Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

June 2004 STUDENT 

MENTORING 

PROGRAMS 

Education’s 

Monitoring and 

Information Sharing 

Could Be Improved 

GAO-04-581 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-581.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-581, a report to 

congressional requesters 

June 2004

STUDENT MENTORING PROGRAMS

Education’s Monitoring and Information 

Sharing Could Be Improved 

According to the literature GAO reviewed, successful mentoring programs 

(1) plan their programs carefully prior to implementation; (2) develop 

policies and procedures to effectively manage their programs, including 

mentor screening and training; (3) ensure program sustainability through 

marketing; and (4) evaluate program outcomes and disseminate their 

evaluation findings. 

Most of the 121 mentoring grantees that Education funded shared many 

characteristics--most had 5 years or more of experience mentoring youth, 

had similar goals, and offered “one-to-one” mentoring. All mentoring 

grantees listed in their applications that they had some elements of 

successful programs, but established grantees GAO visited reported fewer 

implementation challenges, such as problems recruiting mentors, than did 

newer grantees. Most of the 11 grantees GAO visited said they would benefit 

from learning about other implementation strategies through information 

sharing. However, Education has not facilitated information sharing among 

mentoring grantees, although it is considering doing so. 

School-age mentoring 

Source: Digial Vision.

Education used multiple methods to monitor grantees, including expenditure

tracking, but the office responsible for monitoring mentoring grants did not 

review single audit reports as required by its guidance. Education’s Chief 

Financial Officer reviewed the audits but did not forward audits to the office 

overseeing the mentoring grants because findings did not pertain to these 

new grants. However, GAO found that 8 percent of the mentoring grantees 

had audit findings related to how well they handled other Education grants. 

Education is currently assessing whether it will conduct an overall 

evaluation of its mentoring program. Education required that all grantees 

have evaluation plans, and most plan to report on youth outcomes related to 

academic achievement and attendance. However, grantees plan to use 

different methodologies, making it difficult for Education to have a cohesive 

picture of its mentoring program as a whole. 

As part of the No Child Left Behind 

Act (NCLBA) of 2001, the Congress 

authorized a 3-year, $17 million per 

year school-based mentoring grant 

program. For fiscal year 2004, 

Congress has increased funding to 

about $50 million to fund additional 

mentoring efforts. Congress 

requested that GAO provide 

information on the student 

mentoring program. To do this, 

GAO answered the following 

questions: 

(1) What are the basic elements, 

policies, and procedures of 

successful mentoring programs? 

(2) What are the key characteristics 

of NCLBA-funded mentoring 

efforts, including the extent to 

which they have the basic 

elements, policies, and procedures 

of successful mentoring programs? 

(3) How does the Department of 

Education monitor program 

implementation? (4) What are 

Education’s and grantees’ plans to 

assess program outcomes? 

GAO is recommending that 

Education 

• explore ways to facilitate the 

sharing of successful practices 

and lessons learned, 

• ensure that the office 

monitoring mentoring grantees 

uses grantees’ single audit 

reports, and 

• undertake a national study of 

its mentoring program 

outcomes. 
Page i GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Key Elements of Successful Mentoring Programs Are Planning, 

Management, Sustainability, and Evaluation 9

Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics and Had Some 

Elements of Successful Programs, but Ease of Implementation 

Differed among New and Established Grantees 13

Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Program 

Implementation, but Monitoring May Not Be Sufficient to 

Identify Possible Fiscal and Programmatic Weaknesses 24

The Office Responsible for Monitoring Mentoring Grantees Did Not 

Review Grantees’ Single Audit Act Reports, Creating the 

Potential for It to Miss Fiscal and Programmatic Weaknesses 27

Education Considering Conducting National Study of Mentoring 

Programs to Augment the Evaluations It Has Required Grantees 

to Submit 28

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Selected Studies on the Elements of Successful 

Mentoring 32 

Appendix II Characteristics of Education Mentoring Grantees by 

State 33 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56 

GAO Contacts 56

Acknowledgments 56

Related GAO Products 57 

Tables 

Table 1: Legislative Requirements for Mentoring Programs 7

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Table 2: Percentage of Grantees Citing Various Goals 15

Table 3: Elements of OSDFS’s Monitoring Process 25

Figures 

Figure 1: Elements, Policies, and Procedures of Successful 

Mentoring Programs 10

Figure 2: Percent of Mentoring Grantees by Years of Experience 

with Mentoring 14

Figure 3: Proportion of Grantees by Type of Mentoring 15

Figure 4: Types of Mentoring Activities at Selected Grantees 17

Figure 5: Examples of Ways Established Programs Showed 

Appreciation to Mentors 20

Figure 6: Examples of Promotional Materials Used by Mentoring 

Grantees 22

Abbreviations

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSDFS Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

June 25, 2004 

The Honorable Judd Gregg 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

Children who have mentors are more likely to earn higher grades in 

school, develop healthier social relationships, and are less likely to miss 

school and initiate the use of drugs and alcohol compared with similar 

children who do not have mentors, according to a 1995 study on 

mentoring.1

 In passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, the 

Congress sought to improve the outcomes of our nation’s school age 

children by authorizing a broad range of programs and services for them. 

As part of this effort, the Congress authorized mentoring grants for 

children who have the “greatest need.” In establishing the student 

mentoring program, the Congress authorized grants to organizations to 

achieve one or more goals for participating children, including improved 

academic outcomes; reduced incidence of school dropout, juvenile 

delinquency, and alcohol and drug use; and lower involvement in gangs. 

The Department of Education’s (Education) Office of Safe and Drug Free 

Schools (OSDFS), which administers the mentoring grant, funded 

122 grantees for a 3-year period ending in 2004, at $17 million a year. The 

average grant amount is about $140,000 each year. As the current wave of 

mentoring funding is set to end, Congress has appropriated funding for 

additional mentoring efforts. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation of about 

 1

Tierney and Grossman, Making A Difference, An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big 

Sisters (Philadelphia, PA: 1995). 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

$50 million is expected to fund about 200 new grantees and the last year of 

the current wave of mentoring grantees. 

As part of our ongoing work on NCLBA implementation, you asked us to 

provide you with information on school-based mentoring. In response, we 

answered the following questions: (1) What are the basic elements, 

policies, and procedures associated with successful mentoring programs? 

(2) What are the key characteristics of NCLBA-funded mentoring efforts, 

including the extent to which they have the basic elements, policies, and 

procedures associated with successful mentoring programs? (3) How does 

Education monitor program implementation? (4) What are Education’s 

and grantees’ plans to assess program outcomes? 

To answer these questions, we reviewed the literature on the elements, 

policies, and procedures associated with successful mentoring. For this 

report, we are defining successful mentoring as those efforts that have the 

elements needed to establish, operate, and sustain mentoring. We relied 

heavily on a 2003 publication developed by an expert panel that described 

the elements of effective mentoring and reviewed several studies upon 

which the publication was based.2

 We found that these studies generally 

supported the elements identified in the 2003 publication. However, the 

rigor of these studies varied, ranging from studies that included random 

assignment of participants to control groups, to more descriptive case 

studies. See appendix I for a list of studies that discuss the elements of 

successful mentoring. We also reviewed the grant applications of the 

121 mentoring grantees Education currently funds to determine the extent 

to which the program descriptions contained in applications aligned with 

the elements, policies, and procedures associated with successful 

programs. 

To better understand how grantees implemented such elements, we visited 

11 grantees. We selected these grantees to reflect a diversity of mentoring 

approaches and geographic areas. Our initial work led us to explore 

whether established and new grantees approached implementation 

differently and whether lessons could be learned from their experiences. 

As a result, we ensured that the 11 grantees we visited also included a 

mixture of relatively new mentoring efforts—6 grantees with fewer than 

5 years of experience mentoring youth and 5 established grantees that had 

 2

See Elements of Effective Practice, 2nd Edition, Mentor/National Mentoring Partnership 

(Alexandria, VA: 2003). 
Page 3 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

been operating for 5 years or more. We visited one grantee in California, 

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

During our visits with grantee staff, we covered a range of topics, 

including mentor recruitment, screening, and training; mentoring 

approach; goals for youth; plans for evaluation; and Education’s 

monitoring of its programs. In most instances, we spoke with mentors 

about their mentoring experiences and the kinds of support and training 

they received. We also observed mentoring, noting the nature of the 

interaction between mentors and youth, including the kinds of activities 

and discussions that occurred between them. 

In addition, we reviewed Education’s monitoring policies and procedures 

and interviewed Education officials about how they monitor the mentoring 

grantees. We also reviewed the monitoring documentation that Education 

maintains on grantees and discussed Education’s monitoring with the 

grantees that we visited. Using the online Single Audit Act database, we 

compiled summary reports of audit findings on all mentoring grantees that 

had fiscal years 2001 and 2002 audits. Such audits contain information on a 

grantees use of federal funds. Finally, we interviewed Education officials 

about their plans for evaluating the mentoring program, and we reviewed 

the evaluation plans of individual grantees. We conducted our work 

between June 2003 and May 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

According to the literature that we reviewed, successful student mentoring 

programs carefully plan their programs, develop policies and procedures 

to effectively manage their programs, ensure program sustainability 

through marketing, and evaluate program outcomes. First, in planning 

their programs, successful mentoring programs make many decisions, 

including the number of youth they can realistically serve and what kinds 

of services they will offer and expected outcomes. The program will also 

determine where and when mentoring will take place, what types of 

individuals program staff will recruit as mentors, and how staff will fund 

and manage the program. Second, successful mentoring programs develop 

policies and processes to screen and train mentors to better ensure that 

they are committed to mentoring and understand the needs of youth. The 

programs also establish data collection procedures to facilitate program 

monitoring and assessment. Third, successful programs have marketing 

and sustainability strategies in place that help them retain the support of 

current funders and garner financial backing from new sources. Finally, 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

successful student mentoring programs evaluate program outcomes and 

broadly disseminate their evaluation findings. 

