EXPLORATORY STUDY OF BEST PRACTICES
OF SACRAMENTO AREA MENTORING
PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH
Cheryl C. Gonzales
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2008
Eveline C. Gonzalez
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2008
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
© 2010
Cheryl C. Gonzales
Eveline C. Gonzalez
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
EXPLORATORY STUDY OF BEST PRACTICES
OF SACRAMENTO AREA MENTORING
PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH
A Project
by
Cheryl C. Gonzales
Eveline C. Gonzalez
Approved by:
___________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Santos Torres, Jr.
___________________________
Date
iii
Cheryl C. Gonzales
Student: Eveline C. Gonzalez
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the project.
______________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Division of Social Work
iv
____________
Date
Abstract
of
EXPLORATORY STUDY OF BEST PRACTICES
OF SACRAMENTO AREA MENTORING
PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH
By
Cheryl C. Gonzales
Eveline C. Gonzalez
The focus of this study is to determine the best practices of mentoring programs for atrisk youth in the Sacramento area. The researchers aim not only to look into the
policies and practices of the selected mentoring programs, but to integrate the best
practices in the hope of providing guidelines and information. These guidelines and
information provide a template for generating interest to organize mentor programs,
improve methods of recruitment, mobilize communities, and find funding support.
Three mentoring programs participated in an exploratory and qualitative study through
one-on-one interviews. The outcomes will prepare social workers and others working
in the field of mentoring for at-risk youth. It will assist other mentoring programs in
finding and implementing best practice services.
__________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Santos Torres, Jr.
__________________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
To our tutor, CY, for your patience, kindness, and never-ending dedication. Your
humility never ceases to amaze us.
Eveline and Cheryl
This project is dedicated in loving memory of my abuelito, Rosario “Chayo” Moreno.
Eveline C. Gonzalez
This project is dedicated to children and youth who experience abuse and neglect and
deserve so much more love and happiness.
Cheryl C. Gonzales
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many who have assisted and inspired us in our journey to obtain a
Master of Social Work degree. First, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Santos Torres,
Jr. for his patience and encouragement in this project. Thank you very much to Dr.
Ricky Gutierrez and Dr. Lynette Lee for providing us with the experience of mentoring.
Without them, we would never have pursued this project. We would also like to
acknowledge the participants in this study, and a colossal appreciation to our tutor. You
inspire us.
Eveline and Cheryl
I would like to acknowledge my Mommy, Dad, and Aurelio for believing in me.
Thank you to my family, friends, and Mental Health cohort who gave me the strength to
keep moving forward and never give up. Also, thank you to Cheryl, my project partner,
for making me apply to the MSW program and helping me survive this painful process.
Eveline C. Gonzalez
I sincerely thank my parents, Joseph and Christina, and my spouse, Michael, for
encouraging me to realize my aspirations and helping me to be the person that I am and
hope to be. To my family, friends, colleagues, professors, Title IV-E staff, and field
instructors at CPS for supporting my goals to become a social worker, my heartfelt
gratitude and appreciation. Moreover, this baby would not have seen the light without
the collaboration of my project partner, EVOO, the yin to my yang.
Cheryl C. Gonzales
The fetus did not beat us!
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Collaboration ............................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem .............................................................................. 2
Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 6
Social Learning Theory............................................................................. 6
Resiliency Theory ..................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 9
Assumptions.................................................................................................... 10
Justification ..................................................................................................... 10
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 11
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................................... 12
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12
viii
Brief History ................................................................................................... 12
Types of Mentoring......................................................................................... 13
Purpose of Mentoring ..................................................................................... 19
Objectives and Goals ...................................................................................... 20
Recruitment and Matching .............................................................................. 22
Training and Education ................................................................................... 25
Summary ......................................................................................................... 28
3. METHODS ............................................................................................................ 29
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 29
Research Question .......................................................................................... 29
Research Design.............................................................................................. 29
Sampling of the Population ............................................................................. 31
Protection of the Human Subjects................................................................... 31
Data Collection Instrument and Procedure ..................................................... 32
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 32
Summary ......................................................................................................... 33
4. THE FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 34
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 34
Methods and Analysis of Data ........................................................................ 34
Findings of Study ............................................................................................ 35
History of the Respondents’ Programs ........................................................... 35
Program Objectives ......................................................................................... 37
ix
Qualifications to Mentoring Benefits.............................................................. 38
Best Practices .................................................................................................. 40
Recruitment of mentees and mentors ...................................................... 40
Screening process.................................................................................... 41
Matching process .................................................................................... 42
Barriers ............................................................................................................ 44
Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 45
Summary ......................................................................................................... 48
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................... 49
Summary and Conclusion of the Findings ...................................................... 49
Recruitment and Matching .............................................................................. 50
Training and Support ...................................................................................... 52
Objectives and Goals ...................................................................................... 53
Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................... 54
Implications for Social Work Practice ............................................................ 55
Appendix A. Human Subjects Approval ................................................................... 56
Appendix B. Consent to Participate in Research ....................................................... 58
Appendix C. Resource Agencies for Counseling Services ........................................ 60
Appendix D. Interview Questions.............................................................................. 62
References ................................................................................................................ 65
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Participants’ Demographic Data ............................................................. 37
2.
Table 2 Required Mentee Qualifications ............................................................. 39
3.
Table 3 Required Mentor Qualifications ............................................................. 42
4.
Table 4 Training, Support, and Time Commitment ............................................ 44
xi
1
Chapter 1
THE ISSUE
Introduction
During the academic years of 2006 through 2008, the researchers volunteered and
worked at a mentoring program for at-risk youth at the California State University,
Sacramento. In those four semesters, they had a rich and enriching opportunity to work
with them as their mentees. At the end of the spring semester of 2008, the mentoring
program embedded lasting impressions on the researchers but also left them with
ambivalent feelings. Their empathy and concern for these at-risk teenagers kept the
researchers wondering about their well-being. Questions on their ability to complete
their high school studies and pursue higher education surfaced. Would the mentees
come back to the program in the fall? How would they cope during the summer
months?
The mentees faced many struggles. They had either one or both parents
incarcerated, parents who worked two or more jobs to make ends meet which left the
teenagers in charge of their younger siblings, and/or parents who were addicted to
alcohol or drugs (having AOD addictions). Some teenagers were placed in foster care
programs because they were victims of some forms of child abuse or neglect, or they
lived with extended family members who were not that accepting or had financial
difficulties supporting them.
2
With this mentoring program at the University, the researchers discovered their
passion for working with at-risk youth. This desire led them to work with them further
in the future by focusing their master’s project on the theme of mentoring programs for
at-risk teenagers in the Sacramento area. The questions for their study centered on
examining the programs, the practices, and the target populations of a number of
mentoring agencies within the Sacramento area. The attraction to do the research on
these programs stems from the direct experience of their positive outcomes and the
findings of related research (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002).
Statement of Collaboration
This study is the fruit of collaborative efforts of the two researchers. Having
worked together in the Sac-MENTORING program at the University, they opted to
continue their collaboration in undertaking the research project. It is their aspiration
that in working together, they are able to share their insights with each other and form a
broader perspective on the theme and reality of working with the at-risk teenagers
through the mentoring program. The collaborative tasks included the preparation of the
application for the approval of human subjects in the study, the creation of the research
topic, the formulation of guide questions for the interview process, the review and
examination of the literature review data, the analysis of collected data and the results
of the findings.
Background of the Problem
There are several types of youth in need of mentoring programs. One could say
that every youth in the world needs a mentor or guide to help facilitate their dreams. In
3
the Sacramento area, our experiences have shown us that youth in all sorts of living
environments need assistance. There are youth in families where both parents work
one, two, or more jobs that need help figuring out how to maneuver their way to getting
through high school. Youth with parents who do not have a higher education than
junior high level need help finishing their high school homework. There are also youth
living in single parent families or living with grandparents who may not have the time
or be equipped to help due to the high demands of today’s situations. With mentoring
programs in place, the youth are able to receive a myriad of services. They receive
assistance in doing their homework. They also receive education on drugs and alcohol,
and the effects and damage they cause. They are given guidance to pursue a higher
education, such as graduating from high school and pursuing opportunities to go to
college or a university. Support for the youth depends on the communities in which
they live. Every mentoring program has goals that cater to the type of youth who will
receive services and the type of services they are provided. There are shortages of
available role models. However, the mentoring programs strive to do their best to help
the youth to be successful in achieving their goals in life.
In the Sacramento area, there are approximately 26 mentoring programs that
provide services, such as, individual, group, team, peer mentoring, and integration
approaches (Sacramento County, 2005). They provide a variety of support services and
employ different types of practices to help the youth. They also incorporate several
types of criteria to be able to participate in their mentoring programs, such as,
4
socioeconomic levels, academic grades or scores, and references from school
counselors.
The Sacramento based mentoring programs run on different times and lengths of
periods. Certain programs may run only during the academic year, from September
through May. Others may require a commitment of one full year, and others require a
longer term commitment.
The mentoring programs vary in location throughout the Sacramento area. They
incorporate several counties, such as, Sacramento, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, and Yolo.
There are programs linked to universities like California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS). There are church or faith based mentoring programs, like the Tabernacle
Baptist Church and Valley Christian Church. Others are located in local community
resource centers or within school districts.
With each of the 26 mentoring programs in the area aims at providing mentors to
several students. If CSUS provided 60 mentors to a local high school, they will be able
to provide services only to 60 high school students. Hence, the number of mentoring
programs available that responds to the needs of the Sacramento area counties is not
enough. Here are two clear examples. Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of
Education indicate that during the school year 2007-2008 the Elk Grove Unified School
District had 62,294 students enrolled, and the San Juan Unified School District had
47,400 students enrolled (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008). From
these figures, the number of needed mentors would be determined. In the 26
Sacramento area mentoring programs, there should approximately be 109,694 mentors
5
ready to assist. However, the actual numbers of available mentors are not there. There
is obviously a great need for mentors to fill the gap.
