Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring

programs of all sizes and funders from every sector in creating, sustaining, and improving mentoring relationships because they are critical assets in young people’s ability to thrive and strive. David Shapiro President and CEO, MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership Mike Garringer Director of Knowledge Management, MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership 1 National Mentoring Working Group. (1990). Elements of Effective Practice. Philadelphia, PA: United Way of America. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 4 ABOUT THE 4TH EDITION DEVELOPMENT For the fourth edition of the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring™, the Steering Committee had several goals in mind: • Reviewing new research to identify potential best practices and promising innovations in service delivery • Engaging a wide variety of mentoring program staff members, researchers, and technical assistance providers to ensure that the new edition reflected the best current ideas and trends in the field • Revising old Benchmarks and Enhancements with updated information and research, while creating entirely new Benchmarks and Enhancements to keep pace with innovations in programming that have emerged To meet these goals, our Steering Committee—comprised of representatives from MENTOR, the University of Massachusetts-Boston and MENTOR Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring (CEBM), and innovation Research & Training (iRT)—undertook the following process starting in the Fall of 2014: 1. Conducting a literature review. This review consisted of over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles and organizational research reports. We emphasized the findings of over 80 research articles published since the release of the third edition of the Elements. (A full description of our research methodology is available at the end of this document.) 2. Developing a first draft. The new research was the basis for the first draft. Old Benchmarks and Enhancements were revised or eliminated, while new ones were developed, as needed. 3. Reflecting and refining with an Advisory Committee. A select group of researchers, practitioners, and representatives from MENTOR’s network of affiliate Mentoring Partnerships reviewed each section, providing input on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of cited research and ensuring that the recommendations for practice addressed child safety concerns and were achievable by programs. 4. Engaging a broader set of stakeholders. A second draft was reviewed by over 70 attendees of a Short Course on the new Elements that was sponsored by the Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring and MENTOR and held at the 2015 National Mentoring Summit. A subsequent draft was presented in a web conference to the entire Mentoring Partnership network to ensure that the new practices fit the expertise and experiences of these leading technical assistance providers. 5. Finalizing and approval. The Advisory Committee met one last time in the spring of 2015 to provide their final input on the version presented here. 5 ABOUT THE 4TH EDITION The end result is a fourth edition that contains more nuance around the delivery of mentoring services, as well as a greater emphasis on youth and parent voices in the mentoring relationship. We have also emphasized the safety of the young person, with several new Benchmarks and Enhancements added to ensure that screening, relationship monitoring, and match closure are handled in a way that maximizes youth safety. This edition blends the latest research with the best practitioner wisdom and input, and should provide mentoring programs of all types with a roadmap for how to strengthen their services. We also encourage policymakers and funders to use the Elements as standards when making decisions about supporting youth mentoring programs or integrating mentors into broader youth development efforts. USING THIS RESOURCE As with the third edition, the fourth is primarily built around six core Standards of practice: 1) Recruitment, 2) Screening, 3) Training, 4) Matching and Initiation, 5) Monitoring and Support, and 6) Closure. These Standards cover the aspects of mentoring programs that directly support their mentoring relationships. We have also provided a Program Planning and Management section that offers recommendations for designing and strengthening youth mentoring services and providing high-quality oversight and leadership. Benchmarks and Enhancements Benchmarks are practices that mentoring programs must follow in order to meet the Standard. Two criteria were used to determine whether a practice should be considered a Benchmark: 1) evidence suggesting the practice is associated with effective mentoring relationships, and 2) whether the practice is designed to protect the safety of mentees across programs. Enhancements are practices that are not required for programs to implement in order for the program to be in compliance with a Standard. The Enhancements are practices that do not meet the criteria described above for Benchmarks, but which were determined to be promising, innovative, and useful for mentoring programs. Recommendations from practitioners and researchers, as well as research from fields related to mentoring such as social work, clinical psychology, volunteerism, and positive youth development, were the primary sources of Enhancements. Justifications and Exceptions Detailed justifications are provided to support the inclusion of each practice as a Benchmark. For many of the Benchmarks, the justification also includes a review of the research evidence for that practice. Notable exceptions to the Benchmarks are also described. Most of the exceptions are relevant for program models that differ from traditional community-based youth mentoring programs, such as exceptions for school-based or site-based mentoring program models. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 6 CONSIDERING THE ELEMENTS ACROSS DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMS No two programs will look at the Benchmarks and Enhancements in this fourth edition in quite the same way. Often, the setting or the population served will influence how a program considers implementing each Benchmark and the importance they place on various practices. The following examples illustrate how programs of different types might have different takeaways and points of emphasis: • A school-based program supporting the transition to middle school might emphasize the Benchmarks and Enhancements around pre-match training so that mentors are prepared to offer meaningful advice and aren’t caught off-guard by the stressfulness of this transition point for mentees. This program might also pay special attention to the new Enhancements around closure, hoping to ensure that all mentees end their relationship on a positive note so as to not trigger or increase feelings of disconnectedness from school. • A career-exploration and internship mentoring program for high school students might find value in the recommendations around monitoring and supporting matches, especially in checking in with worksite supervisors or other third parties who can help identify struggling matches. This program might also be excited about some of the new Enhancements around youth-initiated mentoring, hoping to teach mentees how to identify future mentors upon entering the workforce. • A program serving youth aging out of the foster care system may follow the Benchmarks on mentor recruitment to better identify mentors who will stick through this critical juncture for mentees leaving care. They might also emphasize some of the more rigorous screening practices to ensure that their mentees are safe and don’t experience additional abuses or trauma at the hands of unqualified mentors. • A group mentoring program serving boys at risk of dropping out of high school might think carefully around how those groups are created (Matching and Initiation) and how the experience of individual participants will be monitored and supported, something that can be overlooked in a group model. They may also think about how the Benchmarks on match closure apply, since the group dynamic can make closure more complicated (one mentor or mentee leaves the group, several members leave at once, groups get reassigned, etc.). There are infinite variations on how programs of different types will find value in these Standards. We encourage programs to keep an open mind about the evidence and advice in this edition and to think creatively about how they can meet or modify these practices for optimal effectiveness in their unique program circumstances. 7 ABOUT THE 4TH EDITION APPLYING THE ELEMENTS TO YOUR PROGRAM One of the mentoring field’s great strengths is the diversity of programs and settings where mentors work with youth together. Since the Elements was first developed in 1990, mentoring has grown from being primarily a one-on-one community-based intervention to one that is delivered in a variety of settings and institutions (e.g., schools, clubs, clinical settings, online) and in myriad configurations (e.g., groups of youth working with one or more mentors, multiple adults working with one youth, mentor-mentee pairs working in a group setting). In many ways, each and every program is unique, which can make developing a set of guidelines that are globally applicable—as we’ve attempted here—a challenge. When creating this edition, we primarily considered the needs of one-to-one mentoring matches that work in either community- or site-based settings. We recognize that programs with different structures or models may need to think carefully about how particular Benchmarks or Enhancements apply to the delivery of their services. This will be particularly true for mentoring programs that are embedding in their mentoring relationships within broader youth development programs or even clinical services. (See the sidebar for examples of how different types of programs might emphasize different aspects of the Elements.) We attempt to clarify some of these situational nuances in the Justification and Exceptions sections, which provide additional information about how to meet these Standards in different types of programs and when certain Benchmarks or Enhancements may be relaxed. When considering the guidance in this edition, we encourage programs to think carefully about their program’s theory of change and the logic model that articulates their actions and outcomes. Please see “The Critical Importance of a Theory of Change” for more information about this basic building block of program success. Regardless of your program’s model and setting, when using the guidance in this edition, we encourage you to ask questions such as: • What would we need to change for our program to meet a particular Benchmark? • Would a particular Enhancement add value to our program or increase participant safety? • How much effort would go into changing a practice? Is that feasible, or even desirable, for our program? • If we are unable to meet a Benchmark or implement an Enhancement, how would we justify that to a stakeholder in our program? While we feel that these Benchmarks and Enhancements represent the ideal program delivery based on the latest research and practice wisdom, we also recognize that there is room for innovation in the field. We strongly encourage mentoring programs to deliver their services in innovative and creative ways, evaluating the effectiveness of these new approaches along the way. Indeed, that’s the process that led to many of the new guidelines in this edition. To honor this ever-evolving field, MENTOR will continue to update and revise these Elements as new information and research becomes available. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 8 THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF A THEORY OF CHANGE If there is one “best practice” that cuts across almost all of the advice and research-informed information in the fourth edition, it is that every mentoring program must have a theory of change that explains how the mentoring services, and the activities that mentors and mentees engage in, will result in the desired outcomes at the participant and community/institution level. A good theory of change should: • Illustrate how the program’s work is designed to explicitly bring about change, as well as other external factors that influence program effectiveness. • Explicitly show how a program, through the work of a mentor, achieves meaningful and measurable results. • Draw on relevant research and theory, illustrating the validity of the program design and how the services align with local needs, contexts, and circumstances. MENTOR feels strongly that every mentoring program needs to have this core framing document in place, as it essentially influences every decision a program makes moving forward (this is why it is included in the Planning and Program Design section beginning on page 77). A logic model can further illustrate this action by showing the inputs, outputs, and short- and long- term outcomes that result from implementing the program. These types of graphical representations of program services and outcomes can be especially helpful in communicating with stakeholders or pursuing funding. Your theory of change will be instrumental in determining how the Benchmarks and Enhancements of the Elements will apply to your program. No program will conform to all of the recommended practices in this edition, but a clear understanding of your theory of change will help you in determining when specific practices apply to your program and the degree of effort and detail you will have to put into them for your program to have its intended impact. So as you read through these recommended practices, think about how important each is to what your program is trying to achieve. All of these Benchmarks and Enhancements are grounded in relevant research, practitioner wisdom, and principles of youth safety. But only you can determine the degree to which they might influence the achievement of your program’s goals and outcomes. 9 ABOUT THE 4TH EDITION GLOSSARY OF TERMS • Mentoring: Mentoring takes place between young persons (i.e., mentees) and older or more experienced persons (i.e., mentors) who are acting in a non-professional helping capacity to provide relationship-based support that benefits one or more areas of the mentee’s development. • Mentoring program: An organization or agency (often nonprofit) whose mission involves connecting mentors and mentees and monitoring and supporting the relationship over time. • Program model: The framework and organizing structure under which mentoring is delivered to youth. Common models include one adult-to-one child, group mentoring (many adults working with groups of youth), and peer mentoring (in which older or near- age youth serve as mentors). These models can also be embedded within other youth services provided by the organization. • Program setting: This most often refers to the location or mode of service delivery. Examples include community-based, site- or school-based, and e-mentoring (in which mentors and youth interact primarily online). • Evidence-based practice: A framework for designing and delivering services in which research-derived information is blended with other forms of “evidence,” such as practitioner experience and client perspectives, to arrive at optimal solutions for clients and produce the most impactful outcomes. • Research: Scientific investigations of program outcomes, as well as the moderators and mediators of those outcomes. Mentoring research can be qualitative (such as analyzing participant reflections on the mentoring experience) or quantitative (such as analyzing mentees’ school data). For the purposes of this document, an emphasis was placed on experimental research that included control or comparison groups of youth. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 10 RECRUITMENT Recruit appropriate mentors and mentees by realistically describing the program’s aims and expected outcomes. STANDARD 1 *Benchmark and Enhancement practices that are marked with an asterisk represent those that are either new or were substantially changed from the Third Edition. Mentoring programs are encouraged to give equal consideration to the implementation of all of the Benchmark practices that are listed under this Standard. Photo courtesy of The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania, © Renee Rosensteel, used with permission STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 11 BENCHMARKS MENTOR RECRUITMENT B.1.1 Program engages in recruitment strategies that realistically portray the benefits, practices, supports, and challenges of mentoring in the program. B.1.2* Program utilizes recruitment strategies that build positive attitudes and emotions about mentoring. B.1.3* Program recruits mentors whose skills, motivations, and backgrounds best match the goals and structure of the program. B.1.4* Program encourages mentors to assist with recruitment efforts by providing them with resources to ask individuals they know, who meet the eligibility criteria of the program, to be a mentor. B.1.5* Program trains and encourages mentees to identify and recruit appropriate mentors for themselves, when relevant. MENTEE AND PARENT OR GUARDIAN RECRUITMENT B.1.6* Program engages in recruitment strategies that realistically portray the benefits, practices, supports, and challenges of being mentored in the program. B.1.7 Program recruits mentees whose needs best match the services offered by the program. ENHANCEMENTS MENTOR RECRUITMENT E.1.1* Program communicates to mentors about how mentoring and volunteering can benefit them. E.1.2 Program has a publicly available written statement outlining eligibility requirements for mentors in its program. E.1.3* Program uses multiple strategies to recruit mentors (e.g., direct ask, social media, traditional methods of mass communication, presentations, referrals) on an ongoing basis. MENTEE AND PARENT OR GUARDIAN RECRUITMENT E.1.4 Program has a publicly available written statement outlining eligibility requirements for mentees in its program. E.1.5* Program encourages mentees to recruit other peers to be mentees whose needs match the services offered by the program, when relevant. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 12 JUSTIFICATION The majority of mentors working with youth are volunteers who are directly recruited by mentoring programs. While there is a paucity of empirical research available to guide mentoring programs on mentor recruitment, the research on volunteerism and nonprofit organizations provides significant contributions to understanding effective means of recruiting and retaining volunteers in general. Hence, the justification section for this Standard relies heavily on this broader body of work. The available findings that are most relevant for justifying mentor recruitment practices come from the research on recruiting volunteers to work with organizations or on activities where the longevity or duration of service is important. Taken together, the research literatures on mentoring and volunteer recruitment constitute a rich set of resources for providing both guidance and recommendations for helping mentoring programs engage in effective recruitment practices. Mentoring programs should have a written recruitment plan that includes all of the policies and procedures used to implement the Benchmark practices (and relevant Enhancement practices) included in the Recruitment Standard. MENTOR RECRUITMENT Content of Recruitment Materials The content of the messages incorporated in recruitment materials can have a direct effect on the success of a marketing campaign. For example, recruitment messages that are inaccurate, misleading, or missing key information can result in short-term recruitment success, but long-term volunteer failure. The impact of messaging can be seen by examining factors that are associated with unsuccessful mentoring relationships. For example, mentors’ unfulfilled expectations can contribute to an earlier-than-anticipated ending of mentoring relationships. 1 Thus, it is important for mentoring programs to realistically describe the requirements, rewards, and challenges of mentoring during the recruitment phase (B.1.1). When imagined outcomes are not immediately realized or take a different form than what was originally expected, mentors may decide that the relationship does not meet their needs or they may doubt their efficacy or ability, and, consequently, may end the match prematurely. When recruiting potential mentors, it is important for mentoring programs to set realistic expectations regarding what a mentoring relationship is and what it can achieve. Practically speaking, one way to set realistic expectations for a prospective mentor is to provide him or her with written eligibility requirements, as is suggested in the Enhancements (E.1.4). Photo courtesy of First Niagara STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 13 The most common barriers to volunteering are reports of lack of time, lack of interest, and health problems. 2 It is likely that there is little that recruitment efforts can do to motivate volunteers to mentor when they are busy, disinterested, or experiencing health problems. However, addressing practical barriers to mentoring or concerns of prospective mentors upfront, such as the time commitment involved, can help to overcome this barrier. The implementation of innovative mentoring models such as e-mentoring; content-focused, time- limited programs; or site-based approaches may be strategies that will directly address this barrier of limited time availability and potentially increase volunteerism. When recruiting potential mentors, it is important for mentoring programs to set realistic expectations regarding what a mentoring relationship is and what it can achieve. Marketing materials can also be designed to address other practical concerns of volunteers, such as whether or not they will be expected to use personal expenses in mentoring, defining the geographical distances involved, and explaining the commuting time from the mentor to the mentee or mentoring site, as well as addressing any safety concerns that volunteers might have about mentoring. This information can help to establish realistic positive expectations about choosing mentoring as a volunteer outlet. 3 Because time constraints are such a common barrier to volunteering, in order to successfully recruit prospective mentors, mentoring programs should do several things to address this concern. They should reduce barriers to enrolling new mentors, so that prospective volunteers believe that it will be an easy process to sign up with the mentoring organization and that they will be able to fit mentoring into their busy schedules.4 Individuals may be more attracted to a particular volunteering activity or opportunity if they think that they will receive adequate training and support to help them be efficacious in their volunteering role. In this case, recruitment materials need to inform mentors that they have or can acquire the basic skills needed to be an effective mentor.5 They also need to be informed that they will receive sufficient training and support from the mentoring program to help them be prepared, feel ready to initiate the relationship, and feel efficacious as a mentor. 6 Photo courtesy of Midlands Mentoring Partnership Recruitment efforts might be more successful if mentors learn how mentoring and volunteering can be beneficial to them for both short-term 7 and longer-term volunteering opportunities (E.1.1).8, 9, 10, 11, 12 One well-established general benefit of volunteering is enhanced psychological and behavioral well-being.13, 14 In addition, there are benefits specifically associated with being a mentor, including having enjoyable interactions with mentees, feeling satisfied and fulfilled as a mentor, and receiving professional development ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 14 opportunities both through receiving mentor training and helping a younger protégé. Although not true for all volunteers, portraying mentoring as a fun and joyful activity as well as advertising the opportunities offered by the mentoring program for access to outings, cultural, sports, and food-related events, annual awards ceremonies, and recognition opportunities can increase the interest of individuals to volunteer (B.1.2). 15, 16, 17 Photo courtesy of The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania, © Renee Rosensteel, used with permission Six common motivations for volunteering have been identified, including developing and enhancing one’s career, enhancing and enriching one’s personal development, conforming to the norms of significant others, escaping from negative feelings, learning new skills and practicing underutilized abilities, and expressing values related to altruistic beliefs. 18 Mentors report being highly motivated to learn new skills through hands-on experience working with youth as well as through satisfying their altruistic goals by experiencing gratification watching their mentee grow and develop.19 Marketing materials can reflect these messages regarding these rewarding and satisfying aspects of mentoring (B.1.2 & B.1.3). Furthermore, recruitment efforts may be enhanced by tailoring the content of recruitment messages to the motivations of prospective volunteers. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Also, findings on motivation suggest that volunteers frequently have multiple motivations25, 26 suggesting that marketing messages might be more successful when including more than one goal for being a mentor. Motivations to volunteer, in general, and to mentor, specifically, may vary by age, sex, culture, and other factors. For example, there is growing evidence to suggest that middle- aged and older adults and women may be more motivated to volunteer for social reasons (e.g., volunteering is valued by and important to their friends who may also be volunteers) than younger volunteers. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Young adults may be more motivated to volunteer by altruism or helping others and by opportunities for personal development.32 One thing to note is that even though messaging consistent with values may enhance recruitment success, mentor retention may not be contingent on mentoring experiences being consistent with initial motivations in that matched mentors report experiencing benefits from mentoring that are unanticipated. 33 Mentoring programs need to build upon their positive reputation and image to promote mentoring as a compelling and worthwhile volunteer activity. The image and reputation of charitable or nonprofit organizations are also important factors associated with attracting volunteers (B.1.2). Many nonprofit organizations implicitly compete for the time and attention of volunteers, thus, having a strong, positive, noncontroversial image and reputation in STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 15 the community can contribute positively to recruitment efforts and to commitment to the mentoring organization.34, 35, 36, 37 Mentoring programs need to build upon their positive reputation and image to promote mentoring as a compelling and worthwhile volunteer activity. 38 Furthermore, mentor recruitment and retention may be enhanced if mentors share the core beliefs, goals, and values of the organization, which has been found to be highly motivating for employees.39 Mentoring organizations should be encouraged to communicate about their mission to the general public and prospective mentors to generate interest and commitment. Research on volunteer recruitment suggests that, in addition to being clear and realistic, the tone of recruitment materials is likely to be important for attracting dedicated and reliable mentors (B.1.2). Positive emotional expectations predict volunteer persistence suggesting that by representing mentoring as a satisfying and rewarding activity mentor recruitment and retention can be enhanced.40 Target Audiences of Recruitment Efforts Few mentoring organizations can afford the time and costs of screening a large number of inappropriate applicants. Thus, recruitment materials need to be designed to attract and engage appropriate target audiences whose skills and motivations best match the goals and structure of the mentoring program (B.1.3). This information regarding eligibility criteria for being a mentor in the program needs to be clearly and publicly communicated to avoid misunderstanding by mentors, and optimally used to balance staff time and effort related to recruitment activities (E.1.2). It is particularly important for short-term mentoring programs to define for themselves and then publicly articulate their desired target audience of mentors because adults volunteering for these types of programs may not be particularly dedicated to the program’s mission in a long- term way. Instead, prospective mentors may be interested in the program, but have more focused interest in knowing specific information about the activities they will be doing as a volunteer.41 Recruitment materials need to be designed to attract and engage appropriate target audiences whose skills and motivations best match the goals and structure of the mentoring program. Some mentoring programs serve very specific populations of youth (e.g., children with an incarcerated parent, children with a learning disability or attention deficit disorder) and seek mentors with particular expertise or experience related to the characteristics of the specific population. Recruiting mentors who have previously had or currently have similar experiences to the mentee population may result in mentees developing a closer bond to someone whom they believe is similar in an important way to themselves, and these mentors can serve as “credible messengers” of information and support. Some age groups of volunteers may be better suited for serving as mentors than others. For example, youth matched with college-aged students were more likely to prematurely close than mentees matched with older mentors. 42 Changing life circumstances, academic pressures, and generally busy schedules may make it more difficult for college students to fulfill their mentoring commitment. Thus, mentoring programs may want to de- emphasize the recruitment of college students ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 16 as mentors, particularly when match length is a paramount concern. The importance of the mentoring role can be publicized to a wide range of community groups such as faith-based and civic organizations. Furthermore, some populations of individuals are more likely to volunteer than other groups of people and programs may choose to target them. For example, surveys of volunteers suggest that married or cohabitating people are more likely to volunteer than unmarried people. People who are better educated with higher incomes are more likely to volunteer. 43, 44 Also, younger and part-time working senior citizens are more likely to volunteer than retired or full- time individuals or middle-aged individuals.45, 46 In addition, in a large national survey, volunteers are more likely to be citizens rather than immigrants, more educated, affluent, and homeowners. 47 Mentoring programs might consider targeting these populations in order to rapidly recruit volunteers and may likely have to reduce barriers to mentoring to target populations that tend to volunteer less frequently. Methods of Recruitment Mentoring programs often report being unsuccessful and encountering many challenges when trying to attract new, suitable mentors. Research on volunteer recruitment provides some guidance for enhancing the effectiveness of recruitment strategies. Specifically, three strategies may help mentoring programs increase their pool of potential mentors. First, volunteerism in general increases when people are directly asked to participate in a volunteer activity by someone they know. 48 These kinds of personal connections promote a positive view of the organization and the volunteering activity.49 This link has been established to be effective in the employment sector and could be broadly applicable for mentor recruitment efforts as well. 50 In a qualitative, non-peer reviewed study of mentor recruitment, word-of-mouth recruitment was cited as the most effective recruitment strategy. 51 Mentors can be asked to help and trained to use this word-of-mouth recruitment method to help their program increase the pool of eligible, appropriate, prospective mentors. Since mentors are already successfully participating in the mentoring program, they can be encouraged to be ambassadors for the program with the people they know and trust (B.1.4). It is important to provide recruiting mentors with resources to assist them in their recruitment efforts, so that their messages incorporate key, accurate information about the mentoring program and experience (B.1.1). Word-of-mouth recruitment also helps volunteers have a defined role and identity within their mentoring organization. When the role of being a mentor becomes integrated into volunteers’ views of themselves, it helps to engage prospective volunteers quickly and increases their commitment to the volunteer organization and experience. 52,53 The attitude of seeing oneself as a mentor can be fostered by the mentoring organization in several ways beginning with the organization’s recruitment efforts. One way to advertise the importance of the mentoring role could be to communicate about it directly in marketing materials. In addition, conveying the importance of the mentoring role can be publicized to a wide range of community groups such as faith- STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 17 based and civic organizations. In this way, the mentoring program can facilitate making mentoring a normal and expected part of membership in the community group and attract more volunteers. 