Showing posts with label Ammo Supporting Mentoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ammo Supporting Mentoring. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2015

College Grads: Mentors = Game Changers



By Jean Rhodes September 13, 2015

The field of mentoring owes a great debt to the Gallup-Purdue Index, a study whose goal is to “to conduct the largest representative study of college graduates in United States history.” To date, the team has surveyed 60,000 college graduates, resulting in a 2014 report and another report to be released in the coming weeks. The 2014 report highlights the vital role of mentors in college students’ graduation, ongoing engagement in work, and overall wellbeing.
As the lead author notes,  “We learned that if graduates felt “supported” during college — by professors who cared, made them excited about learning and who encouraged them to pursue their goals and dreams — their odds of being engaged in work more than doubled, as did their odds of thriving in their well-being. This finding was true of graduates of all ages and years of graduation; in other words, it’s a career- and life-trajectory game changer.”
In the more recent report, life success was determined by conventional markers (e.g., employment, salary) as well as students’ reports about their satisfaction with 
·         their relationships,
·         their physical health,
·         their community,
·         their economic situation
·         and their sense of purpose.

Once again, college mentors emerged as a key factor accounting for better outcomes overall and greater satisfaction. In particular, as previewed by Frank Bruni in a recent NYTimes column,  satisfaction was predicted, in part by students’ college experience, including whether or not the student
·         developed a relationship with a mentor;
·         took on a project that lasted a semester or more;
·         did a job or internship directly connected to their chosen field;
·         or became deeply involved in a campus organization or activity 

Although readers are cautioned to consider the self-selection biases inherent in survey’s of this nature (i.e., better students seek out mentors and deep involvement in projects), the report found that these effects emerged regardless of the students’ personality.  
Unfortunately,  less than a quarter of national graduates strongly agreed that had received the support of mentors who encouraged them to pursue their goals and dreams . Given the vital influence of mentors for educational achievement, career success, and overall life satisfaction, we need to both teach students to “fish” for a support and to stock the pond with caring adults. Here are a few suggestions.
1.    Teach students to “fish”–although star students will always find their way to faculty mentors, many students are left behind. Some simply don’t see the value or are too busy. Others feel less entitled or are too embarrassed. To resolve this, colleges should provide training in the skills necessary to do so. Along these lines, my colleagues and I have been developing and evaluating a semester-long course in social networking for college students.
2.    Stock the pond–College networks include many caring adults–not just professors but academic staff, graduate students, advisors, alumni, parents, and others who can serve in this capacity. With additional structure, encouragement, incentives, and training, the the true caring potential of college campuses can be more fully realized.
As the Gallup data, mentors are a key active ingredient in college success, and their influence pays forward across the lifetime. As such, we cannot leave this ingredient to chance. Learning how to recruit and effectively engage with mentors and other caring adults, and how to build what Murphy and Kram refer to as a “developmental network,”  is every bit as important as learning many other subjects, perhaps even more so.

Ret. 9-18-15

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Most Viewed 2014 Posts from the Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring, II

We decided to repost the most viewed. Here is the second.















By  April 15, 2014

To disclose or not to disclose?

Edited by Renée Spencer
Editor’s Note: Much like therapists, mentors are often confronted with making decisions – often on the spot – about what kind of information to share with their mentees and when. Laura Yoviene’s summary of a recent review article on therapist self-disclosure offers some insights and food for thought for tackling the sometimes thorny issues associated with self-disclosure that can also arise in mentoring relationships.
Henretty, J., & Levitt, H. (2010). The role of therapist self-disclosure in psychotherapy: A qualitative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 63-77. (Summarized by University of Massachusetts at Boston Clinical Psychology Student, Laura Yoviene).
The role of therapist self-disclosure and implications for mentoring relationships
Summary:
In this article, Henretty and Levitt review the long-standing and sometimes conflicted literature on therapist self-disclosure. In contrast to the once prominent belief that therapists should be a “blank screen” for their clients, recent reviews have shown that over 90% of therapists self-disclose to their clients. In light of this, Henretty and Levitt conducted a meta-analytic review of the research on self-disclosure and offer some recommendations for therapists as they consider the potential risks and benefits of this practice and discern to whom, why, when, in what form to self-disclose.
What is self-disclosure?
There are mixed opinions on the definition of therapist self-disclosure but in general it can be viewed as any self-revealing statement made by the clinician (e.g., Cozy, 1973; Weiner, 1983; Wheeless, 1976) ranging from demographic information to the sharing of a mutual experience, such as the loss of a loved one.
Risks and benefits:
Overall, therapist self-disclosure is found to be an effective intervention strategy in that it has been shown to have positive effects on clients such as:
  • clients having a stronger affection for therapists that self-disclose
  • clients perceived therapists as warmer
  • clients self-disclosed more themselves

