Congres Results

CONGRESSRESULTSInternational Mentoring congress

March 20th 2014

www.euroguidance.nl

COLOPHON

TitleCongress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014

DesignDesign Crew

CompositionMentorProgramma Friesland: Betty Bijvoets, Szilvia Simon and Hendrik Jan Hoekstra

Euroguidance Netherlands: Peter van Deursen and Franka van de Wijdeven

Thanks toKeynote speakers, experts for making their research results available.

© October 2014

CINOP Erasmus+ Euroguidance Netherlands

P.O. Box 1585 [email protected]

NL-5200 BP ’s-Hertogenbosch T +31 (0)73-6800762

www.cinoperasmusplus.nl www.euroguidance.nl

CINOP Erasmus+ connects policy and practice through projects and by coordinating European and national policy agendas. It participates

in policymaking in broad, thematic European networks focusing on VET, adult education, lifelong guidance, ECVET and quality assurance.

CINOP Erasmus+ focuses on the European dimension and on the connection between the EU and the Netherlands.

This publication is co-funded by the European Commission, DG Education and Culture.

http://www.cinoperasmusplus.nl

http://www.euroguidance.nl

Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 3

Preface and introduction 5Publication structure 6

International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 9Speech Jan van Iersel, NHL University of Applied Sciences 9Speech Liesbeth Vos, VET Friesland College 10Speech Ronald van der Giessen, Oranje Fonds 11Workshops 13Knowledge Market 13

Showcasing projects 14

Participants 18

Practices 21MentorProgramma Friesland 21Project Supreme Mentoring in Europe 23Project PERACH 26Center for evidence-based mentoring, USA 29

Researches of research 33Enriching Relationships: research into the long-term effects ofyouth mentoring and its connection to the business world 33

Benefits for former mentees 34

Benefits for employers 34

Benefits for mentors 35

Recommendations for the continuing development

of the methodology 35

Epilogue 65

Mentor Profile 35

Preservation and Promotion of Quality 36

Youth mentoring in the Netherlands - Conclusions of a large-scale survey 38

Mentees 38

Mentors 39

Project organisation and strategy 40

Development of young people 41

Leadership 41

Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement 42

Researching Mentoring Relationships 43

Closeness 43

Mentor characteristics 43

Consistency 44

Duration 44

Contextual variable 45

Limitations 45

The Role of Mentoring in Programs and

Organizations 46

Formal mentoring programs 47

Differential effectiveness based on individual and

environmental risk 48

Mentoring and Public Policy 49

On second glance 49

What gets measured gets done 50

New approaches to mentoring 51

Conclusions and Recommendations 52

Implications for research 53

Implications for policy 55

Career counselling and career dialogue in education 57Mentoring in Education 57

The mentor-protégé relationship 58

Focus on development 60

Dynamics 61

The role of the mentor 61

1

4

5

2

3

PREFACE ANDINTRODUCTION

H01


ON MARCH 20, 2014 AN INTERNATIONAL MENTORING CONGRESS TOOK PLACE, ORGANISED BY THE MENTORPROGRAMMA FRIESLAND. THE REASON WAS THE GROWING DEMAND FOR CONTENT AND EXPERIENCE EXCHANGE IN THE NETHERLANDS AND EUROPE. THROUGHOUT THE DAY, SPEAKERS AND EXPERTS SHARED THEIR VIEWS AND KNOWLEDGE ON MENTORING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. THE CONGRESS OFFERED STATE-OF-THE-ART RESEARCH RESULTS AND SUCCESS STRATEGIES OF THE MENTOR METHODOLOGY.

The day brought together a variety of national and international

researchers, experts and knowledge about mentoring. Major

theme was the role and relevance of mentoring for youth, and

the conditions under which mentoring is effective.

Euroguidance Netherlands has taken the initiative to compose

this publication, to support existing mentoring programmes

in Europe and to encourage new initiatives.

Euroguidance Netherlands

Introduction

Mentoring is an instrument with a broad variety of implemen-

tations in the society. It is a form of coaching and networking

and makes an essential contribution to the growth and success

of an individual. Mentoring provides recognition and acknow-

ledgement. It provides role modelling, stimulus and personal

attention to the participants. The participants - mentees - achieve

their goals faster when they feel supported and encouraged

by someone who has travelled a similar path before. Students

make use of the success strategies of the mentor. The strength

of mentoring lies in the fact that all parties benefit from it. The

mentee gains confidence and has the feeling of not standing

alone. The mentor develops skills as a leader, trainer and coach.

Mentoring brings an additional encouragement for participa-

ting youth to realise their career ambitions and life aspirations.

If students lack a positive role model and personal attention in

their existing private network, a mentor can help with dilemmas

in the field of personal leadership, education or career. A mentor

has the role of counsellor, guide, coach, teacher and sponsor.

These role models are a key factor for success. Due to the

mentoring relationship, the mentees learn to see that study

and work belong to real possibilities. They become motivated

to continue rather than to give up. They make conscious

decisions for their future.

6 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands

PUBLICATION STRUCTURE

Speakers

• J. van Iersel, NHL Hogeschool

• E. Vos, Friesland College

• R. van der Giessen, Oranjefonds

Knowledge market

Showcasing projects

Practices

• MentoringProgramma Friesland

• SUPREME

• PERACH

• Centre of Evidence based mentoring

Researches of research

• Enriching Relationships: research into the long-term effects of

youth mentoring and its connection to the business world

• Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement

• Youth mentoring in the Netherlands Conclusions of a large

scale research

• Career counselling and career dialogue in education

Epilogue

H02

H03

H04

H05

“Mentoring is an instrument

with a broad variety of implementations

in the society.”

INTERNATIONAL MENTORING CONGRESS MARCH 20TH 2014

H02


THE GRAND OPENING OF THE CONGRESS WAS DONE BY MR. IR RC VAN DER GIESSEN, DIRECTOR OF THE ORANJE FONDS. HE OUTLINED THE ROLE AND RELEVANCE OF MENTORING IN THE NETHERLANDS. PROF. DR. JEAN E. RHODES AND DR. FRANS MEIJERS WERE KEYNOTE SPEAKERS OF THE DAY AND GAVE A BROAD VISION OF MENTORING, BASED ON YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND RESEARCH. OUR SPECIAL GUEST WAS MR. AMOS CARMELI, FOUNDER OF PERACH INTERNATIONAL.

SENIOR RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN, DR. MENNO VOS PRESENTED THE RESULTS OF A STUDY IN FRIESLAND, THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF MENTORING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, AND THE CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS WORLD. DURING THE WORKSHOPS AND AT THE KNOWLEDGE MARKET, VARIOUS ORGANISATIONS SHOWED THEIR EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF MENTORING TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. CHAIRMAN WAS MR. F. VAN HOUT, FRIESLAND COLLEGE, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

PRESENTATIONS AND SOME VIDEOS OF THE PLENARY SESSION OF MENNO VOS, JEAN RHODES AND FRANS MEIJERS ARE DOWNLOADABLE THROUGH THIS LINK.

Congress visitors

Altogether 180 people participated at the congress. They are

representatives of the Dutch and European mentoring work

field, project managers and boards of VET’s and universities,

government, policy makers, social entrepreneurs, foundations

and entrepreneurs.

SPEECH JAN VAN IERSEL, NHL UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

Jan van IerselMember of the Executive Board,

NHL University of Applied Science

The evening before the congress day, all international guests

and keynote speakers were invited for a networking dinner.

During the evening, mr. J. van Iersel, member of the

executive board of NHL University of Applied Sciences

gave a speech about the relevance of mentoring for

universities.

Mr. J. van Iersel is member of the executive board of

NHL University of Applied Sciences. With approximately

11,000 students, NHL is a medium-sized university of

applied sciences in the North of the Netherlands, offering

higher professional education programmes which prepare

students for particular professions. Universities of applied

sciences are more practically oriented than research

universities. Students who successfully complete the

programmes are awarded a Bachelor’s degree, and for some

programmes there is an option to continue studying and

obtain a Master’s Degree.

Before I even started I was asked to open this dinner at

the eve of our international congress on mentoring. And of

course I agreed to do so because I immediately recognized that

this mentoring programme is something special. And when I

indulged in the subject I was confirmed in this first impression.

And I want to share with you this first impression. The first

thing I noticed was the opportunities the mentoring programme

offers to students. I spoke one of the students last week. She

told me that the mentor programme offered her a special

guidance just when she needed it.

Her mentor made her realize what her ambition was in her

professional life. She learnt to trust on her own strength but

http://www.mentorprogrammafriesland.nl/pageid=807/Mentoring_Congres_2014.html


also to build a social network and make use of the knowledge

and experience of others. She finished her education at Friesland

College and continued her studies at NHL University and

became a student mentor herself.

This brings me to the second asset of the mentoring programme;

I think it is very unique for institutions of secondary vocational

and higher education to work so closely together with regional

partners in businesses and government. I have never seen this

elsewhere in the Netherlands. Schools, businesses and organi-

sations work on a common goal; the guidance of young people

in their education. Our secret? We are positive and enthusiastic.

We seek real interaction, we share Ideas, dreams and ambitions

and make them work.

And we all benefit from this network of schools, students,

professionals in businesses and organisations. Students learn

from the experience and professional network of their mentor.

Mentors learn from their conversations with young people.

They get fresh responses and new ideas. These interactions

bind us together in this region and I am convinced we have

not yet reached the end of our possibilities.

We are all here present because we share an interest in

education and the guidance of young people from student to

young professional. We want to develop ourselves and share

our experiences. This exchange of ideas begins tonight. I wish

you a very good evening and as

we say it in Frisian: Lekker ite!

SPEECH LIESBETH VOS, VET FRIESLAND COLLEGE

Mrs. Liesbeth VosChairman of the Executive Board,

Friesland College

Friesland College is a Regional Training Centre for secondary

vocational education (VET) and adult education. Every year

about 15,000 students follow a course: 10,000 follow a

VET course which lasts three to four years, and 5,000 follow

shortterm courses which can last from a few days to six

months. Students can choose from a wide variety of

courses, facilities and activities at Friesland College. These

are provided throughout the province of Friesland by a

small teaching and support staff of 1100. They are active

in seventeen locations, the largest two being located in

Leeuwarden and Heerenveen which are in the province

Friesland (in Friesland the north of The Netherlands).

Welcome! To the beautiful surroundings of Sportstad.

As Friesland College we feel very at home here, as we house

multiple vocational courses at this location.

For young people especially, this is a welcoming environment.

The more so, because the immediate presence of companies,

entrepreneurs, the sportsclub, the health-boulevard etc presents

us with the opportunity to practice our vision on successful

learning. From the start our education takes place in close

cooperation and in the vicinity of these businesses. We decided

to integrate working and learning. This is our ideal: the school

is the region!

Today is also the day of conscribed education. Looking around

me, most of you are not subject to conscribed education.

However, you may know someone who is. Still, experience

and research about the success of mentoring show that con-

scribed education may no longer be necessary if successful

mentoring programmes are launched. After all: when young

people are motivated they do not skip classes!

Mentoring can thus provide an answer to the issue of school

dropouts. Which brings me to the theme of this conference:

the success of the mentorship project, and of mentoring.

16 Years ago, the mentoring programme started in Leeuwarden,

initiated by Friesland College and soon followed by both higher

and intermediate vocational schools like Stenden, NHL and

VET Friese Poort aided by one enthousiastic project leader and

a host of volunteers. In other places in the Netherlands similar

mentorship projects were also launched, however most of

these projects unfortunately no longer exist.

Why is this? What are the key lessons for the success of a mentor


project, and how can such a project be extended? These are

questions we will consider over the coming days.

When I prepared these words of welcome, I did not yet have

access to the research results. This is why instead I reflected

myself, as part “owner” of the project, but moreover as a mentor

myself; what is the key to the success?

I came up with the following thoughts:

First of all, a great confidence in young people is vital. Young

people all have talents, can and want to do a lot, and sometimes

need some extra support, and benefit from being in touch with

an experienced conversation partner in a different network.

Secondly, a very simple organisation is needed. No bureaucracy,

no unnecessary institutional structure, but a professional office

(engaging, persisting, competent, and enthusiastic), young

people who wish to participate, and mentors who are open to

being involved. Mentors preferably have different backgrounds,

networks, and contacts in the private sector. Especially as finding

a job after or in concert with their studies is an important priority

of many mentees.

Thirdly, clarity in what is expected of mentors. In the main what

is expected is: providing feedback, listening, sometimes advising,

and mobilising your network. Two more important aspects are

firstly, assuming that your mentees will take action themselves

to pursue their choices. Secondly, it is important a mentor guaran-

tees a sense of continuity. To be there when they are needed.

Fourthly, Fun! Everything in our mentoring programme breaths

enthusiasm and fun. I am sure it has not been proven scientifically,

but I really think that if all of us together did not have so much

fun in participating in this project, we would long ago have

seized to engage in it. At least, I know I would have.

Finally, based on my own experience and on the research that

will be presented today, I can conclude that the mentoring

project has run too long to still be called a project. Mentoring

is a form of professional supervision and support is a sustainable

practice and should be an integral part of a region, driven by

companies and institutions, the public sector and schools, with

the common goal of taking young people seriously and giving

them the attention that they sometimes ask, and always deserve.

I wish you all a wonderful time here.

SPEECH RONALD VAN DER GIESSEN, ORANJE FONDS

mr. R.C. van der GiessenGeneral director Oranje Fonds

The Oranje Fonds is an endowment foundation that is the

largest in the area of social welfare in the Netherlands.

It aims to promote participation in society. The support

brings people together, or enables them to find a new place

in society. The annual investment is about € 32 million to

almost 7000 social initiatives in the Netherlands and the

Caribean part of the Kingdom.

The Oranje Fonds supports social cohesion and social

integration projects such as small-scale community initia-

tives, mentoring projects for young people, and language

programmes. In addition to traditional methods of sup-

port to many projects, the Oranje Fonds seeks to fulfil a

stimulating function.

First of all I want to thank, on behalf of all of us at the

Oranje Fonds, the organisation of the MentorProgramma

Friesland for their invitation. It’s a great honour and pleasure

for me to be here today with all these different participants.

The visitors from abroad illustrate the meaning of mentoring

worldwide.

For us at the Oranje Fonds this Congress is quite a special oc-

casion. Most important is to realise that a still growing group

of vulnerable youngsters could benefit from a mentor. That is

a big challenge. My presence here illustrates our long lasting

commitment to that challenge – and therefore to mentoring.

The Mentoring Programme Friesland is one of our five so called

‘masters in mentoring’, sharing knowledge and experience


about mentoring nationwide. Two years ago this organisation

also won an important research award of the Oranje Fonds, as

an award created from a legacy of Mr and Mrs Hellfer Kootkar.

The results of this research will be presented today. I’m glad to

see mr Joosten in the audience, member of the board of this

foundation.

In my contribution I’ll tell you more about our involvement with

mentoring. I also want to share some thoughts with you about

future chances for mentoring, and the way our foundation wants

to stay involved in this development.

Introducing Oranje Fonds; meaning and importance of mentoring

The Oranje Fonds facilitates projects that create more social

inclusion, bringing people together. With € 30 million budget

every year on more than 8.000 projects our foundation is the

largest in the Dutch social sector. We are the only one able to

reach all cities and villages in our country. King Willem-Alexander

and Queen Máxima of The Netherlands are the patrons of our

foundation, in fact the foundation was created as a wedding

present to them from the Dutch people in 2002. For the royal

couple ‘social inclusion’ is one of the main themes of their work.

From that perspective it’s not surprising that they have visited

several mentoring projects over the last few years, including

‘Match’ from Humanitas Enschede and ‘Coach and Cootje’ from

SOVEE in Amersfoort.

Mentoring refers in a powerful way to the main opportunities

of citizenship: people with experience in life, jobs or else give

a helping hand to a new, yet vulnerable generation with a need

for more perspective in school or job. Often their family isn’t

able to support them. It’s good news that, after several years

of development, we nowadays can speak of a social movement

of thousands of volunteers. They support their mentees on a

weekly basis. Step by step we come closer to a ‘pedagogic civil

society’: citizens providing a structural coalition with teachers,

social care professionals and local government.

Results national Mentoring Programme and research

During the five years of our national Mentoring Programme,

starting in 2007, the Oranje Fonds invested some € 10 million

(money and knowledge) in the development of mentoring.

Our aim was supporting the building of a social infrastructure

in 23 cities, mobilising volunteers, and advancing mentoring as

a widely available intervention. At the end of the programme

in 2012 the result was structural cooperation on mentoring in

15 of 23 projects, support for over 4.000 mentees and effort of

4.000 mentors.

Research during the programme provided scientific evidence

for mentoring. True value is added to the personal development

of mentees:

• Mentees report more self evidence and happiness in life.

• Both social and cognitive skills of mentees grew significantly.

• Most important: the social network of mentees enlarged

with 35%, creating opportunities for more independent

next steps in their development.

Since active citizenship is one of the key issues of our foun-

dation, it is important to learn more about the motivation and

involvement of the volunteers:

• A large majority of 75% likes to support a second mentee.

• More than a third didn’t work as a volunteer before.

• Most of these volunteers are highly educated and not even

40 years old. Though very busy, they give priority to this task.

These results prove that mobilizing civilians to support young-

sters is a realistic opportunity. And they illustrate the potential

of mentoring in The Netherlands.

Follow up national Mentoring Programme

To invest in future quality by keeping knowledge available and

up-to-date, we selected in 2012 five so-called ‘masters in men-

toring’. The Mentoring Programme Friesland is one of them.

The other four are from Groningen, Enschede, Helmond and

Rotterdam. These masters are experienced front runners in

making mentoring available for more people and new target

groups. Most important, they share their knowledge and

experience to all kinds of interested organisations and

(mentoring)projects. All of them are present here today.

Opportunities and threats: lasting relevance of mentoring

While big budget cuts in the social sector endanger not only

mentoring, we see a growing need for this kind of intervention.

This shows the relevance of rethinking the structure of mento-

ring projects. Experiments are needed to find out a new balance

between available money, time and knowledge. First local

experiences show the opportunity to share more responsibi-


lities between paid professionals and volunteers. At the same

time this development pays attention to convincing quality

instructions. Events like this congress can help to make clear that

projects should use the available knowledge and experience.

At the same time the national reform of our youth care system

creates opportunities for serious co-operation between com-

munity care and professional youth care. Recent experiments

by our masters in mentoring show mutual interest in adapting

their operations to strengthen each others efforts. As a result

youngsters with quite heavy mental and behavioural problems

also can be matched with a mentor now. For a long time men-

toring mainly was a preventive intervention. Now there is a

good opportunity to bring formal and informal care together.

That is an important development. On the other hand mento-

ring never can replace professional care.

This potential broadening of access to mentoring means an

increasing demand for volunteers. Current experience makes

clear that there still is enough supply. With our national campaign

‘Ik word maatje’ (I will become a mentor) our foundation moti-

vates even more volunteers for this kind of work.

