Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation

Panyappi Indigenous Youth 

Mentoring Program 

External Evaluation Report 

Metropolitan 

Aboriginal Youth Team 

Prepared by: 

May 2004

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program: 

External evaluation report 

May 2004

© Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program 

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no 

part may be reproduced by any process without the written permission from the Panyappi 

Program. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction rights should be directed to 

Panyappi at the contact details listed below. 

The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and are not necessarily 

those of the State Government. This document is designed to provide information to 

assist policy and program development in government and non-government organisations. 

The National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: 

Stacey, Kathleen. 

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program : external 

evaluation report. 

ISBN 0 7308 9340 5. 

1. Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program - Evaluation. 

2. Evaluation research (Social action programs) - South 

Australia - Adelaide. 3. Indigenous youth - Services for - 

South Australia - Adelaide - Evaluation. 4. Aboriginal 

Australians - Services for - South Australia - Adelaide - 

Evaluation. 5. Mentoring in social service - South 

Australia - Adelaide - Evaluation. I. Panyappi Indigenous 

Youth Mentoring Program. II. South Australia Dept. of 

Human Services. III. Title. 

362.849915094231 

Additional copies can be obtained by: 

Mail: Panyappi Coordinator 

Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team 

c/- The Parks Community Centre 

PO Box 2337 

Regency Park SA 5942 

Phone: 08 8243 5733 

Fax: 08 8243 5744 

Email: Lisa.Kambouris@dfc.sa.gov.au 

Suggested reference: 

beyond…(Kathleen Stacey & Associates) Pty Ltd (2004). Panyappi Indigenous Youth 

Mentoring Program: External evaluation report. Panyappi, Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth 

Team, SA Department of Human Services: Adelaide.

Contents 

Beginning the Story… ...................................................................................................1 

Executive Summary......................................................................................................3 

The Panyappi Program ............................................................................................... 10 

History of Panyappi ........................................................................................................................10 

Auspicing arrangement...................................................................................................................13 

Staffing structure..........................................................................................................................14 

Program collaborators....................................................................................................................16 

Young people involved with Panyappi...........................................................................................16 

How Panyappi works........................................................................................................................18 

A Brief Review of Mentoring...................................................................................26 

A cultural perspective...................................................................................................................26 

Published literature on mentoring: A brief summary ............................................................26 

The Evaluation Process .............................................................................................30 

Evaluation purpose .........................................................................................................................30 

Evaluation plan ................................................................................................................................30 

Evaluation questions ......................................................................................................................33 

The Stories..................................................................................................................34 

Painting a picture with numbers..................................................................................................34 

Young people and family themes.................................................................................................39 

Program management themes......................................................................................................52 

Being a mentor ................................................................................................................................62 

Weaving the Threads Together.............................................................................. 71 

Achieving desired program outcomes.........................................................................................71 

Implications for Indigenous youth mentoring programs.......................................................76 

Recommendations .......................................................................................................79 

Appendix A: Panyappi outcomes hierarchy........................................................... 81 

Appendix B: Glossary.................................................................................................82

Beginning the Story… 

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation 

Panyappi provides intensive support services to a small number of Indigenous young 

people and families. It is possible that those participating in the evaluation could be 

recognised if their actual stories were used, so only short non-identifying quotes are 

used in “The stories” section of the report. 

To protect their privacy, and given their willingness and generosity of time in 

participating, the following ‘story’ has been constructed out of the many different 

stories. It provides a description of the journey of many young people involved with 

Panyappi, although not all elements of the story are the same for all the young people. 

Susie is 13 years old and lives at home with both parents and two younger 

siblings. She plays a significant role in her family by caring for her younger 

siblings, including when her mother is less able to do this because of family 

violence. She also cares for her mother at these times. Susie’s father has 

regular work, but is a frequent user of yarndi, which is having negative effects 

on the whole family. 

In recent months Susie has started to spend more time away from home, often 

at night. She has been hanging out with a couple of new friends who are visiting 

the inner city and experimenting with yarndi. Susie is starting to get drawn into 

this other lifestyle. It is both exciting, but also an escape from the troubles at 

home and the heavy sense of responsibility she feels. 

Although it is common for young women to want to spend more time with their 

friends at this age, being with this group of friends means Susie is being 

exposed to and encouraged to use yarndi and alcohol. Doing this also exposes 

Susie to other risks on the streets, such as approaches by older men and 

invitations to go riding in cars. She still goes to school but is becoming more 

irregular. This is partly because of the times she cares for her mother and 

siblings as the family violence has been worse lately, but also the pull of the new 

friendships, which is timeout for her. 

Most of Susie’s other family members now live 2-3 hours away in the country, so 

connections with people who would offer her support have been interrupted. 

Susie was particularly close to her Auntie Lily on her mother’s side, but she has 

had to move to be near her grandchildren. Susie has found herself caught 

between two worlds, with limited support to help her look after herself. She 

often feels lonely, sad and is not sure what to do. 

Susie comes to Panyappi’s attention in two ways. The school has involved the 

regional Attendance Officer, but she is having difficulty getting past the door 

at home. By getting these phone calls and home visits her mother now knows 

Susie is not going to school consistently and this has created more arguments 

between them. Her mother is also unhappy that Susie is not caring for her 

younger siblings (aged 5 and 3) when asked. Susie’s mother approached the 

- 1 -


Aboriginal Education Worker (AEW ) at the school and that person told her 

about Panyappi. The AEW also tells the Attendance Officer about the program, 

who follows i t up and makes the referral. 

An inner city street worker has also noticed Susie, and her situation was raised 

at an Interagency Inner City Triage Meeting established by the Panyappi 

program and the Crime Prevention Unit, State Attorney General’s Department. 

Panyappi reports they have just received a referral from education. The FAYS 

worker at the meeting agrees that Susie is at risk but indicates that FAYS 

cannot take her on. He does, however, do a check and reports that Aunt Li ly has 

previously rung through to FAYS to raise her concerns about Susie but no action 

was taken. 

The inner city street worker confirms that Susie has frequented the inner city 

more often in recent months, but does not believe she is there regularly enough 

to build a consistent relationship with her. She suggests that Susie probably 

needs another support option, as her group of friends do not just hang in the 

inner city, sometimes going to other places. The SAPOL Officer at the meeting 

suggests that she may be hooking up with a group of young people who are 

frequenting at least two other places in the metropolitan area late at night. 

Panyappi agrees to make contact with Susie and her family to see if they can 

assess the situation. At the following meeting they report that Susie and the 

family agreed, and they have accepted her and allocated a female mentor, Mary. 

Mary will work with Susie for 12-15 hours a week initially, and maintain support 

for several hours/week for as long as considered appropriate by Susie, her 

family and the Panyappi program. This may reduce over time according to needs 

and progress. 

The threads of Susie’s story will be picked up again in “The stories” section, where the 

work that Panyappi does to assist Susie to consider a different direction for her journal 

is described. 

Words used in this report 

Please note that Appendix B contains a glossary for some of the words used throughout 

this report that may be less familiar to readers. 

- 2 -

Executive Summary 

What is Panyappi? 


Panyappi 1 is an Indigenous youth mentoring service for young people who experience 

multiple problems that lead them to frequent inner city or other suburban hangouts, 

placing them at risk of being a victim of crime or engaging in offending behaviour. 

Panyappi aims to: 

1. To intervene in pathways of offending behaviour and bring about a positive shift in 

each young person’s attitude toward offending and in their behaviour. 

2. To decrease each young participant’s contact with the juvenile justice system and/or 

agencies associated with this system. 

3. To promote self-discovery and self-determination by young people participating in 

the program their family and wider community. 

4. To work collaboratively with all agencies that have mutual responsibility for resolving 

the young person’s difficulties. 

Most of the young people with whom Panyappi works are disengaging or already 

disengaged from education, have a high rate of social-emotional issues, and often engage 

in substance misuse. At least half of these young people are involved with FAYS and/or 

the juvenile justice system. They are unlikely to engage with mainstream youth 

mentoring programs, particularly on a voluntary basis, or with other youth groups or 

youth support services. They require longer-term, consistent, regular and more intense 

support in order to build trust, foster their personal resilience, and assist them to gain 

stability, a positive personal identity and constructive direction for their lives. 

Although it began in July 2001, like many pilot initiatives tackling a difficult issue 

Panyappi experienced disruptions during its establishment. Initially this was due to 

disagreement about the program focus, location, auspicing arrangements, and an 

insufficient funding base. The funding issue led to staffing the program with trainees 

only as mentors, rather than more experienced workers, which proved inappropriate and 

drew the Coordinator’s time away from service development. After making progress by 

March 2002, there were two quick changes of Coordinator resulting in an extended 

break in service in 2002. The program was stabilised in February 2003 and since then 

has functioned more smoothly, strengthened collaborative work with other agencies/ 

services, and provided consistent mentoring services for young people and families. 

Evaluating Panyappi 

Panyappi was evaluated through a series of personal interviews and focus groups with all 

key stakeholders, including young people, family members, program staff, program 

collaborators, program funders and Advisory Group Members. Program statistics, client 

demographics and program documentation were also reviewed and analysed. This 

1 This is a Kaurna word meaning younger brother or sister. It is pronounced “bunyip + ee.” 

- 3 -


provided a detailed picture of the journey of Panyappi and the progress it has made 

toward achieving its aims. 

Panyappi’s model of practice 

It became apparent that there were a number of important features in Panyappi’s model 

of practice that supported it to achieve its aims. They included: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Having a formal rather than naturalistic mentoring process using a case management 

approach, where young people participate voluntarily in the program 

Focusing on the individual needs of young people 

Providing support beyond the “while the young person is in trouble” period and 

extending into the “consolidating new connections and commitments” period where 

young people are doing well and keeping their lives on a positive track - mentoring 

beyond the trouble zone 

Employing paid mentors who have quality training, professional development 

opportunities, and regular supervision and support 

Working from a developmental perspective by focusing on a lower age group, i.e. 10- 

14 years, who are already involved in offending behaviours and have disconnected 

from education 

Rebuilding and strengthening family connections as an important aspect of culturally 

appropriate practice in mentoring – this contrasts with mainstream mentoring 

programs that do not engage with families as standard practice 

Focusing on target geographical areas and developing collaborations with local key 

stakeholders to collectively address the problems Indigenous young people are 

experiencing and the issues this raises for the local community 

Progress toward desired program outcomes 

Panyappi has made substantial progress toward the desired program outcomes, despite 

the disruptions it experienced through the program establishment period, the loss of 

two coordinators and subsequent breaks in service. The collective opinion of evaluation 

participants was that Panyappi became a mentoring service in early 2003, so has only had 

just over 12 months to directly address the program aims. There was confidence that 

further outcomes could be achieved with more consistent support and committed 

funding, which could be tracked if this included resources for ongoing evaluation. 

Managing the program 

Advisory group members, program funders and collaborators reported the program was 

currently managed well and gained strong support from its auspicing agency. Most 

criticism related to issues known to be beyond the current program’s control. This 

includes the difficulty in ensuring program sustainability and continuity of service for 

young people, some ongoing effects from previous disruptions in staff, and limitations on 

how many young people they can work with due to the time needed to train staff. 

Panyappi’s experience mirrors the evidence on program targeting young offenders, where 

- 4 -


it is common for there to be a longer than expected period of time required to establish 

the program and develop effective partnerships, as well as to work with young people 

who are often uncertain about engaging and face multiple and complex issues. 

Reaching the target group 

The young people assessed and considered by Panyappi for mentoring support fit the 

profile originally identified for the program – described above. Most have multiple and 

serious problems to deal with, individually and within their families, which have often 

been longstanding issues. Therefore, Panyappi has addressed the intended target group, 

while also expanding the inner city focus in response to the location shifts of this group 

of young people. 

Supporting the mentors 

Mentors highly valued training and supervision support, seeing it as crucial to performing 

their roles. Some were keen to do further work placements and work in buddy systems 

with youth workers as part of their on-the-job training to deepen their knowledge of 

the services and systems in which their clients are involved. Some mentors wanted more 

supervision and support, which the Coordinator was keen to provide but was compromised 

by the multiple pressures of the role including efforts to obtain ongoing program 

funding. 

Mentors indicated an interest in continuing their mentoring work, but also doing further 

study, and progressing toward different jobs or more senior positions in the human 

services sector. This demonstrated the value of Panyappi’s two-level system of 

mentoring where their efforts to recruit and train Indigenous workers meant that they 

would be retained in the human services sector. It also highlighted the potential for 

Panyappi to nurture and encourage Indigenous workers who may taken on leadership 

positions in the human services sector and/or their communities. 

All mentors were linked with young people, with caseloads varying from 1 to 4 clients 

depending on confidence, experience, initiative and capacity. Their work was guided by a 

case plan developed by Panyappi in partnership with the young person, family, and, where 

relevant, other program collaborators. Occasionally some program collaborators felt 

uncomfortable that Panyappi was stepping into their territory with case planning, a 

situation that was or could be resolved through agreement to do mutual case planning. 

The value of mentoring relationships 

There was strong evidence from a range of evaluation participants that young people 

valued their relationships with mentors and grew to trust them, often in ways their 

family members or program collaborators had not previously witnessed. This was not 

always straightforward to achieve, particularly when there was a history of rejection, 

poor treatment or losses for young people, and it was important to allow time for this 

trust to develop. 

- 5 -


On a few occasions mentors had not performed their role appropriately, putting the 

relationship and young people’s progress at risk and drawing criticism from program 

collaborators. The Panyappi Coordinator addressed this by supporting mentors to 

improve their ability to meet their responsibilities, and, if necessary, reconsider their 

appropriateness for the role, or stepping in to work with the young person to bridge the 

gap until another mentor could be provided. 

Interagency collaboration 

Interagency collaboration has been variable at the Advisory Group level due to 

differences of opinion about the location and auspicing arrangements for Panyappi, and 

the disruption this creates when meetings are held, detracting from commitments to 

collaboration made in the early stages of the program. The viability of the current 

Advisory Group structure is uncertain and alternatives could be considered. 

In contrast, collaboration in the delivery of direct services appears to be strong. 

Program collaborators greatly appreciate access to a unique service that provides a high 

level of input into young people who are otherwise likely to disconnect from education 

and support services, and further increase the risk they will engage in or be a victim of 

crime. Panyappi has developed strong relationships with schools in providing everyday 

support for young people, and with family support services, especially through MAYT, 

but also other government and non-government agencies. 

Criticisms appeared to be based on confusion about the roles and responsibilities of 

mentors, the long-term and intensive nature of mentoring, and the extent of the 

program resources. This was reflected through reports about and from program 

collaborators of unrealistic expectations and inappropriate requests of mentors, and 

poor clarification of communication and information-sharing protocols. This may be 

restraining the achievement of best possible outcomes in some circumstances. 

Influencing young people’s attitudes and behaviour toward offending 

Both young people and family members reported a marked positive change in young 

people’s offending behaviour, which was supported by the justice system’s database that 

tracks and reports young people’s offending activity. Some young people with strong 

histories of offending and incarceration had not offended at all or only small incidents 

had occurred in a six-month period, often in the earlier stages of their work with 

Panyappi. The young people and their family members considered this remarkable and 

were proud as well as slightly surprised. Mentors and program collaborators supported 

these statements. Along with family members, they also indicated that young people’s 

attitudes had started to shift as they realised they could succeed in other areas and 

had other options they could take apart from offending. 

As would be expected for young people who have developed entrenched negative 

patterns, there were hiccoughs in this process. Evaluation participants were very keen 

that an investment was made in a long-term support program, like Panyappi, that would 

stay with young people through the ups and downs involved in getting back and staying on 

track. 

- 6 -


Decreasing young people’s contact with the juvenile justice system 

It was apparent from the range of qualitative data gained, that Panyappi clients 

decreased their contact with the juvenile justice system in terms of their level of and 

frequency of offending. This was confirmed through system data with substantial 

decreases in formal cautions, court orders, family conferences and convictions. Due to a 

previous history of offending it was common that some young people were still involved in 

court appearances or orders. Panyappi supported them through and, wherever possible, 

beyond this period. Whether this decreased contact is maintained will depend on the 

capacity to track these young people’s progress over a longer period of time, which will 

require ongoing program and evaluation funding. 

Supporting self-discovery and self-determination by young people and families 

There were consistent reports from a range of stakeholders that young people 

developed in their self-belief, and personal and cultural identity during their involvement 

with Panyappi. Many young people re-engaged with education, whether through schooling 

or VET options, started to develop other interests and friendships, and were developing 

better relationships with their families. Family members agreed to be involved with 

other support agencies to address personal or family issues, started to improve their 

skills in responding constructively to their young people, and became more convinced 

that their young person was making substantial changes. They reported experiencing a 

decrease in stress over time. They valued the way in which Panyappi included and 

supported them in the process. 

Family members, mentors and program collaborators believed that if young people were 

going to maintain belief in their ability to cope, stay motivated and achieve their goals, it 

would depend on further support from Panyappi at a similar or reduced intensity for a 

further period of time (i.e. at least 6-12 months). If this occurred, they were more 

confident that young people would become self-determining. 

Recommendations 

These outcomes lead to the following recommendations. Recommendations 1 through 6 

specifically focus on the Panyappi program, while recommendations 7 and 8 apply to 

future Indigenous youth programs. 

Recommendation 1: Ongoing commitment to Panyappi 

ω 

ω 

Develop a long-term funding strategy for Panyappi involving two or more partners 

from the juvenile justice, crime prevention, and family and community service 

sectors, including Indigenous based agencies. 

Support Panyappi to document its model of work to be used as an example of good 

practice for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth mentoring programs, as well 

as a training tool within and beyond Panyappi. 

- 7 -

Recommendation 2: Extension of program scope 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 


Sustain the program and expand the funding base so that Panyappi has the capacity 

and flexibility to respond to a greater range of young people, specifically: 

� in other geographical areas of high need, and 

� across a wider age group, ie the 6-9 year old group. 

Recommendation 3: Strengthening collaborative work 

Continue to foster collaborative work with program collaborators beyond the 

auspicing agency, including formal memorandums of agreement where relevant. 

Develop a training strategy to inform and educate workers in FAYS and those in 

other collaborating agencies (government and non-government) to ensure they 

understand the: 

� role of mentoring, 

� responsibilities of mentors, 

� contrasts with other areas of work (statutory, education, counselling, etc), and 

� implications this has for effective communication and working relationships with 

Panyappi. 

Recommendation 4: An advisory and support function 

Explore alternative advisory and support models to the standard Advisory Group, eg 

regular information systems to a wider group of interested parties, buddy systems 

with one or more key stakeholders, occasional workshop or forums on specific issues, 

or invitations to program events or celebrations where discussion forums are built in. 

Recommendation 5: Family-inclusive approaches 

Maintain a family-inclusive approach in line with culturally appropriate practice. 

Further explore, document and evaluate this approach to assist in understanding its 

impact on program outcomes, and as a contribution to the literature on youth 

mentoring programs. 

Recommendation 6: Evaluation 

Include a budget for evaluation in any future funding of Panyappi as it is a unique 

program in Australia - there are few independently evaluated youth mentoring 

programs and none have been both Indigenous run and focused apart from Panyappi. 

Develop an appropriate evaluation framework that: 

� tracks changes in offending behaviour by the client group over time, 

� accounts for other contributing factors, and 

- 8 -


� uses a consistent and agreed method of defining offending behaviour with a 

reliable system of recording it that has the cooperation and support of relevant 

government departments or agencies. 

Recommendation 7: Encouraging future Indigenous leaders 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Ensure that a formal mentoring process is provided for Indigenous workers taking up 

entry-level positions within human service organisations 

Develop a process for mentoring of workers at all levels within human service 

organisations and offer Indigenous workers the option to participate 

Recommendation 8: Establishment phase for future Indigenous youth programs 

Ensure that an establishment phase is built into the budget and plan in the funding 

of any future Indigenous youth program, and sufficient time is allowed for 

establishment to occur before service delivery commences. 

- 9 -

The Panyappi Program 


Panyappi means “younger brother or sister” and is an Indigenous youth mentoring 

program that operates in a crime prevention context. Theory and practice in the 

mentoring and crime prevention fields, together with culturally appropriate practice in 

human services work, guide the design and conduct of Panyappi. This is reflected in its 

aims: 

1. To intervene in pathways of offending behaviour and bring about a positive shift in 

each young person’s attitude toward offending and in their behaviour. 

2. To decrease each young participant’s contact with the juvenile justice system and/or 

agencies associated with this system. 

3. To promote self-discovery and self-determination by young people participating in 

the program their family and wider community. 

4. To work collaboratively with all agencies that have mutual responsibility for resolving 

the young person’s difficulties. 

History of Panyappi 

Why this program? 2 

The idea behind Panyappi emerged in 1999 as a response to the recurring problem of 

Aboriginal young people frequenting the inner city area of Adelaide and their 

involvement in a range of crimes, particularly on weekends. There was also concern about 

the risks that young people faced by being in the inner city late at night and engaging in 

criminal activity that may involve older people. The Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team 

(MAYT), an Aboriginal-focused youth program within Family and Youth Services (FAYS), 

Department of Human Services (DHS) discussed these issues with the Crime Prevention 

Unit of the State Attorney General’s Department. These discussions led to MAYT 

developing and submitting an initial proposal to the Attorney General’s Department in 

early 2000 for a 12-month mentoring program to work with the identified target group. 

