The Importance of Closure

Sept. 18, 2012

2012 Collaborative Mentoring Webinar Series

2012 Collaborative Mentoring Webinar Series

1

Webinars are held monthly on the 3rd Thursday. • 10-11:15am Pacific

• 11am-12:15pm Mountain

• 12-1:15 pm Central

• 1-2:15pm Eastern

Sarah Kremer,

Friends for Youth Michael Garringer,

Education Northwest

April Riordan, MP of

Minnesota Celeste Janssen,

Oregon Mentors

Meghan Ferns,

Oregon Mentors

Dana Gold, MP of

SWPA

Marissa Strayer Benton,

Mobius Mentors

December Warren,

Indiana MP

Good to Know…

2

After the webinar, all attendees receive:

Instructions for how to access PDF of

presentation slides and webinar

recording

Link to the for

resources, contact information &

opportunities to continue the dialogue

Please help us

out by

answering

survey

questions at the

end of the

webinar.

Participate in Today’s Webinar

• All attendees muted for best

sound

• Type questions and comments in

the question box

• Respond to polls

• Who is with us today?

3

Today’s Webinar

1. Importance of closure for mentoring matches

2. Different types of closure/endings

– When is it time for the match to end?

3. Program responsibility for managing risks and

benefits of closure

4. Tips & ideas for program coordinators

Q & A throughout the presentation

4

This Webinar Will End…

1. Programs should do all they can to prevent closure

2. But sometimes it is necessary – and even beneficial

3. Closure should be a process, not just an event

4. Try to handle it positively for both mentor and mentee

5

6

Renée Spencer’s research interests include youth mentoring, adolescent development and gender. She is a recipient of a William T. Grant Foundation Scholar Award to study youth mentoring relationships. She has published a number of articles and book chapters on youth mentoring, including ‘It’s Not What I Expected’: A Qualitative Study of Youth Mentoring Relationship Failures, and ‘First, Do No Harm’: A Call for Ethical Guidelines in Youth Mentoring (with Jean Rhodes and Belle Liang. Spencer is a member of MENTOR’s Research and Policy Council and the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’s Research Advisory Council.

Renée Spencer, MSSW, Ed.D.

Ethical Principles of Youth Mentoring

1. Promote the Welfare and Safety

of the Young Person

2. Be Trustworthy and Responsible

3. Act with Integrity

4. Promote Justice for Young People

5. Respect the Young Person’s

Rights and Dignity

7

Endings in Youth Mentoring

• Not enough attention to closure

- research or practice

• Think about it in theory

– Keller’s stage model (HYM, 2005)

• Focus largely on making and

sustaining matches

• Little known about how and why

relationships end

Most formal

relationships do end • 1/3 to ½ end

prematurely

• Early endings

associated with

decrements in youth

functioning (e.g., Grossman

& Rhodes, 2002; Herrera et al., 2007;

Karcher, 2005)

Different Types of Closure

• Planned

• Unplanned

• Relationship-based

• Non-relationship reasons

• Psychological vs. physical

9

Types of Endings (n= 48 matches)

• Ending planned and completed (20)

• Ending planned but not completed (8)

• Ending not planned – formally ended by

agency (20)

When is it Time to End the Match?

• Psychological distance/disengaged

• Meeting but not having an impact

• Annual cycle

• When initiated by mentor or mentee

• Danger of closing too fast? Or too slow?

• Who decides? Mentor, mentee, parent, program?

11

Reasons for Ending (n= 48 matches)

• Changes in life circumstances (19)

• Youth dissatisfaction or disinterest (7)

• Mentor dissatisfaction (9)

• Mentor abandonment (5)

• Gradual dissolution (8)

Relationship Strength (n=48 matches)

• Strong (15)

• Adequate (4)

• Tenuous (3)

• Out of sync (8)

• Weak (18)

Planned and Completed (n=20)

• Clear reason for ending

• Plan for ending established

• Mentor and youth have opportunity to say

goodbye

• Impact: Generally satisfied with procedural

ending but disappointed (to varying degrees)

about the loss

Strong Match, Planned Ending

• Strong emotional connection – “I love the little guy”

• Mentor moved out of state

• Planned, clear goodbye – Mentor tells parent about end;

asked for advice about telling youth

– Multiple planned meetings leading up to move

14-year-old Cape

Verdean male youth, 24-year-old bi-racial mentor,

matched 15 months

Strong Match, Planned Ending Different Outcome : “Two Strikes”

• Strong match

– Close connection, good good-bye

• Mentee shows signs of loss

– Does not want another mentor, depressed

mood, poor school performance

• Mother’s assessment:

– “Smiling” until mentor left, then “just broke down”

– “Heartbroken” when abandoned by first mentor

– Now, “don’t want to do the program no more.”

