Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues
Released: 2018-02-23T00:00:00

Introduction

The purpose of contemporary, structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing (but not supplanting) a youth's relationship with his or her parents. These programs are administered by mostly adult volunteers who are recruited by youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, and after-school programs. Some of these programs have broad youth development goals, while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Research has shown that mentoring programs have been associated with some positive youth outcomes, but that the long-term ability of mentoring to produce particular outcomes and the ability for mentored youth to sustain gains over time are less certain.

Since the mid-1990s, Congress supported mentoring programs for the most vulnerable youth. The Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), the first such program, was implemented in 1994 to provide mentoring services for at-risk youth ages 5 to 20. Although there is no single overarching policy today on mentoring, the federal government has supported multiple mentoring efforts for vulnerable youth since JUMP was discontinued in FY2003. Previously, two mentoring programs—the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program and Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) Mentoring program—provided a significant source of federal funding for mentoring services. However, the programs were short-lived: the MCP was administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from FY2003 through FY2011 and the SDFS program was administered by the Department of Education (ED) from FY2002 through FY2010.

The federal government currently funds mentoring efforts through short-term grants and initiatives, primarily carried out by DOJ. DOJ has allocated funding for multiple initiatives through its Mentoring program, including mentoring for certain vulnerable youth and research on mentoring. In addition, the federal government has provided funding to programs with vulnerable youth that have a strong, but not exclusive, mentoring component. Youth ChalleNGe, an educational and leadership program for at-risk youth administered by the Department of Defense (DOD), helps to engage youth in work and school, and leadership opportunities. Adult mentors assist enrolled youth with their transition from the program for at least one year. Finally, federal agencies coordinate on mentoring issues. The Federal Mentoring Council was created in 2006 to address the ways agencies can combine resources and training and technical assistance to federally administered mentoring programs, and to serve as a clearinghouse on mentoring issues for the federal government. The council has been inactive since 2008.

This report begins with an overview of the goals of mentoring, including a brief discussion on research of structured mentoring programs. The report then describes the evolution of federal policies on mentoring since the early 1990s. The report provides an overview of the federal mentoring initiatives that are currently funded. While additional federal programs and policies authorize funding for mentoring activities, among multiple other activities and services, such programs are not discussed in this report. The report concludes with an overview of issues that may be of interest to Congress. These issues include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth, the quality of mentoring programs, and the potential need for additional mentors.

Overview and Purpose of Mentoring

Mentoring refers to a relationship between two or more individuals in which at least one of those individuals provides guidance to the other. In the context of this report, mentoring refers to the relationship between a youth and an adult who supports, guides, and assists the youth. Youth can receive mentoring through informal and formal relationships with adults. Informal relationships are those that develop from a young person's existing social network of teachers, coaches, and family friends. This report focuses on formal mentoring relationships for vulnerable youth. These relationships are cultivated through structured programs sponsored by youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, and after-school programs. Approximately 4.5 million youth are in structured mentoring relationships. Volunteers in structured programs are recruited from communities, religious organizations, and the workplace, and undergo an intensive screening process. Youth eligible for services through structured mentoring programs are often identified as at "high risk" of certain negative outcomes.

The goal of modern structured mentoring programs is to reduce risks by supplementing, but not replacing, a youth's relationship with his or her parents. Some programs have broad youth development goals, while others focus more narrowly on a particular outcome such as reducing gang activity or substance abuse, or improving grades. Structured mentoring programs are often community based , meaning that mentored youth and adults engage in community activities (e.g., going to the museum and the park, playing sports, playing a board game, and spending time together outside of work and school). Other programs are characterized as school based because they take place on school grounds or some other set location, like a community center. The co-location of mentoring programs in schools facilitates relationships with teachers, who can meet with mentors and refer youth to the programs. Mentors provide academic assistance and recreational opportunities and expose youth to opportunities that promote their cognitive and emotional development.

Origins of Contemporary Mentoring Programs

The origin of today's structured mentoring programs is credited to the efforts of charity groups that formed during the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. These groups sought adult volunteers for vulnerable youth—defined at the time as youth who were poor or had become involved in the juvenile court system. These early organizations provided practical assistance to youth, including help with finding employment, and created recreational outlets. The most prominent mentoring organization at the time, Big Brothers (now known as Big Brothers Big Sisters of America), continues today as the oldest mentoring organization in the country.

