris grew in confidence, he started taking part in group work with other mentees. In one of the group activities, they talked specifically about offending behaviour, and were asked to think the consequences that their behaviour could have on other people. Simon led these sessions and used various scenarios to illustrate these consequences. Simon asked the group to imagine that the victim of a crime was one of their parents, grandparents, or one of their children and asked them to discuss how this made them feel about the person that committed the crime. The group discussions helped Chris to realise that that his offending behaviour could have an impact on other people, as well as himself. Chris had not thought about his behaviour this way before, and it helped him to feel more motivated to stay out of trouble and not reoffend.

After six months, Chris felt that he developed the confidence to start looking for a job. One of Chris's goals was to get a job working in construction, so he was keen to start applying for jobs. Simon encouraged him to get a qualification before applying for job, so helped him to enrol in the Construction Skills Certificate Scheme (CSCS). Chris is now working towards his CSCS card and Simon is working with him to develop his employability skills. This includes developing a CV, searching for jobs online and practicing interview techniques.

Outcomes

The areas in which Chris has made the greatest progress are: increased social skills, increased motivation to change behaviour, increased motivation to engage with education and employment training, and substance use reduced or stopped. Chris feels that, if it had not been for Simon's help he would have nowhere to live, would be using heroin again, and would have returned to prison as he had nothing to stop him from offending. Chris knows that he has a few more months working with Simon, and hopes to have gained a job by that time. Chris is nervous about the mentoring coming to an end, but because of Simon's help he feels more confident about being able to stay off drugs and not commit another offence.

Case study 2: Laura

Background

Laura is 19. She was referred to the mentoring service by a careers advisor who has a close relationship with one of the staff at the mentoring service. She introduced them and Laura liked her immediately. Laura currently lives with her parents. She has committed one offence for which she has carried out a Community Payback Order (CPO). She was using drugs and alcohol regularly which was leading her to engage in risky behaviours, in particular going to parties that would end up getting out of control. She has been seeing her mentor, Margaret, for five months and said she was happy to give the service a try as she really wanted to change her life and find a job.

Activities

Laura and Margaret meet once a week, usually for around an hour and a half. They normally go for lunch or for a walk, whatever Laura chooses to do. Margaret lets Laura lead the discussion but it tends to begin with a chat about how the previous week has been and goes from there. At the start, Margaret felt that Laura was a bit reluctant and found it hard to get her to focus on what she really wanted to get from the service but she opened up quite quickly. It became evident to Margaret that Laura had very low self-confidence, poor social skills and difficulties managing her emotions. She knew that they would have to work on these things before Laura was able to think about achieving her goal of finding a job.

Laura trusted Margaret very soon after meeting her and said this was due to the way she spoke to her. She was also very nervous to begin with and Margaret put her at ease. They have since developed a close relationship and Laura says Margaret is like a second mum. She says she can tell her everything and feels that Margaret always knows what to say. At the same time, she has a great deal of respect for her and would not want to get on 'her wrong side'.

From what Laura said, Margaret felt that Laura's issues stemmed from her chaotic family life and very difficult relationships with her parents. She felt that Laura had suffered a great deal of blame and criticism from her parents and that this was at the root of her problems. She decided to take the approach of being a friend to Laura, someone she could talk to and rely on. She was also keen to praise her and reinforce positive behaviours as much as possible. Both Margaret and Laura herself, commented on the fact that the praise she has been given has helped her to feel good about herself. Margaret has also tried to encourage Laura by talking about her own chaotic background and how far she has come. While she felt that this had been helpful for Laura to hear, neither she nor Laura felt that it was essential that mentors had such experiences to share. In practical terms, Margaret has given Laura lots of suggestions as to how to manage problems with her parents (e.g. to say nothing, to talk about things when they are all calmer, to walk away). Laura has taken these on board and has tried them but their success has been limited. It is Margaret's view that there is little else Laura can do to improve her family situation as the family is so dysfunctional. The only thing she thinks might help is for them to undergo some family counselling. Laura, however, is not keen on that idea as she says she wants to keep her family and the mentoring service completely separate.

Margaret had picked up on Laura's lack of social skills due to the way that she behaved when they were out and about. She noted one example of Laura being unintentionally rude by standing in the middle of the pavement and not thinking to get out of the way when someone with a buggy walked past, forcing them to walk on the road. They had a conversation about how this kind of behaviour makes others perceive her and Laura has since changed the way she conducts herself. Laura herself said that she now walks around with her head up, with a smile on her face and says 'hi' to people on the street. She would not have been able to do this, however, had her self-confidence not also increased through her contact with Margaret. She said that almost everyone who knows her has commented on the change in her and this has given her confidence a further boost.

Laura was very open with Margaret about her difficulties dealing with problems and managing her emotions. Before starting, she said she was always stressed but this is no longer the case. She attributes this to simply having someone to talk to about her problems; previously she had no one. Margaret also witnessed first-hand her anger management issues. They had been out for a walk when they saw someone that Laura had a negative history with and Laura's first instinct was to 'sort them out'. Margaret used this incident to initiate discussions about being able to move on from things that have happened in the past. She also gave Laura practical suggestions such as just putting her headphones in and walking past. Laura said that, while she still feels the same anger, she has followed Margaret's advice and now walks away from such situations. Margaret observed this happening recently when they walked past someone that Laura would previously have confronted. Margaret still feels, however, that Laura would benefit from a GP referral for anger management but Laura has been reluctant as she feels that she does not need it.

Through their discussions, Laura realised that, if she wanted to change her lifestyle, she needed to stop putting herself in risky situations. This meant reducing her drinking and drug use and stopping hanging around with the 'wrong crowd', which she has done. She didn't want to talk to Margaret specifically about her drug taking as she was ashamed about it but went to the GP for help on her own accord, soon after starting the mentoring service. She has now stopped taking drugs altogether.

Although Laura has engaged well with the service and her confidence has increased, she acknowledges that she is still not confident about going to new places on her own. Over the course of their relationship, Margaret has been conscious of this balance between continually encouraging Laura and not doing too much for or with her. For example, she has given her short term goals such as going to the library to do a job search. If Laura has texted asking her to go with her, she has replied saying that she knows that she can do it on her own. On occasion this has proved successful but there is still some way to go.

Recently Margaret and Laura have started going to the leisure centre during their time together, where they have used both the gym and the swimming pool. As well as the exercise benefits, Margaret felt that this would help Laura to see what else goes on in the community. Laura has enjoyed it and says that she feels better for being out and about doing things. She has now started doing more things with her boyfriend, for example, going to the cinema.

