The Mentor Michigan Census (MMC) is a survey of organizations operating mentoring programs in the state with the primary purpose of understanding the scope and nature of mentoring and mentoring organizations in Michigan. Join Mentor Michigan as we share the highlights from the results of the Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census, conducted in the fall of 2010.

1. Presented by: Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D. Kahle Research Solutions Inc. April 2011 Highlights from the Mentor Michigan CensusWave VIII

2. Objectives..…………………………………………………………..…….….. 2 Background……………………………………………………...…………......3 Links to Reports…………………………………………………………...…...4 Summary of Funnel Measures-Statewide Totals……………………………5 Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs…..13 Mentoring Types, Training, Intensity and Duration………….....................18 Mentoring Program Evaluation……………………………………………….21 Executive Directors of Mentoring Programs…………………………...….. 30 Capacity Issues for Mentoring Organizations………………………………34 Youth Outcomes Targeted by Mentoring Programs………………………..39 Mentoring Organizations’ Use of Social Media…………………................44 Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan…………………………………………...47 Summary………………………………………………………………………. 51 Table of Contents 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 1

3. The primary purpose of the MMC is to understand the scope and nature of mentoring and mentoring organizations in Michigan. Three key objectives are common to each Wave: Identify, count, describe, and track mentoring organizations, programs, mentors, and the children served. Understand program components, processes, resources, and needs. Encourage and support program evaluation. Each year, additional topics are requested by Mentor Michigan for inclusion in the Census. Wave VIII special request data found in this report includes: Self-Reported Adherence to the Mentor Michigan Quality Program Standards for Youth Mentoring Social Media Use by Mentoring Organizations Mentoring Capacity, Economic and Human Resources of Youth Mentoring Organizations Experience and Needs of Mentoring Organizations’ Executive Directors 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 2 Objectives

4. This report summarizes selected data from Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census (MMC). The MMC is a periodic, on-line survey of organizations operating mentoring programs in the state of Michigan. 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 3 Background *Wave I - III data removed due to space constraints

5. Links to the Wave VIII reports available from the Mentor Michigan web site (www.michigan.gov/mentormichigan) are shown below. Reports from past waves are also available on the Mentor Michigan site. MMC Wave VIII Executive Summary MMC Wave VIII Scope and Nature MMC Wave VIII Geographic Area MMC Wave VIII Quality Program Standards MMC Wave VIII Mentoring Capacity, Economic, and Human Resources MMC Wave VIII Executive Directors' Experiences and Needs MMC Wave VIII Social Media Use Links to Reports 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 4

6. Summary of Funnel Measures – Statewide Totals 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 5

8. Total Wave VIII mentor written applications = 9,330. Down 446 from Wave VII.

9. Percent of Wave VIII mentor inquiries resulting in written applications. Up 5 percentage points from Wave VII.73% 46% 59% 64% 59% 66%

14. Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 13

15. Self-Assessment of Meeting theQuality Standards 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 14 Self-Assessment of Meeting Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

16. Most Difficult to Meet QualityStandard 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 15 Most Difficult to Meet Quality Standard Wave VII vs. VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

17. Degree of Adherence to the the Quality Standards by Segment 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 16 1. Completely Meets All Quality Standards 14 (10%)

18. Organizations that are in the “Completely Meets All” group, while accounting for only 10% of all organizations, serve 4,989 youth or 21% of the total youth served. At the other end of the spectrum the “Partially Meets” group and the “Does Not Meet/Don’t Know” segments combined comprise 37% of all organizations, but serve 18% or 4,395 (combined) of all youth served. Taking these self-assessments at face value, 4,395 young people (18% of the total) are involved with organizations that only partially meet or do not meet any of the Quality Standards. This raises concerns about the safety of the children and the quality of mentoring being provided to nearly one in five of the total youth being mentored in the state. Interpreting the Data 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 17

19. Mentoring Types, Training, Intensity and Duration 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 18

22. Program Evaluation 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 22

23. Method of Evaluation 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 23

24. Anecdotal reports Self-reports from youth served Third party reports (teachers, mentors, parents, judicial officials) Objective measures (grades, drug tests, and participation in extracurricular activities) “Students come back years later and tell us how valuable their mentor was to them.” “Judges report they receive more information in order to make better decisions for the children.” “Last year we served 37 youth and 78% of those students are still enrolled on campus and on course for graduation. In addition, 97% of the students in our mentoring program joined other student organizations on campus.” Evidence of Effectiveness 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 24

25. Pre- and post-testing/research-based evaluations Some mentoring programs perform pre- and post-testing to measure the effectiveness Others make use of research-based evaluations “We give youth a survey before and after mentoring to measure how good their self-esteem is and how well they are doing in school and in terms of relationships with adults.” “84% of youth increased an academic grade while in the program, 90% of youth continued their education past high school. Teachers reported (youth) had statistically significant positive changes in youth behavior/mindset in 12 categories.” Evidence of Effectiveness (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 25

26. Use of comparative and/or control groups 12% of the 137 Census respondents report using comparative groups to evaluate their program effectiveness Yet, just three programs provide examples in the open-ended portion of the survey “According to the US Department of Education, migrant students have a 40 to 45% rate of high school graduation nation-wide. (Program’s) cumulative high school graduation rate for 2008: 83%. Cumulative college enrollment rate for those who graduated high school: 62%.” “Reading levels for students evaluated increased more for students mentored than those not mentored in the same grade and class.” Evidence of Effectiveness (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 26

27. Limited resources/finances Lack of financial resources is the most often cited challenge Staff cannot be hired or allocated to perform this work Financial and human resources are allocated elsewhere “Funding and staff time would be the biggest challenges we face in documenting these outcomes.” “The biggest challenge our organization faces is the lack of money. There is an abundance of ideas for programs but not much money to support those ideas.” “I have been Director for three years. There are many things that we do not measure that might be valuable to measure, but that I don't have the ability to implement due to time and staff restraints.” Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 27

28. Difficulties acquiring data Constant challenge to obtain completed surveys and other information from mentors, youth, and parents Transient populations, extended timeframes for tracking youth Difficulty acquiring official records from schools, courts, and other staff within their own organization “The biggest challenge we have is collecting reports from our mentors. Currently our mentors are required to fill out monthly mentor reports, but we have a very hard time consistently collecting them back.” “Our program serves the entire state of Michigan. Maintaining consistent contact and tracking of the mentors and mentees is sometimes difficult.” “One of the challenges would be obtaining school reports from the various school districts in our County.” Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 28

29. Lack of evaluation know-how Some unaware of how to transfer their program’s anecdotal evaluation methods to measurable goals and outcomes “Interpreting anecdotal evidence and representing it in ways that are meaningful to multiple groups.” “It's difficult to measure outcomes…Often the mentor's impact is not fully realized until years later.” “Tracking and being able to document the impact we are making with the changes in peer mentors.” “Finding measurable outcomes.” Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 29

30. Executive Directors of Mentoring Programs 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 30

33. Fewer than half of Wave VIII respondents (45%) report they have experienced no changes in their budgets over the past year. The net budget increase of $18,664 is driven largely by four organizations that received very large infusions of money.

38. Improved physical fitness (25%) and obesity prevention (16%) are targeted by relatively few mentoring programs.The low percentage targeting obesity prevention is a concern in light of the growing number of obese youth and our national focus on the issue.

39. Mentoring Organizations’ Use of Social Media 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 44

45. Summary 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 51

46. Q & A on Census Findings 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 52

47. Michigan’s mentoring organizations have resources and experienced talent; operate from a position of strength with assets. More than half of Executive Directors have been in role more than 5 years More than half have an advanced degree Self-reported training is strong Change the mind-set from “We are poor and have no resources.” to “We have a strong foundation to build upon and need more resources to get to the next level.” 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 were tough years for all, but NOT catastrophic. It appears the worst is behind us and we need to be future-focused. Grip on resources is tenuous and sources of funding are changing slightly Capacity is down over two years but flat in this wave In Wave VII and VIII, about 1 in 4 reported a decline in budget; 10-12% reported an increase (and those increases were substantial) About half anticipate no budget change in coming year; similar numbers anticipate an increase and a decrease Biggest anticipated declines are with school-based programs Redouble fundraising efforts and be very strategic in type of fundraising. Biggest growth is with individuals and events. Key Themes/Action Items 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 53

49. prioritize and identify who is to be served; more focus on serving special needs kids

50. strategize as to what to do with the low performing, typically small, understaffed and under-resourced mentoring programs…they serve about 1 in five children in the state. Evaluation issues are not going away. Evaluation is hardest standard to meet Training in evaluation is high on priority list Only 3 organizations in the state can document comparison group evaluation outcomes. Outcome instrument development and implementation should be a very high priority. Key Themes/Action Items (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 54

51. Social media is here to stay. The issue of policies around social media use are an important area for MM and the Providers Council to focus on, especially contrasting school-based programs and community-based programs. All programs, especially school-based programs, need to focus on appropriate uses of social media to support mentoring programs. Lack of male mentors continues to be a major challenge. Need to find a way to recommit to men in mentoring initiative. Key Themes/Action Items (cont’d) 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 55

52. For answering the Wave VIII Mentor Michigan Census. For participating in this webinar. 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 56 Thank You

53. Be sure to use the information from this presentation and the published reports to: Prepare proposals for funding Benchmark your programs against state norms Prioritize action items at your organization Learn more about mentoring in Michigan Call to Action 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 57

54. Additional Questions 4/13/11 Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 58