The support systems for youth should be in place and ready to accommodate them.
Mentoring programs practice different styles in responding to the needs of the children.
Many of these programs understand that education on drugs and alcohol is a higher
priority than sexual education. In the Democratic National Committee blogsite (DNC,
2010), President Barrack Obama emphasized the value of education of children to
prepare them in facing the current challenges in this global economy.
The 2008 U.S.
Census Bureau (2009) report showed that among younger adults of 25 to 29 years of
age, 88 percent had completed high school, and 31 percent had completed college. The
report also showed that race plays a key factor in attaining education. The census
reported that 53 percent of Asians in the U.S. had a bachelor’s degree or more
education, whereas 33 percent among non-Hispanic whites, 20 percent among blacks
(African Americans), and 13 percent among Hispanics. A quick glance at these data
indicates that students who are non-Hispanic whites, African American, and Hispanic
need more mentoring support. The ratio of 26 mentoring programs in the Sacramento
area to the number of students for these programs focuses on the huge demand for
mentors in the program and a greater community support.
Statement of the Research Problem
Given the meager presence of mentoring programs to address the holistic needs of
at-risk youth in the Sacramento area, the focus of this study as the research problem is
6
to determine the best practices of mentoring programs in the area in terms of their goals
and objectives, recruitment methods, and training and education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine and understand the different approaches
and practices of representative Sacramento area mentoring programs. Understanding
the practices of the mentoring programs, helps define their goals and purposes, and how
they maintain funding and support. Through this study, the researchers aim not only to
look into the policies and practices of the selected mentoring programs but also to
integrate the best practices of the given programs in the hope of providing guidelines
and information which could generate interest in organizing additional mentor
programs, improving methods of recruitment and mobilizing community and funding
support.
Theoretical Framework
This project study looks at two theories, social learning theory and resiliency
theory, for its theoretical framework to better understand the mentoring program.
Mentoring relies heavily on the theory that mentees will gain education, insight, and
that they model their behavior based on their interactions with and learned behavior
from their mentors. Mentoring likewise relies on resiliency, and how mentors have
compensatory and protective effects on their mentees.
Social Learning Theory
Albert Bandura (1925- present) is the proponent of the Social Learning Theory
which is a key theoretical frame in the mentoring program. This learning theory posits
7
that people learn from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling
(Bandura, & Walters, 1963). Furthermore, the theory states that modeling to become
effective requires attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. The key phrase in
Bandura’s social learning theory is reciprocal determinism, whereby the world and a
person’s behavior are understood to cause each other, and that the human personality is
an interaction between three components: the environment, behavior, and one’s
psychological processes (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986). Social learning theory
applied to mentoring programs employs several methods for building one’s learning
dictionary. Four processes of the learning theory describe how it applies to affecting an
individual and altering one’s behavior (Kim, Kwak, & Yun, 2010). These processes
which play key roles in the functionality of mentoring include: (1) differential
association, (2) definitions, (3) differential reinforcement, and (4) imitation. In the
mentoring programs, a mentee is paired (or associated) with a mentor who is believed to
be the person best suited to guide them. In theory, the mentee will observe their mentor
and hopefully mimic or imitate their behavior. This practice is not dictated, but by
pairing them with a positive influence, it will assist the mentees in their success. Thus,
in utilizing the theory of social learning by modeling via sensory capacities, arousal,
perceptual, and past reinforcement (Kim, Kwak, & Yun, 2010), the mentee will
hopefully retain the information received based on the mentee’s process of encoding
what was observed with a symbolic meaning, picture, or behavior. With the newly
stored information, the mentee gains either positive or negative reinforcement which
teaches them to choose which behavior is appropriate (Brauer, 2009). With the use of
8
the social learning theory, mentoring programs incorporate cognitive, affective, social,
and psychomotor behaviors that will be beneficial on a long-term basis (Demirbas, &
Yagbasan, 2006). Although social learning theory sets up a positive influence for the
consumers, resiliency theory, on the other hand, prepares the mentees for potential
barriers to the process.
Resiliency Theory
The word “resilience” comes from the Latin word meaning “to jump back, bounce
back, or to rebound.” Because of the composite nature of the person as consisting of
mind, body, and spirit, the individual, family, or society has the capacity to bounce back
to seek its original sense and purpose and to gather the needed strengths to achieve
one’s goal. Although the resilience theory has been evolving for almost four decades
(Van Breda, 2001), it was in the past 30 years that it was re-introduced by the Canadian
ecologist C. S. Holling in 1973. It is premised on the social-ecological systems, which
are strongly linked, co-evolving, and adaptive across time and space. It began as an
inquiry into the childhood roots of resilience. Now it extends into the individual, family,
community, workplace and policy domains.
Applied to the mentoring programs, the resiliency theory incorporates risk and
protective factors. It explains the direct and indirect influences between the mentor, the
mentee, and the environment (Feinstein, Baartman, Buboltz, Sonnichsen, & Solomon,
2008). Their relationship is based on the interactions and the bond the two have with
one another along with outside interactions. This theory indicates how it can be applied
to several types of mentoring practices that are positive, beneficial, and helpful to the
9
youth toward being successful in combating negative outcomes (Zimmerman,
Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002). A clear example would be a program aimed at foster
care youth. A foster care youth is matched with an adult that can be a positive influence
in their life. Often the youth has experienced physical domestic violence and incurred
physical and emotional injuries. The risk factor for this youth is learning that in order
to show love, it must involve physical abuse. However, the protective factor is the
influence of a mentor that will show them how to communicate anger and frustration
without being physical. The mentoring program can help the youth to experience
alternative ways of expressing his emotions and thoughts in a more positive and
productive way. Through the modeling behavior and care of the mentor, the mentee is
able to bounce back from a regressive behavior and move on progressively in life.
Definition of Terms
Terms that are often encountered in this study are hereby defined below.
AOD abuse and addiction: (Alcohol and other Drug) a problem or issue that includes
the use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs that affects a person’s functionality in their social
and environmental life.
At-risk youth: victim of environmental risks and lack of social support
Best practices: customary actions performed regularly to facilitate achieving goals or
positive outcomes.
Environmental risks: alcohol and substance abuse, incarceration, child abuse and/or
neglect, poverty, and homelessness.
10
Foster child: minor placed in a relative (not birth parents) or a certified foster family
home that provides 24 hour substitute care.
Incarcerated: required by law to be placed in custody in a local police station, county,
state, or federal penitentiary for conviction of a crime.
Mentee/protégé: an individual that builds a relationship with a mentor or role model as
a guide for advice thus altering their future behavior.
Mentor/role model: an individual that provides positive emotional and social support,
and encourages others to make good decisions.
Minor: an individual that is 17 years of age or younger.
Assumptions
An important assumption in this study is that mentoring programs in Sacramento
are all currently using the same practices and have the data to show that the practices
they are utilizing are the best practices. It is also assumed that these mentoring
programs have the same goals when providing services to their consumers. Examples
of such assumptions are the mentoring programs recruit their mentors in the same
fashion, such as contacting businesses where professionals are employed and willing to
provide guidance and assistance to an at-risk youth. Other assumptions are the required
qualifications regarding education and professional skill sets and knowledge.
Justification
The outcome of this project will provide assistance and guidance to those needing
a mentor. Communities, school settings, and social workers will be able to make
11
referrals for their clientele and have the knowledge that they are in a positive and caring
relationship that will have long-term beneficial effects.
Limitations
The limitations which the researchers foresee would be the adequate time for
accessing the 26 identified mentoring programs in the Sacramento area. Since there are
approximately 26 area-based programs, the researchers did not have an adequate
amount of time to interview each program to ascertain their practices. The researchers
will interview three Sacramento area mentoring program expert informants.
Another limitation foreseen is the agencies’ communication regarding their
openness on the effectiveness and to research of their programs. Access to information
and the right to share may hinder their chosen best practices. The realistic information
brought to the forefront could impact funding. Given the possible limitation from the
agencies’ openness to accessible information, this research work still aims to find the
best practices from the three programs considered. Realistically, it does not assume to
reflect or exclusively endorse that these are the best and most successful for all
programs. The study should be utilized as an additional tool in accessing mentoring
programs. It hopes to illuminate the mentoring programs discussed and their best
practices to guide those seeking these types of services in the most beneficial direction.
12
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
After introducing the basic elements of this study, this chapter aims to broaden the
knowledge base about mentoring programs for at-risk youths. It begins with a historical
perspective on the program in our country. Then it highlights four major themes that
have been commonly encountered in the review of literature. The themes pertain to the
purpose, objectives and goals, recruitment and matching, and training and education of
programs. The literature review assists in deepening the knowledge of the program and
the practices available in diverse places and settings.
In order to articulate what the best practices of mentoring programs are for at-risk
youth in the Sacramento area, the historical part explores the origin of mentoring, the
different types of mentoring, and finally the practices used.
Brief History
Mentoring has been employed since the beginning of history throughout the world.
Countless individuals have acquired mentors to influence, support, and guide them
through life’s everyday struggles. Mentors and mentoring programs have become an
important part of the community. Historically, mentoring programs for youth transpired
from grassroots efforts of social activists (DuBois, Doolittle, Yates, Silverthorn, &
Tebes, 2006).
13
Mentoring programs have originated already in the 1900s (Baker, & Maguire,
2005). However, in the United States, mentoring youth programs began when a
juvenile court movement was being established in the state of New York in the late
1980’s (2005). Since then, such programs have continued to become popular entities in
the grassroots efforts and have grown dramatically in the United States (Blechman,
1992; Rhodes, Liang, & Spencer, 2009). Mentoring began as religious programs for
youth who needed support to divert from criminal activities. Later on, due to its
effective results, it became a popular phenomenon that is still used throughout the
nation. The majority of well-valued mentoring programs are still sponsored by local
church and civil organizations (Blechman, 1992).