In addition to her time with Margaret, Laura is also able to pop in to the service office to talk to other members of staff and to take part in courses that they arrange. Members of service staff have also supported Laura at court appearances (for reviews related to the offence she committed prior to starting with the service) by attending with her, which she has appreciated. Finally, they have helped boost Laura's chances of finding employment by organising work placements and interviews.

Outcomes

The areas in which Laura has made the greatest progress are: increased social skills; increased emotional wellbeing; and reduced risky behaviour. She has nothing but praise for the service and says that, if she hadn't taken part, she would most likely be a 'junkie' by now. Instead, she feels very positive about her future. She is confident that she will not commit another offence as she does not want to end up in prison. She is now working towards trying to get a job and is currently undertaking driving lessons. She has had a couple of work placements and, at the time of the research, had an interview for a job which she was hopeful of getting. She still, however, lacks the confidence to go to new places or services without Margaret and would like to keep seeing her until this improves. Margaret thinks that, as long as Laura is living with her parents, it will be very hard for her to make much more progress.

Case study 3: Angie

Background

Angie was referred to the mentoring service by her Criminal Justice social worker. She is 41 and currently lives alone. She suffers from severe anxiety and has also been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. She has an alcohol problem and has several convictions for assault and breach of the peace related to her drinking. Angie has been seeing her mentor, Carol, for six months.

When her social worker first suggested the mentoring service, Angie was a bit reluctant – she has never found it easy to talk about her problems and has not liked previous professionals she's worked with (she doesn't feel she has a good relationship with her social worker, and has been to a psychologist and an alcohol counsellor in the past and not found them helpful). She admits that she just agreed to take part in the mentoring service because she thought it would keep her social worker happy – but she's now really glad she did.

Activities

Carol says that, at the beginning, Angie didn't know what she wanted to work on. Carol asked her what she wanted to be different about her life and what she wanted to be able to do that she wasn't doing now. Angie found this really difficult to answer. She just wanted to get to the end of her CPO.

At first, Angie and Carol met several times a week. Carol would pick her up and take her to her appointments with social work. She also took her to a couple of GP appointments and went with her to get a new phone. They would talk a lot in the car and while they were waiting to see people. Other times they would go to a café and have a chat. During the second week that she was seeing Carol, Angie's washing machine broke down. This had happened several times before and Angie's landlord had taken a long time to sort it out. Angie got very upset and angry but Carol phoned her landlord for her and arranged to get a new machine and to get it installed. Angie was really impressed by that – she felt it showed that Carol really cared about her and wasn't just 'full of talk'.

Now they meet every Tuesday for about an hour and half. They usually go for a coffee. Carol has used some worksheets (e.g. one on positive thinking and one on dealing with anger) and she's asked Angie to keep a drinking diary – but mainly they talk. Angie says that Carol is a fantastic listener and she feels calmer and less anxious just knowing that she has Carol to talk to. Carol will ask how Angie's week has been and will pick up on things she can help her with. A few weeks ago, Angie said she'd had a big fight with her mum. They talked through why this had happened and the ways in which Angie could avoid that sort of situation in the future.

If something happens between meetings, Angie knows she can phone or text Carol. She tries not to do that too much because she knows Carol is really busy and has other clients. However, she really appreciates the fact that, if Carol is with another client when she phones, she'll phone her back as soon as she can. Angie texted Carol at 10pm one evening to see if she could meet her the next day, and didn't expect to hear back until the next morning, but Carol texted her straight back to see if she was ok.

They have talked about different things Angie can do to keep herself busy and avoid the temptation to drink. Carol remembered that, the first time they had met, Angie had said that the only thing at school she was good at was sewing. She asked if Angie would like to try that again. Angie thought it would actually be easier to start knitting again so they went together to buy needles, wool and a pattern. Angie has found it really relaxing.

On Angie's birthday, they went to the seaside, got fish and chips and had a walk along the beach. It was a beautiful sunny day and Angie thoroughly enjoyed it. She can't remember when she last had a treat.

Although they had been meeting up just once a week, they have met much more often recently because Angie was attacked in the street by her ex-partner. That has really knocked her confidence and increased her anxiety about going out.

Outcomes

Angie says she had been feeling been feeling more positive about her future until she was attacked. She doesn't think that she will ever be well enough to get a job but she was feeling more hopeful about going out, doing different things with her time and getting on better with her family. She says that the attack has really set her back. Although she has been drinking more since the incident, she thinks she be doing so much more if she didn't have Carol to talk to.

Angie feels she has been more able to deal with day to day problems. She will pick up the phone and talk to her landlord and deal with bills rather than just ignoring them.

She feels a bit more confident about dealing with professionals in one-to-one situations and is getting on a bit better with her social worker. She is also more likely to go to her doctor. However, she does not feel ready to go to an alcohol service or mental health service and she's not sure if she will ever want to do that. Carol's service also runs a women's group but that does not appeal to Angie at all.

Angie doesn't know how long she'll continue to see Carol. She says she doesn't like to think about it.

Carol feels that Angie has made some progress: she opens up much more than she did at the beginning, and understands better the consequences of her drinking. However, she still needs a lot of support and has needed even more recently. Carol envisages that she will need to work with Angie for many more months and is not sure what will happen after that.

Case study 4: Adam

Background

Adam is 22. He was referred to the mentoring service eight weeks before his release from prison. He met Martin, his mentor, three times before his release and talked about his goals. He said he was determined not to go back to prison, and he wanted to gain access rights to his 18 month old son and to get a place at catering college. On release he planned to stay at his brother's. Martin talked to him about whether his brother was a negative influence and how that might affect his chances of gaining access to his son. Adam agreed that he should start looking for his own place quite quickly.

Activities

Martin arranged to pick Adam up from his brother's house the morning after his release. Although Martin suspected he was there, no-one answered the door and Adam did not answer his phone. Martin left a message asking Adam to phone him. He did not hear back but texted in the late afternoon saying he was happy to meet him. Adam texted the next day saying that he had stayed with a friend and his phone had run out of charge. He asked if Martin could take him to the housing office. Martin agreed on condition that they went for a game of pool afterwards.

Adam was a little cagey at first but when he realised that Martin was not going to berate him for missing their appointment he start to chat quite openly. However, Martin sensed that Adam seemed less committed to his goals. Martin asked about his son and reminded Adam of the discussions they'd had about the influence of his brother.

Adam missed their next appointment but they met again at Adam's next meeting with the housing service. They went to a café afterwards and Martin thought they had quite a positive chat.

