You are here: Home » Comment »

Labour should develop a national mentoring programme

July 25, 2012 4:30 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

How children go onto do later in life isn’t just a factor of whether they develop crucial basic skills like reading, writing and arithmetic – or even how many GCSEs or A levels they get. Just as important is whether they develop the outlook or ‘character’ that helps them get on; characteristics like motivation, the ability to stick at a task, discipline and aspiration.

Family is the most important influence on these. But developing strong relationships with other adults – for example, at school or in the community – can help to partly offset the impact of growing up without positive role models at home.

Labour should consider adopting a national mentoring programme for its next manifesto. Evidence from the Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) mentoring scheme in theUnited States– now running in 12 countries – suggests that if done right, giving at-risk children and young people the opportunity to build long-term relationships with adult mentors in their local community can significantly help. One evaluation showed that after 18 months of mentoring, young people were over 50 per cent less likely to skip school and 46 per cent less likely to begin using drugs.

But if a mentoring programme was going to work there are several things it would need to incorporate. First, the evidence on adult-child mentoring programmes is mixed – some schemes have been found to have little or no impact and poorly run programmes can even do harm.

What makes BBBS so effective? It uses psychologists to match mentors and mentees, who also provide training and ongoing support to mentors. Mentors are asked to make a significant time commitment for at least a year. The programme is targeted at at-risk children and young people, including those living in poverty and in single-parent homes, and parents have to be signed up. These factors make BBBS more expensive than many mentoring programmes (around £1000 per child per year) but rigorous cost-benefit analysis has shown it generates four times this in return for taxpayers.

The second important feature is that BBBS has grown out of civil society, partly funded by business, and is run on a federated model like the Scouts or Guides. But local chapters have to be faithful to the features of the programme that make it so effective. Were a Labour government to pilot such a mentoring programme over here, it should be contracted out to a range of providers such as charities and social enterprises rather than run as a top-down programme; so long as they stick to what makes the scheme successful.

A national mentoring programme would be a symbol of the relationship between the state and society that Labour wants to see: neither big-state solutions nor a ’big society’ style rollback of the state, but a genuine partnership between state and civil society.

Sonia Sodha is Head of Policy and Strategy at the Social Research Unit and writes in a personal capacity. 

This article was originally published in the Fabian Society’s Summer edition of the Fabian Review. It forms part of the Fabian Society’s Next State project. We’ll be publishing other articles from the series this week.

Related posts:

  1. This is an opportunity for Gordon to press reset – and develop a new message of national fairness
  2. Labour need time to develop policies – but principles never change
  3. Today’s Guarantee is only the beginning of the battle for active and ambitious mentoring in schools
  4. The Work Programme is doomed to fail
  5. How not to appear on the Today Programme
  • treborc

     ”The programme is targeted at at-risk children and young people,
    including those living in poverty and in single-parent homes, and
    parents have to be signed up”.

    Oh god  no.

  • Mickelmas

    Clearly, the whole basis of your eagerness to introduce ‘BBBS’ is your hypothesis that “top-down” or “big-state” intervention is the antithesis of effective and efficient discharge of duty and organisation (hence your insistance on advocating charities and social enterprises having total responsibility for running and organising these schemes – with, of course, private funding from business combined with psychologist-instructed inexperienced volunteers such as Scout leaders). Also, conveniently, your suggestion fulfills the present-day political criterion that “it costs as little as possible”.
    The problem is that both of the above justifications (sadly de rigueur among our current Labour hierarchy) are not only unjustifiably bigoted, they are condemned to failure.
    What is so anathema about a “state-run” service that addresses fundamental aspects of society? “Ah!”, I hear you cry, “the State is the worst choice to run a large organisation. The only sensible option is the ‘private sector’”. Well, the NHS, the Royal Mail, the Railways, the State education system, the Coal mines, the Armed services, the Emergency services etc. etc. have all been successfully run in the past. The fact that some of them today are performing less effectively than in the past is more a reflection on incompetent politicians rather than flawed concepts (which may explain why both incompetent Labour and Tory past governments have been eager to do a ‘Pontius Pilate’ on public services). The fact that widespread corruption and incompetence evidenced in the private sector over the last few years should have pricked you into questioning the morality of involving private enterprise at such a basic level.
    Secondly, the idea that amateur enthusiasts can be transformed into inspirational experts after a minimum period of instruction would be laughable if it wasn’t pathetic. The fact that there are children and teenagers that are in need of support and direction because of the failures of their parents is undeniable but your ‘solution’ is not the most effective, certainly in the long run. Like so many of today’s ‘private sector initiatives’ there is initial media publicity (and possible statistical ‘success’) followed by increasing ineffectiveness (ignored, of course, by the media) if not failure. The hard truth is that you “can’t get owt for nowt”. The last thing I would ever want is to be operated on by a butcher interested in surgery or my children being educated by a school governor or the defence of the country resting exclusively with the TA etc.
    Rather than “dissing” the public sector we should be demanding improved State competence.
    PS I wish people would refrain from assuming that what might be successful in one country automatically transfers to the UK – our culture is different hence our solutions should be different.   

Latest

  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Bug Tent tomorrow, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from today’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →