Dr Clair Scrine, Dr Tracy Reibel, Associate Professor Roz Walker

Telethon Institute for Child Health Research

Acknowledgements
This literature review was commissioned by the True Blue Dreaming organisation with
funding from Lotteries West. It informs the evaluation of the True Blue Dreaming (TBD)
mentoring program. The TBD program commenced in 2004 in the Kimberley and Wheatbelt
and during that time has involved a number of young people.
This comprehensive review of the literature aims to provide information that will assist in
determining the key measures for evaluating the TBD mentoring program to date, as well as
informing future directions.
We would like to thank Bob Southwell, James Fitzpatrick, Richard Pengelley and the TBD
Board members and program facilitators for the opportunity to undertake this evaluation
and work with the organisation to develop and enhance the effectiveness and reach of the
TBD program.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Section 1: Why is mentoring considered effective for young people?................................................... 6
1.1 Counterbalancing the potential for risky behaviour..................................................................... 8
1.2 Promoting resilience ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Mediating effect on other relationships ..................................................................................... 10
Section 2: Barriers and facilitators to effective youth mentoring programs........................................ 12
2.1 Duration and sustainability ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1. Potential negative impact from mentoring ........................................................................ 13
2.1.2 Sustaining the benefits of mentoring .................................................................................. 13
2.2 Quality of the mentor relationship ............................................................................................ 14
2.3 Qualities of a good mentor ........................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Effective elements of program design ........................................................................................ 16
2.4.1 Clear program structure and goals ...................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Ongoing Training and support ............................................................................................. 17
2.4.3 Culturalawareness training ................................................................................................ 18
Section 3: Evaluating Mentoring Programs .......................................................................................... 19
Section 4: e mentoring ......................................................................................................................... 21
Section 5: Gaps in the research on mentoring ..................................................................................... 23
Section 6: Mentoring Aboriginal youth................................................................................................. 25
6.1 Best practice principles in Aboriginal contexts ....................................................................... 25
Case Study 1: Inspire Peer Mentor Program (SA) ............................................................................. 27
Case Study 2: Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program ....................................................... 28
Case Study 3: AIME Australian Indigenous Mentoring Program ...................................................... 30
6.2 Issues to consider in Aboriginal mentoring programs ............................................................ 32
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................35
References ............................................................................................................................................36
Appendix A: Components of an effective mentoring program .................................................... 43

Executive Summary
This literature review is based on an in depth examination of the empirical research, both
international and Australian, that has emerged over the last 25 years on youth mentoring.
The evidence from the literature establishes clear benchmarks for effective mentoring
programs for youth. This provides the True Blue Dreaming program in Western Australia
with a substantial body of evidence to draw on to examine its current practices and consider
future directions that will ensure True Blue Dreaming remains sustainable and relevant to
the young people the organisation supports.
While some gaps in the research remain, there is ample evidence to show that if mentoring
programs are adequately resourced, with good practice structures and support in place,
and with relationships maintained over a suitable length of time involving regular contact,
they can be effective in facilitating a range of positive developments and outcomes for many
young people. The most important indicator of a good mentor/mentee relationship is one
built on long term commitment, trustworthiness, and mutual respect combined with the
support of a well designed program and organisation. These are crucial components to
facilitating the mentor/mentee relationship and are described in detail in the key findings.
Key Findings:
A wide range of positive outcomes is linked to youth mentoring programs, ranging
from behavioural, attitudinal, health related (including social and emotional
wellbeing), interpersonal, motivational, and academic outcomes.
Mentoring provides a context for young people to develop relationships with caring
adults, and enhance their social relationships and emotional well being; improve
their cognitive skills through instruction and conversation; and promote positive
identity development through meaningful connection to role models and advocates.
The duration of the mentor relationship and regularity of contact between young
people and their mentor are crucial determinants impacting on the quality of the
mentoring relationships and its effectiveness. Evidence suggests a relationship
lasting at least 1319 months is linked to better participant outcomes than those
where the mentor relationships terminated early or were only short term (16
months).
Youth in particularly short matches may suffer relative declines in self worth and
scholastic competence. The risk of a negative impact from a short term or
broken/disbanded mentoring relationship was particularly high for those young
people who experienced negative relationships with their family. The mentor
relationship reinforced young peoples sense of feeling abandoned and replicated
negative emotions experienced with their parents.
4

The quality of the mentor relationship is critical because the dynamics through which
mentoring relationships can promote positive developmental outcomes relies on the
formation of a positive connection between mentor and mentee. Factors such as
trust, empathy, authenticity, mutual respect, and sensitivity are considered critical to
a quality mentor relationship.
When working in Aboriginal contexts, it is critical that mentors have a sound
knowledge and understanding of the cultural environment in which they are
engaging. Cultural awareness training must be extended to mentors prior to their
engagement with young people to ensure cultural safety and cultural respect.
Mentors need to be caring and have a positive nonjudgmental approach to young
people (particularly for programs involving young people at risk), and be able to
meet young people where they are and guide them in their journey. Mentors who
focus first on building trust and becoming friends to their youth tend to be more
effective than those who are overly goal oriented and who immediately try to
change or reform their mentees.
The expectations of mentors must be managed. Successful mentors were those who
showed up consistently aiming to have fun and make friends with the mentee; those
who have a social agenda to make a difference experience disappointment and
feel unappreciated. Good mentoring relationships tend to be reciprocal, with
mentors deriving benefits such as a sense of efficacy and pride as well as insights
into their own lives as well as the lives of young people.
Matching mentors with mentees based on common interests and demographic
backgrounds was less important than how young people perceived they were being
treated by their mentors. Successful matches arise from when the mentors
approach is focused on developing a relationship that places the young person at the
centre.
The effective elements of good mentoring program design are:
o Young people sensitive administration/management of the program;
o Flexibility;
o Development of networks;
o Mechanism for ongoing feedback from participants (young people, role
models and other significant people) and evaluation for program
improvement; and,
o Sufficient resources for the program to achieve its aims.

Introduction
The last 25 years has produced an impressive amount of academic literature on youth
mentoring. There are a wealth of academic books, peer reviewed journals and articles, and
online reports. Much of the academic literature has emerged as a response to the
burgeoning number of youth mentoring programs (particularly in the United States).
Through program evaluations, meta analyses, and literature reviews the focus of the
empirical research has been on determining how mentoring works, if participants really do
benefit, especially over the long term, what those benefits actually are and to identify
models of good practice.
This literature review examined a range of research with sources largely drawn from those
based on international programs and studies. There is a large body of research in the United
States in particular, where formal mentor programs, such as Big Brother/Big Sister, have
been operating for over 100 years. Much of the research is located within the behavioural
sciences and is linked to long term program evaluations and longitudinal studies of program
participants. There are far less studies on Australian mentoring programs perhaps reflecting
the current status of this research within Australian universities.
A data search was carried out using key search terms to seek publications and program
reviews and evaluations dating from 2000, however earlier publications were included
where it was felt they made a significant contribution. The literature was critically reviewed
and gathered in a thematic approach specifically defined by the common or repetitive issues
identified.
The literature review sought to understand why mentoring is considered so effective for
young people and in what ways; to identify some of the barriers and facilitators of youth
mentoring programs including the qualities of a successful mentoring relationship, and the
issues to consider in e mentoring programs and those delivered to Aboriginal youth. In so
doing, it established some common themes across much of the research on youth
mentoring, some of which highlight the important components or principles considered
necessary for an effective and sustainable mentoring program, for evaluating a mentoring
program, and some of the gaps in the research. The following details these findings.

Section 1: Why is mentoring considered effective for young people?

A wide range of positive outcomes is linked to youth mentoring programs, ranging from
behavioural, attitudinal, health related (including social and emotional wellbeing),
interpersonal, motivational, and academic. Much of the research examining the benefits of
youth mentoring suggest that it can positively influence peer and parental relationships,
academic achievement, self concept, and behaviour (Aseltine, Dupre, & Lamlein, 2000;
DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Grossman & Tierney, 1998). In the UK, Canada
and North America, where a lot of the research on youth mentoring is generated,
evaluations of formal one to one mentoring programs provide seemingly overwhelming
6

evidence of their success in promoting better social, academic, and behavioral outcomes
(Herrera et al. 2007; Grossman and Bulle 2006; DeWit et al. 2006; Eby, Durley et al. 2006;
Karcher 2005; DuBois et al. 2002; Keating et al. 2002; Grossman and Tierney 1998;).
Underpinning the efficacy accorded youth mentoring are theories of adolescent identity
formation and cognitive neuroscience. Such research highlights the fundamental
importance of connectedness and meaningful relationships to the development of a healthy
sense of self and self esteem (McCallum & Beltman 2002). The psychosocial context of
adolescents is said to be markedly different to that of children and adults (Erickson 1963).
The environmental and biological changes during this time lead to new social encounters
and heightened awareness and interest in other people. Relationships with peers, family
and society go through distinct changes. Adolescents begin to assert more autonomous
control over their decisions, emotions and actions, and start to disengage from parental
control. At the same time, the school environment involves an intense socialisation process
during which adolescents become increasingly aware of the perspectives of their peers,
teachers and other non family members (Adams & Berzonsky, 2003).
Recent research in the field of cognitive neuroscience has identified that the brain matures
considerably during adolescence, with evidence pointing to the role of neural maturation in
the development of social cognition during adolescence. Histological and MRI studies have
shown that the brain is subject to considerable structural development during adolescence.
Neuroscientists have mapped the ways in which social relationships interact with the
developing adolescent brain to shape mental processes and perception. Brain regions that
are implicated in social cognition, including parts of prefrontal, parietal and superior
temporal cortex, are said to undergo the most pronounced and prolonged change during
this stage (Choudry et at, 2006).
Such research confirms the adolescent stage of identity and brain formation as a highly
intense period where young people begin to develop their identity in the wider world by
becoming members of social networks outside of the family. As young people are driven to
differentiate themselves from their parents, they become more open to the influence of
other adults. The importance a meaningful relationship with an adult (other than a parent)
plays in young peoples healthy development goes some way to explaining the potential of
mentoring relationships. As psychologists Rhodes and Liang (2007) note in their exploration
of the vital elements for youth mentoring, it stands to reason that when close and caring
relationships are placed at the center of a youth intervention, as is the case in mentoring
programs, the conditions for healthy development are ripe (p.104).
National Mentoring Partnership Professor Jean Rhodes, who has written extensively on
youth mentoring, has spent years exploring exactly how and to what extent youth
mentoring can be effective (2011, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2002). She has proposed that
mentoring affects youth through three interrelated processes by:

(1) enhancing their social relationships and emotional well being;

(2) improving their cognitive skills through instruction and conversation; and,
(3) promoting positive identity development through meaningful connection to role models
and advocates.
Rhodes contends mentoring can contribute to the cognitive development of youth through
several mechanisms, including exposure to new opportunities for learning, provision of
intellectual challenge, guidance and confidence, and promotion of a positive attitude to
school and academic success (Rhodes et al, 2006, 694). It can also effect change in youths
perceptions of their future, including their vocational aspirations.
The Australian Youth Mentoring Network describes mentoring as providing a structured
and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who
offer guidance, support and encouragement (Vella et al, 2011, 15).
Developmental Psychologists Hamilton and Darling (1989) suggested that unrelated adults,
particularly mentors, are important to adolescents because they provide both the ideals
that are necessary for identity formation and the skills that allow those ideals to be realized
(p.126). Others have suggested that mentors can play an important role in young peoples
development because they:
are proof that a successful transition to adulthood can be made and, if the adolescent
identifies with the mentor, this may help them believe that they too can make a successful
transition;
may exhibit different skills and knowledge from those possessed by family members and
so give a valuable insight into the wider world;
offer adult perspectives, advice, and suggestions that might be ignored if they were
presented by a parent;
may help youth better understand, express, and regulate both their positive and their
negative emotions;
allow adolescents to have effective adult communication and an informal relationship
with an adult other than a parent (Kaye and Jacobson 1996; Rhodes 2005; Keller 2005a,
Rhodes et al 2006; Grossman and Rhodes 2002).

1.1 Counterbalancing the potential for risky behaviour

As a significant developmental transition, the shift to adolescence also presents a critical
turning point which, if not navigated successfully, can result in psychological and social
consequences for young people. Educational psychologists McInerney & McInerney (1998)
argue that role confusion may result when an adolescent feels lost, unattached or confused
8

in social identity (p.349). Changing family and marital and employment patterns,
overcrowded schools, and less cohesive communities have been identified by some as
dramatically reducing young peoples access to caring adults (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).
Thus youth mentoring programs are increasingly advocated as a means of redressing the
decreased availability of adult support and guidance in the lives of youth and the lack of
supportive non parent adults in their communities (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Rhodes,
2002; DuBois & Karcher, 2005).
One of the principal aims of many youth mentoring programs is said to be reducing the risk
of antisocial behaviour, poor self esteem and, in so doing, improve social and academic
functioning. Certainly there is a range of research that has identified being mentored as
related to more positive social relationships, higher performance, and less problem
behaviour in adolescents (Eby et al., 2009; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). In 1995 Tierney,
Grossman & Resch undertook what is now considered a landmark impact evaluation on
young people matched with Big Brother/Big Sister (BBBS) mentors utilising a control group
of young people waiting to be matched. This evaluation studied more than 1000 children,
ages 1016, over an 18 month period. Compared to the children in the control group, BBBS
children with mentors were less likely to begin using drugs and alcohol; less likely to hit
someone; and less likely to skip school. BBBS children felt more competent about doing
schoolwork, skipped one third fewer classes, and showed modest gains in their grade point
averages. Their research provides clear evidence that young people can benefit from being
involved in a well run mentoring program (Foster, 2001, p.3).

1.2 Promoting resilience

Resilience is another factor identified as important to the effect of the mentoring
relationship. Resilience is described as a way of responding to the exigencies of life and is
said to be characterized by good communication skills, good social skills, good problem
solving skills, a sense of humour, the ability to separateeither physically or
psychologicallyfrom toxic situations, the ability to empathize, and high self esteem (see
Turner, Norman & Zunz, 1995; Rutter, 1993; Zubrick et al 1995). Some of the literature
describes the achievement of healthy, positive relationships as requiring skills similar to
those which characterize a resilient person a positive self esteem, the ability to
empathize, good communication skills, the ability to trust others, a belief that others care
about you, effective problem solving skills, and the ability to advocate for oneself.
Research examining the protective factors that develop resiliency in young people indicates
that feelings of caring and connectedness with adults and with peers are crucial in acting as
protective factors. A mentoring relationship between an adult and a young person is
therefore, one way to support the development of resilience and socio emotional well
being. Mentoring provides a context for young people to develop these key protective
factors, such as relationships with caring adults, networks with peers and others, and
individual competencies (MacCallum and Beltman 2002).
9

Research suggests that the significance attached to mentoring relationships as a protective

influence for young people provides greater benefits to youth who can be considered at
risk or vulnerable by virtue of individual and/or environmental circumstances. Examining
the role of unrelated adults in the lives of adolescents, Scales and Gibbons (1996) concluded
that such was the significance of a relationship with at least one caring adult, not necessarily
a parent, it was the single most important element in protecting young people with multiple
risk factors in their lives (cited in Macullum & Beltman, 2002, p.24). At risk adolescents can
experience high levels of disappointment and rejection in building and experiencing
relationships. Mentoring relationships can assist in addressing those negative experiences
and rebuilding trust in the mentees attitudes to relationships, especially with adults, and
hopefully with parents.
Many mentoring programs in the United States have been directed at youth at risk or those
from economically and/or socially disadvantaged environments. For such youth, mentoring
relationships are said to offer:
opportunities to engage in a variety of social and recreational interactions with
adults;
genuine care and support;
a challenge to negative views they may hold of themselves or of relationships with
adults; and,
emotional support to cope with stressful events or chronic adversity, thereby
buffering the effects of a negative environment (Rhodes 2002, 2005; Keller 2005;
Herrera et al., 2007).

1.3 Mediating effect on other relationships

In their examination of the agents of change in youth mentoring outcomes Rhodes,
Grossman and Resch (2000) describe how the direct effects of mentoring programs on self
worth, school value and academic outcomes were not identified. Rather, these outcomes
were mediated through improvement of parental relationships and scholastic confidence
(p.1662). They state that very little is known about the underlying process by which mentor
relationships affect academic outcomes. Yet as they note, the evidence from evaluations of
large scale mentoring programs in America such as the Big Brother Big Sister program clearly
demonstrate improvements in retention rates, grades, and confidence among participants
(Rhodes et al.,2000, p. 1662; see also Grossman & Tierney, 1998).
Rhodes et al., identify a mediating effect arising from mentoring relationships on other
outcomes for the mentees such as improving relationships with their parents and other
adults; and developing a more positive self concept, They suggest mentor relationships can
alleviate some of the tensions and conflicts between youth and parents that occur during
adolescence by providing an alternative source of support, a model of conflict resolution, a
10

means of coping with everyday issues that alleviates the stress on parents and facilitate
more pro social values and positive relationships between child and parent. Further, the
authors cite a number of studies that clearly show that improvements in parental
relationships can have an array of positive outcomes including: scholastic confidence, pro
social behaviour, and academic outcomes (p.1663). They state such research shows that
adolescents capacity to benefit from the support of parents is facilitated by the sense of
support and acceptance that is derived from the mentor relationships. (p.1663) They also
suggest that positive role modelling and the provision of emotional support from the
mentor can contribute to adolescents beliefs in themselves as learners and thus their
attitudes to school which, in turn, affects the value they place on attending. Rhodes and
colleagues conclude from their research that Mentors can affect both the cognitive and
behavioural dimensions of adolescents approach to school (p.1667).
The research suggests that improved perceptions of parental relationships are important
mediators of change in adolescents academic outcomes and behaviours. This highlights a
need to ensure the support of parents for a mentoring program, and the potential impact
from focusing on parental relationships within the mentoring program.
While it would seem that mentoring is an ideal strategy for enhancing the resilience, healthy
development and sense of self of any adolescent, and a range of other beneficial outcomes,
it is important to consider that there is a difference to the theory of mentoring and its
application. Indeed, what much of the research into mentoring programs has identified is a
great degree of variation in the approach, duration, intensity and target group and goals of
many mentoring programs such that generalised statements about their effectiveness in
achieving specific outcomes can be problematic.
Like other relationships, youth mentoring relationships can vary in closeness and duration,
in ways that have implications for their effectiveness. In their meta analysis of 55
evaluations of youth mentoring programs DuBois et al., (2002) identified a set of critical
factors linked to programs achieving their stated outcomes. These included youth reporting
more frequent contact with their mentors, feeling some emotional closeness to the mentors
or considering their mentor to be a significant adult in their life, and participating in the
mentoring relationship for a longer period of time (p.188). Similarly, Rhodes (2002; 2005)
has stated that the effectiveness of mentoring is governed, at least in part, by the quality
and longevity of the relationships established between young people and their mentors. In
attempting to understand the qualities underpinning an effective mentoring program, it is
important to explore in more detail some of these critical determinants.

11

Section 2: Barriers and facilitators to effective youth mentoring

programs
2.1 Duration and sustainability
Research shows that one of the crucial determinants impacting on the quality of the
mentoring relationships and its effectiveness is the duration or the relationship and the
pattern of interaction between young people and their mentor. Grossman and Rhodes
(2002) explored the importance of the variation in the patterns of interaction between
mentors and mentees and in particular, the significance of the duration of mentoring
relationships. They found that youth who were in relationships that lasted a year or longer
with regular contact with their mentors, reported relative gains in levels of self worth,
perceived social acceptance, scholastic competence, parental relationship quality, and
school value, and lower levels of both drug and alcohol use. In contrast, youth whose
mentor relationships terminated within a year derived significantly fewer benefits. These
findings are consistent with DuBois et als (2002) meta analysis, which found relatively
modest effects for relationships that lasted less than a year. When mentoring relationships
were enduring and supportive, and involved regular contact with mentors, they facilitated a
range of positive changes in developmental outcomes (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, &
Cooper, 2002). Similarly, Herrera et al (2007) found in their study of school based mentoring
in the U.S. that mentees who experienced longer, higher quality relationships (which
included regularity of contact with their mentor) gained bigger benefits from those in
shorter and less high quality relationships.
Other research has linked the success of a mentoring program defined in terms of the
achievement of a range of positive youth outcomes including improved academic
competence, increased self esteem, and/or enhanced interpersonal relationships with the
duration of the mentoring relationship/program (see Liang and Rhodes 2007; Rhodes and
Dubois 2006; DuBois et al., 2002; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Such research links
relationship closeness and longevity (at least 1319 months) to reported better participant
outcomes than those where the mentor relationships terminated early or were only short
term (16 months). Liang and Rhodes (2007) state in order for children to thrive in
mentoring relationships they must experience authentic, consistent, and enduring ties
(p.104). The frequency and consistency of contact between mentors and mentees is also
identified as a significant factor (Kelly 2005; Rhodes 2005).
Sipe (1996) provides a synthesis of 8 years of research undertaken on mentoring programs
in the United States through an examination of ten key studies (Freedman, 1988, 1991;
Styles & Morrow, 1992; Greim, 1992; Tierney & Branch, 1992; Furano, Roaf, Styles & Brancy,
1993; Mecartney, Styles & Morrow, 1994; Roaf, Tierney & Hunte, 1994; Morrow & Styles,
1995; Tierney, Grossman & Resch, 1995). She found that all ten indicated that at least 6
months of regular meetings are required before young people report that they have a
trusting relationship with their mentor.
12

Given that a close, trusting relationship is one of the vital elements in youth mentoring, the
emphasis accorded the duration of the relationship is not that surprising. Rhodes states
(2005) those programs that recognize the complexity involved, and intentionally support
and guide relationships into the longer term, are likely to yield the most promising effects
(p.163). What is concerning is the evidence suggesting the detriment posed by relationships
that are not sustained for any significant period of time.
2.1.1. Potential negative impact from mentoring
Such is the importance of the duration and regularity of contact of the mentor relationship
that some research has found that both short term mentoring relationships and
broken/disbanded mentoring relationships have the potential to harm children and young
people (Grossman & Rhodes 2002; Hartley 2004). The evidence suggests youth in
particularly short matches suffered relative declines in self worth and scholastic
competence. Others found that the risk of a negative impact from a short term mentoring
relationship was particularly high for those young people who experienced negative
relationships with their family. In her examination of the Australian BBBS program, Robyn
Hartley (2004) found that short term mentoring relationships, or broken/disbanded
mentoring relationships reinforced many young peoples sense of feeling abandoned and
replicated negative emotions experienced with their parents(p.15).
Westhues et al (2001) found in their analysis of a US based mentoring program for girls
focusing on relationship building and assertiveness, that the format of a group program of
six to eight weeks did have a significant impact on feelings of self esteem of participants,
which was maintained at least three months after completion of the program. However,
they also found that particular skills that will enhance relationships were not learned and
maintained. The sole near significant positive change reported by girls, which was reported
between pre test and post test for the experimental group had faded by follow up. The
authors concluded that short term programs have to be of greater duration or intensity to
result in improved relationship skills.
2.1.2 Sustaining the benefits of mentoring
Another consideration in the research examining the effectiveness of youth mentoring
programs is the sustainability of a programs impact once the participants engagement with
the program has ceased. For instance Rhodes (2008) cites one evaluation of a school and
community based mentoring program where youth assigned to receive mentoring showed
significant improvements in their academic performance, perceived scholastic efficacy,
school misconduct, and attendance relative to a control group of non mentored youth.
However, when youth were reassessed a few months into the following school year, most
differences were no longer statistically significant (p.37).

13

2.2 Quality of the mentor relationship

In addition to the importance accorded the duration of the mentoring relationship on youth
outcomes, the quality of the relationship has been identified by many as just as significant
(Rhodes 2005; DuBois et al.,2002; MacCallum and Beltman 2002).
The quality of the mentor relationship is critical because the dynamics through which
mentoring relationships can promote positive developmental outcomes relies on the
formation of a positive connection between mentor and mentee. Factors such as trust,
empathy, authenticity, mutual respect, sensitivity, and attunement are cited by some as
critical to a quality mentor relationship. Attunement is a concept often referred to in
psychotherapy to describe a quality of interpersonal contact (between client and therapist)
defined by a harmonious and responsive relationship. It is said to begin with empathy
being sensitive to and identifying with the other person's needs or feelings and includes
the communication of that sensitivity to the other person (Erskine, 1997). This quality of
empathy and sensitivity in youth mentoring relationships is identified by others as critical. In
their Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Allen and Eby (2007) contend that more sensitively
aligned adults are better able to provide the sort of safe haven that adolescents need to
take on challenges and cope with emotional stress. They suggest mentors who are attuned
with their mentees are theoretically in a better position to handle discussions around
vulnerable topics without undermining the adolescents sense of self confidence.
MacCallum and Beltman (2002) note that mentors need to be caring and have a positive
nonjudgmental approach to young people (particularly for programs involving young people
at risk), and those involved with young people on a one to one basis particularly need to be
able to meet young people where they are and guide them in their journey (p.100). They
also note the importance of mentors having clear strategies for approaching issues with the
young people including offering young people options or alternatives to work out how they
can act in certain situations not dictating how they should be (p.100). They state that only
a small amount of research has explored reasons for mismatches or failed mentoring
relationships which, they note, are often due to unrealistic expectations on the part of the
mentors and their perceived lack of impact. They cite Freedmans study (1995) that found
the most successful mentors were those who showed up consistently aiming to have fun
and make friends with the mentee. Those who came with a social agenda to make a
difference had no effect. (2002, p.43). Similarly Liang and Rhodes (2007) note in their
exploration of the vital elements in youth mentoring, that expectations can lead mentors to
feel disappointed, unappreciated, and even exploited, especially early in the relationship.
Young people are often brought into a mentor program because they have had
unsatisfactory relationships in the past, and they may not know how to engage in a mutually
satisfying friendship. Alternatively, adequately conveying to mentors what they can expect
from their mentee, the relationship, and the roles of each partner, as well as the difficulties
that they might encounter can prevent some of these disappointments (p.105).

14

Another important consideration raised in some research on the mentoring relationship is

how young people perceived they were being treated by their mentors. Rather than a
mentor relationship being described by a set of positive attributes, Rhodes (2005) found
that successful mentoring relationships tended to be defined less in terms of positive
attributes than by the absence of disappointment and other negative feelings. She found
that youth who reported that they did not feel their trust had been broken by the mentor
and were satisfied with the relationship were identified as having better outcomes including
concepts of self esteem and academic competence (p.163). She also found that the negative
aspects of relationships can outweigh or negate the positive aspects because of the
damaging effects of disappointment and mistrust. This is particularly the case for young
people in mentoring programs, who have already experienced disappointment in past
relationships with adults if these are repeated by the mentor (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).
Liang and Rhodes (2007) note that good mentoring relationships tend to be reciprocal, with
mentors deriving a host of benefits through the art of giving of themselves (p.104). These
benefits include a sense of efficacy and pride as well as insights into their own lives and the
lives of young people.
Such research shows that the quality and longevity of the mentoring relationship for mentor
and mentee, as well as the quality of previous relationships, can play important mediating
and moderating roles in the efficacy of mentoring programs.