However, Martin has not been able to contact Adam since then. He did not turn up for the next game of pool they had arranged and has not responded to text messages or phone calls. Martin has called round at Adam's brother's house three times. There was no answer the first couple of times. On the third occasion, Adam's brother answered and said Adam would be back in an hour. Martin called back a couple of hours later but there was no answer. He left a letter for Adam encouraging him to make contact but saying that if he didn't hear from him within three weeks he would assume that he didn't want the mentoring service. He did not hear anything. After three weeks he sent another text and left another letter saying that he was closing the case but was happy to talk to Adam anytime if he wanted to get in touch.

Outcomes

Martin does not know what has happened to Adam but fears that he is back in custody or will be soon. Although Adam sounded committed to mentoring and to making positive changes when he was in prison, Martin feels that he wasn't really ready to change. He hopes that, at some point, Adam will be ready to change and he would be very happy to work with him again.

Annex B: Monitoring Data

Information from Initial Contact and Matching: All Cases (Base 3,104)

Where percentages referenced in tables do not sum to 100%, this is a result of rounding.

Table B1

Status |
Live | 33%
Closed | 67%
Not stated | 0.1%

Table B2

Source of referral |
Prison | 72%
Community | 28%

Table B3

Gender |
Male | 61%
Female | 38%
Transgender | 0.1%

Table B4

Age group |
15 to 18 | 7%
19 to 24 | 51%
25 to 34 | 27%
35 to 44 | 9%
45 to 54 | 4%
55+ | 1%

Table B5

Ethnicity | Mentees[31] | Prison population[32] | Scottish population[33]
White | 96% | 96% | 96%
Scottish | 93% |  | 84%
Other British | 2% |  | 8%
Gypsy / Traveller | 0.2% |  | 0.1%
Irish | 0.1% |  | 1%
Other White | – |  | 3%
Mixed or Multiple Ethnic Group | 0.3% | 0.3 | 0.4%
African, Caribbean or Black | 0.7% | 1% | 0.7%
African, African Scottish or African British | 0.3% |  | 0.6%
Black, Black Scottish or Black British | 0.3% |  | –
Other Caribbean or Black | 0.1% |  | 0.1%
Asian | 0.3% | 2% | 2%
Pakistani, Pakistani Scottish or Pakistani British | 0.2% | 0.9% | 0.9%
Indian, Indian Scottish or Indian British | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.6%
Bangladeshi, Bangladeshi Scottish or Bangladeshi British | – | 0.1% | 0.1%
Chinese, Chinese Scottish or Chinese British | – | 0.5% | 0.6%
Other Asian | – | 0.4% | 0.4%
Other Ethnic Group | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.3%

Table B6

Caring responsibilities |
No | 79%
Yes | 16%
Unknown | 4%

Table B7

Matched to mentor |
Yes | 97%
No | 3%

Table B8

Reason not matched to mentor |
User related | 70%
Project related | 5%
Not stated | 25%

n = 97

Information from Toolkit and End of Mentoring: Completed Cases Only

Type of Exit

Table B9

Type of Exit |
Planned | 44%
Unplanned | 56%

n = 1,886

Length of engagement (based on date of first meeting and date of last meeting)

Table B10

10 days or less | 8%
Up to one month | 5%
1-2 months | 9%
2-3 months | 11%
3-4 months | 8%
4-5 months | 9%
5-6 months | 6%
6-9 months | 21%
9-12 months | 13%
More than a year | 10%
Start and/or end dates not specified | 2%

n = 1,934

Reasons for unplanned exits

Table B11

No further contact after left prison | 37%
Loss of contact / unable to trace | 15%
Returned to prison | 11.5%
Offence since mentoring service | 5%
Offence prior to mentoring service | 3%
Returned to prison (unknown charge) | 3%
Remanded | 0.5%
Own Accord/Refused Service | 10%
Other | 8%
Moved away | 3%
Drug/alcohol relapse | 3%
Dismissed/ unsuitable / no longer suitable for mentoring | 2%
Deceased | 2%
Outcomes achieved – violent offending reduced | 2%
Did not engage | 1%
Moved into employment | 1%
Mandatory Referral Default | 1%
Did not attend appointments | 1%
Breached (e.g. of CPO, bail conditions) | 1%
Signposted/ referred to another service | 0.3%
Family circumstances | 0.2%
Abuse of programme | 0.2%
Extradited | 0.1%
Medical (Unable to participate) | 0.1%

n = 1,030

Annex C: Online Survey Of Partner Organisations

Figure C1: Which PSP are you involved with?

Bases: Wave 1 (n= 82); Wave 2 (n= 66); Wave 3 (n=63)

Figure C2: What is your organisation's role in this PSP?

Bases: Wave 1 (n= 82); Wave 2 (n= 66); Wave 3 (n=63)

Figure C3: To which sector does your organisation belong?

Bases: Wave 1 (n= 82); Wave 2 (n= 66); Wave 3 (n=63)

Figure C4: What has the nature of your organisation's involvement in this PSP been?

Bases: Wave 1 (n= 82); Wave 2 (n= 66); Wave 3 (n=63)

Figure C5: What has been your involvement in the PSP board meetings?

Bases: Wave 1 (n= 82); Wave 2 (n= 66); Wave 3 (n=63)

Annex D: Mentee Exit Survey Data

Quality of relationship between mentor and mentee:

Table D1

Do you think your mentor was a good match for you?
Good match | 98%
Bad match | 2%

n = 278

Table D2

What makes you say that? (open answer)

It was good to have someone near the same age as me that can understand the difficulty I was in.

They were easy to communicate with and carried out what they said they would

Worked with [mentor] before

Built trust and good communication.

Understands my situation

I'm very shy and get anxious in situations where I have to meet new people; [mentor] understood this and tried to help me overcome this problem

I liked having someone who was there for me, not because they had to

Helped me to attend court

Supported me to see daughter

She was there for me when I needed someone to speak to. She helped me get postal contact with my daughter and sat with me when I was suicidal.

I could talk to her and she listened. Treated me with respect. Helped me and my family. In every area we needed help, housing schooling benefits GP.

Supported me 100%

Very Helpful

Helped me turn my life around

Listened to me

Supported me a lot

Brilliant!!!

Good level of understanding

Mentor was very approachable, it made it very easy for me to be open with them

Helped me to realise how to live more responsibly – wised me up a bit

I felt more comfortable with my mentor than I have in the past with other workers

Easy to speak to and very helpful with flat

My mentor had the same attitude as me. He had a good view on things

I have managed to walk away from trouble more and I am more in control

She was very supportive

Meeting mentor gave me someone to talk to

Worked with mentor weekly and mentor helped me work on issues. She also helped me get in touch with CAB and sort out my debt

Worked with mentor to seek employment and now have a job.

Mentor helped me come to terms with offence and bring back my confidence.

