A Mentor Training Programme: Evaluation of Effectiveness.

Maree ONeill

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology,

The University of Auckland, 2005.

II

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project K mentor

training programme. Participants were training-mentors and their trainers; as well as

current-mentors and their students. Data was collected through questionnaires:

Training-mentors knowledge of components in the programme was measured before

and after they completed the training, while their trainers rated the mentors on their

mentoring knowledge and skills at the completion of the training. The mentoring

knowledge of current-mentors was measured using the same questionnaire as the

training-mentors. Students rated their mentors skills and the whole mentoring

experience. At the completion of the training programme the training-mentors knew

approximately 78% of the information covered in the training. The mentors performed

best on; knowledge around what a mentor is, policies and procedures of Project K,

confidentiality and family involvement, while men also scored higher on reflection

and feedback than on other topics. Training-mentors were most confident in their

skills to help a young person access resources at the completion of the training.

Differences were found between how the training-mentors performed on the post-

training questionnaire and how they were rated by their trainers, as well as between

current mentor scores and how they were rated by their students. Emotions the

students felt when with their mentor were investigated; students were happy,

interested and inspired the most. There were no differences for the scores on the

knowledge components between the training-mentors at the completion of training

and the current-mentors. Training-mentors were however more confident in their

skills to help a young person access resources than the current-mentors were.

Several differences were found between participants from Auckland compared to

III

those from other regions. Explanations for the research findings and

recommendations for Project K mentor training, as well as limitations of the study and

future research are discussed.

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all of the Project K mentors, students and trainers who

participated in this study. Also, I would like to thank the participating Project K

programme directors and co-ordinators.

I would like to thank Project K for making this research possible and the time and

help they gave me, especially Jenny Hylton and Blair Gilbert. I would like to make a

special thank you to Niki Harr of Auckland University for her support and feedback

and generosity with her time and knowledge.

My family, friends and colleagues are gratefully acknowledged for their support and

encouragement during this study.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS V

LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS VIII

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

INFORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMMES 2

FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMMES 4

IS MENTORING EFFECTIVE? 6

IS MENTORING IN NEW ZEALAND EFFECTIVE? 10

MENTOR/MENTEE RELATIONSHIP 13 MENTORING BEST PRACTICE 21

PROJECT K 23

APPLYING BEST PRACTICE TO PROJECT K 26

CURRENT STUDY 28

MENTOR TRAINING 28

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS FOR MENTOR TRAINING 29

PROJECT K TRAINING 31

APPLYING IMPORTANT COMPONENTS FOR MENTOR TRAINING TO PROJECT K 33

OTHER IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN PROJECT K MENTOR TRAINING 35

THE PRESENT STUDY 36

CHAPTER II: METHOD 39

PARTICIPANTS 39 MEASURES 42

Mentor questionnaire 42

Student questionnaire 44

Trainer questionnaire 48 PROCEDURE 52

CHAPTER III: RESULTS 58

DATA SCREENING 58

ANALYSIS 59

OVERVIEW OF SECTION 59

MENTOR MODULE SCORES PRE AND POST TRAINING PROGRAMME 59

MENTOR SKILL-CONFIDENCE BEFORE AND AFTER TRAINING PROGRAMME 63

MENTOR SELF-REPORTED OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO BE AN

EFFECTIVE MENTOR, BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRAINING PROGRAMME 69

MODULE SCORES FROM MENTORS AT THE COMPLETION OF TRAINING

PROGRAMME (POST) AND FROM THE TRAINER 70

OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO BECOME AN EFFECTIVE MENTOR FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND FROM TRAINERS 71

VI

TRAINER REPORTED MENTOR INTERACTION WITH OTHERS AND

MENTOR INTERACTION WITH YOUNG PEOPLE 72

TRAINER REPORTED MENTOR COMMITMENT 73

MODULE SCORES FROM CURRENT-MENTORS AND STUDENTS 73

STUDENT EMOTIONS 75

STUDENTS OVERALL RATING OF MENTORS 77 MODULE SCORES FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND CURRENT-

MENTORS 77

SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING AND

CURRENT-MENTORS 78

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL QUESTIONS FROM MENTORS POST TRAINING

AND CURRENT-MENTORS 79

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION 81

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 81

OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 84

TOPICS THAT REQUIRE GREATER EMPHASIS IN TRAINING 84

TRAINING TO INCREASE MENTOR KNOWLEDGE DEFICITS 88

TRAINING TO INCREASE MENTOR KNOWLEDGE AND SUBSEQUENT SKILL 92 THE SKILLS MENTORS GAIN CONFIDENCE IN THROUGH TRAINING 95

EFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES 97

MENTOR OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL 99

STUDENT EMOTIONS 101

EXPLANATIONS FOR DIFFERENCES FOUND IN THIS RESEARCH 102

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT K MENTOR TRAINING 103

LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 105

FUTURE RESEARCH 106

CONCLUSION 107

APPENDIX A: 108

MENTOR QUESTIONNAIRE WITH MARK ALLOCATIONS

APPENDIX B: 115

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C: 119

TRAINER QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX D: 122

PROGRAMME DIRECTOR INFORMATION SHEET 122

PROGRAMME DIRECTOR CONSENT FORM 124

APPENDIX E: 125

TRAINING-MENTOR INFORMATION SHEET 125

TRAINING-MENTOR CONSENT FORM 127

APPENDIX F: 128

CURRENT MENTOR INFORMATION SHEET 128

VII

CURRENT MENTOR CONSENT FORM 130

APPENDIX G: 131

STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET 131

STUDENT CONSENT FORM 133

APPENDIX H: 134

TRAINER INFORMATION SHEET 134

TRAINER CONSENT FORM 136

APPENDIX I: 137

STUDENTS PARENT INFORMATION SHEET 137 STUDENTS PARENT CONSENT FORM 139

APPENDIX J: 140

TRAINING GROUP INSTRUCTIONS

APPENDIX K: 141

STUDENT COVER SHEET 141

MENTOR COVER SHEET 142

REFERENCE LIST: 143

VIII

LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS

TABLES

Page:

TABLE 1: 39

COMPOSITION OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES FROM THE TRAINING GROUPS.

TABLE 2: 40 COMPOSITION OF PARTICIPANT RESPONSES FROM CURRENT-MENTOR

STUDENT GROUPS.

TABLE 3: 56 COMPOSITION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATES FROM

CURRENT-MENTORS AND STUDENTS.

TABLE 4: 60 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN THE MODULES (PRE AND POST SCORES COMBINED) FOR THE

TRAINING-MENTORS.

TABLE 5: 61 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES, AT PRE

AND POST TRAINING MEASURES.

TABLE 6: 62 MEAN STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ON MODULES FOR FEMALE AND MALE PARTICIPANTS.

TABLE 7: 63 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN ITEMS OF TRAINING-MENTOR SKILL-CONFIDENCE.

TABLE 8: 66 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF SKILL-CONFIDENCE FOR

MALES AT PRE AND POST TRAINING MEASURES.

TABLE 9: 67 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS

FOR FEMALES AT PRE AND POST MEASURES.

TABLE 10: 68 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR MALES AND FEMALES ON

SIGNIFICANT SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS AT PRE TRAINING MEASURES.

TABLE 11: 68 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR MALES AND FEMALES ON

SIGNIFICANT SKILL-CONFIDENCE ITEMS AT POST TRAINING MEASURES.

TABLE 12: 71 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES FROM

TRAINING-MENTORS POST TRAINING AND TRAINER MEASURES.

IX

TABLE 13: 72 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF OVERALL KNOWLEDGE AND

SKILL QUESTIONS ACROSS REGIONAL CATEGORIES.

TABLE 14: 74 MEAN AND STANDARD ERROR SCORES OF CURRENT MENTOR AND

STUDENT MEASURES FROM THE SIX MODULE TOTALS.

GRAPHS

GRAPH 1: 61 PRE AND POST TRAINING-MENTOR AND TRAINER MEAN SCORES FOR

THE SIX MODULES.

