Hayes () points out the importance of a mentor's willingness to take on this role and . The relationship that develops between mentor and mentee is vital to . then needs to shift roles to evaluate; when he does so, it is important that. Evaluating the Mentor-Mentee Relationship in the 4-H Tech Wizards Program of youth-mentor relationships facilitates the opportunity to increase the value of. A statement of the values will signal commitment to providing a service which Establish the strategy for monitoring and evaluating impact during the early design stage and Are the mentors and mentees relationships working well? Do we.
In general, process or implementation evaluations are aimed at informing the development of appropriate programming and practices. Outcome or impact evaluations typically focus on informing understanding of the effectiveness of a program or practice for improving youth outcomes. Targeted Forms of Mentoring and Youth Populations: This practice is potentially applicable to all forms of mentoring and the full range of youth who may be served by programs.
It is possible, however, that some forms of monitoring may be more relevant or a better fit within certain types of programs. For instance, monitoring procedures should be established in a way that fits within the current scale and resources of the program. For highly vulnerable populations of youth e.
Program evaluation is also potentially applicable to all forms of mentoring and the full range of youth who may be served by mentoring programs. It may be important, however, to match the type of evaluation to the state of development of a program e. The value of monitoring focused on gathering information about mentoring relationships is suggested by theory and research in which greater mentoring relationship quality e. It may be important, however, to balance the potential benefits for monitoring with the demands that it may place on staff and mentors.
This may be especially important in the case of volunteer mentors as the burdens associated with different forms of monitoring e.
Program evaluation has the capacity to improve overall program effectiveness through a number of avenues Metz, Process evaluation findings, for example, may help identify areas of a mentoring program e. Impact evaluations may likewise offer useful insights to guide strengthening of a program, such as the degree to which particular types of youth outcomes are being improved or the extent to which benefits are consistent across key subgroups of youth e. Corresponding Elements of Effective Practice: This practice is most relevant to the area of Monitoring and Support within the Elements of Effective Practice.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The successful implementation of program monitoring may require a range of staff from those in direct case management roles to staff in supervisory or management positions to have strong foundational understanding of the benefits and use of such monitoring as well as training and support in the monitoring practices relevant to a particular program or agency. Program evaluation, on the other hand, is likely to require significant involvement from a smaller subset of program staff who would require this kind of fundamental understanding, regardless of whether evaluation is conducted internally or under the auspices of an outside evaluator.
Frontline staff nonetheless may still require training and ongoing support to ensure that any information that they are asked provided in support of evaluation is accurate and reliable. DuBois and colleagues examined the practice of monitoring of implementation in a meta-analysis of 55 youth mentoring program evaluations.
Meta-analysis is a technique for synthesizing and summarizing findings across evaluations of similar, but not identical research studies.
One question often addressed in meta-analyses is whether the effects of a certain kind of program, like youth mentoring, differ based on the specific types of practices that are utilized. A correlation between the use of a practice and program effectiveness does not, generally speaking, provide strong or definitive evidence of a causal effect of that practice; programs that do or do not utilize a particular practice may differ in other important ways, for example, not all of which can be controlled for statistically.
Analyses were based on 59 independent samples because some studies contributed more than one sample. To be included, the evaluations needed to utilize a two-group randomized control or quasi-experimental design 15 and 26 samples, respectively or a one-group pre-post design 18 samples.
The meta-analysis included a comparison of effect sizes on youth outcomes between programs that included monitoring of implementation 15 samples and those that did not 44 samples. Prior to this analysis, effect sizes were residualized on study sample size and evaluation design to control for these methodological influences.
Further, multivariate analyses examined whether monitoring of implementation earned entry into a best-fitting regression for predictors of effect size; one regression considered 11 features of programs suggested to be important on the basis of theory and a second focused on 7 program characteristics that reached or approached statistical significance as moderators of effect size in the meta-analysis. All analyses were conducted under the assumptions of both fixed and random effects models.
The specific youth outcomes assessed varied by evaluation and could fall within any of the following domains: Youth Outcomes Programs that engaged in monitoring of implementation had larger estimated effects on youth outcomes than those that did not engage in this practice.
This difference was statistically significant in both fixed and random effects analyses. In the latter, random effects analysis, programs utilizing monitoring of implementation had a larger estimated size of favorable effect on youth incomes.
In practical terms, the effect size found for programs utilizing monitoring of implementation corresponds to the average youth in a mentoring program scoring approximately 8 percentile points higher than the average youth in the non-mentored comparison group; in comparison, this difference is only 2 percentile points in the case of programs which did not include monitoring of implementation Cooper, Additional Findings In multivariate analyses that considered numerous program practices together, monitoring of implementation did not earn entry into best-fitting regressions for predicting program effect sizes under either the assumption of random effects or of fixed effects.
Variations in the Practice Information on the types of monitoring of program implementation that were implemented in the programs that served as the focus of the reviewed meta-analytic study is lacking.
There was likely variation across programs in the kinds of information collected for monitoring purposes as well as the ways in which monitoring was conducted within the program. However, the study did not test for differences in the effects of monitoring of implementation as a function of these variations.
Monitoring and Evaluation
In addition, there have been no studies to date examining the potential effects of program evaluation on youth or other outcomes in mentoring programs. Therefore it is valuable for a mentor and mentee, together, to review the process of the relationship at appropriate points and make any adjustments as necessary to the way they work together and the type of support provided.
It will also be important both for all those experiencing the program and those with responsibility for implementing the program to receive this type of feedback the effectiveness of its implementation.
Below is a list of some questions that might be useful in this process: How might these be resolved? In your Mentoring Workbook you will find a worksheet titled "Periodic Mentoring Partnership Review" with the questions listed above to be used as a guideline for your "relationship check-up" meeting.
You can also access it by clicking here. Mentoring relationships are successful and satisfying for all parties involved when certain factors are established and both the mentor and the mentee take active roles. The following six factors are offered as key ingredients upon which each partner, as individuals, can assess the effectiveness of their mentoring outcomes. These factors should be assessed a minimum of three but no longer than six months into your mentoring relationship.
This relationship is a high priority for both mentor and mentee. Both partners are clear on why you're together and the reasons you're meeting. You've discussed and agreed upon what you'll work on, and you'll recognize when you've completed your purpose. When you've accomplished the purpose of your relationship, you're willing to see the relationship shift focus or perhaps end for the time being.
You communicate in the ways you both prefer. You get back to your partner in the timeframe you've agreed upon.Tips for a Successful Mentoring Relationship
You both are an effective listener, and you remember what your partner tells you. You ask appropriate questions, and you share information about yourself. You monitor your nonverbal language to be sure it's conveying your intent. The trust between you is growing because you welcome and keep in confidence the information you share. You avoid any trust-breaking behaviors such as canceling appointments without compelling reasons, talking negatively about others or unfairly criticizing your partner.
You're increasingly sharing more of yourself and are becoming less guarded than when you first got together.
You meet often enough to suit you both, and those sessions are usually the right length. You both like where you're meeting. You're aware of the four stages of formal mentoring building rapport, direction setting, sustaining progress and ending the formal mentoring part of the relationship and are working through them.
You like how you operate as a mentoring pair and check in with each other to see if you're both satisfied. The mentee of the partnership has identified appropriate life goals and is making significant progress towards building competencies to reach those goals. You both identify interesting learning experiences and process the results of these together. You both discussed how you wanted positive and corrective feedback from the other you.
You're doing your best to give this feedback in an honest and tactful manner and as frequently as agreed upon. When you receive feedback, you're non-defensive and take immediate steps to apply it.