Press Release

‘Youth Mentoring: A Good Thing? – A Response from MBF

15 September 2008

We acknowledge publication of ‘Youth Mentoring: A Good Thing?’ (Published by Centre for Policy Studies) and, whilst we disagree with a number of the assertions it makes, we do welcome one of the suggestions that there should be more research to look at the groups for which mentoring works best and indeed, the Government new research body Third Sector Research Centre based at Birmingham University could provide the opportunity to do so.

There are concerns about many of the points highlighted in the Report that appear to be based upon assumption.  Mentoring is not a panacea to solve all ills nor have we ever claimed it to be.  It works best as part of a wider package of support measures rather than a stand-alone intervention.

The MBF does not have a remit to “supervise” mentoring nor is there any statutory requirement for organisations to engage with it or work to its standards – but a great many do, whether through the recent review of the Approved Provider Standard (APS), the development of the national training programme to improve standards in the training of project co-ordinators or exploring national accreditation opportunities.

The Report suggests that mentoring should be a highly skilled intervention.  Whilst it is important that mentors are well equipped to undertake the role we should however recognise that the mentor is a lay person providing a unique perspective ideally borne out of their own experiences and this does not always require formal qualifications.

This, and the fact that the position is voluntary with the volunteer engaged for no ulterior motive, enhances their status in the eyes of the mentee and this should not be lost.

The review of APS, contrary to the author’s suggestion, will recommend a greater rigour and the process of engaging practitioners in the review has been critical because pursuit of the Standard is in itself voluntary. Ownership of it by the sector is key to its expansion.

The Report highlights more instances of failure by way of case study than it does success and this aspect is less than balanced.  It is disappointing that the author did not contact the MBF to find out more about its current work and intentions with respect to the development of impact measurement tools that could capture evidence more effectively and, as importantly, use the MBF as a means to access countless numbers of programmes providing high quality support and meaningful outcomes.

If we just think about our own experiences of being mentored, whether formally or informally, most of us would recognise this as having a positive impact on our lives and in that sense we cannot deny its ultimate value.