ABSTRACT
Interventions aimed at disaffected young people abound. All too often, however, they get caught up in a negative cycle. Every so often a ‘new’ approach is identified which captures the imagination of politicians, policy-makers and practitioners alike. Grandiose claims are made, new funding opportunities arise and initial ‘evaluations’ appear to indicate promising outcomes. Before long, however, confidence turns to disillusionment as the reality fails to match the initial claims. As a result, promising interventions are undermined by unrealistic expectations (advocates of particular approaches may unwittingly collude in this process as they seek to maintain their programmes and sustain their funding base). This pattern has a number of other negative consequences: considerable amounts of public money may be spent on interventions whose impact is not fully understood, potentially positive interventions may be abandoned before they are properly evaluated, and the possibility that interventions are actually harmful remains unaddressed. As social scientists, one of our major concerns is the lack of commitment shown by politicians and practitioners to rigorous evaluation of interventions aimed at young people. If, for no other reason, evaluation is crucial given the potential for the development of interventions which are actually harmful to those they seek to help. It seems to us that there is a limited potential for harm associated with mentoring, but the possibility of negative outcomes means it is incumbent on those involved to ensure that the impact of such interventions is evaluated formally.
