Administration again cites mentoring as an area where federal budgets could be trimmed
Youth Today reports that Peter Orzag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sited mentoring as one of the youth program areas that may be subject to cuts in a speech at the Center for American Progress, citing what the administration perceives as "duplicative funding." In youth mentoring's case the administration states that there are over "100 programs that support youth mentoring scattered across 13 agencies." In Orzag's words “This redundancy wastes resources and makes it harder to act on ... these worthy goals. … We cannot afford to waste money on programs that do not work, that are out-dated or that are duplicative of one another.” Along with mentoring, Orzag referenced STEM education, and employment and training, as areas where there was duplication and fragmentation of funding across federal agencies.
The argument for cutting mentoring programming will seem all too familiar to programs funded under the US Department of Education's mentoring program, which was cut by the administration last year after similar comments by the president. Note that OJJDP's mentoring budget was reduced in the president's 2010 budget, while Children of Prisnoners grants were essentially level funded: http://mentoringforums.educationnorthwest.org/node/205.
The administration has asked federal agencies to cut their budgets by five percent, targeting programs that are lower performing.
Thanks for posting this Kay... Yes, this constant drumbeat about redundancy is disturbing. I think Larry Wright of MENTOR put it perfectly when he noted that the wide distribution of mentoring across federal programs simply indicates the flexibility of mentoring as an intervention and prevention strategy. Where the administration sees redundancy, I see mentoring being used in unique and customized ways to meet the needs of different populations and help the outcomes of myriad initiatives. Hopefully MENTOR, BBBS, CIS, and other national organizations will explain this to the administration in a way that helps them understand that there is actually very little redundancy happening, but rather that mentoring is actually being used (and funded) appropriately.
But I also feel that the mentoring field bears a little bit of the blame for this circumstance as well. As mentoring has become more popular, we have all actively encouraged it to be expanded as much as possible and grafted on to as many youth development and prevention initiatives as possible. We have mentoring for children of prisoners, mentoring for returning prisoners, mentoring in STEM settings, mentoring for youth with disabilities, mentoring in treatment facilities, mentoring immigrant youth, mentoring gang youth, mentoring victims of bullying, paid mentoring, group mentoring, team mentoring, and so forth. I'm not saying any of those efforts are a poor application of mentoring, but in the desire to expand mentoring, I think we all have created the impression that mentoring is an easy "add-on" and applicable to almost anything. I think that has made mentoring seem like a "nice little service," something that gets grafted onto a "real" intervention, and diminished its importance.
I can see why a lay person would reach the conclusion that there is redundant mentoring happening: it's everywhere and because it's everywhere, it doesn't seem like a core intervention in and of itself. It just seems like an add-on. And in tight times, add-ons get cut. Moving forward, I think the mentoring field needs to better define what exactly mentoring is and how it works. Expansion of mentoring has diluted that message to the point where the administration thinks all mentoring is the same.
Mike,
I agree with you. In Chicago the Mayor and the CEO of public schools have just pledged $25 million to surround high risk kids with "mentors". Much of the mentoring funding and language seems to be focused on "fixing" broken kids, rather than helping good kids overcome environmental challenges (e.g. poverty; broken family) with the support of extra adults provided via structured programs.
When I started Cabrini Connections and the Tutor/Mentor Connection in 1993 one of the research papers I based my thinking on was done by a group at the Chapin Hall Center for Children. It's title was "Redefining Child and Family Services: Directions for the Future. The authors were Joan Wynn, Joan Costello, Robert Halpern and Harold Richman. I tried to find a link to this on Google, but can not.
This report calls for the development of a range of primary services, that prevent a problem before it happens, as opposed to the current thinking in social services (then and now) of fixing broken kids after the problem occurs.
I have worked with kids in poverty for 35 years. I don't think a mentor, by him/herself, can help most kids overcome the huge obstacles that poverty places in front of them, especially, if that mentor is poorly trained, and only stays involved with the child for a short period of time. Thus, I've come to value the "program" more than the individual mentor. The "program" can provide a range of mentors, and a range of supports beyond a caring adult, if the program can find funding to sustain its connections with kids, and volunteers, for many years.
Below are some links related to this. First is commentary on an article written on the state of mentoring by Gary Walker of Public/Private Ventures.
Mentoring as part of a larger strategy, Gary Walker P/PV
The next two are articles that talk about the long-term commitment organizations, and communities, must make to help kids grow up.
Long term commitment article
Common goal of mentoring - help kids grow up? Help kids to work? Concept map showing role of extra adults in long-term process.
At this point, I don't think there is any national research that segments the various types of mentoring programs based on what age group they serve, what long-term purpose they have, and what population (demographics) they serve. Without this, it's hard to connect with programs who share the same thinking, and who might work together to create a common vision that could be understood and embraced by policy makers.
I'm trying to do some of this from Chicago but with almost no funding. I'd like to find ways to work with others around the country who share the same visions, and understand that "a rising tide raises all boats", and that if someone pulls the "funding" plug from the tub we all sink.
You can see more graphics that illustrate the T/MC ideas at http://www.tutormentorexchange.net and http://tutormentor.blogspot.com
Recent comments
6 days 5 hours ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
5 weeks 5 hours ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
7 weeks 2 days ago
7 weeks 5 days ago
9 weeks 2 hours ago
9 weeks 5 days ago
11 weeks 6 days ago
13 weeks 6 days ago