The State of Mentoring in Michigan Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005 Robert...

The State of Mentoring in MichiganThe State of Mentoring in Michigan

Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005


Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D.

Kahle Research Solutions Inc.Ferndale, MI 48220

(248) 541-6200 [email protected]

Detroit, MI Regional Meeting, July 26, 2005





Organization of This PresentationOrganization of This Presentation

I. Background and Introduction

– Objectives

– Defining Mentoring

– Conceptual Overview… Mentoring Funnel

– Methods Used to Conduct the MentorMichigan Census

I. Background and Introduction

– Objectives

– Defining Mentoring

– Conceptual Overview… Mentoring Funnel

– Methods Used to Conduct the MentorMichigan Census

Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

Organization of This Presentation (Cont’d)

Organization of This Presentation (Cont’d)

II. Key Findings– Tracking key funnel measures

– Demographic changes

– Understanding the gap

– Satisfaction with Mentor MI

III: Using MMC Data– Program Benchmarking/Evaluation

– Fundraising

– Awareness Building

II. Key Findings– Tracking key funnel measures

– Demographic changes

– Understanding the gap

– Satisfaction with Mentor MI

III: Using MMC Data– Program Benchmarking/Evaluation

– Fundraising

– Awareness Building


Mentor Michigan Census ObjectivesMentor Michigan Census Objectives

1. Identify, count, describe and track– Mentoring organizations– Mentoring programs– Matches, Mentors and Mentees

2. Understand program components, processes, resources and needs

3. Encourage and support program evaluation

1. Identify, count, describe and track– Mentoring organizations– Mentoring programs– Matches, Mentors and Mentees

2. Understand program components, processes, resources and needs

3. Encourage and support program evaluation


Defining MentoringDefining Mentoring

Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of the mentee.

(National Mentoring Partnership)

Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of the mentee.

(National Mentoring Partnership)


Defining MentoringDefining Mentoring

Responsible mentoring can take many forms: Traditional mentoring

(one adult to one young person) Group mentoring

(one adult to up to four young people)

Team mentoring (several adults working with small groups of young people, in

which the adult to youth ratio is not greater than 1:4) Peer mentoring (caring youth mentoring other youth)

E-mentoring (mentoring via e-mail and the internet)

Responsible mentoring can take many forms: Traditional mentoring

(one adult to one young person) Group mentoring

(one adult to up to four young people)

Team mentoring (several adults working with small groups of young people, in

which the adult to youth ratio is not greater than 1:4) Peer mentoring (caring youth mentoring other youth)

E-mentoring (mentoring via e-mail and the internet)Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

RecruitmentRecruitment

MentorPreparation and

Selection

MentorPreparation and

Selection

MentoringMentoring


The Mentoring Funnel

The Mentoring Funnel

Outcomes for…Outcomes for…

ChildrenChildren AdultsAdults Mentoring OrganizationsMentoring Organizations CommunitiesCommunities State of MIState of MI

Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training

Mentoring

Duration & Intensity

Repeat & Refer

Mentoring

Duration & Intensity

Repeat & Refer

Awareness

Interest

Inquiry

Awareness

Interest

Inquiry


MethodMethod

Mentor MI CensusWave II

136Complete

Wave III – Fall 2005

Wave IV – Spring 2006

Wave V – Fall 2006


Wave IRegistered = 156Responded = 105

as of Aug. 31, 2004

Mentor MI Registry

207Organizations

as of Feb. 28, 2005

MethodMethod– On-line survey (hard-copy option)

– Wave I data collected in September 2004

– Wave II data collected in March 2005

– Data collected at both organizational and program levels

– Mentoring organization representatives involved in design and pre-test

– Special focus in Wave II on understanding the gap and use and satisfaction with MM services

– On-line survey (hard-copy option)

– Wave I data collected in September 2004

– Wave II data collected in March 2005

– Data collected at both organizational and program levels

– Mentoring organization representatives involved in design and pre-test

– Special focus in Wave II on understanding the gap and use and satisfaction with MM services


Special Thanks to All Who Completed Wave IISpecial Thanks to All Who Completed Wave II

Jumpstart for Young Children, Inc.

