Student Mentoring Programs
Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be Improved Gao ID: GAO-04-581 June 25, 2004As 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?
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-581, Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-581
entitled 'Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and
Information Sharing Could Be Improved' which was released on June 25,
2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2004:
Student Mentoring Programs:
Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be Improved:
GAO-04-581:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-581, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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?
What GAO Found:
According to the literature GAO reviewed, successful mentoring programs
(1) plan their programs carefully prior to implementation; (2) develop
policies and procedures to effectively manage their programs, including
mentor screening and training; (3) ensure program sustainability
through marketing; and (4) evaluate program outcomes and disseminate
their evaluation findings.
Most of the 121 mentoring grantees that Education funded shared many
characteristics--most had 5 years or more of experience mentoring
youth, had similar goals, and offered ’one-to-one“ mentoring. All
mentoring grantees listed in their applications that they had some
elements of successful programs, but established grantees GAO visited
reported fewer implementation challenges, such as problems recruiting
mentors, than did newer grantees. Most of the 11 grantees GAO visited
said they would benefit from learning about other implementation
strategies through information sharing. However, Education has not
facilitated information sharing among mentoring grantees, although it
is considering doing so.
School-age mentoring:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that Education
* explore ways to facilitate the sharing of successful practices and
lessons learned,
* ensure that the office monitoring mentoring grantees uses grantees‘
single audit reports, and
* undertake a national study of its mentoring program outcomes.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-581.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202)
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Key Elements of Successful Mentoring Programs Are Planning, Management,
Sustainability, and Evaluation:
Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics and Had Some Elements of
Successful Programs, but Ease of Implementation Differed among New and
Established Grantees:
Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Program Implementation, but
Monitoring May Not Be Sufficient to Identify Possible Fiscal and
Programmatic Weaknesses:
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:
Education Considering Conducting National Study of Mentoring Programs
to Augment the Evaluations It Has Required Grantees to Submit:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Selected Studies on the Elements of Successful Mentoring:
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education Mentoring Grantees by State:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Legislative Requirements for Mentoring Programs:
Table 2: Percentage of Grantees Citing Various Goals:
Table 3: Elements of OSDFS's Monitoring Process:
Figures:
Figure 1: Elements, Policies, and Procedures of Successful Mentoring
Programs:
Figure 2: Percent of Mentoring Grantees by Years of Experience with
Mentoring:
Figure 3: Proportion of Grantees by Type of Mentoring:
Figure 4: Types of Mentoring Activities at Selected Grantees:
Figure 5: Examples of Ways Established Programs Showed Appreciation to
Mentors:
Figure 6: Examples of Promotional Materials Used by Mentoring Grantees:
Abbreviations:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSDFS: Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 25, 2004:
The Honorable Judd Gregg:
Chairman:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John A. Boehner:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
Children who have mentors are more likely to earn higher grades in
school, develop healthier social relationships, and are less likely to
miss school and initiate the use of drugs and alcohol compared with
similar children who do not have mentors, according to a 1995 study on
mentoring.[Footnote 1] In passing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)
of 2001, the Congress sought to improve the outcomes of our nation's
school age children by authorizing a broad range of programs and
services for them. As part of this effort, the Congress authorized
mentoring grants for children who have the "greatest need." In
establishing the student mentoring program, the Congress authorized
grants to organizations to achieve one or more goals for participating
children, including improved academic outcomes; reduced incidence of
school dropout, juvenile delinquency, and alcohol and drug use; and
lower involvement in gangs. The Department of Education's (Education)
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS), which administers the
mentoring grant, funded 122 grantees for a 3-year period ending in
2004, at $17 million a year. The average grant amount is about $140,000
each year. As the current wave of mentoring funding is set to end,
Congress has appropriated funding for additional mentoring efforts. The
fiscal year 2004 appropriation of about $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[Footnote 2]. We found that
these studies generally supported the elements identified in the 2003
publication. However, the rigor of these studies varied, ranging from
studies that included random assignment of participants to control
groups, to more descriptive case studies. See appendix I for a list of
studies that discuss the elements of successful mentoring. We also
reviewed the grant applications of the 121 mentoring grantees Education
currently funds to determine the extent to which the program
descriptions contained in applications aligned with the elements,
policies, and procedures associated with successful programs.
To better understand how grantees implemented such elements, we visited
11 grantees. We selected these grantees to reflect a diversity of
mentoring approaches and geographic areas. Our initial work led us to
explore whether established and new grantees approached implementation
differently and whether lessons could be learned from their
experiences. As a result, we ensured that the 11 grantees we visited
also included a mixture of relatively new mentoring efforts--6 grantees
with fewer than 5 years of experience mentoring youth and 5 established
grantees that had 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.
Results in Brief:
According to the literature that we reviewed, successful student
mentoring programs carefully plan their programs, develop policies and
procedures to effectively manage their programs, ensure program
sustainability through marketing, and evaluate program outcomes. First,
in planning their programs, successful mentoring programs make many
decisions, including the number of youth they can realistically serve
and what kinds of services they will offer and expected outcomes. The
program will also determine where and when mentoring will take place,
what types of individuals program staff will recruit as mentors, and
how staff will fund and manage the program. Second, successful
mentoring programs develop policies and processes to screen and train
mentors to better ensure that they are committed to mentoring and
understand the needs of youth. The programs also establish data
collection procedures to facilitate program monitoring and assessment.
Third, successful programs have marketing and sustainability strategies
in place that help them retain the support of current funders and
garner financial backing from new sources. Finally, successful student
mentoring programs evaluate program outcomes and broadly disseminate
their evaluation findings.