Following in principal approval of the project in June 2000, a Project Management Group 

was formed. It was later known as the “Funders Group” to more accurately reflect its 

role, as a Project Advisory Group was also formed to support and guide the project with 

representation sought from a range of stakeholders in the justice, youth and community 

field. The Advisory Group had its inaugural meeting in November 2000. During 2000, the 

Funders Group engaged in detailed project planning, which led to a number of changes to 

the original proposal. For example, the establishment of a youth facility in the city area 

was dropped for several reasons, including practicality and cost effectiveness. There 

was a shift away from exclusively working after hours with young people, as there were 

existing youth services operating after hours with young people in the city and 

mentoring requires engagement with young people at different times, including day time. 

2 Crime Prevention Unit (2002). Panyappi Stage One Report. South Australian Attorney General’s Department: 

Adelaide, pp.4-5. 

- 10 -


The group also recognised that mentoring, especially with this group of young people, 

was a process that required a long-term commitment in order to achieve desired 

personal emotional and behavioural change. They put a submission to the national 

mentoring program funded by the Australian Attorney General’s Department as part of 

the national crime prevention program. This enabled the project to be funded for two 

years so it could establish appropriate policies and practices and develop an effective 

model for working with this group of young people. Following submission in January 2001 

a funding agreement was reached with the Australian Government in October 2001. The 

State Attorney General’s Department, Crime Prevention Unit also committed funds, and 

FAYS indicated it would, although the final outcome did not prove adequate (see below). 

Why mentoring? 3 

There are several possible responses to the issue of Aboriginal young people frequenting 

the inner city area of Adelaide. Some of these response options already exist, such as 

street work with young people in general or specifically with Aboriginal young people. In 

this instance, mentoring was chosen because it was seen as more likely to facilitate an 

effective intervention that moved beyond a crisis or short-term response to achieve 

outcomes that can be sustained over the long-term. A summary of reasons is: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Mentoring usually focuses on one-on-one engagement with young people, thereby 

providing the opportunity to develop a relationship where the young person’s 

concerns, experiences and issues can be shared, and assistance and support provided 

by Mentors 

Mentors can act as role models, demonstrating and encouraging non-offending 

behaviours and moderating negative peer influences 

Mentors can provide a service to the young person in a wide variety of environments 

such as at school or on the street where the young person hangs out 

Mentors can also act as a bridge between the young person and services, providing 

advice, referral and advocacy 

Mentors have greater capacity to develop a relationship wider than the young 

person, establishing links with the family and peers 

This is based on the assumption that an effective relationship is established between a 

young person and the mentor demonstrated by trust and mutual respect between both 

parties. It was believed that the development of an effective relationship would lead to 

the young person moderating their offending behaviour. 

Mentoring is supported by research findings that identify mentoring as a “promising” 

crime prevention strategy. 4 Mentoring is also seen as having particular application in 

Aboriginal communities as it is compatible with the cultural tradition of older people in 

3 ibid, p.4. 

4 Lawrence, S. et al. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising? University of 

Maryland. 

- 11 -


the community providing guidance and transferring knowledge to younger members in the 

community (please see “A brief review of mentoring: A cultural perspective” below). 

Mentoring as a crime prevention approach is supported in the literature and research on 

developmental and early intervention approaches to crime prevention. This approach 

identifies risk and protective factors influencing an interrelated life pathway. A 

developmental prevention strategy will seek to reduce risk factors and promote 

protective factors. Identified protective factors include meeting a significant person 

and a supportive relationship with another adult 5 (please see “A brief review of 

mentoring: Published literature on mentoring” below). These ideas are consistent with 

literature on the development of resilience in young people where a stable and 

supportive relationship with a significant adult fosters coping and resilience. 6,7 

Deciding on the auspicing agency 

Since the early days of the Advisory Group there has been discussion about the location 

of the Panyappi program, with several people arguing that it should be auspiced by a 

community agency. At the same time there was acknowledgement that ever since the 

initial ideas for the program MAYT has been a key player in discussing the issues and 

developing proposals for its design and implementation. MAYT were highly familiar with 

the group of young people targeted in Panyappi, as they worked with many of them, their 

families and the community across their range of programs. They also were seen as 

having the capacity to offer strong infrastructure support and a track record with 

providing mentoring programs to Aboriginal young people. 8 This issue was tracked 

through the early internal evaluation of the program conducted by the Crime Prevention 

Unit in the State Attorney General’s Department and was revisited during Advisory 

Group meetings in 2002. 

Following the unexpected and quick loss of the 2 nd Panyappi Coordinator in September 

2002, the issue of Panyappi’s location was explored again at a specially convened 

Advisory Group about the future of the program in October 2002. 9 The Crime 

Prevention Unit agreed to develop a short discussion paper on a process for deciding 

whether the program should be transferred to a community organisation and what model 

would be used for this process. This was provided in early 2003. There was inconsistent 

attendance at meetings scheduled during this year, so Advisory Group members did not 

respond to the paper, discuss the issue in detail or formally recommend that the matter 

be pursued. Due to this history the location of Panyappi was raised as a question during 

the external evaluation. 

5 National Crime Prevention (1999). Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and early intervention approaches 

to crime in Australia. National Crime Prevention, Australian Attorney General’s Department: Canberra 

6 Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the consequences 

of community violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

7 

Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 119-144. 

8 Crime Prevention Unit (2002), op cit, p.10. 

9 Crime Prevention Unit (2003). Panyappi Stage Three Report. South Australian Crime Prevention Unit: Adelaide. 

- 12 -

Program funding 


Panyappi commenced operating in July 2001 based on collaborative funding that involved 

three partners: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

A 2 year grant from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s National Crime 

Prevention Unit for January 2002 – January 2004 

A grant from State Attorney General’s Department, Crime Prevention Unit for the 

same period to match this funding and support the program 

In-kind support and a small grant from Family and Youth Services, DHS 

Of the 24 programs funded by the Commonwealth it was one of only two programs 

targeting Indigenous young people. It is one of few mentoring programs in Australia that 

has a dedicated crime prevention focus. 10,11 Although Panyappi shares the main functions 

of mentoring and role model programs – “inspiration, setting an example and providing 

personalised support” 12 - it is developing a unique model for a mentoring program that 

also has unique challenges (see “The Panyappi program: How Panyappi works” below). 

Auspicing arrangement 

Panyappi is auspiced by MAYT, the only youth and Aboriginal specific government funded 

program in DHS and South Australia. MAYT is committed to developing and maintaining 

“a strong and supportive team ethic that respects and nurtures cultural identity and 

culturally appropriate ways of working.” 13 The key intentions of MAYT are: 

To support young people to reconnect with families, community, culture and 

education and, wherever possible, prevent them from becoming involved or reinvolved 

with the juvenile justice and social welfare systems. 14 

MAYT operates several programs in order to serve Aboriginal young people and families 

involved with FAYS, including a Juvenile Justice Program, Family Placement Coordinator, 

Family Worker, Drug and Alcohol Worker and Tutorial Program. It has recently been 

successful in gaining additional state funding to develop a full Family Team, ie 4 new 

workers in addition to an existing family worker. MAYT provides the following in-kind 

support (~$123K) for Panyappi to give it a strong infrastructure and collegial base: 

10 ARTD (1999/2001). Interim literature review for the mentoring as a crime prevention strategy pilot project. 

Sydney: Crime Prevention Division, NSW Attorney General’s Department. 

11 Wilczynski, A. (2002). A national audit review of mentoring projects for young offenders: Preliminary 

findings. Paper presented at the Crime Prevention Conference convened by the Australian Institute of 

Criminology and the Crime Prevention Branch, Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Sydney. 

12 MacCallum, J. & Beltman, S. (2002). Role models for young people: What makes an effective role model 

program. National Youth Affairs Research Scheme: Hobart, p.63. 

13 

Stacey, K. (2003). MAYT - Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team: A metropolit an wide and community based 

initiative. Site visit report for the School Retention Reference. Social Inclusion Unit, SA Department of 

Premier & Cabinet: Adelaide, p.1. 

14 ibid, p.2. 

- 13 -

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Offices and furniture, group room and meeting facilities 


Reception and administrative support, including office supplies, postage and 

photocopying 

Supervision of the Coordinator position 

Access to a vehicle 

Access to FAYS and MAYT training opportunities 

Inclusion of the Panyappi Coordinator in the MAYT management team to strengthen 

program cooperation 

Inclusion of Panyappi staff in MAYT team meetings and planning days to complement 

and integrate program operations 

Cooperative working relationships, especially with the Family, and Drug and Alcohol 

workers 

Development of joint programs for MAYT and Panyappi clients where appropriate 

$33K/year of direct funding over the two year grant period 

Staffing structure 

Original staffing structure 

At the time of appointing the first coordinator in July 2001, the recommended staffing 

structure included a Program Coordinator at the ASO5 level and then a budget allocation 

for mentors that could be divided as considered appropriate. The first round of mentor 

recruitment in October 2001 identified six suitable mentors who took up positions as 

outlined in Figure 1. 

2.6 Mentors – OPS1 

(Part-time) 

Revised staffing structure 

Figure 1: Original staffing structure 

MAYT – Auspicing agency 

Coordinator – ASO5 

3 Mentors – OPS1 

(Trainees) 

The original staffing structure was maintained during the 2001-2002 period while the 1 st 

Coordinator (July 2001 - March 2002) and 2 nd Coordinator (July 2002 – September 

2002) were managing the program. In February 2003, when the 3 rd Coordinator started, 

- 14 -


the staffing structure was reviewed. A decision was taken to create a Mentor Support 

Worker position to provide a viable career path for the mentors, and support both the 

mentors and the Coordinator in the ‘day-to-day’ running of the program. In addition 

there would be other specific tasks, such as monitoring the case management approach 

designed for Panyappi. This position was made possible through salary savings from the 

two time periods during which the Coordinator position was unfilled. The intention was to 

fill the position in July 2003. The revised structure is outlined in Figure 2. 

1 Mentor Support 

Worker – OPS2 

Current staffing structure 

Figure 2: Revised staffing structure 




(Part-time) 

3 Mentors – OPS1 

(Trainees) 

During mid-late 2003 some mentors left Panyappi for other positions. With the funding 

period due to end in January 2004 these positions were not immediately filled, as new 

people would start a process with young people that they could not see through for a 

sufficient period of time. It was decided that the new OPS2 mentor position was more 

appropriately classified as OPS3, and MAYT provided additional funding to establish 

that position in September 2003, planning to absorb this cost into the ongoing Panyappi 

budget, once that is clarified. Due to salary savings, the program could continue through 

to June 2004 so its future and budget remains uncertain until that time. The current 

staffing structure is outlined in Figure 3. 

$ 

1 Senior Mentor – 

OPS3 

Figure 3: Current staffing structure 




(Full and part-time) 

- 15 - 

1 Mentor – OPS1 

(Trainee)

Program collaborators 


As the young people who Panyappi target are often in more complex circumstances than 

young people in mainstream mentoring programs, an extensive network of connections 

are required. The key collaborations in the development and delivery of the Panyappi 

program are shown in Figure 4 and may be: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

sources of referral to Panyappi, 

services with whom Panyappi mentors need to network or to whom they may need to 

refer due the needs of individual young people, 

services with whom Panyappi develops cooperative programs, and 

services with whom Panyappi networks to stay abreast of relevant local and sector 

issues that impact on their program, mentors and or young people. 

Young people involved with Panyappi 

The initial intention was for Panyappi to focus on young Aboriginal people who frequent 

the inner city area although they may come from various parts of the metropolitan area, 

often the west, south and north. Although this focus has been maintained, Panyappi has 

also worked with young people who frequent other urban areas. This has been necessary 

as “the place” to hang out shifts over time and can quickly move back and forth. Young 

people who typically come into the inner city may temporarily go out to Salisbury, the 

Parks or other locations. 

The young people involved with Panyappi are usually 10-17 years old and are at risk of 

entering the juvenile justice system or incarceration. They usually have the following 

characteristics: 

In the 10-15 age group 

A history of offending or risk factors associated with offending 

Low socio-economic background 

Poor school attendance and often complete disengagement from schooling 

Poor educational achievement, low numeracy and literacy skills, and/or learning 

difficulties 

Behavioural difficulties and problems with violence 

A history of drug, alcohol and substance misuse 

Experiences of physical, sexual and emotional abuse 

Unstable living arrangements 

- 16 -

JUSTICE 

Strong support from the Crime Prevention Unit, Attorney 

General’s Department, and liaison with and support of other 

parts of the system (eg youth conference teams, courts) to 

co-develop and coordinate early intervention and prevention 

options. 

EDUCATION 

Liaison with and support to 

schools involved with the 

young people in Panyappi 

YOUTH SERVICES 

Indigenous and non-Indigenous, 

and government and NGO 

community youth health and 

welfare services 

Figure 4: Panyappi program collaborators 

PANYAPPI 

Mentors Young 

people 

Family Drug & 

Team Alcohol Worker 

Coordinator 

Family Juvenile 

Placement Team Justice Team 

Tutoring Program 

MAYT 

CAMHS 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Community Service 

Teams 

In-depth therapy support from child and adolescent 

mental health services as indicated. 

- 17 - 


SA POLICE 

Co-develop and run 

some program 

aspects 

FAMILY SUP- 

PORT SERVICES 

Indigenous and non- 

Indigenous, and 

government and NGO 

family services

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 


Families dealing with multiple problems (including several of the above), where family 

breakdown is common and young people’s relationships with significant others is 

often disrupted and inconsistent 

They are unlikely to engage with mainstream youth mentoring programs, particularly on a 

voluntary basis, or with other youth groups or youth support services. They require 

longer-term, consistent, regular and more intense support in order to build trust, foster 

their personal resilience and successfully meet the desired aims of the Panyappi 

program. 

How Panyappi works 

Through the evaluation work it became apparent that Panyappi has developed a number 

of key features in its practice that cover: 

the mentoring process 

the mentoring role 

level of intervention 

relationships with families 

interagency work 

It is useful to outline these features at this point in the report as they provide a 

context for what participants in the evaluation say about their experience of Panyappi. 

In the stories and opinions shared in the evaluation, evaluation participants provided 

evidence to support this description of how Panyappi works. 

Some of these features align with recommended strategies for good practice in 

mainstream mentoring programs, while others are more unique to Panyappi as an 

Indigenous youth mentoring program (please also see “A brief overview of mentoring” 

below). 

The mentoring process 

Panyappi is a formal rather than naturalistic mentoring process based on a case 

management approach, where young people participate voluntarily in the program. The 

voluntary aspect is considered important, as the young people referred to Panyappi are 

often involved in court or educational processes where they are expected or required to 

participate. They do not always respond well to mandated requirements to attend human 

service programs. 

Making Panyappi voluntary assists in engaging the young person, as they see the Panyappi 

mentor as being more on their side. Mentors build on this start by developing a positive, 

caring and non-judgemental relationship with young people. Panyappi staff believe that 

ensuring the program is voluntary creates some leverage for them to build a better 

relationship and then encourage young people to participate more effectively with court 

- 18 -


and education processes or other human services. This is supported by a recent national 

review of mentoring program in crime prevention. 15 

Panyappi focuses on the individual needs of young people in the following ways. They 

have a screening and assessment process to ensure young people fit the criteria. Once 

accepted into the program they identify individual needs and determine the best match 

with a mentor. The mentor spends committed one-to-one time with young people to build 

a relationship and assist the young person in dealing with the many issues they face in 

their life. They then identify what additional support is required from external agencies, 

such as the program collaborators identified in Figure 4. The Coordinator liaises and 

negotiates to gain this support, or supports mentors in this role. 

Although it may be more time and cost effective to offer group mentoring options, many 

of the young people involved in Panyappi need to start with individual mentoring before 

they can function effectively in a group environment. In addition to one-to-one time with 

mentors, the program develops and accesses a range of individual and group programs 

as another context in which mentoring work can occur. This is facilitated by co-location 

with MAYT, as Panyappi can utilise the range of programs they offer. In this way 

Panyappi offers a “both/and” approach of providing individual mentoring, as well as the 

benefits and cultural fit of group or collective strategies. 

A unique feature of Panyappi is that it provides an opportunity for personal mentoring 

support beyond the “while the young person is in trouble” period and extending into the 

“consolidating new connections and commitments” period where young people are doing 

well and keeping their lives on a positive track. This could be called mentoring beyond 

the trouble zone. This reverses the common experience for Panyappi’s target group. 

Often they only receive support because they are in trouble, rather than when they are 

doing well, which can work against long-term change. 

Continuing mentoring support after issues are resolved but before the young person has 

solidly established a new pattern minimises the revolving door phenomena of falling back 

into problematic patterns when support is withdrawn too early. Another rationale for 

doing this is that many of Panyappi’s young people have experienced disrupted 

relationships with important family members. The staff believe that providing an 

experience of a more stable relationship while strengthening or building up connections 

with other people in their everyday network will assist young people to sustain gains they 

make during their time with Panyappi. 

The mentoring role 

Assisting people to understand the mentoring role has been one of the challenges faced 

by Panyappi in working with program collaborators so there are appropriate expectations 

or requests of mentors – this issue will be addressed in the Evaluation Outcomes section. 

15 Wilczynski, A., Culvenor, C., Cunneen, C., Schwartzkoff, J. & Reed-Gilbert, K. (2003). Early intervention: 

Youth mentoring programs - An overview of mentoring programs for young people at risk of offending. 

Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department: Canberra. 

- 19 -


Mentoring may share some aspects of youth work or social work, but there is a different 

focus and intention. It is not a transport, even though mentors may transport or 

accompany young people to other appointments or obligations. These activities 

contribute to a larger purpose or goal that is agreed with the young person and 

family/caregivers. It is not a baby-sitting service, even though mentors may spend 

recreational time with young people individually or in groups. Individual or group 

excursions are an environment in which it may be more comfortable and safe for the 

young person to open up to the mentor, build trust and start to discuss the personal 

issues they face. 

In summary, the role of mentors is to ensure the care, health and wellbeing of young 

people who access Panyappi services. They act as a bridge between the young person and 

services, providing advice, referral and advocacy. They provide a service to the young 

person in a wide variety of environments by: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Modelling appropriate behaviours 

Providing one-on-one engagement with a young person to build a trusting relationship 

with a commitment to maintaining the relationship over an extended period of time 

Assisting young people to access educational, training and recreational services to 

facilitate young peoples transition into the community 

Promoting, encouraging and ensuring positive relationships with parents, family 

members, significant others and the community 

Providing care, guidance, support and supervision of young people in a reasonable and 

appropriate manner, and their protection from harm and exploitation 

Offering a safe, secure and caring environment for young people. 

Developing and implementing programs that teach young people practical living skills, 

how to make choices and decisions and how to take responsibility for their actions 

Assisting young people who are moving towards independence by providing regular 

support and linking into appropriate services 

Escorting and supervising young people when attending relevant appointments in the 

community 

Providing opportunities for young people to experience success and to realise their 

full potential 

Due to the complex and often long-standing problems for young people in Panyappi, and a 

frequent history of previously unsuccessful intervention, mentoring involves regular and 

intensive involvement. This is up to 15 – 20 hours/week, particularly in the earlier months 

while the relationship and trust is being built. The belief is that an investment of this 

nature makes a difference that can be sustained as the young person becomes an adult 

and avoids further and more serious involvement in crime that has high social and 

financial costs at personal, family and societal levels. 

Panyappi’s approach to mentoring acknowledges that there are multiple ways of 

supporting young people and more than mentoring is required to make a difference, ie: 

- 20 -


Formal mentoring programs are one effective means of supporting young people, 

not a single solution to complex social and individual needs. Especially in 

circumstances where young people face multiple disadvantages, mentors are best 

regarded as complementary to and an addition to the work of professionals and 

other supportive services, not as a replacement for them. 16 

As noted in the above summary of their role, Panyappi mentors are actively involved in 

facilitating the engagement of young people and families with a range of other services 

that can respond to their needs, particularly where it has or will be difficult for 

engagement to occur. 

Support for mentors 

There has been strong commitment to ensuring that Panyappi mentors have access to 

quality training, professional development opportunities, and regular supervision and 

support. The intentions are to resource them appropriately and sustain them in their 

high intensity role with this group of young people. 

If they do not have it, all Panyappi mentors undertake training for a Certificate III in 

Community Services (Youth Work). They have access to the range of training offered 

through FAYS in the Department of Human Services, including required training in 

Mandated Notification and Occupational Health and Safety issues and other areas 

relevant to the program, e.g. juvenile justice, racism/anti-racism, substance misuse. 

They also participate in MAYT staff development and planning processes. 

The Panyappi Coordinator provides professional supervision for all mentors based on 

mutually negotiated superversion agreements. In addition each mentor has a 

performance management agreement that includes a focus on career development. The 

Coordinator conducts all screening and assessment, case planning and case management, 

including attending case conferences with other agencies where required. Case planning 

occurs in collaboration with individual mentors, and mentors learn about the case 

management process. In addition, under the current staffing structure they also have 

access to the Senior Mentor for day-to-day peer support and guidance, where the 

Senior Mentor can act as a mentor to the other mentors. 

Panyappi has adopted a strategy of two levels of mentoring. The primary focus is on 

young people, as required under the program funding arrangements. In addition, there is 

a secondary focus on people in the Mentor positions. This addresses the need to recruit 

and retain skilled Indigenous workers within Family & Youth Services, DHS, and 

responds to commitments to do this in the DHS Reconciliation Plan. 17 Although Panyappi 

is very keen to retain mentors in order to ensure program stability and offer young 

people relationship stability, mentors are encouraged to consider further study options 

as part of their career development. In this way Panyappi contributes to developing and 

16 Hartley, R. (2004). Young people and mentoring: Towards a national strategy. Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Australia, Dusseldorp Skills Forum and The Smith Family: Australia. 