Conclusion

Mentoring in The Netherlands has come of age. There is serious

evidence about the added value and the large interest in this

conference illustrates the relevance of mentoring even more.

The Oranje Fonds will support new developments the coming

years. I hope that you will use todays’ opportunity to

build new bridges together. Keep up the good work!

WORKSHOPS

Topic Organisation

1. A guiding hand and support by Mr. Amos Carmeli, Perach international Tutoring and Mentoring

2. MentorLink by Tres Internet

3. How to implement a mentoring programme in Europe?

by ms. A. Ocal, project manager Bursa MEM, Turkey

4. How can research support the method of mentoring?

by dr. M. Vos, senior researcher at the University of Groningen and Windesheim University of Applied Sciences

5. Mentoring from Strength by students and team Mentor-Programma Friesland

KNOWLEDGE MARKETFunction of the Knowledge Market was to give an insight

in the work of various mentoring, youth and peer support

programmes in The Netherlands and Europe. The market was

filled with experts around topics and teams promoting men-

toring organisations.

The Mentoring Programme Friesland is one of our five so called masters in mentoring.


Showcasing projectsDutch organisations

Coach2B

Profile of the organization/

project: Mentoring for youth

EU netwerk Noord-Nederland


project: Network of profes-

sionals

Fier Fryslan projectBijzondere Vriendschappen

(Special Friendships)

[email protected]


project: Welfare mentoring

support

Friesland CollegeProject School als werkplaats

(welfare in education)

www.frieslandcollege.nl/

schoolalswerkplaats

[email protected]


project: VET

Het buroProject S-team

www.hetburosaris.nl

[email protected]


project: Peer support

Hogeschool RotterdamMentoren op Zuid (University of

Rotterdam, studentmentoring)

www.hr.nl

[email protected]


project: Studentmentoring

for elementary schools

Humanitas Matchwww.humanitas.nl

[email protected]



Inqubator Leeuwardenwww.inqubator.nl

[email protected]


project: Business incubator

for starters

mailto:info%40fierfryslan.nl?subject=

http://www.frieslandcollege.nl/schoolalswerkplaats

http://www.frieslandcollege.nl/schoolalswerkplaats

mailto:info%40fcroc.nl?subject=

http://www.hetburosaris.nl

mailto:info%40hetburosaris.nl?subject=

http://www.hr.nl

mailto:scc-communicatie%40hr.nl?subject=

http://www.humanitas.nl

mailto:match.twente%40humanitas.nl%20%20?subject=

http://www.inqubator.nl

mailto:info%40bdfriesland.nl?subject=


Jong Ondernemen Student Company

www.jongondernemen.nl

[email protected]


project: Promotion of entre-

preneurial education

KANS 050 Groningen mentorprogrammawww.kans050.nl

[email protected]



LEV groep Match Mentorwww.matchmentor.nl

[email protected]



Mentor4youwww.mentor4you.nl

[email protected]



MentorProgramma Frieslandwww.mentorprogramma

friesland.nl

mentorprogrammafriesland@

fcroc.nl



Ministry of Social affairs and Labour marketwww.ditissterkteam.nl


project: Governement

supporting mentoring

New Dutch connectionswww.newdutchconnections.nl

[email protected]


project: Support for immi-

grants

Ontmoetingscentrum Jonge Ouders (Meeting-place for Young Parents)www.ontmoetingscentrum

jongeouders.nl

ontmoetingscentrum

[email protected]


project: Peer support

http://www.jongondernemen.nl

mailto:info%40jongondernemen.nl?subject=

http://www.kans050.nl

mailto:info%40kans050.nl?subject=

http://www.matchmentor.nl

mailto:matchmentor%40levgroep.nl?subject=

http://www.mentor4you.nl

mailto:assen%40mentor4you.nl?subject=

http://www.mentorprogrammafriesland.nl


mailto:mentorprogrammafriesland%40fcroc.nl?subject=


http://www.ditissterkteam.nl

http://www.newdutchconnections.nl

mailto:info%40newdutchconnections.nl%20?subject=

http://www.ontmoetingscentrumjongeouders.nl

http://www.ontmoetingscentrumjongeouders.nl

mailto:ontmoetingscentrumjongeouders%40gmail.com?subject=

mailto:ontmoetingscentrumjongeouders%40gmail.com?subject=


ROC Friese PoortAanpak VSV (prevention of

early dorpouts)

www.rocfriesepoort.nl

[email protected]


project: VET

ROC Noorderpoort Project Kikk

www.noorderpoort.nl

[email protected]


project: Language support

and mentoring for immigrants

School’s coolwww.schoolscool.nl

[email protected]


project: Mentoring for

elementary school children

Spoolder persoonlijke ontwikkeling (personal development)www.spoolderpersoonlijke

ontwikkeling.nl

info@spoolderpersoonlijke

ontwikkeling.nl


project: Coaching and

personal development

Stenden and NHL University of Applied Scienceswww.mentorprogramma

friesland.nl

mentorprogrammafriesland@

fcroc.nl


project: Studentmentoring

in social studies

Stichting B for youwww.benefitsforkids.nl

[email protected]



Vrijwilligers centrale Deventerwww.vrijwilligersstad.nl

[email protected]


project: Welfare projects

Wisselwerkproject Hfftig

www.hfftig.nl

[email protected]



http://www.rocfriesepoort.nl

mailto:info%40rocfriesepoort.nl?subject=

http://www.noorderpoort.nl

mailto:info%40noorderpoort.nl?subject=

http://www.schoolscool.nl

mailto:info%40schoolscool.nl?subject=

http://www.spoolderpersoonlijkeontwikkeling.nl

http://www.spoolderpersoonlijkeontwikkeling.nl

mailto:info%40spoolderpersoonlijkeontwikkeling.nl?subject=

mailto:info%40spoolderpersoonlijkeontwikkeling.nl?subject=





http://www.benefitsforkids.nl

mailto:info%40benefitsforkids.nl?subject=

http://www.vrijwilligersstad.nl

mailto:info%40vcdeventer.nl?subject=

http://www.hfftig.nl

mailto:info%40wisselwerk.nu?subject=


European en International organisations

Bursa Provincial Directorate of National Education, Bursa, Turkey. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.bursa.tu

[email protected]


project: Government

Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring, Boston, Massachusetts, USAwww.umbmentoring.org

[email protected]


project: Research, mentoring

ETIC Technical School of Image and Communication, Lisbon, Portugal. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.etic.pt

[email protected]


project: VET

Kaunas vocational training centre, Kaunas, Lithuania. EU mentoring programme Supreme www.ksm.lt

[email protected]


project: VET

Koulutuskeskus Salpaus, Lahti, Finland. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.salpaus.fi

[email protected]


project: VET

OSD/DoDEA-Europe, [email protected]


project: Education

Servei Solidari, Barcelona, Spanjewww.serveisolidari.org


project: Social enterprise,

mentoring

http://www.bursa.tu

mailto:ocalasli%40yahoo.com?subject=

http://www.umbmentoring.org

mailto:evan.cutler001%40umb.edu?subject=

http://www.etic.pt

mailto:joao_cunha%40epi.edu.pt?subject=

http://www.ksm.lt

mailto:tomas.vilcinskas71%40gmail.com?subject=

http://www.salpaus.fi

mailto:hannu.heinonen%40salpaus.fi?subject=

mailto:karen.ellis%40eu.dodea.edu?subject=

http://www.serveisolidari.org


Support Fryslan

Wille coaching

Sten

den

Hog

esch

ool

VMCA Almere

SCALA Welzijn

PARTICIPANTS

Acad

emie

van

de

stad

Gemeente Leeuwarden

MentorProgramma KANS 050

Aventus

Hester Witteveen Coaching en Training

Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Balans Friesland

Het

Bur

oNew Dutch Connections

Big

Brot

hers

Big

Sist

ers o

f Rot

terd

am

Hfftig WisselWerk

NHL Hogeschool

Buro Mpower

HMC MBO Vakschool

NijT

inke

adv

ys

Cent

er fo

r Evi

denc

e-Ba

sed

Men

torin

g, U

SA

Hog

esch

ool R

otte

rdam

Noo

rder

maa

t

Commerciele Club Leeuwarden

Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Noorderpoort

Community partnership consultance

Humanitas

Ont

moe

tings

cent

rum

Jong

e O

uder

s

Conn

ectin

g H

ands

Hum

anita

sM

atch

Ora

nje

Fond

s

De

Frie

se W

oude

n

Inqu

bato

r Lee

uwar

den

Ove

rtre

f jez

elf

De Winter organisatieadviesJong Ondernemen

Pres

ent P

rom

otio

ns

Dre

nthe

Col

lege

KNVB

/pos

tkan

tore

n BV

/Pos

t NL

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

ECABO

KSM

Lith

uani

a

ROC Friese Poort

Endurance

LeerWerkLoket Fryslân

ROC NijmegenEtic

Port

ugal

LEV

groe

pRO

CN

oord

erpo

ort

EUmanage

School’s Cool

Linde college

Stichting B for you

ROC

Twen

te

Vrijwilligers Centrale Deventer

EU-netwerk Noord-Nederland

Serv

eiSo

lidar

i

Match mentor LEV groep

Salpaus, Finland

Euroguidance Nederland

SOVE

E

WisselWerk

University of Groningen

Salsa

Fier

Fry

slan

Spoo

lder

per

soon

lijke

ont

wik

kelin

g

WoonFriesland

VCD

/Coa

ch2B

SCAL

A

Frie

sland

Col

lege

Men

tor4

you

VMCA

Gemeente HeerdeMentorProgramma Friesland

SCAL

A w

elzi

jnsw

erk

SterkTeam

“Mentoring is a form of coaching

and networking and makes

an essential contribution to the growth

and success of an individual.”

PRACTICESH03


MENTORPROGRAMMA FRIESLAND

MentorProgramma Friesland is a collaborative effort of

VET Friesland College, VET Friese Poort, Stenden and

NHL Universities of Applied Sciences.

Website: www.mentorprogrammafriesland.nl

Real life is immensely more complicated than even the best

textbooks can relate. With this in mind, the regional educational

institutions VET Friesland College and VET Friese Poort along

with Stenden and NHL Universities of Applied Sciences have

taken an important and challenging step. They are soliciting

the help of socially successful citizens, men and women who

have personally experienced how to find their way in social life,

in education and in career. People who know what they should

know, who know how to behave and even (when necessary)

how to dress. In other words, people who can be seen as role

models. In this manner, MentorProgramma Friesland was started

in 1997. Originally in order to increase opportunities for multi-

ethnic students, it soon encompassed all students in the

participating institutions who wished to be supported by a

mentor, an experienced person willing to assist them in their

search for answers to important life questions.

MentorProgramma Friesland provides additional guidance

to young people in vocational education where participants

are linked up with role models out of higher education or the

work force. It is an addition to the regular support and counsel-

ling at school. It is a preventative programme that cannot be

used as a problem-solving method. The basic principle is that

the student has a learning need that can only be answered

by an external personal mentor. The programme searches for

the best match between supply (unique experience of the

mentor) and demand (learning goal of the student). After an

initial interview between the mentee and mentor, they then

decide amongst themselves the frequency and content of

subsequent meetings.

Mentors are, just like students, from all walks of life. Some have

had a brilliant career and some are just beginning. What binds

them is the life experience, the expertise they have and the

passion to share it with others. The MentorprogrammaFriesland

supports the mentor during the initial contact with the mentee.

There are also a number of informal and substantive meetings

with fellow mentors to get acquainted and exchange ideas

and experiences.

The programme is offered to all young people in the province

of Friesland, in The Netherlands. In this manner it is effective

as a preventive programme, as opposed to a problem-solving

tool. Students are informed about the possibilities of mentoring

by their teachers, councillors or through information sessions

for mentees and student mentors. Based on their needs, choices

and at their own discretion students may sign up for a mentoring

relationship. There are no specific characteristics that lead to a

detailed profile of the target group. However, there is one feature

that binds all students applying for a mentor: the willingness to

learn something new in order to reach their goals. They search

for a helping hand, a positive role model and someone to

listen to them. For this reason no distinction is made among

students, whether they are at risk youth in secondary education

levels or well performing post graduate level.

Our Goals

• Offer extracurricular mentor support as a supplement to the

regular support offered at schools.

• Guide and support (vulnerable) young people in making

conscious choices concerning their (school) career planning

and personal development.

• Create greater interaction and involvement between vocational

education, the business world, the government and the

universities of applied science in the learning process through

mentoring.

• Prevent student drop-out and stimulate the continuous

educations process (from vocational education level to

University of Applied Science level).

• Increase the ambitions of students through the development

of their own talents.

Our Values

MentorPogramma Friesland has developed a methodology with a

broad application in vocational education, focused on role models,



ambitions, educational trajectory and activities for and by students.

This methodology has centralized the following values:

• businesslike image;

• talent development;

• exploitation of opportunities;

• multicultural and multidisciplinary;

• rely on the personal strengths;

• unite diversities;

• focus on a target group and customize work.

This methodology is applicable to a variety of target groups

that need an extra helping hand. The profile of the programme

is unique and it has its own distinctive place in the system of

vocational education, in conjunction with the government

and the business world.

The programme is based on the learning goals and learning

demands of young people and the inner strength in people.

Time and again the Mentoring Team looks at the questions

of the student. Even more important: what is the question

behind the question? What is the motive for mentoring? What

does the student want to achieve? What does he or she want

to learn and whom does he or she need for that? The matches

are made based on the learning question of the student on

the one hand, and the unique life and work experience of the

mentor on the other hand. The matches are therefore not based

on ethnicity, occupation or level, but on uniqueness and

authenticity in people. The central position of the individual

rather than that of organisations and structures are paramount.

Networking in the corporate world is mainly carried out by

students and real stories of mentees. When networking and

promoting in education amongst young people, (student)

mentors tell their story. In all situations, the programme talks

WITH the target group instead of ABOUT them. This applies for

young people but also for entrepreneurs, company directors,

government representatives and funders.

Partners and stakeholders are involved in the process and the

product when developing new services and activities according

to the philosophy of the Programme. This way the created

product reflects the needs of the target group and the society

in general and the services that are offered are customised.

Mentoring is a powerful tool. MentorProgramma Friesland

introduces this tool within a powerful environment: the edu-

cation of young people. Vocational and university education is

the underlying structure of the programme, providing funding

and embedding. Pre-vocational education (VMBO), vocational

colleges (HBO) and Universities of Applied Science work together

with MentorProgramma Friesland. This co-operation allows

young people to maintain their mentor relation even if they

change schools or move on to higher levels of education. The

collective of educational institutions in the region gives the

mentoring programme a steady and stable image in the eyes

of government, the business world and politics and thereby

creates a solid image in the regional network.

The MentorProgramma Friesland searches for the best match between supply and demand.


PROJECT SUPREME MENTORING IN EUROPE

SUccessful PRevention of Early drop-outs through MEntoring

Prevention of Early School dropout: mentoring for youth

in Europe

MentorProgramma Friesland is the lead partner in a

project of the Leonardo da Vinci ‘Transfer of Innovation’

fund. The project is called SUPREME, an acronym for

MentorProgramma Friesland collaborates in this ambitious

project with organisations from six different countries.

In the period of 2012-2014, VET-institutions, along with

local and regional European governments and businesses

will get to know all about mentoring.

Website: www.supreme-mentoring.eu

MentorProgramma Friesland is the lead partner in a project of

the Leonardo da Vinci ‘Transfer of Innovation’ fund. The project

is called SUPREME, an acronym for SUccessful PRevention of Early

drop-outs through MEntoring. MentorProgramma Friesland

collaborates in this ambitious project with organisations from

six different countries. In the period of 2012-2014, VET-institutions,

along with local and regional European governments and

businesses will get to know all about mentoring.

Unqualified school dropouts in vocational education are a big

issue in Europe. MentorProgramma Friesland has proven that

mentoring contributes greatly to the prevention of early school

dropout. Due to the support of socially and professionally

succesful citizens and mature students in higher education,

young students learn to make conscious choices which will

have positive effects on their self-development.

SUPREME explores the possibilities of transferring this men-

toring methodology to other countries. MentorProgramma

Friesland accomplishes this in collaboration with Inqubator

Leeuwarden, VET institutions from Finland, Portugal and Lithu-

ania, the Turkish Ministry of Education, a Business Innovation

Centre from Italy and a Belgian network of VET-Institutions.

SUPREME develops a practical handbook that describes the

mentoring programme and how to run it, how to find and

bind world of work mentors and how to implement it in

long-term strategy. The central question is: what are the key

success factors of a mentoring programme?

In each participating country, some important issues are

investigated, such as the facts about early school dropout,

mentoring and cultural and economic aspects. This is essential

to create mentoring programmes comparable to Mentor-

Programma Friesland as well as being locally implementable,

suiting the individual country’s needs.

Supreme Partners

MentorProgramma Friesland.

Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

Mentoring is a globally well-

known tool for schools, busi-

nesses and organisations to

guide people to their success.

In the province of Friesland in

The Netherlands, mentoring

was introduced in 1997 as an

extracurricular method of

cooperation between education and the business world.

MentorProgramma Friesland provides additional guidance to

young people in vocational education, by the support of role

models. Partners and educational stakeholders are: VET Friesland

College, VET Friese Poort, NHL University of Applied Sciences

and Stenden University of Applied Sciences. Besides these main

partners, there is cooperation with pre-vocational and general

schools, industry, commercial networks, welfare and government

in the region. It is a preventative programme that cannot be

used as a problem-solving method. The basic principle is that

the student has a learning need that can only be answered by

an external personal mentor. The programme searches for the

best match between supply (learning goal of the student) and

demand (unique experience of the mentor).

http://www.supreme-mentoring.eu


Inqubator Leeuwarden,

the Netherlands

Inqubator Leeuwarden is a

place where people can start

up their own enterprise.

Inqubator Leeuwarden sup-

ports start-up entrepreneurs

and opens its network for their

benefit. All different kinds of

people enter: students, women,

unemployed people, etc.

Focus of Inqubator Leeuwarden is on helping starting com-

panies to firmly establish their business and to help them

maximize their growth over a maximum period of four years.

To this end, Inqubator Leeuwarden offers own office space and

shared office facility in which (student)start-ups can work on their

business model can get advice on how they should proceed

in the development of their business and follow all kinds of

workshops. Inq Lwd has an extensive network of SMEs and is

very well connected to banks, venture capitalists, (pre-) seed

funds, business angels and the public sector and gives the start-

up companies advice on how to obtain these kinds of financial

support. Inqubator Leeuwarden coaches start-up companies in

areas of sales, marketing, intellectual property, accountancy etc.

Salpaus Further Education,

Lahti, Finland

Salpaus Further Education

arranges vocational and

upper-secondary school

education and training for

comprehensive school leavers

and adults together with

training, development and

related services for businesses

and organisations. The number of VET and further training

students exceeds 19 000 per annum of whom 4 880 strive for a

vocational qualification and more than 200 for an upper-secon-

dary school diploma. One of the objectives defined by the

Lahti Educational Consortium is to provide education for the

whole generation in the area. Therefore special emphasis is,

for example, placed on ways to promote student involvement

and increase student success rate. Salpaus is a strong example

of the well developed Finnish educational system, that is based

on openness and internationalisation. Salpaus is a front runner

on cooperation with SMEs and other innovative ways to (in

the end) get good student results.