The contemporary youth mentoring movement began in the late 1980s with the support of foundations and corporations, including Fannie Mae, Commonwealth Fund, United Way of America, Chrysler, Procter & Gamble, and the National Urban League. In addition, nongovernmental organizations such as One to One in Philadelphia and Project RAISE in Baltimore were established by entrepreneurs seeking to expand mentoring services to vulnerable youth.

The federal government has supported structured mentoring programs and initiatives since the beginning of the contemporary mentoring movement. At that time, mentoring was becoming increasingly recognized by the government as a promising strategy to enrich the lives of youth, address the isolation of youth from adult contact, and provide one-to-one support for the most vulnerable youth, particularly those living in poverty. Among the first projects undertaken by the federal government was a youth mentoring initiative in the early 1990s implemented by the newly created Points of Light Foundation, a federally-funded nonprofit organization that promotes volunteering. Then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole made the case for mentoring as a way to improve the lives of youth and prepare them for the workforce. Other early initiatives included the Juvenile Mentoring Program, or JUMP. The federal government also signaled the importance of mentoring during the 1997 Presidents' Summit, which was convened by the living Presidents (at the time) to pledge their support for policies that assist youth. The Presidents and other national leaders called for adults to volunteer as mentors for over 2 million vulnerable youth.

Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Programs

Studies of structured mentoring programs, including those that have received federal funding, indicate that the programs are most successful when they include a strong infrastructure and facilitate caring relationships. Infrastructure refers to a number of activities including identifying the youth population to be served and the activities to be undertaken, screening and training mentors, supporting and supervising mentoring relationships, collecting data on youth outcomes, and creating sustainability strategies. The mentor screening process provides programs with an opportunity to select those adults most likely to be successful as mentors by seeking volunteers who can keep their time commitments and value the importance of trust. Further, these studies assert that orientation and training ensure youth and mentors share a common understanding of the adult's role and help mentors develop realistic expectations of what they can accomplish.

Ongoing support and supervision of the matches assist mentored pairs in negotiating challenges. Staff can help the pairs maintain a relationship over the desired period (generally a year or more), and assist them in bringing the match to a close in a way that affirms the contributions to the relationship of both the mentor and youth. According to the research literature, successful programs are known to employ strategies to retain the support of current funders and garner financial backing from new sources. Finally, the studies demonstrate that successful programs attempt to measure any effects of mentoring services on the participating youth. Programs can then disseminate these findings to potential funders and participants.

Characteristics of Successful Mentoring Relationships

Research on youth mentoring demonstrates that mentoring relationships are likely to promote positive outcomes for youth and avoid harm when they are close, consistent, and enduring. Closeness refers to a bond that forms between the youth and mentor, and has been found to have benefits for the youth. Mentor characteristics—such as prior experience in helping roles or occupations, an ability to appreciate salient socioeconomic and cultural influences, and a sense of efficacy for mentoring youth—appear to facilitate close mentoring relationships. Consistency refers to the amount of time mentors and youth spend together. Regular contact has been linked to positive youth outcomes, and relationships tend to be strong if they last one year or longer. Youth in relationships that lasted less than six months showed declines in functioning relative to their non-mentored peers.

Evaluation of Mentoring Programs

A 2011 analysis assessed findings from 73 mentoring evaluations to determine the effectiveness of mentoring generally. The analysis reviewed evaluations, published between 1999 and 2010, of mentoring programs that were intended to promote positive youth outcomes through relationships between children and youth under age 18 and adults (or older youth) serving as mentors. The analysis examined programs that used various formats and strategies—including those that used paid mentors, older mentors, and group formats—and took place for a relatively brief period (e.g., a few months) through a longer period. Each of the evaluations included a comparison group of youth who were not mentored. In some programs, the youth were randomly assigned to participate in the comparison group, while in other programs the comparison group consisted of youth who did not participate in the mentoring program. There is wide consensus that using random assignment allows researchers to best estimate the impact of an intervention such as mentoring.

The researchers found that overall, the programs resulted in modest gains for youth. According to the analysis, the programs tended to have positive effects on outcomes across multiple categories, including academics and education, attitudes and motivation, social skills and interpersonal relationships, and psychological and emotional status, among other categories. Seven of the studies included follow-up assessment of youth outcomes after they had completed the program, with an average follow-up period of about two years. The studies showed an enduring positive effect of participating in the programs that were evaluated. Further, the analysis pointed to factors that influence the effectiveness of mentoring programs. These include whether (1) participating youth have preexisting difficulties, such as delinquent behavior, or are exposed to significant environmental risk (not defined, but presumably referring to the home and community in which the youth resides); (2) programs serve greater proportions of males; (3) mentors' educational or occupational backgrounds are well matched to the goals of the program; (4) mentors and youth are paired based on mutual interests, such as career interests; and (5) mentors serve as advocates and teachers to provide guidance to youth and to help ensure their overall welfare.

The analysis ultimately found that a broad range of mentoring programs can benefit youth across a number of domains. At the same time, it raised other considerations. For example, few evaluations assessed key outcomes that are of interest to policymakers, such as educational attainment, juvenile offending, and obesity prevention. In addition, few evaluations addressed whether youth sustained the gains they made in the program at later points in their development. The researchers point out that despite the positive effect of the programs overall, the effect is small.

Examples of the Positive Effects of Mentoring

Some studies have shown strong gains for youth who are mentored. A study in 1995 of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America program compared outcomes of eligible youth who were randomly selected to receive mentoring services. The study found that 18 months after the youth were assigned to their groups, the mentored youth skipped half as many days of school. In addition, the mentored youth were 46% less likely than their control group counterparts to use drugs, 27% less likely to initiate alcohol use, and almost one-third less likely to hit someone.

A 2002 review of studies of major community-based programs (the 1995 Big Brothers Big Sisters evaluation and evaluations of Across Ages, Project BELONG, and Buddy System, among others) with an experimental design found that certain outcomes for youth with a mentor were better than outcomes for their counterparts without a mentor. These outcomes included the following:

Improved educational outcomes: Youth in the year-long Across Ages mentoring program showed a gain of more than a week of class attendance. Evaluations of the program also showed that mentored youth had better attitudes toward school than non-mentored youth. Reduction in some negative behaviors: All studies that examined delinquency showed evidence of reducing some, but not all, of the tracked negative behaviors. Mentored youth in the BELONG program committed fewer misdemeanors and felonies than non-mentored youth. In the Buddy System program, youth with a prior history of criminal behavior were less likely to commit a major offense compared to their non-mentored counterparts with a prior history. Improved social and emotional development: Youth in the Across Ages program had significantly more positive attitudes toward the elderly, the future, and helping behaviors than non-mentored youth. Participants in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program felt that they trusted their parents more and communicated better with them, compared to their non-mentored peers.

Similarly, a 2007 study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring programs, with adults serving as mentors, demonstrated some positive results. This study—among the most rigorous scientific evaluations of a school-based mentoring program—found that mentored youth (randomly selected into the treatment group) made improvements in their first year in overall academic performance, feeling more competent about school, and skipping school less, among other areas, compared to their non-mentored counterparts (randomly selected into the control group).

Some Outcomes Do Not Improve or Are Short-Lived

Although research has documented some benefits of mentoring, findings from some studies show that mentoring is limited in improving all youth outcomes. The 2002 review of mentoring program evaluations found that programs did not always make a strong improvement in grades and that some negative behaviors—stealing or damaging property within the last year—were unaffected by whether the youth was in a mentoring program. In the 2007 Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring evaluation, the non-school related outcomes, including substance use and self-worth, did not improve.

Research has also indicated that mentored youth make small gains or do not sustain positive gains over time. The 2007 Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring evaluation found that, in the second year of the program, none of the academic gains were maintained (however, mentored youth were less likely to skip school, and more likely to feel that they would start and finish college). The evaluation also pointed to weaknesses in the program's design, such as high attrition (due likely to the transitioning for some youth to middle school, or high school), limited contact with mentors and youth over the summer, and delays in beginning the program at the start of the school year. A 2008 study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring that used high school students as mentors and drew on data used for the 2007 study, found that while the mentored students experienced gains on some outcomes, the improvements were not sustained for students who ended their involvement in the program after one school year (the minimum time commitment). Similarly, an evaluation of the discontinued federal school-based mentoring program (funded from FY2002 through FY2009) demonstrated that the program did not have an impact on students overall in terms of interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes, and delinquent behaviors.

