1  

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FORMAL SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING PROGRAMS

AN HONORS THESIS

SUBMITTED ON THE 29TH OF APRIL, 2012

TO THE UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HONORS PROGRAM

OF NEWCOMB TULANE COLLEGE TULANE UNIVERSITY

FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCES WITH HONORS IN PUBLIC HEALTH

BY

__________________________________ Natanya Meyer

APPROVED:

__________________________________ Professor Katherine Andrinopoulos

Director of Thesis

__________________________________ Professor Peter Scharf

Second Reader

__________________________________ Professor Yuki Kato

Third Reader

  2  

Abstract This thesis explores school-based mentoring as a newer subset of the

established field of formal mentoring programs in America. An extensive literature review explains the history and documented success of community-based mentoring programs, and establishes certain developmental factors that are important in producing successful mentoring outcomes. Then, the more limited amount of research surrounding the school-based mentoring structure and outcomes are analyzed. This thesis provides structural and relational recommendations for improving the school-based mentoring model. Finally, it suggests incorporating Lawrence Kohlberg’s developmental learning techniques through open conversation into mentor training. This is a method of assisting mentors in long-term decision-making skills that will produce greater outcomes, and will be applicable in situations outside of the duration of the mentoring partnership.

Acknowledgements First, my thesis Advisor, Professor Katherine Andrinopoulos has been a monumental influence throughout this process. I acknowledge the belief in my abilities, the patience and the important advice she provided during each of our meetings. Thank you for pushing me to higher levels of performance. I would like to recognize my second reader Professor Peter Scharf for making this research possible. His work in moral education inspired me to apply my passion for adolescence and behavior change to an up-in-coming field that needs a critical eye. Finally, Professor Yuki Kato, my third reader for new perspectives and positive support.

  3  

Table of Contents Page

List of Figures and Tables iii List of Abbreviations iii Introduction 1 Methods 4

Chapter 1: An Overview of Formal Mentoring 6 A History of Formal Mentoring in America 6 Documented Community-Based Mentoring Program

Outcomes 10

Structural Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring 14 Relational Factors Contributing to Successful mentoring 18 Conclusions on Mentoring as a Developmental Tool 24

Chapter 2: Investigations into School-Based Mentoring 25 Mentoring to Address the Dropout Crisis 25 The Rise of School-Based Mentoring 28 Characteristics Distinguishing School-Based Mentoring 34

Chapter 3: Addressing the Gaps in School Based Mentoring 47 Structural Recommendations for Strengthening the

Mentoring Model 47

Relational Recommendations for Strengthening Mentoring

Practice 59

Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral education as school-based Mentoring tool

64

Integrating Developmental Learning Techniques Into the Mentoring Model

72

Conclusion 77 Bibliography 79 List of Appendices 82

  4  

List of Figures and Tables Page

1. Summary of Benefits of Big Brother Big Sister after 18-months compared to non-program participants

13

2. 1989 National Mentoring Partnership Quality Assurance Standards

15

3. DuBois’ Research-Supported Mentoring Program Practices

16

4. DuBois’ Correlation of Number of Practices and Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes

16

5. Communities in Schools Program Goals Outcomes

42

6. School-Based Mentoring Factors Regarding Length and Duration

44

7. A Conceptual Model of Youth Mentoring

62

8. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development

68

List of Abbreviations

BBBS: Big Brother Big Sisters of America

CASEL: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning

CBM – Community-Based Mentoring

CIS – Communities in Schools

DOE – U.S Department of Education

NCLB – No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

P/PV: Public Private Ventures

POE: Program Outcomes Evaluations

SBM – School-Based Mentoring

SEL: Social and emotional learning

SMILE: Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

YOS: Youth Outcomes Survey

ZPD: Lev Vygostsky’s Zone of Proximinal Development

  5  

Introduction

The idea of a mentor is not a new concept. Dating as far back as Greek

mythology, Mentor was the son of Alcimus - Odysseus’ oldest, most trusted

friend. In Homer’s the Odyssey, Odysseus placed Mentor in charge of his son

Telemachus, as well as the entire kingdom of Ithaca while he fought in the Trojan

War. Odysseus knew his son would face many tough decisions in his absence.

Mentor was able to provide the guidance and wisdom that came with age and

experience. “Come hither, friend”, Mentor said, “and stand by me, and I will

show thee a thing” (Homer, 1909, p.2).

The term mentor has been adopted into the English language to embody a

wide variety of supportive partnerships. Like Mentor with Telemachus, our world

is full of naturally occurring mentoring relationships. From extended family

members to neighbors, peers and coworkers, a strong support system can define

healthy transitions from youth to adulthood. American child psychologist David

Elkind describes adolescence as the most critical period in identity formation,

which significantly influences a person’s ability to cope with challenges in the

future. He asserts that all teenagers need to be surrounded by adults who have a

clearly defined value system, in order to test other values and discover their own

(Elkind, 1984, p.9).

Formal mentoring programs that pair adults with at-risk youth stem from

“our intuitive beliefs and observations concerning the healing power of social ties,

as well as a long history of research on the benefits of naturally occurring helping

relationships” (Rhodes, 2005, p.30). The field of mentoring has grown

  6  

exponentially in the past few decades. Today, thousands of public and private

organizations provide community-based mentoring programs that serve a diverse

population of students, and have a multitude of different methods and techniques.

Many community-based mentoring programs have proven successful at servicing

at-risk youth in need of a caring adult who can both advocate for their wellbeing

and help them grow as adolescents.

This thesis explores school-based mentoring programs as a secondary

prevention approach with the potential to promote positive behavior change

amongst students whose needs are not being met in the traditional classroom.

Today, public education is under critical scrutiny from parents and policy makers

alike. School administrators are pushing for multiple reform efforts, and testing

alternative education strategies to combat high rates of high school dropouts.

Those who advocate for school-based mentoring believe in the relationship

between psychosocial, academic, and behavioral outcomes, and that the education

system is a showground with the capacity to promote these desired changes.

Although the dropout crisis is multifaceted, and blame should not be entirely on

public schools, it is becoming increasingly evident that the education system is a

showground with the capacity to promote these desired changes. School based

mentoring brings the community to the school by drawing in a cohort of dedicated

adults who are committed to the lives of the students.

Despite the fact that school-based mentoring is the fastest growing subset

of mentoring in the United States (Karcher, 2008, p. 99), there is very limited

research surrounding this new approach. The small numbers of studies that have

  7  

been published show little to no evidence that school based mentoring programs

have met their goals and objectives for participants. Why then, are schools

continuously investing the time and effort to mentor their students? What factors

are preventing adult mentors from making an impact on these scholars? Most

importantly, how do we begin to restructure these programs in order to produce

more tangible outcomes?

Chapter One of this thesis identifies the evidence-based successes of

community-based mentoring programs. It begins by laying out the history of

mentoring in America. Documented mentoring outcomes are explored based on

reports and articles. Next, the structural factors characterizing community-based

mentoring models that promote the greatest outcomes are assessed. Finally, both

prescriptive and developmental mentoring styles are analyzed. The synthesis of

these various literature sources leads to the conclusion that the approach of

developmental mentoring is a potentially powerful tool that should be used to

promote behavioral change and growth among adolescents.

Chapter Two examines the rise in school-based mentoring programs,

starting with America’s high school dropout crisis as indication of the need for

alternative education strategies. Formal mentoring is identified as one program

with the potential to address many of issues adolescents are facing that are

encouraging them to forfeit their education. Features distinguish the theoretical

school-based model from the evidence-based community-mentoring model are

described, including characteristics regarding location, duration, training, and type

of activities. The perceived benefits of using the school as a delivery point for

  8  

social and emotional development to take place is assessed. The research indicates

that the main school-based mentoring studies have produced consistently minor

and limited outcomes. Chapter Two concludes that school based mentoring is not

making a measurable impact on its participants.

In Chapter Three, the root causes of school-based mentoring failures are

addressed. First recommendations are provided to improve the structural and

relational factors that will both improve mentoring outcomes and cultivate long-

term life skills among mentees. Laurence Kohlberg’s theory of moral education

and its success in the classroom are investigated. The thesis demonstrates the

potential of to use similar conversation techniques in the mentoring setting. With

the evidence of success of moral education in schools, school-based mentoring

provides an appropriate setting to test out these more structured, development-

oriented techniques. Mentors can use Laurence Kohlberg’s stages of moral

development to cultivate the decisions making skills that help students choose

stay in school, and continue to make positive choices for the rest of their lives.

Methods

The analysis performed in Chapter One and Two of rely solely on

literature review from large-scale mentoring studies, and articles from experts in

the field. The literature table can be found in Appendix 5, which highlights the

important points of each book, article, and research report quoted and/or used in

the thesis.

  9  

Chapter One draws many of its statistics from a study performed by

Public/Private Ventures. This report assesses the relevancy of Big Brothers Big

Sisters, the United States’ largest formal mentoring organization. In addition to

this document, publications are cited from many well-known experts in the

mentoring field including community health sciences professor David Dubois,

child psychologist Jean Rhodes, and vice president of Pubic/Private Ventures Jean

Grossman.

In Chapter Two, the commentary on the high school dropout crisis is

based on articles and reports from various stakeholders including government

affiliates, school staff, parents, and the students themselves. The evidence for

identifying school-based mentoring outcomes comes from the three large-scale

evaluations published specifically on school-based programs. These include Big

Brother Big Sister, the United States Department of Education’s National

Mentoring Partnership and the non-profit organization Communities in Schools.

The recommendations for restructuring the school-based mentoring model and its

practice are based on the evidence found in Chapters One and Two. The

commentary on moral education and social learning draw upon articles and books

that document Lawrence Kohlberg’s work in moral development and moral

education. This research is used to create recommendations for incorporating the

techniques into school-based mentoring through restructuring its goals, training

and ongoing support. Four sample worksheets are included in the appendixes.

These are to be incorporated into the mentor’s pre-match training manual, as a

  10  

part of a larger section on developmental learning and developmental

conversation.

Chapter 1: An Overview of Formal Mentoring

A History of Formal Mentoring in America

In the 19th century, a troubled child in America could be incarcerated, put

on trial, and sentenced as an adult. The United States was experiencing

unprecedented growth in industry, technology and urban life and many

uneducated families jumped into the hustle and bustle of the metropolis. Cities

were crowding workers eager for their share in the changes taking place. It was

this subset of children that became lost in the progress, and were most susceptible

to delinquency. The number of underage offenders rose, neighbors were riled up,

and children remained defenseless against the brutality of the criminal courts.

Despite the grievances by the more affluent public, many of the wealthy

were contributors to a cohort of progressive thinkers who were petitioning for

issues such as woman’s suffrage and worker’s rights. It was these activists who

founded child-saving movement. This association held the conviction that

troubled youth were victims of their external environment. After years of

lobbying and a great deal of coercing a group of influential, freethinking women -

including Nobel Peace winner Jane Addams - founded the first Juvenile Court in

Chicago, Illinois in 1899.

Privately supported probation officers were America’s first formal

mentors. They began as untrained, unpaid volunteers who were assigned a

juvenile offender and encouraged to provide unconditional support. Most

  11  

probation officers went above and beyond their official duties, and advocated for

their delinquent’s rights as minors. These mentors understood that as children,

their subjects were just beginning to form critical thinking and reasoning skills.

As delinquents, they proved to be at-risk for further poor decisions, and new

infractions. For these volunteers, the desire to provide a secure adult relationship

was instinctual; they took it upon themselves to see past juvenile’s offenses, and

guide them, as any other child, through this significant developmental period.

The success of probation programs rapidly gained attention, and shortly

following its beginnings, the first major formal mentoring program was born.

Ernest Coulter, founder of Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America (BBBS)

began as one man who had made a strong connection with one boy. As a court

clerk, he noticed a trend of fatherless boys passing through his courtroom, and

knew their lives could be changed with a significant adult in their lives. Big

Brothers Big Sisters has grown to become the largest, most widely known

mentoring movement in America, and remains true to Coulter’s original

objectives: the organization relies entirely on volunteers who are committed to

providing positive adult companionship.

Despite the growing popularity of community-based mentorship, social

scientists of many fields were suspicious of mentoring, calling it a form of

unsupervised, forced behavioral intervention. In the 1900’s, Psychologist William

Healy, head of the Juvenile Psychopathic institute and the nation’s key informant

on juvenile behavior publicly asserted that delinquents must be assessed primarily

from a medical perspective. Consequently, he claimed that medical professionals

  12  

must administer psychosocial counseling, and was not to be handled by the

community or volunteers. Mentoring received more positive attention with the

growth of community psychology and the community mental health movement in

the 1960’s. There were simply not enough trained mental health professionals to

meet the needs of the growing population, and these services were becoming

costly. President John F Kennedy advocated for community intervention and

signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act. This provided the funding for

mentoring programs to begin promoting the social and emotional well being of

America’s youth.

Up until the 1990’s, mentoring programs were growing in size, but their

success remained largely unevaluated. David Dubois, leading researcher describes

mentoring as having, “enormous face validity: it looked and felt like the sort of

intervention that should work… and we wanted it to work” (Rhodes & Dubois,

2006, p.10). However, there was increasing pressure on these programs to

conduct research showing that mentoring had a substantial impact on participants.

This would aide public and private organizations, as well as the federal

government in directing their funds towards successful endeavors. It was difficult

to evaluate the effectiveness of mentoring programs because it is a form of youth

programming that first and foremost works to provide a positive adult

relationship. Some of the programmatic outcomes, such as increased academic

performance, decreased truancy, enhanced self-esteem and enhanced relationships

with parents, teachers and peers cannot be evaluated over a long term, and may

not directly connect to the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. This differs

  13  

from problem-oriented approaches that work to address specific issues, and are

able measure the effectiveness of their technique (i.e. academic tutoring,

vocational counseling, drug rehabilitation).

Bringing evaluation into Big Brothers Big Sisters did not mean changing

what the organization stood for. In fact, the very first scientific research on

mentoring gathered data from 1988-1995 and reported positive directions in the

field; participants showed reduction in drug and alcohol use, improvements in

academic performance, behaviors and attitudes, and improved peer and family

relationships (Sipe, 1996, p.5). Participation in mentoring programs had achieved

affects that mirrored the goals of more accepted “corrective” programming

techniques. Mentors were not trained in specific areas of drug prevention,

academic tutoring, or counseling, but by befriending youth, they were providing

the necessary support to overcome many of these risk factors.

In the past twenty years mentoring has been acknowledged by the

professional world, and has received unparallel political and financial support.

The influx of funding for mentoring speaks to the level of faith society places on

one-on-one relationships between positive adult role models and vulnerable

youth, and their faith that mentoring programs have, “significant capacity to

reproduce through more formal mechanisms the types of benefits that have been

indicated to accrue [from] natural mentoring relationships between youth and

adults” (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002, p.187). Along with

BBBS, the National Mentoring Partnership was founded 1990, and has provided

millions of children and adolescents with adult mentors. In 2000, Former

  14  

Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the imperativeness of having a mentor in

America’s Promise, his nationwide campaign encouraging children to graduate

from high school. In 2003, the federal government invested $100 million into the

expansion of the Department of Education’s and Department of Health and

Human service’s mentoring programs (National Mentoring Partnership, 2010,

p.2).

Most recently, these federal endowments, along with other generous

funds have allowed formal mentoring to try out new styles including peer-to peer

mentoring, group mentoring, and E-mentoring, where sessions occur online. The

mentoring field is going through transformations that adapt to shifts in society and

are tailored to the needs of the modern adolescent. Most recently, community-

based endeavors have given way to alternative models where mentors and

mentees interact in a particular setting (usually a school). These site-based

programs offer certain benefits to both the modern child at-risk, and the mentors

themselves.

Documented Community-Based Mentoring Program Outcomes

This chapter identifies major documented successes that are a result of

community-based mentoring programs. In the 1990’s, Big Brother Big Sisters of

America, the largest major mentoring organization in America collaborated with

Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), a national non-profit organization committed to

improving the effectiveness of community initiatives. They carried out a number

of longitudinal assessments of their programs. Over the years, Public/Private

  15  

Ventures has remained a faithful partner to BBBS, and has documented their

progress – including valuable reports from newer subsets of BBBS.

There are three reasons that set Public/Private Ventures and their Impact

studies apart from other examinations of mentoring programs in the United States.

First, BBBS represents the large majority of mentor/mentee relationships

occurring across the country. They are able to represent the largest possible range

of demographics. They work with over 500 local agencies in hundreds of

locations that deal with a range of at-risk youth, and consequently, a range of

mentoring techniques. Second, their methods are sound and experimentally

designed to assess behavior before and after mentorship. This study is one of the

only evaluations to date that utilized a randomized control setting by comparing a

treatment group to scholars who were put on a waiting list. This means that

researchers were able to link participation in the program to the calculated

average differences in behavior between the two groups. Finally, the agency

provides a set of basic standards practices by which all participating groups must

abide. Elements include simplified screening for volunteers and youth, requiring

basic orientation for volunteers, and a modicum amount of supervision including

contact with parents and case supervisors. From there, programs were free to

tailor their practices to the needs of their youth. These “program irreducibles”- the

minimum set of required program practices- provided the base upon which

accurate data could be collected. From there, the evaluations were able to assess

the practices that were associated with the best outcomes.

  16  

The 1995 Impact Study of Big Brother Big Sisters acquired data from

eight agencies that were among the largest in the federation, representing six

percent of total matches at that time. The 487 treatment and 472 control youth

were ages 10-16 and represented relatively equal gender ratios. 55% were

members of a minority group, mainly African-American. Each mentee was

accepted into the program based on background characteristics that classified

them, in some way, as an “at-risk” adolescent - one in need of the benefits of

mentoring. These variables included living with only one parent or grandparent

and living in a low household income. Many had past charges of truancy, social

disturbance, or a history of physical or emotional abuse. The 400 volunteer

mentors in the study were typically well-educated young professionals. The pool

consisted 60% college graduates and 40% of households with an income over

$40,000. (Tierney, Grossman & Resch, 2005, p.19-31)

The Big Brother Big Sisters mentor matches were characterized by a one-

on-one approach to mentoring that involves certain operating standards. These

include volunteer and youth screening and an orientation for volunteers. In

regards to the matching process, BBBS provides no requirements for making

matches, other than recommending that agencies take into consideration the

volunteer’s ability to help meet the needs of a specific youth. However, every

agency in the study looked into practical factors such as age, gender, geographic

proximity and availability when making matches, in addition to documenting

youth’s and parent’s preferences. Volunteers were also asked the type of youth

they would like to be matched with in terms of age, rage, and the types of

  17  

activities they wanted to engage in during their partnership (Tierney et al, 2005,

p.17).

Pre and post-match data, meaning information that was gathered before

the mentoring began and after the mentoring terminated, came from the youth

themselves, parents and a case manager. Mentees were assessed at the baseline for

background demographics and, at the time of the match, and after an 18-month

follow-up. The researchers selected five hypothesized impact areas as follows:

1. Reduced Antisocial activities, 2. Improved Academic performance, attitudes, and behaviors 3. Better Relationships with family and friends 4. Improved Self concept 5. Social and cultural Enrichment

The evaluation did not find increases/decreases in all areas. However

program participation showed to have an impact on the youth’s social behavior,

attitudes towards their education, and relationship with parents. The most

significant outcomes are highlighted in the chart below:

Summary of Benefits of Big Brother Big Sister after 18-months compared to non-program participants

Outcome Change Antisocial Activities Initiated Drug Use -45.8% Initiated Alcohol Use -27.4% Number of Times Hit Someone -31.7% Academic Outcomes Grades 3.0% Scholastic Competence 4.3 Skipped Class -36.7 Skipped Days of School -52.2 Family Relationships Summary measure of quality of the parental relationship 2.1% Trust in the parent 2.7 Lying to the parent -36.6 Peer Relationships Emotional Support 2.3%

*Note: all impacts are statistically significant at least 90 percent level of confidence * Adapted from Table 16 (Tierney et al, 2005, p. 42)

  18  

They found many of these factors to be interrelated, and were a product of

generally positive mentoring relationships. For example, youth may have

experienced better attitudes towards school because of an improved relationship

with parents or because of a newfound relationship with an adult who was vying

for their future. They may have had fewer opportunities to be using drugs or

consuming alcohol when spending a substantial amount of time on school’s

campus.

Structural Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring

After documenting the significant outcomes of community-based

mentoring, it is important to look into how organization structures their program,

and what factors produce the strongest results. The term structural factors is used

in this paper to define objective aspects of the mentoring model that do not rely

on the characteristics of the mentor, but have the ability to affect the subjective

nature of the mentor-mentee relationship (Nakkula & Harris, 2005, p.105). In

addition to the 1995 Impact study of Big Brother Big Sister, two other large-scale

BBBS studies are utilized: the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Investigation of

a Process Oriented Model, and Public/Private Venture’s earliest study that bring

into play many studies between 1988-1995. Information is also cited from Edna

McConnell Clark Foundation’s synthesis of 11 formal mentoring programs.

In 1989, the National Mentoring Partnership brought together a panel of

mentoring experts to create the first ever framework for program development.

The Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) set out ten focus areas that served as

  19  

accepted practices for high quality mentoring programs. At this time, the set of

best practices was based largely on mentoring theory, due to the fact that there

were no large-scale studies that connected these practices to tangible outcomes.

*adapted from (North, Sherk & Strother, 2011, p.3)

In 2002, leading researcher David DuBois saw a need for sound empirical

evidence to back up these structural recommendations. He led a groundbreaking

meta-analytic review that synthesized existing empirical literature in the field.

DuBois synthesized 55 different evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs

on youth. This is perhaps the most important document to date on community-

based mentoring because of number of programs it includes and his ability to

identify certain omissions and biases in these program evaluations. Dubois tested

for significant differences in evaluation regarding 13 factors that were either

previously emphasized as important to the mentoring field (theory-based),

supported by his review (empirically-based), or had both elements. DuBois was

able to distinguish the structural components that were only based on theory from

those that were backed by both theory and empirical evidence.

1989 National Mentoring Partnership Quality Assurance Standards

1. A statement of purpose and a long range plan 2. A recruitment plan for mentors and mentees 3. An orientation for mentors and mentees 4. Eligibility screening for mentors and mentees 5. A readiness and training curriculum for all mentors and mentees 6. A matching strategy 7. A monitoring process 8. A support, recognition and retention component 9. Closure steps 10. An evaluation process

  20  

* Taken from (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p.6)

DuBois was then able to show the correlation between utilizing a greater

number of practices, most particularly research-supported practices, and effect

size in evaluations of these youth mentoring programs.

* Taken from (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p.7)

His findings are consistent with the other forms of research in this thesis,

which indicated that that many structural factors promote high quality

7

delineate practices and setting features that facilitate this goal. A considerable amount of research has addressed each of these concerns.

Formal mentoring programs. In formal mentoring programs, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, mentoring relationships are established by matching youth with adult volunteers. In a meta-analysis of over 50 evalua-tions of mentoring programs, DuBois, Holloway, et al. (2002) found evidence of benefi ts for participating youth on a range of emotional, behavioral, social, academic, and career development outcomes (see also Jekielek, Moore, & Hair, 2002). The estimated magnitude of program impacts, however, was small (Cohen’s d = .14). Similarly, fi ndings from the few studies that col-lected follow-up assessments did not suggest the types of broad, transformative effects on young people at later stages of their development that are central to arguments offered for investment in mentoring initiatives (Walker, 2005). In some instances, for example, effects have faded to nonsignifi cance within only a few months of program participation (Aseltine et al., 2000). Evaluations also have routinely reported signifi cant implementation problems that have compromised the ability of programs to establish and support high-quality mentoring rela-tionships. As would be expected, youth experiencing relationships of lower quality in programs have had less favorable outcomes (DuBois, Holloway, et al., 2002). The preceding trends may account for the disappointing

results of preliminary efforts to gauge cost-benefi t ratios for youth mentoring programs (Aos et al., 2004). These include an estimate that benefi ts of participation in the Big Brothers Big Sisters pro-gram, derived from fi ndings of the landmark Public/Private Ventures study (described in a later sec-tion of this report; Tierney et al., 1995), exceeded costs by only the narrowest of margins (estimate of $1.01 benefi t for each $1.00 of cost) when including both tax-payer and other costs.

The DuBois, Holloway, et al. (2002) meta-analysis, however, found wide variation in the effec-tiveness of mentoring programs. It

was demonstrated, furthermore, that the magnitude of program impacts increased systematically in conjunc-tion with the use of greater numbers of practices that the investigators included in theory-based and empiri-cally based practice indexes (see Table 1). The practices included in each index were identifi ed based on prior recommendations in the fi eld (theory-based) or the fi ndings of the meta-analysis itself (empirically-based). As illustrated in Figure 1, when the full complement of such practices is used, predicted effect sizes are notably more impressive, although still not large by conventional standards. Empirically driven approaches that draw on a wider range of sources of data, such as input from stakeholder groups (e.g., youth) and piloting of inter-vention procedures, could yield programs with greater demonstrated benefi ts (DuBois et al., in press).

Existing research pertains predominantly to programs that adhere to a model with several common features: a) mentors and youth are paired with each other on a one-on-one basis and spend time together on an in-person basis; b) the mentor is an adult volunteer; and c) mentors and youth are largely free to spend time together in a range of different activities and settings. Recent years, however, have witnessed widespread implementation of programs that represent signifi cant departures from this model. These alternative models include: group mentor-ing programs in which several youth may be mentored by a single adult; e-mentoring programs in which men-

Figure 1. Relationship between utilization of greater numbers of research-supported practices and effect size in evaluations of youth mentoring programs (DuBois, Hollo-way, et al., 2002). Thresholds for small and medium effects are from Lipsey (1990).

  21  

mentor/mentee relationships, and, in turn, produce greater outcomes. I focus on

three factors that were vital to these outcomes.

1. Training: Almost all program evaluations indicated the need for

quality orientation and training prior to a mentor’s first encounter with his

or her participant. Mentors who receive more hours of training had longer-

lasting matches (Jekielek, Moore & Hair, 2002, p.38). A second BBBS

study, which looked into 50 mentor/mentee relationships, used a

“perceived quality mentor training” scale as a training assessment tool.

They found two direct associations that linked mentors with higher ratings

of their training to positive outcomes. Mentors reported fewer relationship

obstacles and greater levels of program-relevant discussions between

themselves and their mentees if they had participated in training (Parra,

DuBois, Neville & Lilly, 2002, p. 14). The authors explain that training

was the most significant structural factor, which improved mentor efficacy

beliefs and allowed mentors to gain the confidence and knowledge to

overcome difficulties they encountered during their match.

2. Length and duration: The second constant factor among reports

relates to the length and frequency of the relationships. It is clear that are

progressively fewer effects as the relationship decreases in length. In fact,

relationships that experienced premature termination (i.e. those lasting less

than six months), proved to have a negative influence on the lives of

mentees. (DuBois et. al, 2002, p.160). Nationally, the average length of a

BBBS match is one and one-half years.

  22  

3. Ongoing Supervision and Support: When superiors held mentors

accountable, they had better attendance, and thus a greater chance to

develop their match into a quality relationship. Public/Private Ventures

found, even from it’s earliest reports, that most mentors experienced some

level of frustration with the mentoring process. Many mentors noted their

discouragement when mentees failed to show up for scheduled meetings,

were not interested in the planned activities, or if they were not talking

about personal issues (Sipe, 1996, p. 18). Access to professional staff or

other mentors helped volunteers overcome these challenging encounters.

Many mentoring programs that are under-funded and cannot provide on-

site supervision have developed essential structural components such as

scheduled meeting times and transportation assistance that compensate for

the lack of staff (Sipe, 1996, p. 9).

Support also comes in the form of structured activities, the 12th

factor in DuBois list of best practices. Although Big Brother Big Sister

programs give an extensive amount of freedom in regards to where and

what happens during mentor sessions, studies show that it is beneficial to

provide mentors and youth with regular, structured opportunities to

participate in activities (Parra et al, 2002, p.19).

Relational Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring

I have demonstrated through literature analysis that a strong program

infrastructure can help promote quality relationships that ultimately affect the

  23  

outcomes of the organization. However, Jean Rhodes, leading mentor research

and psychology professor points out that despite these considerable investments in

training, supervision and other areas, almost half of mentoring relationships

terminate prematurely (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p. 13). Therefore, in order for

mentors to achieve desired outcomes (such as increased academic performance or

decreased truancy), they must first develop an effective relationship.

In her non-fiction book Stand By Me: The Risks and Rewards of

Mentoring Today’s Youth, Rhodes coins the term “placeholder mentality”: a

growing phenomenon where organizations are shifting their main goals from

quality of relationships to quantity of matches. With the growing popularity of

mentoring, major mentor programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters are desperate

to get children off long waiting lists. In turn they may be overlooking the

importance of building value and worth in their current mentor/mentee matches.

These “programmatically created” mentoring relationships require the same

nurturing components those occurring in the natural world.

In The Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Nakkula and Harris describe five

subjective relational experiences that affect the mentoring relationship quality, or

MRQ.

1. Relational/Experiential Compatibility: Adults and youth share

commonalities, whether it is personality, or simply a shared interest in the

youth’s future. These can exist prior to the relationship or come with time.

  24  

2. Youth Engagement: Mentors and mentees must both feel a desire to

participate in the match, and believe that their time is being spent in a

productive manner.

3. Precursors to Closeness: The trust, empathy and respect mentors display

from the start of the partnership.

4. Closeness: The mentee’s ability to accept the commitment put forth by

the mentor. A mentee must feel connected and have the sense of belonging

to a reciprocal network.

5. Approach: (see explanation below)

The mentor’s approach is perhaps the significant feature promoting

mentoring relationship quality. A study conducted by Public/Private Ventures

closely followed 82 Big Brother Big Sister matches over nine months showed

how the mentor’s approach might stem in two very different directions. Similar to

the BBBS impact study, the participants represented a wide range of

demographics. This investigation was qualitative, and did not allow for statistical

analysis. Rather, it was a log of the descriptive profile of relationships that came

to pass under the “program irreducibles” mentioned in chapter two.

Private/Public ventures determined a typology of mentoring that youth

would be most reactive towards, and the characteristics that lead a mentoring

partnership to thrive or terminate prematurely. The description of the partnerships

in the naturally sorted themselves into two categories they named “prescriptive”

and “developmental”. Practitioners in the mentoring field continue to use these

terms to illustrate effective and ineffective mentoring approaches.

  25  

Prescriptive relationships were those where the adult volunteer created his

or her own goals for the mentee. The partnership was “prescribed”, because the

adult decided upon critical aspects of the relationship without the youth’s input

including activities, topics of conversation frequency of meetings. Many held too

high of expectations for their desired outcomes. They focused the majority of

their time on changing or improving specific aspects of their youth. Mentors used

techniques such as lecturing, pointing out youth’s mistakes, and expressing

disappointment when goals were not met. There were high levels of tension

amongst both parties, and mentees tended to shut themselves off to the prospect of

growth. Many described their Mentors as critical and frustrating. As a result, only

32% of partnership with mentees who took a prescriptive approach persisted until

the end of the study (Morrow & Styles, 1995, p.57).

Public/Private Ventures used the term developmental to describe

relationships where adults were receptive to the needs of their youth, and

provided a considerable amount of support in a range of aspects relating to their

mentee’s personal life. The partnership is “developmental” because mentor’s

expectations varied over the course of the partnership, and began to address goals

only when they were certain that the connection was strong enough to foster this

type of behavior change. Mentee’s tended to have stronger attachments to their

mentors, and described their adults as empathetic and patient. In comparison to

only a third of continued prescriptive relationships, 90% of developmental

relationships lasted until the end of the study, and many continued after results

were published (Marrow & Styles, p.57).

  26  

Looking back at the five MRQ relational experiences described in The

Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Nakkula and Harris recommendations for

mentoring approach remain consistent with Morrow and Styles’ developmental

mentoring approach. The handbook, published ten years after Public/Private

Venture’s continues to convey the significance of developmental relationships.

Nakkula and Harris use the expression youth-centeredness to describe the

developmental approach, but the principle remains the same. Mentors build close

personal relationships where mentees feel that they are at the core of the

partnership. They contrast this practice with the prescriptive approach they call

“agenda-centered” approach, again with the same principles. Mentors have full

control over the direction of the relationship, and mentees pushed to overcome

areas where they fall short of the mentor’s expectations.

The actions taken by mentors who used a developmental approach as

described by Styles remained consistent with Nakkula and Harris’ four other

relational experiences (this fifth being approach), as described below.

1. Relational/experiential compatibility: Developmental volunteers

expressed a sense of meaning from the relationship itself.

2. Youth engagement: Developmental volunteer’s primary goals were to

provide youth with opportunities for relationship building, and to offer

activities that youth often did not get to participate in on the basis of their

economic or social constraints. They heavily involved their youth in the

decision making process. On the other hand, prescriptive mentors tended

to set more specific tasks with rewards and penalties, such as completing

  27  

homework or arriving to school on time. Prescriptive mentor’s most

common goal was to improve youth’s grades.

3. Precursors to closeness: Characteristics of developmental mentors

included respect, trust, and appreciation of values. Mentees felt they could

express themselves freely. Prescriptive mentors showed clear character

contrasts. Mentees felt the relationship had a sense of artificiality, with

little respect, trust or appreciation of values. Thus, they were unable to

open up and speak freely with their mentors.

4. Closeness: Descriptive volunteers provided emotional support. Their

high level of intimacy fostered an environment where mentee’s were able

to gain a greater a sense of self worth. Prescriptive volunteers described

themselves as being somewhat of a surrogate parent, and less as an equal

to their mentee. They expected change right away and were disappointed

when the low level of intimacy prevented mentee’s from initiating this

transformation.

It is important to note that many of the best structural practices mentioned

in chapter three encourage a mentor to use developmental, youth-centered

approaches. Public/Private ventures suggest providing training in areas such as

coping with frustrating interactions and active listening. They found that almost

half of prescriptive relationships are formed in mentoring sites that offer little to

no training. Prescriptive mentors had less of an understanding of program goals,

which affected the type of relationship formed. All mentors would benefit from

training where they learned how best to act with youth at different developmental

  28  

stages. Developmental mentors were also the volunteers to seek the most ongoing

support and supervision.

Conclusions on Mentoring as a Developmental Tool

Regardless of socio-economic background or risk status the period of

adolescence is a time of social and emotional revolution. In terms of cognitive

development, adolescents are transitioning into thinking about possibilities, not

just realities. As a child, they have honed their inductive reasoning skills, and can

use concrete facts to reach conclusions about their personal experiences. They are

just beginning to develop the ability to use deductive reasoning to draw from

many sources, test the validity of different hypotheses, and draw their own

conclusions. This is the age where a human being is able to base a decision on

more than just the facts they see in front of them (Berger & Thompson, 1995,

p.551-563).

In this way, developmental mentoring can be a “corrective experience” for

adolescents. Many youth who are in need of mentors enter their partnerships with

negative views of their reality. In come cases, mentees are discouraged by an

unstable household or have resigned to living in permanent conditions of poverty.

Others are put off by their low performance in school. Once a strong connection

has formed, based on the qualities of mutuality, trust and empathy, a mentor is

able to foster an environment where the mentee can see a future of possibilities

beyond his or her existing condition.

  29  

A mentor may spend the entirety of their partnership working on raising a

math grade. After a year of tutoring, it is likely this grade will improve. Or they

may decide to provide drug and alcohol education and work on keeping their

mentee drug-free. This relationship has the potential to change that adolescent’s

short-term substance abuse. These short-term solutions are not guaranteed to

persist after the mentoring relationship has ended. In contrast, a mentor can

encourage positive change and have enduring effects on the life of their youth.

Their commitment to developing a positive relationship can lead to more focused

conversations that sharpen the youth’s ability to process thoughts and

experiences. In turn, this mentee can apply their newfound skills to many areas of

their lives.

Chapter 2: Investigations into School-Based Mentoring

Mentoring to Address the Drop-out Crisis

When a student drops out of high school, they join the cohort of around

one-third of young Americans who fail to graduate on time with their peers

(Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006, p.3). Whether aware of it or not, the

decision to dropout of high school has long lasting, negative consequences. On

any given day, more young male dropouts are in prison than at a job (Milliken,

2007, p.xxii). In addition to the immense personal consequences, the high dropout

rate takes a significant financial toll on the nation as a whole. The most recent

reports from the Alliance from Excellent education predict that unless high

  30  

schools are able to graduate their students at higher rates, the estimated 12 million

dropouts of the next decade will cost the United States $1.5 trillion dollars (2011,

p.2).

Studies have shown that high-school dropouts tend to display certain

behavioral and demographic characteristics that characterize them as at-risk for

discontinuing their education. The dropout rate is disproportionately high for

students from low-income backgrounds, and student who live in single parent

homes. The U.S Department of Education noted that the dropout rates are the

highest among students who are identified as having some levels of emotional or

behavioral disabilities (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004, p.36). It is important to

note that these circumstantial and personal traits contributing to the high school

dropout rate parallel the risk factors that many national mentoring programs use to

identify adolescents in need of adult mentors.

In 2006, Civic Enterprises and the Bill and Melinda gates foundation

published “The Silent Epidemic”, a report that provided student perspectives on

the United States drop out crisis. Despite personal complexities, there were

certain factors that remained consistent amongst subjects. The majority of

students featured in the case study were exhibiting behaviors in school that

classified them as at-risk for dropping out far before the actual event occurred.

This lead the researchers to conclude that dropping may be due to developmental

setbacks in earlier grades, which inhibit refined decision-making skills in later

life.

  31  

Additionally, they found a variety of behaviors that were caused by

external extenuating circumstances and were affecting the student’s school

connectedness. School connectedness is defined as a protective factor that can

prevent students from thriving in an academic environment and properly

absorbing and retaining information taught in the classroom. Big Brothers Big

Sisters measures school connectedness using a three-item School Liking scale and

a six-item Connectedness to School scale, that incorporates concepts about trying

hard as well as school enjoyment (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh & Feldman, 2007,

p.49). School connectedness goes beyond academic achievement. It depends on a

student’s ability to self-initiate connections with their teachers and classmates, as

well as a vision for the future that includes graduation and/or plans for college.

In spite of the high rate of dropouts, an exceptional statistic emerged from

this study. A total of 70% of interviewees claimed they were confident they could

have graduated if they had tried (Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006, p.5). Most

of these students admitted that they were not planning for the future. Rather, it

was their desire for short-term gratification (such as making money or being free

from academic pressure) that may have clouded their judgment process. Finally,

almost all students surveyed longed for a strong relationship with at least one

adult in the school who cared about their success and could help with problems

outside of class (Bridgeland, et al, 2006, p.5).

The evidence surrounding similar traits, which characterize a high school

dropout, in conjunction with the urgency of the dropout crisis in the United States

indicates a need for supplemental services within the schools- particularly those

  32  

districts struggling with high dropout rates. Many students who may be lost in

these large schools are underserved by the standardized curriculum. These are

students who would benefit from one-on-one attention from a concerned adult.

Volunteers would be familiar with the school, familiar with the student’s

circumstances, and willing to advocate for the needs of today’s youth. School-

based mentoring programs are one alternative technique that would allow for

personalized attention, tackling some of the “red-flag” behavioral challenges that

are leading students to dropout. A mentor cannot force a child to stay in school.

Rather, a mentor who forms a strong relationship and utilizes developmental

mentoring techniques may aid in cultivating decision-making skills that will allow

students to choose to pursue their own education.

The Rise of School-Based Mentoring

a. From Community-Based to School-Based Mentoring As described in Chapter One, formal mentoring in America has largely

been contextually driven. Organizations continue to improve upon their models in

order to address the needs of the contemporary adolescent at risk. This has paved

the way for newer trends in the mentoring field. Most recently, this involves a

new model where the site of the program is the foundation of the organizations

structure, and influences the dynamics of the mentoring relationship. The number

of school-based mentoring programs grew with exceptional speed at end of the

20th century. School-based mentoring programs are continuously being founded in

the districts throughout the country. The rise in school-based mentoring is

  33  

attributed to two factors. First, the pressure on schools to have their students

performing well and graduating on time invites supportive services such as

mentoring. Second, there are certain factors that make site-based relationships

more practical, feasible, and appealing to a wide range of potential mentors

(Portwood & Ayers, 2005, p.337).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was passed at a time of

heightened public concern surrounding the state of education in the United States.

The directive established stringent expectations surrounding closing the

achievement gap. This placed a significant amount of pressure on public schools

to show academic progress through annual testing. The act did not come without

controversy. Multitudes of teachers, school leaders, parents and public figures

argued that the bill was too politically motivated. The focus on test scores seemed

to take away from other activities that provide a well-rounded education. Despite

the backlash, NCLB managed to bring the dropout crisis to the forefront of social

and political discourse. The following year, NCLB authorized the founding of the

U.S Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program, now operated by the

Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

School based mentoring such as the Department of Education’s mentoring

programs can be classified as an alternative education technique, which seeks to

aid students who are not showing progression based on the current system in

place. The Urban Institute, in partnership with the U.S Department of labor

defines alternative education as activities that fall outside the traditional K-12

school system. Although the term is usually associated with an entirely new

  34  

structure of instruction, it can also include special programs that “provide short-

term but therapeutic settings for students with social and emotional problems that

create academic and behavioral barriers to learning” (Aron, 2006, p.x). Many of

the target outcomes for alternative education strategies overlap with widely

known goals of formal mentoring programs including achievement motivation,

academic self-concept, school engagement, and higher-order thinking skills.

b. Perceived Benefits of the School-Based Mentoring Model

School based mentoring is not a tutoring program, and it is not a

community-based mentoring program because it does not allow for the same level

of unstructured activity that many community organizations enjoy. Through my

literature review, four four positive factors unique to the school based setting

were identified. These make school-based mentoring an appealing option for

those invested in creating and implementing a successful formal mentoring

program.

1. Cost-effective and resource driven: From an operational

standpoint, a mentoring program’s connection to the school implies the

convenience of utilizing the location as a meeting point. Moreover,

organizations can make use of school facilities and draw on the resources

within the building. In these ways, mentoring in schools tends to cost

about half as much as those in community settings (Rhodes, 2002, p.112).

Public/Private Ventures found that in the average cost to mentor a student

  35  

in school was $567, compared to $1,369 for an adolescent in a

community-based program (Herrera, 2000, p. 20).

2. Reaching more mentors: School-based mentoring programs have

a higher level of supervision because meetings occur before, during or

after school hours. The high level of structure allows for more flexibility

with mentor selection. For example, school-based mentors are more likely

to allow cross-gender matches and can accept a wider age-range of

volunteers. Due to the higher number of female volunteers in the

mentoring field, this gives more opportunities for male students to receive

the benefits of an adult mentor.

School-based mentoring programs also attract volunteers who

would not otherwise be able to meet the demands of the community

models. The appeals of SBM include a shorter time commitment and less

on mentors pressure to fashion activities on their own accord. Compared

with community-based programs, school based mentors are more likely to

be ethnic minorities and fall into older or younger age groups due to fewer

transportation requirements. Mentoring in schools require little to no

outside costs on the mentor’s part.

3. Reaching more mentees: A higher number of volunteers, in turn,

lead to more adolescents matched. Because students are usually referred to

these organizations through teachers and counselors, school-based

programs reach a broader range of youth who may not have had the

opportunity to participate in traditional community programs. School-staff

  36  

are able to identify underserved groups of students who would benefit

most from mentoring, including those who lack parental support, or who

are demonstrating social and behavioral problems.

4. Opportunity to build reciprocal relationship: Mentors are able to

capitalize on the adults who are already in the school setting, utilizing

teachers and counselors as a resource during their partnership. In turn,

mentoring programs provide a cohort of adults who contribute to the

school environment. More adults mean more resources. The school draws

community members, and the community members utilize the school to

aid students at risk. It is school-based organization’s hope to reach the

optimum number of students early enough to influence their decision to

stay in school, rather than tackling the same adolescents in a post-drop-out

scenario. Together they establish a system of social support that guides a

younger generation.

Despite widespread support and growing prevalence of school-based

mentoring programs, it is important to note that many key figures in education

and child services are against school-linked services, and prefer community-based

over institution-based models for extracurricular supports such as mentoring.

Leading mentoring researchers David Dubois suggests in his meta-analytic

analysis that school-based mentoring programs may be less effective than those in

community settings. Harold Richman and Robert Chaskin are two University of

Chicago professors who strongly oppose school-based social services. They are

  37  

co-authors of multiple articles surrounding the future of children and community

organizing. Among their work is a publication chronicling their concern for

integrated programming that place the school in the position to aid their own

curricular agendas.

First, they assert that the bureaucracy and rigidity that accompany

institutions such as public schools may compel an outside service-based

organization to focus on pleasing the establishment rather than the client. The

described situation is one that could potentially arise in a mentoring-school

partnership. The operational needs of a school center around academic

achievement. This may place pressure on the mentoring organization to adjust its

model or outcome goals to incorporate aspects (Chaskin & Richman, 1992, p.

110), such as grade improvement or a greater attendance record. Likewise, it may

lead volunteers to believe they are providing a tutoring service, rather than

mentoring service.

The second issue raised centers around the appropriateness of the school

as a central place for service delivery; given the unsteady relationship some

parents and children have with the institution itself. Richman and Chaskin

describe situations where students who need these services the most may have a

negative view or bad relationship with their public school. They are less likely to

accept help when they are aware of the link between the service and the school

(Chaskin & Richman, 1992, p.211).

Notwithstanding these apprehensions, school-based mentoring programs

are still flourishing, with thousands of students receiving this particular in-school

  38  

service. It is therefore a necessity to analyze the structural and relational factors

that make school based mentoring unique, and explore whether or not the

programs are producing tangible outcomes.

Characteristics Distinguishing School-Based Mentoring a. Investigations into Three Research Studies

School-based mentoring has just recently emerged as a viable subset of the

mentoring field and there is a limited research surrounding best practices specific

to SBM. This section synthesizes the only three large-scale longitudinal research

studies, which give a descriptive account of their school-based mentoring

programs, and provide pre and post-matched outcomes. Although there are a

number of evaluations that assess the effectiveness of particular school-based

mentoring programs, these three studies are a synthesis of multiple mentoring

location and styles. They are valuable to the field because of their extensive

detailing of the SMB model, and their scientific method.

Even with the differences in mentee demographics and program locations,

the three studies demonstrated a great deal of similarity regarding program

characteristics. Four prominent features of school-based mentoring are the focus

of this section including training, supervision and ongoing support, mentor

activities, and length and duration. Following this description, the program

outcomes for each study are reported. In all three programs, the majority of

volunteer mentors received some level of pre-match training, although some did

not participate in any orientation before beginning their mentor meetings. One

  39  

feature that distinguishes SBM from community models is the high level of

professional supervision that can be provided teachers, administrators, and

counselors, and other school staff. An effective program must have clear and

consistent communication between all participating parties including the

organization, school, the mentor and oftentimes the parents of mentees.

Big Brothers Big Sisters: As this thesis continues to follow the expansion

and transformation of Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America, the most in-depth

report comes from Public/Private Venture’s Making a Difference In Schools: The

Big Brother’s Big Sister’s School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Mentoring

expert Jean Grossman, who pioneered Making A Difference: An Impact Study of

Big Brothers Big Sisters in 2007 (referenced in Chapter One) also spearheaded

this study. P/PV analyzed 1,139 students raging from ages nine to sixteen from

ten different BBBS programs across the nation. BBBS selected ten agencies

working with 72 schools for the study, and had been operating for an average of

five years (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, & Feldman, 2007, p.20).

Similar to P/PV’s community-based mentoring report, the demographics

of the study are fairly representative of the BBBS national statistics. The

percentage of male and female mentees is fairly equal, and around two thirds are

of ethnic or racial minority. All mentees possessed one or more qualities that

classified them as “at risk”, including low economic status, experiencing stressful

life events, poor academic performance, evidence of negative school behaviors

and attitudes, and unhealthy relationships with teachers, parents and peers. In

regards to volunteers, almost three quarters of mentors were female. Around 17%

  40  

were between 19-24 years old, and most mentors were enrolled in either high

school or college (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 29). Many were recruited from

partnerships formed with business and schools in the surrounding area. Upwards

of 80% of volunteers claimed to have experience working with adolescents, and

felt “very” or “extremely” confident in their mentoring abilities.

To date, this is the only SBM study to utilize a randomized treatment

group who received mentoring and a control group placed on a waitlist. Data was

collected from volunteers, mentors and teachers/school staff prior to the match.

Quantitative data and qualitative interviews were performed during two follow-

ups. These occurred in the spring of the first school and 15 months after the start

of the baseline.

In terms of training, 71% of BBBS mentors received training that lasted

only one hour; this indicates that 29% of mentors received absolutely no pre-

match support (Herrera, et al, 2011, p.25). Mentors who went through training

described the content of their sessions as reviewing program rules, match

expectations, communication skills practices and relationship building. BBBS

took special care to analyze the mentor’s perception of training and its effect on

the mentoring relationship. They found that mentors who had more pre-match

training expressed a higher level of confidence when interacting with their

mentees, and were more motivated to continue their relationship into the

following year.

In regards to length and duration, mentor matches typically met one time

per week for 45 minutes to one-hour sessions. The duration of the mentoring

  41  

partnership lasted an average of 4.6 months (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 35). Big

Brothers Big Sisters views supervision as crucial to running an effective school-

based mentoring program, and requires that program staff check in with

volunteers and youth or youth’s parents once a month for the duration of the

partnership. In spite of this, their ideals did not necessarily evolve into practice.

Only 84% of BBBS programs had a school staff member connected with the

mentoring program to offer support. Although every site had a BBBS support

staff member, only 39% of mentors reported frequently contacting their liaison,

and 24% admitted they had never used BBBS staff for assistance (Herrera et al,

2007, p.26). In BBBS, mentor-reported staff support was associated with

enhancements in closeness with youth and positive emotional engagement

(Herrera, 2004, p.15)

Mentor/mentee activities were required to remain within the borders of the

school grounds. Often times, program staff suggested themes, games, or topics of

conversation if the mentor was at a lost for activities. Although matches were

typically allowed to choose how they spent their time together, they were required

to follow stricter guidelines outlined in the mentoring model. There were a few

cases of BBBS schools where the program staff dictated the course of each

meeting. Mentors reported a variety of activities including sports, creative

projects, indoor games, homework assistance and conversations about the youth’s

behavior, future and family. In BBBS, mentors considered grade improvements

one of their high priority areas. Although most volunteers expressed their primary

goal was to promote a companionship and self-esteem among their mentees, 27%

  42  

of mentors reported spending “a lot or most” of their time with tutoring and

homework help (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 37).

Mentees participating in the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based impact

study demonstrated small improvements in teacher-reported outcomes. These

include better quality of class work, number of assignment completed, less school

infractions, and less unexcused absences from school. However, they did not

show improvements in school connectedness. There were no improvements in

areas such as including academic self-esteem, college plans, self-reported grades,

or the quality of relationships with their teachers (Herrera et al, 2007, p.12). In

addition, there seemed to be no impact on out-of-school issues such as self-worth,

engagement in pro-social behaviors, assertiveness, and relationships with peers

and parents. It is important to note that any recorded improvement, no matter how

small, eroded by the second follow-up, which happened during the second school

year after most matches had terminated.

U.S Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program: The second

study used in this analysis is the U.S Department of Education’s (DOE) Student

Mentoring program. Funded by a completive federal grant authorized under the

No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, researchers performed a randomized control

study of 255 mentoring programs across the country and a total of 2,573 students.

The mentoring organizations were mainly non-profit/community-based

organizations or faith-based organizations hired to implement their mentoring

program within public school districts. These organizations had an average of six

  43  

years of experience with school-based programs. (U.S Department of Education,

2009, p.xvi).