A mentor is an individual in a one-on-one relationship and meets face-to-face with
another individual to assist in giving advice and guidance on academic, social, career, or
personal goals to the other person, in this case, a youth (DuBois, & Neville, 1997).
Mentors help adolescents cope with life’s everyday stressors (Grossman, & Rhodes,
2002). A survey completed by the Commonwealth Fund stated, “31% of respondents
reported having been a mentor to a child or young person at some point in his or her
life, and 1 in 7 (14%) reported currently being involved in a mentoring relationship”
(McLearn, Colasanto, & Schoen, 1998).
Types of Mentoring
There are many forms of mentor, mentor types, and functions for mentors. Three
forms of mentors are formal, informal, and natural ones (DuBois, & Silverthorn, 2005;
Palgi, & Moore, 2004; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Behrendt, 2005). Formal
14
mentoring has been arranged by an organization, while informal mentoring involves
individuals who admire and follow the path of an elite figure for guidance. An example
of a formal mentor can be a professional social worker employed at a community youth
program. Gandhi, a Supreme Court Justice, Bill Gates or a local teacher can be
examples of informal mentors (Palgi, & Moore, 2004). With informal mentoring, the
individual who seeks guidance might not know the mentor personally but will follow
their work and legacy. One can volunteer or are paid to work for community programs,
such as Big Brothers & Big Sisters. However, most mentoring programs run or operate
with the services of non-paid volunteers (Blechman, 1992). Natural mentors are nonparental adults. They would be neighbors, teachers, or family members where a youth
can receive support and guidance as a result of a formed relationship, which developed
without the help of a structured program (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Behrendt,
2005). An advantage of natural mentoring is the longevity of the bond that is created
naturally. The duration of most formal mentoring programs, the relationship consists of
six to twelve months (Pedersen, Woolum, Gagne, & Coleman, 2009).
Mentoring programs develop youth programs through integration and
interrelationship of theory, research, and practice (DuBois, & Karcher, 2005). The
purpose of youth mentoring is for preventative measures (DuBois, Doolittle, Yates,
Silverthorn, & Tebes, 2006). They aim to assist and guide youth at-risk from falling into
delinquency, school dropout, teen pregnancy, unemployment, and other vulnerable life
outcomes predicted for these at-risk youth. An adult assists the youth in meeting
academic, social, career and personal goals (DuBois, & Neville, 1997). For instance,
15
the Boys and Girls Club (BGCA) specifically concentrates on developing social
competence among youth participants through alcohol, drug, and pregnancy
preventions. One type of mentoring methods is cross-age peer mentoring which two
youth are paired and develop a relationship (Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Sipe, &
Taylor, 2006). The BGCA attempts to target these problem areas mentioned above
through career exploration, citizenship, educational supports, delinquency, and gang
preventions (Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003).
There are many types of mentoring programs for youth. These types include, but
are not limited to, business, faith-based, educational, engagement mentoring, peer
mentoring, and/or community organized mentoring programs.
Professional individuals, such as, doctors, nurses, teachers, noble peace
prizewinners, chief executive officer (CEO), and scholars, use mentors for career
development purposes also (Palgi, & Moore, 2004). Studies show that there are two
forms of business mentoring: grooming-mentoring and networking-mentoring.
Grooming-mentoring is one-on-one mentoring where the mentor devotes his or her
resources and time to one protégé. Such protégé depends mainly on this one person in
order to develop fitting skills in the organization (2004). For example, the mentor who
is involved in grooming-mentoring might be the CEO for Intel. The CEO then devotes
his or her sole attention in mentoring his or her protégé. Networking-mentoring
involves several mentors from different hierarchical levels giving support to one or
more protégés. There is no one mentor particularly devoted to a protégé. This is done
solely to reduce favoritism and to be able to provide a well-rounded experience within a
16
business (2004). On the other hand, the protégé would not only have the CEO of Intel
as a mentor but also the program managers, the board of executive directors, and chief
of operating officer (COO).
In 2001, President G. W. Bush launched the Faith-Based and Community Initiative
(Executive Order No. 13199, 2001). Before launching the faith-based community
programs, faith-based mentoring programs have had a long history of community
involvement and have been the longest in existence of mentoring programs (Blechman,
1992). A faith-based mentoring program is sponsored by a religious congregation or a
faith-based non-profit organization (Maton, Sto. Domingo, & King, 2005).
In 1844, the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) was founded in London,
England (Hosgood, 2002). The YMCA caters not only to the spiritual but also to the
physical and mental needs of the young participants. It was brought over to the United
States during the Civil War and continues to exist to this day (2002). It still promotes
spiritual, physical, and mental well-being of its participants. It has become an
established non-profit Christian organization that helps to strengthen children, youth
and their families by providing childcare, community development in gang intervention,
family literacy programs, tutoring, substance abuse prevention, job training and
employment services, permanent and transitional housing, and other programs
(Hosgood, 2002; Jones, 1999).
School-based mentoring programs are among the most structured programs in
formal mentoring (Randolph, & Johnson, 2008). In a survey conducted by the
Commonwealth Fund of 1998, two thirds of mentors partaking in formal mentoring
17
programs indicated that the program was sponsored by educational entities, such as a
school, college, or university (Portwood, & Ayers, 2005). School mentoring programs
have key structural advantages. A key structural advantage is that they are accessible to
the youth, and additional educational support happens typically during school hours
(Randolph, & Johnson, 2008). Transportation is not needed to go to an off-campus
location because these youth are already supposed to be in school. More than seventy
percent of school-based mentoring programs are located in schools (Portwood, &
Ayers, 2005). With the program in school, families of at-risk youth do not have to
worry about getting to an off campus location site that might be far from the families’
residence. Traditionally, schools offered a form of remediation if a child fails
academically (2005). In the 1980’s school-based mentoring programs began to grow
dramatically. It was acknowledged that some children needed extra guidance and
support to succeed in school (Randolph, & Johnson, 2008). Moreover, preventative
programs promoted an interest in providing more support for youth and children (Ellis,
Smith-McGinley, & Hart, 1998). Site-based programs also have an advantage in
accessing school environment resources (Portwood, & Ayers, 2005), such as, access to
computer labs, to the libraries, to supplies, and school personnel.
Engagement mentoring is a popular movement that is emerging within government
entities. Colley (2003) in his book, Mentoring for socially excluded youth, states that
engagement mentoring programs consist of formal programs within an institutional
domain, specifically containing agendas that target socially excluded youth exclusively,
where legal and/or financial obligation might be imposed. Finally, through the
18
mentoring processes, the youth develop “employability”. Employability refers to the
need for young people to engage in an individual commitment to another human being,
in this case, the adult mentor. Employability can also be viewed as accountability. An
example of engagement mentoring is the Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS). PINS
is a community-based program for adolescent male youth who are legally required to
participate and receive guidance and supervision from a judge in New York (Gur, &
Miller, 2004). This program is centered on community interventions for high-risk
youths that seek to improve the adolescent social skills to function in the conventional
society. It presents an alternative to being charged with a crime and/or becoming
incarcerated. The youth are engaged through dropping of criminal charges as they
complete their participation in this program. Other related programs have emerged as
alternatives aimed at providing preventative measures to enrich the lives of at-risk
youth.
Overall, there are more than 17,000 youth development organizations, both public
and private, that are active in the United States since the 1990’s (Anderson-Butcher,
Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003). Big Brother, Big Sister (BBBS) is commonly cited in the
literature as the “model programs” for community youth mentoring programs. To this
date, it is considered the most well-known and comprehensive program evaluation on
the subject of mentoring (Pedersen, Woolum, Gagne, & Coleman, 2009). The Boys and
Girls Clubs (BGCA) is also a community-based nonprofit organization that seeks to
improve and promote the positive psychosocial development of the youths (AndersonButcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003). In the article, Participation in Boys and Girls
19
Clubs and Relationships to Youth Outcomes, the BGCA programs specifically focus in
“developing social competence among youth participations through alcohol, drug, and
pregnancy prevention; career exploration, citizenship; educational supports; and
delinquency and gang prevention” (Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003, p.
40) while promoting youth development. The categories of youth mentoring programs
fluctuate tremendously, but the purpose remains the same, mainly, to enrich the life of
the youth through the creation of a relationship and the guidance of an adult. Pedersen,
Woolum, Gagne, and Coleman (2009) mention that there are approximately 3 million
adults that had a one-on-one relationship with youth in the United States of America in
2005.
Purpose of Mentoring
The early stages of adolescent life are vulnerable for the youths. Adolescence is a
life stage during which acceptance and rejection issues are particularly prominent
(Grossman, & Rhodes, 2002). Downey and Lebolt (1998) state that the youth, who
carry feelings of rejection and disappointment, might develop negative emotional,
behavioral, and academic outcomes. With this in mind, a mentee could positively
benefit from a youth program, such as mentoring. Researchers and studies agree that
mentors/mentoring programs take on a specific purpose of promoting positive
developmental outcomes. Relationships and the conversations generated between
mentee – mentor pairs that have shown to have a positive effect (Hamilton, & Darling,
1996). Attaining positive developmental outcomes are attained through specifically
emotional support and positive feedbacks, which could show improvements in
20
academics, self-awareness, social behaviors, and interpersonal relationships (Grossman,
& Rhodes, 2002). Although, all youth mentoring programs share one common interest,
namely, to enrich the lives of the youth, the ways in which the programs attain the goal
varies.
The objectives and goals, recruitment and matching, and training and education of
programs differ. In the sections following, the description of the best practices for
mentoring at-risk youth will be discussed in the terms of objectives and goals,
recruitment and matching, and training and education. The best practices used among
mentoring at-risk youth were found in the review of the literature. The best practices
that will be discussed were the commonalities found.
