Australian Government Attorneys General's Department - Crime Prevention and Community Safety

Early Intervention Youth Mentoring Programmes

An overview of mentoring programmes for young people at risk of offending

Study Team:

Dr Ania Wilczynski, Senior Social Researcher, Urbis Keys Young
Clare Culvenor, Social Researcher, Urbis Keys Young
Associate Professor Chris Cunneen, Director, Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Law School
John Schwartzkoff, Director, Urbis Keys Young
Kerry Reed-Gilbert, Principal Consultant, Kuracca Consultancy

To order any National Crime Prevention publications please contact:

Crime Prevention Branch, Australian Government Attorney-General's Department
Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600

Ph: +61 2 6250 6711

Fax: +61 2 6273 0913

Publications are also available at www.crimeprevention.gov.au

Early Intervention: Youth Mentoring Programmes - An overview of mentoring programmes for young people at risk of offending

Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, Canberra

ISBN 0 642 21098 5

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of the Commonwealth of Australia. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions.

See also: ISBN 0 642 21090 X Early Intervention: Diversion and Youth Conferencing - A national profile and review of current approaches to diverting juveniles from the criminal justice system

Design: Design Direction

Print: Union Offset

Publisher: Australian Government Attorney-General's Department

Foreword

Jurisdictions across Australia are developing alternative processes to reduce the number of young people entering the criminal justice system.

Overseas research suggests that mentoring, as an early intervention strategy, has promising benefits with young offenders and young people at risk of offending.

This report, commissioned under the Australian Government's National Crime Prevention Programme, provides a national profile of mentoring programmes for young people at risk of offending, identifies differing approaches and models for mentoring programmes and highlights good practice in the field.

In particular, this research analyses the crime prevention outcomes from youth mentoring, and the value of strengthening links between families and communities.

SENATOR CHRIS ELLISON
Minister for Justice and Customs
Senator for Western Australia

Abbreviations

Executive Summary

Introduction
What is mentoring?
Background to the research
Objectives of the project
Structure of this report

Methodology
Definition of mentoring
Key components of the methodology
Fieldwork
Some caveats

Organisational context of mentoring programmes
Location of mentoring projects
Auspicing organisation
Funding
Formal versus naturalistic mentoring programmes
Programme objectives
Stand-alone versus integrated projects
Staff
Establishment and administration
Initial meetings
Length of contact
Frequency of contact
Parental involvement
Activities undertaken by the pair
Nature of the relationship between the mentor and mentee
Ending the mentoring relationship
Monitoring and supervising mentors
Training and orienting mentors

Mentors
Recruiting mentors
Characteristics of mentors
Screening procedures
Excluding mentors with criminal records
Matching
Paid versus volunteer mentors

Mentees
Voluntary versus mandated clients
Recruitment processes
Screening/eligibility of mentees
Characteristics of mentees
Specific issues for mentoring programmes servicing young offenders

Evaluation
The importance of evaluation
Lack of evaluations of mentoring programs
Reasons for lack of evaluation
Increasing the emphasis on evaluation

The effectiveness of mentoring programmes
Mentoring is a promising but unproven strategy
Mentoring can achieve positive benefits for some young people
Mentoring is only suitable for some young people
The impact of demographic characteristics of mentees

Conclusion
Models and organisational structure: good practice
The mentoring process: good practice
Finding and employing mentors: good practice
Selecting mentees and developing a programme: good practice
Evaluation: an essential part of good practice
Determining the effectiveness of mentoring
Indigenous programmes
Recommendations for stage 2

Bibliography and select references

Appendix A: Letter inviting nomination of mentoring projects

Appendix B: Postal survey to mentoring projects

Appendix C: Questionnaire guides for fieldwork

Abbreviations

ACT	...	Australian Capital Territory
BSBB	...	Big Sisters Big Brothers, NSW
BBBS	...	Big Brothers Big Sisters, USA
CA	...	Conference Administrator, NSW
CPB	...	Crime Prevention Branch, Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department
DHS	...	Department of Human Services, SA
DJJ	...	Department of Juvenile Justice, NSW
EEO	...	Equal Employment Opportunity
FAYS	...	Family and Youth Services, SA
JUMP	...	Juvenile Mentoring Programme, USA
MAYT	...	Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team, Adelaide
NSW	...	New South Wales
NT	...	Northern Territory
NZ	...	New Zealand
SA	...	South Australia
TAFE	...	Technical and Further Education
UK	...	United Kingdom
WA	...	Western Australia
YLO	...	Youth Liaison Officer, NSW
YJC	...	Youth Justice Conference
YWCA	...	Young Women's Christian Association, NSW

Executive Summary

The Crime Prevention Branch (CPB) of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department commissioned social research consultants Urbis Keys Young to conduct a project to profile and review mentoring programmes for young offenders, particularly those in the 10 to 13 year age group.

This is the Final Report on the project.

Objectives

The project involved a national audit and review of mentoring programmes around Australia in order to:

provide a national profile of mentoring programmes for young offenders
identify models and good practice
identify key crime prevention outcomes from youth mentoring
make recommendations for Stage 2 of the project.

The objectives of Stage 2 are yet to be determined, but key activities might include, for instance, the development and production of resource materials for a range of audiences, evaluations of specific mentoring programmes, or the trial of a mentoring programme with a specified target group.

Methodology

The key components of the methodology were as follows:

A review of Australian and overseas literature. This primarily covered material published between 1997-2001.
Initial scoping consultations to identify mentoring projects within the scope of the study. This involved distribution of a standard letter (mostly via email) to key agencies around Australia which may have been aware of mentoring programmes. Initiatives were selected for inclusion in the review where the primary aim of the project was mentoring, the target group was young offenders or young people at risk of offending and the mentors were community-based individuals rather than people acting in a professional or semi-professional capacity as youth workers.
postal survey of the 24 projects identified nationally.
In-depth face-to-face consultations on field visits with seven mentoring projects nationally. Consultations were conducted with field staff for all projects, and in some cases external stakeholders, mentors and young people.
Telephone and face-to-face interviews with selected key informants to supplement the material gathered on the field visits.
A face-to-face consultation with Crime Prevention Officers from around Australia at one of their regular meetings.
Data analysis and reporting, including entry of the quantitative data from the survey into a database.

Overview of mentoring programmes

This audit and review of mentoring programmes was based on 21 projects nationally, from the initial group of 24 which were identified in the scoping process. This report provides a 'snapshot' of mentoring in early 2002. Since then new projects have started and others have ceased operation. From the snapshot the following profile emerges:

62 per cent are run by community organisations.
Government is the primary funding source for most projects.
More than half those surveyed cited insufficient funding as a significant weakness for the programme.
Almost half the projects are pilot programmes.
Most programmes have organisational autonomy from government.

Models and organisational structure: good practice

Both the Australian and international literature, as well as the consultations which took place as part of this project, point to a number of features of mentoring programmes which can be seen as good practice.

Programme objectives

The literature and consultations show that it is important to develop well defined programme objectives and operating principles (involving designation of tasks, accounting principles etc). Ideally, these should be developed in consultation with potential participants and stakeholders. Programme plans should be realistic and attainable, and maintain a degree of flexibility as the programme develops.

Some key principles that a service should establish prior to operation include:

A tightly defined target group.
Sufficient trained staff to run the programme and provide support to participants.
Clear guidelines relating to the recruitment and screening of mentors.
Well developed links with a range of local agencies who can support the work of the programme.

Naturalistic versus formal

Mentoring programmes can be divided between 'formal' and 'naturalistic' in their approach, with formal programmes being more regimented. There is no evidence from the literature or the consultations concerning whether formal or naturalistic programmes are more effective, other than it appears important for formal programmes to avoid simply replicating a 'youth worker' function.

A mentoring project should establish a clear conceptual philosophy regarding the nature of the programme and whether it will take a formal or naturalistic approach to mentoring.

Stand-alone versus integrated projects

A key Australian external evaluation report (of One2One in NSW) indicates that stand-alone mentoring projects may have greater difficulties 'getting off the ground' than integrated projects, and there was general agreement amongst the stakeholders consulted for this project that integrated projects are more likely to be effective. The literature also suggests that services other than mentoring should be available to the clients of mentoring programmes, either via that or other organisations.

Mentoring projects which are integrated into a range of other services appear more likely to be effective than those which are stand-alone.

Staff

Both the literature and the consultations indicate the importance of effective project staff. The need for strong overall coordination of the mentoring programme is essential to its success.

Staff running mentoring projects should be appropriately skilled and have clearly written job descriptions.

Establishment and administration

Establishing mentoring programmes involves effective scoping to determine need. It also requires effective consultation with specific groups, in particular Indigenous people and their organisations.

Strong organisational administration and infrastructure are essential for a mentoring programme to operate effectively.
Accountable and appropriate policies, practices and codes of conduct dealing with a range of issues need to be developed and put in place.

The mentoring process: good practice

The literature and consultations show that specific policies and processes around the mentoring relationship are likely to improve positive outcomes.

Initial meetings

The initial meeting between mentors and mentees should be used to establish a number of elements regarding the relationship, for example the procedure if someone cannot attend a meeting, when and where meetings will occur and so on.

A project should decide how much information the mentor will have in regards to the mentee prior to an initial meeting, taking into consideration the aims of the project and the safety of all participants.

Length of contact

To be fully effective, the mentoring relationship should be sustained over a long period of time. It is recommended that relationships last for a minimum of six months, with an ideal length of 12 months. Continuity and length are significant factors in the success of a mentoring relationship.

Frequency of contact

The frequency of contact will largely be determined by the nature of the project and the activities undertaken by the mentor and mentee. Contact must be 'regular and consistent.' The ideal frequency of contact suggested is once per week.

Parental involvement

Mentoring projects should engage parents or guardians of the mentee in the project where possible, including obtaining their permission and informing them as to the nature and extent of the mentoring relationship.

Activities undertaken by the mentor and mentee

Activities undertaken by the matched pair will be largely dependent on the nature of the programme. However where activities are not designated, it is recommended that the young person play a significant role in determining the activities that the pair engage in, and that they be fun, developmentally useful and low-cost. There should also be recognition of the need for differences in activities for young men and young women.

Ending the mentoring relationship

Programmes should have a clear policy on how and when to end mentoring relationships. This should include the mentor meeting with the mentee and discussing the close of the relationship. It should be kept in mind that while a relationship may have an 'official' end, the relationship may continue on a casual or indefinite basis.

