Evaluating Mentoring Programs

This methodological brief is designed to provide both program operators and researchers with practical advice about how to assess a program's implementation and impact. Adapted from an article that first appeared in The Handbook of Youth Mentoring (DuBois and Karcher, ed. 2005), the brief focuses on the evaluation of mentoring programs, but the lessons and insights provided are broadly applicable to various kinds of social programs

What Evidence is There that Mentoring Works to Retain and Promote Employees, Especially Diverse Employees, Within a Single Company?

Mentoring programs are increasingly prevalent in corporate America. Research has shown that 70% of Fortune 500 companies have some form of mentoring program. While mentoring programs can have a variety of objectives – such as promoting and improving diversity, helping new hires adjust to new roles, or developing high potential employees – it is not always clear that mentoring programs achieve their objectives, particularly those related to promotion and retention. In reviewing relevant research and company initiatives, we can see that mentorship programs – when properly implemented – do offer benefits for diverse populations. Key success factors for diversity-focused mentoring programs include (1) the seniority of the mentor, (2) whether the mentor and protégé match in certain key personality attributes and (3) whether a mentee’s direct supervisor is involved in the program

Guide to Recruiting Black Men as Mentors for Black Boys

Black men are uniquely positioned to help guide black male youth to educational success and a productive future and through the barriers that stand in their way. But there are almost always more black boys to be mentored than black men to mentor them in formal mentoring programs. This guide helps mentoring programs engage in a productive and inclusive recruitment campaign by: 1) addressing program readiness; and 2) providing guidance on an effective social marketing campaign

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

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

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

Mentoring programs for Indigenous youth at risk

IntroductionThis Resource Sheet examines evidence for the effectiveness of mentoring programs in helping to set Indigenous young people at risk of engaging in antisocial and risky behaviours on healthier life pathways.Mentoring is a relationship intervention strategy that research is showing can have powerful and lasting positive impacts on behavioural, academic and vocational outcomes for at-risk youth. Costello and Thomson describe youth mentoring as follows:Youth mentoring is, according to the Australian Youth Mentoring Network, defined as ‘a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support and encouragement’. The goal of youth mentoring is to enhance social engagement and thereby minimise negative behaviours through growth in social and developmental behaviours.There are two types of mentoring style found in the literature—natural and planned. Among Indigenous Australians, the natural or informal form of mentoring is often spontaneous through the Elders’ traditional role of sharing the wisdom, the knowledge and the spirit, which can draw Aboriginal people back to traditional ways. Elders play an extremely important role in Aboriginal families as role models, care providers and educators.This Resource Sheet focuses on the planned or formal form of mentoring, which often includes Elders as part of these programs. It does not, however, cover the following formal forms of mentoring:a detailed analysis of mentoring, which occurs within sporting and other programs. (This is covered, where relevant, in a forthcoming Resource Sheet titled Supporting healthy communities through sports and recreation programs.) mentoring embedded within broader youth diversionary or justice programs mentoring within cadetship or other vocational education programs. There is a strong body of literature on the types of youth mentoring programs and the dynamics of successful programs and mentoring relationships. This Resource Sheet draws on evidence from 45 studies. Over half were Australian studies, with additional evidence from research in other colonised nations such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Two-thirds of the studies were Indigenous-specific. A range of methodologies was used including evaluations, critical descriptions of programs, meta-analyses and research syntheses

The Promise and Challenge of Mentoring High-Risk Youth: Findings from the National Faith-Based Initiative

This report, the third derived from research out of the National Faith-Based Initiative (NFBI), examines how faith-based organizations designed and implemented mentoring programs for high-risk youth. Focusing on four NFBI sites (in the Bronx and Brooklyn, NY; Baton Rouge, LA; and Philadelphia, PA), the report takes up three key questions: How were the best practices of community-based mentoring programs adapted to address the specific needs of faith-based mentors and high-risk youth? How did the organizations draw on the faith community to recruit volunteers, and who came forward? And finally, how successful were the mentoring relationshipshow long did they last and what potential did they show

An exploratory study of effective mentoring programs for graduates in the South African construction industry

Abstract: A mentoring program is a tool that is used to increase the skills of construction graduates. Many construction graduates struggle to perform their duties in the industry due to lack of experience and skills. The government and other construction firms implemented mentoring programs to utilize them as the solution to increase the skills of construction graduates in the industry; however a number of construction graduates participate in mentoring programs but even after completing mentoring programs they still need further training to enhance their skills. This implies that the implemented mentoring programs have not been effective. Many mentoring programs are not successful and they don’t produce the expected results. The aim of the paper is to look at the effectiveness of mentoring programs for construction graduates..