Wisdom Institute for Teenage Mothers

Girl Scouts of Metro Detroit

Metropolitan Certified Teachers Association, LLC

AMICUS II, Inc.

Women in Community Service

Destiny and Purpose Community Outreach

Legacy Associates Foundation

Jumpstart for Young Children, Inc.

Wisdom Institute for Teenage Mothers

Girl Scouts of Metro Detroit

Metropolitan Certified Teachers Association, LLC

AMICUS II, Inc.

Women in Community Service

Destiny and Purpose Community Outreach

Legacy Associates Foundation

Student Mentor Partners

Volunteers in Prevention, Inc.

Life Directions

Twenty-first Century Sisterhood, Inc.

Maria Madeline Project, Inc.

MANHOOD, INC

Common Ground Sanctuary

NaFFAA Michigan

Jewish Family Service-Mentor Connection

Student Mentor Partners

Volunteers in Prevention, Inc.

Life Directions

Twenty-first Century Sisterhood, Inc.

Maria Madeline Project, Inc.

MANHOOD, INC

Common Ground Sanctuary

NaFFAA Michigan

Jewish Family Service-Mentor Connection


Overview of FindingsKey Funnel MeasuresOverview of FindingsKey Funnel Measures


Responding and RegisteredMentoring OrganizationsResponding and RegisteredMentoring Organizations

00 5050 100100 150150 200200 250250

Wave IIWave II

Wave IWave I156156

105105

136136

207207

Responding OrganizationsResponding Organizations Registered OrganizationsRegistered Organizations


Wave I vs. Wave IIWave I vs. Wave II

35 organizations in the Tri-County area responded

to Wave II

35 organizations in the Tri-County area responded

to Wave II

Inquiries and applications are increasing.

In Jan. and Feb. of 2005, more than 3,900 inquiries and 1,852 applications.

Inquiries and applications are increasing.

In Jan. and Feb. of 2005, more than 3,900 inquiries and 1,852 applications.

How Many Inquiries?Applications? How Many Inquiries?Applications?

9,975: New inquiries in 2004

6,249: New written applications received from potential mentors

9,975: New inquiries in 2004

6,249: New written applications received from potential mentors


ApplicationBackground Checks

Training

ApplicationBackground Checks

Training

MentoringDuration & Intensity

Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer

AwarenessInterest

Inquiry

AwarenessInterest

Inquiry

Mentor Inquiries and Applications Monthly Averages:Mentor Inquiries and Applications Monthly Averages:

Wave I vs. Wave IIWave I vs. Wave II

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1/1/04 - 8/31/04Wave I

1/1/04 - 8/31/04Wave I

1,9511,951

926831831

520520728728

497497

9/1/04 - 12/31/04Wave II

9/1/04 - 12/31/04Wave II

1/1/05 - 2/28/05Wave II

1/1/05 - 2/28/05Wave II

InquiriesInquiries

ApplicationsApplications


Slightly less than one third of the state total of inquires and applications

come from the tri-county area

Slightly less than one third of the state total of inquires and applications

come from the tri-county area

What Types of Screening Used? Increase Since Wave I?What Types of Screening Used? Increase Since Wave I?

AwarenessInterestInquiry


Little change from Wave I. Slightly more use Sex Offender and Child Abuse registries.

Little change from Wave I. Slightly more use Sex Offender and Child Abuse registries.


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer

Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training

0 20 40 60 80 100

Criminal BackgroundCheck

Criminal BackgroundCheck

Sex Offender RegistrySex Offender Registry

Child Abuse RegistryChild Abuse Registry

Personal CharacterReference

Personal CharacterReference

Written ApplicationWritten Application

Personal InterviewPersonal Interview

89%89%83%83%

60%60%64%64%

40%40%48%48%

79%79%81%81%

83%83%89%89%

86%86%87%87%

Wave IWave I Wave IIWave II Not all response categories shownNot all response categories shown


How Many Children Served?How Many Mentors? How Many Children Served?How Many Mentors?

