Positive outcomes from youth mentoring in innovative UK study

A ground-breaking multi-site trial suggests that youth mentoring delivered by community agencies in locally relevant ways can lead to a range of improved outcomes for young people at risk of involvement in youth violence.

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) of youth mentoring delivered by 17 youth work agencies across England and Wales was undertaken by CEI in partnership with YMCA George Williams College and Bryson Purdon Social Research, and supported by the Youth Endowment Fund.

A number of studies have shown that mentoring can be effective in supporting a range of outcomes for young people. However, most studies relate to longer mentoring programs – six months or a year, or longer. This study specifically wanted to test a much shorter version of mentoring, and to work with a group of community-based youth agencies.

“We found that short-term mentoring – a minimum of 12 weekly 45-minute one-to-one sessions with trained mentors – offered benefits for teens and pre-teens at risk of youth violence,” explains CEI Advisor Jamie Rowland.

As is the case across a large number of YEF studies, the primary outcome in the trial was behavioural and emotional problems, measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). However, the research team also wanted to look at social emotional learning outcomes such as self-confidence and problem-solving.

“Although there were no gains seen in our primary measure of mentees’ behavioural and emotional problems, the SDQ, there were significant positive impacts relating to self-confidence – including leadership and communication – and problem-solving and decision-making skills,” says Jamie. “In addition, the accounts of mentors and mentees suggest improvements in social emotional learning, and positive change for the young people was seen on SDQ’s prosocial scale.”

Practitioners and young people described a range of benefits, including self-esteem and confidence, emotional regulation and resilience, school attendance, peer and family relationships, problem-solving and decision-making, and empathy. “Qualitative interviews with mentors and mentees also suggested improvements relating to social emotional learning, wellbeing, relationships and self-efficacy, confidence and locus of control – all of which are critical to young people as they take steps towards adulthood,” says Jamie.

This wider set of benefits is important because there were striking differences between young people in what they wanted from mentoring – their prioritised outcomes and their support needs. Not all young people came to mentoring for the same reasons and, through person-centred approaches, mentors tailored support to achieve goals that were most relevant from the perspectives of young people. This highlights the need for nuanced and considered evaluation design that can surface often-diverging personalised outcomes.

A successful evaluation approach reflecting real-world complexity

As well as investigating the effectiveness of short-term mentoring, a key aim of the study was testing how an RCT with multiple small youth agencies might work. In addition, the team wanted to evaluate mentoring broadly as it is already being delivered.

A shared practice model was developed, based on agencies’ current practice and evidence about the characteristics of effective, high-quality mentoring. The agencies were able to recruit young people to the trial, and they secured high response rates in the follow-up survey – 80% in both the mentoring and the control group. The study results strongly and clearly support the feasibility and effectiveness of a multi-site evaluation approach.

“This finding is a major step forward in building the evidence about youth work,” says Jane Lewis, CEI Associate Director. “Small, dedicated community-based organisations are a vital component of youth work provision across the UK, but until now there have been limited formal means to capture the benefits or outcomes of their work.”

“We’ve now shown it is possible to undertake a multi-site RCT with a group of community-based youth agencies – an approach that has potential application across the sector.”

The trial arrangements were feasible and acceptable for mentors and young people. However, the report notes that the work was “intensive and time-consuming” for both agencies and the evaluation team. A mutual commitment to collaboration was required, along with a bespoke data portal, a good deal of ongoing communication and liaison, and a rapid and pro-active response to issues.

“The trial would not have been possible without the youth agencies’ dedication, commitment and tenacity,” Jamie notes. “Being small and community-based proved a positive asset for the organisations involved. It meant they met challenges in an extremely agile manner, and in ways that highlighted practitioners’ proximity to local young people and families.”

“Above all, the trial's successful delivery was testament to the practitioners who worked tirelessly to make it happen on the ground.”

Details of the multi-site trial

The efficacy trial built on an earlier feasibility trial carried out by the research team. This involved 17 small youth work agencies, each delivering the mentoring intervention to two groups of young people: half commencing immediately, and half commencing after 12 weeks. Young people eligible to participate in the trial were aged 10 to 17 years, with at least one of the “unmet needs” identified by Youth Endowment Fund as related to risk of involvement in youth violence.

A total of 744 young people took part in the efficacy trial. Around eight in ten of the participants were aged 10 to 14 years, with half aged 13 or 14, and an approximately an even number of males and females. One in five participants were considered to fit the category Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND, 19.4% in the intervention group and 16.4% in the control group), and nearly four in ten (38% in the intervention group and 37.2% in the control group) were eligible for Free School Meals.

The target outcome was emotional and behavioural difficulties. The primary outcome measure was the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), while secondary social emotional skills development outcome measures drew on items used in evaluations of the UK’s National Citizen Service.

The full report can be accessed HERE

The "Efficacy trial evaluation report: Multi-site trial of short-term mentoring" was funded by the Youth Endowment Fund, and authored by Jamie Rowland, Amy Hall, Dr Sweta Gupta, Dr Paula Verdugo, Anne-Marie Baan, Dr Stephanie Smith and Jane Lewis from CEI; Dr Susan Purdon and Caroline Bryson from Bryson Purdon Social Research; and Hannah Quail, Josef Fischer, Bethia McNeil and Zunaira Mahmood from YMCA George Williams College.