The power of mentoring: What it meant for me

The power of mentoring: What it meant for me

In this blog, Princess Bestman, Arts and Wellbeing Practitioner, Care Advocate and advisory group member for the Mentoring and Befriending Practice Guide, reflects on their experience of mentoring, the impact that it can have, and why it is so important.

It’s been interesting to be part of the Advisory Group for the upcoming Mentoring and Befriending Practice Guide, produced by Foundations and commissioned by the Department for Education, due to be published next week. I’ve experienced mentoring from both sides – as a mentee and a mentor – and now I’ve helped write a Guide about it. I know first-hand the value it can bring. Having been involved in the development of this Guide, I encourage organisations and local authorities to use it to strengthen what they offer to care-experienced young people. 

As someone with experience of care, I’ve witnessed the impact mentoring can have. It helps to grow genuine, trusting relationships and a sense of community. It provides support, advice and stability during complex or uncertain times. It offers inspiration to try new things, explore new opportunities, and avoid/disassociate from negative influences. Mentoring gave me the motivation to pursue my future goals and helped me feel a stronger sense of belonging.  

At a crucial transitional point in my life, I met a mentor. Mentoring helped me build confidence and gave me direction as I prepared for life beyond formal education. I was unaware of mentoring being an option until it was offered to me in my final year at university. Following that, in my first year of work, I joined a mentoring programme to develop skills and build my networks. The sessions enabled me to develop my personal goals and grounded me with a stronger sense of purpose and motivation.  

Representation and relatability are important. Working with someone who could relate to my experiences, and had a similar background to me, meant that I could speak openly about my dreams, goals and challenges, knowing I’d be understood. 

I have also been a mentor, so I’ve experienced mentoring from that perspective also. I understand how important it is to be reliable, show up regularly and provide consistent support. My training has provided me with the skills to support my mentees in breaking challenges down into manageable steps, to offer regular encouragement and guidance, and to give them structure. This includes supporting mentees to set their own goals, and to shape how sessions run, from when the meeting is scheduled, to what is discussed.  

Mentoring looks different for everyone, but many people don’t even know what support is out there. I encourage organisations and local leaders to use the forthcoming Practice Guide to strengthen their offers in line with the evidence, to match mentees with mentors who share lived experiences or interests and to equip mentors with the support and skills they need to really make a difference in the lives of children and young people. That way, more young people can benefit from the kind of support that was so impactful for me.  


Find out more about the Mentoring and Befriending Practice Guide, commissioned by the Department for Education and produced by Foundations. Practice Guides offer evidence-based recommendations on approaches to supporting local authorities in achieving the outcomes set out in the Children’s Social Care National Framework

SHARE

Related News

Read our latest news and blogs

News

April 22, 2025

Coming soon: New, updated Foundations Guidebook

Blog

April 8, 2025

Building the evidence on effective mentoring and befriending support for care-experienced children and young people

Cost ratings:

This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive. 

1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.

Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.

Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).

Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.

Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.

Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.