1 / 48

The State of Mentoring in Michigan

The State of Mentoring in Michigan. Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005. Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D. Kahle Research Solutions Inc. Ferndale, MI 48220 (248) 541-6200 rwkahle@KahleResearch.com Detroit, MI Regional Meeting, July 26, 2005.

ishmael
Télécharger la présentation

The State of Mentoring in Michigan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The State of Mentoring in Michigan Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005 Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D. Kahle Research Solutions Inc.Ferndale, MI 48220(248) 541-6200 rwkahle@KahleResearch.com Detroit, MI Regional Meeting, July 26, 2005

  2. Organization of This Presentation I. Background and Introduction • Objectives • Defining Mentoring • Conceptual Overview… Mentoring Funnel • Methods Used to Conduct the MentorMichigan Census Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  3. Organization of This Presentation(Cont’d) II. Key Findings • Tracking key funnel measures • Demographic changes • Understanding the gap • Satisfaction with Mentor MI III: Using MMC Data • Program Benchmarking/Evaluation • Fundraising • Awareness Building Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  4. Mentor Michigan Census Objectives 1. Identify, count, describe and track • Mentoring organizations • Mentoring programs • Matches, Mentors and Mentees 2. Understand program components, processes, resources and needs 3. Encourage and support program evaluation Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  5. Defining Mentoring Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and character of the mentee. (National Mentoring Partnership) Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  6. Defining Mentoring Responsible mentoring can take many forms: • Traditional mentoring(one adult to one young person) • Group mentoring(one adult to up to four young people) • Team mentoring(several adults working with small groups of young people, in which the adult to youth ratio is not greater than 1:4) • Peer mentoring(caring youth mentoring other youth) • E-mentoring(mentoring via e-mail and the internet) Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  7. The Mentoring Funnel Recruitment MentorPreparation andSelection Mentoring Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  8. Awareness Interest Inquiry Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer Outcomes for… Children Adults Mentoring Organizations Communities State of MI Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  9. Wave I Registered = 156Responded = 105 as of Aug. 31, 2004 Method Mentor MI Registry 207Organizationsas of Feb. 28, 2005 Mentor MI CensusWave II Wave III – Fall 2005 136Complete Wave IV – Spring 2006 Wave V – Fall 2006 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  10. Method • On-line survey (hard-copy option) • Wave I data collected in September 2004 • Wave II data collected in March 2005 • Data collected at both organizational and program levels • Mentoring organization representatives involved in design and pre-test • Special focus in Wave II on understanding the gap and use and satisfaction with MM services Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  11. Special Thanks to All Who Completed Wave II Jumpstart for Young Children, Inc. Wisdom Institute for Teenage Mothers Girl Scouts of Metro Detroit Metropolitan Certified Teachers Association, LLC AMICUS II, Inc. Women in Community Service Destiny and Purpose Community Outreach Legacy Associates Foundation Student Mentor Partners Volunteers in Prevention, Inc. Life Directions Twenty-first Century Sisterhood, Inc. Maria Madeline Project, Inc. MANHOOD, INC Common Ground Sanctuary NaFFAA Michigan Jewish Family Service-Mentor Connection Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  12. Overview of FindingsKey Funnel Measures Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  13. 35 organizations in the Tri-County area responded to Wave II Responding and RegisteredMentoring Organizations Wave I vs. Wave II 105 Wave I 156 136 Wave II 207 0 50 100 150 200 250 Responding Organizations Registered Organizations Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  14. Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  15. Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  16. Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  17. Inquiries and applications are increasing. In Jan. and Feb. of 2005, more than 3,900 inquiries and 1,852 applications. How Many Inquiries?Applications? 9,975: New inquiries in 2004 6,249: New written applications received from potential mentors Awareness Interest Inquiry Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  18. Slightly less than one third of the state total of inquires and applications come from the tri-county area Mentor Inquiries and Applications Monthly Averages: Wave I vs. Wave II Inquiries 2500 1,951 Applications 2000 1500 926 831 1000 728 520 497 500 0 1/1/04 - 8/31/04Wave I 9/1/04 - 12/31/04Wave II 1/1/05 - 2/28/05Wave II Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  19. Little change from Wave I. Slightly more use Sex Offender and Child Abuse registries. What Types of Screening Used? Increase Since Wave I? Criminal BackgroundCheck 89% Awareness Interest Inquiry 83% 60% Application Background Checks Training Sex Offender Registry 64% 40% Child Abuse Registry 48% 79% Personal CharacterReference Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer 81% 83% Written Application 89% 86% Personal Interview 87% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Not all response categories shown Wave I Wave II Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  20. Awareness Interest Inquiry Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer Mentoring movement momentum is building, although growth in mentoring is mostly out-state, not in tri-county area How Many Children Served?How Many Mentors? 27,090: Young people mentored in 2004 15,977: Mentors throughout all of 2004 30,000+: Estimated mentor/mentee relationships in MI in 2004 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  21. Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  22. State-wide one to one mentoring is still most common and has increased slightly since Wave I In tri-county, one to one is less common and peer and team more often used What Type of Mentoring? Primary Awareness Interest Inquiry E-Mentoring1% Team 13% Application Background Checks Training One to One66% Peer 7% Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer Group 13% Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  23. While there are more community-based programs, more children are served via school-based programs Average school-based program serves 169 Average community-based program serves 115 Mentoring Program Site? Business1% Awareness Interest Inquiry Faith-Based8% Gov’t/Other10% Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer School-Based36% Community-Based45% Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  24. Net increase in tri-county is 282 More or Less Mentoring? 94: Organizations report an increase in matches in last year 29: Organizations report a decrease in matches in last year Awareness Interest Inquiry Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer 3,282: increase in new matches since Feb. of 2004 - 1066: decrease in matches since Feb. 2004 2,216: net increase in matches comparing Feb. 2004 through Feb. 2005 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  25. Tri-County mentors represent 1,624 of total in Wave II More or Less Active Mentors? Number of Active MentorsWave I vs. Wave II 9,108 Wave I 10,546 Wave II 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  26. Mentors on waiting lists have declined, while there are more children waiting. Number of children waiting is under-stated! Waiting Lists Longer or Shorter? Awareness Interest Inquiry Wave I Wave II Mentors 2,017 1,243 Mentees 2,345 3,428 Application Background Checks Training Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  27. Intensity has increased slightly at low and high ends since Wave I Reported Minimum Weekly Mentoring Intensity: Wave I vs. Wave II Awareness Interest Inquiry No MinimumTime Required 19% 13% 38% Application Background Checks Training 1 Hour per Week 42% Mentoring Duration & Intensity Repeat & Refer 23% 2 Hours per Week 15% 23% 3-5 Hours per Week 15% 4% 6+ Hours per Week 11% 0 10 20 30 40 Wave I Don’t know/no answer responses not shown Wave II Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  28. Mentor and Youth Served Demographics Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  29. Mentor Gender Mentor Age Wave I Wave II <18 19% 20% 18-25 9 39 26-35 36-45 52 30 46-55 56-65 16 4 66+ 4 7 Wave I Wave II Male 34% 32% Female 66% 68% Large increase in 18-25 year olds who mentor Implication is that college age young adults are good targets for mentor recruitment Changes in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II - State Totals Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  30. Decreased proportion of African-American mentors in Wave II is a result of new organizations reporting, not decline in the number of African-American mentors Changes in Mentor Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals Mentor Race Wave I Wave II Caucasian 76% 78% African-American 22 16 Hispanic 2 2 Native American < 1 1 Asian-American < 1 2 Arab-American < 1 < 1 Other < 1 < 1 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  31. Mentor Demographics Wave II: Tri-County • Mentor Gender • Tri-county slightly more male • Mentor Age • Tri-county mentors more “middle age” • Big group of 18-25 mentors in Washtenaw • Mentor Race • 40% of Tri-County Mentors are African-American • Highest minority proportion in the state Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  32. Youth Served Gender Youth Served Age Wave I Wave II Male 40% 51% Female 60% 49% Wave I Wave II <5 - 4% 6-11 35% 59 12-14 45 17 15-18 18 20 18-25 2 < 1 26+ - < 1 Proportion of male youth served has increased Proportion of younger children (ages 6-11) has increased and 12-14 years old decreased Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  33. Race proportions are different in Wave II with increase in Caucasians being served and decrease in proportion of African-American youths served as a result of new programs reporting Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Wave I vs. Wave II: State Totals Youth Served Race Wave I Wave II Caucasian 44% 57% African-American 47 36 Hispanic 5 4 Native American 2 1 Asian-American - < 1 Arab-American < 1 < 1 Other - 2 Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  34. Changes in Youth Served