17 

Department of Human Services (2002). Department of Human Services: The Reconciliation Plan 2002-2003. 

Adelaide: SA Department of Human Services, p.28. 

- 21 -


supporting the people who will become the workers of the future within Aboriginal 

services and communities, and potentially leaders within services and communities. 

Level of and intensity of intervention 

Mentoring programs are often targeted at young people as they reach and proceed 

through their teenage years. There are two obvious reasons for this. First, the 

prevalence of mental health problems markedly increases in the 12 to 25 year age 

group. 18 Second, early school leaving is an increasing issue at this developmental time. 

About one third of young people leave school before the end of year 12 and many have 

only Year 10 schooling. 19,20 Once out of school, young people aged 15-24 years experience 

2.7 times the level of unemployment of people aged 25-54 years. 21 It is in these 

situations that young people often become disconnected from their personal and 

community connections and mentoring is one of several recommended and positive 

responses. 

According to very recent estimates: 

Indigenous young people in urban, regional and remote locations face a level of 

risk of disconnection from learning and work three times greater than non- 

Indigenous young people. 22 

Panyappi decided to work from a developmental perspective 23 by focusing on a lower age 

group, i.e. 10-14 year olds, who are already involved in offending behaviours and have 

disconnected from education. Once they have reached the age of 15 the young people in 

their target group typically do not reconnect to education via other available strategies 

and often reject the idea of mentoring. This group also exerts significant influence over 

the 10-14 year olds who may not have many other alternative influences or options apart 

from following their older peers. 

In addition, because they are working with young offenders, the intensity and frequency 

of their work with young people is much higher than young people who are “at risk” in 

some general way. A recent national overview of mentoring for young offenders reported 

that: 24 

18 Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care (2000). National action plan for promotion, prevention 

and early intervention for mental health 2000. Mental Health and Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth 

Department of Health and Aged Care: Canberra. 

19 Dusseldorp Skills Forum (2003). Fact sheet: Honouring our commitment – How does Australia compare? 

Viewed 22 Jan, 2004, < http://www.dsf.org.au/> 

20 Applied Economics (2003). Young person’s education, training and employment outcomes with special 

reference to early school leavers. Business Council of Australia & Dusseldorp Skills Forum. 

21 Dusseldorp Skills Forum (2003). How young people are faring? Key indicators 2003: An update about the 

learning and work situation of young Australian including an analysis of how young Indigenous people are faring. 

Viewed 22 nd Jan. 2004, < http://www.dsf.org.au/> 

22 ibid, p1. 

23 National Crime Prevention (1999), op cit. 

24 Wilczynski, Culvenor, et al. (2003), op cit, p. 82. 

- 22 -


The evidence shows that mentoring with young offenders may be more intensive 

or complex for young offenders than generally at risk young people (especially in 

relation to mentoring frequency). Therefore, programs need to carefully 

consider the implications of the target group and develop program elements and 

strategies accordingly, especially: 

� 

� 

the greater resources needed for young offenders 

the greater demands on mentors. 

Relationships with families 

Whilst many of the mainstream strategies and intentions of mentoring are also relevant 

for Indigenous young people, Panyappi believes it is critical to approach mentoring with 

this group from a cultural perspective. This involves a stronger focus on, and 

commitment to, rebuilding and strengthening family connections as an important aspect 

of culturally appropriate practice, not just on gaining family support for the young 

person’s involvement as often occurs in other mentoring programs. 25 

Indigenous cultures have a more inclusive concept of family compared with many non- 

Indigenous cultures, with cousins, aunties and uncles playing a critical role in young 

people’s lives. Although there is a high rate of family breakdown amongst Panyappi’s 

target population, there are other family connections that can be fostered, particularly 

when young people are living with relatives other than their parents. These connections 

may support mentoring being embedded into young people’s lives separately from and 

after their involvement with Panyappi. 

It is not common for mentors to have much contact with mentee’s families in mainstream 

mentoring programs, as they appear to operate from an individual rather than systemic 

model. Few program descriptions and evaluations mention parental or family 

involvement. 22,26 This is different in Panyappi. Panyappi mentors do this in two ways: 

through direct contact and by engaging the support and collaborating with the MAYT 

Family team or other family support services (see the Program Collaborators diagram in 

Figure 4). 

Although mentors are directly involved with families, the Panyappi Coordinator takes on 

the major responsibility of providing direct support and additional services for family 

members that will contribute positively to the young person’s overall situation. The 

Coordinator ensures families understand the role of the mentors and how Panyappi can 

work with the family to support the young person, as well as respond to issues that are 

difficult for the family. If Panyappi does advocacy work on behalf of the family, a good 

understanding of the family picture coupled with the family’s respect and endorsement 

for Panyappi to take this role is required. As part of its aims, Panyappi wants young 

people to build personal resilience and strong personal and cultural identity, and 

empower their sense of spirituality. One strategy is through a genealogy program, 

25 ARTD (1999/2001) op cit. 

26 Benard, B. (1992). Mentoring programs for urban youth: Handle with care. Northwest Regional Educational 

Laboratory. 

- 23 -


therefore they need information from families to assist young people in the program. 

The program also facilitates the family reconnecting with where they come from, as 

links may have been lost or broken. 

This family-inclusive approach fits with culturally appropriate practice, as well as 

systemic approaches to family work, 27 where change depends on having an understanding 

of the wider family context in line with an extended concept of families in Aboriginal 

cultures. It also helps develop respect lines back to elders, which these young people 

may have lost due to experiencing the harsh edge of the legacy and effects of 

colonisation and racism. 

In many ways, this offers a third layer of mentoring within the program, where the 

Coordinator is a mentor for family members. The Coordinator assists them in developing 

different ways to relate to and support their young person, and to manage other issues 

in their lives that drain their energy and negatively impact on their social and emotional 

wellbeing. Family members are contacted regularly by phone, home visits occur and they 

are encouraged to initiate contact with the program. They are also invited to take part 

in programs, such as the art program. Young people are usually aware that their family 

members are involved. 

Interagency work 

Panyappi has focused its efforts on target geographical areas. They needed to build 

effective collaborations with local key stakeholders, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous 

agencies and groups, in order to collectively address the problems Indigenous young 

people are experiencing and the issues this raises for the local community. These 

collaborations were illustrated in Figure 4. 

A specific area of focus is education. For many Indigenous young people education has 

not been a positive and beneficial experience, as racism plays a factor in the curriculum 

generally, as well as their treatment at school level. 28,29,30 This also influences how the 

school relates to and communicates with their parents and family members – they often 

feel disconnected or disregarded by schools until it is “too late.” 31 Early school leaving 

rates for young people are highest for Indigenous young people, especially Indigenous 

young males who also have a higher rate of offending behaviour compared to the overall 

population: “in almost all available data on Indigenous education, young Indigenous males 

have the worst retention and participation rates….a decrease in participation in 

30 

education correlates with an increase in juvenile crime among Indigenous males.” 

27 Nichols, M. & Schwartz, R. (Eds.) (1998). Family therapy concepts and methods (4 th ed). Boston: Allyn and 

Bacon. 

28 

Social Inclusion Unit (2003). School Retention Reference: How can we better support young people stay at 

school and successfull y complete 12 years of education? Getting there together. Social Inclusion Unit, South 

Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet: Adelaide. Available online at: 

http://www.socialinclusion.sa.gov.au/page.asp?ContainerID=3&SubPageID=50, pp.19-20, 24-26, 31, 45. 

29 Stacey, K. (2003), op cit, p.3. 

30 

Teese, R., Polesel, J., O’Brien, K., Jones, B., Davies, M., Walstab, A. & Maughan, M. (2000). Early school 

leaving: 

A review of the literature. Brisbane: Australian National Training Authority. (Quote from p.5). 

31 Stacey, K. (2003), op cit, p.17. 

- 24 -

ATSIC recently reported: 


Most indicators of poverty and related disadvantage show that Indigenous 

people are between two and three times worse off than non-Indigenous people in 

Australia….the proportion of Indigenous teenagers (15-19 years) not fully 

engaged in work or education is three times that of non-Indigenous people. 32 

Many of Panyappi’s clients have difficult relationships with school, so there is 

considerable effort to do interagency work with schools. This contributes to other state 

initiatives to improve Indigenous young people’s connection or reconnection to schooling. 

Although the role of mentors is not to be an Aboriginal Education Worker, they enable 

young people to engage with or complete schoolwork, or to re-engage with schooling. 

Panyappi looks for opportunities to create a positive link between the young person and a 

school staff member as a way of embedding mentoring as a regular experience at school, 

which can be sustained beyond the young person’s connection to Panyappi. 

By helping young people’s reconnect and have a more positive and beneficial experience, 

it is possible for young people to take advantage of transition programs into education, 

training and employment that are usually targeted at the 15 and over age group. 

32 Dusseldorp Skills Forum (2003), op cit, p.35. 

- 25 -

A Brief Review of Mentoring 

A cultural perspective 


Mentoring is not a new concept for Aboriginal people, as there has always been an 

emphasis on connection with significant people in young people’s lives. Today it is 

“languaged” under the term of mentoring. Different projects in recent years have 

explored and piloted ways of acknowledging this concept of the role of significant people 

within families, for example the Port Augusta “Families Project” funded by DHS and the 

Teenage Parenting Pilot in Adelaide operated by Anglicare SA. 

The concept of mentoring opened up the possibility of a better cultural fit provided that 

the program was built on cultural perspective as a foundation that acknowledged and 

respected cultural values and beliefs. The first step in doing this was choosing a 

meaningful name to represent mentoring from a cultural perspective. On this occasion a 

word from the Kaurna language was chosen – Panyappi (pronounced “bunyip + ee”). As 

stated earlier, this means younger brother or sister. 

Published literature on mentoring: A brief summary 

The following is a brief overview of key issues that are emerging in the literature, 

mostly from the USA and Australia. Some of this literature has been identified in the 

“How Panyappi works” section. FAYS is currently undertaking a review of mentoring in 

general and its own mentoring program. The outcomes and recommendations of the 

Panyappi Evaluation can contribute to and assist in this general review, as there is a 

paucity of evaluation outcomes for youth mentoring programs in a crime prevention 

context, particularly with an Indigenous focus. 33 

This summary focuses on literature specifically on mentoring and does not summarise 

concepts that mentoring may draw upon to argue its case. For example, as an 

intervention strategy mentoring is based on well-known research findings from the child 

development field. When young people have supportive relationships with adults 

(parents, family, teachers, neighbours, etc), their ability to develop resilience, meaning 

in life and deal with life’s challenges is enhanced. These relationships act as a protective 

factor when young people grow up in high-stress family or community 

environments. 34,35,36 

In more recent times these relationships have been understood as a form of “social 

capital.” The concept of social capital was originally named by Putnam in the early 1990s 

and popularised in Australia by Eva Cox in the mid-1990s. 37 Social capital means “the 

33 Wilczynski, A. (2002), op cit. 

34 Garbarino, J. et al. (1992), op cit. 

35 Werner, E. (1984). Resilient children. Young Children, November, 68-72 

36 Rutter, M. (1999) Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family 

Therapy, 21, 119-144. 

37 Baum, F. (1998). The new public health: An Australian perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

- 26 -


processes between people which establish networks, norms, social trust and facilitate 

coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” 38 In many ways this definition of social 

capital applies to mentoring relationships themselves, whether they occur ‘naturally’ or in 

planned mentoring programs, and the relationships that mentoring programs have with 

other parts of the health, human and community service sector in responding to the 

needs of young people by working with young people and family members. 

This summary will comment upon: the role of mentoring, mentor qualities and roles, age 

groups, geographical focus, stand alone or integrated programs, and paid staff. 

Role of mentoring programs 

The National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) recently commissioned a national 

overview of mentoring and role model programs. It identified that the main functions of 

mentoring and role model programs were “inspiration, setting an example and providing 

personalised support” 39 and recommended that: 

Mentoring…needs to be tailored to the individual needs of particular young 

people. This requires that programs are organised in ways that allow for the 

development of trusting relationships between the [mentors] and the young 

people, and provide opportunities for young people to express their views and 

their needs and the means of following up on these needs. 40 

Other writers focus on the importance of building clear, specific and achievable goals 

for young people as a focus for the program. 41 In this way mentoring relationships can be 

tailored to young people’s individual needs and personal interests. The goals guide 

mentors in their role as they follow up on these needs, identify opportunities and 

support young people to achieve something that makes them feel competent and proud. 

Mentor qualities and roles 

The national review also emphasised the need to have a “clear rationale and procedure 

for recruiting, screening and training…mentors, which has multiple methods to ensure 

safety of young people” 42 and the quality of mentoring. The idea is to screen people out 

rather than in through making careful and responsible decisions on who can fulfil a 

mentor role, and ensure they are well prepared then supported. 43 Mentors “need ongoing 

support and training to further develop their skills and knowledge about developing [and 

sustaining] a mentoring relationship.” 44 

38 Cox, E. (1996). A truly civil society. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Commission, p. 

39 MacCallum, J. & Beltman, S. (2002), op cit, p.63. 

40 ibid, p.96. 

41 Benard, B. (1992) op cit. 

42 MacCallum, J. & Beltman, S. (2002) op cit, p.98. 


44 ibid, p.101. 

- 27 -


Being a mentor is a unique role. Although it may overlap to a degree with other human 

service roles, e.g. youth workers and social workers, mentoring usually operates at a 

more intense level with a higher frequency of contact. Mentors are not expected to do 

case management or be qualified in counselling, although they often provide critical 

personal support and care for young people. The review highlighted the importance of 

mentors fostering a positive, caring and non-judgemental approach by mentors, as “those 

involved with young people on a one-to-one basis particularly need to be abe l to meet 

young people ‘where they are’ and guide them in their journey. ” 45 Researchers in the USA 

also emphasise that mentors must have “a caring attitude, high expectations [of what 

young people can achieve with support], participatory style and commitment.” 46 

Age group 

As noted above, mentoring for young people is often targeted at the 13 to 18 year age 

group. Reasons for mentoring programs may vary - not all are targeted at young people 

experiencing specific problems or showing disruptive behaviour. Evaluations of youth 

mentoring programs in a crime prevention context have shown that there is greater 

success with engaging a younger age group. 47,48 

Geographical focus 

Previous evaluations of crime prevention focused mentoring programs also highlighted 

the importance of having a specific geographical focus. This supports Program 

Coordinators to develop effective and positive networks with local service providers or 

referral sources. 49 It also responds to the way in which young people may gather in 

specific locations, which has an important social purpose and is not simply about engaging 

in offending behaviour or being exposed to other criminal activity. 

Stand alone or integrated programs 

An evaluation of the One2One mentoring program for young offenders in NSW has 

identified that “to be sustainable, a mentoring program may need to…be delivered in 

conjunction with other youth and family support programs.” 50 A recent national overview 

of mentoring programs also highlighted that “integrated mentoring projects are more 

likely to be effective.” 51 They may be integrated through being co-located with other 

youth and family support programs and/or due to the collaborative efforts of the 

program staff to link in and work collaboratively with a range of other government and 

non-government community services. When projects with a juvenile justice focus link to 

45 ibid, p.100. 

46 Benard, B. (1992) op cit, p.18. 

47 

ARTD (2000). Evaluation of Mentoring Mates: Wooloomooloo Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative. Sydney: 

NRMA. 

48 ARTD (1999/2001) op cit. 

49 

ARTD (2000), op c t; i ARTD (2002), op cit. 

50 

ARTD (2002). Mentoring for young offenders: One to one relationship producing positive benefits. 

Evaluation report of the NSW pilot program. Crime Prevention Division, Attorney General’s Department. 

www.lawlink.new.gov.au/cpd 

51 Wilczynski, A. (2002), op cit. 

- 28 -


other community organisations they have the capacity to contribute to systems reforms. 

However, integrated programs have different demands because: 

…developing viable collaborations is not easy and takes much time and effort. 

Organisations have different cultures and institutional climates, autonomy, 

flexibility and power; individuals with differing experiences and expertise; giving 

rise to different ways of defining issues and solutions. Once established, 

collaborative relationships need to be nurtured and maintained over time. 52 

The Australian view is that programs integrated into a range of services, including those 

offered by the auspicing organisation, provide a better support base as mentoring 

programs commonly take some time to establish and usually have a small number of staff. 

The availability of existing infrastructure, administrative support and access to 

established networks with key agencies, including those who may refer clients, may also 

improve cost-effectiveness and program sustainability. 53,54 Others acknowledged that: 

Even energy and commitment on the part of the program manager is usually not 

enough to sustain a mentoring program if it is not institutionalised within a 

55 

larger organisation or integrated into an array of services provided to youth. 

Paid staff 

Many Australian mentoring programs depend on volunteers to be mentors. 56 There is 

usually at least one paid staff member who is the Program Coordinator. Researchers in 

the US have argued that in successful mentoring programs the paid staff: 

…are the most important single ingredient….These individuals are in contact with 

the kids, the mentors, school staff and families. Not surprisingly, in programs 

where such staff are a full-time presence, the whole mentoring process tends to 

revolve around them; they are the ‘glue’ in the mentoring process. 57 

There is limited information available on what it means to have paid mentors in addition 

to a Program Coordinator, as in Panyappi. Those that do may be better positioned to 

meet the requirement that programs directed at young people in high risk or stress 

situations be “both intensive and extensive, start early and plan to stick around for a 

long time. They must also be prepared for inevitable failures and be ready to intervene 

when problems arise and relationships do not hold.” 58 

52 ARTD (1999/2001) op cit, p.22. 

53 Wilczynski, A. (2002) op cit. 

54 Wilczynski, Culvenor, et l. (2003), op cit. 

55 Benard, B. (1992) op cit, p.17. 

56 MacCallum, J. & Beltman, S. (2002) op cit. 

57 Freedman, M. (1991). The kindness of strangers: Reflections on the mentoring movement. Philadelphia, PA: 

Public/Private Ventures, p.63 

58 ibid, p.60. 

- 29 -

The Evaluation Process 

Evaluation purpose 


In order to tell a meaningful and useful story about a community-based human services 

program, an evaluation must provide: 

1. Information that informs a program’s future development. 

2. Guidance to others who wish to emulate aspects of or the entire program. 

3. Details for the wider field about whether the program is effective based on the 

nature and extent of the outcomes achieved. 

Process evaluation explains how and why program strategies were implemented – it 

provides the detail about the story of implementing the program. This equates with 

mapping the context, describing the “how” and “why” of the mechanisms involved 

(including program strategies) and analysing both. Without a focus on process evaluation, 

it is not possible to unpack the results of impact and outcome evaluation. 

Impact evaluation focuses on the achievement of objectives. This can occur when a 

program has been operating for 6 months to 2 years. It indicates any progress toward 

the objectives or full achievement of them. Outcome evaluation assesses achievement of 

the overall goal. As most goals for community-based human services program are broad 

in scope, this takes a minimum of 2 years and usually 4 or more years to determine with 

confidence. 

At this point in the Panyappi program the evaluation work can address both process and 

impact evaluation. Panyappi is an intensive program for a small number of young people 

and families. Therefore, the evaluation used predominantly qualitative information, with 

some quantitative information provided through program statistics and client 

demographics. It was conducted between January and May 2004. 

The State Crime Prevention Unit developed an outcomes hierarchy in 2002 in order to 

guide any evaluation work that occurred – see Appendix A. This will be used as the set of 

indicators against which Panyappi’s progress will be evaluated – outcomes will be 

discussed in the “Weaving the threads together” section. 

Evaluation plan 

Acknowledging history – addressing cultural accountability 

As an Aboriginal program focused on young people who have often had involvement with 

statutory bodies, it was critical that the non-Indigenous evaluation consultant was 

conscious of both historical experience and cultural accountability. Since colonisation 

there has been a strong history of outsiders inquiring into Aboriginal people’s everyday 

lives and then making decisions that affect them in serious ways. The evaluation did not 

want to replicate these intrusive, disrespectful and often painful experiences. It was 

- 30 -


understood that participation in the evaluation would be voluntary and something that 

participants felt good about doing because they were clear about the purpose. It was 

also acknowledged that people may decline because they had other priority issues or the 

evaluation may be experienced as intrusive. 

In order for the evaluation to be respectful of cultural protocols and practices, and to 

address the cultural accountability of the non-Indigenous evaluation consultant, an 

Indigenous cultural advisor was engaged to guide all stages of the evaluation. Through 

this arrangement many issues were addressed, such as how to introduce the evaluation 

to young people and families working with Panyappi, and who was appropriate to conduct 

interviews based on Indigenous or non-Indigenous identity and then cultural connections 

of the cultural advisor and evaluation participants. 

The evaluation introduction occurred in three layers. Due to connections and existing 

relationships with families as the Coordinator, Lisa Kambouris was instrumental in 

facilitating this process. In the initial stages of the evaluation she spoke to all young 

people and families currently engaged with Panyappi to explain why they were evaluating 

the program and the possibility of being involved. She also ensured that mentors were 

thoroughly briefed on the evaluation. Through this she identified who was interested in 

knowing more and potentially being an evaluation participant. 

Following ethics approval for the evaluation plan, a social gathering was held at Panyappi 

for interested families and young people. They met the evaluation consultant and 

Indigenous cultural advisor, gained information on the evaluation plan and process, and 

also received a written version of this. They had the opportunity to ask questions or just 

talk with the evaluators during the gathering, either during the meeting or over lunch. 

