In the 1970s, the world witnessed a classic tech showdown: VHS versus Betamax. By most technical accounts, Betamax was the superior product. Yet, thanks to a strategic deal with Blockbuster and a broader distribution network, VHS became the household name, while Betamax was relegated to a historical footnote.
We see this same pattern in politics. Nationalist communicators, often gifted in rhetoric but weak on the intricacies of policy, can win the hearts of voters and lead to significant shifts (e.g. Brexit) despite warnings from experts regarding long-term outcomes.
The world of social intervention is no different. A recent study published in the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and featured in the Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring reveals a hard truth: The most effective mentoring intervention does not always scale.
A Tale of Two Countries: Scotland vs Italy
The research compared two school-based mentoring (SBM) programmes: MCR Pathways in Scotland and Società Umanitaria (SU) in Italy.
- Scotland (MCR): Expanded rapidly, reaching 10 local authorities and 1,400 mentors in just a few years, eventually achieving national government institutionalisation.
- Italy (SU): Despite nearly two decades of work, it reached only five local authorities and 200 mentors, with zero government support.
Why the massive gap? It wasn’t just organisational strategy; it was the ecosystem. MCR Pathways invested early in rigorous monitoring and evaluation, using cost-effectiveness data to convince their customers (the government and corporations) that their programme was a solid investment. Conversely, the Italian programme faced a “family-centered” culture that viewed mentors with suspicion and a bureaucracy that made public funding nearly inaccessible.
The “Grant Trap” and Market Collapse
The study highlights a recurring issue in our sector: sometimes, securing a massive, one-off grant or a celebrity endorsement can actually get in the way of effective solutions. When a programme is “free” due to a grant win or corporate support, it can cause a local market collapse. Paying customers, such as schools or local councils, may stop seeing the value in more effective, paid-for programmes because a “free” alternative exists, even if that alternative is less effective.
This is where a shift toward ethical purchasing becomes vital. We must move beyond looking for the “cheapest” option and instead consider the most economically advantageous option, prioritising long-term social value.
Just as “Buy Local” initiatives help local ecosystems thrive rather than feeding dividends to global corporations, the same rationale and critical thinking should apply to educational support programmes such as mentoring. True sustainability and programme success are often rooted in an intimate understanding of the local ecosystem and the building of community trust.
The Risk of the “Loudest” Solution
Furthermore, as a systematic review of school-based mentoring (SBM) programmes notes, commissioners often default to visible metrics like academic outcomes or classroom behaviour because they are transparent to stakeholders. This mirrors the “VHS” approach: prioritising what is easy to see and market these benefits over deeper, more complex outcomes like psychological wellbeing or social functioning.
Without high levels of discernment, public sector buyers risk investing in programmes that lack a robust pedagogical architecture and a clear theory of change. The stakes are high; poorly implemented programmes that prioritise visibility over evidence-based rigour can lead to iatrogenic effects where the intended solution may actually harm the people they intended to help.
A good example of this is mentoring programmes that end prematurely because the well-intended volunteer mentors have to withdraw their support for a variety of reasons that would not be present if the mentor was an employed professional.
The Path Forward: Better Communication, Better Discernment
To avoid the “Betamax” fate for educational suppliers, especially in the VCSE sector, we need a two-pronged approach:
- For Suppliers: We must get better at communicating. As the Scotland study showed, “evidence of cost-effectiveness” is the language that converts policy into partnership. We must also adopt modern, scalable efficiencies like Just-in-Time Training and task-shifting to meet demand without sacrificing quality.
- For Commissioners and Buyers: There is a pressing need for critical thinking. Do not be swayed solely by political favour or celebrity buzz. Look for programmes with a clear “theory of change,” a commitment to outcomes over service delivery, and robust selection processes, training support and regular supervision for frontline staff.
In education, as in technology and politics, the “loudest” or most “popular” solution isn’t always the one that works. It is up to us — the providers and the buyers — to ensure that efficacy, not just visibility, drives scale, investment and success.