Monitoring and supervising mentors

Provision of supervision, feedback and support by project staff for mentors that is consistent, timely and regular (although not too burdensome) is essential for any programme. Support can be in the form of group meetings, telephone contact, or face-to-face interviews. The frequency can be determined by each individual project, but an average of once per month (at least in the early stages of the relationship) is recommended.

Training and orienting mentors

Mentors should be required to undergo at least 20 hours of training prior to being matched with a young person. Training should be provided by people with appropriate qualifications, and include an overview of the programme, clarification of commitment requirements, boundaries and limitations, crisis management and problem solving, communication skills and a summary of policies and guidelines.

Finding and employing mentors: good practice

The literature and consultations show that there are a number of practices which should be put in place when selecting and employing mentors.

Recruiting mentors

When recruiting mentors, a project must provide a clear and realistic idea of the benefits and expectations of mentoring, including the level of commitment required.

There is no one 'good practice' in recruiting - the mode of recruiting will depend largely on the types of people who are desired as mentors (such as ethnicity, interests, age, etc). It should be noted that personality is often considered to be more important than physical, social or racial demographics.

Characteristics of mentors

There are a number of characteristics which should be focused on when recruiting mentors, with the most important elements being the ability to listen, a non-judgemental attitude, flexibility, respect for and ability to relate to young people and reliability/consistency.

Screening procedures

Mentors should be rigorously screened prior to being matched with a young person. At a minimum, screening processes for mentors should include at least one personal interview with project staff, a criminal record check, a reference check and an application form.

Excluding mentors with criminal records

A criminal record should not necessarily preclude someone from being a mentor; indeed, some programmes even seek out people with a criminal record to act as mentors. However, any person who has been convicted of sexual offences, any offences against children, any violence offence, or any serious offence within the past five years should not be accepted as a mentor.

Matching

The matching process should be based on a clear and consistent policy. While sex, race, ethnicity and cultural background may be considerations, the primary factors in matching should be the interests, needs and goals of the young person.

Any mentoring programme should take care to consider the cultural circumstances of both their mentors and their mentees when developing programme and relationship structures. This issue is likely to be particularly significant for Indigenous people as both mentors and mentees.

Paid versus volunteer mentors

There is no evidence to indicate whether it is preferable to employ paid or volunteer mentors. However, payment may be particularly important where there is an attempt to include specific groups of people as mentors (such as Indigenous people) who are likely to fall within a lower socio-economic bracket.

It is good practice to reimburse mentors for agreed costs and out of pocket expenses relating to the relationship (such as fares, mileage, entry fees etc). Receipts and/or proof of purchase should be required for reimbursement.

Selecting mentees and developing a programme: good practice

Like the selection of mentors, the literature and consultations show that there are a number of issues which need to be considered when selecting mentees and developing an appropriate mentoring relationship and programme. Consideration of these issues will assist in developing good practice.

Recruiting

For mentoring projects to operate they need a steady supply of suitable clients. The importance of strong referral networks is demonstrated by the experience of several Australian mentoring projects outlined in this report.

Projects which have had the greatest success in recruiting young people have well-established and effective networks to provide a regular and adequate source of appropriate referrals.

Screening and assessing mentees

There needs to be put in place a screening process to assess suitable mentees. It is particularly important to identify a number of issues in this process.

Voluntary versus mandated clients. The research and consultations show that there are potential problems with taking young people as mentees when they are mandated to attend the programme. It may be preferable to only accept young people voluntarily into a mentoring project, irrespective of whether they are subject to a court-imposed supervisory order.
Violence and the potential for harm. It is generally regarded as good practice not to accept any mentees who may pose a threat to their mentor.
The need for professional assistance or intervention in place of mentoring. Some potential mentees may require far more professional support than can be provided by a mentor (eg for mental health problems or serious drug problems).

The programme activities

There are no specific 'rules' about what works in relation to the activities undertaken during the mentoring process. However, several points emerge from the literature and the consultations.

There is a need to proactively 'sell' the programme to young people.
There needs to be a focus on activities which are appealing to young people.
High profile mentors or coordinators can be particularly appealing to young people.

Mentoring programmes for young offenders

In the course of the scoping consultations for this study, it appeared that there were numerous mentoring projects operating around Australia for 'at risk' young people, but relatively few covering the specific target group of young offenders or young people at risk of offending.

The evidence shows that mentoring with young offenders may be more intensive or complex for young offenders than generally 'at risk' young people (especially in relation to mentoring frequency).
Therefore, programmes need to carefully consider the implications of the target group and develop programme elements and strategies accordingly, especially:
- the greater resources needed for young offenders
- the greater demands on mentors.

Evaluation: an essential part of good practice

This report has found that in practice most mentoring programmes both overseas and in Australia have not been subject to a formal evaluation, particularly of an external nature. Monitoring and evaluation is essential for any mentoring programme to determine its effectiveness.

Projects should engage in thorough data collection and be subject to regular external evaluation. This is particularly critical for projects in the earlier stages of development.
There is a need to build evaluation processes and mechanisms into any mentoring project from its very inception.
Information and data should be collected and retained throughout the programme, including personal data for all participants, administrative information, programme data, output measures and outcome measures.
External evaluations are preferable to internal evaluations.

Determining the effectiveness of mentoring

The general lack of evaluation of mentoring programmes significantly limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of mentoring in reducing offending and problematic behaviour or in improving self-esteem and social skills.

From the overseas and Australian literature the following conclusions can be drawn:

Mentoring is a promising but unproven strategy.
Mentoring can achieve positive outcomes for some young people.
Mentoring is only suitable for some young people.
Where positive outcomes have been reported from mentoring programmes in both Australia and overseas, they have been short-term. Overall there is a dearth of evidence of long-term impacts of mentoring programmes.

Despite the significant limitations on research and evaluation, some tentative points can be drawn on the basis of some successful mentoring projects.

Reduced offending

Some mentoring programmes both overseas and in Australia report a reduction in offending by young people who have participated in mentoring programmes.

Reduced substance misuse, and other risky behaviours

Some evaluations of mentoring programmes also report reductions in substance misuse (drugs and/or alcohol) or other risk-taking behaviours.

Increased participation/performance in education, training and employment

Another finding reported by some mentoring programmes is either greater participation in or better performance in education, training and/or employment.

Improved self-esteem, social/communication skills and personal relationships

A number of mentoring programmes also report improvements in more general qualities or skills in the young person such as enhanced self-esteem and social/communication skills and improved relationships with others such as family and peers.

Mentoring is only suitable for some young people

The literature and consultations show that mentoring will only be suitable for some young people. There are two aspects to this point:

Not all young people will be suitable to refer into mentoring programmes. In other words, some young people will be screened out as unsuitable for mentoring.
Mentoring will not work for all young people referred into programmes. There will also be some young people who will not successfully engage in a mentoring relationship.

There is some limited evidence that the effectiveness of mentoring may vary according to the demographic characteristics of mentees.

Age. Generally younger people (in their earlier teens) are more receptive to mentoring approaches.
Sex. There is some limited UK evidence which suggests that mentoring may reduce offending more effectively in girls than in boys.
Race/ethnicity. Based on the available US information, the benefits of mentoring programmes for Indigenous and ethnic minority youth are unclear. However, in the Australian consultations some argued that mentoring programmes are likely to be particularly effective for Indigenous young people.

Indigenous programmes

Information was gathered on a number of Australian Indigenous specific programmes through both the consultation process and the literature review. These programmes included the Aboriginal Family Supervision Programme (AFSP, Perth), the Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team (MAYT) Mentor Programme (Adelaide), Panyappi (Adelaide), Bush Breakaway (Ceduna, SA) and the Finding Yourself Programme (Echuca, Victoria). The data indentified a number of mentoring issues which are specific to Indigenous programmes:

There needs to be sensitivity about the location of the programme - particularly if it is seen as 'too close' to government.
There may be an added need for flexibility in programme delivery if Aboriginal young people are in remote or isolated communities.
Adequate scoping and consultation is particularly important for Indigenous projects, to ensure that they will be acceptable to and engage with those communities.
Indigenous projects need to continue to engage with the Indigenous community once they are in operation. This may involve special measures to ensure participation in steering committees.
Projects need to be specifically promoted within Aboriginal communities using measures which are likely to reach those communities.
Some Indigenous projects reported that because the mentoring positions were only part-time it was more difficult to recruit mentors. There are also stronger arguments for the payment of Indigenous mentors given the lower socio-economic status of Indigenous people.
While it should not be assumed that it is always appropriate to match an Indigenous young person with an Indigenous mentor, most Indigenous projects found that it was often beneficial to match Aboriginal mentors and mentees.
Aboriginal family and kinship networks may place significant cultural requirements on how mentoring is organised.

In terms of the specific external evaluation of the AFSP in Perth, some significant results were:

All nine caregivers interviewed reported positive changes in their children as a result of the programme, and most identified positive effects on the family.
All of the 20 participants interviewed 'overwhelmingly endorsed the programme' and would recommend it to others like themselves. Of the nine caregivers interviewed, eight also thought that the programme was 'good'.

As previously noted, there is a relatively widespread view that mentoring is likely to be particularly effective for Indigenous young people. This may in part derive from the opportunity mentoring provides for Aboriginal organisations and Aboriginal people to actively participate in the process of working with Aboriginal young offenders.

Recommendations for Stage 2

A requirement of this research is to make recommendations to the CPB for Stage 2 of the project. Arising from the review of the Australian and international literature and the consultations which were undertaken, there are a number of activities which could be carried out in the future.

National workshop

Option 1: Organise a national workshop/conference for all mentoring projects and other key stakeholders (eg agencies which fund mentoring projects).

It was clear from the consultations that many mentoring projects have little contact with, or knowledge about, other mentoring projects which are operating within Australia. It could be highly productive to organise a national workshop/conference for all mentoring projects (and funders of such projects) from around Australia to come together to discuss key issues including: good practice, evaluation techniques, key research findings etc. Such a meeting would provide the opportunity to develop links between mentoring projects. A report from the national workshop could be prepared for public distribution.

An example of a similar exercise is a prior project conducted by Urbis Keys Young for the CPB. This involved organising, facilitating and reporting on a national roundtable conference on the design and management of public space, particularly focusing on youth issues (Keys Young 2000).

A good practice manual

Option 2: Develop a good practice manual.

