highlights of the mentor michigan wave viii census

Presented by:

Robert W. Kahle, Ph.D.

Kahle Research Solutions Inc.

April 2011

Highlights from the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VIII

Objectives..…………………………………………………………..…….….. 2

Background……………………………………………………...…………......3

Links to Reports…………………………………………………………...…...4

Summary of Funnel Measures-Statewide Totals……………………………5

Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs…..13

Mentoring Types, Training, Intensity and Duration………….....................18

Mentoring Program Evaluation……………………………………………….21

Executive Directors of Mentoring Programs…………………………...….. 30

Capacity Issues for Mentoring Organizations………………………………34

Youth Outcomes Targeted by Mentoring Programs………………………..39

Mentoring Organizations’ Use of Social Media…………………................44

Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan…………………………………………...47

Summary………………………………………………………………………. 51

Table of Contents

04/12/2023Kahle Research Solutions Inc. 2

The primary purpose of the MMC is to understand the scope and nature of mentoring and mentoring organizations in Michigan.

Three key objectives are common to each Wave:◦ Identify, count, describe, and track mentoring organizations, programs, mentors, and the

children served.◦ Understand program components, processes, resources, and needs.◦ Encourage and support program evaluation.

Each year, additional topics are requested by Mentor Michigan for inclusion in

the Census. Wave VIII special request data found in this report includes:◦ Self-Reported Adherence to the Mentor Michigan Quality Program Standards for Youth

Mentoring◦ Social Media Use by Mentoring Organizations◦ Mentoring Capacity, Economic and Human Resources of Youth Mentoring Organizations ◦ Experience and Needs of Mentoring Organizations’ Executive Directors


Objectives

This report summarizes selected data from Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census (MMC).

The MMC is a periodic, on-line survey of organizations operating mentoring programs in the state of Michigan.


Background

Participation Statistics Waves I through VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave IV

Wave V Wave VI Wave VII Wave VIII

# Organizations in the registry 237 220 227 238 235

# Survey respondents 137 140 143 161 137

Response rate 58% 64% 63% 68% 58%

# Programs operated by responding organizations

265 217 239 254 222

# Survey questions 70 62 96 93 91

Time period survey covered 9/1/05-8/31/06

9/1/06-8/31/07

9/1/07-8/31/08

9/1/08-8/31/09

9/1/09-8/31/10

Dates data was collected Sept & Oct.

2006 Sept & Oct

2007 Sept & Oct

2008 Sept &

Oct 2009 Sept &

Oct 2010

*Wave I - III data removed due to space constraints

Links to the Wave VIII reports available from the Mentor Michigan web site (www.michigan.gov/mentormichigan) are shown below. Reports from past waves are also available on the Mentor Michigan site.

MMC Wave VIII Executive Summary

MMC Wave VIII Scope and Nature

MMC Wave VIII Geographic Area

MMC Wave VIII Quality Program Standards

MMC Wave VIII Mentoring Capacity, Economic, and Human Resources

MMC Wave VIII Executive Directors' Experiences and Needs

MMC Wave VIII Social Media Use

Links to Reports


http://www.michigan.gov/mentormichigan

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWaveVIIIExecSum_-Final_Long_version_Feb_7_2011_348030_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWaveVIII_ScopeNature-_Final_Feb_7_2011_348034_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWaveVIIIGeog_-_Final_Feb_7_2011_348038_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWave_VIII_Quality_Standards-Final_Jan_5_2011_348039_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWaveVIII_Econ_Resources-_Final_Jan_5_2011_348040_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWave_VIII_ExecDirectors-_Final_Jan_5_2011_348041_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mentormichigan/MMCWaveVIII_Social_Media-_Final_Jan_5_2011_348042_7.pdf

Summary of Funnel Measures – Statewide Totals



Trends in Mentoring

Number of Active Mentors and Youth Served Waves I through VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave I Wave II Wave III Wave IV Wave V Wave VI Wave VII Wave VIII0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

9,10810,546

11,767

16,38218,232

17,051

19,57817,681

16,574

27,090

20,294

28,283

25,883

22,916

28,536

23,706

Active Mentors Youth Served

• Both the number of youth served and the number of active mentors declined in Waved VIII compared to Wave VII, although both levels are still above Wave VI results.