54 Photo courtesy of First Niagara By seeking to integrate volunteering to mentor into the culture and norms of a community group, one caution is to avoid creating a culture of “mandatory volunteerism.” There is the potential problem that using a subtly coercive strategy could backfire for some groups of mentors. This type of externally imposed motive to mentor might inhibit the development of a volunteer role identity, which has been found to be critically important in the retention of internally motivated volunteers.55, 56, 57 In other words, choosing to volunteer rather than being required to do so may have long-term positive effects on mentor longevity. Notably, it is not always the case that required volunteerism is associated with negative outcomes. For example, required community service by adolescents has been associated with the myriad positive behavioral and academic outcomes that have also been found when community service is voluntary.58 In addition, requiring volunteerism might be beneficial in the recruitment of extrinsically motivated volunteers by providing them with external rewards for volunteering. Second, research suggests another practical method or strategy to use for recruitment efforts that involves training mentees to identify and recruit appropriate mentors for their program or for their lives (B.1.5). 59 This method is sometimes referred to as Youth-Initiated Mentoring. An example of a time this method may be well-suited for mentor recruitment is when youth are getting ready to age out of foster care. At this vulnerable time in a teenager’s life, they still need support, advice, companionship, and friendship with a caring adult; however, many mentoring programs end at age 18, the time when foster care youth may most need the support of a mentor during their transition to adulthood. Adults need to see an ad for an organization or program on a regular schedule and multiple times before they make the decision to mentor. Third, although it may appear to be obvious, growing evidence suggests that mentoring programs should use more than one method for recruitment and that these recruitment messages need to be received by prospective mentors on multiple occasions (E.1.3). Adults need to see an ad for an organization or program on a regular schedule and multiple times before they make the decision to mentor. Deepening and growing commitment to be a mentor through continuous reminders and recruitment efforts are needed. This process requires getting someone’s attention, stimulating their positive curiosity to help, introducing them to the mentoring program’s benefits and requirements, completing an application, getting screened, being trained, and ultimately, being matched with a mentee. Most adults require a period of time before making ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 18 this type of decision, because it requires making a long-term commitment. Therefore, programs need to build in enough time for mentors to contemplate whether mentoring is a good fit for their goals, lifestyle, and interests, so they can actively and thoughtfully decide to initiate a mentoring relationship. MENTEE AND PARENT OR GUARDIAN RECRUITMENT Content of Recruitment Materials Mentees frequently report not knowing what to expect in a mentoring program and/or in a mentoring relationship. 60 Therefore, when mentees are recruited for participation in a mentoring program, it is important to provide them with information about what mentoring is and how it can be helpful to them (B.1.6). Programs should consider creating sets of recruitment materials in multiple languages for distribution to families where English is not the first language of the home. Program staff should also inquire about prospective mentees’ expectations about being mentored and about the mentoring program. In this way, program staff can help prospective mentees develop both positive and realistic expectations. It is equally important for mentees and their parents or guardians to be well-informed about mentoring and program requirements as mentors. If the mentoring experience is not what mentees and their parents or guardians expect, then they can just as easily end or sabotage the mentoring relationship as a mentor can. Thus, recruitment materials should accurately reflect the benefits, practices, supports, and challenges of being mentored in the program. Photo courtesy of Midlands Mentoring Partnership Programs should consider creating sets of recruitment materials in multiple languages for distribution to families where English is not the first language of the home (E.1.4). Target Audiences of Recruitment Efforts Given that most mentoring programs have a clear mission, goals, and target population of mentees, targeted efforts to recruit mentees is suggested (B.1.7). Similarly, mentee recruitment materials should include information about who is eligible to participate in the mentoring program (E.1.2). This approach can reduce staff time spent in recruitment efforts as well as in screening of potential mentees, since the pool of available mentees should include a larger percentage of appropriate applicants. Group-based mentoring programs should be cautious about recruiting and grouping together a large percentage of high-risk youth that engage in aggressive, delinquent, sexually risky, or substance abuse behaviors. A growing body of research suggests that when deviant or high- risk youth are grouped together in therapeutic STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 19 or residential settings, they can negatively influence one another, often referred to as deviancy training. These behaviors may, in fact, get worse over time.61 In other words, deviant behavior has been shown to be both coercive and contagious. 62 It is important to note that the negative effects of deviancy training aren’t restricted to high-risk behavior. In fact, peer contagion has been found for other behaviors such as depression and obesity, suggesting that group-based mentoring programs should recruit broadly and avoid grouping together youth who are similarly deviant in their behavior. Furthermore, because of the robust contagious effects of deviant peer influence, mentoring programs that primarily serve delinquent or violent youth should strongly consider avoiding engaging in any group mentoring or group- based activity programming. Photo courtesy of The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania, © Renee Rosensteel, used with permission Methods of Recruitment Programs can encourage their mentees to recruit other peers whose needs match the services offered by the program (E.1.5). Just as mentors can serve as program ambassadors, mentees and their parents or guardians can also serve in a recruitment role to assist with identifying and attracting appropriate prospective mentees. EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are several Benchmark practices that have reasonable exceptions to them or special factors to consider in operationalizing their implementation. One that has at least one reasonable exception is B.1.5, which refers to having mentees contribute to identifying and recruiting mentors for themselves. Some mentoring programs may find this practice unsuitable for their population of mentees or inconsistent with their model. For example, mentees who are children or young adolescents may not have the social network, capacity, or self-efficacy needed to recruit mentors. Thus, assigning a mentor to youth in this age range may be more developmentally appropriate. In addition, in some programs, mentors are paid employees who are recruited and trained for a job. This paid mentoring program model may not be well-suited for having mentees assist with mentor recruitment. One program model that also has at least one reasonable exception is a mentoring model that solely utilizes youth-initiated mentoring (YIM). In a YIM model, youth are trained and supported to ask someone in their social network to serve as their mentor. This model involving mentees doing mentor recruitment would be logically inconsistent with B.1.4 in which a mentoring program is expected to encourage mentors to assist with recruitment efforts. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 20 REFERENCES 1 Spencer, R. (2007). “It’s not what I expected”: A qualitative study of youth mentoring relationship failures. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 331–354. 2 Sundeen, R. A., Raskoff, S. A., Garcia, M. C. (2007). Differences in perceived in perceived barriers to volunteering to formal organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(3), 279–300. 3 Wymer, Walter W. Jr., & Starnes, B. J. (2001), Conceptual Foundations and practical guidelines for recruiting volunteers to serve in local nonprofit organizations: Part I. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9(1/2), 63–96. 4 Okun, M. A., & Sloane, E. S. (2002). Application of planned behavior therapy to predicting volunteer enrollment by college students in a campus-based program. Social Behavior and Personality, 20(3), 243–250. 5 Okun & Sloane, 2002. 6 Greenslade, J. H., & White, K. M. (2005). The prediction of above-average participation in volunteerism: A test of the theory of planned behavior and the Volunteers Function Inventory in older Australian adults. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2), 155–172. 7 Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2000). Advertisement style and the recruitment of charity volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 8(20), 45–63. 8 MacNeela, P. (2008). The give and take of volunteering: Motives, benefits, and personal connections among Irish volunteers. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(2), 125–139. 9 Penner, L. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447–467. 10 Rehberg, W. (2005). Altruistic individualists: Motivations for international volunteering among young adults in Switzerland. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16, 109–122. 11 Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(5), S308–S318. 12 Weiler, L., Haddock, S., Zimmerman, T. S., Krafchick, J., Henry, K., & Rudisill, S. (2013). Benefits derived by college students from mentoring at-risk youth in a service-learning course. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3-4), 236–248. 13 Piliavin, J., & Siegl, E. (2007). Health benefits of volunteering in the Wisconsin longitudinal study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(4), 450–464. 14 Schmidt, J., Shumow, L., & Kackar, H. (2006). Adolescents’ participation in service activities and its impact on academic, behavioral, and civic outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 127–140. 15 Callow, M. (2004). Identifying promotional appeals for targeting potential volunteers: An exploratory study on volunteering motives among retirees. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(3), 261–274. 16 Jamison, I. B. (2003). Turnover and retention among volunteers in human service agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 114–132. 17 Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Hall, L. M. (2008). Give them something to smile about: A marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20(1), 71–96. 18 Clary, E. G, Snyder, M., Ridge, R., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, R. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (June), 1516–30. 19 Strapp, C. M., Gilles, A. W., Spalding, A. E., Hughes, C. T., Baldwin, A. M., Guy, K. L., … Lamb, A. D. (2014). Changes in mentor efficacy and perceptions following participation in a youth mentoring program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(3), 190–209. 