Some families and young people decided to participate at that point, while others agreed 

or withdrew interest later in conversation with Lisa. Other families who were unable to 

make the gathering were offered the opportunity to meet or speak separately with the 

evaluators, and several agreed to be part of the evaluation. 

Evaluation participants and methods 

The people or groups outlined in the Table 1 were included in the evaluation using the 

methods (program funders were included through the Advisory Group and the Senior 

Project Officer, Crime Prevention Unit, AGD). 

The evaluation methods were designed to gain in-depth qualitative data to build a picture 

of the experiences and outcomes of the participants’ involvement in Panyappi (in 

whatever capacity) and their opinions of the cultural appropriateness of the project’s 

model of mentoring. These methods use narrative or story as the primary mode, 

particularly for the interviews with young people, family members and Mentors, as 

narrative has a cultural fit for Indigenous people. Interviews and focus groups were 

audiotaped with the consent of participants. 

- 31 -


Table 1: Panyappi evaluation participants and methods 

Evaluation Participant Evaluation methods 

Young people 

Family Members – this term includes 

relatives and other caregivers 

Panyappi Mentors – present and 

previous mentors 

Panyappi Coordinator – present and a 

previous Coordinator 

Social gathering to familiarise young people with 

evaluators and process 

One-to-one interviews 

A fictionalised compilation story 

Client demographics 

Social gathering to familiarise family members with 

evaluators and process 






Program statistics 

Panyappi Advisory Group Members One-to-one interviews 

Program Collaborators – FAYS, 

SAPOL, MAYT, Aboriginal community, 

family and youth services, individual 

schools, Education Department 

Senior Project Officer, Crime 

Prevention Unit, AGD 

Focus groups and one-to-one interviews 

One-to-one interview 

Where appropriate and agreed with participants “member checking” occurred: “member 

checking provides for credibility by allowing members of stakeholding groups to test 

categories, interpretations and conclusions.” 59 This occurred in three ways. 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Those participants who wanted one were sent a copy of their interview write-up as a 

record of their own story. This occurred before the interview tapes were deleted to 

ensure that they were happy with the account of their interview. They had the right 

to ask for information to be removed or altered. 

Participants’ information was used to create a “compilation story” – a fictional 

account based on using information from several actual stories. In this way no person 

was or could be personally identified. 

A Panyappi Evaluation Advisory Group was established during the writing phase to 

provided comment on the organisation, interpretations, opinions and conclusions in 

the report. 

59 Erlandson, D., E. Harris, Skipper, B. & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to 

methods. Newbury Park, Sage, p.142. 

- 32 -

Evaluation questions 


Each interview and focus group followed an interview guide to explore a number of key 

areas. Rather than a question-answer format, it was used to initiate and where required 

redirect or focus the interview/focus group on issues specific to the Panyappi program. 

The key areas covered were: 

Experiences of Panyappi as a program, for example: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

How people became connected to Panyappi and their length of involvement 

Strengths and weaknesses of, or likes and dislikes about the program 

Relationships between young people and mentors, and families and mentors or the 

program 

Program challenges and how these have been managed 

Program highlights 

Program outcomes, for example: 

Any change for young people/mentors since involvement with Panyappi and what part 

Panyappi has played in this change 

Program collaborations, for example: 

Relationships between Panyappi and its program collaborators (individual referral, 

program level work, or funding and structural arrangements) 

Program management, for example: 

The effectiveness of program management 

Training and support for mentors 

Program challenges and how these have been managed 

Location of the program 

Program awareness, for example: 

Knowledge of Panyappi 

What participants tell other people about Panyappi 

Thoughts about the future of Panyappi, for example: 

Unique features of the program and availability of alternative programs 

Can programs like Panyappi offer benefits – if so, what are the benefits? 

Location of the program 

- 33 -

The Stories 


There are four ways in which the stories gathered in the evaluation will be told: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Painting a picture with numbers: This section describes how many young people have 

been involved with Panyappi and the range of presenting issues, referral sources, 

interagency connections and programs they with which they were invovled. 

Young people and family themes: This section describes the experiences and 

outcomes identified for young people and families involved in Panyappi from the 

perspectives of all evaluation participants. 

Program management themes: These themes specifically relate to program 

collaborations, management and funding from the perspectives of all evaluation 

participants except young people and families. 

Being a mentor: This explores how Indigenous mentors have a unique role in the 

human services workforce and expectations from their communities based on 

comments from all evaluation participants where available. Appreciating their 

experiences offers important learning about the program. 

Painting a picture with numbers 

The information presented in this section is based on available records by up to May 

2004. Full records for young people assessed from March 2003 onwards were available. 

Records of those assessed prior to that time were incomplete. This was due to the initial 

establishment period where fewer referrals and assessments occurred, and breaks in 

service when the Coordinator position was not filled during most of 2002. Although 

young people were accepted onto the mentoring program following assessment prior to 

March 2003, most service delivery has occurred from this date onwards. 

The records indicate that Panyappi accepted 33 young people for assessment of their 

eligibility to gain mentoring support. Of these 30 were offered a service, with one being 

referred elsewhere within 2 months and two others becoming too old for Panyappi 

services within a short time after referral. It is difficult to gain an accurate indication 

of the length of service received, as several young people were referred prior to the 

breaks in service availability, had periods when service was not available for them and 

their end-date of service may be after several months of non-engagement. This 

artificially lengthens their service period. Those who do receive a mentoring service 

often require it for at least 6 months and up to 2 years. 

The following figures provide a demographic description of this group of young people. 

They give a picture of their age range, living situation, referral sources and referral 

reasons. Changes in rates of offending is also available for 15 young people who received 

a mentoring service since March 2003. 

The average age of the group is 14.2 years. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of young 

people are in the 13-15 year age range. More males (60%) were referred compared with 

females (40%). 

- 34 -


Figure 5: Age distribution of referrals 

64% 

Age 

15% 

21% 

10-12 years 

13-15 years 

16-17 years 

Figure 6 shows that almost half the young people live with family members other than 

their parents, and a third are in formal foster or other care. “Other care” means nonformal 

arrangements with friends or friends’ families rather than formal foster care, 

with a quarter in this situation. Nearly 1 in 5 lived with their parents, while only one 

young person was homeless. 

Figure 6: Living situation for young people 

24.2 

9.1 

Living situation 

3.0 

18.2 

45.5 

With parent 

With family 

Foster care 

Other care 

Homeless 

Figure 7 identifies FAYS and schools as the most frequent referrers, making twice as 

many referrals as MAYT or other youth services. There were occasional referrals from 

juvenile justice and police. Family members initiated one referral, while one young person 

self-referred. 

- 35 -

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

3.0 

3.0 

9.1 

12.1 


Figure 7: Referral source* 

18.2 

21.2 

Referral source 

36.4 

39.4 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 

Self 

Family members 

Police 

Justice 

Youth services 

MAYT 

Schools 

FAYS 

* Figures add up to more than 100 as young people were often referred collaboratively by two- four sources. 

Reasons for referral 

Figure 8: Reasons for referral* 

- 36 - 

Physical/emotional/sexual abuse 

Suicidal behaviour 

Substance misuse 

Placement breakdowns 

Family breakdowns 

At risk of sexual exploitation 

Frequenting inner city 

Medication needed 

Other medical issues 

Emotional/behavioural problems 

Self-damaging behaviour 

Running away 

Offending behaviour 

Teenage parent 

Violent behaviour 

Cultural connections unknown 

Disengaged from education


As is obvious from Figure 8 there were many reasons for referral, with between one and 

ten reasons listed for any single young person and an average number of six reasons per 

young person. Most young people were either disengaged or becoming disengaged from 

education and involved in offending behaviours. Seventy per cent showed emotional and 

behavioural problems, and/or substance misuse issues were very common. Half of all 

referrals were regularly frequenting the inner city, which was one of the key initial 

criteria for referral that was then broadened out to young people with similar problems 

who did not always frequent the inner city. Many were experiencing physical, sexual 

and/or emotional abuse, and family breakdown. Over a third were showing violent 

behaviour, this was slightly more common among males than females, and a similar 

number were running away from their home or placement, with most also frequenting the 

inner city and the others at risk of doing so. Placement breakdowns and self-damaging 

and/or suicidal behaviour were also apparent. 

Thirteen young people (40%) were involved with FAYS: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Seven were under supervision for court orders 

Seven had an allocated social worker, with two of these also having a youth worker, 

while another three just had a youth worker 

Two were under the Guardianship of the Minister 

Nineteen young people (58%) were or agreed to became involved with other agencies: 

Twelve were involved with the courts 

Three were involved with a family worker, four with a counselling service (not 

CAMHS) and four with the police 

Four were involved with the DECS Attendance Officer 

One was involved with CAMHS (child and adolescent mental health services) 

Reasons for leaving Panyappi were known for eleven young people (33%). They included 

non-engagement with mentors after a minimum of at least 4 months of effort (7), being 

18 or over (2), being referred elsewhere after six months with Panyappi (1) and being 

ready to leave after seven months with Panyappi (1). 

By early May 2004 the current caseload was 14 young people. They were involved in one 

or more additional programs offered by Panyappi or in collaboration with MAYT. For 

example, all are involved in individual genealogy programs, five attend the Art Program, 

two go to the Tutorial Centre based at MAYT, while one does a Classic Holden program 

as an educational option. Several have been involved in a program with Taoundi College 

focused on cultural awareness and identity, however, this will now be offered by MAYT. 

More programs have been individually rather than group based, as the young people do 

not always cope well with group programs. However, since April 2003 there have been a 

number of group excursions (e.g. going bowling) and a group camp (e.g. on the One and All 

tall ship). 

- 37 -

# of offences 


A review of young people’s offending records was possible for 15 young people who are 

current clients and/or received mentoring for several months, mostly since March 2003. 

The change in the number of instances of offending behaviour is shown in Figure 9. This 

includes offences for which there were convictions, detentions, orders, family 

conferences, and/or formal cautions. It does not include breaches of orders. Lines in 

green indicate a decrease in offences, while the red lines show increases. It 

demonstrates that Panyappi worked effectively with a range of young people to reduce 

their offending behaviour, from those who were at an early stage in their juvenile 

justice career to those who were on their way to an entrenched career. 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Figure 9: Change in offending behaviour 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

Length of time with Panyappi (months) 

The greater majority (12 young people or 80%) decreased their rate of offending by 

25% or more – often much more (70 – 100%). Five young people have not offended since 

their involvement with Panyappi. This is a substantial achievement given the very high 

rates of offending for some of these young people over the previous one to three years. 

One young person (6.5%) decreased their offending behaviour by less than 25%, as they 

struggled to engage with the program for 3 months during which time most of the 

offences occurred - currently the young person is not offending. Two young people 

(13.5%) have increased their offending. One cannot receive regular mentoring support as 

they live in a rural area, but Panyappi connects with this young person on their occasional 

trips to Adelaide. This has greatly limited progress and the ability to work with the 

young person’s family and community network. For the other young person, the offending 

- 38 -


occurred early in the mentoring process then stopped altogether after 4 months of 

being with Panyappi and further offending has not occurred. 

Young people and family themes 

The six themes outlined here do not stand independently but intersect and reinforce 

each other like threads in a tapestry. We have teased them out so that each aspect is 

addressed, as well as being seen as part of a whole picture. Each theme commences with 

Susie’s evolving story that was introduced on page 1 – it may be useful to revisit her 

story prior to reading the following sections. 

A turning point 

Susie agreed to mentoring with Panyappi because she knew it was important to 

her Mum. She is really worried about her and doesn’t want to cause her Mum any 

more traumas. She checked this out with another young person at school who is 

a good friend, and also talked to the AEW who had been looking out for Susie as 

she knew that the family and Susie were having a difficult time. 

Susie meets with Mary, one of the Panyappi mentors, and they start to build a 

relationship although Susie is hesitant about how much she should say and what 

Mary will think or her. Susie slowly warms to Mary because she is not like her 

teachers or the police. Mary doesn’t give her a hard time about school, even 

though she says it will be important for Susie. Mary wants to know more about 

what Susie likes to do and why, and what things especialy l interest her. They 

talk about family and Mary lets her call her Auntie Lily each week to tell her 

know what she is doing. 

Even though she doesn’t like it there and there are still hassles to sort out, 

after a few weeks she stops skipping school as much and only stays away when 

her Mum needs her. She asks her Mum for permission to go out more often, 

although she still goes into the inner city. 

It is reasonably common that the young people accepted into Panyappi have had some or 

many people involved with or concerned about them. A few of them have slipped the net 

entirely, having disconnected from schooling at an early age and spent much time on the 

street. Others live with their families but are confused and unsettled because they have 

often experienced significant losses, been exposed to violence or substance misuse, and 

almost always been subjected to racism at a personal level and within the education and 

human service system. 

Many young people, family members and program collaborators reported that previous 

efforts to address the situation had been limited or unsuccessful. Every young person 

and family member interviewed reported that there was not, or they did not know if 

there was, an alternative service that could assist them in the way that Panyappi had. 

For example, one family member said: “ Without this he’d be nowhere.” 

- 39 -


Workers from collaborating agencies reinforced this position. They identified several 

other services, some of which they described as good and helpful, but were clear that 

Panyappi offered a unique approach. For some of the young people they were not 

convinced a viable alternative existed, for example: ”There is nothing else for these 

kids. We can’t get them into CAMHS. They don’t fit that as its voluntary and they are 

not going to go or CAMHS come to them. This is the only thing that I have seen that has 

been able to engage these children. They are still too young for other mentoring 

programs” (Program collaborator). 

More than provide intensive support, program collaborators said that Panyappi assisted 

young people and families to take steps toward and make connections with schooling and 

other services that had previously broken down or they had not accessed. For example, 

an education department worker commented: 

I have to be really honest. I think if they weren’t involved [with Panyappi] this 

young person wouldn’t be linked in any way to some form of educational program. 

I think in terms of even mainstream schooling he just doesn’t fit in where he is 

at the moment in terms of the outcomes for him. Without them being involved 

he would be invol ved in a lot more stuff that woul d have negative outcomes for 

him. (Program collaborator) 

One school identified that Panyappi had played a strong role in supporting a young 

person’s transition to them as a new school, having had a rocky road with the previous 

school after some time away from schooling altogether. They reported that: 

He has settled into the school really well, especially in terms of his classroom 

behaviour and he’s really starting to move on with his academics which is really 

fantastic….I suppose he has fitted in and adapted to the class environment very 

we ll. I think he is more willi ng to come and seek some help before he engages in 

trying to sort it out himself. (Program collaborator) 

Panyappi facilitates a turning point for these young people where changes become 

evident in their behaviour, personal choices, emotions, self-belief and relationships. 

Young people could identify these changes. One young person explained that: 

I would never be abl e to do the things I’ve done if it wasn’tfor Panyapp i. 

We 

wouldn’t have the money and my mum doesn’t have a car. My mentor comes and 

picks me up. I wouldn’t be goi ng to school much if it wasn’t for him….I read a bit 

better. I’m starting to go back to school and that’s been a hard thing to do. I 

still fight but my attitude has changed and I’ve calmed down. I used to be a lot 

angrier. I still get angry but I’m not as violent as I used to be. (Young person) 

Family members reinforced young people’s opinions, saying things like: 

He used to be a one shot boy – now he wi ll have another go at thi ngs . (Family member) 

- 40 -


He hasn’t been in trouble since he’s been involved. (Family member) 

He is wanting to get out and do it, not wanting to sit at home. (Family member) 

For other young people, family members indicated a change from being “very distant and 

cold” to the young person now having conversations with people he knows, showing 

emotions and being affectionate with people he cares about. It was as if young people 

had started to come alive and engage with their community again in more positive ways: 

“Many kids have done a u-turn and have been re-engaged back into education. Quality of 

life and well-being has improved, [there are] better relationships with the schools and 

even the Police” (Program funder). 

A program collaborator reported that, “this young boy had not been to the office for 

supervision and would not come. The workers didn’t like going out to the family as there 

was often other people there who would abuse them.” With the support of the Panyappi 

mentor he regularly attended supervision for the first time. Although it was clear that 

gaining positive outcomes in the situation would not be straightforward, and hiccoughs 

have and continue to occur over the year of involvement, this worker said, “it enables my 

work and enables the young person to meet the conditions of their offender orders. 

With my workload I can’t run around after these kids. If they don’t come in they get 

letter, letter, letter. So what’s the use of that if the kid can’t read, which is the case 

here. So it’s enabled my work and better outcomes for the kid. In a sense the mentor is 

doing the supervision of this order.” 

Generating positivity and hope 

In a regular supervision session with the Panyappi Coordinator, Mary says that 

Susie’s outlook is starting to change – it has now been 3 months since the 

mentoring started. For the first few weeks she was quiet and shy, waiting for 

Mary to start conversations or suggest things to do. More often now she is 

smiling and excited when Mary picks her up and has ideas about what she would 

like to do – she will spontaneously start talking about things at school, home or 

when she goes out at night. 

The Coordinator and Mary reviewed the case plan that was developed two 

months previously. One goal was to encourage Susie to talk to a counsellor – her 

Mum agreed for this to happen but Susie wasn’t keen at first. Mary raises this 

issue with Susie again and she agrees, but only if Mary will go with her and as 

long as it is not the place the school sent her a year ago because they wanted 

her behaviour to improve. 

The young people in Panyappi have usually felt that no one and nothing is on their side. 

Reviewing their personal histories this is a fair summation of their life. When human 

service workers intervened it was often because of concern about the problems the 

young person was causing for others, or how they were not meeting required behavioural 

or developmental expectations. This strong negative focus individualised the problems 

and supported a view that maybe the situation was hopeless. Showing concern for the 

- 41 -


young person’s social-emotional wellbeing seemed a lesser consideration in the eyes of 

the young person and frequently in the eyes of family members. 

Some experienced promises of support being made and then not being followed through – 

building up their hopes and then dashing them, leaving them less trusting and more 

cynical. Although this does not fit well with existing rhetoric in human services about 

good practice, it represents the reality of these young people and families’ lives, as well 

intentioned efforts did not always have good outcomes. Several program collaborators 

acknowledged that if these young people were attached to statutory services, they were 

more likely to experience high turnover of workers and therefore more loss and 

rejection. 

Even when the referral to Panyappi happened under negative circumstances, e.g. young 

people were involved with court appearances, already had orders or were being 

suspended from school, all young people described Panyappi as a positive thing. This was 

reflected in a range of ways, from small yet absolutely critical matters such as “they 

show up” when they say they will, through to statements such as liking “everything” they 

do with Panyappi. “You go places, see movies and we went on a boat trip, which was good.” 

Young people were willing to do schoolwork with the support of their mentor and to 

choose options away from offending behaviour, such as going to the beach, “movies, the 

go-carts, playing games, or just hanging out.” One young person said, “we talk about just 

stuff we do on the weekend and if we got some new games.” 

Mentors identified changes in their clients that demonstrate positive shifts in their 

attitude, behaviour and personal situation. For example: 

She wants to do as much as she can while I’m with her to put her on a different 

track. I think she is really comfortable with herself now. I think [its] the fact 

that there is someone out there that is interested in what they are doing and 

just wanting to be there and help them and participate in what they want to do, 

so they feel valued and important. (Panyappi staff) 

Collaborating agency workers also noted the importance of other options and positive 

choices, for example, the mentor was there: 

…for role modelling, [with] that young person not having any other significant 

male in their life to [do this ] , so they are looking at this person in terms of their 

actions, and what they are doing and the decisions they are making. So it’s 

around that stuff as well, a real positive connection around that stuff. (Program 

collaborator) 

Both young people and families were clear that they had taken a positive turn, and that 

there was hope about the situation. For example, “it gives me something to do, different 

from stealing. I used to steal all the time.” Family members were very pleased that 

their young people had opportunities to have “a diverse range of things to do and places 

to go.” The impact of this shone through: “He is different, more positive, you can tell he 

is happier.” 

- 42 -


Although they have often been referred to counselling or other intervention services, 

many of the young people have refused to go. Panyappi creates an environment where 

young people are willing to give something another try, to reconnect with the hope that 

it may be a useful and good experience (see the “Strengthening relationships” section 

next and “Being a mentor: Roles and responsibilities” for an explanation of how this 

occurs). When young people are in other programs, mentors can facilitate better 

outcomes through supporting a young person to engage more positively. For example: 

It makes it a lot easier. The kids are prepared and ready. A program we run has 

a young person from Panyappi on there and he is the best of the lot. When I 

first went [to pick him up] he wasn’t up. He was always sleeping, so I spoke to 

the mentor and I don’t know what he said to him but now he’s first one up in the 

mornings. He is a lot easier to get along with. He’s not so negative. He doesn’t 

talk so much about his past. The mentor has spoken to him in a way that hasn’t 

made the child angry at what he has said. Without the mentor there we would be 

struggling. The mentors are preparing them for the programs, which makes our 

job much easier. (Program collaborator) 

If young people still do not engage in other programs despite mentors’ efforts, often 

because they are afraid about opening up issues of grief and pain, or cannot easily 

access a service, then Panyappi provides an alternative outlet for emotional expression 

and this alone can make a difference. Family members identify and comment upon this, 

for example: “I think they are doing a fantastic job but there should just be a lot more 

of it.” 

One program collaborator gave an example of young people’s perceptions of Panyappi 

through using word of mouth networks: “We had one kid who requested to be on the 

program, wasn’t referred but wanted to be on the program. That to me says a lot. It’s 

open. It’s friendly. The kids don’t feel intimidated” (Program collaborator). 