Students were referred to the mentoring program by school staff. Similar

to BBBS, the gender ratio was equal and 41% of were of racial and ethnic

minority. These scholars also exhibited at-risk characteristics, most specifically

struggles with academic performance or exhibiting delinquent behaviors (U.S

Department of Education, 2009, p.xvii). Approximately 20% of mentors were of

high school age, and 23% were in college. 76% of mentors reported having

“some” or “a lot” of contact with adolescents.

The Department of Education evaluators measured a total of 17 outcomes

in relating to interpersonal relationships, personal responsibility, academic

achievement and engagements, and high-risk or delinquent behavior. They

utilized both self-reported data and student records as a baseline for comparing

outcomes during two checkups. These occurred in the fall of the school year and

at the end of the school year (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xx).

In terms of training 96% of DOE mentors received pre-match orientation.

Those who did spent an average 3.4 hours of training (U.S Department of

Education, 2009, p.31). This was the highest percentage and length of training

amongst all three studies. In the DOE’s mentoring program, matches met one time

per week for one-hour sessions. The average length of the partnership was 5.8

months. 43% of mentors reported working on academics “most of the time” or

“almost always”. The majority of mentors also mentioned less frequent

conservations regarding student’s relationships with peers, parents and teachers,

  44  

as well as risk behavior. DOE’s mentoring program set out requirements for

ongoing support, and strongly encouraged utilization of the system set in place.

Specifically, only half of the DOE volunteers reported that program staff

supervised their meetings, and only half revealed having access to program staff,

social workers or counselors.

Compared to BBBS, the U.S Department of Education’s study had an

even worse turnout of reported outcomes. When assessing the overall program

impact, researchers averaged separately derived-site level impacts. When the

mentoring programs were assessed as a whole, they found no statistically

significant impact relative to the control group on any of the six outcomes or

outlined in their mentoring model. These goals were interpersonal relationships,

personal responsibility, community involvement, academic achievement, school

engagement, and lowering high-risk delinquent behavior.

The precisions of the impact estimates were improved when controlling

for baseline characteristics of students including age, gender, school lunch

eligibility status, race/ethnicity and family structure. Only when they stratified

mentees into many subgroups were they able to calculate minimal improvements

that applied to certain ages, genders, or specific conditions of the program. For

example, the impact on truancy was positive and statistically significant for

students below age 12, but not for students aged 12 and older (U.S Department of

Education, 2009, p.53). However, even after controlling for multiple comparisons,

students did not show difference in academic achievement or school engagement

compared to students in the control group.

  45  

Communities in Schools Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

(SMILE): The third report is the Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

(SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-Based

Mentoring. The program was run through Communities in Schools (CIS), an

umbrella youth development federation that operates many organizations

addressing the dropout epidemic. They work to foster cooperative relationships

between schools and their surrounding communities. This intervention differs

from BBBS and the DOE’s mentoring programs because the 516 mentees were

predominantly Latino, and came from 19 schools in the San Antonio area. The

treatment and controls groups differed slightly in that mentees were assigned to

either a set of supportive school services (control), or supportive services plus

school-based mentoring (treatment).

Communities in Schools mentors received only one hour of training prior

to matching. Although additional evening training was offered, only a small

percentage of volunteers chose to participate (Karcher, 2008, p.103). Ongoing

training occurred very infrequently. Mentor matches met one time a week for

approximately one hour. The average partnership lasted three months.

Researchers collected data in the form of surveys in September at the start

of the program. They performed only one follow up analysis eight months later in

April and May. Many unique measures were utilized. The Hemingway Measure

of Adolescent Connectedness assesses an adolescent’s caring and involvement in

specific relationships. Other measures included a self-esteem questionnaire, a

  46  

perceived social support scale, a social skills rating system, the Children’s hope

scale, and a perceived mattering survey (Karcher, 2008, p.4-5).

The Communities in Schools programs established twenty-one

desired effects of mentoring, and saw significant improvements in only four areas.

The other seventeen factors that showed no improvement. The chart below

illustrates the mentee’s areas that showed improvement compared to those which

showed no progress.

COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS Program Goals Which Showed Significant Improvement

* Connectedness to peers

* Global self-esteem * Self-in-the-present

* Perceived support from friends

Program Goals Which Showed No Significant Improvement * Self-esteem * Self-in-the-future * Self-control * Peer relations * School relations * Family relations * Social skills * Assertiveness * Cooperation * Support from family * Mattering * Hope * Math * Reading * Connectedness to school * Connectedness to teachers

* Connectedness to culturally different peers

** adapted from Karcher, 2008, Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

Similar to the DOE’s study, when Communities in Schools stratified

mentees into small groups, they found additional small benefits. On the other

hand, they also discovered certain negative correlations. For example, boys being

mentored in high school in high school did not show any positive effects of school

based mentoring, and declined in their level of school-connectedness. In fact,

many older male students quit the program before its designated termination.

b. Discussion

  47  

The outcomes demonstrated in all three large-scale studies is concerning

to the field of mentoring, which is continuing to grow despite the existence of

these reports. It appears that youth involved in school based mentoring are

receiving occasional benefits, but they are limited, short-lasting and may not be

attributed to the mentoring partnership at all. The factors that do show calculated

improvement are related most closely to short-term improvements in scholastic

competence. This type of progress least related to youth development and does

not have a lasting impact the future of participants.

Perhaps the most controversial feature that sets SBM apart from its CBM

counterparts is the restrictions set on length and duration of the mentoring

relationship. As stated in Chapter One, the average CBM partnership lasts one and

a half years. The mentoring community promotes the 12-month minimum

standard duration, first established in Jean Rhodes’ Stand By Me (Rhodes, 2002,

p.60). In fact, she asserts that youth are involved in short lived mentoring

partnerships, or whose partnerships terminated earlier than the designated

duration had negative effects. Compared to control groups, these mentees

displayed reactions such as lower feelings of self-worth and perceived scholastic

competence. The average length and duration of the mentoring programs found in

the three research reports is expressed in the chart below.

  48  

School-Based Mentoring Factors Regarding Length and Duration

SBM Program Average number of meetings per week

Average time per meeting

Average duration of relationship

Communities in School

1x/week 1 hour 3 months

Department of Education

1x/week 1 hour 5.8 months

Big Brothers Big Sisters

1x/week 45min-1hour 4.6 months

The duration of the mentoring relationships do not extend anywhere near

the recommended length of 12 months. This is mainly attributed to the restriction

that accompany having to abide by the school calendar. All three mentoring

programs expressed concern regarding the amount of time it takes in the

beginning of the year to recruit volunteers and match participants. This breaches

into the already constricted length of the calendar year.

The research also supports many of the concerns illustrated by skeptics of

school based mentoring. Analysis of all three studies indicates a clear trend

regarding a higher level of engagement in academic activities as compared to

community mentoring. Although most mentors did not outwardly express

academic improvement as one of their main goals, in practice, mentors tended to

spend a significant amount of time working on academics. Rather than adhering

to an established set of best practices, the outcomes demonstrate that school-based

mentoring programs are likely being shaped by the needs of the schools. A

mentor’s approach may also be fueled by and shaped to fit the nature of the

academic environment.

It appears that that the failure of these mentoring programs to produces

greater outcomes does not rest entirely on the volunteers and their relationship

  49  

with their mentees. One positive aspect that these reports highlight is SBM’s

ability to recruit a larger and more diverse group of volunteers. BBBS stated that

about half of the SBM mentors reported they would not have considered CBM at

the time they initially became involved in their SBM program (Herrera et al,

2007, p.29). Both BBBS and the U.S Department of Education’s mentors and

mentees expressed that their general relationships with their counterparts were

positive. 94% of US DOE mentor reported enjoying the time they spent with their

students “most of the time” or “almost always”. Likewise, over 80% of mentees

stated that they could trust their mentor, that their mentor listens, and their mentor

has good ideas about how to solve problems (U.S Department of Education, 2009,

p.46).

The question that arises is whether the relationship quality is necessarily

associated with outcomes. BBBS found that relationship quality was associated

with match length (Herrera et al, 2007, p.57), however the difference in outcomes

between those who felt very close with their mentor compared with those who did

not have as strong of relationships was not statistically significant. This indicates

that there are gaps in the structure of the mentoring programs and the relationship

approach that are preventing close relationships from moving to a point where

they are achieving tangible outcomes. In fact, the Communities in Schools report

acknowledged in their results section that they did not provide many of the “best

practices” supported by DuBoi’s meta-analytic analysis (Karcher, 2008, p.13).

They suggested emphasizing the quality of the program over the quantity of

  50  

participants by incorporating more of these programmatic assets including well-

structured meetings and ongoing training.

Due to the extensive nature of the 1995 Impact Study of Big Brothers Big

Sisters and the 2007 Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact

Study, it is important to compare the two analyses. Although the studies were

conducted over ten years apart, they adhere to similar research methodology. Both

reports, in conjunction with Public/Private Ventures use a survey instrument

called the Program Outcomes Evaluations (POE), a method that has been in place

for around15 years. POE categorizes outcomes into socio-emotional competency,

educational success and avoidance/reduction of risky behaviors. After analysis,

BBBS SBM youth improved only in school-related outcomes while CBM

beneficiaries were affected by a wider range of outcomes such as decreased

truancy and improved parent relationships. In regards to relationship status,

“despite fairly high levels of closeness reported by youth [in both studies], [SBM]

volunteers reported feeling less close to their Littles than CBM volunteers

involved in earlier studies” (Herrera et al, 2007, p.11). However, they note that

the difference was slight, and may not be directly associated with greater program

outcomes. The greatest difference in research methods was that SBM included a

six-month follow-up to test the durability of the noted changes. This was

important because none of the SBM outcomes were sustained into the following

year. This leaves the question open to whether CBM outcomes also had a lasting

effect on the mentees.

  51  

In 2006, after conducting the research necessary to publish the SBM

impact study, Dr. Jean Rhodes created the Youth Outcomes Survey (YOS). This

is a new attempt at program analysis that takes into account larger organizational

efforts to outline targeted outcomes. The survey would also be administered twice

during the relationship instead of once. Additionally, it would allow BBBS to

compare their effects to other national program evaluations. In the past six years,

BBBS has worked hard to replace POE in support of this more rigorous

technique. It is their hope that the increasingly accurate data will encourage

funders, policymakers and community partners to continue their support for

formal mentoring. The YOS categories of outcomes of similar, but within these

subsets are new measures such as presence of special adult and educational

expectations. It will be interesting to see the differences in reported outcomes of

both CBM and SBM under the stringency of the Youth Outcome Survey.

Chapter 3: Addressing the Gaps in School-Based Mentoring Structural Recommendations for Strengthening the Mentoring Model

a. Improved Training, Supervision and Support

As demonstrated in Chapter Two, large-scale research studies regarding

the new field of school based mentoring have produced inadequate outcomes.

Despite evidence of limited success, mentoring organizations are carrying on with

their programs, and continuing to implement their model in schools across the

United States. It is imperative to look into the structure of the school based

  52  

mentoring model, and find solutions that address the structural and relational

factors preventing mentoring partnerships from greater, more tangible outcomes.

In order to improve school-based mentoring programs, organizations must

take into account the methods that have proven successful for community-based

programs and adapt them to the school setting. Mentoring organizations that seek

out a school as the foundation of their program must make a conscious effort to

integrate these best practices into their model. This will certainly come with a set

of new challenges. Many of the factors that make CBM successful are possible

because of the flexibility given to mentors to determine the course of their

relationship. However, it is quite possible to bring these best practices into the

realm of SBM. Organizations must adjust the community approaches that have

proven to work, while continuing to adhere to the structure and the restrictions

one encounters in school-based mentoring.

This chapter investigates various structural factors that are preventing

mentors from creating high quality relationships, which promote long-term

growth, and ultimately produce greater statistical outcomes. I focus on four

crucial components including training, supervision, match activities, and

length/duration of mentor match. As established in Chapter One, each of these

factors are heavily researched in the community setting, and have specific

qualities that contribute to their success. These are areas that appear to be poorly

integrated into the school-based mentoring model, and require modifications.

First, it is important to look at how the community-based and school-based

mentors are matched with mentees, and whether the characteristics of the match

  53  

and the volunteer’s perceptions of their mentor’s risk status affects their ability to

help produce outcomes. Big Brother Big Sisters gives little guidance in their

“program irreducibles” that mandate matching criteria. They recommend agencies

make matches based on the volunteer’s ability to help meet the needs of the

specific youth. The organization does not imply making matches on the basis of

age, gender or race. The 1995 Impact Study mentions that in making matches, all

the agencies included in the research did take certain practical factors such as

gender and location into consideration. Volunteers were surveyed regarding their

preference of age, race, and the types of activities they expected to participate in

with their youth. Mentees and parents were also asked about their interests in

specific match activities. Although they explain the process for indicating match

preferences, they did not provide specific statistics surrounding the demographics

of actual matches.

In the 2007 School-Based Mentoring Impact Study, the authors compared

some of the differences between matching styles of community-based and school-

based agencies. The first major divergence between the two divisions of

mentoring is that the average CBM volunteer is older than the average school-

based mentor. Similar to BBBS, 18% of the U.S DOE mentors were 18 or

younger and 23% were college-age (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xix).

Second, while community-based mentors and their mentees are typically required

to be of the same gender, school-based mentoring provides the necessary

supervision to allow for cross-gender matches. Because more females than males

volunteer to mentor, the ability for cross-gender matches allows for school-based

  54  

programs to serve more male students (Herrera et al, 2007, p.31). The potential

disadvantage of younger age volunteers, or the advantages of same-sex matches

were not investigated in these reports.

Most experts in the field appear in agreement in regards to the irrelevancy

of race or gender in the formation of a meaningful partnership. BBBS reported

that youth in cross-gender and cross-race matches had the same levels of

relationship closeness as well as the same average duration as matches that shared

gender or race (Herrera, 2007, p.31). While homogenous matches may be more

familiar and foster a certain level of trust at the onset of the relationship, it is not a

predictor of the nature of the partnership. In DuBois’ meta-analytic review of

structural program features, he found no correlation between the use of matching

techniques and effect size (DuBois et al, 2002, p.178).

What experts have found to be more important than demographics, and

more important than shared interests or commonality between mentor and mentee,

is the level of perceived self-efficacy of the volunteers. One of the only match-

surveys utilized in the mentoring field has nothing to do with race, gender, or

other socio-cultural preferences. The Match Characteristics Questionnaire,

completed only by adults is meant to assess a volunteer’s level of internal,

external and relational/experiential perspectives that will allow them to thrive in a

mentoring environment. What researchers found was a positive correlation

between mentor’s reports of strong self-efficacy and the mentee’s feelings that

they mattered in the early stages of the relationship (Nakkula & Harris, 2005,

p.109).

  55  

Because many up to 50% of partnerships in both community and school

settings terminate early in the match (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005, p.94), it

is important to analyze the impact that a mentee’s risk status has on their mentor’s

perceptions of the mentoring relationship. Mentor experts Karcher, Nakkula and

Harris found that volunteers who did not feel they were making achievements

right away, or mentors who primarily sought out self-enhancement or self-

fulfillment as indicators of success tended to perceive the relationship itself as less

strong, positive or effective. Those volunteers who had the most self-efficacy and

motivation to tend to and nurture a lasting relationship had better perceptions of

the mentor match, regardless or in spite of a youth’s risk status and disposition

(Karcher et al, 2005, p. 107). With this in mind, it is important to provide training

that promotes self-efficacy, and have the proper monitoring system in place to

support and promote the mentor’s motivation to persist and to prosper in a mentor

match.

Mentoring programs must re-evaluate the system that is set in place to

train and support their volunteer matches in order to promote self-efficacy, and

impart a greater understanding of the developmental mentoring appraoch.

Although there is a general consensus regarding the necessity of pre-match

training for volunteers, the quality, content, and length vary tremendously

amongst both community and school-based mentoring programs. According to

research in both community and school-based mentoring programs, volunteers

who attended less than two hours of training did not feel as close to their mentees,

spent less time as a match, and were more likely to terminate their relationship

  56  

early than mentors who received more than two hours of training (National

Mentoring Partnership, 2009, p.10). As mentioned in Chapter Two, only 71% of

Big Brothers Big Sister mentors received training. Those who were trained

reported gaining information regarding match activities and expectations, how to

build a strong relationship, and effective communication skills. Training very

infrequently covered topics regarding constructive types of mentoring styles (i.e.

developmental vs. prescriptive) or youth development. It is important to ensure

that every volunteer undergoes a thorough mentor-training program that

encompasses these missing aspects. Chapter Three will elaborate upon effective

youth development tools and training methods that may improve mentor’s

relationships, and the mentee’s long-term development.

Trained staff members provide ongoing supervision and support. They

offer professional advice and are able to address concerns that may be preventing

proper mentor/mentee relationship development. They monitor the progress of the

mentoring relationship by assuring its consistency and quality. As DuBois

demonstrated in his meta-analytic synthesis of community-based mentoring

programs, the 23% of mentors who received ongoing support amongst 55 studies

positively correlated to bettor mentee outcomes (DuBois et al, 2002, p.32). He

attributes this lack of training to both financial obstacles and the excessive

demands placed on volunteers to commit time outside of their mentor/mentee

relationship. To address this setback, school-based mentoring programs must

leave room in their budget and time in their schedule for a reliable on-site staff

member who can provide supervision for mentors.