Objectives and Goals
Mentoring programs establish their objectives and goals based on the population of
they serve. From these goals and objectives, practices are developed. In turn, the
mentoring practices indicate the manner in which services are provided to the
populations. Next Generation (NG) mentoring program is a clear example. Its
objective is to increase the number of tenured Black female faculty in graduate
departments in psychology (Henderson Daniel, 2009). They recruit positive role
models and develop a plan to include an educational and constructive experience
(2009).
The objectives and goals of the mentoring programs vary. Because of the
diversity, their practices and services also differ. This is verified upon review of several
youth mentoring programs. Youth mentoring is viewed as a relationship-based mode of
21
intervention (Spencer, 2004). According to DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, and Cooper
(2002), youth mentoring programs focus on one goal such as education or employment,
whereas, other programs tend to have an overarching goal of encouraging positive and
constructive youth development. A mentoring program for youth based in Los Angeles,
targeted at-risk youth, specifically in a low income urban neighborhood (de Anda,
2001). Their objectives and goals were to redirect the youth. By redirecting them, their
program was designed to provide an environment that would promote and
encourage social and emotional development, an improved education, and future
employment through higher education and achievement (2001).
The frequency of meetings is also a critical component to the mentoring process.
Some mentoring programs for at-risk youth only required face-to-face contact once to
twice monthly (Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002). However, there is a
move for more face-to-face contacts. Studies and the need for more research suggest
that higher frequency of visits and contact may be more effective (2002). Another
aspect of frequency of visits pertains to the quality of relationship being built. Small
but growing empirical data show that not only the frequency but also the quality of the
relationship plays a vital role between the mentor and mentee (Spencer, 2004).
Funding is an important key element in the establishment of objectives and goals
of mentoring programs. For one year, approximately $1,000 is the cost per mentee
(Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002; Grossman, & Garry, 1997).
22
Recruitment and Matching
Recruitment is a vital aspect of mentoring. There are many different perspectives
and practices on the recruiting process. In the business world, professional individuals
often recruit the aid of a mentor in order to overcome organizational and social barriers
that stand in their path to the top (Palgi, & Moore, 2004). Mentoring programs recruit
mentors based on gender, race and ethnicity, social and professional positions, interests,
educational or academic expertise, and personal and professional experience (2004).
One United Kingdom mentoring program, Chance UK, focused on the recruitment of
males (Digging for new recruits, 2007). Chance UK understood the program lacked
male role models, and so the administration decided to take a different approach. It
focused on using strategies that appealed to male ego, language expressions as used in
and aimed at venues, such as football matches and pubs, and reading material targeting
male readership (2007). The program also recommends a variety of best practices to
ensure that they recruit males into their program.
Programs often face recruitment barriers. Data from a case study completed on 28
mentees and mentors showed that finding mentors proved to be difficult (Straus,
Graham, Taylor, & Lockyer, 2008). These problems further create difficulties in
building or establishing relationships when mentees feel they do not have any one with
whom to bond (2008).
Recruitment practices often will require a list of specified qualifications or
prerequisites. Most programs working with youth or minors require a background
check for criminal history. The liability for working with youth is high. A mentor with
23
a history of crime, violence, or other felony charges is not allowed to work with the
minor mentee. School-based mentoring programs often require more than a background
check for criminal history for the mentors (Jackson, 2002). With a vehicle driving
responsibility, mentors need to provide proof of registration for their personal vehicle
and proof of insurance.
Recruitment of mentors for youth entails a large risk of liability. Mentoring
programs often aim their recruitment at teachers because they have already met the
standards and completed background checks (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper,
2002). Another example of recruitment of certain populations was Project R.E.S.C.U.E.
(Reaching Each Student’s Capacity Utilizing Education) located in Los Angeles (de
Anda, 2001). This program targeted firefighters to become mentors to at-risk youth.
The firefighters had already completed background checks and were seen as a
community resource (2001).
Recruitment of mentees varies across the board. Based on the type of program and
their goals and objectives, mentees can be selected randomly, specifically because they
meet certain criteria, or they may enroll on a voluntary basis (Jackson, 2002). In one
specific school-based program, school staff members were instructed to list at-risk
youth based on their academic and behavioral needs. Once they were identified,
according to the number of mentors available, the mentees were randomly selected to
participate. Thus, only 15 of 29 mentees were given the opportunity to have a mentor
for the academic school year. Further requirements were completed in order of
participation of these at-risk youth. Parental consent was received and the program was
24
explained to the youth in which only 13 mentees decided to move further with the
program.
Another example of recruitment of at-risk youth occurred in the Project
R.E.S.C.U.E. program. Due to the high rates of youth and violent crime in a low
income urban neighborhood in Los Angeles, the focus was on the youth committing
crimes and their possible involvement in gangs (de Anda, 2001). In 1997, this program
focused on those who were suspended and expelled during the 1996-1997 school year
for violence and weapons (2001).
Other examples of mentee recruitment and with programs’ objectives and goals
show that many populations need mentors. Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike,
and Larose (2006) explain that special populations are in need. Recruitment of mentees
came from special populations, such as the abused and neglected youth, youth who have
disabilities, pregnant and parenting youth, juvenile offending youth, and academically
at-risk youth (2006).
Matching takes place during the beginning stage of the process for the mentor and
mentee. Several criteria are considered in recommending which mentor and mentee
may be a suitable match (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). Mentoring
groups may base their matching practices on gender, age, race and ethnicity, common
interests, geographical location, the duration of time the mentor and mentee are
committed to the program, the frequency of their availability for meeting, academic or
educational needs, and personal and professional experience (DuBois, Holloway,
Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002).
25
Training and Education
Training and education are seen as necessary means in understanding the mentormentee relationship. Frameworks for mentor and mentee support are structured in a
variety of paths. In one mentoring program in the United Kingdom, the lack of support
for the mentors led to the restructuring of the program (McVeigh, Ford, O’Donnell,
Rushby, & Squance, 2009). Previously, it was required that support sessions were
provided for updates only. Later on after much feedback, the program restructured its
support system. It required regular sessions, provided a newsletter, opportunities for
lecturer visits, and gave out resource packs.
Developing training and education programs is vital to the long-term support
needed by mentors (de Anda, 2001). The programs begin with sessions to orient the
mentors and to provide an opportunity for communication about the programs’ overall
functions. The orientation session discusses roles and responsibilities, programs’
objectives and goals, and the population being served.
Some mentoring programs had training events specifically designed for gender.
One example of gearing training and education for men was developed by Chance UK,
a youth mentoring program in the United Kingdom. Chance UK hosted men’s nights so
they could use the language vital for training male mentors (Digging for new recruits.
(2007). They focused on cultural and environmental phrases to reach their targeted
population. Moreover, they recruited men to be part of the staff and become male
mentors (2007). With the use of male images, staging of events that will be attended by
26
mostly men and having males on staff, Chance UK provided male resources so that the
mentees could contact them for support (2007).
Another needed form of training and education was given to the staff of mentoring
programs. In order for mentors and mentees to seek assistance about developing
relationships or how to handle certain situations, one must be able to find help with a
skilled support staff (de Anda, 2001). They are the locus of the program. Research has
also shown that a skilled support staff helps increase retention of mentees and decreases
their feelings of isolation. Creating productive relationships appeared to be a barrier
with one group of mentors and mentees. A mentorship program in Alberta, Canada
experienced difficulties and realized the need for other training and education
opportunities. Their program lacked formal strategies and workshops. Soon they
identified workshops that would be helpful in the relationship building areas (Straus,
Graham, Taylor, & Lockyer, 2008).
Part of the training and education can incorporate activities and functions for
mentors, mentees, and their support groups. Activities serve as a relief for mentors.
They need not to completely rely upon them. Every planned activity can be a fitting
social activity in forming bonds and relationships with other mentor-mentee pairings
(de Anda, 2001). Project R.E.S.C.U.E. listed movies, rafting trips, exercise events, and
shopping as forms of networking and relationship building. Other youth mentoring
groups incorporated activities such as community service projects, cultural events, and
educational experiences. They also held workshops and seminars on child abuse
27
prevention, drug and alcohol abuse, cross-cultural awareness, health, nutrition, and
school problems (Keating, Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002).
Mentoring programs develop their own strategies for positive and most effective
outcomes. A mentoring program which focused on youth with disabilities developed a
training curriculum for their mentors (Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike, &
Larose, 2006). The process included the mentors meeting with their mentees at
rehabilitation hospitals. In this way, they could be involved in the reintegration, goal
setting, and attainment. Other mentoring programs realized their need for training
curriculum when the program results indicated that their objectives and goals were not
clearly stated. A mentoring program for pregnant and parenting youth discovered that
“quasi-parenting” was taking place between the adult mentor and the minor mentee.
They found the need for emotional, social, and instructional support for all involved.
An aspect of education relies upon research and evaluation of the mentoring
program. Self-evaluation is fundamental to providing support services and assistance to
mentors and mentees. Many programs evaluate themselves in different capacities. A
program evaluated by Keating, Tomishima, Foster, and Alessandri (2002) employed
pre-intervention and post-intervention in the mentoring process. With outcome
evaluation results, the program was able to examine the frequency and quality of visits,
the matching process, mentee behavior and patterns, and the effectiveness of their
intervention methods.
28
Summary
Understanding the history and practices of mentoring programs in all capacities
assists programs in identifying what best practices should be utilized on behalf of their
population. The literature does not indicate specific paths to take and how to
specifically provide services for the youth. However, history, funding, and practices
identify the objectives and goals.
Theories suggest that the experiences of at-risk youth are helped with positive
reinforcement and understanding the resiliency they possess. The youth need to be
encouraged as well as provided with a positive role model who has had real life
experiences of positive outcomes both to alter their behaviors and to change to
appropriate life choices. Furthermore, enhanced mentoring programs in the
communities are needed to help these youth to obtain positive experiences and be able
to give back to their communities as they mature into adults.