Most of the student mentoring efforts that Education funded shared many 

characteristics—most had 5 or more years of experience mentoring youth, 

had similar goals, and offered “one-to-one” mentoring. Grantees did differ 

somewhat in their program design, such as the number and characteristics 

of at-risk youth they planned to serve and the services offered them. All 

mentoring efforts had some elements of successful programs, but we 

found that established grantees reported fewer implementation challenges, 

such as difficulties recruiting mentors, than did newer grantees. Some of 

the established grantees we visited told us that they had experienced some 

implementation difficulties when they began mentoring youth and that 

they had refined their programs over the early years. Many of these 

grantees also told us that they benefited from learning about 

implementation strategies from other more experienced mentoring 

programs. Most of the new grantees reported that this type of information 

would help them to better implement their programs. However, Education 

has not facilitated information sharing among mentoring grantees, 

although it is considering such an effort. 

To monitor grantees, Education officials regularly contacted them by 

telephone, examined grantee performance reports, visited a limited 

number of grantees annually, and monitored the amount grantees spent, 

according to Education documents and interviews with officials. Such 

monitoring revealed, for example, that one grantee had spent mentoring 

funds even though the grantee was not yet operational. That grantee 

voluntarily relinquished its mentoring grant. Although Education used 

multiple methods to monitor grantees, OSDFS, which is responsible for 

monitoring mentoring grants, did not review grantees’ single audit reports 

as part of its monitoring, although its guidance states that it review readily 

available information, including information from single audits. Instead, 

according to Education officials, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

within Education reviewed these reports, but did not provide the OSDFS 

with information about audit findings because none of the audit findings 

pertained to the mentoring grants. Because mentoring grants were 

relatively new, we did not expect to find information pertaining to 

grantees’ handling of mentoring grants when we reviewed their online 

single audit summary reports. Rather, we wanted to determine if there 

were problems in these same grantees’ handling of other Education grant 

funds they received before or around the time Education awarded them 

mentoring grants. How well these grantees handled other funds they 

received from Education may suggest how well they would manage their 
Page 5 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

mentoring grant funds. Our review of all 121 mentoring grantees revealed 

that about 8 percent of them had an audit that identified problems, such as 

cash management and procurement issues, with respect to other 

Education grants they received substantially enough to be reported as 

audit findings. 

Education does not have plans to assess the mentoring program’s 

outcomes or effectiveness but is currently discussing the possibility of 

doing so. No timeframes have been established for making a 

determination. While collecting outcome data would provide a descriptive 

study of youth outcomes, an effectiveness study, which involves the use of 

comparison groups, would allow Education to determine whether the 

mentoring program, rather than other factors, caused any improvement in 

youth outcomes. While the agency’s plans for an evaluation are undefined, 

it has required that individual grantees provide final evaluation reports 

when their 3-year grants end. Grantees’ evaluation plans show that they 

intend to report a range of youth outcomes, such as information on 

academic achievement and school attendance. Grantee evaluation plans 

also reflect variation in data collection strategies. Such variations were 

most apparent between new and established grantees. Specifically, the 

more established grantees more often reported that they planned to use 

data, such as grades and attendance information to report student 

outcomes, while newer programs more often reported that they would rely 

on self-reported data to measure youth outcomes, such as surveys of 

teachers. Because of different data collection methods, taken together 

these grantee evaluations cannot provide a cohesive national picture of 

mentoring program outcomes. 

To improve the mentoring program and provide essential information 

about its operations and outcomes, we are recommending that the 

Department of Education explore ways to facilitate the sharing of 

successful practices and lessons learned, ensure that the Office of Safe 

and Drug Free Schools use grantees’ single audit reports, and undertake a 

national study of its mentoring program’s outcomes. 

According to a 1995 effectiveness study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Program, children who participated in this mentoring program achieved 

higher grades in school, skipped school less frequently, developed closer 

relationships with parents and peers, and were less likely to initiate the 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

use of drugs and alcohol than were similar children who were not enrolled 

in the program.3

Mentoring is often defined as a sustained relationship between a youth and 

an older person, typically an adult, in which the adult provides the younger 

person with support, guidance, and assistance. Mentoring is based on the 

premise that if young people have access to caring, concerned adults, they 

will be more likely to become successful adults themselves. Historically, 

mentoring has meant that one volunteer commits to mentoring one child 

at a time. More recently, mentoring has moved beyond this traditional 

relationship to encompass other formats, including group and e-mail 

mentoring. 

Mentoring programs are established in many communities. Programs like 

the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program, a national program operating in 

every state, have a long history of mentoring neighborhood youth. In 

community-based programs, youth are often referred for mentoring by 

family members. Potential mentors often submit to extensive background 

checks and trained mentors are often allowed to engage in unsupervised 

activities with the youth. School-based mentoring, as its name implies, 

takes place on school grounds. Given their location in the school, program 

staff in school-based mentoring programs can easily meet with teachers. 

Often teachers refer youth for mentoring whom they believe could benefit 

from additional attention and guidance. In school-based mentoring 

programs, volunteers typically meet with the youth during or after school 

and their interactions are typically supervised. Mentors and youth can 

spend time on schoolwork, but also engage in other activities, including 

playing sports, attending a concert, reading, eating lunch together, or just 

“hanging out together.” 

To improve the outcomes of our nation’s school age children, Congress 

passed NCLBA. Among other things, this act authorized 3-year grants for 

student mentoring programs. NCLBA required that selected programs 

serve children with the greatest need, that is, children most at risk of 

failing school, dropping out of school, or being involved in criminal or 

delinquent activity, as well as those lacking strong positive role models. 

 3

See Tierney and Grossman, Making A Difference, An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big 

Sisters (Philadelphia, PA: 1995). For this study, researchers randomly assigned eligible 

youth to either a treatment or control group and compared outcomes for these two groups. 

This study provided information on the effectiveness of the Big Brothers Big Sisters model, 

which provides one-on-one mentoring. 
Page 7 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

NCLBA also authorized grants to entities to achieve one or more goals for 

participating children, including improved academic achievement and 

reduced delinquent behavior and involvement in gangs. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Legislative Requirements for Mentoring Programs 

Aspect Requirement 

Purpose Make assistance available to promote mentoring program for children with greatest need to 

assist such children in receiving support and guidance from a mentor; improve the 

academic achievement of such children; improve interpersonal relationships between such 

children and their peers, teachers, other adults, and family members; reduce the dropout 

rate of such children; and reduce juvenile delinquency and involvement in gangs by such 

children. 

Program goals Provide general guidance; promote personal and social responsibility; increase 

participation in, and enhance the ability to benefit from elementary and secondary 

education; discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol, violence, the use of dangerous 

weapons, promiscuous behavior, and other criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful 

activities; encourage participation in community service and activities; encourage goal 

setting and planning for the future, including encouragement of graduation from secondary 

school and planning for postsecondary education or training; and discourage involvement 

in gangs. 

Entities eligible to serve as grantees Local educational agencies; nonprofit, community-based organizations; and partnerships 

between local educational agencies and nonprofit, community-based organizations. 

Target population School age children who are at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or 

involved in criminal or delinquent behavior, or who lack strong positive role models. Priority 

for funding given to programs that serve children living in rural areas, high-crime areas, 

troubled home environments, and children experiencing educational failure. 

Application and selection criteria Applicants are required to provide the following: 

• Description of the mentoring program. 

• Information on the children to be served. 

• Description of the mechanism that will be used to match children with mentors. 

• Information on how mentors and children will be recruited to the program. 

• Information on how prospective mentors will be screened. 

• Information on the training that will be provided to mentors. 

• Information on the capability of the applicant to effectively implement a mentoring 

program. 

Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA requirements. 

Note: We did not provide an exhaustive list of the target population or application and selection 

criteria, which can be found in NCLBA. 

A number of types of organizations are eligible to receive funding under 

the program, including local educational agencies, nonprofit, communitybased organizations, and partnerships between a local educational agency 

and a nonprofit, community-based organization. NCLBA requires that 

applicants demonstrate that they meet a number of criteria, which 

Education in turn required be detailed in their grant applications. 
Page 8 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Specifically, Education required applicants to demonstrate that mentors 

would receive training and support and would be screened using 

appropriate references and background checks. The agency also required 

applicants to meet criteria that are not specifically outlined in NCLBA. 

For example, the agency required that applicants outline how they 

intended to achieve performance goals, such as improved academic 

achievement among participating children, or reduced incidences of 

involvement in gangs, illegal drugs, and alcohol. Grant recipients can use 

the funding for activities to establish or implement a mentoring program. 

For example, grants may use funds to hire mentor coordinators and 

support staff; recruit, screen and train mentors; and disseminate recruiting 

materials. 

In fiscal year 2002, Education awarded competitive grants to 1224

 grantees 

from a pool of nearly 1,300 applicants. Education funded at least one 

grantee in every state, with grant amounts ranging from about $39,000 to 

nearly $500,000 in both fiscal years 2002 and 2003.5

 (See app. II for a list of 

grantees by state.) Funding for these grantees ends in fiscal year 

2004; funding for the mentoring program over the 3 years will total about 

$50 million. Congress has increased funding for fiscal year 2004. According 

to Education, these funds will be used to fund an additional 200 grantees 

and the last year of the current wave of mentoring grantees. 

Education has a number of responsibilities regarding administration and 

oversight of the mentoring program. The agency oversees program 

implementation, provides technical assistance, and disseminates 

information on best practices. With respect to monitoring, Education, like 

other federal agencies, is required as part of its monitoring responsibilities 

to review grantees’ single audit reports if they contain findings.6

 The Single 

Audit Act requires state and local governments and nonprofit 

organizations that expend $300,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal 

year to have either a single audit or program-specific audit conducted for 

 4

Education initially funded 122 grantees, but one voluntarily relinquished its grant after 

Education discovered that the grantee had spent funds, even though it had not yet begun 

operations. 

5

Fiscal year 2004 grant awards will be made in July or August of 2004 totaling about 

$17 million. 

6

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 requires federal agencies to issue written 

management decisions on the audit findings contained in single audit reports within 

6 months of receiving the recipient’s single audit report. 
Page 9 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

that year.7 Audit findings from such reports can include problems such as 

internal control weaknesses; material noncompliance with the provisions 

of laws, regulations, or grant agreements; and fraud affecting a federal 

award. Education receives a copy of the audit report if it contains findings 

relevant to an Education program.8

According to the literature we reviewed,9

 prior to implementation, 

successful mentoring programs make key decisions about which youth 

they will serve and expected outcomes, how they will recruit mentors, and 

how the program will be funded; put in place management structures, such 

as screening, training, and recruitment policies and procedures to ensure 

that the program is well-managed on a daily basis; market their programs 

and pursue strategies to ensure long-term program viability; and evaluate 

program outcomes and disseminate outcome information to key 

stakeholders to further garner and sustain support for their programs. 