2.3 Qualities of a good mentor

With an emphasis accorded the quality of the mentoring relationship to the efficacy of
mentoring programs, consideration has been given to defining what makes a good mentor,
the importance in the selection of mentors, and the support they receive in that role. Some
mentor programs that target young people and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
traditionally place a strong emphasis on the process of matching mentors with mentees
from similar backgrounds. It seems the belief is that same race and gender matches allow
mentees to closely identify with mentors because they share common life experiences, and
can also allow mentors to teach culturally specific history, traditions, language, and learning
style (Smith Mohammed 1998).
Sipe (1996) found that the process of matching mentors with mentees is the least critical
element among the ten studies she examined. She found that requirements to be matched
based on common interests and demographic backgrounds are over ridden by the mentors
approach where the focus is on developing a relationship that places the young person at
the centre. Across the ten key studies Sipe found that practices of effective mentors could
be summarised as follows:
They involved young people in deciding how the pair will spend their time together.
They made a commitment to being consistent and dependable to maintain a
steady presence in the young persons life.
15

They recognized that the relationship may be fairly one sided for some time, and
may involve silence and unresponsiveness from the young person.
The take responsibility for keeping the relationship alive.
They paid attention to young peoples need for fun. Not only is having fun a key part
of relationship building, but it provides young people with valuable opportunities
that are often not otherwise available to them.
They respected young peoples view point.
They sought, and utilized, the help and advice of program staff (p.15).
Sipe (2002) concludes that the development of trust is the key to creating effective
mentoring relationships (p.253). From her analysis of the research she identifies that
mentors who focus first on building trust and becoming friends to their youth tend to be
more effective than those who are overly goal oriented and who immediately try to change
or reform their mentees (p.253). She also stresses the importance of the mentors
consistency and persistence for the development of a good relationship. In their meta
analysis Dubois et al, (2002) found that it is inconclusive as to whether mentors should be of
the same background, but what is conclusive is the approach that the mentor takes (p.159).
Jekielek, Moore and Hair (2002) found that the quality of mentoring relationships correlated
with good program structure and planning.

2.4 Effective elements of program design

Sipes (1996; 2002) analysis found that the importance of appropriate support for mentors
to build trust and to develop a positive relationship with their mentees is paramount to the
success of mentoring relationships (2002, p.253). She found that the quality of mentoring
relationships correlates with good program structure and planning and that positive
outcomes from mentoring relationships are more likely to accrue when best practice
procedures are in place in a programincluding screening of volunteers, supervision, the
provision of adequate orientation and training, ongoing support and supervision (Sipe 1996;
Sipe 1998; Sipe 2002;). These effective elements of successful mentoring programs, as they
have come to be referred to, have been tested and refined through ongoing research and
evaluations of mentoring programs. Many have noted that when these elements are absent
there is potential for programmes to have negative effects on youth (Brady et al 2005;
Rhodes 2008; DuBois et al., 2005).
MacCallum and Beltman (2002) identified the following common features of effective role
model programs (including mentoring):
Young people sensitive administration/management of the program;
Flexibility;
16

Development of networks;
Mechanism for ongoing feedback from participants (young people, role models
and other significant people) and evaluation for program improvement; and,
Sufficient resources for the program to achieve its aims.
2.4.1 Clear program structure and goals
DuBois et al (2002) found poorly structured programs contributed to the breakdown of the
mentoring relationship and concluded that the design of the mentoring program was as
important as its goals and the outcomes achieved. They suggested that programs that were
structured, with clear expectations, goals, and which provided ongoing support to mentors,
yielded notably strong effects (p.187). Rhodes (2005) concluded that the evidence about the
need for a strong emotional connection first and foremost highlighted the importance of
maintaining adequate levels of support and supervision in mentoring programs to ensure
relationship closeness, longevity, and effectiveness. She suggested that caseworkers and
supervisors need to be on the lookout for early signs of trouble (p.149). Similarly Liang and
Rhodes (2007) note that programs must be able to support mentoring relationships (p.104).
They suggest this includes proactively establishing appropriate expectations of the
mentoring role in terms of what is required and what can be expected. They cite examples
of mentors who assume an immediate bond will be developed or that mentees will be
particularly grateful. Yet, as they note, young people are often brought into a mentor
program because they have had unsatisfactory relationships in the past, and may not have
the skills to develop a meaningful relationship with an adult. This can result in
disappointment and resentment on behalf of the mentor (p.105).
2.4.2 Ongoing Training and support
The research seems conclusive in regards to mentors needing ongoing support and training
to further develop their skills and knowledge about developing a mentoring relationship.
These skills can include the articulation of feelings to enable mentors to model appropriate
ways of expressing feelings and, by doing that, the importance of expressing feelings. It can
also include ongoing support to maintain a positive approach and to feel a sense of being
part of something bigger. Mentors may also need ideas and activities to get them started,
and access to resources and other networks. In their report to the national youth affairs
research scheme on youth role models, MacCallum and Beltman (2002) note that regular
meetings of coordinators and mentors or of all the mentors were mentioned as critical in
ongoing training and support. It was an opportunity to speak about their relationship, share
difficulties and ideas, develop skills and confidence, as well as deal with specific issues such
as drugs, sexuality and school (p.101). The authors also noted that consideration must be
given to how the mentoring relationship is finished when a program is formally ending, as
an untimely ending may leave the young person with a sense of rejection and, for some,
another failed relationship (p.102).

17

2.4.3 Culturalawareness training

In terms of mentors working cross culturally in the case of mentoring Aboriginal students
the provision of support and cross cultural training as well as screening mentors for their
suitability is critical. Mentors must have an understanding of the cultural issues that may
shape the values, priorities, obligations and perspectives of Aboriginal youth. Without this
mentors could run the risk of inadvertently reinforcing culturally inappropriate ideas that
may leave young people feeling disempowered and culturally disconnected. In their
examination of a youth mentoring program in South Australia involving Aboriginal youth,
Catherine Koerner et al., (2009) state
many programs have been introduced in an attempt to increase the number of
Indigenous students completing formal education, including mentoring. But, how
can such programs ensure that they are also not a part of the problem when a
critique of racialisation is literally absent in the mentoring literature? (p.192).

18

Section 3: Evaluating Mentoring Programs

In examining the literature on mentoring, consideration was given to the basis on which the
impact of mentoring programs can be evaluated and the best data sources. Evaluations of
mentoring programs can differ considerably in terms of what they identify as evidence of a
programs effectiveness and the approach to evaluation (for instance, quantitative versus
qualitative). Rhodes et al., (2006) argue that much greater attention needs to be paid to
understanding mentoring processes so that programs can be effective in their efforts to
improve the lives of the youth they serve (p.692).
Mentoring programs have been identified as potentially affecting youth in a wide variety of
areas, however assessing whether their effectiveness is evident across a range of indicators
can be complicated and in part influenced by:
the extent of participation in the program (including frequency and length of time);
the quality of the mentor mentee relationships (including frequency of contact and
length); and,
the backgrounds and circumstances of the youth involved which can differ
considerably within and across programs.
Other factors to consider include the data sources and the timing of assessments.
Attempts to arrive at general conclusions about the influence of mentoring are complicated
by the relationship context and numerous other personal, environmental, and situational
factors that are potential moderators of mentoring effects. Many mentoring programs aim
to achieve changes in the personal growth, social and emotional wellbeing of their
participants.
Yet strategies employed by mentors to promote positive identity
development, for example, may be more effective with some youth than others, depending
on their background, beliefs, and values. Furthermore, conceptualising such changes and
how they can be shown to have occurred is difficult. The other factor is to what extent such
changes can be sustained beyond a persons involvement with a program and to what
extent that can be measured or said to be the result of participation in a program as distinct
from other influences. Other relationships in a young persons life (occurring at the same
time as their mentoring relationship) can also have an influence on them, which makes
assessing the impact of any program or mentoring relationship difficult. To what extent are
the various contexts in which young people live their lives to be taken into account in the
evaluation of the mentoring program?
Assessing the impact of mentoring programs is problematic given the difficulty of measuring
the kinds of outcomes usually attributed to mentoring. These include factors such as self
esteem, problem solving, decision making and general life skills. Aspects such as school
attendance and retention are in one sense much easier to measure but the question
19

remains as to what extent they can be taken as evidence of a successful mentoring program.
MacCallum and Beltman (2002) suggest consideration needs to be given to what change is
anticipated, the degree of change, how long it might take and how such change will be
measured. They also emphasise that both short and long term measures should be
considered in determining the impact of any program. Some examples of short term
measures include measuring changes in the degree of antisocial activities; academic
performance, attitudes and behaviour; relationships with families and friends; and self
conceptualisation (2002, p.11).
Another key aspect of evaluating the effectiveness of programs concerns how programs
achieve their intended outcomes. This is a particularly important question when an aim is to
improve the effectiveness of a program or to assist in the development of effective
programs. MacCallum and Beltman (2002) note that one important measure of
effectiveness is whether or not there is a positive change in the young people. They suggest
where such positive change is identified across multiple sources of data and at follow up
assessments is an indication of the effectiveness of mentoring programs. However, as they
also note, reporting positive change in young people as an indicator of effectiveness fails to
address or identify the possible factors responsible (p.41).
Certainly, evaluating a mentoring program can be problematic given the potential long term
outcomes sought or proclaimed from many programs. It is also hard to compare programs.
The new benchmarks in Australia go some way towards establishing some means of
comparison and a basis on which programs can be identified as effective and why.
Since Tienery, Grossman and Reschs 1995 impact evaluation of the Big Brother/Big Sister
program, a number of studies have adopted social science based methodologies to evaluate
mentoring effectiveness and determine outcomes. However, these studies generally have
looked at much smaller programs and may not be generalized to larger populations. The
majority of mentor program evaluations continue to be based on anecdotal information and
participant reports and observations. They have other limitations. There are seemingly few
follow up studies tracking long term outcomes to determine if or for how long positive
changes gained from participation in a mentoring program last over time. Different outcome
measures are used to evaluate different programs, which makes it difficult to evaluate,
interpret, and compare programs. In addition, evaluation descriptions are often not
comprehensive enough to allow the reader to independently assess the quality of the
evaluation and data.
Lack of funding is one barrier to conducting well designed evaluations. Another is that many
programs do not consider evaluation to be a priority, placing all of their resources in running
the program. Without an evaluation mechanism, programs are unable to demonstrate
whether they have made a difference and more importantly, enhance their strengths and
learn and address the weaknesses in the program structure.
20

