Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues

[Excerpt] The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. These programs are administered by mostly adult volunteers who are recruited by youth serving organizations, faith based organizations, schools, and after school programs. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals, while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long term ability of mentoring to produce particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain. Since the mid 1990s, Congress supported mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at risk youth ages 5 to 20. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. Previously, two mentoring programs the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short lived: the MCP was administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from FY2003 through FY2011 and the SDFS program was administered by the Department of Education (ED) from FY2002 through FY2010. The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short term grants and initiatives, primarily carried out by DOJ. DOJ has allocated funding for multiple initiatives through its Mentoring program, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at risk youth administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive since 2008. This report begins with an overview of the goals of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. While additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services, such programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the quality of mentoring programs, and the potential need for additional mentors

Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues

[Excerpt] Since the mid-1990s, Congress has supported legislation to establish structured mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at-risk youth ages 5 to 20. The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth’s relationship with his or her parents. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term effects of mentoring on particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. In recent years, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—have provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short- lived: funding for the MCP program, carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) since FY2003, was discontinued as of FY2011; and funding for the SDFS program, carried out by the Department of Education (ED) since FY2002, was discontinued as of FY2010. The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short-term grants and initiatives. Many of these grants are carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has allocated funding for multiple mentoring programs, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of Defense, helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive in recent years but federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Justice, are collaborating to reconvene the council. This report begins with an overview of the purpose of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. Note that additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services. These programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the potential need for additional mentors, grantees’ challenges in sustaining funding, and the possible discontinuation of federal mentoring funding. The Appendix includes a description of two federal mentoring programs that were funded until FY2010 and FY2011

Group Mentoring: A Study of Mentoring Groups in Three Programs

In an effort to provide more youth with mentors, mentoring programs are implementing several promising new approaches. This report describes the strengths and challenges of group mentoring-an approach that is gaining popularity. Findings suggest that group mentoring is reaching youth and volunteers who are unlikely to participate in traditional one-on-one mentoring, and that the approach may provide youth with important benefits, especially the development of social skills. On the other hand, mentoring groups vary widely in their size, structure and focus, and in the extent to which they foster strong mentoring relationships and benefits for youth. Implications for the mentoring field and for future research are discussed

Choosing to Make a Difference: Reflections on Mentoring Students

Reflecting on the journey of mentoring students for the past two decades yields one librarian’s insight about mentoring for career options and mentoring for vocation. The need for guidance exists among undergraduate students. Mentoring opportunities depend on the institutional support available. While research universities may at times support some career mentoring, Christian higher education affords a venue for vocational mentoring that is enriching for both mentor and students. It is meant to assist graduating students approach life from a Christian worldview that has been thought out through theological reflection on vocation

Making the Most of Youth Mentoring: A Guide for Funders

How should funders decide what mentoring programs to support? The mentoring field has grown and diversified immensely in recent decades. There are now thousands of mentoring programs, as well as many multi-service initiatives that incorporate elements of mentoring, across the country. Some mentoring models have been rigorously evaluated, while others have yet to be tested at scale. There is, in fact, a rich research base to draw from to determine which types of mentoring make sense for which youth, and under which circumstances. But navigating that research is a challenge for even the most determined funder, policymaker or program leader

Mentoring: Adding Value to Organizational Culture

Given that leadership is value-based and relationship-permeated, one asks how leaders can transfer personal and organizational value to employees. One answer to this is through mentoring. Mentoring young or inexperienced workers is an investment in the future of business, the school system, organizations, etc. Understanding this idea is difficult because current mentoring research demonstrates that mentoring is more convoluted than was once thought. This article will make an effort to untangle some of this research and then suggest a “common sense” and “practical” definition of “mentoring.” This is a definition that can be used in large and small businesses, in churches, schools, and by community organizations. In our conclusion, we summarize the research examined: The characteristics of a mentor The characteristics of a mentor-protégé relationship A description of the mentoring process A simple definition of “mentoring” that is widely applicabl

It takes a village to break up a match: a systemic analysis of formal youth mentoring relationship endings

BACKGROUND Although early closure of formal youth mentoring relationships has recently begun to receive some attention, more information about factors that contribute to premature endings, and how those factors interact, is needed so that empirically-based program practices can be developed and disseminated to prevent such endings and to ensure that youth reap the benefits mentoring can provide. OBJECTIVE This qualitative interview study applies a systemic model of youth mentoring relationships (Keller in J Prim Prev 26:169–188, 2005a) to the study of mentoring relationship endings in community-based mentoring matches to understand why these matches ended. METHOD Mentors, parents/guardians and program staff associated with 36 mentoring matches that had ended were interviewed about their experiences of these relationships and their understanding of why they had ended. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts and mentoring program case notes for each match followed by systemic modeling of the relationships yielded three major findings. RESULTS A strong mentor–youth relationship is necessary but not sufficient for match longevity. The mentor–youth relationship, even when relatively strong, is unlikely to withstand disruptions in other relationships in the system. Agency contextual factors, such as program practices and policies and staffing patterns, have a critical role to play in sustaining mentoring matches, as they directly influence all of the relationships in the mentoring system. CONCLUSION These findings highlight the importance of considering not just the mentoring dyad but also the parent/guardian and program context when trying to prevent match closures. They also point to several program practices that may support longer mentoring relationships.Accepted manuscrip

Academic careers: the value of individual mentorship on research career progression

The paper discusses how individual mentoring may impact positively on career pathway development for potential and future clinical academic researchers in nursing and allied health professions. Methods: The paper draws on a number of data sources and methodologies in order to fulfil the aims. Firstly, international literature provides an insight into mentoring processes and impact on career development. This is followed by a review of the mentoring experiences based on a UK study on the professorial populations in nursing and allied health professions. The final section reports on results of interviews with early and advanced researchers on their experiences of mentoring. Results: Individual mentoring is valued highly by health care professionals at all stages of career development. It is considered particularly useful when people are in transition towards a more challenging career role.Individuals in receipt of mentoring both formal and informal, report improved confidence in their cability to achieve their career goals. Mentees report improved levels of competence achieved through knowledge aquisition, networking and ability to probelm solve. Conclusions/Summary: Mentoring is considered an important process for health care professionals at all stages of their career. Opportunities to access and receive mentoring support for health care staff in the UK remain limited and sporadic in nature. There are examples of excellent mentoring schemes in place within some institutons and organisations but a national strategy to support mentoring has yet to be developed Key words: Clinical academic careers, mentoring, nursing, allied health profession