(See fig. 1.) 

 7

This amount was increased to $500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003. 

8

The federal clearinghouse receives copies of the single audit reporting package from the 

audited grantee and forwards it to Education. 

9

See appendix I for a list of the studies that discuss the elements of successful mentoring. 

Key Elements of 

Successful Mentoring 

Programs Are 

Planning, 

Management, 

Sustainability, and 

Evaluation 
Page 10 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Figure 1: Elements, Policies, and Procedures of Successful Mentoring Programs 

Note: We are defining successful mentoring to mean those efforts that have the basic elements 

needed to establish, manage and operate, and sustain mentoring. 

Initial plan for program operation

Funding 

sources

Youth 

population

to be served

Types of 

activities to 

undertake

Youth 

outcomes 

expected

Types of 

mentors to 

be recruited

Daily program operations and procedures

Recruitment 

operations 

and 

procedures

Mentor and 

youth 

screening 

procedures

Mentor/youth 

training 

requirements 

and 

programs

Ongoing 

support and 

supervision of 

match 

operations and 

procedures

Data 

collection 

procedures

Marketing and program sustainability strategies

Launch public 

relations/

communications 

effort

Seek 

diversified 

funding

Implement 

an advisory 

board

Marshal 

support from 

business and 

other key 

stakeholders

Recognize 

mentor, youth, 

funders, and 

other 

contributors' 

efforts

Program evaluation component

Select program 

outcome indicators 

and measurement 

instruments

Assess program 

outcomes

Disseminate 

evaluation 

findings

Source: Graphic rendition of Elements of Effective Practices, 2nd Edition, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership (2003).
Page 11 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

According to the literature that we reviewed, successful student mentoring 

programs engage in considerable planning prior to launching their efforts. 

Such planning enables them to assess the need for the services they plan 

to offer and to determine whether their organizations have the assets they 

need to be successful. Pre-implementation planning can also help 

programs determine the extent to which individuals or corporations may 

be willing to invest in the programs. 

Successful mentoring programs make many decisions pertaining to 

program design and operations as part of their early planning processes. 

For example, decisions regarding program design may include how many 

youth a program will serve, what kinds of services it will offer, where and 

when mentoring will take place, the types of individuals to be recruited as 

mentors, and expected outcomes. In addition, successful programs often 

decide whether mentors will meet with youth individually or in groups. 

Successful programs also determine what function mentors will serve, 

such as whether they will offer academic support or help to socialize 

youth. 

Research suggests that having policies and procedures in place to sustain 

and support mentors and youth are critical elements of successful 

mentoring programs. According to the literature, three elements are 

particularly critical to the success of a mentor program: (1) mentor 

screening, (2) orientation and training, and (3) support and supervision. 

First, screening procedures provide programs a basis for selecting those 

adults who are most likely to be successful as mentors. Screening enables 

programs to better predict how a potential mentor may interact with a 

mentored youth, such as whether the potential mentor understands the 

importance of being a caring adult. In addition, screening can help 

determine whether the volunteer can commit enough time to the youth to 

build a meaningful relationship. Screening can also help ensure the safety 

of participating youth and can protect the program’s reputation. When 

screening mentors, many programs interview the potential mentors, 

review personal references, and check police records. 

Second, research indicates that mentor orientation and training 

experiences are critical to program success, although research has not 

identified how much training is ideal or what topics such training should 

cover. Mentor orientation and training experiences can help student 

mentoring programs succeed in several ways. For example, orientation 

and training experiences can prepare volunteers to successfully become 

Successful Student 

Mentoring Programs 

Develop Initial Plans for 

How Their Programs Will 

Be Designed and Operated 

Successful Student 

Mentoring Programs 

Ensure Policies and 

Procedures Are in Place to 

Sustain Daily Operations 
Page 12 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

mentors and can help ensure that both youth and mentors understand 

what their roles entail. In addition, orientation and training experiences 

can help mentors understand what they can reasonably expect to 

accomplish. Moreover, given that mentors often have very different 

backgrounds from the youth they mentor, training can help mentors better 

understand the youth and more effectively work toward building 

relationships. 

Third, while training can prepare mentors for potential challenges, 

successful programs also provide mentors with ongoing support, either 

from professional staff or through mentor support groups. Such ongoing 

support can help mentors continue to invest in their relationships with 

youth so these relationships can survive and thrive. By supervising and 

supporting mentor and youth matches, program staff can help ensure that 

pairs meet regularly over a substantial period of time; such regular 

interaction is critical to developing positive relationships between mentors 

and youth. Research suggests that programs in which professional staff 

provide regular support to volunteers are more likely to have mentoryouth matches that meet regularly. In addition, participants of such 

programs are more likely to report being satisfied with their mentoring 

relationships. In contrast, programs in which staff do not regularly contact 

mentors report more “failed matches”—those that do not meet 

consistently and, thus, do not develop into relationships. 

Successful mentoring programs market themselves and establish 

strategies to ensure long-term program viability, according to the 

literature. Marketing and sustainability strategies can take several forms. 

For example, programs may design resource development plans. Such 

plans may help programs diversify their fundraising by establishing how 

the programs will seek in-kind gifts, solicit funding from individuals and 

corporate donors, and apply for government funding. In addition, 

programs may try to garner private-sector support for mentoring by 

encouraging leaders in the private sector to make it easier for their 

employees to mentor youth. For example, program staff may encourage 

company leaders to allow employees to take time off from work to mentor 

youth. 

Marketing and program sustainability also includes public relations 

efforts. For example, mentoring programs may develop partnerships and 

collaborations with other organizations that support similar efforts to 

improve youth outcomes. Public relations also include recognition of 

Successful Student 

Mentoring Programs 

Market Their Programs 

and Develop Strategies to 

Ensure Long-term 

Operation 
Page 13 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

mentors by providing tangible tokens of appreciations such as plaques or 

letters to mentors’ employers. 

Successful mentoring programs develop plans to measure expected 

outcomes and systematically examine and disseminate evaluation findings. 

For example, successful mentoring programs develop plans to measure 

program outcomes, determine how to measure such outcomes 

appropriately, and use their planned evaluation designs to assess their 

successes and areas needing improvement. Successful mentoring 

programs also disseminate their evaluation findings to volunteers, 

participants, funders, and the media to garner further support for their 

programs. Moreover, having information on program outcomes enables 

these programs to refine program design and operations based on 

evaluation findings. 

Most of the mentoring grantees Education funded were similar in many 

respects—most grantees had considerable experience operating 

mentoring programs, had similar goals for youth, and matched one mentor 

with one youth. Mentoring programs differed in the number and 

characteristics of youth served and the services offered them. In addition, 

all of the mentoring programs Education funded listed some key elements 

of successful programs in their applications. However, the well-established 

grantees we visited experienced fewer implementation challenges than did 

grantees new to mentoring. 

Our analyses of grant applications showed that most of the mentoring 

grantees Education funded were well-established, with considerable 

mentoring experience. Specifically, 81 percent of the grantees were wellestablished—with 5 years or more experience operating mentoring 

programs. For example, one grantee in Florida had mentored youth for 

over 40 years. Conversely, 19 percent (23) of the grantees Education 

funded were relatively new, with less than 5 years of experience. (See 

fig. 2.) 

Successful Student 

Mentoring Programs 

Establish Processes to 

Measure and Disseminate 

Program Outcomes 

Mentoring Grantees 

Shared Many 

Characteristics and 

Had Some Elements 

of Successful 

Programs, but Ease of 

Implementation 

Differed among New 

and Established 

Grantees 

Most Mentoring Grantees 

Shared Many 

Characteristics Such as 

Considerable Mentoring 

Experience and Similar 

Goals for Youth 
Page 14 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Figure 2: Percent of Mentoring Grantees by Years of Experience with Mentoring 

In addition, most of the grantees Education funded cited similar goals for 

youth, reflecting the criteria identified in the application guidance, 

according to our review of grant applications. Nearly all grantees had 

goals related to improving academic achievement of participating youth 

(96 percent) and reducing their involvement in harmful behaviors, such as 

drug use and violence (87 percent). These goals were consistent with 

those identified in NCBLA as goals of the mentoring program. (See 

table 2.) 

10%

9%

81% Established: 5 years or more

New: 1-2 years

New: 3-4 years

Source: GAO analysis of experience level for 121 Education-funded mentoring grantees.
Page 15 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Table 2: Percentage of Grantees Citing Various Goals 

Goals Percentage citing this goal

Improved academic achievement. 96

Discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol; violence; the use of dangerous weapons; 

promiscuous behavior; and other criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful activities. 87

Reduce incidence of school dropout. 50

Improve interpersonal relationships between such children and their peers, teachers, other 

adults, and family members. 46

Increase participation in and enhance the ability to benefit from post secondary education 

or training. 46

Increase participation in community service activities. 39

Improved school attendance/reduced truancy. 34

Source: GAO analysis of 121 Education-funded mentoring grant applications. 

About three-quarters of all grantees paired each youth to his or her own 

mentor, while 3 percent of all grantees (3) mentored children exclusively 

in groups, with 3 or 4 youth meeting at one time with a mentor. (See fig. 3.) 

Around one-fifth of all grantees provided both individual and group 

mentoring. 

Figure 3: Proportion of Grantees by Type of Mentoring 

About 70 percent of grantees listed in their grant applications that they 

asked prospective mentors to commit to spending at least 1 hour per week 

with their youth, and over 60 percent required a commitment of at least 

3%

Group mentoring

22%

75% One-to-one mentoring

Both one-to-one and 

group mentoring

Source: GAO analysis of 121 Education-funded mentoring applications.
Page 16 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

1 school year. Other programs asked prospective mentors for a longer 

commitment. For example, a Nebraska grantee we visited asked 

prospective mentors to continue the mentoring relationships until the 

youth had graduated from high school. A few grantees asked mentors to 

commit less time than 1 hour a week. For example, one grantee we visited 

in Illinois asked mentors to meet with their youth for 1 hour a month. 

However, the mentors told us that they wanted to increase the frequency 

of the meetings. 

Although there were many similarities among grantees, they did differ in 

some respects, such as the number of youth they planned to serve, how 

much funding was available to them, and which specific at-risk youth they 

planned to serve. The number of youth grantees planned to serve in total 

over the 3-year grant period ranged from 18 in Nebraska to a high of 

3,200 youth in New Mexico, according to grantee applications. Grantee 

award amounts varied from about $39,000 to nearly $500,000, with the 

average grant amount about $140,000. Although all grantees served at-risk 

youth, some targeted a specific group of at-risk youth. For example, one 

grantee in Virginia targeted children of Vietnamese refugees, another 

grantee in California targeted youth in foster care and residential group 

homes, and a New York grantee targeted court-involved youth. 

Grantees also differed on the types of activities mentors and youth 

participated in. During our visits, we observed a range of activities, some 

focused on academics, such as tutoring or playing a game that promoted 

literacy or math skills—while other activities focused on building 

relationships. Such activities included playing chess, playing basketball, or 

just simply talking. In addition, some mentors told us that they engage 

youth in cultural activities, such as attending a concert. Mentors also 

reported participating in activities with their youths that supported the 

youths’ communities, such as planting bulbs at a local retirement home or 

decorating a Christmas tree to be auctioned off at a local charity event. 

(See fig. 4.) 
Page 17 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Figure 4: Types of Mentoring Activities at Selected Grantees 

Many of these mentoring activities were carried out inside of the school, 

such as in classrooms, the library, the gym, or in resource centers. Less 

frequently, mentors met with youth in their community settings, such as in 

a neighborhood church, community center, or public library. 

According to grantee applications, all grantees had some of the key 

elements of successful programs: initial plans for the program design and 

operations, including for example the number and characteristics of youth 

served; policies and procedures for program management such as mentor 

screening and training; and program evaluation activities that include an 

assessment of program outcomes. However, during our site visits, we 

found that established grantees already had fairly well-defined programs, 

having generally completed most aspects of the first two elements—

planning and program management. Thus, these more established grantees 

encountered fewer implementation challenges, such as problems 

recruiting mentors, than did newer grantees. However, these established 

grantees noted the challenges they had faced in starting up their programs 

initially and the benefits they derived from talking with other more 

experienced program staff to help them along. 

Many of the established grantees we visited often required little additional 

planning for their mentoring grants. These grantees often used plans and 

strategies already in place, such as what youth to serve, the types of 

All Grantees Had Some 

Elements of Successful 

Programs, though in 

General More Established 

Grantees Reported Fewer 

Implementation 

Challenges than Newer 

Grantees 

Academic

· Tutoring

· Helping with homework 

· Coping with test anxiety

· Learning a game like 

 chess

· Developing computer 

 skills

· Helping complete college 

 applications

Enrichment

· Attending concerts

· Attending plays

· Visiting colleges

· Playing basketball 

 or other sports

· Skating

· Creating arts and crafts 

 projects

· Going to an amusement 

 park

· Attending professional 

 sports games

Recreational

Character 

development

· Discussing drug abuse 

 prevention materials

· Shadowing mentor at 

 his/her job

· Developing conflict 

 resolution skills

· Talking about family 

 problems

Source: GAO analysis of site visit information from 11 Education-funded mentoring grantees.
Page 18 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

services to provide, and how to conduct mentor recruitment and training 

activities. For example, staff from a well-established Florida grantee that 

we visited told us they used the Education grant to continue serving the 

same youth they had served through a mentoring program whose funding 

had expired. Staff from a California grantee told us they used the 

Education grant to expand their existing school-based mentoring program 

into additional schools. 

In contrast, some of the newer grantees we visited did not have an existing 

base upon which to build their mentoring efforts, particularly those that 

were using grant funds to start a new program. As a necessary step toward 

implementing successful mentoring programs, these grantees had to take 

time during the initial part of their grant period to engage in planning 

activities. This planning involved determining key program design 

features, such as establishing program outcomes and resolving operational 

issues such as how to recruit mentors. Sometimes newer grantees had to 

revise their original plans when they experienced unexpected 

implementation difficulties. For example, a Delaware grantee new to 

mentoring had planned to provide one-to-one mentoring at local churches, 

but encountered difficulties transporting the children to the various 

locations. Subsequently, the grantee switched to a small-group mentoring 

approach where mentors met the children at school. Another new grantee 

that we visited in Nebraska had difficulty recruiting enough mentors and 

retaining enough youth for their mentoring effort. Moreover, during our 

visit to a new grantee in Idaho, we observed that some youth did not have 

mentors and were being randomly assigned to an available mentor on the 

spot for a group activity.10

Our review of grantee applications showed that all grantees had some 

policies and procedures in place to manage their ongoing operations, such 

as policies pertaining to mentor recruitment, screening, and training, but 

during our site visits we found that established and new grantees differed 

in the extent to which they had been able to implement such policies and 

procedures. Established grantees we visited already had in-place many of 

the policies and procedures necessary to operate a mentoring program. 

For example, these grantees generally had long-standing agreements with 

organizations in their communities that helped them attract, screen, and 

 10Education tracks grantee implementation and requires grantees to notify them if they 

deviate from their original plans. When the Delaware program switched to group 

mentoring, it notified Education of the change, although Education does not consider this 

to be a major change requiring prior approval. 
Page 19 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

retain mentors. In addition, established grantees had a structure that 

helped them to begin operations immediately after the grant award. For 

example, two well-established grantees—one in Florida and the other in 

Ohio had either staff dedicated to recruiting or had advisory boards made 

up of community leaders to help them recruit and promote their efforts. In 

addition, more established grantees were able to retain their mentors by 

providing appreciation gifts and having mentor appreciation dinners and 

ceremonies. Some established grantees also gave mentors small gifts such 

as pins and note pads with the program logo on it. (See fig. 5.) 
Page 20 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Figure 5: Examples of Ways Established Programs Showed Appreciation to Mentors 

Note: Photo of mentor gifts and appreciation ceremony announcements provided by grantees. 

In contrast, as expected for organizations in the start-up phase of their 

programs, the newer grantees we visited generally did not have as welldeveloped policies and procedures, such as those related to mentor 

training, recruitment, and support, as the established grantees we visited. 

Source: GAO photo.
Page 21 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

For example, a grantee we visited in Illinois had to borrow materials from 

other programs to develop its training manual. Furthermore, some of the 

newer grantees we visited had not completed making all of their matches 

or the mentors and youth had only met a few times. 

Established grantees we visited were generally better positioned than 

newer grantees to market and sustain their mentoring efforts at the end of 

the Education grant. In particular, because many of the established 

grantees we visited had secured funding from multiple sources or were 

part of larger organizations, they were better positioned to sustain their 

mentoring efforts when the grants ended. For example, an established 

Florida grantee received funding from multiple sources, including its 

national affiliate, private foundations, and the United Way. In contrast, the 

Education mentoring grant was the only source of funding for a new 

grantee in Georgia. Some established grantees also developed a wide 

variety of materials to promote their program, including portable 

presentation packages, colorful, professionally printed brochures and 

pamphlets, magnets, and promotional videotapes. (See fig. 6.) 
Page 22 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Figure 6: Examples of Promotional Materials Used by Mentoring Grantees 

Finally, established grantees often had more experience collecting youth 

and program outcomes, our site visits showed. For example, some of the 

established grantees that were affiliated with a national organization, such 

as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, already had a set evaluation 

strategy, including standardized data collection forms and analysis tools. 

Although new grantees’ overall evaluation plans were outlined in their 

grant applications, some of the newer grantees we visited did not have 

established data collection processes or evaluation plans. Thus, unlike 

some of the established grantees we visited, they had to develop such 

processes and plans. 

Source: GAO photo.
Page 23 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

During our site visits, some of the established grantees reported on both 

the challenges of starting a new program and the benefits of learning 

about the strategies that other mentoring programs had used to address 

such challenges. These grantees reported that the start-up process 

required many different types of activities to establish a structure and 

operational framework. To facilitate their implementation, they found that 

discussions with staff from other established mentoring organizations 

helped them by providing information on program design, such as 

strategies for recruiting and supporting mentors and program evaluation. 

For example, staff from an established New York grantee we visited told 

us they contacted other mentoring organizations for advice on mentor 

screening, support, and recruitment. These established grantees noted the 

time and effort it took to get a program operational and that key to their 

successful efforts was assistance they received from other more 

experienced programs. 

During our site visits, new grantees reported facing start-up difficulties, 

such as recruiting and retaining potential mentors. Some of the newer 

grantees reported seeking assistance from more experienced mentoring 

programs on establishing operational procedures. For example, staff from 

a new grantee we visited in Georgia noted they were better able to make a 

realistic estimate of the number of youth they could serve after consulting 

with an experienced mentoring program. 

After the grantee awards were made, Education did not establish a formal 

process to facilitate information sharing among grantees, although the 

department acknowledged the importance of information sharing among 

grantees and is considering such an effort. Many of the grantees we visited 

acknowledged the need for information sharing on grantees’ activities that 

could provide valuable lessons. Three of the established grantees we 

visited put processes in place to facilitate information sharing or presented 

information about their organization at conferences. For example, one 

grantee in Ohio that we visited developed a regional mentoring institute to 

share its mentoring experiences and expertise to assist interested school 

districts and nonprofits throughout a tristate area. To facilitate 

information sharing among grantees, Education is considering designating 

some of its fiscal year 2004 funding to develop a technical assistance 

center. 

Grantees Reported 

Benefits from Learning 

about Other Mentoring 

Implementation Strategies 
Page 24 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Education officials within the OSDFS monitored grantees using multiple 

methods, including calling grantees regularly, examining annual 

performance reports, and reviewing grantee expenditure rates. However, 

officials did not review findings from grantees’ single audit reports. Single 

audit reports provide information on weaknesses related to grantee 

financial management, internal control, and compliance issues. 

OSDFS’s monitoring process included: postaward performance calls to 

establish progress measures; semiannual calls to grantees to determine 

implementation progress and issues; reviews of annual grantee 

performance reports to assess implementation; monitoring of expenditure 

rates; and visits to a limited number of sites. Based upon grantees’ annual 

performance reports and other data, OSDFS officials determined whether 

it would continue funding. With one exception, OSDFS determined that 

mentoring grantees were making adequate progress and warranted 

continued funding. Table 3 outlines elements of OSDFS’s monitoring 

process, including the purpose of each monitoring tool and how OSDFS 

provides grantees with feedback after assessing their performance using 

that particular tool. 

