Enhancing Mentoring
Program Quality Minnesota’s Model
Taking Action…
Starting points
 Interest by local
funders, mentoring
programs


Work at the national
level
Increasing focus of
researchers
Key Milestones
 Planning for work,
recruiting expertise

Obtaining resources
to fund initiative

Developing support
among program staff
and stakeholders
Key Developments
2007
 Concept paper for stakeholders
 Start-up funding – Carlson Family Foundation
 Quality Advisory Group recruitment and formation
 Scan of Mentoring Partnerships
2008 – 2009
 Benefits assessment, re-alignment of MPM resources
 New MPM Strategic Plan with central focus on quality
 Review of EEP standards, assessment focus and format
 Creation of online assessment tool: QMAP
2010
 Pilot of QMAP tool
Q-what?
QMAP is a mentoring program selfQMAP
= Quality
Mentoring
Path
assessment
tool
designedAssessment
to help youth
mentoring programs improve current
processes by evaluating program quality
QMAP and Program Quality
Program quality is based on:
 Elements of Effective Practice for
Mentoring™
 Current research on evidence-based
practice in the field of mentoring
 Insight from mentoring program
practitioners around our state
Mentoring Best Practices:
Circles of Evidence
Research
*Client/Stakeholder
Preferences &
Beliefs
* Includes evidence obtained from
sources other than formal
research, such as client
satisfaction surveys, program
participant outcomes, and
community demographic trends.
Best Practices
*Local Resources
& Needs
13
*Professional
Expertise &
Experience
Goals for QMAP development
and implementation



Create a process, not a product, to
enhance program quality and capacity
Provide more effective targeting of MPM
technical assistance and resources
Respond to needs of Minnesota programs
significant numbers of low budget/small
staff/non-metro/under-resourced programs

Transparent - no gotchas
How does QMAP participation
affect program quality?



Self-assessment provides an opportunity
to reflect on program practices and dayto-day implementation
Review of results with MPM staff provides
comprehensive feedback on program
functions
Tools, training and consultation will be
provided to programs to support and
improve use of best practices
QMAP will reshape MPM services



The QMAP process will become MPM’s
technical assistance platform
Complementary training and capacity
building sessions based on this model
support greater awareness and better
implementation of best practices; open
to any/all programs, not only those
engaged in QMAP
MPM will provide technical assistance to
programs throughout the QMAP process
Messages to programs about benefits
of QMAP participation





Get recognition among peers and in the community as a
leading program committed to quality
Use assessment results to support funding applications
and resource development planning
Receive a review of the completed assessment, as well
as training and technical assistance focused on
continuous improvement
Help families and volunteers can feel confident about
participating in the mentoring program
Ensure high quality mentoring for the youth
participating in the program
First Step for the QMAP: Register
1.
2.
3.


Go to MPM’s website and click Program Login
Log in and click “Update Profile”
If program has not been assigned a log-in, click
on the Program Registration Form.
Registering also provides access to additional
resources, such as funding announcements and
inclusion in MPM’s public referral system
Programs seeking any MPM service are now asked
to complete a registration (as of 1/2010)
QMAP Overview
QMAP – 3 sections
EEPM 3rd edition
Sec. 1 Program Management
Program Design & Planning
Sec. 1 Program Management
Program Management
Sec. 2 Program Operations
Program Operations
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Develop plan to recruit
mentors/mentees
Screen potential mentors/mentees
Prepare mentors/mentees for match
Match mentors and mentees
Provide ongoing support and
recognition
Supervise and monitor relationships
Help mentors and mentees reach
closure
Sec. 3 Program Evaluation
●
●
●
●
●
●
Recruitment
Screening
Training
Matching
Monitoring and Support
Closure
Program Evaluation
Rating Scales




This activity is not relevant to my program
or organization = 0
We are still planning this or have made
steps toward completing, but have not
completed or put into regular practice = 1
This is completed or in regular practice =2
Additional 1-5 points based on rating of
items in regular practice
What happens after the QMAP is
submitted?