ETIC Technical School of

Image and Communication,

Lisbon, Portugal

ETIC is a professional &

technical school providing

training in the areas of Image

and Communication: Ani-

mation; Graphic Design;

Equipment Design; Photo-

graphy; Multimedia and Video/

Audio. As a professional school,

we provide 3-year courses, fully recognized by the Ministry of

Education and corresponding to secondary education. After

having successfully accomplished the course, students may

choose either to take in a high degree in an University or begin

their professional (technical) career. As a technical school,

we provide 1 or 2 year courses, recognized by the Ministry of

Labour. These courses aim at providing or enlarging technical

expertise of students, most of them already working in the

chosen area and are required to have accomplished secondary

education. Since 2000, ETIC has received as host partner:

students, teachers, VET professionals from Denmark, Belgium,

Italy, Turkey, Romania, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, Holland,

Germany, Estonia, Slovenia and Finland in many EU projects.

Kaunas vocational training

centre of social services

and construction business

specialists (KSM), Kaunas,

Lithuania

KSM is a VET institution that

qualify skilled workers. It pro-

vides quality initial, continuing

vocational and general secon-

dary education that satisfies

the requirements of up-to-date professional activities and chan-

ges of the competitive labor market. The training is provided

according to 23 licensed training programs. KSM was founded

in 1986. Nowadays KSM has 77 teachers and over 1000 pupils.

Most of them in the fields of: decorator; masonry and concrete


worker; joiner; building restorer; provider of construction busi-

ness services; building thermal insulator; furniture maker; social

nurse. 300 of the pupils have special needs, they follow studies

like: decorator, joiner, weaver, light clothes tailor, cook, foot-wear

mender. KSM has experience in LdV, Grundtvig & ESF projects.

A previous LdV Partnership involved the “dropping out” thematic

“Innovative approaches against dropping out in VET”.

Bursa Provincial Directorate

of National Education, Bursa,

Turkey

Bursa Provincial Directorate

of National Education, headed

by the Ministry of National

Education, is a legal authority

which is responsible for the

educational issues in the

region. All education activities

of 21.000 teachers and 530.000 students in 850 educational

institutions are within our institution’s scope of work. Though

special priority is given to schools, our directorate takes an

active part in forming education policy while implementing

projects for different people involved in education including

teachers, adults and adult trainers as well as education providers

in general. In addition, with seminars, conferences and in-service

training courses, it has gained experience in creating training

programme materials in the field of management, self-evaluation,

ICT, Total Quality Management, Leadership and Democracy

Education. In addition to a Head Director ,there are 10 co-directors

and a staff of 260 who work in this institution.

FI.L.S.E S.p.A., Genova, Italy

FI.L.S.E., is a joint-stock com-

pany, in which the majority

shareholder is the Liguria

Regional Government, with

minor shares distributed

among the four Liguria

Provinces and regional capitals,

the Liguria Chambers of

Commerce, and the Liguria

Port Authorities. As operating arm of the Regional Government

for the execution of its economic and social policy, FI.L.S.E.

coordinates, organizes and manages financial and professional

resources in order to support the economic and social develop-

ment of the Liguria territory. FI.L.S.E. supports the local develop-

ment of domestic companies and in the meantime FI.L.S.E

supports internationalization, promoting the competitiveness

of the Liguria production network.

EfVET European Foundation

for Vocational Education and

training , Brussels, Belgium

EfVET is a unique European-

wide professional association

which has been created by and

for providers of technical and

vocational education and

training (TVET) in all European

countries. Its mission is to

champion and enrich technical and vocational education and

training through transnational co-operation by building a pan-

European network of institutions and practitioners. EfVET aims

to: promote quality and innovation in Technical and Vocational

Education and Training throughout Europe; develop collabo-

ration, mutual co-operation and sharing of good practice; give

VET institutes a platform of influence in EU policy. EfVET has

over 200 members in almost all the EU member states and has

direct links to other European organisations including EUCIS,

EVTA, EUA, Solidar, CSR, Workers Education Association (Europe)

and the Youth Forum.

Unqualified school dropouts in vocational education are a big issue in Europe.


PROJECT PERACH

PERACH, an acronym in Hebrew for “tutoring project”, also

means a “flower”. PERACH pairs up needy children from

underprivileged backgrounds with university students who

act as their tutors, giving the child personal attention

(often sorely lacking) and serving as a role model.

The care that PERACH children receive from their mentors

helps them realize their potential and blossom into moti-

vated individuals.

Website: www.perach.org.il

The PERACH project was established in 1974 by a handful of

students from the Weizmann Institute of Science, who tutored

children in need. Since then it has expanded enormously both

in scale and in the scope of its activities. Today, approximately

15% of all students in Israel’s institutes of higher education

and tens of thousands of children in need, take part in the

project each year. A significant percentage of PERACH’s

mentors and mentees come from minority groups. Being

the largest organization of its kind in the world, PERACH has

become a source of inspiration and practical support to PER-

ACH-like organizations, now operating in about 20 countries

worldwide.

PERACH’s goals

• To enrich and improve the lives of children from under-

privileged backgrounds from all sectors of society - Jewish,

Arab and Druze - through a warm and caring relationship

with a personal mentor.

• To help university students meet the cost of higher education,

by providing partial scholarships and/or academic credits in

return for their work with needy children.

• To allow university students (the country’s future leaders in

every field) to experience first-hand, some of the country’s

most pressing social problems, thus helping to narrow the

gaps in Israeli society.

• To promote tolerance and understanding among different

sectors of society (including Jews and Arabs), through joint

activities.

Who are the mentees?

Children from a disadvantaged socio-economic background,

often suffering from educational, emotional and behavioral

difficulties (Approximately 20% of PERACH children are new

immigrants, with equal numbers coming from the Arab sector).

We also provide mentors to children with disabilities, children

whose fathers are in jail, disadvantaged high school students

who need help to prepare for their matriculation exams, dyslexic

or blind university students . We believe that personal develop-

ment, social inclusion and academic achievements are all

attainable for these children.

• all come from a disadvantaged background;

• 20% come from single-parent families;

• 22% are new immigrants;

• 25% are from minority groups;

• every child needs a friend;

• most children don’t like school;

• all children love to play.

The Mentors

• all are university and college students;

• the largest and most powerful force for a social change:

Young (but not too); Bright; Energetic; Intelligent; Capable;

Resourceful; (still) Have some free time; Not too Cynical (yet);

• even though not professionals - with the right incentive and

guidance-.

How does it work?

• Mentors meet with their mentees for two hours, twice a week.

Encounters take place at the pupil’s home (to acquaint the

mentor with the child’s home and family life), at the university

campus, at playgrounds, libraries, museums or at PERACH’s

enrichment centers (see below).

• The activity is supervised and monitored by PERACH coordi-

nators but leaves the pair a lot of leeway to decide what to

do - prepare homework, play computer games or soccer, go

to the movies, go on nature hikes etc.

The structure, organization and finance of PERACH

PERACH has a pyramid-like structure, with a small head office

located at the Weizmann Institute of Science and a few regional

http://www.perach.org.il


branches at universities around the country. Each of PERACH’s

regional branches is headed by a manager, who is in charge of

50-70 coordinators. The coordinators, all of whom are students

and former mentors themselves, are each responsible for 50

mentors. The coordinator pairs up each mentor with a mentee,

after interviewing them separately and obtaining background

information on the mentee. PERACH’s staff, receives professional

guidance and support all year long.

• overhead is quite low;

• there is almost no need for “new” money;

• donors love the idea (each $ works few times);

• there is social justice in the system (those who have-pay).

In most cases, money is not THE problem ! Making the DECISION is!

Activity pro�le

82%One (or two)

with a group*

One on one

18%* Law & order* The Young Entrepeneur* Sports & Excellence* Arts, Music & Drama

Enrichments Centers

* The Wise Consumer* Nature & Environment* Aim high (to Matriculation)* Nature of Chemistry

Communication Centers

* Sciences* HealthAnd many others

Science Centers

Academic Achievements

100%

4-5

* Based on a questionnaire circulated among a large number of schools.

1-23

Learning Motivation

100%

4-5


1-23


Self Esteem

100%

4-5


1-23

Social Status

100%

4-5


1-23

Drop-out from college

20,6%

* Based on survey conducted by a large college

3,6%2010 2011

Children from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background, often suffering from educational, emotional and behavioral difficulties.


Recommendations

As a researcher, I’m particularly struck by the extensive

alignment between Perach and features and practices that we

have identified as essential factors for ensuring that men-

toring programs deliver real and substantial benefits.

(Prof. David Dubois, University of Illinois, Chicago)

Recommendations

The need to replicate the Perach Project cannot be

overemphasized. The introduction of Perach will go a long

way in alleviating some of the current problems we

face both in the Educational and Social spheres.

(Foreign Delegation to Perach)

Awards

• elected “Knight of Governing Quality”;

• selected for House of Nations at EXPO 2000 in Germany;

• elected one of four leading institutes for excellence;

• (First!) National Price for Quality in the Public Sector.

A Win-Win Situation

• children & families;

• university students;

• schools & teachers;

• universities & colleges;

• local municipalities;

• government.

All are Winners !

CENTER FOR EVIDENCE-BASED MENTORING, USA

The Center is dedicated to creating the open and efficient

exchange of research and ideas. In doing so, they seek

to advance the production, dissemination, and uptake

of evidence-based practice in ways that improve the

effectiveness of practice and, ultimately, create stronger,

more enduring mentor-mentee relationship. The Center

is an alliance between Mentor/National Mentoring Partner-

ship and University of Massachusetts Boston.

Website: www.umbmentoring.org

This mission aligns with the sage comments that of Father

Donald J. Monan, Chancellor of Boston College, made last year

at UMass Boston Chancellor Keith Motley’s breakfast, launching

the Center: “I simply wanted to say a word to confirm what

the Chancellor was talking about earlier - the importance of

the Center. I’ve been involved for about 20 years, going all the

way back to the beginning of the National Mentoring Partner-

ship....We heard this morning the importance of someone who

is a scholar and has a scientific methodology to reflect on what

works and what doesn’t. The richness of the evidence is critical

to improve the outcomes for practitioners. So that the further

this goes on, the more we need a Center.”

Mentoring Practice and Policy

The goal of the center is to advance both the production and

uptake of evidence-based practice in the field of youth men-

toring. We accomplish this goal through the production of

research, the facilitation of collaborations, and the dissemination

of evidence-based resources.

Advance our Understanding of Youth Mentoring

• conduct rigorous research on mentoring programs and

practice, including the conditions under which it is most

effective;

• improve the translation of evidence into program, practice,

and policy;

• Identify and fill gaps in the knowledge base of evidence-

http://www.umbmentoring.org


based mentoring;

• help train the next generation of youth mentoring researchers.

Facilitate collaboration and exchange across constituents

• collaborate with mentoring and youth development researchers,

practitioners, organisations, and policy experts in way that

increases information sharing and advance evidence-based

practice;

• create forums to facilitate information exchange and collabo-

ration amongst mentoring researchers, practitioners, and

others affiliated in the field.

Increase the dissemination of evidence-based resources

• create user-friendly research digests, practice tools, and policy

recommendations on youth mentoring;

• create, disseminate, and revise user-friendly evidence-based

trainings and resources.

Partners

MENTOR/National Mentoring

Partnership:

For more than 20 years,

MENTOR: The National Men-

toring Partnership (MENTOR)

has been the lead champi-

on for youth mentoring in

the United States. MENTOR

helps children by providing

a public voice, developing

and delivering resources to mentoring programs nationwide

and promoting quality for mentoring through standards, cut-

ting-edge research and state of the art tools. MENTOR works

closely with State Mentoring Partnerships

and more than 5,000 mentoring programs and volunteer centers

throughout the country, serving more than three million children

in all 50 states. There are currently 18 million children in the

United States who want and need a mentor, but only three mil-

lion have one. MENTOR’s mission is to close that gap so that every

one of those 15 million children has a caring adult in their life.

MENTOR serves young people between the ages of 6 and 18,

and its work over the last two decades has helped millions of

young people find the support and guidance they need to build

productive and meaningful lives.

UMass Boston

As an urban institution in a

vibrant city, UMass Boston

brings scholarship on youth

mentoring and a 25 year

legacy of accomplishment

in creating and sustaining

pre-college achievement

programs for underserved and

at risk urban populations.

Indeed, over half of its undergraduates are first generation

college students for whom UMass Boston is a vital link to

influential mentors and opportunities. As such, UMass Boston

advances MENTOR’s essential commitment to reaching under-

served populations while providing an ideal laboratory for

mentoring research. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently

rated the UMass Boston’s psychology department as among

the top 10 most productive in the country, and the highly-

competitive clinical psychology Ph.D. program accepts fewer

than 5% of its applicants. It is considered the jewel in UMass’

crown for its ability to attract top scholars and students and its

focus on disadvantaged and minority populations. The program

received the American Psychological Association’s Suinn Minority

Achievement Award “for demonstrated excellence in the recruit-

ment, retention and graduation of ethnic minority students.”

Giving Priorities

The Center for Evidence Based Mentoring has several immediate

fund raising priorities, selected for their high impact on our

ability to improve the practice of youth mentoring.

• Evidence-Based Training

Provides support for the expansion of training tools to improve

volunteer effectiveness. With initial funding from NICHD, we

were able to develop and evaluate the first five lessons of a

research-based training course for mentors. Additional lessons

are needed for work with specific populations (children of

prisoners, children in the foster care system, children with

physical, learning, or mental health disabilities, etc.) and program

models (faith-based, e-mentoring, etc.).


Specific training would better prepare volunteers to address the

many challenges of today’s youth in ways that are consistent

with best practices.

• Discretionary Research Fund

Provides discretionary support for the Center for Evidence-

Based Mentoring. Your gift will be applied where it is most

needed. This includes conducting research on mentoring and

funding student summer research assistantships so that

graduate students continue their mentoring research without

interruption.

• Innovation Research Fund

Provides support for innovative, early stage mentoring research

projects that are difficult to fund with conventional funding

methods but have potential for improving the practice of

youth mentoring. For example, we are currently developing a

match.com type tool for mentors and youth with the goal of

creating matches with greater affinity.

• Scholar Fund

The MENTOR Scholar Fund provides scholarship support for

students from the undergraduate through doctoral level to

support research on youth mentoring programs and relationships.

The goal of the Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring is to advance both the production and uptake of evidence-based practice in the field of youth mentoring.

RESEARCHES OF RESEARCH

H04


ENRICHING RELATIONSHIPS: RESEARCH INTO THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF YOUTH MENTORING AND ITS CONNECTION TO THE BUSINESS WORLDAuthor: Dr. Menno Vos, with the assistance of the staff

and students of MentorProgramma Friesland

Dr. Menno Vos is senior researcher

at the University of Groningen and

Windesheim University of Applied

Sciences. Dr. Menno Vos conducted

a large scale research on the effecst

of mentoring on youth, among 26

programmes in the Netherlands.

He also did research in Friesland on the long term effects

of mentoring for young people, and the connection with

the world of work.

Email: [email protected]

Summary of the research

In recent years, mentoring has shifted from being a promising

tool to an emphatically established tool used in the instillation

of self-confidence in young people and to support the develop-

ment of skills that they will be able to utilize in the future.

(Rhodes, 2002, 2005; Vos, Pot & Dotinga, 2012) While the short

term effects of mentoring have been investigated thoroughly,

very little is known of the long term benefits that the mentoring

of young students will have after their mentoring relationship

has ended or the effects it has had on their (subsequent) studies

and their success in the labour market. In an effort to supplement

the development of the methodology of MentorProgramma

Friesland, research was carried out to gain a better insight to the

effects of mentoring in the long term, as well as charting the

active factors in the strong connection to the business world.

Coupling this to the vision and focus of Mentorprogramma

Friesland we have restricted this research to four objectives:

1. Gain insight into the long term yields that MentorProgramma

Friesland has provided for young students, particularly with

regard to their skill development and employment. (Benefits

for Former Mentees)

2. Gain insight into the diversity of skills and talents of young

students utilized by (future) employers. (Benefits for Employers)

3. Gain insight into the results that MentorProgramma Friesland

has yielded for the mentor and what roles mentors can

play to increase support for mentoring within the business

world. (Benefits for Mentors)

4. Gain insight into how the continued development of the

methodology of MentorProgrammma Friesland may

augment these benefits.

Research results have indicated that in the long term, mentoring

has made a valuable contribution to the development of self-

confidence and specific skills that young students need to

continue into higher levels of education and eventual transfer

into the labour market. The connection to the business world

is further enhanced by requiring the specific skills necessary

in a particular field to be focused on during the mentoring

relationship. Mentors also fulfil an important ambassadorial

function by being able to strengthen this connection. In order

to sustain these effects, MentorProgramma Friesland requires a

steady inflow of mentors who are able to draw out the strengths

in the students on the one hand, and have a broad network in

the business world on the other. In addition, attention must be

focused on retaining mentors and the continuous monitoring

of their quality

In the following paragraphs we will discuss extensively the main

conclusions per stakeholder. Subsequently we will connect

these with a number of concrete recommendations. It must

be noted that these conclusions are chiefly based on trends

and generalities that arose from surveys and interviews of

former mentees, mentors and employers. It is necessary to

keep in mind that every mentor relationship is unique and has

its own individual character for that particular matchup. The

interview excerpts from previous chapters will reflect that.

Recommendations based on general impressions should

always be placed in the context and dynamics of a unique

mentor relationship.

What I particularly learned from mentoring is that

there are multiple role models in your life and that one must

actively search for and be committed

to furthering one’s own development - Sjiera

mailto:m.w.vos%40rug.nl?subject=


Benefits for former mentees

What has mentoring yielded for the former mentees in

MentorProgramma Friesland? On the basis of research conducted

among former mentees and their mentors, a number of con-

clusions may be drawn. Firstly, a mentoring relationship increases

the self-confidence and insights of young people. Adolescents

are more aware of whom they are and what they stand for, and

this contributes to their ability to communicate their qualities

and strengths to the outside world. Additionally, a mentor

relationship provides them with the opportunity to practice

their relevant (future professional) skills in a safe context. It is

exactly these insights and skills that prove to be important for

them setting the next professional step in their lives (continued

education or employment). Mentees learn to promote their

skills verbally and this in turn increases their confidence not

only while networking, but also by presenting themselves in a

positive manner during interviews with potential employers.

Secondly, it offers mentoring students the opportunity to expand

their social world by giving them direct access to the mentor’s

professional network. Mentees will accompany their mentor to

network meetings, to the mentors own place of employment

or be introduced to a member of the mentors own network for

an interview. Consequently mentees come into contact with

people who will have a real impact on their future careers. So,

where mentoring began as a safe environment to work on self-

insight and skills with a mentor, (bonding social capital; Putnam,

2000) it shifts into actually applying these insights into the

mentors network and into the network that the mentees have

built up (bridging social capital; Putnam, 2000). The result is that

the mentees are now able to independently create opportunities.

Thirdly, the adolescent is in a better position to solicit assistance

from those in his or her direct environment. To a certain extent

this involves mentees who remain in contact with their mentors

(often less frequently). More often than not, new issues are

discussed. Yet other adolescents will take it a step further and

search out new role models to assist them in their (professional)

development. In short, a mentoring relationship not only helps

young people to advance, but also stimulates them into taking

the initiative to search out others in their vicinity from which

they may learn.

Returning to the main question, to what extent does mentoring

contribute to the development of professional skills in adoles-

cents on the long term; it may be concluded that mentoring has

made major contributions to their professional careers. Mentoring

has increased self-confidence and skill sets by stimulating them

to finish their schooling, continue into higher forms of education

and assisting them to orientate themselves in the job market.

It has brought them into contact with relevant employers

and increased their ability to create a successful future. That

mentoring is beneficial may also be concluded from the high

flow rate of mentees streaming through from vocational to

secondary education or higher and the fact that the unemploy-

ment rate under former mentees is very low.

What is essential from the mentors? What comes explicitly to

the forefront is that the mentor relationship should not be

motivated by the disadvantaged position of an adolescent,

but rather by centralizing the strengths and uniqueness of this

person. What mentors primarily noted was the tenacity and

willingness of these young people work on themselves, and

thereby at a relatively young age learn to reflect on who they

were, where they stood in life and where their ambitions lay.

It is exactly this self-knowledge and life experience that offers

mentees opportunities to give themselves a head start as

compared to their peers.

Furthermore it appears that the duration of the mentoring

relationship has an impact on the development of young people.

The longer they are linked up the more self-confidence they

report and the more cognitive and social skills they have

developed. This does not mean that the mentor relationship

should go on ad infinitum. Former mentees still in contact with

their mentors do not do better per se than the group of former

mentees that do not. Results indicate that the most important

quality a mentor should have is the ability to support and articu-

late the talents of the adolescent and to encourage them in

communicating these assets to others. This contributes greatly

to their self-confidence and their ability to connect to others

in both work and private contexts.

Benefits for employers

It has been more difficult to deduce the effects of mentoring for

employers than for former mentees in this research. The amount

of information collected from employers has been limited.

Based on the results of this research however, there is something


that can be noted on the value mentoring has for employers.

When hiring new personnel, employers are looking for certain

qualities. A number of qualities mentioned by employers are

the very skills that receive attention in a mentoring relationship.

It primarily involved networking skills, positive attitude (trust-

worthiness, perseverance) and the ability to collaborate and

“level up” with others.

The reason this equates so well lies in the fact that the majority

of mentors that are matched up to students are active in the

business world and as a result understand what is actually

required on the work floor. They will actively work with the

students by making introductions within their own network

and teach them to use their own initiative to make contacts.

In addition they encourage young people to define their goals

and take the required steps to achieve them. They are taught

that this will not always be easy, that set backs are to be expected

and that adaptability and resilience are a must. In conclusion,

they learn not only to self-reflect, but also to involve others in

the goals they wish to achieve. It is about the ability to work

together in order to get things done. In short, young people who

have had a mentor, develop qualities that employers require

and that makes mentoring valuable to the business world.

Benefits for mentors

Although mentoring is primarily intended to assist adolescents

in discovering their strengths, it appears that a mentoring relation-

ship is reciprocal and also pays dividends to the mentor. In

line with previous research mentors profited primarily in the

enrichment of their own milieu by being in contact with adoles-

cents from a different social background (for example Van ‘t Hoog

et al. 2011). The added value of this research is in the data that

reveals that mentoring also contributes to the professional

development of the mentors. Many mentors indicated that

mentoring had given their current profession an added depth,

even if the work they did was not directly related to the theme

or target group they were mentoring. This indicates that

mentoring with MentorProgramma Friesland goes further than

social involvement or merely passing time. Mentoring also con-

tributes to the improvement in the occupational skills of the

mentor; a bonus for the organisation where the mentor works.

Moreover, mentors have an important ambassadorial function

in order to garner further support for mentoring in the business

world. One out of every five working mentors is capable of

convincing one or more colleagues to become mentors. Addi-

tionally one in five mentors has indicated that their organisation

is willing to contribute to mentoring as a social responsibility.

These are not shockingly high numbers, but they do illustrate

that the influence of mentoring reaches farther than the im-

mediate stakeholders.

In short, mentors strengthen the connection to the business

world in three ways; firstly, by equipping adolescents to find

their way into paid employment in a focused and practical

manner. Secondly, by mentors honing their mentoring skills

and then applying those skills in their current place of employ-

ment and thereby increase their own functionality. Finally, by

introducing mentoring into their immediate work environment,

mentors will create broader support for mentoring methodology.

Some organisations have chosen to shift mentoring towards

a more collective responsibility and that meshes well with the

increasing focus on corporate social responsibility.

Recommendations for the continuing development of the

methodology

How can the continuing development of the mentor methodo-

logy of the MentorProgramma Friesland optimize the long term

positive effects and strengthen contact with the business world?

From the above conclusions it can be demonstrated that men-

toring stimulates the students into completing their current

studies and/or progressing into continuing education and

ultimately into employment. Mentors are pivotal in the success

of MentorProgramma Friesland: not only by supporting young

people and giving them the tools to a more successful future,

but also optimizes their connection with the business world.

The recommendations based on this research are focused in

particular on the profile of the mentors who can serve as advisors

in the selection of new mentors. In addition recommendations

are offered that address how the mentoring programme can

ensure a fertile environment for the mentors; not merely setting

up an attractive programme that mentors will commit to, but

also to promote programme quality by supporting the (continued)

professionalization of mentors.

Mentor Profile

On the basis of this research, a general profile may be sketched

of the mentors who are able to successfully support a student


into their subsequent education and/or employment. The under-

lying motive that prompts a person to be a mentor appears

to play no significant role. This suggests there is no need to

select mentors willing to assist young people based on any

particular motive. This corresponds well with MentorProgramma

Friesland’s vision and policy of attracting a variety of mentors

that fits with the diversity of mentees.

There are a number of features and characteristics that should

be pointed out that are important to the MentoringProgramma,

in particular for the long term. The first one concerns mentors

that have access to a large professional network, primarily a

network that accommodates the prospects and opportunities

of the students. However, a broad network on its own is not

enough. Mentors may introduce students into their own per-

sonal network, but eventually these students are going to have

to stand on their own two feet and do it on their own. Therefore

it is essential to attract mentors who are capable of stimulating

students to discover their own talents, teach them to articulate

these strengths and then present themselves in a professional

manner.

Finally, it concerns mentors that are capable of finding a balance

between the commitment to the mentoring relationship on the

one hand and daring to let their student go by opening the

door to independence and self-determination on the other.

The length of the mentoring relationship is strongly related to

a positive outcome. Students benefit from the fact that mentors

do not view the mentoring relationship an as a defined trajectory

of X number of meetings. On the other hand, the student must

not become an extension of the mentor and learn to operate

independently. Being able to critically reflect on ones role

and knowing ones limitations is a key aptitude for mentors. In

short, it is recommended that mentor programmes adopt these

features and attributes as criteria when soliciting mentors.

Preservation and Promotion of Quality

In addition to the inflow of suitable mentors, it is important to

continue investing in the preservation and promotion of quality

in the mentors themselves. Seeing how a large number of

mentors have supervised more than one student, it appears

their commitment to the mentoringprogrammeis strong. This

retention of mentors is further reinforced by allowing former

mentees to become mentors. The main advantage being that,

relying on their own experiences, the former mentees know

exactly what issues concern the students.

In order to make recommendations to optimize quality pro-

motion, we have summarized the needs of the mentors in the

area of support from the MentoringProgramma. This illuminates

not only the strengths of the MentoringProgramma, but also

the areas that require improvement. Based on surveys and inter-

views, we can categorize five essential needs of the mentors:

1. A clear vision of the core principles the MentoringProgramma

is based on. (What is the target we are aiming at?)

2. Flexibility and autonomy: having the freedom (along with

the student) to give substance to the mentoring relation-

ship, in terms of frequency, duration and manner of support.

(How and what are we going to use to hit that target.)

3. Maintain oversight: oversee and monitor the matchup. Not

to exercise control, but to keep an eye on how this mentor

relationship develops.

4. Exchange and sharing:

• Knowledge and research;

• Successfully practiced methodology;

• Personal stories.

5. Follow-up: be kept acquainted with the continuing develop-

ment of the mentee after the termination of the mentor

relationship.

The first two points may be construed as being major strengths

in the MentorProgramma. Mentors find it important that there

is a basic vision to mentoring, but they also need the freedom

One out of every five mentors is capable of convincing one or more colleagues to become mentors.


within that visionary framework to give their own interpretation

to the type of support and guidance they lend to their mentee.

Mentors have expressed the following in strong terms: the

MentorProgramma knows where it stands and communicates

their vision clearly to the outside world. At the same time it

recognises the singularity of mentors and their students and

that this also requires a unique and individual approach.

In particular in the last three points, mentors see opportunities

for improvement. The focus on a unique approach for each

mentor relationship does not mean the organisation should

relinquish complete responsibility to the mentors. It is important

to (continue to) monitor the match-up in the interim and stay

informed of the progress. Currently is has been noted that

occasionally the MentorProgramma has limited itself to only

the intake and cessation of a mentor relationship. In addition

mentors need to be better informed about developments in

the field of mentoring. On the one hand this relates to expertise

and research that may be distributed in a variety of ways: infor-

mation via periodical publications (for example newsletters) or

information via interactive themed meetings (example theme

“The Students World”). On the other hand there is a need

amongst the mentors for an exchange of personal experiences

and to compare ‘best practices’ in order to critique their own

methods and learn how other mentors give substance to their

meetings. This is currently done on an informal basis, but there

is an aspiration amongst mentors that the organisation gives

this a more structural basis. Finally mentors also have a desire

to receive updates on the wellbeing of their former mentees.

In the context of the need for an increase in monitoring of a

match-up, the mentors see an important role for the Mentoring

Programma. Logically, the expressed desire for updates comes

from mentors who have lost contact with their mentee.

Based on requirements described above, it should be recom-

mended that MentorProgramma Friesland adopts a stronger

stance by structurally providing mentors with more relevant

knowledge and information on best practice methods. In ad-

dition, the quality of mentoring may be further improved by

organizing ‘exchange meetings’ in order to stimulate reciprocal

learning. In this manner mentors learn from each other and are

able to utilize their shared experiences to elevate their mentor

relationship to a higher level of quality. Incidentally, this isn’t a

‘one-size-fits-all’ approach as not all mentors need this exchange.

What I have seen in the mentees I have supported is

enthusiasm, dedication and the will to develop but especially

this: the will to learn. This is what they have to offer

employers and this is what makes them unique.

- Bastiaan

Finally, it is important to invest additional effort into interim

monitoring and follow up. This not only reinforces the perception

that MentorProgramma is involved, but also provides a clearer

picture of the benefits yielded by the various mentor relation-

ships. The MentorProgramma could for example set up an alumni

network, where mentors and former mentees would be admit-

ted after their mentor relationship has ended. An important

consequence is that mentors who feel satisfied and taken

seriously by MentorProgramma will also make this known

to those in their environment. In this respect, mentors have

an important ambassadorial role for mentoring to the outside

world.

Earlier research has shown that positive stories concerning

mentoring were primarily shared in one’s own private network.

(Vos, Pot & Dotinga, 2012) but the mentors connected to

MentorProgramma Friesland brought their stories to the

organisations where they worked. In this sense, investing in

business mentors has paid off royal dividends: it has helped

young people to gain access to the work force and it has created

extensive support for mentoring in our society.


YOUTH MENTORING IN THE NETHERLANDS - CONCLUSIONS OF A LARGE-SCALE SURVEY Period: 2008 – 2012 Institute for Integration and Social Efficacy,

University of Groningen, Netherlands

From 2008 to 2012, the Institute for Integration and Social

Efficacy (ISW) at the University of Groningen evaluated a

national youth mentoring programme on behalf of the Oranje

Fonds endowment foundation. The aim of the five-year

programme was to increase youth resilience and volunteer

participation in society.

In supporting the national youth mentoring programme

the Oranje Fonds sought to encourage the establishment of

cooperative urban and regional structures involving education,

welfare organisations, the business community and local

government. Broad-based social engagement makes it more

likely that mentoring projects will survive and was therefore

considered to be a key aspect of the programme.

Previous studies conducted in an educational context show that

this kind of support is not something that can be taken for

granted. In the past, many projects have found it difficult to

secure a position within the existing structure at a school. In

many cases, the lack of support in different departments of a

school did not allow for the incorporation of mentoring as a

standard option in addition to existing methodologies. Failure

to embed a mentoring programme within a school often means

that mentoring is discontinued with the withdrawal of financial

support or the departure of a key figure within the educational

establishment who worked on the project.

The criteria specified by the Oranje Fonds include the creation

of sustainable regional cooperation that extends beyond the

education sector. This is also an important factor in evaluating

the extent to which the participating institutions were able to

put together a successful project.

In addition to this, the organisation of a project should be

based on a clear vision as to how to enable the development

and improve the social position of young people. For which

target group is mentoring the right method? It is important to

have clear ideas as to how a potential pool of volunteers can

be used to achieve this goal. Besides serving as an important

resource for young people, the proper use of mentors also

enables the mentors themselves to develop their skills, expand

their network and increase their commitment and positive

contribution to society.

Mentees

Mentees who receive effective mentoring develop greater self-

confidence and improved cognitive and social skills. They also

gain a clearer understanding of how to rely on the assistance

of family, friends, classmates and teachers. Given the fact that

mentees are often young people with little social support

and a small social network, these results are promising. In fact,

mentoring projects have served their purpose when young

people are able to take care of themselves.

The fact that the development of the mentee’s coping skills is

due to the support provided by the mentor is confirmed by the

more limited development exhibited by a similar group of

young people who did not work with a mentor. The type of

support provided by the mentor appears to be crucial in achieving

positive results. Instrumental support is very important in enabling

cognitive change and expanding the young person’s social

network. Socio-emotional support improves self-confidence and

social skills and this also helps to expand the young person’s

social network. In other words, it is desirable to include both

types of support when seeking to assist the development of

young people.

Trust between the mentor and the mentee appears to be a major

factor in the observed positive outcomes. A strong connection

with the mentor contributes significantly to the building of the

mentee’s self-confidence and social skills. The quality of the

relationship appears to play a less important role when it comes

to the provision of instrumental support. In practice, instrumen-

tal mentoring relationships are often shorter than mentoring

relationships that involve the provision of socio-emotional

support. A purely instrumental mentoring relationship is often

terminated by the mentee once the goals have been achieved.

In contrast to the definition of the mentoring process, which is

usually considered to last at least a year, these results indicate

that short-term mentoring may also be effective, especially in

facilitating cognitive change.


Instrumental and socio-emotional support are both offered from

the outset of the relationship. The creation of a suitable match

at the start of the relationship appears to be an important

precondition for the provision of effective socio-emotional

support. This basis for trust is underpinned by perceived simi-

larities (in terms of interests and/or experience) between the

mentor and the mentee. Ensuring a good match is therefore

essential. The bond of trust develops during the course of

the mentoring relationship. Frequent appointments and the

demonstration of understanding and empathy by the mentor

are important in helping to build a strong relationship. However,

mentors need to be aware of the fragility of the trust and the

importance of clear communication. Finally, it appears that

mentors who focus both on supporting the mentee and

achieving their own learning outcomes are more successful in

building a relationship of trust. Their social skills and cognitive

abilities improve the quality of the relationship.

Mentoring is more likely to achieve lasting positive results if

the mentoring process is completed or if instrumental goals

are achieved. Just over a quarter of mentoring relationships

are terminated prematurely, mainly due to severe problems

or lack of motivation experienced by mentees. While this does

not mean that nothing is gained, mentoring relationships that

are terminated prior to completion are less effective in facilitating

the development of the mentee than those that are completed.

Given the fact that successful relationships show efficacy in var-

ious domains, it is worth investing in the prevention of failure.

It is therefore advisable to compile detailed profiles when re-

cruiting mentees and to provide adequate support for mentors

with realistic expectations.

Mentors

In recent decades the motivation to act as a volunteer has

increasingly shifted from pure altruism (the ‘traditional’ volun-

teer) to a combination of ‘doing good for others and oneself’

(the ‘new’ volunteer).

This trend is also evident among the mentor population, which

consists largely of employed middle-aged mentors with higher

education qualifications, who attach significant value to their

own learning outcomes in guiding a mentee more so than

mentors among the older generation. Older volunteers are

more likely to automatically embark on a new mentoring

relationship on completion of the mentoring process whereas

this is not a foregone conclusion for younger volunteers.

The reasons why people do volunteer work differ from one

person to another. It is important to recognise both the need

to engage in worthwhile action and the need to pursue self-

development in acting as a mentor. This is something that

can be addressed in intake interviews with potential mentors.

Ensuring that both of these needs are met is important in

building a lasting relationship with mentors. It also enables the

establishment of a relationship of trust between the mentor

and the mentee, which supports the development of the young

person. The creation of a strong sense of trust and the achieve-

ment of self-development goals also encourage mentors to

remain involved in the programme. A good match between the

needs of the mentee and the mentor is essential. The mentor’s

wishes should also be reassessed on completion of the men-

toring relationship. The need for self-development may also

serve as a sound basis for the fulfilment of other tasks within

the programme. This is also something that could possibly be

addressed during the first intake interview and when recruiting

volunteers.

Approximately 55% of mentors want to serve as a mentor again

once they have supported a mentee. The provision of effective

support for the mentoring relationship is crucial in maintaining

contact with mentors. Training and contact with peer mentors

can help volunteers prepare for mentoring sessions by facilitating

an understanding of the realities of young people. This also helps

to create realistic expectations, which increases the likelihood

of lasting commitment. In affording opportunities to meet with

other mentors training and peer contact enable volunteers to

increase their mentor network. The organisation of other kinds

of meetings, such as master classes and networking drinks, can

also meet mentors’ needs to form and build a network. It should

also be noted that the fact that a mentor does not choose to

support another young person on completion of the mentoring

process should not necessarily be regarded as a negative out-

come. The volunteer can also use their skills for another program-

me within the same or another organisation, such that voluntary

participation is maintained.

Approximately 36% of the mentors who took part in the pro-

gramme had not previously volunteered elsewhere. The fact

that most of the mentors were young and relatively highly


educated suggests that the new type of volunteer has a signi-

ficant interest in mentoring programmes. These programmes

get citizens to engage in civil society. Effective guidance and

supervision of mentors and mentoring relationships provides

a positive experience of doing volunteer work and helps ensure

renewed commitment by these volunteers.

