This article provides an overview of iMentor’s protocol for managing situations in which mentors or mentees are not meeting programmatic expectations, are non-responsive to Program Manager (PM)/not attending school or can no longer participate for non-programmatic reasons. These situations typically result in one of three actions, referred to as Match Intervention:
- Official warnings for mentors;
- Probationary status for mentors;
- Un-matching pairs.
The three Match Intervention actions are outlined through 4 sub-articles with detailed protocol for the actions taken in each different scenario. Additionally, this article includes a links to complimentary resources, including:
- A decision tree to support program staff in appropriately engaging with Match Intervention protocol;
- iMentor’s approach to achieving healthy match closure in the event pairs need to be un-matched.
In an ideal world, Program Managers (PMs) would not have to leverage the Match Intervention Protocol in their work. In an effort to avoid this outcome, PMs should regularly encourage mentor participation using reminders. Click HERE to learn more about avoiding Match Intervention via standardized reminder messaging.
Match Intervention Scenarios
Typically, Match Intervention strategies are deployed in four circumstances, briefly described below. Click the hyperlinked title to view additional details for each scenario.
In this scenario, Match Intervention efforts are focused on increasing mentors' engagement with their mentees. In some cases, this will result in PM issuing a formal warning to the mentor. If the mentor improves the consistency of their engagement, the pair resumes participation and receipt of PM support as normal. If a mentor fails to correct their engagement behavior, PMs can elect to place them on probationary status in a final effort to re-engage the pair prior to un-matching, leveraging best practices in healthy match closure.
This area of concern is particularly important in the beginning of the match and each subsequent school year. If a mentor has not written for 3 consecutive weeks at the beginning of the year, PMs must add this pair to their focus list and discuss the potential for un-matching at their next check-in.
PMs focus their Match Intervention efforts in this scenario on reconnecting with the mentor in addition to increasing mentors' engagement with their mentees. In this scenario, PMs make all possible attempts to reconnect with the mentor, including phone calls and standardized messaging. If a mentor fails to reconnect with the PM and/or does not increase engagement with their mentee, PMs may elect to place them on probationary status in a final effort to re-engage the pair prior to un-matching, leveraging best practices in healthy match closure.
Our mentors have lives outside of their mentoring relationship and, unfortunately, this results in the need to un-match a pair prior to the completion of their committment (i.e., mentor is consistently engaged with their mentee and responsive to PM, but is being relocated by their employer). In this scenario, PMs's Match Intervention efforts center around working toward healthy match closure as early as possible.
Occasionally, mentees drive the need to close a match prior to the conclusion of the programmatic commitment, as would be the case if a mentee transferred schools or is seriously not meeting expectations. Again, PMs focus their Match Intervention efforts in this scenario around working toward healthy match closure as early as possible.