Prof. Spencer & Colleagues Examine Mentoring Programs’ Readiness for Improvements
We’ve all been there. We have grand plans with a clear list of improvements that will help us achieve our goal, but then a force outside of our control brings our dreams back to reality.
The same can be said for youth mentoring programs. Regardless of an increasing interest in making improvements, enthusiasm alone doesn’t always lead to positive change. A lack of funds, personnel, or other resources can get in the way, resulting in lower staff morale and less positive outcomes for youth and mentors. In fact, a 2017 study discovered that nearly half of youth mentoring programs were unaware of the widely distributed, research-informed practice standards for mentoring programs, the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEPM).
One solution to this problem lies in understanding whether a mentoring program is ready to undertake improvements. A new study by Prof. Renée Spencer, Portland State Prof. Thomas Keller, and BUSSW alum Alison Drew (PhD’18) is the first to examine the implementation of a quality improvement system specifically for youth mentoring organizations. Researchers interviewed staff involved in a quality improvement initiative led by a national mentoring advocacy organization with state-level affiliates who were charged with guiding programs through the process. This initiative was designed to increase the adoption of the Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring (EEPM). State level staff supported the organizational changes as well as the front-line mentoring practitioners and supervisors at the sites. By drawing on past research about organizational-level change and reviewing interviews, this new study hopes to provide better guidance and initiatives that can create positive change in the workplace.
“Implementing organizational-level change is difficult, even among those highly invested in change efforts,” say the authors of the study. “The challenges of implementing change are especially notable in human service organizations [like youth mentoring programs] due to the complexities inherent in the delivery of these kinds of services.” To address these challenges, the study breaks down proactive ways that state-level advocacy organizations can help youth mentoring programs can set themselves up for success.
What can be done to increase the likelihood a program uptakes practice improvements?
When working with new mentoring programs, steps should be taken to build trust and increase the likelihood that improvements will stick. Before they begin, they should:
- Understand each mentoring program’s motivation and commitment to making improvements
- Align improvements with the program’s mission and values
- Familiarize program staff with EEPM
- Show flexibility in how and when improvements are implemented
- Acknowledge when a mentoring program is not ready to take on improvements
“At the most basic level, staff need a clear understanding of what they are being asked to do. And what resources and expertise will be needed for implementation in order to make an informed decision about whether to engage in an intentional quality improvement process,” say the authors.
What can youth mentoring programs do?
In addition to the precautions a supporting organization can take to ensure positive, long-lasting change, the youth mentoring programs themselves can be proactive before beginning the journey to improvement. Mentoring programs should:
- Build relationships with other programs that are going through the same thing
- Ensure organizational readiness for change (ORC) among staff, especially at leadership levels
- Explain potential benefits to staff members who are not opting-in to making improvements
Of all of these recommendations, buy-in from leadership remains the most essential for successful implementation. “In one case, the leadership team agreed to allow the affiliate to engage in the improvement process, but was never really committed to the change,” the authors point out. “This resulted in a lack of resources and undermining the work of the staff involved.” Without leadership’s ORC, it is highly unlikely that positive change will take place.
Future Research
While this study considered a youth mentoring program that opted-in to the Quality Mentoring System (QMS) used to implement changes, there are many options for future research to better understand improvements that can be made to this specific category of human services organizations, such as:
- Assessing programs that decline QMS
- Researching different approaches to gauging a mentoring program’s ORC
- Examining whether expected benefits of QMS match the program’s perceived benefits after implementation
Regardless, this landmark study will help pave the way for future research and for youth mentoring programs that want to make positive internal change.