Research and analysis

Peer Mentoring Evaluation: report summary

Published 30 October 2025

A report of research carried out by IFF Research on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Overview

The DWP’s Peer Mentoring Programme offers individuals with a substance dependency (‘mentees’) one-to-one support from a mentor with lived experience.

The programme has been tested in selected Jobcentre Plus (JCP) sites in England and Wales and delivered through 4 providers:

• Change Grow Live
• The Growth Company
• Inclusion
• The Wallich

Mentees joined the programme after being referred by the JCP or other third parties. Mentees were eligible for referral if they met the following criteria:

• they had a substance dependency that was a barrier to them obtaining sustained employment
• they were 18 years old or older and lived in one of the locations in which the test was being conducted
• they were claiming benefits, including Universal Credit, Jobseekers Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Working Tax Credit, Income support, or were not in receipt of benefits but were unemployed

This report details the evaluation of this Programme, drawing on a range of evidence collected between April 2023 and February 2025.

As of December 2024, 2,994 individuals have been referred to the programme. Just under 6 in 10 (58%) of those that were referred started the programme. Of those who started on the programme, one-third (32%, representing 19% of all those referred) completed the programme within the timescales covered by the analysis. Two-fifths (41%) of mentees who started on the programme, had disengaged.

Research Context

The government is committed to reducing harms from substance misuse. Dame Carol Black’s independent reviews into the impact of employment outcomes on drug and alcohol addiction (reports in 2016 and 2021) highlighted that, alongside treatment, meaningful activity such as employment makes an important contribution to sustaining recovery from a substance dependency. However, individuals with a substance dependency often have complex needs and require specialist intervention to overcome barriers to recovery and employment.

In this context, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) conducted a test of Peer Mentoring as a way of supporting these individuals to overcome barriers and make progress. Progress can mean different things for different mentees, for example around recovery from dependency, health, wellbeing or the labour market. These are referred to as ‘outcomes’ in the report. The evaluation was commissioned to assess this initiative and specifically, to:

• understand how Peer Mentoring was implemented and delivered. This included:
  • exploring recruitment, training and retention of peer mentors
  • the roles of JCP Single Points of Contact (SPOCs)
  • approaches to substance dependency disclosure and referral
  • use of diagnostic tools and SMART action plans
  • engagement with employment and other support
  • upskilling of JCP Work Coaches
• examine mentee progression and outcomes: This involved:
  • exploring the extent of mentee disclosure of substance dependency
  • levels of referrals to Peer Mentoring, as well as starts and completes
  • mentee wellbeing and health outcomes
  • mentee distance travelled towards the labour market
  • levels of mentees disengaging from the Peer Mentoring programme and reasons for this
• examine wider outcomes: This involved exploring experiences of:
  • mentors, JCP staff and stakeholders
  • the skills and confidence of mentors, JCP staff and stakeholders in working with individuals with dependencies
  • inter-agency relations and ways of working
  • mentee engagement with broader support services
• identify lessons learnt: This involved:
  • assessing the extent to which the test design enabled the policy intent to be realised, and why
  • assessing what works for whom, in supporting individuals with substance dependencies
  • identifying lessons learnt for potential wider rollout and future activity supporting individuals with substance dependencies

Methodology

Findings draw on 4 components.

Quantitative surveys with mentees on 3 occasions

Mentees completed a baseline survey, with support from their mentor, as soon as possible after joining the programme. Those that gave recontact permission were approached to take part in a follow-up telephone interview, twice. Firstly, on completing work with their mentor or on disengaging from the programme, and secondly, around 12 months after starting work with their mentor. 654 mentees took part in the baseline survey. 80 responded to the first follow-up survey and 28 responded to the second follow-up survey.

Qualitative interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with mentees, mentors, DWP SPOCs, stakeholders involved in the referral process, delivery providers and other stakeholders who were actively engaged with mentees who were on the programme. These interviews were conducted on 2 occasions. Firstly to capture early findings and lessons learned and later to capture later reflections on the programme. 119 in-depth interviews were completed – 44 with mentees, 32 with mentors, 23 with DWP SPOCs, and 20 with delivery providers and other stakeholders.

Mentee tracker data

This was individual data collected by delivery providers on every mentee who engaged with the programme since it began. It captured some information profiling the mentee in terms of demographics and situation on joining the programme, as well as capturing referral route to the programme, mentee status (continuing to work with a mentor, completed work with the mentor or disengaged) and some basic information on outcomes.

Analysis of samples of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART) action plans

Delivery providers also submitted a random selection of anonymised SMART action plans each quarter, to enable analysis of plan content and quality. 127 plans were analysed.

Evidence from these components was used to conduct contribution analysis, to assess the extent to which progression was a result of the programme. Five contribution statements were developed that, taken together, set out an intended chain of cause and effect, that captures some of the programme’s main assumptions around what is supposed to happen and why. The contribution analysis then tested the validity of the contribution statements (the extent to which they had been met) using evidence from each of the elements of the evaluation described.