Most of the student mentoring efforts that Education funded shared many
characteristics--most had 5 or more years of experience mentoring
youth, had similar goals, and offered "one-to-one" mentoring. Grantees
did differ somewhat in their program design, such as the number and
characteristics of at-risk youth they planned to serve and the services
offered them. All mentoring efforts had some elements of successful
programs, but we found that established grantees reported fewer
implementation challenges, such as difficulties recruiting mentors,
than did newer grantees. Some of the established grantees we visited
told us that they had experienced some implementation difficulties when
they began mentoring youth and that they had refined their programs
over the early years. Many of these grantees also told us that they
benefited from learning about implementation strategies from other more
experienced mentoring programs. Most of the new grantees reported that
this type of information would help them to better implement their
programs. However, Education has not facilitated information sharing
among mentoring grantees, although it is considering such an effort.
To monitor grantees, Education officials regularly contacted them by
telephone, examined grantee performance reports, visited a limited
number of grantees annually, and monitored the amount grantees spent,
according to Education documents and interviews with officials. Such
monitoring revealed, for example, that one grantee had spent mentoring
funds even though the grantee was not yet operational. That grantee
voluntarily relinquished its mentoring grant. Although Education used
multiple methods to monitor grantees, OSDFS, which is responsible for
monitoring mentoring grants, did not review grantees' single audit
reports as part of its monitoring, although its guidance states that it
review readily available information, including information from single
audits. Instead, according to Education officials, the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer within Education reviewed these reports, but
did not provide the OSDFS with information about audit findings because
none of the audit findings pertained to the mentoring grants. Because
mentoring grants were relatively new, we did not expect to find
information pertaining to grantees' handling of mentoring grants when
we reviewed their online single audit summary reports. Rather, we
wanted to determine if there were problems in these same grantees'
handling of other Education grant funds they received before or around
the time Education awarded them mentoring grants. How well these
grantees handled other funds they received from Education may suggest
how well they would manage their mentoring grant funds. Our review of
all 121 mentoring grantees revealed that about 8 percent of them had an
audit that identified problems, such as cash management and procurement
issues, with respect to other Education grants they received
substantially enough to be reported as audit findings.
Education does not have plans to assess the mentoring program's
outcomes or effectiveness but is currently discussing the possibility
of doing so. No timeframes have been established for making a
determination. While collecting outcome data would provide a
descriptive study of youth outcomes, an effectiveness study, which
involves the use of comparison groups, would allow Education to
determine whether the mentoring program, rather than other factors,
caused any improvement in youth outcomes. While the agency's plans for
an evaluation are undefined, it has required that individual grantees
provide final evaluation reports when their 3-year grants end.
Grantees' evaluation plans show that they intend to report a range of
youth outcomes, such as information on academic achievement and school
attendance. Grantee evaluation plans also reflect variation in data
collection strategies. Such variations were most apparent between new
and established grantees. Specifically, the more established grantees
more often reported that they planned to use data, such as grades and
attendance information to report student outcomes, while newer programs
more often reported that they would rely on self-reported data to
measure youth outcomes, such as surveys of teachers. Because of
different data collection methods, taken together these grantee
evaluations cannot provide a cohesive national picture of mentoring
program outcomes.
To improve the mentoring program and provide essential information
about its operations and outcomes, we are recommending that the
Department of Education explore ways to facilitate the sharing of
successful practices and lessons learned, ensure that the Office of
Safe and Drug Free Schools use grantees' single audit reports, and
undertake a national study of its mentoring program's outcomes.
Background:
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.[Footnote 3]
Mentoring is often defined as a sustained relationship between a youth
and an older person, typically an adult, in which the adult provides
the younger person with support, guidance, and assistance. Mentoring is
based on the premise that if young people have access to caring,
concerned adults, they will be more likely to become successful adults
themselves. Historically, mentoring has meant that one volunteer
commits to mentoring one child at a time. More recently, mentoring has
moved beyond this traditional relationship to encompass other formats,
including group and e-mail mentoring.
Mentoring programs are established in many communities. Programs like
the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program, a national program operating in
every state, have a long history of mentoring neighborhood youth. In
community-based programs, youth are often referred for mentoring by
family members. Potential mentors often submit to extensive background
checks and trained mentors are often allowed to engage in unsupervised
activities with the youth. School-based mentoring, as its name implies,
takes place on school grounds. Given their location in the school,
program staff in school-based mentoring programs can easily meet with
teachers. Often teachers refer youth for mentoring whom they believe
could benefit from additional attention and guidance. In school-based
mentoring programs, volunteers typically meet with the youth during or
after school and their interactions are typically supervised. Mentors
and youth can spend time on schoolwork, but also engage in other
activities, including playing sports, attending a concert, reading,
eating lunch together, or just "hanging out together."
To improve the outcomes of our nation's school age children, Congress
passed NCLBA. Among other things, this act authorized 3-year grants for
student mentoring programs. NCLBA required that selected programs serve
children with the greatest need, that is, children most at risk of
failing school, dropping out of school, or being involved in criminal
or delinquent activity, as well as those lacking strong positive role
models. NCLBA also authorized grants to entities to achieve one or more
goals for participating children, including improved academic
achievement and reduced delinquent behavior and involvement in gangs.
(See table 1.)
Table 1: Legislative Requirements for Mentoring Programs:
Aspect: Purpose;
Requirement: Make assistance available to promote mentoring program
for children with greatest need to assist such children in receiving
support and guidance from a mentor;
improve the academic achievement of such children; improve
interpersonal relationships between such children and their peers,
teachers, other adults, and family members; reduce the dropout rate of
such children; and reduce juvenile delinquency and involvement in
gangs by such children.