Section 4: e mentoring
In the digital age and with many young people accessing multiple forms of digital technology
in ever increasing numbers, e mentoring would seemingly prove a popular and accessible
way to offer mentoring programs and mentor relationships to young people.
The Australian Youth Mentoring Network describes e mentoring as designed for when
mentees are in isolated areas or where there are time constraints. The mentors and
mentees communicate through messages using a system similar to email with all messages
monitored by a program coordinator (2011, 7).
Research (se for instance Rhodes et al 2006; Scealy, Phillips, & Stevenson, 2003) suggests a
range of advantages posed by online mentoring including
enabling mentors and mentees able to correspond in a more spontaneous fashion;
high degree of flexibility;
able to access youth in regional and remote areas;
no time restraints on the relationships;
broadening the pool of available mentors, (eincluding physically disabled persons or
busy corporate executives) to serve as mentors;
having a disinhibiting effect for some youth and thereby appealing to those who are
too shy or withdrawn to reach out to people around them; and,
removing barriers created by first impressions, often based on physical appearance.
The disadvantages can include
the lack of personal contact and lower inhibitions can result in angry or hurtful
comments that would be less likely to occur in person;
more chance of miscommunication and misinterpretation of messages and meaning
working against the development of a trusting and close relationship;
less disclosure of a personal nature leading to more superficial relationships;
transcripts need to be monitored which then raises issues around ensuring
confidentiality for mentors and mentees; and,
the need for regular access to a computer and the internet in a private setting.
For example, the infrastructure required to access the internet and mobile phone
networks is often poorly developed or non existent in remote areas of Australia. In the
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 census around 230 Aboriginal communities (34,882
21

people) did not have access to the internet (2007b). Of the communities that did have
access, 59% had only one public internet access point.
Rhodes et al (2006) evaluated an e mentoring program in America involving 272 youth
between the ages of 12 and 18 over a two year period. The youth were matched with
mentors with whom they were intended to correspond exclusively via e mail on a weekly
basis for a minimum of 6 months during the school year. From this initial sample, 242 pairs
exchanged e mails. The parents and/or guardians of the youth signed an agreement
allowing their children to participate and acknowledging that they understood the privacy
and security requirements of the program. Prior to their acceptance as mentors, volunteers
were also required to undergo a background check conducted by a private security firm.
Once accepted, mentors completed a three hour training program at local sites that were
affiliated with the National Mentoring Partnership. The training was designed to help
prepare volunteers for their role as online mentors.
Youth and mentors were matched to using personal profiles written by the youth and adult
volunteers, with the needs and interests of the youth and similarities between the two
parties examined. Email addresses were then routed and encrypted through the secure
system, so that their counterpart could not see the actual e mail address. From their
detailed analysis of the contents of the emails and interviews with participants in the study,
Rhodes et al found that the depth of the e mail conversations between mentors and youth
fell into four broad categories: (1) disengaged relationships in which long periods of time
elapsed between contacts; (2) exchanges that were largely superficial and impersonal; (3)
exchanges that were characterized by friendly, mutual sharing; and, (4) deeper discussions
of more personal issues. They concluded that on the whole, the relationships tended to be
youth centered and both mentors and mentees were relatively engaged and satisfied. They
concluded that some mentors and mentees may need more time to get to know one
another before they are willing to engage in more personally revealing conversations online
and that expectations for online relationships may be different, with some youths and
adults feeling greater freedom to self disclose and others less comfortable delving into
more personal topics online (p.510).
Due to the lack of evaluation evidence it is difficult to identify under what conditions online
mentoring is likely to be most effective. There is far less available research on the relative
advantages and disadvantages or the nature of the relationships that are formed, through
electronic or online mentoring programs. To date, few peer reviewed articles have been
published on the topic, and much of the information that is available is limited to program
descriptions. There is a growing need for a better understanding of the complexities and the
circumstances under which e mentoring can be most effective. Rhodes et al argue that
research must seek to understand the predictors of longevity in online mentor relationships,
and the factors that explain why some relationships remain superficial while others deepen
into meaningful ties online (2006, p.512).
22

Section 5: Gaps in the research on mentoring

Despite the wealth of research exploring the efficacy of mentoring programs there is still
much to be learned about which aspects of programs are the most beneficial and
transformative and which are less so. This literature review identified notable gaps in the
research on mentoring programs. The following is a brief summary of those findings.
When to Mentor: Relatively little research differentiates the characteristics and
outcomes of mentoring relationships for different aged youth and the optimal timing
(in terms of age) of mentoring as an effective process for young people. Given, as
some have suggested, that differing stages of development influence the receptivity
of youth to mentoring, it would seem that there is an appropriate time. Yet much of
the research examined on youth mentoring does not always consider the age of the
mentees in terms of its impact on the effectiveness or otherwise of a program or the
mentoring relationship. Relatively little research differentiates the characteristics
and outcomes of mentoring relationships for different aged youth. Yet adolescence
is a fluid concept with the traditional age bound definition now considered to be
greatly influenced by social, environmental, and cultural factors. The timing of a
mentoring program is particularly relevant when considering Aboriginal young
people with some suggesting that programs are best aimed at children as young as
ten. Additionally, cultural influences such as when adolescent males are taken
through law, which changes their status to that of a man, is also an important factor
to consider.
E Mentoring: There appears to be a growing need for a better understanding of the
complexities and the circumstances under which e mentoring can be most effective.
Rhodes et al suggest a more refined understanding of the predictors of longevity,
and the factors that explain why some relationships remain superficial while others
deepen into meaningful ties is required from the research on e mentoring.
Role of Gender: Less attention is payed to the impact or otherwise of gender and age
in the quality of a mentoring relationship and its effectiveness. When working with
Aboriginal young people though, this may be a factor requiring consideration.
Group or one on one: there is far less analysis of the effectiveness or otherwise of
group mentoring programs as opposed to those using a one on one approach.
School based programs versus community based programs: A lot of research on
school based programs but not much exploring a community based program.
Mentoring Aboriginal Youth: Another notable gap in the research on mentoring
programs is a focus on mentoring programs offered to Aboriginal youth, with very
few evaluations of Australian Indigenous youth mentoring programs and therefore,
23

the critical elements to mentoring Aboriginal youth have not been identified with
any certainty.

24

Section 6: Mentoring Aboriginal youth

As noted there is a lack of published research on mentoring Aboriginal Youth and effective
Aboriginal Youth mentoring programs. The literature search examined both Australian and
International literature in terms of what has been identified as effective and critical in
mentoring Aboriginal youth. Of note was the work of Klink et al., (2005) in Canada who
explored and compared concepts of mentoring from mainstream and Aboriginal
perspectives. Their objective was to identify factors that could influence the development of
an Aboriginal specific mentoring program in a mainstream national program. They
concluded that an important component in establishing a strong connection between the
mentor and mentee is the mentors knowledge of the Aboriginal social context, including
the legacy of loss, dislocation and discrimination (2005, p.113). They also note the
importance of community and collectivty to Aboriginal peoples world views and values, and
that a focus on the individual and their achievement (as is the case with many youth
mentoring programs) can be inconsistent with these values (p.113).
6.1 Best practice principles in Aboriginal contexts
These authors suggest the following principles when planning a youth mentoring program in
an Aboriginal community:
Mentoring should not be seen as a stand alone, narrowly targeted program but
rather as an activity that is entirely supportive of community values and goals and
that is integrated fully with other activities related to community building,
education, and healing.
Mentoring should be embedded in existing programs.
A community advisory group should be established at the outset of any mentoring
program to inform and guide the development, evolution, and maintenance of the
program
Programs should have a flexible structure that includes group mentoring and cultural
events (p. 124 125).
In Australia one study of particular note is the work of MacCallum et al (2005) who
undertook an evaluation of a national pilot project of school based mentoring programs for
Indigenous students implemented across 53 school sites in Australia. The authors note there
was considerable evidence that Indigenous mentoring programs were instrumental in
sustaining the attendance of Indigenous students at school and strengthening their
participation in school activities (p.5). They suggested several possible reasons for this:
students felt more confident as a consequence of increased attention from the
mentoring;
students had been encouraged by their mentor; and/or
participation was being modelled in the mentoring relationship.
25

MacCallum et al., (2005) also identified 8 principles underlying good mentoring practices
with Indigenous students. These were:
Dialogue and relationship building;
Positive mentor qualities;
Recognition of Indigeneity;
Involvement of Indigenous families and community;
Recognition of the range of cultural, social and educational needs of Indigenous
students;
Clarity of vision and part of a broad plan;
Leadership and commitment of staff; and,
Thinking creatively when confronted with constraints (2005, p.6).
The authors noted that for many young Indigenous people involved in the mentoring
programs, effective relationship building was an outcome in and of itself given the lack of
healthy relationships in their lives. Critical to this relationship building was allowing enough
time for those involved to build rapport and trust; taking a personal interest both in and out
of school and getting to know each other. They state it is particularly important where
mentors come from outside of the school and students immediate social network that they
recognise trust and respect is not automatically given (2005, p.7). A sense of humour,
empathy and flexibility were also identified as very important qualities for mentors of
Indigenous students. While several of these elements identified as critical are similar to
findings from mainstream programs the importance of recognition of Aboriginal identity,
history and different world view needs to be factored in mentoring programs targeted at
Indigenous children and young people.
MacCallum et al., found that recognition of Indigeneity extended to such factors as mentors
learning the language and expressions used by Indigenous youth, involving other family
members, and undertaking cultural awareness training.
They concluded from their findings of the Indigenous pilot program, that mentoring
provided:
For students a space to think and act differently;
For mentors an opportunity to get to know Indigenous young people (in a different
way);
For family an opportunity to connect with school; and,
For teachers an opportunity to develop different expectations of students and
families (2005, p.10).

26

Three other programs are worth showcasing here. Two of these Aboriginal youth mentoring
programs have been evaluated. The first is an Indigenous mentoring program evaluated by
Koerner. C., Tur, S., & Wilson, C. (2009) who have been involved with the Inspire Mentor
Program in South Australia. This program aims to increase school retention rates and
participation in education in a low socio economic area near Flinders University in South
Australia. The second is an evaluation of the Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring
Program by Kathleen Stacey conducted in 2004. This program aims to work with young
people who are at risk of entering the justice system. The third case study is of the
Australian Indigenous Mentoring Program (AIME) pilot program which is currently being
evaluated. AIME provides a six year mentoring program for Indigenous students to access
while undertaking their high school studies from Year 7 through to Year 12.

Case Study 1: Inspire Peer Mentor Program (SA)

As the title suggests the focus of the Inspire Mentor Program is to inspire young
Indigenous people to achieve in school. While not solely targeted at Indigenous students,
the Inspire Mentor Program has a particular commitment to increasing retention rates and
access to higher education for Indigenous students. Of particular note is the fact that this is
a mainstream program that has been developed to reinforce Indigenous young peoples
connection with their community and Elders as a crucial component of their participation in
formal education.
The Inspire Mentor Program is an intensive approach with mentors meeting with their
students for two hours per week every week of the school year for at least 12 months. The
mentors are volunteers from the Flinders University student body, and are able to integrate
this learning into a component of their degree. An important focus of the effectiveness of
the mentoring relationship is preparing mentors to be more critically aware and equipped to
mentor Indigenous students and support them in their education. The program provides
cultural training for all commencing Inspire mentors.
The training specifically aims to:
* offer a general understanding of how education as a site has and continues to influence
and impact on Indigenous people;
* provide an understanding of the diversity of Indigenous identity, people and communities;
* give an understanding of how racism effects Indigenous people;
* provide an opportunity to discuss Indigenous issues; and,
* develop educational strategies and practices that can be applied within the classroom
setting.

27

In their examination of the Inspire Mentor Program, Koerner et al (2009) have identified
some key elements to the program that reflects its appropriateness as a mentoring program
for Indigenous students. These include:
* the emphasis on a collaborative relationship between the western institutions (university
and schools), community organisations and both Indigenous and non Indigenous peoples
collectively and individually (p.205).
* the priority the program accords the importance of community as a part of the education
process, including an emphasis on young peoples role in the future governance and
sovereignty of their communities and of Australia as a country (p.207).
* that mentors are aware of the necessity to develop positive and informed relationships
with Indigenous young people as well as with Indigenous peers and colleagues and have an
understanding of the Indigenous students location in education as a site of colonisation as
well as a critical understanding of their own racialised location (p.203).

The authors state:

conventional literature on mentoring does not have a racial consciousness. We also
argue that mentoring can deal with racialised experiences and improve the
educational engagement of Indigenous students when a critique of racialisation and
the implications of racialisation are at the centre of the program. This requires non
Indigenous mentors in Australia to understand and critically engage with the context
of colonisation and to recognise Indigenous people as sovereign. We have argued
mentors need to unpack their understanding of race and racism and how power
relations benefit dominant members of society, whilst disadvantaging Indigenous
Australians (2009, p.207).

Case Study 2: Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program

Panyappi is an intensive Indigenous youth mentoring program aimed at Indigenous youth
who have disengaged from education and are at risk of socially dysfunctional behaviour
including criminal activities. Panyappi means younger brother or sister and theory and
practice in the mentoring and crime prevention fields, together with culturally appropriate
practice in human services work, guide the design and conduct of Panyappi. This is reflected
in its aims:
1. To intervene in pathways of offending behaviour and bring about a positive shift in each
young persons attitude toward offending and in their behaviour.
2. To decrease each young participants contact with the juvenile justice system and/or
agencies associated with this system.
28

3. To promote self discovery and self determination by young people participating in the
program their family and wider community.
4. To work collaboratively with all agencies that have mutual responsibility for resolving the
young persons difficulties.
The program commenced in 2001 and was independently evaluated in 2004. The evaluation
by Kathleen Stacey found that a range of relevant stakeholders linked to the program
consistently reported that young people participating in Panyappi developed their self belief
and personal and cultural identity during their involvement with the program.
Many young people re engaged with education, and started to develop other interests and
friendships, and were developing better relationships with their families.
Key findings from the evaluation included the elements of the program identified as central
to its effectiveness. These included: the formal case management approach to the program;
the use of paid mentors; maintaining the mentor relationship over a significant period of
time including the provision of support both during and after a young person was in trouble
or at risk of offending; focusing on a younger age group from 10 years of age; ensuring the
program is aligned with culturally appropriate practices; provision of a high level of training
and support to the mentors; a collaborative approach with key stakeholders in the
community.
The young people involved with Panyappi are usually 10 17 years old. The focus on a much
younger age group from 10 years old responds to the reality that some Indigenous children
start to disengage with education from this age and that to commence working with them
later on is too late. The program identifies that many young children have circumstances in
their lives which place them at risk of entering the juvenile justice system. They usually have
the following characteristics:
* A history of offending or risk factors associated with offending;
* Low socio economic background;
* Poor school attendance and often complete disengagement from schooling;
* Poor educational achievement, low numeracy and literacy skills, and/or learning
difficulties;
* Behavioural difficulties and problems with violence;
* A history of drug, alcohol and substance misuse;
* Experiences of physical, sexual and emotional abuse;
* Unstable living arrangements.

29

The evaluation notes that crucial to the effectiveness of the program and to mentoring this
type of target group is the provision of a sustained program and mentor relationship (p. 71).
Stacey notes that short term mentoring programs can be valuable for Indigenous youth,
however they will not provide a committed and sustained relationship over a longer period
of time that is required to effectively support the young people with the highest and most
complex needs, such as those in Panyappis target group (2004, p.76). She found that
anecdotal reports, corroborated from one or more sources, indicated that Panyappi
participants decreased their contact with the juvenile justice system in terms of their level
of and frequency of offending.
This was confirmed through system data with substantial decreases in formal cautions,
orders, family conferences, convictions and detentions, especially when young people had
been involved for 6 or more months (p.75)

Case Study 3: AIME Australian Indigenous Mentoring Program

AIME provides a six year mentoring program for Indigenous students to access while
undertaking their high school studies from Year 7 through to Year 12. AIME partners
University student volunteers in a one on one mentoring relationship with high school
Indigenous students, for an hour a week over the course of a 17 week program.
AIME's goals are to improve Year 10 completion rates, Year 12 completion rates and
University admission rates for all participating students. Apart from the impact AIME is
having on Indigenous high school students, it offers a significant opportunity for Indigenous
and non Indigenous University students to gain invaluable experience working with
Indigenous high school students, and offers a great base for University marketing and
recruitment with AIME facilitating the development of long term partnerships between
local high schools and the University.
At each site, AIME operates a core Program and an outreach Program. The core program
targets local Indigenous high school students located within 30 minutes drive of a
participating university campus. The Outreach Program extends the AIME experience to
Indigenous high school students within 2 3 hours of a participating university campus.
The following is a snapshot of what the kids receive:
Year 9 and Year 10 Programs: 15 x 1 hour mentoring sessions at the local university campus
from May to November. The Year 9 Interactive Program covers topics such as Art, Drama,
Respect and Pathways to Success. The Year 10 Leadership Program includes sessions on
Racism, Year 11 and 12 Subject Selection, Rsum Building and Writing your First Speech as
Prime Minister.