20 Burns, D. J. (2011). Motivations to volunteer and benefits from service learning: An exploration of marketing students. Journal of Advancement of Marketing Education, 18, 10-23. 21 Caldarella, P., Gomm, R. J., Shatzer, R. H., & Wall, D. G. (2010). School-based mentoring: A study of volunteer motivations and benefits. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(2), 199–216. 22 Clary, E. G, Snyder, M., Ridge, R., Miene, R., & Haugen, J.A. (1994). Matching messages to motives in persuasion: A functional approach to promoting volunteerism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1129–1149. 23 Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–687. STANDARD 1: RECRUITMENT 21 24 Smith, D. M., Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2001, June). Motivation matching and recruitment of volunteers: A field study. Presented at the annual meetings of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Canada. Cited on Page 12 of M. Snyder, & A. M. Omoto (2009). Who gets involved and why? The psychology of volunteerism. Youth Empowerment and Volunteerism: Principles, Policies and Practices, 3–26. 25 Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156–159. 26 Evans, T. (2005). How does mentoring a disadvantaged young person impact on the mentor? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3, 17–30. 27 Bowen, D. J., Andersen, M. R., & Urban, N. (2000). Volunteerism in a community-based sample of women aged 50–80 years. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1829–1842. 28 Greenslade & White, 2005. 29 Ibrahim, N. A., & Brannen, D. E. (1997). Implications of gender differences on the motivations to volunteer in hospitals. Journal of Social Service Research, 22(4), 1–18. 30 Morrow-Howell, N., & Mui, A. (1989). Elderly volunteers: Reasons for initiating and terminating service. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 13(3-4), 21–34. 31 Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1990). Basic research in action: Volunteerism and society’s response to AIDS. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 152–165. 32 Shields, P. O. (2009). Young adult volunteers: Recruitment appeals and other marketing considerations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21(2), 139–159. 33 Caldarella et al., 2010. 34 Bendapudi, N. Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 33–49. 35 Grube, J. & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108–1120. 36 Harvey, J. W. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fund raisers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (1), 77–86. 37 Penner, 2002. 38 Briggs, E., Landry, T., & Wood, C. (2007). Beyond just being there: An examination of the impact of attitudes, materialism, and self-esteem on the quality of helping behavior in youth volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 27–45. 39 Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. 40 Barraza, J. A. (2011). Positive emotional expectations predict volunteer outcomes for new volunteers. Motivation and Emotions, 35, 211–219. 41 Bennett & Kottasz, 2001. 42 Grossman, J. B., Chan, C., Schwartz, S., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43–54. 43 Smith, J. D. (1998). The 1997 National Survey of Volunteering. London, Institute for Volunteering Research. 44 Sundeen, Raskoff, & Garcia, 2007. 45 Fischer, L. R., Mueller, D. P., & Cooper, P. W. (1991). Older volunteers: A discussion of the Minnesota Aging Study. Gerontologist, 31, 183–194. 46 Sundeen, Raskoff, & Garcia, 2007. 47 Sundeen, Raskoff, & Garcia, 2007. 48 Independent Sector. (1996). America’s teenage volunteers: Civic participation begins early in life. Retrieved from http://www.independentsector.org/ programs/research/ teenvolun1.pdf 49 MacNeela, 2008. 50 Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2009). Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 341. 51 Furano, K., Roaf, P. A., Styles, M. B., & Branch, A. Y. (1993). Big Brothers/Big Sisters: A study of program practices. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ abstract.aspx?ID=162037 52 Grube & Piliavin, 2000. 53 Withers, M., Browner, C. H., & Aghaloo, T. (2013). Promoting volunteerism in global health: Lessons from a medical mission in northern Mexico. Journal of Community Health, 38(2), 374–384. 54 Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2005). Motive, role identify, and prosocial personality as predictors of volunteer activity. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(4), 403–418. 55 Callero, P. L., Howard, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (1987). Helping behavior as role behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 22 action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 247– 256.56 Finkelstein, M. A. (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 653–658. 57 Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59–64. 58 Schmidt, Shumow, & Kackar, 2006.59 Schwartz, S. E. O., Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., & Grossman, J. B. (2013). Youth initiated mentoring: Investigating a new approach to working with vulnerable adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 155–69. 60 Spencer, 2007. 61 Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (Eds.). (2007). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. Guilford Press. 62 Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189. 23 ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 24 SCREENING Screen prospective mentors to determine whether they have the time, commitment, and personal qualities to be a safe and effective mentor and screen prospective mentees, and their parents or guardians, about whether they have the time, commitment, and desire to be effectively mentored. STANDARD 2 *Benchmark and Enhancement practices that are marked with an asterisk represent those that are either new or were substantially changed from the Third Edition. Mentoring programs are encouraged to give equal consideration to the implementation of all of the Benchmark practices that are listed under this Standard. Photo courtesy of First Niagara STANDARD 2: SCREENING 25 BENCHMARKS MENTOR SCREENING B.2.1* Program has established criteria for accepting mentors into the program as well as criteria for disqualifying mentor applicants. B.2.2 Prospective mentors complete a written application that includes questions designed to help assess their safety and suitability for mentoring a youth. B.2.3 Program conducts at least one face-to-face interview with each prospective mentor that includes questions designed to help the program assess his or her suitability for mentoring a youth. B.2.4 Program conducts a comprehensive criminal background check on prospective adult mentors, including searching a national criminal records database, along with sex offender and child abuse registries and, when relevant, driving records. B.2.5 Program conducts reference check interviews with multiple adults who know an applicant (ideally, both personal and professional references) that include questions to help assess his or her suitability for mentoring a youth. B.2.6* Prospective mentors agree in writing to a one-year (calendar or school) minimum commitment for the mentoring relationship, or a minimum time commitment that is required by the mentoring program. B.2.7* Prospective mentors agree in writing to participate in face-to-face meetings with their mentees that average a minimum of once a week and a total of four or more hours per month over the course of the relationship, or at a minimum frequency and amount of hours that are required by their mentoring program. MENTEE SCREENING B.2.8* Program has established criteria for accepting youth into the program as well as criteria that would disqualify a potential youth participant. B.2.9 Parent(s)/guardian(s) complete an application or referral form. B.2.10 Parent(s)/guardian(s) provide informed permission for their child to participate. B.2.11* Parent(s)/guardian(s) and mentees agree in writing to a one-year (calendar or school) minimum commitment for the mentoring relationship, or the minimum time commitment that is required by the mentoring program. B.2.12 Parents(s)/guardian(s) and mentees agree in writing that mentees participate in face-to-face meetings with their mentors that average a minimum of once a week and a total of four or more hours per month over the course of the relationship, or at a minimum frequency and amount of hours that are required by the mentoring program. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 26 JUSTIFICATION Volunteer-based youth-services like mentoring are considered as potentially “high-risk” contexts for the occurrence of abuse.1 The practices that are included in this Standard are designed to keep all program participants safe. Furthermore, these practices are designed to enhance the likelihood that everyone served by the mentoring program is suitable and committed to making the mentoring relationship a positive experience. Mentoring programs should have a written screening plan that includes all of the policies and procedures used to implement the Benchmark practices (and relevant Enhancement practices) included in the Recruitment Standard. ENHANCEMENTS MENTOR SCREENING E.2.1 Program utilizes national, fingerprint-based FBI criminal background checks. E.2.2* Program conducts at least one home visit of each prospective mentor, especially when the match may be meeting in the mentor’s home. E.2.3* Program conducts comprehensive criminal background checks on all adults living in the home of prospective mentors, including searches of a national criminal records database along with sex offender and child abuse registries, when the match may meet in mentors’ homes. E.2.4 School-based programs assess mentors’ interest in maintaining contact with their mentees during the summer months (following the close of the academic school year) and offer assistance to matches in maintaining contact. E.2.5* Programs that utilize adult mentors prioritize accepting mentor applicants who are older than college-age. E.2.6* Program uses evidence-based screening tools and practices to identify individuals who have attitudes and beliefs that support safe and effective mentoring relationships. MENTEE SCREENING E.2.7* Mentees complete an application (either written or verbally). E.2.8* Mentees provide written assent agreeing to participate in their mentoring program. STANDARD 2: SCREENING 27 EMPHASIZING SAFETY Most of the Benchmarks and Enhancements under this Standard are primarily in service of keeping program participants, especially youth, safe from harm during their time in the program. Several of the Benchmarks (B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, & B.2.5) support program practices for determining that volunteer mentors are safe individuals and suitable to be working with children. 