In contrast, unwillingness to disclose personal information, or non-disclosure, can be experienced by the client as rude, hostile, uncaring, evasive, and tantalizing and have detrimental effects on the therapeutic alliance, a crucial aspect in psychotherapy outcomes (Gatson, 1990; Gelso & Carter, 1985; Orlinsky & Howard, 1986; Truax & Mitchell, 1971; Wolfe & Goldfried, 1988).
Multiple considerations for self-disclosure:
To whom?
The review of the empirical evidence indicates that self-disclosure may be the most beneficial for clients with whom therapists already have a strong/positive relationship or clients who share membership in the same small community (i.e. LGBT community). Discretion should be taken working with clients with poor boundaries and self-identity issues.
What?
Information that may be the most appropriate to self-disclose includes the following:
  • demographic information (education, orientation, professional, and marital status)
  • feelings and thoughts about the client/relationship
  • relevant past struggles that have been resolved
  • similarities between client and therapist

When?
The timing of self-disclosure is an important consideration. Early self-disclosure can help relieve clients’ apprehensions, build alliance and rapport, but such disclosures should be limited to low intimacy information early-on while clients’ are acclimating to relationship (Geller, 2003). Self-disclosure can also be useful during termination stage of treatment to facilitate the separation and closure process.
Why?
Therapists should have a clear rational for choosing to self-disclose, such as
  • promoting client self-disclosure
  • fostering the therapeutic relationship/alliance
  • encouraging clients’ autonomy and facilitating client self-exploration
  • normalizing and promoting feelings of universality
  • equalizing power
  • assisting clients in identifying and labeling their emotions
  • showing similarities
  • building client self-esteem

How?
Self-disclosures need to be tailored to meet the needs of the individual client, made in light of a clear understanding of these needs (i.e., a need for information vs. a need for connectedness). The particular farming and wording of self-disclosures should also be based on individual client needs. Returning the focus to the client after a disclosure is important as is using self-disclosure sparingly.
Implications for Mentoring:
Although the boundaries are not as clearly and firmly drawn in mentoring relationships as they are in therapy relationships, mentors must also carefully consider what, when, and how to disclose personal information to their mentees. As with therapy relationships, self-disclosure may strengthen an already positive mentoring relationship and revealing similarities with the youth, such as membership in a minority community, or past struggles that they have successfully worked through may serve to normalize the mentee’s feelings and strengthen the mentor-mentee bond.
Some early self-disclosure is likely to be important for alleviating a youth’s initial apprehensions about the relationship, equalizing power, and encouraging the youth to share personal information with the mentor. As the relationship progresses, mentor self-disclosure may model and help facilitate the youth’s own self-exploration, encourage the identification and labeling of difficult emotions, and help to build the youth’s self-esteem.
As in therapy relationships, effective self-disclosure in mentoring relationships also requires certain interpersonal skills, such as tact, timing, patience, humility, perseverance, and sensitivity. The current review’s indication that role-play with self-disclosure is an effective training technique for therapists is worthy of consideration for mentor training as well.
http://chronicle.umbmentoring.org/to-disclose-or-not-to-disclose/ 
Ret. 12-23-14

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Most Viewed 2014 Posts from the Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring, I

We decided to repost the most viewed ones, beginning with the first.