Strengthening relationships 

Susie used to hate Mary picking her up from school, but now she asks her to do 

this. She introduces Mary to her friends as her ‘big sister’ and is OK about her 

talking to the School Principal. She asks Mary to stay for a while at her house 

rather than just drop her off, and doesn’t mind Mary talking to her Mum. 

In one of their regular phone conversations Susie’s Mum tells the Panyappi 

Coordinator that because Susie starts conversations with her about what she 

does with Mary this helps them have conversations about other things. Susie will 

tell her Mum her thoughts and feelings rather than just listen to her Mum and 

keep her thoughts to herself. However, Susie won’t talk to her father, just 

listen and usually do what he says when he is there because she is scared of him. 

There were many ways in which evaluation participants commented on the way that 

mentoring built and strengthened relationships. These were the relationships between 

mentors and young people, young people and family members, and young people and school 

- 43 -


staff or other services (relationships between the program and other services will be 

addressed in the “Program management themes” section). 

It was very common for family members, workers in collaborating agencies and the 

Panyappi staff to comment upon difficulties the young people in Panyappi had in learning 

to trust someone. This was usually based on having their trust broken frequently (at 

home, at school or with other services), which created barriers to taking the risk to 

trust people again. Current Panyappi staff were aware that the trust they built with 

young people can be fragile. Not keeping a commitment – even just being a few minutes 

late without the young person knowing – could damage any progress that had been made. 

MAYT workers identified that: “You have to be honest to that young person because 

they have been lied to so many times….[Its] a complete challenge of the family accepting 

you and the client accepting you. The hardest part is building the trust. You have to do 

what you say you will do.” Family members emphasised the impact of this issue: “Lots of 

agencies let kids down. If you get someone like [mentor] on a regular basis then kids 

start to trust again and parents know what is happening.” 

One of the collaborating agency workers explained what issues of trust meant for the 

mentor’s relationship with young people: 

They don’t need to be super knowledgeable about health or mental health and 

welfare. They don’t have to know everything. What they do need to know is who 

to talk to if they need i t, 

but they have to be there for the kid. So the young 

person can have a yarn to them, talk abou t what’s going on. Most of our kids are 

really angry about life, the universe, they don’t really know what. They need 

someone to relate to, to talk to….the young person may start sharing a little bit 

and get the help that they might not have at home or at school. The mentor is 

trustworthy, just listening and being there. (Program collaborator) 

This person gave examples of this occurring for young people with Panyappi: 

They would talk in a positive way about their mentor. They would tell us where 

they were goi ng. They would say ‘I need to tal k to my mentor about that’. They 

would identify another significant adult, which is what we are looking for, who is 

going to be consistent and in their life to sort something. (Program collaborator) 

The importance of this relationship was evident in straightforward comments from 

young people who reported that being in Panyappi was good and they “felt good” about 

seeing their mentor. There were excited about someone visiting and giving them focused 

time where the mentor was “listening to me and I would listen to him.” There was a sense 

of belonging and being special. This was expanded in family member comments, such as: 

He knows that [the mentor] won’t give up on him. (Family member) 

- 44 -


Mentors are like a big brother and they look forward to them coming and doing 

the big brother thing. They had a very good relationship the boys. (Family 

member) 

He looks forward to when [the mentor ] comes. He has got something to do, play 

games, can be with someone older that he tends to look up to….It was like a big 

brother who is involved in his life and will pick him up and help him, like a normal 

big brother does, take him to appointments, study, anything. He really fully 

trusts [the mentor] no matter what the situation. (Family member) 

Program collaborators also identified that the connection between young people and 

their mentors is usually strong, for example: 

[One young person] was presenting…a whole range of [difficult] issues. His Mum 

was saying one day that [the mentor] came around to see him, but [the young 

person] was a transient and not at home, but she was home and [the mentor] had 

a bit of a yarn with her….When [the young person] came home he was so 

disappointed that he had mi ssed [his mentor] . His face lights up when he sees 

[his mentor] arriving. (Program collaborator) 

An unexpected change of mentor when the mentoring relationship has been good does 

create the risk of going backwards or repeating traumatic and damaging experiences 

where young people feel rejected and lose a sense of positivity and hope. “ I t is critical 

that if somebody says that they will do something for our young people that they do it. 

Some of our kids are let down everywhere so if we let them down in this where we are 

supposed to be helping them then there is nothing left” (Program collaborator). If that 

does not occur, then the word “mentor” gets a bad reputation among the young people 

and they will reject offers to have a mentor. 

Unexpected change occurred on a few occasions during Panyappi’s life, either due to 

overall disruption in the service with changes of staff (as described earlier), or when a 

mentor left abruptly and had not prepared the young person for this change. Although 

risk management plans are now in place to deal with this, understandably this draws 

criticism from young people, families and program collaborators, which may dissuade 

them from being involved in Panyappi. 

One family member described the disruption when her young person was offered a 

service in the early stages of Panyappi. They initially met with a mentor but services 

were not consistently delivered and after a short time the mentor left. Many months 

later, after the young person was involved in further offending behaviour and another 

recommendation for referral to mentoring was made, the young person was completely 

opposed to it. With the encouragement of a FAYS worker and this family member, the 

young person gave it one last try, making it quite clear to the mentor that if 

commitments were not kept, it was over! This mentor was able to keep commitments, 

providing an alternative to previous experiences, and win this young person’s trust and 

respect. 

- 45 -


One program collaborator reported that another young person “really looked forward to 

[the mentor] coming in but once [the mentor] moved on [the young person] was pretty 

disappointed about that because they had a very strong relationship.” This program 

collaborator, along with the young person and caregiver, reported that although this was 

yet another loss for this young person and grief is still expressed about it, the 

relationship is remembered fondly. Further, they described how Panyappi buffered this 

loss through support from the Coordinator who made regular phone calls and visits until 

a new mentor could be allocated, and included the young person in large group outings. 

Family members often commented on changes in relationships with their young people. 

Either they had smoother and more frequent communication, or they noticed a change in 

attitude and confidence. For example: 

I have changed my tactics with him. I am not so angry now, listen more and I am 

starting to see results. He is coming to me more often, we are relating better. 

Its good, I like it, rather than always being at him. (Family member) 

He was very withdrawn to start with but he has built up in confidence and he is 

very happy now. (Family member) 

Other relationships that are influenced are young people’s connections with other 

workers. “It’s a great vehicle with [the mentor] being the link person and building that 

bridge between us and the client, and even with the family – the program is a bridge 

building thing” (Program collaborator). Young people, and the family, may be more open to 

the presence of these workers in their lives and through their collaboration with 

Panyappi staff, be happier about these workers knowing more about them. The MAYT 

juvenile justice team workers identified that this can create a complimentary situation. 

The juvenile justice worker may take up a stronger “disciplinary” role in helping young 

people see through their court obligations, while the young person sees the mentor as 

having the personal support role. Although the mentor has less authority in the wider 

human services context, they still have plenty of authority to the young person. In 

addition to the different nature of their roles, this can also relate to available time to 

work with young people: 

I believe the youth that we work with are basically in a vicious circle and there 

is no role model within the family structure. Without a one-on-one mentor with 

them to try and break that cycle there isn’t any way out of it. Without the 

mentoring we can have a lot of trouble working with the families and the other 

kids. We don’t have the time or the resources. We cannot do the mentoring or 

have the time to do one-on-one with the kids. (Program collaborators) 

Importance of family support 

Susie goes on a group outing with all the Panyappi mentors, the Coordinator and 

some of the other young people. When the Coordinator and Mary run a quick 

errand to get something the group needs, Susie asks to go with them. In the car 

she asks the Coordinator why they aren’t helping her Mum like they are helping 

- 46 -


her. When they ask her what she means, Susie says that her Mum gets really 

sad and she is worried about her. The Coordinator explains that she talks to her 

Mum by phone almost every week and has done a few home visits too. Susie was 

surprised – she knew this happened but didn’t realise how much. 

Mary reminds Susie that they were going to review her case plan with the 

Coordinator and her Mum in a couple of weeks. Maybe she could take part this 

time because she didn’t want to at first. The Coordinator suggests that Mary 

and Susie could work on what Susie wants to say at the meeting about how she is 

going and any other worries that she has about herself or the family. They will 

support Susie and also talk with her Mum about what else they could do to 

provide support to her, now that she has made sure Susie is being looked after. 

Young people commented that their mentors often talked with their family members or 

carers: “I try and get involved with all the family not just [the young person], it makes it 

a lot easier if everyone knows who I am” (Panyappi staff). They were not bothered by 

this and treated it as quite ordinary. Young people also knew that the Coordinator was 

involved with talking to their families, and gets to know each young person personally. 

They knew they could speak to her if their mentor was not available, which happens when 

young people start to initiate contact with their mentors once the relationship has 

strengthened, rather than waiting for mentors to do this. 

It was apparent from family members’ comments that they understood that Panyappi 

saw them as part of the solution and involved them in identifying activities, options and 

goals. They identified how Panyappi was supportive of them as well as the young people. 

For example: 

[The mentor] and I get along well. We discuss things well. (Family member) 

It’s really a whole family thing anyway. It’s about [my child] but I feel 

supported , I don’t feel left out on my own . It’s gi ven me hope, a bit of hope for 

my family. (Family member) 

I’ve got to give lots of credit to [the mentors and the Coordinator]. They went 

out, talked to kids and parents and then came through [with what they said they 

would do ] . (Family member) 

Panyapp i became like a second family to us because he al ways looks forward to 

[the Coordinator or mentor] coming up. They are like a second family. It’s great. 

They show their concerns like family. (Family member) 

Witnessing changes in their young people, particularly seeing their young person 

disconnect from offending behaviour, reduced the anxiety and stress that family 

members had been experiencing for extended periods of time. One family member 

commented that: “We don’t get no knock on the door any more. We used to get that all 

the time with the police.” A mentor reported feedback they received from a family 

- 47 -


member about their relief to see their young person make a u-turn and become 

motivated to do other things: “One parent said to me, ‘I’ve had a really bad experience 

within the Department (ie Family and Youth Services) and I thought you would jus t be 

like the rest of the workers we’ve had, but you have really made a difference’ and 

thanked me” (Panyappi staff). 

Schools commented and appreciated the family-focused and supportive approach of 

Panyappi, as it often created a link between home and school that they were not always 

able to establish: 

When the mentor was tuned into the child they became an extra staff member 

for me. Not that they were doing things I wanted, [but] they were supporting 

the child in the link between us and home. The mentor could provide the link in 

special ways if the person was an Aboriginal person particularly, so then we could 

be doing that home school link and society link that is harder for us to establish. 

(Program collaborator) 

They also valued sharing the family support role with an outside group, particularly when 

they perceived that other services had not met their obligations to provide support: 

I think the other side of the mentor program is the Coordinator’s relationship 

with [the young person’s carer]. She at times gets to her wits end with him and I 

think [her] relationship with the Coordinator is very important. [The carer] 

knows she has someone other than me to contact. I’ve got to say I think FAYS’ 

role with supporting [the young person] has been pretty ordinary. We are trying 

to kick that into gear a bit. I think they really need to be giving [the carer] 

heaps more support. (Program collaborator) 

Panyappi staff were aware that their work was limited without engagement with families, 

even though many problems seemed entrenched and difficult to change: 

We can’t just make decisions for this young person without their family. The 

information does tend to filter through the family. So I think this is a very 

important part of the project. I would like to see Panyappi develop this more. 

We would like to start taking the families away with us on camps. We are doi ng 

the genealogy program, which is built around the family, and so everybody gets 

to know ‘this is who you are.’ Even the art program we have told families that 

they are very welcome to join. Unless you’re going to make changes in the family 

home there is no point working with the young person. We need to understand 

what is going on in their li fe . We need to support the famili es so that changes 

can be made. (Panyappi Coordinator) 

When they are here with Panyappi they are trying to make a difference and they 

are going out. They are making the effort and they are such a changed young 

person, but when you see them in the community with their friends or family 

they are a totally different person. You can only do so much and what needs to 

change is the home. (Panyappi staff). 

- 48 -


At the same time, they were aware the effort was worth it once they got past families’ 

initial cautiousness and trust started to build: ”I find that a lot of the families are really 

funny about FAYS because they have had a lot of bad experiences with them, so you 

really have to work with the family members because they see us all as one, not 

individuals. For the first couple of weeks working with the client, it’s really hard to 

engage with the family members, let alone the client, but when you start building a good 

relationship with them it’s excellent” (Panyappi staff). 

Other program collaborators and Advisory Group members talked about the importance 

of “respite” for families who are often stressed and in crisis while trying to support 

young people whose behaviour is difficult, often in response to family stress and crises. 

It can create a break in the vicious cycle they are in. They reinforced the value of a 

family-inclusive approach, for example: “It is good for the family as well, getting the 

young person back to school, getting the family involved and bringing the family back 

together.” Some recognised that there are times when Panyappi can engage families 

better than they can, and were happy to support that and take a background role in 

order to facilitate a more culturally appropriate response. 

Connections with schooling 

Although Susie is attending school more regularly she has frequent clashes with 

teachers about completing her work and her level of attention in classes. Susie 

agrees for her mentor and the Coordinator to meet with the School Principal, 

AEW and her main teacher. Susie doesn’t want to be at the meeting but asks her 

Mum to go, who agrees, and Panyappi helps to organise childcare for the younger 

ones. The school gains more information about the situation for Susie and what 

is getting in the way of her learning and ability to complete or concentrate on 

her work. They also learn about the racist teasing that Susie receives from 

other kids in the yard. They find out that Susie has started to see a counsellor 

and that through Panyappi’s work, her Mum is also receiving personal support 

from another service so she copes better and can move forward with addressing 

the violence at home. 

This expanded understanding helps the teacher and School Principal to agree on 

a different approach to responding to Susie in class, rather than assuming she is 

lazy or incapable, and avoid her getting suspended. They also agree to use some 

of their curriculum materials around bullying to help address the issues in the 

yard. In this way Susie may experience the teachers being more supportive and 

understanding. Panyappi offers to arrange access to a tutorial program 

connected to MAYT, their auspicing agency, to help Susie catch up on work that 

she has missed over the last two years so that she can have more positive 

experiences in class and feel like she is able to complete class work and 

homework. 

Every young person involved with Panyappi has had a difficult time with mainstream 

schooling. The disconnection from schooling may have been due to schools not identifying 

specific learning difficulties earlier in a child’s schooling, or reading them as behavioural 

problems and offering the wrong response. Young people get further and further behind 

- 49 -


and in response to feeling alienated from the curriculum develop erratic and disruptive 

behaviour, reinforcing misconceptions about the cause of their behaviour. In addition, 

the curriculum has often not represented Aboriginal people’s experiences or 

represented them poorly. Indigenous young people may be bullied in the yard and cope by 

withdrawing or fighting back, so they are then named as the troublemakers. Schools 

interact with family members mainly when there are problems, may assume that family 

members will not connect with schools or misunderstand why they may not get good 

responses when they do try and connect. These are examples of institutional and cultural 

racism that continue to be reported in the education system despite a desire and 

increasing efforts since the 1990s to minimise them. 60,61,62 

Upon referral some young people in Panyappi are no longer connected to any schooling 

and others attend alternative schooling options offered by the education department. If 

they are at mainstream schools, then often there are still issues in both the class and 

yard to address. Schools’ understanding of this situation can be variable. Although they 

are keen to have the Panyappi mentors involved, Panyappi staff reported that they can 

have unrealistic expectations of their role, such as expecting them to be like an 

Aboriginal Education Worker (AEW) or to attend classes with young people. 

As indicated in the themes above, young people in Panyappi have made significant 

changes in their attitude and connection to schooling. Family members have commented 

that working with a mentor has made their young person want to go back to school or 

take another educational option to learn more. MAYT workers identified young people 

with whom they previously worked who were “really clearly disengaging” from school but 

were now “going to school who haven’t been to school in a long time.” 

The young people are taking up different options suitable to their age and interest, such 

as full-time mainstream schooling, part-time mainstream schooling with on-the-job 

experience of vocational education and training (VET), full or part-time alternative 

education options within the education system, or straight VET options. Some have 

participated in the MAYT-based Tutorial Program as either a first step back into 

schooling or as an additional support. Most participate in the cultural awareness training 

and experiences offered through a joint program by MAYT and Taoundi College. 

In collaborating with Panyappi, schools are also considering what they do to support 

young people in having positive experiences at school. For example: 

Right from the word go I said to [the young person] ‘this is a fresh start so how 

you behave will set the reputation you are going to get as a student here.’ We 

have a lot of staff members here who have a great awareness of the needs of 

Aboriginal kids too. So I think he knows that out in the yard if a teacher comes 

along he is going to get a fair hearing…. I’m determined that I want to see him 

60 Rigney, L. (1995). Indigenous Australians: Addressing racism in education. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 2&3, 

5-15. 

61 Thorsen, B. (1995). Being Indigenous in Australian schools. Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Human Sciences 

Research Conference, Churchill, Victoria. 

62 Social Inclusion Unit. (2003), op cit, pp.19-20, 24-26, 31, 45. 

- 50 -


be successful, just the same as all kids, but I guess I’m keeping a bit of an eye 

on him to make sure resources are here to support him and his needs. (Program 

collaborator) 

One family member said that the mainstream school her young person attended was 

“doing reconciliation with the other kids and they all want to be involved. The racism 

gets dealt with and he is doing great.” 

An issue important to schools is when mentoring work occurs. If young people attend 

school they would prefer them to not have too much time out unless it is educationally 

focused. Options for lunchtime or after-school support are preferable and they 

negotiate with Panyappi to offer this wherever possible. 

Looking to the future 

A few months into her time with Panyappi, Susie makes the transition to high 

school. Only a couple of her friends go with her and she feels isolated and 

worried about how she will get on with teachers who don’t know or understand 

her situation. She has made many changes by this stage, such as better 

relationships with her Mum, rare visits to the inner city but with permission 

from her Mum , no use of yarnd i or alcoho l, feeling more positive at schoo l and 

catching up with work. However, this proves to be a rocky time and she starts 

skipping school and catching up with her old friends from the inner city either 

there or at the current popular hang-out. The school calls Panyappi to ask them 

to find Susie when she hadn’t been for two days. When Mary does locate her, 

Susie tells Mary that she thinks Panyappi won’t continue with her now that she 

has mucked up. Mary reassures her that won’t happen – slip-ups happen. They will 

help her work out things at school so she can stay on track and they will stick by 

her until Susie is more confident of this. 

When asked what would happen after their time with Panyappi, it was apparent that 

most young people had the positive expectation that they would stay with Panyappi, and 

therefore their mentor, for some time. Some also expressed that they needed this, for 

example: “I should be right when Panyappi finishes - not for a while though.” 

Family members were more direct in their thoughts about this. There was a sense that 

their young people would be OK after Panyappi, coupled with the hope that there would 

be ongoing support. For example, “hopefully after all this work we are doing he will cope 

on his own.” Another comment was: “He will keep on going, he won’t look back, he doesn’t. 

He wi ll make it. I am pretty confident he is on a good track.” Others were concerned 

about Panyappi not stopping too soon, or about being there for the young person through 

a second stage where support was still present even if not as intensive. For example: 

It would be too soon for him because he has only just started all this (4 months 

ago ) and all of it is because of [the mentor ], so if he lost him I think everything 

woul d be lost . I thi nk it wil l be awhil e before he is ready to go it alone. (Famil y 

member) 

- 51 -


I think with Panyappi once they get him to this stage of the help, there should 

be a second stage of help for them when they leave. Help them to survive, keep 

on track with those kids so that they don’t get lost. It needs to go on. ( Family 

63 

member) 

Young people and families were not alone in their opinions on this. Program collaborators 

were concerned for the future of the program and the young people if the program was 

not available. They commented that the concept was excellent, but needed to be funded 

appropriately and over a sufficient length of time to allow the program to become 

established, offer job security to avoid losing staff, maintain continuity of support to 

young people, and for the mentoring role to be appropriately understood by program 

collaborators so there are reasonable expectations. They were confident that under 

these conditions ongoing evaluation of Panyappi would demonstrate outcomes with enough 

young people to substantiate those outcomes that had already been achieved. 

Program management themes 

Similarly to the young people and family themes, there is mutual influence between the 

themes named here. They reflect issues that typify the establishment and management 

of program initiatives that have uncertain futures beyond their initial funding grant. 

Establishing a new program 

It was apparent from talking with program collaborators, program funders and advisory 

group members that they appreciated the effort needed to establish a new program 

such as Panyappi. Many acknowledged that the program had a difficult start with three 

Coordinators to date and the second one leaving very suddenly. This had a negative 

impact on staff, resulting in them also leaving, and caused breaks in program continuity 

and mentor recruitment. Four months into the program the first Coordinator and MAYT 

management, who had a shared understanding of the program focus, were informed by 

program funders that they must maintain clearer distinctions between their client 

groups, with Panyappi having a strictly inner city focus on young people who may or may 

not be FAYS clients. This created problems in redefining auspicing arrangements (see 

below) and slowed the establishment process. 

Program funding was also not entirely secure, with a $90K shortfall that was not 

directly provided by FAYS as initially promised. FAYS decided to recover this through 

establishing most mentor positions as traineeships, reducing mentor numbers to 6 and 

removing car access. This was not a straightforward process and slowed program 

progress. It meant recruiting people with little or no experience in the workplace or in 

human services, resulting in the first Coordinator spending considerable time supporting 

and mentoring staff who did not always make good decisions in how to mentor young 

people or manage their time. The Coordinator often directly mentored young people to 

maintain support for them when mentors were inconsistent or tried to “save” the young 

63 This comment refers to the idea of providing support “beyond the trouble zone” as noted on 

page 18 in the “How Panyappi works” section. 