Aspect: Program goals;
Requirement: Provide general guidance; promote personal and social
responsibility; increase participation in, and enhance the ability to
benefit from elementary and secondary education; discourage illegal
use of drugs and alcohol, violence, the use of dangerous weapons,
promiscuous behavior, and other criminal, harmful, or potentially
harmful activities; encourage participation in community service and
activities; encourage goal setting and planning for the future,
including encouragement of graduation from secondary school and
planning for postsecondary education or training; and discourage
involvement in gangs.
Aspect: Entities eligible to serve as grantees;
Requirement: Local educational agencies; nonprofit, community-based
organizations; and partnerships between local educational agencies and
nonprofit, community-based organizations.
Aspect: Target population;
Requirement: School age children who are at risk of educational
failure, dropping out of school, or involved in criminal or delinquent
behavior, or who lack strong positive role models. Priority for
funding given to programs that serve children living in rural areas,
high-crime areas, troubled home environments, and children
experiencing educational failure.
Aspect: Application and selection criteria;
Requirement: Applicants are required to provide the following:
* Description of the mentoring program;
* Information on the children to be served;
* Description of the mechanism that will be used to match children with
mentors;
* Information on how mentors and children will be recruited to the
program;
* Information on how prospective mentors will be screened;
* Information on the training that will be provided to mentors;
* Information on the capability of the applicant to effectively
implement a mentoring program.
Source: GAO analysis of NCLBA requirements.
Note: We did not provide an exhaustive list of the target population or
application and selection criteria, which can be found in NCLBA.
[End of table]
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[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] (See app. II for a list of grantees by
state.) Funding for these grantees ends in fiscal year 2004; funding
for the mentoring program over the 3 years will total about $50
million. Congress has increased funding for fiscal year 2004. According
to Education, these funds will be used to fund an additional 200
grantees and the last year of the current wave of mentoring grantees.
Education has a number of responsibilities regarding administration and
oversight of the mentoring program. The agency oversees program
implementation, provides technical assistance, and disseminates
information on best practices. With respect to monitoring, Education,
like other federal agencies, is required as part of its monitoring
responsibilities to review grantees' single audit reports if they
contain findings.[Footnote 6] The Single Audit Act requires state and
local governments and nonprofit organizations that expend $300,000 or
more in federal awards in a fiscal year to have either a single audit
or program-specific audit conducted for that year.[Footnote 7] Audit
findings from such reports can include problems such as internal
control weaknesses; material noncompliance with the provisions of laws,
regulations, or grant agreements; and fraud affecting a federal award.
Education receives a copy of the audit report if it contains findings
relevant to an Education program.[Footnote 8]
Key Elements of Successful Mentoring Programs Are Planning, Management,
Sustainability, and Evaluation:
According to the literature we reviewed,[Footnote 9] prior to
implementation, successful mentoring programs make key decisions about
which youth they will serve and expected outcomes, how they will
recruit mentors, and how the program will be funded; put in place
management structures, such as screening, training, and recruitment
policies and procedures to ensure that the program is well-managed on a
daily basis; market their programs and pursue strategies to ensure
long-term program viability; and evaluate program outcomes and
disseminate outcome information to key stakeholders to further garner
and sustain support for their programs. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Elements, Policies, and Procedures of Successful Mentoring
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
Note: We are defining successful mentoring to mean those efforts that
have the basic elements needed to establish, manage and operate, and
sustain mentoring.
[End of figure]
Successful Student Mentoring Programs Develop Initial Plans for How
Their Programs Will Be Designed and Operated:
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.
Successful Student Mentoring Programs Ensure Policies and Procedures
Are in Place to Sustain Daily Operations:
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 Student Mentoring Programs Market Their Programs and Develop
Strategies to Ensure Long-term Operation:
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.
Successful Student Mentoring Programs Establish Processes to Measure
and Disseminate Program Outcomes:
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.
Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics and Had Some Elements of
Successful Programs, but Ease of Implementation Differed among New and
Established Grantees:
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.
Most Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics Such as
Considerable Mentoring Experience and Similar Goals for Youth:
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.)
Figure 2: Percent of Mentoring Grantees by Years of Experience with
Mentoring:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.)
Table 2: Percentage of Grantees Citing Various Goals:
Goals: Improved academic achievement;
Percentage citing this goal: 96.
Goals: Discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol; violence; the use
of dangerous weapons; promiscuous behavior; and other criminal,
harmful, or potentially harmful activities;
Percentage citing this goal: 87.
Goals: Reduce incidence of school dropout;
Percentage citing this goal: 50.
Goals: Improve interpersonal relationships between such children and
their peers, teachers, other adults, and family members;
Percentage citing this goal: 46.
Goals: Increase participation in and enhance the ability to benefit
from post secondary education or training;
Percentage citing this goal: 46.
Goals: Increase participation in community service activities;
Percentage citing this goal: 39.
Goals: Improved school attendance/reduced truancy;
Percentage citing this goal: 34.
Source: GAO analysis of 121 Education-funded mentoring grant
applications.
[End of table]
About three-quarters of all grantees paired each youth to his or her
own mentor, while 3 percent of all grantees (3) mentored children
exclusively in groups, with 3 or 4 youth meeting at one time with a
mentor. (See fig. 3.) Around one-fifth of all grantees provided both
individual and group mentoring.
Figure 3: Proportion of Grantees by Type of Mentoring:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.)