By  June 24, 2013

New study highlights the benefits of serving as a mentor

  MentorGhosh, R. & Reio, T.G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior83, 106-116.
Background: Participation in workplace mentoring relationships is associated with a wealth of benefits for mentees. To date, however, few studies have considered potential benefits that mentors might derive from these relationships. Across the few studies that have explored mentor outcomes, there remains limited cohesive understanding of the ways in which mentors benefit from mentoring. In the current study, researchers sought to explore and synthesize studies investigating the benefits of mentoring for mentors within workplace mentoring relationships. 
Method: Through use of meta-analytic design (see Chronicle post by Dr. Adar Ben-Eliyahu), researchers focused on studies that explored positive outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intent) related to mentors’ provision of psychosocial and career support, and role modeling to their mentees
  • Psychosocial support functions: include‘ “aspects of a relationship that enhance an individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role…include acceptance and confirmation, counseling, friendship, and role modeling (p.107).” ’
  • Career support functions: include “providing sponsorship, coaching, exposure and visibility, protection and challenging work assignments (p.107).”
  • Role modeling functions: include mentors’ behavior, attitudes, values and professional identity, which may be emulated by the protĂ©gĂ©
Results: Compared to colleagues who did not mentor, individuals who served as mentorswithin their workplace reported greater job satisfaction and commitment to the organization. In addition, higher quality relationships were associated with even greater benefits.
While all three types of mentor support (psychosocial, career and role modeling) were related to positive mentor benefits, distinctions also emerged. Mentors who engaged in career support perceived that they had greater career success, mentors who engaged in psychosocial support reported being more committed to their workplace, and mentors who engaged in role modeling support reported better job performance.
Implications:
In this meta-analysis, being a mentor was associated with several positive outcomes including greater perceived career success, job performance and satisfaction, as well as more perceived connectedness to one’s organization. While a causal relationship cannot be concluded from the study’s results (i.e., being a mentor leads to these benefits), the findings from this study underscore the need to consider the mentor’s perspective, particularly consideration of the ways the mentoring relationship, a largely collaborative endeavor, influences both the mentee and mentor.
The findings from this study have implications for youth mentoring, specifically the need for both researchers and practitioners to consider potential mentor outcomes in more direct ways. For example, a systematic analysis of mentor benefits within youth mentoring could present a comprehensive picture of current findings as well as potential gaps that could be addressed in future research.
In addition, evaluations should examine the potential benefits to mentors, include the capacity of relationships to enhance a mentor’s attachment to a particular community. Highlighting potential benefits may serve as an incentive for individuals who might be in a pre-contemplative stage. The researchers note, “awareness of mentoring benefits may motivate mentors beyond the pro-social nature of their personality.”

http://chronicle.umbmentoring.org/new-study-highlights-the-benefits-of-serving-as-a-mentor/

Ret. 12-23-14






Monday, October 13, 2014

Corporate Case for Mentoring...







                                                 

from The Huffington Post

There's no doubt we have a rapidly changing economy and a labor force undergoing dramatic shifts, but we also operate on a proven principle that support and connection leads to opportunity and productivity. Right now, there is an untapped pool of nearly six million 16-24 year olds - 1 in 7 youth - who are neither in school nor working. This is a failure of our society's ability to provide support and connection in moments big and small during a young person's development. But it is anything but a lost cause. It is not only an issue of our country's principles but also an economic one. Reconnecting these aptly named opportunity youth has the potential to return to society $93 billion annually in recovered wages, taxes, and social services and strengthen the talent pipeline.
To begin making those connections, we must shift employers' perceptions about opportunity youth and that's exactly what the Grads of Life campaign seeks to do. Grads of Life is a multimedia effort launched by a group of nonprofits, including MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership, designed to move hiring managers to reconsider the prototype of the "ideal" job candidate. It will also arm them with the tools to offer the very opportunities and support that will return for employers and these dynamic employees. Created in collaboration with the Ad Council, the campaign features TV and radio public services announcements, print advertising and an interactive website with resources to help companies reimagine the hiring and onboarding process. The website includes a directory of organizations that strive to prepare young people for work, and employer testimonials that bring their efforts to life.
Mentoring is one of the four pathways to employment for opportunity youth identified in the Grads of Life campaign. Corporate mentoring is a critical ingredient in the mix of approaches desperately needed to widen the pipeline of talent while also strengthening the current workforce. In fact, studies have shown that 87 percent of employees feel greater loyalty to socially engaged employers and 75 percent of executives believe that a corporate volunteer program significantly impacts a company's ability to recruit and retain talented employees and enhance the company's image as an "employer of choice". Employees also say that volunteering builds skills, makes them feel more pride in their business, increases motivation and leads to higher job satisfaction.
Major national corporations are already leveraging this strategy and tapping into this talent pool. EY's College MAP program pairs employees in 23 cities with high school students to help them navigate the application and financial aid process, provides access to resources, and exposes them to the benefits of higher education. More than 90 percent of students who have participated in College MAP have enrolled in a two- or four-year institution. Smaller business, such as Coastway Community Bank, can also have a significant impact with an equal return on their commitment. The bank has invested 20 years of employee time and financial contributions to mentoring. A full one-fifth of the 150 employees mentor in local schools each year.
Private-sector engagement in mentoring youth and young employees is a smart investment in boosting labor force participation rates and increasing our nation's ability to compete in the 21st century global economy. Opportunity youth may not be your typical candidates but their unique and diverse experiences qualify them as grads of life, who, given the connection and support we should all be afforded, are eager to prove themselves and succeed no matter the headwinds.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Adverse Childhood Experiences

