Download - 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.
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 5
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 9
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
10 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 11
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
12 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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-
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 13
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.
14 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
Showcasing projectsDutch organisations
Coach2B
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
EU netwerk Noord-Nederland
Profile of the organization/
project: Network of profes-
sionals
Fier Fryslan projectBijzondere Vriendschappen
(Special Friendships)
Profile of the organization/
project: Welfare mentoring
support
Friesland CollegeProject School als werkplaats
(welfare in education)
www.frieslandcollege.nl/
schoolalswerkplaats
Profile of the organization/
project: VET
Het buroProject S-team
www.hetburosaris.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Peer support
Hogeschool RotterdamMentoren op Zuid (University of
Rotterdam, studentmentoring)
www.hr.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Studentmentoring
for elementary schools
Humanitas Matchwww.humanitas.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
Inqubator Leeuwardenwww.inqubator.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Business incubator
for starters
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 15
Jong Ondernemen Student Company
www.jongondernemen.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Promotion of entre-
preneurial education
KANS 050 Groningen mentorprogrammawww.kans050.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
LEV groep Match Mentorwww.matchmentor.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
Mentor4youwww.mentor4you.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
MentorProgramma Frieslandwww.mentorprogramma
friesland.nl
mentorprogrammafriesland@
fcroc.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
Ministry of Social affairs and Labour marketwww.ditissterkteam.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Governement
supporting mentoring
New Dutch connectionswww.newdutchconnections.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Support for immi-
grants
Ontmoetingscentrum Jonge Ouders (Meeting-place for Young Parents)www.ontmoetingscentrum
jongeouders.nl
ontmoetingscentrum
Profile of the organization/
project: Peer support
16 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
ROC Friese PoortAanpak VSV (prevention of
early dorpouts)
www.rocfriesepoort.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: VET
ROC Noorderpoort Project Kikk
www.noorderpoort.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Language support
and mentoring for immigrants
School’s coolwww.schoolscool.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for
elementary school children
Spoolder persoonlijke ontwikkeling (personal development)www.spoolderpersoonlijke
ontwikkeling.nl
info@spoolderpersoonlijke
ontwikkeling.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Coaching and
personal development
Stenden and NHL University of Applied Scienceswww.mentorprogramma
friesland.nl
mentorprogrammafriesland@
fcroc.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Studentmentoring
in social studies
Stichting B for youwww.benefitsforkids.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
Vrijwilligers centrale Deventerwww.vrijwilligersstad.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Welfare projects
Wisselwerkproject Hfftig
www.hfftig.nl
Profile of the organization/
project: Mentoring for youth
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 17
European en International organisations
Bursa Provincial Directorate of National Education, Bursa, Turkey. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.bursa.tu
Profile of the organization/
project: Government
Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring, Boston, Massachusetts, USAwww.umbmentoring.org
Profile of the organization/
project: Research, mentoring
ETIC Technical School of Image and Communication, Lisbon, Portugal. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.etic.pt
Profile of the organization/
project: VET
Kaunas vocational training centre, Kaunas, Lithuania. EU mentoring programme Supreme www.ksm.lt
Profile of the organization/
project: VET
Koulutuskeskus Salpaus, Lahti, Finland. EU mentoring programme Supremewww.salpaus.fi
Profile of the organization/
project: VET
OSD/DoDEA-Europe, [email protected]
Profile of the organization/
project: Education
Servei Solidari, Barcelona, Spanjewww.serveisolidari.org
Profile of the organization/
project: Social enterprise,
mentoring
18 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 21
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,
22 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 23
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).
24 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 25
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.
26 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 27
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
* Based on a questionnaire circulated among a large number of schools.
1-23
28 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
Self Esteem
100%
4-5
* Based on a questionnaire circulated among a large number of schools.
1-23
Social Status
100%
4-5
* Based on a questionnaire circulated among a large number of schools.
1-23
Drop-out from college
20,6%
* Based on survey conducted by a large college
3,6%2010 2011
Children from a disadvantaged socio- economic background, often suffering from educational, emotional and behavioral difficulties.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 29
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-
30 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.).
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 31
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 33
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
34 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 35
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
36 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 37
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.
38 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 39
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
40 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 41
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
42 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 43
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
44 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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 frame- work. 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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 45
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.
46 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 47
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
48 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 49
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
50 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 51
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).
52 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 53
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.
54 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 55
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
56 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 57
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.
58 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 59
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.
60 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 61
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.
62 Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands
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.
“The mentors see an important role for
the MentoringProgramma”
EPILOGUEH05
Congress results International Mentoring congress March 20th 2014 CINOP Erasmus+ | Euroguidance Netherlands 65
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
T +31 (0)73-6800762
www.euroguidance.nl