Project organisation and strategy

In order to be effective, a project organisation that focuses on

supporting the development of young people through the use

of volunteers must have a long-term vision and mission.

The survey shows that if initial project plans, which are often

ambitious, do not fully reflect the actual reality, prompt adjust-

ment of expectations and goals can make the actual reality

more manageable. This often means that, to begin with, the

programme has to narrow down the target group and work

with a network of fewer partners. Once a project has a clearer

grasp of the local situation and a steady influx of young people

and volunteers, ambitions can be expanded. In this sense the

project period of the average mentoring project can be visualised

as having an hourglass profile: beginning with a broad vision

of mentoring, narrowing to a sharper definition in order to get

the project on the rails, followed by the adoption of a broader

view as the organisation looks to the future.

The relationships between the project organisation and partners

in the education and welfare sectors become more established

the longer the project has been running. This occurs as findings

gradually begin to emerge, which encourages more reciprocal

exchange of resources between the partners such that the use

of welfare services is no longer unilateral, as is often claimed.

Furthermore, many partners see positive returns from the

developments in mentoring methodology. Conversely, many

projects have only recently sought to establish connections with

industry, where the value of mentoring is not entirely clear. Here

there is still work to do to build strong reciprocal connections.

Leadership plays a crucial role in conveying the concept of

mentoring partners within the local region. The survey revealed

that effective leadership enables partners to establish relation-

ships and attract resources for the long term. Project managers

who know how to execute a vision and work in a collaborative

way, involving others in the decision-making regarding the

direction of the project are better at retaining partners. These

leadership qualities combined with a task- and goal-oriented

approach can also be crucial in the successful matching of

mentors and mentees and encouraging the long-term invol-

vement of mentors in a project.

In a broader context these findings correlate with the desire

for further the professionalisation of welfare services. Simply

having a good heart is no longer enough: strategic and business

aspects are becoming increasingly important. However, the

evaluation shows that many projects are now in a transitional

phase where strategic leadership is present, but has yet to

translate into actual effects in reality. Further insight into the

dynamics of leadership development within projects is impor-

tant, because this is the key to sustainable initiatives. It is also

crucial in enabling organisations to retain mentors and prevent

premature termination of mentoring projects.

In 2006 the idea that every disadvantaged person should have

a mentor emerged as the winner of the Social Agenda project

launched by the De Volkskrant newspaper and the Dutch Council

for Social Development (Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwik-

keling (RMO)). The project seeks to identify the most important

social issues of our day and how they can best be solved. From

2007 to 2012 it invested in 25 mentoring projects in urban

areas. These social welfare projects supported by Oranje Fonds

focused on providing a volunteer mentor or coach for young

people facing problems at home or at school. The Institute

for Integration and Social Efficacy at the Groningen University

monitored these projects and some of the 4,220 mentoring

relationships created as a result. The monitoring study assessed

the effectiveness of the mentoring methodology, how project

methodology could be further professionalised and made

sustainable in the local area and how these projects help to

promote participatory citizenship in a broader sense. The study

shows that the effectiveness of mentoring projects is deter-

mined by a complex set of interacting factors. In other words,

the provision of effective mentoring for young people depends

not only on the quality of the mentor, but also on how mentors

assist projects and the strength of the partnerships between

institutions and organisations within the local municipality or

region. Furthermore, the effects extend beyond simply facilitating

the empowerment of youth. Mentoring projects attract a new

group of volunteers who have not previously done volunteer

work elsewhere, which serves to strengthen modern civil society.


Sound vision and effective leadership of a project also strengthen

relationships between local partners, especially in the education

and welfare sectors, and encourage ongoing involvement in

the project. We are also seeing the first tentative steps to forge

stronger ties between the welfare sector and the business

community.

Development of young people

Young people facing problems at home or at school can benefit

greatly from mentoring. Working with a mentor helps increase

the self-confidence and skills of young people who are still at

school. They feel more at ease and also get on better at school.

The mentoring process also serves to improve their social

(networking) skills. They become more assertive and find it

easier to connect with others. They also have a clearer idea of

who to turn to in their environment if they are in trouble. Given

the fact that mentees are often young people who have little

social support and a small social network that they can fall back

on, these results are promising. Especially since, at some point,

young people have to be able to stand on their own two feet

when the mentoring process comes to an end. These develop-

ments become apparent when the outcomes of the mentoring

process are compared with the initial situation, before the young

person began working with a mentor. These findings are also

confirmed by the more limited development exhibited by a

similar group of young people who did not work with a mentor.

However, not all mentoring processes are completed. More than

a quarter of the young people who worked with a mentor failed

to complete the mentoring process, often because they were

dealing with multiple problems. In these cases mentors were

given little guidance on how to mentor the young person, or

were unable to provide adequate support. Referral to counsellor

often proves to be a more effective solution in these cases.

People who volunteer to act as mentors are often not profes-

sionals. However, they can still play an important role in

identifying the need for a possible referral. More than 60%

of the young people who failed to complete the mentoring

process due to serious problems were successfully referred to

a professional body. Although the incidence of failure among

the more ‘serious cases’ is higher than among other young people,

those who did go on to complete the mentoring programme

showed more significant gains in self-confidence.

The survey also reveals the conditions required for effective

mentoring. Practical goal-oriented support appears to be more

effective in promoting cognitive change, whereas socio-emo-

tional support helps improve self-confidence and other social

skills, which enable the young person to reach out to their social

network when necessary. In other words, it is desirable to in-

clude both types of support when seeking to assist the develop-

ment of young people. Reciprocal gains are also important:

younger mentors who focus both on supporting the mentee

and achieving their own learning outcomes are more succes-

sful in building a relationship of trust with the mentee. A good

match is important not only for the mentee, but also for the

mentor. This is also consistent with the changes taking place in

the way volunteer work is organised. The ‘old-style’ volunteers,

who are guided more by purely altruistic motives, are increasing-

ly being replaced by ‘new’ volunteers who also attach importance

to the achievement of their own learning outcomes. While the

national figures published by Statistics Netherlands indicate that

volunteering is mainly done by older people who have a lot of

free time on their hands (either because they are not working

or are retired), mentoring projects appear to attract volunteers

who conform to the ideals of a modern civil society. In other words,

these people combine volunteer work with a busy schedule of

other daily activities. They also tend to be better educated than

the middle-aged volunteers in paid employment who offer to

act as mentors.

Leadership

The way in which a mentoring project is managed plays an

important role in encouraging mentors to commit to the

project on an ongoing basis. Offering training and opportunities

for regular contact with peers, who can share their knowledge

and skills and help establish realistic expectations about the

outcomes of mentoring, is crucial, not only in terms of effec-

tiveness in providing guidance for young but also for in retaining

volunteers. The way in which the project is managed also plays

an important role in other respects. The survey shows that,

when combined with a project management approach that

focuses on creating a positive atmosphere (socially supportive

leadership), project leaders with a strong vision (visionary

leadership), who facilitate empowerment and connection

(participative leadership) are more effective in retaining their

mentors, who also do more within the project than just men-

toring. These two leadership styles also determine the support


that projects are able to attract from regional partners in the

education and welfare sectors and business community and

make partners more inclined to invest in the project.

If mentees are properly supervised by their mentor and mentors

are well managed by the project, mentoring projects help to

increase youth resilience. The aim of the programme to invest

not only in mentoring methodology, but also in volunteers and

local partnerships, also appears to pay off in a broader sense:

mentoring projects attract people who have not previously

served as volunteers and encourage other partners in the city

or region to increase their support of mentoring. Given that this

is the case, mentoring projects meet the criteria established

by many municipalities in the Netherlands for social reform

that seeks to promote self-reliance and relies on the voluntary

commitment of citizens.

UNDERSTANDING AND FACILITATING THE YOUTH MENTORING MOVEMENTAuthors: Jean E. Rhodes, University of Massachusetts in

Boston, David L. DuBois, University of Illinois at Chicago,

Joseph A. Durlak Professor of Psychology at Loyola University

Chicago and Edward Seidman, William T. Grant Foundation.

Jean Rhodes is the Frank L. Boyden

Professor of Psychology and the

Director of the MENTOR/UMass

Boston Center for Evidence-Based

Mentoring. Rhodes has devoted

her career to understanding and

advancing the role of intergenera-

tional relationships in the social, educational, and career

development of disadvantaged youth. She has published

three books (including Stand by Me: The risks and rewards

of mentoring today’s youth, Harvard University Press), four

edited volumes , and over 100 chapters and peer-reviewed

articles on the topics related to positive youth develop-

ment, the transition to adulthood, and mentoring. Rhodes

is a Fellow in the American Psychological Association and

the Society for Research and Community Action, and was

a Distinguished Fellow of the William T. Grant Foundation.

She serves as Chair of the Research and Policy Council of

MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership, is a member

of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Research Network on Connected Learning and sits on

the advisory boards of several mentoring and policy

organizations.

Website: www.rhodeslab.org

Three million young people are in formal one-to-one mentoring

relationships in the US, a sixfold increase from just a decade

ago, and funding and growth imperatives continue to fuel

program expansion (MENTOR, 2006a). Anecdotal reports of

mentors’ protective qualities are corroborated by a growing

body of research, which has underscored the positive influence

of mentors in the lives of youth. In the following sections, we

review existing research on mentoring relationships and programs.

We then critically examine the policy climate surrounding

The most basic level, a necessary level, for aneffective mentoring relationship is that the two people involved feel connected.

http://www.rhodeslab.org


youth mentoring initiatives and make recommendations for

facilitating future development and growth of the mentoring

movement.

Researching Mentoring Relationships

A growing number of studies have revealed significant asso-

ciations between youth’s involvement in mentoring relation-

ships and positive developmental outcomes (see DuBois &

Karcher, 2005; Rhodes, 2002; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, &

Behrendt, 2005). Illustratively, in a recent investigation with data

from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

(DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b), involving a nationally represen-

tative sample of adolescents who were first assessed when

in grades 7-12, those who reported having experienced a

mentoring relationship since the age of 14 exhibited better

outcomes (controlling where possible for the same or related

measures at the start of the study) within the domains of edu-

cation/work (high school completion, college attendance,

employment), mental health (self-esteem, life satisfaction),

problem behavior (gang membership, physical fighting, risk

taking), and health (exercise, birth control). Studies examining

specific characteristics of mentoring relationships have suggested

that the bonds are most likely to promote positive outcomes

when they share a core of common characteristics. At the most

basic level, a necessary condition for an effective mentoring

relationship is that the two people involved feel connected—

that there is mutual trust and a sense that one is understood,

liked, and respected. The closeness of a relationship, however,

is affected by individual, dyadic, and contextual factors.

Closeness

Without some connection, the dynamics that make mentoring

relationships effective are unlikely ever to occur. Indeed, after

examining over 600 pairs, Herrera, Sipe, and McClanahan (2000,

p. 31) observed that “at the crux of the mentoring relationship

is the bond that forms between the youth and mentor. If a bond

does not form, then youth and mentors may disengage from

the match before the mentoring relationship lasts long enough

to have a positive impact on youth.”

Such feelings of closeness in formal mentoring ties have been

found to mediate linkages between other relationship charac-

teristics and perceived benefits for the youth (Parra et al., 2002)

and, in informal mentoring, have predicted favorable youth

outcomes in areas such as mental health and substance use

independent of frequency of contact and relationship duration

(DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a).

Close emotional connections between youth and mentors

appear to be fostered by factors resembling those identified as

important in effective therapeutic relationships, such as empathy

and authenticity (Spencer, 2006), but also by the experience of

simply having fun and enjoying each other’s company (Spencer &

Rhodes, 2005).

It also helps when there is a basic compatibility between the

youth and mentor in their personalities, interests, and expec-

tations or goals for the relationship (Bernier & Larose, 2005;

Madia & Lutz, 2004). It is noteworthy, however, that similarity

in the ethnic or racial backgrounds of the mentor and youth has

not emerged as a significant factor, despite the importance

often attributed to this in practice (Rhodes, Reddy, Grossman &

Lee, 2003; Sanchez & Colon, 2005). Finally, it’s important to note

that close youth-adult mentoring relationships are not immune

from confl ict and other negative emotional experiences (e.g.,

disappointment) and that these may have an adverse impact on

youth, as well as the sustainability of the relationship (Grossman &

Rhodes, 2002; Rhodes, Reddy, Roffman, & Grossman, 2005).

The formation of a close relationship is conditioned by several

factors, including the background characteristics of the mentor,

the effectiveness of the mentor in addressing the develop-

mental needs of the child, the consistency and duration of the

tie, and the broader program and community context in which

the relationship unfolds.

Mentor characteristics

Close, effective mentoring relationships seem to be facilitated

when adults possess certain skills and attributes. These include

prior experience in helping roles or occupations (DuBois,

Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002), an ability to demonstrate

appreciation of salient socioeconomic and cultural influences

in the youth’s life (Hirsch, 2005), and a sense of efficacy for being

able to mentor young people (DuBois, Neville, Parra, & Pugh-

Lilly, 2002; Hirsch, 2005; Karcher, Nakkula, & Harris, 2005; Parra,

DuBois, Neville, Pugh-Lilly, & Povinelli, 2002). The ability to model


relevant behaviors, such as skills required for job performance

in the work setting, appears to be of further benefit (Hamilton &

Hamilton, 2005) as does refraining from actions (e.g., substance

use) that may encourage youth to adopt unhealthy behaviors

(Beam, Gil-Rivas, Greenberger, & Chen, 2002).

Several lines of research also converge in calling attention to a

youth-centered approach to mentoring, which focuses on the

developmental needs of the youth.

Relationships that are youth-centered (sometimes also referred

to as developmental) in their orientation, as opposed to being

driven primarily by the interests or expectations of the mentor

(sometimes also referred to as prescriptive), have been found

to predict greater relationship quality and duration (Herrera et

al., 2000; Morrow & Styles, 1995; Styles & Morrow, 1992) as well

as improvements in how youth experience their relationships

with other adults (Karcher, Roy-Carlson, Benne, Gil-Hernandez,

Allen, & Gomez, 2006a). Helping youth to set and work toward

goals that are important to their development also appears

to be beneficial (Balcazar, Davies, Viggers, & Tranter, in press;

Balcazar, Keys, & Garate, 1995; Davidson & Redner, 1988; Hamilton &

Hamilton, 2005), especially if the goals are agreed upon by

mentor and youth in accordance with the youthcentered

approach described above (Larose, Chaloux, Monaghan, &

Tarabulsy, 2006). This latter consideration is consistent with

other research suggesting that balanced attention to multiple

sets of potentially competing concerns may be necessary to

achieve optimal results when mentoring youth within a develop-

mental framework. In one of these studies applying cluster

analysis to relationship data from a study of the Big Brothers

Big Sisters program (Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004), out-

comes were most favorable when youth reported experiencing

both structure and support from their mentors; by contrast, no

benefits were evident for an unconditional support relationship

type, thus suggesting a need for mentors to be more than simply

“good friends.” Adult advisors in other types of programs and

activities similarly appear to be most effective whentheir inter-

actions with youth reflect sensitivity to the needs of youth

for not only ownership and autonomy, but also structure and

scaffolding (Larson, Hansen, & Walker, 2005). In accordance with

these findings, the successful development of a mentoring

relationship with a young person appears to be more likely

when the adult demonstrates attunement to the needs and

interests of the youth and the ability to adapt his or her approach

accordingly (Pryce, 2006; Spencer, 2006).

Consistency

Studies of both informal and formal mentoring ties highlight

the significance of how often mentors and youth spend time

together (Blakely, Menon, & Jones, 1995; DuBois & Neville, 1997;

DuBois, Neville, et al., 2002; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a; Freed-

man, 1988; Herrera et al., 2000; McLearn, Colasanto, & Schoen,

1998; Parra et al., 2002). Regular contact has been linked to

positive youth outcomes indirectly via its role in affording other

desirable processes to take root in the mentoring relationship.

For example, regular meetings may lead to engagement in

beneficial activities (Parra et al., 2002), the provision of emotional

and instrumental support (Herrera et al., 2000), and a deeper

integration of the adult into the youth’s social network (DuBois,

Neville, et al., 2002). The reliable involvement of a caring non-

parental adult in a youth’s life may offer more direct benefits as

well in the form of enhanced feelings of security and attachment

in interpersonal relationships (Keller, 2005b; Rhodes, 2005).

Duration

The benefits of mentoring appear to accure with time. In a

reanalysis of data from the P/PV study of the Big Brothers Big

Sisters program, Grossman and Rhodes (2002) found that positive

effects on youth outcomes became progressively stronger as

relationships persisted for longer periods of time. The greatest

benefits were evident for youth in relationships that lasted one

year or longer. By contrast, youth in relationships that lasted

less than 6 months (i.e., less than half the one year commitment

that volunteers were asked to make) showed declines in func-

tioning relative to controls. The preceding trends were apparent

even when considering potential confounding influences such

as baseline characteristics of youth that could contribute to

increased risk for premature termination. These findings suggest

that, for mentoring relationships to yield benefits, they should

endure for at least one year. An equally important consideration,

however, may be whether relationships are continued for the

full duration of whatever expectations are reestablished, even

if these are for a considerably shorter period of time (De Ayala &

Perry, 2005; Larose, Tarabulsy, & Cyrenne, 2005). It seems likely,

moreover, that the amount of time needed for beneficial

mentoring to occur also depends on other factors such as the

characteristics and needs of the youth, the mentor’s skills and


background, the frequency of contact in the relationship, and

the specific outcome(s) under consideration (Rhodes, 2002).

The time frame over which gains from mentoring ties continue

to accrue and thus are maximized is not well-established. It

appears, however, that relationships may be especially beneficial

when they remain part of the youth’s life for multiple years (Klaw,

Fitzgerald, & Rhodes, 2003; McLearn et al., 1998) and thus have

the opportunity to facilitate adaptation throughout significant

portions of their development (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b;

Werner, 1995).

Contextual variable

Although the focus in most mentoring research has been on

dyadic relationships between adults and youth, recent investi-

gations have indicated the importance of connections between

mentoring relationships and the broader interpersonal contexts

in which they occur (Keller, 2005a). These include benefits of

providing mentoring in a group context that includes not only

multiple peers (Herrera, Vang, & Gale, 2002; Hirsch, 2005; House,

Kuperminc, & Lapidus, 2005), but also multiple adults who can

collaborate with one another (Hirsch, DuBois, & Deutsch, 2006).

There is also evidence that mentoring can facilitate gains in the

relationships youth have with parents, peers, and other adults

such as teachers (Karcher, Roy-Carlson, Benne, Gil-Hernandez,

Allen, & Gomez, 2006b; Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995) and

that these improvements, in turn, are involved in mediating

positive effects of mentoring on outcomes such as academic

achievement (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000), substance

use (Rhodes, Reddy, & Grossman, 2005), and emotional health

(DuBois, Neville, et al., 2002). Furthermore, it appears that when

a mentor develops linkages with key persons in the youth’s

social network, such as parents (DuBois, Holloway, et al., 2002)

or peers (Hirsch, 2005), effectiveness is enhanced.

