Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be Improved
Published: 2004-06-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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  $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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  use of drugs and alcohol than were similar children who were not enrolled  in the program.
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.
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.)
A number of types of organizations are eligible to receive funding under  the program, including local educational agencies, nonprofit, community- based 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.
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 122 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. (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. 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  that year. 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.
section_title: Key Elements of Successful Mentoring Programs Are Planning, Management, Sustainability, and Evaluation
paragraphs: According to the literature we reviewed, 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.)
subsections: section_title: Successful Student Mentoring Programs Develop Initial Plans for How Their Programs Will Be Designed and Operated
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Successful Student Mentoring Programs Ensure Policies and Procedures Are in Place to Sustain Daily Operations
paragraphs: 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  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 mentor- youth 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.
section_title: Successful Student Mentoring Programs Market Their Programs and Develop Strategies to Ensure Long-term Operation
paragraphs: 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  mentors by providing tangible tokens of appreciations such as plaques or  letters to mentors’ employers.
section_title: Successful Student Mentoring Programs Establish Processes to Measure and Disseminate Program Outcomes
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics and Had Some Elements of Successful Programs, but Ease of Implementation Differed among New and Established Grantees
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Most Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics Such as Considerable Mentoring Experience and Similar Goals for Youth
paragraphs: 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 well- established—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.)
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.)
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.
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   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.)
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.
section_title: All Grantees Had Some Elements of Successful Programs, though in General More Established Grantees Reported Fewer Implementation Challenges than Newer Grantees
paragraphs: 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  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.
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  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.)
In contrast, as expected for organizations in the start-up phase of their  programs, the newer grantees we visited generally did not have as well- developed policies and procedures, such as those related to mentor  training, recruitment, and support, as the established grantees we visited.
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.)
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.
section_title: Grantees Reported Benefits from Learning about Other Mentoring Implementation Strategies
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Program Implementation, but Monitoring May Not Be Sufficient to Identify Possible Fiscal and Programmatic Weaknesses
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Grantees, Including Review of Performance Reports and Expenditure Tracking
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Education Considering Conducting National Study of Mentoring Programs to Augment the Evaluations It Has Required Grantees to Submit
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: While Education Plans for Mentoring Study Are Not Defined, It Has Required Each Grantee to Provide an Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected Studies on the Elements of Successful Mentoring
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Characteristics of Education Mentoring Grantees by State
subsections: section_title: State Amount
paragraphs: Targeted  group(s)
Alaska  $191,540  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school 1-2  hours a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  1-8 experiencing  troubled home  environments and  attending Title I  schools. pairs meeting  at school 6  hours a week  and groups  meeting 3  hours a week  for at least 4  months.
Youth in grades  4-9.
Youth in grades  4-12. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community;  community- based pairs  meet 3-5  hours, 2-4  times a month;  school-based  pairs meet 1  hour a week.
Youth in grades  4-12 from  Spanish-speaking  families.
Calif.  $164,341  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school 1   week for at  least 6  months.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  Hispanic.
Targeted  group(s)
Calif.  $149,885  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  in the  community for  at least 11  months.
Youth in grades  4-12 from  immigrant and  refugee families,  youth with  disabilities, or  youth in foster  care.
Calif.  $182,250  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school.
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.
Calif.  $168,530  Established Groups  meeting in the  community for  at least 6  months.
Girls in grades 4- 8 who are  involved in the  juvenile justice  system.
Calif.  $171,185  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school 3-6  hours a week.
Youth in grades  3-12 who are  Asian and Pacific  Islander  immigrants with  limited English  proficiency.
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.
Youth in grades  4-9 who are deaf  or hard of  hearing, in foster  care, English  language  learners, or have  mental health  problems.
Grass Valley  Calif.  $117,448  Established One-to-one  pairs, meeting  weekly at  school for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  3-8.
Targeted  group(s)
Calif.  $184,986  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  2 hours a  week at school  and in the  community for  at least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are non- English speaking.
Calif.  $187,562  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  involved in  criminal or  delinquent  activities, many of  whom are  Mexican or non- English speaking  immigrants.
Calif.  $95,749  Established One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting in the  community 4-6  hours a month  for at least a  year.
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.
Calif.  $178,358  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school 1-2  hours twice a  week and one- to-one pairs  meeting in the  community 4-6  hours a week  for at least a  year.
Youth who are  Spanish  speaking, girls,  disabled, or  Native American.
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.
Primarily African- American youth.
Targeted  group(s)
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.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  most affected by  violence.
Youth in grades  4-12, many with  limited English  proficiency,  including  Hispanic, Asian,  and refugee  populations. pairs meeting  in the  community for  2 hours a  week for at  least 1 school  year.
Calif.  $180,466  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  in the  community for  6 hours a  month for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-8, middle and  high school  students in  alternative  programs such as  court and  community  schools, and  homeless and  runaway youth.
Calif.  $183,633  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 8  weeks (1  school  semester).