29
Chapter 3
METHODS
Introduction
In this chapter, the methods used in this research study are described. The research
methods employed include the presentation of the research question, study design,
sampling of the population, the procedures for gathering data, and the analysis of the
data. Emphasis is given on the protection of the human subjects as participants in this
study.
Research Question
The research question aimed to identify the best practice mentoring programs for
at-risk youth, specifically in the Sacramento area, to analyze their basic and essential
components, and conceptualize the key factors for their effectiveness. The results of the
study will hopefully provide the consumers with the practical knowledge of best
practices for mentoring at-risk youth that are found useful and beneficial to the mentees
of the program.
Research Design
This research study on the best practices among mentoring at-risk youth is
exploratory and qualitative in its design. The researchers had their interest on this topic
of mentoring programs based on their previous internship exposure as undergraduates at
the California State University, Sacramento mentoring programs for at-risk youths. To
broaden their understanding of the subject matter, they reviewed pertinent literature on
30
the topic while focusing on possible mentoring programs that are available at the
Sacramento area. The researchers meant to do the qualitative study by exploring the
best practices in these mentoring programs through the sharing of experiences and
opinions of the participants to the study regarding the programs they manage.
Prospective participants were purposively chosen based on their years of experience in
directing the programs. Then through referrals from them in snowball sampling, other
participants were chosen.
After selecting possible participants from the list, the researchers contacted one
program director on the projected study. A letter of request for personal interview was
presented to the participant who then agreed to be interviewed. Upon inquiry by the
researchers, the first participant referred them to other prospective participants. Through
snowball sampling, the researchers were able to select three willing participants who
represented three mentoring programs.
Prior to the interview, an informed consent form (Appendix B) was presented to
and signed by the participants. It indicated their voluntary participation in the study.
Moreover, their consent to participate meant their willingness to have their responses
audio taped. A set of thirty open-ended questions (Appendix D) were asked during the
interview. It was made clear to the participants that confidentiality on their identity and
their sharing were to be upheld through the use of codes. Even as the researchers
discreetly took notes during the interview, they audio recorded the interview to ensure
greater accuracy in presenting the ideas and insights of the participant. Materials, such
as flyers from the mentoring programs, were likewise shared with the researchers. The
31
taped interviews were then transcribed for analysis. The taped interview results and
their transcriptions were securely kept in a locked cabinet in the residence of the
researchers. These data were safeguarded until the time when the project study has been
officially approved and accepted by the University’s Office of Graduate Studies. The
interview materials were then destroyed and thoroughly disposed of shredding and
deletion of the taped interviews, toward the end of the spring semester 2010.
Sampling of the Population
The participants in this research study consisted of a faculty coordinator, and two
program directors, each one representing a mentoring program for vulnerable youth in
the Sacramento area. The selection of the population samples was done by nonprobability purposive sampling of convenience. The human subjects were identified
through a list of mentoring programs and personal contact of a prospective participant.
The three participants were thus selected by snowball sampling and further referrals by
the previous subjects. They expressed voluntary participation in the study as they signed
the informed consent form. The confidentiality of their identity and their sharing which
were audio recorded was emphatically assured to them.
Protection of the Human Subjects
Prior to the selection and actual interview of the participants, the researchers
submitted their application for approval of the human subjects to the Division of Social
Work Protection of Human Subjects Review Committee at the California State
University, Sacramento. The Review Committee gave their approval to the application
for human subjects (Appendix A) on the ground that the research study involved
32
minimal human risk since the interview questions involved mainly the sharing of the
professional experiences and intellectual insights of the participants which did not
involve any risky intrusion on their personal lives.
Data Collection Instrument and Procedure
The research instrument used by the researchers was a set of open-ended interview
questions that were used during the personal meeting of the researchers with the
participants. The use of open-ended questions enabled the participant in freely
discussing their programs and their evaluative opinions on the best practices in the
program. Moreover, with this instrument, the researchers were able to explore at greater
length the themes being discussed and capture the enthusiasm of the participants on the
programs they managed or directed. The interview lasted approximately one hour to one
and a half hours, thus providing the researchers enough information on the programs
being discussed.
Data Analysis
Once the data have been collected from the personal interview with the
participants, the researchers transcribed the taped interview. They then highlighted the
significant themes and patterns that emerged from their gathered data. The responses
with similar or related themes were grouped together. From there, the emerging patterns
from the themes were identified as key findings in the study. Interestingly, these
findings were comparatively analyzed with the related themes that surfaced in the
review of the literature on mentoring programs for at-risk youth. Chapter 4 of this study
33
presents the findings of the research completed, while chapter 5 looks into the
conclusions, discussions, and recommendations from this research study.
Summary
This chapter presented the methods used by the researchers in finding appropriate
responses to their research question. After determining the qualitative nature of the
study and focusing on the identity of the human subjects for the study, the approval of
the human subjects as involving minimal risk was secured from the Protection of the
Human Subjects Review Committee of the University’s Division of Social Work. With
the approval of the human subjects and the cautious care in protecting the
confidentiality clause, the researchers interviewed the participants. Their responses
were transcribed and analyzed accordingly to identify the appropriate elements for the
best practices in the mentoring programs for at-risk youths. The succeeding chapter
presents the findings of this research study.
34
Chapter 4
THE FINDINGS
Introduction
The study is exploratory in its design through qualitative method in order to
ascertain, find, and bring out the best practices of three Sacramento area mentoring
programs that render their services for at-risk youth. The research data were obtained
through face-to-face interviews of three participants who administer the program in
their respective mentoring programs. To identify the overall best practices of the
mentoring programs, the researchers inquired on each program’s history and design, the
coordinators’ roles and interests, the population they served, objectives and goals, best
practice methods, barriers, and the program outcomes. Through the collected data, the
researchers aimed at establishing the best practices of a mentoring program. Such
information could hopefully assist other program directors or introduce prospective
aspirants to the mentoring program and be encouraged to avail of the benefits which this
program offers to at-risk youth.
Methods and Analysis of Data
The research questions were developed and studied using a qualitative research
design. Participants for this research study were identified through previous
experiences of knowing them either personally or professionally, and through snowball
sampling. Individual interviews were conducted to gain the knowledge of these
participants. The researchers utilized open-ended questions, which were organized to
35
five categories: introduction, program objectives, best practice methods, barriers, and
outcomes (Appendix D). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for
analysis. The researchers analyzed the transcribed information and categorized the data
through the use of emergent themes. The themes were based on the occurrence in
which a concept was discussed through the questions.
Findings of Study
The interviews with the participants yielded useful data which the researchers
transcribed, coded, and grouped into themes. From such analytical method, the
researchers were able to identify the basic patterns from the emerging themes. There
were five categories that surfaced in the data analysis. They are presented below with
the corresponding groups of questions that were posed to the participants. The
respondents’ discussions on the questions are likewise presented to provide the reader
an insight into the significance of the discussed matters.
History of the Respondents’ Programs
The three mentoring programs under study were begun when the founders sensed
and understood the need for such instruments in promoting the wellbeing of the at-risk
youths through research data results and/or from their personal experiences. Program A
was formed when the community center program became aware of trends of children of
incarcerated parents. The centers directors became aware that children of incarcerated
parents were seven times more likely to become incarcerated themselves. The thrust of
Program B was redirected from a mentoring program that was established with the local
probation department. It changed when it became clear to the programs’ professors that
36
their mentees were being used as “informants” and tools for baiting the probation
breakers. Program C was created after the founder discovered that many foster children
and youth never had the opportunities to live their childhood meaningfully, to “just be
kids and have fun doing things like skipping rocks”.
After establishing or adjusting the goals of their programs, the coordinators
indicated that their funding affected their design and objectives, their target population,
and how to service their program consumers.
The three participants interviewed had divergent backgrounds in mentoring (Table
1 below). Programs A and C were directed by female coordinators, while Program B
was led by a male coordinator. Their years of experience ranged from less than one
year to ten years. Based on the participants’ responses, all of them were attracted to
mentoring because of their previous experiences and understanding of the impact of
such programs on the youth, and how such programs made a difference in the mentees’
lives.
37
Table 1
Participants’ Demographic Data
Program A
Program B
Program C
Female
Male
Female
Bachelor’s Degree
Ph.D.
Bachelor’s Degree
> 1 year
8 years
10 years
Title or position
Program
Coordinator
Faculty
Coordinator
Program
Coordinator
Type of program
Community Based
School Based
Community Based
Gender
Highest level of
education
Years of
experience
Program Objectives
The mentoring coordinators identified their programs’ objectives as contingent to
available funding and research. They stated that funding determined or guided their
objectives and how they had to serve their consumers. Evidence-based research guided
their objectives and their choice of the target population. The data shared by the three
participants indicated their common objectives for at-risk youth. Each coordinator
stated that the agency’s programs were committed to becoming major support for the
youth and assisting them in their journey to adulthood. The programs assisted the youth
in fostering positive and stable relationships which could lead to their success in the
areas of education, health promotion, emotional and social wellbeing. They shared their
goals of assisting the youth in promoting their self-esteem, and building relationships
with caring and consistent adults. The programs shared common objectives but differed
38
in the population they served. The programs had their distinctive traits that set them
apart from each other and other Sacramento area mentoring programs for at-risk youth.
Program A required their mentees to be children of incarcerated parents. Program B
required the mentors to be enrolled as a student at a local university. Program C
required mentees to be legally considered foster children (Table 2 below).
Qualifications to Mentoring Benefits
The three participants stated there were also required qualifications for the
mentees. Based on their funding and set objectives, each had their own guidelines and
requirements (Table 2 below). Programs A and C required their mentees to be residents
of Sacramento County. Program C reported that they also accepted residents of Yolo
and Placer counties. Moreover, they required their mentees to be foster children within
those counties as well as the Sacramento County area.