2 This begins with the mentor application (B.2.2), which gathers, among other things, critical information that is used in other safety-related practices, such as conducting background checks and speaking with personal and professional references. Conducting criminal history records checks (B.2.4) is the practice that most programs emphasize in the mentor screening process, but it is also one that can create the most confusion and questions. The rules and processes for conducting criminal history checks on volunteers unfortunately vary from state to state, making it difficult to issue a general Benchmark on these checks that will be applicable to all mentoring programs across America. But doing these checks is essential to participant safety, and programs are encouraged to conduct the most thorough check they can of criminal history repositories given the laws of their state. It is important to note that, for adult volunteers, juvenile criminal history information is typically sealed or expunged. It may be noted in a record that there is information that was expunged from an individual’s record, but the nature of the crime may be unavailable. Crimes committed before the age of 18 are disseminated to the public only when the individual was taken into custody for an offense that would be a felony if it was committed by an adult. For these reasons, it is important to round out the background information collected about a prospective volunteer through obtaining information from other sources such as conducting home visits (E.2.2) and obtaining personal references (B.2.5). Photo courtesy of Midlands Mentoring Partnership To further emphasize the importance of thorough checks, it is recommended that programs use the FBI’s fingerprint-based background checks (E.2.1) whenever possible. The FBI database contains, in theory, the aggregate criminal records from all federal, state, county, and municipal courts. However, even in this system there may be missing records or inaccurate information. Because criminal history databases are imperfect, programs are encouraged to also consult the national sex offender and child abuse registries when screening prospective mentors. For programs where the mentor may transport the youth in their vehicle, driving histories or motor vehicle records should also be checked (B.2.4). Community-based programs in which the youth may occasionally visit the mentor’s home are also encouraged to conduct criminal history checks on other adults living in the home (E.2.3). While this practice may feel intrusive to the applicant, and does entail more staff time and costs, it can also be critical in identifying potential hazards to the mentee’s safety. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 28 Mentor interviews (B.2.3) are another critical component of the screening process in that it can uncover safety-related red flags and other information that might influence a program’s decision to accept a mentor applicant (e.g., revealing a criminal history beyond what a record check uncovered, problematic personal interests, a negative attitude about youth). Conducting the interview at the prospective mentor’s home (or at least visiting once as part of the screening process) can reveal even more information about the individual. This practice (E.2.2) will be most relevant for community- based programs where the mentor and mentee may be occasionally meeting at the mentor’s home. Site-based programs may also consider this practice, as it can provide a window into the mentor’s life outside the program and uncover inappropriate behavior (e.g., drug use, illegal activity) or attitudes that make them unsuitable for working with a child, even in a controlled, site-based setting. Reference checks (B.2.5) also provide valuable information about the prospective mentor’s private and professional life and their suitability for mentoring a child. This practice can fill in missing or incomplete information not addressed by the other practices under this Standard. It is recommended that programs speak to at least two non-familial references, inquiring about the applicant’s home and work life, background, personality, and possible motivations for mentoring a child. One of the recent trends in the mentoring field is the use of youth-serving professionals in the mentoring role. Many programs use teachers, school counselors, and youth development or afterschool program staff members as formal mentors. This is often a voluntary “add-on” to their normal job duties and responsibilities. In these instances, these professionals have often undergone a criminal history check as part of their hiring in to their position. Mentoring programs utilizing volunteers of this type are still strongly encouraged to complete the other benchmark practices required under this Standard (interviews, reference checks, etc.), even if they do not conduct a new criminal history check. These activities ensure that the program is doing its due diligence and learning more information about the individual’s motivations, personal history, and ability to fulfill their obligations as a mentor. Regardless of whether the criminal background check is conducted by the mentoring program or by another youth-serving agency (e.g., school, positive youth development program), mentoring programs should consider repeating the background check on a prescribed, regular basis or utilizing the services of a live screening tool that conducts updated criminal records checks in real-time. Conducting the interview at the prospective mentor’s home can reveal even more information about the individual. Mentoring programs must follow these safety- related Benchmarks, as the welfare and well-being of young people and their families must be the primary consideration in offering a service such as mentoring. Programs are encouraged to think carefully about the information gathered and revealed by these practices and develop criteria that would exclude a potential mentor3 from participating in the program (B.2.1). Interviews, reference checks, home visits, and criminal records checks only have value if the program knows how to interpret the information and has STANDARD 2: SCREENING 29 policies governing the types of information that would prohibit some applicants from volunteering. COMMITMENT AND SUITABILITY Additional Benchmark and Enhancement practices included in the Screening Standard are primarily included to ensure that program participants are suitable for, and committed to, the mentoring experience, as the program defines it. First and foremost, mentoring programs need to determine their target population of mentors through establishing the parameters and criteria for acceptance of volunteers (B.2.1). These decisions will drive both mentor recruitment practices as well as screening methods and procedures. Programs should engage in practices that ensure all participants, including youth and their parents or guardians, are committed to seeing the relationship through its intended duration, with an emphasis on committing to the minimum length, frequency, and total hours of the mentoring relationship that are required by the mentoring program (B.2.6, B.2.7, B.2.11, & B.2.12). This commitment is critical for several reasons: • Longer-term mentoring relationships are consistently associated with more benefits to youth than shorter-term relationships. Evidence for the importance of relationship duration has emerged from many studies of community- and school-based models of volunteer youth mentoring.4,5,6,7 For example, in one study 8 , adolescents who participated in a relationship that lasted at least 12 months had more positive benefits as compared to youth in relationships that lasted fewer than 12 months. Other studies have confirmed the value of meeting frequently and regularly.9 • The most critical aspect of a mentoring relationship is that it lasts for the intended duration of the original commitment.10 Prematurely ending a match may result in negative child outcomes as the mentee may feel rejected, abandoned, or at fault for a mentor failing to follow through on his or her commitment (especially if the match ends suddenly or on bad terms).11 • Matches lasting the intended duration is a critical factor in achieving program outcomes. Mentoring relationships are intended to produce measurable positive change and growth in a young person. Programs where significant numbers of matches do not meet their intended duration have little chance of meeting their overall goals and youth outcome objectives. Photo courtesy of Midlands Mentoring Partnership While there is substantial evidence that longer matches tend to produce stronger outcomes, the topic of “ideal” match length becomes more complicated when considering the goals, theory of change, and structure of any particular program. While research has consistently found strong effects for programs that last one calendar year (or one academic year, in the case of school-based programs), there are examples of targeted programs12,13 that achieve meaningful results with mentoring relationships of a much shorter duration. Programs may ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 30 consider modifying the Benchmarks governing match length and meeting frequency (B.2.6, B.2.7, B.2.11, & B.2.12), provided that the shorter duration has resulted in positive outcomes in rigorously conducted empirical research studies, that the duration makes sense given the program’s theory of change, and that participants are adequately prepared for the closure of the match. This type of modification in program duration and intensity is most likely to be applicable to programs with very targeted and limited goals, such as those with an emphasis on using a mentoring- like relationship to deliver specific lessons or develop specific skills (typically using a defined curriculum taught over a short period of time). Photo courtesy of First Niagara There are several other practices, offered here as Enhancements, that are designed to promote or provide information on participant suitability for the mentoring experience. These practices build on the notion that some individuals may be more inclined or able to honor their commitments and fit a program’s values more than others: • Keeping school-based matches in contact over the summer months may be a way of maintaining the bond between mentor and mentee and carry the impact of mentoring into the following school year (E.2.4).14 • Mentors’ age, and the lifestyles and commitments that accompany certain ages, may make it challenging for some individuals to sustain a mentoring relationship. For example, matches with college-aged students have been found to be more likely to prematurely close than those where the mentee is matched with older mentors. 15 Changing life circumstances, academic pressures, and generally busy schedules may make it more difficult for college-age volunteers to fulfill their mentoring commitments. While programs should feel free to recruit mentors of all ages if appropriate, they may want to de-emphasize using college students as mentors (E.2.5) when match length and consistency are a paramount concern, such as in programs that serve youth with high levels of risk or who are at a major transition point in their lives. • Programs may also want to consider gauging the suitability of mentors using validated instruments that measure characteristics of volunteers’ personalities and motivations (E.2.6). These types of instruments can be helpful in determining which volunteers might be the best fit for a program’s values and activities. There have been several examples of using these types of tools in the mentoring literature. For example, one study found that peer mentor responses on the Social Interest Scale predicted those mentors’ likelihood to meet regularly with their mentee and to sign up for another year in the program. 