  57  

Although the school setting more conducive than community-based

mentoring for face-to-face interaction between mentors and program staff, many

volunteers are not taking advantage of this service. As mentioned in Chapter Two,

a great deal of SBM volunteers are drawn to the organization based on the shorter

per-week time commitment. They are discouraged from pursuing additional

training. In many community-based settings, support is offered over the phone or

via email in order to be most convenient for volunteers with busy schedule. It

may be beneficial to mirror the communication options offered to community

mentors, rather than requiring in person meetings to discuss relationship progress.

Regardless of the form of contact, school-based volunteer mentors must be

aware of the commitment to training and support necessary to make a true impact

in the lives of their mentees. The minimum requirement for ongoing supervision

must outlined in the organization’s guidelines or expectations manual, and agreed

upon by volunteers before starting the matching process. This allows mentors to

understand the realistic time commitment to obligations that fall outside of

individual mentor meetings.

b. Improved Length and Duration

The most important setback preventing mentoring outcomes is

undeniably the limitations of the length and duration of the mentoring match. Not

only must mentor meetings conform to the school day, but also they are restricted

to fit in between holidays and the summer. The mentoring community utilizes the

12-month-standard, as established in mentor expert Jean Rhodes’ Stand By Me.

  58  

Consequently, the length and frequency of school-based mentor matches fall far

below the average of their community-based counterparts.

Rhode’s views inconsistencies, early termination, and short term

relationships as a drawback to the mentoring field- one that “can touch on

vulnerabilities in youth in ways that other, less personal youth programs do not”

(Rhodes, 2002, p.58). She uses “other programs” to describe those which focus on

short-term problem solving rather than relationship development and social and

emotional learning. Rhodes and Dubois were able to prove in their meta-analytic

review those short-lived mentoring partnerships, or whose partnerships ended

earlier than the designated duration indeed had negative effects on the mentees

themselves. She describes instances where youth have had negative experiences

with parent and peer relationships and enter a mentoring program with fears of

rejection. School-based matches could be detrimental if there is not sufficient time

for a close bond to form between the mentor and mentee.

Both Big Brother Big Sister’s studies and the Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation Study reported that despite its short duration, the majority of both

school-based mentors and mentees did indeed feel close to their partner.

However, researchers are in agreement that relationships in community-based

programs were much stronger. After taking in the statistics from all three studies,

the short length and duration characterizing school-based mentoring appears to be

the structural factor most indicative of these weaker relationships.

Given the research regarding the negative impact of time constraints in the

school-based setting, I propose four organizational improvements that would

  59  

allow for longer mentoring partnerships, and promote higher quality relationships.

These include matches coinciding with the beginning of the school year, maintain

communication and face-to face contact during out of school periods, utilizing a

multi-year cross-school mentoring model, and implementing strong closure

procedures to prepare for match termination.

1. Mentor matches should commence with the start of the school year:

BBBS and the DOE’s impact evaluations revealed a very slow start up time for

mentor matches at the beginning to the school year. The DOE averaged 81 days

between the start of the school year and the first mentor/mentee meeting (U.S

Department of Education, 2009 p.50). If matches coincided with the start of the

calendar year, mentors would have the optimum amount of time to meet with their

mentees during the school year. In addition, mentors would have an opportunity

to address academic and social anxieties that may arise from starting a new

school.

In order to achieve this goal, scholars must be recommended and recruited

in the year prior to the start of the program (i.e. in May of 2012 for an August

2012 start date). Volunteer mentors must be recruited in the summer months. This

format also means that the matching process would take place prior to the start of

the school year. Matching would require collaboration between the school staff

who recommends youth for the program, and organizational staff who know the

strengths and weaknesses of each volunteer. School and program staff should

make use of demographic and personality surveys administered to both mentors

and mentees upon recruitment.

  60  

2. Mentor programs should make use of the summer months and holidays:

Neither Big Brother Big Sisters, nor the U.S DOE or Communities in Schools

allowed for direct contact during the summer. In fact, Big Brother Big Sisters

actively prevents face-to-face contact in unsupervised settings. However, some

programs permitted writing or phone calls, based on the mentee’s desire and at the

mentor’s discretion. 41% of matches communicated at least once during the

summer. Of these, one half of the mentors felt it contributed to the commitment

and closeness of the relationship in the following year (Herrera, et al, 2007, p.69).

However, research showed that mentors must communicate at least two times a

week over the summer and holidays in order to contribute to the match’s

continuity.

This evidence indicates that mentors must be able commit to participating

in no less than a full year mentor partnership with their student. This meets

national recommended minimum for effective relationship building and greater

mentee outcomes. A one-year commitment would require various forms of

communication during school holidays such as winter and spring breaks, as well

as contact during the summer. Letter writing and calling must be a built-in

requirement for the summer months. Organizations should also work out a system

for monthly or bi-monthly supervised face-to-face meetings. These could include

opening the school during summer hours to facilitate meeting spaces, or hosting

group events such as picnics or sports games.

One concern with contact outside of the school setting is that mentors may

be apprehensive of breaching a desired level of privacy. Organizations must work

  61  

with mentors to prevent uncomfortable or excessive encounters outside of the

school setting. These may involve giving out a work number or address instead

revealing a cell phone number or location of the mentor’s home.

3. Mentor programs should utilize a multi-year model: Not only is it

critical for mentors to commit to a full 12 month period of mentoring, but it may

also enhance the quality of the mentoring partnership and produce greater

outcomes if the mentor relationship continued over multiple years. It would be

vastly advantageous to carry on mentoring as an adolescent changes schools,

either from elementary to middle or middle to high school. There are many

reasons why the multi year model makes sense in the school-based setting.

First, it was confirmed in Chapter Two that any of the minute

improvements in mentoring outcomes during the school year were entirely lost in

the second year. After surveying students the, research concluded that scholars

did not retain any of the positive impacts of mentoring when entering the next

grade.

Second, developmental psychologists from across the country studying the

intricacies of adolescent education agree that grade level and school transitions

have a negative impact on school connectedness. They found that across all ages

and genders students in transition displayed decreases in self-esteem, academic

efficacy and achievement, and increases in social and behavioral truancy. Urban

youth in lower socioeconomic brackets had particularly high correlations between

school transitions and the aforementioned effects (Seidman, LaRue, Aber,

Lawrence, Mitchel, Feinman, 1994, p.507). The changeover between grades

  62  

levels, and in particular, between schools are a time filled with new peers, new

staff, and new expectations.

Given the loss of outcomes over summer and the following grade year,

and the evidence surrounding the critical nature of school transitions, school-

based mentoring organizations should implement a multi-year model. Mentors

can make long-term impacts by providing the extra support students may need to

make these transitions. This will involve a larger commitment on the mentor’s

part, and strong communication between school staff within a district. This means

the same mentoring organization should provide services within two (or three)

school levels of the same district, in order to provide consistency among locations

and with staff.

4. Mentor programs should develop proper closure protocol: Because

school-based mentoring matches have more of a defined length and duration,

organizations must prepare mentors with suggestions to appropriately end

relationships. All mentoring partnerships must terminate eventually, and it is

crucial that proper closure steps be taken, assuring students that their time was

well spent. Any actions towards the conclusion of the mentor/mentee partnership

should aim to closing the relationship on the most positive note possible. These

policies should be a requirement, and outlined within the organization’s

guidelines or expectations manual.

Mentees should be informed of the match’s closure in advance, leaving

enough time to address any issues or concerns they may have been holding back.

Mentees and parents should have access to mentor’s contact information, and

  63  

should be encouraged to continue communication when problems arise, or to

report their accomplishments. In addition, the program should honor the

transformations the mentor and mentee have experienced throughout the duration

of their time together. It is important to affirm the mentee’s progress through

some form of public acknowledgement that his or her time was well spent. This

can be in the form of a certificate of completion, or as big as a final celebration

hosted by the organization.

It is also crucial to plan for proper data collection by retrieving extensive

post-match interview information from both parties. These answers will be used

to conduct research analyses and improve upon the programming for future years.

Not only is interviewing important for the organization’s growth and

development, but it allows both parties to privately reflect upon their experience,

and acknowledge the strides they have made throughout the duration of the

program.

Relational Recommendations for Strengthening Mentoring Practice

After amending some of the structural aspects of mentoring organizations,

it is equally important to look at relationship building. In this section I explore

how sponsoring organization are helping form mentors and mentees form

relationships. Community-based and school-based programs alike have proved

that mentors are only able to reap the benefits of the mentoring process after a

  64  

strong relationship has developed between the adult and adolescent (Herrera,

2004 p.3).

In order for school-based mentors to form the ideal relationships that are

close, long lasting, and promote sustainable behavior change, they must utilize the

developmental approach, as described in Chapter One. Prescriptive relationships

are those where mentees work to solve the short-term problems they see affecting

their mentee in his or her current state. These may include mediating conflicts

with parents and peers, helping with bad grades in school, or lending a hand to

physical setbacks such as lack of food, shelter or transportation. Developmental

techniques encourage expanding upon a mentee’s long-term skills and facilitating

a better, well-rounded decision-making process. The aptitudes acquired

throughout developmental relationship produce longer lasting, sustainable

changes in the lives of youth.

My research shows that the developmental approach is two fold. First, it

requires that the majority of effort in the beginning of the partnership be put

towards establishing a strong connection with the youth. Then, rather than solving

short-term problems for their mentees, mentors use some form of educative

process to promote behavior change. Mentors encourage their mentors to make

their own, well thought out choices. A strong relationship in itself may provide

benefits relating to development without any additional conscious process.

However, many mentors, as strong as their efforts may be, fail to foster a

relationship that gives mentees the will to work on changing their status quo. In

these cases, it is likely that mentees will not make great strides in growth or

  65  

development. The ideal mentoring partnership is one that is both accommodating

(relationship building) and challenging (developmental).

Mentoring varies greatly in regards to location, contexts and operations.

Consequently many models of mentoring have been created over the years that

convey unique goals and program outcomes. I have come across a mentoring

model that incorporates these ideals by emphasizing a strong relationship and

promoting positive youth development. In 2002, Professor Jean Rhodes generated

a conceptual model of youth mentoring after years of research experience

specifically in the mentoring field. First published in her book Stand by Me, her

framework is based solid proof that mentoring partnerships may strengthen or

modify the social-emotional, cognitive and identity development of participants

once a strong positive relationship has formed. These advancements, in turn,

produce the positive outcomes that organizations use to measure their success.

This model is applicable to many different relationships and programmatic

contexts, and it is my recommendation that school-based mentoring organizations

take Rhode’s framework into account in each facet of their work: when

establishing their goals, when creating the pre-match training curriculum for

volunteers, and when providing ongoing support for mentors. The illustration

below is a simplified chart based on Rhodes’ model.

  66  

** model first published in Stand By Me (Rhodes, 2002, p. 36) ** model was modified in Chapter 3, A Model of Youth Mentoring, in Handbook of Youth Mentoring (DuBois, 2005, p.32)

Rhodes describes mentoring relationship (figure 1) as the “active-

ingredient” that keeps youth from terminating partnerships, and engaged long

enough to facilitate further stages of the model. Rhodes was the first to endorse

the 12-month minimum match duration. In the second segment (figure 2), the

model recognizes that although that the needs of youth are at the crux of

partnership. However, a good relationship is reciprocal: one where the adult and

youth are offering their mutuality, trust, and empathy. In this sense, a good

  67  

relationship parallels successful natural relationships that occur in the “real

world” - outside of a structured setting. Rhodes supports the relational research

described in Chapter One, including the Mentor Relationship Quality scale and

Nakkula and Harris’ five subjective relational experiences (relational/experiential

compatibility, youth engagement, precursors to closeness, closeness, and

approach).

Rhodes categorizes mentee’s growth into three pathways that uniquely

contribute to constructive adolescent development. Social and emotional,

cognitive, and identity development are factors that have previously been

described as essential components of public education. Organizations, such as the

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional learning (CASEL) promote

educational policies and practices that bring these concepts to school staff and

into the classroom. Rhode’s recognizes effective mentors as having the ability to

promote growth in these same areas. Mentors, like teachers, can role model pro-

social behavior, and actively engage youth through processes that promote

development.

Mentors can affect the social and emotional learning (figure 3) of their

mentee by challenging their negative views of themselves, their parents and peers,

and the world around them. Youth develop the skills to manage emotions,

appreciate the perspectives of others, and handle interpersonal situations

effectively (Weissberg, 2004, p.95). Rhodes suggests that mentoring can also

affect cognitive thinking (figure 4) and accelerate adolescent development

through conversations that promote information processing, abstract and

  68  

relativistic thinking, and self-monitoring. By modeling positive attitudes,

behaviors and personality traits, mentors may foster identity development (figure

5), mentees begin to emulate the qualities they would like to see in themselves.

Then, with the support of an adult who encourages identity exploration, a mentee

can see their “possible selves”, and can begin cultivate a personality unique to

their own.

Although each mode of development can flourish on their own, they may

also appear as a product of one another. For example, growth in cognitive

thinking may allow for better management of emotions, which, in turn, may lead

to reconciliation between a mentee and their parents, teachers, or friends. Or, the

cultivation of social and emotional skills leads a scholar to make their own

choices to improve grades, connections, and goals for the future. These positive

outcomes (figure 6) are measurable and can be analyzed from an investigative

standpoint. Rhodes’ make certain to include both moderators (figure 7) and

mediators (figure 8) as outside factors that can influence the strength of a

mentoring relationship, or may affect a mentor’s ability to develop even under the

most supportive environments.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral education as school-based Mentoring tool

Jean Rhode’s conceptual model is an asset to understanding the mentoring

process, but is based on the assumption that mentors are able to challenge the

behaviors of youth in ways that promote development and produce outcomes.

  69  

Although this progression could occur from a caring, rounded relationship alone,

by in large, the transformation requires a conscious process on the part of the

mentor to work and re-work the social, emotional and cognitive abilities of the

mentee during the course of their partnership. Typically, this involves engaging in

conversations that push the boundaries of the mentee’s existing knowledge and

skill set.

When American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) devised

the six stages of moral development, he did not set out to change the face of

education. What first began as a theoretical pyramid that described a child’s

progression in thought processing and moral decision-making, was eventually

applied to the teacher’s approach in a public school classroom. Many educators

use Kohlberg’s techniques to encourage students solve tough ethical dilemmas.

Thus, they are promoting their student’s personal advancement into higher stages

of moral thinking, and their ability to make educated moral decisions in their daily

life (Murray, 2008, p.3).

Employing moral education methods requires a certain type of

environment that promotes obedience, active listening and participation. This is

why Kohlberg first tested his theories with young scholars enrolled in school.

However, these conversation techniques should, in no way, be limited to a

classroom setting. One of the benefits to school-based mentoring it’s the ability to

provide a constant location and safe circumstances under which relationships can

develop. Research shows that youth who characterized their mentors as being

  70  

highly supportive but who provided few opportunities for structured activities

derived the fewest benefits from the partnership (Rhodes, 2002, p.91).

Moral education does not imply that mentors are taking on a prescriptive

mentoring style. On the contrary Kohlberg’s modes of moral conversation would

only add to the developmental approach. Regardless of levels of their school

connectedness, a scholar spends up to eight hours surrounded by the learning

environment, and are influenced by their surroundings. If mentors receive careful

training and ongoing support, they would be able to utilize the school for more

than just its locale and resources. Incorporating moral education and

developmental learning into SBM would be paving a new style unique to this

subset of the mentoring field.

Lawrence Kohlberg studied psychology at the University of Chicago in

the 1950’s, where he became particularly interested in Swiss psychologist’s Jean

Piaget’s work on child development. Widely accepted at the time, Piaget’s two-

stage theory asserted that younger children base moral judgments on

consequences, and older children base moral judgments on intentions. The

transition from young to old was seen as somewhat of an immediate switch that

occurred around the age of ten or eleven. Kohlberg began searching for more

complex patterns that contributed to a child’s thought process. He was particularly

interested in the course of action an adolescent takes to make challenging moral

decisions.

In 1958, he collected a team to perform a hallmark study that validated his

theories regarding moral stage progression. The interview-based experiment was

  71  

first administered 72 boys from both middle and lower class families in Chicago,

ages 10-16. The moral situation presented to participants was coined the “Heinz

Dilemma”, and is still used in many research settings when studying the human

reaction to ethical dilemmas. It was a story about a dying woman who could not

afford a life-saving drug at the asking price. The drug was expensive to make, but

the druggist refused to lower the price for the sake of the woman’s condition. The

woman’s husband, desperate for salvation, stole the drug for his wife (Kohlberg,

1978, p.40). Kohlberg observed the way scholars reasoned through the dilemma

and came to conclusions about the husband.

After analyzing hundreds of responses from this example and other similar

scenarios, Kohlberg devised a formal framework that described six stages of

moral thinking. He included the experiments and the framework in his thesis, The

Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Now known

as Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, the levels chronicle children and

adolescents transition into higher levels of reasoning and decision-making.

Kohlberg’s work was a revolution. In the 1950’s, behaviorism was psychology’s

newest, most accepted theory. First introduced by Ivan Pavlov and promoted in

the United States by John B. Watson, behaviorism asserted that all forms of

learning were acquired through conditioning. The phrases “moral thinking” was

not part of a behaviorist’s professional vocabulary. Despite his youngness,

Kohlberg’s theories became increasingly popular. In fact, Kohlberg’s doctoral

dissertation is one of the most cited unpublished works ever to enter the field of

psychology (Haggbloom, 2002, p.145).

