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. 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.) According to the literature that we reviewed, successful student mentoring programs engage in considerable planning prior to launching their efforts. Such planning enables them to assess the need for the services they plan to offer and to determine whether their organizations have the assets they need to be successful. Pre-implementation planning can also help programs determine the extent to which individuals or corporations may be willing to invest in the programs. Successful mentoring programs make many decisions pertaining to program design and operations as part of their early planning processes. For example, decisions regarding program design may include how many youth a program will serve, what kinds of services it will offer, where and when mentoring will take place, the types of individuals to be recruited as mentors, and expected outcomes. In addition, successful programs often decide whether mentors will meet with youth individually or in groups. Successful programs also determine what function mentors will serve, such as whether they will offer academic support or help to socialize youth. Research suggests that having policies and procedures in place to sustain and support mentors and youth are critical elements of successful mentoring programs. According to the literature, three elements are particularly critical to the success of a mentor program: (1) mentor screening, (2) orientation and training, and (3) support and supervision. First, screening procedures provide programs a basis for selecting those adults who are most likely to be successful as mentors. Screening enables programs to better predict how a potential mentor may interact with a mentored youth, such as whether the potential mentor understands the importance of being a caring adult. In addition, screening can help determine whether the volunteer can commit enough time to the youth to build a meaningful relationship. Screening can also help ensure the safety of participating youth and can protect the program’s reputation. When screening mentors, many programs interview the potential mentors, review personal references, and check police records. Second, research indicates that mentor orientation and training experiences are critical to program success, although research has not identified how much training is ideal or what topics such training should cover. Mentor orientation and training experiences can help student mentoring programs succeed in several ways. For example, orientation and training experiences can prepare volunteers to successfully become 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. 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.