Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme: interim report - qualitative process and impact assessment

Chapter 5: Conclusions and suggestions for improvement

At this interim stage in the evaluation (which is due to conclude in spring 2026), we can say the following in relation to the evaluation questions:

To what extent has the programme supported the capabilities of young people?

There is qualitative evidence that both interventions – MCR and Columba 1400 – have had a positive impact on the young people who have taken part in them. Increased confidence was identified as one of the main impacts of both interventions – and most of the ‘being and ‘doing’ capabilities in the programme Theory of Change (Appendix 1) were positively impacted.

MCR Pathways impacts

Increased confidence was a dominant theme when discussing the key impacts of MCR Pathways on young people, particularly in relation to increased social confidence and more belief in their own abilities. This increase in confidence was attributed, in part, to encouragement from mentors and MCR Co-ordinators. These individuals were described as ‘patient’, ‘non-judgemental’, and ‘reliable’ which allowed them to build strong relationships with pupils.

Other improvements which different MCR pupils saw as having the most impact on them, personally, were:

• Feeling less anxious
• Improved attendance at school
• Feeling calmer
• Feeling less angry
• Knowing more about what they wanted to do after school.

However, there were also some pupils for whom mentoring seemed to make little difference. In some cases, pupils felt they already had the capabilities asked about and so their perspective was that mentoring made no difference. Another pupil said that her mentor was “a nice person” but that MCR Pathways had made no difference to her. She was very quiet, lacked confidence and was clearly not comfortable talking to the researcher. Her mentor admitted that it had been very difficult trying to get her to open up.

Columba 1400 Young People’s Leadership Academy impacts

Participants were also very positive about the Columba 1400 YPLA overall, describing the impact it had as “powerful”, “affirming”, “life-changing” and “transformational”.

Increased social confidence and communication skills were common themes when discussing the overall impacts of the YPLA. Pupils attributed this increased confidence to the amount of group work that they experienced, both in the sessions leading up to the residential and during the residential itself, which encouraged them to speak to their peers and helped them feel more comfortable in group settings. Staff also mentioned that some pupils had been chosen to take part because they were struggling with confidence, and they had observed significant changes in those pupils.

Pupils also highlighted how the Columba 1400 YPLA had improved their self-esteem and sense of belief in their abilities. They described having more confidence in themselves to contribute at school and to socialise or to try new things outside of school. Parents/carers and staff also observed more self-assuredness in the young people who, before taking part in Columba1400, had lacked this.

It was recognised that the residential element was a barrier for those in challenging circumstances for whom going away would be impractical or inappropriate. Columba 1400 staff noted that the place-based academy (a new approach which involves activities within the local community and does not include a residential element) has been developed to engage with these young people.^[25]

Are participants being reached as intended?

School staff and wider stakeholders generally agreed that the interventions were reaching the young people who would benefit the most. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of school staff having the flexibility to decide which pupils take part, and trusting schools to make the right decisions.

However, there were some challenges to overcome in reaching a greater number of care experienced young people who have lower attendance at school.

To what extent has the programme engaged with and supported young people?

Both interventions have effectively engaged with and supported young people. In MCR, engagement is encouraged by a positive relationship between the school Co-ordinator and young people, and a thorough mentor matching process. In Columba 1400, the professionalism and skills of Columba 1400 staff were seen as key to this engagement.

To what extent has the programme developed a positive relationship with Developing the Young Workforce, Skills Development Scotland and the Promise?

MCR was generally felt to have a positive working relationship with other initiatives supporting young people, specifically DYW, SDS, and the Promise, although there was a view that work is needed to avoid duplication of effort in this space.

Columba 1400 staff also mentioned engagement with other organisations supporting young people, including involvement with DYW’s ‘World of Work’ annual event and conversations with SDS about developing a ‘leadership passport’; a document that summarises a young person’s values and achievements to support conversations between young people and careers advisers or other key adults.

How is the programme delivery changing and improving over time?

There were examples from both interventions of improvements to delivery based on MCR and Columba 1400 staff reflecting on how things could be better or based on feedback.

Has the programme been implemented as intended?

It was generally agreed that the Columba 1400 YPLA has been implemented as intended.

MCR Pathways was also generally felt to have been implemented as intended. There had been some local changes to school Co-ordinator employment terms and the delivery of group work. These changes were intended to improve delivery in terms of reducing staff costs (and therefore increasing the sustainability of the scheme), staff retention and intervention effectiveness for young people.