The remainder of this report provides an overview of federal efforts to support mentoring, as well as a discussion of mentoring issues. The federal government does not have an overarching strategy or coordinated approach to mentoring, and the major mentoring program is administered by DOJ.

Department of Justice Mentoring Program

Overview

As noted previously, DOJ is the first federal department to have funded a structured mentoring program. The 1992 amendments ( P.L. 102-586 ) to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) added Part G to the act, authorizing the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to establish a mentoring program, which came to be known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). The program was created in response to the perception that youth in high-crime areas would benefit from one-on-one adult relationships. The objectives of JUMP were to reduce juvenile delinquent behavior and improve scholastic performance, with an emphasis on reducing school dropout. From FY1994 through FY2003, Congress appropriated a total of $104 million to the program. Annual funding ranged from $4 million to $15.8 million.

JUMP was repealed by the 21 st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act ( P.L. 107-273 ). This law incorporated the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2001 ( H.R. 1900 ) from the 107 th Congress, which eliminated several juvenile justice programs, including Part G (Mentoring), and replaced it with a block grant program under a new Part C (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program, to be used for activities designed to prevent juvenile delinquency). The act also created a new Part E (Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Initiatives and Programs). According to the accompanying report for H.R. 1900 , the relatively small amount of funding appropriated for JUMP may have been a factor in its elimination. The report states: "In creating this block grant, the [Senate Judiciary] Committee has eliminated separate categorical programs under current law.... Funding for the Part E—State Challenge Activities and Part G—Mentoring Program received minimal funding." The report goes on to say that the committee does not discourage mentoring activities under Part C.

After the JUMP program was discontinued with the end of FY2003, the Bush Administration requested funding for mentoring under Part C and Part E of the JJDPA. However, in the years since JUMP's discontinuation, Congress has appropriated mentoring funds under a separate mentoring line item titled "Mentoring Part G," "Mentoring," or "Mentoring Grants"; the line item does not specify under which part of the JJDPA the funding is authorized.

Funding

The JUMP Program ended in FY2003 and Congress resumed funding for DOJ mentoring in FY2005. Table 1 shows funding from FY2008 through FY2017; Congress has provided $70.0 million to $102.8 million annually in these years.

FY2017

The FY2017 appropriation for the DOJ Mentoring program totaled $80 million. Of this amount, $66.4 million was available for the program, and another $13.6 million was used for other purposes within the Office of Justice Programs (management and administration, peer review, research set-aside, and tribal set-aside). The program funds were used as follows: $61.7 million for grants to provide mentoring services to youth; $778,503 for research activities; and $4.0 million for training and technical assistance, including the Mentoring Resource Center. Table 2 summarizes the purpose, goals, and funding levels for the grants that totaled $61.7 million. The table includes funding for mentoring by organizations with programs that have a national presence (National Mentoring Programs), operate in multiple states (Multi-State Mentoring Initiative), operate locally in collaboration with other mentoring providers (Collaborative Mentoring Programs), or serve specific groups of youth who are at risk (Mentoring for Child Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Domestic Sex Trafficking Program and Practitioner-Researcher Partnership in Cognitive Behavioral Mentoring Program).

Corporation for National and Community Service

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNS) is an independent federal agency that administers programs to support volunteer services. CNS is authorized by two statutes: the National and Community Service Act (NCSA, P.L. 101-610 ) of 1990, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA, P.L. 93-113 ) of 1973, as amended. Though CNS does not administer a program explicitly for mentoring, the agency has provided funding for mentoring, among other purposes, through two of its volunteer organizations, AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps. AmeriCorps members serve directly as mentors (through the AmeriCorps State and National program) or focus their efforts on building the capacity of mentoring organizations to increase the number of children they serve (through the AmeriCorps Vista program). SeniorCorps, through its RSVP and Foster Grandparents programs, provides mentoring to children and youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, including children of prisoners. CNS also leads federal efforts to promote National Mentoring Month, which is intended to raise awareness of mentoring, recruit individuals to mentor, and promote the growth of mentoring by recruiting organizations to engage their constituents in mentoring.