30

Year 11 & 12 Leadership and Development Program (new in 2012): Three high impact, full
day sessions delivered at the university campus over Terms Two and Three. The focus is
Year 12 completion and transition to the next chapter.
AIME Tutor Squads (new in 2012) and AIME Learning Centres (ALCs): Access to free tutoring
at local ALCs or via squads of university students who will travel to schools during the 15
week program period. Each site may host up to 5 squads of 5 university students, giving 25
30 Indigenous students access to one to one academic support.
AIME Outreach Program (new in 2012): AIME will open its doors to students in Years 9 to 12
from schools beyond the 30 minute radius of the Core Program. They will have the chance
to participate in nine AIME sessions spread across three one day visits to the university
campus.
AIME's goals for all Indigenous students involved in the Program are to:
* Increase Year 10 progression rates
* Increase Year 12 progression rates
* Increase university admission rates
The program:
* strengthens links between universities and local high schools; and,
* supports teachers to become more optimistic about tertiary education being a real option
for their Indigenous students.
Through a strong relationship with AIME, parents' belief in their child's chances of pursuing
a university education is increased.
The program has been operating for 8 years and now involves over 100 schools and 10
university sites in 3 states and 1000 mentors and 1000 mentees. It is currently being
independently evaluated.
The strengths of the AIME program appear to be that it is a very structured program and
organisation , for instance every site has a program manager, there is a high level of activity,
high level of support provided to mentors, provision for regular contact between
mentor/mentee, high degree of reporting, very detailed website, the organisation is focused
on collecting data (program participation, school retention and completion rates), there is a
high level of engagement with community organisations and schools at each site, a focused
recruitment drive for mentors, high level of funding and in kind support. However, it does
appear AIME has a one size fits all approach to the needs and aims of participants, being
solely focused on school/education outcomes. Nonetheless, the AIME program incorporates
31

many structures and factors identified in the literature as being crucial to the development
of effective mentoring programs.
6.2 Issues to consider in Aboriginal mentoring programs
As with most programs and services for Aboriginal people one size does not fit all. Any
youth mentoring program must be adapted to suit the needs and priorities of the
community and be flexible. Similarly, what works for one community may not work for
another. Before any program commences it must conduct an adequate level of consultation
to ascertain the communitys needs, and ensure the program is supported by the
community. If the goals of a program (and strategies to achieve them) are simply
reproduced across communities it can be a very disempowering experience and may
undermine any positive outcomes.
Strong community support makes a difference in the success of any program in an
Aboriginal community setting. This involves ensuring there is a level of mutual respect
between program providers and the community. It is also important that the approach of
the program is participatory and empowering for everyone involved. The community must
be able to see the tangible benefits not only for the participants involved, but the whole
community. Programs also need to be able to work within the communitys timeframes and
agenda. For instance, planning the timing of mentor visits is essential to ensure that these
do not conflict with cultural obligations. Formation of a community advisory group for
guidance and support is essential for success and sustainability, especially for programs
involving organisations external to the community (Klinck et al, 2005). Reviews of mentoring
programs for Indigenous people in Australia recommend such processes including ensuring
ongoing discussions with community groups and service providers, formalised partnerships
and collaborations and training for potential mentors (Australian Government Attorneys
Generals Department 2003; Stacey 2004).
One of the key challenges Aboriginal people face today is finding meaningful strategies that
will enable young people to develop capacities to respond to the complex challenges of
contemporary life, without compromising their cultural responsibilities. An effective
mentoring program must be directed at harnessing and enhancing available strengths and
capacities, particularly in relation to aspirations for their future and that of their community.
In their description of an Indigenous youth mentoring program for young offenders, Dawes
and Dawes (2005) argued that when evaluating Australian mentoring programs, rather than
trying to measure qualitative based outcomes such as, what worked for whom and in what
context, program evaluations need to consider the context, needs and composition of the
target group in order to gauge the true effectiveness of their aims (p.12). This is an
important consideration in the design of any program for Aboriginal young people
especially those living in remote communities and determined by what their aspirations and
motivations may be within the cultural environment in which they are located.

32

In their analysis of the job aspirations of Indigenous young people across the East Kimberley,
Walker, Scrine and Shepherd (2008) found a range of external factors that impede the
formation and realisation of Indigenous young peoples job aspirations and goals and limit
their capacity to maximise available opportunities. These factors include: educational status
(literacy and numeracy ability); health status (physical and emotional wellbeing and levels of
substance use); contact with the criminal justice system; cultural and community
obligations; and, lack of knowledge, understanding or valuing of the relevance of the wider
social systems on future outcomes. They found these interrelated factors impact directly on
young Indigenous peoples ability and capacity to define and solve problems, make
informed choices, determine their own priorities and act on them, and actively engage in
the social and economic opportunities within the wider society in order to contribute to
meaningful and sustainable Aboriginal community futures (2008, p.5).
The authors also found that many of the young people emphasised the important role of
their parents, family, teachers and peers in achieving their dreams and aspirations regarding
study and work. Most participants agreed that getting a good education, parent support
and their own motivation and determination are critical for their success. The majority of
young people stated that both family and teacher support are important influences on
educational achievement. Students who were participating and achieving well at school
identified the importance of teachers who believe in and respect them on their own terms,
but at the same time set high expectations to participate in the mainstream society (2008,
p.7).
Much of the evidence on Indigenous youth mentoring programs is, not surprisingly,
concerned with those linked to the juvenile justice system. It is well known that many
Aboriginal young people experience poor mental health, substance use and abuse, violence,
family dysfunction and social disadvantage making them especially vulnerable to socially
dysfunctional behaviour. Yet Dawes and Dawes (2005) summarised the Australian literature
as lacking examples of "best practice" models for delivering programs in juvenile detention
settings for Indigenous Youth (p.49). They suggest research of this kind would assist in
providing insight into the most culturally appropriate approaches for delivering mentoring
programs to Indigenous youth (p.49). The Attorney Generals Department conducted a
review of mentoring programs focussing on their suitability for use with young Indigenous
people at risk of offending. It found that mentoring programs have positive benefits for
young people including: improved self esteem; enhanced social/community skills and
personal relationships; increased motivation; exposure to range of new experiences,
opportunities and ideas; and increased community involvement (Australian Government
Attorneys Generals Department 2003). The Review also found evidence to suggest that in
some instances, Indigenous people respond better to mentoring if they are mentored by
other Indigenous people (Australian Government Attorneys Generals Department 2003).

33

In their development of a model for an Indigenous peer mentoring program (targeting

chronic disease prevention) Adams and Passe (2011) found that an approach that is
consultative and responsive was essential. They state that drawing on the strengths and
local knowledge of Indigenous people and linking this with existing services and programs
(both Indigenous and mainstream) builds capacity for all involved. It also provides a way of
engaging the Indigenous community (p.218). The authors also found the use of Indigenous
mentors as especially important. This finding corresponds with that of another evaluation
they cite which found that 65% of Indigenous participants of mentor programs surveyed
found having an Indigenous mentor was important to them (p.218).

34

Conclusion
Through an examination of a range of research and evaluations, this literature review has
documented substantial evidence highlighting the potential benefits of a mentoring
relationship for young people. It has also identified certain factors critical to ensuring an
effective mentoring relationship and sustainable mentoring program. While gaps in the
research remain, there is enough evidence to show that if mentoring programs are
adequately resourced, with good practice structures and support in place, with
relationships maintained over a suitable length of time involving regular contact, they can
be effective in facilitating a range of positive developments and outcomes for many young
people. The most important indicator of a good mentor relationship is long term
commitment, trustworthiness, and mutual respect with the provision of a well designed
program and organisation crucial to facilitating that relationship.
In regard to the provision of mentoring relationships and programs aimed at Aboriginal
young people, the importance of incorporating cultural awareness training for mentors and
promoting Indigenous mentors wherever practical, are critical elements to empower and
strengthen a young persons sense of identity and self efficacy and resilience. From the
perspective of understanding what type of approach will work in Aboriginal contexts, the
first requirement is to ensure that consultation with Elders and community leaders is
undertaken prior to implementing a mentoring program.
Supporting a community to identify suitable mentors from within the community and
providing appropriate resources to sustain a mentoring program is essential to prevent
future disappointment in communities that often have long histories of programs that are
not sustained and make little notable difference to the lives of Aboriginal communities.

35

References
Adams GR, Berzonsky MD, eds. (2003). Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence. Oxford:
Blackwell Sci.

Adams K., Paasse G., & Clinch D (2011). Peer support preferences and readiness to change
behaviour for chronic disease prevention in an urban Indigenous population Australian
Social Work; 64: 55 67.

Allen, T. & Eby,L. (2007). Common Bonds: An Integrative View of Mentoring Relationships,

Allen, Tammy D. and Lillian T. Eby (eds). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentorin; A multiple
Perspectives Approach. Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Chapter 24.

Aseltine, R. H., Dupre, M., & Lamlein, P. (2000). Mentoring as a drug prevention strategy: An
evaluation of Across Ages. Adolescent and Family Health, 1(1), 1120

Australian Government Attorney Generals Department (2003). Early Intervention: Youth

Mentoring Programs An overview of mentoring programs for young people at risk of
offending.

Australian

Government

Attorney Generals

Department,

Canberra,

Commonwealth of Australia, September 2003.

Brady, B., Dolan, P., OBrien, M., & Canavan, J. (2005). Big Brothers Big Sisters Ireland youth
mentoring programme: Evaluation report. Galway Child & Family Research & Policy Unit.

Choudry, S. (2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Soc Cogn Affect
Neurosci. 2006 December; 1(3): 165174.

Dawes G, Dawes C (2005). Mentoring 2: a program for at risk Indigenous youth. Youth
Studies Australia 24(4), 4549.

36

DuBois, D.L& Karcher, M. J. (2005). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Sage Publications,

London.

DuBois, D.L., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Characteristics of Natural Mentoring Relationships

and Adolescent Adjustment: Evidence from a National Study. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 2, March 2005, 69 92.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of
mentoring programs for youth: A meta analytic review. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30, 157197.

Eby, L T. Allen., T D. Evans., S C. Ng., T & DuBois, D.L. (2008). Does Mentoring Matter? A
Multidisciplinary Meta Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non Mentored Individuals.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 2008 April; 72(2): 254267.

Eccles, J. & Gootman, J.A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.

Erskine, R.G. (1997). Trauma, dissociation and a reparative relationship. Australian Gestalt
journal, 1, pp. 38 47.