GRAPH 2: 75

CURRENT-MENTOR AND STUDENT MEAN SCORES FOR THE SIX MODULES.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In adolescence, youth move towards a social environment that is dominated by their

peers, has less involvement with caring adults and involves greater demands on their

time, with part time work, romantic relationships and greater expectations at school

(Darling, 2005). Mentoring is one tool that the community has employed to help

youth cope with these changes, and is commonly defined as a one-to-one

relationship between a caring adult and a student who needs support to achieve

academic, career, social or personal goals (McPartland & Nettles, 1991, p.568). The

mentoring relationship can occur naturally (informal mentoring) or can be contrived

in a mentoring programme (formal mentoring), however, many youth may not have

an adult in their life to mentor them, thus, programmes are established (formal

mentoring) to capture the benefits of mentoring for those youth who need it.

A variety of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of various mentoring

programmes both for the mentee/youth and for the mentor (de Anda, 2001;

McPartland & Nettles, 1991; Portwood et. al., 2005; Schmidt, Marks & Derrico,

2004; McLean, 2004; Hartley, 2004). Mentoring has been found to be effective

across youth varying in demographic background characteristics including; age,

gender, race/ethnicity and family structure (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine & Cooper,

2002). General benefits for the mentee/youth include; exposure to a positive role

model, help in focusing on their future and setting academic, social and career goals,

exposure to new experiences and people from diverse backgrounds, an attentive and

concerned friend, as well as encouragement in emotional and social growth and

2

fostering increased confidence and self-esteem (Pardini, n.d.; Barrett-Hayes, 1999).

The benefits for the mentors include; gaining personal and professional satisfaction in

helping a student, gaining recognition from their peers, improving interpersonal skills,

increasing awareness of those outside themselves and promoting a deeper

understanding of youth and societal problems (Pardini, n.d.). Mentoring has also

broadened in application from one-on-one mentoring to include group (McLean,

2004) and peer mentoring (Visser, 2004), and takes place in a variety of settings

including universities (Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995) and workplaces (Hegstad &

Wentling, 2004) as well as schools (Slicker and Palmer, 1993).

To help create positive results from mentoring it is important to ensure that the mentor

has the knowledge and skills to help the mentee/youth and to promote a healthy

positive mentoring relationship (Liang, Tracy, Taylor & Williams, 2002). Mentor

training is therefore essential to provide the knowledge and skills to ensure the best

possible benefits for both the mentors and mentees/youth in mentoring relationships

(Parra, DuBois, Neville & Pugh-Lilly, 2002; Sipe, 2002; Ganser, 1999; Jekielek,

Moore, Hair & Scarupa, 2002).

Informal mentoring programmes

The majority of research on mentoring focuses on formal mentoring programmes as

opposed to natural or informal mentoring. Natural mentoring frequently occurs in

workplace settings, with mentors helping mentees with career-related decisions

(Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992; Packard, Walsh & Seidenberg, 2004; Bouquillon,

Sosik & Lee, 2005; Liang et. al., 2002; Darling, Hamilton, Toyokawa & Matsuda,

2002; Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix & Davidson, 1986; Hollingsworth &

3

Fassinger, 2002). However, some natural mentoring does occur in young peoples

lives (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer & Notaro, 2002; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005;

Philip & Hendry, 2000), through the support they receive from parents, teachers and

others, and in the normal course of their lives as they interact with, seek out, learn

from and are guided by older people and quite often by peers with more experience

(Hartley, 2004, p.10).

One study (Chao et. al., 1992) looked at the psychosocial versus career related

functions of formal and informal mentoring of graduate classes at an American

University and found that those mentees who received informal mentoring reported

more career related support from mentors than did those in formal mentorships. When

looking at organisational socialisation, satisfaction and salary, there were significant

positive outcomes for mentees in informal mentoring compared to non-mentored

individuals, and the scores for mentees in formal mentoring fell between those of

informal and non-mentored individuals.

Research on informal mentoring for youth has been reported to have positive results

for those involved. One study by Zimmerman et. al. (2002) examined the effects that

natural mentors have on the lives of urban adolescents; youth with a natural mentor

reported lower levels of marijuana use and non-violent delinquency than adolescents

without natural mentors. The youth also reported higher levels of school attachment

and school efficacy and a belief in the importance of doing well in school. These

youth were also less severely affected by the negative school attitudes or behaviours

of their peers. The natural mentors helped the youth reduce problem behaviours and

avoid peers who provided negative influences.

4

Using a national longitudinal study of adolescent health in America, DuBois and

Silverthorn (2005) examined the effects of natural mentors on students in grades 7-12.

Those mentors in non-familial or professional roles (outside the family) were more

likely to be associated with favourable outcomes in the domains of education and

physical health, than familial adult mentors. Closeness with the mentor was

associated with positive outcomes in psychological well-being involving; greater self-

esteem, life satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms and reports of suicidal ideas.

Formal mentoring programmes

However, the level of informal support available to young people in western countries

has declined over the past couple of decades (Hartley, 2004) and thus, there has been

an emergence of formal mentoring programmes to provide support for youth (Rhodes,

Grossman & Resch, 2000; LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend & Taylor, 1996; Lyones &

Oppler, 2004; Lee & Cramond, 1999; Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman & Grossman, 2005;

Dennison, 2000). The aim of formal mentoring programmes are to provide young

people with support and guidance through planned relationships which are purposeful

in that they focus on young peoples social and learning development (Hartley, p

10.). These mentoring programmes have become increasingly popular as a

preventative intervention strategy for youth (DuBois & Neville, 1997).

One formal mentoring programme that resulted in benefits for youth was Across Ages

in America. Across Ages involved older adult volunteers (defined as 55 years +) who

mentored one or two high risk youth twice a week for the school year. The mentors

spent a minimum of four hours a week with their mentees on variety of activities;

helping with homework, attending sporting or cultural events and community service

5

(LoSciuto et. al., 1996). LoSciuto et. al. examined the effectiveness of three groups;

those receiving the Positive Youth Development Curriculum (PYDC), community

service for the elderly, a workshop during school involving problem solving skills,

self-esteem and health information, a substance abuse prevention programme and a

parental workshop to strengthen the bonds between parents and children (referred to

as no mentoring group). The second group involved students who received the same

programmes as the previous group but also received mentoring from an adult (referred

to as mentoring group). There was also a control group that received no

intervention.

The researchers found that the mentoring group compared to the no mentoring

group performed better on attitudes towards school and future, attitudes towards

older people and frequency of substance abuse. In addition the mentoring group

scored higher compared to the control group on all of the items mentioned as well as a

well-being scale, knowledge about older people, reactions to situations involving drug

use and community service. The mentoring group also had fewer absentees than the

other two groups; no mentoring and control. The students perceived by staff as

being highly involved with their mentors (defined as exceptional mentoring) were

also absent less often than those whose mentors were involved at an average or

marginal level. Those with exceptional mentoring also had better attitudes towards

school, future and elders, attitudes towards older people, reactions to situations

involving drug use and knowledge about substance abuse. Thus, higher levels of

mentoring positively affect outcome measures.

6

Another formal mentoring programme that had positive results for youth is the

Norwood Schools mentorship programme in America (da Costa, Klak & Schinke,

2000). Mentors were recruited from the community and mentored one-on-one a

socio-economically or educationally disadvantaged student, in school time, for 30

minutes once per week, minimum. In an evaluation the students had improved

literacy, writing ability and their reading ability increased a little. The social growth

of the students was also noted by their teachers in an interview (da Costa et. al.).

Is mentoring effective?

Mentoring programmes have been found to be effective in a variety of countries, with

most research originating in the USA. First this section will look at research that has

positive effects for mentored youth followed by a study that is less optimistic about

the benefits of youth mentoring. This section will also examine studies that have

emphasised the benefits of mentoring for the mentors themselves.

Effective mentoring for youth

The Big Brothers Big Sisters of America programme (BB/BS) has widespread use,

not only in the USA but branch programmes around the world. The BB/BS

programme involves youth aged five to eighteen, who generally have no more than

one parent actively engaged in their lives. The youth and their adult mentors typically

engage in a variety of leisure and career related discussions and activities, with a

general goal of promoting the youths positive development (Rhodes et. al., 2000).