The Serve America Act ( P.L. 111-13 ), which amended NCSA and DVSA, authorizes funding for programs in which mentoring is a permissible activity, among several other activities. For example, the law provides that AmeriCorps can fund new programs—including the Education Corps, Clean Energy Services Corps, and Veterans Corps—that can be used for mentoring, among other activities. In addition, the law authorizes the program to fund initiatives that seek to expand the number of mentors for disadvantaged youth, as defined under the act.

Separately, CNS hosts a website ( http://www.nationalservice.gov/mentor ) to connect potential mentors with mentoring programs. The website is operated by the nonprofit organization MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership.

Youth ChalleNGe Program

The Youth ChalleNGe Program is a quasi-military training program administered by the Army National Guard to improve outcomes for youth who have dropped out of school or have been expelled. Mentoring is a major and required component of the program. Youth ChalleNGe was established as a pilot program under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 ( P.L. 102-484 ), and Congress permanently authorized the program under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 ( P.L. 105-85 ). Congress has since provided an annual appropriation for the program as part of the Department of Defense authorization acts. Currently, 40 sites operate in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. See Table 3 for further funding information.

Youth are eligible for the ChalleNGe program if they are ages 16 to 18 and enroll prior to their 19 th birthday; have dropped out of school or been expelled; are unemployed; are not currently on parole or probation for anything other than juvenile status offenses and not serving time or awaiting sentencing; and are drug free. In recent years, nearly 9,000 cadets (students) have graduated annually. The program consists of three phases: a two-week pre-program residential phase where applicants are assessed to determine their potential for completing the program; a 20-week residential phase; and a 12-month post-residential phase.

During the residential phase, cadets work toward their high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) and develop life-coping, job, and leadership skills. They also participate in activities to improve their physical well-being, and they engage in community service. Youth develop a "Post-Residential Action Plan (P-RAP)" that sets forth their goals, as well as the tasks and objectives to meet those goals. The post-residential phase begins when graduates return to their communities, continue in higher education, or enter the military. The goal of this phase is for graduates to build on the gains made during the residential phase and to continue to develop and implement their P-RAP. Within six months of graduation, nearly three-quarters of graduates in 2015 went on to additional education, work, military service, or a combination of these activities.

A core component of the post-residential phase is mentoring in which a cadet works with a mentor to meet his or her goals set forth in the P-RAP. Parents and youth are asked to nominate at least one prospective mentor prior to acceptance into the program. They are advised to identify an individual who is respected by the youth and would be a good role model. Cadets tend to know their mentors before enrolling in the program; however, members of an applicant's immediate family or household and ChalleNGe staff members and their spouses are not eligible to become mentors. By week 13 of the residential phase, and prior to the formal matching of a cadet and a mentor, programs are required to use a National Guard-approved curriculum to train the mentors and the cadets for their roles and responsibilities during the formal mentoring relationship.

Mentors must be at least 21 years old, of the same gender as the youth (unless otherwise approved by the director of the program), and within reasonable geographic proximity. Mentors must also undergo a background check that includes two reference checks, an interview, and a criminal background investigation. In some programs, the mentors are required to initiate the background investigation and have the results provided to the program prior to their acceptance as a mentor. Mentors and cadets begin weekly contact during the last two months of the residential phase and maintain monthly contacts during the post-residential phase. They are encouraged to participate in community service activities or job placement activities. Although the program prefers that the pair meet in person, contact may be made by telephone calls or letters.

Mentors report each month during the post-residential phase about the cadets' placement activities, progress toward achieving their goals, and the activities associated with the mentoring relationship. Some programs also require the cadets to report monthly about their progress. At the end of the post-residential phase, an exit interview is conducted between program staff and the mentor, and the match is formally concluded.

