1. EU MEGAN Project Bettina Crossick – Project Director (NOMS) Lauren Small – Project Manager (Inclusion) Final Conference – September 2014, Brussels

2. MEGAN Project - Background Follow on from MOMIE project – Models of Mentoring for Inclusion and Employment Next step project - Mentoring Excluded Groups And Networks (MEGAN) Funded by DG Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs - PROGRESS (Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity) November 2012 – October 2014

3. Why mentoring? The effective engagement of vulnerable people including offenders is an important factor in terms of improving employment prospects, increasing integration and reducing re-offending, and mentoring can play a key part in delivering this engagement. Support from a positive role model, particularly if provided through a quality mentoring or a one-to-one support scheme and as part of a package can help vulnerable people with for example the transition of offenders back into the community; access to employment services, education, accommodation.

4. Varying Interpretations of “Mentoring” The mentor may or may not be paid The mentor may be peer or non peer The mentoring relationship may involve teaching, guiding, coaching, modelling, or fixing. The mentoring may be one-off or ongoing. The mentoring may be stand-alone or delivered in support to other services such as employment. The mentoring may take place in prison or in the community.

5. What is the evidence? Mentoring schemes are difficult to evaluate, because the nature of the mentoring can vary enormously. Few mentoring programmes have been robustly evaluated for their effect on reducing re-offending or other outcomes. Those that have been evaluated have shown mixed results, and there is little conclusive evidence about the impact of mentoring on reoffending levels.

6. Evidence of impact on outcomes The best available evidence indicates that mentoring projects are associated with improvements in mentees’ employment outcomes, and can improve engagement in other programmes and interventions More tentative evidence suggests an association with improvements in mentees’ housing situation and reducing their substance misuse. Mentoring schemes are more likely to be most successful in when used as part of a package of interventions Mentoring schemes appear to be more successful where mentors and mentees spend more time together at each meeting, and where they meet at least once a week.

7. MEGAN project and mentoring excluded groups No good quality evidence exists about the impact of peer mentoring Need to understand factors and issues that make a real difference to the lives of individuals We need to support innovative projects Rigorous evaluation to measure the outcomes of MEGAN is critical in order to continue our work

8. MEGAN Project - Aim “To pilot and evaluate mentoring as a means of facilitating the social inclusion of vulnerable groups including Roma, migrants, young people, women, long term unemployed and offenders”

9. MEGAN Project – Main Partners National Offender Management Service (UK) – lead applicant and project management Inclusion (UK) – evaluation London Probation & Praxis (UK) – mentoring pilot with migrant offenders Aproximar (Portugal) – migrant and long term unemployed SCMA (Portugal) - migrant and long term unemployed BAGazs (Hungary) – Roma Ioan Durnescu -

10. Mentoring migrant groups Different social environment s UK Portugal Hungary How can mentoring help ? Different cultures/ backgroun ds Different demographics (age, gender, ethnicity)

11. Project model Project partner training Mentors trained Minimum 60 participants selected 30 to be mentees 2 mentees per mentor 6 months of mentoring Weekly contact mentors/mentees mentor support network Mix form of contact (1-2-1 and group sessions) Outcomes measured Complete mentoring Baseline measured Progress Measu red Do not complete mentoring Project partnership established Policy Reference Groups established Policy meetings held quarterly Policy groups updated with project progress Conferences held as part of each partner board meeting visit Progress and policy implications discussed Plans and next steps discussed at final conference Presentation to key stakeholders and Commission

12. MEGAN Project Outcomes Demonstrate impact of mentoring on hard outcomes such as increased participation in employment activities for adults Demonstrate impact of mentoring on improved soft and hard skills Demonstrate impact of mentoring on social integration including improved access to core services Explore best practice in pilot programmes to inform a European common framework for designing and delivering mentoring Begin the process of embedding and upscaling of mentoring programmes at a national level Inform the development of policies for supporting vulnerable groups through mentoring

13. Thank you for listening. Please enjoy the event…..