Program A required their mentees to have had either one or both parents
incarcerated in a federal or state penitentiary. This program also reported that their
funding definition of parent include a caretaker, and that could be an uncle, aunt,
brother, or sister. This coordinator stated their agency would incorporate the
perspective change in the current family dynamics and definition of family make-up.
Program B required their mentees to be a high school student at one of three specific
Sacramento area high schools.
Regarding the age of the mentees, Program A enrolled mentees from the age of six
to 17 years of age, while the two others differed on the age range qualification.
Program B enrolled mentees who were 13 to 17 years of age. Program C enrolled only
39
mentees who were six to 12 years of age. Program C also stated they supported any
mentee if they chose to continue past the age of 12. However, based on research and
experience, it was difficult to initially pair a mentee-mentor if the mentee was over the
age of 12 because they tended to do better in a peer or group mentoring aspect versus
one on one.
Table 2
Required Mentee Qualifications
Program A
Sacramento
County resident
Program B
X
X
X
Foster child
Child of
incarcerated
parent(s)
Program C
X
Attend a
Sacramento area
high school
X
6 to 12 years of
age at initial start
X
13 to 17 years of
age at initial start
X
6 to 17 years of
age at initial start
X
X
X
40
Best Practices
The mentoring programs identified their best practices based on the criteria of
recruitment, screening, and matching processes. They also identified training, support,
and time commitment to comprise their best practices.
Recruitment of mentees and mentors
Recruitment of mentees and mentors differed due to the target populations which
the mentoring programs served. Program A recruited mentees based on referrals from
the community and professionals. Program B recruited mentees based on referrals
made by school personnel, social workers, and school administrators. Program C
recruited their mentees from referrals by foster family social workers and county social
workers that worked with foster youth.
In terms of mentor recruitment, the three programs shared a common practice.
Each program recruited mentors by utilizing public outreach tools via the internet and
current mentor referral. In addition, Program A and B recruited mentors through
“tabling” events, such as, holding informational booths at public events and posting
flyers within the communities they serve. Program A also presented their program and
its need for mentors through presentations at local area businesses. Program B recruited
its mentors through presentations in university classrooms. The representative of this
program stated that their recruitment primarily consisted of making use of the internet
and by word of mouth because of their name and their marketing branding.
41
Screening process
Screening the mentors took place at each mentoring program interview. The three
mentoring programs had a defined policy as regards what was required to become a
mentor. The mentors were qualified based on common requirements minus the age
requirements and attending university (Table 3 below). They had to possess a valid
driver’s license, pass a background check which included a clearance of the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Child Abuse Central
Index (CACI), possessing up-to-date liability insurance for their personal vehicle, and
positive feedbacks from at least three references. Two of the three mentoring programs
required their mentors to be 21 years of age and older, while one program allowed
mentors to be 18 years of age and older. Program C required the mentors to be enrolled
at a local university as a student.
42
Table 3
Required Mentor Qualifications
Program A
Program B
Program C
Valid driver’s
license
X
X
X
Vehicle liability
insurance
X
X
X
Pass background
check (FBI, DOJ,
CACI)
X
X
X
18 – 20 years of
age
X
X
21 years of age
and older
X
X
X
Positive feedback
on minimum of
three personal
references
X
X
X
Enrolled at a local
university as a
student
X
Matching process
Matching the mentees and mentors was employed by the three Sacramento
mentoring programs and completed by staff. The mentoring programs shared a
common practice in terms of how the matching process was done with one exception.
43
The three programs required either a pre-interview or application to be completed with
the mentees. If the mentee was not old enough to complete the process, a social worker
or a professional who worked closely with them completed the process for their client.
The same process was applied on the selection of mentors. Mentors had to complete an
application and/or an interview. The information was then compared with the mentee
data on common interests and hobbies, personalities, and other similar traits, such as
behaviors. All the programs interviewed in this project stated they may incorporate
racial and ethnicity similarities but due to the lack of cultural and racial diversity, it
usually does not come into play as often. One difference within the programs
concerned the matching genders. Programs A and B matched the two parties by
similarity in gender, that is, female mentors with female mentees, and male mentors
with male mentees. Program C did their mentee – mentor pairing a bit different. They
also matched female mentors with either a female or a male mentee. They only paired
male mentors with male mentees.
The final areas identified for best practices pertained to training, support, and time
commitment. All three programs stated that their mentors were required to partake in
some forms of training in order to become a mentor. Program C stated that training was
an integral part of the process since they covered topics that prepared the mentors for
the types of behaviors and experiences, which their mentees have encountered. All
three programs provided continuous training to alleviate any problems or issues that
may arise. They also provided support for the mentors via telephone contact.
44
As to time commitments or length of time in the mentoring program, Program A
and C both stated that research showed that a minimum of one year was the most
beneficial to the mentees. Time less than this frame or period could be detrimental to
the mentee. Program B provided the opportunities for mentee-mentor pairs to continue
past the semester mark which usually lasted 16 weeks into a 32 week period.
Table 4
Training, Support, and Time Commitment
Program A
Program B
Program C
6 – 8 hours
3 hours
15 hours
Ongoing training
hours required
1 hour every two
months
1 hour every other
week
4 hours per year
Support Provided
X
X
X
Time Commitment
for Program
1 year
> 1 year
1 year
Initial training
hours
Barriers
The barriers that were identified by the three Sacramento mentoring programs
varied across the board. Lack of mentors, withholding time away from mentors as a
form of punishment, and scheduling conflicts were identified by all the mentoring
programs as barriers. A major common barrier to the programs was time commitment.
45
Oftentimes, individuals were interested in becoming mentors but did not want to sign up
for one full year or one to two full semesters of commitment. Giving that much time to
someone and for that long period of time could be scary for most. It can also be
difficult, especially if the individuals have other commitments such as family, school,
work, or other concerns. The respondents from the mentoring programs noted that
through education and research, the outcomes were explained to the prospective
candidates. More often than not, individuals who were previously interested needed
time to adjust and might sign up after a few months to almost a few years later.
Another key common barrier was diversity within the mentor populations. Each
program shared that the mentee populations came from disadvantaged backgrounds,
such as, racial and ethnic minorities, low income to poverty levels, at-risk of being
involved in the criminal justice system, and also experiencing some form of child abuse
or child neglect in the past or continuing to the present. There was equal representation
gender-wise. With regard to matching mentors with mentees, their mentor population
did not reflect their mentee population demographics. The three Sacramento mentoring
programs discussed the lack of male role models or mentors, and the lack of mentors
from diverse cultural backgrounds to meet the needs of the mentee population.
Outcomes
The three Sacramento area mentoring programs identified their outcomes, which
focused on building positive relationships between the mentee – mentor pairs. Through
healthy relationships with their mentors, the mentees’ self-esteem increased, their
educational and school functioning improved, and their interpersonal and intrapersonal
46
skills were enhanced. To further highlight the positive outcomes of the mentoring
programs, the researchers asked for success stories from each representative program.
The coordinators stated different outcomes, but they were alike in attaining more
positive goals. Below are the testimonies from the study participants.
The coordinator for Program A immediately told the researchers about the story of
one female mentee. He shared thus:
One youth’s self-esteem has completely improved. You wouldn’t even know this
was the same child that started the program. She was quiet and shy and rarely
showed any emotion. When she first began (the program), her mentor struggled
a bit to get her to say or do anything. At the close of her one year in the
program, she was laughing and smiling all the time. She was jumping all over
and playing with the other children. This child was no longer the same, and her
relationship with her mentor made a huge difference.
The coordinator for Program B explained the experience of one of their mentees
and how a mentor helped change the mentee’s life.
One of our mentees was a football player who was being recruited by college
scouts. During a game he received a career-ending injury, and he was not
prepared to do the academic work in the classroom. It seemed that many of his
teachers were pushing him through the curricula because he was such a great
asset to the team. The lack of preparedness forced him to begin associating with
kids who had no aspirations for success. He bought some fake bling for his
teacher and began to emulate the hip-hop, rapper lifestyle. His grade point
47
average had dipped to 1.3. We partnered him with one of our upper division
students for two semesters, and during that time, he raised his GPA to 2.6 and
took his SAT to enter college. He graduated with his class, and although his
SAT scores were not high enough to warrant him being accepted to a 4-year
university, he attended community college and has become an upstanding
member of his community and now serves as a mentor for youth who find
themselves in the same predicament he was in.
The participant from Program C relayed the experience of a current mentee that
was about to turn 18 and in need of additional services. The coordinator explained that
at that point they currently did not have services for 18 and over youth, but were
seeking to figure out how to further support these youth. The example of a success
story from the Program C imparted the importance of the mentee – mentor relationship.
We have a mentee who is 17 looking for a job and asked me for a job. We don’t
have anything open, so I’m helping with his resume and in applying for jobs.
I’d hire him in a heartbeat, but we don’t have anything so I’m helping him. We
also have kids who want to stay on past the age of 13. We had a kid who said
her mentor was her best friend. Just having more confidence, and we see the
school functioning increase.
Other outcomes of these mentoring programs have inspired mentee – mentor pairs
that led them to continue past their time commitments, or for the mentees to improve
their education and finish high school.
48
Summary
The major findings of this project revealed best practices that were exercised in the
mentoring programs within the Sacramento area. The participants from the mentoring
programs for at-risk youth indicated differing practices with regard to recruitment,
screening, and matching processes. They also pointed out that training, support, and
time commitments were priorities to their programs. However, barriers did exist and
based on their size and objectives, the programs experienced different types of distress.
The stressors ranged from lack of mentors to lack of cultural diversity within the mentor
population. Overall, the researchers focused on the experiential knowledge of the
participants so that other mentoring programs might establish their best practices if they
choose to provide services to at-risk youth.
