|
| ||
|
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF JUMP MENTORS
At the heart of the JUMP program are the volunteers who give their time and talent to spend time with youth who have multiple risk factors and are at high risk for future problems. Without the dedication of these men and women who believe in the importance of a significant, positive adult in the life of every youth, the JUMP program would not be possible. In this chapter, we provide a description of these adults who are making a difference by serving as mentors. As with the youth, this information was obtained from the grantee progress reports and represents primarily those mentors that were fully approved (91.6%) and actively engaged with a youth in a mentoring relationship during the period from October 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. Additional mentors were in the process of being screened and approved and, depending on the project model, were participating in limited ways, such as attending group activities or special project events. Data reported here are not a cumulative record of the entire funded period, but instead a snapshot of the activities in progress.
These data are based on reports regarding 1,510 mentors from 26 Cohort I grantees, and 1,148 mentors from 38 Cohort II grantees. Cohort I grantees reported an average of 58 active mentors (ranging from 4 to 221); Cohort II grantees reported an average of 30 active mentors (ranging from 0 to 127). It is important to recall that the Cohort II grantees were in the first year start-up phase of project implementation and many were just beginning to recruit and screen mentors when these data were gathered. Mentors Represent a Wide Range of Demographic Characteristics In general, grantees attempt to diversify their mentor pool. Still, about 52% of mentors are white. This differs substantially from the youths’ ethnicity, which is primarily African American and is indicative of the difficulty agencies have recruiting mentors from minority populations. Especially among the Cohort I grantees, white mentors are over-represented when compared to youth ethnicity. All but ten mentor ethnicities were identified using a single ethnic category (Exhibits 4:1 and 4:2). There is a difference in the mentor ethnicity reported by BB/BS affiliates from that reported by non-affiliate agencies. In the BB/BS projects, 73.4% of the mentors are white, while only 44.5% of mentors in non-affiliate programs are white. Project location (urban, suburban, rural) did not fully account for this difference.
Grantees reported ages of mentors at the time of their enrollment in the JUMP project. Mentor ages varied considerably within a wide range. The median mentor age is 35 years (Exhibit 4:3). Mentor Education and Work History Varies JUMP project mentors for the most part are highly educated with about 90% having at least some college experience, and over half (56%) having college or graduate degrees. Since mentors are sought to provide positive role models for the youth, especially with regard to educational achievement, the scholastic success of the mentors is an important characteristic. (Exhibit 4:4) While 13.7% of the JUMP mentors were reported to be full-time students, most of the mentors either are in the work force (79.4%), or have retired from it (4.4%). Of the 83.8% of those that work or are retired, the majority are (or were) in managerial (41.2%) or technical/sales (22.9%) positions. A small fraction of the mentors are from law enforcement or justice agencies (4.9%), or are associated with the military (2.5%). Because mentors serve as an important role model for a positive and productive self-sufficient adulthood, their experiences in the work force can be important factors in their relationship with youth. In addition to work experience, many mentors are reported as having prior mentorlike experience either in a formal mentoring program, or an informal situation. Grantees report that almost one third (31.6%) have mentoring experience. In addition, many mentors are parents (40.7%) and thus presumably gained skills, knowledge, and understanding of youth through their experience raising their own children. Mentors Receive Structured Training As described in Chapter 2, JUMP projects offer training and require that mentors participate in some orientation and training prior to being matched with a youth. At the time of this report, about 88% of the mentors had been offered some type of training. To make best use of valuable resources, some projects provide training only when there is a group of enrolled and approved mentors available to participate in the training. Because of this model, some mentors may be reported as enrolled without training having yet been provided. Because they were in their early phases of project implementation, Cohort II agencies were more likely to be in the process of training their mentors than were Cohort I agencies. Although statistically significant, the difference was not large—68.7% of the Cohort II mentors completed their training, and 77.5% of the Cohort I mentors completed their training. For many grantees, training is an ongoing activity, and these figures primarily represent the initial training that is required to ensure that the mentors are able to fulfill their mentoring role in accordance with their own agency guidelines. A mentor’s relationship with a youth can be intense, complex, and challenging. The
training and support provided by the JUMP project staff are essential for maximizing the success
of the mentoring relationship. In the following chapter we discuss some characteristics of JUMP
mentoring relationships.
| |||||||||||||