  72  

Kohlberg’s theory is marked by six stages, grouped into three levels. The

preconvention phase is when a child possesses the most inflexible, egocentric

perspective. A child functioning at the conventional level is characterized by their

loyalties to groups they feel connected to. The final, post conventional level is a

state that most individuals are still working towards through their adult life. It is a

set of prevailing values that surpass the society or individual’s standards.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development

Level Stage 1. Punishment and obedience orientation: Youth assume that authority has a fixed set of rules they must unquestionably follow. A person in this stage might use phrases such as “it is against the law” or “it is bad to steal”

I. Preconventional: Focus on individual’s own welfare

2. Instrumental relativist orientation: Youth recognizes that different individuals have different viewpoints, and opinions are relative. Risk is something a person simply wants to avoid. In addition, they understand the philosophy of returning favors. 3. Interpersonal concordance: Youth become aware of the shared expectations that take over individual interests. A person may use phrases such as “but they are a good man/woman”. Being good takes work, and requires having positive attributes that help maintain relationships.

II. Conventional: Focus on maintaining expectations of social rules

4. “Law and order” orientation: Youth can now elaborate upon why it is “bad” to steal. Upholding positive moral virtues enhancing society as a whole. Obeying the law is a necessary component of protecting everyone in the community. 5. Social-contract orientation: Those in stage 5 begin to think about society in a theoretical way, considering what virtues a society should uphold in order to maintain function. They recognize their duties outside of any group or family unit, promote the value of intrinsic rights, and understand due process of law.

III. Postconventional: Focus on autonomous moral principle

6. Universal ethical principle orientation: Now, the democratic process may produce outcomes that are intuitively just. They consider the prospect of civil disobedience when an individual’s rights are at stake.

** Table compiled from (Berger & Thompson, 1995, p.489), (Crain, 1985, p.118), and (Kohlberg, 1978)

Using the stages of moral development, Kohlberg devised certain

developmental learning techniques as a new form of moral education that teachers

  73  

can utilize in the classroom. Kohlberg offered an alternative approach to two

moral education methods teacher were using at the time to promote behavior

change amongst their students (Scharf, 1978, p.27). The indoctrination and values

clarification approaches lacked universality and left students with little to build

upon.

1. Indoctrination Method: Although the indoctrination method has been in

place since the start of public education, it was first critically analyzed in

the 19th century. Schools had been defining morality in terms of

conventional moral virtues. Consequently, many teachers who practiced

indoctrination created an environment similar to that of “Sunday school”

in church. They made use of moral rules that resembled the golden rules

and Ten Commandments.

Professor Peter Scharf, noted criminologist and colleague of

Lawrence Kohlberg used the term “environmental input” to describe these

methods. Through inculcation, repetition and reinforcement, teachers were

driving scholars to think, and therefore act in a moral fashion. Kohlberg’s

leading criticism was is that indoctrination assumes societal values are

unchanging and consistent among all cultures and societies. Adolescents

coping with an ever-changing environment were seeking adults to validate

their challenges, and were often turned off by such direct commands.

2. Values Clarification Method: The second theory is based around the

personal nature of values. It sets out to help students realize individual

moral values on their own terms. Values clarification uses activities that

  74  

present the students with numerous options, and encourage making

choices freely from the many alternatives.

Kohlberg noted that in values clarification methods, students were

able to justify clearly immoral behavior. A teacher is unable to penalize a

student who steals from a peer during class if the student validates his

actions based on his own system of values, which clearly differ from his

teacher. The student’s deduction is ultimately his or her own. This process

left educators with little to no opportunity to model and encourage higher

levels of moral behavior.

Kohlberg tackles the setbacks he discovered in previous moral education

methods by introducing a theory of developmental learning. This technique has its

roots in Socratic dialogue. Socrates’, the ancient Greek philosopher was also a

teacher. He encouraged his students to examine many angles of one issue before

coming to conclusion. However, he made sure that his presence and his

knowledge guided the discussion towards that which was virtuous, and ultimately,

that which true. Developmental learning invites educators to be an integral part of

the collaborative - to play an active role in the moral growth of their scholars.

Discussions are tailored to the student based on his or her place on a well-defined

scale of moral ways of thinking. It is developmental in the sense that discussions

are structured to drive students to higher stages of reasoning.

In 1969, Kohlberg’s student Moshe Blatt conducted a study to determine if

developmental-centered classroom discussion using purely hypothetical dilemmas

  75  

would move students to higher levels of moral reasoning. The trial lasted 12-

weeks, and was implemented in all three levels of education: elementary, junior

high and high schools. Compared to the control group of scholars who were not

exposed to developmental learning techniques and showed no improvement, Blatt

confirmed that in this short period of time, the experimental group advanced an

average of one-third of a developmental stage (Kohlberg, 1978). By presenting

logic at higher stages, young students were able to internalize a higher level of

behavioral norms. Moral conversations promoted an acute awareness of a

scholar’s internal value system.

With regards to Kohlberg and Blatt’s experiments, there were

developmental scientists who did not see a connection between moral

development exercises and concrete moral action. Kohlberg’s primary critic

Edwin Fenton, professor of history at Carnegie Mellon University questioned the

student’s ability to transfer their newfound moral reasoning into a context that fits

the demands of their daily life.

Kohlberg and his graduate partner Richard Krebs acknowledged this

setback, and conducted a study to determine whether there was a correlation

between higher levels of moral development and a lower desire to cheat in school

(one form of moral action). The pair discovered that 15% of students who showed

higher levels of principled thinking still cheated in the classroom. This figure was

significantly less than the 55% of students who functioned at conventional stages

and cheated, and 70% of students at pre-conventional stages and cheated

(Kohlberg, 1975, p.49). However, the 15% stuck out as a figure that could not be

  76  

overlooked. Kohlberg concluded that although moral judgment is the single most

important factor that contributes to moral behavior, it must be accompanied by

personal factors that lead to a motivation for behavior change.

Integrating Developmental Learning Techniques Into the Mentoring

Model

Although students may progress through Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of

moral development of their own accord, many at-risk students are thinking and

behaving at stages well below their potential. One reason for this may be the lack

of adequate social interaction with adults who are reasoning at higher stages. The

BBBS School-Based impact study examined different circumstances that lead a

member of the school-staff to recommend scholar’s for mentoring. They found

that many were in need of a role model. Within six months of the pre-match

survey, 3% of scholars were living in single parent homes, and 26% of parents

were separated.

The progression into higher stages of moral thinking is not a natural

consequence of maturing through adolescence. Rather, it is a product of

socialization. Instead of directly instructing ways of thinking, mentors can pose

moral dilemmas and contribute their own thoughts about these problems into the

greater pool of opinions. These social experiences stimulate youth’s mental

processes. Moral discussion broadens a youth’s viewpoints to accept positions

outside of their zone of comfortable thinking.

Socializing agents such as mentors fall within the Zone of Proximal

Development, or ZPD. ZPD is a learning theory developed by Russian

  77  

psychologist Lev Vygostsky in the early 1900’s to describe the learning a child

can do with the help of capable adults- notions and impressions they could work

out on their own terms. Kohlberg’s studies demonstrated that, “knowledge

changes through an interactional dialogue between a child and his or her world”

(Scharf, 1978, p.28). Through meaningful conversation, mentors can be

supportive facilitators in expanding their youth’s mental and emotional capacity

to develop morality.

Due to the intimate nature of the mentor/mentee relationship, mentors may

have an even larger advantage than teachers to utilize developmental learning

techniques. The growing size of the United State public school classroom coupled

with an increasing pressure to perform through standardized testing leaves

teachers with less time to develop ties close enough to encourage behavior

change. Even if they implement moral discussion in their classroom, they might

not be able to provide the individualized attention to make sure each student

follows through into moral action.

Critics of moral development described this lack of moral action as their

primary apprehension with the theory. Mentors have this follow-through capacity.

A mentor is invested in the success of one student only. Mentors role model good

decision-making skills by drawing from personal experience. They are also able

to provide the emotional support necessary to transition to higher stages of moral

development, and to move from moral thought to moral action.

A mentor who can construct meaningful conversation surrounding values,

and role model the constructive thought process may produce greater mentoring

  78  

outcomes. Even more so, these developments will intrinsically promote a

mentee’s long-term decision-making skills. As mentees move up stages of moral

development, their aptitude for identifying alternative strategies, working through

pros and cons and reaching healthy conclusions matures. Mentors encourage their

mentees to see new perspectives. Through conversation, mentees become actively

involved in the choices that effect their present, and even begin envision their

“future self”. Scholars with newfound esteem have the capacity to make choices

to improve their relationships, to avoid harmful environments, to connect with

their peers, and delay gratification. Mentees can make their own choice to pursue

their education and reap the benefits of a graduate’s status.

In order to integrate Lawrence Kohlberg’s theories into the school-based

mentoring model, organizations must incorporate moral development into their

goals, training, and ongoing support.

1. Goals: Within the outline of their program goals, organizations

must make clear their intentions to train mentors in adolescent

development, and to encourage mentors to utilize developmental learning

techniques within conversations with mentees. The formality of this

gesture is necessary on two parts. It the organization acknowledging the

proven benefits of moral education, as well as the solidifying the

organization’s personal beliefs that these concepts have a place in the

school-based mentoring setting.

2. Training: SBM organizations must then re-think and re-structure

their training models to accommodate these new goals. A mentor first

  79  

needs basic instruction in adolescent development and moral development.

They must be able to assess, at a fundamental level, what stage their

mentee is functioning at during the start of the match. Second, mentee’s

must understand the essentials of moral education and developmental

learning, as well as their application to the mentoring context. In addition

to providing strategies for building a strong reciprocal mentoring

relationship, mentors must be coached in conversation techniques that

allow their youth to generate their own judgments and reason at higher

stages of moral development. Appendices A, B and C are three sample

pages that should be added to a mentor training manual to accompany a

section regarding developmental mentoring approaches and moral

conversation techniques.

Appendix A gives a brief explanation of three stages of adolescent

development. Mentors are able to view the chart and match the

developmental characteristics (labeled A-C) with the stage of development

(labeled #1-3). It is important to have the basic knowledge surrounding

these developmental traits because it helps a mentor understand the

strengths and weakness of their mentees. Mentors will know the

limitations of conversation topics and will be able to tailor their approach

to the developmental characteristics displayed during match sessions. This

chart is adapted from the Sedra Spano’s article on Adolescent

Devleopment written for the Youth Upstate Center of Excellence.

  80  

Appendix B shows a similar chart relating to Lawrence Kohlberg’s

stages of adolescent development, where mentees can browse through the

characteristics and loosely identify what stage their mentee is reasoning.

The information in the chart is supplied from W.C Crain’s Theories of

Development and Kathleen Stassen Berger’s The Developing Person

Through the Childhood and Adolescence. Appendix C is a frequently

asked questions page that should accompany a full section illustrating the

importance of developmental learning.

3. Ongoing Support and Supervision: Knowledgeable, well-

qualified staff must monitor mentors creation and implementation of

moral conversation. With a delicate strategy such as moral development,

there is potential for mentors to be confused or frustrated by the process.

Even worse, a mentor could misinterpret the method, and may

inappropriately or improperly making use of their role in the learning

process. Appendix D is a worksheet to help new mentors identify their

mentee’s stage of adolescent and moral development, as well as strategies

for building conversation around a mentee’s individual needs. The

worksheet is filled out with an example of one mentor’s experience with

his mentee. The sample moral dilemma is adapted from teacher and author

Charis Denison’s website which provides examples of daily dilemma’s for

the classroom.

  81  

Conclusion Throughout the thesis, the field of formal mentoring is explored through

an extensive literature review of articles, reports, and scientific studies.

Conclusions were made regarding the best practices for both structural and

relational factors. The significance of the developmental mentoring approach is

demonstrated to have a stronger effect over other, less valuable mentoring means.

Then, investigative methods were used to explore characteristics that make

school-based mentoring unique. With the knowledge gained throughout the

literature review, recommendations were made to adjust certain structural and

relational components of the school-based mentoring model. Lawrence

Kohlberg’s moral development and developmental learning was cited as one

example of a technique that organizations should endorse and mentors could use

to promote greater outcomes and long-lasting decision making skills.

Although what I discovered was significant, I encountered certain

limitations throughout my research and reporting. My worksheets and proposals

are still in their beginning stages, and leave room for growth if pursued at a future

date. They require a more critical eye from both social scientists and mentoring

program directors or researchers. If there were more time, I would have

performed my own observations and interviews with mentors and mentees, to see

whether these types of developmental mentoring were occurring on their own

without training. This would help in the ongoing support of the mentor matches

because the staff would be able to point out what mentors are doing that is

effective, and could encourage building upon their existing intuitive strategies.

  82  

The research and proposals within this thesis have opened up a host of

new questions. Would the new training, supervision, and length/duration

requirements would negatively affect volunteer recruitment? Who will handle

communication during out-of-school hours in a multi-year model? Will mentors

really be responsive to developmental learning? How basic must the explanations

of adolescent and moral development be in the mentor-training manual to get the

concepts across to a range of volunteers?

My writing leaves room for further research. If school-based programs

alter their training, supervision and support, length, or duration, they should do a

comparative analysis that determines whether or not these adjustments were

beneficial. It is important to test out developmental learning conversations in a

highly controlled environment. Results must be compared with mentors who did

not utilize these techniques. Then, the data should be further stratified by age,

gender, and other factors that may help determine the most appropriate

demographic with which to implement developmental learning. Most specifically,

comparing the effects across age levels will help program organizers tailor their

methods to fit more appropriately into the stage of adolescent development.

  83  

Bibliography * Sources are in listed in the part where they are first used or referenced Part 1

Barker, D.B, & Macguire, C.P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective. In D.

L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (p. 14-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berger, K. S., & Thompson, R. A. (1995). The developing person through

childhood and adolescence (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002).

Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157-197.

Elkind, D. (1984). All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. Reading,

MA: Wesley Publishing Company. Homer, (1909). The Odyssey of Homer; translated by S.H. Butcher and A. Lang.

(Vol. 22,). New York, NY: P.F Collier & Son. Jekielek, S., Moore, K.A., & Hair, E.C. (2002). Edna McConnel Clark foundation

mentoring programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Morrow, K.V., & Styles, M.B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in

program settings: A study of big brothers/big sisters. Public/Private Ventures.

Nakkula, M.J., & Harris, J.T. (2005). Assessment of mentoring relationships. In

D.L. Dubois & M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (p.100-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Mentoring Partnership. (2010). Invest in the future of America’s

children: Support funding for mentoring. Alexandria, Va. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1282.pdf

North, D., Sherk, J., & Strother, J. (2011). Starting a mentoring program. Folsom,

CA: EMT Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://emt.org/userfiles/StartMentWeb.pdf

Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., & Aelece, O. P. (2002). Mentoring

relationships for youth: Investigations of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 367-388.

  84  

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: the risks and rewards of mentoring today’s

youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rhodes, J. & DuBois, D. (2006). Understanding and Facilitating the Youth

Mentoring Movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 3-20. Sipe, C.L. (1996) Mentoring: A synthesis of P/PV’s Research:1988-1995.

Public/Private Ventures Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making A Difference: An

impact study of big brothers big sisters. Public/Private Ventures. Part II Aron, L.Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. Washington, DC: US

Department of Labor’s Urban Institute. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). The high cost of high school dropouts:

what the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Washington, DC; retrevied from http://www.all4ed.org/

Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic:

Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington DC: Civic Enterprises. Chaskin, R. J., & Richman, H. A. (1992). Concerns about school-linked services:

Institution-based versus community-based models. The Future of Children, 2(1), 107-117.

Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention,

considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36-39.

Herrera, C. (2004). School based mentoring: A closer look. Philadelphia, PA:

Public/Private Ventures. Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in

schools: An impact study of big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J, & Feldman, A.F. (2007). Making a

difference in schools: The big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures.

  85  

U.S Department of Education. (2009). Impact evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s student mentoring program (NCEE 2009-4047 ed.). Washington, DC: Education Publications Center.

Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment

(SMILE): a randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99-113.

Milliken, B. (2007). The last dropout: Stop the epidemic!. Hay House, Inc. Portwood, S. G., & Ayers, P. M. (2005). Schools. In D. L. DuBois & M. J.

Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (337-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Scharf, P. (1978). Indoctrination, values clarification, and developmental moral

education as educational responses to conflict and change in contemporary society. In P Scharf (Ed.), Readings in moral education (p.18-35). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Part III Crain, W. C. (1985). Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. In W.C Crain

(Ed.), Theories of development: concepts and applications (Vol. 2, p. 118-136). Prentice-Hall.

Denison, C. (2006). The daily dilemma. In Resources for character education.

Retrieved from http://www.goodcharacter.com/dilemma/dilemma25.html Fenton, E. (1978). Moral education: The research findings. In P. Scharf

(Ed.), Readings in moral education (p. 52-61). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Haggbloom, S. J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th

century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139-152. Karcher, M.J., Nakkula, M.J., Harris, J. (2005). Developmental mentoring match

characteristics: Correspondence between mentors’ and mentees’ assessments of relationship quality. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 93-110.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). Moral education for a society in moral transition.

Educational Leadership, 33(1), 46-54. Kohlberg, L. (1978) The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education.

In P. Scharf (Ed.), Readings in Moral Education (p.36-51). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press.

  86  

Murray, E. (2008). Moral development and moral education: An overview. Office for Studies in Social and Moral Development in Education. Chicago: The University of Illinois at Chicago.

National Mentoring Partnership. (2009). Elements of effective practice for

mentoring (3 ed.). Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/program_resources

Spano, S. (2004) Research Facts and Findings. Ithaca, NY: ACT for Youth

Upstate Center of Excellence. Retreived from http://www.actforyouth.net/

Weissberg, R. P. (2004). What works in school-based social and emotional learning programs for positive youth development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 86-97.

List of Appendices Page

A. Stages of Adolescent Development

83

B. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

84

C. FAQ’s: Kohlberg’s Moral Develoment and Developmental Learning

85

D. Sample Stage Identification and Conversation Builders

88

E. In-Depth Literature Review Table 94

  87  

STAGES OF A DOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT

Every teenager is an individual with his or her own personality. They

grow and change at their own rate. Keep in mind that the ages marked for each stage is only a guideline- your mentee may be functioning at higher stages in some areas and lower stages in

others.

Character-istics

Milestones of Adolescent Development (and approximate age range)

# 1. Early Adolescence (10-14)

# 2. Middle Adolescence (15-16)

# 3. Late Adolescence (17-21)

A. Social and Emotional Develop-ment

- Testing the rules and limits - Moodiness, rudeness - More likely to express feeling through actions rather than words - Tends to return to childish behavior in times of stress

- Conflicts with family due to emerging independence - Need for privacy - Feeling invincible - May engage in risky behaviors - Friends mean everything to them, loss of friendship can cause serious depression - Better ability to control impulses

- Able to delay gratification - Expresses ideas in words - More developed sense of humor - Able to make independent decisions and to compromise - Greater concern for others - Greater emotional stability - Realizes own limitations

B. Identity Develop-ment

- Identifies better with same sex - Able to identify some of their own faults - Beginning to show concern for their body and physical changes - Peer group influences personal interests and styles

- Able to set goals - Examining inner experiences (writing in a diary, self reflection) - Choosing role models - Very concerned about appearance and body - Begin to develop value system

- Able to think through ideas - Thoughts about one’s role in life - Self reliance, personal dignity, pride in one’s work - More comfortable with body image

C. Cognitive Develop-ment

- Mostly interested in the present and near future - Reacts emotionally rather than logically under stress

- Growth in abstract thought - More intellectual interests - Can understand cause-effect relationships

- More defined work hobbits - More concern for the future - More philosophic and idealistic - Able to relate to adults

  88  

LAWRENCE KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

 Kohlberg’s stages are a sequence of levels that show the maturity

of adolescents when thinking critically and making decisions.

STAGE MENTEES AT THIS STAGE

1. Punishment and Obedience Orientation:

“Might Makes Right”

- Naïve and Egocentric - Do what they are told to gain rewards or to avoid punishment - Understands there are physical consequences to actions - Does not relate to others - Cannot see two points of view

2. Instrumental relativist orientation:

“Look out for number one”

- Does what is in his/her best interest, looks out for their own needs (what is in it for me) - Looking to make deals, equal exchanges and agreements (I scratch your back, you scratch mine) - Concerned with what is fair, but not real justice

3. Interpersonal Concordance

“Good boy, good girl”

- Will have good behavior to win praise, if it pleases others - Living up to what is expected of you by the people you are closest to including peers and family - Being good in your role as a son/daughter, friend, etc. - If you are considerate, nice and kind, you will make people happy - Able to put themselves in other people’s shoes

4. Law and Order Orientation

“The good citizen”

- Feel that it is important to contribute to society - Everyone must obey the laws, because they contribute to a better society - If laws are broken, one should be punished for their actions - Greater respect for authority

5. Social-Contract Orientation

“The philosopher”

- Understand that everyone has different opinions - Recognize that different points of view make it difficult for everyone to follow the same rules - There are some universal rights that everyone must follow such as life and liberty, regardless of the country or place you live in. - Make decisions based on the pro’s outweighing the cons

6. Universal Ethical Principal Orientation

“Individual conscience”

- Following self-chosen ethical principles - A personal commitment to the equality of all human beings. Life is sacred - Personal values may be different than the legal principles set out by the government

  89  

FAQ’s KOHLBERG’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT

AND DEVELOPMENTAL LEARNING

Why do we use the stages of moral development? Once you assess the stage of adolescent development and stage of moral development that your mentee is currently functioning at, you have the opportunity to play a part in moving your mentee to higher levels. Why are the levels important?

Adolescents who are at higher stages on Kohlberg’s scale tend to have the capability of reasoning more logically – although they may not make the same choices as you, they will get closer and closer to assessing a situation the same way you lay out a moral dilemma. What if my mentee is at a really low adolescent or moral development stage for their age? This is ok! It is very possible for adolescents to be physically mature but not morally mature. In fact, Kohlberg found that many adults are still at low stages as well. For example, most prisoners are still reasoning at the pre- conventional phase (stage one or two) because they are not able to understand law and order. I don’t think I am at stage 6 yet. Does anyone ever get to stage 6? Not many- each stage builds on the other, so you have to go through one to get to two, etc. Lawrence Kohlberg names people like Gandhi, Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr., big important figures in history who reason at a stage six. He believes that most people make it to stage four in their lifetimes. What will these conversations do for my mentee? Youth socialize with adults who think at higher stages have an opportunity to participate in back and forth dialogue that promotes reasoning. This is where you come in! Mentees are gaining cognitive (thinking) and decision-making skills that they can apply to many different settings and situations. Am I forcing children to think in a certain way? Quite the opposite – by bringing dilemmas into mentoring conversations, rather than then “telling them” answer, you are

  90  

helping your mentor think critically and come up with their own judgments. A mentee should never make behavior choices because they feel anxious or guilty about the wrong decision. This is a supportive process. If you feel comfortable, you are encouraged to give your opinions and bring in personal experiences that reassure your mentee. This helps them feel a greater connection to the issues at hand. What if their beliefs (or their parent’s beliefs) are not the same as mine? You are not imposing any arbitrary personal beliefs on your mentee. The values found at the highest levels of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are universal principles of justice – they are the same virtures that found U.S constitution, and do not apply to any particular subculture or religion. Even though you should simplify your and conversations to match your mentee’s level of adolescent development, you should be able to identify with their stories and reasoning. What will happen when our mentoring sessions end? Even after the school years end or your mentoring partnership ends, we hope that the skills practiced in the mentoring setting can be applied to situations in the larger society. A mentee will be able to better reason through dilemmas that arise in their day-to-day lives. Even after using the worksheets in the Mentor Training Manuel, I am still having problems coming up with conversations and stories. First, make sure your story has a focus that it is genuine and applicable to the life of your mentee. Every dilemma has a conflict that causes the main character to make a choice, or perform an action. The dilemma must end with a “should” question- what should you do in this situation? What if they don’t get my point?

Make sure you prepare your stories ahead of time! Maybe practice in front of trusted friends or family members, keeping the details of your mentoring relationship confidential. Mentees will want to know every detail about the character (or themselves) before talking it out or making a decision. A lack of clarity can prevent a mentee from being fully engages. Make sure they really understand the scenario before moving forward.

  91  

What do I do if my mentee is turned off when I bring up these techniques? Moral discussion takes trial and error. Some adolescents do not feel comfortable when they are the center of the hypothetical situation, while others do not want to sit through a story about someone else. First try and figure out a format that best engages your mentee. In particular, if they mention that they feel like they are in school, or they are being forced to do homework you can try bringing media such as movies or a songs into play. Should I change my approach based on my mentee’s age? It might be a good idea to adjust your techniques based on your mentee’s age, or stage of adolescent development. It is important to learn the past experiences and level of maturity of your mentee before you move forward with developmental conversations. For younger ages, it might be helpful to read the scenario out loud, or even act it out with different voices. Ask your mentee to summarize the dilemma – what is the issue and why is it a problem. Together, you can role-play the solution. If your mentee is older or more mature, they may be able to summarize the details and state the main point without much support. It might be helpful to have them write down their thoughts. What if my mentee gets frustrated, or cannot come up with answers? Always make sure that you are giving words of encouragement. Tell them how impressed you are that they are coming up with good points, and how well they are listening to all the sides. Provide the comfort and confirmation when they need it, and the challenge when they are doing well. Remember, you’re first and foremost role as a mentor is to be a source of support.

  92  

Sample Stage Identification and Conversation Builders

* Fill out worksheet to the best of your abilities. This exercise is to help you determine the social, emotional and cognitive (thinking) abilities of your mentor, and to help you get meaningful conversations started. Mentor Name: Ken Weisberg Mentee Name: Calvin Jones Age: 15 Based on your first three meetings and the mentee survey, name positive three positive personality traits that describe your mentor: 1. Strong willed - He likes to get things done on his own without asking for help 2. Candid – He is humorous, dynamic and imaginative 3. Loyal – He is eager to please and support the people in his life that he cares about Based on your first three meetings and the mentee survey, name positive harmful personality traits that describe your mentor: 1. Impatient and careless 2. Not detail oriented – Calvin tends to jump to conclusions. He only sees the big picture and cannot break down a situation into its parts 3. Blame’s others – I don’t think Calvin ever takes responsibility for his actions Describe your mentee’s home life (living situation, economic background, culture)

Calvin lives at home with his mother, his grandmother (father’s mother), and two brothers. They live in a two-bedroom apartment in Desaix. Calvin’s family is on federal subsidized rent, food stamps and Medicaid. Calvin’s parents are married, and his father is serving his third year in prison. As of now, I do not know what his sentence was, but Calvin said that he has two

  93  

months until his probation. It tends to be a sensitive subject, and we haven’t spent enough time together to ask too many questions.

Currently, Calvin’s mother is unemployed, but I am not sure and his grandmother babysits for two families in the neighborhood. His younger brother is in 4th grade, and his older brother works part time at an auto-repair shop and part time as a cook in a hotel. It appears that he contributes his wages to the rent and living expenses of the whole family.

Calvin’s parents were both born in Ethel, Louisiana and moved to New Orleans when his oldest brother was born. Calvin’s mother and grandmother are members of the Baptist church, while Calvin says he does not identify with any religion, like his brother. Describe your mentee’s school connectedness and academic performance Calvin is in 8th grade, his last year in middle school, and will be attending high school next year. He like’s what he succeeds in, and doesn’t like what he struggles with. This shows in his grades. He is good at math, and will make an effort in his homework and studying for tests. On the other hand, he struggles in the rest of his subjects, and has a very passive attitude about improving his grades in these areas. Calvin’s homeroom teacher told me that he has a fairly attendance record, but the school staff has noted his lack of participation and motivation within the classroom. Calvin has mentioned his lack of concern about whether or not he graduates and does not plan on attending college. He says he “doesn’t care” what he does after college as long as he is making lots of money. Describe your mentee’s personal relationships (at home with family and at school with peers) Calvin’s family just moved into a new apartment, and he was forced to change school districts halfway through last year. Making friends is very important to him, and he spends a lot of

  94  

time talking about the group of guys he hangs out with in class. Although he is the newest member of this crew, he said he would do anything for his “best” friends. Calvin told me that he does not really care for his mother and he hates his grandmother. It seems to me that his mother takes a very passive role in his upbringing, while his grandmother is the one who pays more attention to what is going on in his life. He says he “hates” his grandmother because she forces him to do things like things like go to class, and keeps him from hanging out with his friends outside of school. Calvin has shown a fierce devotion to both of his brothers, especially his older brother who he seems to look up to. Calvin is proud that he gets to hang out with his brother’s older friends at the auto shop. Based on your knowledge so far, what milestone of Adolescent Development does your mentee display for each of the three characteristics: social and emotional, identity, and cognitive development?

** Use the Stages of Adolescent Development chart A-C and #1-3 to match characteristics with milestones. Provide examples when you can. A. Social and Emotional: In between #1 and #2 Early Adolescence and Middle Adolescence Why? Calvin still thinks that he is invincible and nothing can harm him. He loves his skateboard and always shows up to our meetings with cuts and bruises on his knees and elbows. He has problems expressing his feelings, and his actions are reckless. He does not think through his decisions before making them. He cannot control his impulses. He is eager for social acceptance, and when he has problems with his friends, he gets very upset. I know that they have been giving him a hard time about his jeans (I guess they are the wrong brand?), and he takes this very harshly. B. Identity: In between #1 and #2 Early Adolescence and Middle Adolescence

  95  

Why? Calvin is not yet at Middle Adolescence because he does not have goals for the future. He is able to recognize his weaknesses in certain academic subjects, but cannot talk about any personal faults. He only identifies with his same sex. He describes his older brother as someone he loves and as someone who he tries to imitate. It seems that his brother is a role model. C. Cognitive: #1 Early adolescence Why? Calvin reacts emotionally rather than rationally, and cannot think in abstract terms. When he is mad at his grandmother or teachers, he verbally and physically lashes out. Although he has shown an interest in math, he is very disconnected to academics, and does not show interests in many hobbies. I wouldn’t even consider skateboarding a “hobby”. He got one after the rest of his friends bought them. Based on your knowledge so far, what stage of moral development if your mentee reasoning at? * Use Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Provide examples when you can I think Calvin is still in stage one, but is showing some signs of moving to stage two. He cannot see two points of view for situations – he only knows what is best for him. However, if he can make a deal with someone else and get something in return, he is willing to do things for others. He is nice to his grandmother only when she cooks what he wants and does not force him to do household chores. Identify one main conflict your mentee is experiencing in his personal life. This is a dilemma you think you could bring up in conversation. Calvin was referred to the mentoring program because of his truant behavior in and out of the school setting. His principle

  96  

reported that his friends are bullies during lunch and recess, and he has been caught taking lunches (even thought Calvin has free lunches through school). This summer, Calvin and friend were caught trashing a local park, and he had to participate in 30 hours of community service. I think Calvin has a problem giving into his instincts, and cannot see a bigger picture. In each of these situations, did not own up to the crime, and lied about his involvement. When I bring up the incidents, he says “yea, I wanted the food, so what?” Calvin has mentioned being very low on cash, and wanting to buy things that other kids in school have like an IPod and a better skateboard. I am concerned about his ability to steal without thinking about the consequences. Create a conversation that could you bring up that addresses these concerns. This story should allow you and your mentee to work out a solution together. Depending on the age and maturity of the mentee, you can use their name in the story, use a personal experience, or make up a fictional tale that has real-life qualities and meaning. I have a personal story that happened to me a few weeks ago where I had to make a difficult decision whether or not to take something that was not mine. After work, I started walking to the streetcar to head home. As I passed the last row of stores before crossing the street, I saw something stick out of the ATM machine. I got closer, and saw that it was cash. I looked around and there was nobody. No cars, no one walking nearby. Someone must have used the machine and forgotten to take the money. I counted the money- it was $60! I started thinking about everything I could buy with the extra cash like a birthday present for my wife, or a new watch. What are some questions you can work with through this story? What about activities or points to emphasize that will help mentees move to higher stages of moral reasoning?

  97  

QUESTIONS: - Would it be different if you saw the person who left the money, or you knew the person? - Would it be different if you were with your friends? How so? - Does it really count if you do something like this once? - Even though I am only one person, what would happen if every single person did what I was about to do? - If you take the money, are you a thief? - Was there ever a moment in your life where you had to make a choice like this?

HIGHER STAGE ACTIVITIES AND POINTS OF EMPHASIS: - Have Calvin ask me any details about the story he still wants to know - Make a pro-con list of what would happen if I took the money and what would happen if I didn’t take the money - One of Kohlberg’s stage three characteristics is living up to what is expected of you by those most important in your life. From what I know of Calvin’s brother, he is a high school graduate, a hard worker, and he cares a lot about Calvin’s future. I think it will be useful to work on transferring Calvin’s desire to meet the expectations of his friends to a desire to meet the expectations held by his brother. - Youth at stage three are able to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Maybe we can do a role-playing exercise where Calvin is at the ATM machine and I am his brother who just called him on his cell phone to see what he was up to.

  98  

In-Depth Literature Review Table

Table 1: Articles and Books on Community-Based Mentoring

REPORT Summary Selected impacts on adolescent behavior change and school based mentoring

Baker, D; Maguire, C (2005) Mentoring in a Historical Perspective *Handbook of youth mentoring

- historical stages of mentoring in America (emergence, establishment, divergence, focus) - 1963 community mental health, community psychology - mentoring is a natural impulse -mentoring should be structured around research-based knowledge

- mentoring is contextually driven - mentoring is not a cure-all - traditional community models have given way to alternative models (site based), reflect a response to changes in lives of youth and society shifts

MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership (2009) Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring

- provides six evidence based standards for practice : recruitment, screening, training, matching, monitoring and support, and closure - for each standard, benchmarks are advanced along with research-based justifications - operational standards for mentoring programs - program design and planning, management and evaluation

- mentor/mentee commitment of one year, adhering to the national standard for developing a close relationship - proper closure procedures are critical to avoiding negative outcomes - including developmental learning into pre-match training

Rhodes, J (2005) A Model of Youth Mentoring *handbook of youth mentoring

- mentoring can promote positive outcomes for youth through process social-emotional, cognitive, and identity development - model assumes that effects can only be accomplished when mentor/mentee forge strong connection - emotion coaching, model and teach strategies for managing emotions - social interaction plays a role in facilitating cognitive changes

- mentoring as a corrective experience for youth with unsatisfactory relationships -age my affect nature of relationship - strong program practices produce stronger positive effects

Rhodes, J (2008) Improving Youth Mentoring Interventions through research based practice

- mentoring varies on a multitude of dimensions which complicates global assessments of effectiveness - reviews differentially highlight potential iatrogenic effects, set different inclusion standards

- More structured programs, in which there were clear expectations, a focus on instrumental goals, and ongoing support to volunteers yielded notably strongest effects.