Rhodes et. al. evaluated a sample group from this programme compared to a control

group. They found those who received mentoring improved in scholastic

competence, school attendance and improved perceptions of and actual parental

7

relationships; the researchers indicated that the support from another adult helped

improved the quality of the parent-child relationship. Those who received mentoring

also made improvements in pro-social values, had less truancy and improved their

grades.

Research has also been conducted on the Big Brothers Big Sisters programme

comparing the effects of cross-race versus same-race mentor student matches. Both

cross-race and same-race matches appear to have positive and negative aspects,

especially for minority groups. In BB/BS research by Rhodes, Reddy, Grossman and

Lee (2002) adolescents in same race matches were more likely to report the initiation

of alcohol use than were adolescents in cross-race matches. The researchers also

examined the effects on minority adolescents and noted that minority boys in cross-

race matches experienced a greater decrement in perceived scholastic competence and

self-worth than did minority boys in same-race matches. Also minority girls in cross-

race matches experienced a larger decrement in their value of academic success and

self-worth than did minority girls in same-race matches. However, parents and

guardians held more positive impressions of cross-race relationships and noted

improvements in their childrens peer relationships, mentioning how the mentors built

on their childs strengths and how the mentors provided recreational and social

opportunities for their child.

A branch of the Big Brothers Big Sisters programme involves big buddies (older

students) mentoring little buddies (younger students). Research involving these

younger students has found that the overall objective of reducing drop outs was not

achieved but that other positive aspects were noted (Dennison, 2000). The big

8

buddies meet with the younger at risk students twice a week for 45 minutes for a year

and the time they spent together focused on relationship building and any academic-

deficit areas of the little buddies (Dennison). In her research Dennison found some

positive aspects, although no decrease in drop out rates. Most students did

demonstrate a more positive school attitude which was measured by, an increase in

classroom cooperative behaviour, as well as whether the little buddies appeared to

enjoy school more and whether they were less needy. Also the majority of little

buddies improved one grade level in the academic subject that they primarily

received tutoring in from their big buddies.

Other programmes with positive outcomes include Each One-Reach One in America

(Hon & Shorr, 1998). Mentors from the community met with their mentee for a

minimum of four hours per month during academic year, they also talked on the

phone in between, planned activities and established personal goals. Hon and Shorr

found that the majority of mentors and students wanted to continue with the

programme. The most successful mentors, according to the students, were the

mentors who showed up consistently with the intent of having fun and making

friends. Students showed improvements in their grade point averages, attendance,

work habits and cooperation grades for those who had developed special

relationships, which was defined as a mentor who showed extra care and spent a lot of

extra time with the student on weekends participating in fun activities.

The REACH (rendering educational assistance through caring hands) programme

(Blum & Jones, 1993) also had success with its mentoring. REACH involved school

personnel voluntarily meeting a small group of students, who were identified as

9

potential drop outs every day and helped them fulfil their academic responsibilities

and to go to extracurricular activities with them. The programme resulted in

improved promptness and preparation for class, the quality and quantity of daily

assignments completed, the participation in class, classroom behaviour, positive

interaction with peers and more positive report card grades.

Ineffective mentoring for youth

One American mentoring programme that did not have such positive results is The

Brothers Project (Royse, 1998) involving student mentees. Mentees were African-

American teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 who lived in a female-headed

household that was below the poverty line and who had less than grade equivalency in

reading, maths and science. Mentors were African-American college graduate male

volunteers. The programme resulted in no difference between the control and

treatment groups on self-esteem, attitudes about drugs, grade point averages, school

absences and disciplinary infractions.

Benefits for mentors

Research has also promoted the benefits of mentoring for the mentor, emphasising

that it is not only youth who benefit from mentoring relationships but that mentors

also find it very rewarding. Such mentors report on how beneficial mentoring was for

them and how much they had learnt from their mentee (Schmidt et. al., 2004). In the

learning connection mentoring programme (TLC) in America (Schmidt et. al.),

college student volunteer mentors reported their reasons for mentoring at risk fourth

graders (9year olds). They mentored because they wanted to make a difference in a

10

childs life and also to supplement their own classroom learning experiences in

psychology or education.

A peer group mentoring programme in South Africa (McLean, 2004) resulted in

mentors commenting on the most rewarding part of mentoring being the relationships

that had developed, being able to help mentees adjust to life at medical school, and

their own personal development in skill acquisition and maturity. They also noted

improvements in their interpersonal and communication skills.

Scottish research (Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995) on teachers mentoring students

resulted in students feeling the benefits of the time the mentors had spent on them and

on the co-ordination of their experiences in school. Analysis showed that mentors

concentrated on supporting their students in a positive way, being a professional

example and giving feedback to their students. The mentors were highly positive

about the mentoring scheme and that it should continue in the future.

Is Mentoring in New Zealand effective?

Several mentoring programmes have operated in N Z, many of them based on the Big

Brothers/Big Sisters of America programme.

The Big Buddy Auckland Programme operated under Man Alive and

Edendale School to help at risk young boys who have no father consistently in

their life. Adult male mentors met with their mentees for a minimum of two

hours per week for at least one year to help the boys nurture a relationship

with a significant male role model.

11

The Just-Us Youth Buddy Programme aimed to provide emotional support and

an attentive positive role model for children who had significant behavioural

and social needs due to parental incarceration.

Kaikoura Mentoring for Children/Youth At Risk Project, aimed to provide

culturally appropriate educational, employment and social assistance to the

people of Kaikoura. The youth were at risk; having poor school performance,

behavioural problems, poor social skills and a family history of substance

abuse or domestic violence. Mentors from the community mentored the youth

a few hours a week for a year. Activities included ordinary day to day

activities, cultural experiences, outings, fun activities and the involvement in

the mentors family life.

The Presbyterian Support Services North Otago Buddy Programme provided a

friend for children between the ages of four and twelve who were in need of

additional adult support. The children were at risk with low self-esteem, poor

school performance, poor social skills, behaviour problems, lack of positive

role models, parental disability, history of abuse or the family had no other

community support.

Tararua Big Brother/Big Sisters: Tukana/Taina Mentoring Programme

targeted eight to fifteen year olds who had potential to become at risk for

offending. The mentors and mentees met one to two hours per week for a

minimum of one year (Ave et. al., 1999).

These programmes all appear promising in helping young people, however, there are

no published evaluations of the effectiveness of these mentoring programmes. The

following will look at two New Zealand mentoring programmes that have published

12

their results; of which one programme demonstrates the positive outcomes of youth

mentoring while the other, which lacked the main goal achievement did result in other

benefits for the participating youth.

The Mentoring for Children/Youth At Risk Demonstration Project (Ave et. al., 1999)

resulted in positive benefits for mentees. The programme aimed to develop positive

interests, skills and pro-social behavioural patterns among youth at risk. It also aimed

to enhance school attendance and academic performance of at risk youth. From short

term evaluations, they reported that the mentoring relationships were described in

very positive terms; the little buddies enjoyed spending time with their mentors. The

little buddies gained access to new experiences, developed new skills, were being

introduced to new interests and also enjoyed having the attention of an adult. Most

teachers also reported improvements in the performance of the little buddies at school.

Another New Zealand programme (Irving, Moore & Hamilton, 2003) that has

evaluated its mentoring involved teachers mentoring top students who were not

fulfilling their academic potential. The mentoring did not involve academic tutoring

but was focused on encouraging students to develop additional skills and remove

some barriers to their success. The activities involved goal setting, time management

and problem solving skills. The structure was relatively informal and the mentors and

students met according to their own timetable, with most meeting weekly or

fortnightly. However, mentoring did not have a beneficial impact on the academic

results of the mentored students. Some other benefits were found though, increased

confidence, an enhanced ability to tackle an academic examination and an

empowerment of the students with tools they could use for future study.

13

Mentor/Mentee relationship

Target populations

Mentees: The majority of mentoring programmes especially those in the United

States, such as the widely used Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme select students by

identifying those who could benefit from the presence of an additional caring adult in

their life and are at risk for dropping out of school (Big Brothers Big Sisters of

America, 2004).

The term at-risk has been used to describe a variety of behaviours which have been

suggested to sit on an at-risk continuum. One such at-risk continuum is that

proposed by McWhirter et. al. (1995). On this continuum, youth from a minority

group coined at-risk (Holland, 1996) would be considered remote risk (second

level), with demographic characteristics of low socioeconomic status and ethnicity

being associated with dropping out, drug use and teen pregnancy. The youth involved

in research using the Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme (Thompson & Kelly-

Vance, 2001) would be classified as high-risk (in the middle of the continuum), with

family, school and social interaction stressors as well as deficits in social skills and

coping behaviours. Some studies however, involve youth who would be considered at

imminent risk (Jackson, 2002), (fourth of five levels) with delinquent behaviour;

drug use and self-destructive behaviours.

Mentor programmes offer the greatest potential benefits to youth who can be

considered at-risk, but not those based solely on individual level characteristics,

according to DuBois et. al. (2002). Rather than just academic failure, mentoring

works best for those youth who have low socio-economic status, environmental risk

14

and damage (DuBois, et. al.). McPartland and Nettles (1991) also note that the effects

are better for at-risk students who have less severe initial educational disadvantages.

Jekielek et al (2002) writes similarly, that those quite disadvantaged or at-risk seem

to benefit most from mentoring, but they still had to have motivation to want to do

well.

For youth considered remote risk on the McWhirter et. al. (1995) scale, one

American mentoring programme, Project 2000 (Holland, 1996) found promising

results for minority youth. Project 2000 aimed to provide opportunities for young

black boys to work with adult males in a school setting, especially during primary

grade years. This was to provide positive adult male role models, particularly African

American men in the daily school life of African American boys. Students in Project

2000 had significantly higher GPA and test scores than did the students in the control

group (comparable elementary school in same section of the city with after school

tutors and other extracurricular activities, but no mentoring). There was no significant

difference between the academic achievement of girls and the boys in the programme,

but girls scored higher than boys in the control group. The boys in Project 2000 had

significantly higher GPA and test scores than did the boys in the control group in

almost every subject area. Also 85% of Project 2000 boys were at or above grade

level in almost every subject under examination while 85% of the boys in the control

group were below grade level in these areas.

The majority of youth in mentoring programmes fall in the high-risk category, with

the youth displaying some social and academic deficits. Studies involving minority

15

and non-minority students in this category have noted improvements in GPA scores

and school subjects, these will be discussed more in detail below.

One American mentoring programme (Diversi & Mecham, 2005), that has positive

outcomes for high-risk students, aimed to empower students to find academic

success and to foster a more bicultural identity. Students in the programme were

failing classes or had behavioural problems, and were immigrants or had immigrant

parents with little or no fluency in English. Mentoring occurred after school, twice a

week for one and a half hours for the eighth to ninth graders. Mentors were mainly

female Caucasian college students, and mentoring took place in a group format with

four to five mentors and 20-25 students. The groups worked on homework, tests,

school projects and acculturation issues, with an aim to increase students awareness

of biculturalism. They also participated in informal activities outside of school.

Diversi and Mecham found that mentoring helped the students understand and

complete homework, have a fun time with the mentors and that the mentors were seen

as role models, people who had their lives together. The students also had major

increases in GPA scores, and a decrease in problem behaviour; involving disturbing

class, intimidating or fighting with other students and being disrespectful to school

personnel. The youth who left the programme experienced a decline in grades.

Research on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters programme (Thompson & Kelly-Vance,

2001) for high-risk youth found that mentoring had a positive impact on the

academic achievement of the participants. Mentees were boys from single parent

homes with an additional risk factor, such as truancy or drug use. The volunteers and

mentees met one-on-one weekly for two to four hours, for one year or more. The

16

purpose of mentoring was to establish a friendship, and the activities involved

socialising events. Thompson and Kelly-Vance found that boys in the programme

performed significantly better than those in the control (boys waiting to be assigned a

mentor) on a test of educational achievement. The treatment group also performed

better in reading and maths than the control group, with no difference for spelling.

Mentoring programmes do not all have positive outcomes for high-risk youth. One

American mentoring programme (Slicker & Palmer, 1993) that did not find

improvements, found no reduction in the dropout rate of the mentored students

compared to those that were not mentored. Students were 10th graders who were

identified as at risk for leaving school before graduation, which was measured by

two of; failure of courses, retention in a grade, not enough credits or low scores in

reading, maths or both. Mentors were school personnel and mentoring took place in

school hours, three times a week for six months. Slicker and Palmer found that

relative to a control group, the high risk mentored high school students showed no

improvement in drop out rates or grades. However, the authors then divided the

students into those who had been effectively mentored and those who had not (based

on the students evaluations of their mentoring experiences), and found a significant

improvement in achievement and return-to-school rates for those in the effective

mentoring group.

Reduced school infractions, and decreases in parent-reported internalising and

externalising behaviour were found for young adolescence at imminent risk for

delinquent behaviour in an America study (Jackson, 2002). The programme was

designed to give alternative, pro-social role models for youth with a history of

17

problem behaviour. Students spent an average of 15-20 hours a week with their

mentee socialising. Teacher-report scores however, indicated no significant changes

on the Behavior Assessment system for Children (BASC), but the author notes that

the teachers may have been biased with those students labelled trouble-makers and

thus, the teachers may have failed to notice any significant gains.

Other programmes targeting at-risk youth have been successful, with improving

classroom behaviour and activities of potential school drop outs (REACH, Blum &

Jones, 1993), helping learning disabled children with school adjustment, resulting in

higher self-esteem, skills and increases in responsible behaviours (CAMP, Noll,

1997), as well as better school connectedness (CAMP, Karcher & Lindwall, 2003).

Mentor recruitment

Many formal mentoring programmes utilize members of the community to help

youth, with some like Each one-reach one (da Costa et. al., 2000) involving people

who express their interest in the programme, (Dubois et. al., 2002; Portwood et. al.,

2005; Hon & Shorr, 1998; BB/BS, Parra et. al., 2002; Rhodes et. al., 2000). Other

programmes target specific members of the community; Project Rescue used fire-

fighters as mentors (de Anda, 2001), the Windermere Boulevard School mentoring

programme recruited members of the Rotary Club (Terry, 1999), PROJECT 2000

specifically recruited African American adult males to mentor African American boys

(Holland, 1996), and the Across Ages programme recruited older adult volunteers all

55 years and over (LoSciuto et. al., 1996).

18

Some programmes recruit mentors from within the mentees organisation, such as

school personnel (Irving et. al., 2003; Cameron-Jones & OHara, 1995; Slicker &

Palmer, 1993; REACH, Blum & Jones, 1993, veteran teachers mentors for new

teachers, Ganser, 1999), or mentors from another education facility; university

students mentoring high school students (Schatz, 2000), high school students

mentoring pre-school children (Brown, 2005), while peer mentoring programmes

recruit mentors from older students at the school (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005;

Visser, 2004; CAMP programme, Noll, 1997; Karcher & Lindwall, 2003; Big

Buddies/Little Buddies, Dennison, 2000). Word of mouth is the most common

strategy used by organisations to recruit new mentors (Sipe & Roder, 1999, as cited in

Stukas & Tanti, 2005), while public service announcements, print advertisements and

organised presentations are also used (Roaf, Tierney & Hunte, 1994, as cited in

Stukas & Tanti, 2005).

The commonality between the mentors who are recruited in a variety of ways, is that

they are all willing to participate in a mentoring programme and to help a young

person. A great commitment is required from the mentors thus, it is important that

they understand exactly what is involved in mentoring and have carefully weighed up

the pros and cons of the activity for themselves (Stukas & Tanti, 2005).

It is also very important to establish an adequate mentor screening process to ensure

the safety of the mentees (Sipe, 2002). Screening should involve a written

application, personal interview, employment history, police check and character

references (Weinberger, 2005).

19

Matching mentors and mentees

Several mentoring programmes match mentors and students on gender, attributes and

similar interests (Slicker & Palmer, 1993; Hon & Shorr, 1998, match on career goals

and personal hobbies; BB/BS: de Costa et. al., 2002; Rhodes et. al., 2000; Rhodes et.

al., 2005, Ave et. al., 1999) and this matching technique is supported by research that

matching on these grounds as well as race/ethnicity are factors that help develop

effective mentoring relationships (DuBois et. al., 2002). Research to the contrary

found that matches made between similar personalities were less effective as it was

suggested they allow less personal development opportunities (Cox, 2005). However,

Cox also states that changes in the mentors and mentees experience that could make

the match ineffective can be overcome with appropriate training of the mentor on how

to build an empathic yet empowering relationship (p.413).

Research that supports the idea of matching mentors and mentees with the same

gender found that same gender matching increased mentees interpersonal comfort

compared to cross-gender relationships (Allen, Day & Lentz, 2005). It has been

proposed that gender similarity influences mentoring behaviours indirectly through

the ease with which protgs are able to relate to their mentors (Allen et. al., p.165).

Also college students in both America and Japan ascribed mentoring characteristics to

same gender rather than other gender associates (Darling et. al., 2002), that is they

perceive potential mentors to be of the same gender as themselves. Hendry, Roberts,

Glendinning & Coleman (1992) also found that young people were more likely to

choose same sex parents as a significant relative and a same sex friend as their most

significant non-related individual.

20

Frequency of contact

The main goal of mentoring programmes is to foster a strong positive mentor/student

relationship (Project K, 2005; Jekielek et. al., 2002). The best relationships develop

from frequent and quality contact (DuBois et. al., 2002; Para et. al., 2002; DuBois &

Neville, 1997; Project K et. al., 2003), as the heart of effective mentoring is the time

that mentors and their protgs [students] spend together (Ganser, 1999, p.11).

Many programmes involve mentors and mentees meeting at least once a fortnight and

mentors having regular contact with the mentee (da Costa et. al., 2000; Hon & Shorr,

1998; LoSciuto et. al., 1996; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001) and even the mentees

family (Project K, 2005; Schmidt et. al., 2004). Jekielek et. al. (2002) found that

youth were more likely to benefit if the mentor maintained frequent contact with them

and knew their family. Limited contact may even result in harm, with Jekielek et. al.

finding students who rarely saw or spoke to their mentors showing lower self-esteem,

compared to non-participants. Many programmes involve fun social activities as part

of their mentoring (Project K, 2005; Karcher et. al., 2005; Blum & Jones, 1993;

Schmidt et. al., 2004; Diversi & Mecham, 2005). Such social activities have been

found to result in youth rating the relationship higher in closeness (Parra et. al., 2002),

which has been found to result in positive relationship outcomes for students in

psychological well-being including greater self-esteem, life satisfaction, fewer

depressive symptoms and fewer reports of suicidal ideas (DuBois & Silverthorn,

2005).

Length of relationship

An evaluation of mentoring programmes came to the conclusion that the mentor

mentee relationship should last over a significant period of time (DuBois et. al.,

21

2002), however, what constitutes a significant period of time is less clear. Grossman

and Rhodes (2002) investigated the effects of various termination times on the

mentoring relationship. A termination within the first three months resulted in

significant declines in the mentees global self-worth and their perceived scholastic

competence. A mentor student match that was longer than 12 months resulted in

significant increases in self-worth, perceived social acceptance, perceived scholastic

competence, parental relationship quality, school value and a decrease in both drugs

and alcohol usage. There were some improvements in a termination between 6-12

months, but not as significant as those matches that lasted longer than one year.

Significant improvements in students aspirations came only from those who were

mentored for more than one year compared to those on the waiting list in another

study (Lee & Cramond, 1999). Jekielek et. al. (2002) found that the longer the

mentoring relationship, 12 months or more, the better the outcomes. However,

Jekielek et. al. also noted that the length of the relationship was less important than

the quality of the relationship, as the best results were found when young people

perceived their relationship with their mentor to be of high quality, that is having the

most positive perceptions of the relationship. Mentor knowledge and skills are

required for high quality relationships to develop and be effective for the mentee

(Cox, 2005), thus mentor training is necessary.

Mentoring best practice

At risk youth

Overall, it appears that mentoring is needed most for youth at some risk and has

been highly beneficial for this group. Mentoring for at risk youth has resulted in

significantly academic improvements (Holland, 1996; Diversi & Mecham, 2005;

22

Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001; Slicker & Palmer, 1993), decreases in problem

behaviours (Diversi & Mecham, 2005; Jackson, 2002) and reduced drop out rates

(Slicker & Palmer, 1993).

Willing, screened mentors

Few programmes manage to recruit sufficient volunteers (Roaf et. al., 1994, cited

in Stukas & Tanti, 2005), therefore, recruitment via several forms and through a

variety of organisations would allow for the greatest number of recruits. The

willingness of mentors to commit themselves to the time required to mentor a

young person and understanding exactly what is involved is the most important

factor (Stukas & Tanti, 2005). Adequate screening of the mentors is required to

ensure the safety of the mentees (Sipe, 2002).

Match on gender, attributes, similar interests and race ethnicity

Gender matching has been found to increase the comfort mentees feel when with

their mentor (Allen et. al., 2005), which would help foster a positive mentoring

relationship. Matching on similar interests (Slicker & Palmer, 1993) allows for

commonalities in discussion and an identification of the mentee with their mentor,

which in turn encourages a friendship and a positive relationship. Potentially race

and ethnicity matching would be beneficial (DuBois et. al., 2002) in some regions,

however, a lack of same race mentors may limit the number of mentees who

receive the benefits of mentoring.

23

Regular quality contact between mentors and mentees

Regular contact is essential for developing a strong, high quality mentor mentee

relationship and limited contact can result in harm to the mentees (Jekielek et. al.,

2002). Mentoring should involve fun social activities because they are rated by

youth as resulting in closeness with their mentor (Parra et. al., 2002) which in turn

results in positive psychological outcomes for youth (DuBois & Silverthorn,

2005).

Mentoring should last twelve months or more

The longer the mentoring relationship (12 months +) the greater the outcomes for

the mentee (Jekielek et. al., 2002). However, shorter relationships may even be

more beneficial if the mentee perceives the relationship to be of high quality

(Jekielek et. al.). Developing high quality relationships was mentioned in the

previous point.

Project K

One New Zealand programme that aims to inspire 13-15 year old youth to reach their

full potential is Project K (Project K, 2005). Project K aims to help build self-

confidence and self-efficacy, promote good health and positive education and teach

life skills such as goal setting and teamwork. The programme for year 10 students

comprised a wilderness adventure, where for three weeks the wilderness provides the

backdrop for students to learn goal setting, teamwork, perseverance, self-reliance and

self-knowledge (Project K, 2005, module 1 p.6). Along with camp-based learning

students undertake a wilderness journey that includes activities like kayaking,

tramping and camping. The second component to the programme is a community

24

challenge, whereby the students adapt the lessons they learnt in the wilderness to their

community by exploring their local resources, opportunities and support and also by

undertaking a project to give something back to the community. The final component

to the programme is mentoring. Screened and trained mentors from the community

are matched with a student for twelve months to help support and encourage them to

achieve their goals. These mentors are encouraged to be a friend who listens and

encourages and helps strengthen the positive changes the student made in the first two

components of the programme (Project K, 2005).

Project K mentoring runs in participating schools across New Zealand and is

delivered through the Project K regional license trusts. The year 10 students who are

selected to participate in the programme are those students who would most benefit

from the programme. They are identified through a self-efficacy questionnaire,

completed by all students in year 10, and also by teacher report on the extent to which

they feel the student is doing as well as s/he can socially, academically and in relating

to adults. Teachers, parents and students are also asked about any ongoing problems

considered to be beyond the scope of Project K, such as drug use. Students with these

problems are not eligible for selection. Students are ranked from those with the most

scores below the school average from the student and teacher data to those with the

fewest below average scores. The top 40-60 ranked students and their families are

invited to a meeting. Those students who want to take part in Project K after the

meeting and who have parental permission are then randomly allocated into Project

K, or control or reserve. Control students complete the same primary evaluation

measures as Project K students.