What is an adverse childhood experience? Some of us refer to these experiences as youth risk. Read excerpts below and then go to the eleven-age brief, complete with tables. The number of Oklahoma youths with adverse childhood experiences is more ammunition for the need for mentors.

Thanks to the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) for sharing this.









OVERVIEW

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events that can have 
negative, lasting effects on health and well-being.¹ These experiences range from physical, 
emotional, or sexual abuse to parental divorce or the incarceration of a parent or guardian. 
A growing body of research has sought to quantify the prevalence of adverse childhood 
experiences and illuminate their connection with negative behavioral and health outcomes, such as obesity, alcoholism, and depression, later in life. 

However, prior research has not reported on the prevalence of ACEs among children in a nationally representative, non-clinical sample.² In this brief, we describe the prevalence of one or more ACEs among children ages birth through 17, as reported by their parents, using nationally representative data from the 2011/12 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). We estimate the prevalence of eight specific ACEs for the U.S., contrasting the prevalence of specific ACEs among the states and between children of different age groups. 


KEY FINDINGS
  • Economic hardship is the most common adverse childhood experience (ACE) reported nationally and in almost all states, followed by divorce or separation of a parent or guardian. Only in Iowa, Michigan, and Vermont is divorce or separation more common than economic hardship; in the District of Columbia, having been the victim of or witness to violence has the second-highest prevalence, after economic hardship.
  • The prevalence of ACEs increases with a child’s age (parents were asked whether their child had “ever” had the experience), except for economic hardship, reported about equally for children of all ages, reflecting high levels of poverty among young families.
  • Abuse of alcohol or drugs, exposure to neighborhood violence, and the occurrence of mental illness are among the most commonly-reported adverse childhood experiences in every state.
  • Just under half (46 percent) of children in the U.S. have experienced at least one ACE. In16 states, a slight majority of children have experienced at least one ACE. In Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey, 60 percent or more of children have never experienced an ACE.
  • States vary in the pattern of specific ACEs. Connecticut and New Jersey have some of the lowest prevalence rates nationally for all ACEs, while Oklahoma has consistently high prevalence.
MEASUREMENT OF ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES

We measured the prevalence of eight adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), consisting of whether the child ever: 

1. Lived with a parent or guardian who got divorced or separated; 

2. Lived with a parent or guardian who died;

3. Lived with a parent or guardian who served time in jail or prison;

4. Lived with anyone who was mentally ill or suicidal, or severely depressed for more than a couple of weeks;

5. Lived with anyone who had a problem with alcohol or drugs;

6. Witnessed a parent, guardian, or other adult in the household behaving violently toward another (e.g., slapping, hitting, kicking, punching, or beating each other up);

7. Was ever the victim of violence or witnessed any violence in his or her neighborhood; and

8. Experienced economic hardship “somewhat often” or “very often” (i.e., the family found it hard to cover costs of food and housing).