49
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
After having presented the findings of the study, this chapter wraps up the research
with summary, conclusions, and implications that surfaced in the course of the research
work. The researchers aimed at examining the different practices and approaches used
by the pertinent mentoring programs in the Sacramento area. Through face to face
interviews with heads of the mentoring programs, they were able to understand better
the policies behind the practices of the selected programs. Then by comparing the
similarities and differences in the approaches used, the researchers understood more
clearly the processes and/or the best practice knowledge in the recruitment, training,
education methods, and the goals and objectives of each mentoring program. The study
has its own contributions in the field of research. However, its limitations are also
described here. Moreover, it draws out the implications of this research work on social
practice and for further research.
Summary and Conclusion of the Findings
The objective of the researchers in this study was to determine the best practices of
mentoring programs in the Sacramento area in terms of the programs’ goals and
objectives, recruitment methods, training, and education of the mentees. The
researchers hoped that through this study, it will assist other mentoring programs in
finding and employing the best practice services they could provide for at-risk youth.
In completing this study, the researchers attained their identified objective with minor
50
limitations. The researchers used exploratory and qualitative study methods in
searching for the best practices in the three mentoring programs in the Sacramento area,
which were selected for the study. The availability and active participation of the three
local experts as respondents in this study helped a great deal in attaining the objective of
the study.
From the participants’ comments during the interviews, the study obtained the
central data results, namely, that each program used similar practices in recruitment,
screening, and matching methods, as well as the training, support, and time
commitments of the mentors. The findings also showed that the goal and objective
approaches were similar within each program and reflected the funding sources
requirements with the exception of one program.
Recruitment and Matching
The literature review showed that the mentoring programs recruited mentors based
on gender, race, ethnicity, social and professional positions, interest, educational or
academic expertise, and personal and professional experience (Palgi, & Moore, 2004).
These programs listed specific qualification or prerequisites for mentors and mentees.
In the study, the data indicated that all the programs had these basic requirements for
the mentors: a valid driver’s license, valid vehicle liability insurance, to pass
background checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of
Justice (DOJ), and Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), be of a specific age requirement,
and obtained positive feedbacks from a minimum of three personal references. Other
criteria for eligibility to meet the programs’ qualifications to be a mentee included the
51
following: to be a Sacramento County resident, a foster child, a child of incarcerated
parent(s), and/or attending one of three specific Sacramento area high schools. These
“other criteria” were made to fit the regulations of the funding sources. The findings on
the recruitment on the behalf of mentees were done through referrals and voluntary
enrollment. On this item, the recruitment criteria differed on the types of programs and
their goals and objectives. However, all the three interviewed participants stated they
recruited their mentees primarily through referrals, such as, those from teachers, nurses,
family members, school counselors, foster family social workers, Sacramento County
social workers, Birth and Beyond, and other various professionals. This concurred with
the indications from reviewed literature. The literature stated that some programs
selected randomly or enrolled (the mentees) on a voluntary basis (Jackson, 2002).
Matching mentors with mentees took place in the beginning stages of the process.
Programs often did the matching based on gender, age, race and ethnicity, common
interest, geographical location, duration of time the mentor and mentee were committed
to the programs, frequency of their availability, academic or educational needs, and
personal and professional experience (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002;
Keating Tomishima, Foster & Alessandri, 2002). The interviewed programs
representatives all reported that they did the matching primarily based on the mentees’
common interests and hobbies, personalities, and other similar traits, such as behaviors
based on the mentees’ applications, interviews, pre-interviews, and also input from the
referring professional. They also took into consideration other relevant demographic
information, such as gender, age, race, and ethnicity.
52
Training and Support
The study showed that all the three programs used trainings and support for the
mentors. The disparities came with the intensity of the initial trainings required. The
three programs gave an initial training that varied in hours and then had supplemental
trainings throughout the year. The initial trainings were different for each program.
Table 4 shows the requirement levels of the trainings. Program A required six to eight
hours. Program B demanded three hours, while Program C required fifteen hours before
the mentors could begin mentoring or meet their mentees. The supplemental trainings
touched on different topics of education.
Each program had different requirements on time commitment. Table 4 shows the
different levels of continued education. Program A required two hours every other
week, Program B required one hour every other week, while Program C requires four
hours throughout the one year commitment. These trainings and continued educational
support were essential for the mentors. The literature review has not identified any
training or educational practices directed to the mentees. Not surprisingly, the study
found that all three programs did not have training for mentees. However, they left the
option of educational information to the mentees. The participants stated that they did
not specifically provide educational trainings but might have referred the mentees to
other resources. The Program C coordinator stated they referred their mentee to
leadership trainings within their umbrella agency.
53
Objectives and Goals
The researchers’ final findings were related to the objectives and goals of each
mentoring program. As stated in the review of the literature, mentoring programs
established their objectives and goals based on the population they served. This
practice was also carried out in the programs of the respondent coordinator. Each
program had their objectives and goals to cater to the needs of their specific population:
foster children, children of incarcerated parent(s), and youth in need of academic and
interpersonal developmental growth.
The findings in this study achieved its objective. Nonetheless, there are two
significant limitations to this research work. The first limitation was the limited number
of available agencies which were willing to participate in the study. The second
limitation pertains to the lack of time on the part of the researchers who needed to
interview each program. Out of the approximately 26 identified mentoring programs in
the Sacramento area, only three were available to participate in this study.
Time factor restrained researchers from contacting all mentoring agencies to enable
them to share their programs’ goals, plans, and best practices. Given these limitations,
the results of the study prevented a thorough review of the mentoring programs in the
Sacramento area. Nonetheless, what has been studied on the available data could help
the reader in having an introductory picture and a good overview of what mentoring
programs offer best to the at-risk youth.
54
Recommendations for Further Research
The researchers have learned in the process of working on the study that mentoring
programs have a lot to offer to their beneficiaries. This study did not intend to touch on
the effectiveness of mentoring programs. A finding indicates that there are numerous
mentoring programs, at least 26 of them in the Sacramento area alone. The literature
review showed that there is a scarcity of research on this area of mentoring. Educational
support with the focus on the beneficiaries’ transformation through personal
development and the promotion of their wellbeing remains to be the basic tool needed
by the youth at-risk. Future research programs evaluations need to focus on the full
potential and impact of these programs on the program participants.
Research has shown that mentoring programs have a positive end result on the
youth. The researchers further recommend that additional exploratory researches be
conducted on the Sacramento area mentoring programs for more accurate evidencebased results. The presence of thousands of mentoring programs across the country
should already serve as an incentive to explore these hidden treasures in the field that
will assist not only the program planners, directors, but most of all, the at-risk youth.
The researchers also recommend that further inquiries on more specific
demographic information concerning the mentees, mentors, and the programs be done.
This approach leads to better articulate and determine what best practices, goals and
objectives, recruitment methods, and training and education methods are specifically
targeted to address the needs of the at-risk youth in the Sacramento area.
55
Implications for Social Work Practice
Social workers are employed as program directors, program coordinators, and a
multitude of community program providers. The impact of the constant daily struggles
facing youth demand of the social workers to create new and innovated programs to
help prevent delinquency, school dropout, teen pregnancy, unemployment, and other
vulnerable life outcomes predicted for these at-risk youth.
One area needed in the social work practice, which this study has brought to the
researchers’ attention, is in the area of promoting positive youth development, which
most at-risk youth lack. Social workers are committed to provide service, social justice,
dignity and worth of the person, and to emphasize the importance of human
relationships, integrity, and competence. What better way to practice these values and
commitment then with the youth who are the future of this nation than to support them
through empathy and respect toward the realization of their dream to promote quality of
life! Effective social work practice with the youth demands working from their level,
understanding their aspirations, and the barriers they encounter in their lives and
walking with them in their journey. Mentoring programs could be one of the more
effective means to ensure accompaniment with the youth at-risk toward a brighter
alternative experience.
56
APPENDIX A
Human Subjects Approval
57
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF SOCIAL WORK
TO:
Cheryl Gonzales & Eveline Gonzalez
Date: March 22, 2010
FROM: Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
RE: YOUR RECENT HUMAN SUBJECTS APPLICATION
We are writing on behalf of the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects from
the Division of Social Work. Your proposed study, “Best Practices of Sacramento Area
Mentoring Programs for At-Risk Youth.”
__X_ approved as _ _
_EXEMPT _ __ NO RISK __X__ MINIMAL RISK.
Your human subjects approval number is: 09-10-106. Please use this number in
all official correspondence and written materials relative to your study. Your
approval expires one year from this date. Approval carries with it that you will
inform the Committee promptly should an adverse reaction occur, and that you
will make no modification in the protocol without prior approval of the
Committee.
The committee wishes you the best in your research.
Professors: Teiahsha Bankhead, Chrys Barranti, Andy Bein, Joyce Burris, Maria Dinis,
Susan Eggman, Serge Lee, Kisun Nam, Sue Taylor
CC: Dr. Santos Torres, Jr.
58
APPENDIX B
Consent to Participate in Research
59
Informed Consent to Participate in Research
Dear Participant,
You are being asked to participate in a research project, which will be conducted by
Cheryl Gonzales and Eveline Gonzalez, graduate students in Social Work at California
State University, Sacramento. The study will explore best practices of Sacramento area
mentoring programs for at-risk youth.
You will be asked to complete an interview about your objectives, practices,
procedures, and outcomes of the program. The interview may require one to two hours
of your time.
Some of the items in the interview may seem personal to you. You may experience
discomfort regarding the personal nature of some of the interview questions. If you feel
discomfort, or believe that the questions invade your privacy, you are welcome to not
answer them. Should you need counseling assistance, you may contact any counseling
agency on the attached list.