Really helpful and helped changed my life

My mentor has given me great support

My mentor always sorted out my homeless accommodation

My mentor has always came to see me but it was my fault that we did not meet outside of prison

Listens to me and helps me solve my issues

My mentor was always there when needed him

Because of all the help and support she has given me and my family. She did so much for us all.

Table D3

Do you think your mentor had your interests at heart?
All of the time | 85%
Most of the time | 12%
Some of the time | 2%
None of the time | 1%
Don't know | 1%

n = 266

Table D4

Did your mentor listen to you?
All of the time | 89%
Most of the time | 9%
Some of the time | 1%
None of the time | 0.4%
Don't know | 1%

n = 266

Table D5

Did your mentor treat you with respect?
All of the time | 95%
Most of the time | 4%
Some of the time | 0%
None of the time | 0%
Don't know | 1%

n = 266

Table D6

Was the amount of time your mentor spent with you:
Just right | 86%
Not enough | 13%
Too much | 1%

n = 266

Plan and view of mentoring:

Table D7

Did you develop a plan with your mentor?
Yes | 92%
No | 8%

n = 266

Table D8

What aspects of the mentoring did you find most helpful and what did you find least helpful? (open answer)

1:1 was most helpful. Nothing least helpful

All of it was helpful – keeping up with appointments, communication and support

He helped me understand that most of my issues could be addressed and supported me to do so

Always gave me the help and support I needed

Appointments

Being able to discuss business ideas and knowing that my mentor was there if I needs him; least helpful was job searching

Being able to speak freely with mentor, openly discussing all of my concerns. My life was chaotic prior to mentor involvement. I am less chaotic now, more focused and motivated through mentor support.

Being able to speak to someone without being judged.

Being available to talk to me when I had a problem

Being listened to and treated with respect, someone that could relate to me

She was caring and tried to help me when I felt no one else would. She went out of her way to get me when I was released from prison and make sure I had somewhere to go in Hull.

Chaotic before mentor involvement, much better since support and provided with information. Assistance with personal issues such as housing, benefits and so on.

Chatting about goals and priorities

Children and family support

Emotional Support

Everything was helpful – she was good at explaining and simplifying things

Found that she was very helpful in giving me advice. I did not find any problems with my mentor

Gate pick up/contact with services

Getting moaned at – talking about consequences. There was only one meeting when I never got to fully say what I wanted to say – mentor intervention

Giving guidance, signposting to other agencies. Getting out and doing stuff/activities

Having someone I could trust to ask for advice; whenever I was in the Highlands, she wanted to see me but I just wanted to hang out with my family

Having someone to keep me going; distance that mentor stayed from me

Having someone to talk to

Having support in the community to help with housing.

Help going to meeting childcare/housing and CJS. Helped me to focus on completing the form and housing needs.

Help to stop drinking

Help when I needed it

I could contact my mentor whenever I needed her, even in the evenings

I did not engage at all

I didn't really need much support

I found it all very helpful and really appreciated the time it had with my mentor

I found it really helpful to have someone listen to me and not judge or criticise the things I said or did. I have a lot more confidence and am starting a peer mentoring group soon and plan to do a training course in the near future.

I found the support and the fact that someone focused on my needs and listened to me. I would have liked to see her more than once a week but I sometimes missed appointments but my mentor would always not give up on me

Where I live is a long drive for my mentor, she could only see me once a month. It was good to have some moral support as this has been a difficult time in my life

I suffered physical abuse by my ex-partner which led to me having a breakdown. Life is really good now-I have moved on with my life, have a better job and a supportive family.

If the worker said they would help they carried this out. There are no areas I found unhelpful.

It was good to have someone to talk too who didn't judge but she was always trying to get me to do things that were hard for me

It was helpful that my mentor supported me in dealing with things like college and benefits. Nothing was unhelpful

It was helpful to have a contact on the outside. I would have liked to have seen her a bit more but it is such a long way to travel

Knowing she was there for me

Knowing that help was there and if I had any issues he would speak to me about them

Linking with other services

Looking at training was helpful. Volunteering didn't suit me.

Mentor helped me complete community care grant form

Mentor was helpful but already had additional support

Mentor was really down to earth

Mentor worked with me weekly to find employment

Mentor's positive attitude towards supporting me. Mentor was older, experienced, straightforward and non-judgmental. He pushed me to get back on track.

Mentoring allowed me to focus on achieving goals as I never felt judged about my choices or decisions

Most – had a plan. Least – timing for myself.

Most helpful – problem solving, great listener, there to help.

Most helpful was helping me keep focussed on the things I had to do & least helpful was helping me with job search.

Most helpful was sorting my housing; least helpful was trying to get me to go to college.

Most useful was getting my housing sorted when I came out of prison and my mentor got me back on the right track. There wasn't anything that was not helpful.

Most would be that he didn't give you any lies or excuses he said how it is and helped me plan what I needed to do to achieve my targets I've wanted over the last few years. Least helpful there isn't really one It was a shame sometimes he was busy with other clients but that not his fault I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Most-emotional support, Least-nothing

Motivation, finding employment

My life is a lot better, a lot happier. I am going out and socialising during the day. Before I was sitting in the house using alcohol and reoffending. I would like to become a mentor.

My mentor giving me contacts and taking me to places to access help and she kept me focused. I felt better talking to my mentor as she made me feel positive and helped me see the positives. I will never forget what she did for me at Christmas as that was above and beyond and she made it special.

My mentor was there for me when no-one else was and I was at my lowest point. She sat with me for hours and made me feel much better and then helped me through the anniversary of my Dad's death. She supported me in court and gave the JP a letter of support for me. She has helped me when I had no electricity and got me contact with my daughter again.

She was there when I needed her but I had to work with other people as well and it got confusing sometimes

Someone who did not judge me

Someone who took time to listen. I didn't respond to requests /encouragement to keep in contact

Speaking to someone outside the family

Support in attending appointments / meetings

(Comments include reference to the appointments and meetings with the following:

Housing

Children's panel

Lawyer

Social worker

Other services)

Support with my mum

That my Mentor listened to me. Nothing least helpful.

The company and someone who listened to me. I also met a lot of good people with similar problems by attending the support group

The fact that she picked me up from prison and took me to all the different places I needed to go which meant a lot of driving. She always called me every week to see if I was ok or needing any help and if I did she helped me.

The fact that the mentor was there to help and explain things

The support from someone who could understand my problems

Transportation for appointments, advice and support offered. Nothing bad.