State-Level Variation in the Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences 

Research has found that the highest levels of risk for negative outcomes are associated with 
having experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).³,⁴ Table 1 shows the number of ACEs parents reported for their child, by state. Nationally, a slight majority of children have not experienced any ACEs, but in 16 states more than half of children have experienced at least one ACE. In Montana and Oklahoma, 17 percent of children have experienced three or more ACEs. Some studies suggest that the experience of four or more ACES is a threshold above which there is a particularly higher risk of negative physical and mental health outcomes.⁵,⁶ Prevalence at this threshold is lowest in New Jersey and New York, at around three percent, and highest in OklahomaMontana, and West Virginia, at 10 to 12 percent (data not shown in Table). 

[Tables omitted in blog.]

Economic Hardship is the Most Common Adverse Childhood Experience

By far, the most common ACEs in all 50 states are economic hardship, and parental divorce or separation (Table 2). Nationally, just over one in four children ages birth through 17 has experienced economic hardship somewhat or very often. Only in Iowa, Michigan, and Vermont is divorce more prevalent than economic hardship (in Wyoming and Oklahoma they are equally prevalent). In most states (45), living with a parent who has an alcohol- or drug-use problem is the third-most-prevalent ACE (national prevalence is about one in ten children). Death of a parent is experienced by three percent of children nationally and is relatively rare in all states: only in the District of Columbia and Mississippi is prevalence greater than five percent (seven and six percent, respectively). 

The Prevalence of Specific Adverse Childhood Experiences Varies by Age (Except for Economic Hardship)

The prevalence of most ACEs naturally increases by age, since parents were asked whether their child had “ever” had the experience. As Table 3 shows, older children are more likely than younger children to have ever experienced each of the adverse childhood experiences, except for economic hardship, which is reported for 25 to 26 percent of children regardless of age. This reflects the high rates of poverty experienced by families with young children. 

Divorce is the second-most-common ACE experienced by children in each age group. About 
equal numbers of children ages birth to five have lived with someone who has an alcohol or 
drug problem, or have lived with someone with mental illness. Living with someone with an 
alcohol or drug-use problem is reported among 12 percent of 6- to 11-year-olds and 15 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds. One in seven 12- to 17-year-olds (14 percent) was the victim of, or witness to, neighborhood violence.

State-level rates for specific ACEs vary greatly for a given age group. For example, in the District of Columbia, 32 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds have experienced violence, compared with 14 percent nationally and 10 percent in Connecticut. In Mississippi, 15 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds, and nine percent of children under five, have witnessed domestic violence in their home, compared with national rates of ten and four percent, respectively. 

States in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles for Each Adverse Childhood Experience

Identifying which states fall into the highest and lowest quartiles of the distribution of prevalence 
rates provides another perspective on state-level variation. Although, as Table 3 shows, the states with the highest and lowest prevalence vary by ACE and by age group, some states stand out as having consistently high or low prevalence. 

Two states–Connecticut and New Jersey–have rates in the lowest quartile for all eight ACEs, whereas has rates in the highest quartile for all ACEs (see Table 4). Other states have consistently high or low prevalence, relatively speaking, across most, but not all, ACEs. For example, Virginia is in the lowest quartile for all ACEs, except for the death of a parent, for which prevalence falls around the national average. Michigan is among the states with the highest prevalence for three ACES: ever lived with someone with mental illness, ever had a parent in jail, and ever lived with a parent who divorced or separated. However, Michigan is also among the states with the lowest prevalence of having witnessed domestic violence, and around the national average for all other ACEs. Policymakers may benefit from taking a closer look at the prevalence of specific adverse experiences among the children in their own state. 

Potentially traumatic experiences are common among U.S. children, with more than one in four having been exposed to economic hardship, even in the first five years of life. One in five has experienced parental divorce or separation, and one in ten has lived in a household where an adult has an alcohol or drug problem. More troubling still, more than one in ten children nationally—and, in a few states, about one in six—has experienced three or more adverse experiences. These findings have important implications for children’s health and well-being, including the need for increased attention to the early detection and treatment of children affected by trauma, as well as to the conditions in families and communities that contribute to adverse development

Download the PDF for the brief at the link below.

