Among other things, this act authorized 3-year grants for  student mentoring programs. Congress has increased funding for fiscal year 2004. Key Elements of Successful Mentoring Programs Are Planning, Management, Sustainability, and Evaluation

According to the literature we reviewed, prior to implementation,  successful mentoring programs make key decisions about which youth  they will serve and expected outcomes, how they will recruit mentors, and  how the program will be funded; put in place management structures, such  as screening, training, and recruitment policies and procedures to ensure  that the program is well-managed on a daily basis; market their programs  and pursue strategies to ensure long-term program viability; and evaluate  program outcomes and disseminate outcome information to key  stakeholders to further garner and sustain support for their programs. 1.) Mentoring Grantees Shared Many Characteristics and Had Some Elements of Successful Programs, but Ease of Implementation Differed among New and Established Grantees

Most of the mentoring grantees Education funded were similar in many  respects—most grantees had considerable experience operating  mentoring programs, had similar goals for youth, and matched one mentor  with one youth. 2.) 3.) 4.) All Grantees Had Some Elements of Successful Programs, though in General More Established Grantees Reported Fewer Implementation Challenges than Newer Grantees

According to grantee applications, all grantees had some of the key  elements of successful programs: initial plans for the program design and  operations, including for example the number and characteristics of youth  served; policies and procedures for program management such as mentor  screening and training; and program evaluation activities that include an  assessment of program outcomes. 5.) However,  officials did not review findings from grantees’ single audit reports. Agency officials  also asked grantees questions to assess the extent to which grantees have  hired staff and how much staff turnover they have encountered. Education officials told us that the Office of the Chief  Financial Officer (CFO) within Education receives and reviews single  audit reports. According to Education officials, this office did not forward  information to the OSDFS officials responsible for monitoring mentoring  grants because none of the information in the single audit reports  pertained to the mentoring grants. How well these grantees handled other funds they  received from Education could suggest how well they would manage their  mentoring grant funds. We found that 8 percent of the mentoring grantees  had problems with respect to other Education grants they received that  were substantial enough to be reported as audit findings. Education Considering Conducting National Study of Mentoring Programs to Augment the Evaluations It Has Required Grantees to Submit

Education is currently considering whether or not it will undertake a study  of its mentoring program. Most grantees plan to do a  descriptive evaluation by reporting information on youth outcomes,  particularly those related to academic achievement, incidences of harmful  behavior, attendance, and drop out rates. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) explore ways to  facilitate the sharing of successful practices and lessons learned to help  new grantees more quickly and effectively implement their programs;   (2) ensure that the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools uses grantees’  single audit reports as part of its monitoring process to take advantage of  all monitoring tools that could improve the identification of fiscal and  programmatic weaknesses; and (3) undertake a national study of  mentoring program outcomes and in doing so, explore the feasibility of  examining the effectiveness of the mentoring program in improving youth  outcomes and consider collecting limited, uniform data on the next wave  of mentoring grantees that could be used as the basis for such study. Related GAO Products

No Child Left Behind Act: More information Would Help States  Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified.
Why GAO Did This Study

As part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, the Congress authorized a 3-year, $17 million per year school-based mentoring grant program. For fiscal year 2004, Congress has increased funding to about $50 million to fund additional mentoring efforts. Congress requested that GAO provide information on the student mentoring program. To do this, GAO answered the following questions: (1) What are the basic elements, policies, and procedures of successful mentoring programs? (2) What are the key characteristics of NCLBA-funded mentoring efforts, including the extent to which they have the basic elements, policies, and procedures of successful mentoring programs? (3) How does the Department of Education monitor program implementation? (4) What are Education's and grantees' plans to assess program outcomes?

What GAO Found

According to the literature GAO reviewed, successful mentoring programs (1) plan their programs carefully prior to implementation; (2) develop policies and procedures to effectively manage their programs, including mentor screening and training; (3) ensure program sustainability through marketing; and (4) evaluate program outcomes and disseminate their evaluation findings. Most of the 121 mentoring grantees that Education funded shared many characteristics--most had 5 years or more of experience mentoring youth, had similar goals, and offered "one-to-one" mentoring. All mentoring grantees listed in their applications that they had some elements of successful programs, but established grantees GAO visited reported fewer implementation challenges, such as problems recruiting mentors, than did newer grantees. Most of the 11 grantees GAO visited said they would benefit from learning about other implementation strategies through information sharing. However, Education has not facilitated information sharing among mentoring grantees, although it is considering doing so. Education used multiple methods to monitor grantees, including expenditure tracking, but the office responsible for monitoring mentoring grants did not review single audit reports as required by its guidance. Education's Chief Financial Officer reviewed the audits but did not forward audits to the office overseeing the mentoring grants because findings did not pertain to these new grants. However, GAO found that 8 percent of the mentoring grantees had audit findings related to how well they handled other Education grants. Education is currently assessing whether it will conduct an overall evaluation of its mentoring program. Education required that all grantees have evaluation plans, and most plan to report on youth outcomes related to academic achievement and attendance. However, grantees plan to use different methodologies, making it difficult for Education to have a cohesive picture of its mentoring program as a whole.