Understanding about my drinking nothing unhelpful

Weekly contact and telephone contact mentor was always there when it needed her

Working with Anger Management Issues

Perceived change in mentee and driving factors

Table D9

Do you think your situation changed: Housing
Got Better | 54%
Stayed the Same | 41%
Got Worse | 5%

n = 261

Table D10

Do you think your situation changed: money problems
Got Better | 55%
Stayed the Same | 44%
Got Worse | 1%

n = 267

Table D11

Do you think your situation changed: Alcohol or drug problem
Got Better | 58%
Stayed the Same | 40%
Got Worse | 2%

n = 258

Table D12

Do you think your situation changed: Family relationships
Got Better | 57%
Stayed the Same | 41%
Got Worse | 3%

n =265

Table D13

Do you think your situation changed: Work, education or training
Got Better | 54%
Stayed the Same | 45%
Got Worse | 1%

n = 267

Table D14

You say that your situation improved for [whichever relevant] This question was asked once to cover all of the services mentioned in D9 to D13).

Which of these helped you change? (tick all that apply)

%
n

Your mentor
85%
244

You
83%
246

Other services the mentor told you about
66%
224

Friends and/or family
66%
244

Other services you found yourself
35%
192

Other
17%
126

Table D15

Which ONE of the above helped the most? (tick one)
Your mentor | 64%
You | 17%
Other services the mentor told you about | 7%
Friends and/or family | 5%
Other | 6%
Other services you access yourself | 0%

n = 252

Annex E: Montoring Data For One PSP On Different Outcome Areas

Ready to work on problems (see figure 7.6 for results from other PSPs)

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=826); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=249); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=464); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=179).

Believing they can change (see figure 7.8 for results from other PSPs)

Bases: All (beg.) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=826); All (end) based on all those who had more than one meeting with mentor and for whom end state is recorded (n=248); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom beginning state is recorded (n=464); All who engaged for 5 months or more and for whom end state is recorded (n=178).

Annex F: Logic Model

PSP ELEMENTS OF LOGIC MODEL

Annex G: Evaluation Framework

Overarching research questions | Specific questions | Qual. with PSP reps | Qual. with mentees | Qual. with mentors | Quant. surveys of partners | Qual. with national stakeholders | Analysis of monitoring data | Analysis of documentation | Observation of mentor training/ support | Observation of PSP meetings
How effective have the PSPs been at delivering services? | Have the mentoring activities taken place as planned? |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
How was the scheme developed? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  |
Is it evidence based? | √ |  |  |  |  |  | √ |  |
How are mentees referred? | √ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
How are mentees screened? | √ |  |  |  |  |  | √ |  |
How are mentees and mentors matched? | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  |  |  |
What induction takes place? | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  |  |  |
How often, and for how long, do mentees and mentors meet? |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
What is the content of the mentoring? | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  | √ |  |
How is the content structured/delivered? | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  | √ |  |
What is the relationship between mentees and mentors? |  | √ | √ |  |  |  |  |  |
What signposting to other interventions takes place/how are mentees supported to engage with other interventions? |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
How does the relationship end? |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
How are mentors recruited? | √ |  | √ |  |  |  |  |  |
How are mentors inducted and trained? | √ |  | √ |  |  |  |  |  |
What support/ongoing training is provided to mentors? | √ |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √ |
What has the reach of the services been? |  |  |  |  |  | √ |  |  |
How has funding been spent? | √ |  |  |  |  |  | √ |  |
Have the PSP activities taken place as planned/envisaged? |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
What governance structures have been put in place? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  |
What roles have been agreed? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  |
What meetings have taken place? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  | √
How has information been shared? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  | √
How has agreement been reached? |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | √
How are tensions/disagreements resolved? | √ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | √
How have service users been involved in the design and delivery of services? | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  | √ |  | √
What mainstreaming activities have been undertaken? | √ |  |  |  |  |  | √ |  | √
How many meetings involving all partners took place? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  |
What level of input did different partners have to service planning documents? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  |
Have all partners been involved in working out the processes for how/when they are all involved? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  |
How effective have PSPs been at achieving early outcomes? | Short term outcomes for mentees. What has been the 'distance travelled' in relation to: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Motivation to engage with mentors |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Motivation to change behaviour |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Motivation to engage with interventions/activities |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Motivation to engage with education/employment training |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Problem solving and emotion management skills |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Social skills |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Confidence in skills to desist |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Pro-social attitudes and non-criminal identity |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Medium term outcomes for mentees. What has been the distance travelled in relation to: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Engagement with mentor |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Engagement with other interventions |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Employment skills |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Applying problem solving and emotion management skills |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Reduced substance use |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Reduced risky behaviour |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
More positive personal relationships |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Increased physical and mental wellbeing |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
Short term outcomes for mentors |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Have skills, knowledge and motivation increased? |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  | √ |
Do they feel supported and confident |  |  | √ |  |  | √ |  | √ |
Medium term outcomes for mentors |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Has engagement with mentee increased? |  | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  | √ |
Short term outcomes for PSPs |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Has partnership working increased? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  |  |  | √
To what extent did partnerships exist prior to the Change Fund? What is different about them now? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  | √ |  | √
Has service user involvement in the design and delivery of services increased? | √ | √ |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Has co-ordination of services improved? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  | √ |  | √
Has co-production of services increased? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  | √ |  | √
Has there been increased involvement of a wider range of partners in service design? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Medium term outcomes for PSPs |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Are services more effective? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  |  |  |
Are services more efficient? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  |  |  |
How sustainable are the services? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  | √ |  | √
Have relationships among public and third sector organisations improved? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Is communication among organisations more open and honest? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Has trust between organisations increased? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Do organisations share knowledge and skills more? | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |  |  | √
Why? (i.e. why have they have they been/not been effective and why have they achieved/not achieved early outcomes?) | What are the barriers/enables to obtaining ongoing £? | √ |  |  | √ | √ |  | √ |  | √
How much do participants think outcomes are due to mentoring/the PSP model? (What would have happened anyway?) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  |
What else do participants think may have contributed? (to success/failure) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |  |  |
How much do activities/outcomes vary by whether the PSP is delivering a national or local service? | √ |  |  | √ | √ | √ |  |  |
How much do activities/outcomes vary by approach/type of mentee/other factors? | √ | √ | √ |  |  | √ |  |  |
What are the barriers/enablers? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |  |  | √ | √
What changes to mentoring/the PSP model have taken place over time? Why? What impact? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √
How helpful has the Robertson Trust been? | √ |  |  |  | √ |  |  |  |
How helpful has Ready for Business been? | √ |  |  |  | √ |  |  |  |
What other support is needed? | √ |  | √ |  | √ |  |  | √ |

Annex H: Summary Information On Each PSP

Brief summaries of the six RRCF PSPs are provided below.

Notes:

The descriptions of the services, their aims and staffing are based on information provided by each PSP (i.e. they are not descriptions resulting from the evaluation).

Under 'partner organisations': 'Delivery partner' means that the some of the mentors are from that organisation (as well as from the lead organisation).