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brief-adverse-childhood-experiences_FINAL.pdf 

Ret. 8-29-14

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Mentoring Effect Report: Definitions

Defining methodology and terms:


THE MENTORING EFFECT

The Mentoring Effect: Young People’s Perspectives on the Outcomes and Availability of Mentoring was commissioned by MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership with support from AT&T, and written by Civic Enterprises in partnership with Hart Research. This report is informed by the first-ever nationally representative survey of 1,109 young people on the topic of mentoring, as well as a literature and landscape review with insight from a variety of experts from the mentoring and youth development field.


Methodology


A nationally representative survey was conducted by Hart Research Associates. A total of 1,109 young adults ages 18 to 21 participated in this survey in July and August 2013. To reach out broadly to this highly mobile and technologically savvy group, young adults were contacted and interviewed in three ways: by telephone (landline and cell phone), online, and through in-person interviews. The in-person interviews were conducted with 102 “at-risk” young adults, who tend to be more difficult to reach using traditional survey methods. To reach this highly mobile group, researchers conducted the in-person interviews at 10 diverse locations in four regions across the United States. None of the “at-risk” young adults interviewed in-person completed a college degree. Slight weights were applied to ensure that the sample matched characteristics of young adults in the United States. We are confident that the survey sample, once weighted, represents a true national sample of young adults ages 18 to 21.


At-Risk Youth


There is no field consensus for what factors make a youth “at-risk.” For purposes of this survey, an at-risk youth is a respondent who is, at the time of taking the survey, disconnected (out of school and out of work) and/or has experienced any of the risk factors reflected in the survey screening tool that have been identified as barriers for achieving economic and social mobility. This term was not defined for survey respondents. Respondents were asked if they experienced these conditions (risk factors) when they were in middle or high school:


  • Incarcerated parent or guardian
  • Regular absenteeism
  • Poor academic performance
  • Behavioral problems in school
  • Delinquency
  • Teenage pregnancy
  • Homelessness

 

Informal/Unstructured v. Formal/Structured Mentoring

The survey considered two different types of mentoring relationships and defined these terms for survey respondents. In both structured and informal mentoring relationships, the adult is supportive and works with the young person to build a relationship by offering guidance, support, and encouragement to help the young person's positive and healthy development over a period of time.”

Informal/Unstructured: In this type of mentoring an adult comes into a young person's life and they naturally develop an informal mentoring relationship. The adult could be a friend of the family or a teacher with whom the young person maintains a relationship outside of the classroom.

Formal/Structured: In this type of mentoring an organization like a school, a community group, or a faith-based organization matches an adult with a young person with whom they develop a relationship in a structured manner through regular meetings and activities. An example of a structured mentoring program is Big Brothers Big Sisters.

http://www.mentoring.org/mentoringeffect/fact_sheet/

Ret. 2-14-14

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Monday, February 17, 2014

Report Supporting Mentoring: The Mentoring Effect 2014

Report from MENTOR, the National Mentoring Partnership...


The Mentoring Effect: Young People’s Perspectives on the Outcomes and Availability of Mentoring


The Mentoring Effect is a compelling new report informed by the first-ever nationally representative survey of young people on the topic of both informal and formal mentoring, as well as a literature and landscape review and insights from a variety of key leaders in business, philanthropy, government, and education. The report was commissioned by MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership with support from AT&T, and written by Civic Enterprises in partnership with Hart Research.

The findings of this report are consistent with a powerful mentoring effect as demonstrated by the life experiences of the young people surveyed and mentoring’s link to improved academic, social and economic prospects. This mentoring effect is growing and, if harnessed, it has the potential to help meet a range of national challenges and strengthen our communities and economy.

The survey found that 4.5 million at-risk young people will be matched in mentoring relationships through mentoring programs while they are growing up. In the early 1990s an estimated 300,000 at-risk young people had a structured mentoring relationship. Another 10.5 million at-risk young people have informal mentoring relationships with teachers, coaches, extended family members or neighbors.

Despite this positive trend, one in three young people surveyed did not have a mentor while they were growing up.