- 52 -


people rather than “teach” them life skills. Despite requests from the program, FAYS 

offered minimal support in managing these human resource and industrial problems. 

Although referrals began in the early stages, they were not actively encouraged and 

many went on hold “because the mentors were new and very young” (please also see 

“Becoming a human services worker: Being a Mentor” below.) 

[The first coordinator ] didn’t get a lot of referrals because he was pretty well 

flat out trying to put everything together and formulate how the program would 

operate. It was just getting the mentors together, organising training, and 

getting them to work in partnership with MAYT. See how that would all fit…and 

the paperwork that goes with it. (Program collaborator) 

Evaluation participants said that the establishment phase is the best time for bumps to 

occur in order to clarify issues, gain valuable learning, and set a strong foundation that 

supports programs in travelling smoothly - this certainly occurred for Panyappi. They 

viewed that Panyappi became a functioning program in early 2003 when the third and 

current Coordinator started, following a 5-month period of the position being vacant and 

MAYT oversaw it in addition to their own work. New mentors were recruited and 

establishment work was completed. Participants believed program impact could only be 

determined on the basis of the last 12 months - most evaluation interviews occurred in 

Feb-Mar 2004. 

There was pressure to provide services before the training of new mentors was 

complete in 2003. On the one hand this was positive in terms of responding to high level 

need, the waiting list and the repeated delays in service delivery moving to full capacity, 

but one program collaborator identified the downside: “Training should have been 

separate from the doing. Some may not have been ready for what was expected of 

them.” Shortcuts into program delivery may slow progress down in the long run if people 

are not sufficiently prepared for the varied aspects of their role. This was most 

apparent in the early phase of Panyappi, but still occurred in 2003. 

These views concur with evidence in the literature that mentoring program targeting 

young offenders often have longer than expected development times and require 

dedicated effort to create and maintain partnerships that help access young offenders 

through the juvenile justice system while keeping the program voluntary. This can 

increase the pressure on staff, leading to frustration and turnover of mentors, 

especially if they are unprepared for the effort required to engage young people. 64 

The role of the Advisory Group 

Panyappi’s Advisory Group included representatives from program funders, community 

representatives, and program collaborators (see Figure 4 on page 16). Meetings have 

been between one and five months apart across the duration of the program. 

64 ARTD (1999/2001) op cit, p.19. 

- 53 -


Attendance has been variable and with declining attendance meetings became infrequent 

during 2003. Advisory Group members identified that their role was to: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

offer the Panyappi program support and guidance in program implementation 

assist with exploring issues and identifying possible solutions 

provide feedback about program impact and progress 

facilitate networking and awareness among agencies likely to be involved with the 

young people and families serviced by Panyappi 

Advisory Group members believed the group had not functioned optimally due to 

inconsistent attendance and meetings. For some this was due to managing multiple 

commitments and difficulty in dedicating time to this role. One member believed that 

members could be more proactive in contacting Panyappi staff to stay updated, offer 

support and network: “The Advisory Group need to support the Co-ordinator so that she 

can take the initiative - she also needs support.” Some reported that the Panyappi 

Coordinator had contacted them to network and gain opinions on program developments. 

Others identified that differences in opinion about auspicing arrangements and issues 

that pre-existed the program had created fractures in the group that prevented 

constructive conversations and consistent support for Panyappi. They saw this as 

working against the program and the overall goals it was trying to achieve, and something 

that needs to be transcended. These issues appear to have led to few meetings during 

late 2003. Members made comments such as: 

I think more than enough information has been fed into the group but getting 

something back has been very disappointing. I think the project has 

demonstrated now that it doesn’t need an Advisory Gr oup. I would be looking at 

ways of translating the information to key stakeholders in different ways, 

through a newsletter or when you have events invite stakeholders rather than 

sitting around a table. (Advisory group member) 

So whether there is a lot of worth to having an advisory group now, perhaps not. 

The program is up and running efficiently and doesn’t need an advisory group 

anymore. (Advisory group member) 

I think we need to think about the standard Advisory Group differently. We 

should separate two functions. Community connections can be done at a more on 

the ground level rather than with workers in other services. The operational 

work is best done by the trage i group, like theInner City Triage Group that 

looks at the practical issues of working with the young people and collaborating 

on this – who should see them to do what. (Advisory group member) 

This situation raises questions about what are appropriate and effective support 

structures for the program and whether an Advisory Group is the option of choice. 

Trying to achieve and sustain an engaged and effective Advisory Group is a common issue 

- 54 -


in pilot programs in human services – it is not unique to Indigenous programs. Despite 

these issues, there is consistent evidence from Advisory Group members and other 

evaluation participants that the program is currently well managed, has dealt with many 

issues related to the earlier life of the program, and has made good progress toward 

program goals. Most agree that further outcomes could be achieved with more 

consistent support and committed funding (see below). 

Auspicing arrangements 

Any auspicing arrangement must tackle issues such as: infrastructure support, access to 

resources (shared or independent), communication agreements, role clarification, service 

philosophy, and levels of collaboration in management and service delivery. Similarities 

and differences in approaches and values will determine whether mutually supported 

arrangements are achieved. The questions surrounding the auspicing arrangement were 

described in “History of Panyappi: Deciding on the auspicing agency” above. 

In the early stages of Panyappi the program was taken in a more independent direction, 

which did not fit with MAYT’s hopes as the auspicing body. Together with the issues 

facing MAYT at that time this may have contributed to some of Panyappi’s teething 

difficulties. MAYT underwent a transition in staff and management, as well as dealing 

with crowded office facilities. The situation improved by late 2002, and then further 

throughout 2003 with their shift to The Parks location. This contributed to more stable 

support for Panyappi and increased collaboration between MAYT and Panyappi staff, 

first at the management level and subsequently at a worker level. 

Throughout 2003, evidence that the auspicing arrangement was effective, as well as 

appropriate, started to emerge more clearly. The shift to The Parks meant Panyappi had 

good access to space, cars, phones, computers and other infrastructure. This may have 

been less visible to Advisory Group members, as there were fewer meetings in 2003 and 

those that occurred were not well attended, so opinions may be not be based on the 

current situation. Program funders at the state level felt confident that Panyappi’s 

location was appropriate, particularly from an infrastructure point of view. 

Some program collaborators were concerned about access, with Panyappi based at The 

Parks in the western suburbs while its main brief was the Inner City. Although in an area 

with a significant Aboriginal community, other areas were named. Not all program 

collaborators realised that the workers were highly mobile and most mentoring occurs in 

young people’s homes, schools or communities, not at the Panyappi office. Although some 

group programs are located in The Parks and Port Adelaide, mentors provide transport 

for young people to get there. For a couple of evaluation participants, the long-held 

concern about whether Panyappi is sufficiently community based remains. Their opinions 

favour a non-government location with an inner city youth service as the auspicing body. 

Alternatively, if Panyappi continued and expanded they would support Panyappi remaining 

where it was as an umbrella body, provided it placed outreach workers in Indigenous 

community agencies across the northern and western suburbs. The core issue that all 

evaluation participants shared was ensuring that it met the needs of Indigenous young 

people, whether they frequented the inner city or other suburban locations. 

- 55 -


All program collaborators indicated their support for Panyappi being located with and 

run by Aboriginal people in an Aboriginal agency. For some the location had limited 

impact as most contact was through phone, email or mentors visiting the agency with the 

young person. It was important “knowing the people work there with similar beliefs, 

attitudes and goals.” A comparison was made with the FAYS general mentoring pool: 

I am not sure what that would be worth. Whether those sorts of mentors would 

be able to engage these kids. I think the fact that it is an Aboriginal service for 

Aboriginal people, with the other stuff being more mainstream I don’t think it 

would be so effective, or the people I’m referring would be as open to their 

assistance as they are to Panyappi. (Program collaborator) 

While acknowledging the rocky journey Panyappi travelled to its current point, a MAYT 

staff member reported that: 

I think the reason why Panyappi can be so successful is it’s co-location. It’s 

auspicing under something like MAYT where you’ve got the support network, the 

career pathways and you’ve got training and all of the things that young mentors 

are going to need to learn and know so they can work credibly alongside [other 

workers involved with the young person and family]. (Program collaborators) 

MAYT staff identified the importance of having Panyappi at an Aboriginal agency that 

was sufficiently resourced and committed to culturally appropriate practice and working 

in partnership with mainstream agencies: “It’s about head sets and infrastructure too. 

We can always wriggle the infrastructure to fit another desk in but it’s hard to wriggle 

people’s brains to get another thought in or a different track” (Program collaborators). 

Panyappi mentors were mostly supportive of the co-location although they hoped that 

Panyappi could be more independent if it continued and expanded, as this would help 

distinguish it from MAYT and build its profile: 

It’s been a good location for the program and MAYT has been really supportive 

of Panyappi. I think we might have run into a brick wall if MAYT wasn’t here in 

terms of understanding what we are on about. I know with some of the programs 

that MAYT do we combine and bring all our clients in together. (Panyappi staff) 

MAYT believed their existing history of managing mentoring programs was valuable. 

FAYS fund this mentoring capacity as part of the larger pool of mainstream mentoring 

funds. It has been inadequate funding, ~ $33K/year which is less than one full-time 

position, but with a broad scope to provide mentoring for any young person involved in 

the juvenile justice system. Although Panyappi has a different focus, they have placed 

the casual mentor pool under Panyappi’s management to provide a consistent training, 

support, policy and practice environment for all Indigenous youth mentoring. 

The main concern that Panyappi faced in 2003 was developing effective partnerships 

with MAYT youth workers so the different roles of youth workers and mentors were 

- 56 -


understood and they could collaborate effectively. This proved more challenging than 

working with the MAYT family workers. Progress has been made in this area, e.g. “we 

know more and have more of an understanding [of what mentoring involves].” MAYT 

youth workers reported they were committed to building closer working relationships 

with mentors, and Panyappi mentors indicated they were keen to work in buddy systems 

with youth workers to strengthen collaboration and contribute to on-site training. MAYT 

Management has lead the way for collaboration, as it includes the Panyappi Coordinator 

in MAYT Management meetings, planning and decision-making processes. MAYT is aware 

that they also gain from the auspicing arrangement. MAYT Management reported that: 

Panyappi also offers MAYT support. It is another avenue at looking at different 

programming and ideas for the kids. There may be different ways of working 

together. They take the pressure off some of the main staff because they can 

do what the youth worker’s can’t do in relation to their time. (Program 

collaborators) 

Funding partnerships 

Panyappi staff reported that the program gained strong support from the Crime 

Prevention Unit, State Attorney General’s Department. The Senior Project Officer 

assigned to supporting Panyappi was the key link with the Commonwealth Attorney 

General’s Department. As the local level of the Department of Human Services, Panyappi 

staff perceived that MAYT offered high level support in terms of the in-kind resources 

and direct funding they contributed, and their consistent advocacy for funding support 

at a central level. 

Questions were raised about the level of support and leadership provided by the central 

office of DHS throughout the program’s history. A few people reported that the minimal 

support and interest for Panyappi’s work, and its vision for how that could be enhanced 

and expanded, has had a detrimental and constraining effect on program recognition and 

development in DHS. Program monies were shifted without consent, responses to budget 

queries were slow, and considerable work was required to get accurate budget figures 

and recover monies. Information was not passed on to senior management levels so they 

could fully appreciate what Panyappi offered. This was also seen as stepping away from 

responsibility when Panyappi is often involved with young people who are part of the 

Department’s core business through Family and Youth Services. For example, a person 

who is independent of Panyappi and MAYT staff commented: 

If we had more support from DHS we would have had a better platform to really 

raise the profile of Panyappi through DHS and through that, better advocate on 

behalf of young Indigenous kids invol ved in the program and [have] more people 

knowing and being aware of the program and where it’s trying to head. 

Program collaborators, particularly those in community-based agencies that often 

depend upon project grants to survive, were particularly frustrated with Panyappi’s 

short-term funding situation. They viewed this short-term approach as disrespectful; it 

allows something to get started but then fails to support it to become sustainable, 

rather than using a “capacity building” model where the funding body plays an active role 

- 57 -


in supporting project sites to develop sustainability plans and fund them for a sufficient 

length of time so they can be successfully implemented. 65 As one of the funding bodies, 

the Crime Prevention Unit, State Attorney Generals’ Department, was active in providing 

support and developing sustainability plans but this was not matched by the two other 

funding partners. 

We are sick of the merry-go-round. People get angry and frustrated at another 

short-term handout that makes the government look like they are doing 

something but little is left with the community as there is no ongoing support. 

This is disappointing with a program like Panyappi that can offer important 

things to young people who often have no one else to turn to, to tutor them in 

life like a tutor does with schoolwork. (Program collaborator) 

This situation raised the issue of whether, “these programs get set up to fail. I see that 

as not only failing ourselves, but the community and failing the young people. If programs 

are set up like this it’s really important to keep them running. To make a change, we need 

successful programmes like this. If funding runs out, where is it going to leave the young 

people?” (Panyappi staff). 

Program collaborations 

A central location for program collaborations was established through the Inner City 

Triage group set up by Panyappi and the State Attorney General’s Department, Crime 

Prevention Unit in the latter half of 2003. However the intention was to use it for 

identifying young people and determining immediate referral options, and less for 

ongoing service delivery. A program funder believed that creating the Inner City Triage 

Group has, “brought to the attention of many people and government agencies that there 

are some issues with young Indgenous i kds i especially withn i the city. It has aso l put 

these issues on the table…an outcome that we weren’t expecting. We had a lot of 

participation from other [youth and government] agencies in town. That level of 

communication wasn’t there before. Panyappi has been the driver.” Unfortunately, in 

May 2004 the Inner City Triage group was disbanded as the Department of Human 

Services supported an alternative group for inner city workers that focused more on 

networking, losing the interagency case discussion and decision focus. 

Most other program-based collaborations occur with schools, FAYS, MAYT youth and 

family workers, juvenile justice, and other family support programs. Schools have both 

referred to and directly benefited from Panyappi’s work. One school with a high number 

of Aboriginal students said that their enthusiasm for gaining mentoring support meant 

they nominated more young people than could be absorbed, and realised it was easy to 

overload Panyappi due to the intensive nature of the work and therefore small caseloads 

required. Their experience of the program once a referral was accepted “really 

depended on the nominated mentor after that. Some of the mentors were very good and 

some were not very good at all” (Program collaborator). 

65 The Foundation for Young Australians (http://www.youngaustralians.org/) has developed this approach over 

the past two years, which is also known as “venture philanthropy.” 

- 58 -


When young people attended school, the schools expected flexibility from mentors in 

offering after-school options to support young people’s engagement with education. 

When they gain this flexibility, then “schools are wrapped with Panyappi because of the 

work they do in the schools” (Program collaborators). When mentors were appreciated, 

they stayed in regular contact with school staff, negotiated visit timing as well as time 

away to help young people attend other appointments, supported schools in getting young 

people to attend and complete work, and provided links between home and school to 

facilitate that relationship. A non-school based education worker reported: 

It’s been a real partnership in terms of my role. There are certain things I can 

and can’t do in relation to the young person….There is regular dialogue in terms 

of where the young person is at, trying to work out the best outcomes for the 

young person as well. [The Coordinator] and [mentor] have been really supportive 

in terms of the work they have been doing. (Program collaborator) 

A different program collaborator described Panyappi’s work as a holistic, familyinclusive 

and culturally appropriate approach, while their agency stayed involved in a case 

management role with regular communication with the mentor as the “frontline” worker. 

Although this agency is used to doing the frontline work, they believed this arrangement 

works effectively in situations where the issues are serious, confronting and long-term: 

Its working with the kids that are falling through the gaps and trying to make 

the services available, getting kids to appointments, being creative with their 

service in some respect, working quite intensely with the family, the mentor 

being the role model for the kid and getting them on board with engaging the 

parents…With . this family (2 kids) we’ve linked in the MAYT Drug and Alcohol Counsellor so its been quite a holistic approach in terms of MAYT doing a broad 

range of things with the family, as well as involving a family support worker from 

[another agency]. (Program Collaborator) 

Youth or family workers at MAYT also reported high satisfaction when mentors engaged 

in collaborative work, for example: 

The family is interested in what is happening. It is a relief knowing that a 

mentor is working with that young person because we just don’t have the time. 

The mentor gives the workers time out and also the family. (Program 


We had a boy [with] a carer, social worker, MAYT worker and a mentor - also a 

family worker. There were a lot of people involved but with everybody talking 

and communicating i t worked pretty well for him. (Program collaborators) 

Although other services expressed some dissatisfaction with collaboration, it appears 

this was due to: unrealistic expectations of Panyappi’s capacity, misconceptions about 

the mentoring role (see below), and different opinions on the auspicing arrangements 

which may detract from collaboration and focusing on the work itself. 

- 59 -


Some program staff, funders and advisory group members acknowledged that, “there 

has been some really strong links forged with the police.” As part of their commitment 

to supporting Panyappi’s work and acknowledging their shared concerns about the 

wellbeing of Indigenous young people, SAPOL are finalising a Memorandum of Agreement 

with Panyappi. This stands out given the experiences that most young people in Panyappi 

may have had with police. 

I’ve made a point of building very strong relationships wi th Police so that we can 

maybe make some changes in the way they feel and look at how they pick up our 

kids. I’ve done a lot of training, especially the inner city around what Panyappi 

does and how we can involve the Police and they can be a referral point for us. 

They were so receptive and really wanted to know what they coul d do , as they 

didn’t feel that they had enough understanding to do the right thing by the kids 

whether they were victims or offenders. (Panyappi Coordinator) 

Scope – geography and age 

Schools working closely with the young people that Panyappi target are aware that they 

do not always frequent the inner city, but often spend time in their own communities and 

other suburban locations. Similarly to other program collaborators they appreciated that 

Panyappi had a brief to address the inner city, but were keen to see this expand to 

respond to the realities of these young people’s lives. 

I would certainly like to see that there are no boundary lines in future projects 

because our kids don’t follow them….There might be a rush of 3 or 4 weeks 

where they hit the city all the time and then all of a sudden they are hanging at 

Mansfield Park. They’re not going anywhere. They are wandering around at night 

looking for stuff to do, so it’s fairly variable. (Program collaborator) 

Such expansion would prevent the large gaps in service that occurred in their early 

contact with Panyappi. Contact is now more regular as Panyappi gained support to 

broaden its brief. In fact, several evaluation participants advocated a “no borders” 

approach. They emphasised that it should be irrelevant whether young people had FAYS 

involvement (this is not a current eligibility criterion), and although Inner City youth 

were a focus, the program could go beyond this group. This is recognised within MAYT: 

Panyappi [needs] to be flexible and shift with the trends of what is happening 

with young people. Originally it was set up for kids who frequent Hindley Street 

on a regular basis, but we know that the shift is now out into the community and 

the Parks area. MAYT and Panyappi need flexibility to go with it. (Program 


This flexibility also includes age. It has become increasingly evident to Panyappi staff, 

and some Advisory Group members, that there is both a need and wisdom in targeting a 

younger group. “There is nothing for the 7-9 year olds who often need some direction 

and support at this point but can’t access services easily for them as they don’t fall 

under FAYS.” Responding to these issues would also encourage Panyappi to target other 

- 60 -


geographical areas where problems with younger children are more evident, e.g. 

Mansfield Park. A program collaborator working with the younger children said: 

Its clear from the Layton Report 66 that our whole care system is falling apart 

miserably. The kids that I am working with will never go into the care system, as 

they will just run into placement breakdown after breakdown. We are not even 

trying to get them into alternative care. Relative options are diminishing and it’s 

just not possible, so we need something else for these sorts of kids. A long-term 

worker or service that will engage this family until they are back on track and 

try to get them back on track is what’s needed, and we are not seeing that. 

There is no ongoing service at the moment [elsewhere]….Its just a vicious circle 

really. (Program collaborator) 

Without this, some program collaborators believed that “its only a matter of time 

before they are 10 and can get charged” and then go on FAYS youth team caseloads as 

young offenders. People were keen to see a consistent and committed effort to start 

breaking this cycle and believed Panyappi could play a part in this. 

Alternative services 

Linked to the issue of scope was the consistent message from all evaluation participants 

about the poor availability of alternative services if Panyappi did not exist. Although 

people would use anything available, including existing Indigenous and non-Indigenous 

youth and human service agencies, there was no equivalent service to Panyappi. As noted 

in quotes in the Young people and family themes section above, program collaborators 

and family members were equally concerned about outcomes for their young people if 

Panyappi was not available, and questioned if their own resources would be sufficient to 

achieve sufficient change: “If we hadn’t had that sort of stuff then it would have been 

up to [the carer] and myself and the resources we have between the two of us. ” They 

did not consider that it was only Panyappi they needed, but it made a substantial 

difference through enabling young people to gain greater benefit from other services or 

supports with which they may not be engaging. 

This situation gave rise to frustration regarding short-term funded initiatives where 

long-range planning for sustainability is not built into the budget. As noted above, 

although short-term pilot initiatives occur in all human service areas, Aboriginal 

communities are often serviced on the basis of such projects. This disrespects the 

issues they face, the services they deserve and shows poor appreciation of the realities 

of historical legacies on their lives. 