The development of a manual which outlines good practice would be a direct and practical way to assist existing mentoring projects, as well as new projects which are in the process of development.

A good practice manual would provide hands-on advice about and examples of how to set up a programme, policy and practice issues, recruitment, training, targeting, evaluation etc.

Both Option 1 and Option 2 provide the opportunity for practical assistance to mentoring projects, particularly when the consultations revealed relatively limited knowledge of or contact between mentoring programmes. Options 1 and Option 2 could be undertaken jointly.

Evaluation

Option 3: Fund evaluations of existing mentoring programmes.

It was apparent from the consultations that most mentoring projects remain unevaluated, and that where evaluation does take place it is often internal and not rigorous in its evaluative standards.

CPB could fund one or more evaluations of existing mentoring programmes which have not been previously externally evaluated. Such evaluations would need to be longitudinal and include measures related to re-offending.

Funding existing programmes

Option 4: Provide funding to existing mentoring programmes.

A further option is to provide funding to existing mentoring programmes, preferably on an ongoing rather than pilot basis. The consultations revealed that many projects are uncertain about their funding and exist with a 'pilot' status. Such a situation is unsatisfactory in terms of developing and maintaining professional and effective service delivery. In providing funding to existing mentoring programmes, preference should be given to projects without any ongoing government funding.

Introduction

This is the Final Report on the project.

What is mentoring?

Mentoring has been defined as:

A mutually beneficial relationship which involves a more experienced person helping a less experienced person. A mentor programme for young people at risk aims to match the young people with appropriate mentors, and support the relationship over time. (ARTD 2001b, p.iv)

Background to the research

The CPB has received $8 million in funding for early intervention initiatives with young people and their families under the Youth Crime and Families Strategy. There has also been an emphasis on early intervention with young people and their families across the Commonwealth government generally, through the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy.

The CPB was aware that:

There had been some promising overseas research reporting the benefits of mentoring with young offenders and young people at risk of offending.
Various mentoring projects concerning this target group had been or were being conducted around Australia, but there was little information about them.

The Branch therefore wanted to research how mentoring was being used in these programmes across Australia, and which strategies appeared to be effective.

Objectives of the project

The project involved a national audit and review of mentoring programmes around Australia in order to:

provide a national profile of mentoring programmes for young offenders
identify models and good practice
identify key crime prevention outcomes from youth mentoring
make recommendations for Stage 2 of the project.

Structure of this report

The report is divided into the following sections:

Methodology
Organisational context of mentoring programmes
Mentors
Mentees
Evaluation
The effectiveness of mentoring programmes
Conclusion

The research for this report draws upon the following sources:

the Australian and international research collected for the literature review. Since only a small amount of Australian literature was available, most of the discussion refers to international studies. However, particular emphasis is given to the findings of the small number of Australian evaluation reports, particularly those which are external in nature. (This inevitably means that greater emphasis is placed in this report on these externally evaluated projects.)
the consultations for this project, including a postal survey, field work and interviews. The findings of the qualitative consultations were largely consistent with the findings of the overseas literature. Therefore more detailed discussion of these qualitative findings has generally been limited to:
- any areas where this was not the case
- useful examples/lessons which appear to have more general applicability
- topics of particular relevance to the Australian context eg specific issues concerning Indigenous mentoring projects.

Some issues discussed in the literature were not specifically covered in the Australian consultations. In these instances discussion is limited to the findings from the literature.

Methodology

Definition of mentoring

One of the most challenging aspects of the project was developing an appropriate and precise definition of mentoring for the purpose of the study. Projects were included only where the following five criteria were satisfied:

Mentoring is a significant or primary component of the project, and this has been defined and documented by the project itself (eg in the aims and objectives).
A significant or primary target group of the project is young people who (i) have previously committed criminal offences or (ii) have been identified as being at risk of committing criminal offences.
The target group is young people, including (but not necessarily exclusively) young people aged 18 years or below.
The mentors used are community members rather than people acting in a professional capacity such as youth workers.
The programme is currently operational.

Quite a few projects were excluded from the study because they did not meet this definition. For instance, a number were aimed at young people at risk generally, rather than those who had been specifically identified as at risk of offending.

Key components of the methodology

The project comprised the following key components:

literature review
initial scoping consultations to identify mentoring projects
postal survey
fieldwork
supplementary telephone and face-to-face interviews
meeting with crime prevention officers from around Australia
data analysis and reporting.

These are discussed in turn below.

Literature review

A review was conducted of Australian and selected overseas literature on mentoring for young offenders and young people identified as at risk of offending. Generally, material published between 1997 and 2001 was included. Literature databases were only searched for material published in this timeframe. However, a small amount of material published before and after this timeframe was identified through other methods (eg internet searches and the consultation process).

Searches were conducted in January 2002 by RAPID Services at the University of NSW (a specialist search service) and Urbis Keys Young researchers. The following Australian databases were searched:

AFPD (Australian Federal Police Digest)
AGIS (Attorney-General's Information Service)
APAIS (Australian Public Affairs Information Service)
ATSIC (ATSIC Library Catalogue)
ATSIHEALTH (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health)
CINCH (Australian criminology)
FAMILY (Australian Family and Society)
Indigenous Studies Bibliography
KINETICA (The National Bibliographic Database - holdings of major Australian libraries)
MAIS (Multicultural Australian and Immigration Studies)
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (good practice database)
Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies (abstracts database).

The following international databases were searched:

Current Contents
Family and Society Abstracts
Index New Zealand
Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals
Index to Legal Periodicals
NCJRS (National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
Social Sciences Citation Index
Social Services Abstracts
Social Work Abstracts
Sociological Abstracts.

An internet search for relevant material was also conducted.

In addition, some literature was identified and obtained during the project consultations. This was the case with most of the Australian evaluations cited in this report, which were often either not formally published or not widely circulated.

Initial scoping consultations to identify mentoring projects

An initial scoping exercise was conducted to identify mentoring projects within the scope of the definition described earlier. This involved distribution of a standard letter in January/February 2002 (in most cases via email) to key agencies around Australia which may have been aware of mentoring programmes. (A copy of this letter is attached at Appendix A.) The letter was also distributed via various email discussion lists. These included, for instance, crimnet (criminology) and yarn (youth issues).

This consultation process was effective. Use of email meant that people were able to easily forward on the information to others. A number of emails and phonecalls were received from people suggesting projects which might potentially fall within the scope of the study. This included a number of smaller and/or newer projects which may not have been identified otherwise.

During this consultation process, informal telephone consultations were conducted with most of the projects ultimately included in the project. This material has been drawn on in the report.

The scoping process ultimately identified 24 projects nationally. 1

Postal survey

A postal survey was conducted of the 24 identified mentoring projects. The survey was distributed in March 2002, in most cases by email. Responses from 21 projects were received.2 A copy of the survey is attached at Appendix B.

Fieldwork

Face-to-face consultations

More in-depth face-to-face consultations were conducted with seven mentoring projects nationally between February and June 2002. The projects were:

Whitelion, Melbourne
Great Mates, Perth
the Aboriginal Family Supervision Programme (AFSP), Perth
Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team (MAYT), Adelaide
the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Mentoring Scheme
One2One, Parramatta and Coffs Harbour/Clarence,3 NSW
the Bush Law Action Plan Partners project, Port Pirie, SA.

Consultations were conducted with a range of informants, including:

field staff
key external stakeholders who could comment on the project
mentors
young people who had participated in mentoring projects.

In most instances the consultations were conducted in groups.

There were some constraints concerning who could be consulted for the project. These constraints included, for instance, lengthy ethics clearance processes and the fact that some key people were unavailable at the time the consultations took place. For some projects access to young people would not have been permitted in any circumstances.

Ultimately, consultations were conducted with:

field staff for all seven projects
external stakeholders for six projects
mentors for five projects
young people for two projects. A small financial incentive ($25) was provided to the young people to encourage their participation.

Copies of the question guides used for consultations with project staff, external stakeholders, mentors and young people are provided at Appendix C.

Supplementary telephone and face-to-face interviews

Telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with selected key informants to supplement the data from the field visits. The question guide for stakeholders (see Appendix C) was used for these consultations.

Meeting with crime prevention officers

Crime prevention officers from around Australia were consulted face-to-face at one of their regular meetings in Sydney in February 2002.

Data analysis and reporting

The final stage of the project involved data analysis and reporting. The data analysis included:

entry of the quantitative data from the surveys into a database, and processing of the results
analysis of the qualitative data from the survey, field work and telephone interviews.

Some caveats

Three caveats should be noted about the project:

Three projects did not provide a completed survey. Therefore data from these projects is not included in this report, other than in relation to the location of mentoring projects (unless information about the project was available from another source).
This report provides a 'snapshot' of mentoring projects identified in early 2002. However, there appears to be a high turnover of mentoring projects in Australia, with both new projects being established and existing ones closing. For instance, the consultants are aware that at the time of writing this report three of the projects included in the study are no longer operational,4 and two other new mentoring projects have been established.5 The 'snapshot' provided could therefore potentially be rather different in say 12 months. However, given that Australian mentoring projects were found to have many similarities in relation to their core features, the general findings of this study are likely to hold true.
Only a small amount of Australian literature exists on mentoring for young offenders. Most of the projects included in the study have not been subject to formal evaluation (particularly external evaluation). Of those which have been evaluated, not all of the reports could be obtained.6 The consultations conducted for this project cannot be regarded as 'evaluation' of the projects. The lack of evaluation limits the extent to which definitive conclusions can be drawn about the most effective way to conduct mentoring projects in this country. The discussion of good practice in this report should therefore be understood in this context.

Notes

1 This included the One2One project which was operating in two different locations. One2One was treated as two separate projects for the purpose of analysis because of differences between the two programmes.
2 See Footnote 1 above.
3 The Coffs Harbour site was not visited, but stakeholders in Sydney discussed both sites of the programme.

4 The Parramatta site of One2One in NSW, the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project in Port Pirie, SA, and the Brayton Mentoring Initiative in Shepparton, Victoria.
5 As at January 2003 these are: the Education Queensland Pilot Mentoring Projects funded by the Department of Education, Science and Training, Queensland (which operate in seven schools around the State, including in two schools in youth detention centres ie Brisbane Youth Detention Centre and Cleveland Youth Detention Centre in Townsville); and the Mates and Legends Programme run by the Programmes Branch of the Young Men's Christian Association in Alice Springs for young offenders and young people at risk of offending (although no clients have been seen to date).
6 Examples of reports which could not be obtained include the full report on the external evaluation of the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme, which has not been publicly released. Only the Executive Summary of this report was made available, and is referred to in this report. Internal evaluations of Great Mates in Perth, and the Family and Youth Services (FAYS) Mentor Programme within the Department of Human Services (DHS) in South Australia (SA), were also unavailable.