Rhodes, J (2002) Stand by Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Today’s Youth

- summarizes a decade of research regarding what makes mentoring most effective - found the three most important roles of a mentor: enhancing social skills, improving cognitive skills through dialogue and serving as an advocate

- strongest contributing factor to measure relationship is joint decision making - adolescents can incorporate what they learn from conversations into their existing base of knowledge and competence

Rhodes, J; Dubois, D (2009)

-review scientific knowledge on what is known about relationships and their interface with organizations and institutions

- meaningful relationships is important to developmental outcomes

  99  

Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement

- factors contributing to relationships: empathy, authenticity, enjoying each other’s company - similarity in ethnic or racial backgrounds of the mentor and youth is not a significant factor - outcomes most favorable when youth reported experiencing structure and support, more than simply “good friends” - relationship between utilization of greater numbers of research-supported practices and effect size - cannot succumb to fundamental attribution error based on what is familiar and emotionally gratifying -research must assume a more central role in the field’s further development and growth

- youth centered approach (developmental) is better than those driven by interests or expectations of mentor (prescriptive) - importance of consistency and duration - mentor must develop linkages with youth’s social network - school based programs have developed a “placeholder mentality”

(2009) U.S Department of Education Mentoring Resource Center Fact Sheet No.30

- the role of evidence based program practices in the youth mentoring field - debate over what youth outcomes should we measure - EBP provides a framework by which a professional can make an educated decision - effectiveness of both qualitative research vs. experimentally-designed evaluation

- mentoring should always use EBP to drive programmatic decisions - using universal standards - mentoring relationships should be associated with targeted outcomes beyond their match in order to be deemed successful

Table 2: Articles and Books on School-Based Mentoring

ARTICLE Summary of findings Selected Impacts on School-Based Mentoring Programs

Chaskin, R.J; Richman, H.A (1992) Concerns about school-linked services: Institution-based versus community based models

- define a school linked service; where the school is the primary site for the provision of social and health services, or where the school controls or dominates the planning and governance of such services - shows concern about linking any model of children’s services primarily or exclusively to any single institution - the purpose is to better serve the needs of a target popoluation, in this case, school-age children and their families

- school linked services grow to reflect, primarily, the operational desieres and needs of the school. -raises questions about the suitability of the school as the central context for service provision when school may not be a place students and parents turn to for help

Elkind, D (1984) All Grown up and no place to go: teenagers in crisis

- teens are “unplaced” - Erik Erikson, teens must construct personal identity, undertaken during these years when teens have the mental abilities required - best way of growing is differentiation and higher order integration (as opposed to substitution) - failure of schools to provide students with protected place to form identity - stress and the “patchwork self”, examples of type A,B, and C stress in teens

- lack of mature parenting - teens must test their value system against adults who have strong values - encouraging growth by integration

Jucovy, L; Garringer, M (2007) The ABC’s of School-Based Mentoring

- describes factors that constitute school based programs: operating on school campus, meeting for the duration of the school year, youth referred by teachers/counselors/school staff, - describes benefits and drawback of school based mentoring model - importance of formal mentor training

- school based programs are often incorrectly perceived as a tutoring service - must have strong program goals and training must reflect this - the primary intervention mentoring provides is the relationship itself

Milliken, B -characterizes those at risk for high school - using the school as the

  100  

(2007) The Last Dropout

dropout, connected to crime rates - communities in schools program, community component that meets the nonacademic needs of children

delivery point

Pianta, R; Walsh, P (1996) High-Risk Children in Schools

- PART 1: defining risk, risk status as a group-level descriptor

- must use developmental psychology a framework for the education of young children - mentoring as secondary prevention

Portwood, S.G; Ayers, P.M (2005) Schools *Handbook of youth mentoring

- despite shortage of sound evidence on effectiveness, SBM is growing. - advantages; SBM benefits from structure and resources of school, more supervision by professionals, flexible with mentor selection, network of other people involved, less cost, - disadvantages; may constrain how a relationship forms. Short time may not be sufficient, may only be effective for younger students, setting constrains intensity and scope - develop reciprocal relationship between school and mentoring program - most research on SBM has severe lacks in data collection, no comparison group

- shows that it should be both developmental (cognitive and social-emotional) and based on social learning theory - school connectedness is a key outcome variable; serves as a protective factor for adverse behaviors.

Table 3: Articles and Books on Moral Devleopment and Developmental Learning

ARTICLE Summary of findings Selected impacts on

mentoring programs Elkind (1981) Children and Adolescents, interpretive essays on Jean Piaget

- conservation theory; coping with change, personal security based upon parental consistency - egocentrism changes as stages change - ‘-at-risk’ youth is not a monolithic group, but can be better understood when acknowledging what they can process at their age

- Mentors must provide social support that many students are not receiving at home. - Understanding cognitive structure at age levels is a powerful analytic tool in education.

Fenton, E (1978) Moral Education; the research findings Moral Education

11 generalizations - a stage is an organized system of thought - stages are natural steps in ethical development. - moral education projects that have worked in the past. limited cognitive capacity and children who come from environments where people are functioning at low stages prevent development

- mentoring needs declage - why we need to - moral judgment is necessary but not sufficient for moral action

Fraenkel, J.R (1978) The Kohlberg bandwagon: some reservations Moral education

- only 10% of Americans reason at the postconventional level - following rules, resistance to temptation - unrealistic demands on classroom teachers whose students are all at different levels -intellectual and emotional development are interdependent

- one on one mentoring can focus on the development stages of one student and can tailor their program accordingly

Kohlberg, L (1975) Moral Education for a society in Moral Transition Educational Leadership

- Education is to aid development through moral levels by supplying conditions for movement from stage to stage, not through indoctrination (Dewey) - three conditions for moral discussion - what the hidden curriculum should be

- moral discussion is only one portion of the conditions stimulating moral growth, must take in the broader environment

  101  

Kohlberg, L (1978) The Cognitive-Developmental approach to moral education Moral Education

- moral judgment not correlated with IQ - many examples of moral judgment vs. moral action - principles are distinguished from rules - why character indoctrination and values clarification are not the best methods - table of moral stages

- moral judgment change is long term and never lost - additional factors (SEL) are needed to move up stages

Kohlberg, L (1978) Foreword Moral education

- Blatt effect; finding that students move up to the next stage through verbal discussion of purely hypothetical dilemmas - concept of a ‘just community’. Schools are changing because society is changing.

- due to central lack of significance, mentors would be able to apply theory to real life situations that legally, teachers cannot

Mary Elizabeth Murray (2008) Moral Development and Education: An Overview

- Overview of Piaget’s view of moral development; interpersonal interactions, relative social relationship with adults - Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development - Goal of moral education is to develop to the next stage of moral reasoning – as a sequence of qualitative changes - introduces equilibration

- Program must emphasize cooperative decision making and problem solving. - Teachers may be at a setback to developing moral education and stuck in ‘traditional character education practices’

Power, Higgins & Kohlberg (1991) Laurence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education

- six stages of moral judgment are age related but not age dependent - Decalage, spreading of a cognitive operation across a broad range of activities - mentoring is based on two assumptions: intrinsic worth as well as capacities that are consistent and expansive have more worth than behaviors limited in scope or subject

Mentors must expose to moral reasoning one stage above their own. Mentors must focus on long term, quality behavior change.

Scharf, P (1978) Indoctrination, values clarification, and developmental moral education as Educational Responses to conflict and change in contemporary society Moral education

- indoctrination: apply to the conventions of particular societies rather than applying to all societies. Used in the past - educators assume that moral values can be taught directly through inculcation, modeling, repetition and reinforcement -values clarification: open ended, students explore values in order to become more aware of inner values - assumption that the moral norms of society have ben broken down, and that the moral pluralism of today’s society forces individuals to define their own value commitments - developmental learning: universal ethical principles

DL is the best choice - knowledge changes through interactional dialogue between child and world -Kohlberg’s stages are a good evaluation point, and a way to base a curriculum around. They are applicable to any society, subculture or historical age; best practices - allows students to come up with the answer themselves - moral learning takes place through internalization of societal behavior norms

Stassen Berger, K; Thomson, R.A (?) Part IV: The School years The Developing Person

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT - cognitive competence, social comparison, observational studies PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT - step by step acquisition of new cognitive abilities, learned helplessness - aggression - steps of social problem solving - juvenile delinquents, family structure as determinant of success, poverty, neighborhood and residence - psychosocial domain - more risk factors = higher stress (rutter 1979)

- a child with a sense of inferiority in middle childhood is likely to continue problems unless adults change how child attributes success/failure -must have people who model good behavior - putting moral thinking into moral behavior - unreliable adults -developing coping competencies

  102  

Table 5: Summary of Research studies

STUDY Purpose, dates, location, context

Methods and data

Findings

Bridgeland, J; Dilulio, J; Morison, K.B (2006) The Silent Epidemic; perspectives of high school dropouts

- approach the dropout problem from the prospective of the students themselves - in depth picture of why they dropped out of high school and what would have helped them complete their education

- four focus groups of 467 ethnically and racially diverse 16-24 year olds who did not complete highs school

- 70 percent were confident they could have graduated if they had tried - low parental involvement - must Ensure that students have a strong relationship with at least one adult in the school - the decision is personal, reflects unique life circumstances - did not think of their future when deciding to drop out but wanted freedom or money right then

Herrera, C (2004) School-Based mentoring: A closer look

- The number of BBBS school-based matches grew from 27,000 in 1999 to 90,000 in 2002, an increase of 233 percent. This compares with an 8.7 percent increase in community-based matches—from 92,000 to 100,000 —during the same period.

- surveyed youth and teachers and beginning and end of 1999-2000 school year in BBBS of Delaware, BBBS of Green County in Tulsa, BBBS of North Florida - youth received some benefits but were limited and based on length of relationship

- none of the programs allowed summer contact between mentors - school staff instead of parents usually refer youth to SBM programs, referring needy students who lack parents support, reaching underserved groups of youth who have academic, social or behavioral problems - mentor-reported BBBS support was positively associated with mentors reports of relationship with youth -agency support for SBM programs is essential in creting long lasting mentoring relationships

Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, McMaken (2011) Mentoring in Schools: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring

- to create one of the first large scale experimental evaluation of SBM, which has the potential for the mentoring field to benefit youth during a developmental period when they are in need of relational and academic support - to highlight problems and areas still in need of improving - growing pressure to improve student performance, schools are looking outside for academically enriching programs

- 1,139 9-16 year old students in 10 cities nationwide - randomly assigned to treatment or control group - followed over 1.5 years - selected agencies based on specific criteria - hypothesized that SBM improves students social skills, helps a teacher focus on youth (reciprocal relationship) - outcome measures: school-related performance and attitudes, problem behaviors, social and personal well-being - no impacts on school connectedness, academic self esteem, college

- end of the first school year, relative to the control group, mentored youth performed better academically, more positive perceptions of their own academic abilities, were more likely to report having a ‘‘special adult’’ in their lives - highlights important limitations of program model as it is currently implemented. - ,academic impacts did not persist into the second school year after about half of the matches ended - no evidence at either assessment that SBM had effects on youth’s classroom effort, problem behaviors, or other indicators of their social and personal well- being including relationships with peers and adults and global self-esteem - many continuing matches had not interacted for a 4-month period, during the summer and beginning of the school year. This relationship disruption impeded whatever progress the match had made in the 1st year of their meetings - attrition among study participants over the course of the study such that final sample no longer included the

Jimerson, S et al (2000) A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across development

- demonstrates association of early home environment, quality of early care giving, SES, ,IQ, behavior problems, academic achievement, peer elations, and parent involvement - dropping out is a developmental process that begins before elementary school

- 177 children and familys (orginal sample of 267), classified in terms of high school graduation status

“Dropouts” (n ! 43). “Traditional” students (n ! 100). - early experiences may affect self esteem and sense of agency thatmay directly influence school performance and decisions to stay in school - lay foundations for behavioral control and relationships with teachers and pees that further propel along pathway towards dropping out - success in schools calls upon numerous capacities for self-regulation that begin to be formed in the early years

Karcher, M (2008) The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

-latino youth are the fastest growing population and also one of the most at-risk ethnic groups for

-516 predominately Latino students, 19 schools - Intent-to-treat main effects were tested using hierarchical

- small positive main effects on self-reported connectedness to peers, self esteem and social support from friends but not grades and social skills - the agency and schools could have supported the mentors in ways that

  103  

underachievement and drop-out -effects of multi-component programs

linear modeling might have facilitated stronger program impacts. Did not provide DuBois “best practices” that achieved the best results

National Mentoring Partnership’s Public Policy Council (2000) Mentoring School-Age Children: Relationship Development in Community-Based and School-Based Programs

- Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement -Outline range of mentoring programs that exist on a national level—goals, structure, infrastructure, general characteristics of volunteers and youth served - Investigated how emphases of SBM differ from traditional, community-based model and examine implications for programming, operations and interactions between mentors and youth.

- Surveyed 722 mentoring programs - Simple random sampling, structured telephone interview described mentors, mentees, training and support; assessed level of closeness - Program data on number of youth and mentors, costs, length of commitment, etc were gathered from program staff - Information from interviews used to develop program variables - Small number of programs for site visits -LISREL and regression analyses **Mentoring youth outcomes was not in the scope of the study

- SBM developed as part of two concurrent trends—the national school reform movement and a rapidly expanding mentoring field. - SBM report relationships with youth that are similar in quality to those observed among mentors in community-based programs. - Despite their operational and programmatic differences, 8/9 factors that identified as important, are important for both community-based SBM: engaging in social and academic activities, amount of time spent together, how decisions are made about activities, similarity in mentor and youth interests, prematch and postmatch training and support, age of the mentee. - good choices for investment by programs that have the following priorities: •Serving youth with school-related needs, particularly those in elementary school; •Attracting volunteers able to make only limited commitments of time and resources; •Attracting older adults, youth and minorities as volunteer mentors; and •Keeping program costs low. - Lack of flexibility presents a limitation of the SB model - Many school-based staff believe that being place-based may benefit SB programs by attracting mentors who would not typically mentor - the program decides how the match spends its time - value of academic activities in relationship formation

Tierney, J, Grossman, J.B, Resch, N.L (1995) Making a difference: an impact study of big brothers big sisters

- The first large scale evaluation of 8 BBBS sites that comprised 6% of mentoring partnerships - compare those who participated in BBBS to those who did not

- Randomized control trial, 10-16 year olds - 60% boys, half minority, almost all lived with one parents - six broad areas that was hypothesized to be affected by mentoring: antisocial activities; academic performance, attitudes and behaviors; relationships with family; relationships with friends; self-concept; and social and cultural enrichment.

- 46% less likely to initiate drug use, 27% less likely to initiate alcohol, 1/3 less likely to hit someone - Relationship quality with parents was better •volunteer screening weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment •Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship-building and recommendations on the best •Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze are best •Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent/guardian, volunteer and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise.

Tierney, J, Grossman, J.B, Resch, N.L (1995) Making a difference: an impact study of big brothers big sisters

- The first large scale evaluation of 8 BBBS sites that comprised 6% of mentoring partnerships - compare those who participated in BBBS to those who did not

- Randomized control trial, 10-16 year olds - 60% boys, half minority, almost all lived with one parents - six broad areas that was hypothesized to be affected by mentoring: antisocial activities; academic performance, attitudes and behaviors; relationships with family; relationships with friends; self-concept; and social and cultural enrichment.

- 46% less likely to initiate drug use, 27% less likely to initiate alcohol, 1/3 less likely to hit someone - Relationship quality with parents was better •volunteer screening weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment •Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship-building and recommendations on the best •Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze are best •Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent/guardian, volunteer and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise.

Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, Feiman (1994) The impact of school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth

- research whether school transition is associated with changes in school and peer contexts - impact on school transitions on the self system, on peer and school micro system transactions and changes in self-system as function of transition-associated changes in perceive peer and school Microsystems

- examined effects of normative school transition of 508 early adolescents - mixed demographics, poor black, white, Latino 3 eastern urban cities - data drawn from Adolescent Pathways Project (APP), a longitudinal study of youth in schools in Baltimore, Washington DC and New York city with high concentrations of poor children

- declines in self-esteem, class preparation, grades common across race ethnicity and gender - supports hypothesis that transition during adolescence increases disengagement from school - Developmental mismatch hypothesis- adolescence is an inopportune time to leave consistencies such as friends or teachers. It comes at a time when youth are trying to develop an identity

U.S. Department of Education (2009) Impact Evalluation of the U.S Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program

- Authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Section 4130 - competitive federal grant program managed by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools - addresses lack of supportive adults

- 32 selected school based mentoring programs, 2,573 students took part in the evaluation over one year - used a fixed effects model to examine subgroup differences and parsimonious model for testing site-level characteristics and impacts

- students were at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent activities, or who lack strong positive role models overwhelming majority of students and mentors had positive feelings about their mentoring relationships - Students in the treatment group did not report statistically significant differences in interpersonal relationships, personal responsibility, and community involvement at the end of the spring school term relative to students in the control group

Young, C; Lovel, L (2002) Breaking the cycle of behavioral failure with mentoring; a tertiary intervention

- red zone mentoring - school was not set up to handle this many students with behavioral issues - cycle of failure

- compare data to pilot school study - 82 students, 18 in special ed, 6% of school population

- mentoring program based on building resiliency - model of resiliency in schools, Henderson & Milstein (2003) - 24 of 28 students had reductions in office discipline referrals - 12 of 28 students NEVER earned another office discipline referral during the test phase.