The consensus was that if you are going to support this work, then make it possible to do 

it well by resourcing it appropriately. You will retain more of your staff and provide a 

consistent service in situations where that consistency can make or break young people’s 

willingness to engage with support services at all. In cross-portfolio areas, such as the 

66 The Layton report was a report commissioned by the State Government to review the South Australian child 

protection system. It reported its findings in 2003 and recommended major changes to many areas of child 

protection and alternative care system. 

- 61 -


work of Panyappi, funding commitments are usually required by more than one agency or 

department to break the short-term funding cycle and sustain initiatives so they can 

build on their foundations and work toward their long-term goals. 

Being a mentor 

Becoming a human services worker 

For many of the mentors, Panyappi was their first experience of being a human services 

worker and they tended to be a younger group (20-30 years), in part due to the early 

funding dilemma addressed by employing people on traineeships where the age criteria 

was 18-28 years. Current and previous mentor staff reported that they had a strong 

personal interest to work with Aboriginal young people, “I have a passion for this sort of 

work.” Panyappi was their first formal opportunity: “I’ve wanted to be a youth worker 

and it was my first experience of doing this.” This was also evident to program 

collaborators: “He’s so keen. His heart’s so in his work….He’s pretty dedicated.” 

The initial focus for all mentors was training for their role in working with young people, 

families and other agencies, but becoming a human services worker requires learning 

about the cultural and administrative protocols of the sector. This was an additional 

learning curve to scale, and required support from the Coordinator, as well as the 

auspicing agency, which proved to be a more time intensive task than anticipated for all 

concerned. Not all mentors employed managed to learn and put into practice all aspects 

of the job, and either left, or where it was required were dismissed. It appears that the 

“traineeship only” employment approach advocated by FAYS to resolve the earlier 

funding dilemma set up the program and some of its workers to fail, as it did not 

recognise the knowledge and skills required for the role. 

The first main recruitment drives occurred during Panyappi’s early stages while it was 

establishing its identity, clarifying its focus, identifying what were reasonable 

expectations when mentoring involves time-intensive work with young people, and 

developing appropriate policies and practices. The second drive occurred early in 2003 

once the third Coordinator started when all of these areas needed to be revisited and 

revised. This situation should be more manageable in the future, as new staff would 

come into an existing staff team where there is stronger peer support in addition to 

supervision. 

Roles and responsibilities 

Most people actively involved with Panyappi were able to articulate the role of mentors, 

particularly the Coordinator, mentors, MAYT staff, and those program collaborators 

who worked in partnership with the Panyappi program, rather than just sending referrals 

to them. Some of these descriptions were provided above in the Young people and family 

themes section, but others included: 

My rol e is to stay in regular contact with my clients because what I am trying to 

do is give them a different direction, something else that is going to be 

interesting in their life so that they don’t get drawn back to hanging around the 

- 62 -


inner city a lot of the time and getting involved with whatever could be 

happening there, which might connect them up with the justice system. I make 

sure that I have a good connection with people at school, particularly the 

Aboriginal Education Workers in terms of how they are going, how they are 

managing at the school and how I can support that. (Panyappi staff) 

That you are a friend, you create a relationship with that young person whereby 

you are their big brother, big sister, confidant, their friend, the person that 

they build some sort of trust with, that feels like that person is there for them, 

to support them in their choices, helping them to get to them, whether it’s 

school or training. A role model for that person - helping them to make good 

choices…take them by the hand and lead them through life. I t is about teaching 

the kids to think for themselves, looking at what their options may be and 

thinking those options through before taking any steps. (Program collaborators) 

Mostly about getting the young person a voice in a world that often or doesn’t 

listen to young people. (Program collaborators) 

Connecting with him, having a relationship, someone he can look up to, be an 

appropriate model, someone he can confide in who is not going to be on his case 

as opposed to a statutory role, giving him some other things in hi s life that are 

more positive than wanting to go out and do crime or hang around the streets 

(Program Collaborator) 

Although it was important that mentors develop friendships with young people, some 

program collaborators emphasised that “A mentor needs to be the adult and needs to 

see the difference between what is a good thing and a bad thing.” Mentors emphasised 

the importance of trust, “I try to keep it confidential, just between me and him and I 

think he likes that,” but also understood their adult role. “He says things that he tells 

me not to tell Mum, but I’ve told him if it’s really bad I need to tell her. He understands 

and expects that” (Panyappi staff). They were aware of their responsibility to do the 

right thing by young people and set a good example. 

I never make promises. If you make an appointment, stick to it. Be honest, be 

responsible for your own actions, make sure you’re there. All this can make it or 

break it. If you don’t turn up…it’s the parents that have to deal with this kid 

going off. It’s just all these things. Confidentiality as well is a big thing and 

builds the trust…. The parent needs to know that you are responsible and you’re 

a good person and that their child is going to be looked after while they are in 

my care and that we can work together as well. (Panyappi staff) 

Mentors found short-term change inspiring, but indicated they were aware of the longterm 

impacts of their work. I like “the success that you see out of what I have done 

being the worker, seeing a difference in the youth that I work with. They open up to you 

and come to you when they are in trouble. There are no secrets. Something that I do 

now might affect them in years to come and maybe make a change in their life” (Panyappi 

staff). This, of course, may be positive or negative and is why issues of consistency, 

- 63 -


responsibility, and continuity are emphasised in Panyappi. The focus is on what young 

people can learn and make part of their life both while they have Panyappi’s support and 

once they are on their own: 

All my kids have got into school and they are looking at their family life 

differently. They know they have the support out here and they have someone 

to talk to if things aren’t going so well in thei r family life. They have resources 

to go to other services as far as health and things like that. I have informed 

them of these services and resources that they can go to if I’m not 

available….[At first they won’t go and] want me there beside them because they 

feel more comfortable because they feel that there is someone they can trust, 

someone that will support them. That is only for the first couple of visits but 

once they form a relationship with, for example Second Story, where they have 

a lot of services in that one building, I find that the kids go there themselves. 

Once it builds their self-esteem and confidence and they get the guidance they 

need, they go on and do it themselves. (Panyappi staff) 

Despite program collaborators’ ability to give good descriptions of the mentor’s role, 

there were several reports about other agencies misunderstanding the mentor’s role and 

the personal and time-intensive level of engagement required. This was apparent to 

people beyond the Panyappi team, mostly MAYT staff, for example: 

I think a lot of the time other people view mentors as a run around, so things we 

can’t do, a taxi service, take him to school, whatever….District centres don’t 

understand the effort it takes or the time it takes to build relationships with 

the young people, so they are never going to understand or comprehend that, 

where as we know more and have more of an understanding. (Program 


I think if we are serious about the whole methodology about using mentors then 

it needs to be expanded. It is intensive one-on-one. I don’t think the rest of the 

system really understands mentoring. Because of the overload in the register 

system they basically see mentoring as babysitting and a transport service, a gap 

filler rather than a specific role on it’s own. I don’t think it’s valued for the role. 

(Program collaborators) 

This misunderstanding led to inappropriate requests of mentors, and expectations that 

the program could accept many referrals and provide immediate services. It also has the 

potential to distort people’s perceptions of program outcomes, including the evaluation 

outcomes. Some of these requests included hoping that the mentor would engage in 

investigative work with young people when there was reasonable suspicion they had 

engaged in criminal activities, and report their findings back to other workers to assist 

them in their role (the workers making this request were not police). Yet these workers 

noted that “they [mentors] aren’t the police” and it could risk destroying the 

relationship. Although very complimentary about the mentors’ work, a few program 

collaborators commented that they found it frustrating when Panyappi staff were 

reluctant to do this investigative work, or they were told by Panyappi this was not the 

- 64 -


mentor’s role, and wondered if this leaned toward “rescuing the kid, rather than 

acknowledging it’s a reality.” 

It was apparent there was some confusion between what constituted communication, 

information sharing and the overall best interests of the young person, and what actions 

compromised the mentoring work by achieving a short-term gain for a long-term loss. 

Clarifying roles and developing effective communication was not always seen as a mutual 

responsibility, but something that Panyappi should lead rather than other agencies ask 

about. This also reflected some frustration that “they look like the good guys and we 

look li ke the bad guys , as we have to tell them [young people] off for different things.” 

In contrast, other program collaborators said that: 

I know when I have issues that I want to raise with these kids I’ve struggled to 

confront them [as a professional worker]. I don’t think getting a mentor to do 

that is right, as I think that the rapport building that they have spent so much 

time on will go down the drain. I think if it is clear child protection, guardianship 

and court stuff…it needs to be coming from statutory [workers]…I think it 

needs to be kept separate from the mentor’s role. (Program collaborator) 

Facing the realities of the work – opportunities for personal growth 

Some of the mentors have been there a bit themselves or seen others or have 

siblings in similar situations. Aboriginal mentors come with a whole different 

concept than others I’d have to say because of that connection there. It’s 

already in the forefront of their mind about the family being important [as well 

as the young person]. (Program collaborators) 

This situation gives the Panyappi mentors considerable advantage in trying to engage 

young people who are not always keen to be involved with (yet another) service. At the 

same time, some mentors were not fully aware of the realities of these young people’s 

lives and therefore what they would face in the work. 

I guess it has opened their eyes to what our young kids are going through. The 

issues that they face on a regular basis, the stuff they deal with at home, the 

stuff they deal with the Police. The basic everyday life of a young person, all the 

emotions everything they go through each day. Sometimes they are very 

shocked. They really haven’t experienced being with kids that are hard core, 

that have witnessed and experienced drugs, alcohol, abuse, domestic violence. A 

lot of the mentors haven’t experienced that. When they do see that or are 

confronted they don’t have the skills to deal with this and it affects them in a 

strong way [so] that some don’t want to work here. (Program collaborators) 

On two occasions, when young people mentors were confronted with “hard end” issues or 

mandatory reporting responsibilities they decided to leave. Although support was 

provided and offered on an ongoing basis, mentors did not always experience it as 

sufficient or did not request further support when they needed it, which may have 

prevented them from leaving and then later regretting the decision (also see “Support 

- 65 -


for mentors” next). It is possible they may have blamed themselves for situations that 

are complex and need long-term solutions where mentoring is only one of several 

strategies required: 

I’ve told the mentors that if we’re not achieving some of the things we have 

written down then we need to try something different. What I’ve tried to tell 

the mentors is that ‘don’t ever think it’s you’, because these kids have got far 

more issues than what we could ever deal with. (Panyappi Coordinator) 

Others have used these situations to develop their resilience and capacity as workers, 

chalking it up to experience and therefore, gaining valuable learning. 

I think it has helped me understand a little more about our youth. It has 

cemented my general knowledge and helped me learn how to deal with them. 

Going to TAFE has helped a tremendous amount. It has made me want to get out 

there more and help as many kids as possi ble. I know now this is what I want to 

do and makes me fee l really good knowing that. Seeing my cli ent change is just 

wonderful to see and is so rewarding. It has done a lot for me. (Panyappi staff) 

MAYT staff have witnessed this shift in mentors, for example: “I have seen them grow 

in confidence and their ability to advocate for themselves as well as for other people, 

young people. I’ve seen them have an avenue to put their passion around young Aboriginal 

kids and their families and have a place to bring them to” (Program collaborators). 

Mentors could identify areas of personal development from working at Panyappi, such as 

confidence, skills in working with young people, communication, teamwork, and identifying 

goals for further training and study so they could move into other human services 

positions. For example: 

I’ve learnt a few thi ngs from Panyapp i. I al ways used to be shy . I thi nk by the 

meetings we have I have come out of my shell and that’s one good thing that 

Panyappi has done for me. I can talk to anyone now. It’s been a good 

improvement….I feel I can get along with younger people a lot better than I used 

to in my persona l life, like with my cousins….My own fami ly has seen a change in 

me also. I’m learning to manage my temper better as we ll, I have to keep calm 

with the kids here and can’t lose my temper and it’s carried over into my 

personal life. My family think it’s opened up my mind, instead of being so narrowminded….I’ve 

got a lot out of this personally. (Panyappi staff) 

I think being in this position, and because I need to think about what I want to 

do for the rest of my career, my next step if not still being here would be 

working in the schools as a teacher or working with Indigenous students at 

schools, just keeping them at school. I think school is really important for any 

child. (Panyappi staff) 

- 66 -

Support for mentors 


All mentors reported receiving supervision, training and personal support for their role - 

part of the two levels of mentoring built into the program (see page 18 in the “How 

Panyappi works: Support for mentors” section). Some program collaborators recognised 

this, for example: “The fact that the program is attached to a Certificate in Youth 

Work is fantastic as well. So we are providing a program where they are getting 

employed, and also getting further education from it.” All mentors highly valued the 

range of training opportunities and believed they were fundamental to assisting them in 

their role. For some it was an opportunity to prove that they could do something that 

they never believed of themselves, and it has inspired them to study for a higher 

qualification. 

Some mentors were very positive about the supervision and personal support, “I have 

never experienced this support anywhere I’ve worked before.” They felt it was 

consistent, helpful and readily available when they asked for it. Others were not 

satisfied that supervision and personal support was sufficiently frequent and evenhanded, 

questioning whether the Coordinator demonstrated a similar level of interest 

for the work of all mentors. They wanted more encouragement and one-to-one training. 

They felt the current team still had some distance to go in having a team focus. 

Although additional training strategies were implemented early in 2004 to help mentors 

work their way out of difficult situations they may face, the current Coordinator 

recognised that having trainees and less experienced workers created support demands 

that were difficult to meet consistently with her numerous other roles. These roles 

included the work to gain support and funding for the program’s future. Although having 

the OPS3 position since September 2003 certainly made a difference, “at the moment I 

don’t have enough time to spend with these people. Maybe in the future I can look at 

some more trainees but I think for the moment I need to look at some other core 

positions that we can stabilise first” (Panyappi Coordinator). 

A few weeks following their evaluation interviews, all Panyappi staff participated in a 

MAYT team review and planning day that focused on communication, team building, and 

strengthening opportunities for collaboration within and between MAYT and Panyappi. 

The team reported that they made good progress in these areas, and have been 

committed and enthusiastic to continue this work so their team cohesion improves. 

MAYT staff had mixed views on the support provided to mentors. Some identified that 

there was strong and consistent support available: “All the support is here. If the 

Coordinator notices that a mentor is down, she tries to talk to them, offers support. If 

they say no, she lets them go for a bit, but if she can see it hasn’t been resolved she 

cal ls [the MAYT Manager ] in and…they get [the mentor] to talk about issues and what is 

bothering them.” Others wondered if there was sufficient support to assist the mentor 

in their role at times: “I think the Co-ordinator needs to be directing or supporting the 

mentor to know what to do with the young person as well. Sometimes that doesn’t 

happen.” Still others wondered if there is too much support and protection that may 

prevent mentors gaining more learning from experience. They advocated: 

- 67 -


…letting the mentors fall a little. Letting them practice and not waiting for them 

to be fully trained and perfect before letting them experience. I would have let 

them go and fall on their knees and get up again. Support them totally, but let 

them go and give it a go. (Program collaborators) 

Differences in opinion about what “good support” and “appropriate direction” mean for 

workers relate to a combination of personality, confidence, maturity, work approach, 

initiative and experience. As described above, mentors are often new to and confronted 

by the issues in the lives of these young people and families. At the same time they are 

trying to absorb both the explicit and unspoken culture of human services work. They 

are keen to work with more clients, but as already identified, funding issues have 

prevented the program from taking on clients due to sustainability questions. 

Alternatively, they must demonstrate the initiative that would indicate they could 

manage working with more clients. 

When these areas are out of balance mentors may perceive a need for even more 

support than is consistently offered. In particular, they may want it to always be 

offered rather than learning that they can ask for it. They may not yet perceive that 

directly asking is not shameful and they will not be judged negatively. In fact, it is a sign 

of good practice in human services to recognise limits and seek support, or gain support 

for stretching your limits even if this involves possible “mistakes.” 

Caseloads 

As all mentors needed to complete in-class and on the job training in studying for their 

Certificate III, as well as complete other training requirements or opportunities, this 

limited their caseload capacity in the first few months of their work to ensure they had 

sufficient time to spend with a young person. All mentors have small caseloads initially. 

As they complete their training and also demonstrate greater confidence, ability and 

independence in the role, their caseloads were increased. People beyond the program did 

not always understand this process. 

One impact of misunderstanding the role and nature of mentoring for these young people 

is the judgement about “how many” young people can be serviced at any point in time and 

over what length of time. Some program collaborators questioned whether the program 

should have a higher caseload capacity, for example: 

None of mine have been picked up because they don’t have enough mentors. I 

think they could have 3 clients each, rather than just one per mentor. We are on 

a waiting list and this can be frustrating. There is a lack of communication there 

and we don’t really know what they are doing or why there is only one client per 

mentor in some cases. (Program collaborator) 

Some advisory group members also suggested that the numbers involved may be 

perceived poorly by other agencies who see the number of young people in need and 

wonder about the worth of a program that has a slow uptake and then discharge of 

clients. In these comments it was apparent that some program collaborators thought 

- 68 -


more mentors were available. Alternatively they acknowledged the resources were very 

limited given the need. 

At times the intensive nature of the work was not always appreciated, and neither was it 

acknowledged that many young people Panyappi works with have already been through a 

number of workers within a single service, or several previous services that have failed 

to engage them or support the family. Quick success is highly unlikely in this 

circumstance. Moving young people on too soon can risk sending the young person back 

into a repeat cycle before new patterns and family/community supports are established. 

Choosing to “mentor beyond the trouble zone” in order to make sustainable gains will 

have an impact on caseloads at any point in time, as well as over a period of time. 

Another external factor was that in the last 12 months mentors have been ready to 

increase their caseload capacity on at least two occasions, and were very keen to do so, 

but were faced with a dubious future regarding an accurate accounting of their budget 

within DHS and whether there would be further funding for the program. These 

situations compromised Panyappi’s ability to respond to need, and its reputation with 

other workers and services. It could not risk increasing caseloads when it was not 

possible to guarantee young people and families an ongoing service. They were aware of 

frustration from other program collaborators: 

If I don’t have a good mentor or I don’t have any mentors there is nothing I can 

do about it and I would rather give no mentor than give one that is not going to 

do the job properly because I am only damagi ng that chil d . Some departments 

don’t understand that. I look at the bigger picture of the effects that we may 

be causing so I think very seriously when I get my referrals in. I’m waiting to do 

a recruitment drive, but i t’s 

funding again. (Panyappi Coordinator) 

A range of mentors 

There was a consistent theme that having the “right staff” is critical to the success of a 

program that is strongly relationship based, such as mentoring. When this did not occur 

people told stories of relationship breakdowns and poor staff performance. When this 

did occur, then stories reflected all of the themes outlined in the Young people and 

family themes section above. 

Most of the mentors to date have been relatively young. This has benefits because they 

may have better awareness of young people’s issues, being less distant from that stage 

in their life, and young people may be more willing to relate to them. 

I think it is good having young people working with young people. They know what 

these young people are going through. They relate better. It’s important to have 

a balance. I think it would be nice to have a varied age group as mentors. 

(Advisory Group Member) 

It also may have disadvantages when young people would respond better to an older 

person or benefit from their increased life wisdom. Exposure to this wisdom may assist 

- 69 -


young people develop some of the strategies they need to cope with their situations: 

“Our kids are professiona l at tel lingpeopl e what they want to hear because they have 

been doing that to agencies all over the place forever. So they need people who are a 

little bit wise, a little bit smarter and sensitive to what the kids need still. So our 

experience has been fairly variable” as not all of the mentors have been like this 

(Program collaborator). 

Mentoring that occurs naturally through the significant relationships developed as part 

of Aboriginal cultural practices encourages young people to have strong connections to 

people across a range of ages. “Mentors need resilience and we need a whole range of 

mentors like peer age mentors, seniors, elders, mothers, fathers. We need a range of 

different types of mentors for different types of kids and different types of stages 

that they are at and to meet all of those needs” (Program collaborators). 

The Panyappi Coordinator reported that any future recruitment would aim to gain a 

broad range of mentors to achieve this greater diversity. “I have quite a young team and 

it would be good to have some maturity in the team, like 40-45 year olds.” 

- 70 -

Weaving the Threads Together 

Achieving desired program outcomes 


The Panyappi outcomes hierarchy in Appendix 1 identifies the thirteen desired outcomes 

of the program. The overall goal of a long-term reduction in offending by the client 

group cannot be determined at this point for the following reasons: 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Panyappi was not funded at a level that made it accessible to all young people who 

met the target group criteria, as it had a limited number of staff each doing timeintensive 

work with a small caseload of young people. 

It was also not funded to reach a slightly younger age group where it is possible to 

engage in earlier and potentially more effectively preventive efforts that would 

intervene in pathways that lead to offending behaviour in young people. 

As a pilot program it was also not funded for a sufficient period of time to ensure 

that shorter-term success could be sustained through the provision of ongoing, 

although gradually reducing, support while further referrals were accepted, ie 

“mentoring beyond the trouble zone.” Therefore, it would be difficult to interpret 

any changes in the level of offending behaviour evident in available state or regional 

statistics as being attributable to the program. 

Recommendation 1 


A longer period of time needs to elapse before this goal can be judged, i.e. three to 

five years after the program is functioning at an optimal level, particularly as it is 

based on a developmental crime-prevention perspective. 67 

An appropriate evaluation framework needs to be agreed and funded in order to 

track changes in offending behaviour by the client group that accounts for other 

contributing factors that may work for or against that goal – this includes a 

consistent and agreed method of defining offending behaviour and a reliable system 

of recording it based on this definition that has the cooperation and support of 

relevant government departments or agencies. To date, formal and external 

evaluation of mentoring programs has been infrequent, limiting what can be learnt. 68 


Outcomes 1 through 9 are about formative or process issues and have been explored 

through the process evaluation work. Outcomes 10 through 13 relate to the impact 

evaluation work outcome areas. Achievement of these desired outcomes are described 

below based on the evaluation stories. 