Demographics of Mentors, Youth Served


Age: Youth and Mentors Wave VIII of the Mentor

Michigan Census

Youth Under 5 4% 6-11 48% 12-14 29% 15-18 18% 19-25 1% Mentors Under 18 15% 18-25 20% 26-55 46% 56+ 19%

Wave VIII

Gender and Race/Ethnicity: Youth and Mentors

Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Youth Mentors Gender Male 48% 37% Female 52% 63% Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 46% 73% African American 39% 22% Latino/a 10% 2% Native American 1% <1% Other 5% 2%

• Demographic characteristics of both mentors and youth served have remained fairly constant from Wave VII.

• The biggest changes are a 4 percentage point increase in youth

served aged 12-14 and also a 4 percentage point decline in African-American youth served.

Inquiries and Applications


• Percent of Wave VIII mentor inquiries resulting in written applications. Up 5 percentage points from Wave VII.

• Total Wave VIII mentor inquires = 14,629. Down 1,856 from Wave VII.

• Total Wave VIII mentor written applications = 9,330. Down 446 from Wave VII.

Wave III: 1/1/05-8/31/05

Wave IV: 9/1/05-8/31/06

Wave V: 9/1/06-8/31/07

Wave VI: 9/1/07-8/31/08

Wave VII: 9/1/08-8/31/09

Wave VIII: 9/1/09-8/31/10

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,023

1,460

1,115 1,130

1,374

1,219

746666 658

746815

777

Inquiries Applications

73% 46% 59% 64%59%66%

Average Number of Monthly Mentor Inquiries and Written Applications Waves III through VIII* of the Mentor Michigan Census

Average Number of Monthly Mentor Inquiries and Written Applications Waves III through VIII* of the Mentor Michigan Census

Screening Tools


Screening Procedures Used by Wave VIII Organizations for Mentor Applicants

Wave VIII

% Used +/- Change from

Wave VII Registry-Based FBI Fingerprint 21% +8% SafetyNet 21% +8% Child Abuse Registry 50% -1% Driving Record/ License Check

55% -2%

ICHAT 69% -7% Sex Offender Registry

73% -1%

• The biggest improvements in registry-based screening procedures are for use of the FBI Fingerprint and SafetyNet, both of which are up 8 percentage points over Wave VII.

As SafetyNet is no longer available due to funding constraints, alternative funding or another national screening mechanism is crucial to the safety of children being mentored.

Special Needs Populations


Special Needs Populations Served Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Youth served who….

Wave VII Youth Served =

28,536

Wave VIII Youth Served =

23,706

Difference

-4,830 live in a foster home 663 355 -308 have a cognitive disability 533 211 -322 have a physical disability 224 124 -100

have an incarcerated parent 1,431 852 -579 have a diagnosed mental health problem or disorder*

--- 287 ---

Total # youth served with special needs

2,851 1,829 -1,022

• In Wave VIII, nearly 8% of the youth served in the state had special needs.

• This is down from the 10% of youth with special needs served in Wave VII.

Returning vs. New Mentors


Returning Mentors vs. New Recruits Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Men Women Total Returning Mentors (Recruited prior to Sept. 1, 2009)

Count 2,436 4,026 6,462 % 38% 62%

New Mentor Recruits (Recruited Sept. 1, 2009 - Aug. 31, 2010)

Count 1,749 3,226 4,975 % 35% 65%

Total New and Returning Mentors* 11,437 % Returning Mentors 57%

% New Mentor Recruits 43%

*NOTE: This total reflects the number of mentors whose programs track mentoring recruitment dates, not the total number of active mentors reported by all programs (17,681).

Returning vs. New Mentors (cont’d)


Returning Mentors and New Recruits Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VII n=11,309

Wave VIII n=11,437

% Returning Male Mentors 41% 38% % Returning Female Mentors 59 62

% New Male Mentor Recruits 46 35 % New Female Mentor Recruits 54 65

• The percentage of male mentors, both returning and new recruits, has decreased since Wave VII.

The 11 percentage point decline in new male mentor recruits is especially noteworthy, and likely attributable to the 2009 discontinuation of the Men in Mentoring Initiative.

Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs


Self-Assessment of Meeting theQuality Standards


Self-Assessment of Meeting Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs


Self-Assessment of Meeting Mentor Michigan’s Quality Standards for Youth Mentoring Programs


Program Evaluation

Recruitment Plan

Match Closure

Governance

Mentor Support, Recognition, Retention

Match Monitoring Process

Orientation & Training

Organization Management

Matching Strategy

Eligibility Screening

Definition of Mentoring

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

34

35

36

39

39

41

44

45

47

50

69

29

38

22

32

32

37

36

35

34

34

20

37

27

42

29

29

22

20

20

19

16

11

Completely

Mostly

Partially/Not at All/DK

Most Difficult to Meet QualityStandard


Most Difficult to Meet Quality StandardWave VII vs. VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Most Difficult to Meet Quality StandardWave VII vs. VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Definition of Youth Mentoring

Eligibility Screening

Organization Management

Matching Strategy

Mentor Support, Recognition, Retention

Orientation & Training

Governance

Match Monitoring Process

Match Closure

Recruitment Plan

Program Evaluation

Don't Know

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

3

4

3

5

6

4

5

5

10

12

16

28

1

2

3

4

6

7

7

8

9

15

19

20

Wave VIII Wave VII

Degree of Adherence to the the Quality Standards by Segment


2. Meets Most Quality Standards

3. Meets Some Quality Standards

4. Partially Meets Quality Standards

5. Does Not Meet Quality Standards / DK

Number and Percentage of Or-ganizations

Number and Percentage of Children Served

41 (30%)

32 (23%)

7,967 (34%)

38 (28%)

12 (9%)

4,989 (21%)

6,346 (27%)

3,310 (14%)

1,085 (4%)

1. Completely Meets All Quality Standards

14 (10%)

Organizations that are in the “Completely Meets All” group, while accounting for only 10% of all organizations, serve 4,989 youth or 21% of the total youth served.

At the other end of the spectrum the “Partially Meets” group and the “Does Not Meet/Don’t Know” segments combined comprise 37% of all organizations, but serve 18% or 4,395 (combined) of all youth served.

Taking these self-assessments at face value, 4,395 young people (18% of the total) are involved with organizations that only partially meet or do not meet any of the Quality Standards.

This raises concerns about the safety of the children and the quality of mentoring being provided to nearly one in five of the total youth being mentored in the state.

Interpreting the Data


Mentoring Types,Training, Intensity and Duration


Types of Mentoring


Mentoring Types Practiced by Programs Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VII Wave VIII

One to One (1 adult to 1 youth) 70% 73%

Group (1 adult to no more than 4 youth) 18 9 Peer (1 high school or younger mentor to 1 youth)* 9 Peer (1 high school or younger mentor to no more than 4 youth)

6 4

Team of mentors with a group of youth (no more than 4 youth to 1 adult)

5 5

Team of mentors with 1 youth* <1

E-mentoring (1 adult to 1 youth) <1 <1

*New in Wave VIII

• One adult to one youth is still the gold standard for mentoring in Michigan.

Mentor Training, Support, Intensityand Duration


Mentor Training, Intensity and Duration Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VII Mean

Wave VIII Mean

Pre-match, face-to-face mentor training 6.2 hours 5.1 hours

Post-match, 1 year of mentor training & support 10.3 hours 11.1 hours

Minimum time per week required for match to meet in person

2.2 hours 2.2 hours

Minimum number of times per week required for match to meet in person

Not asked 1.2 meetings

Minimum time (duration) requirement of a match 9.7 months 9.7 months Average time (duration) for a match 14.3 months 11.3 months

*New in Wave VIII

• New information collected in Wave VIII indicates that the weekly mean number of times a match must meet is just over one meeting (1.2).

• However, the average actual match duration has dropped from 14.3 months to 11.3 months between Waves VII and VIII, indicating that the length of mentoring relationships is declining.