Organisational context of mentoring programmes

Location of mentoring projects

A total of 24 mentoring projects were identified around Australia. The number of projects in each state and territory varied considerably:

Almost two-thirds of the projects were located in two states, Victoria (nine projects) and South Australia (six projects each).
Several other jurisdictions had two or three projects each: Western Australia (three); New South Wales ( three, including two sites for one programme); the Northern Territory (two); and the Australian Capital Territory (one).

There were no projects identified in Tasmania or Queensland (although it is known that two projects are currently being established in Queensland).

There are a number of possible reasons for the marked variation in the number of mentoring projects across states. These include:

differences in the perceived 'fit' between mentoring programmes and the overall policy emphasis and priorities in particular states (particularly by key funding agencies). This was apparent from the meeting with crime prevention officers from around Australia for this project. Some informants also suggested that one of the reasons for the large number of mentoring projects in Victoria was the strong policy emphasis on early intervention for young offenders in that state.
the perception that mentoring may be particularly appropriate for certain sub-groups of that state's population. For instance, three Indigenous-specific mentoring projects are located in SA, all of which have government funding (Bush Breakaway in Ceduna, and Panyappi and the Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team (MAYT) Mentor Programme in Adelaide).
previous experiences with mentoring projects in that state. For instance one government funder reported that it would have some reservations about funding another mentoring project specifically for young offenders given its past experiences with funding projects of this nature.
the interest in mentoring developed by key individuals. For instance, consultations indicated that some mentoring projects - particularly smaller, community-based projects - have been set up on the initiative of one key person.

The remainder of this report refers only to the 21 mentoring projects from which survey responses were received (except where information on the project was available from another source).

Auspicing organisation

The majority of mentoring projects are run by community organisations (62 per cent).
Government agencies are the sole or primary funding source for most mentoring projects (67 per cent). No projects were funded primarily by non-government agencies. Initiatives that did not receive funding from the government stated that their funding came from a mix of sources. One service noted that its mentoring project was provided on a fee-for-service basis.
Government agencies that currently fund mentoring programmes cover a variety of different sectors. For instance they include organisations concerned with justice/juvenile justice, crime prevention, child and family welfare and health issues. This reflects the range of different programme areas that mentoring is seen as relating to. (This is commonly the case with early intervention programmes.)
Forty-eight per cent of projects reported that their initiative was a pilot or trial programme, 29 per cent stated that their project was running for a fixed time (some projects nominated both these options), and 43 per cent stated that their project was an ongoing one.

The literature does not provide guidance on the implications of different auspicing organisations and funding sources, other than noting that many of the young people that mentoring projects of this nature seek to reach as mentees are from low socio-economic backgrounds. A fee-for-service mode of provision where the young person or their family is expected to meet the costs may reduce or preclude access for some young people in need. However, a different, and less problematic, fee-for-service model is where government contracts non-government organisations to provide individual mentoring services on a fee basis. This is a common model used for Australian mentoring programmes.

The literature also notes that to be successful, mentoring programmes require organisational autonomy (Jurik et al 2000, p.315). Many of the Australian programmes appear to have organisational autonomy, although there are some mentoring projects that are run under the auspices of various state government departments. Some issues were raised during the consultations about the potential complications this could raise, particularly where the agency has statutory or legal authority over the young person. These include:

potential dilemmas for mentors as they are mandatory notifiers of child abuse in some programmes:

This is very difficult for mentors, since they're working very closely with the young people. They're saying 'I'm your friend but I can tell on you'. We've really had to work hard with our mentors about what their statutory obligations are. There's also a cultural element - there's often mistrust of the welfare sector [in the Aboriginal community]. (Indigenous Mentoring Programme)
whether participation by the young person can be regarded as truly voluntary when this is pursuant to a formal court order (see below).

However, auspicing by government agencies does not seem to have caused any significant problems for Australian mentoring programmes. All the government-sponsored programmes in the study received higher levels of funding than those run by community organisations and reported similar project strengths and issues compared to non-government programmes. It was also clear that - perhaps not surprisingly - the programmes that have been in operation the longest time tend to have ongoing government funding.

Nonetheless, from the consultations it appeared that it is preferable for a mentoring programme to at least have the feel of being a community-based, youth-friendly organisation, and be perceived as such by young people and others. This is regardless of whether the funding source is government or otherwise.

More successful mentoring projects seem to be viewed by young people and others as being 'separate' and 'different' from the 'standard' agencies which might be working with young people such as juvenile justice and child welfare. This makes the project more welcoming to young people, and differentiates it from those other agencies. From the consultations with mentees it was clear that this is particularly critical given that they have often had contact with multiple workers from numerous agencies over considerable periods of time. It is important to counteract the view that this will be just another agency who's going to tell them what to do.

This 'community-based' feel of a mentoring agency might extend, for example, to the nature of the premises selected. As noted in the literature, it is important for mentoring programmes to be established in premises where young people feel comfortable and welcome, which are accessible by public transport, and where there is sufficient meeting and activity space for events and meetings. It is also important to consider any associations or inferences that may be drawn from selection of premises, as young people may not feel comfortable in premises located near certain organisations, such as the police (Benioff 1997, p.20).

An example of an innovative youth-friendly choice of premises is the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project based in Port Pirie, SA. This initiative has premises that include a converted old train, which also houses a restaurant used for employment training of young offenders. The MAYT Mentor Programme in Adelaide also reports that it is housed in a kid friendly building, without any security arrangements required to enter.

The attitude and approach of staff and the organisation generally can also promote the 'community-based' feel of a mentoring organisation and again differentiate it from 'standard' agencies. For instance the MAYT Mentor Programme in Adelaide reported that it provides a very welcoming and informal environment to young people through means such as:

adopting a general philosophy that kids are first, process is second
always ensuring that when they attend the premises someone here will always find something to do with them
providing showers and toiletries for the young people to use, since, for example, there may be no power on at their home
providing food at lunchtimes.

Through approaches such as these, MAYT gives the message to say we care, and lets it be known that young people are welcome to drop in at any time. The project also observed that their clients don't see us as part of the criminal justice system.

It may also be beneficial for mentoring projects funded by government to 'downplay' this fact. For instance, the Panyappi project in Adelaide is auspiced by MAYT. MAYT is part of DHS but has experience working at the community level. Mentors with Panyappi have reported that association of the project with the state government is:

sensitive with the [Aboriginal] community, and that when introducing the project, emphasis is placed on the project and its co-location with MAYT rather than the government connection. (Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department 2002, p.10)

Funding

Under-funding is a major issue for Australian mentoring projects, with more than half of those surveyed citing insufficient funding or a lack of resources as a significant weakness in their programme, and a serious challenge to the programme's operation.

Sherman et al (1998) estimate the cost of mentoring (if mentors are volunteers) to be $US1,000 (around $A1,800) per match, including staffing, infrastructure and procedures (Grossman & Garry 1997, p.5). On the other hand, Peel and Calvert estimate the cost to be £2,000 (around $A5,600) per young person (Peel & Calvert n.d.).

Funding levels in Australia for current mentoring projects range from $20,000 - $500,000 annually. The average amount of annual funding is $125,962. When projects were asked if they were confident about the continuation of their funding over the next two years, 71 per cent reported that they were confident, while 29 per cent stated that they were not.

Funding insecurity has clearly impacted on the development of mentoring programmes in Australia. For instance, there is a tendency for mentoring programmes to be established and then vanish, to concentrate on their most immediate programme goals, and to place little emphasis on evaluation. It also appears that mentoring programmes can take a comparatively long time to effectively establish. This may mean that newly-established programmes can be in danger of not getting fully 'off the ground' before their funding ceases.

Formal versus naturalistic mentoring programmes

The literature refers to mentoring projects as being either 'formal' or 'naturalistic':

Formal programmes tend to be more regimented in nature and involve the mentor and young person completing designated tasks together. Some formal programmes are more focused on the juvenile justice or education systems, and involve activities such as the completion of homework, job applications or the requirements of juvenile justice orders, attending appointments and so on. Australian examples include the mentoring programmes run by the WA Ministry of Justice and the NSW DJJ, which both focus on completion of specific tasks in case plans. Another example is the Big hART programme in Melbourne, which solely comprises activities based around the production of artistic materials.
Naturalistic programmes take a more informal approach to the development of the relationship and activities that the mentor and young person undertake together. For example, they might go for a coffee together, do sporting activities, or just 'hang out' together. Examples in Australia include Great Mates in WA and One2One in NSW.

The conceptual philosophy of the initiative (ie formal versus naturalistic) will usually develop from the nature of the programme and its objectives, and may also be influenced by the auspicing or funding organisation (Ave et al 1999, p.79). Formal programmes will tend to be more regimented and structured in nature.

Some Australian programmes have both formal and naturalistic elements. An example is the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project in Port Pirie, SA, which is funded under the Commonwealth JPET (Job Placement, Employment and Training) initiative. Activities include employment-related activities such as completion of job applications (formal), as well as general 'hanging out', meeting for coffees etc (naturalistic).

There is no evidence from the literature or the consultations concerning whether formal or naturalistic programmes are more effective, other than it appears important that formal programmes avoid simply replicating a 'youth worker' or conventional worker role. This can be a temptation for mentoring programmes, particularly those run by agencies with some statutory or other formal responsibility for the young person, such as juvenile justice.

For instance the external evaluation of the mentoring programme run by the NSW DJJ observes that this programme, as well as the AFSP in Perth and the programme run by FAYS in SA:

have significant differences from conventional mentor programmes, as they set up short term relationships within the period of the order, focus on tasks in the case plan, and employ para-professional 'mentors' rather than use volunteers. (ARTD 2001b, p.v)

The report notes that in retrospect the aims and objectives of the DJJ scheme encompassed two different functions. These were the provision of both:

a traditional mentoring relationship
para-professional support (of a practical, emotional and cultural nature) to clients within their case plans.

One of the key conclusions of the report was that the programme had become primarily directed towards the latter rather than the former function, ie providing case support rather than mentoring (ARTD 2001b, p.v).