67 Homel, R. (2000). Blazing the developmental trail: The past, the future and the critics. Youth Studies 

Australia, 19(1), 44-50. 

68 Wilczynski, Culvenor, et al. (2003), op cit, p. 82 & 86. 

- 71 -

Program process 

Interagency collaboration through an Advisory Group 


Interagency collaboration is variable at the Advisory Group level due to differences of 

opinion about the location and auspicing arrangements for Panyappi, and the disruption 

this creates when meetings are held, detracting from commitments to collaboration 

made in the early stages of the program. Advisory Group meetings have become 

infrequent, especially since mid-2003, and the Panyappi Coordinator initiated most 

liaisons with Advisory Group members at an individual level on an “as needs” basis. The 

viability of the current Advisory Group structure is uncertain and alternatives could be 

considered. 

Referrals 

Since Panyappi commenced it has consistently received referrals, although assessments 

and service delivery has increased since early 2003. The young people assessed and 

considered by Panyappi for mentoring support fit the profile originally identified in the 

planning of the program back in 2001. Therefore, Panyappi has addressed the intended 

target group, while also expanding the inner city focus in response to the location shifts 

of this group of young people. They arrive with multiple and often serious problems, both 

personally and in their immediate networks. Responding to these needs requires multiagency 

collaboration (see below), although young people and families can be reluctant to 

engage with other services beyond the statutory ones with whom they are obligated to 

be involved. 

Project Coordinator role 

Over the course of the program, three Coordinators were appointed, with the second 

Coordinator staying a very brief time. There was a 5 month gap before the third 

Coordinator started in February 2003. The opinion of both Advisory Group members and 

program funders was that the program was currently managed quite well and gained 

strong support from its auspicing agency. 

Most criticism related to issues known to be beyond the current program’s control, such 

as ensuring sustainability, ongoing effects from previous disruptions in staff, and 

limitations on how many young people they can work with due to the time needed to train 

staff, and uncertain funding arrangements that compromise any guarantee of an ongoing 

service. 

Mentors: Recruitment, training and linking with young people 

Mentors were recruited and appointed in two main phases. All mentors received several 

forms of training: 

ω 

ω 

The Certificate III in Community Services (Youth Work) qualification 

Orientation training program for new workers in FAYS 

- 72 -

ω 

ω 

ω 


Several training programs relevant to their work area run by the FAYS in-house 

training unit, eg mandatory reporting, conflict management 

Work placements in other areas of family, youth and juvenile justice services 

On-the-job training and mentoring in their work role 

Mentors consistently reported that this training was highly valuable and crucial in 

ensuring they could perform their work role. They were keen for more opportunities to 

do on-the-job training and further work placements to deepen their knowledge of the 

services and systems in which their clients are involved. All mentors were linked with 

young people, with caseloads varying from 1 to 4 clients depending on confidence, 

experience, initiative and capacity. 

Case plans 

The Panyappi Coordinator develops a case plan for all Panyappi clients by working with 

the mentor, family and other program collaborators where relevant. If another involved 

agency has an existing case plan, then the Panyappi Coordinator collaborates with this 

group and attends case meetings. This plan is reviewed with all parties at regular 

intervals to check progress, ensure that goals are suitable and identify alternative or 

additional goals. Occasionally some program collaborators felt uncomfortable that 

Panyappi was stepping into their territory with case planning, a situation that was or 

could be resolved through agreement to do mutual case planning. 

Relationships between young people and mentors 

There was strong evidence from a range of stakeholders that young people valued their 

relationships with mentors and grew to trust them, often in ways their family members 

or program collaborators had not previously witnessed. This was not always 

straightforward to achieve, particularly when there was a history of rejection, poor 

treatment or losses for young people, and it was important to allow time for this trust to 

develop. 

When established, relationships were critical in creating the possibility of change and 

building young people’s belief in and motivation to achieve the goals that had been 

negotiated with them. With some young people, considerable effort was needed to 

maintain good relationships when young people went through difficult times, slipped back 

into offending, and became distanced or disheartened. 

Where matches were inappropriate a change of mentor was organised. On the occasions 

when mentors did not perform their role appropriately, putting the relationship and the 

young person’s progress at risk, mentors received assistance to improve their ability to 

meet their responsibilities. On the occasions this was not possible, mentors either left 

or were dismissed after all human resource processes had been followed. In these 

circumstances, the Panyappi Coordinator (in particular the first and current one) 

stepped in to work with the young person to bridge the gap until another mentor could 

be provided. 

- 73 -

Program outcomes 

Multi agency collaboration develops around the young person 


Panyappi played a key role in establishing the Inner City Triage Group in order to better 

coordinate a response to young people who frequent the inner city area. Although one of 

the referral sources for Panyappi that could provide useful information on the key 

target group, it has been disbanded in favour of a general inner city youth forum which 

focuses more on networking rather than cases, although an inner city Aboriginal workers 

group is also being supported. 

Collaboration in the delivery of direct services appears to be strong in Panyappi. Program 

collaborators greatly appreciate access to a unique service that provides a high level of 

input into young people who are otherwise likely to disconnect from education and 

support services, and further increase the risk they will engage in or be a victim of 

crime. Panyappi has developed strong relationships with schools in providing everyday 

support for young people, and with family support services, especially through MAYT, 

but also other government and non-government agencies. 

Panyappi has also made good use of the MAYT Tutorial Centre for those who do not 

attend school, or attend inconsistently. They have worked closely with Tauondi College 

at Port Adelaide and Nunga IT at The Parks to provide culturally relevant programs that 

build young people’s skills and cultural identity, and, where appropriate, have 

collaborated with or utilised MAYT run programs. 

Despite these achievements there is still some confusion about the roles and 

responsibilities of mentors, the long-term and intensive nature of mentoring, and the 

extent of the program resources. This was reflected through reports about and from 

program collaborators of unrealistic expectations and inappropriate requests of 

mentors, and poor clarification of communication and information-sharing protocols. This 

may be restraining the achievement of best possible outcomes in some circumstances. 

Positive shift in the young person’s behaviour and attitude regarding offending 

Panyappi works with young people where there is often an entrenched pattern of 

behaviour, even at an early age (by or before 10 years). Both young people and family 

members reported a marked change in young people’s offending behaviour. This is clearly 

evident in the decreased incidence of offending recorded within the state justice 

system’s database for almost all young people (see Figure 9). Where this did not occur it 

was because young people could not regularly engage in mentoring as they lived outside 

the metropolitan area and only visited it occasionally, or the offending occurred during 

their early involvement before they became fully engaged with Panyappi. Some young 

people with strong histories of offending and incarceration had not offended at all or 

only small incidents had occurred in a six-month period. The young people and their 

family members considered this remarkable and were proud as well as slightly surprised. 

Mentors and program collaborators supported these statements. Along with family 

members, they also indicated that young people’s attitudes had started to shift as they 

- 74 -


realised they could succeed in other areas and had other options they could take, apart 

from offending. At the same time, program collaborators and Panyappi staff reported 

and expected there would be hiccoughs and thought it was unreasonable to expect that 

young people would turn a corner and never look back within a few months. There was 

strong support for ensuring investment in a long-term support program, like Panyappi, 

that would stay with young people through the ups and downs involved in getting back 

and staying on track. 

Decreased contact with the juvenile justice system 

Anecdotal reports, corroborated from one or more sources, indicated that Panyappi 

clients decreased their contact with the juvenile justice system in terms of their level 

of and frequency of offending. This was confirmed through system data with substantial 

decreases in formal cautions, orders, family conferences, convictions and detentions, 

especially when young people had been involved for 6 or more months. Due to a previous 

history of offending it was common that they were still involved in court appearances or 

orders. Panyappi supported them through and, wherever possible, beyond this period. 

Whether this decreased contact is maintained will depend on the capacity to track these 

young people’s progress over a longer period of time, which will require ongoing program 

and evaluation funding. It is not possible to identify this from the existing data and 

many of the young people who have received consistent service in the last year have only 

recently left the program or still require further support. 

Development of self-discovery and self-determination by the young person and 

family 

There were consistent reports from a range of stakeholders that young people 

developed in their self-belief, and personal and cultural identity during their involvement 

with Panyappi. Many young people re-engaged with education, whether through schooling 

or VET options, started to develop other interests and friendships, and were developing 

better relationships with their families. 

Family members agreed to be involved with other support agencies to address personal 

or family issues, started to improve their skills in responding constructively to their 

young people, and became more convinced that their young person was making substantial 

changes. They reported experiencing a decrease in stress over time, although they still 

had some worries about whether there would be continuing progress, particularly if the 

Panyappi program was not available. 

Due to the initial disruptions in establishing a stable program, most young people have 

only had mentoring for a few months (since April 2003 or later), so the work was not 

seen as a “complete” process. Young people were hopeful that support would continue for 

some time. Family members, mentors and program collaborators believed that if young 

people were going to maintain belief in their ability to cope, stay motivated and achieve 

their goals, it would depend on further support from Panyappi at a similar or reduced 

intensity for a further period of time (i.e. at least 6-12 months). If this occurred, they 

were more confident that young people would become self-determining. 

- 75 -


Implications for Indigenous youth mentoring programs 

The evaluation outcomes reinforce many of the issues raised previously in the “A brief 

review of mentoring” section that were critical to successful mentoring programs in 

general. These include the importance of a clear role for mentoring programs, supporting 

mentors so that they are well qualified for their role, positioning mentoring programs 

within or at least closely collaborating with youth and family services, building 

connection with and supporting young people’s families, targeting geographical areas, and 

the role of the Program Coordinator. They reinforce the conclusions that were drawn 

about the effectiveness of mentoring in a recent national overview of mentoring for 

young people at risk of offending. 69 These outcomes also identify issues that are 

instructive for Indigenous youth mentoring programs such as Panyappi. 

What mentoring can offer 

Panyappi highlights that features of an effective mentoring relationship include offering 

young people: 70 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Personalised attention and care through a one-to-one relationship with an adult who 

is willing and able to gain the young person’s trust, demonstrate genuine care and 

encourage them to pursue their personal interests 

Maintaining this relationship over a significant period of time - the amount of 

time/week may slowly reduce based on needs and progress 

Resources through access to information, people, opportunities and new experiences 

that may be cultural, social or vocational 

Support and challenge by having an expectation of young people that they can try to 

do things and be successful 

Opportunities for reciprocity where young people are active participants in the 

relationship by developing goals with mentors, working in small groups where they 

support their peers, or even working with those younger than them to share their 

learning and skills (although the latter strategy has not yet been trialled through 

Panyappi). 

Recent proposals for supporting Indigenous young people via mentoring have focused on 

short-term strategies offered as summer holiday programs. 71 These programs are not 

necessarily focused on young people who are engaged in or vulnerable to crime, but do 

aim to encourage school retention. Although it is likely that these will be valuable, they 

will not provide a committed and sustained relationship over a longer period of time that 

is required to effectively support the young people with the highest and most complex 

needs, such as those in Panyappi’s target group (with or without the inner city focus). 

69 Wilczynski, Culvenor, et al. (2003), op cit, p. 83. 


71 

South Australian Government (2004). Making the connections: The South Australian Government’s action 

strategy to keep young people connected to learning and opportunities. Social Inclusion Unit, Department of 

Premier & Cabinet: Adelaide. 

- 76 -


If long-term change is desired in areas such as offending behaviour or engagement with 

education, then close attention must be paid to matching the target group to a suitable 

mentoring strategy where there is a stronger likelihood of sustainable gains. Experts in 

the juvenile justice field believe there is a case for intervention with young offenders – 

mentoring is one of the options. 72 Further, consideration must be given to when to 

intervene (age), therefore which young people, how many need support, and where they 

are based if significant and constructive change is to be achieved. 

Working collaboratively – enabling change 



Many evaluation participants identified how Panyappi’s work enabled other services to 

either become involved or make more headway with the young person and family. This 

was an outcome of the mentoring relationship itself, but also a collaborative approach to 

the work. The literature on mentoring already points toward greater success from 

mentoring when it occurs in conjunction with a range of other health, community, family 

and/or education programs. 

Panyappi has done this through setting up collaborative work with its auspicing body 

(MAYT), and by actively building effective working relationships with the other services 

and/or people involved in young people’s lives. Future Indigenous youth mentoring 

programs should consider their auspicing arrangements, location and working 

relationships, including Memorandums of Agreement where relevant, in order to set 

themselves up for both short-term success and sustainable change. 

Gaining advice and support 


Evaluations of community-based human service programs in Indigenous and non- 

Indigenous areas commonly report problems with standard Advisory Groups, Reference 

Groups or Steering Committees that are meant to continue over the life of the program. 

The issue is in adopting a “one size fits all” attitude. Indigenous youth mentoring 

programs should be encouraged to think broadly about different sources and forums for 

advice and support, while paying attention to cultural protocols and community issues 

that may influence who should be included and how people come together. 

Family connections and support 


All evaluation participants provided consistent endorsement of the value of a program 

that supports both young people and families. Not only was this considered culturally 

appropriate practice, it was seen as good practice in general to have a connection to and 

72 

Keogh, T. (2002). Juvenile recidivism: New and surprising possibilities for mental health promotion and 

prevention (pp.230-244). In L. Rowling, G. Martin & L. Walker (Eds.). Mental health promotion and young people: 

Concepts and practice. Sydney: McGraw Hill. 

- 77 -


impact on families – understanding and influencing young people’s everyday environments. 

Indigenous youth mentoring programs would be well advised to adopt and promote a 

family-inclusive approach, arguing for it in any funding application and ensuring they 

were resourced sufficiently to be family-inclusive. 

Leadership opportunities 


Panyappi has developed two levels of mentoring, a primary focus on young people and a 

secondary focus on the mentors. This has highlighted the importance of supporting new 

Indigenous workers to develop the confidence and skills to continue with a career in 

human services. This may involve formal and informal study, gaining experience in several 

human service areas, learning advocacy skills and applying for more senior positions. The 

mentors currently with Panyappi indicated a desire to contribute to their communities in 

this way. It is an example of younger people, the mentors, being supported by more 

senior community members in starting to develop the skills to become leaders for their 

communities. In turn, the mentors provide a role model to their clients of what could 

take place in their future, which brings them back to cultural identity and commitments 

and away from destructive behaviour. Although recruitment of Indigenous workers was a 

deliberate program strategy, the development of leadership skills was not planned and is 

an unexpected but welcome outcome. 

Building and sustaining Aboriginal employment and leadership in human services is 

important for at least three reasons. The Department of Human Services has 

acknowledged that they have insufficient Aboriginal workers and need to recruit them. 

Aboriginal workers do not always stay in their positions due to a lack of support and 

cultural understanding in workplaces, especially if they are isolated workers or small 

teams in mainstream organisations. Those people who are current workers tend to be 

older, especially those in senior positions, and have been involved for a long period of 

time. This results in a gap in the 20-40 year age group, a time when foundations are 

created for people to move into leadership and advocacy positions within the human 

services and the community. 


Establishing a new program 

Similar to the experience of many Australian mentoring programs, and as a very new 

initiative for youth-focused Indigenous services in South Australia, it took some time to 

establish credibility, build needed partnerships, gain cooperation from key stakeholders, 

and consolidate a stable and appropriately skilled staff base. 73 The time and energy 

required to do this was recognised by all stakeholders. Once that occurred and Panyappi 

achieved a stable position, it was able to move forward as a program. 

73 ibid, p.66. 

- 78 - 

Recommendation 8

Recommendations 


These outcomes lead to the following recommendations. Recommendations 1 through 6 

specifically focus on the Panyappi program, while recommendations 7 and 8 apply to 

future Indigenous youth programs. 

Recommendation 1: Ongoing commitment to the program 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

Develop a long-term funding strategy for Panyappi involving two or more partners 

from the juvenile justice, crime prevention, and family and community service 

sectors, including Indigenous based agencies. 

Support Panyappi to document its model of work to be used as an example of good 

practice for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth mentoring programs, as well 

as a training tool within and beyond Panyappi. 

Recommendation 2: Extension of program scope 

Sustain the program and expand the funding base so that Panyappi has the capacity 

and flexibility to respond to a greater range of young people, specifically: 

� in other geographical areas of high need, and 

� across a wider age group, ie the 6-9 year old group. 

Recommendation 3: Strengthening collaborative work 

Continue to foster collaborative work with program collaborators beyond the 

auspicing agency, including formal memorandums of agreement where relevant. 

Develop a training strategy to inform and educate workers in FAYS and those in 

other collaborating agencies (government and non-government) to ensure they 

understand the: 

� role of mentoring, 

� responsibilities of mentors, 

� contrasts with other areas of work (statutory, education, counselling, etc), and 

� implications this has for effective communication and working relationships with 

Panyappi. 

Recommendation 4: An advisory and support function 

Explore alternative advisory and support models to the standard Advisory Group, eg 

regular information systems to a wider group of interested parties, buddy systems 

with one or more key stakeholders, occasional workshop or forums on specific issues, 

or invitations to program events or celebrations where discussion forums are built in. 

Recommendation 5: Family-inclusive approaches 

Maintain a family-inclusive approach in line with culturally appropriate practice. 

- 79 -

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 

ω 


Further explore, document and evaluate this approach to assist in understanding its 

impact on program outcomes, and as a contribution to the literature on youth 

mentoring programs. 

Recommendation 6: Evaluation 

Include a budget for evaluation in any future funding of Panyappi as it is a unique 

program in Australia - there are few independently evaluated youth mentoring 

programs and none have been both Indigenous run and focused apart from Panyappi. 

Develop an appropriate evaluation framework that: 

� tracks changes in offending behaviour by the client group over time, 

� accounts for other contributing factors, and 

� uses a consistent and agreed method of defining offending behaviour with a 

reliable system of recording it that has the cooperation and support of relevant 

government departments or agencies. 

Recommendation 7: Encouraging future Indigenous leaders 

Ensure that a formal mentoring process is provided for Indigenous workers taking up 

entry-level positions within human service organisations 

Develop a process for mentoring of workers at all levels within human service 

organisations and offer Indigenous workers the option to participate 

Recommendation 8: Establishment phase for future Indigenous youth programs 

Ensure that an establishment phase is built into the budget and plan in the funding 

of any future Indigenous youth program, and sufficient time is allowed for 

establishment to occur before service delivery commences. 

- 80 -

Outcome 

Formative 

or process 

Appendix A: Panyappi outcomes hierarchy 

10. Multi 

agency 

collaboration 

develops 

around the 

young person 

8. Case plan developed 


Long-term reduction in offending by the 

client group 

11. Positive 

shift in the 

young persons 

behaviour and 

attitude reoffending 

9.Young people establish trust and value 

their relationship with the mentor 

7. Mentors linked with young people 

6. Mentors training initiated 

5. Mentors recruited and 

appointed 

3. Coordinator appointed 

12. Decrease 

contact with 

the juvenile 

justice 

system 

2. Multi agency commitment and collaboration established - 

Advisory Group 

1. Need identified and structured into project design - IYMP. Funding 

secured 

- 81 - 

13. Development 

of self-discovery 

and self 

determination by 

the young person 

and family 

4. Referrals 

for young 

people are 

received

Appendix B: Glossary 


Developmental crime prevention: 74,75 Development crime prevention occurs when you 

take action to prevent people from being involved in criminal activities by influencing the 

attitudes and behaviour of those people most likely to offend. You may reduce the risk 

factors that can lead to offending behaviour and increase protective factors that stop 

people from being involved in offending. Action often occurs at “transition points” in 

young people or people’s lives when they may be more vulnerable to negative influences 

or when they need more support and assistance in taking their next step in life. 

Actions are more effective if they occur early in the pathway of offending, which may 

be earlier in life or early in a person’s contact with the criminal justice system. Actions 

are also more effectively if they deal with several different risk or protective factors 

at the same time, and work at different levels, such as individuals, families and 

communities, including schools. These actions can include parenting programmes, school 

enrichment and youth prevention projects, mentoring and helping young people into 

training and work. 

Early intervention: Service responses that specifically target people who are showing 

early signs of a particular health, personal and/or social problem. Without this 

intervention, these problems are likely to become increasingly serious and entrenched, 

and require long-term services and support, often at high personal, social and financial 

costs to individuals, families, communities and societies. 

Formal mentoring: Relationships that are arranged through a program or service that 

are designed to build trust and offer young people support, care and encouragement 

from adults or older peers. This usually occurs when such relationships are not 

consistently or sufficiently available in young people’s existing networks in a way that 

meets their needs. 

Mainstream: When the word “mainstream” is used in this report it refers to human 

services, community programs or educational programs/schools that are directed at the 

needs of the dominant culture and/or the majority of the population and may not always 

take account of specific needs on the basis things such as cultural identity or 

ability/disability. 

Naturalistic mentoring: Supportive, trusting and caring relationships that young people 

develop with older peers or adults in their everyday networks, and may include close or 

extended family members, teachers, neighbours, coaches or other community members. 

74 

National Crime Prevention (1999). Pathways to prevention: Developmental and early intervention approaches 

to crime in Australia - Summary volume. National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General’s Department: Canberra. 

75 

Crime Prevention Unit, SA Attorney Generals’ Department (2002). Early Intervention in Crime Prevention in 

South Australia: Program Information. http://www.cpu.sa.gov.au/ei_article.pdf 

- 82 -

Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program Evaluation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?