27,090:Young people mentored in 2004

15,977:Mentors throughout all of 2004

30,000+: Estimated mentor/mentee relationships in MI in 2004

27,090:Young people mentored in 2004

15,977:Mentors throughout all of 2004

30,000+: Estimated mentor/mentee relationships in MI in 2004


Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer



Mentoring movement momentum is building, although growth in mentoring

is mostly out-state, not in tri-county area

Mentoring movement momentum is building, although growth in mentoring

is mostly out-state, not in tri-county area

What Type of Mentoring?What Type of Mentoring?

Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer



One to One66%

One to One66%

E-Mentoring1%

E-Mentoring1%

Team 13%Team 13%

Peer 7%Peer 7%

Group 13%Group 13%

PrimaryPrimary

State-wide one to one mentoring is still most common and

has increased slightly since Wave I

In tri-county, one to one is less common and peer and team more often used

State-wide one to one mentoring is still most common and

has increased slightly since Wave I

In tri-county, one to one is less common and peer and team more often used



Mentoring Program Site?Mentoring Program Site?

Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer



Community-Based45%

Community-Based45%

Business1%

Business1%

Gov’t/Other10%

Gov’t/Other10%

School-Based36%

School-Based36%

Faith-Based8%

Faith-Based8%

While there are more community-based programs, more children are served via school-based programs

Average school-based program serves 169Average community-based program serves 115

While there are more community-based programs, more children are served via school-based programs

Average school-based program serves 169Average community-based program serves 115

More or Less Mentoring? More or Less Mentoring?

94: Organizations report an increase in matches in last year

29: Organizations report a decrease in matches in last year

94: Organizations report an increase in matches in last year

29: Organizations report a decrease in matches in last year


Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer



3,282:increase in new matches since Feb. of 2004

- 1066: decrease in matches since Feb. 2004

2,216:net increase in matches comparing Feb. 2004 through Feb. 2005

3,282:increase in new matches since Feb. of 2004

- 1066: decrease in matches since Feb. 2004

2,216:net increase in matches comparing Feb. 2004 through Feb. 2005

Net increase

in tri-county is

282

Net increase

in tri-county is

282

More or Less Active Mentors?More or Less Active Mentors?

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Wave IIWave II

Wave IWave I


Number of Active MentorsWave I vs. Wave II

Number of Active MentorsWave I vs. Wave II

12,000

9,1089,108

10,54610,546

Tri-County mentors

represent 1,624 of total in Wave II

Tri-County mentors

represent 1,624 of total in Wave II

Waiting Lists Longer or Shorter? Waiting Lists Longer or Shorter?

Wave I Wave II

Mentors 2,017 1,243

Mentees 2,345 3,428

Wave I Wave II

Mentors 2,017 1,243

Mentees 2,345 3,428

Mentors on waiting lists have declined, while there are more children waiting.

Number of children waiting is under-stated!

Mentors on waiting lists have declined, while there are more children waiting.

Number of children waiting is under-stated!

Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training


Repeat & Refer


Repeat & Refer




0 10 20 30 40

Reported Minimum Weekly Mentoring Intensity: Wave I vs. Wave II Reported Minimum Weekly Mentoring Intensity: Wave I vs. Wave II