Conclusions

• evidence suggests that, within the test of the Peer Mentoring programme, the main assumptions around how mentees would benefit from working with mentors with a lived experience of substance dependency largely held true
• rapport between mentor and mentee, and the process of revisiting and being accountable for progressing relevant SMART actions, encouraged mentees to stay engaged with the programme
• it was relatively common for mentees to achieve positive outcomes, and where these occurred, it was usually the Peer Mentoring (either in itself or in combination with other sources of support) that was responsible for this positive progression
• mentors, mentees, delivery providers, and DWP SPOCs generally felt well prepared to play their part in the Peer Mentoring programme
• informal knowledge sharing between mentors emerged as an important ingredient, enabling mentors to set smaller, more realistic SMART actions with their mentees
• informal knowledge sharing by mentors also helped to build Work Coach and Disability Employment Adviser (DEA) knowledge and confidence, both to have effective conversations about substance dependency and the Peer Mentoring support offer, and to make appropriate referrals
• diagnostic interviews were felt to be effective in enabling the mentor to build an initial understanding of the mentee’s circumstances, barriers and support needs. However, an important modification to the intended approach was made here, by mentors introducing an informal first conversation with their mentees prior to the diagnostic interview
• a further aspect which worked well was mentors’ flexibility around when and where they met their mentees, and the number of sessions they convened with their mentees
• notable constraints on the effective delivery of the Peer Mentoring programme test included:
  • mentor turnover and leave due to personal circumstances, such as sick leave, which sometimes resulted in some JCP sites having limited numbers of mentors
  • a lack of physical space on JCP premises, which sometimes curtailed the ability of mentees to have private conversations with their mentors
  • Work Coach and DEA caseloads and targets, which meant that Peer Mentoring was not always ‘top of mind’, likely reducing the number of referrals
• while a substantial minority of mentees who started on the programme had disengaged, the feedback available on reasons for disengaging does not point towards any notable problems with the delivery approach

Findings explained

The research findings cover the following topics:

1. Mentee progression and the extent to which it can be attributed to Peer Mentoring

Evidence suggests the main assumptions around how mentees would benefit from working with mentors largely held true. Mentors’ lived experience of dependency helped them be empathetic and non-judgemental with their mentees, and this combination of lived experience with empathy and non-judgement enabled their mentees to discuss their dependency and support needs openly. This openness about mentees’ needs, combined with the collaborative setting of and following up on SMART actions, often resulted in mentees accessing relevant support.

Mentees found it easy to keep working with their mentor because they had built a rapport, appreciated the process of revisiting and being accountable for progressing their SMART actions, and had made progress in areas they needed support with. Mentees who had disengaged (that is, they had stopped working with their mentor before completing the programme) and who had said why they had done so, gave a range of reasons, but did not suggest any notable problems with the programme delivery approach.

28% of all mentees had entered other practical or emotional support (29% of those engaged, 13% of those disengaged, 46% of those that completed). Among those that reported receiving other practical or emotional support, the most common specific sources of support were substance misuse services (50%), mental health support (43%), and support groups (unspecified) (36%).

There was also indicative evidence of outcomes for mentees in terms of entering paid work, voluntary work or training or education. At the time of the first follow-up survey, one in 5 mentees (21%) reported they had entered paid work since working with a mentor and a similar proportion were either currently in paid work or were starting a job in the next month (18%).

2. Peer Mentoring implementation: referral and onboarding

Mentees chose to take part for various reasons, including improving confidence, and gaining employment. An important factor was feeling ready for this type of support.

According to tracker data, 59% of referrals came through JCP and 40% came from external agencies. According to the qualitative interviews with DWP SPOCs, delivery providers and referral stakeholders, referrals were most commonly made through Work Coaches and DEAs. However, they were also made through other organisations such as the delivery providers themselves, local drug and alcohol services, women’s centres, churches, and Citizens Advice. Referrals were sometimes generated through word-of-mouth.

Mentors, mentees, delivery providers, and DWP SPOCs generally felt well prepared to play their part in the Peer Mentoring programme, through the provision of timely information at the point of joining the programme and effective initial and ongoing on-the-job-training for mentors.

3. Peer Mentoring implementation: engagement with and experience of the programme

Mentees who had completed the programme most commonly were on the programme for 3 to 4 months and had 7 sessions with their mentor. Mentors said that they worked with their mentees to set SMART actions, often setting the action at the end of an appointment and basing it on what had been discussed.

Mentees reported that having sessions in a private room at the JCP or delivery provider allowed them to open up without feeling judged or listened in on. While the findings of the first follow-up survey are indicative, this appears to corroborate qualitative findings, as the majority agreed that the support received through their mentor was in a location they felt comfortable talking in (94%), and that they could travel to (93%).

4. The wider impacts of Peer Mentoring

Mentors were positive about their role, feeling that it had helped them develop a range of skills. Some also mentioned that the role had helped them with their own recovery journey. The support given by mentors had built JCP staff understanding of individuals with substance dependencies and enhanced their confidence in having effective conversations about dependency.

5. Lessons learned from Peer Mentoring implementation

A range of lessons were identified, such as the value of an introductory informal conversation between mentor and mentee to build rapport and introduce the programme, and the importance of practical support and learning from more experienced peer mentors in helping newer mentors to set appropriately tailored SMART actions with their mentees.