Education Used 

Multiple Methods to 

Monitor Program 

Implementation, but 

Monitoring May Not 

Be Sufficient to 

Identify Possible 

Fiscal and 

Programmatic 

Weaknesses 

Education Used Multiple 

Methods to Monitor 

Grantees, Including 

Review of Performance 

Reports and Expenditure 

Tracking 
Page 25 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Table 3: Elements of OSDFS’s Monitoring Process 

Monitoring tool Purpose Feedback to the grantee 

Postaward 

performance call 

Ensures mutual understanding of 

specific outcomes expected and 

establishes measures for assessing 

projects’ implementation progress 

and results. 

Grantees receive a 

performance agreement 

that outlines the issues 

discussed during the call. 

Semiannual 

performance call 

Ensures implementation is 

proceeding and allows the agency 

to provide technical assistance as 

needed. 

Grantees receive written 

summary of issues 

discussed, if necessary. 

Annual performance 

report 

Ensures grantee is making progress 

towards meeting its goals and 

objectives and expenditures are 

reconciled with budget. 

Grantees receive written 

confirmation that report was 

received and feedback, if 

necessary. 

Grant Accounts 

Payment System 

Monitor grantee expenditure rates. Grantees are contacted if 

grant drawdowns are 

excessive or funds are not 

expended within a 

reasonable time frame. 

Site visit Examine selected number of 

grantee operations and activities. 

Grantees receive a report 

documenting site visit 

findings, recommendations, 

and required actions. 

Source: GAO’s analysis of Education data. 

First, OSDFS' staff made postaward performance telephone calls soon 

after awarding the mentoring grants to ensure understanding of 

established outcomes and to offer technical assistance. During these initial 

telephone contacts, OSDFS staff communicated the specific outcomes the 

agency expected grantees to achieve and answered grantees’ questions. 

They also discussed measures to assess the grantee’s implementation 

progress. 

Second, OSDFS’s monitoring process has involved semiannual telephone 

calls to grantees to ensure that grantees are on track and to provide 

technical assistance as needed. During these telephone calls, OSDFS 

monitoring staff asked a set of questions to determine the extent to which 

grantees are implementing their programs as planned. Agency officials 

also asked grantees questions to assess the extent to which grantees have 

hired staff and how much staff turnover they have encountered. 

Third, OSDFS examined grantees’ annual performance reports. Education 

requires grantees to provide information in these reports that helps the 

agency monitor grantees. Such information includes specific examples of 
Page 26 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

grantee accomplishments as well as any objectives the grantee did not 

meet. For example, a Florida grantee provided information in the report 

on the extent to which youth were meeting the program’s outcome goals, 

noted where desired outcomes had not been reached, and explained why. 

In addition, if grantees have not implemented scheduled activities, OSDFS 

asks that grantees explain why. OSDFS also asks grantees to describe any 

corrective actions they have taken or plan to take in response to previous 

problems OSDFS staff may have identified. Agency officials also used 

performance reports to ensure that grantees reconciled their expenditures 

with their budgets and described significant changes to their current or 

future budgets. 

Fourth, OSDFS monitored expenditure rates on a continuous basis 

through the Grants Accounts Payments System, according to agency staff. 

Agency staff used such information to identify potential problems, such as 

if a grantee was not expending funds at an appropriate rate. For example, 

while monitoring expenditure rates, OSDFS found that one grantee had 

spent funds, even though it had not yet begun operations. That grantee 

later voluntarily relinquished its grant. 

Fifth, as part of its monitoring process, OSDFS staff has visited a small 

number of grantees each year to observe how they are implementing their 

programs. However, because of the limited number of grantees OSDFS 

visited and the method by which grantees were selected, on-site 

monitoring is of limited value as a monitoring tool. For example, in fiscal 

year 2003, OSDFS officials visited three grantees. Two of them were 

selected because of their proximity to another grantee funded by 

Education under a different grant. The third program was chosen because 

it had ties to the program director of the grantee that voluntarily 

relinquished its grant. During an OSDFS visit with this grantee, agency 

staff also reviewed the grantee’s budget to ensure that proposed costs 

were allowable. Staff also verified that the grantee was serving the target 

population described in its application. For all three visits, OSDFS 

prepared a brief description of the program and the status of program 

implementation. 
Page 27 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Education officials in OSDFS who were directly responsible for 

monitoring the mentoring grants told us that they did not review grantees’ 

single audit reports, even though the office’s own monitoring guidance 

requires them to do so. Specifically, OSDFS monitoring guidance states 

that to decrease the likelihood of a grantee from being labeled as high risk, 

OSDFS should review annual performance reports, evaluation reports, and 

information from single audit reports, and other information readily 

available to them. Education officials told us that the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer (CFO) within Education receives and reviews single 

audit reports. According to Education officials, this office did not forward 

information to the OSDFS officials responsible for monitoring mentoring 

grants because none of the information in the single audit reports 

pertained to the mentoring grants. Moreover, Education officials said that 

CFO does not receive single audit reports in instances where Education 

does not directly fund the program. For example, CFO would not receive a 

single audit report for state-administered programs, such as Title I.11

Using information readily and easily accessible through the online Single 

Audit Act database, we reviewed the mentoring grantees’ single audit 

summary reports. In reviewing these summary audit reports, we did not 

expect to find information pertaining to grantees’ handling of mentoring 

grants, as these were relatively new. Rather, we wanted to determine if 

there were issues in these same grantees’ handling of other Education 

grant funds they received before or around the time Education awarded 

them mentoring grants. How well these grantees handled other funds they 

received from Education could suggest how well they would manage their 

mentoring grant funds. We found that 8 percent of the mentoring grantees 

had problems with respect to other Education grants they received that 

were substantial enough to be reported as audit findings.12 For example, 

we found that grantees’ audit findings covered problems with cash 

management, procurement and reporting on Education programs. By 

using the online Single Audit Act database, we were also able to access 

information about subgrantees’ handling of Education funds. 

 11Title I is the largest source of federal funding for primary and secondary education. 

12For this analysis, we examined fiscal years 2001 and 2002 Single Audit Act Summary 

Reports. 

The Office 

Responsible for 

Monitoring Mentoring 

Grantees Did Not 

Review Grantees’ 

Single Audit Act 

Reports, Creating the 

Potential for It to Miss 

Fiscal and 

Programmatic 

Weaknesses 
Page 28 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Education is currently considering whether or not it will undertake a study 

of its mentoring program. Although Education’s plans for an evaluation are 

not defined, it has required grantees to provide an evaluation of their 

programs at the end of the 3-year grant period. Most grantees plan to do a 

descriptive evaluation by reporting information on youth outcomes, 

particularly those related to academic achievement, incidences of harmful 

behavior, attendance, and drop out rates. However, the grantees varied 

considerably with respect to how they plan to measure these outcomes. 

This limits the extent to which Education can use information from the 

grantees to provide a national perspective on grantee outcomes. 

Currently, Education does not have plans to conduct a descriptive study to 

report on mentoring program outcomes or an effectiveness study to 

establish any linkages between outcomes and youth participation in 

mentoring programs. Many researchers consider effectiveness studies to 

be the best method for isolating the program’s effect on participants, from 

other factors, such as schooling, that could also influence participant 

outcomes. Such studies, which must be carefully planned and executed, 

are often multiyear, complex, and costly. Education officials said that 

although discussions are underway on whether the department will 

conduct a study evaluating the mentoring program, no final decision has 

been made. 

Education has required that all grantees evaluate their programs at the end 

of their 3-year grants and to describe their evaluation plans in the grant 

applications. Our review of grantee evaluation plans showed that most 

grantees plan to compare outcomes of participating youth at the beginning 

of the programs to their outcomes at the end of the 3-year grant period. In 

particular, grantees report plans to examine outcomes related to academic 

achievement, attendance, and criminal and harmful behaviors. 

During our site visits, we found that established and new grantees’ 

evaluation plans varied both in what they measured as well as 

measurement strategies. Newer grantees more often planned to measure 

program processes, such as the duration of the mentoring relationship, the 

number of students matched, or the number of mentors recruited. In 

contrast, established grantees more often had plans to report on student 

outcomes, such as academic achievement. Moreover, established grantees 

more often reported plans to use data, such as actual school grades and 

attendance records to measure outcomes. Newer grantees, however, more 

often reported plans to survey parents or teachers to gauge the extent to 

Education 

Considering 

Conducting National 

Study of Mentoring 

Programs to Augment 

the Evaluations It Has 

Required Grantees to 

Submit 

While Education Plans for 

Mentoring Study Are Not 

Defined, It Has Required 

Each Grantee to Provide 

an Evaluation 
Page 29 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

which outcomes improved. For example, an established grantee in 

New Mexico reported plans to use data from school records as well as 

surveys of mentors, youth, and teachers to assess whether attendance, 

homework completion, relationships with adults and peers, and attitudes 

toward school had improved. In addition, this program established targets 

for improvement, such as plans to decrease discipline referrals by 

20 percent. In contrast, an Illinois grantee that recently began operating a 

mentoring program, planned mainly to report how well it complied with its 

process, rather than how well youth performed on outcome measures. 

This grantee planned to measure the extent to which its recruitment 

process generated participants each year and the number of children 

matched with mentors. Moreover, a new grantee operating in Delaware 

that we visited said it would report youth outcomes through self-reported 

information from teachers and youth. Such self-reported information may 

not be as accurate as that reflected in official school records. Moreover, 

while these individual grantee evaluations will provide some information 

about youth enrolled in mentoring, because of the different measures 

used, Education cannot combine results to provide an overall national 

picture. 

Over the past 3 years, the Congress has invested funds in a mentoring 

program aimed at helping children who face a significant risk of failing at 

school or becoming involved in illegal drugs, gangs, or alcohol have a 

better chance of succeeding. In funding the mentoring program in fiscal 

year 2004, the Congress significantly expanded the mentoring program, 

providing $50 million to support the last year of the existing grants as well 

as about 200 additional grantees. Given the recent program expansion, it 

will be especially important to address issues that arose during the first 

2 years of the mentoring program, for example, challenges new grantees 

face in starting programs; limited use of monitoring tools, and the absence 

of a cohesive national picture of program outcomes. 

New mentoring grantees are faced with making many decisions about 

program design and operation, whereas established grantees generally 

have policies and procedures in place that facilitate implementation. 