16 Another found that mentors who indicated more negative feelings toward youth in their community at the beginning of their participation anticipated poor behavior from their mentees, interacted with those mentees in a more prescriptive fashion, and STANDARD 2: SCREENING 31 may have had a negative impact on those mentees’ academic performance.17 There are other research-based assessment tools that can also be used for assessing mentor risk. For example, there are several assessment tools that claim to measure a volunteer’s understanding of appropriate sexual boundaries and even estimate the probability that a potential mentor will engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with a child (or has in the past). Factors that programs might consider before utilizing one or more of these types of screening tools include the cost of the tool, the validity of the tool for achieving its screening goal, and the degree to which their program might need that level or type of screening. MENTOR does not formally endorse the use of any particular mentor screening tool; however, MENTOR does encourage mentoring programs to consider the use of screening tools as well as to thoroughly examine information about these tools prior to incorporating them into their screening process. • Finally, programs may want to consider getting written assent from mentees regarding their participation in a mentoring program (E.2.8). This practice can be especially important in programs where mentees are referred to the program by a third party (e.g., parent, teacher, court) and their participation may not be entirely of their choosing. Youth who have considered the opportunity and expressed some willingness to participate are much more likely to have a successful match than those who are unenthusiastic or who haven’t really considered what their participation would mean. INFORMATION FOR MATCHING There are several important reasons for having mentors (B.2.2), parents (B.2.9) and mentees (E.2.7) complete applications. At a practical level, these applications gather contact information in case of an emergency, as well as information regarding any allergies or medications that may impact match meetings. But most importantly, applications should be designed to also provide information for creating effective matches, including the locations and schedules of each match member. This information will be instrumental for constructing the initial pool of eligible mentors to match with a mentee by considering the geographic proximity of each match member to one another, as well as their scheduling availability and preferences. The application should also collect some information about the participants’ personalities and interests. Given the consistent positive youth outcomes found for programs that match mentors and mentees based upon shared interests,18 applications completed by mentors (B.2.2) and mentees (E.2.7) should include questions regarding their hobbies, skills, interests, and goals to assist in the matching process. Note that for younger mentees, programs may consider gathering this application information through an interview, provided they record the youth’s responses and retain the information as they would a written application. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 32 Photo courtesy of The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania, © Renee Rosensteel, used with permission EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS As noted above, some programs may want to modify the Benchmarks in this Standard related to match length and meeting frequency and duration (B.2.6, B.2.7, B.2.11, & B.2.12). Programs can deviate from these Benchmarks so long as there is some empirical evidence to support the idea that the variation will still result in positive outcomes for mentees (e.g., combining in-person meetings with online communications or telephone calls; meeting less frequently than once a week, but each meeting lasting for more than an hour, on average). But as a general rule, programs should aim to meet these Benchmark practices for match length and meeting consistency, and deviate only when there is a clear rationale for doing otherwise. But even site-based programs may want to consider still conducting a home visit to mentors’ homes (E.2.2), as it may unearth critical safety or suitability information. Two additional exceptions noted here pertain to the mentor’s home life and the backgrounds of other adults living with the mentor (E.2.2 & E.2.3). Site-based programs, where mentees are not allowed to visit the mentor’s home, may justifiably choose to bypass these practices, especially background checks on other adults living in the home. But even site-based programs may want to consider still conducting a home visit to mentors’ homes (E.2.2), as it may unearth critical safety or suitability information not discovered during other screening procedures. Finally, for peer mentoring programs utilizing mentors who are under the age of 18, conducting criminal background checks is not possible in the United States. Juvenile crime records are not available for non-criminal justice purposes, and most records are sealed. Programs using peer mentors should still consider the use of other screening practices recommended here, even if criminal history checks are not available or appropriate. STANDARD 2: SCREENING 33 REFERENCES 1 Wilson, M. K., & Beville, B. A. (2003). Preemployment and volunteer screening: Reducing the risk of child sexual abuse for social service agencies. Families in Society, 84(2), 179–184. 2 Kremer, S. E., & Cooper, B. (2014). Mentor screening and youth protection. In D. L. DuBois and M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (2nd. Ed.) (411–425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 3 Kremer & Cooper, 2014. 4 Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. 5 Frecknall, P., & Luks, A. (1992). An evaluation of parental assessment of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of New York City. Adolescence, 27, 715–718. 6 Grossman, J. B., & Johnson, A. (1998). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring programs. In J. B. Grossman (Ed.), Contemporary issues in mentoring (pp. 10–23). Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 7 Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kaugh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L. Z. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers/Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 8 Grossman & Rhodes, 2002. 9 Bayer, A., Grossman, J. B., & DuBois, D. L. (2015) Using volunteer mentors to improve the academic outcomes of underserved students: The role of relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4), 408–429. 10 Larose, S., Tarabulsy, G., & Cyrenne, D. (2005). Perceived autonomy and relatedness as moderating the impact of teacher-student mentoring relationship on student academic adjustment. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 111–128. 11 Grossman & Rhodes, 2002. 12 Wyman, P. A., Cross, W., Brown. K., Yu, Q., Tu, X., & Eberly, S. (2010). Intervention to strengthen emotional self-regulation in children with emerging mental health problems: Proximal impact on school behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(24), 707–720. 13 Powers, L. E., Sowers, J., & Stevens, T. (1995). An exploratory, randomized study of the impact of mentoring on the self-efficacy and community- based knowledge of adolescents with severe physical challenges. Journal of Rehabilitation, 61 (1), 33–41. 14 Herrera et al. 2007. 15 Grossman, J. B., Chan, C., Schwartz, S., & Rhodes, J. E. (2012). The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 43–54. 16 Karcher, M. J., & Lindwall, J. (2003). Social interest, connectedness, and challenging experiences: What makes high school mentors persist? Journal of Individual Psychology, 59(3), 293–315. 17 Karcher, M. J., Davidson, A. J. , Rhodes, J. E. and Herrera, C. (2010). Pygmalion in the program: The role of teenage peer mentors’ attitudes in shaping their mentees’ outcomes. Applied Developmental Science, 14(4), 212–227. 18 DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91. ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 34 TRAINING Train prospective mentors, mentees, and mentees’ parents (or legal guardians or responsible adult) in the basic knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to build an effective and safe mentoring relationship using culturally appropriate language and tools. STANDARD 3 *Benchmark and Enhancement practices that are marked with an asterisk represent those that are either new or were substantially changed from the Third Edition. Mentoring programs are encouraged to give equal consideration to the implementation of all of the Benchmark practices that are listed under this Standard. Photo courtesy of The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania and © Renee Rosensteel, used with permission STANDARD 3: TRAINING 35 BENCHMARKS MENTOR TRAINING B.3.1 Program provides a minimum of two hours of pre-match, in-person, mentor training. B.3.2 Program provides pre-match training for mentors on the following topics: a. Program requirements (e.g., match length, match frequency, duration of visits, protocols for missing, being late to meetings, and match termination) b. Mentors’ goals and expectations for the mentee, parent or guardian, and the mentoring relationship c. Mentors’ obligations and appropriate roles d. Relationship development and maintenance e. Ethical and safety issues that may arise related to the mentoring relationship f. Effective closure of the mentoring relationship g. Sources of assistance available to support mentors h.* Opportunities and challenges associated with mentoring specific populations of youth (e.g., children with an incarcerated parent, youth involved in the juvenile justice system, youth in foster care, high school dropouts), if relevant i.* Initiating the mentoring relationship j.* Developing an effective, positive relationship with mentee’s family, if relevant B.3.3* Program provides pre-match training for the mentor on the following risk management policies that are matched to the program model, setting, and population served: a. Appropriate physical contact b. Contact with mentoring program (e.g., who to contact, when to contact) c. Relationship monitoring requirements (e.g., response time, frequency, schedule) d. Approved activities e. Mandatory reporting requirements associated with suspected child abuse or neglect, and suicidality and homicidality f. Confidentiality and anonymity g. Digital and social media use h. Overnight visits and out of town travel i. Money spent on mentee and mentoring activities j. Transportation k. Emergency and crisis situation procedures ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 36 l. Health and medical care m. Discipline n. Substance use o. Firearms and weapons p. Inclusion of others in match meetings (e.g., siblings, mentee’s friends) q. Photo and image use r. Evaluation and use of data s. Grievance procedures t. Other program relevant topics B.3.4 Program uses training practices and materials that are informed by empirical research or are themselves empirically evaluated. ENHANCEMENTS MENTOR TRAINING E.3.1 Program provides additional pre-match training opportunities beyond the two-hour, in-person minimum for a total of six hours or more. E.3.2 Program addresses the following post-match training topics: a. How developmental functioning may affect the mentoring relationship b. How culture, gender, race, religion, socioeconomic status, and other demographic characteristics of the mentor and mentee may affect the mentoring relationship c. Topics tailored to the needs and characteristics of the mentee d. Closure procedures E.3.3 Program uses training to continue to screen mentors for suitability to be a mentor and develops techniques for early trouble-shooting should problems be identified. MENTEE TRAINING E.3.4* Program provides training for the mentee on the following topics: a.