Mentoring

Duration & IntensityRepeat & Refer

Mentoring

Duration & IntensityRepeat & Refer

No MinimumTime Required

No MinimumTime Required

1 Hour per Week1 Hour per Week

2 Hours per Week2 Hours per Week

3-5 Hours per Week3-5 Hours per Week

6+ Hours per Week6+ Hours per Week


19%19%13%13%

38%38%42%42%

23%23%15%15%

23%23%15%15%

4%4%11%11%

Don’t know/no answer responses not shownDon’t know/no answer responses not shownIntensity has

increased slightly at low and high ends

since Wave I

Intensity has increased slightly at low and high ends

since Wave I

Wave IWave I

Wave IIWave II



Application

Background Checks

Training

Application

Background Checks

Training

Mentor and Youth Served Demographics

Mentor and Youth Served Demographics


Changes in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II - State Totals Changes in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II - State Totals


Large increase in 18-25 year olds who mentor

Implication is that college age young adults

are good targets for mentor recruitment

Large increase in 18-25 year olds who mentor

Implication is that college age young adults

are good targets for mentor recruitment

Wave I Wave II

<18 19% 20%18-25 9 3926-3536-45 52 3046-5556-65 16 466+ 4 7

Wave I Wave II

<18 19% 20%18-25 9 3926-3536-45 52 3046-5556-65 16 466+ 4 7

Mentor AgeMentor AgeMentor GenderMentor Gender

Wave I Wave II

Male 34% 32%

Female 66% 68%

Wave I Wave II

Male 34% 32%

Female 66% 68%

Changes in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State TotalsChanges in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals


Wave I Wave II

Caucasian 76% 78%

African-American 22 16

Hispanic 2 2

Native American < 1 1

Asian-American < 1 2

Arab-American < 1 < 1

Other < 1 < 1

Wave I Wave II

Caucasian 76% 78%


Hispanic 2 2

Native American < 1 1

Asian-American < 1 2


Other < 1 < 1

Decreased proportion of African-American

mentors in Wave II is a result of new

organizations reporting, not decline in the

number of African-

American mentors

Decreased proportion of African-American

mentors in Wave II is a result of new

organizations reporting, not decline in the

number of African-

American mentors

Mentor RaceMentor Race

Mentor Demographics Wave II: Tri-County Mentor Demographics Wave II: Tri-County

• Mentor Gender– Tri-county slightly more male

• Mentor Age– Tri-county mentors more “middle age”– Big group of 18-25 mentors in Washtenaw

• Mentor Race– 40% of Tri-County Mentors are

African-American – Highest minority proportion in the state

• Mentor Gender– Tri-county slightly more male

• Mentor Age– Tri-county mentors more “middle age”– Big group of 18-25 mentors in Washtenaw

• Mentor Race– 40% of Tri-County Mentors are

African-American – Highest minority proportion in the state



Proportion of male youth served has increased

Proportion of younger children (ages 6-11) has increased and 12-14 years old decreased

Proportion of male youth served has increased

Proportion of younger children (ages 6-11) has increased and 12-14 years old decreased

Wave I Wave II

<5 - 4%6-11 35% 5912-14 45 1715-18 18 2018-25 2 < 126+ - < 1

Wave I Wave II

<5 - 4%6-11 35% 5912-14 45 1715-18 18 2018-25 2 < 126+ - < 1

Youth Served AgeYouth Served AgeYouth Served GenderYouth Served Gender

Wave I Wave II

Male 40% 51%

Female 60% 49%

Wave I Wave II

Male 40% 51%

Female 60% 49%

Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State TotalsChanges in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals

Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State TotalsChanges in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals


Wave I Wave II

Caucasian 44% 57%


Hispanic 5 4

Native American 2 1

Asian-American - < 1


Other - 2

Wave I Wave II

Caucasian 44% 57%


Hispanic 5 4

Native American 2 1

Asian-American - < 1


Other - 2

Race proportions are different in Wave II

with increase in Caucasians being

served and decrease in proportion of

African-American youths served as a

result of new programs reporting

Race proportions are different in Wave II

with increase in Caucasians being

served and decrease in proportion of

African-American youths served as a

result of new programs reporting

Youth Served RaceYouth Served Race

Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Tri-CountyChanges in Youth Served Demographics: Tri-County