Figure 4: Types of Mentoring Activities at Selected Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
All Grantees Had Some Elements of Successful Programs, though in
General More Established Grantees Reported Fewer Implementation
Challenges than Newer Grantees:
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.[Footnote 10]
Our review of grantee applications showed that all grantees had some
policies and procedures in place to manage their ongoing operations,
such as policies pertaining to mentor recruitment, screening, and
training, but during our site visits we found that established and new
grantees differed in the extent to which they had been able to
implement such policies and procedures. Established grantees we visited
already had in-place many of the policies and procedures necessary to
operate a mentoring program. For example, these grantees generally had
long-standing agreements with organizations in their communities that
helped them attract, screen, and 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.)
Figure 5: Examples of Ways Established Programs Showed Appreciation to
Mentors:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Photo of mentor gifts and appreciation ceremony announcements
provided by grantees.
[End of figure]
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.)
Figure 6: Examples of Promotional Materials Used by Mentoring Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Grantees Reported Benefits from Learning about Other Mentoring
Implementation Strategies:
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.
Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Program Implementation, but
Monitoring May Not Be Sufficient to Identify Possible Fiscal and
Programmatic Weaknesses:
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.
Education Used Multiple Methods to Monitor Grantees, Including Review
of Performance Reports and Expenditure Tracking:
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.
Table 3: Elements of OSDFS's Monitoring Process:
Monitoring tool: Postaward performance call;
Purpose: Ensures mutual understanding of specific outcomes expected and
establishes measures for assessing projects' implementation progress
and results;
Feedback to the grantee: Grantees receive a performance agreement that
outlines the issues discussed during the call.
Monitoring tool: Semiannual performance call;
Purpose: Ensures implementation is proceeding and allows the agency to
provide technical assistance as needed;
Feedback to the grantee: Grantees receive written summary of issues
discussed, if necessary.
Monitoring tool: Annual performance report;
Purpose: Ensures grantee is making progress towards meeting its goals
and objectives and expenditures are reconciled with budget;
Feedback to the grantee: Grantees receive written confirmation that
report was received and feedback, if necessary.
Monitoring tool: Grant Accounts Payment System;
Purpose: Monitor grantee expenditure rates;
Feedback to the grantee: Grantees are contacted if grant drawdowns are
excessive or funds are not expended within a reasonable time frame.
Monitoring tool: Site visit;
Purpose: Examine selected number of grantee operations and activities;
Feedback to the grantee: Grantees receive a report documenting site
visit findings, recommendations, and required actions.
Source: GAO's analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
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.
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:
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.[Footnote
11]
Using information readily and easily accessible through the online
Single Audit Act database, we reviewed the mentoring grantees' single
audit summary reports. In reviewing these summary audit reports, we did
not expect to find information pertaining to grantees' handling of
mentoring grants, as these were relatively new. Rather, we wanted to
determine if there were issues in these same grantees' handling of
other Education grant funds they received before or around the time
Education awarded them mentoring grants. How well these grantees
handled other funds they received from Education could suggest how well
they would manage their mentoring grant funds. We found that 8 percent
of the mentoring grantees had problems with respect to other Education
grants they received that were substantial enough to be reported as
audit findings.[Footnote 12] For example, we found that grantees' audit
findings covered problems with cash management, procurement and
reporting on Education programs. By using the online Single Audit Act
database, we were also able to access information about subgrantees'
handling of Education funds.
Education Considering Conducting National Study of Mentoring Programs
to Augment the Evaluations It Has Required Grantees to Submit:
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.
While Education Plans for Mentoring Study Are Not Defined, It Has
Required Each Grantee to Provide an Evaluation:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments:
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.
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Selected Studies on the Elements of Successful Mentoring:
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Characteristics of Education Mentoring Grantees by State:
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Fairbanks;
City: Fairbanks;
State: Alaska;
Amount: $191,540;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
1-2 hours a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 1-8 experiencing troubled home
environments and attending Title I schools;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Tuscaloosa County Board of Education;
City: Tuscaloosa;
State: Ala;
Amount: $182,485;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 6
hours a week and groups meeting 3 hours a week for at least 4 months;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-9;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Centers for Youth and Families;
City: Little Rock;
State: Ark;
Amount: $96,859;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting at
school for at least 1 year[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Yavapai Big Brothers Big Sisters;
City: Prescott;
State: Ariz;
Amount: $145,477;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one 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.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 from Spanish-speaking
families;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Family Connections El Dorado, Inc;
City: Placerville;
State: Calif;
Amount: $164,341;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 1
week for at least 6 months;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are Hispanic;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: GLIDE Foundation;
City: San Francisco;
State: Calif;
Amount: $149,885;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for at least 11 months.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 from immigrant and refugee
families, youth with disabilities, or youth in foster care;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: YMCA of San Francisco: Urban Services YMCA;
City: San Francisco;
State: Calif;
Amount: $182,250;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Home Start, Inc;
City: San Diego;
State: Calif;
Amount: $168,530;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: Groups meeting in the community for
at least 6 months.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Girls in grades 4-8 who are involved in the
juvenile justice system;
Types of mentors[D]: College students.