Eversole, Robyn. (2003). Managing the Pitfalls of Participatory Development: Some Insight
from Australia, World Development, Volume 31, Issue 5, May 2003, Pages 781 795
Foster, L. (2001). Effectiveness of Mentor Programs: Review of the Literature from 1995 to
2000. California Research Bureau, California State Library.

Freedman, M. (1995). From friendly visiting to mentoring: A tale of two movements, in

Students as tutors and mentors, ed. S. Goodlad, Kogan Page, London, pp.213 32.

37

Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in
youth mentoring programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199219

Grossman, J. B., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big
Brothers Big Sisters. Evaluation Review, 22, 403426

Hamilton, S.F. & Darling, N. (1989). Mentors in adolescents' lives. In K. Hurrelmann & U.
Engel (Eds.), The social world of adolescents: international perspectives. (pp. 121 140). New
York: Walter de Gruyter.

Hartley, R. (2004). Young People and Mentoring: Towards a national strategy. A Report
prepared for BBBS Australia, Dusseldorf Skills Forum and The Smith Family. Sydney.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (with Jucovy, L. Z.).
(2007). Making a difference in schools: The big brothers big sisters school based mentoring
impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Jekielek SM, Moore KA, Hair EC, Scarupa HJ. (2002). Mentoring: A promising strategy for
youth development. Child Trends Research Brief. 2002 February

Kaye, B. & Jacobson, B. (1996). "Reframing Mentoring." Training and Development 50, no. 8
(August 1996): 44 47.

Keller, T. E. (2005). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois&

M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Mentoring (pp. 82 99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Klinck, J., Cardinal, C., Edwards, K., Gibson. N, Bisanz, J., Da Costa, J. (2005). Mentoring
programs for Aboriginal youth. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous
Community Health 3, 111129.

38

Koerner. C., Tur, S., & Wilson, C. (2009). Bringing Indigenous Sovereignties into Community
Partnerships: Unpacking Racialisation to Re engage Indigenous Australian Students in Riggs
D., Baird, B. (Eds) Education, in The Racial Politics of Bodies, Nations and Knowledges.
(pp.188 209). Cambridge Scholars Publishing, London.

Koerner, C., & Harris, J. (2007). Inspired Learning: Creating engaged teaching and learning
environments for university and school students through university to school mentor
programs, International Education Journal, 2007, 8(2), 354 364.

Liang, B. & Rhodes, J. (2007). Cultivating the vital element of youth mentoring. Applied
Developmental Science, 11, 104

MacCallum, J. & Beltman, S. (1999). Mentoring in Schools by Members of the Community:

International Year of Older Persons Mentoring Research Report, Commonwealth
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, [Online], Available:
http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/index.htm

MacCallum, J., Beltman, S. (2002). Role Models for young people: What makes an effective
role model program? A report to the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme. Australian
Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, Hobart, Tasmania.

MacCallum, J., Beltman, S., & Palmer, D. (2005). Mentoring as a context for developing
motivation. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education
Conference,

Sydney,

November

29,

2005.

Available

at:

www.aare.edu.au/05pap/mac05613.pdf

McInerney, D.M. & McInerney, V. (1998). Educational Psychology: Constructing learning,

2nd edn, Prentice Hall Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney.

Resnick, M.D., Harris, L.J. & Blum, R.W. (1993). The impact of caring and connectedness on
adolescent health and well being, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, n.29, suppl.1,
pp.S3 S9.
39

Rhodes, J. (2008). Improving youth mentoring through research based practice. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 41: 35 42

Rhodes, J., Spencer, R., Keller, T., & Liang, B. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring
relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34: 691 707.

Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Saito, R. N., & Sipe, C. L. (2006). Online mentoring: The promise
and challenges of an emerging approach to youth development. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 27: 497 513.

Rhodes, J. & DuBois, D. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth mentoring
movement. Social Policy Report, XX, 3 19.

Rhodes, J.E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D.L. DuBois & M.J. Karcher (Eds.),
Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 3043). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring todays youth.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rhodes, Jean E.; Grossman, Jean B; & Resch, Nancy L. (2000), Agents of Change: Pathways
through Which Mentoring Relationships Influence Adolescents Academic Adjustment.
Child Development 71, no. 6, December 2000, 1662 71.

Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations. Journal of Adolescent Health.

1993;14: 626631.

Sipe, C. L. (1996). Mentoring: A Synthesis of P/PVs Research: 19881995. Philadelphia:

Public/Private Ventures, 1996.

Sipe, C.L. (2002). Mentoring Programs for Adolescents: A Research Summary, Journal of
Adolescent Health, 2002; 31: 251 260
40

Sipe, C.L. (1998). Mentoring adolescents: What have we learned. In J. B. Grossman (Ed.),
Contemporary issues in mentoring (pp. 2447). Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Slicker, E. K., & Palmer, D. J. (1993). Mentoring at risk high school students: Evaluation of a
school based program. The School Counselor, 40, 327334

Smith Mohammed, K. (1998). Role models, mentors, and native students: some implications
for educators. Canadian Journal of Native Education 22(2): 238 259.

Stacey, K., (2004). Panyappi Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program: External evaluation
report. Panyappi, Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth Team, SA Department of Human Services:
Adelaide.

Tierney, J P. & Grossman J P; with Resch, N. (1995). Making a Difference: An Impact Study of
Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, November 1995.

Turner, S., Norman, E., & Zunz, S. (1995). Enhancing resiliency in girls and boys: A case for
gender specific adolescent prevention programming, Journal of Primary Prevention
Volume 16, Issue 1 , 25 38.

Walker R., Scrine C., Shepherd C. (2008). Job Aspirations of Young Indigenous People in the
East Kimberley: Making New Tracks. Kulunga Research Network, Telethon Institute for Child
Health Research, Perth, WA.

Westhues, A., Clarke, L., Watton, J., & Claire Smith, S.S. (2001). Building Positive
Relationships: An Evaluation of Process and Outcomes in a Big Sister Program, The Journal of
Primary Prevention, Volume 21, Number 4 : 477 493.

Withers, G. & Batten, M. (1995). Programs for At risk Youth: A review of the American,
Canadian and British Literature since 1984, The Australian Council for Educational Research,
Melbourne
41

Zubrick, S.R., Silburn, S.R., Garton, A., Burton, P., Dalby, R., Carlton J., Shepherd C. &
Lawrence, D. (1995). Western Australian Child Health Survey: Developing health and well
being in the nineties, Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Institute for Child Health
Research, Perth, Western Australia

42

Appendix A: Components of an effective mentoring program

The following is a summary of the essential components the literature supports as required
to establish an effective mentoring program. Principally, such programs:
are part of a formal, well supported organisation;
provide adequate levels of support, structure and training to the mentors;
provide a range of activities;
provide an adequate length of time for the mentor relationship to develop; and,
carefully select and closely monitor the mentormentee relationships.
MacCallum & Beltman (1999, pp.29 30) outline the following four phases in their
description of the features of a successful mentoring program.

Phase 1: Establishing a program

Purpose/goals
Well defined, written purpose statement.
Agreed outcomes set with involvement of stakeholders.
Planning the program
Written administrative and program procedures a long range plan that has community
input.
Inclusiveness of racial, economic and gender representation as appropriate to the
program.
Risk management, confidentiality policies and generally accepted accounting practices.
Paid or volunteer staff with appropriate skills and written job descriptions.
Coordinator or team
Good field staff who liaise between mentors, students, schools and families.
Resources
Adequate financial and in kind resources time, human and material resources
acquired.
43

Staffing based on organisation's goals, needs of mentors and participants, availability of

community resources, and staff and other volunteers skill level.
Collaboration with diverse groups such as professional organisations and universities.

Phase 2: Selecting, preparing, matching mentors and mentees

Recruitment of mentors
Written eligibility requirements for program participants.
Appropriate screening, matching and training.
Good match between program goals and mentor expectations.
Screening and selection of mentors
Careful selection of potential mentors plus ongoing supervision.
Preparing and training mentors
Train mentors and mentees, e.g. active listening skills, learning styles, issues in various
phases
Preparation of mentors for the mentoring role with ongoing assistance and training
(including cultural awareness training where required).
Selecting mentees
Appropriate to program goals and resources.
Personal and parental consent.
Preparing mentees
Young people prepared before program regarding expectations and behaviour.
Matching mentors and mentees
Sensitive pairing, preferably allowing choice.

Phase 3: Implementing a program

Practicalities
Regular, consistent contact between the mentor and mentee.
44

Appropriate duration of mentor relationship (at least 12 months).

Appropriate location for the mentoring that gives the program an identity and allows for
supervision.
Activities for mentors and mentees
Specific tasks set up: diversity in activities while still allowing for individual choice.
Opportunities for program supported social activities for mentors and youth.
Ongoing support for the program participants
Support system provided for mentors adequate communication and training.
Confidentiality in relationship.
Support for mentoring process from school or system e.g. reward system for mentors
and mentees.
Parent involvement
Support of family or guardian of the participant of the program.
Conclusion of the program
Appropriate conclusion and recognition (including exit strategy in the vent of early
termination of relationship or program).

Phase 4: Evaluating a program

Why evaluate?
Program evaluation and ongoing assessment conducted.
Who should do the evaluation?
All participants involved preferably independent evaluator.
Process and outcome data
Data collected throughout program.
Relates to program goals.
Using the evaluation data
Used to provide feedback and assess impact.
45