Mentoring ProgramEvaluation


Program Evaluation


Program Evaluation Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Total n=222

Process Yes, we conduct internal process evaluation 65% Yes, we conduct external process evaluation 23

Outcome Yes, we conduct internal outcome evaluation 54 Yes, we conduct external outcome evaluation 21

No, we currently do not conduct any evaluation of this mentoring program

15

Don’t know 5

Method of Evaluation


Method of Evaluation Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Total

n=177

Participant feedback and satisfaction ratings 89%

Pre-test/post-test 51 Comparison between program and non-program participants

12

Other 13 None 1

1. Anecdotal reports◦ Self-reports from youth served◦ Third party reports (teachers, mentors, parents, judicial officials)◦ Objective measures (grades, drug tests, and participation in

extracurricular activities)

“Students come back years later and tell us how valuable their mentor was to them.”

“Judges report they receive more information in order to make better decisions for the children.”

“Last year we served 37 youth and 78% of those students are still enrolled on campus and on course for graduation. In addition, 97% of the students in our mentoring program joined other student organizations on campus.”

Evidence of Effectiveness


2. Pre- and post-testing/research-based evaluations◦ Some mentoring programs perform pre- and post-testing to measure the

effectiveness◦ Others make use of research-based evaluations

“We give youth a survey before and after mentoring to measure how good their self-esteem is and how well they are doing in school and in terms of relationships with adults.”

“84% of youth increased an academic grade while in the program, 90% of youth continued their education past high school. Teachers reported (youth) had statistically significant positive changes in youth behavior/mindset in 12 categories.”

Evidence of Effectiveness (cont’d)


3. Use of comparative and/or control groups ◦ 12% of the 137 Census respondents report using comparative groups to

evaluate their program effectiveness◦ Yet, just three programs provide examples in the open-ended portion of

the survey

“According to the US Department of Education, migrant students have a 40 to 45% rate of high school graduation nation-wide. (Program’s) cumulative high school graduation rate for 2008: 83%. Cumulative college enrollment rate for those who graduated high school: 62%.”

“Reading levels for students evaluated increased more for students mentored than those not mentored in the same grade and class.”

Evidence of Effectiveness (cont’d)


Limited resources/finances◦ Lack of financial resources is the most often cited challenge◦ Staff cannot be hired or allocated to perform this work◦ Financial and human resources are allocated elsewhere

“Funding and staff time would be the biggest challenges we face in documenting these outcomes.”

“The biggest challenge our organization faces is the lack of money. There is an abundance of ideas for programs but not much money to support those ideas.”

“I have been Director for three years. There are many things that we do not measure that might be valuable to measure, but that I don't have the ability to implement due to time and staff restraints.”

Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes


Difficulties acquiring data◦ Constant challenge to obtain completed surveys and other information

from mentors, youth, and parents ◦ Transient populations, extended timeframes for tracking youth◦ Difficulty acquiring official records from schools, courts, and other staff

within their own organization

“The biggest challenge we have is collecting reports from our mentors. Currently our mentors are required to fill out monthly mentor reports, but we have a very hard time consistently collecting them back.”

“Our program serves the entire state of Michigan. Maintaining consistent contact and tracking of the mentors and mentees is sometimes difficult.”

“One of the challenges would be obtaining school reports from the various school districts in our County.”

Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes (cont’d)


Lack of evaluation know-how◦ Some unaware of how to transfer their program’s anecdotal evaluation

methods to measurable goals and outcomes

“Interpreting anecdotal evidence and representing it in ways that are meaningful to multiple groups.”

“It's difficult to measure outcomes…Often the mentor's impact is not fully realized until years later.”

“Tracking and being able to document the impact we are making with the changes in peer mentors.”

“Finding measurable outcomes.”

Challenges in DocumentingProgram Outcomes (cont’d)


ExecutiveDirectors of Mentoring Programs


Length of Service


Current Executive Director Length of Service Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Total

Less than one year 14%

More than one, but less than three years 11

More than three, but less than five years 19

More than five, but less than 10 years 20

More than 10 years 33

Don’t know 4

• 53% of current Executive Directors report that they have more than five years of experience in their position.