Limitations

When youth experience mentoring relationships that reflect

the characteristics reviewed in the previous sections, these

relationships may harbor remarkable potential to realize the

type of transformative influence on long-term health and

adjustment that have been central to arguments for expanding

mentoring initiatives. Yet, when these features are lacking, it

is equally apparent that mentoring relationships may fall well

short of their potential benefits, and even do harm. These cir-

cumstances may include, for example, a lack of compatibility

in the personality or interests of the youth and mentor; insuf-

ficient skills or abilities on the part of the mentor; an irregular

or infrequent pattern of contact; brief or less than expected

duration; the absence of a close, emotional bond; mentor

behaviors that do reflect sensitivity to the full range of the

youth’s developmental needs; and weak or missing linkages

to the youth’s social network. These possibilities may help to

account for the generally modest magnitude of the associations

found between mentoring relationships and youth outcomes

and a lack of consistency in findings across all areas of functi-

oning. In the study referred to previously that utilized data

from the Add Health study (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b), for

example, the estimated benefits of having had a mentor in

adolescence were generally not large enough to offset the

estimated negative consequences associated with individual or

environmental risk factors. Having a mentor, furthermore, was

not predictive of benefits in several areas such as substance

use (e.g., smoking), mental health problems (e.g., depression),

or physical health.

It should be noted, however, that existing findings are subject

to the influence of several methodological limitations (DuBois &

Silverthorn, 2005c). Illustratively, research to date has focused

predominantly on the estimated effects of a single mentoring

relationship, typically at a single point in the youth’s develop-

ment.

The more substantial benefits that may be associated with access

to multiple mentoring relationships throughout the course of

childhood and adolescence, therefore, remain largely uncharted,

although the value of both life course (Werner, 1995) and network

(Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh, in press) perspectives is clearly sug-

gested by existing research. The implications of different com-

binations or profiles of relationship characteristics as well as

the modifying influence of varying constellations of individual

and environmental factors that may either enhance or attenuate

consequences for youth are similarly under-studied, but again

appear to be an important consideration (e.g., Grossman &

Rhodes, 2002; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002).

Thus, although many useful implications can be drawn from

existing research on mentoring relationships and their role in

youth development, there are also numerous significant issues

in need of clarification.


The Role of Mentoring in Programs and Organizations

From a policy perspective, it is critical to understand the extent

to which programs and other organizational contexts can

serve as vehicles for establishing or cultivating close, effective

mentoring relationships, and to delineate practices and setting

features that facilitate this goal. A considerable amount of

research has addressed each of these concerns.

TABLE 1

Research-Supported Mentoring Program Practices

Theory-Baseda Empirically Basedb

Monitoring of Program Implementation X X

Setting for Mentoring Activities Xc

Screening of Prospective Mentors X

Mentor Background: Helping Role of Profession X

Mentor/Youth Matching X

Mentor Pre-Match Training X

Expectations: Frequency of Contact X X

Expectations: Length of Relationship X

Supervision X

Ongoing Training X X

Mentor Support Group X

Structured Activities for Mentors and Youth X X

Patent Support/Involvement X X

Note. Based on findings from a meta-analysis of evaluations of youth mentoring programs (DuBois, Holloway. et al., 2002).a Practices emphasized previously as important in the mentoring program literature (e.g., National Mentoring Working Group, 1991). Higher scores on an index of the number of these practices utilized by a predicted larger effects sizes.

b Practices that individually in the meta-analysis were found to predict significantly larger effects sizes. Higher scores on an index of the number of these practices utilized by a program predicted larger effects sizes.

c Programs in community and other settings outside of school (e.g., workplace) yielded larger effects sizes.


Formal mentoring programs

In formal mentoring programs, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters,

mentoring relationships are established by matching youth with

adult volunteers. In a meta-analysis of over 50 evaluations of

mentoring programs, DuBois, Holloway, et al. (2002) found

evidence of benefits for participating youth on a range of

emotional, behavioral, social, academic, and career development

outcomes (see also Jekielek, Moore, & Hair, 2002). The estimated

magnitude of program impacts, however, was small (Cohen’s

d = .14). Similarly, findings from the few studies that collected

follow-up assessments did not suggest the types of broad,

transformative effects on young people at later stages of

their development that are central to arguments offered for

investment in mentoring initiatives (Walker, 2005). In some

instances, for example, effects have faded to nonsignificance

within only a few months of program participation (Aseltine et

al., 2000). Evaluations also have routinely reported significant

implementation problems that have compromised the ability

of programs to establish and support high-quality mentoring

relationships.

As would be expected, youth experiencing relationships of

lower quality in programs have had less favorable outcomes

(DuBois, Holloway, et al., 2002). The preceding trends may

account for the disappointing results of preliminary efforts

to gauge cost-benefit ratios for youth mentoring programs

(Aos et al., 2004). These include an estimate that benefits of

participation in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program, derived

from findings of the landmark Public/Private Ventures study

(described in a later section of this report; Tierney et al., 1995),

exceeded costs by only the narrowest of margins (estimate

of $1.01 benefit for each $1.00 of cost) when including both

taxpayer and other costs.

The DuBois, Holloway, et al. (2002) meta-analysis, however, found

wide variation in the effectiveness of mentoring programs.

It was demonstrated, furthermore, that the magnitude of

program impacts increased systematically in conjunction with

the use of greater numbers of practices that the investigators

included in theory-based and empirically based practice

indexes (see Table 1). The practices included in each index

Figure 1

Size

of E

�ect

s on

You

th O

utco

mes

Number of Practices

Medium E�ect

Small E�ect

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

-0,1

Empirically-Based Practices Theory-Based Practices


were identified based on prior recommendations in the field

(theory-based) or the findings of the meta-analysis itself

(empirically-based).

As illustrated in Figure 1, when the full complement of such

practices is used, predicted effect sizes are notably more

impressive, although still not large by conventional standards.

Empirically driven approaches that draw on a wider range of

sources of data, such as input from stakeholder groups (e.g.,

youth) and piloting of intervention procedures, could yield

programs with greater demonstrated benefits (DuBois et al.,

in press).

Existing research pertains predominantly to programs that

adhere to a model with several common features: a) mentors

and youth are paired with each other on a one-on-one basis

and spend time together on an in-person basis; b) the mentor

is an adult volunteer; and c) mentors and youth are largely free

to spend time together in a range of different activities and

settings. Recent years, however, have witnessed widespread

implementation of programs that represent significant depar-

tures from this model. These alternative models include: group

mentoring programs in which several youth may be mentored

by a single adult; e-mentoring programs in which mentors

and youth communicate over the internet; peer mentoring

programs in which older youth are utilized as mentors; and

site-based models in which interactions between youth and

mentors are limited to a particular setting such as school

(DuBois & Rhodes, in press). At present, very little reliable

information exists concerning the effectiveness of these newer

program models.

The integration of mentoring into multi-component youth

development and prevention programs is another prominent

trend. At present, the “value added” benefits of mentoring

in the context of other programs and services are not well

established. The most favorable results, however, are evident

when mentoring is used as a vehicle for delivering or brokering

access to other services rather than simply being an “add on”

and hence having little or no connection to other program

components (Kuperminc et al., 2005).

Youth-serving programs, organizations, and institutions

Informal mentoring relationships are decidedly more prevalent

than those established through formal programs (DuBois &

Karcher, 2005). It is thus noteworthy that a growing body of

research calls attention to the significance of relationships

between young people and the adults with whom they come

into contact more naturally through their participation in youth-

serving programs, organizations, and institutions. These studies

point to the value of support and mentoring that youth receive

from adults in the school setting (Pianta, Stuhlman, & Hamre,

2002; Reddy, Rhodes, & Mulhall, 2003; Rhodes & Fredriksen, 2004),

after-school and sports activities (Hirsch, 2005; Rhodes, 2004;

Smith & Smoll, 2002), and service-learning and workplace

training programs (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005). Initial research

suggests several factors that may promote positive adult-youth

relationships in these types of contexts (Hamilton & Hamilton,

2005; Hirsch, 2005; Pianta et al., 2002; Rhodes, 2004): staff training

and development, favorable adult-youth ratios, extended periods

of exposure to the same staff, availability of quality programs,

and an organizational climate and culture supportive of men-

toring. There is evidence that youth-adult relationships can

be enhanced through intervention strategies that target such

factors (Pianta et al., 2002; Smith & Smoll, 2002), although the

development and evaluation of these types of initiatives lags

well behind that of formal mentoring programs.

Differential effectiveness based on individual and environmen-

tal risk

In general, mentoring programs targeting youth experiencing

conditions of environmental risk (e.g., socioeconomic dis-

advantage) have yielded stronger effects (DuBois, Holloway,

et al., 2002).

Similarly, supportive relationships with adults in other settings

such as schools (DuBois, Felner, Meares, & Krier, 1994) and after-

school programs (Hirsch, 2005; Mahoney, Schweder, & Stattin,

2002) appear to be especially beneficial for young people

exposed to significant adversity in other parts of their lives.

The picture is less clear with regard to indicators of individual

level risk, such as academic failure, teen pregnancy, maltreatment,

or juvenile delinquency (Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike,

& Larose, in press). Programs targeting youth identified solely

by markers of individual vulnerability, on average, have failed

to yield favorable impacts and appear, moreover, prone to

produce negative or harmful effects when desirable program


practices are not in place (DuBois, Holloway, et al., 2002; Rhodes,

2002).

In the context of accompanying environmental adversity,

vulnerable youth have exhibited more positive responses to

mentoring (e.g., Hughes, Cavell, Meehan, Zhang, & Collie, 2005),

perhaps in part because there is then less stigma and negative

labeling associated with their participation in programs (DuBois,

Holloway, et al., 2002). In view of the limited attention that such

issues have received, however, especially for the specific

populations that are the focus of recent policy initiatives in

mentoring (e.g., children of incarcerated parents), as well as

the evolving status of interventions themselves, further research

will be needed to clarify the role of individual and environmental

risk in shaping the responsiveness of youth to programs.

Mentoring and Public Policy

Taken together, research on mentoring processes and findings

are complex and replete with qualifications and nuances that

underscore the need for careful adherence to evidence-based

practice and measured expansion of new program models.

Nonetheless, public policy appears to be running on a separate

track from mentoring research, with enthusiasm for new

approaches often outpacing the scientific knowledge base.

What accounts for this mismatch and for the somewhat un-

bridled growth of mentoring as a social intervention over the

past 15 years? There are many sociopolitical influences, but

an important tipping point came with the publication of the

previously noted impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters of

America (BBBSA), conducted by researchers at Public/Private

Ventures in Philadelphia in the mid-1990s (Tierney et al., 1995).

The report summarizing the results of this study, and the wide-

spread publicity that it received, was an important impetus

for what flourished into a wider mentoring movement. The

findings provided scientific justification for policymakers and

practitioners from across the political spectrum to promote

mentoring and, more than a decade later, continue to under-

gird the new generation of programs (Walker, 2005). Findings

were cited on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and in research, news,

and opinion pieces. Indeed, our recent Internet search of the

report’s title yielded about 70,000 hits. Riding the public tide

of enthusiasm, BBBSA has more than tripled in size since the

study was released (BBBSA, 2005).

On second glance

But how much of a difference did the intervention really make?

The study included over a thousand youth who applied to one

of eight urban Big Brothers Big Sisters programs. The evaluators

tracked the experiences of youth given access to the program

over time and the experiences of a control group of similar

youth not given access to the program. After 18 months, the

two groups were compared on various outcomes. Although

youth in both groups showed decrements in functioning over

time, those in the mentoring group declined more slowly than

the controls. Effect sizes varied considerably, depending on the

characteristics of the individuals involved and the relationships

formed, but were generally small (average pre-post and post-

program difference effect size estimates were Cohen’s d = .02

and .05, respectively) (DuBois, Holloway, et al., 2002). And,

interestingly, as noted earlier, it is by no means clear that these

benefits comfortably exceeded program costs (Aos et al., 2004).

Despite the modest and somewhat nuanced findings of the

evaluation, it fell on fertile soil. Mentoring was an idea whose

time had come—and the group differences that were high-

lighted in the evaluation report provided a sufficiently upbeat

message to inspire hope. After decades of disappointing results

from large-scale, government-sponsored social policy initiatives,

the notion that a straightforward, relatively inexpensive, volun-

teer-based approach could redress the needs of our nation’s

youth was both comforting and compelling (Walker, 2005).

And, because this approach locates the problem (a lack of role

models) and solution (deployment of middleclass volunteers)

at the personal level, it fits neatly with beliefs that are central

to modern conservative thinking about upward mobility and

the “pull-yourself-up-bythe-bootstraps” American ideology

(Walker, 2005). Consequently mentoring won the hearts and

minds of powerful allies and a disillusioned public eager to

embrace formulations and solutions that highlighted individual

frailty and redemption over structural impediments and change.

This tendency to privilege personal over contextual factors is

something that psychologists refer to as “the fundamental at-

tribution error” (Mednick, 1989; Watson, de Bortali-Tregerthan,

& Frank, 1984). There is also a tendency to rely on personal

experience to guide one’s own behavior, even in the face of

more compelling research fi dings (Brigham, 1986). Research


stemming from behavioral decision theory has demonstrated

how people develop simplified models of the world for direc-

ting their own behavior based on what is familiar and emotio-

nally gratifying (Betsch, 2005). In this regard, many adults can

recall the importance of one caring adult—be it their teacher,

coach or neighbor—who has made a difference in their lives.

In essence, mentoring had enormous face validity: it looked

and felt like the sort of intervention that should work, our

instincts and the evaluation report told us that it could work,

and we wanted it to work. And, as is clear from the research

summarized previously, there is ample evidence that quality

mentoring programs can work.

As mentoring began to be championed by powerful constituen-

cies, there grew a general impatience with the limited reach of

existing programs. Despite strenuous efforts, many programs

struggled to recruit enough volunteers who could make the

typical yearlong, weekly commitment and it was not uncom-

mon for youth to be waitlisted for upwards of two years (Rhodes,

2002). The Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future soon followed,

where the goal of creating two million mentor relationships by

the year 2000 drew national attention. Mentoring was also a

key rationale for establishing America’s Promise— The Alliance

for Youth, which Colin Powell chaired.

This initiative helped to propel the work of advocacy organi-

zations, most notably the One to One Partnership (now MENTOR/

National Mentoring Partnership) that had been founded earlier

in the decade (DuBois & Karcher, 2005). This organization has

established a system of statewide partnerships that provide

technical assistance and training to local mentoring programs

and leads efforts to engage volunteers, corporations and other

leaders at the state and local level. Resulting in part from their

vigorous advocacy, increased funding for mentoring programs

became available through a widening array of federal, state,

and private sources. Federal funding for mentoring programs,

for example, has increased substantially over the past decade,

with annual Congressional appropriations of $100 million since

2004 (though the most recent budget proposal calls for a 40%

reduction in this allocation) (MENTOR, 2006a).

Responding in part to internal pressures for growth, and external

competition for funding, BBBSA announced vigorous growth

goals. The organization currently serves 300,000 youth (up from

around 100,000 in the mid-1990s), but has its sights set on

reaching nearly a half million by next year and one million by 2010

(BBBSA, 2006). The Corporation for National and Community

Service recently saw and raised this ante, with a call for three

million new matches by 2010 (Eisner, 2006). Along similar lines,

MENTOR has set the goal of closing the gap between current

levels and the 15 million young people who they have estimated

could benefi t from having a mentor.

What gets measured gets done

The enthusiasm for and growth in initiatives to support men-

toring speaks volumes about the faith our society places in

one-to-one relationships between vulnerable young people

and unrelated but caring adults (Walker, 2005). And with good

cause. The success of human services initiatives often rests on

the quality of relationships that are forged among participants.

By putting relationships at center stage, mentoring programs

can deliver this healing in full potency. Moreover, as discussed

earlier, a growing body of research provides an encouraging

base of evidence for the benefits of highquality mentoring

relationships and for programs and settings that are able to

establish and support these types of relationships. Yet, as each

new gauntlet is thrown down, programs are pressed to separate

quality indicators from growth. The cost of expanding the

number of youth served seems to be winning the battle in the

competition with expenditures to enrich programs. And, in this

climate of heightened pressure to show numbers, mentoring

organizations can fall prey to trivializing what is at the very

heart of their intervention: caring relationships. A “placeholder

mentality,” has emerged in some programs—a set of beliefs that

the most important program goal is simply to get disadvantaged

children off wait lists, that mentor-youth bonds are somewhat

interchangeable and, more generally, that somehow if a relation-

ship is formed through a program it does not adhere to the

same set of rules as other close relationships (Rhodes, 2002).

It is within this context that the adult volunteer (the rate limiting

factor for growth) has become the “customer” in many mentoring

programs. To a growing extent, programs are lowering the bar

for volunteers—shifting down from the traditional yearlong

commitment and requiring only bimonthly as opposed to

weekly meetings.


Such changes run counter to research demonstrating the relative

benefits of longer, more intensive relationships. In addition,

many agencies have taken steps to further minimize volunteer

preparation and support, even as research and mentor volun-

teer surveys underscore their importance (DuBois, Holloway,

et al., 2002; MENTOR, 2006b). Training efforts are uneven and

fall largely in the realm of passive approaches (i.e., information

packets to mentors) rather than active technical assistance.

Case management is also kept to a minimum in many programs,

often in the form of perfunctory phone calls or emails every

month or so. Taken together, these approaches have reduced

the burden that is placed on the agency and volunteer while

facilitating shifts in priorities toward volunteer recruitment,

intake, and matching.

New approaches to mentoring

As noted previously in our review of research, a plethora of

alternative mentoring program models have been introduced

in recent years. Perhaps the biggest sea change has been the

ascendance of site-based mentoring models, in which inter-

actions between youth and mentors are limited to a particular

setting such as school, the workplace, or after-school programs.

Indeed, although a rarity 15 years ago, more than half of men-

toring programs are now site-based, the vast majority of which

are in schools (mostly elementary) (DuBois & Karcher, 2005).

In the remainder of this section, we consider school-based

mentoring programs in detail. We do so with the goal of illustra-

ting the types of challenges and concerns that are raised by the

newer and less proven or intensive approaches to mentoring

that are being fueled by current policy more generally.

Although school-based mentoring is commonly thought to be

substantially less expensive than community-based models, more

recent cost data and observations concerning the administrative

complexities of managing relationships across geographically

dispersed schools suggest otherwise (e.g., Karcher, Roy-Carlson,

Benne, Gil-Hernandez, Allen, & Gomez, 2006a). Nonetheless,

this approach has several advantages. Schools are better able

to capitalize on the knowledge, referrals, and support of the

many adults who are already in the setting, simplifying programs’

task of establishing relationships (Jucovy, 2000). Moreover,

school-based mentoring programs tend to attract a wider pool

of volunteers (particularly high school and college students)

who —by virtue of their age, school requirements, jobs, or other

circumstances— were less likely to volunteer in community-

based programs. And, since the meetings typically occur on

school grounds, safety concerns are allayed (Herrera et al., 2000).