Youth ChalleNGe was evaluated by Manpower Development Research Corporation (MDRC), a social policy research organization. The evaluation began in 2005, when 12 state ChalleNGe sites agreed to participate in the evaluation. The evaluation used a random assignment research design, whereby youth were randomly selected to receive the treatment (i.e., to participate in the program) or to a control group that did not participate in the program. The results of the evaluation are based on a survey administered about nine months, 21 months, and three years after the members of the program and control groups entered the study.

MDRC issued reports after each survey wave. The reports issued following the first two waves found that youth in the program group had higher education attainment and a stronger work history than the control group. The report issued following the third wave showed that these favorable outcomes persisted at the three-year mark. Those who enrolled in Youth ChalleNGe were significantly more likely to have earned a GED (but not necessarily a high school diploma), to have earned any college credit, to be employed, to have higher earnings, and to be working. Although the earlier reports found positive impacts on criminal justice involvement and health, these impacts faded over time. At the three-year survey, about half of youth in both the program and control groups reported ever having been arrested and about two-thirds of each group reported being in good or excellent health. Further, on some outcomes, there were few statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups or the outcomes were worse for the treatment group, including that that they were more likely to not use birth control or had tried illegal drugs other than marijuana.

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit policy think tank, is examining the extent to which the ChalleNGe program can develop metrics to measure longer-term outcomes—beyond three years—to determine how the program impacts both individuals and communities. RAND separately conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the program between 2005 and 2008. This analysis looked at 10 ChalleNGe sites in 10 states. This report concluded that the program generates labor market earnings and other benefits of $2.66 for every dollar expended on the program and an estimated return on investment of 166%.

Federal Issues in Mentoring

Issues that may be relevant to any discussions around the federal role in mentoring include the limitations of research on outcomes for mentored youth and the potential need for additional mentors, particularly for vulnerable populations.

Limitations of Research on Mentoring

A few positive evaluations of mentoring programs may provide justification for federal support of these programs. The study of community-based mentoring programs at select Big Brothers and Big Sisters chapters found that mentored youth were less likely than their non-mentored counterparts to use drugs and alcohol, hit someone, and skip school, among other outcomes. The evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring program found similar results for mentored youth. Nonetheless, findings from these and other studies show that mentoring did not improve some academic and other tracked outcomes.

The long-term influence of mentoring for youth is unknown. The 1995 study tracked youth for 18 months, which is among the longest periods of time mentored youth have been studied. No study appears to address issues around how well youth transition to adulthood, such as whether they attend college or secure employment. Further, studies of mentoring programs have shown that some gains made by mentored youth, compared to their non-mentored counterparts, were short-lived and that mentored youth did not improve in certain areas. Still, these improvements, albeit temporary and limited to certain outcomes, may be a worthwhile public policy goal.

A related issue is the design of mentoring evaluations. For example, concerns have been raised about the methodology used in the evaluation of the federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools mentoring program. One concern was that grantees were not randomly selected. As noted, random selection can help researchers determine whether an intervention, such as mentoring, leads to any differences in outcomes between those who receive the intervention and those who do not. Grantees involved in the study "reported being less focused on improving students' academic outcomes and on teaching risk avoidance" than grantees generally, even though these domains were the focus of the evaluation. The grantees selected for the evaluation were more likely to serve females and more Asian, Latino, and Pacific Islander students but fewer white students than grantees overall. The grantees were also more likely to be school districts, compared to nonprofit or community-based organizations. They also tended to have more years of experience running school mentoring and serving more students. These differences may in fact have led to outcomes that were not representative of the entire pool of grantees nationally.

Further, some mentored youth in the SDFS mentoring program did not receive certain services that were tied to the outcomes of the study. For example, 43% of the mentored students reported working frequently with their mentors on academics while 21% never worked on academics. Still, it is unclear whether school-based mentoring programs should be tasked with improving both academic outcomes and certain other outcomes, like reducing involvement in gangs and other risky behaviors. Another possible limitation of the SDFS mentoring evaluation was its design. Although the SDFS mentoring evaluation used random assignment, whereby youth were randomly assigned to the treatment (i.e., SDFS mentoring) or the control group (no SDFS mentoring), over one-third of the control group received mentoring, either from the SDFS grantee or from other organizations in the community. This finding raises questions about the extent to which the evaluation could have assessed the true effects of the program, since the outcomes for the control group may have been influenced by the participation of some of the youth in mentoring programs. According to the study, this may have "led to some dilution of the impacts on students compared to expectations."

The program delivery for the SDFS mentoring program also did not appear to have adhered to certain established best practices in mentoring, such as matches that lasted one year or more and ongoing training for mentoring. The average length of the mentoring relationship for students surveyed was 5.8 months, and on average, students were not assigned their mentor until about five weeks after they were randomly assigned to the treatment group. Ongoing training did not appear to be widely available. Approximately 41% of mentors reported that ongoing training was available after they begun meeting regularly with their students. This is in contrast to recommendations by researchers in mentoring that mentors receive support and ongoing training after matches have been established. Still, nearly all mentors received pre-match training or orientation and talked with their program supervisor about how things were going with their mentoring relationship. Most mentors (62.3%) reported having access to social workers or staff when they needed support.

In a similar vein, one of the researchers of the SDFS mentoring evaluation raised questions about the extent of technical assistance available to grantees about implementing the program: "The legislation ... and the program guidance ... said to focus on the academic and social needs of students. Beyond that, there weren't any prescriptive protocols for how people were going to conduct their mentoring activities, or how they were going to supervise their mentors, or how they were going to train their mentors." Nonetheless, the Department of Education (ED) reported that training and technical assistance was provided by a contractor and ED staff.

A 2010 analysis of three major school-based mentoring programs, including the SDFS mentoring program, suggests that the effects of these programs are small but are in a range that "makes their interpretation subject to underlying perspectives and priorities." Similarly, a 2011 analysis assessed findings from 73 mentoring programs and found that despite the positive effect of the programs overall, the effect is small. In other words, some stakeholders may have reason to be skeptical of the findings from the SDFS mentoring program and other mentoring programs, while others may argue that these findings are promising and should lead to further efforts to improve mentoring interventions.

Focusing on Quality of Programs

The number of mentoring programs appears to have grown in recent years, likely due to a variety of reasons, including federal attention to mentoring as an intervention for at-risk youth and promising associations between mentoring and multiple outcomes. These programs have different formats and serve specific populations of youth. For example, in FY2017, DOJ provided funding to mentoring organizations that serve youth who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, or are at risk of such victimization.

In light of this perceived expansion, researchers and other stakeholders caution that administrators should carefully implement mentoring programs while adhering to core practices of effective mentoring that have been informed by research. The Obama and Trump Administrations have allocated funding for grants to research on mentoring for at-risk youth.

Gap in Mentoring Services

MENTOR: A National Mentoring Partnership, a national mentoring organization, estimated that 9.4 million young people who are at-risk youth need a mentor. Recruiting and retaining volunteers appears to be a major challenge for mentoring organizations, including those funded through federal mentoring programs. In its 2004 report of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Mentoring program, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that new grantees had more difficulty than established grantees in recruiting and supporting mentors. Similarly, HHS reports that some mentors in organizations that received Mentoring Children of Prisoners' funding (which was funded from FY2003 through FY2010) had dropped out before being matched with a youth because of the time and energy commitment mentoring entails. While research on mentor recruitment and retention is nascent, it reveals that mentoring organizations tend to attract individuals who are middle aged, educated, and have children in their household, and that word of mouth is among the top strategies for recruiting new volunteers. Further, individuals are likely to remain in formal mentoring programs if they feel adequately prepared to serve as mentors. According to the research on mentoring, retention may be high when programs continually monitor mentoring relationships for effectiveness and respond to the needs of mentors.

A related issue is that the mentoring gap may be wider for special populations. Mentoring programs primarily serve youth ages 9 through 11 who come to the attention of a parent or teacher, rather than the most at-risk populations, which include, but are not limited to, older youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth in foster care or the juvenile justice system. Recent efforts to recruit volunteers to mentor vulnerable populations have been under way, as evidenced by DOJ mentoring grants in recent years for selected youth populations. Nonetheless, potential mentors may still be discouraged from working with youth facing serious personal difficulties and challenges in their communities.