Applying their experiences to the U.S. Census demographics for 8-18 year olds, it is projected that 16 million young people, including 9 million at risk young people, will reach adulthood without connecting with a mentor of any kind.



The survey also showed that with each additional risk factor a young person experiences, the less likely he or she is to connect with an informal mentor. This finding suggests a systemic shift to leverage quality mentoring programs to introduce mentors to young people who face a greater number of risk factors is a powerful and necessary strategy.


Mentoring’s Connection to Aspirations and Outcomes


The experiences of the young people surveyed showed significant positive outcomes for those who had a mentor. At-risk young people with mentors were more likely to aspire to attend and to enroll in college. They were more likely to report participating in sports and other extracurricular activities. They were also were more likely to report taking leadership roles in school and extracurricular activities and to regularly volunteer in their communities.



Paths Forward


With input from industry stakeholders and thought-leaders, the report outlines opportunities for the public, private and philanthropic sectors to systemically integrate mentoring as a key youth development strategy. The report describes a series of paths forward that would lead to a society where all young people have access to a quality mentoring relationship and the support they need to succeed in school, work and life. The recommendations include strategies to:


  • Utilize mentoring to address national challenges.
  • Ensure that young people most in need have a quality mentoring relationship.
  • Expand local, state and federal public policies that advance quality mentoring.
  • Ensure all structured mentoring is quality mentoring.
  • Support and increase private sector engagement in mentoring.
  • Facilitate connections between research and practice.
  • Explore innovations to close the mentoring gap.

http://www.mentoring.org/mentoringeffect 

Ret. 2-14-14

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The Drop Out Crisis

Another excerpt from SNAPSHOT: Youth Mentoring Research and Outcomes



The Dropout Crisis
Nationwide, nearly onethird of high school students fail to graduate. In total, approximately 1.3


million students drop out each year — averaging 7,200 every school day. Among minority students,


the problem is even more severe with almost 50 percent of African-American and Hispanic students


not completing high school on schedule.  


Experts say that dropping out of high school affects not just students and their families, but also the

country overall — including businesses, government and communities. The Alliance for Excellent

Education estimates that high school dropouts from the class of 2006-07 will cost the U.S. more
than $329 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity over their lifetimes.  Experts also say that

those who drop out are more likely to be incarcerated, rely on public programs and social services



and go without health insurance than youth who graduate from high school.
 
In summary, high school dropouts are:
  • Less likely to have a job or earn less, on average, than high school graduates;

  • Less likely to have health insurance than those with more education and more likely to depend on Medicaid or Medicare for their coverage;

  • More likely to depend on public assistance; and

  • More likely to be incarcerated. 2

2 Social and Fiscal Consequences of the Dropout Crisis. (Updated, 2009). Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University.

Excerpt from:
http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Snapshot%20on%20Mentoring%20FINAL_April%202013.pdf  

Ret. 10-11-13




Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Return on Mentoring Investment


SNAPSHOT: Youth Mentoring Research and Outcomes

Mentoring is a youth development strategy that is a proven foundational asset for a young person’s


successful path to adulthood. It is also effectively used as an intervention strategy to redirect a
young person’s life toward a healthy and productive future. In both cases, the results save taxpayer
dollars and fuel the economy. In fact, recent research demonstrates that


for every dollar invested in effective

mentoring programs, there is a return of $2.72.



This positive return on investment reflects projected increases in lifetime earnings gained by 

leading atrisk youth down the path to becoming productive adult citizens, as well as dollars saved 

through evidencebased mentoringrelated outcomes, such as reduced juvenile delinquency and 

crime, improved school attendance, higher graduation rates, and lowered risk of youth involvement 

in costly behaviors such as drug, alcohol and tobacco use.


In addition, effective mentoring programs also report significant increases among youth served in

self-confidence, self-efficacy and a positive attitude about their futures. 1


1

Anton, P.,Wilder Research & Temple, Judy, Univ. of Minnesota, “Social Return on Investment in Youth Mentoring Programs,” March 2007



An excerpt from
http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/Snapshot%20on%20Mentoring%20FINAL_April%202013.pdf