Demographics: Tri-County • Youth Served: Gender • Fewer boys served in tri-county • Youth Served: Age • Teens, especially 15-18 year olds represent larger proportion of youth served in tri-county compared to state as a whole • Youth Served: Race • 64% of tri-county youth served are African-American Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  35. Understanding the Gap Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  36. Mentoring Organizations report that they are already at or above capacity For many, either operating budgets need to increase and/or find more support in recruiting, screening and training Barriers to Growth Too few male mentors 63% 59% Lack of staff for recruitment Too few African-American mentors 36% 32% Lack of staff to supervise matches 30% Potential mentors do not follow-up 23% Lack of staff for mentor training Potential mentors not committingto time (intensity) 23% 22% Too few female mentors 18% Too few Hispanic mentors 18% Lack of staff to support screening 16% Potential mentors not committingto min. match (duration) Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  37. Not enough African-American mentors and mentors who will not work with type of children on list are especially big barriers in tri-county Barriers to Growth Too few male mentors 63% 59% Lack of staff for recruitment Too few African-American mentors 36% 32% Lack of staff to supervise matches 30% Potential mentors do not follow-up 23% Lack of staff for mentor training Potential mentors not committingto time (intensity) 23% 22% Too few female mentors 18% Too few Hispanic mentors 18% Lack of staff to support screening 16% Potential mentors not committingto min. match (duration) Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  38. Liability is a major concern among only 4% of organizations. Most feel they manage liability well • Approximately 5% of applicants are disqualified through the background checking process Reasons Inquiries Do Not Become Mentors Potential mentor does notsubmit application 29% Potential mentor declinesafter learning about timeper week (intensity) 15% Potential mentor declinesafter learning aboutlength of time (duration) 11% Potential mentor declinesafter learning aboutneeds/character of youth 5% Potential mentor declinesafter learning abouttraining requirements 5% Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  39. Mentor Michigan:Satisfaction and Services Used Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  40. Building awareness through marketing, enhanced linkages and support for recruitment are the most frequently mentioned perceived benefits Satisfaction with MM is especially strong in tri-county Enhanced linkages is key benefit Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan Not Very Satisfied: 3% Not At All: 1% Very Satisfied: 40% Somewhat Satisfied: 38% Not Aware/Don’t Know: 18% Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  41. 90% of mentoring organizations reporting have been touched by Mentor Michigan in some way • Electronic resources are most widely used Use of Mentor Michigan Services 74% Listserve email 74% MM website 57% Heard FG Mulhern speak 32% Attended training session 29% Saw a MM PSA on TV 27% Part. in Ntl. Mentoring Month Act. 25% Used tool kit 21% Used MM directory 18% Have VISTA or AmeriCorps worker 16% Att. regional mtg./Warren 15% Heard MM PSA on radio 15% Att. regional mtg./Grand Rapids 14% Used MMC data in eval/planning 11% FG Mulhern spoke at your event Used MMC data in funding prop. 11% 5% Att. regional mtg./Mackinaw Cty. 10% None of the above Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  42. Discussion &Application Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  43. Have you used MMC data for…Evaluation/Benchmarking?Awareness Building?Fundraising? Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  44. Example #1: Using MMC Data for Benchmarking Benchmarking on Screening Mentors State Region Program % Using Sex Offender Registry 64% 57% 75% % Using Child Abuse Registry 48% 53% 100% % Checking Personal CharacterReferences 81% 76% 25% Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  45. Example #2: Using MMC Data for Fundraising • Use MMC data to make the case for needed funds • Reference standards • Reference comparative strengths (region/state) • Reference comparative weaknesses • Subtly communicate you manage, plan, operate as a “fact driven” organization • Success of your initiative will be evaluated • Tools, measures, already in-place Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  46. Example #3: Using MMC Data for Awareness Building • Letters/reports to key stakeholders (mentors, parents, schools, funding sources, media) • Did you know: • Our organization/collaborative accounts for XX% of all mentoring relationships in the region/state • Our organization is among the tops in terms of… • Mentoring intensity or duration • Screening • Training Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  47. Discussion Mentor Michigan Census, Wave II, Summer 2005, Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

  48. The State of Mentoring in Michigan Report on the Mentor Michigan Census: Wave II, Summer 2005 Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D. Kahle Research Solutions Inc.Ferndale, MI 48220(248) 541-6200 rwkahle@KahleResearch.com Detroit, MI Regional Meeting, July 26, 2005

More Related