Under 'mentors': FT = full time, FTE = full time equivalent, and PT = part time.

The 'Number of cases' is taken from the monitoring data and includes all mentees engaged during the period April 2013 to June 2015.

Funding received from RRCF refers to funding received for the development and delivery of the project listed. In some cases, organisations received other funding from the RRCF for other projects/development work.

PSP
BAFC Moving On Scotland

Description of service: BAFC (Barnardo's – Action for Children) Moving On is a Throughcare support service working with young people aged 16-21 who are currently in, or have been liberated from HMYOI Polmont. The service has been designed to provide seamless support for young people at any stage of their journey, from prison to a positive destination, using a youth work approach and mentoring interventions to enable them to:

Increase their engagement with voluntary throughcare support upon their liberation

Address the factors underpinning their offending behaviour

Identify and remove barriers preventing them from reintegrating into their communities

Develop learning and achieve accredited workplace qualifications

Secure sustainable employment.

Lead organisation
Action for Children

Partner organisations
Barnardo's (third sector delivery partner)

SPS, Northern CJA, SWS CJA, NS CJA, East Ayrshire Council, Renfrewshire Council, Inverclyde Council, Highland Council (all of which are public sector partners)

Geographic coverage
East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire and Highland

Target group(s)
Young people aged 16-21 who are currently in, or have been liberated from, HMYOI Polmont and who live in East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire or Highland.

Main referral sources
HMYOI Polmont provides referrals for all young people currently in the target group. In addition, referrals are taken from the community where someone may have been in Polmont before the PSP was operational and is still in need of support.

Target length of engagement
No restriction on length of engagement. Have an 'open door' policy whereby the young people can drop in and see staff beyond the period of more intense mentoring (see section 6.12).

Amount of contact time
There are no targets for amount of contact time. The service is delivered according to the needs of the young people hence some young people may require only one hour per fortnight and others may receive 6-8 hours per week (and more if they are participating in a residential activity).

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
203: 136 closed cases and 67 live cases

Mentors
12 FTE paid staff

3 PT volunteer mentors @ 7 hours per week (service users)

Other staffing
1 FT Service coordinator
1 x 0.4 FTE team leader (Highlands)
1 x 0.4 FTE Children's Services Manager 1 x 0.4 FTE admin

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
36,053
1,267,751
1,267,751

PSP
Includem IMPACT

Description of service: IMPACT targets and engages young people causing most harm in their communities, and not engaging with other support services, to reduce prolific, violent and often alcohol-related offending. Through close partnership working between Police Scotland and Includem, this project aims to change their attitudes and behaviours, divert them away from becoming more entrenched in antisocial, violent and offending behaviours, and prevent them from being drawn into a cycle of custodial sentences. The strength of Includem's outreach practice model is the combination of specialist intensive mentoring with 24/7 crisis support. This provides a supportive environment for young people to begin reflecting on their attitudes, behaviours and the choices they make in shaping their future. Initial contact involves a joint door-step visit by Includem and the police to explain the consequences of continued violent behaviour and offer support to change. Often two or more visits are required to achieve sign-up.

For more information: www.includem.org

Lead organisation
Includem

Partner organisations
Glasgow City Council Social Work – public sector partner

NHS – public sector partner

Police Scotland – public sector partner

Wheatley Group – specialist partner (a housing, community regeneration and care group)

Department of Work & Pensions – public sector partner

Glasgow Community Justice Authority – public sector partner

Geographic coverage
Glasgow (City wide)

Target group(s)
16-21 year olds who are committing multiple offences, especially those with known violent offending. This includes alcohol fuelled violence, serious anti-social behaviour and gang related violence.

Main referral sources
One Glasgow's Police and Social Work team

Target length of engagement
9 months

Amount of contact time
Mentees receive an average of 6-8 hours of support a week.

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
42: 35 closed cases and 7 live cases

Mentors
6 full time members of staff (3 project workers and 3 assistant project workers)

The project also has 2 sessional staff who support service delivery to allocated mentees. Since June 2015 this has been increased to 4 sessional staff.

Other staffing
A full time team manager who oversees the service delivery.

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
0[34]
373,711
370,324

PSP
New Routes

Description of service: New Routes is a Scotland-wide PSP. It provides a through care service based on a mentoring approach for young male prolific offenders on short – term sentences in all Scottish prisons and then on release into the community.

New Routes aims to engage with potential mentees as early as six months prior to their release in order to better broker the mentoring relationship. The design of New Routes was based on the learning experienced through the Routes Out of Prison model which had been previously delivered by The Wise Group.

For more information: http://www.thewisegroup.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s25_1

Lead organisation
The Wise Group

Partner organisations
Turning Point Scotland, Apex Scotland, Sacro and YCSA (delivery partners)

Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH) and Families Outside (specialist support partners)

The eight CJAs, Jobcentre plus, NHS and Social Work Scotland (public sector partners)

Geographic coverage
National

Target group(s)
Male prisoners aged 16-25, who are serving a short term sentence of less than four years, who are not receiving statutory support, and who have a prolific offending history.

Main referral sources
Scottish Prisons

Target length of engagement
Can last up to twelve months (the target is generally 6 months pre-release and 6 months post-release).

Target amount of contact time
Minimum of three pre-release meetings and weekly contact on release from prison

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
1481: 1014 closed cases and 467 live cases

Mentors
28 full time mentors who work a 35 hour week and 3 part time mentors who work a 21 hour week.

Other staffing
Six FTE staff (35 hours per week) including managers, administrators, and a skills and learning coordinator.

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
39,070
2,900,000
2,900,000

PSP
Shine Women's Mentoring Service

Description of service: Shine is a national mentoring service for women offenders. The service helps women to develop their independence and quality of life, improve their social skills and motivation and work towards addressing a life free of offending. The focus of the service is supporting women who offend to make positive changes in their lives, changing behaviours, developing confidence and pro-social attitudes and ultimately, reducing reoffending. Shine mentors help women build their self-esteem and confidence and are able to offer both practical and emotional support. The Shine Partnership was based on services that were previously being delivered (separately) across Scotland by several of the delivery partners.

For more information: http://www.shinementoring.org

Lead organisation
Sacro

Partner organisations
Access to Industry – 3rd Sector, delivery partner
Apex Scotland – 3rd Sector, delivery partner
Barnardo's – 3rd Sector, delivery partner
Circle Scotland – 3rd Sector delivery partner
The Wise Group – Social Enterprise, delivery partner
Turning Point Scotland – 3rd Sector, delivery partner
Venture Trust – 3rd Sector partner, facilitating personal development programmes
Scottish Prison Service – Programme & Project Board representation
Social Work Scotland – Programme & Project Board Representation
Community Justice Authorities – Programme & Project Board Representation

Geographic coverage
National

Target group(s)
The service is aimed at women, over the age of 18 from across Scotland who are serving short-term sentences and not subject to statutory supervision. The service is also offered to women on remand or subject to Community Payback Orders and at high risk of custody.