Name: Oakland Asian Students Educational Services;
City: Oakland;
State: Calif;
Amount: $171,185;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
3-6 hours a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic Character development Recreational
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-12 who are Asian and Pacific
Islander immigrants with limited English proficiency;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District;
City: Norwalk;
State: Calif;
Amount: $191,540;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school for at least 1 hour a week, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-9 who are deaf or hard of
hearing, in foster care, English language learners, or have mental
health problems;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Nevada County;
City: Grass Valley;
State: Calif;
Amount: $117,448;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs, meeting weekly at
school for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Los Angeles Unified School District;
City: Gardena;
State: Calif;
Amount: $184,986;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting 2 hours a
week at school and in the community for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are non- English
speaking;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Comprehensive Youth Services;
City: Fresno;
State: Calif;
Amount: $187,562;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Character development;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are involved in
criminal or delinquent activities, many of whom are Mexican or non-
English speaking immigrants;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Students in Business, Inc;
City: Freemont;
State: Calif;
Amount: $95,749;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting in
the community 4-6 hours a month for at least a year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Mendocino County;
City: Fort Bragg;
State: Calif;
Amount: $178,358;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: 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;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth who are Spanish speaking, girls, disabled,
or Native American;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Berkeley Youth Alternatives;
City: Berkeley;
State: Calif;
Amount: $122,888;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community 4 hours a week for at least a school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Primarily African-American youth;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Boys & Girls Club of Santa Clara;
City: Santa Paula;
State: Calif;
Amount: $90,598;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs with adult mentors
making weekly contact and meeting at least twice a month and one-to-one
pairs with a high school mentor meeting biweekly.[E,F,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are most affected by
violence;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: San Diego Youth & Community Services, Inc;
City: San Diego;
State: Calif;
Amount: $149,018;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 2 hours a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12, many with limited English
proficiency, including Hispanic, Asian, and refugee populations;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Redwood Community Action Agency;
City: Eureka;
State: Calif;
Amount: $180,466;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 6 hours a month for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8, middle and high school
students in alternative programs such as court and community schools,
and homeless and runaway youth;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged Adults.
Name: San Dieguito for Drug Free Youth;
City: Del Mar;
State: Calif;
Amount: $183,633;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 8 weeks (1 school semester);
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are Hispanic, lack adult
role models, are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or have significant
physical or emotional disabilities;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged.
Name: Fresno Unified School District;
City: Fresno;
State: Calif;
Amount: $187,506;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: School District #1 City and County of Denver;
City: Denver;
State: Colo;
Amount: $91,847;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for 2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: At-risk 6 grade students who are Latino
immigrants, first generation, and are involved with human services or
juvenile justice;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Catholic Charities & Community Services;
City: Denver;
State: Colo;
Amount: $133,725;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 5-6 who are Latino or bilingual;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Colorado Christian Home;
City: Denver;
State: Colo;
Amount: $140,231;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for at least
2 hours a week for at least 1 year.[G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8, including a considerable
population of Hmong and Laotian children;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Community Solutions, Inc;
City: Hartford;
State: Conn;
Amount: $139,766;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Court-involved youth making the transition from
juvenile justice program back to public schools;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Hannah Johnson CDC;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Amount: $182,538;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: 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;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 6-8 who attend SouthEast Academy
of Scholastic Excellence and live in the Capitol Hill District;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Linking Communities for Educational Success, Inc;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Amount: $106,090;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 6
hours a month plus weekly phone contact.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 6-9 most of whom are African
American;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Greater Washington Urban League;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Amount: $173,520;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs.[E,F,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Girls in elementary, middle, or high school who
are African American or other minorities;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: College Bound, Inc;
City: Washington;
State: D.C;
Amount: $178,565;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 2 hours a week for at least 9 months;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 8-12 from public & charter
schools with average academic records;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Professional Counseling Resources, Inc;
City: Wilmington;
State: Del;
Amount: $210,695;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting at
school and in the community at least twice a month.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Jefferson County Bd of Education & Communities In Schools of
Jefferson Co;
City: Monticello;
State: Fla;
Amount: $121,927;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One- to-one pairs meeting at school
for 1 hour a week, for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who have a history of
involvement with juvenile justice system;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Human Services Associates, Inc;
City: Orlando;
State: Fla;
Amount: $138,415;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at a juvenile
assessment center for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Public Education Foundation of Marion County, Inc;
City: Ocala;
State: Fla;
Amount: $65,645;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community 30-45 minutes a week for mentoring and twice a
week for tutoring.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc;
City: Miami;
State: Fla;
Amount: $185,985;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: 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.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Girls and Haitian, Central American, and Puerto
Rican youth;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Urban League of Broward County, Inc;
City: Ft. Lauderdale;
State: Fla;
Amount: $94,828;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 4
hours a week and groups meeting once a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 6-8 who are African American and
reside in the 33311 zip code area;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: School Board of Pinellas County;
City: Largo;
State: Fla;
Amount: $168,952;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for a half hour to an hour once week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Miami;
City: Miami;
State: Fla;
Amount: $189,625;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school at
least 1 hour once a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-5 who are at risk of not
reaching graduation;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Greene County School District;
City: Greensboro;
State: Ga;
Amount: $191,150;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups.[E,F,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 with performance, behavior,
and attendance problems;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Georgia Community Services Program, Inc;
City: Morrow;
State: Ga;
Amount: $150,893;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 4 hours a month.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: The Fledglings, Inc;
City: Stone Mountain;
State: Ga;
Amount: $76,902;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 1
hour a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: The Boys & Girls Clubs of Augusta, Inc;
City: Augusta;
State: Ga;
Amount: $150,832;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting once a week
and groups meeting twice a month in the community for at least 1 year.