Programme objectives

From the outset, a mentoring project should have well defined objectives, a clearly stated mission, and established operating principles (involving designation of tasks, accounting principles etc). Ideally, these should be developed in consultation with potential participants and stakeholders. Programme plans should be realistic and attainable, and maintain a degree of flexibility as the programme develops.

A mentoring project should establish a clear conceptual philosophy regarding the nature of the programme, and whether it will take a formal or naturalistic approach to mentoring.

The overseas literature states that it is important for mentoring programmes to have clear and realistic objectives. It is important that objectives for any mentoring programme be developed at the outset of the programme, so that the programme may be tailored to accommodate them (Youth Justice Board n.d.; Mentoring Australia 2000). These objectives or statements of purpose should ideally be developed in conjunction with stakeholders and participants, and will differ depending on the nature and goals of the programme (Mentoring Australia 2000).

Both overseas and in Australia, mentoring programmes for young offenders and young people at risk of offending typically have aims such as:

reducing crime and other anti-social behaviour by young people
reducing other problematic behaviours, such as drug and alcohol use
improving self-esteem, social skills etc.

Programmes also typically aim - either implicitly or explicitly - to achieve long-term and sustainable changes in these areas.

From the objectives provided by survey respondents, it appears that the majority of Australian mentoring projects have recognised the need for clear programme objectives. The external evaluation of the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme highlights some problems experienced by the programme in relation to this issue. The programme aimed to provide both a conventional mentoring relationship and a case support function. This created some 'confusion' in how the programme was implemented in practice (ARTD 2001b, p.v).

Among the Australian mentoring programmes surveyed, some had simple, forthright statements as objectives such as:

To reduce a young person's need to offend, to facilitate the use of social skills in the community, and to ensure young persons can access and utilise resources available in the community. (WA Department of Justice's Juvenile Justice Mentoring Programme)

On the other hand, some programmes had more complex and ambitious objectives such as those for the Panyappi programme in Adelaide:

to promote self-discovery and self-determination by young people participating in the project and family and community.

While many project objectives were general in nature and focused on the need to reduce reoffending or anti-social behavior by young people, some were more specific and directly based on individual programme activities. An example is the objectives of the Big hART programme, run from the Parkville Detention Centre in Victoria, which include:

Mentoring young women in Parkville to produce profound artworks in film, music and new media that can represent them and their issues to local, state and national forums.

Along with a well-defined mission statement, established operating principles are central to a programme's success (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1; Mentoring Australia 2000). These principles should ideally cover a broad range of issues and provide clear guidance for staff, project managers and stakeholders on key aspects of the project's operations (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.2). The Youth Justice Board in the UK suggests that some of the key principles that a service should establish prior to operation include:

a tightly defined target group
sufficient trained staff to run the programme and provide support to participants
clear guidelines relating to the recruitment and screening of mentors
well-developed links with a range of local agencies which can support the work of the programme (Youth Justice Board n.d.).

Flexibility and adaptability are crucial for any mentoring programme. Programmes need to be imaginative and thoughtful in overcoming barriers and altering the programme to best serve the target group (OJJDP 1998, pp.18-22). A number of the mentoring projects examined for this study reported that they had changed or modified different aspects of their work or strategies as it became apparent that certain approaches worked better than others. The external evaluation of the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme concluded that one of the strengths of the programme was that it had enabled:

the Department to support clients around the state with very diverse needs and in very different circumstances, including a large number of Aboriginal clients. It has been a flexible service achieved by an open programme definition, and the creative responses of staff to meeting the needs of clients. (ARTD 2001b, p.vi)

Any programme plan must be realistic and easily attainable, with full descriptions of the role of each participant, an assessment of need, and clear goals, objectives and timelines for all aspects of the programme (Mentoring Australia 2000). Programmes should also ensure they have written policies and procedures covering issues such as rights, responsibilities, confidentiality, legal issues, insurance, duty of care, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), sexual harassment, grievance issues, and ethical issues (Mentoring Australia 2000).

Stand-alone versus integrated projects

Mentoring projects which are integrated into a range of other services are more likely to be effective than those which are stand-alone.

Mentoring projects can be either stand-alone initiatives, or integrated into a range of services offered by the auspicing organisation.

Many programmes, both in Australia and overseas, are integrated into other service offerings. Mentoring is therefore a component which supplements or enhances other project elements. Common examples of additional elements, both in Australia and overseas, include:

drug education programmes
life skills programmes
career or job-seeking techniques
educational/academic assistance.

Mentoring projects that are linked to juvenile justice agencies/facilities tend to feature more of these additional elements, such as education, psycho-social assessment, violence reduction programmes, parent education sessions, supervised recreational activities and skill-building activities (Mathieson 1997, pp.110-115; Howitt et al 1998, p.39). Again this is a feature of both Australian and overseas programmes.

In projects where mentoring is linked with other services, the mentors will often specifically concentrate on building on these other programme elements through tutoring, or positive reinforcement (Ware & Lucas n.d., pp.11-12).

In the United States for example, the Juvenile Mentoring Programme (JUMP) is tied in with a range of other programmes under the SafeFutures Initiative. These other programmes include after school, weekend and summer programmes, mental health services, family strengthening and support services, delinquency prevention programmes, tutoring, and the provision of drug treatment centres (Morley et al 2000, pp.10-11).

In Australia, many of the mentoring programmes surveyed incorporated casework, groupwork and counselling. Some also included activities such as:

employment or skills training eg the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project, Port Pirie, SA; the Whitelion Mentoring Programme in Melbourne; the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme; and One2One in NSW
residential components, wilderness activities and bush camps eg the Bush Breakaway Youth Action Programme in Ceduna, SA; the New Trax Programme in Melbourne; the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme; and the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project in Port Pirie, SA.

For some programmes, mentoring takes place on a more informal basis, rather than the formal basis used by traditional mentoring projects. For instance, as discussed below, this is the case with the New Trax Programme in Melbourne.

Another example is the Whitelion programme based in three juvenile justice institutions in Melbourne, which has developed a role-modelling programme (Lemmon and Bowen 2001). This programme involves visits by high profile personalities from the sports, arts and business communities, working with inmates on a group basis. However, informal one-to-one mentoring relationships between the 'role models' and the inmates have on occasion developed as a result of this experience. It was reported that such relationships have an advantage in that they evolve naturally. Having seen the benefits resulting from informal mentoring, Whitelion has recently established a formal one-to-one mentoring programme.

The external evaluation of One2One in NSW strongly suggests that stand-alone mentoring projects may experience greater difficulty getting off the ground than integrated projects. The project had trouble recruiting adequate numbers of young people (particularly in Parramatta), and lack of effective networks with key referral agencies was felt to be the most significant reason for this. It is of note that the project was run by the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), which had experience working with at-risk young people generally (under its Big Sisters Big Brothers - BSBB - programme),7 but not with the specific sub-group of young offenders.

The literature also suggests that services other than mentoring should be available to the clients of mentoring programmes, either via that or other organisations. Additional community support services, or interagency support is noted as an important factor in a responsible mentoring programme (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1).

There was clear agreement among the informants for this project that integrated mentoring projects are also more likely to be effective than those which are stand-alone. This is particularly critical given that many mentoring programmes appear to take a while to establish, and typically only have one or a small number of staff. Informants felt that it is more cost-effective, quicker and easier to establish a mentoring programme if there are already established infrastructure, administrative and professional support and networks with key agencies and potential clients. Therefore:

less establishment time is required
agency networks are already in place. This includes agencies both to act as referral sources and as referral points for clients requiring specialist services once they enter the mentoring programme
potential clients may be more likely to agree to participate in the mentoring programme.

For instance, the MAYT Mentor Programme in Adelaide estimated that around half of its mentoring clients have come to the project via various other youth programmes run by the organisation. Since those clients knew and trusted the staff, they were more receptive to the suggestion that they participate in the mentoring project than if approached 'cold' by another agency.

Another factor that was stressed in the consultations was the need for mentoring programmes to establish effective referral networks eg drug and alcohol services, mental health services, and educational institutions.

Knowing the key person in each of those agencies is crucial, so you can cut through stuff and eg avoid waiting lists. (Mentoring Programme)

Staff

Staff running mentoring projects should be appropriately skilled and have clearly written job descriptions.

Strong overall coordination of a mentoring programme is essential to its success.

Although mentors provide the most obvious labour undertaken for mentoring programmes, the role of the programme staff is critical. These staff require effective organisational and people skills in order to:

select appropriate mentors
provide ongoing monitoring of mentoring relationships once established
develop and monitor an effective network
provide strong structure and coordination of the programme.

The overall coordination role can be a quite labour-intensive task to undertake effectively and must be considered when developing and funding mentoring projects.

The literature states that staff running mentoring projects should be appropriately skilled, with clearly written job descriptions. In hiring, programmes should adhere to EEO principles (National Mentoring Working Group 1991, p.1; California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1). Cultural sensitivity and understanding should also be primary considerations in staff selection (Rogers & Taylor 1997, p.131; California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1).

For continuity, it is generally recommended in the literature that full-time rather than part-time staff run the programme, as full-time staff are more accessible and will have an increased awareness of current issues (Jones-Brown & Henriques 1997, p.224). However, this is more likely to exclude female applicants with family responsibilities.

Benioff outlines some key positions that no project should be without, including a project director, an administrative assistant, a mentoring coordinator, and an educational coordinator (Benioff 1997, p.19).

Nonetheless in Australia, this list of essential key positions seems somewhat of a luxury. Staffing is a significant issue for Australian mentoring projects, with many only having an average of one full-time staff member and an average of five part-time staff members. On average, each project only had one full-time or equivalent staff member, who tended to be the project coordinator.

Many projects commented that a lack of resources prevented them from hiring more staff, or that a lack of staff resulted in inadequate levels of contact between staff and participants. One project with only part-time staff commented that this placed significant limitations on its operation, while another commented that it felt the project would be more effective if two full-time workers could be employed.

This suggests that Australian mentoring programmes, particularly those on a larger scale, tend to be under-staffed. Some of the mentoring projects consulted for this review argued that this was the case. This was also a finding of the external evaluation of the Brayton Mentoring Initiative in Shepparton, Victoria (ARTD 2001a, p.A24).

Given that in Australia there is often only one staff member running the whole mentoring programme, it is perhaps not surprising that consultations indicated that the skills and capacity (or otherwise) of the project coordinator can make or break a mentoring programme. In other words, a programme is much more likely to be successful if it has a coordinator who is skilled, enthusiastic, develops effective networks, works well with mentors and young people, and provides effective overall coordination.

Establishment and administration

Establishing mentoring programmes involves effective scoping to determine need. It also requires effective consultation with specific groups, in particular Indigenous people and their organisations.

Strong organisational administration and infrastructure are essential for a mentoring programme to operate effectively. Accountable and appropriate policies, practices and codes of conduct dealing with a range of issues need to be developed and put in place.

Initial scoping

According to the literature, it is important that mentoring programmes are not hastily designed or implemented (Jones-Brown & Henriques 1997, p.228). Programmes should be adequately scoped and researched in advance.

This is clearly demonstrated by the experience of One2One in NSW. The external evaluation report concluded that inadequate scoping and poor planning of the project had been a key reason behind the slow development of the project following implementation. For instance:

Both sites were trying to cover geographical areas that were too large.
The Coffs Harbour/Clarence area had a high proportion of low income and unemployed families, making it difficult to recruit volunteers.
The Parramatta area had a large commuter population and much smaller residential population, making it more difficult to find mentors who lived in the area (ARTD 2002, pp.62-63).

Scoping and consultation for Indigenous projects

Consultations indicated that adequate scoping and consultation is particularly important in relation to Indigenous projects, to ensure that they will be acceptable to and engage effectively with those communities (see Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department 2002, p.10). For example, it was reported that there was extensive consultation with the Aboriginal community before implementation of the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme. Originally Indigenous young people constituted the sole target group for the project, and although this is no longer the case, they still comprise some 40-60 per cent of the programme's clients (ARTD 2001, p. vi). As noted above, the external evaluation of the scheme found that the programme had improved services to Aboriginal clients.

The Panyappi project in Adelaide is another project targeting young Indigenous people. Although the project has experienced a number of problems which have hampered its operations, one of the positive aspects of the programme has been its strong support in the Aboriginal community (Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department 2002, p.20). As with the NSW DJJ scheme, there was extensive community consultation undertaken during the development of the project through its Advisory Group (which included various key Aboriginal community groups and organisations) and more informal mechanisms.

The Advisory Group was also given as much decision-making authority as possible aside from funding and budgetary considerations (p.9). The input of the group was important in shaping the operationalisation of the project, through a variety of measures such as:

redrafting the project objectives to more realistically reflect community needs and achievable outcomes
changing the name of the project from the Indigenous Youth Mentoring Project to Panyappi (Kaurna language for younger brother or sister), to provide the project with a more positive identity for the project staff and its branding in the community (p.10).

It is also important for Indigenous projects to continue to engage with the Indigenous community once they are in operation. This can provide some challenges in practice. For instance, the external evaluation of the AFSP in Perth found that there was little awareness of the programme among both Aboriginal Elders and the Aboriginal Affairs Department. There had also been difficulty getting both involved in management of the project, and attendance at Steering Committee meetings had been poor. In addition, most members of the metropolitan Commission of Elders had no knowledge of the programme (Social Systems and Evaluation n.d., p.17). The evaluation concluded that the Aboriginal community had not been satisfactorily consulted or fully informed about the project.

It was reported that the Steering Committee for the AFSP was struggling to find the most constructive way of involving the Aboriginal community in the programme. This was felt to be important both in itself and as a means to facilitate the recruitment of mentors (Social Systems and Evaluation n.d., pp.iii-iv). The report notes that one approach which might be considered is to have Elders only attend one or two special Steering Committee meetings annually at which they can be briefed on progress and asked for advice on particular issues, rather than be expected to attend all Committee meetings when many of the issues covered are administrative matters of no great interest to them (p.18).

Strong support structure

According to the literature, a strong and well coordinated support infrastructure is also necessary for effective mentoring programmes (Singh & White 2000, p.29; Foster 2001, p.10). For example, the inconsistency of mentor record-keeping has been identified as a problem that can reduce the effectiveness of a programme (Singh & White 2000, p.29).

The available literature indicates that an inadequate management and support structure is one of the most common difficulties experienced by mentoring programmes in this country. For instance, one of the key problems identified by the external evaluation of the NSW DJJ Mentoring Scheme was substantive administrative difficulties, which have gradually been overcome in more recent years. These problems in part stemmed from inadequate state-wide management of the programme. This had led to marked differences in implementation by different offices and individual case managers, limited performance measurement and insufficient integration of the programme into the case management framework (ARTD 2002, pp. vi-vii).

Likewise with other Australian mentoring programmes:

Problems with inadequate case management, recording and accountability were identified by the external evaluation of the AFSP in Perth (Social Systems and Evaluation n.d., pp.20-21).
Deficits in management were noted in the external evaluation of One2One in NSW, given that it was being managed by the Sydney-based YWCA (ARTD 2002, p.63).

There are significant risks inherent to any mentoring programme. These include, for instance, risk of abuse, parental hostility, or potential feelings of rejection if a mentor fails to meet commitments. It is therefore crucial to establish accountable and appropriate policies, practices and codes of conduct on a wide range of issues (Ave et al 1999, p. i; National Mentoring Working Group 1991). These policies and procedures should respect the preferences of the young people and their families (Morley et al 2000, p.21; Grossman & Garry 1997, p.4).

Initial meetings

The initial meeting between mentors and mentees should be used to establish a number of elements regarding the relationship eg the procedure if someone cannot attend a meeting, when and where meetings will occur, and so on.

A project must decide how much information the mentor will have concerning the mentee prior to an initial meeting, taking into consideration the aims of the project and the safety of all participants.

The overseas literature recommends that the first meeting between the mentor and young person should be used as an opportunity to set some ground rules about the relationship. These tend to be basic issues such as reaching agreement on how often meetings will occur, keeping conversations confidential, calling if someone cannot make a meeting, and other issues that the young person may wish to raise (Benioff 1997, pp.44-45).

The consultations indicated that this is consistent with Australian practice also. As well as establishing ground rules, the initial meetings between a mentor and young person will typically involve getting to know you activities and conversations, making the young person feel comfortable, developing trust and so on, before addressing more sensitive or complex issues at subsequent meetings.

It was reported, however, that there can be significant differences between how young men and women respond as mentees during these initial meetings. As discussed in more detail below, it was felt that young women can be more receptive to opening up and talking about their feelings and issues at an earlier stage of the mentoring relationship than young men.

The literature notes that some mentoring relationships will initially encounter difficulties, and this was also apparent from the consultations. For instance, the mentee or their parents may be hostile, the mentee may behave badly, or the pair may not get along well. In these circumstances the literature states that it is important that staff members be supportive of both the mentee and mentor, and work towards a solution that is appropriate for everybody. This may require extra support or even encouragement for the mentor, additional meetings, or a rematch (Benioff 1997, pp.45-47).

There is some contention in the literature concerning whether or not mentors should be made aware of their mentee's complete criminal or behavioural history. Some authors argue that mentors should always be informed or made aware of the nature and type of their mentee's offending history (if any) (Ave et al 1999). Others such as the Mentoring Knowledge Base suggest that this is not always advisable, and it may be better to start with a clean slate, only informing the mentor of any risk issues associated with their young person (Mentoring Knowledge Base n.d.).

Length of contact

To be fully effective, the mentoring relationship should be sustained over a long period of time, and it is recommended that relationships last for a minimum of six months, with an ideal length of 12 months. Continuity and length are significant factors in the success of a relationship.

The literature and consultations indicated that typically overseas and Australian mentoring projects stress that mentors must be willing to commit for a reasonable period of time (regardless of the length of the intended relationship), and will not accept mentors if they are unable to commit to the designated timeframe required (Crowley & McIntyre 1999, p.14).

Mentoring projects both overseas and in Australia usually intend that the relationship will last for a set period of time. However, the literature and the consultations indicated that there are differing views concerning the ideal length of a mentoring relationship. Aside from the general statement that contact should be regular and consistent (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1), there is no clear evidence concerning this issue in the literature.

However, it is assumed by many overseas authors that long-term commitment is more likely to produce better outcomes for young people (Barron-McKeagney et al 2001, p.135). A year is recommended by many overseas programmes (Rogers & Taylor 1997, p.129), and the Youth Justice Board in the UK also recommends mentoring relationships be supported over a sustained period of time (Youth Justice Board n.d.).

There is some evidence in the overseas literature that young people in longer-term relationships are perceived to receive greater benefits from their mentor (DuBois & Neville 1997, p.233). Conversely, short-duration matches (lasting, say, a few months) can be a contributory factor when a programme or match has been unsuccessful (Foster 2001).

Nonetheless, not all programmes with positive results have run for a long period of time. For instance, the Challenge for Change project in Wellington, New Zealand (NZ) runs for only 20 weeks, with improvements noted about two-thirds of the way through (Cardy 1999, p.7).

The length of matches amongst Australian mentoring programmes generally ranges from around three months up to an unlimited amount of time. Some programmes set a standard maximum initial period of time (or number of hours) for the mentoring relationship to develop, and then review the relationship to determine whether it should be continued.

Many Australian programmes operate on the basis that matches should last for three to four months, with a number of the programmes commenting that they see this as an ideal length of time.

Alternatively, there are some Australian programmes that operate mentoring relationships for a longer duration, ranging from 12 months to an unlimited length of time. These programmes regard a longer period of time as being more beneficial to the young person.

The general view among many Australian mentoring projects is that the length of the relationship will tend to be variable, depending on a range of factors such as the needs of the young person, the resources available to the project, the nature of the relationship, and the levels of staff turnover.

Australian mentoring projects that are more likely to set shorter periods for contact (or to be more exacting about specifying the duration of contact) tended to have both of the following features:

more formalised projects run in connection with juvenile justice operations. This is the case overseas also (see eg South Dakota Department of Corrections 2001, pp.1-4).
projects which use paid rather than volunteer mentors. Funding constraints appeared to be a factor here.

Frequency of contact

The frequency of contact will largely be determined by the nature of the project and the activities undertaken by the pair. Contact must be regular and consistent, with the ideal frequency of contact suggested as once per week.

The general view from both the literature and the consultations is that mentors need to have frequent and consistent contact with mentees, preferably once per week.

In terms of the ideal frequency of contact, many of the general mentoring guidelines from overseas suggest only that contact between the mentor and the mentee be regular and consistent (National Mentoring Working Group 1991, p.1; Barron-McKeagney et al 2001, p.135). However, the overseas literature is more prescriptive, recommending that contact should be once a week for periods ranging from one to six (but typically several) hours (Youth Justice Board n.d.; OJJDP 1998, p.16; de Anda 2001, p.99; Sherman et al 1998; p.129; South Dakota Department of Corrections 2001, p.2). This was also the view of the Australian mentoring projects consulted for this study.

According to the overseas literature a high level of contact (at least 12 hours per month) is one of the key elements contributing to positive results (Morley et al 2000, p.21; DuBois & Neville 1997, p.232). For instance, the evaluation of the American Across Ages programme found that the level (or number of hours per week) of mentoring had a significant impact on mentees. Mentees who had spent six hours per week or more with their mentor demonstrated positive differences on a number of measures, such as rates of absence from school (Foster 2001, p.24).

In Australia, an external evaluation of the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners project in Port Pirie, SA concluded that some participants were disappointed with their Action Plan Partners (mentors), and infrequent contact appeared to be the significant factor here. For instance it was reported that some Partners do not seem to contact their clients and are difficult to contact when the client needs them (Scholz 1999, p.18). The evaluation concluded that it was important for Partners to be proactive and ensure that they have regular contact with clients and are available to them (p.26).

Another factor that is stressed in the literature is that the continuity of the mentoring relationship is the most significant way in which the mentor can support the mentee, rather than rigid requirements concerning frequency of contact per se (Ellis 1997, p.54). This is regarded as a key element in a successful mentoring relationship.

Among the overseas programmes reported on in the literature, mentors typically meet with the young person for between two to four visits per month for several hours (Howitt et al 1998, p.46; Grossman and Garry 1997, p.4).

This is consistent with the experience in Australia. Around a third of the mentoring programmes surveyed reported that their mentors and mentees meet once a week or more, around half meet approximately once a week, and the remainder meet two to three times per month.

According to both the overseas literature and the Australian consultations, there may be a correlation between the length of the mentoring relationship and the frequency of contact. That is, projects that last for a short amount of time will frequently have more intensive contact over that period, whereas relationships that last for more extended periods may involve less frequent meetings. Of the Australian mentoring projects surveyed, the programmes reporting that contact occurs at least twice a week tended to be programmes with relationships running for six months or less.

Parental involvement

Mentoring projects should engage parents or guardians of the mentee in the project where possible, including obtaining their permission, and informing them as to the nature and extent of the mentoring relationship.

The overseas literature regards it as preferable to attempt to involve the young person's parents or guardians in the project, at least to some degree (Benioff 1997, p.34). Nonetheless this literature indicates that parental involvement in mentoring projects can vary. While some projects only require parental written consent, others try to include parents in all aspects of the project, including selection and approval of the mentor and attendance at regularly scheduled activities. Most overseas projects operate somewhere in the middle of this spectrum (OJJDP 1998, p.17).

Some overseas projects arrange specific meetings for the mentors and parents of the mentees, to make the parents feel included and to provide them with more information about the programme (although these may not always be well-attended) (Benioff 1997, p.48).

Regardless of the level of involvement, the family and/or parents of the mentees need to be informed and supportive of the programme for it to be fully effective and operate in the intended manner (Anon 1999; National Mentoring Working Group 1991, p.1). Consent by the family or guardian of the mentee is essential, and the literature recommends that no programme should operate without ensuring this (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.1).

However, the overseas literature also reports that parental involvement is difficult for many projects to achieve. This is for various reasons, including a lack of interest from mentees' parents or guardians, a lack of resources from the programme, or the belief of a range of participants (parents, mentors, staff and mentees) that the project is an activity for the young people alone.

Parental involvement was found to be the least successful aspect of the Dalston Youth Project in England. A number of mentors reported that parents were suspicious of them, saw them as an authority figure (or as a representative of the justice system or social services), and found meeting with parents generally difficult (Tarling et al 2001a, p.27). It was suggested that project staff could do more to pave the way for mentors in terms of parental involvement. Many parents also reportedly believed that the project should be reserved for the young people, resulting in poor attendance at parents' meetings (although many did attend the graduation night) (Tarling et al, 2001a, p.49; Tarling et al 2001b, p.1).

The Australian consultations and literature suggest that it is common for mentoring projects to attempt to engage or work with mentees' families, although there is variation in the emphasis placed on this factor. There was some acknowledgement in the consultations that involving the family of mentees can be difficult at times, as has been found overseas. For instance, family members may feel threatened by the prospect of their child being assigned a mentor, and regard it as an implied criticism of them and their parenting abilities. Of course, in many cases there may be various problems in the family, and this is a key reason the young person needs a mentor.

It also appeared that involving or liaising with the mentee's family members to at least some extent is particularly important for Indigenous projects. For instance, the AFSP in Perth reported in consultations that when selecting a mentor, a worker would always speak to the family to ensure that the person is acceptable to them.

The family has to accept the person - so they know who's looking after their kids. (Stake-holder)

Some Australian mentoring projects include a component of family support in their activities. For example, the worker with the Brayton Mentoring Initiative in Shepparton, Victoria worked with mentees' families to develop trust and help them to support the mentee. On occasion the worker also provided counselling to the family or referrals to other agencies for more intensive support (ARTD 2001, p.A23).

The Coffs Harbour/Clarence site of One2One in NSW employed a part-time family support worker for some periods of the project, to support families of mentees through individual and group work, crisis intervention and family mediation. The external evaluation of the programme concluded that this was a valuable component of the model, particularly since the project was located in a rural area with few alternative support services available for young people and their families (ARTD 2002, p.66). In consultations the YWCA noted that since many of the mentees' families were chaotic and dysfunctional and with a high level of conflict, they required support in their own right in order to enable the mentoring programme to function effectively.

Activities undertaken by the pair

According to the literature, activities undertaken by the mentor/mentee pair should be designed to enrich and enhance youth opportunities and experiences (OJJDP 1998, p.12). Evans and Ave note that mentoring relationships focused on having fun, respecting the young person's views and engaging them in decision-making and activities are more successful than those programmes that are prescriptive, and require the young person to undertake certain activities with the mentor as more of an authority figure (Evans & Ave 2000, p.47).

The overseas literature notes that the majority of mentoring projects focus on sporting and leisure activities (Long & Dart 2001, p.72). Ave et al report that particularly effective activities are those that are fun, but also that focus on some type of new learning, such as life skills or a hobby (Ave et al 1999, p.81). Activities should also be special and inexpensive (Benioff 1997, p.47).

The types of activities undertaken or recommended overseas include: taking walks, attending plays, movies, sporting events or school activities, playing catch, visiting the library, washing the car, grocery shopping, watching TV (Grossman & Garry 1997, pp.2-3), homework assistance, going out for a meal or snack, going to a museum, concert or festival, or just spending time together (Morley et al 2000, p.22).

Australian programmes have followed this trend towards low-cost, fun and informal activities. Activities include fishing, walking in a park, going for a fast food meal, attending movies and sporting events, educational activities, shopping, picnics, going to the beach, watching videos, cooking, going for a drive, rock climbing, ice skating, bowling, going to a theme or other park, the production of artworks, creating Koori art, attending theatre and car shows. It was reported that the activities undertaken by the matched pair will depend on the interests of the young person (or the mutual interests of the matched pair) and the aims and nature of the project.

During the fieldwork, some mentoring projects stressed the importance of mentors and mentees participating in no/ low-cost activities. This was in order to maintain the emphasis on the development of a quality mentoring relationship, to teach the young person that they can find enjoyable activities which do not involve great expense, to avoid financial dependency on the mentor, and to avoid considerable financial strain for the project (Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department 2002, p.18).

The Stage One Report on the Panyappi project in Adelaide (prepared by the government funder) found that there was confusion among some mentors, young people and referring agencies between the role and purpose of mentoring and a one-on-one activity programme. This had led to inappropriate expectations. For instance, some young people expected their mentor to treat them to a paid activity such as the movies or go-karting. The report notes that the difficulties with reimbursement of costs had had some beneficial impact in forcing mentors to find ways to spend time with young people at minimal cost (Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney-General's Department 2002, p.18).

Most mentoring activities are undertaken by the matched pair alone. However, some projects incorporate group activities centred on, for instance, structured educational/career or community service activities (OJJDP 1998, p.16), or field trips or cultural events (de Anda 2001, p.99; Morley et al 2000, pp.22-23). Many overseas programmes have both separate and group activities.

This was the case with some of the Australian programmes also, such as One2One in NSW. The external evaluation of the project concluded that the group activity component of the project was highly valued by both mentees and mentors, and provided opportunities for socialising, fun and games in a safe and supportive environment (ARTD 2002, p.viii).

Some Australian programmes also focus on conducting very specific tasks to provide a focus for the mentoring relationship. Examples include:

The Relationship Violence - No Way! project in Adelaide, which uses a variety of peer education techniques including one-to-one mentoring to educate both male and female victims of domestic violence about domestic violence issues (Friedman 1999, p.18; Friedman 2001).
The Men Mentoring Men (MMM) programme in the ACT, which uses a model centring on mentees repairing bikes in a bike repair workshop.

Some overseas programmes have an initial residential component, designed to bond the mentors and mentees, take the young people out of their home environment, and participate in a range of team building and adventure activities (Benioff 1997, pp.40-43). These are generally designed to engage young people and mentors with the project and the activities tend to build confidence and self-esteem (Tarling et al, 2001a, p.38; Tarling et al 2001b, p.2).

Some of the Australian programmes similarly contained a residential camp-style component, focusing on wilderness-based activities for both the matched pairs and combined groups of mentors and mentees. Examples included the New Trax Programme in Melbourne, and the Bush Law Action Plan Partners project in Port Pirie, SA.

For example, the New Trax Programme provides an intensive 11-day life skills programme for young offenders on community-based orders. The age range covered is 17-23 years, although the majority of participants are aged 17-19 years. The programme involves outdoor camp activities (a ropes course and a three-day wilderness camp), as well as courses on a variety of issues such as behaviour management and drug and alcohol issues. Highly qualified tutors and group leaders are employed to run these activities. Men serving as prisoners in Won Wron Prison have also been used as group leaders in the programme (Upper Yarra Community House n.d., pp.1, 4).

Although the participants are not formally matched with a prisoner as a mentor, much of the work involves informal mentoring, with the prisoners working with one or two young offenders at a time. The mentoring between the prisoners and young people continues after the formal programme on an informal basis. Mentors and mentees make contact with one another using the telephone and prison visitation facilities.

In addition, some overseas mentoring programmes use mentors to take on part of the case management of the young person, working with them on their case plan, attending appointments with them, and assisting them in reaching these specific goals. Again this is also the case with some Australian mentoring programmes, such as those run by the NSW DJJ and the WA Ministry of Justice. For instance activities undertaken with mentees in the former scheme can include developing or maintaining connections with school and Technical and Further Education (TAFE), attending appointments with, and acting as an advocate for, the young person with various agencies such as Centrelink, and providing court support.

The Mentoring Knowledge Base in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests a number of techniques for keeping young people interested in the programme, including setting clear goals, allowing the young person to choose the meeting place/activity, planning long-term fun projects, ensuring each meeting ends on a positive note, and providing an awards scheme for the young person (Mentoring Knowledge Base n.d.). It is important that the mentees have some input into the activities undertaken by the pair (Ave et al 1999, p.81).

Differences in the activities for young men and women

In the Australian consultations it was observed that there can be differences in the types of activities or approaches that will appeal to young men and women. The general view was that there is a tendency for young men to be less forthcoming in talking about their feelings and problems than young women. It was also reported that young men might tend to be more interested in activities such as sport, whereas girls might be interested in activities such as artistic or creative pursuits, health or (different) sporting activities, as well as just chatting.

It was therefore suggested that it can be preferable to engage young men in an activity such as sport and have back door strategies to encourage them to talk. For instance, mentors reported that a common approach might be to take the young man to a sporting event, and then he might start talking about problems in the course of general conversation while driving to or from the event.

I didn't even ask him direct questions - then I could address issues as he brought them up. (Mentor)

I was working with a half-Samoan, half-Aboriginal guy. Especially in rural areas they tend to be football crazy. For me the connecting point was footy. As soon as he understood I was trying to make him the best thing he could be, he started to open up. So on the way to having a kick, he opened up. You need to meet them on their interest or get them interested in something. (Mentor)

On the other hand, girls might be more open to sitting down and having a chat at an earlier stage of the mentoring relationship. In fact, this chatting may be a crucial element in getting the mentoring relationship off the ground and developing it further. Indeed it may be important to do this even before engaging the young women in other types of activities such as sport.

For instance, one of the female mentees consulted who was very enthusiastic about her female mentor noted that:

We talk about personal things... She's like a friend... She treats me like an adult - she tells me things. She's not just talking about drugs, it's more like normal life - for example, she discusses her pregnancy with me.

It was stressed, however, that as with all aspects of mentoring and matching, it is important to tailor the mentoring approaches to the individual young person.

Nature of the relationship between the mentor and mentee

Consultations indicated that on the continuum from worker to friend, mentors will generally be located much closer to the friend end than the other professionals in the life of that young person. Some of those consulted (including mentees and mentors) even described the mentor role in terms of being a friend. Nonetheless it was clear that mentors cannot be regarded simply in these terms, and that all parties involved need to be clear about the distinction between the two.

You can be a good friend, but you need to be a leader, you don't just act like their mate - their mates are often into offending. (Mentor)

You need to set boundaries - for example, they'll test your limits. They need to know you're setting guidelines. (Mentor)

One of the key elements of a successful mentor is knowing the boundaries. They're not [the mentee's] boss or case workers or best friend - that's a fine line we need to tread. (Mentoring Project)

The necessity of maintaining this distinction was also emphasised by the external evaluation of the Bushlaw Action Plan Partners Project in Port Pirie, SA, which stated that:

It is... important that [mentors] convey the right message to their clients and act as a role model rather than a 'pal'. (Scholz 1999, p.26)

Ending the mentoring relationship

Programmes should have a clear policy on how and when to end mentoring relationships. This should include the mentor meeting with the mentee and discussing the close of the relationship. It should be kept in mind that while a relationship may have an official end, the relationship may continue on a casual or indefinite basis.

The overseas literature reports that despite the difficulty and potential disappointment for the mentee, many programmes do not have specific practices on closure of a mentoring relationship. Mentoring relationships should commence with all parties being aware that the relationship has a formal end, but that the relationship may continue beyond that time if the parties wish (Mentoring Knowledge Base n.d.). In many cases, the end of a formal mentoring period will not mean the end of the relationship, with some mentors continuing to meet their mentee informally on a regular basis (Benioff 1997, p.48).

The overseas literature states that it is important for the mentor to discuss the end of the formal relationship with the mentee well in advance, and the two should decide how this will be done in practice (Benioff 1997, p.48). Relationships can end for a range of reasons, such as the young person outgrowing the mentor, the end of a designated time limit for the relationship, the mentor dying, one of the pair relocating, one of the pair being too busy, or simply that the pair do not get along (Ave et al 1999, p.82).

The literature also states that closure systems, at a minimum, should comprise an exit interview with each party and a meeting of the pair. There should be a clearly stated policy on continued contacts for the pair and assistance for the mentee in deciding any future plans (California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.4). Appropriate procedures will vary depending on how long the match has lasted and why the match is ending. Ideally, closure should include:

a clear explanation of the reasons for the end of the match
an opportunity to vent negative feelings about the relationship ending
a celebration of the good things about the relationship, such as revisiting a favourite activity
respect for, and acknowledgment of, the feelings expressed, using a non-blaming stance
a face-to-face meeting where mentees can say their farewells, if possible and appropriate
rituals where appropriate to culture, age, and situation eg a gift, or a trip out somewhere
the provision of counselling or other support if a mentee is having difficulty coping with the loss of a mentor (Ave et al 1999, p.83).

Mentors need to be advised on how to draw the relationship to a successful close by tapering off to replace meetings with telephone calls, and making agreements on contact in a crisis situation. Further contact past the official end of a relationship should also be negotiated and/or discussed with the young person's parent or guardian (Peel & Calvert n.d.).

The Australian consultations did not specifically address the issue of closure of the mentoring relationship. However there was general acknowledgement that the length of and process for ending the relationship needed to be made very clear to the young person from the beginning of the relationship, in order to avoid or minimise any sense of disappointment or betrayal by the young person. Some programmes also reported that an informal relationship between a mentor and mentee might continue beyond the end of the formal relationship. This appeared to be more likely with programmes using volunteer mentors.

Monitoring and supervising mentors

Provision of supervision, feedback and support to mentors by project staff that is consistent, timely and regular (although not too burdensome) is essential for any programme. Support can be in the form of group meetings, telephone contact or face-to-face interviews. The frequency can be determined by each individual project, but an average of once per month (at least in the early stages of the relationship) is recommended.

The literature and the consultations clearly demonstrated that it is vital for project staff to provide ongoing supervision and support to mentors, and that both mentors and mentees need to understand their respective roles and be supported through monitoring and review procedures (Prince's Trust 1999; Morley et al 2000, p.21; Grossman & Garry 1997, p.4). Supervision of the mentoring relationship is regarded as critical to a programme's success (Sipe 1996, p.10).

The literature and consultations identified two key reasons why regular supervision and support of the mentoring relationship is so important:

It helps mentors to build trust and develop positive relationships, as well as assisting them to negotiate the challenges in the mentor/mentee relationship (Foster 2001, p.10). The nature of the target group means that sometimes mentors may be dealing with quite challenging or complex behaviour or issues by the young person. Grossman and Garry note that many mentoring relationships would have faltered or failed without the nurturing and support of caseworkers (Grossman & Garry 1997, p.4).
The organisation needs to satisfy accountability requirements towards their clients. Mentees are often very vulnerable young people with multiple difficulties. They have also experienced many negative relationships with adults previously. There are child protection issues to consider as well in terms of the safety of the young people involved. In some instances the auspicing agency may have a specific statutory duty of care towards their mentees.

The literature suggests that monitoring procedures for mentoring programmes should include consistent scheduled meetings with staff, a framework for ongoing feedback, input from all stakeholders, written records, and a process for managing grievances and other issues (Mentoring Australia 2000; California Mentor Initiative 2000, p.4).

Support and supervision for mentors can take a number of forms, including telephone support, mentor support groups and meetings with caseworkers (Sipe 1996, p.10).

There is some contention in the literature regarding how much supervision is required or recommended for mentors by project staff. The level of supervision available will vary, depending on factors such as the nature of the project, the capacity of staff and the perceived needs of the relationship. The general view in the literature is that an average of once per month is preferable, at least in the initial stage

Early Intervention Youth Mentoring Programmes

An overview of mentoring programmes for young people at risk of offending

Foreword

Contents

Abbreviations

Executive Summary

Objectives

Methodology

Overview of mentoring programmes

Models and organisational structure: good practice

Programme objectives

Naturalistic versus formal

Stand-alone versus integrated projects

Staff

Establishment and administration

The mentoring process: good practice

Initial meetings

Length of contact

Frequency of contact

Parental involvement

Activities undertaken by the mentor and mentee

Ending the mentoring relationship

Monitoring and supervising mentors

Training and orienting mentors

Finding and employing mentors: good practice

Recruiting mentors

Characteristics of mentors

Screening procedures

Excluding mentors with criminal records

Matching

Paid versus volunteer mentors

Selecting mentees and developing a programme: good practice

Recruiting

Screening and assessing mentees

The programme activities

Mentoring programmes for young offenders

Evaluation: an essential part of good practice

Determining the effectiveness of mentoring

Reduced offending

Reduced substance misuse, and other risky behaviours

Increased participation/performance in education, training and employment

Improved self-esteem, social/communication skills and personal relationships

Mentoring is only suitable for some young people

Indigenous programmes

Recommendations for Stage 2

National workshop

A good practice manual

Evaluation

Funding existing programmes

Introduction

What is mentoring?

Background to the research

Objectives of the project

Structure of this report

Methodology

Definition of mentoring

Key components of the methodology

Literature review

Initial scoping consultations to identify mentoring projects

Postal survey

Fieldwork

Face-to-face consultations

Supplementary telephone and face-to-face interviews

Meeting with crime prevention officers

Data analysis and reporting

Some caveats

Notes

Organisational context of mentoring programmes

Location of mentoring projects

Auspicing organisation

Funding

Formal versus naturalistic mentoring programmes

Programme objectives

Stand-alone versus integrated projects

Staff

Establishment and administration

Initial scoping

Scoping and consultation for Indigenous projects

Strong support structure

Initial meetings