Experience


Current Executive Director Experience Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Executive Director has… Total

Participated in training on strategic planning 69%

A good understanding of multiple types of mentoring programs 68

Participated in training on program evaluation 67

Participated in training on fundraising 66

Experience with state and federal grants 66

Experience with grants from philanthropic organizations 64

Participated in executive leadership training 61

An advanced degree 56

Served as a board member of a nonprofit organization 55

Participated in training on human resource management 51

Note: Not all responses shown. For more detail, refer to the following report available on the Mentor Michigan web site: MMC Wave VIII Executive Directors' Experiences and Needs

• More than half of all Executive Directors report having experience in all listed areas.

Training and Support Needs


Training and Support Needs of Executive Directors Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

(Multiple Responses Allowed)

Total

Program evaluation 46%

Marketing the program for growth/expansion 45

Fundraising 42

Social media 39

Proposal generation/grant writing 34

Mentor recruitment 32

Mergers, partnerships and collaborations 32

Board recruitment/retention/ development 31

Mentor support, recognition and retention 27

Working with the State and Federal Government 27

Match monitoring 26

Note: Not all categories shown

• At least a quarter of all responding organizations report that their Executive Directors need training in the areas listed to the left.

Capacity Issuesfor MentoringOrganizations


Mentoring Organization Staffing


• Average FTEs have increased from 1.9 in Wave VII to 2.2 in Wave VIII.

• In Wave VIII, 65% report no change in their FTE staffing levels over the past year, 12% report an increase, and 19% report a decrease.

Annual Mentoring Budget SizeWave VII vs. Wave VIII


Mentoring Annual Budgets Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VII n=155

Wave VIII n=137

Budget Size

0 - $4,999 20% 19% $5,000 - 9,999 5% 6%

$10,000 - 24,999 12% 8% $25,000 - 49,999 8% 5% $50,000 - $99,999 10% 15%

$100,000 - 199,999 12% 18% $200,000 - 299,999 9% 7%

$300,000 - 399,999 6% 3%

$400,000 - 499,999 3% 3%

$500,000 or more 5% 6% Don’t Know 10% 11%

• Roughly one-fifth of Wave VIII Census participants (19%) have budgets of less than $5,000, while just 6% report budgets of $500,000 or more.

• Wave VIII participants are most likely to report budgets of between $50,000 and $199,999 (33%).

Changes in Mentoring BudgetsWave VII vs. Wave VIII (cont’d)


Mentoring Annual Budget Changes Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan

Census

Wave VII n=155

Wave VIII n=137

Change in Budget since August 31, 2009 % that experienced an increase 10% 12%

% that experienced an decrease 25% 26% % that experienced no change 55% 45% Don't Know 10% 14%

New Program, no previous budget N/A 4% Mean Increase $18,889 $46,344 Mean Decrease $23,318 $27,680

Net -$4,429 +18,664

• Just over one in ten Wave VIII respondents (12%) reported a budget increase over the past year; 26% experienced a budget decrease.

• Fewer than half of Wave VIII respondents (45%) report they have experienced no changes in their budgets over the past year.

The net budget increase of $18,664 is driven largely by four organizations that received very large infusions of money.

Outlook for the Future


Anticipated Budget Changes in the Next Year Wave VII vs. Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave VII n=155

Wave VIII n=137

Percent of organizations anticipating a budget increase

15%

15%

Percent of organizations anticipating a budget decrease

25%

16%

Percent of organizations anticipating no change

42%

51%

Don't Know 19% 18%

Mean anticipated percentage increase

32% 27%

Mean anticipated percentage decrease

33% 37%

Net -1% -10%

• About half of Wave VIII Census participants (51%) anticipate no change to their budgets in the coming year, up from 42% in Wave VII.

• While far fewer Wave VIII respondents anticipate a budget decrease, the anticipated budget decline of -10% exceeds the -1% anticipated by Wave VII participants.