Established mentoring grantees have benefited from consultation with 

other programs and from lessons learned through years of experience; 

both helped them operate successful programs. Without a mechanism for 

new grantees to access program design and implementation information, 

they are more likely than established grantees to struggle with program 

start-up and operational issues, such as recruiting and training mentors. 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Through its monitoring of grantees, Education has attempted to ensure 

that programs are managed well. However, Office of Safe and Drug Free 

Schools staff responsible for monitoring the mentoring grant have not 

used all of the means available to help it more effectively oversee 

programs. Findings from audit reports represent an additional monitoring 

tool that could provide useful information about a grantee’s stability and 

fiscal capacity and that may influence ongoing funding decisions. By not 

using single audit reports, the office responsible for monitoring the 

mentoring grant may be lacking information that could help it effectively 

assess whether programmatic and fiscal problems could weaken a 

grantee’s ability to successfully implement its mentoring program. 

Finally, Education will have some information about outcomes of youth 

participating in mentoring because it has required grantees to provide 

evaluations of their efforts. However, because these evaluations measure 

different outcomes and use different methodologies, their results cannot 

be meaningfully combined to provide a cohesive picture of program 

outcomes nationally. Lacking such information, Education cannot gauge 

the extent to which the youth outcomes NCLBA sought to affect through 

the mentoring grants did indeed improve during the grant period. 

Furthermore, because Education does not have plans for an effectiveness 

study, it will not be positioned to determine whether participation in the 

mentoring program contributes to improved youth outcomes. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) explore ways to 

facilitate the sharing of successful practices and lessons learned to help 

new grantees more quickly and effectively implement their programs; 

(2) ensure that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools uses grantees’ 

single audit reports as part of its monitoring process to take advantage of 

all monitoring tools that could improve the identification of fiscal and 

programmatic weaknesses; and (3) undertake a national study of 

mentoring program outcomes and in doing so, explore the feasibility of 

examining the effectiveness of the mentoring program in improving youth 

outcomes and consider collecting limited, uniform data on the next wave 

of mentoring grantees that could be used as the basis for such study. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 

review and comment. Education’s Executive Secretariat confirmed that 

department officials had reviewed the draft and had technical comments. 

In these comments, Education officials said that there is a mechanism 

within Education for reviewing and resolving single audit findings. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Page 31 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Specifically, CFO within Education receives and reviews single audit 

reports on those entities for which the agency makes direct grants. Thus, 

according to Education, CFO would not receive audit reports for programs 

for which it does not make direct grants. We have adjusted the report to 

reflect Education’s technical comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. Please 

contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffs have any questions 

about this report. In addition, the report will be made available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Other GAO contacts and 

staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. 

Marnie S. Shaul, Director 

Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Selected Studies on the Elements 

of Successful Mentoring 

Page 32 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Mentor/National Mentoring Partnership, Elements of Effective Practice, 2nd

Edition, Alexandria, VA: 2003. 

Michael Garringer, with Mark Fulop and Vikki Rennick, Foundations of 

Successful Youth Mentoring: A Guidebook for Program Development, 

March 2003: Portland, OR. National Mentoring Center, Northwest Regional 

Laboratory and the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention. 

Susan Jekielek, Kristin Moore, et al, Mentoring Programs and Youth 

Development: A Synthesis. Child Trends January 2002: Washington, D.C. 

Jean Baldwin Grossman, editor. Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, June 

1999: Philadelphia, PA, Public/Private Ventures. 

David DuBois, Bruce E. Holloway, et al, Effectiveness of Mentoring 

Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review (April, 2002, American 

Journal of Community Psychology. Vol. 30. No. 2, pp. 157 –197). 

Cynthia L. Sipe, Mentoring: A Synthesis of P/PV Research: 1988-1995. 

Fall 1996, Philadelphia, PA. Public/Private Ventures. 

Carla Herrera, C. Sipe, and et al, Mentoring School-Age Children: 

Relationship Development in Community-based and School Based 

Programs, April 2000: Philadelphia, PA, Public/Private Ventures (Prepared 

for the National Mentoring Partnership and funded by the U.S. Department 

of Education). 

Tierney and Grossman, Making A Difference, An Impact Study of Big 

Brothers Big Sister, 1995, Philadelphia, PA. 

Appendix I: Selected Studies on the Elements 

of Successful Mentoring 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 33 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Greater 

Fairbanks 

Fairbanks Alaska $191,540 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 1-2 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

1-8 experiencing 

troubled home 

environments and 

attending Title I 

schools. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Tuscaloosa 

County Board 

of Education 

Tuscaloosa Ala. $182,485 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 6 

hours a week 

and groups 

meeting 3 

hours a week 

for at least 4 

months. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Youth in grades 

4-9. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Centers for 

Youth and 

Families 

Little Rock Ark. $96,859 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school for at 

least 1 yeare 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

4-12. 

Adults 

Yavapai Big 

Brothers Big 

Sisters 

Prescott Ariz. $145,477 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community; 

communitybased pairs 

meet 3-5 

hours, 2-4 

times a month; 

school-based 

pairs meet 1 

hour a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

4-12 from 

Spanish-speaking 

families. 

School-aged 

 Adults 

Family 

Connections El 

Dorado, Inc. 

Placerville Calif. $164,341 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 1 

week for at 

least 6 

months. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

Hispanic. 

School-aged 

 Adults 

Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 34 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

GLIDE 

Foundation 

San 

Francisco 

Calif. $149,885 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

at least 11 

months.e 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 from 

immigrant and 

refugee families, 

youth with 

disabilities, or 

youth in foster 

care. 

Adults 

YMCA of San 

Francisco: 

Urban Services 

YMCA 

San 

Francisco 

Calif. $182,250 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school.e,f 

Recreational Youth living in 

housing projects, 

many whose 

families recently 

immigrated 

families from 

South America or 

youth from 

families with drug 

or alcohol 

addictions or 

violence. 

Adults 

Home Start, 

Inc. 

San Diego Calif. $168,530 Established Groups 

meeting in the 

community for 

at least 6 

months.e

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Girls in grades 4-

8 who are 

involved in the 

juvenile justice 

system. 

College 

students 

Oakland Asian 

Students 

Educational 

Services 

Oakland Calif. $171,185 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 3-6 

hours a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-12 who are 

Asian and Pacific 

Islander 

immigrants with 

limited English 

proficiency. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Norwalk-La 

Mirada Unified 

School District 

Norwalk Calif. $191,540 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school for at 

least 1 hour a 

week, for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-9 who are deaf 

or hard of 

hearing, in foster 

care, English 

language 

learners, or have 

mental health 

problems. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Nevada County 

Grass Valley Calif. $117,448 Established One-to-one 

pairs, meeting 

weekly at 

school for at 

least 1 year.e 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-8. 

School-aged 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 35 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Los Angeles 

Unified School 

District 

Gardena Calif. $184,986 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

2 hours a 

week at school 

and in the 

community for 

at least 1 year.

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are nonEnglish speaking.

Adults 

Comprehensive 

Youth Services 

Fresno Calif. $187,562 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school.e,f 

Character 

development 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

involved in 

criminal or 

delinquent 

activities, many of 

whom are 

Mexican or nonEnglish speaking 

immigrants. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Students in 

Business, Inc. 

Freemont Calif. $95,749 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community 4-6 

hours a month 

for at least a 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

highly at-risk, are 

in foster care, 

reside in a group 

home, or have 

emotional and 

behavioral 

problems due to 

past abuse. 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Mendocino 

County 

Fort Bragg Calif. $178,358 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 1-2 

hours twice a 

week and oneto-one pairs 

meeting in the 

community 4-6 

hours a week 

for at least a 

year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth who are 

Spanish 

speaking, girls, 

disabled, or 

Native American. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Berkeley Youth 

Alternatives 

Berkeley Calif. $122,888 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community 4 

hours a week 

for at least a 

school year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Primarily AfricanAmerican youth. College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 36 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Boys & Girls 

Club of Santa 

Clara 

Santa Paula Calif. $90,598 Established One-to-one 

pairs with adult 

mentors 

making weekly 

contact and 

meeting at 

least twice a 

month and 

one-to-one 

pairs with a 

high school 

mentor 

meeting 

biweekly.e,f,g

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

most affected by 

violence. 

School-aged 

Adults 

San Diego 

Youth & 

Community 

Services, Inc. 

San Diego Calif. $149,018 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 school 

year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12, many with 

limited English 

proficiency, 

including 

Hispanic, Asian, 

and refugee 

populations. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Redwood 

Community 

Action Agency 

Eureka Calif. $180,466 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

6 hours a 

month for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8, middle and 

high school 

students in 

alternative 

programs such as 

court and 

community 

schools, and 

homeless and 

runaway youth. 

School-aged 

Adults 

San Dieguito 

for Drug Free 

Youth 

Del Mar Calif. $183,633 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 8 

weeks (1 

school 

semester). 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

Hispanic, lack 

adult role models, 

are 

socioeconomically 

disadvantaged, or 

have significant 

physical or 

emotional 

disabilities. 

School-aged 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 37 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Fresno Unified 

School District 

Fresno Calif. $187,506 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school. e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 whose 

families are 

homeless, who 

live in poverty 

(subsidized 

housing), who 

have behavior 

problems, or who 

are victims of 

child abuse or 

domestic 

violence. 

College 

students 

Adults 

School District 

#1 City and 

County of 

Denver 

Denver Colo. $91,847 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

At-risk 6 grade 

students who are 

Latino 

immigrants, first 

generation, and 

are involved with 

human services 

or juvenile justice.

Adults 

Catholic 

Charities & 

Community 

Services 

Denver Colo. $133,725 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

5-6 who are 

Latino or bilingual.

Adults 

Colorado 

Christian Home 

Denver Colo. $140,231 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for at least 2 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year.g 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8, including a 

considerable 

population of 

Hmong and 

Laotian children. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Community 

Solutions, Inc. 

Hartford Conn. $139,766 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Court-involved 

youth making the 

transition from 

juvenile justice 

program back to 

public schools. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 38 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Hannah 

Johnson CDC 

Washington D.C. $182,538 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community 4 

contacts a 

month for at 

least 1.5 

hours, with at 

least one in 

person visit 

lasting at least 

1 hour, for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

6-8 who attend 

SouthEast 

Academy of 

Scholastic 

Excellence and 

live in the Capitol 

Hill District. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Linking 

Communities 

for Educational 

Success, Inc. 