[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Chamblee-Doraville Ministry Center, Inc;
City: Doraville;
State: Ga;
Amount: $104,367;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Ho'oulu Lahui;
City: Pahoa;
State: Hawaii;
Amount: $173,392;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for 3 hours a month.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 6-8 who are Hawaiian;
Types of mentors[D]: School- aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Youth and Shelter, Inc;
City: Ames;
State: Iowa;
Amount: $180,699;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth 6-14 years old in Story and Boone
Counties;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Independence Community School District;
City: Independence;
State: Iowa;
Amount: $138,238;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school 30 minutes once a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-12;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Dickenson County Kinship, Inc;
City: Spirit Lake;
State: Iowa;
Amount: $76,546;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 1-5 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: West Iowa Community Mental Health Center;
City: Denison;
State: Iowa;
Amount: $113,651;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school and in the community for at least two contacts.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 6-12 who are Hispanic;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Blackfoot School District;
City: Blackfoot;
State: Idaho;
Amount: $150,957;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school.
[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4 and 8-12 who are Native
Americans or Hispanic migrants;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of SW Idaho;
City: Boise;
State: Idaho;
Amount: $137,086;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in school
for at least 1 hour a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who teachers believe are
most likely to dropout, especially girls;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged.
Name: Board of Trustees - University of Illinois;
City: Champaign;
State: Ill;
Amount: $115,750;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school and in the community for at least 3 years.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Communities in Schools in Sangamon County;
City: Springfield;
State: Ill;
Amount: $153,874;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for at least 4 hours a month for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are involved in criminal
or delinquent activities;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters Sangamon County;
City: Springfield;
State: Ill;
Amount: $94,498;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
4-8 hours a month of mentoring, 12 hours a month of tutoring, 4-8
hours a month of character development, and 30 hours a year of case
management services for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth between the ages of 5 and 14;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Sinai Community Institute;
City: Chicago;
State: Ill;
Amount: $92,837;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for 1-2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are African American;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Vermillion County;
City: Danville;
State: Ill;
Amount: $82,855;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-5. In one elementary school,
emphasis on serving youth from single-parent households;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Middle Way House, Inc;
City: Bloomington;
State: Ind;
Amount: $47,145;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 3 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth who live in domestic violence emergency
shelters and transitional housing;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Kansas Big Brothers Big Sisters, Inc;
City: Wichita;
State: Kans;
Amount: $185,959;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Central KY;
City: Bowling Green;
State: Ky;
Amount: $94,263;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for at least 1-2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Old South Baton Rouge Community Revitalization Corporation;
City: Baton Rouge;
State: La;
Amount: $111,078;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school and in the community for at least a year. Tutor Buddies meet
for 1 hour a week. Big Buddies meet for 5-6 hours a month. Enrichment
Buddies meet for 1 hour a week;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: AFC Mentoring;
City: Boston;
State: Mass;
Amount: $85,981;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
for at least 1 year.[E,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 2-8 who are adopted and out-of-
home youth;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Middlesex;
City: Framingham;
State: Mass;
Amount: $126,000;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
2.5 hours a week for at least 36 weeks;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-5;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged.
Name: Hispanic Office of Planning and Evaluation;
City: Boston;
State: Mass;
Amount: $143,666;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school and in the community.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grade 9-12 who are Hispanic and who are
talented and gifted;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Citizen Schools;
City: Boston;
State: Mass;
Amount: $151,696;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One- to-one pairs meeting at law firms
for 2 hours every other week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in 8th grade who are Haitian, African-
American, Caribbean, or West Indian;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Family Learning Solutions, Inc;
City: Silver Spring;
State: Md;
Amount: $160,894;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting in
the community for 2 hours twice a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are African-American or
Hispanic, are immigrants, low-income, or have mental health or behavior
problems;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Downeast Health Services;
City: Ellsworth;
State: Maine;
Amount: $150,510;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Native American youth in 2 schools;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Newaygo County Community Services;
City: Freemont;
State: Mich;
Amount: $81,731;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community for 4 hours every 2 weeks.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Success Through Adults Reaching Students;
City: Alden;
State: Minn;
Amount: $39,232;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8, primarily boys;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Bolder Options, Inc;
City: Minneapolis;
State: Minn;
Amount: $162,407;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 3 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-9 who are frequently truant;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: The Institute for New Americans;
City: Minneapolis;
State: Minn;
Amount: $90,925;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school for 1-3 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are refugees or are
immigrants from Somalia, Mexico, Ethiopia, West Africa, and Latin and
Central America;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: CommonBond Communities;
City: St. Paul;
State: Minn;
Amount: $111,525;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Immigrant youth of Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian,
Northeast African, and East African (Somali) descent;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Lamar Community Betterment;
City: Lamar;
State: Mo;
Amount: $156,799;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
for 1 hour a week for at least 1 year.[G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth who are Hispanic immigrants, in out-of-
home placements or children of a teenage, incarcerated or court-
involved parent;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Eastern Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
State: Mo;
Amount: $191,540;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school 2-4
times a month for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Youth Opportunities Unlimited;
City: Marks;
State: Miss;
Amount: $157,065;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community for 4 times a week.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Prevent Child Abuse, Inc;
City: Bozeman;
State: Mont;
Amount: $133,476;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are learning disabled,
are emotionally disturbed, have health problems, or receive inadequate
support services;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Volunteers for Youth, Inc;
City: Carrboro;
State: N.C;
Amount: $95,859;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
4 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are people of color or
are Hispanic;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: YMCA of Greater Winston-Salem;
City: Winston-Salem;
State: N.C;
Amount: $140,712;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community twice a week for a total of 3 hours a week for at
least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are Hispanic and attend
English as a Second Language schools;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Columbus County Services Management, Inc;
City: Whiteville;
State: N.C;
Amount: $159,439;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for 2 hours a week or 8 hours a month for at least
1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth are minority females, mostly African
American or Hispanic;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: ReEntry, Inc;
City: Raleigh;
State: N.C;
Amount: $91,461;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One- to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 3 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Mental Health Association in North Dakota;
City: Bismark;
State: N. Dak;
Amount: $181,963;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 2 years.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-12 who are Native American
from rural or reservation settings;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Western Wellness Foundation, Inc;
City: Dickinson;
State: N. Dak;
Amount: $97,169;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 1-12 with emotional, social,
mental, learning, or physical disabilities or those with juvenile
offenses;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Crete Public Schools;
City: Crete;
State: Nebr;
Amount: $71,753;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Hispanic youth in grades 4-12;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Nashua, Inc;
City: Nashua;
State: N.H;
Amount: $194,499;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for 1 hour a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12. One grantee program serves
a residential facility for juvenile offenders and another serves a
school for disabled children;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Community Empowerment Organization, Inc;
City: Jersey City;
State: N.J;
Amount: $182,250;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: 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;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 from schools with high
minority populations;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: San Juan County Partnership;
City: Farmington;
State: N. Mex;
Amount: $482,393;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for at least 1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Mostly Hispanic and recent Mexican immigrant
youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Churchill Community Coalition;
City: Fallon;
State: Nev;
Amount: $54,732;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for 2 hours a
week for at least 1 year.[G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth involved with the juvenile justice system;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Research Center on Children & Youth of SUNY;
City: Amherst;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $145,229;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting at
school for 1 hour a week, for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 5-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Phoenix Programs of New York;
City: Brooklyn;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $186,208;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in the Bronx who are bilingual and
multicultural;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ulster County;
City: Kingston;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $138,049;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-5;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Family and Children's Association;
City: Mineola;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $182,648;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Urban Youth Alliance International, Inc;
City: Bronx;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $98,944;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting in
the community for 2-4 hours a week, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Court-involved youth from the Bronx;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Children's Village, Inc;
City: Dobbs Ferry;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $168,742;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
at least 2 hours a month and meeting in the community for at least 10
hours a month, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Cayuga/Seneca Community Action Agency, Inc;
City: Auburn;
State: N.Y;
Amount: $52,857;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting once a month
with weekly phone contact and groups meeting 3 times a week for at
least 1 year.[E,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Boys;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Soujourners Care Network;
City: McArthur;
State: Ohio;
Amount: $180,924;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
a half hour and 1 hour a month, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 2-12;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: The Prevention Council of Central Ohio;
City: Columbus;
State: Ohio;
Amount: $119,693;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week and groups meeting in the community twice a month plus 2
other contacts, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who live in a home
environment with alcoholism and/ or drug addiction;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Cincinnati Youth Collaborative;
City: Cincinnati;
State: Ohio;
Amount: $193,695;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are first and second
generation Urban Appalachians, or are deaf and have special needs;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Youth Opportunities Unlimited, Inc;
City: Cleveland;
State: Ohio;
Amount: $152,632;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school and in the community for 1 hour a week, for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-6;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Tulsa County Independent School District 1;
City: Tulsa;
State: Okla;
Amount: $136,602;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Very high- risk youth in grades 4-8, including
those from alternative schools;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Medford School District #549-C;
City: Medford;
State: Ore;
Amount: $181,719;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community for 4 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth are Hispanic, Native American, or African
American;
Types of mentors[D]: College students.
Name: Connect, Inc;
City: Washington;
State: Pa;
Amount: $108,332;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school and
in the community for at least 4 hours a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: French Creek Christian Center;
City: Franklin;
State: Pa;
Amount: $131,205;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting in
the community for 1 hour a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 who are high-risk,
nonadjudicated, are adjudicated juvenile delinquents, or are
adjudicated court-dependent;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh;
City: Pittsburgh;
State: Pa;
Amount: $102,501;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
once a month and groups meeting in the community bimonthly for at least
1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Girls in grades 6-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Mt. Ararat Community Activity Center;
City: Pittsburgh;
State: Pa;
Amount: $181,963;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups of three
mentors/ youth meeting in the community 2 days a week.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Boys in 6th grade;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Concerned Black Men, Inc. of Philadelphia;
City: Philadelphia;
State: Pa;
Amount: $177,274;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting at
school and in the community for 2 hours a week for at least 1 school
year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Minority youth (mostly boys) in grades 6-9 who
are at risk of juvenile delinquency;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Centre County Youth Service Bureau;
City: State College;
State: Pa;
Amount: $78,677;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for 1-2
hours a week for at least 1 year.[G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth are grade 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Rhode Islanders Sponsoring Education;
City: Providence;
State: R.I;
Amount: $96,726;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for 6 hours a
month for at least 1 school year.[G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth are grades 2-12 with parents having a
history of incarceration, addiction, or involvement with child welfare
agencies;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Anderson School District Five;
City: Anderson;
State: S.C;
Amount: $140,303;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for at least 1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-12. Also focus on 9th grade at-
risk and English as a Second Language students;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Black Hills;
City: Rapid City;
State: S. Dak;
Amount: $97,478;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 1-12;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Families of Incarcerated Individuals, Inc;
City: Memphis;
State: Tenn;
Amount: $180,214;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for 2 hours
a week.[F,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: I Have a Dream - Houston;
City: Houston;
State: Tex;
Amount: $123,923;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting for at least
1 hour a week and groups meeting monthly at school.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 3-12 who are Hispanic or African-
American;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Families Under Urban and Social Attack, Inc;
City: Houston;
State: Tex;
Amount: $191,540;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 4 hours a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Fort Worth Independent School District;
City: Fort Worth;
State: Tex;
Amount: $183,437;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting
at school once a week.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Arlington;
City: Arlington;
State: Tex;
Amount: $121,501;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 1 school year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-6;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Communities in Schools - Dallas;
City: Dallas;
State: Tex;
Amount: $59,171;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for at least 2 years;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: 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;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Lincoln Center Boys & Girls Club and Association;
City: Brigham City;
State: Utah;
Amount: $142,105;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community for 2 hours a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Hispanic youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Boat People SOS;
City: Falls Church;
State: Va;
Amount: $143,245;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 4 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth are Vietnamese immigrants and refugees;
Types of mentors[D]: College students; Adults.
Name: Alliance for Lifelong Learning;
City: Brattleboro;
State: Vt;
Amount: $102,579;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 4 hours a month.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Character development;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 or 9-12;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Strategic Learning Center;
City: Seattle;
State: Wash;
Amount: $190,121;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 1 year.[E];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are English as a Second
Language students--mostly Spanish speaking or Vietnamese, Somali,
Cambodian, or Russian/Ukrainian immigrants;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; Adults.
Name: Madison Metropolitan School District;
City: Madison;
State: Wisc;
Amount: $110,068;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting in the
community at least twice a month.[E,F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8 from 3 local schools, with
significant Latino and English as a Second Language students;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Atwood Community Center;
City: Madison;
State: Wisc;
Amount: $179,023;
Experience level[A]: New;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school
and in the community for at least 1 hour a week.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students.
Name: Wisconsin Coulee Region Community Action Program, Inc;
City: Westby;
State: Wisc;
Amount: $117,797;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs and groups meeting in
the community for 2 hours a week for at least 1 year;
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-12 who are exhibiting
predelinquent behaviors and who are involved with child protective
services;
Types of mentors[D]: School-aged; College students; Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Tri-State;
City: Huntington;
State: W. Va;
Amount: $112,363;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs meeting at school for
1 hour a week for in school program and 90 minutes a week for the
after school program.[F];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Character development; Recreational;
Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades 4-8;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Name: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southeast Wyoming;
City: Laramie;
State: Wyo;
Amount: $191,540;
Experience level[A]: Established;
Type and frequency of mentoring: One-to-one pairs.[E,F,G];
Type of activities[B]: Academic; Recreational; Enrichment;
Targeted group(s)[C]: Youth in grades K-12;
Types of mentors[D]: Adults.
Source: GAO analysis of grant applications for 121 Education-funded
mentoring grantees.
[A] For this report, we considered programs that began mentoring in
2000 or later as new programs and those starting in or before 1999 as
established:
[B] The types of activities mentors and youth participated in may
include academic (such as tutoring and homework help), character
development (such as drug abuse prevention materials and job
shadowing), recreational (such as playing basketball and skating), and
enrichment (such as attending concerts and plays).
[C] Education's mentoring grant program targeted children who are at
risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involved in
criminal or delinquent behavior, or who lack strong positive role
models. Priority for funding was given to programs that serve children
living in rural areas, high-crime areas, troubled home environments,
and children experiencing educational failure. Within this population,
many grantees identified a specific target group.
[D] The types of mentors grantees used include school-aged mentors such
as middle and high school students, college students from local
universities and colleges, and adults from the community.
[E] Amount of time spent mentoring not specified in grant application.
[End of section]
[F] Length of mentoring commitment not specified in grant application.
gUnable to determine location in which mentoring occurs from grant
application.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Harriet Ganson, (202) 512-7042, gansonh@gao.gov Sherri K. Doughty,
(202) 512-7273, doughtys@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Karen Brown, Luann Moy, James Rebbe,
Thomas Broderick, and Amy Buck made key contributions to the report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Tierney and Grossman, Making A Difference, An Impact Study of Big
Brothers Big Sisters (Philadelphia, PA: 1995).
[2] See Elements of Effective Practice, 2ND Edition, Mentor/National
Mentoring Partnership (Alexandria, VA: 2003).
[3] See Tierney and Grossman, Making A Difference, An Impact Study of
Big Brothers Big Sisters (Philadelphia, PA: 1995). For this study,
researchers randomly assigned eligible youth to either a treatment or
control group and compared outcomes for these two groups. This study
provided information on the effectiveness of the Big Brothers Big
Sisters model, which provides one-on-one mentoring.
[4] Education initially funded 122 grantees, but one voluntarily
relinquished its grant after Education discovered that the grantee had
spent funds, even though it had not yet begun operations.
[5] Fiscal year 2004 grant awards will be made in July or August of
2004 totaling about $17 million.
[6] Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 requires federal
agencies to issue written management decisions on the audit findings
contained in single audit reports within 6 months of receiving the
recipient's single audit report.
[7] This amount was increased to $500,000 for fiscal years ending after
December 31, 2003.
[8] The federal clearinghouse receives copies of the single audit
reporting package from the audited grantee and forwards it to
Education.
[9] See appendix I for a list of the studies that discuss the elements
of successful mentoring.
[10] Education tracks grantee implementation and requires grantees to
notify them if they deviate from their original plans. When the
Delaware program switched to group mentoring, it notified Education of
the change, although Education does not consider this to be a major
change requiring prior approval.
[11] Title I is the largest source of federal funding for primary and
secondary education.
[12] For this analysis, we examined fiscal years 2001 and 2002 Single
Audit Act Summary Reports.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