Youth OutcomesTargeted by MentoringPrograms


Summary of Youth OutcomesTargeted


Summary of Youth Outcomes Targeted by Mentoring Programs Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census

(Multiple Selections Allowed)

Total n=222

Pro Social Skills 95% Academics 85

Health / Wellness 86 Specific outcomes not targeted / Don’t know 5

*At least one outcome from this category was selected.

•The development and growth of Pro Social skills is the most common youth outcome targeted by mentoring programs.

Pro Social Skills Targeted


Pro Social Skills Targeted by Mentoring Programs Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census


Total

PRO SOCIAL SKILLS* 95% Positive youth development 92 Better relationships with adults (non parents/ caregivers) 82

Better relationships with peers 78 Better relationships with parents/caregivers 68 Prevention of at-risk youth becoming youthful offenders 55

Diversion of currently adjudicated youth from the juvenile justice system

26

Reduction in the frequency of contact with the juvenile justice system

26

Reduction in the severity of contact with the juvenile justice system

25

Other pro social skills 11


• More than three quarters of programs identify positive youth development, better relationships with non-parent/caregiver adults, and better relationships with peers as key pro-social goals.

Academic Skills Targeted


Academic Skills Targeted by Mentoring Programs Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census


Total

ACADEMICS* 85% Improved attendance 62 Improved grades / GPA 59

Enhanced educational goal setting 54 Reduced drop-out rates 49 Enhanced career goal setting and planning 48

Increased high school graduation rates 41 Improved reading skills 41 Enhanced access to post-secondary education 38


• Various Academic outcomes are an area of focus for 85% of all programs.

• Within Academics, improved attendance and grades/GPA are the highest priorities.

Health/Wellness Skills Targeted


Health/Wellness Skills Targeted by Mentoring Programs Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census


Total

HEALTH / WELLNESS* 86%

Improved self esteem 83

Improved self confidence 78

Substance use prevention 47

Violence prevention 46

Delay onset of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs 37

Pregnancy prevention 26

Improved physical fitness 25

Obesity prevention 16

Remediating or preventing mental health problems 10

Improved access to medical care 7

Improved access to dental care 7

Other health / wellness 6


• Improved self- esteem and improved self-confidence are the most often cited Health and Wellness outcomes targeted.

• Improved physical fitness (25%) and obesity prevention (16%) are targeted by relatively few mentoring programs.

The low percentage targeting obesity prevention is a concern in light of the growing number of obese youth and our national focus on the issue.

MentoringOrganizations’ Useof Social Media


Social Media Used byOrganizations


Types of Social Media Used by Organization Type Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census


Total n=137

Non-Profit n=86

School-based/ Higher Ed.

n=24

All Others n=27

Facebook 68% 80% 42% 52%

Twitter 16 23 0 7

YouTube 14 17 8 7

LinkedIn 10 13 0 11

Blogs 7 9 0 7

MySpace 4 6 0 0

Podcasts 3 1 4 7

Flickr 3 3 0 4

Other 15 9 8 37

None 21 13 54 19

Don’t know 2 2 0 4

• The majority of participating mentoring organizations report that they use some form(s) of social media.

• The exception is School-based/Higher Ed. organizations, where just over half of responding organizations (54%) report they use none at all.

• Among those using social

media, Facebook is the most frequently used form. Almost twice as many Non-Profit organizations (80%) as School-based/Higher Ed. organizations (42%) use Facebook.

Information Conveyed via Social Media


Information Conveyed Using Social Media by Organization Type Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census


Total n=105

Non-Profit n=73

School-based/ Higher Ed.

n=11

All Others n=21

Event Publicity 75% 77% 64% 76%

Recruitment 66 70 45 62

Success Stories 59 66 64 33

Networking 54 55 55 52

Communication with current mentors 51 48 73 52

Fundraising 49 62 9 24

General mentoring awareness/PR 39 34 45 52

Communication with current youth being mentored

29 27 27 33

Collaboration with other mentoring programs

16 15 9 24

Training 13 14 9 14

Other 3 1 9 5

Don’t know 1 0 9 0

• Non-Profit organizations’ greatest use of social media is for event publicity followed by recruitment and conveying success stories.

• School-based/

Higher Ed. organizations most often use social media to communicate with current mentors, event publicity and conveying success stories.

Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan


Mentor Michigan’s Free Webinars:Past Participation/Satisfaction


Past Participation in Mentor Michigan’s Free

Webinars Wave VIII of the Mentor

Michigan Census

Total n=137

Yes 48% No 37 Don’t know 15

Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan’s Free Webinars


Total n=66

Very satisfied 39%

Somewhat satisfied 58

Don’t know 3

• Nearly half of the Census respondents have participated in Mentor Michigan’s free webinars.

• Satisfaction with the webinars is high among participants.

Information Desired fromMentor Michigan by Organizations


Information Needs of Mentoring Organizations

Wave VIII of the Mentor Michigan Census (Multiple Responses Allowed)

Total n=137

Training materials 71% Evaluation resources 65 Grant writing 64

State mentoring studies 61 Fundraising 59 Recruitment 59

National mentoring studies 42 Other 3 Don’t know 3

Overall Satisfaction with MM


Satisfaction with Mentor Michigan Waves IV through VIII* of the Mentor Michigan Census

Wave III Wave IV Wave V Wave VI Wave VII Wave VIII

Not Aware of MM/Don't Know

0.0800000000000001

0.12 0.1 0.13 0.08 0.09

Not Very/Not at All Satisfied 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02

Somewhat Satisfied 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.4 0.37

Very Satisfied 0.51 0.51 0.5 0.38 0.51 0.52

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

*NOTE: Wave I – III data removed due to space constraints

• With the exception of Wave VI, half of all mentoring organizations are very satisfied with the work of Mentor Michigan.

Summary


Q & A on Census Findings


1. Michigan’s mentoring organizations have resources and experienced talent; operate from a position of strength with assets.◦ More than half of Executive Directors have been in role more than 5 years◦ More than half have an advanced degree◦ Self-reported training is strong

Change the mind-set from “We are poor and have no resources.” to “We have a strong foundation to build upon and need more resources to get to the next level.”

2. 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 were tough years for all, but NOT catastrophic. It appears the worst is behind us and we need to be future-focused.◦ Grip on resources is tenuous and sources of funding are changing slightly◦ Capacity is down over two years but flat in this wave◦ In Wave VII and VIII, about 1 in 4 reported a decline in budget; 10-12% reported an

increase (and those increases were substantial)◦ About half anticipate no budget change in coming year; similar numbers anticipate an

increase and a decrease◦ Biggest anticipated declines are with school-based programs

Redouble fundraising efforts and be very strategic in type of fundraising. Biggest growth is with individuals and events.

Key Themes/Action Items


3. The tension between quantity and quality continues. The mentoring movement in Michigan needs to: become more outcome-focused with specific achievable short and longer

term outcomes clearly specified prioritize and identify who is to be served; more focus on serving special

needs kids strategize as to what to do with the low performing, typically small,

understaffed and under-resourced mentoring programs…they serve about 1 in five children in the state.

4. Evaluation issues are not going away.◦ Evaluation is hardest standard to meet ◦ Training in evaluation is high on priority list◦ Only 3 organizations in the state can document comparison group evaluation

outcomes.

Outcome instrument development and implementation should be a very high priority.

Key Themes/Action Items (cont’d)


5. Social media is here to stay. ◦ The issue of policies around social media use are an important area for MM and the

Providers Council to focus on, especially contrasting school-based programs and community-based programs.

All programs, especially school-based programs, need to focus on appropriate uses of social media to support mentoring programs.

6. Lack of male mentors continues to be a major challenge.Need to find a way to recommit to men in mentoring initiative.

Key Themes/Action Items (cont’d)


For answering the Wave VIII Mentor Michigan Census.

For participating in this webinar.


Thank You

Be sure to use the information from this presentation and the published reports to:

1. Prepare proposals for funding2. Benchmark your programs against state norms3. Prioritize action items at your organization4. Learn more about mentoring in Michigan

Call to Action


Additional Questions


highlights of the mentor michigan wave viii census

Documents

nature of mentoring

nature mmc wave

mentoring types

executive summary mmc

mentoring program evaluation

track mentoring organizations

human resources mmc

mentor michigan census