Design of review process is underway
Advisory Committee has discussed, will
also get feedback from pilot participants
Question of “Evidence”/Uploads
“Review” Process will include and inperson meeting with MPM staff after selfassessment is completed and evaluated
“Review” Sample
Initial
Submission
63%
After Review
Program
Operations
66%
74%
Program
Evaluation
Overall
51%
63%
63%
72%
Program
Management
72%
Pilot participant reactions…

“A tool for helping agencies assess where
they’re at on the mentoring continuum –
supports accountability to and for
participants”– Community-based program

Planning to “…use it to assess where
we’re at and where we want to be…” in
implementing best practices and also in
creating a strategic plan for the next year
– School-based program
MPM Staff Roles

Joellen Gonder-Spacek, Executive Director
●

Mai-Anh Kapanke, Vice President - Marketing Services
and Public Policy
●

Concept development, fundraising for project planning and
implementation
Creation of key messages and marketing strategies for multiple
stakeholders, collateral material development
Mindy Twetten, AmeriCorps Marketing and
Communications Specialist
●
Outreach to mentoring programs for program registration and
QMAP pilot recruitment, communication support
MPM Staff Roles

Polly Roach, Vice President - Strategic Services
●

April Riordan, Director of Training and Community
Partnerships
●

Project planning and oversight, Advisory Group facilitation
QMAP tool and process development, technical assistance and lead
reviewer
Shannon Carlson, AmeriCorps Technical Assistance and
Training Specialist
●
Resource compilation and indexing, support for QMAP pilot users
Quality Advisory Committee
members
• Blair Gagne, Mentor Duluth*/Co-Chair
• Judith Kahn, Kahn & Associates/Co-Chair
• Greg Zweber, Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Southern Minnesota
• David Nelson, Carlson Family Foundation
• Deanna Nurnberg and Alicia Schwartz, Big
Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Twin
Cities*
• Amy Sinykin, Charities Review Council
• Leah Goldstein-Moses and Deborah Mattila,
The Improve Group*
• Allan Bakke and Hannah Reardon, Big Buddies
of Western Community Action*
• Dale Blyth, University of Minnesota –
Extension Center for Youth Development
• Darrell Thompson and Rebecca Pilarzyk,
Bolder Options*
• Deborah Moore, University of Minnesota –
Extension Center for Youth Development/
Youth Work Institute
• Kari Ratz and Jessica Ponthan, CommonBond
Communities*
• Jan Belmore, Kids 'n Kinship - Apple Valley
• Dan Johnson and Gaylene Adams, Kinship of
Greater Minneapolis
• Linda Oto, Northfield Public Schools*
* Usability Pilot Participant Programs
• Paul Snyder, University of Minnesota –
Konopka Institute for Best Practices in
Adolescent Health
* Project Evaluation Consultants
QMAP Pilot Process

Pilot criteria
Participating program must be a
Minnesota program
● Participating program must be in
operation for at least two years
● Participating program must be actively
working with at least 20 matches
● Participating program must be an
adult-with-youth mentoring program
●
Along the way…
Challenges
 Turning best practices
into indicators of
program quality
Unanticipated Outcomes
 Program representatives
serving as advocates for
quality assessment

Acknowledging and
respecting diverse
program models

Learning from tools and
experiences of other
Mentoring Partnerships

Logistical issues of
creating an online tool,
integrating with MPM
database, website

Crossover with other
fields: out-of-school
time, philanthropy
Lessons Learned


This work is transformative;
it should be central to the
organization’s mission, not
an add-on activity
Define the basis of quality
early on – consider the role
of standards, research,
practice wisdom, other
evidence

Focus on self-improvement
process - communicate and
target services accordingly

Don’t underestimate the
amount of time or staff
capacity needed

Anticipate and plan for
logistical needs/new
support systems up front