Yet a downside of many school-based programs is their reduced

length and intensity.

Because they are linked to the academic calendar, the majority

of school-based relationships are suspended during summer

months, only a small proportion of which reunite in the fall.

This lack of continuity is worrisome, particularly in light of

findings suggesting that the benefits of a school-based men-

toring program do not persist beyond the duration of the school

year (Aseltine et al., 2000). And, even during the school year,

relationships tend be less intensive than their community-

based counterparts. School-based mentors spend about half

as much time with youth as community-based mentors, and

the school-based structure tends to constrain the intensity and

scope of meetings in ways that community-based relationships

do not (Herrera et al., 2000).

The growing dependence on high school and collegeaged

students for the delivery of school-based mentoring brings its

own sets of complications. The unpredictable schedules and

transitory nature of this population can undermine continuity.

Moreover, because student volunteers are still developing

educational credentials themselves, their motivation to mentor

often includes fulfilling service-learning requirements or demon-

strating community service. Karcher, Nakkula, and Harris (2005)

found that mentors who were motivated by self-interest per-

ceived their relationships less positively.

Similarly, Rubin and Thorelli (1984) demonstrated how, as the

number of such egoistic motives went up, the length of volun-

teers’ participation decreased. Other studies suggest that it is

the fulfillment, not the nature, of motivations that matters most

(Stukas, Daly, & Clary, 2006). Nonetheless, these associations

might help to explain the growing difficulties with volunteer

retention,a particularly troubling trend given the adverse effects

associated with breakdowns of relationships (Grossman &

Rhodes, 2002).


Conclusions and Recommendations

Will Mentoring Become the Next Supermarket Tomato? Reactions to Rhodes and DuBois Joseph A. Durlak, Loyola University ChicagoRhodes and DuBois’ excellent commentary provides an

up-to-date analysis of research and practice on mentoring.

In comparing what we know empirically about mentoring

to the most recent trends in practice, they raise cautionary

flags about how political and financial pressures coupled

with strong personal advocacy can undermine the poten-

tial value of mentoring programs. In the rush to implement

mentoring programs on a much wider scale, exactly the

wrong decisions might be made about helping youth in

need. In a telling analogy, they liken several current plans

for large-scale mentoring programs to the supermarket

tomato. Efforts to take a good idea—the juicy, tasty, home-

grown tomato—and mass market it for wide consumption

(and, of course, for profit) led growers to develop a clearly

inferior substitute, the infamous supermarket tomato:

the hard, strangely colored piece of fruit that is inferior

in nutrition, appearance, and taste to the original. The

same thing may happen to the next generation of men-

toring programs in the sense that newly established

programs may be so poorly conceived and conducted

that they will have limited positive impact, and, in some

cases, detrimental effects on participating youth.

Unfortunately, the horse might have already left the barn.

Once large amounts of money become available, and

mentoring organizations seek to increase their reputation

and presence in more communities, it is difficult to stop

such developments.

Most scientists are not good at public advocacy, and some

avoid it like the plague. Often there are strong tensions

between what practitioners need from researchers and

what is offered. Rhodes and DuBois indicate the dilemma

facing mentoring researchers. Current findings “are com-

plex and replete with qualifi cations and nuances that do

not lend themselves easily to political crusades.” Yet qualifi-

cations and nuances are the last thing that personal

advocates of various strategies and those in the policy

arena want to hear. Instead, these individuals prize quick,

clear answers offered in simple terms that can be used

for action.

It can be difficult to satisfy others’ desires while remaining

true to the principles of evidence-based practice. After

all, we do not know precisely why mentoring works, or

what circumstances lead to the best results for different

participants. Rhodes and DuBois are 100% correct in

saying that careful implementation and evaluation of all

new programs should be fundamental requirements for

all new mentoring programs.

However, researchers (myself included) are often too

conservative in generalizing their findings to the real

world. In my opinion, Table 1 in Rhodes and DuBois’ article

could serve very well for a set of forcefully articulated

statements about how to run a mentoring program. The

following are my immediate reactions that can certainly

be improved for mass consumption, but they illustrate

the type of guidance that is unlikely to do any harm.

Your mentoring program is more likely to be effective

if you:

1. Select mentors who have previous relevant experience

in helping. Not everyone is a good mentor;

2. Require a long (at least 12 months) commitment from

mentors;

3. Carefully train and support your mentors, and help

structure their activities with their mentees;

4. Monitor program implementation. Anticipate that

some things will go wrong; they usually do;

5. Involve parents as much as possible; and

6. Remember that if not done carefully, mentoring can

harm participating youth! Evaluate your programs, and

be ready to change practices as needed.

Researchers have more to say to the real world than they

usually realize, but fi nding the right words and using the

right channels to communicate effective messages is not

easy. Perhaps Rhodes and DuBois’ article can stimulate

others to enter the fray. The world does not need any

more supermarket tomatoes.


So, in a nutshell—modest findings from the evaluation of an

intensive community-based approach to mentoring helped to

galvanize a movement and stimulate aggressive growth goals.

These goals necessitated that mentoring be delivered more

efficiently, which, in turn, changed the intervention to some-

thing that bears decreasing resemblance to its inspiration. This

is a familiar story in mass production. By way of analogy, we are

reminded of the supermarket tomato, which, when bred for

cost-efficient and expansive transport, retains notably less of its

original nutritional, esthetic, and gustatory qualities. The story

of the modern mentoring movement is also evocative of others’

attempts to replicate evidence-based human service approaches.

A case in point is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, which

spurred extensive replication, reduced fidelity, and ultimately

less encouraging results (McCoy & Reynolds, 1998). Yet growth

and quality are not necessarily incompatible. Bringing an inter-

vention to scale while retaining fidelity is costly and challenging,

but it can be done. A key to this will be the improved alignment

of research and public policy in the area of youth mentoring

Implications for research

If the youth mentoring movement is to offer optimal and sus-

tained benefit to the young people it seeks to serve, research

will need to assume a more central role in the field’s further

development and growth. Along with the wide range of issues

that we already have highlighted in our review of the literature

as being in need of clarification, there are several broader

concerns that merit highlighting. These include the wealth of

opportunities for linkages between basic and applied research

that are offered by investigations of mentoring relationships.

These studies provide a natural laboratory for the study of a

rich array of biological, cognitive, emotional, social, and contex-

tual influences on youth-adult relationships during the course

of development. Through careful observation, researchers can

gain insight into the processes through which mentors influence

developmental outcomes, such as, for example, how models

of attachment and social cognition govern the formation and

development of intergenerational relationships, and why certain

youth are seemingly so profoundly affected by mentoring

relationships while others benefit little or even are harmed.

These types of questions have been largely overshadowed

by important, but more prosaic concerns pertaining to issues

such as patterns of contact and relationship duration. Moving

beyond these first-generation questions —in essence, getting

to the heart and soul of the change process— is critical to

advancing amore scientifically informed and practically applicable

understanding of youth development and resilience. Clearly,

the direction we are describing fits well with recent initiatives

of the National Institutes of Health to support translational

research that links basic and applied areas of inquiry.

With regard to mentoring in programs and organizations, there

clearly is a need for careful evaluations of the full range of

innovative new approaches (Rhodes & DuBois, 2004). These

will be critically important to position policymakers and prac-

titioners to make decisions concerning optimal dosage and

duration as well as a range of other concerns. The need for

more empirically informed strategies for improving volunteer

retention is illustrative in this regard. High rates of volunteer

attrition continue to represent a major drain on staff and financial

resources in mentoring program. Despite considerable program

investments into mentor recruitment, matching, training, and

supervision, as many as 50% of relationships terminate prema-

turely (Rhodes, 2002). The growing body of research on volun-

teer and employee retention (e.g., Branhan, 2006; Stukas, Snyder,

& Clary, 1999; Stukas et al., 2006) as well as qualitative inquiry

into the factors underlying mentor attrition (Spencer, 2006)

should be brought to bear on this issue.

There is also a need for greater involvement of researchers in

all phases of the process of designing, piloting, implementing,

evaluating, and disseminating interventions in the area of youth

mentoring (DuBois et al., in press). To date, the role of research

has been predominantly to evaluate programs once they have

been developed, often only after they have been disseminated

widely.


The Redefinition of Quality as Quantity Edward Seidman, William T. Grant Foundation and New York UniversityIn “Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring

Movement,” Jean Rhodes and David DuBois provide us

with a well-balanced integration of contemporary

research findings, insights from their experiences on the

ground, and an insightful, critical analysis of mentoring

research and practice. Moreover, as they suggest, men-

toring research and practice have gotten caught up in a

rising tide of popularity and politics. During this process,

the quality and essence of mentoring seem to have moved

further into the shadows. Or, stated otherwise, it seems

as if quality has been redefined as quantity.

In what follows, I briefly address three questions. First,

why does this process of redefinition occur? Second, is

this process of redefinition unique to the mentoring arena?

Third, is there an antidote?

As the authors point out, what ultimately unfolds is, in

part, a function of the definition of the “problem” and/or

solution. Mentoring was seen as a response to individual

needs and problems. Thus, individualism is a primary

and implicit premise of mentoring and it leads to a focus

on individual-level causes and outcomes (Seidman &

Rappaport, 1986). Another key, related premise that guides

the Western, and particularly the American, mindset is

pragmatism and rationality. By necessity, this premise leads

us to reduce complex issues to simpler forms. A logical

exemplar of the need to be pragmatic and rational has

often led us to a concern with cost-effectiveness. To

evaluate cost-effectiveness, a metric is needed. In many

areas of human and social services, this has often led

us to individual-level outcomes or “head counts,” that is,

the number of individuals served when settings are the

purported level of analysis. Behind this idea is often the

appealing notion that “more is better.”

Quality, on the other hand, flies in the face of these premises.

Quality is complex, can rarely be captured by individualism

and pragmatism/rationality, and, not surprisingly, is difficult

to quantify without doing a disservice to its essence.

Quality can lead us to focus on setting-level practices and

interactions as the outcomes of interest, in contrast to

a narrow focus on quantity. However, as mentoring has

come to be seen as a viable solution to problem youth

and has become increasingly popular politically, the implicit

premises of individualism, pragmatism, and rationality have

helped transform an emphasis on quality to one of quantity.

We have borne witness to a similar process in many other

areas. Take, for example, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

federal legislation and its trickle-down consequences for

policy and practice at lower levels. Many, though not all,

of the foundational assumptions of the legislation repre-

sent good intentions as well as the complexity and impor-

tance of the underlying issues. Yet, in practice, individualism,

pragmatism, and rationality, along with the premise of a

single standard of comparison by which to array and rank

people, converge to focus on standardized achievement

score outcomes. And as is well known, in classrooms and

schools, these standards often result in teachers “teaching

to the test.” Supporting and stimulating youth to become

lifelong, autonomous problem-solvers seems far removed

from the day-to-day realities of NCLB. One can only wonder

how the salient daily teacher-student interactions and

instructional and feedback practices have been weakened.

Within these types of daily transactions and experiences

lie the ingredients of a high-quality educational setting.

When we turn to after-school programs, we again see the

tension between quality and quantity. Too often, quantity,

whether in terms of the number of youth seen in a program

or youths’ average gain on standardized achievement tests,

ends up as the metrics of choice. And, once again, the focus

on the quality of good programs—that is, daily staff prac-

tices and staff-youth and youth-youth interactions—is

overshadowed by the need to demonstrate that more

youth were served and/or standardized achievement test

scores were increased. Thus, the ascendance of quantity

over quality indices is not unique to mentoring, but com-

mon to many areas.

Is there an antidote for this quandary? Are quantity and

quality antithetical to each other? Clearly, Rhodes and

DuBois do not believe that they are—“growth and quality


are not necessarily incompatible.” To the contrary, I’d

speculate that they are probably orthogonal to each other.

Does this mean they are of equal importance? Or, is quality

a necessary, but not sufficient condition? Here, I return to

the Rhodes and DuBois schema to say that it probably

depends on the level of analysis. At the level of the dyad,

quality is probably both necessary and sufficient. On the

other hand, at the level of programs and policies, quality

is necessary, but not sufficient. In addition to quality, for

example, effective programs also require the financial

resources and staff capacity to provide high-quality inter-

actions for youth. (Of course, all of these speculations

need to be subjected to empirical verification.)

Without better measurement of quality at every level—

dyad, program, and policy—we will never have the

opportunity to bring quality out of the shadows and into

the light. And as Rhodes & DuBois remind us, what gets

measured gets done. As researchers, the measurement

of quality at every level is our greatest challenge. Practi-

tioners, better than anyone, know how central quality is.

However, the policy arena is less patient and attuned to

the complexity of quality; quality is difficult to implement.

With high-quality tools to measure quality that are easy

to use and understand, we stand a better chance of

influencing policymakers and turning the tide.

References

Seidman, E. & Rappaport, J. (1986). Framing the issues.

In E. Seidman & J. Rappaport (Eds.), Redefining social

problems. (pp. 1-8). NY: Plenum.

More proactive and sustained integration of research at all

stages will be pivotal for developing more scientifically informed

and effective programs and for ensuring that such programs

are disseminated with efficiency and high fidelity. University-

community agency partnerships are a particularly promising

mechanism for achieving these goals.

Implications for policy

As the preceding discussion makes clear, policies that demand

greater adherence to evidence-based practice and the use of

rigorous evaluations are needed to ensure quality receives as

much attention as does quantity as the practice of youth

mentoring continues to expand. Models of successful program

replication can help guide such growth. Most replicated programs

do not retain the original effectiveness, but there are a few

examples, including two that involve mentoring components:

the Nurse-Family Partnership (Olds, 2006) and the Across Ages

Mentoring Program (Taylor, LoSciuto, & Porcellini, 2005). These

programs have successfully identified the critical elements of the

program, assessed the new “market,” and provided ongoing

supervision and monitoring to ensure that the new programs

retained all the critical components (see Racine, 2004). So,

even as Across Ages expanded to over 30 sites in 17 states, it

continues to boast relatively low volunteer attrition, match

durations that greatly exceed national averages, and encoura-

ging behavioral, academic, and psychosocial outcomes.

To facilitate replication, new mentoring initiatives should have

well-developed evaluation systems in place prior to implemen-

tation. This has not been the case to date. There are encouraging

signs of change, however. These include the Mentoring Initiative

for System Involved Youth, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This initiative will be

launched in only four demonstration sites and rigorously

evaluated within a research-oriented framework (OJJDP, 2006),

a marked contrast to its predecessor, the Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP). Several large-scale random-assignment

evaluations of school-based mentoring are also underway that

promise to shed important light on this program model. Funding

that extends these evaluations and leverages the initial invest-

ment through secondary analysis could further illuminate

mentoring processes and outcomes. A deeper understanding

of mentoring relationships can, in turn, be exported to other

contexts of youth development. Indeed, caring adult-youth

relationships have never been the sole province of mentoring

programs. After-school programs, summer camps, competitive

sports teams, church youth groups, and other settings represent

rich contexts for the formation of strong intergenerational ties

(Foster-Bey, Dietz, & Grimm, 2006).

Adults in these settings are often afforded ongoing opportunities

to engage youth in the sorts of informal conversations and

enjoyable activities that can give rise to close bonds (Rhodes,

2004). Developing and evaluating strategies that facilitate skillful,

intentional mentoring and determining how to encourage youth

to recruit adults represent promising new directions for policy


with potentially far-reaching implications (Clary & Rhodes, 2006;

Larson, in press; Scales, 2006; Smith & Smoll, 2002). Other youth

come in contact with adults through publicly funded service

systems, such as welfare, juvenile justice, foster care, housing,

and teen-parenting programs. With more deliberate planning,

such systems could be made more responsive to the relational

needs of vulnerable groups. Policies that support whole-child

and family approaches, and encourage linkages among youth

programs, can contribute to more a wider, more comprehensive

system of support (Ripple & Zigler, 2003).

Policymakers, advocacy organizations, and funders have a

critically important role to play in holding all youth-serving

programs, organizations, and institutions to a high standard in

their efforts to make high-quality mentoring relationships

available to young people (MENTOR, 2006c). A shared vision of

excellence, along with a commitment to scientifically informed

guidance and support, will be needed to achieve this goal and

thus ensure that advances in the practice of mentoring truly

improve the lives of our nation’s youth. The literature of this

can be found at http://maine.gov/corrections/jjag/ReportsPubs/

devient%20peer%20influences.pdf

The biggest change has been the ascendance of site-based mentoring models, in which inter-actions between youth and mentors are limited to a particular setting such as a school, the workplace or after-school programs.

http://maine.gov/corrections/jjag/ReportsPubs/devient%20peer%20influences.pdf

http://maine.gov/corrections/jjag/ReportsPubs/devient%20peer%20influences.pdf


CAREER COUNSELLING AND CAREER DIALOGUE IN EDUCATIONAuthors: Dr. Frans Meijers, professor Hague University of

Applied Sciences, Dr. Marinka Kuijpers, professor Hague

University of Applied Sciences, Drs. Annemie Winters

researcher Hague University of Applied Sciences

Frans Meijers, PhD. is a top

researcher in the area of career

guidance in the Netherlands.

He is also professor of pedagogy

and career development at the

University of The Hague and

lectures frequently about the

importance of personal development and fostering

passion in career learning. He is the author and editor of

various books and has many peer-reviewed articles on the

topic to his name. His research shows that career learning

takes place as a result of experiential learning and a

dialogue about those experiences; this finding has led

Frans to develop professional training programs for

teachers in how to have true career conversations.

Email: [email protected]: www.frans-meijers.nl

Mentoring in Education

This chapter is part of an edited literature review entitled Leren

kiezen/kiezen leren [Learning to Choose/Choosing to Learn]

published by the Expertise Centre for Vocational Education and

Training (Expertisecentrum Beroepsonderwijs (ECBO)) in 2009.

The full study, Loopbaanbegeleiding en loopbaandialoog in het

onderwijs [Career counselling and career dialogue in education],

reviews studies on mentoring to identify the most effective ways

of providing effective career guidance and engaging in ef-

fective career dialogue. This publication can be ordered from

[email protected], reference number A00574.

Mentoring has a long history. Its roots date back to classical

antiquity, when Odysseus entrusted his son’s education to

his friend Mentor when he left for the Trojan War (Lu, 2002).

Mentoring by an archetypal mentor figure was later reflected in

medieval guilds, where young apprentices learnt and mastered

the skills of their profession under the supervision of a master

craftsman. Lu (2002, p. 29) defines mentoring and the closely

related process of coaching as shown in Table 1.