12-year-old boy matched with

2nd mentor

- 1st abandoned him - 2nd took a new job in

another part of the country

Weak Match, Planned Ending: “Sort of Said Goodbye”

Mentor decided to end it

– “getting to be way more of … an inconvenience than, than something good for me”

– Wanted a closer connection, not sure youth was benefitting

– Parent does not think a connection ever made

– Youth thought the relationship was “fun”

Ending

– Mentor ended relationship on what became their last outing, said they would still plan to talk but at time of last interview had not

– Parent said mentor “sort of said goodbye” but the youth wasn’t really clear it was all over

– Youth unclear whether it was just official relationship that was ending

12-year-old

white female youth, 27-year-

old white mentor,

matched 12 months

Planned not Completed (n=8)

• Ending planned

– All parties not always aware of

plan to end

• Plan made for saying good-bye

• Plan never enacted

• Impact: disappointment,

sadness, hurt, anger, self-

blame

“I don’t think he likes me no more… Because he left

without saying, he just left without calling. ”

“discouraged me from wanting to put him in a

situation again not saying that another person would

do the same thing.”

Strong Match, Planned Ending not Completed: “It was a Great Match”

• Strong connection but frequency of meetings

becoming less consistent due to youth’s

schedule/interests

• Mentor assumed youth no longer interested

• No direct communication between mentor and

youth about ending

• Parent surprised by ending; thought they

could have made it work

– Relationship unique in youth’s life

– “Communication is always difficult in an

awkward time”

13-yr old White

male youth, 37-yr-old White

mentor, matched 23

months

Ending not Planned: Agency Closed Match (n=20)

• No plan for direct communication between mentor and youth

• Agency played central role

– Served as go-between - communicated one party’s decision

to end match to another

– Closed match

• Unable to reach either mentor or youth

• Loss of contact between mentor and youth

• Impact: Similar to planned, not completed - confusion,

disappointment, sadness, hurt, anger, resentment, self-blame

Weak Relationship, Ending Not Planned: “We just never heard from her again”

• 3rd match for youth

• Pair out of sync – Youth satisfied with relationship

– Mentor feels emotional connection is weak

• Mentor stopped calling; left it up to youth to call

• Agency closed match

• Parent and youth upset about ending

14-year-old

female Black Caribbean

youth matched with 21-year-old bi-racial mentor

for 21 months

Conclusions and Implications

1. Stronger relationships tended to have more complete closure

2. Weaker relationships ended in an unclear and frequently negative way

3. Lack of attention to closure may be inadvertently contributing to negative mentoring experiences – especially for more relationally vulnerable youth

4. Need for clear, direct endings

5. Importance of closely monitoring matches

Benefits & Risks of Closure

• For youth

• For mentors

• For the program

23

- Renee’s research showed impact on youth

- Word of mouth from mentors could be negative

- Retention rates decrease - Quantity vs. quality - Funding at stake - Risk management - Re-matching

+ Manage expectations + Safety + Risk management + Outcomes and evaluation

results reflect effective matches

+ Re-matching + Benefits of

activities/events that are part of closure process

+ Reflection + Celebrate

accomplishments

Program Responsibility

• Legal – risk management

• Ethical – youth & relationship

• Address closure process in recruitment,

screening and pre-match training

• Monitor & support mentors and mentees

throughout the match, with special

attention to the beginning

• Clear policies for post-match contact

communicated to all participants

24

Program Responsibility

25

What does closure look like?

1. Who is involved? – Mentor, mentee,

parent/guardian, program

staff

2. What is discussed?

3. How are things left?

Next steps?

26

Ideas for Closure

27

Future Webinars

28

October 18 - Growing the Evidence Base for Mentoring: The

Research, Lessons Learned, and Long-Lasting Impact of

Public/Private Ventures

P/PV closed its doors in July of this year, but we have asked three of their

prominent mentoring researchers and experts—Drs. Wilson Goode, Jean

Grossman, and Carla Herrera—to join us to discuss the legacy of their work, the art

of evaluating mentoring programs, and future trends and directions for our entire

field.

Future Topics:

November 15 –

Disconnected/

Opportunity Youth

December 20 –

National Mentoring

Month

Good to Know…

29

After the webinar, all attendees receive:

Instructions for how to access PDF of

presentation slides and webinar

recording

Link to the for

resources, contact information &

opportunities to continue the dialogue

Please help us

out by

answering

survey

questions at the

end of the

webinar.

2012 Collaborative Mentoring Webinar Series

30

Thank you for

participating today!

Sarah Kremer,

Friends for Youth Michael Garringer,

Education Northwest

April Riordan, MP of

Minnesota Celeste Janssen,

Oregon Mentors

Meghan Ferns,

Oregon Mentors

Dana Gold, MP of

SWPA

Marissa Strayer Benton,

Mobius Mentors

December Warren,

Indiana MP