25

Project K outcomes

Student reported gains from the Project K programme (evaluations 2003 and 2004)

overall included a strong notion of confidence, the majority of students mentioned

how through the programme they had gained more confidence in themselves and also

in the tasks they pursued. Learning new skills, including goal setting, leadership

skills and time management, were other factors the students mentioned. Other

important gains from the programme involved increases in self-esteem including

overcoming shyness, having a positive outlook, respect for themselves and the

realisation that they have abilities and things to offer, as well as increases in a

healthier lifestyle and perseverance.

Common themes for the mentoring component specifically were; friendship, many

students emphasised that making a friend in their mentor and also meeting new people

were major benefits of mentoring. Having fun was another common idea, that

spending time with their mentor was enjoyable. These relationship building

characteristics are especially important as a close bond or friendship results in positive

relationship outcomes (Parra et. al., 2002) in psychological well-being including

greater self-esteem, life satisfaction, fewer depressive symptoms and fewer reports of

suicidal ideas (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005), as mentioned previously. Mentees from

another programme also reported that the most successful mentors were those who

showed up consistently with the intent of having fun and making friends (Hon &

Shorr, 1998). Also, according to Project K mentoring best practice findings, having

fun and sharing activities assists in a positive mentor partnership (Project K, Smith &

Blowers, 2003 cited in Project K, 2005).

26

Applying best practice to Project K

At risk youth

Inclusion into the Project K programme is based on a lower than average level of

social, academic and adult relational competence, thus, the child is at risk for

failure in these areas (Project K, 2005).

Willing mentors

The mentors in the Project K programme are members of the community who

have volunteered to mentor a student for a year. Screening of mentors in Project

K involves an interview; including assessment that the mentor has a realistic

perception of mentoring and understands what is involved. Character references,

a criminal record free from offences against young people and a police and doctor

check to ensure there is nothing that would make them unsuitable for mentoring a

young person (Project K, 2004).

Match on gender, attributes, similar interests and race ethnicity

The match of students with mentors in the Project K programme involves

matching gender, attributes and similar interests (Project K, 2005).

Project K does not match on the grounds of race/ethnicity, as mentioned by

DuBois et. al. (2002) previously. Project K mentor training involves a component

on understanding cultural differences, and for New Zealand specifically, Maori

culture and customs (Project K, 2005). The practical aspects of race/ethnicity

matching would limit the number of students who could possibly benefit from

mentoring as the majority of mentors are Caucasian, and the students involved,

27

and New Zealand in general, are highly multi-cultural. Also, research discussed

earlier on cross-race versus same race matches (Rhodes et. al., 2002) found both

positive and negative outcomes for youth in cross-race and same-race matches.

The racial composition of the mentoring match did not influence the mentees

satisfaction with the relationship or the programme in a formal federal agencys

mentoring programme in America (Lyons & Oppler, 2004). Therefore, it would

seem that other factors, possibly those such as relationship building, may play a

more important role in the effectiveness of mentoring than race/ethnicity

matching.

Regular quality contact between mentor and mentee

Project K mentors meet with their students at least once a fortnight, and are

encouraged to have regular contact with their student and their students family.

Project K also has monthly meetings, many of which involve fun activities for

mentors and students to interact and develop their relationship (Project K, 2005).

As mentioned these fun activities aid in the development of a close relationship

between the mentor and mentee and result in positive outcomes for the mentee

(Parra et. al., 2003).

Mentoring should last twelve months or more

The mentoring relationship in Project K is designed to last at least 12 months

(Project K, 2004).

28

Current study

This study is looking at mentor training specifically, with an aim to evaluate the

effectiveness of the Project K mentor training programme. There has been very

limited research indeed on mentor training, suggesting that the current evaluation is

much needed to help our understanding of this critical part of mentoring programmes.

The following sections involve research on mentor training, important components for

mentor training and an outline of the Project K mentor training programme.

Mentor Training

The training of mentors is an essential component to mentoring (Ave et. al., 1999;

Evans & Ave, 2000; Sipe, 2002; Irving et. al., 2003; Schatz, 2000; Liang et. al., 2002;

Parra et. al., 2002; Ganser, 1999), because with appropriate training, it should be

possible for a mentor to acquire skills and knowledge and combine these with

interpersonal qualities and existing expertise such that he or she could support any

mentee (Cox, 2005,p. 408).

Jekielek et. al. (2002) in an analysis of ten youth mentoring programmes noted that

training for the mentors both before and after they are matched with the student

appears to be key to successful mentoring relationships. Jekielek et. al. found that the

mentors who received the most hours of training had the longest lasting matches,

which has been found to be an important factor in successful mentoring relationships.

A training programme for mentors is the most consistent way of ensuring that the

mentor student relationship and the whole mentoring experience is beneficial for the

student. The training is to provide the mentor with the necessary knowledge and

29

skills to be an effective mentor (DuBois & Neville, 1997; Jekielek et. al., 2002; Lyons

& Oppler, 2004). The development of confidence is also an essential part of mentor

training, as this combined with the development of knowledge and skills, helps

increase mentor self-efficacy. High levels of mentor self-efficacy are important with

respect to establishing a positive relationship with a young person, which in turn

facilitates desired outcomes in the mentor/student relationship (Parra et al., 2002).

Training is highly beneficial for mentors as a good mentoring program makes sure

they [mentors] have the time and training to reflect on their practice (Moir, 2003,

p.7), to ensure they help develop a positive, rewarding relationship. Although mentor

training is seen by many to be of high importance, and that training is crucial to

provide mentors with knowledge, skills and opportunities for questions and discussion

about mentoring issues (Hon & Shorr, 1998), the many programmes that have mentor

training and evaluate their own outcomes have not published their evaluations. Thus,

mentor training is an area that needs to be researched to evaluate if such programmes

aimed at providing skills for mentors to help mentees are actually beneficial and

worthwhile.

Important components for mentor training

While no research has been published on the effectiveness of mentor training

programmes researchers have commented on what training programmes should

include, these are:

Communication skills (Mentor training, n.d.)

Crisis management and problem solving skills (Mentor training)

30

How to deal with any emotional issues young people may have (Mentor

training)

How to handle difficult situations (Mentor training)

How to say goodbye when mentoring relationship ends (Mentor training)

Ethics/codes of conduct (Ave et. al., 1999)

Safety issues for mentors (Ave et. al.)

Roles and responsibilities (Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 2000)

How to work with mentees family (Ave et. al.)

Cultural issues (Ave et. al.)

Self-esteem issues (Ave et. al.)

Dissemination of information regarding policies and procedures (Ave et. al.)

Effective training programmes should also include role playing to help

prospective mentors (Mentor training, n.d.), to respond to hypothetical

scenarios involving a young person and explore ways of dealing with difficult

situations safely and effectively (Ave et. al., 1999).

One American study also discusses the importance of having relational

qualities in training for men and women specifically, such as empathy building

to help foster effective relationships (Liang at el., 2002).

On-going training and supervision (Hon & Shorr, 1998) is recommended to

assist mentors with any issues they encounter and to allow mentors to discuss

their experience. Mentors are most successful when they receive thorough

training before they are matched with young people and receive coaching and

31

support throughout their involvement Mentor training, n.d., p.1). On-going

support is especially important as many issues arise, that did not come up in

theory, because they arise out of practice (Ganser, 1999). Suggested on-going

topics include; clarifying issues, solving problems, learning counselling skills,

understanding youth and learning leadership skills (Mentor training).