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  Hispanic, lack  adult role models,  are  socioeconomically  disadvantaged, or  have significant  physical or  emotional  disabilities.
Targeted  group(s)
Calif.  $187,506  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school.
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.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
At-risk 6 grade  students who are  Latino  immigrants, first  generation, and  are involved with  human services  or juvenile justice.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  5-6 who are  Latino or bilingual.
Colo.  $140,231  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  for at least 2  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8, including a  considerable  population of  Hmong and  Laotian children.
Conn.  $139,766  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school.
Court-involved  youth making the  transition from  juvenile justice  program back to  public schools.
Targeted  group(s)
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.
Youth in grades  6-8 who attend  SouthEast  Academy of  Scholastic  Excellence and  live in the Capitol  Hill District.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school 6  hours a month  plus weekly  phone contact.
Youth in grades  6-9 most of whom  are African  American. pairs.
Girls in  elementary,  middle, or high  school who are  African American  or other  minorities. pairs meeting  in the  community for  2 hours a  week for at  least 9  months.
Youth in grades  8-12 from public &  charter schools  with average  academic  records.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the community  at least twice a  month.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week,  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who have a  history of  involvement with  juvenile justice  system.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  at a juvenile  assessment  center for at  least 1 year.
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. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community 30- 45 minutes a  week for  mentoring and  twice a week  for tutoring.
Youth in grades  4-8. $185,985  Established This is a “drop- in” 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.
Girls and Haitian,  Central American,  and Puerto Rican  youth. pairs meeting  at school 4  hours a week  and groups  meeting once  a week for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  6-8 who are  African American  and reside in the  33311 zip code  area.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  a half hour to  an hour once  week.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  at school at  least 1 hour  once a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  K-5 who are at  risk of not  reaching  graduation.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups.
Youth in grades  4-12 with  performance,  behavior, and  attendance  problems.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 4  hours a  month.
Youth in grades  4-12. pairs meeting  at school 1  hour a week.
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.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  once a week  and groups  meeting twice  a month in the  community for  at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  in the  community for  2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
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.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 3  hours a  month.
Youth in grades  6-8 who are  Hawaiian. pairs meeting  at school for at  least 1 year.
Youth 6-14 years  old in Story and  Boone Counties. pairs and  groups  meeting at  school 30  minutes once  a week.
Youth in grades  K-12.
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. pairs meeting  in the  community for  1-5 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Targeted  group(s) pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the community  for at least two  contacts.
Youth in grades  6-12 who are  Hispanic.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school.
Youth in grades 4  and 8-12 who are  Native Americans  or Hispanic  migrants.
Idaho  $137,086  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  in school for at  least 1 hour a  week.
Youth in grades  4-8 who teachers  believe are most  likely to dropout,  especially girls.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the community  for at least 3  years.
Youth in grades  4-8.
Targeted  group(s)
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for at  least 4 hours a  month for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  involved in  criminal or  delinquent  activities. 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.
Youth between  the ages of 5 and  14. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  1-2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  African American. pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-5. In one  elementary  school, emphasis  on serving youth  from single-parent  households.
Youth who live in  domestic violence  emergency  shelters and  transitional  housing.
Targeted  group(s)
Kans.  $185,959  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  at school for at  least 1-2 hours  a week for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  K-8. 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.
Youth in grades  K-8.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  2-8 who are  adopted and out- of-home youth.
Framingham  Mass.  $126,000  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for  2.5 hours a  week for at  least 36  weeks.
Youth in grades  3-5.
Mass.  $143,666  Established One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the  community.
Youth in grade 9- 12 who are  Hispanic and who  are talented and  gifted.
Targeted  group(s)
Youth in 8th  grade who are  Haitian, African- American,  Caribbean, or  West Indian. pairs meeting  at law firms for  2 hours every  other week for  at least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  African-American  or Hispanic, are  immigrants, low- income, or have  mental health or  behavior  problems. pairs and  groups  meeting in the  community for  2 hours twice a  week for at  least 1 year.
Maine  $150,510  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Native American  youth in 2  schools.
Youth in grades  K-8. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  4 hours every  2 weeks.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8, primarily  boys.
Minneapolis  Minn.  $162,407  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  in the  community for  3 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-9 who are  frequently truant.
Targeted  group(s)
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  refugees or are  immigrants from  Somalia, Mexico,  Ethiopia, West  Africa, and Latin  and Central  America. pairs and  groups  meeting at  school for 1-3  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Immigrant youth  of Hmong,  Vietnamese,  Cambodian,  Northeast African,  and East African  (Somali) descent. pairs meeting  in the  community for  1 hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth who are  Hispanic  immigrants, in  out-of-home  placements or  children of a  teenage,  incarcerated or  court-involved  parent. pairs meeting  at school 2-4  times a month  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  4 times a  week.
Youth in grades  4-12.
Mont.  $133,476  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  learning disabled,  are emotionally  disturbed, have  health problems,  or receive  inadequate  support services.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  at school for 4  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  people of color or  are Hispanic. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community  twice a week  for a total of 3  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are  Hispanic and  attend English as  a Second  Language  schools.
Youth are minority  females, mostly  African American  or Hispanic. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  2 hours a  week or 8  hours a month  for at least 1  year.  pairs meeting  in the  community for  3 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
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.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 2  years.
Youth in grades  3-12 who are  Native American  from rural or  reservation  settings.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  1-12 with  emotional, social,  mental, learning,  or physical  disabilities or  those with  juvenile offenses.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for at  least 1 year.
Hispanic youth in  grades 4-12. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  1 hour a week.
Youth in grades  4-12. One grantee  program serves a  residential facility  for juvenile  offenders and  another serves a  school for  disabled children.
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.
Youth in grades  4-12 from schools  with high minority  populations. pairs meeting  in the  community for  at least 1 hour  a week for at  least 1 school  year.
Mostly Hispanic  and recent  Mexican  immigrant youth  in grades 4-8.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  for 2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth involved  with the juvenile  justice system.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting at  school for 1  hour a week,  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  5-8.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 2  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in the  Bronx who are  bilingual and  multicultural.
Youth in grades  3-5. pairs meeting  at school for at  least 1 year.
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. pairs meeting  in the  community.pairs and  groups  meeting in the  community for  2-4 hours a  week, for at  least 1 year.
Court-involved  youth from the  Bronx.
Targeted  group(s)
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. 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.
Boys. pairs meeting  once a month  with weekly  phone contact  and groups  meeting 3  times a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  2-12. pairs meeting  at school for a  half hour and 1  hour a month,  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who live in a  home  environment with  alcoholism and/or  drug addiction. 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.  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are first  and second  generation Urban  Appalachians, or  are deaf and have  special needs.
Targeted  group(s) pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the community  for 1 hour a  week, for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-6.
Okla.  $136,602  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Very high-risk  youth in grades 4- 8, including those  from alternative  schools. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  4 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth are  Hispanic, Native  American, or  African American.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 4  hours a week.
Youth in grades  3-8.
One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting in the  community for  1 hour a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-8 who are high- risk,  nonadjudicated,  are adjudicated  juvenile  delinquents, or  are adjudicated  court-dependent. pairs meeting  at school once  a month and  groups  meeting in the  community  bimonthly for  at least 1  year.
Girls in grades 6- 8.
Targeted  group(s)
Boys in 6th grade. Adults  pairs and  groups of three  mentors/youth  meeting in the  community 2  days a week.pairs and  groups  meeting at  school and in  the community  for 2 hours a  week for at  least 1 school  year.
Minority youth  (mostly boys) in  grades 6-9 who  are at risk of  juvenile  delinquency. pairs meeting  for 1-2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth are grade  4-8. pairs meeting  for 6 hours a  month for at  least 1 school  year.
Youth are grades  2-12 with parents  having a history of  incarceration,  addiction, or  involvement with  child welfare  agencies. pairs meeting  at school for at  least 1 hour a  week for at  least 1 school  year.
Youth in grades  K-12. Also focus  on 9th grade at- risk and English  as a Second  Language  students. pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  1-12.
Targeted  group(s)
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. pairs meeting  for 2 hours a  week.pairs meeting  for at least 1  hour a week  and groups  meeting  monthly at  school.
Youth in grades  3-12 who are  Hispanic or  African-American.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  in the  community for  4 hours a  week.pairs and  groups  meeting at  school once a  week.
Youth in grades  4-8. pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 1  school year.
Youth in grades  4-6. pairs meeting  at school for 1  hour a week  for at least 2  years.
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.
Targeted  group(s) pairs meeting  in the  community for  2 hours a  week.
Hispanic youth in  grades 4-8. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 4  hours a week  for at least 1  year.
Youth are  Vietnamese  immigrants and  refugees. pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 4  hours a  month.
Youth in grades  4-8 or 9-12.
Wash.  $190,121  Established One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 1  year.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  English as a  Second  Language  students—mostly  Spanish speaking  or Vietnamese,  Somali,  Cambodian, or  Russian/Ukrainian  immigrants.
One-to-one  pairs meeting  in the  community at  least twice a  month.
Youth in grades  4-8 from 3 local  schools, with  significant Latino  and English as a  Second  Language  students.
Targeted  group(s)
One-to-one  pairs meeting  at school and  in the  community for  at least 1 hour  a week.
Youth in grades  4-8.
Wisc.  $117,797  Established One-to-one  pairs and  groups  meeting in the  community for  2 hours a  week for at  least 1 year.
Youth in grades  4-12 who are  exhibiting  predelinquent  behaviors and  who are involved  with child  protective  services.
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.
Youth in grades  4-8.
Wyo.  $191,540  Established One-to-one  pairs.
Youth in grades  K-12.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Karen Brown, Luann Moy, James  Rebbe, Thomas Broderick, and Amy Buck made key contributions to the  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.