You are assured that the information you share in the interview will be kept
confidential. The interview will be audio taped to preserve the accuracy of the
information and insights you share. The name of your program and your identity will be
kept confidential. The audiotapes will be disposed of at the end of the study
approximately on or before May 31, 2010. By then, the needed information would have
been integrated into the research project. Until that time, they will be stored in a secure
location. To indicate your consent on audio taping the interview, kindly initialize your
name on the line provided:_________________
You will not receive any compensation for participating in this study. However, we
will send you a letter of gratitude for your participation.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact us by phone at (123)
456-7890 or by e-mail at 555@saclink.csus.edu. You may also contact the Project
Advisor, Dr. Santos Torres at (916) 278-7064 or by e-mail at torress@csus.edu.
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Your signature below
indicates that you have read this page, understand its contents, and you willingly
consent to participate in the research.
_______________________ ________
Researchers’ Signatures
Date
_____________________ _______
Signature of Participant Date
60
APPENDIX C
Resource Agencies for Counseling Services
61
COUNSELING AGENCIES
Adult ACCESS Team via Sacramento County Community Services and Supports
Provides assessment and referral for adult outpatient mental health services.
Call (916) 875-1055 or 1 (888) 881-4881.
California State University, Sacramento
Center for Counseling and Diagnostic Services
Provides for fee counseling and diagnostic testing to the community. Fees are based on
services provided. Counseling is provided by graduate students.
Call (916) 278-6252.
Sacramento County Mental Health
Offers mental health services, support and referrals for adults and children.
Call (916) 875-7070.
62
APPENDIX D
Interview Questions
63
BEST PRACTICES FOR MENTORING
1. Introduction
a. What is the name of the program?
b. Please describe the program and its history.
c. What population do you serve?
d. How was the program design developed?
e. What are your responsibilities in this program?
f. How long have you been in the field of mentoring?
g. What attracted you to this type of service?
2.
Program Objectives
a. Would you explain the objectives or vision of the mentoring program?
b. What are the concrete goals?
c. What is the distinctive trait of your program in comparison with other local
mentoring groups?
3. Best Practice Methods
a. What do you consider are the elements of a program in its best practices?
b. What are your practices in recruiting mentors?
c. What are their needed qualifications?
d. What are the practices for recruitment of mentees?
e. What are the qualifications for the mentees of the program?
f. What are your matching practices?
g. What are your training practices for the mentors?
64
h. What are your education practices for the mentees?
i. What services do you hope to provide your mentees with and why?
j. What are the funding sources of your program?
k. What practices do not work well for your program?
l. Could you cite instances to support this?
4. Barriers
a. What are the barriers you encounter to promote the objectives of your
mentoring program?
b. How do the following factors serve as possible barriers?
c. How do you overcome these barriers?
5. Outcomes
a. What are the criteria for the mentees in understanding and appreciating the
objectives and values of this program?
b. Would you provide an example of a success story of one of your mentees?
c. What steps are taken to maximize the results of the mentoring program?
d. What would you recommend for a best practice mentoring program?
e. What have been the outcomes of your mentoring practice?
Other comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(For Use of the Researchers):
1. Code Name of the Agency: ______________
2. Code Name of the Administrator:______________
3. Length of the Program: ___________________
4. Length of Service of the Administrator in the Program: ___________________
65
REFERENCES
Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W., & Ferrari, T. (2003). Participation in boys and
girls clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community
Psychology, 31(1), 39-55.
Baker, D., & Maguire, C. (2005). Mentoring in a historical perspective. In DuBois.
D., & Karcher, M., (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp.14-29). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Blechman, E. (1992). Mentors for high-risk minority youth: from effective
communication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
21(2), 160.
Brauer, J. R. (2009). Testing social learning theory using reinforcement’s residue: A
multilevel analysis of self-reported theft and marijuana use in the national youth
survey. Criminology, 47(3), 929-970.
Britner, P., Balcazar, F., Blechman, E., Blinn-Pike, L., & Larose, S. (2006, November).
Mentoring special youth populations. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6),
747-763.
66
Colley, H. (2003). Engagement mentoring for socially excluded youth: Problematising
a 'holistic' approach to creating employability through the transformation of
habitus. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 31(1), 77.
de Anda, D. (2001). A qualitative evaluation of a mentor program for at-risk youth:
The participants’ perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18(2),
97-117.
Demirbas, M., & Yagbasan, R. (2006). An evaluative study of social learning theorybased scientific attitudes on academic success, gender and socio-economical level.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6(2), 363-371.
Democratic National Committee (DNC). (2010). Organizing for America: Education.
Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/index.php
Digging for new recruits. (2007). Community Care, 1682, 22-23.
Downey, G., & Lebolt, A. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children's interpersonal
difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074.
DuBois, D.L., Doolittle, F., Yates, B. T., Silverthorn, N., & Tebes, J. K. (2006).
Research methodology and youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology,
34 (6), 657-676.
DuBois, D. L., Halloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness
of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 30, 159-197.
67
DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2005). Youth mentoring: Theory, research, and
practice. In DuBois, D., & Karcher, M., (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring
(pp. 2-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DuBois, D. L., & Neville, H. A. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship
characteristics and perceived benefits. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3),
227-234.
DuBois, D. L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and
adolescent health: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public
Health, 95(3), 518-524.
Ellis, J., Small-McGinley, J., & Hart, S. (1998). Mentor-supported literacy
development in elementary schools. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
44(2), 149-162.
Executive Order 13199. (2001, January 29). The National Archives. Retrieved from
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2001-wbush.html.
Feinstein, S., Baartman, J., Buboltz, M., Sonnichsen, K., & Solomon, R. (2008).
Resiliency in adolescent males in a correctional facility. The Journal of
Correctional Education, 59(2), 94-105.
Grossman, J. B., & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring: A proven delinquency prevention
strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
68
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(2), 199-219.
Gur, M., & Miller, L. (2004). Mentoring improves acceptance of a community
intervention for court-referred male persons in need of supervision (PINS). Child
and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(6), 573-591.
Hamilton, S. F., & Darling, N. (1996). Mentors in adolescents’ lives. In K.
Hurrelmann, & S. F. Hamilton (Eds.), Social problems and social contexts in
adolescence: Perspectives across boundaries (pp. 199-215). New York: Aldine
De Gruyter.
Henderson Daniel, J. (2009). Next generation: a mentoring program for black female
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 299-305.
Hosgood, C. P. (2002, August). Negotiating lower-middle-class Masculinity in Britain:
The Leicester Young Men's Christian Association, 1870-1914. Canadian Journal
of History, 37, 253-273.
Jackson, Y. (2002). Mentoring for delinquent children: An outcome study with young
adolescent children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(2), 115–122.
Jones, K. (1999). Taming the troublesome child: American families, child guidance,
and the limits of psychiatric authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006).
Mentoring Programs: A Framework to Inform Program Development, Research,
and Evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 709-725.
69
Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of
mentoring programs on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37(148), 717-734.
Kim, E., Kwak, D., & Yun, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of peer association and
parental influence on adolescent substance use: A study of adolescents in South
Korea. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 17-24.
Maton, K., Sto. Domingo, M., & King, J. (2005). Faith-based organizations. In
DuBois. D., & Karcher, M., Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp.
376-391). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLearn, K. T., Colasanto, D., & Schoen, C. (1998). Mentoring makes a difference:
Findings from The Commonwealth Fund 1998 survey of adults mentoring young
people. Paper presented at the June 1998 State and Future of Mentoring
Symposium. Washington, DC.
McVeigh, H., Ford, K., O’Donnell, A., Rushby, C., & Squance, J. (2009). A
framework for mentor support in community-based placements. Nursing
Standard, 23(45), 35-41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-2008). Common core of data (CCD)
for public school districts. Sacramento, CA: Elk Grove Unified School District.
Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=elk+
grove&State=06&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType
=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=m
ore&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=0612330
70
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-2008). Common core of data (CCD)
for public school districts. Sacramento, CA: San Juan Unified School District.
Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=san+j
uan&State=06&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4
&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=more
&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=0634620&details=
Palgi, M., & Moore, G. (2004). Social capital: mentors and contacts. Current
Sociology, 52(3), 459-480.
Pedersen, P. J., Woolum, S., Gagne, B., & Coleman, M. (2009). Beyond the
norm: Extraordinary relationships in youth mentoring. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31(12), 1307-1313.
Portwood, G., & Ayers, P. (2005). Schools. In DuBois. D., & Karcher, M., (Eds.),
Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 336-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Randolph, K., & Johnson, J. (2008). School-based mentoring programs: A review
of the research. Children & Schools, 30(3), 177-185.
Rhodes, J., Liang, B., & Spencer, R. (2009). First Do No Harm: Ethical Principles for
Youth Mentoring Relationships. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice,
40(5), 452-458.
71
Rhodes, J., Spencer, R., Keller, T., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the
influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34(6), 691-707.
Sacramento County. (2005). California mentoring directory: Sacramento County
Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.emt.org/userfiles/Mentoring_Directory/Sacramento.pdf.
Spencer, R. (2004). Studying relationships in psychotherapy: An untapped resource for
youth mentoring. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004(103), 31-43.
Straus, S. E., Graham, I. D., Taylor, M., & Lockyer, J. (2008). Development of a
mentorship strategy: A knowledge translation case study. Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 28(3), 117-122.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Census Bureau releases data showing relationship
between education and earnings. Washington D.C. Retrieved on January 12, 2010
from http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/education/013618.html.
Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South
Africa: South African Military Health Service. Retrieved on March 30, 2010 from
http://www.vanbreda.org/adrian/resilience.htm
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D. E. (2005). Natural
Mentoring Relationships. In DuBois. D., & Karcher, M., (Eds.), Handbook of
Youth Mentoring (pp. 143-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
72
Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Notaro, P. C. (2002). Natural mentors and
adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30(2), 221-243.