Positive outcomes were found for a programme, Across Ages, that involved mentor

training and on-going support, that has been mentioned previously (LoSciuto et. al.,

1996). Mentors were recruited, screened, trained and then matched with high-risk

youth. They had on-going supervision and support from project staff. LoSciuto et. al

found that the mentored students had better attitudes towards school, future and elders

and less substance abuse. Research, also mentioned previously, involving the BB/BS

programme included agency based training and on-going case management for

mentors (Rhodes et. al., 2000). The training covered agency policies, communication

and relationship building, as well as issues of particular relevance to the participating

youth (grieving or sexual abuse). The mentors and students participated in a variety

of activities including leisure and career-related discussions. Mentoring improved

grades, school attendance, pro-social values and parental relationships.

Project K Training

Project K requires members of the community who have expressed an interest in

being a mentor, have met with the mentor co-ordinator and wish to take part in the

mentor training programme, to commit to an initial 20 hour Project K mentor training

course. This initial training is consistent with several other programmes which

employ mentor training, as mentioned previously. The course is divided into six

32

modules approximately three and a half hours each, each module has an aim, with

three to five learning outcomes (Project K, 2004). Each of the learning outcomes has

a key message for the training-mentors.

The first module comprises of becoming a mentor; with the history of Project

K, providing a safe learning environment for the mentor and student, defining

mentoring and concepts of best practice and the Project K model of mentoring.

The second module looks at contemporary youth issues; the understanding of

resiliency, self-efficacy, self-esteem and self-concept, and how a mentor can

build a students resiliency and self-efficacy and also some reflection on

common issues that young people face.

Module three is designed around positive mentor partnerships; a self-

assessment of personal values, identifying the core Project K values,

demonstrating effective communication skills, cultural differences and

different ways of seeing the world.

The fourth module involves maximising youth potential; focusing on goal

setting, demonstration and understanding of, as well as different cultural and

gender understandings of goal setting, and also the boundaries and limits of

the mentoring relationship.

The fifth module is the mentor journey; issues of confidentiality, working with

the students family and understanding the mentor journey process.

The final sixth module is celebrating achievements; self-evaluation, reflection

and giving and receiving feedback (Project K, 2004).

33

Applying important components for mentor training to Project K

The training modules cover cultural issues (Ave et. al., 1999) with several

readings relating to ways of seeing the world, questions around noticing

aspects of your own culture and recognition of cultural world views including

holism (Project K, 2004).

Communication skills (Mentor training, n.d.) are included with worksheets

on how young people would react to different communication styles,

discussions of effective communication techniques and exercises on listening

skills (Project K, 2004).

Project K training also covers how to end the mentoring relationship (Mentor

training, n.d.), with discussion and tips for effective goodbyes (Project K,

2004).

Ethical codes of conduct and safety issues for mentors (Ave et. al., 1999) are

dealt with, as well as the policies and procedures (Ave et. al.) of Project K

with a comprehensive mentoring policies and procedures outline, including

procedures for various scenarios involving both the mentor and the student

(Project K, 2004).

The roles and responsibilities of the mentor (Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 2000)

are covered in the training with worksheets on mentoring definitions, personal

mentoring experiences, mentoring best practices and a discussion of what a

mentor is and is not (Project K, 2004).

34

The training covers issues around working with the students family (Ave et.

al., 1999), including worksheets on what the mentor sees as the familys role

in the mentoring relationship and identifying strategies that they could use to

deal with any issues with the family including confidentiality, as well as role

plays of initial meetings with the students family, following several diverse

scenarios and developing a list of possible activities which the mentor, student

and students family could do together (Project K, 2004).

Issues around building students self-esteem (Ave et. al., 1999) are also

included in the training with worksheets on the mentors understanding of self-

esteem, as well as self-efficacy and resiliency and ways to help a student

increase these (Project K, 2004).

The training involves several role plays (Mentor training, n.d.), activities

and discussions, which covers a broad range of training methods to ensure

effective learning.

The training also involves some development of empathy for the students

(Liang et. al., 2002) with a strong coverage of understanding contemporary

youth issues, including a worksheet for the mentor to remember what it was

like being a teenager, learning about The Youth Development Strategy

Aotearoa 2002 and worksheets on youth culture today (Project K, 2004).

35

Other important components in Project K mentor training

The Project K mentor training programme also involves goal setting as Project K

considers this very important for students especially as goal setting helps students take

control of their lives, encourages individuals to realise their potential and abilities and

promotes the achievement of aspirations (Project K, 2004). Goal setting is universally

considered important as generally it allows you to choose where you want to go in

life (Goal setting, n.d.). Goal setting gives students long-term vision and short

term motivation and results in students being able to take pride in the achievement of

their goals. By setting goals students want to achieve they can achieve more, improve

their self-confidence, increase their motivation to achieve, improve their performance,

increase their satisfaction in their achievements and eliminate any attitudes that are

holding them back from achieving happiness (Goal setting).

The training also involves a section on the giving and receiving of feedback. Project

K considers feedback an important part of mentor training as feedback reinforces

positive behaviours, corrects negative behaviours and helps students identify

commonalities with their mentor. Also, feedback is seen as a way of offering

constructive assistance (Project K, 2004). Other guides to mentoring also mention

that feedback is important to mentoring relationships, to correct problems and

reinforce positive aspects of the relationship (Career Services, 2004).

Self-evaluation and reflection are important for mentors to understand how far they

have come and what they still need to learn, to acknowledge all that they have gained

to allow for more learning and progress and to understand ways of helping their

student undertake reflection to encourage their growth (Project K, 2004). The

36

leadership and service programmes at the Ohio Union also place importance on

reflection because it adds meaning and depth to experiences and allows for personal

growth by looking within and processing the knowledge and skills acquired through

the experience. Also, those who engage in reflection are more likely to continue with

mentoring because they can recognise the positive personal and relational benefits

(The Ohio State University, n.d.).

Once training is complete the potential mentor meets with the mentor co-ordinator,

and eventually the mentor is matched with a student. The mentor must commit to a

minimum contact of once a fortnight in person, attending at least eight of the twelve

monthly meetings and an interview at 6-8 weeks as a performance review. The

mentoring relationship is carried out for twelve months (Project K, 2005). On-going

training and support is provided for mentors if required (Project K, 2005), which is

consistent with the important components in mentor training outlined previously

(Hon & Shorr, 1998).

The present study

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Project K

mentor training programme. Mentors in the Project K mentor training programme

completed a questionnaire on their mentoring knowledge and confidence in mentoring

skills before and at the completion of the training (referred to as training-mentors).

The trainers of the programme completed a questionnaire on the training-mentors

knowledge and skills for mentoring a student. Mentors who were paired with a

student (referred to as current-mentors) completed the same questionnaire as the

training-mentors. Students of the current-mentors completed a questionnaire about

37

their mentors skills and the whole mentoring experience. The research questions

investigating this are below:

Term definitions:

Skill-knowledge knowledge of the skills necessary to mentor a student

Skill-confidence confidence in skills necessary to mentor a student

Skill-application students perceptions of mentors skills

Training-Mentors

A) In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-knowledge through training?

B) In what ways do the mentors increase their skill-confidence through training?

Trainers

A) What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and the trainers

perception of the mentors skills?

B) What relationship is there between the confidence of the mentors in interacting with

others (young people) and the perceived competence of the mentor by his/her

trainer?

C) How committed to mentoring a student do the trainers perceive the mentors to be?

Students

A) What relationship is there between the mentors skill-knowledge and skill-

application?

B) What emotions do the students feel when with their mentors?

38

Training and current-mentors

A) What differences are there between the training and current mentors skill-

knowledge?

B) What differences are there between the training and current mentors skill-

confidence?

All measures

A) What differences are there between men and women on mentor and student

measures?

B) What differences are there between regional groups (Auckland, Outside Auckland)

for mentor, trainer and student measures?

C) What age group (defined as: up to 35 years, 36 years and over) differences are there

for mentor measures?

39

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Participants:

Training-mentors

Participants in this study were 49 potential mentors taking part in the Project K

mentor training programme (they will be referred to as training-mentors). Each of

these participants had at least some of the three questionnaires completed (pre-

training, post- training and trainer-assessment). Within the Auckland area (four

regions combined), 25 training-mentors had all three questionnaires completed.

