Transcript State of MENTORIng in America
MENTORING IN AMERICA
Minneapolis, MN October 24, 2011
Presentation
Purpose: Provide a broad overview of where mentoring is as a movement.
Three parts: Trends Research Moving Forward
The Mentoring Field
MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership works with more than 5,000 mentoring providers in all 50 states.
Recent research suggests there could be as many 10,000 programs providing mentoring services.
The largest national organization is Big Brothers Big Sisters with about 500 affiliates.
More than 3 million youth are mentored annually.
Since 2000, the federal government has invested more than $600 million in mentoring.
Two Related Trends Shaping the Field
Mentoring is a robust and popular field, but we face a number of challenges: 1.
Decreased funding Private Sector Public Sector 2.
An increased emphasis on measurement has raised questions about mentoring’s effects
Decrease in Private-Sector Funding
Philanthropic Giving in General is Down ~20% reduction in private-sector giving between 2007 and 2010 Almost 95% of nonprofits reported feeling economic strain as a result of the recession (Bridgespan, 2009) In 2009, 40% had to lay off staff At the same time, 58% of nonprofits reported an increased demand for their services (ibid)
Decrease in Public-Sector Funding
Federal Funding for Mentoring is Declining: US Department of Education Student Mentoring Program authorized in 2001 as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. It provided up to$50M annually in support for mentoring.
The program was eliminated in 2009.
Corporation for National & Community Service Long-time supporter of mentoring.
The House proposed $2B in cuts.
US Department of Health and Human Services Mentoring Children of Prisoners authorized in 2003 through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act. It provided up to $40M annually in support for mentoring.
The president’s budget proposes eliminating this program in 2012.
Does Mentoring Work?
Yes, mentoring works.
The impact of mentoring increases with the use of evidence-based practices Three “buckets” of effective outcomes: Academic Performance Risk-Related Behavior Social-Emotional Growth
If It Works, Why is Funding Cut?
Tight dollars translate into increased scrutiny.
Bernstein et al (2009) study conducted for DOE found mentoring did not have statistically significant effects on desired outcomes.
The DOE Study
The US Department of Education hired a well-respected group called Abt Associates to conduct an evaluation of the Student Mentoring Program.
DOE was interested in whether mentoring made a difference in a few key areas, including: Overall academic performance Written and oral language performance Science and math performance Truancy School misconduct Self-esteem Connectedness to School Connectedness to Peers
DOE Study Findings
Unlike previous studies that had found mentoring did have effects in a number of key academic domains, the Abt Associates study found significant differences between youth with a mentor and those without one in only three domains.
On that basis, funding to support mentoring in the Department of Education was cut.
A Closer Look
Wheeler et al (2010) reviewed three studies of school-based mentoring and found conflicting interpretations about whether mentoring “worked” or not. Contrary to the DOE study, they concluded that: “Currently, SBM programs appear to have positive, but relatively small effects on selected outcomes -- concentrated around behaviors and beliefs that keep students engaged in school and are likely to foster learning.
“It is Ill-advised to base policy or practice decisions on single studies; (decision makers) need to take stock of the broader landscape of available research.” 1. (2010) Wheeler, M., T. Keller, and D. Dubois, “Is School-Based Mentoring Effective? Making Sense of Mixed Findings,” From a presentation at National Press Club, Washington DC, 9/9/10.
A Closer Look
Outcomes Vary by Level of Evidence In the Wheeler et al (2010) report, the authors found that mentoring effects “disappeared” as increasingly stringent statistical significance criterion were applied.
For instance, at a p<.10, they found significant differences between youth with a mentor and those without a mentor in 19 domains, including truancy, connectedness to peers, and self-esteem.
At a p<.05, the found significant differences in 16 domains.
At a p<.05 plus a Benjamini-Hochberg correction, they found differences in only 3 domains.
How Can We Improve Outcomes?
1.
Be Clear about What Your Program Can and Cannot Accomplish 2.
Work Together
How Can We Improve Outcomes?
Programs should have a clear idea about what they’re trying to accomplish. A few things can help: Build a logic model Evaluate Be prepared to make changes A number of studies have found that well defined program models with clearly articulated standards were more likely to have a positive impact on youth than those without such structure.
How We Can Improve Outcomes
Work Together Find other programs doing similar work and share best practices and innovative ideas.
Tap into national networks that provide information and tools to make programs better.
Be open to change. This is an iterative process. Constant refinement isn’t an indication of failure, it’s a badge of honor.