• Youth Served: Gender– Fewer boys served in tri-county

• Youth Served: Age– Teens, especially 15-18 year olds represent

larger proportion of youth served in tri-county compared to state as a whole

• Youth Served: Race– 64% of tri-county youth served are

African-American

• Youth Served: Gender– Fewer boys served in tri-county

• Youth Served: Age– Teens, especially 15-18 year olds represent

larger proportion of youth served in tri-county compared to state as a whole

• Youth Served: Race– 64% of tri-county youth served are

African-American


Understanding the Gap

Understanding the Gap


Barriers to GrowthBarriers to Growth


Too few male mentorsToo few male mentors

Lack of staff for recruitmentLack of staff for recruitment

Too few African-American mentors


Lack of staff to supervise matchesLack of staff to supervise matches

63%63%

59%59%

36%36%

32%32%

30%30%

23%23%

23%23%

22%22%

18%18%

18%18%

16%16%

• Mentoring Organizations report that they are already at or above capacity

For many, either operating budgets need to increase and/or find more support in recruiting, screening and training

• Mentoring Organizations report that they are already at or above capacity

For many, either operating budgets need to increase and/or find more support in recruiting, screening and training

Potential mentors do not follow-upPotential mentors do not follow-up

Lack of staff for mentor trainingLack of staff for mentor training

Potential mentors not committingto time (intensity)


Too few female mentorsToo few female mentors

Too few Hispanic mentorsToo few Hispanic mentors

Lack of staff to support screeningLack of staff to support screening

Potential mentors not committingto min. match (duration)


Barriers to GrowthBarriers to Growth


Too few male mentorsToo few male mentors

Lack of staff for recruitmentLack of staff for recruitment



Lack of staff to supervise matchesLack of staff to supervise matches

63%63%

59%59%

36%36%

32%32%

30%30%

23%23%

23%23%

22%22%

18%18%

18%18%

16%16%

• Not enough African-American mentors and mentors who will not work with type of children on list are especially big barriers in tri-county

• Not enough African-American mentors and mentors who will not work with type of children on list are especially big barriers in tri-county

Potential mentors do not follow-upPotential mentors do not follow-up

Lack of staff for mentor trainingLack of staff for mentor training



Too few female mentorsToo few female mentors

Too few Hispanic mentorsToo few Hispanic mentors

Lack of staff to support screeningLack of staff to support screening



Reasons Inquiries Do Not Become MentorsReasons Inquiries Do Not Become Mentors


• Liability is a major concern among only 4% of organizations. Most feel they manage liability well

• Approximately 5% of applicants are disqualified through the background checking process

• Liability is a major concern among only 4% of organizations. Most feel they manage liability well

• Approximately 5% of applicants are disqualified through the background checking process

Potential mentor does notsubmit application

Potential mentor does notsubmit application

Potential mentor declinesafter learning about time

per week (intensity)

Potential mentor declinesafter learning about time

per week (intensity)

Potential mentor declinesafter learning about

length of time (duration)


length of time (duration)


needs/character of youth


needs/character of youth


training requirements


training requirements

29%29%

15%15%

11%11%

5%5%

5%5%

Mentor Michigan:Satisfaction and Services Used

Mentor Michigan:Satisfaction and Services Used


Satisfaction with Mentor MichiganSatisfaction with Mentor Michigan


Very Satisfied: 40%

Very Satisfied: 40%

Somewhat Satisfied: 38%

Somewhat Satisfied: 38%

Not Very Satisfied: 3%Not Very Satisfied: 3% Not At All: 1%Not At All: 1%

Not Aware/Don’t Know: 18%Not Aware/Don’t Know: 18%

Building awareness through marketing, enhanced linkages

and support for recruitment are the most frequently

mentioned perceived benefits

Building awareness through marketing, enhanced linkages

and support for recruitment are the most frequently

mentioned perceived benefits

Satisfaction with MM is especially strong in

tri-county

Enhanced linkages is key benefit

Satisfaction with MM is especially strong in

tri-county

Enhanced linkages is key benefit

Use of Mentor Michigan ServicesUse of Mentor Michigan Services


Listserve emailListserve email

MM websiteMM website

Heard FG Mulhern speakHeard FG Mulhern speak

Attended training sessionAttended training session

Saw a MM PSA on TVSaw a MM PSA on TV

Part. in Ntl. Mentoring Month Act.Part. in Ntl. Mentoring Month Act.

None of the aboveNone of the above

Att. regional mtg./Mackinaw Cty.Att. regional mtg./Mackinaw Cty.

• 90% of mentoring organizations reporting have been touched by Mentor Michigan in some way

• Electronic resources are most widely used

• 90% of mentoring organizations reporting have been touched by Mentor Michigan in some way

• Electronic resources are most widely used

Used MMC data in funding prop.Used MMC data in funding prop.

FG Mulhern spoke at your eventFG Mulhern spoke at your event

Used MMC data in eval/planningUsed MMC data in eval/planning

Att. regional mtg./Grand RapidsAtt. regional mtg./Grand Rapids

Heard MM PSA on radioHeard MM PSA on radio

Att. regional mtg./WarrenAtt. regional mtg./Warren

Have VISTA or AmeriCorps workerHave VISTA or AmeriCorps worker

Used MM directoryUsed MM directory

74%74%74%74%

57%57%32%32%

29%29%27%27%

25%25%21%21%

18%18%16%16%15%15%15%15%14%14%

11%11%11%11%

5%5%10%10%

Used tool kitUsed tool kit


Discussion &

Application

Discussion &

Application


Have you used MMC data for…

Evaluation/Benchmarking?

Awareness Building? Fundraising?

Have you used MMC data for…

Evaluation/Benchmarking?

Awareness Building? Fundraising?

Example #1: Using MMC Data for BenchmarkingExample #1: Using MMC Data for Benchmarking

Benchmarking on Screening MentorsBenchmarking on Screening Mentors

State Region Program% Using Sex Offender Registry 64% 57% 75%

% Using Child Abuse Registry 48% 53% 100%

% Checking Personal CharacterReferences 81% 76%

State Region Program% Using Sex Offender Registry 64% 57% 75%

% Using Child Abuse Registry 48% 53% 100%

% Checking Personal CharacterReferences 81% 76%


25%25%

Example #2: Using MMC Data for FundraisingExample #2: Using MMC Data for Fundraising

• Use MMC data to make the case for needed funds

– Reference standards

– Reference comparative strengths (region/state)

– Reference comparative weaknesses

– Subtly communicate you manage, plan, operate as a “fact driven” organization

– Success of your initiative will be evaluated

– Tools, measures, already in-place

• Use MMC data to make the case for needed funds

– Reference standards

– Reference comparative strengths (region/state)

– Reference comparative weaknesses

– Subtly communicate you manage, plan, operate as a “fact driven” organization

– Success of your initiative will be evaluated

– Tools, measures, already in-place


Example #3: Using MMC Data for Awareness BuildingExample #3: Using MMC Data for Awareness Building

• Letters/reports to key stakeholders (mentors, parents, schools, funding sources, media)

• Did you know: – Our organization/collaborative accounts for XX%

of all mentoring relationships in the region/state

– Our organization is among the tops in terms of…• Mentoring intensity or duration• Screening• Training

• Letters/reports to key stakeholders (mentors, parents, schools, funding sources, media)

• Did you know: – Our organization/collaborative accounts for XX%

of all mentoring relationships in the region/state

– Our organization is among the tops in terms of…• Mentoring intensity or duration• Screening• Training



Discussion Discussion

The State of Mentoring in MichiganThe State of Mentoring in Michigan











The State of Mentoring in Michigan Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005 Robert...

Documents

Transcript of The State of Mentoring in Michigan Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005 Robert...