Washington D.C. $106,090 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 6 

hours a month 

plus weekly 

phone contact.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

6-9 most of whom 

are African 

American. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Greater 

Washington 

Urban League 

Washington D.C. $173,520 Established One-to-one 

pairs.e,f,g 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Girls in 

elementary, 

middle, or high 

school who are 

African American 

or other 

minorities. 

Adults 

College Bound, 

Inc. 

Washington D.C. $178,565 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week for at 

least 9 

months. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

8-12 from public & 

charter schools 

with average 

academic 

records. 

Adults 

Professional 

Counseling 

Resources, Inc. 

Wilmington Del. $210,695 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

at least twice a 

month.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Jefferson 

County Bd of 

Education & 

Communities In 

Schools of 

Jefferson Co. 

Monticello Fla. $121,927 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week, 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who have a 

history of 

involvement with 

juvenile justice 

system. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 39 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Human 

Services 

Associates, Inc. 

Orlando Fla. $138,415 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at a juvenile 

assessment 

center for at 

least 1 year.e

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who have 

significant 

learning or 

emotional 

problems, are in 

an alternate 

school 

environment, or 

have extreme 

school phobias or 

related disorders. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Public 

Education 

Foundation of 

Marion County, 

Inc. 

Ocala Fla. $65,645 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community 30-

45 minutes a 

week for 

mentoring and 

twice a week 

for tutoring.f

 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Little Haiti 

Housing 

Association, 

Inc. 

Miami Fla. $185,985 Established This is a “dropin” program 

where youth 

may work with 

several 

mentors during 

the week on 

different 

technology 

projects. 

Mentors 

commit to 2.5 

hours a week 

for 6 months.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Girls and Haitian, 

Central American, 

and Puerto Rican 

youth. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Urban League 

of Broward 

County, Inc. 

Ft. 

Lauderdale 

Fla. $94,828 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 4 

hours a week 

and groups 

meeting once 

a week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

6-8 who are 

African American 

and reside in the 

33311 zip code 

area. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 40 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

School Board of 

Pinellas County 

Largo Fla. $168,952 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

a half hour to 

an hour once 

week.f

 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Greater Miami 

Miami Fla. $189,625 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school at 

least 1 hour 

once a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

K-5 who are at 

risk of not 

reaching 

graduation. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Greene County 

School District 

Greensboro Ga. $191,150 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups.e,f,g

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 with 

performance, 

behavior, and 

attendance 

problems. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Georgia 

Community 

Services 

Program, Inc. 

Morrow Ga. $150,893 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 4 

hours a 

month.f 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12. 

Adults 

The Fledglings, 

Inc. 

Stone 

Mountain 

Ga. $76,902 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 1 

hour a week.f

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-5 who 

consistently 

exhibit unruly 

behavior and/or 

are at risk of 

academic failure, 

have special 

needs, including 

but not limited to 

behavioral 

disorders, or are 

minority 

Caucasian and 

Asian students. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 41 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

The Boys & 

Girls Clubs of 

Augusta, Inc. 

Augusta Ga. $150,832 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

once a week 

and groups 

meeting twice 

a month in the 

community for 

at least 1 

year.e

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

ChambleeDoraville 

Ministry Center, 

Inc. 

Doraville Ga. $104,367 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 whose 

parents are not at 

home immediately 

after school to 

assist with home 

work or for whom 

English is not 

their first 

language. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Ho’oulu Lahui Pahoa Hawaii $173,392 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 3 

hours a 

month.f

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

6-8 who are 

Hawaiian. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Youth and 

Shelter, Inc. 

Ames Iowa $180,699 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 1 year.e

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth 6-14 years 

old in Story and 

Boone Counties. 

Adults 

Independence 

Community 

School District 

Independence Iowa $138,238 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school 30 

minutes once 

a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

K-12. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Dickenson 

County Kinship, 

Inc. 

Spirit Lake Iowa $76,546 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

1-5 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who have 

learning 

disabilities or 

behavioral issues, 

a parent in prison, 

a parent with an 

addiction, or who 

have been in 

foster care. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 42 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

West Iowa 

Community 

Mental Health 

Center 

Denison Iowa $113,651 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

for at least two 

contacts.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

6-12 who are 

Hispanic. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Blackfoot 

School District 

Blackfoot Idaho $150,957 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 4 

and 8-12 who are 

Native Americans 

or Hispanic 

migrants. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

SW Idaho 

Boise Idaho $137,086 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in school for at 

least 1 hour a 

week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who teachers 

believe are most 

likely to dropout, 

especially girls. 

School-aged 

Board of 

Trustees - 

University of 

Illinois 

Champaign Ill. $115,750 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

for at least 3 

years.e 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 43 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Communities in 

Schools in 

Sangamon 

County 

Springfield Ill. $153,874 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 4 hours a 

month for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

involved in 

criminal or 

delinquent 

activities. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters 

Sangamon 

County 

Springfield Ill. $94,498 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 4-

8 hours a 

month of 

mentoring, 12 

hours a month 

of tutoring, 4-8 

hours a month 

of character 

development, 

and 30 hours a 

year of case 

management 

services for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth between 

the ages of 5 and 

14. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Sinai 

Community 

Institute 

Chicago Ill. $92,837 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

1-2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

African American.

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Vermillion 

County 

Danville Ill. $82,855 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-5. In one 

elementary 

school, emphasis 

on serving youth 

from single-parent 

households. 

Adults 

Middle Way 

House, Inc. 

Bloomington Ind. $47,145 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

3 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth who live in 

domestic violence 

emergency 

shelters and 

transitional 

housing. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 44 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Kansas Big 

Brothers Big 

Sisters, Inc. 

Wichita Kans. $185,959 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

South Central 

KY 

Bowling 

Green 

Ky. $94,263 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 1-2 hours 

a week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

K-8. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Old South 

Baton Rouge 

Community 

Revitalization 

Corporation 

Baton Rouge La. $111,078 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

for at least a 

year. Tutor 

Buddies meet 

for 1 hour a 

week. Big 

Buddies meet 

for 5-6 hours a 

month. 

Enrichment 

Buddies meet 

for 1 hour a 

week. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

K-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

AFC Mentoring Boston Mass. $85,981 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting for at 

least 1 year.e,g 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

2-8 who are 

adopted and outof-home youth. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Middlesex 

Framingham Mass. $126,000 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 

2.5 hours a 

week for at 

least 36 

weeks. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-5. 

School-aged 

Hispanic Office 

of Planning and 

Evaluation 

Boston Mass. $143,666 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the 

community.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grade 9-

12 who are 

Hispanic and who 

are talented and 

gifted. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 45 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Citizen Schools Boston Mass. $151,696 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at law firms for 

2 hours every 

other week for 

at least 1 year.

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in 8th 

grade who are 

Haitian, AfricanAmerican, 

Caribbean, or 

West Indian. 

Adults 

Family Learning 

Solutions, Inc. 

Silver Spring Md. $160,894 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community for 

2 hours twice a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

African-American 

or Hispanic, are 

immigrants, lowincome, or have 

mental health or 

behavior 

problems. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Downeast 

Health Services 

Ellsworth Maine $150,510 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year.

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Native American 

youth in 2 

schools. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Newaygo 

County 

Community 

Services 

Freemont Mich. $81,731 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

4 hours every 

2 weeks.f

Academic 

Character 

development 

Youth in grades 

K-8. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Success 

Through Adults 

Reaching 

Students 

Alden Minn. $39,232 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8, primarily 

boys. 

Adults 

Bolder Options, 

Inc. 

Minneapolis Minn. $162,407 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

3 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-9 who are 

frequently truant. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 46 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

The Institute for 

New Americans 

Minneapolis Minn. $90,925 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school for 1-3 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

refugees or are 

immigrants from 

Somalia, Mexico, 

Ethiopia, West 

Africa, and Latin 

and Central 

America. 

Adults 

CommonBond 

Communities 

St. Paul Minn. $111,525 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

1 hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Immigrant youth 

of Hmong, 

Vietnamese, 

Cambodian, 

Northeast African, 

and East African 

(Somali) descent. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Lamar 

Community 

Betterment 

Lamar Mo. $156,799 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

year.g 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth who are 

Hispanic 

immigrants, in 

out-of-home 

placements or 

children of a 

teenage, 

incarcerated or 

court-involved 

parent. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Eastern 

Missouri 

St. Louis Mo. $191,540 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school 2-4 

times a month 

for at least 1 

year.e

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Youth 

Opportunities 

Unlimited 

Marks Miss. $157,065 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

4 times a 

week.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Prevent Child 

Abuse, Inc. 

Bozeman Mont. $133,476 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week.f 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

learning disabled, 

are emotionally 

disturbed, have 

health problems, 

or receive 

inadequate 

support services. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 47 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Volunteers for 

Youth, Inc. 

Carrboro N.C. $95,859 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 4 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

people of color or 

are Hispanic. 

College 

students 

Adults 

YMCA of 

Greater 

Winston-Salem 

WinstonSalem N.C. $140,712 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community 

twice a week 

for a total of 3 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are 

Hispanic and 

attend English as 

a Second 

Language 

schools. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Columbus 

County 

Services 

Management, 

Inc. 

Whiteville N.C. $159,439 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week or 8 

hours a month 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth are minority 

females, mostly 

African American 

or Hispanic. 

Adults 

ReEntry, Inc. Raleigh N.C. $91,461 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

3 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Girls who are 

involved with the 

juvenile court, 

have multiple 

school 

suspensions, 

have experienced 

school failure, 

child abuse, 

poverty, and 

parental 

substance abuse, 

or have mental 

health problems. 

Adults 

Mental Health 

Association in 

North Dakota 

Bismark N. 

Dak. 

$181,963 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 2 

years.e 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-12 who are 

Native American 

from rural or 

reservation 

settings. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 48 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Western 

Wellness 

Foundation, 

Inc. 

Dickinson N. 

Dak. 

$97,169 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

1-12 with 

emotional, social, 

mental, learning, 

or physical 

disabilities or 

those with 

juvenile offenses. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Crete Public 

Schools 

Crete Nebr. $71,753 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 1 year.e 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Hispanic youth in 

grades 4-12. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Greater 

Nashua, Inc. 