Main referral sources
Referrals are received from two avenues; either through the Scottish Prison Service or by community based referral routes (mainly Criminal Justice Social Work).

Target length of engagement
The length of mentor engagement is normally 6 months.

Amount of contact time
Mentors will keep in contact with mentees on a weekly basis, and will conduct face-to-face review sessions every six weeks. If the mentee is in prison there will be a minimum of one face-face session at least six weeks prior to release.

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
996: 671 closed cases and 325 live cases

Mentors
31 Mentors (28 FTE)

Other staffing
The Shine partnership has a national management team of three FTE that includes a National Co-Ordinator, two part time Partnership Managers and two part time administration staff.

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
40,000
2,658,000
2,862,000

PSP
Tayside Council on Alcohol

Description of service: TCA has been in existence for over 40 years and has been developing and delivering mentoring services for 10 years. Mentoring interventions are delivered on a collaborative, person-centred basis which is formulated in a bespoke agreement, or 'mentoring contract' between the mentor, mentee and the referrer.

There are clear themes to how TCA's mentoring services are delivered including being relationship based; the setting of goals that are personal to the individual and grounded in the reality of where they are and where they want to be; the development of pro-social relationships and the pursuit of non-criminal activity; and an environment for change based on positive reinforcement of behaviour change.

Work is progressing towards a full volunteer peer mentoring project where clients who are suitable progress through an education programme building employability skills to become peer mentors. TCA are currently directly supporting mentees down this route and this will lead to a recognised qualification such as an SVQ in Mentoring.

Lead organisation
Tayside Council on Alcohol

Partner organisations
Dundee City Council; Angus Council; Perth and Kinross Council; Tayside CJA; Police (public sector partners)

Churches Action for the Homeless (Third sector partner – provides befriending scheme that mentees could potentially be referred on to)

Geographic coverage
Tayside

Target group(s)
Women offenders on Court Orders, bail conditions or Structured Deferred Sentences (aged 16+) (court mandated)

Persistent offenders on Court Orders, bail conditions or Structured Deferred Sentences (aged 16-25) (court mandated)

Persistent offenders who agree to take part in a programme prior to Court Disposal (voluntary)

Main referral sources
All community referrals (including court-mandated)

Target length of engagement
Varies depending on Court Order. Length of engagement ranges from minimum of 3 months with reviews at every quarter. Maximum length has been 2 years.

Amount of contact time
Contact time ranges from a minimum of 1 hour per week for stable clients to 4 hours for clients needing extra support.

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
270: 195 closed cases and 75 live cases

Mentors
4.4 FTE

Other staffing
3 TCA managers oversee TCA's work in each of the three local authority areas as part of their working week

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
31,757
311,270
311,270

PSP
VASLan – Chance to Change

Description of service: Chance to Change aims to help tackle reoffending by pairing persistent young offenders with volunteer mentors who encourage and support their path towards training, education and work.

The service is based on mentoring projects which have been delivered by VASLan and its previous incarnations for over ten years. Young people who face multiple barriers to finding employment are matched with volunteer mentors who give their time, understanding and life and work experiences to help motivate and encourage their mentees to take up opportunities to build their confidence, self-esteem and skills.

For more information: http://www.vaslan.org.uk/

Lead organisation
Voluntary Action South Lanarkshire (VASLan)

Partner organisations
Routes to Inclusion (Public Sector)

Routes to Work South (Third Sector)

Lanarkshire CJA (Public Sector)

Geographic coverage
South Lanarkshire

Target group(s)
Young Offenders aged 16 – 25 (male and female)

Main referral sources
Self-Referral

Community referrals from:

Criminal Justice Social Work

Job Centre +

'More Choices, More Chances' Activity Agreement Advisors (South Lanarkshire Council)

Skills Development Scotland

Housing & Homeless Units

Target length of engagement
12 month programme with additional aftercare support as necessary (flexible to allow for individual cases e.g. some have had 14 months on programme where good progress being made but more time required)

Amount of contact time
1 hour per week contact with volunteer mentor plus additional support as required from staff (e.g. the 'PX2' Personal Development course is delivered over three short days in one week)

Number of cases (April 2013 to June 2015)
84: 58 closed cases and 26 live cases

Mentors
35 mentors, all volunteers, giving approximately 2 hours per week

Other staffing
Three part time members of staff – Mentoring Officer, Employability Officer and Admin Assistant (approx. 17.5 hours per week each) – a further Employability Officer (17.5 hours) added August 2015 to cope with caseloads. Plus management comprising a Manager (10 hours per week approx.) and a Finance Officer (10 hours per week approx.)

Funding received from RRCF
Financial year 2012-2013
Financial years 2013-2015
Financial years 2015-2017
£
30,429
179,742
179,742

Annex I: Bibliography

Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Brown, M., and Ross, S. (2010). Mentoring, Social Capital and Desistance: A Study of Women Released from Prison. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 43(1): 31-50.

Clark, I., Simpson, L., Shipway, R. (2013) Reducing Reoffending Change Fund Evaluation of Year 1 – Public Social Partnership Development. Scottish Government.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/05/1311
Accessed 17 December 2015

Clarke, R., Fox, C., and Sefton, M. (2014). Evaluation of London Probation Trust offender mentoring programme. Manchester Metropolitan University [online] http://www.mmuperu.co.uk/projects/evaluation-of-london-probation-trust-offender-mentoring-programme
Accessed 17 December 2015

Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency. 45: 438-452.

Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

MacRae, R., McIvor, G., Malloch, M., Barry, M., and Murray, L. (2006) Evaluation of the Scottish Prison Transitional Care Initiative. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2006/02/08110928/0

Accessed 17 December 2015

Maruna, S. Lebel, T. P., Mitchell, N. & Naples, M. (2004). Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychology, Crime & Law. 10: 271-281.

McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 6: 39-62.

McNeill, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R. & Knox, J. (2005). Reducing reoffending: Key practice skills.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/37432/0011296.pdf
Accessed 17 December 2015

Prochaska, J. O. & Levesque, D. A. (2002). Enhancing motivation of offenders at each stage of change and phase of therapy. In M. McMurran (Ed.) Motivating offenders to change: A guide to enhancing engagement in therapy. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 57-74.

Sapouna. M., Bisset. C., Conlong. A-M., and Matthews, B. (2015) What Works to Reduce Reoffending: A Summary of the Evidence http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/05/2480/0
Accessed 17 December 2015

Social Mentoring Research Group (2007) Towards Understanding of Mentoring, Social Mentoring and Befriending
http://about.brighton.ac.uk/cupp/projects/other-projects/256-social-mentoring-research-group-network.html
Accessed 17 December 2015

Tarling, R., Davison, T., and Clarke, A. (2004). The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's Mentoring Projects. Institute for Social Research, University of Surrey
http://yjbpublications.justice.gov.uk/Resources/Downloads/mentoringfull.pdf
Accessed 17 December 2015

Trotter, C. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision: What we know and don't know from four decades of research. Federal Probation. 77: 43-48.

Ward, T. & Stewart, C. (2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Crime & Law. 9: 125-143.

Footnotes

1. £2m was made available by the RRCF in 2012-13 to support the development of potential PSPs, and to sustain the delivery of existing offender mentoring services. Grant applications totalling £1.5m were supported, with further funding used to provide project management services and evaluation activities.

2. This was split into £7.7m in grant funding, and £300k for project management and evaluation.

3. The RRCF Partnership comprises the Scottish Government’s Community Justice Division, Third Sector Division, The Robertson Trust and the Scottish Prison Service.

4. Interviews were conducted with 29 representatives of lead organisations (16 in phase 1, 13 in phase 3) and 38 of partner organisations (23 in phase 1, 15 in phase 3)

5. Focus groups involved 64 mentors (33 in phase 1, 31 in phase 3)

6. Interviews were conducted with 69 mentees across 3 phases (28 in phase 1, 33 in phase 2, 8 in phase 3). Two of the mentees interviewed in phase 2 had also been interviewed in phase 1 (making 71 interviews in total). All of the Interviews in phase 3 were with mentees who had disengaged from the mentoring service.

7. Interviews were conducted with 35 mentors in phase 2. Twelve of these had also been interviewed or taken part in a focus group in phase 1.

8. The survey sample was smaller in the second wave as an alternative contact was not provided for some people who had left organisations or changed role.

9. We would argue that the decline in response rates is to be expected with longitudinal and multi-wave research as respondents may feel that they have already expressed their opinion and may not see the value of expressing it again, particularly if their views haven’t changed. However, we would emphasise that the response rates in all three waves are high and do not raise any concerns on the robustness of the data.

10. It is not possible to calculate an exact response rate because the numbers of mentors has fluctuated and some have left and been replaced. However, in June 2015 there were approximately 120-125 across all the PSPs, so having responses from 123 indicates an extremely high response rate.

11. At the sixth PSP, the dates of meetings clashed with other fieldwork. However, the views of the participants about the meetings were obtained in qualitative interviews.

12. Interviews were conducted with 27 stakeholders (10 in phase 1, 9 in phase 2, 8 in phase 3). All stakeholders interviewed in phase 3 had also been interviewed in phases 1 and 2, giving 46 interviews in total.

13. This is shown as the first ‘Activity’ in the mentoring logic model but is discussed in this section as the evidence-base used in service design may also be considered an input.

14. They referred, in particular, to Sapouna. M., Bisset. C., and Conlong. A-M. (2011) What Works to Reduce Reoffending: A Summary of the Evidence http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0038/00385880.pdf. Accessed 13 November 2015. See also Chapter 8 on links between the evaluation findings and previous research.

15. It should be noted that the Scottish Government commissioned the Robertson Trust to undertake this work in advance of, and separately from, the Robertson Trust’s financial contribution to the RRCF.

16. This does not suggest that the services in question didn’t know whether they were live or closed, but that the status was not clear in the data they submitted.

17. Provided to the evaluation team at the end of June 2015.

18. Data has been analysed for the sub-set of mentees that engaged for five months or more, to show the relationship between length of engagement and outcomes. As most PSPs aim to work with mentees for either a minimum of six months or an average of six months, the progress of those who engaged for that length (or almost that length) of time is the best measure of whether – when the service is delivered as intended – it is achieving its intended outcomes.

19. Note that, for a number of reasons, including the different client groups that each service is working with, it will not be possible to evaluate the impact of matching on outcomes (see sections 2.8 – 2.9 above).

20. For the purpose of comparability, only those outcomes areas that have a directly corresponding type of referral in the data have been analysed e.g. the outcome area “accommodation” can be compared with the signposting category “referred to accommodation services”, whereas there are no signposting categories that correspond directly with outcomes such as “believing they can change” or “readiness to work on problems”.

21. Housing services include those provided by local authorities and those provided by third sector organisations

22. Using regression analysis and CHAID analysis, tools for estimating the relationship between variables.

23. One PSP recorded this outcome using slightly different categories to the other five PSPs. These results are therefore not comparable with the other PSPs but shown separately in Appendix D.

24. One PSP recorded this outcome using slightly different categories to the other five PSPs. These results are therefore not comparable with the other PSPs but shown separately in Annex E.

25. Prior to the RRCF

26. See the Methodology (Chapter 3) for details of the online survey including the timing of waves and response rates.

27. Assessments of whether PSP outcomes have been achieved are the judgement of the authors based on the evidence from the qualitative research and the online survey of partners.

28. The preamble to the question was: “The next question is about how much difference, if any, being a PSP (as opposed to a single agency being contracted to deliver the service) has made. Thinking about the PSP model, and as far as you are able to judge, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

29. In December 2014, following a consultation on the future of the community justice system, the Scottish Government announced plans to transfer responsibility for the planning and delivery of community justice services from the eight CJAs to the 32 Community Planning Partnerships and to develop a National Strategy for Community Justice.

30. The remit of this group is to design and agree a national model for PSP sustainability and service delivery. It comprises representatives from each of the PSP lead organisations plus representatives from COSLA, NHS, North Strathclyde CJA, Robertson Trust, Scottish Government, Scottish Prison Service, Social Work Scotland, South West Scotland CJA and Turning Point Scotland.

31. Figures exclude 73 cases where ethnicity was not recorded. To enable broad comparisons, ethnicity statistics are also provided for the prison population (though it should be remembered that mentees are referred from the community as well as from prison) and the Scottish population as a whole.

32. Prison statistics based on 2011 figures accessed from: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/PubPrisons Accessed 13 November 2015

33. Scottish statistics based on 2011 census accessed from: http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/censusresults/release2a/rel2asbfigure2.xls Accessed 13 November 2015

34. It should be noted that RRCF provided £50,000 to Includem in 2012-13, to support their expansion of the Glasgow Gangs project. This was not directly the IMPACT programme, or to support the development of their PSP, but it was given by the RRCF to help sustain a nascent mentoring programme until the main RRCF funds were allocated.