Three training-mentors from the participating regions outside of Auckland (two

regions) had all three questionnaires completed. The composition of the responses is

shown in table 1. This resulted in responses from 28 training-mentors being used in

the analysis, and two regional categories; Auckland and Outside Auckland.

Table 1: Composition of participant responses from the training groups. Training Groups

Region Attendance at

training session

1

Number of

completed 1st

questionnaires

Number of

completed 2nd

questionnaires

Number of

completed

Trainer

questionnaires

Total number of

completed

questionnaires (3)

North Shore 6 5 6 6 5

North Shore 5 5 8 (3 joined) 8 5

Waitakere 12 6 6 (2 out 2 in) 7 3

Manukau 9 9 4 7 4

Corporate 9 8 9 9 8

Lower Hutt 5 3 1 3 1

Otago 10 4 2 4 2

Current-mentors

The second group of participants in this study were 30 mentors who were currently

mentoring a Project K student (from now on referred to as current-mentors). There

were 16 current-mentors from the Auckland area (three regions combined) and 14

current-mentors from the Outside Auckland area (four regions combined).

40

Students

Students of current-mentors also took part in this study with 34 participating. From

within the Auckland area (three regions combined) there were 18 participating

students, and 16 students that took part were from the Outside Auckland area (four

regions combined). The composition of responses from current-mentors and students

from their mentoring group are shown in table 2: Thus, responses from 30 current-

mentors and 34 students were used in the analysis, with the same two regional

categories as training-mentors; Auckland and Outside Auckland.

Table 2: Composition of participant responses from current-mentor student groups.

Region Number of

mentors in the

group

Number of

participating

mentors

Number of

students in the

group

Number of

participating

students

North Shore 9 9 11 10

Waitakere 9 3 9 5

Manukau 20 4 20 3

Lower Hutt 9 0 9 0

Otago 10 4 10 8

Christchurch 11 4 11 3

Hawkes Bay 8 3 8 1

Manawatu 11 3 12 4

Training-mentors

The training-mentors (the 28 used in the analysis) ranged in ages from 20 to 58 years

with a mean age of 37.85 years (SD = 12.05), with one participant not revealing her

age. To allow for data analysis the mentors were divided into two age group

categories, these were; up to 35 years and 36 years and above. The sample

consisted of 12 (43%) male and 16 (57%) female participants. The participants also

provided information about their ethnic group with an open-ended question. Thirteen

training-mentors identified themselves as NZ/NZ European/Pakeha, seven training-

mentors considered themselves to be European, four identified as Pacific Island, while

41

Asian and Maori ethnicities had one identifying participant each. Two training-

mentor participants did not identify their ethnicity.

Trainers

The six trainers were all female and ranged in ages from 26 to 51 years (mean age =

39.2, SD = 11.97). The trainers all identified themselves as either European/Pakeha

or Indian/Pakeha.

Current-mentors

The current-mentors ranged in age from 24 to 71, with a mean age of 41.83 (SD=

12.69). There were 16 (53%) male and 14 (47%) female current mentor participants.

The same two age group categories as training-mentors were used in analysis; up to

35 years, and 36 years and above. The distribution of ethnic groups was NZ/NZ

European/Pakeha (15), European (12), and other ethnic groups (American, Asian) (2).

Students

The students ranged in age from 14 to 16 with a mean age of 15.12 (SD = .54). There

were 12 (35%) male and 22 (65%) female student participants. The ethnic

distribution of students was 17 participants who considered themselves NZ/NZ

European/Pakeha, Pacific Island (4), Maori (4), and other ethnic groups (African,

Polish/Australian, Asian, European) (8). One student did not identify his/her

ethnicity.

42

Measures:

The mentor, student and trainer questionnaires used in the study are included in

Appendices A, B and C respectively.

Demographic Information:

The questionnaires gathered information on participants age, gender and ethnicity.

Mentor Questionnaire:

The same questionnaire was used for the two collections of data from training-

mentors in the first and final training sessions, as well as the data collected from the

current-mentors. The mentors were asked to provide their answers in the spaces

provided, to not write their name on the questionnaire, to not use external aides, such

as notes or manuals from training to answer the questions and were informed that no

one other than the researchers would see their answers. The participants were

informed that each questionnaire had a piece of paper attached for the participant to

put their name on. The author had a list of names of participants with a code number.

The piece of paper was removed and a code number written on the questionnaire. The

list was destroyed after data collection was complete.

The author designed the knowledge section of the questionnaire (questions 1-28) from

the Project K Mentor Training Manual; trainer (Project K, 2004) and mentor

portfolios (Project K, 2005). The aims of each module and the learning objectives

were taken into account when the questions were designed, so as to cover the most

important aspects of the training programme. The self report skills section was

43

modelled on information provided by The JPO service centre (JPO service centre,

n.d.) about mentor competencies.

The mentor questionnaire contained 28 items that tested the training-mentor/current-

mentors knowledge in the areas that the Project K Mentor Training Manual covers.

The training manual covers six modules on areas to help a potential mentor prepare to

become an effective mentor for a student.

Module one: Knowledge on what a mentor should/should not be and do, and

policies and procedures of Project K. The first three questions deal with this

module. Module one was graded out of 12, with four marks per question.

Module two: Understanding youth development and culture, issues

surrounding resiliency, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Questions four to eleven

were related to this module. A correct score for module two would be 30,

with three, four or five marks per question.

Module three: Project K values, different types of communication styles, role

modelling and holism. This module was represented by questions 12-17 and

was graded out of 20, with two to five marks per question.

Module four: Goal setting within the Project K programme, absolute positive

regard, acknowledging achievements and interactions that require boundary

definitions. Questions 18-24 refer to this module, and it was graded out of 30

with two to eight marks per question.

Module five: Confidentiality and family involvement. This module related to

two questions, 25 and 26. The module was graded out of 10 with five marks

per question.

44

Module six: Reflection and feedback. This module involved questions 27 and

28, with both questions out of five, and a total module score of 10.

A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. The marks allocated to each

question are on the questionnaire (the original questionnaire did not have the mark

allocations).

Questions 29-38 examined the mentors skill-confidence on several items. These

were How would you rate your confidence in your ability to with the following;

empathise with young people, listen to young people, be patient with young

people, be approachable to young people, show respect towards young people,

resolve conflict with young people, help a young person access resources, provide

a young person with support, monitor and manage your expectations of mentoring

and interact with young people. Each of the questions was rated from 0 poor to 6

excellent, with 3 labelled good.

Question 39 asked the mentor to rate their mentoring knowledge; Overall, I think I

have the knowledge to be an effective mentor on a scale of 0 not at all true to 6

very true, with 3 labelled somewhat true. Question 40 asked about the mentors

skills, Overall, I think I have the skills to be an effective mentor, on the same scale

as question 39. Questions 41-43 involved demographic information, as mentioned

previously.

Student Questionnaire:

Some of the module related questions were worded negatively, for example, My

mentor focuses on my mistakes, and My mentor makes fun of me in ways I dont

45

like. This was to ensure that students were actually reading the questions and

responding appropriately. The responses to these questions (q: 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14,

15 and 18) were inverted when conducting data analysis. The author designed most

of these questions based on the Project K mentor training programme; mentor and

trainer portfolios (Project K, 2004, 2005). A few of the questions were based on a

Youth-Mentor Relationship Questionnaire used by Rhodes et. al. (2005) in an

evaluation using a Big Brothers/Big Sisters sample in America. Their research was

designed to develop and validate a youth mentoring relationship quality inventory that

could be administered to adolescents who have been assigned mentors in order to

assess the quality of the relationship as it is forming. The questions that were

modelled on this research are those with an asterisk below.

The student questionnaire contained 26 questions corresponding to the six Project K

modules. The questions involved students rating their mentor on their interaction

together when they met, the relationship they had and on the whole mentoring

experience. Each of these 26 questions were rated by the students on a scale from 0

not at all true to 6 very true, with 3 labelled somewhat true. The students were

asked to circle one number per question. They were requested to not write their name

on the questionnaire, and that no one other than the researchers would see their

a