* Purpose of mentoring b. Program requirements (e.g., match length, match frequency, duration of visits, protocols for missing or being late to meetings, match termination) c.* Mentees’ goals for mentoring STANDARD 3: TRAINING 37 d. Mentors’ obligations and appropriate roles e. Mentees’ obligations and appropriate roles f.* Ethics and safety in mentoring relationships g.* Initiating the mentoring relationship h.* Effective closure of the mentoring relationship E.3.5* Program provides training for the mentee on the following risk management policies that are matched to the program model, setting, and population served: a. Appropriate physical contact b. Contact with mentoring program (e.g., who to contact, when to contact) c. Relationship monitoring requirements (e.g., response time, frequency, schedule) d. Approved activities e. Mandatory reporting requirements associated with suspected child abuse or neglect, and suicidality and homicidality f. Confidentiality and anonymity g. Digital and social media use h. Overnight visits and out of town travel i. Money spent on mentee and mentoring activities j. Transportation k. Emergency and crisis situation procedures l. Health and medical care m. Discipline n. Substance use o. Firearms and weapons p. Inclusion of others in match meetings (e.g., siblings, mentee’s friends) q. Photo and image use r. Evaluation and use of data s. Grievance procedures t. Other program relevant topics PARENT OR GUARDIAN TRAINING E.3.6* Program provides training for the parent(s) or guardian(s) (when appropriate) on the following topics: a.* Purpose of mentoring ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 38 b. Program requirements (e.g., match length, match frequency, duration of visits, protocols for missing or being late to meetings, match termination) c.* Parents’ and mentees’ goals for mentoring d. Mentors’ obligations and appropriate roles e. Mentees’ obligations and appropriate roles f.* Ethics and safety in mentoring relationships g.* Initiating the mentoring relationship h.* Developing an effective, working relationship with your child’s mentor i.* Effective closure of the mentoring relationship E.3.7* Program provides training for the parent(s) or guardian(s) on the following risk management policies that are matched to the program model, setting, and population served: a. Appropriate physical contact b. Contact with mentoring program (e.g., who to contact, when to contact) c. Relationship monitoring requirements (e.g., response time, frequency, schedule) d. Approved activities e. Mandatory reporting requirements associated with suspected child abuse or neglect, and suicidality and homicidality f. Confidentiality and anonymity g. Digital and social media use h. Overnight visits and out of town travel i. Money spent on mentee and mentoring activities j. Transportation k. Emergency and crisis situation procedures l. Health and medical care m. Discipline n. Substance use o. Firearms and weapons p. Inclusion of others in match meetings (e.g., siblings, mentee’s friends) q. Photo and image use r. Evaluation and use of data s. Grievance procedures t. Other program relevant topics STANDARD 3: TRAINING 39 JUSTIFICATION MENTOR TRAINING Purpose of Mentor Training Mentor training is a vital component of any successful mentoring program.1 It appears that most, but not all, mentors currently involved in a mentoring program have received some type of pre-match training or orientation.2 Volunteers who receive training tend to be more satisfied which, in turn, can promote greater retention, a key component of effective mentoring relationships.3 Mentor training is particularly important because it has documented implications for match length, as well as both mentors’ and mentees’ perceptions about the quality of their mentor-mentee relationship, including their feelings of closeness, support, satisfaction, and effectiveness as a mentor.4,5,6,7 Further, these perceptions of the mentor- mentee relationship are thought to influence the positive outcomes and continuation of the mentor-mentee relationship, suggesting the lasting importance of mentor training for youth outcomes. 8 One important factor to note is that pre-match mentor training has not yet been shown to have a direct effect on youth outcomes;9,10 however, no studies have been found that were designed to directly test this hypothesis, so additional research is needed. Despite the paucity of studies on the effectiveness of mentor training, taken together, the findings from a substantial body of research underlines the importance of this practice for enhancing mentor and match-related outcomes. Another important function of mentor training is to provide mentoring program staff with an opportunity to learn more about prospective mentors. Whether training is solely conducted in-person, web-based, or a blended learning approach of both in-person and web-based, people can be screened for suitability to be a mentor (E.3.3). Programs also should develop techniques for early troubleshooting should problems be identified (E.3.3). For example, a single behavior is not necessarily indicative of a problem; however, programs should carefully observe patterns of behaviors that together may indicate a budding problem. Photo courtesy of First Niagara Some suggestions of possible behaviors that might serve as red flags to staff that a mentor might engage in unsafe practices: • mentors who focus primarily on their own personal needs, • mentors who are over-involved with children (especially combined with under- involvement or superficial connections with adults), • mentors with unhealthy beliefs or attitudes such as treating children as peers, • mentors who engage in developmentally inappropriate behaviors, • mentors who display excessive physical contact with others including mentees, ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE FOR MENTORING 40 • mentors who are secretive about the activities they do with their mentees or have several cursory conversations with program staff without sharing much information about their mentoring relationship, • mentors who are unable or unwilling to set limits or boundaries with their mentees or other youth, • mentors whose references do not know him or her well, and • mentors who have problematic background characteristics such as a history of victimization or rejection from volunteering at other youth development programs. Length of Mentor Training The amount of time spent providing pre- and post-match training to mentors has been found to be related to match outcomes. More training and support provided with a coherent approach (e.g., interpersonal, behavioral) is related to increased mentor effectiveness when compared to less training implemented with a nonspecific approach.11,12 Specifically, less than two hours of pre-match training has resulted in mentors who reported the lowest levels of closeness with their mentees, spent less time with their mentees, and were less likely to continue their relationships with their mentees in a second year compared to mentors who received at least six hours of training (B.3.1 & E.3.1).13,14,15 Post-match training can play a central role in helping mentors understand setbacks, and maintain or restore momentum in the relationship. Timing of Mentor Training Training needs will likely vary according to the stage of the mentoring relationship.16 Pre-match training is important when prospective mentors are anticipating and preparing for their upcoming mentoring relationship with the primary goals being to increase readiness to mentor and a sense of self-efficacy to be a mentor, as well as preparing mentors with training in safety, ethics, and risk management policies of the program (described in the section on Training Content). Pre-match training builds feelings of self-efficacy as a mentor,17 which is important because pre-match mentor self-efficacy affects the quality of the mentoring relationship, as well as youth outcomes.18,19, 20,21,22,23 Photo courtesy of Mentoring Works Washington Post-match training is also important after mentors have had some experience mentoring and may have some specific targeted questions.24 Training can be individualized or tailored to help mentors continue to build their relationships, and address more complex issues that may have arisen in the context of an actual relationship. For example, when mentoring particularly challenging youth, such as highly aggressive youth, mentors’ perceived self-efficacy can decrease after the relationship starts, even when mentor perceived self-efficacy is high pre-match. This suggests that post-match training can play a central STANDARD 3: TRAINING 41 role in helping mentors understand setbacks, and maintain or restore momentum in the relationship (E.3.2).25,26 Closure must also be addressed post-match, even when mentors have already been trained or exposed to issues associated with relationship closure. It is important for post-match training to review and provide more in-depth information regarding closure procedures and approaches that increase the likelihood of a successful transition out of mentoring (E.3.2). Content of Mentor Training Pre-match training should include an opportunity for mentors to consider their motives or goals for being a mentor (B.3.2). Mentors’ motivations are especially influential in the early stages of the mentoring relationship.27,28 Mentors’ motivations also influence whether they obtain information about mentoring prior to the match, plan for future activities with their mentee, and form expectations about the mentoring relationship.29 Mentors who report a discrepancy between their initial expectations of their relationship with their mentee and their actual post-match experiences with their mentee are less likely to report an intention to stay in the mentoring relationship.30,31 Mentors and mentees may also experience difficulties when their motivations and goals for the mentoring relationship do not match. Helping mentors to identify multiple motivations for being a mentor during training can have long-term benefits by helping to sustain mentors’ commitment to and satisfaction with their mentoring relationship when one goal is not being met.32, 33, 34 Consequently, mentor training should help mentors to identify their goals, modify unrealistic expectations, and compare their goals with their mentees’ goals to identify and address discrepancies between the two. Mentors and mentees may experience difficulties when their motivations and goals for the mentoring relationship do not match. Pre-match training should be designed to help mentors learn about different styles of relationships that may be employed within a mentoring relationship (B.3.2).35 This topic is important because mentors can approach mentoring relationships from a range of different perspectives, some of which are associated with better outcomes than others. Because there is typicall