In relation to the SMLP programme as whole, the speed and scale of rollout has been considerably less than originally intended. Stakeholders indicated that the main reason for the more limited rollout of the programme was the much less favourable fiscal climate which had developed since the start of the programme. It was suggested that the original funding model, which required matched funding from local authorities/schools, was no longer sustainable.

The vision of the two interventions complementing each other within schools has also not materialised. Cost is, again, likely to be a major factor with schools/local authorities feeling that they cannot justify funding two schemes in the same school. One stakeholder questioned how much that mattered if running a single scheme was meeting young people’s needs.

Have mentoring and leadership been embedded across the school system?

MCR Pathways, at the time of writing, had been embedded in all 30 Glasgow schools (mainly from 2014/15 onwards, after the first school came on board in 2007/8) and in 89 schools across the rest of Scotland, with these schools coming on board from 2017/18 onwards. There was an overall sense among respondents that it is important for organisations like MCR to take the lead on embedding mentoring in schools, since school staff have other priorities and do not have the capacity to do this kind of work.

There was, however, limited evidence that MCR Pathways has embedded mentoring more widely across the local authority areas we visited outside of Glasgow. One local authority stakeholder wanted to see more data on the impact of the intervention before deciding whether to roll it out to other schools in their area.

In relation to Columba 1400, it was commonly mentioned by school staff that the YPLA had helped to embed mentoring and leadership practices across their school.

One school’s participation in the Columba 1400 YPLA had helped embed more of a mentoring culture through changes to registration groups, encouraging discussions about values and shifting the approach to discipline away from “punitive” towards more “restorative” approaches.

Columba 1400 staff reported that they often receive feedback from teachers about the (sometimes unexpected) impact that the YPLA has had on them professionally in terms of how they view themselves as leaders.

In term of the Scottish Mentoring and Leadership Programme as a whole, given that the programme has not been rolled out at the scale and pace intended, and has reached considerably fewer schools and pupils than originally envisioned, we would conclude that, at this stage, mentoring and leadership have not yet been fully embedded across the Scottish school system as a whole.

Suggestions for improvement

The following are largely based on suggestions and comments made by participants interviewed for the evaluation.

At school/intervention delivery level:

• MCR should consider providing more information to parents/carers on the activities involved and on the mentor that their child has been matched up with.
• Similarly, Columba 1400 should consider giving more information to school staff and parents/carers to explain the process, and having a greater number of sessions in phase one. Staff felt they would be better able to promote the YPLA and encourage uptake if they were more familiar with the detail of it.
• Schools should aim to embed MCR Co-ordinators as much as possible (e.g. treating them as part of the pupil support team).
• MCR should consider the following suggestions from mentors about ways in which their early stage experiences could be improved: an opportunity to have a one-to-one conversation with an experienced mentor; more use of breakout rooms in online training; training sessions in the evening so more people can attend; information about what school is like for young people nowadays; and raising awareness of peer resources available for mentors.

At the Scottish Government/strategic level:

• If the forthcoming quantitative analysis and Value for Money assessments of MCR Pathways are positive, review the funding model (including exploring alternative sources of funding) to enable MCR Pathways to be rolled out further and sustained.
• Conduct an evaluability assessment of the Columba 1400 YPLA to assess the feasibility of a quantitative impact and Value for Money assessment, which could then inform funding decisions.
• MCR, DYW and SDS should consider ways in which any duplication of effort across skills/employment-related activities can be avoided. For example, some stakeholders compared MCR Pathways with a programme offered by Career Ready and felt these interventions were available to similar cohorts of young people and had similar aims.
• When bringing different interventions/organisations together to deliver a joint programme:
  • consider first whether a joint programme is likely to add significant value, compared with the interventions being delivered separately, and how practical it is to bring them together
  • allow enough time – several months at least – for relationships to be developed before the delivery stage
  • actively facilitate the development of a shared vison and shared values for the joint programme.

Next steps

The next steps for the evaluation are to conduct an interim quantitative impact assessment and an interim Value for Money assessment of MCR Pathways (reporting in March 2025). Following further qualitative fieldwork (on both MCR and Columba 1400) and quantitative/Value for Money analysis (winter 2025/26), the final evaluation report is due in spring 2026.