Studies on mentoring and counselling focus primarily on the importance of a close between the mentor and their protégé.

mailto:fj.meijers%40xmsnet.nl?subject=

http://www.frans-meijers.nl

mailto:info%40ecbo.nl?subject=


The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring (Allen & Eby, 2007) makes

a practical distinction based on setting (mentoring in youth

work, academic and workplace environments) and subject. All

of these forms of mentoring and counselling share the following

characteristics: “First, it is a dyadic relationship between a more

experienced person (a mentor) and a less experienced person

(protégé). Second, the relationship is reciprocal, yet asymme-

trical. Although both mentor and protégé may benefit, the

primary goal of a mentorship is the growth and development

of the protégé. Third, mentoring relationships are dynamic. The

relational processes and outcomes associated with mentoring

change over time. Finally, mentors are distinct from other poten-

tially influential people such as role models, advisors, teachers,

supervisors, and coaches” (Eby & Allen, 2008, p. 160). In this

chapter we endeavour to group the studies on mentoring in

relation to these characteristics. (For an overview of content

and methodology, see Allen et al., 2008.)

The mentor-protégé relationship

Studies on mentoring and counselling focus primarily on the

importance of a close relationship between the mentor and

their protégé (here we discuss this in general and in relation

to young people in an educational context in particular), with

mutual trust being regarded as a key component of the relation-

ship (Young & Perrewé, 2000). International literature is vague

on the subject of how this trust should be established. A

qualitative study by Liang et al. (2008) is a recent example.

The authors examine perceptions of mentoring relationships

TABLE 1

The distinction between mentoring and coaching

Key Items Mentoringa Coachingb

General goal Develop learner’s capacities and oriented towards an exchange of wisdom, support, learning, or guidance for the purpose of personal, spiritual, career or life growth.

Develop learner’s skills, typically result-performance, success or goal-oriented with emphasis on improving performance in a specific area.

Term for the ‘other’ person Protégé, mentoree, mentee, partner, peer learner, learning group member

Employee, co-worker or client

Role and responsibilities A mentor is trustworthy and helps personal problems, offers organisational and work-related information, and helps the learner to reflect and learn on his own pace and develop to a further step.

A coach supports the learner in work situations and gives feedback upon operational activities and shows you where you went wrong in order to have quick performance effects.

Relationship A mentor is not the direct manager of the learner, he cares about a safe and equal relationship with the learner.

A coach is very often the direct manager of the learner, he evaluates the learner and has a hierarchical relationship with the learner.

Learning focus and feedback Focus on capability and potential, emphasise feedback by the learner about intuitive issues.

Focus on skills and performance, emphasise feedback to the learner about explicit issues.

Form and nature of contact Historically one to one; increasing use of one to group, peer group, e-mail, telephone and video.

Typically one to one; often provided by telephone and e-mail, peer-to-peer coaching used in education system.

Basis and duration of contact Driven by mentee/learner, lasts for a longer term or a lifetime.

Driven by coach, but it is directed to short-term activities.


among students in age groups ranging from early adolescence

to adulthood. The study identifies five broad themes: (1) the

importance of spending time together and engaging in shared

activities, (2) trust and loyalty, (3) role modelling and identification,

(4) the need for balance between connection and autonomy

and (5) empowerment. We will come back to this later.

Spencer (2007) emphasises the fact that more than half of all

mentoring relationships fail in the sense that they are terminated

prior to completion. This may have to do with the personality

of the mentor or the protégé. Many adolescents and young

adults in mentoring relationships that fail have a history of

emotional, sexual or physical abuse. This also tends to happen

more often with girls than boys (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).

Mentoring relationships are also more likely to fail if mentors

do not arrange regular sessions (lack of clarity for the protégé)

and if they are instrumental and prescriptive in the way they

relate to the protégé, rather than adopting a developmental

approach (Karcher, 2005; Karcher, 2008; Morrow & Styles, 1995).

Mentoring relationships that are more successful in terms of

achieving the objectives of the mentoring programme are

characterised by the following features (DuBois et al., 2002;

Grossman & Johnson, 1999; Langhout, Rhodes & Osborne, 2004):

• Duration: the mentoring process lasts for at least a year (ideally

longer) with very regular contact between the mentor and

the protégé.

• Content: rather than focusing primarily on the protégé’s

current behaviour (which often leads to the offering of

sound but unsolicited advice), the mentor is committed to

fostering the personal development of the protégé and the

relationship between the two of them. The protégé has a say

in (co-determines) the way the relationship is conducted and

the mentor encourages and assists the protégé to achieve

their goals, with the goals being set by the protégé.

• Form: the mentor offers the protégé structure (in terms of

the nature of the interaction, identification of problems and

joint development of a possible problem solving strategy)

and unconditional support (the mentor accepts the protégé

as they are).

• Relationship: the protégé regards the mentor as a ‘significant

adult’ (DuBois et al., 2002). The two feel at ease with each

other and experience mutual trust. Not everyone is capable

of acting as a mentor. Ideally a good mentor has already had

some experience of acting in a supportive capacity (DuBois

et al., 2002), is committed to the protégé and their develop-

ment and is prepared and able to maintain very regular

contact with the protégé for a (sufficiently) long period.

To return to the important role of trust in the mentoring relation-

ship: Parra et al. (2002) show that the success of a mentoring

relationship is determined more by the closeness of the relation-

ship between the mentor and the protégé than the amount

of contact and the nature of the activities they undertake.

Herrera et al. (2007) also provide information about the factors

that contribute to the closeness of the relationship: commitment

increases if mentors are given specific training before and after

meeting with a protégé and also if there is frequent communi-

cation with the school. Yet, in practice, the provision of training

for mentors still receives (too) little attention. Figures reported

for the provision of training prior to the start of the mentoring

relationship range from 71% (Herrera et al., 2007) to 13% (Sipe

& Roder, 1999) depending on the programme. Less than 25%

of mentoring programmes offer mentors training before they

meet with the protégé (DuBois et al., 2002). Less than half of

the 700 mentoring programmes run in the US in 2000 offered

mentors two or more hours of training. A fifth of the programmes

provided absolutely no training for mentors whatsoever (Herrera

et al., 2000).

Mentoring programmes need to provide proper training for

mentors both prior to the start of the mentoring process and

after the mentor has met with the protégé. Above all, this training

should serve to ensure that mentors (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006):

• focus more on the (development of the) relationship with the

protégé and less on the results they achieve together.

Rather than being ‘disciplined’, the young person should be

enabled to find their own way;

• focus on the young person and their experience of the world;

• base the mentoring process on the protégé’s qualities and

abilities;

• are capable of identifying and controlling their own

expectations and reactions;

• are capable of bridging differences in age, culture and social class;

• are capable of dealing with the existing relationships in the

protégé’s family in a positive way (above all, not labelling

them in negative ways);

• are guided by a clear theory that directs their actions.


Successful mentoring programmes are essentially knowledge-

intensive organisations that are required to operate in a constantly

changing context, while – at the same time – providing, through

the mentors, specially tailored mentoring for the protégés

(and their parents). However, in order to be able to provide

specially tailored mentoring, rather than sticking rigidly to an

approach prescribed by the programme, mentors must be

allowed to act independently to a large extent. The fact that

mentors have to be extremely responsible in the way they

use this freedom, puts pressure on mentoring programmes to

appoint reliable mentors. One of the main tasks of a mentoring

programme is to develop a vision embraced by everyone

involved, which is specific enough to direct the actions of the

mentors without being overly prescriptive.

Focus on development

The purpose of (the) mentoring (relationship) is to foster the

growth and development of the protégé. But what are the

pursued outcomes and, more importantly, what outcomes are

effectively achieved? This question is repeatedly addressed in

the literature on mentoring (see Ainsworth, 1989; Allen et al.,

2004; Austin, 2002; Dorsey & Baker, 2004; DuBois et al., 2002;

DuBois & Karcher, 2005; Johnson, 2007; Kram, 1985; Rhodes,

2002; Sambunjak, Straus & Marusic, 2006; Scandura & Williams,

2004; Underhill, 2006; and Wanberg, Welsh & Hezlett, 2003,

among others). Eby et al. (2008, p. 261 ff.) draw the following

conclusions in their interdisciplinary review: “Mentoring was

significantly related to favorable behavioral, attitudinal, health-

related, interpersonal, motivational, and career outcomes. …

Four conclusions can be reached from our findings. First, we

found that mentoring is significantly correlated in a favorable

direction with a wide range of protégé outcomes. Second,

although the overall effect sizes are small, mentoring appears

to be more highly related to some protégé outcomes (e.g.,

school attitudes) than to others (e.g., psychological stress &

strain). Third, there is evidence (albeit mixed) that there may

be moderators of some mentoring-outcome relationships.

Finally, there is tentative evidence of differences in the extent

to which mentoring is associated with some outcomes across

youth, academic, and workplace relationships.”

Mentoring provided outside of an educational environment does

not appear to be that effective (DuBois et al., 2002). On conclusion

of the mentoring relationship the pursued outcomes have often

only been achieved to a limited extent. This applies to mentoring

as a strategy to prevent drug use (Aseltine, Dupre & Lamlein,

2000), promote success at school (Johnson & Sullivan, 1995;

Herrera, 2004; Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000) and enable

social integration (Rhodes, 2002). Having said this, mentoring

seems to be more effective the longer the relationship between

the mentor and the protégé lasts (see also above). Furthermore,

mentoring is likely to be more successful in improving behaviour

and success at school if there is an improvement in the relation-

ship with the parents (Rhodes, Grossman & Resch, 2000). Given

that this is the case, it is advisable for parents to be involved in

the mentoring programme or the relationship that their child

has with the mentor.

In educational development mentoring is increasingly recog-

nised as instrumentally effective in achieving aims, both in the

relatively short term (helping young people make decisions)

and in the long term (forming the basis for lifelong learning

and career development) (see Commissie Boekhoud, 2001,

among others). The fact that mentoring in general, and career

guidance in particular, contribute to career learning is confirmed

by countless studies (Bimrose et al., 2004; Brooks et al.,

1995; Germeijs & Verschueren, 2007; Herrera et al., 2007; and

Robitschek & Cook, 1999 among others). For example, career

guidance has been shown to support the development of

career competencies: the more students are helped to discover

and direct their abilities, qualities and intrinsic motivation,

the more they use and/or develop their career competencies

(Kuijpers & Meijers, 2009). Research conducted among pre-

vocational and upper secondary vocational students by Meijers,

Kuijpers and Bakker (2006) endorses this conclusion and adds

the further distinction that the learning environment continues

to play a significant role if the protégé’s personal qualities and

abilities and education are taken into account. Killeen’s (1996)

meta-analysis of 58 sound qualitative studies also asserts that

career guidance has positive effects on career competencies,

with positive results being observed in every category (self-

knowledge, changes in self-concept, career-related knowledge,

choice-making skills and transition-related skills).

International research on the overall effects of (career) guidance

in recent years indicates that career guidance is often successful

(Richard, 2005), although the fact that too little research has

been done on the effects of specific aspects of career guidance


is an obvious disadvantage. More recent experimental research

(Bernaud, Gaudron & Lemoine, 2006) among adults suggests

that career guidance outcomes include enhanced self-image

and self-confidence, reflection on career choices and develop-

ment of career choice strategies, and greater willingness to

explore other fields.

Dynamics

(The) mentoring (relationship) progresses through a series

of identifiable stages. Zachary (2000) mentions ‘preparing,

negotiating & developing a mentoring agreement, enabling

and coming to closure’, with the mentor and the protégé

having different roles and objectives at each stage. During the

first stage preparations need to be made at the outset of the

mentoring process. As we have already discussed, evidence

points to the importance of providing training for mentors.

During the next stage, ideally, the mentor and the protégé

determine the best way to conduct the mentoring relationship

and make agreements regarding their objectives and respon-

sibilities, how they intend to work together and anything else

needed to ensure that the mentoring process is efficient and

effective. During the third stage the mentor gives the protégé

time and space to grow. This is an active process: the protégé

must be supported and encouraged by the mentor (importance

of reflection!), while the mentor simultaneously monitors the

context and objectives (process evaluation). Lastly Zachary (2000)

draws attention to the need to conclude a mentoring relation-

ship in an appropriate way, given that, at an emotional level,

the termination of the relationship may be experienced as a

loss.

What happens if there is a mismatch of expectations between

the protégé and the mentor (in the context of workplace men-

toring)? “When mentors and novices enter into a relationship

where each brings a different conception of mentoring, the

stage is set for differing expectations and ensuing tensions”

(Bradbury & Koballa, 2008, p. 2141). There are descriptions of

case studies in which expectations differ in the sense that the

mentor sees their role as one of ‘scaffolded support’ (which is

gradually withdrawn as the protégé progresses from complete

dependence to autonomy), while the protégé continues to

regard the mentor as a source of expertise that they can refer

to for advice and feedback at any time. However, this latter

assumption is inconsistent with the understanding that

mentoring is a developmental process (see also the previous

point): a protégé is expected to undergo a growth process

(that leads to greater independence).

The role of the mentor

In 2007 the International Association for Educational and

Vocational Guidance (IAEVG) initiated the development of the

so-called Educational and Vocational Guidance Practitioner

Credential (EVGP) (which can be downloaded from

www.iaevg.org/iaevg/nav.cfm?lang=2&menu=1&submenu=6).

This is a set of competencies – knowledge, skills and personal

attributes – that practitioners need in order to provide quality

(educational and/or) career guidance services. The set consists

of both core competencies and specialised competencies (which

include educational guidance, career development and personal

counselling, see Repetto et al., 2003 and

www.springerlink.com/content/x71123h14uv44685/fulltext.pdf

among others). Initiatives of this kind (which focus on the

content of training programmes, legislation, or competencies

needed by practitioners, as in this case) are not uncommon.

(For an overview see Hiebert, 2009 and Plant, 2009 among others).

Graduate research conducted among 65 interns and 29 coaches

(Berg, 2008) concludes that the quality of the coach is predictive

of the talent development of learners. The evaluation of a

project in which pre-vocational, upper secondary vocational,

higher professional and applied sciences students completed

a placement as part of a team shows a positive correlation

The purpose of (the) mentoring (relationship)is to foster the growth and development of the protégé.

http://www.iaevg.org/iaevg/nav.cfm?lang=2&menu=1&submenu=6)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x71123h14uv44685/fulltext.pdf


between transformational leadership provided by coaches and

the personal development of learners.

While guidance, evaluation and coaching are all tasks performed

by a mentor, mentoring cannot be reduced to the sum total of

these roles. De Haan (2006, p. 15): “This is the main difference

between a mentor and a coach: one [mentor] is a more experien-

ced professional who contributes his or her own expertise; the

other [coach] is an instrument in the coachee’s learning who

is not necessarily familiar with or experienced in the coachee’s

field of work.” In making this distinction De Haan goes back to

the original meaning of the words ‘mentor’ (the character of

Mentor in Homer’s Odyssey, who in Book 22 says: ‘Come hither,

friend, and stand by me, and I will show thee a thing’) and ‘coach’

(a means of transport used to travel from point A to point B).

In the current international literature (Pryor & Bright, 2008;

Bradbury & Koballe, 2008) a mentor is increasingly defined as

a person who advises a protégé on career development.

The literature of this can be found at www.carpe-carriereper-

spectief.nl/images/11.7-13_loopbaanbegeleiding_heo54.pdf

The focus in mentoring research should be the importance of connections between mentoring relationships and the broader interpersonal contexts in which they occur.

http://www.carpe-carriereperspectief.nl/images/11.7-13_loopbaanbegeleiding_heo54.pdf

http://www.carpe-carriereperspectief.nl/images/11.7-13_loopbaanbegeleiding_heo54.pdf

“The mentors see an important role for

the MentoringProgramma”

EPILOGUEH05


WHILE FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE, DEEP DOWN I FEEL AN INCREASE IN ENTHUSIASM. WHAT IT IS, IS DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE, BUT IT’S THERE AND I’M EXPERIENCING IT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT FEELING? THAT FEELING THAT MAKES YOU TRANSCEND WITH SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENTS. FORTUNATELY NOT ONLY IN SPORTS, BUT ALSO IN YOUR DAILY CONTACT WITH PEOPLE. OVER THE YEARS I’VE EXPERIENCED THIS WITH ENTERPRISES WHEN STUDENTS FROM THE MENTOR-PROGRAMMA FRIESLAND ARE INVOLVED. I MEET THEM NOT ONLY WHILE ORGANIZING MEETINGS BUT ALSO DURING COACHING ASSIGNMENTS, MOST RECENTLY IN COLLABORATION WITH A NUMBER OF ENTREPRENEURS AND A GROUP OF STUDENTS. WHAT APPEALS TO ME IS THE ‘DRIVE’ TO CREATE A GOOD PRODUCT, AND THEN PRESENT IT WITH FLAIR. SO, YOU WANT SELF CONFIDENCE IN ADDITION TO GOOD RESULTS. YOU HAVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS AT THE MENTORPROGRAMMA.

Speaking of success: Leeuwarden will be European Capital of

Culture for 2018. An important aspect of this implementation

is the process of a ‘master’ giving guidance to an ‘apprentice’ in

achieving a project in this framework. In this manner the organi-

sation wanted to give form to ‘mienskip’ (or ‘community’ for non-

Friesians), which happens to be the very concept of ‘mentor’

and ‘mentee’ that MentorProgramma Friesland has been

implementing for many years. One may say that there is nothing

new under the sun, but that is a platitude. A good idea can be

applied frequently, especially when it fits in a grander movement

in a society in search of commonality.

In 2011 I read a detailed study concerning the requirements of

employers in regards to the training of their personnel. While one

would expect technical skills to prevail, it was actually social skills

that were considered equally important. The corresponding

compendium was about behaviours and skills. With behaviours

one may think of the treatment of people and common decency.

With skills one can include the ability to empathize with the

client’s needs and display a form of correctness. To many people

this quickly brings to mind old fashioned standards. This may be

true, but it is relevant for many employers. For me, as a person

involved in the aforementioned organisations this also applies.

My enthusiasm grew as I noticed that these young people

understood my questions, enjoyed dealing with them and

presented their ideas in a convincing and structured manner.

I would like to see these young people as employees in my

company.

As it has been for more than fifteen years, MentorProgramma

Friesland is not without obligations. It offers something extra

in many capacities. Precisely because it is also actively involved

outside of regular school hours, it makes an appeal to the young

person’s sense of responsibility. There can be a ‘bit more please’

of that and then some? I sense that in the contacts I’ve made.

Is everything perfect? No, of course not, but those are more details.

The words in bold type have been deliberately chosen. While

reading this research publication they spontaneously floated

to the surface. The positive image I have of the young people

I’ve dealt with in the MentorProgramma Friesland is reinforced

by the results of this research. Ultimately that is how I’ve

experienced it and I applaud the MentorProgramma Friesland.

It is a future orientated concept that deserves to be widely

accepted. You can say, with a wink, that it is Leeuwarden 2018

that fits into this concept.

Siem Jansen,

Director Noordelijke Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij /

Northern Development Company

CINOP Erasmus+

P.O. Box 1585

NL-5200 BP ‘s-Hertogenbosch

www.cinoperasmusplus.nl

Euroguidance Netherlands

[email protected]

T +31 (0)73-6800762

www.euroguidance.nl

Documents

Congres Results