1. Mentoring for Excluded Groups and Networks (MEGAN) Peer Review Report Dr. Ioan Durnescu Brussels 19.09.2014

2. MEGAN Builds of Models of Mentoring for Inclusion and Employment (MOMIE) Megan - aims at piloting and evaluating mentoring as a means of facilitating the social inclusion of vulnerable people Objectives: – to test the impact of mentoring on employment and social inclusion of vulnerable migrant communities; – to promote effective and cost efficient strategy to support the social inclusion and employment of vulnerable groups; – to enhance the social inclusion of migrant communities through mentoring.

3. MEGAN Four stages: project set up, recruitment and training, evaluation of the impact of mentoring through Randomised Control Trials and analysis and reporting

4. Peer Review Process  One field trip - Budapest (May 2013);  One board meeting (London, February 2014);  Questionnaires  Interview with one partner;  Review of research documentation including evaluation materials and database  Review of executive summaries of the Literature Review and Evaluation

5. Field visit May 2013 – Bag – mentoring for Roma Objectives: – how is the data collection organized and how the project staff interacts with the data collection, – how is the randomization taking place – how is the contamination avoided – if the questions of the interviews are well understood by beneficiaries Some recommendations were included in one report: -Regarding the contamination -Regarding the questions in the interview -Regarding the structure of the research team All were considered in the next stages of the process.

6. Board meeting February 2014 – London The decision making process and the stakeholder's reaction to the first research findings. All stakeholders had the opportunity to comment and agree some tactical steps in the research

7. Questionnaires All three organizations Objectives: – if they share the same understanding of the project and the evaluation – if they felt involved in the evaluation process – how the evaluation process took place – how were the ethical questions handled. Overall, involved but not too much. The same understanding The data collection and data analysis at high standards RCT feasible but difficult to implement

8. Interview Aim - to clarify some answers from the questionnaires and also to deepen the understanding of the partner organization regarding the feasibility of the RCT methodologies Research at high standards but RCS should be carefully prepared.

9. Documentation (Manual) and Literature review Analyzed and commented on. All suggestions included in the final documents

10. Conclusions Research: – Very well organized – Multidimensional and triangulation – Randomization went well but practitioners: ‘Even knowing the justification for it, I find the control and treatment group methodology very hard to live with when working on a project which can potentially have a big impact on people’s lives’ – Data collection very rigorous – some difficulties at the beginning – Data analysis clear and transparent – Conclusions well supported by evidence RCT feasibility: – Feasible but with careful training and consideration for ethical issues. – ‘there is no other way’

11. Main findings mentoring can be effective as part as a wider policy or intervention mentoring should co-exist with professional help mentoring is effective for both mentees and mentors RCT can be feasible and effective if some preconditions are met.

12. Thanks. idurnescu@gmail.com ioan.durnescu@sas.unibuc.ro