Nashua N.H. $194,499 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

1 hour a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12. One grantee 

program serves a 

residential facility 

for juvenile 

offenders and 

another serves a 

school for 

disabled children. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Community 

Empowerment 

Organization, 

Inc. 

Jersey City N.J. $182,250 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community 

with primary 

mentors 3 

hours twice a 

week and 

twice a week 

phone calls, 

and with 

secondary 

mentors 4 

hours on 

weekends, 4 

times a month, 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 from schools 

with high minority 

populations. 

College 

students 

Adults 

San Juan 

County 

Partnership 

Farmington N. 

Mex. 

$482,393 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

at least 1 hour 

a week for at 

least 1 school 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Mostly Hispanic 

and recent 

Mexican 

immigrant youth 

in grades 4-8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 49 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Churchill 

Community 

Coalition 

Fallon Nev. $54,732 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for 2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year.g 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth involved 

with the juvenile 

justice system. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Research 

Center on 

Children & 

Youth of SUNY 

Amherst N.Y. $145,229 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school for 1 

hour a week, 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

5-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Phoenix 

Programs of 

New York 

Brooklyn N.Y. $186,208 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 2 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Youth in the 

Bronx who are 

bilingual and 

multicultural. 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Ulster County 

Kingston N.Y. $138,049 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 1 year.e

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-5. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Family and 

Children’s 

Association 

Mineola N.Y. $182,648 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are in 

foster care, group 

homes, residential 

mental health 

programs, or are 

“at-risk” of 

removal from their 

home due to child 

abuse or neglect. 

Adults 

Urban Youth 

Alliance 

International, 

Inc. 

Bronx N.Y. $98,944 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community for 

2-4 hours a 

week, for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Court-involved 

youth from the 

Bronx. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 50 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Children’s 

Village, Inc. 

Dobbs Ferry N.Y. $168,742 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 2 hours a 

month and 

meeting in the 

community for 

at least 10 

hours a month, 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Boys in grades 4-

8, who are in a 

residential 

treatment center 

and require 

special education, 

are in foster care, 

or have serious 

mental health 

problems. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Cayuga/Seneca 

Community 

Action Agency, 

Inc. 

Auburn N.Y. $52,857 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

once a month 

with weekly 

phone contact 

and groups 

meeting 3 

times a week 

for at least 1 

year.e,g 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Boys. School-aged 

Adults 

Soujourners 

Care Network 

McArthur Ohio $180,924 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for a 

half hour and 1 

hour a month, 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

2-12. 

School-aged 

Adults 

The Prevention 

Council of 

Central Ohio 

Columbus Ohio $119,693 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

and groups 

meeting in the 

community 

twice a month 

plus 2 other 

contacts, for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who live in a 

home 

environment with 

alcoholism and/or 

drug addiction. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Cincinnati 

Youth 

Collaborative 

Cincinnati Ohio $193,695 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 1 

year.e 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are first 

and second 

generation Urban 

Appalachians, or 

are deaf and have 

special needs. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 51 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Youth 

Opportunities 

Unlimited, Inc. 

Cleveland Ohio $152,632 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

for 1 hour a 

week, for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-6. 

Adults 

Tulsa County 

Independent 

School District 

1 

Tulsa Okla. $136,602 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Very high-risk 

youth in grades 4-

8, including those 

from alternative 

schools. 

Adults 

Medford School 

District #549-C 

Medford Ore. $181,719 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

4 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth are 

Hispanic, Native 

American, or 

African American.

College 

students 

Connect, Inc. Washington Pa. $108,332 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 4 

hours a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

French Creek 

Christian 

Center 

Franklin Pa. $131,205 New One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community for 

1 hour a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 who are highrisk, 

nonadjudicated, 

are adjudicated 

juvenile 

delinquents, or 

are adjudicated 

court-dependent. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

YWCA of 

Greater 

Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh Pa. $102,501 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school once 

a month and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community 

bimonthly for 

at least 1 

year.e 

Enrichment Girls in grades 6-

8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 52 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Mt. Ararat 

Community 

Activity Center 

Pittsburgh Pa. $181,963 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups of three 

mentors/youth 

meeting in the 

community 2 

days a week.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Boys in 6th grade. Adults 

Concerned 

Black Men, Inc. 

of Philadelphia 

Philadelphia Pa. $177,274 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school and in 

the community 

for 2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 school 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Minority youth 

(mostly boys) in 

grades 6-9 who 

are at risk of 

juvenile 

delinquency. 

Adults 

Centre County 

Youth Service 

Bureau 

State College Pa. $78,677 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for 1-2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year.g

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth are grade 

4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Rhode 

Islanders 

Sponsoring 

Education 

Providence R.I. $96,726 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for 6 hours a 

month for at 

least 1 school 

year.g 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth are grades 

2-12 with parents 

having a history of 

incarceration, 

addiction, or 

involvement with 

child welfare 

agencies. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Anderson 

School District 

Five 

Anderson S.C. $140,303 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for at 

least 1 hour a 

week for at 

least 1 school 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

K-12. Also focus 

on 9th grade atrisk and English 

as a Second 

Language 

students. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

the Black Hills 

Rapid City S. 

Dak. 

$97,478 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

1-12. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 53 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Families of 

Incarcerated 

Individuals, Inc. 

Memphis Tenn. $180,214 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for 2 hours a 

week.f,g 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8, many of 

whom are at-risk 

African American 

youth with an 

incarcerated 

family member or 

with involvment in 

the juvenile 

justice system. 

Adults 

I Have a Dream 

- Houston 

Houston Tex. $123,923 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

for at least 1 

hour a week 

and groups 

meeting 

monthly at 

school.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

3-12 who are 

Hispanic or 

African-American.

College 

students 

Adults 

Families Under 

Urban and 

Social Attack, 

Inc. 

Houston Tex. $191,540 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

4 hours a 

week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

Adults 

Fort Worth 

Independent 

School District 

Fort Worth Tex. $183,437 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting at 

school once a 

week.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Arlington 

Arlington Tex. $121,501 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 1 

school year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Youth in grades 

4-6. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Communities in 

Schools - 

Dallas 

Dallas Tex. $59,171 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for at least 2 

years. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth who live in 

high crime areas 

and/or have 

experienced 

violence at home 

and are having 

mild behavior 

problems in 

school. Over half 

school population 

is Hispanic. 

College 

students 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 54 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Lincoln Center 

Boys & Girls 

Club and 

Association 

Brigham City Utah $142,105 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Hispanic youth in 

grades 4-8. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Boat People 

SOS 

Falls Church Va. $143,245 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 4 

hours a week 

for at least 1 

year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth are 

Vietnamese 

immigrants and 

refugees. 

College 

students 

Adults 

Alliance for 

Lifelong 

Learning 

Brattleboro Vt. $102,579 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 4 

hours a 

month.f 

Character 

development 

Youth in grades 

4-8 or 9-12. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Strategic 

Learning 

Center 

Seattle Wash. $190,121 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 1 

year.e 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

English as a 

Second 

Language 

students—mostly 

Spanish speaking 

or Vietnamese, 

Somali, 

Cambodian, or 

Russian/Ukrainian 

immigrants. 

School-aged 

Adults 

Madison 

Metropolitan 

School District 

Madison Wisc. $110,068 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

in the 

community at 

least twice a 

month.e,f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8 from 3 local 

schools, with 

significant Latino 

and English as a 

Second 

Language 

students. 

Adults 
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education 

Mentoring Grantees by State 

Page 55 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Name City State Amount 

Experience 

levela 

Type and 

freqency of 

mentoring 

Type of 

activitiesb 

Targeted 

group(s)c 

Types of 

mentorsd 

Atwood 

Community 

Center 

Madison Wisc. $179,023 New One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school and 

in the 

community for 

at least 1 hour 

a week.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Wisconsin 

Coulee Region 

Community 

Action 

Program, Inc. 

Westby Wisc. $117,797 Established One-to-one 

pairs and 

groups 

meeting in the 

community for 

2 hours a 

week for at 

least 1 year. 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-12 who are 

exhibiting 

predelinquent 

behaviors and 

who are involved 

with child 

protective 

services. 

School-aged 

College 

students 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

the Tri-State 

Huntington W. Va. $112,363 Established One-to-one 

pairs meeting 

at school for 1 

hour a week 

for in school 

program and 

90 minutes a 

week for the 

after school 

program.f 

Academic 

Character 

development 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

4-8. 

Adults 

Big Brothers 

Big Sisters of 

Southeast 

Wyoming 

Laramie Wyo. $191,540 Established One-to-one 

pairs.e,f,g 

Academic 

Recreational 

Enrichment 

Youth in grades 

K-12. 

Adults 

 Source: GAO analysis of grant applications for 121 Education-funded mentoring grantees. 

a

For this report, we considered programs that began mentoring in 2000 or later as new programs and 

those starting in or before 1999 as established 

b

The types of activities mentors and youth participated in may include academic (such as tutoring and 

homework help), character development (such as drug abuse prevention materials and job 

shadowing), recreational (such as playing basketball and skating), and enrichment (such as attending 

concerts and plays). 

c

Education’s mentoring grant program targeted children who are at risk of educational failure, 

dropping out of school, or involved in criminal or delinquent behavior, or who lack strong positive role 

models. Priority for funding was given to programs that serve children living in rural areas, high-crime 

areas, troubled home environments, and children experiencing educational failure. Within this 

population, many grantees identified a specific target group. 

d

The types of mentors grantees used include school-aged mentors such as middle and high school 

students, college students from local universities and colleges, and adults from the community. 

e

Amount of time spent mentoring not specified in grant application. 

f

Length of mentoring commitment not specified in grant application. 

g

Unable to determine location in which mentoring occurs from grant application.
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 56 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

Harriet Ganson, (202) 512-7042, gansonh@gao.gov 

Sherri K. Doughty, (202) 512-7273, doughtys@gao.gov 

In addition to those named above, Karen Brown, Luann Moy, James 

Rebbe, Thomas Broderick, and Amy Buck made key contributions to the 

report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 57 GAO-04-581 Student Mentoring Programs 

No Child Left Behind Act: More information Would Help States 

Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. 

Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003. 

Flexibility Demonstration Programs: Education Needs to Better Target 

Program Information. GAO-03-691. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2003. 

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses: Information 

Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, 

D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

Related GAO Products 

(130288) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs